Son, Don't Be Bringin' Home No Republicans (and Open Thread)

 

"The Eton Rifles" - The Jam

Sorry for my utter blog neglect.  Crazy week continues -- Louisville yesterday, Richmond today, Philadelphia tomorrow, New Jersey for the weekend (parent's weekend at the lad's college), and NYC on Monday.  How is a man supposed to attend to his blogging duties with work constantly interfering?

I found this post -- and this -- by Kevin Drum to be amusing.  I have to admit I would be deeply unhappy if my son were to be romantically serious with a Republican.  He could bring home a woman or a man of any race or nationality and I would never blink.  But if he came home with a Fox watcher or a Limbaugh listener, I would want to slit my wrists, would, in fact, view it as a symbol of tremendous failure on my part.  I am puzzled why Drum doesn't get this, why he pretends that the difference between being a Democrat or Republican at this moment is simply a disagreement "about the optimal top marginal tax rate."  This is nonsense.  To consciously choose to identify with Republican Party at this juncture is to throw one's lot in with so much that is ugly -- the join the company of racists, homophobes, and nationalist bigots, to choose contemptous anti-empiricism and primitive religiosity as one's north star.

I have to confess that as a parent if my son brought home a budding Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or Jennifer Rubin, I would be seized with the urge to slit my wrists.  I would feel like a complete failure, like I had failed to inculcate the values of decency into my lone offspring if he found himself attracted to such hatefulness.     

I do know that there are decent Republicans -- but by and large the ones I know are only superficially political.  They have inherited their world view or they live somewhere where their assumptions about politics are largely unchallenged.  But for a young, well-educated person to make a conscious decision to join the party of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Todd Akin, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, Jan Brewer, Ralph Reed, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Virginia Foxx, Joe Arpaio, Ken Cuccinelli, and Sam Brownback is to cast one's lot with hate and abysmal ignorance.  Not in my house buddy.

Share your thoughts and consider this an open thread.  I have not spent a minute online today, so I have much to catch up on. 

Comments

[T.R. Donoghue]

Your politics are a statement of your values. I don't have kids but my reaction to Drum's was the same as yours. If your values are in line with the current conservative movement then you're not a person I really want to spend my time with.

[Beckya57]

The party of Randian selfishness, as well as know-nothingism, sexual reaction, and bigotry. I'm not a parent, but I would be utterly appalled by the prospect of a Republican son- or daughter-in-law.

I highly recommend Jon Chait's piece about how he is so happy to have been wrong about the impact of the 47% tape. Like me, he didn't think it would make much difference, and I'm glad to have been wrong too--we were too cynical I think.

[low-tech cyclist]

What gets hard for me is that I know intelligent people in their 30s through 50s who say that they don't identify with either party, and choose between the candidates each time on their merits. (This rant is for them, not you.)

I'm sorry, but we're way past this now. The Republicans are going to serve up the same toxic brew, regardless of who the front man is. That's the lesson of John McCain and Mitt Romney.

The lesson of George W. Bush is not only that he was a disastrous idiot, but that his party now firmly opposes his few vestiges of moderation - No Child Left Behind, immigration, and for all practical purposes, Medicare Part D - but they're all for his more extreme stuff. The lesson of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins is that even GOP 'moderates' are going to break with their party only rarely, blocking such reasonable measures as the DISCLOSE and DREAM acts.

And the Dems are pretty much going to be for the same sorts of things, no matter who's running. Look at our Presidential candidates over the past two decades: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. There are some minor differences and shifts in emphasis, and the times placed different limitations on some than others, but these four men are coming from pretty much the same place.

The lesson of every President from Carter through Obama is that the Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility, and have been so since about 1978. And the lesson of the last three Presidents is that the Dems now even have a much better handle on national security issues than the GOP does.

People, you only have to decide ONCE. Pay attention, please, just long enough to realize that's the case, and do it.

