Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Founders were Marxists! Who knew?

Reading a lively discussion on Atrios’ blog about the article linked in the post below, there is a debate about Bobo Brooks saying that “Most Americans do not have Marxian categories in their heads,” and it reminded me that the GOP seems unaware of the great mistrust of wealth inequality in this country going a little further back than old Karl (and I’m not talking about Rove.)

In an 1813 letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents… There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class… The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”

Now, Jefferson may have been dead for 40 years when Marx published Das Kapital, but apparently he was a Marxist, being a proponent of “class warfare” and all.

And old Teddy Roosevelt actually WAS a Marxist, because in 1906 he said, while arguing for a graduated inheritance tax and a progressive income tax:

“The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

Talk about class warfare! My God, didn’t he realize that he was cruelly punishing the most productive and hard working members of society who were just trying to keep their hard earned money so they could spend it on antiques and fine art and thus produce jobs for dead people?

Bobo tells us that Americans are just not receptive to arguments based upon “envy.” (Perhaps, although I certainly don’t see that Americans are lacking in that, any more than any other deadly sin. Bobo needs to take a good look around him at one of those DC cocktail parties if he wants to look into the eyes of the green eyed monster up close and personal.)

Kevin Phillips, with his usual insight, tells us in his book “Wealth and Democracy” and in a timely op-ed in yesterdays LA Times, that Bobo and the rest of the fat cat, investor class Republicans who are trying to press this line, are not only corruptly self-dealing in ways that Harding and his crew could only dream of, but they are badly misreading the political history of this nation. The Republicans have had their asses kicked repeatedly on this issue, but they can’t help themselves.

[…]

Historically, this is the great Republican Achilles’ heel — favoritism to the rich. The 2003 Bush tax cut proposal is the biggest, baldest example since the 1920s, when Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon decided that if Congress wouldn’t let him cut income tax rates enough he’d just start giving money back, to individuals and corporations alike, through Treasury refunds, rebates and remissions. Given this recurrent thread over eight decades of GOP fiscal history, White House and congressional Republicans may be setting up a dangerous issue for the 2004 elections.

[…]

Will the Democrats, who in recent years have baa-baaed around Washington like clueless sheep on an Idaho hillside, somehow turn and swing this issue like a political power saw? They show some movement, but they have displayed too little knowledge of their own history — Thomas Jefferson’s fear of the money power; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s bold use of the inheritance tax; Harry S. Truman’s lambasting of Wall Street — to assume that they can call up a memory of the Republican fiscal heritage, however vulnerable.

Yet, the vulnerability is potentially huge. As Bush fiscal policy suns itself in the mentality of Coolidge-Hoover-era Treasury Secretary Mellon, it disdains the better legacies of other GOP presidents. Dwight D. Eisenhower favored taxes on excess wartime profits; Richard Nixon signed legislation imposing a higher top tax rate on unearned, rather than earned, income; Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform insisted on equal top rates for earned versus stock-market income, eliminating the preference for capital gains. The first President Bush was the succeeding president who cried incessantly to restore capital-gains favoritism to investors. We should also mention Theodore Roosevelt, who called in peacetime for the progressive tax on large inherited fortunes that George W. Bush works to eliminate in wartime; and Abraham Lincoln, whose wartime taxes covered dividend income.

The Lincoln-Roosevelt-Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan viewpoint still commands a fair minority of the Republican rank and file, if not among its Bush-era leadership. The only major Republican voice speaking for the old party, however, is that of McCain, who said in December, “We probably need to have tax cuts directed at lower-income Americans, such as payroll-tax reductions. … [L]ow-income Americans in totality bear a much higher tax burden than wealthy Americans do; therefore, there is a growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans.” He scoffed at the notion that Bush’s tax policy embodies compassionate conservatism. McCain’s father and grandfather were four-star admirals; he learned a different tradition than that of the tax-shelter sale.

I live in California. What am I, French?

