Old, White, Ignorant, and Irrelevant

So the teabaggers have brought their own special brand of crazy to my town.  One is struck in looking at the pictures at how monochromatic and old the crowd is -- the old people part really pisses me off.  Here is the one group in America that benefits from socialism via Medicare and Social Security and these ignorant fucknutz are here to protest "socialism." 

I enjoyed the claims that they had attracted up to two million people here.  To say that this is laughable is a grotesque understatement.  This is a city of about 550,000 people.  When you have an influx here of a few hundred thousand people, it is quite noticeable.  When you have an additional two million as we had around the time of the Inauguration in January 2009, it is beyond noticeable -- it has an impact in virtually every quadrant in town.

I was at the Inauguration and have been at three of the largest demonstrations held here during the last twenty years -- Solidarity Day on Labor Day in 1991, the March for Women's Lives in April 1992, and the March for Women's Rights in April, 2004.  These protests drew approximately 400,000, 500,000, and 800,000 people respectively and their participants were much in evidence throughout the city in the days before and after -- on the streets and the Metro, in restaurants, and hotels.  Their multi-racial crowds filled a substantial part of the Mall, which is an enormous space. I've also been on the Mall during at least a dozen Fourth of July celebrations, which before pre-September 11 security levels, routinely reached a half a million people.  (The only time I've ever seen the Mall close to full was during Obama's inauguration, which really was of a different magnitude than anything I've ever witnessed.)

I've seen the pictures of the teabagger event and it seems very unlikely that they even hit the 100,000 mark, and more likely had somewhere in the tens of thousands range.  There has been no discernible impact in the areas of town outside of the Mall -- things in Northwest DC were totally normal yesterday.  

I was annoyed to see the Post give the protest front page treatment that was absolutely uncritical of the incoherence of the protesters' goals.  Of course, the Post consigned a considerably larger anti Iraq War demonstration to the Metro pages a few years ago. 

I laughed at the claim that the teabaggers were somehow neater than left-wing protesters.  Again, I can attest that people were very conscientious about dealing with their trash at the big rallies to which I've been.  However, with something as big as the pro-reproductive rights rally in 2004, there is the ever present problem of simply overwhelming the trash cans.  When you have a group roughly one-tenth the size, it's a much smaller problem.

The ultimate impression one gets of the tea party crowd -- in addition to the fact that they are some of the most incoherent people one can imagine -- is that they simply cannot accept the idea that they are no longer a majority of Americans.  It is unimaginable to them that this cool, young, multi-racial President is representative of the aspirations of the majority of Americans and they are shaken by the diminution in tribal sentiment among whites that is allowing this to happen.  They (along with the Republican Party) are doubling down on one last gasp of dog whistle politics.,  It may actually get them some results in the 2009 and 2010 elections, but I am pretty confident by 2012 and the years thereafter it is going to look like a huge sucker's bet.  

Comments

[Corvus9]

Man, Sir Charles, it must really shit in your cereal that such a crappy newspaper it your hometown rag, huh?

I like the way Mightygodking put it. These assholes have twenty years, tops. Then they will all be dead or insignificant. WE are witnessing the last gasp of a bunch of people who know in their bones, but not their heads (or hearts), that they have been passed by by history, that they have lost, and that future generations will look back on them and shudder. They are on the wrong side of history. They know that is where they have ended up, and to be on the wrong side of history is to be the Villain or your age. I think, deep down, these people know they are monsters, and it terrifies them, and they are thrashing wildly in abandon right now as they are being dragged to their judgment.

Well, good. I try to havew sympathy for everybody, but watching clips of these people on tv or youtube, all I can think is what awful, despicable people they are, and as much I would like every nightmare they can imagine to befall them, mostly I just want them to fucking die already, and stop clogging everything up for the rest of us.

Whew! That felt good. Hey, speaking of Not wanting to be passed by, Anybody check out the new Beatles remasters? Because I got Revolver through Abbey Road (minus Let It Be, since I already have NAKED, and figure I can pick that one up later), and let me tell you, they are awesome. It's like hearing the Beatles for the first time. Every instrument is defined and clear in the mix. Well worth buying the White Album again.