[JMG]

Dear Sir Charles: The young Republicans I know are either really evangelical religious or really rich and are classic country club Republicans (and pretty apolitical ones at that).

[oddjob]

I ... would, in fact, view it as a symbol of tremendous failure on my part.

This mystifies me. Surely you know how difficult it can be to predict whom you will be attracted to in advance. As long as his love interest seems a decent person who treats others with courtesy and respect......

?

[Sir Charles]

odd job

I guess I have a hard time thinking one can consciously adopt this world view and be a truly decent person.

This may be a peculiarity of mine. I remember having dinner with some couples -- small business people -- and they were joking about canceling each other's votes. I couldn't really imagine marrying someone who did not share my basic politics.

[oddjob]

Mostly my parents did, but not always.

[low-tech cyclist]

Back in the 1980s, I came up with a short list (3 items long) of necessary preconditions for a marriage to have a chance to succeed. It's proved to be pretty robust - I haven't been able to improve on it since that decade.

One of the three things on that list is shared or compatible values, goals, and worldview.

Given the chasm between the values underlying contemporary Republicanism and the values implicit in the things Democrats favor, I just don't see how an interparty marriage in this day and age would hold up.

[oddjob]

It would depend upon how import one's politics were to yourself. Obviously for many or most of us politics is important enough that we couldn't find a political conservative to be a likely partner, but as we all know many people don't value politics as highly.

If your shared worldview places a higher priority on other activities/endeavors (such as running a successful business for example) then I can certainly imagine a successful couple able to joke about how their votes cancel each other.

[big bad wolf]

i'm with oddjob.

[Sir Charles]

bbw and oddjob,

I understand how people can see this differently, but as someone who has lived and breathed politics -- and not as a game, see e.g. Matalin and Carville -- from a very young age, I could never make that leap.

It seems to me as well that we are now at a point where partisan identification encompasses such a broad set of cultural references and touchstones, that this sort of bi-partisan coupling becomes increasingly difficult for anyone who is fairly political.

[jeanne marie]

The funny thing about adolescent rebellion is that the parents can not choose the poison.

Imagine our dismay last spring when we discovered that the lovely young lady our son was smitten with was the leader of the "Young Republicans" club at their high school. Our son had been active in the "Young Democrats" and quite vocal with his political opinions. At least until he started dating her. Then he went quiet. He somehow never got around to mentioning her affiliation to us. We found out through the grapevine.

Since then they have broken up and he has registered to vote. But he still won't talk politics, except to express disgust with the hyper-partisan warring (and to blame both sides, of course). He rolls his eyes when I reiterate what's at stake in the upcoming election.

I'm hoping that this is just a phase and the worst of his rebellion. And, for Pete's sake, he doesn't go and vote Republican . . . (or become a Wall Streeter).

[kathy a.]

jeanne marie has a great point about rebellion. oddjob, too, about how much weight people put in political things. i wouldn't count party affiliation as an uncrossable line for those reasons.

i was raised republican, but also taught to think and participate -- which is how i turned out different. back in the day, it was not necessary for republicans to uniformly support the advance of riches to the most wealthy, the interference of church in matters of state, or hatred of gays, minorities, women.

i want my kids to care about others and think of community, to care about fairness, to take care of their own stuff as best they can, to think about issues on their own and critically. i'd be upset if, for example, my son was hanging out with someone who was selfish, judgmental, bigoted, and/or dedicated to unfairness. my only complaint about his longtime girlfriend -- who is a real sweetheart and a treasure -- is that she has too many tattoos for my taste. that is too minor a matter to ever mention.

so far as i know, my kids aren't friends with any republicans around their age. probably a lot of independents.

[advocatethis]

My daughter is pretty politically similar to me and her boyfriend, luckily, is closely politically aligned as well, so this isn't going to be a worry. Even if she were apolitical, however, I can't imagine her being attracted to someone who in 2012 identifies as a Republican, not with all the selfish patriarchal white privilege baggage that goes with it. If she somehow did find a lasting attraction to such a person, I would feel that I'd failed to inculcate in her not just any strong moral values but any sense of self-worth as well.