From David Brooks:

This is the most important reason Americans resist wealth redistribution, the reason that subsumes all others. Americans do not see society as a layer cake, with the rich on top, the middle class beneath them and the working class and underclass at the bottom. They see society as a high school cafeteria, with their community at one table and other communities at other tables. They are pretty sure that their community is the nicest, and filled with the best people, and they have a vague pity for all those poor souls who live in New York City or California and have a lot of money but no true neighbors and no free time

Oh yeah. Bobo Brooks knows all about real haaaartland Muricans.

I dun heard he’s a champeen cow tipper who kin toss a chew moren’ 50 feet in one spit.

Right in the middle of The Palms at lunch hour.

Carrie Nation tried this and it didn’t work

Talk Left links to an article about MADD that points up one of the dangers of do-gooding — it seems to have the unfortunate effect of turning genuine concern for the public good into self-righteous puritanism.

MADD is calling for the resignation of British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell. Why? Because a few days ago, Campbell, in Hawaii on vacation, was pulled over by police as he was returning from dinner with friends and charged with alcohol impaired driving. Campbell does not intend to contest the charge and issued an apology after his arrest.

Why should MADD call for the resignation of a public official who committed a minor transgression in his personal life, on his own time and in another country? Who made them the arbiter of personal conduct by a public official? Sure, they have a right to call for whatever they want, but in oppposition, we should be making fun of them, not debating them. Arguing won’t do any good–they are out of control. We believe their true agenda is prohibition, on moral grounds. They are far outside the field people associate them with–safety on the public highways.

If MADD has become an official adjunct of the morals police, I would say their work is done and they can pack up their briefcases and pick up a Bible. Moral suasion is one thing. Moral coercion with the strong arm of the state behind you is quite another. On this, and most issues of civil liberties, privacy and personal behavior, count me with the libertarians.

Strangely enough it turns out that, for many people, drinking in moderation is actually good for you. Ayez un autre verre de vin rouge et vivez !

A Moral Void

I was going to expand on my post about the internecine struggle within the administration for Junior’s empty soul by looking at the contrast between George Ryan’s principled decision to commute the sentences of every person on death row due to the incurable flaws of the justice system in Illinois, and the cavalier faith-based assumption of judicial perfection of the President of the United States.

Jeanne D’Arc already nailed it.

And the moral struggle implicit in this passage — I spent a good deal of time reviewing these death row cases. My staff, many of whom are lawyers, spent busy days and many sleepless nights answering my questions. — brought to mind George Bush’s contrasting refusal to engage in thought, let alone an honest moral reckoning, when he responded to an AP reporter who asked about the possibility of innocent people being executed in Texas: “If you’re asking me whether or not as to the innocence or guilt or if people have had adequate access to the courts in Texas, I believe they have.” A report had indicated that the death penalty in Texas was a knot of racial bias and incompetent defense, but Bush didn’t even think it was worth looking into the issue. The refusal to bother asking yourself ethical questions must be the worst form of laziness. As Governor Ryan put it, “Many people express the desire to have capital punishment. Few, however, seem prepared to address the tough questions that arise when the system fails. It is easier and more comfortable for politicians to be tough on crime and support the death penalty. It wins votes. But when it comes to admitting that we have a problem, most run for cover.” Cowardice, as well as moral sloth.

As I listened to the Sabbath Gasbag Shows this morning, I found my stomach churning in visceral reaction to the cold-hearted, unmerciful attitudes of the majority of conservatives on this

issue. So many were completely unmoved that the judicial system in Illinois was so corrupt and incompetent that 17 death row inmates have been exonerated. Conservatives, in fact, seemed to take the position that the larger miscarriage of justice is that Ryan commuted the death sentences of over a hundred inmates to the “soft on crime” sentence of life without parole — even though the system that put them there has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be so unreliable that 17 innocent people lived with a sword hanging over their heads for years — a fact that only the hard work of volunteers and students brought to light. This commutation “sends the wrong message,” and is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” despite the fact that the message that was already being sent is that the State of Illinois doesn’t care if it executes innocent people, so the baby in the bathwater had already drowned.

They seemed to have absolutely no empathy for the human beings, people who could be them or members of their family in a different life, who were caught in a horrible Kafkaesque nightmare in which despite their innocence the State brought it’s full power and authority to bear to kill them, refused to admit it when caught red handed and continued to defend its actions in the face of absolute proof of its corruption or error. Not only do they betray a singular lack of simple human compassion and heart, they betray the principles they fought for for over 50 years when they railed against the totalitarian Communist state and it’s rejection of individual rights.

