The deterioration of America is our own damn fault

American politics in action

Never in my adult life have I felt so detached and indifferent with respect to American politics. I have always regarded it as a twisted sideshow, unfit for consumption by decent folk. But consume I have. For years I have watched and analyzed this ongoing train-wreck, first out of the hope that someday I could help play a small role in stopping it; then with the understanding that though I could not stop it, I would at least be able to comprehend it; and then finally, having realized that it is neither stoppable, nor comprehensible, I followed politics merely for my own morbid amusement.

I no longer glean much amusement from political diversions. Much hoopla has been made recently about a congressman sending photos of his penis over the internet. In two weeks, the media has spent more time on this “story” than it has explaining how and why the financial system collapsed in last two plus years. Our political debates, such as the one in New Hampshire last night, are nothing more than personality contests stripped of all substance and laden with clever one-liners that pundits use as some sort of standard of political excellence.

And maybe they are. Americans can rarely fix their attention on anything that lasts longer than seven seconds. During the debate Ron Paul no doubt left most people scratching their heads when he blundered by discussing monetary policy. Apparently he doesn’t watch much cable news; otherwise he would know that there is just no place on television for that sort of topic. Much as Americans are concerned about the economy—as they should be—they don’t care to listen or know much about it. The average American’s knowledge of economics is so shockingly deficient that it is no wonder the richest of the rich have been able to plunder middle class wealth for the past few decades. Tea Party types are right to protest wealth redistribution, but they do not seem to understand that the redistribution is upward, not downward to minorities and illegal immigrants as many of them seem to think.

There is a contingent of libertarians and survivalists who keep warning of a malevolent authoritarianism coming to America, and that the people will be ruled over by an iron fist of the kind seen in Third World countries run by military juntas. But this admonition makes a sketchy assumption—namely that Americans would care about, and fight back against, such a development. After all, a true, active dictatorship would only be necessary in America if the citizens push back against the current passive dictatorship, which is run by Wall Street oligarchs and their enablers in Washington. And yet, the populace seems so sufficiently passive, that there is no need to institute a true autocracy complete with the abolition of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. (No doubt rights have been curtailed courtesy of the “war on terror,” but what I am referring to is the outright erasure of the Constitution by official government fiat.)

Herein is an alarming prospect, captured well in a famous comic strip about the differences between literary prophets George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. That strip reads in part:

“What Orwell feared was those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who would want to read one…

“As Huxley remarked in ‘Brave New World Revisited’ the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’”

In a nation where a show called “Extreme Couponing” can exist, one must wonder how much longer the culture can be viable before it turns into a society of total serfs—a gigantic idiocracy too stupid and ignorant to operate at a functioning level. It is a sad state of affairs when one of the more popular shows on television is all about fat people working out. Reality television, once criticized for being unrealistic, has with time lived up to its billing. Programs with odd premises such as Survivor have been drowned out by shows about parking enforcers, mall security cops, exterminators, pawn shop owners, and home fixer uppers. One would think Americans already have enough contact with such people, that it would be entirely unnecessary and even idiotic to air shows about such mundane everyday activities. Obviously, one would be wrong.

- Max

Ron Paul vs. the Constitution?

Readers of this site know that I’m a Ron Paul fan. Even though I fundamentally disagree with him on fiscal policy, I appreciate the way he sticks up for the Bill of Rights, speaks out against American interventionism abroad, and votes his conscience. We need more honest people like him in politics.

That being said, the Texas Congressman has it totally wrong on the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the ridiculously named Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts. In announcing the decision Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that DOMA “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships—precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the [Fourteenth Amendment’s] Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Paul penned a response critical of the administration’s position, saying in part,

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States…I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

First off, what Paul is essentially saying is, “Big Government in Washington defined marriage to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the states.”

Apparently, Paul views DOMA as a preemptive strike against a future Congress that is run by gay-loving states’ rights haters who will define marriage as a union between any two persons. I don’t think he has much reason to worry about that happening in his lifetime.

Until today I did not know Paul’s position on DOMA, though I assumed he was against it because the legislation does two things that seem to be anathema to his principles. For one thing, DOMA defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Paul is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but I had always figured that the idea of the federal government (Congress) defining marriage would thoroughly repulse him. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power—either expressly or implicitly—to define marriage, thus reserving it to the jurisdiction of the states.

