Where is the line?

<applause>

So - abortion, environment, "homeland security", pre-emptive strikes - what else do we have that is "liney"?

You could probably add immigration, labor, economics, education and a host of others to the list.

Max, how can you say that - after all Blatham is a forum Moderator & Enforcer (or whatever)? Are you suggesting that he has been unduly criticizing posters here (as opposed to the ideas they express); been arrogant and condescending; and short on the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that might justify such attitudes?

fishin

I think we need to isolate or clarify how this particular administration might be different than previous administrations, Republican or Democrat. For example, I don't think that economic philosophy/polices (or education, labor, etc) are greatly different than under Reagan or Bush Senior. But on some of the issues mentioned above (eg., separation of church and state, policies of hegemony/pre-emption) new territory is entered.

Change of policy and law is no great problem necessarily, of course. But large or widespread changes, particularly if controversial, should be announced in an open fashion and should be proposed such that debate by the citizenry can be effectively joined. If such controversial and important changes are kept low-profile and become instantiated into law or into organizational structures without sufficient debate, then there is arguably a democracy problem.

I think that this is precisely what is happening. And I think I understand at least partly why. Those who have kept up even minimally with conservative writing over the last decade or two, see a number of common notions being forwarded. One very clear theme that emerges is the notion that things went horribly bad in the sixties. Sexual promiscuity, disrepect for state institutions, weird hair and clothes, drugs, breakdown of family, homosexuality, access to abortion, scientism (Darwain/atheism) and a variety of emasculation resulting from losing the Viet Nam war.

These conservative voices who have come to believe this version of reality, and who have been forwarding it, are now in ascendancy in the party (earlier, perhaps on another thread, I posted a quote of Bush deriding 'the sixties' for something or other). The hope seems to be that they might erase the changes or effects of the sixties.

Of course, looking back at a more 'successful' period and seeking to re-establish policies from that era isn't always a bad thing. But it is a rather different thing to reinstitute something like a system for filing manilla folders than it is to mandate a return to past values and worldviews, not least because the second isn't susceptible to objective measurement or valuation.

And what sort of authority might be democratically necessary for such an endeavor? One would think a very large majority election PRECEDED BY notification to those voters that such an endevor would follow electing that party who proposes it.

So, if no such electoral result occurred, and if the project itself was not forthrightly announced, where does such an endevor gain its justification in the minds of those rolling up their sleeves to get it accomplished? Being right.

What's going on is really almost too funny, except that it isn't funny. Mandate has a substitute now...self-righteousness.

blatham - To some extent that may be true but IMO, there is a need to break down what is happeneing simply because there is an excess of misinformation. To see if there is a movement and where that movement is you have to look at all the pieces. I've seen several hunderd posts on both Abuzz and here on A2K pointing to criticism of Bush for pretty much every action he takes. I went through one thread on Abuzz where the originator was clamoring about how Bush was destroying civil liberties via Executive Orders at an unprecedented level yet when I went and looked at each and every one of those executive orders that were listed he had done nothing more than republish the EXACT SAME Executive Orders that Clinton had signed before him. Most of them had been in place since the Ford and Carter Administrations. How can anyone say the line moved there when he reitterated exactly what was already there? The hype isn't all coming from the Bush Administration. There is plenty of it coming from his opponenets too. I would also point out that the list of problems you mentioned weren't fabricated by the Conservatives in isolation. That very same list is what the Liberal contingent used to justify increases in funding for all sorts of social programs to combat them. If there were things that were going wrong with society the Liberals made awful good use of them in expanding their objectives...

You also said:

I would remind you that many of the items that people have raised issue with were never put in place by legislation or through any public forum of any type. They were ordered by the courts via judicial fiat with no public debate or input and in the most undemocratic means available. In many cases those very courts overruled the laws that were put in place via public discourse.

But, all of that changes the discussion here considerably from "Are the lines moving" to "How are the lines being moved" and IMO, the first question has to be answered before the latter is relevant.

fishin...I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here or what the relevance might be, unless it is just 'everybody gets some things wrong so don't pick on Republicans'.
Here, surely, you are talking about abortion? That is perhaps another conversation - what is the proper relationship between the judicial and executive bodies, and of course there are reasons why the judicial body has the powers it does have, including over lower state courts. But let's leave that question for elsewhere. If you are talking about abortion, then it won't be the case that court rulings go contrary to public opinion where access has been supported by the courts.

fishin

And as to your last sentence...I don't know how we might discern whether significant 'lines' are being crossed unless we point to instances, and various instances have already been raised.

Let's leave economic policies aside as they have the fingerprints of mad mathematicians on them and will not help clarify this question.

Would you grant that this administration has two new and significant external affairs policy changes in hegemony and pre-emption? Please remember that Bush himself said this at West Point, so the fact they are policies isn't really in question, just whether they are new and whether they have been adequately discussed and debated by the nation.

Would you grant that internal social traditions related to separation of church and state or in the works? Would you grant that a move is afoot to fill judicial positions with pro-life candidates? Would you grant that such pro-life values are increasingly being set as necessary conditions for US aid abroad? Would you grant that the evangelical wing is more powerful within this administration than in any other in the history of your nation?

The relevance is to your earlier statement: "One very clear theme that emerges is the notion that things went horribly bad in the sixties. Sexual promiscuity, disrepect for state institutions, weird hair and clothes, drugs, breakdown of family, homosexuality, access to abortion, scientism (Darwain/atheism) and a variety of emasculation resulting from losing the Viet Nam war.

