FLAT-EARTH OLYMPICS
People in Washington this week are wrapping the flag around themselves as protection from most Americans who have sweated and bled for our country in good times and bad.
At the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee, the defining document is “The Mount Vernon Statement,” an ode of the Constitution by a list of right-wing elders headed by Edwin Meese, who helped subvert it in the Iran-Contra Affair and resigned in disgrace as Reagan’s Attorney General after a defense contract scandal.
He is joined by other such figures from the Conservative waxworks as tax-hater Grover Norquist, Pat Buchanan’s chief fundraiser Brent Bozell and Richard Viguerie, who pioneered computerized fund-raising and ran for president against too-liberal Gerald Ford in 1976.
The Statement’s “firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith” is a declaration of war not only against dangerous Democrats and Independents but Republicans wavering in their dedication to a sanctified past, whom Sen. Jim DeMint wants to read out of the party.
The CPAC circus, usually derided as a fringe affair, has to be taken seriously in a year when Tea Partygoers dress up in Revolutionary War costume and roil electoral unrest in the real world.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “FLAT-EARTH OLYMPICS”
Firm defense nothing, or at least until the cobwebs subside. How about a CPAC party guide to show a firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith?
Republican Party Animals head Scott Edwards tells us: “Republican Party Animals has at least 172 of our hardest partying, most dedicated members attending Reaganpalooza. I've already warned the other groups attending they can't out-party us, but if they want to challenge that statement, it would be our pleasure. Cheers!”
If they're still sober after all of this partying, maybe they can follow through with the advice that Tim Pawlenty gave them, you know, to show how compassionate and family-oriented they are.
For anyone who has been observing politics and the machinery of government closely for over a few decades, it's shocking to see this rather sharp devolution of a party that once commanded respect. Now they seem like just so much bitter, heel-dragging, idea-less people trying to retain their grasp on power – for no apparent reason other than to continue the bitter heel-draggin. Sadly, even as bad as these people are, their constituents are often worse. I know there are many reasonable center-right voices around, and I am not lumping them in with this judgement, but would include them among the moderates and the left who (as Stein observes) should be angry about the “hijacking of patriotism”.
Most of whom are registered Democrats…
I'm curious to get a reference from you Don ?
What is liberal/moderate/conservative to you ?
Say in terms of current political figures or commentators ?
What is far left and far right ?
This is a serious question: does anyone know what “family values” is, or what general concept it represents, outside of the abortion and homosexual cultural war issues? Don't we all want our families to be wholesome, successful, engaging and affirming members of community?
I expect “faith” would mean Belief in belief, despite the particulars of what that or any particular belief system entails.
I think I already have some concept of their definition of “patriotism” from the preceding Karl Rove era, or at least we can all define who is/was “UnPatriotic..” Palin, wherever on Fox she currently might be, has helped us better-define who are the “Real Americans” as well.
Beyond that I agree with JSpencer: I see and respect the moderate conservative positions on this site almost to the point of not recognizing anything truly “conservative” at all in the CPAC.
I think DQ's idea of center-right would be the Ku Klux Klan
.
Good question Jeff, and I think you provide a good answer. Unfortunately, we have to put up with people who make it their mission to elevate themselves on the moral high ground and tell the rest of us how morally bankrupt we've become. I've just had enough of these so-called family values politicians who portray themselves as holier than thou protectors only to end up no better than the people they criticize. Somehow, that golden rule thing seems to have been lost on them.
Hm. The Mount Vernon statement is so vague, I could pretty much sign it and I think half the comments I hear from CPAC are insane.
Two questions:
1) Where does a “firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith” appear in the Constitution? The Constitution is either doesn't mention them or is even slightly hostile to them.
2) What's the meaning of the title of the post, “Flat-Earth Olympics?” (That would make for some very boring skiing events).
What it means: They (?) canceled the FEO, speed skating event because they lost the formula for ice. In the summer FEO, the water skiing event was canceled because they couldn't find any hills.
Edwin Meese- resigned in disgrace
Grover Norquist- Jack Abramoff's BFF
Etc.
This is why I have some sympathy for the Tea Partiers. Many of them are at least trying to keep the criminals from representing them. The CPAC folks embrace their crooks.
