Contrary to some opinions, I have nothing against Republicans. In much the same way that Christianity isn't always best represented by people who call themselves "Christians", the Republican Party is a victim with many of those with whom it associates. As a result of allowing itself to become a merger of several large single issue public interest groups, the Republican Party is unable to contribute to the issues of the day in any meaningful way. The Republican Party can be best described as espousing these ideals:
1. All taxes are bad 2. Abortion should be illegal 3. No gun laws 4. Immigrants are bad 5. The Bible is the literal word of God 6. Government is bad, except for defense
These few issues leave very little room for policy debate. A Republican has to have the correct opinion on all of these issues or they are essentially purged from the party. A point of clarification should be made, however. Republicans who are just walking around on the street, the 21% of self-identified Republicans, can think whatever they want. No one really cares about them until election time. Elected officials, on the other hand, are held to a very high standard. Any deviation from orthodoxy will bring the full force of radio and cable talk show hosts and interest groups down upon the traitor.
I don't find this state of affairs to be good at all. The other "major" party in US politics is basically an extreme right right fringe group. The "leaders", such as they are, are loud, prone to nasty rhetoric, and have nothing to add to the major issues of the day, as would be expected from rigid ideologues. Without a major reorientation of the party in more moderate direction, the path back to "power" (which is all anyone cares about) is to convince a majority of the electorate that the issues of the day aren't issues at all. Then run a fear-based election focused on terrorism and hope for 51%. This should be a cause for concern because there is absolutely no indication that moderation is anywhere on the agenda.
The Democratic Party simply doesn't have all the best ideas. In an effective two party system, both parties would have something different and valid to offer. At times, Republican leadership may be more desirable. Or a divided government scenario might be the best course in some cases. At this point, the role of the Republican Party is being played by the more conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs. Other Democrats are providing the balance.
At some point, it stands to reason that the Democrats will fall out of favor and independent voters will look to the Republicans. What they'll find will be truly frightening. They'll see a semi-populist, anti-government party that will use wedge issues to hide a very rigid political orthodoxy that won't become evident until they regain power.
We need a Republican Party that is once again the party of Eisenhower. However, even a return to the party of Reagan would be a big move in a favorable direction. The current Republican Party isn't close to either.
I haven't wavered much on the usefulness of pursuing the torture issue. I still think President Obama should stay away from it. Whatever happens, I don't have any interest in prosecutions. That said...
Why is the country debating torture? Does the debate we're having do us any good? Are we trying to figure which specific techniques constitute torture? Are we trying to figure out if torture produces good intelligence? Are we trying to decide whether to investigate the uses of torture? Are we trying to decide whether it's okay to torture at all? All of the above are part of the debate but there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it.
Part of the problem is that our national identity is at best fractured, and at worst non-existent. Debating our values is not new. However, we haven't set any parameters for this debate. As a country, we can't seem to decide whether torture is okay. If we can't be honest about that question, I don't see much use in discussing anything else. Hell, we don't even know what torture is, let alone whether it's an sensible policy.
The notion of "torture" is something we have, at times, rejected in theory. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". However, to my knowledge this applies only to citizens, and not surprisingly there is disagreement over which punishments are "cruel and unusual". The United States has also ratified the Third Geneva Convention which prohibits torture or prisoners, among other humanitarian concerns. It follows then, that at least as of 1949, the United States prohibited torture. There are many ways to torture a person, and again, these techniques are not specifically outlined. Presumably, we know it when we see it. Alternatively, even though we may see it, without specific techniques being outlawed, it's possible to define a particular technique as not being torture. Or, we can create a new type of prisoner of war who is not a real prisoner of war, such as an "enemy combatant" on the account that they aren't uniformed military. Thus, we don't need the Geneva Conventions at all.
I believe that the means by which such determinations were made will eventually be revealed. The people who sanctioned torture will probably be held to account in some way, even if it only amounts to public shaming and historical disgrace. The problem as I see it, goes beyond these specific offenses and enters the realm of our values as a nation; our national identity. Regardless of whether any particular technique is torture, and the legal end-runs that were created to get around the Geneva Conventions, do we want the United States government to behave like this? Another way to put it is "Do we wish to behave like this?" Despite what some righties would have us believe, we ARE the government. When the CIA tortures, we torture. I may not be John Yoo, but he served the Presidential Administration of the country to which I belong. I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't leave either. We're all in this together.
