Saturday, September 16, 2006

This deserves line by line comment, in bold

Blue America, In More Ways Than One

Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page B07

In this autumn of their discontent, Republicans tremble as November nears. But now comes yet another book by a gloomy liberal anticipating permanent Republican dominance.Too many gloomy books; the USA is not a gloomy country, genetically. Thomas B. Edsall of The New Republic, in "Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power," argues that inexorable social forces, augmented by the conservatives' superior reservoirs of anger, ruthlessness and cynicism -- he neglects only the word "wickedness" -- favor Republicans, "the party of the socially and economically dominant."

The anti-Semites, the Luddites, than anti-genetically modified foods, the anti- clean nuke power come from blue ranks.

The parties are almost at numerical parity, but Edsall, who until recently was a Washington Post political reporter, says Republicans represent people "more broadly skilled in economic combat" and "more accustomed to the rigors of the market." Hence Republicans can maintain "a thin but durable margin of victory." When parties are at about numerical parity they are unlikely, very unlikely, to retain a durable margin of victory.

Their technique is "the symbolic manipulation of controversial sociocultural issues touching upon national security, patriotism, race, sex, and religion." I should hope so; economics is long gone as a prime time issue. Would you rather see the Islamo-fascist-jihadist-terrorirts kill your children? Would like to you like to see Americna dishonor their countries flag? (Read John Greenleaf Whittier's Barbara Frietche)

ยป David Ignatius I sat with President Bush in a one-on-one interview in the Oval Office on Wednesday.
OPINIONS SECTION: Editorials, Toles

"The GOP," Edsall laments, "has achieved a gradual erosion of the popular consensus behind the major progressive and social-egalitarian movements of the twentieth century." But what actually "achieved" that? Really? De-segratation, which couldn't have been passed without Republican support. Expanced Medicare. No Child Left Behind. Earned Income Tax Credits, Tax Credits for Children, Edsall says the principle Republican objective has been to break "the trust . . . between the government and millions of its less advantaged citizens." But he acknowledges that Republicans have been helped "inestimably" by "the daily inefficiencies of government": "The monopoly nature of government guarantees that the public services will often lag in quality behind those delivered in the competitive private sector." Hence "the declining credibility of non-market solutions to economic problems" and the demoralization of "backers of a redistributive agenda."

Edsall complains that conservatives pursue an agenda that does not have the public's "decisive support." Whatever that means, liberals such as Edsall are ineligible to make that complaint. They increasingly have abandoned persuasion and legislation and resorted to litigation and judicial fiats to advance an agenda the public finds unpersuasive.

If Edsall is symptomatic, liberalism is lost in a time warp, thinking in antiquated categories. Edsall approvingly quotes a Democratic activist's opinion that there are twice as many angry conservatives as there are angry liberals: "Liberals by their very nature don't get as angry as conservatives do." Really? The hackers who broke into Lieberman's blog? The Members of Congress who want to impeach the President for telling the truth?" Edsall, who evidently has not noticed the vitriol of the liberal blogosphere, is so blinded by his own anger he misperceives Republican realities.

The GOP, he says, courts whites "whose interests are overwhelmingly focused on tempering, if not altogether rolling back, the civil rights movement." Please. Who favors rolling back guarantees of voting rights and equal access to public accommodations? It was Southern Democrats who were the Segs.

If Edsall really thinks Republicans are marching efficiently in lock step, he has missed bitter intraparty arguments about spending, immigration and nation-building. Edsall says the conservative agenda is "to dismantle the welfare state." Oh? With a prescription drug entitlement that is the largest expansion of the welfare state since enactment of Medicare in 1965? With a 38 percent increase in discretionary domestic spending unrelated to homeland security -- including a 135 percent increase in the Education Department's budget -- since 2001?

BTW: The biggest Anti-Semites in America today are on the Left, not on the Right. ( ! )

When Edsall says middle- and working-class cultural conservatives vote for Republicans who then use their power "for noncultural objectives," he is voicing a familiar liberal lament: All would be well if voters would vote based on important issues -- material, economic concerns; their wallets -- rather than unimportant ones such as abortion, the definition of marriage, the coarsening of the culture and other moral anxieties. Having your children on drugs, getting their bodies pierced, acting in a sexually promiscuous way? But if those issues are unimportant, why is it that liberals, adamantly supporting partial-birth abortion and celebrating judicial redefinitions of marriage, are so uncompromising about them? As Edsall says, liberalism has become bifurcated. The largest faction looks to government for material help. So did Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43; check it out But the socially liberal "post-materialist" cadre "overwhelmingly sets" the party's agenda.

Edsall notes that one-third of American children -- and almost 70 percent of African American children -- are born to unmarried mothers. Then, in an astonishing passage about this phenomenon, which is the cause of most social pathologies, from crime to schools that cannot teach, he explains how Americans differ concerning what he calls "freedom from the need to maintain the marital or procreative bond." Teenage black birth and fertiltiy rates have gone down, starkly, every year since 1991.

"To social conservatives," he writes, "these developments have signaled an irretrievable and tragic loss. Their reaction has fueled, on the right, a powerful traditionalist movement and a groundswell of support for the Republican Party. To modernists, these developments constitute, at worst, the unfortunate costs of progress, and, at best -- and this is very much the view on the political left as well as of Democratic Party loyalists -- they constitute a triumph over unconscionable obstacles to the liberation and self-realization of much of the human race."

The GOP surely isn't right about everything (nor is George Will) but Values Matter Most (the title of a book I wrote in the early 1990's)

Looking for the real reason for the rise of "Red America"? Read that paragraph again.

Don't bother; it's drivel.




Blogger Causal said...

Impeach Bush yourself! No Joke.
This is much more than just a petition.

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial., part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.


You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.

More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.

If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page:

If you're concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the bottom of this page:

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace."
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

September 16, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home