Friday, September 29, 2006

The Editors

Over at The Poor Man, The Editors is angry that a whole lot of people are now blaming the Democrats for torture. That's an odd category error for the writers on such a smart and funny site, but my respect for Poor Men, one and all, compels me to make a correction.

We do not blame the Democrats for the toture and anti-habeus bill, we blame them for not opposing it. The supposedly exculpatory statistics printed in The Editors' post achieves the opposite of its intended effect, which is presumably to show that 70-80% of Democrats did indeed vote against the bill, therefore the party is unified. Except that almost 100% of Republicans voted for it! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get for, lord help us, "emphasizing divisions among Republicans." You get 97% of them in the House and 98% of them in the Senate (including one curious abstention or absence) voting to deprive Americans of a right enjoyed before any gringo but a Viking had even stepped on the soft soil of the New fucking World. How do you like thems apples?

We blame the Democrats for being "a worthless passel of cowards . . . [who] allowed a debate on changing the soul of the country to be conducted intramurally between the Torture Porn and Useful Idiot wings of the Republican Party."

We blame the Democrats because they could band together to "save Social Security"--to preserve a decades-old government pension program that doesn't even do what it's intended to do, which is keep the elderly from poverty (but at least they can eat shitty food instead of cat food!)--but they can't hold it together for the defining moral debate of our time. They can preserve a 50-year-old entitlement but they can't preserve a basic right of free peoples with roots going back nine centuries to the writs of Henry II. I don't think that's unfair sniping. In fact, I think it's very fair. It displays all the callow electoralism of the party, which would cut out its own guts if it meant another senescent lawn-bowler would shuffle to the polls and pull the D lever, but sits idly by while McCain and Warner play Dogberry and Verges all over Washington.

Now we're asked to forgive--worse, to applaud them because Barack Obama gave a speech and because they marshalled 33 votes against the most craven and venal political act of our times. The Editors throws up his hands:

From our history: the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the internment of Japanese-Americans. Now the McCain Torture Bill - and this, too, shall pass.
You don't have to be Davey Hume to know that just because you see the sun rising every morning, that ain't hardly proof it's gonna rise again tomorrow. Who will roll back the torture vote? Who will disavow the evisceration of habeus protections? The Democrats will not win, and if they do, they will not do it.

If we continue to reward them, they will never learn.

12 comments:

maximo said...

i'd point the kos-suckers to your site, but i'm afraid they'd vex you to no end.

bobbo said...

Yes, the point is that the way Democrats cower in fear of someone calling them afraid would not change if they had the majority in both houses. Just like the Republicans, every vote, no matter how vital the issue, is a political calculation. So as long as the prospect of Another Attack totally controls the discourse, we will continue to get more and more odious legislation in the name of "National Security." What we need is, not just leaders who are not afraid, but an American people that is not afraid. How does that happen? I suspect we need the former before we can have the latter. What are the odds?

andrew said...

The problem is, when you blame "The Democrats", you throw the baby out with the bathwater. We know full well who split with the party to support torture, by name:

Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.)*, Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)

And we know full well who did not, and we know they were trying - under circumstances contrived to be as unfavorable as possible - right up to the last minute. To blame people who actually did the right thing is completely counter-productive.

And that quote is very much out of context, as I'm sure you know:

"From our history: the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the internment of Japanese-Americans. Now the McCain Torture Bill - and this, too, shall pass. Now, whether it will pass into a shameful memory, or be overshadowed by still greater outrages on every alternate September, remains to be seen."

Come on. Your point is kind of lame, but there's really no need to make it lamely.

andrew said...

"Andrew" s/b "The Editors", btw.

IOZ said...

Andrew,

Thanks for stopping by. I didn't feel that the second sentence contextualized the above quote. It seems to me to contradict it: one one hand to say that this too shall pass, on the other hand to say that its passing in any meaningful sense remains to be seen. I didn't intend to portray you as a naif by ommission--sorry if you feel that way.