Liberal: Kucinich…
Moderate: Bill Clinton (Best Republican we have had in the White House since IKE, his policies were to the right of Nixon ), Obama…
Conservative:Buchanan
Right wing Lunatics: Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Glen Beck…
Far Right Wing: Savage, Coulter, Malkin, Norquist, Gingritch, Club for Growth…
Far Left? I didn't know we had one…
I have yet to hear a single politician advocate the Nationalization of Citibank, GS, BOfA or AIG…
Well that is pretty much what I figured but thanks for responding
Obama as moderate is interesting given his ratings as a Senator (90-100% from ADA and ACLU is moderate ?)
No Republicans qualify as anywhere acceptable to you ?
For far left I'd suggest names like Nader, Lee (Barbara), Waters (Maxine), McKinney….
I think environmentalists are often portrayed as “far left”, although it's always beat the hell out of me why. As if it would be more moderate to accept the mindless and continuous soiling of our own nest… without concern.
The problem with being in the legislature and planning to run for higher office is that you have to befriend your party and therefore vote the way they generally do otherwise you will not get a chance to get the nod which ended up being especially true for Obama. This is the same trap McCain fell in and Kerry. This is my way of saying those ratings when used to judge one of those potential higher office seekers are flawed at best but they sound good.
One would hope that all elected politicians would get 90% or better approval rating from the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, the people who attempt to make sure that the first TEN AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION are not used as toilet paper…
Or at least have the decency of suing the government to prevent it from waterboarding people…
If you think the ACLU is a left wing organization, then you must think that the Bill of Rights is a left-wing plot to destroy America…
All of which had the decency of voting against the Iraq war( BTW… How that little war work out for you? And where be those WMDs? )… Damn good Liberals… But I have not heard any of them propose any legislation that would Nationalize CitiBank, GS or BOfA…
Anyone who stands between Corporate America and it's quest for the all mighty dollar, damn the consequences, is defined as “far left” by the Corporate Owned Media…
Don, the list Patrick gave of far left was correct (they are stellar examples, in fact). Kucinich is also far left, as is Nader. Your skew is showing. [grin]
* * *
“Where does a 'firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith' appear in the Constitution?”
They aren't in that document, and they don't have to be. Obviously these people are social or “traditionalist” conservatives (one can also presume they are “authoritarian” conservatives). They are the best-known “base” or “right wing” of the GOP, which is considered largely that way, too, though the GOP and conservatism are struggling with an identity as well as a definition crisis. That is to say, they are “social conservatives,” or “Tories” rather than the Dem-voting-lately-to-punish-the-GOP “Whigs,” or libertarian or “economic” conservatives (the real liberals, until the Left hijacked the nomenclature of “liberal” during the early modernization of the West after the 1870s).
They're social conservatives (also with a populist element shared with libertarian conservatives and others, who recoil at oversized government, especially in Washington).
They're not calling largely for economic and regulatory reform, or downsizing of Washington. At the worst, they threaten the equivalent of federal “blue laws” if they bring the Religious Righties (who are notably absent) along with them, and toughening some other laws, ending PC nonsense, nothing to abhor or deride too loudly. (Especially when defending oversize government makes the critics look bad)
Ah all of the things to respond to..
1. You didn't comment on the ADA, which is a self proclaimed liberal group.
2. There are things that I agree with the ACLU on but there are also ones where I find them far too liberal and most people consider them center left.I assume you also disagree with them in thinking gays are human beings and have rights (a point where I am far to your left).
3. I have been a long critic of the war in Iraq (sorry to spoil that hyperbole)
4. Maxine Waters did openly discuss nationalizing the banking industry, she also called riots 'rebellions' and so on.
I think you are perfectly entitled to all of your views, I simply think you need to recognize that not everyone shares them. As to your attitude towards those who disagree with you, well that's your right too.
Regarding the far Left: If there's a war sometime with Iran, and petroleum prices skyrocket, pay attention to who cries for nationalizing (federalizing) the oil companies.
In fact, that leads to something else I may as well mention. (Have others suspected this?) The “next-best” alternative to nationalization (federalization — most lefties disparage constitutional federalism, never conceive of the states' seizing property instead) is the most comprehensive and extreme form of regulation. Extensive and highly constraining, regimented, or dictatorial regulation is the closest thing in practice to completing the takeover with ownership, instead (what is required, technically, for nationalization). What matters isn't ownership, anyway, but control.