[oddjob]

So when did WaPo get so hopelessly conservative-sympathetic, anyway?

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Indeed it has ruined many a morning around here. I actually have a close friend who writes for the Post (why she tolerates my emails is anyone's guess) -- last week I was actually reading an Op-Ed at her house and almost spit out my coffee. It was a reference to "beloved columnist Michael Kelly" -- near brain explosion followed.

Still debating on the Beatles remixes.

oddjob,

I think much of the Post's demise can be attributed to the day Fred Hiatt became editorial page editor. He's awful. Oddly enough, his brother is general counsel to the AFL-CIO and a great progressive.

[oddjob]

Okay, but why should the editorial page editor be having influence over how the rest of the paper covers news?

[big bad wolf]

are they that old? we may have seen different photos because what depresses me is how not old many of the people in the crowd are. and i run into all too many of the types around where i live and they are not so old. the good news is that they are a small minority and we probably give them too much attention---sadly, we have to, some of them are dangerous.

i don't mean to dignify them in any way, but i happened to start notes from the underground today and, well, it sounded familiar.

dead or insignificant in twenty years. ow. that hits too close to home for me; i already have one out of two and 20 years may get me the other.

i picked up hard day's night and beatles for sale. they sound great.

[Sir Charles]

I saw a lot of "cotton heads" (as my father would describe them) in the pictures. And dare I say it, bbw, but you and I aren't exactly in the youth demographic anymore. Indeed, we and those slightly younger than us are the other problem demographic out there -- the Reagan youth of yesteryear.

If you look at the polls, Obama continues to ride high with the under 39 demographic. Now he needs to deliver for them (and they need to get out and vote).

[big bad wolf]

it's getting hard to see the youth demographic from here.

oh, there were old folks in the photos i saw, but too many did look like the troublesome reagan former youth group. they still ride high down here, and their kids seem not so different from them in lots of ways.

[litbrit]

I am, technically speaking, a middle-aged Year-of-the-Ratter, but I shall be neither dead nor insignificant in twenty years. (You heard it here first.)

That's because it takes me forever to get things done, and I have a very, very long to-do list.

The to-go list is even longer.

But I digress...Sir C, from what I could see on that Look at This Fucking Teabagger site, the subject creatures were either old and white or somewhat younger but extremely (and stereotypically) old-dressing and redneck-y in their affect. I'd bet you a lunch of sushi, tacos, or tandoori chicken that few, if any, have ever bothered to get their passports and that fewer still, if any, can speak a second language.

[low-tech cyclist]

T-Bone and Heather, the morning deejays at my Southern Maryland local station Star 98.3 (WSMD-FM), were repeating the "1 million people were there" BS this morning. Couldn't get through on the phone line to ask what their source was.

And - get this - they were complaining about the lack of media coverage. Guess the top of the Sunday WaPo's front page wasn't good enough for them.

Idiots.

[low-tech cyclist]

One also has to wonder at what point the spreading of misinformation and disinformation over the airwaves becomes an FCC issue. Does the FCC still expect broadcast stations to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity," or did that language die with the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act?

And if it's still valid, at what point does the FCC have to pay attention if it's pointed out to them that people routinely use the airwaves as a means for transmitting stuff that they either know, or damned well should know, is total bullshit?

[oddjob]

"The cure for Obama communism is a new era of McCarthyism."

Slogan on a t-shirt worn by a boy at the DC Tea Party. Go look for yourself if you don't believe me.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Here goes Prup, getting everybody mad at him, but I have to say this.

Where the f@#* are OUR demonstrators.

Where are WE and I mean the whole spectrum from center through center-left to left that actually voted for Obama, who care about a good health care reform, who actually (sorry to shock you all) SUPPORT our President -- yes, even if they wish he'd not caved on areas.

We're great in opposition, Joe Wilson or Michelle Bachman does something really stupid and we fill the coffers of the opposition -- usually without having the faintest idea what the person we're flooding with money believes in. (Okay, c'mon, prove me wrong. Tell me what Elwyn Tinklenburg or Ron Miller's campaign issues are. On anything.)