[Sir Charles]

Advocatethis,

Welcome.

I guess we see this pretty much the same way.

[advocatethis]

Thanks for the welcome. I've commented here before but under a name (mrgumby2u) which I've found has been used by someone else in a forum I'd rather not be associated with.

[kathy a.]

what JM said resonated with me. i dated a total jerk my first year of college, and fortunately i got to figure out his total jerkness on my very own. my parents didn't quiz him about political beliefs; mom was just happy (understatement) that i had a boyfriend. at that time, he said he was a marxist blah blah; i thought he was just being a devil's advocate, but have since come to believe he would and will always say what the fuck ever to get attention.

so -- my 19 year old self would not have taken well to a ban on the bad boy for political reasons. i was lucky to be able to decide on my very own that he was just an asshole -- a character feature that mom could not see.

[nancy]

I think some of you might be underestimating the nonsensical and mystifying pulls of couple attraction. My son brought his first serious post-high school girlfriend home for a weekend. They were ultimately together for several years. She was bright, witty, gracious, sweet, serious, organized [a good influence] and it was great fun to watch the two of them interact. He made her laugh. She made him want to make her laugh as well as 'be there.' I have photos. They were ga ga. However she had grown up in Scottsdale, was OF Scottsdale, reflexive GOP parents -- Wells Fargo banker father, protective mother who was less than enthusiastic about my son's role in her life. Wealthy he will not be. He got up the nerve to kiss her for the first time after giving an impromptu precinct speech for Obama in 2008. She'd been sparring with him about her love of Ayn Rand. They were the 'cute couple,' but it wasn't going to last. I guess my point is, as a parent, ya never know, so *be prepared.* :)

Son lifted off in Phoenix for the last time, after they broke up, looking down at the gawdawful AZ sprawl and vowed he'd never willingly be back there again. First love over. But.

[nancy]

Oh and Sir C. That schedule. Hope your taking your Vit-amins.

[Sir Charles]

Mr. G.

Of course I remember. Welcome back I should say.

Kathy and Nancy,

I am smart enough never to forbid young love. I still remember the power of those feelings. But I can't say I would like it.

[azelie]

I look at this poll from the point of view of being a Democratic child of Republican parents. My upbringing sounds similar to that of kathy a, with the additional detail of my mom being relatively apolitical (who has cried when political fights break out on holiday visits) and my dad being a moderate republican for much of his life who has, like much of his party, gone substantially to the right in the last 10 years or so.

I know that my dad, at least, is puzzled by what "went wrong" in my upbringing. When I would mention a new boyfriend, he would often say something like "I guess, he's a Democrat, right?" I think this was a recognition that political compatibility is important (or a hope that I would tell him he was wrong, perhaps signalling a willingness to move the right on my part - it turned out that I helped to bring my former Blue Dog husband to the left).

Anyway, I think I would feel disappointed if I raised a child who turned out to be a Republican, and I think political compatibility is really important in relationships, so I would be concerned if a Democratic child got involved with any but the most moderate of republicans. I think I turned out alright, so there's a hurt on my side of the relationship regarding the hurt that my father feels for the fact that I turned out to have dramatically different political views from his. But I can also imagine at some point experiencing that from the other side, and trying to do better than my father has done to make my home a welcoming place for my misguided child or my child's misguided partner.

[oddjob]

Since this is an open thread I have two other bits to offer.

Regarding good reads (a topic we've discussed before), I only just now thought of this story. I haven't read it in years, but did back in high school and then again later in my twenties: The Child Buyer, by John Hersey.

I found it well written, interesting to read, thought provoking, and rather disturbing, all at once.

For those of you who are attornies I think you'll find this developing story in Massachusetts very interesting, albeit in the same horrifying way reading about a spectacular car accident can be very interesting:

Bail set at $10,000 after arraignment of Annie Dookhan, chemist in state drug lab scandal

What she apparently did is utterly mystifying to me, as well as appalling. It's such a striking story of felonious misconduct, and its impact is so broad!