But DOMA does something else, and this is the key to understanding Paul’s misguided position on the legislation. DOMA also declares:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

To say this provision is constitutionally on shaky ground is an understatement. Consider the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause which Paul mentioned above:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The purpose of this clause is clear. A legal contract entered into and legitimized in one state must be recognized as such in another. If you and your significant other get married in Massachusetts and move to Ohio, you don’t have to get married again, in Ohio, in order to get a another marriage license. The state of Ohio is obliged to recognize the license issued in Massachusetts. This much no one disputes. But DOMA tells states they can ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it comes to marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples. Thus, under this law, Ohio does not have to recognize a legal same-sex marriage consummated in Massachusetts.

But can Congress simply deem certain state laws exempt from the FFCC? The Clause says that Congress “may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” I’m not sure there is anything here that gives Congress the power to tell the states that they may ignore one another’s laws altogether, thereby rendering the actual full faith and credit part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause a mere suggestion.

Paul asserts that Congress has “constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.” But if this is the case, then why doesn’t the FFCC just say so? The word “except” occurs eleven times in the original Constitution. The Framers were not afraid to utilize this word for the sake of specificity. Indeed, one can easily imagine a wording of the FFCC that leaves no doubt as to its intent. If Paul’s reading is correct, why doesn’t the Clause say something like,

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State [except those Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings expressly exempted by the Congress]. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Without additional wording of this kind, however, the FFCC is vague, and in such a manner that I don’t think can be construed as to allow Congress the authority to exempt certain acts which some states, or Congress itself, may find objectionable. The Clause only says that Congress may, but is not necessarily obligated to, prescribe how such acts and records are proved and what effects they have, not what if any acts and records are exempt from this provision altogether.

There are also Equal Protection implications of DOMA, as mentioned by Holder, but that is a whole other issue. Sufficeth to say conservatives hate the Equal Protection Clause, or at least the way in which it has been interpreted by federal judges for the last century, because states can no longer discriminate as freely as they once did against certain demographics. Perish the thought that federal government act as a guarantor of life, liberty, and property against the occasional anti-liberty machinations of the states.

Of course, all of this Constitution-parsing and legal wrangling—important though it is—takes away from one very fundamental fact: there is no good reason for opposing same-sex marriage. To be opposed to this is to be bigot. Ron Paul and millions of other Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves for their position on this issue.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Congress is full of cowards and the Tea Party is full of shit

In a miscalculation yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner expedited a vote on three expiring provisions of the horrendous USA Patriot Act. Under the move, the renewals required a two-thirds vote (290 votes) to pass. They got 277. It will pass eventually because most of our congresspersons are gutless cowards who have no qualms about sacrificing liberty for merely the illusion of security. The Republican Party—supposedly the faction of “small government”—was the worst offender today, with 210 of them voting to grant Barack Obama’s wish of continued overreaching executive power.

Meanwhile, where the fuck is the Tea Party on this one? All we hear from those people is how government under the Obama administration is taking away our freedom, but they’re nowhere to be found on this issue. Show me a Tea Party rally against the Patriot Act, or the Afghan War, or the military-industrial complex. You can’t because there are none. And the reason there is none is because 90% of self-described Tea Partiers are statists. They’re the same people who rushed to line up behind Dubya and his military adventurism and Bill of Rights curtailments. They’re the same people who virulently trashed, as traitors, opponents of Bush’s “big government” policies. And they’re the same people, who right now, are doing jack shit while the Obama administration is about to be handed extensions on roving wiretaps, expansive surveillance powers, and warrants issued by secret courts. Why? Because they are authoritarians who simply don’t like the current Dear Leader in power. Sure, they’ll protest a health care plan or whatever, but anything that contributes to the security and glory of the State and it’s thank you sir, may they have another? One day, the Tea Party may very well get its dream president: a white man or woman who will return the Fatherland to the days of the Cold War and the nuclear family. And if the president has to start World War III to get there, so be it.

*****

Does Ron Paul ever not nail it when it comes to civil liberties? Guy’s like a one-man police state wrecking crew. Here he is before the vote to extend the three sunset provisions.

- Max max.canning@gmail.com

Ron Paul owns a fatty

I came across this short clip of Ron Paul in 1988 on something called The Morton Downey Jr. Show. If this doesn’t make you laugh and nod in approval, you have no sense of humor or liberty.