But when the hell have we sent money to support an incumbent Democrat who made a

good

speech. When is the last time we even wrote an e-mail telling a Representative we appreciated what he's done or said. For that matter, all of us read other blogs and the comments there. When is the last time somebody had the guts to write these words, explicitly,

I support President Obama. I differ with him on a lot of things, but I know he's governing a country of 300 million people, most of whom are less liberal than I am. I didn't 'expect a pony'; I just expected competent, adult government, and so far I've been getting it, as much as I could with the Republicans fanning the craziness like nohing in the history of this country. I support him, and those Senators and Representatives who are working -- against the crazies AND the Blue Dogs -- to get even a first step towards a decent health care system started. (And I know that my enrtire lifetime we've tried to get this and nothing's been accomplished. People believe it 'can't be done' and the first time we get something actually passed, we'll prove them wrong, elect even more Congressman, and work on making it better.

Instead we curse the Republicans whose recalcitrant opposition looks like it will kill the bill from the right -- and cheer Democrats who want to kill it from the left because it isn't good enough.

Sometimes I think, if the Left blogosphere had been around during the Thirties, we'd still be trying to pass Social Security -- after all, that awful, conservative, RICH, tool of the interests actually accepted the authentically racist 'agricultural worker' exception to get it passed. Shame, shame on him. But what could you expect from a pampered aristocrat who was supported not just by the racists but by the most corrupt city machines in the country.

He was so corrupt he traded patronage jobs for votes, and even blackmailed a Senator by threatening to out him -- how awful, even though that Senator's support was needed to get important anti-Hitler measures past.

There is a famous NEW YORKER cartoon of a rich men's club and one of the members is saying "Let's go down to Union Square and boo Roosevelt."

Why do I think some of us -- and I'm not talking about the people here, who are more sensible that most, but look at the comment sections at C&L or PA, or other, more strident blogs -- would gladly respind to a call to 'go down to Washington and boo Obama' -- even while we were simultaneously booing the Beckoids.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

sorry for the HTML foul-up. This time it was my fault.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

okay, let's see if this works

[Stephen]

Got it - I closed a tag for you, Prup.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Thanks, Stephen, I closed a bold when I should have closed an italic, but can we now get to the topic of my rant -- kill out those last 3 posts, or at least mine.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have to add to my Ron Miller comment. I am currently Googling "Ron Miller South Carolina." I'm on page ten, and still have not found anything relating to the Ron Miller we gave all that money to. (Unless he is the singer, the pastor, the Arizona sex offender, or the artist with that name.)

Does anyone know who it was we gave all that money to?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

My blushes, it was RoB Miler, and I have found his website. I'm now even madder. We've given a lot of money to replace a truly vicious racist with an unlraconservative Blue Dog whose positions are so 'boiler plate conservative' that all he will add to the Congress is another 'D'; while we do nothing for the people who are actually fighting for us.

[oddjob]

Prup, that was more or less a given. There's no way on Earth that a progressive, or even a moderate, is ever going to win that congressional district as it's now composed (or likely to be composed for a long time to come).

I love Charleston. If only it wasn't in South Carolina!

[litbrit]

Exactly, oddjob. He's a moderate, an ex-marine (a veteran of the Iraq war) and undoubtedly the only Democrat with a prayer of winning that district. (Agreed on Charleston, too: what a gorgeous, atmospheric town.)

Which victory, if he does pull it off, he will owe in part to an awful lot of out-of-state progressives who'll turn to him with a little expectation, at least, that he'll honor their support by voting for progressive causes. Insofar as I can tell, he's not bought and paid for by Big Insurance or Big Pharma, like other "moderate Dems", so there's that.

In any event, as they say, who you gonna call--Addison "yet another Faux Joe" Wilson, Republican, or a Rob "the unknown moderate" Miller? Because it looks like those are the frontrunners for now.

[Sir Charles]

I think there is much to be said for punishing an assclown like Wilson even if the guy you support isn't your dream candidate. Hell, if he votes with you 50% of the time that's a whole lot better than faux Joe.