Americans tend to believe that America is the "best country in the world", a phenomenon some have referred to as "exceptionalism", and trace back to our Puritan origins. If there are people who find comfort in the belief, then I'd like to know why they believe it to be so. Because of "freedom"? A lot of countries have freedom; even more freedom than us. Because we are a free market economy? Nope, plenty of those around. Because we care for the least of us? Hell, we don't even do that. Because God has placed us here? Because we can buy almost anything we want, often without having to pay for it? Because the second amendment allows us to keep nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles in our garages?
Human rights is rarely mentioned as a reason why America is "exceptional". Unfortunately, human rights has become code for "weakness" by those who believe America to be exceptional. If one group of people chooses to not talk about human rights because another group of people will say they are "wussies", then our moral bearing is clearly dysfunctional. Some will justify torture if it is deemed to keep us "safe". Others will condemn torture under any circumstance because it's morally wrong. Those most willing to condone torture also happen to be evangelicals. The teachings of Jesus are apparently to be applied only when it's convenient. Sadly, if ever there was a place where Biblical concepts should be considered, this is it. Jesus didn't waver on how his enemies were to be treated.
The most frequently used argument for torture has been that it can produce information which saves lives. This is dubious, but we all imagine ourselves holding some secret that we know we'd reveal under duress. Thus, torture must work. I'm not going to argue the efficacy of torture here. I'm merely questioning whether we wish to define ourselves in this manner? Is torturing people part of what America is about? If we consider torture to be okay (even some of the time), then the world of nations are certainly free to follow our example. When another country gets called on it, they can reply, "But America did it and they didn't get in trouble!" and they won't be asked whether they would also jump off a bridge.
President Obama quoted Winston Churchill in his press conference on April 29, 2009. Obama is obviously conflicted on the issue. He is stuck between wishing to do the right thing as a matter of national principle and accomplishing things that will help people in a tangible way right now (jobs, health care, etc...). Nonetheless, his reference of Churchill best explains the risk posed by our moral equivalency on the issue of torture:
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don't torture -- when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:00 PM on Tuesday, April 28, 2009
0 Comments
Rock 'N' Roll Has Destroyed Us All
Back in the day, it was fine to grow up and be a teacher, or a construction worker, or a doctor. Rock stars have ruined all of that. I'm convinced that ever since the late 50s, a sizable portion of the world's youth has embarked upon hopelessly deluded and bitter lives due to the notion that they could be rock stars.
It used to be that if someone was famous, they had to do something relatively hard. Becoming the "next Benny Goodman" wasn't an option. All of that changed when rock and roll music came along with its three chords and a lot of shaking. Now almost anyone with a little talent could practice for about a week or so, and play the same three chords, and be exactly the same as Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc...
This situation was made far worse by the "rock star as tortured artist" phenomenon. We have Bob Dylan and John Lennon to blame for that. Ever since the mid-60s, introspective and depressed young males around the world have envisioned themselves as the "next John Lennon" or God forbid the "next Donovan".
Then came the 70s rock star such as Robert Plant. And with it came openness about groupies and orgies. And then punk came along to make rock music even easier and dumber. Jesus Christ, learn a few a chords, scream a bit, and get tons of poon? "Really? Its that easy?! Well to hell with math then!"
Being a rock star became a career option. Of course, being a rock star is not exactly like learning a trade. First of all, there is actually very little demand for rock stars. Secondly, rock stars are random and very attractive; facts ignored by 98% of Sam Ash customers. Consequently, millions (I'll bet) of young people have spent their lives fruitlessly aspiring to be rock stars, and then living out the rest of their lives as bitter old men, angry that they were never discovered and appreciated, and that idiots like Scott Stapp and Fred Durst are banging porn stars and giving long interviews in Rolling Stone espousing all of their political opinions.
