The Distant Ocean

The Center for Constitutional Rights vs. Bush

I just love that case name.  Roll it around in your mind for a while: The Center for Constitutional Rights vs. Bush (or as I like to think of it, Good vs. Evil).  I had the opportunity to go to the US District Court in San Francisco today to watch CCR argue the latest round in the case, which has been going on for nearly two years.  Here are some of the highlights.

The case centers on the Bush administration's practice of warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (more importantly) the Constitution.  As you might expect, the Democrats' betrayal of the Constitution last weekend was a serious blow to CCR, since one pillar of their argument was that Bush had violated the will of Congress as expressed in the original FISA law.  Thanks to the rank opportunism of the Democrats (this means you, Diane Feinstein) in allowing the amendment of FISA, CCR was forced to concede that this point had been rendered moot and fall back instead on their Fourth Amendment argument.  They rallied bravely, though, asking the judge to rule not only the original warrantless wiretapping program but also the new law unconstitutional.

(An aside: did you know that this abomination of a law that Congress just passed is called the "Protect America Act of 2007"?  I hadn't heard that one yet, and I nearly retched on the fine wood paneling when it came up during the court proceedings.  I had another close call when they mentioned the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", which is the official name given by the Bush administration--post hoc, apparently--for the warrantless spying they were doing, which actually ended up monitoring mainly innocent people, of course.  We should all start preparing ourselves for the "Adorable Puppies and Happy Children Sunshine Love Act of 2008", which will authorize the Bush administration to imprison and summarily execute any US citizen with a vowel in their last name.)

Unintended benefits

It seems almost obscene to talk about positive unintended side effects of the US's continuing assault on Iraq and Iraqis, but there's no denying that this is good news:

America has been forced to withhold funding from its key ally in the Middle East amid the strain of paying for its expensive military campaign in Iraq. ...

The diversion of funds has caused a budget shortfall in Israel that forced Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, to convene an emergency cabinet meeting yesterday.

Officials discussed ways of dealing with the $500 million deficit in next year's budget, which Israeli commentators said would result in austerity measures.

More worryingly for Israel, there are fears the shortfall will have a significant impact on the ability of the country to defend itself as military training and procurement are cut back.

Ignoring the standard Orwellian formulation about Israel's need to "defend" itself even as it's waging aggressive war on multiple fronts, a cutback in Israeli military training and procurement is at least likely to be good news for the Palestinians.

But my favorite part of the article is this paragraph, which perfectly crystallizes the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel:

The tension over the delayed American money has tarnished relations between the two countries, which were boosted only last week when Israel confirmed it would enjoy a surge in American defence aid of 25 per cent over the next 10 years.

Feeding this through the Analogizer™ produces:

The tension over the delayed 21-speed road bike has tarnished relations between Bobby Smithson and Santa Claus, which were boosted only last week when Smithson confirmed that he would enjoy a surge of 25% more presents from Santa over the next 10 years.

Just try to imagine relations being "tarnished" in this way with any other country.

Knut is still cute

You may recall that this web site was the first in the entire world to break the news that polar bear cub Knut is cute, leading hundreds of thousands of Germans to go visit him at the Berlin Zoo.  But Knut has grown a lot in the past few months, and now there's scurrilous gossip circulating that he's no longer cute.  When Knut heard it, it made him so sad that he tried to cover his eyes with his no-longer-so-wittle paws:

But then he remembered that he's now large enough to knock down his critics with a single swipe of his arm and consume their steaming body parts, which cheered him right back up again!

Is Knut still cute?  I think the answer is pretty clear.  Sure, he may no longer be so unbearably* cute that you feel your brain beginning to liquefy and seep slowly out of your ears as you gaze at him, but by golly, that omnivorous mammal of the family Ursidae has still got it!

* I'm deeply ashamed.

No good news is not good news

Two recent pieces of news caught my attention.  First:

The Democratic Party is growing more liberal for the first time in a generation. ...  40 percent of Democrats in last year’s elections called themselves liberal, according to the American National Election Studies, a research project supported by the National Science Foundation. That’s the highest since the survey began in 1972.

The lead-in sounds encouraging, but then you get to the actual numbers.  40% of Democrats self-identifying as liberal is a high--even going all the way back to 1972, when McGovern won the nomination?  And if you read the article you'll see that the low (during the Reagan dark age) was around 20%.  I admit that I found this very surprising; if I'd had to guess I'd have put the high at around 60-70% and the low at 40%, and that only because of my pessimism.

So by their own assessment, less than half of all Democratic voters consider themselves to be liberals.  Which basically shreds the argument that rank-and-file Democrats are a mass of liberals (and progressives) being held back by a conservative leadership.  Rather, it appears that they have the leadership they have because that's more or less the leadership they want.

And this second piece of news verifies it:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has significantly widened her lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in the wake of a dispute over handling foreign policy, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, puts Clinton at 48% — up 8 percentage points from three weeks ago — and Obama at 26%, down 2 points. Among Democrats and independents who "lean" Democratic, former North Carolina senator John Edwards is at 12%.

Even granting that this addresses a slightly different group (Democrats only vs. both Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents), it's depressing stuff.  Despite her stances on Iraq, on Iran, on the use of nuclear weapons, on trade, on labor issues, and so on and so on, Democrats still overwhelmingly favor Hillary.  You may be thinking, ah, yes, but what if newly-anointed liberal savior Al Gore enters the race?  But if you read the detailed results you'll see that that puts Hillary at 42%, Obama at 19%, and Gore in third place at a mere 18% (so even the combined total for Obama and Gore falls short of Hillary's).  And while you're there you'll also see that Dennis Kucinich is sitting comfortably in the basement at 1%--down from his July 6-8 high of 2%.