That leads to an observation I've made this year, while keeping quiet about it. Rather than stumble over a clumsy partial-federalization effort, those Dems who were more ambitous than most could exploit the public's continued desire for legitimate health care and health insurance reform, what was neglected when the Dems chose much more. That desire for some regulation could be exploited in either incrementalist or risky-but-more-ambitious-near-total ways by the Dems this year — to the point possibly where the people in Washington are making almost all or all the important business and provision decisions of the health insurers and other parties.
The problem with most self defined Liberal groups is that they are not all that liberal, unlike most self defined Conservative groups who are basically bat-shit insane as can be seen from the CPAC or the Tea Party Convention…
I have no idea what their position on gay rights is and I am going to assume that it is fairly similar to mine. IE It is none of my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom, and if they foolish enough to want to get married, more power to them. Why should Heteros have to be alone in the suffering?
But where you before it started?
Regarding the right: If there is a war with Iran, it is because they will have howled like Banshees to have it, and once they have it will refuse to pay for it, and will make damn sure that some other sucker's kid is the one who is getting his ass shot at… Do think that the Neo-cons or conservatives are going to put any of their precious brats on the line of fire?
Sure, especially when that 10% of people who control the most also own 70% of the assets.
This is a far, far different American than the one I grew up in.
[...] FLAT-EARTH OLYMPICS [...]
Don, I'll ignore the other stuff and address this:
“Do [people] think that the Neo-cons or conservatives are going to put any of their precious brats on the line of fire?”
No, they won't. It's no different the Civil War payments that could be made to have others fight in place of people making the payments, and advice one wealthy man said to his son, paying to have someone else enlist and fight instead, something like “Others' lives are worth less.”
Having everyone's sons and daughters at risk, including those of the wealthy, is an inhibitor of war (or even of aggression that would risk war, or other hostilities) that universal conscription (military service) would constitute. Others on this site in other threads have not only noticed but noted (expressed) this already.
“when the 10% of people who have the most control also own 70% of the assets.
This is a far, far different American than the one I grew up in.”
That's irrelevent, J-Spence; you should know that, and you probably do know that. It's irrevelent, but as you choose to interject it I can respond to it, since I'm responding to it, and making it noteworthy.
It's way down on the list of priorities and is neither sensible nor wanted by the sensible and practical, but I have not neglected referring to wealth taxes in our distant future, in addition to income taxes — and even progressive wealth taxes. Inequality of wealth rather than income may be viewed more, and more harshly, in the years to come — when governments are more strapped for funds. Maybe.
(Conyers intends to pay for Medicare for All by not only taxes on stock and bond transactions, heavily affecting those with the most ability to pay these taxes, but to fund Medicare almost competely by progressive income and perhaps wealth taxes, making appropriation 100% mandatory by law, on autopilot, even forcing future income and wealth tax increases as necessary. That neglects the fundamental challenge of actually designing and levying the taxes, but the plan is pretty straightforward, as are the intentions.)
Wolff's book (“Top Heavy”) and like-minded articles may interest you and the like-minded if you find wealth taxation of interest (or of importance). It's potentially frightening as well as morally repugnant in its typical anticipated forms, but actually more serious than typical “maximum wage” activism.
http://www.amazon.com/Top-Heavy-Increasing-Ineq…
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Wealt…
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.1/wolff.html
A federal wealth tax correctly requires a constitutional amendment (as did the federal income tax), and I hope too many childish people won't cause too much trouble whining and scheming to get around that requirement (they are cowards, or lazy and venal, as well as scheming slimy scum) but just get the amendment ratified and then propose something serious (albeit scary), not necessarily limited to health care or retirement program (Social Security Old-Age) funding, but as a general revenue-raising measure, if they're honest about it. (Contriving and proposing something well-thought-out beforehand could even improve their chances of getting that needed amendment.)
It's a (probably distant) future tax policy possibility.
J-Spence, quick extra note:
“the 10% of people who have the most control also own 70% of the assets”
Here is an additional note on wealth taxation. Note it is more general and at once it is more simple and elegant than the inheritance tax.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_b…
Inequality may grind at people in the years to come. There's a lot of concern about a wealth tax and moral questions in addition to concerns about incentives (will it reduce or destroy wealth, not just try to exploit inequality as a political issue and appeal to “fairness” in trying to raise more revenue for governments), but it's certainly something that may sought more strongly 20+ years from now when the demographic and economic changes make governments desperate for revenue. A wealth tax is obviously a better means to this end than the one-shot desperate attacks on foreign tax havens.