[Corvus9]

The problem with most of the Blue Dogs is not just that they are not progressive, it's that they support big business. This is because their districts are poor, and so most of their campaigns need outside financing, and since it won't come from wealthy, coastal liberals, insurance companies it is. And this means that often the blue dogs will be against their own, poor constituents in order to keep their coffers full. (Yes, I learned all this from Yglesias.)

Maybe getting all that progressive funding won't make Miller more progressive, like litbrit is hoping, but if it even made him feel like he didn't have to screw over his own constituents, and could actually vote for their interests, that would be good too.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

My point was only that we are turning out much better at opposing than supporting. Of course I would rather have Miller than Wilson -- who is an authentic monster. My point was that, for most of the people who poured money into his campaign, they neither knew nor cared what his positions were, just that he wasn't Wilson, and the wallets sprung open.

I want to see more support, verbal and monetary, for the people who are already there in Congress, who are working hard, and fighting for the things we want to occur. Make your own list -- and there are a lot that will be missed.

The point is that the whole blogosphere grew up in opposition -- and rightly so, because we had to fight against Bush and Cheney. But when we got started it looked like they would hold sway for years, and all we had were brave, impudent words to shout out before thyey brought an Apocalypse. Well, they didn't, but I still want us to show we can work FOR something as well as we can oppose.

[Corvus9]

So what would you suggest? Hold a fundraising drive for Waxman or Frank, just to show them we appreciate their efforts? A kind of positive reinforcement?

[litbrit]

Hey, I positively reinforce all kinds of people--always have!

This is the first time I've publicly supported someone because of who he was not.

I appreciate what Prup is saying, but I, for one, don't engage in opposition support as a general practice.

And while I also appreciate what Bill Maher said the other night about the wingnuts shouting at townhalls while lefties shout at the teevee, I have three sons and I'm really not ready to get shot or beaten up just yet; this is Florida, and if things are going to go south, so to speak, it will be here, I promise you.

I can lend my support and my voice, as it were, in other ways. And I do.

[litbrit]

I still want us to show we can work FOR something as well as we can oppose.

Such as the entire Obama campaign, pretty much? What the hell?

[oddjob]

My point was only that we are turning out much better at opposing than supporting.

True, but I think this is a universal feature of humans. Why else would Speaker Sam Rayburn's observation that any jackass can knock down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one be at all memorable?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

No, Corvus, just do something like, well, if you are a sports fan, make bets with yourself. If you win, you buy something for yourself. If you lose, send the same amount to a 'Congresscritter' you admire. (Make a list beforehand, you might be surprised how many people you'll put on it.) Send it with a note -- especislly if it is to a Gerry Nadler, a Waxman, a Frank, a Trammy Baldwin simply sayibg 'I know you don't need this, but it was a way of showing you there are people out there who appreciate what you have been doing.)

The point is that politics has turned very scary. (Is there a time in history where someone as generally sensible and level-headed as litbrit would have written what she did above at 10:03. Could anyone have imagined, a year or six months ago, even seeing something like this? And yet, reading it, it doesn't sound paranoid -- today.)

It's up to us, as much as to anyone else to take our country back, to fight against the encroachment of mob rule and 'Weimar politics.'

I don't do enough, myself. (I don't contribute because we live on my wife's disability until I can add my own SocSec -- I'm eligible, but there's a problem I've almost got straightened out. And I haven't left Brooklyn in 3 years even to go to Manhattan. All I can do is cheer people on.) And writing comments on blogs doesn't do much, because I'm 'preaching to the choir.'

But, with all my complaints about people not doing enough to support Obama, that's second. We have to stop the Beckoids or we'll lose our country. I've never been much for quoting the Franklin line "A Republic, if you can keep it" because, even with the Nixons, the McCarthys, the Cheneys, we weren't ever in danger of losing it. Now, I'm not so sure.

[Sir Charles]

Prup,

By and large most of our liberal champions are in safe seats -- a Frank, a Waxman, or Nadler generally don't need our help. And when we seek to expand our majorities we are often going to be giving to money to middle of the roaders who nonetheless have some virtues we can get behind -- a Webb, a Warner, a Tester, a Begich (all of whom I've given money to -- or to protect an imperfect guy like Harry Reid, who is vulnerable by virtue of his leadership post.