So boiling it all down, Democratic voters are not liberal, they don't want to vote for liberals, they embrace a conservative Democratic candidate even over tepid faux-liberals, and they resoundingly reject the only genuine progressive alternatives that are available to them.  So there are no pleasant surprises (even mild ones) on the horizon in terms of Democratic politics--just more of the same.  That isn't a shocker, of course, but it's important to recognize because it's important to keep your head clear about these things, especially as pre-election hype begins to crest.

The only way to fix the Democratic party

Glenn Greenwald has written a worthwhile article that pins a good share of the responsibility for the Bush administration's atrocities exactly where it belongs: on the shoulders of the Democrats.  This naturally led to a fix-the-Democrats-or-abandon-them debate, with one person ("alyosha") taking the former position: "We have to do as the far right did to the Republican party, in other words, take over the Democratic party. It won’t be fast, and it won’t be easy, but it is happening, and we need the patience and perseverance to see it through."

My response (in comments):
________________________________

I'd agree that working to take over the Democratic party is a good goal to have, even though I myself am a proud and absolutely unrepentant Nader voter and expect never to vote for a Democrat again.  But: you don't further that goal one inch (and in fact you render it all but unattainable) when you actually vote for Democrats who are doing the wrong thing.  Participate in your local Democratic party, work with them in the primaries, make sure they hear you in a thousand ways--but you must not give them your vote at election time unless they've given you a candidate who actually deserves it, or you're defeating your own purpose.

Consider just one example: what message do you think the Democrats received from Kerry's performance in 2004?  They ran a candiate who was so much like Bush that it was difficult to discern a meaningful difference--and frightened progressives flocked to him in droves, no matter what their politics may otherwise have been.  The message couldn't have been clearer: the Democrats can count the progressive votes before the election even starts, so there's certainly no need for them to move in that direction.

Now take the flip side: imagine what would have happened if millions of voters like yourself had withheld their votes from Kerry.  Imagine that Kerry had lost not just by a few million votes, but by tens of millions.  And then imagine that all of those people who withheld their votes wrote to the Democrats and let them know that they had refused to vote for Kerry because of his craven, opportunistic embrace of Republican positions and values.  The outcome would have been identical--Bush in the White House, again--but the Democrats would have known exactly why they had lost.

Which scenario do you think was more likely to strengthen the position of progressives within the Democratic party and move the party to where progressives want it to be?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that a more progressive Democratic party would be a guaranteed outcome of that second scenario; the Democrats are fully capable of drawing the wrong conclusions from any outcome, because they're institutionally inclined to do so.  But the fact is that the strategy that you and others pursued failed spectacularly, just as it has failed in the past and it's guaranteed to fail again in the future.  Given a choice between a strategy that's guaranteed to fail and one that has even a tiny chance of succeeding, it's clear which is the better option.

So I ask you and all other progressives who held their noses to vote for Kerry in 2004 (and even Gore in 2000) to consider the harm you've done, and to be willing in the future to do what it takes to make it right (no matter how difficult it may seem at the time): withhold your votes from Democratic presidential candidates who do not reflect your values and beliefs.

UPDATE: Dennis Perrin rightfully skewers Greenwald's article for its pie-in-the-sky claims about the righteousness and Democratic-independence of YearlyKos attendees.  I gagged on those bits as well, but still thought the article was worthwhile for its fairly robust Democrat-bashing; it's a good sign when even someone as mainstream as Greenwald is willing to throw that kind of abuse at the Democrats.

Dick cheney evolutionary cycle

Larval ("Human") Phase:

In this stage the cheney's external carapace is strikingly human-like, and it will attempt to use its considerable powers of mimicry to pass itself off as a human being.  It must be careful to shield its internal systems from investigation, however, since its body is actually composed entirely of a combination of cesium, concentrated evil collected in a bolus within the chest cavity, and a malleable semi-organic compound known as floama.  The larval cheney will seek positions of power in order to fulfill its primary evolutionary imperative of maximizing human suffering.

Pupal Phase:

In the pupal stage the cheney's floama begins to coagulate, causing decomposition of the human-like carapace and therefore substantially heightening the risk of detection.  Adults who have become acclimated to the cheney in the larval phase may not notice the decay of its outer layer; however, it must be careful to avoid dogs and small children.  If its quest for power has been successful, it will use this power to attempt to shield itself from further inspection.

As notable as the physical degradation in this phase is the ethical corruption, which accelerates greatly as the bolus of concentrated evil reacts with the cesium and begins to disperse, slowly permeating the organism.  The extreme and clearly non-human level of malice exhibited by the pupal cheney may arouse suspicion, but it will generally be able to continue to evade detection long enough to complete its metamorphosis.  Eventually the floama will achieve full realignment and the evil will dissolve the now-vestigial outer carapace, leaving...

Adult Phase:

...the fully mature, adult cheney.  No longer constrained by its pre-adult need to operate invisibly within human society, and virtually indestructible due to its fully-hardened floama superstructure, the cheney is now free to openly indulge its preferred diet of human young.

NB: This discussion has focused on the dick cheney; cheneys grown from other harvested body parts such as the lung or elbow may exhibit slight variations in morphology (e.g. in the corona capitis of the adult phase).