[oddjob]

Noam Scheiber notes how much improved Obama's numbers are among seniors in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and argues the reason why is Ryan's presence on the ticket.

Hat tip, Sully.

[oddjob]

Almost half of Americans dislike Romney, a record high for him.

[kathy a.]

that's a whopper of a drug lab scandal, oddjob. not the only time forensic labs have had problems, for sure, but this potentially affects so many cases -- and calls the integrity of the prosecution and the judicial system into question. that it went on so long suggests there was no effective supervision and/or that quality control protocols at the lab were deficient. i would guess there will be some civil lawsuits before this is over.

hard to know what the motivation might have been. she may have just wanted to look efficient. could be the caseloads were high. actually doing the analysis probably gets boring. there is a temptation for police and prosecutors, too, to cut corners in the interest of "solving" crimes. (some things, she did not test at all; other samples, she recorded "positive" when the results were negative.)

$10,000 bail seems awfully low, considering the magnitude.

[oddjob]

If the scandal was confined to her work in the lab I'd agree with the speculation, but in addition on at least one occasion she testified as an expert witness during a trial and alledgedly perjured herself by falsely stating under oath that she'd earned a masters degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts.

She earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry there, but according to the Boston Globe the Univesity of Massachusetts has no record of her having been a graduate student there, let alone one who earned a masters degree.

As I said, it's just mystifying to me.

[oddjob]

(In her application for the position she also falsely stated she earned a masters degree from the University of Massachusetts.)

[kathy a.]

yep. perjury is pretty damned serious. (and bad on the lab, for not checking her credentials. it's not hard for a prospective employer to do that.) this wasn't even possibly an innocent error on a job application; to repeat the lie under oath, though, is a crime.

the bottom line is that she did not care about scientific integrity, or about its importance in the criminal justice system. she did not care if people were wrongly convicted, or badgered into taking plea deals despite their innocence because they'd get worse sentences if they were convicted after a trial -- and yes, juries tend to believe the lab results instead of the guy who allegedly got caught with something or another.

[oddjob]

There are potentially over 10,000 cases affected by her misconduct.

[kathy a.]

change of topic -- the upcoming debates! via balloon juice, musings about how romney could "win" the first debate, at least in some of the press.

i think i'll watch this first one on wednesday, because i can't imagine romney's got the chops to answer questions intelligently in an adversarial forum, or even pull off a single zinger that can ruffle obama.

romney's got some problems, and they aren't just with style; he has major substantive deficits, and he has a tendency to just let the inner mitt spill out sometimes -- which isn't a good thing in terms of convincing people outside his circles that he is the guy for the job. if indeed he is more moderate than the GOP as a whole, he has spend a lot of capital bowing to the nutjob satellites; hard to pull back now. late, too, to try adding substance on any number of topics.

[nancy]

oddjob, That's a terrifying story. She "messed up"? Can't we just hear the version of Munchhausen by proxy-type defense that someone will concoct? She woke up and went to work every day in order to throw random people into jail intentionally. MA is going to have an interesting time of it keeping her safe before trial.

Meanwhile, over at Litbrit, Deb is on the job covering the voter registration fraud story that seems to have been swallowed into the weekend -- the return of Nathan Sproul's operations. C&L has more -- seven states thus far. I'd be hugely surprised if Montana doesn't get added to the list. TeaBuddy Rehberg is hanging on somehow against Tester.

[kathy a.]

nancy -- part of the whole "war on crime" and "war on drugs" things that have advanced over the last 30-40 years is a huge effort to consider the accused to be less than human; and to consider more and more convictions, longer and harsher sentences, more and larger prisons (and fewer rehabilitative programs) to be a sign of victory.

she might merely have cared about looking good on the job. nobody above her cared enough to check up on whether she was doing the job correctly. i don't say that to excuse her in the least; just to point out that the blame deserves to be spread around.

