Fight Book Banning

What you can do

Stick it to Sarah: Buy a banned book for the Wasilla library.

Conservative v. Rightwinger

Maybe it would help to define my terms.

I'm not sure everyone would agree, but my perception is that there's a continuum on the Right, just as there's a continuum on the Left. To wit, I see a huge difference between conservatives and Rightwingers. Because I see a fundamental regard for the Constitution on the part of genuine mainstream American conservatives, I generally respect them. I think of conservatives as Eisenhower, Bush 41, and Billy Graham--even Goldwater up to a point. We disagree, often profoundly, but we play by the rules and are more oriented to the common good than to any ideology. Compromise is possible, and one's religion is not to be imposed on anyone.

I think of Rightwingers, however, as Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, David Duke, Joe McCarthy, John Birch, Dick Cheney, Bush 43, Pat Robertson, and Karl Rove. Each without the slightest doubt openly disregards the Constitution and Bill of Rights and systematically seeks or sought to undermine them. The rules are Christianist-Corporatist Right uber alles, and all is fair in love and war. It's this crowd whose views and values are not consistent with our founding (defining) documents. And if they're not only consistent with, but also actively seek to dismantle the only things that make an American uniquely American, then how should I evaluate them politically?

This is the crux of the issue for me. I'm no more comfortable with Rightwing extremism than I am with Leftwing extremism, and for the same reasons. At some point that continuum makes a circle and joins ends. At that point, the mechanics and ends--justify-means fanaticism of Nazism and Maoism, of the Weather Underground and Timothy McVeigh really are indistinguishable even if the ideology and rhetoric differ.

They're All the Same?

"I wouldn't give two cents for all the politicians in Washington. It doesn't matter who we elect. They're all the same."

How many times have you heard that? Maybe you've said it yourself.

Well, here's my question: Is your viewfinder stuck on "Sex and Money"?

Excuse me, but if you think that, I have to ask: Did you OD on stupid pills?

No doubt about it, if you think Democrats and Republicans are "all the same" on disaster recovery, economic policy, renewable energy, global warming, social security, national security, public education policy, foreign policy, national security policy, government's regulatory role, gun control policy, job outsourcing, labor policy, export/import trade policy, environmental policy, civil rights policy, the status of women, interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, immigration policy, tax policy, infrastructure, healthcare . . . .

Just how grave and extreme are our parties' divisions ought to be obvious. Even so, many still don't get that we've been living through a planned demonstration project in the conservative philosophy of government.

I'm not being partisan, catty, propagandistic, or rhetorical. This is fact that anyone can verify independently. Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and numerous other prominent Republican theorists and politicians will tell you so candidly. We're not talking about mere corruption. We're talking about destruction of government's potential through radical bankruptcy.

To get an overall orientation on this, see this piece (and don't be misled by the title or the sidebar). This is about two radically, diametrically opposite visions of America, and why "compromise" isn't in the cards.

I recommend giving this serious thought, particularly if you're inclined to see the election mostly in terms of national security. Important as that is, it's just one of enormously critical policy questions we're facing. The election will decide how we'll respond to our dying middle class, a warming planet, oil addiction and renewable alternatives, health care, retirement security, and foreign policy.

Read this piece. It won't take long, and it might help you frame the election question correctly, through the larger view.

Whoop!!!

I totally love Alas, A Blog, almost as much as I totally love The Angry Black Woman which, in happy serendipity, links to Alas, A Blog for "How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism (A Guide for White People)."

I found that title irresistible, and wasn't disappointed at the "Guide" or the rich collection of comments that it attracted. I recommend the lot.

Once in a while in the midst of serious (and edifying) commentary, something really funny pops up. That happened here, and at the risk of possibly pissing somebody off, I stole this from one Daran's comments on "How Not to be Insane When Accused of Racism" because it made me laugh out loud--too rare in my world. I hope it has a similar effect on you:

Axiom 3: If you are conservative, and something is said which has the remotest chance of changing your world-view, you can switch [off] your brain by uttering the word ‘liberal’. It’s sort of a self-inflicted Vulcan nerve-pinch.

Krugman Nails American Conservatism

Please be sure you read Paul Krugman, in today's The New York Times. It's too good to miss. In fact, you'll want a hard copy. Here, a couple of excerpts.

"Same Old Party"
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don't know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn't strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he's the very model of a modern movement conservative. . . .

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail," and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after "consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal" — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.