Our goal at this juncture needs to be to defeat as many Republicans as possible in order to give space to the possibility of progressive governance while at the same time making clear to those in the GOP that the present course is madness.

[oddjob]

OT, but this will be of interest to at least a few here, I'm certain (perhaps especially among the attorneys here):

Are Obama's judges really liberals?

[Corvus9]

You know, I really don't think the country is in any kind of precarious state right now. I think it was, until quite recently, but that's over now. We will not lose the country. It's the Beckoids that are losing the country, and that's why they are freaking out so bad. Yeah, this will probably mean danger and violence, but that will just hurt their cause. I don't think these people will be anywhere near power ever again. This is their last gasp, and they are going to go out fighting before they finally disappear. In twenty years.

Then, we can finally have that nice, orderly class war I have been waiting for.

[oddjob]

Even Rod Dreher is sick of them:

... Despite what Sam Tanenhaus says, conservatism is not dead. Rather, it's undead. The conservative movement is herking and jerking like a zombie, dedicated to little more than frenetic gestures execrating Obama, and to regaining power. To what end? Given that they're birthing a conservative party whose instincts are dictated by loudmouths, reactionaries and crackpots, and overseen by cynics, it's dispiriting to contemplate.

Where can those who wish to think and debate clearly about a serious politics of the right go? The degenerate form of populism now dominant on the right loves to praise "freedom" – but it has no use for freedom of thought, or thinking much at all. In turn, increasing numbers of thoughtful conservatives have no use for it.

Hat tip, Sully.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

First, oddjob:
"Thoughtful conservatives" have been decrying "Conservative populism" at least since Buckley condemned the John Birch society -- even earlier if you remember that it was conservative Republicans that led the charge to bring mcCarthy down. But except for that one success -- and John Dean's attacks on Nixon -- they've been totally ineffective. The NRO is now about where the Birchers were, or even more to the right. John Dean's 'Goldwater conservatism' has now placed him to the left of the entire Republican party -- and much of the Democrats as well. (You might look in at his columns at FindLaw, btw. He's said some pretty valuable stuff -- inbcluding being the only person who is as worried as I am that a supreme Court decision on SSM could not merely validate DOMA, but declare SSM unconstituional on its face, thus invalidating all the lower court decisions and legislative statutes upholding it.)

The trouble is that 'thoughtful conservatives' are one of the least listened to of all the various political opinions out there. Even semi-Marxians like Corvus9 have more of a following. For every Watkins there has always been twenty Robert Tafts, political conservatives who don't care about facts but encourage the wild-eyed to keep fighting the way Taft encouraged McCarthy. ("if the first one doesn't work, keep on throwing others out there." Yes, it is a quasi-quote, but it has the meaning down.)

Let's save Corvus for the next post.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Corvus:
You are making a serious and dangerous misjudgment here, very much like the German left in the 20s. (I am going to be violating Godwin's Law a lot, but I think that one is going to have to be 'inoperative' until the Republicans stop acting like the Weimar right. Even my previous comment could have been referenced to the impotence of the 'high Conservative' Germans who desp[ised the Nazis for being unruly populists.)

The Beckoids can't 'lose the country' because they never had it. As long as we see them as 'puppets of the Capitalists we'll keep misjudging them, and the only relevant example is Weimar. Despite the Marxian twaddle about 'Fascism being the last stage of capitalism' fascism was never a regime 'imposed' on Germany by evil industrialists. Yes, many of them supported Hitler, but not because he was 'doing their will' but because the choice was seen between fascism and communism (remember there had already been several attempts at a German Communist revolution that had reasonable chances at success).

But what everyone seems to have forgotten was that Fascism -- and particularly Nazism -- was a 'right-wing populist YOUTH movement, glad to take 'capitalist money' but -- as shown when they took power -- as willing to 'coordinate' capitalisy entwerprises as any other type of society. (Youth movement? Remember that Hitler was the oldest of the important Nazis -- and he was five years younger than President Obama is now when he took power. The same can be said of Mussolini -- 38 when he took power -- and most of the leaders of the failed fascist movements in other countries: Mosley was 39 when the war started, Codreanu was dead at 39, Franco was in his forties when he seized power, Szalasi of Hungary was 36 when Hitler took over and died at 49, Doriot was 38 when he switched from Communism to Fascism, and in Finland the "Academic Karelia Society' was composed of college students.

