In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration
What does "Republican" mean?
Recently someone asked on this blog why we "liberals hate Republicans." Speaking for myself, I do not for the record hate Republicans; I hate hypocrites who turn the meaning of words on their heads for power and profit, and carry the rest of the nation along like dolphins in a illegal trawler's fishing net: first to trick them to come near the boat, then to kill and eat them later, in recalcitrant defiance of every international law. According to my dictionary (in this case, Webster's 10th), republican as an adjective means "of, relating to, or constituting the one of the two major political parties evolving in the U.S. in the mid-19th century that is usu. primarily associated with business, financial, and some agricultural interests and is held to favor a restricted governmental role in economic life." So when we vote, if you pull the lever for a Republican, in theory you're pulling the lever for these principles, even if you're unsure about where the candidate actually stands on the issues. Most of us have been raised in one political party or another, and we tend to vote that way, even if we've never heard of the person we're voting for. In the case of national elections and primaries, one hopes that you may in fact be more familiar with what interests your candidate represents, although nowadays it's almost impossible to tell. To be informed, you must teach yourself to read between the lines, and that involves more than a passing acquaintance with realpolitik -- that is, politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives.
So during the last presidential election, Bush the conservative Republican candidate ran on a platform of states' rights, limited, scaled-back federal government, an economic plan that was purported to favor the middle class in the form of tax cuts and rebates, a repudiation of the value of international nation-building, and a strong belief in federalism on the Supreme Court, which defines itself as restricting so-called judicial activism, practicing instead a "constructionist" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which is another way of saying "a literal reading of" or "by the very words as written." So if you voted for Bush, you voted for these ideas.
I ask you now, Libertarians, Republicans, Undecideds, whoever voted in the last election whose candidate is now in office, did you get what you voted for? Or did you simply vote out the last bum, never mind what happened to your party in the meantime? And how many are voting the same way again? This isn't a question about who I hate; it's a question about who you voted for. Clinton betrayed his party; I didn't vote for him a second time. Bush betrayed your party. Will you vote for him again, anyway? What does that say about representation, and your affiliation with your party's values? Who's really being represented by this administration, whose interests are being served? That's what this is about. If you think I'm full of ideological shit, I'd like to know how your republican values are being served by this interesting tidbit that rolls back all your American freedoms:
The A.C.L.U. is contesting a provision of the [U.S. Patriot Act] law that allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to require telephone, Internet and other communications companies to provide basic information about their customers, including addresses and call records. The F.B.I. sends a subpoena, known as a national security letter, which includes an order barring the company from informing the customer of the investigation or discussing it with anyone.
The F.B.I. can acquire data on customers even if they are not suspected of terrorist activity.
The suit is brought by the civil liberties group and another plaintiff described only as a recipient of an antiterrorism letter. The A.C.L.U. said it was barred from providing any other information about the other plaintiff.
"It isn't even clear that a recipient can speak to a lawyer," said Ann Beeson, the associate legal director at the A.C.L.U. who is handling the case.
In recent days, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have vigorously defended the antiterrorism law, which was enacted in October 2001.
Almost nothing is known about the F.B.I.'s use of the subpoenas. The bureau has not said how many letters it sent or what the results were.
The A.C.L.U. argues that the F.B.I. letters are unconstitutional because they violate the due process rights of the businesses and people who receive them, and because the order prohibiting discussion of the investigation violates free expression rights. The group contends that the government should be required to seek approval from a judge before issuing a letter and recipients should have a way to question the order.
In other words, a watchdog group whose sole existence is to protect your civil liberties filed the suit under seal, otherwise "they would be in violation of the law the case was devised to contest."
That, my friends, is what Republican means in today's America, and I hope you know what you're voting for when you check that box, because your candidate is anything but candid.
- Michael 6:19 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed
Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Having trouble with some of the poor English
on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.
We have a little Store
you can visit.
Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come
see what we have.
We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Static Sky
Tin Foil Caps
The Free Speech Zone
The office of the independent blogger
Buzzflash
Tom The Dancing Bug
VerifiedVoting.org
Get Your War
On
This Modern World
Eschaton / Atrios
Daily Kos
meowpurrmeow
Contribute to America's Future
It is now more important then ever.
Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
more coming...