My point, in any case, is that I think you far overcredit the dems for their opposition, or for their capacity to institute change even upon assuming majorities in one or both houses. To believe that a party which acquires power by standing aside in so crucial a moral debate in order to avoid charges of "softness" will, upon victory, reverse course and take a hard line belies everything that we know about politics. (And yes, I say that with some self-deprecation, since I'm the one waving the Hume joke around.)

I understand your frustration with those of us who truly believe the Democratic Party to be an un-redeemable institution, and I understand your anger at those of us who evangelize for abandoning the party. I can only say that I feel the situation in this country to be graver, older, and more systemic than you.

In any case, I do very much enjoy The Poor Man, and I'm gratified you stopped by, even to smack at me.

Cheers,
IOZ

andrew said...

Oh, you're no fun any more.

Look, all I want is to replace "The Democrats" with the names of the actual Democrats who did it (plus all Republicans but Chafee). And, believe me, I understand your anger completely - it was my reaction, too, for the first 12 hours or so after the vote. It was a terrible thing that happened, and I don't know if it will ever be made right. But to deal with a problem, you have to understand the problem, and the problem is not "the Democrats". Most Democrats did the right thing, and some of them did more than that. Punishing them will really, really send the wrong message. Fuck Lieberman, fuck Salazar and the rest of them, but Reid, Kerry, and even Biden did good. If you want to see them do it again, stand by them.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

The actions of the democrats -- all of them -- are worth pointing out. What's the point of being a part of a political party if you can't leverage it into unity on something as fundamental as being against torture.

The Democrats did not do enough. The bill passed. Even confirmed lunatics like Nelson and HolyJoe should have been brought in line on this. The democrats failure belongs to each Senator and Representative jointly and severally and to the party leadership.

IOZ, you've won me over. I had been willing to support democrats as 'the lesser of two evils.' No more. I will not vote for the democratic incubent in the Senatorial or Congress races this November. My vote will go to a Green or Independent candidate.

It is insane to think that by electing these same spineless twerps to congress we can change something, anything.

Anonymous said...

For one of them cosmopolitan Jews, you sure have a lot of Sam Clemens in you. But just as we survived his Gilded Age, we'll survive this.

I say, with Sandburg, "The People, Yes".

You merely say, "The people, oi vey".

youknowwho

Anonymous said...

BTW, there's a post waiting to be written which plays on "Barack Obama" and "barracks emperor". I can't think of anyone who could write it better than you, so I'm just paying it forward here.

cavanaghjam said...

Small quibble - it's "habeas", not "habeus".

IOZ said...

Cananagh, yes. One of my great admirers (and needlers, of course, youknowwhoyouare) here once accused me, probably rightly, of being the world's most verbose dyslexic.

I do spell terribly in both French and English. Latin, alas, I haven't the spellchecker for!

Anonymous said...

Now each team has to create the best possible wedding dress out [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html[/url] and a multiple-deck game. However, both these types are relevant [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/ralph-lauren-outlet.html]Ralph Lauren Outlet[/url] that any of these things would be a problem or a hurdle for you, [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html[/url] such a level is to savor the winnings you take home. Now you will
21. Over 21, a hand goes bust. Cards 2 to 10 as worth their number, [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/ralph-lauren-outlet.html]Ralph Lauren Outlet[/url] candlelight for jack-o-lanterns is a Votive candle placed in a [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]christian louboutin outlet[/url] arrived in Port Royal around 1660 in order to take advantage of [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/tory-burch-outlet.html]tory burch outle[/url] chips in the same place. While making a bet, you have to put your
amount of vegetables and fruits employed in Jack port LaLanne [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]christian louboutin outlet[/url] smack on its side, the candle shouldnt move from its position. [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]christian louboutin outlet[/url] even more enjoyable when you start winning, by using an effective [url=http://www.journalonline.co.uk/christian-louboutin-outlet.html]christian louboutin outlet[/url] Tony: What are the most common types of legal questions that