Faux Conservatives Diss Ron Paul

Disliked and mocked by many so-called conservatives, Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas) is probably the closest thing to a conservative in Washington.

Take a look at the following clip from Fox “News” reporting the results of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll. The winner was Ron Paul, which for Fox was the wrong result. Watch as they try to explain away Paul’s nine point first place finish last week over golden boy Mitt Romney.

This sorry-ass report tells you all you need to know about Fox “News.” Notice how the reporter tried to downplay Paul’s victory by saying that attendees weren’t just handed a ballot, but rather they had to go out of their way to booths in order to vote at the convention. In other words, Paul’s supporters are dedicated and they really believe in their guy. What does this episode say for the support for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty? It says that maybe they don’t have too many supporters who are excited enough about their potential candidate to vote for self-serving, made-for-TV professional politicians.

Can you guess what the CPAC crowd’s reaction was when the results of the poll were announced? They booed loud enough to drown out the Paul supporters That’s pretty amazing considering that Ron Paul is arguably the most principled Republican in Congress. Unlike the phonies who comprise the GOP, there is no gap between what he says and how he votes. Personally I agree with Paul’s warnings about our interventionist policies in international affairs. I agree with him about the need to protect personal liberty. But we are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the economy. Paul wants government out of the markets as much as possible, which I think will pave the way for a tyrannical takeover of America by big business. Obviously he would dispute this conclusion, but given the dysfunctional nature of American democracy, we are ripe for corporate picking.

Having said this, I admire Ron Paul for his consistency and willingness to stick to his principles, even when it is politically unpopular. And in the modern Republican Party, antiquated ideas such as personal liberty and retrenching our hegemonic ways in international relations are very unpopular. That’s because the GOP of today advocates a mild form of fascism characterized by extreme patriotism which is used to launch wars of choice to secure American (elites’) economic interests. It also seeks to foster an ever cozier relationship between corporations and the government (which Democrats also advocate), and also a gradual erosion of individual freedom via legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, as well as through debt slavery which has a very limiting effect on personal liberty.

Republican bigwigs would prefer that Ron Paul didn’t exist for the simple fact that he makes them look bad. If any one of the 200 plus Republican lawmakers in Congress can claim to be against “big government,” it’s Ron Paul. I find it absolutely hilarious that the CPAC attendees were cheering guest speaker Dick Cheney whose administration exploded the national debt and funneled billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars into the big banks to bail their sorry under-regulated asses out. But what do you expect? The CPAC people are full of shit. All of them. Well, most of them anyway. How else can you explain their mindless applauses for people such as Cheney, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who helped the Bush administration dig America into a giant hole? The same goes for Newt Gingrich. When he was Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s district was one of the biggest recipients of federal money (pork) in the country. So yeah, Newt said he wanted to reduce federal spending, but not on Cobb County, Georgia where Lockheed-Martin just happened to be the largest employer. Although the Lockheed plant there wasn’t actually in Gingrich’s district, thousands of his constituents were nonetheless employed there. As such, Gingrich helped secure a $503 million government contract with Lockheed to build nine C130-J transport planes that the Air Force said it didn’t need. I don’t remember reading that in the Contract with America.

This is American conservatism at work. Ronald Reagan, for which many conservatives have an almost neurotic fetish, has achieved a mythical status as a slayer of big government in defiance of what he actually did as president. But in order for Republicans to run against “big government,” they need to rewrite recent history in order to portray their party as one of small government. But that’s bullshit, and as soon as they’re in power they show just how full of it they were on the campaign trail. And the sad thing is, the people who voted for them never call them on it. The fact that the teabaggers came into existence the month following Barack Obama’s inauguration speaks volumes about their motivations. Indeed, if a Republican became president today, the majority of teabaggers would go away for the rest of the administration no matter what the new president did or how much he spent from here on in. Sure they’d keep their organizations and websites, but as for the mass protests against nonexistent tax hikes, kiss those goodbye. And if you think I’m wrong, you’re only kidding yourself.

- Max Canning

Appendix

As these charts clearly indicate, Republican presidents have done more to increase the size of government than Democrats.

Gross debt as a percentage of GDP

From the FY 2009 Government budget. Upper chart shows national debt in trillions of dollars. Lower chart shows national debt as percentage of GDP. Both are overlaid with party affiliation. Red = Republican president, Blue = Democratic president.

Charts courtesy of Wikipedia.