Can we get down to brass tacks on this? When the judicial system is as arbitrary, corrupt and prone to error as the Illinois judicial system (along with most jurisdictions in America) it is immoral to entrust it with the ultimate punishment of death. And if one defends such systems in the name of the authority of the State, and believes that it is destructive to the State to question its infallibility, then one is a Totalitarian.

Many conservatives are flirting openly with Totalitarianism these days and their lack of empathy and moral judgment, even in the face of a gross miscarriage of justice, is indicative of a frightening will to power. All those years of studying Stalinism in order to defeat it seems to have evolved into a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in which the student has come to identify with the subject.

I think it is time for conservatives to take a hiatus from their Sabbath Gasbag assignments and check in with their priests. Because if they are unmoved when the State is willing to execute innocent people in their name, then their problems run much deeper than the moral relativism they love to pin on the left. They are operating in a moral void.

We know you weren’t getting ready for church…

(…so just what were you doing up this early on Sunday morning, young man?)

While we all know that Matt Iglesias is the philosopher king (and antichrist) of the left blogtopia, I think we sometimes overlook the fact that he is also really funny:

So has anyone ever noticed that at 5:30 AM EST on Sunday mornings Fox News has a show on hosted by a guy who looks virtually identical to Sean Hannity? Of course not — who would be watching Fox News at 5:30 AM EST on Sunday? Only crazy people. Still, it’s true, and it’s freaking me out.

“I do believe invading Iraq has become theological to certain people”

The buck stops…uh..somewhere. We’re not sure. It just happened. Somehow. Glenn Kessler continues with his inside look at the decision making process in the White House:

[…]

The previously undisclosed Iraq directive is characteristic of an internal decision-making process that has been obscured from public view. Over the next nine months, the administration would make Iraq the central focus of its war on terrorism without producing a rich paper trail or record of key meetings and events leading to a formal decision to act against President Saddam Hussein, according to a review of administration decision-making based on interviews with more than 20 participants.

Instead, participants said, the decision to confront Hussein at this time emerged in an ad hoc fashion. Often, the process circumvented traditional policymaking channels as longtime advocates of ousting Hussein pushed Iraq to the top of the agenda by connecting their cause to the war on terrorism.

With the nation possibly on the brink of war, the result of this murky process continues to reverberate today: tepid support for military action at the State Department, muted concern in the military ranks of the Pentagon and general confusion among relatively senior officials — and the public — about how or even when the policy was decided.

[…]

Zizka says fight Gingrichian propaganda with Gingrichian propaganda:

How to Write Effectively About Our Bold President

Bob Somerby has collected evidence that “bold” is the RNC buzzword-de-jour. In case you want to avoid monotony and put a little variety into your crank-outs, here are some useful synonyms:shameless, blatant, bald-faced, brazen, brassy, impudent, nervy, audacious, and cheeky. In the proper context the phrases “unimitigated gall” and “brazen effrontery” can also be used to good effect.

To those I would add presumptuous, imperious, overweening and authoritarian.

Sontag? Chomsky? Streisand?

Via Orcinus:

[…]

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a “justified” response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone:

“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McVeigh

You were expecting John Galt?

During Campaign 2000 we heard endless paeons to the vaunted CEO style of Governor Dubya. He wouldn’t “micro-manage” the way the feckless Clinton did. He would delegate to his trusted lieutenants and then leave them alone to do their jobs. There would be no all night brainstorming, no bull sessions, no long policy meetings to hash out differences and (Gawd forbid) no blue jeans. This would be an administration run like a successful business — visionary, focused and organized.

The Grown-ups were back in charge.

Having some experience in organizations, I was always struck by the Randian romanticism implicit in this view. I long ago realized that John Galt is seven parts Rhett Butler and 3 parts Ludwig von Mises and is, therefore, a tad unrealistic as a measure of human behavior. But even if one held fast to that gushing ideal, it was clear the George W. Bush was exceedingly short of leadership qualities, Galtian or otherwise.