[oddjob]

nobody above her cared enough to check up on whether she was doing the job correctly

And in the aftermath several higher-ups have resigned, including the senior official under Gov. Patrick (whose title I forget) responsible for the department that oversaw the lab. The lab has been closed, but the damage is done. It's not impossible that this would damage whatever future electoral hopes Patrick may have.

[nancy]

Oh kathy, I agree. The co-opting and expansion of the 'war on' terminology in this country has been disastrous. Once it was war on poverty, hunger, or ignorance. I blame the DARE program for some of this crap. Holstered police officers were in classrooms across the land scaring the kiddies into believing that all drugs are equal and all drug users should "do the crime, do the time."

******

Romney winning through zinging. That's wonderfully lol. I liked this part:

That doesn't worry me too much, because the right lives in its own reality; I'm a bit more worried about the mainstream press -- if Romney competently delivers a zinger or two, Chuck Todd will no doubt replicate the restaurant scene from When Harry Met Sally, and he won't be faking. People like him will declare Romney the victor as a result.

[kathy a.]

oddjob -- it is not in deval's job description to check the lab results or qualifications of a lab worker. i would guess that patrick kicked some ass when this broke.

OK, this is hilarious, in a "time warp" kind of way. an academic journal is publishing projections of political scientists, and calling it closer than almost all polls -- but in publishing academia, there is a lag time. so, the one place where this sum-up mentions when a projection was made says it was 299 days before election. (that was "most bullish," and probably the time lag was mentioned to suggest it was a premature assessment. but we have no info on how premature the others were.)

[oddjob]

No, it's not, but it is in the governor's job description to choose competent managers and in this case he may not have. I don't think there's enough info. in the public domain about that to make a decision one way or the other at the moment and there may never be.

[oddjob]

(competent high level managers)

[Sir Charles]

I heard a story on NPR about the Mass. crime lab. It was pretty shocking stuff. Sounds like a whole lot of people, including a lot of dubious ones, will be walking out of prison.

[kathy a.]

well, see -- how do you know they are "dubious" people if the evidence is tainted? because they are from bad neighborhoods? because they have been busted before? the reason that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required is so people cannot just be put away on some vague suspicion.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

I understand the presumption of innocence, but I think we can at least recognize the reality that a significant quantity of people who get arrested have engaged in criminal activity. Those people will also be released here. That is at it should be, from a legal standpoint, but it doesn't mean we as a society are going to be better off with a lot of these people walking.

[kathy a.]

sir, i was really thinking about how easily we respond to reports of "dubious" people being arrested. nobody likes crime.

a larger problem is the whole war on drugs. a lot of these were likely to have been low-level possession charges -- small amounts for personal use, or if possible "residue" is found, etc. (has anybody here ever had a white powdery substance in their possession? baking soda? baby powder? yeah.) (what about a green leafy substance? oregano, basil, thyme, yadda.)

even if a deal is cut to avoid jail time -- and jail/prison time has skyrocketed for drug offenses in the last 30 years, although deals still can be had for more fortunate people -- a conviction has all kinds of potential costs. it can cut access to federal financial aid for college, public housing, TANF and food stamps, etc.

if we are talking about this profoundly stupid tech ruining results used to convict drug traffickers -- somebody else can re-test if the evidence has been kept in evidence. if the evidence was lost or destroyed, not so much. it is not within the ability of the accused person to keep evidence safe and stored until re-testing can be done; that is the job of the state.

[kathy a.]

i also suspect that a number of the 1,141 people in jail or prison (out of 60,000 samples she supposedly tested) are in on probation or parole violations. not as much due process in those proceedings; any hint of drugs is enough to toss one in the can.

i'm not saying everybody involved is an angel. i'm just saying that things were ripe to allow this woman to wreck the lives of random strangers.