We have to remember that the current Radical Right (i.e., the Republican Party -- and I couldn't have made that statement last October) may be brainless, fact-averse fools. but they aren't 'mindless puppets.' (In fact, if you take a good look at the position of the majority of industrialists, they are really quite progressive on areas that do not immediately threaten their own wealth. There are, for example, far more gay rights supporters -- who have actually done something for gay partners -- in the Fortune 500 than in Congress.

No, the Beckoids are not the ones who 'had' the country to lose. They are the failed, unsuccessful, middle class who have never benefited from the 'blessings of republican capitalism.' They are, as has been pointed out many times, voting against their own (economic and 'class') interests. And so far we've been lucky that they are as old as they are and that they haven't found a credible, charismatic young leader. (Palin comes close, but her McMahonish quitting may have ruled her out.)

[oddjob]

@Prup (aka Jim Benton) | September 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I take your point, but I think it's been a while since the griping's gotten loud enough to be at all noticeable, and I don't know that the most recent crop of righty pundits has griped much at all until these last few months when the nuttery has gotten so pronounced.

None of which is to contradict your assertion about the general ineffectiveness of the thoughtful conservatives. You've got a real point there, and that's a shame. Those are the ones who you can agree to disagree with, and yet from time to time see/hear a proposal that you realize has merit and could be adopted in some modified form.

Meanwhile the wingnuts, Freepi, teabaggers, Birchers, etc. are simply dangerous, particularly with regards to the Constitution and the rule of law.

[oddjob]

(Thank you for reminding me to read Dean's column. I'm not an attorney so I rarely think to do that, however when I have read his column I've found it educational in the best of ways. It's refreshing to read the opinion of an attorney who has served in a senior capacity in the Oval Office and who's also not afraid to acknowledge that a war crime may have been committed by a president, and that there is therefore a pressing need to investigate, and then prosecute if the facts discovered during investigation warrant that.)

[oddjob]

Palin comes close

She has the looks and charisma, but not the political skill nor the necessary background knowledge (nor, frankly, the intelligence). If she had more of Romney's skills and intelligence (without the hopeless, shameless, transparently phony turn-on-a-dime pandering) she'd be truly scary and we'd be on the precipice in a way we aren't now.

[big bad wolf]

corvus, i think the subhead on that new yorker piece is a bit unfortunate and inaccurate, but the piece is pretty interesting. obama's judges will be, by most standards, liberal. they won't be radical, they won't be earthshaking, but they will be liberal.

i think the conclusion of the article is where the most important question arises: will obama's judges meet the standard the president articulates and be there for those that don't have a voice? for me, that is the most important role of the judiciary. a judge's job is a difficult one, requiring difficult, constant, and often tedious work (lawyers do love their own voices; i don't envy the judges having to listen to them, but listen they must).

most times, smarts and persistence is all that is needed to do the judge's job. sometimes, however, a judge has to make tough and unpopular decisions (even unpopular with our side!!!!). that's when we discover what a judge is made of. or maybe we don't. my experience over a couple of decades is that each judge has a limited number of strong stands in her or him each year. if the case doesn't strike a chord with him or her, the will may not be there to take the stand. there is in the law, always a reason, always a distinguishing fact, always some way to say this is okay for now. we can't write that human tendency out of the judiciary. the reflexive ideological NO of a handful of appellate judges is the sign of a bad temperament, judicial and human, not a strength, so i think we don't want our own ideological warriors.

it's a tough job picking judges. i would like to see obama look places other than the u.s. attorney's office and the district bench in picking judges for the courts of appeals jand i would like to see him consider politicians for the supreme court---i think cuomo or babbit would have been great picks had clinton had the courage and the senate. we have the senate now.