So, the value of having these strong “division” chiefs to whom the president would delegate and “hold accountable” was set forth to answer the criticism that George W. Bush was too inexperienced and intellectually shallow to run the most powerful country in the world. We were to be simultaneously impressed with his humility in choosing far more qualified people than himself to advise him and comforted that these uber-advisors would give him the best guidance the country could provide. These broad-shouldered, square-jawed corporate superheroes would work in their separate spheres with singleminded ambition, motivated by their shared vision of a strong, wealthy compassionate nation, where empowered individuals would singlehandedly replace an ossified bureaucracy through sheer talent and hard work.

Needless to say, this is childish nonsense, whether as a fantasy of corporate ethos and practice or a reading of human nature in general. It is clear that the single most basic function of the U.S. President is choosing amongst the competing power centers of various advisors, competitors, ideologues and special interests whose egos, agendas, commitments and beliefs often conflict. It helps if the president is expansively intelligent, engaged in the issues, astute about people and therefore able to find his own vision and goals through the filter of the advice and pressure he receives from all quarters. But, even if the president is not a policy wonk or a politician with superior insight into power and human nature, he would at least need to have the superior executive instincts that surely would have manifested themselves long before a run for the Presidency — through long experience in business, the military or some other large organization.

Because, in the final analysis, the President is the one who has to decide when his square-jawed, broad-shouldered superheroes disagree. The proverbial buck actually does stop there.

Throughout the campaign, as George W. Bush assured us that George W. Bush was “a leader because he could lead,” (while others were quietly winking about the “grown-ups” keeping the frat boy out of trouble) I kept wondering,” What will George W. Bush do when his grown-ups disagree?” How does a man like this make such a decision? How will someone with so little experience with responsibility — someone who doesn’t have even have an interest in understanding the complexities of making life and death decisions — how does someone like this weigh competing interests, particularly since he doesn’t appear to have developed even a Reaganesque set of basic principles to which he can always refer for simple guidance?

That these questions were asked, much less so difficult to answer, proved unequivocally to me that this man was unqualified to be President. Nonetheless, he sits in the Oval Office and the answers to those questions are beginning to emerge.

He makes decisions based upon the most primitive, unrefined aspects of human nature, most often deciding instinctively in favor of the most combative, aggressive course of action until reality and necessity intrudes and he reverses course and follows the advice of his more sophisticated and rational advisors. It is not just that he takes a simple instinctive gut check after listening to competing views, it’s that his gut seems to always favor a show down over a negotiation even when it is obviously counter productive and dangerous. Unsurprisingly, his instincts are that of an insecure rich boy surrounded by “friends” who manipulate him with sycophantic ego strokes to his manliness — a troubled child whose father is constantly having to bail him out of trouble.

Of course, looking back we can see that when he snickered and callously mocked Karla Faye Tucker’s plea for clemency that we were dealing with an extremely immature and emotionally stunted individual. It was a spontaneous illustration of the man’s juvenile cruel streak and his instinctive rejection of compassion and complexity. It told us everything we needed to know. We were constantly asked to judge him on his great “heart” if not his intellect, to evaluate him on the basis of his “dignity” and “honor” and that is exactly what this country ought to have done.

Now, we must hope and pray (if we do that) that Colin Powell, the only responsible grown-up in the entire administration, continues to be able to extricate our President from his court of radical ideologues and his own dwarfed instincts in foreign affairs. On domestic policy, we must support the “grown-up” GOP moderates in the Senate (and keep the pressure on the Democrats) to mitigate the worst of the “bold” ideological Bush agenda.

Because, as shocking as it may be, if this cruel boy-man makes a decision it is almost always the worst possible one.

North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was greeted yesterday as a regrettable but expected development by a Bush administration deeply split over how to respond to the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

Some senior officials are counseling careful engagement, and others are urging complete isolation that would lead to the crumbling of the North Korean regime. The “very dramatic tensions” within the government have led to near paralysis in policymaking, one official said.

oh boy. Keep Junior away from Ken Adelman and the rest of the Korea Krips.

Via Talk Left

I’d like to propose a toast to Governor George Ryan of Illinois…

Let justice be done though the heavens fall.