[kathy a.]

also: drug rehab is found a key to avoiding 3d strikes. like, duh. that has totally not been the focus on the war on drugs.

[nancy]

Re "dubious." There's a youTube clip recording of a righteous rant from Penn Jillette (I know ^^) about just this topic. The point he makes is that we've a President who, in his book, refers to his drug experimentation when he was young -- Jillette's rant goes into hyperdrive with the quote "a little blow" -- yet the full out War on Drugs on some goes unremarked by his administration. The selectivity of our drug war is of course an outrage. The voters of my state are going to pass a law in November that will legalize marijuana. Not sure what that means for those serving time where marijuana possession was a secondary offense that forced a judge to convict and sentence.

I didn't get the sense from reading what the tech is accused of, that she had before her information as to whether a sample was from an accused trafficker, user, mere suspect or more generally a hapless unlucky poor kid in the back seat during a traffic stop with a drug-sniffing dog at hand. What she did is more than sickening.

[kathy a.]

nancy -- the ENTIRE POINT of scientific testing is that the results be accurate and unbiased. and she just decided she wasn't doing it that way. end of story.

a person might guess that a very tiny amount was not a possible trafficker, and a very big amount was. in any event, one does not have to be a genius to guess that the sample came to the lab because someone was suspected of something. it would not be a surprise if additional info about what someone was suspected of doing was also sent along.

a good lab protocol would ensure that the lab people are sometimes sent fake samples, to see if they are really doing the testing and doing it right. that kind of test should look just like all the other samples sent along. evidently, that kind of check was not in place.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

There's no doubt that this sort of thing is just unacceptable. You can't allow it, can't condone it, and the penalty for the misconduct should be significant.

nancy,

I hope that in a second term that Obama might be a little more courageous regarding the war on drugs. In his heart he has to understand that it is bullshit -- not to mention the there but for the grace of God factor that most of us who have dwelt in the confines of elite educational institutions should feel -- places where our youthful hijinks were protected from interactions with law enforcement.

The war on drugs is a farce and a major misallocation of resources.

[Sir Charles]

I suspect that like with gay marriage, the society is ready to be led in a bolder direction with respect to the war on drugs.

[kathy a.]

penn's screed does not really address that states and the feds have different policies re drugs. the feds generally do not prosecute casual users. states do; and this bad lab tech messed with the lives of people charged in state court.

we do need to have more movement in the "war on drugs," on a lot of levels. i vote for more sane laws, and more focus on rehab. there remain in federal law, i think, some big divides in sentencing between powdered cocaine and rock cocaine; or at least, a lot of people ended up in worse shape for buying the cheap rock instead of snorting once at a higher-class party.

[nancy]

it would not be a surprise if additional info about what someone was suspected of doing was also sent along.

That would surprise me. I thought the principle underlying testing of this sort is that it be done blindly, which is what I meant by my earlier point. I'm assuming it was done blind and in so doing she was willing to inflict great harm randomly. (Selectively-targeted harm would be a distinctly different category, of course). I'm trying to imagine what her *motivation* could possibly have been. Did she get up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to taint samples that day? Or, here's my uneducated guess, in the vein of the cover-up is always worse than the crime -- mostly this was about distracting from her false credentials and she thought that higher test-positive rates would help divert anyone from reviewing her phony resume. Helping to *Win* the War on Drugs and all that, securing her employment and with expert witness and bonus pay added to her creds.

Not being an attorney, I can't say what the implications are here, but it seems to me they should be huge.

kathy -- Penn's screed is that all right, but I take his larger point -- the War on Drugs is a class warfare dragnet.

[oddjob]

I suspect that like with gay marriage, the society is ready to be led in a bolder direction with respect to the war on drugs.

At the least I expect this is true regarding marijuana. A proposal to legalize the use of medical marijuana will be on the Massachusetts ballot in November. I don't know whether it will pass or not, but a few years back a ballot initiative decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in Massachusetts (as far as the state is concerned).