[big bad wolf]

another new yorker piece on a (sort of) legal topic. i am fairly amazed that a law professor, who judging by the excerpt, has never tried a not-so-good case, can make a living writing about and criticizing the actions of a fictional lawyer. i love the advice that a fictional lawyer in the 1930s should have asserted a challenge that gained no traction until the 1980s instead of trying to get his client acquitted. all in the service of knowledge i suppose. still, interesting historical stuff in the article

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/10/090810fa_fact_gladwell

[oddjob]

i would like to see him consider politicians for the supreme court

TELL ME ABOUT IT! (I'm not an attorney, but I know enough about US history to realize the present court with its members all being judges immediately prior to their nominations is way out of the historical norm. The court needs those other, non-judicial perspectives, too.)

[oddjob]

What I most liked about that article was the insights it offered into Obama himself.

[Sir Charles]

I guess I need to write a post about this in order to assert hegemony over the issue.

[big bad wolf]

oddjob, you don't and should have to be an attorney to have a view on these things. i ain't no fancy ivy league professor (nor should i be), but i have said for years at the occassional seminar i speak at that the constitution belongs to all of us and that we need all to pay attention to it and how it is intepreted. (this always makes the judges in the room frown). the judges get the final say, but the climate in which the consitition thrives or dies is a social one.

[big bad wolf]

that opening line should read: oddjob, you don't have to be and shouldn't have to be . . .

[oddjob]

this always makes the judges in the room frown

:)

Nothing like having one of your own advocate for the inclusion of the hoi polloi........

("How dare you, bbw??? TRAITOR!")

[Corvus9]

Prup,

I will give you that the Beckoids have never really had the country. Those types whenever directly expsed to sunlight, have always freaked out the vast majority of the populace.

But that's why I am not worried about some kind of takeover like in the Weimar Republic.* These people are freaks. Widely seen so. No political party associated with them, as the Republican Party is increasingly coming to be seen, will ever win over a majority of Americans, either in terms of congressional elections or the Presidency. If these people really take over the Rpublican Party, I mean grab power from the business aristocrats, the GOP's electoral failure will dwarf 1964.

And remember the Weimar Republic embraced fascism because it was going through economic hardships that made the Great Depression look like the 1920s. We are orders of magnitude away from having to fear a fascist freakout.

*Shortterm spurts of violence, on the other hand, very scared of.

[oddjob]

If these people really take over the Rpublican Party, I mean grab power from the business aristocrats, the GOP's electoral failure will dwarf 1964.

Perhaps, but game's on nonetheless. I forget now where I read it, but they did manage to take over the party appartus in Texas back in the 1990's. (Of course, Texas politics are a bit different from most of the rest of the country.)

[Eric Wilde]

We are orders of magnitude away from having to fear a fascist freakout.

I'm less confident. We're not there right now; but, I don't think we're orders of magnitude away. Maybe 3x or 5x more paranoia is needed.

[Corvus9]

Depends how you measure paranoia. If you measure by what percentage of the population qualifies as "paranoid," then yeah, 3 to 5 times more will probably do it. But if you are measuring in terms of amount of actual paranoia, I think it's more like orders of magnitude. Paranoia tends defuse out from central points. It is not uniform in distribution. In order for 3x as many people to be nuts enough to drive us to fascism, you would have to have a pretty white-core of crazy driving the whole thing. These people are pretty crazy, but they are mostly just whiny assholes. None of them are taking this as seriously as, say, the Klan.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Eric can answer for himself, but I think what he meant was that we need to be 3 to five times as paranoid as we are about the danger.

The funny thing is that anyone who remembers my posts here and elsewhere from earlier this year may recall I was equally unconcerned -- in fact, I was almost giddy over the possibility of the Republican Party self-destructing from the looniness and from the way they had driven all but Southern White males from the Party, foreseeing that the Blue Dogs would become the nucleus of a new center-right party.

I simply didn't believe the audience for death panels, birthers, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh -- has anyone noticed Limbaugh sounds almost sane comparatively these days -- and "Obama's gonna kill your grandma" could be more than a p[itiful fraction of one percent of the country, end I didn't even see the racists as bringing it up much over five.

I may, eventually. prove to have been right, but it's looking less and less like it.