These conservative voices who have come to believe this version of reality, and who have been forwarding it, are now in ascendancy in the party..."

Quite clearly they weren't the only one's that believed that version of reality...



Abortion is but one issue. The courts also gave us forced busing, Affirmative Action, issues of church/state, labor law, and a host of other things that people are now talking about (again) in light of the Bush Administration.



You can't compare a court ruling of 30+ years ago to current public opinion. Public opinion is what created the anti-abortion laws (through the legislative process) to begin with. The courts ruled those laws in valid. Whether public opinion would support the creation of those laws again today is entirely seperate from what it was when the courts made their precedent setting rulings...

fishin
Please don't insist these positions are equal. A social change can occur, but that surely doesn't mean any and all views of it and responses to it are exactly the same. If two kids get bad report cards, those two dads might think and respond in very different ways. One dad may think that his son is possessed of demons and thus the kid must be beaten for two hours with fragrant cedar boughs.

If you don't differentiate between responses, there is nowhere to go in this discussion other than to flat out deny there is any reason to have it. And that entails that any set of polices are the same as any other, that any administration is the same as any other. Or perhaps, that this administration couldn't be making big mistakes...simply because they are Republican, who are usually right about things.

The question here is whether THIS PARTICULAR administration is in some important ways unique. Surely, it must be.

And that is exactly what I have been pushing for. However, the first step is defining exactly what is unique about this administration and in the case of politics the fact that one side pushes in one direction doesn't make it unique UNLESS the other side hasn't done equeal pushing in the other direction.

You've made several staments about this administration in this thread and you seem to want to avoid any particular issue and just say "This administration is different!" but you haven't provided any example where this administration has acted in a way that is unique. You've mentioned several items thusfar and backed them with rhetoric, not fact. It's ok to say that Conservatives beliveve something but when presented with points where Liberals believed the very same thing it's suddenly somehow different. Your math isn't adding up here. You can't have the discussion and simply discount anything the side you prefer did just so that you can show the other side did something unique. If both sides did the same thing then is ISN'T unique. In this particular discussion, if any past administration did it then it's NOT unique.

The tactic of my side did but I agree with it so that's ok but your side did it and that's not ok doesn't wash.

fishin' would you agree that the current administration has, more than typically, advanced the agenda of the religious right?

Yup!

yeah, me too

See? It's not so hard to agree! lol

i may not always be right but i am often wrong

fishin

If you look back, you'll find I have pointed to specifics both in foreign policy and in internal policy. Please pick one of each (your choices) and we'll take those up. The question will be...is this administration attempting to bring about change without adequate public appraisal and/or without sufficient mandate.

OK blatham.. Lets play with separation of church and state and policies of hegemony/pre-emption. We'll see where you take them...

How is THIS administration UNIQUE in it's handling/policies with these issues?

fishin....you poor sod...the attractive blow-up 'intimacy companion' I set in the candlelit window of the guest house will lead you to your very doom this night. "Olga" has teeth.

Hegemony/Pre-emption

The easy one is the external policies of pre-emption and hegemony. I'll trust, first of all, that you've read the appropriate information (as in Bush's speech at West Point or the numerous other analyses) such that you acknowledge these policies are driving present policy.

Both policies are unique to this administration as foundations or givens for foreign engagement. Either one, by itself, is deeply questionable. To get perspective on how questionable, simply place the name of any other country into the equation...the government of South Korea reserves the right to pre-emptively make war upon any other country it deems 'evil'. Or, how about China. We, the government of the longest and greastest civilization in the history of the earth deem that we alone are best suited to bringing happiness to the world and thus think it prudent and morally obligatory to ensure that no other state might rise to cause trouble in the world and diminish the rightful joy due all men.

Church and state

Let's acknowledge first of all that church/state issues have arisen both in the courts and in public discourse coincident with two other phenomena - the internal organization and political engagement of the evangelical community, and the rise of that group's influence within the Republican Party. (As a relevant anecdote, a dozen years ago I met the fellow who had been contracted to write the organizational software for the Moral Majority. He said, as he passed me a chubby joint, "I hate these guys, and I've armed them really really well...but I needed the money.")

I don't think you'll contest that the last ten or twenty years have witnessed a distinct increase in attempts to bring 'creation science' into classrooms, to forward biblical mention in schools (prayer,etc), and to place christians on local school boards. Or, to limit access to abortion through judicial appointments, attempts to change law, and through organized efforts towards placing christians on local hospital boards (I'll leave the fringe element out of this).

And, I don't think you'll contest that the evangelical community has become deeply influential in the Republican Party. Enough traditional Republicans have themselves spoken to this issue.

I also doubt you will contest here (after acknowledging dys above) that this administration is more deeply influenced by this evangelical element than any administration previously.

So, what threat to separation of church and state? Read any legal brief put forward by the ACLU, or Jewish or Muslim interested party, as to where the constitution is in danger. What, for example, would be the response of this part of the Republican party to a rotation of spiritual beliefs and symbols in the operation of the state? For example, if a fellow stood up in Congress and brought forward for discussion a bill which would change US currency for one year to "In Vishnu We Trust", then the following year it would become "In Hubbard We Trust"?

The 'freedom' being pushed for is NOT freedom of religion, it is freedom for ONE religion. There's the danger. It is precisely this danger, the monopolization of power and influence within the nation which the framers had seen more than enough of in Europe and which they wanted desperately to avoid here.

The separation of church and state issue is definitely a "liney" one. I think there's a good discussion to be had on it too. Is there already a discussion going on regarding it, or should I start one. (I'd like to get into the details, and know this is not the place for it.)