The Importance of an Accurate Understanding of History

This article, by Ron Rosenbaum, about the current T.E.A. party movement's utter ignorance of 20th century history, is a must read. The article illustrates just how wrong, and dangerous, it is for us to allow the "Obama is a Fascist, Communist, Socialist, tyrant" rhetoric to go unchallenged. Rosenbaum accomplishes this by comparing Obama to the real McCoy's of 20th Century history.

I especially agree with Rosenbaum's summary conclusion and recommendation:

"The pamphlet made me think further about 'cult of personality' as a phrase in relation to the T.E.A. Party. It occurred to me that their cult of personality is a kind of perverse cult of Obama. They've made a graven image of alien evil out of him. Obama: communist, Muslim, Kenyan, Manchurian candidate, fascist, socialist, capable of all varieties of political malevolence. A supervillain, with superpowers. Who requires super lies to combat.

It's time to take on these superliars and stop them from spreading their poisonous ignorance."

Joe H.

Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey?

You think you've seen everything and then the "Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey" comes along. Christians never cease to amaze me. Perhaps I'll succumb to temptation and come up with a scheme to fleece the flock. It looks pretty easy and it beats practicing law! Anyone want to join forces on this?

By the way, for those of you who did't hear, the guy who wrote "The Hokey Pokey," Sir Yekoh Ekopy, died several months back. I understand it took a great deal of effort to put him into the coffin . . . they put his right hand in, they took his right hand out . . .

Joe H.

Epistemic Closure

This post by Anonymous Liberal succinctly sums up my frustration with political conversation in our current environment. I recall discussing Sarah Palin with a conservative blogger and his readers last Summer. As our discussion ensued, I noted, “[w]e’re not living in the same factual universe. In my universe, the facts clearly indicate that Sarah Palin is . . . let's just say "not so good." In your universe, she’s the epitome of virtue.”

How could we see her so differently, when the facts were readily available for all to review? Well, Anonymous Liberal gets it spot on - the modern conservative movement has achieved “epistemic closure.” Epistemic closure is the state of having shut out or dismissed all evidence and/or argument contrary to your chosen views and having retired behind a wall of confirming opinion and information. Anonymous Liberal is correct; the modern conservative movement has transformed itself into an army of Trumans (reference to the film “The Truman Show”).

I think this is the result of two factors. The first is the integration of Evangelicalism and the Republican Party. Evangelicals are world renowned for our epistemic closure. Anyone who has spent any time with us knows that’s how we roll. Not all of us, but the vast majority of us. And when millions of us went “all in” with the Republican Party, we’ve brought that intellectual style with us.

The man who most facilitated the fusion of epistemic closure and the conservative movement is George W. Bush - and not merely because that was his intellectual style. President Bush’s status as a Christian, combined with his heroic post 9/11 persona, created a personality cult. For a long time, conservatives worshiped him as the leader God sent us in times of peril. The problem was, President Bush was so manifestly incompetent and unfit for his duties, that it took Herculean effort by the faithful to avoid seeing the obvious. And let me tell you, you don’t continue to support a President like George W. Bush to the bitter end without a serious and sustained effort at epistemic closure.

The result? Conservatives perfected the art, and we’re seeing its fruit.

The second factor is that conservative policies have never been very popular. That doesn’t mean their policies are wrong headed. But it does mean that they could never be described accurately and pass on their merits. A great example of this is social security. Conservatives tried to enact a policy of partial privatization. They were confident that if partial privatization was enacted, it would create irresistible political pressure for full privatization.

They were, of course, right. If you doubt this, imagine what your attitude would be if you received monthly social security statements indicating that part of your contribution was being set aside into a growing fund that you personally owned, while your remaining contribution disappeared into a “black hole general fund” that was always “going broke.” Now, spread that feeling out among . . . well. . . just about everyone, and you’ll see how the politics would play out.

Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security. Of course, replacing a social insurance program with a system of private savings accounts would not “save social security.” It would get rid of it entirely. But because they couldn't propose this directly, they instead proposed a reasonable sounding policy that they understood would lead to the desired result. They then presented the reasonable sounding policy as their method of “saving social security.”

In other words, they lied to everyone about what they were trying to accomplish. I don’t blame them - try running for reelection on a policy of eliminating social security. But they lied nonetheless.

And this is just one example. They pretty much did this with every policy initiative they had. Go through the list and see for yourself. They disembled so much it became reflexive.

And now it has consumed them. Consider Mitch McConnell’s behavior this last week - claiming over and over that the Wall Street reform bill would institutionalize tax payer funded bailouts - when the bill would completely eliminate tax payer funded bailouts and replace them with an industry financed fund used by regulators to resolve (and end the lives of) failed investment banks. Or consider the utter nonsense about death panels. Or consider the numerous documented lies that Sarah Palin told, and continued to tell, even after they were exposed as lies. She can’t help herself.

Epistemic closure has one inevitable result - it renders people delusional. And that is where I think the modern conservative movement is. Let me be clear, I’m not criticizing conservatism when I say this - although I am generally liberal, conservative thought has a lot to teach us. But the modern conservative movement is simply out to lunch.

Joe H.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The dispute concerns Hastings’ Law School’s “all comers” policy regarding student clubs. The policy requires any officially recognized student club or association to allow any Hastings law student to join.

The Christian Legal Society (“CLS”), was an officially recognized association at Hastings' law school - a status which made it eligible to receive school funding and other benefits. But when Hastings’ CLS affiliated itself with the National CLS in 2004, the Hastings branch changed its bylaws to require voting members and officers to sign a statement of faith that precludes "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" and to pledge "to live their lives accordingly." In response, Hastings rescinded CLS’s official status on the grounds that CLS’s new requirement violated Hastings' non-discrimination “all comers” policy.

CLS sued in Federal Court, claiming that Hastings’ refusal to officially recognize CLS violated their constitutional right to freely associate. CLS lost at the District Court level, and lost again at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - the appellate court issued a terse two sentence long decision affirming the District Court’s ruling.

This is a difficult case. An “all comers” policy appears to preclude Hastings law students from forming internally coherent associations. If the Federalist Society, a perfectly legitimate group dedicated to promoting a specific legal philosophy, is forced to admit, or to allow to serve as officers, individuals who adamantly oppose that legal philosophy, can there truly be a coherent “Federalist Society?” Perhaps, if its opponents leave it alone. But what if they don’t - what if so many liberals joined the Federalist society that they took it over and changed its purpose? Sure, the real federalies can quit and form Federalist Society (2). But anyone can see where this is going.

I doubt this group sabotage is actually happening anywhere. But, at least in theory, an “all comers” policy exposes coherent and legitimate groups to this sort of mischief. More importantly, an "all comers" policy is contrary to the basic idea of association. Freedom to associate is also the freedom not to associate, or to disassociate. Groups of like minded or like purposed people cannot define themselves in terms of their mind set or purpose, without the right to exclude those with contrary minds or purposes. There is really no getting around this. Our constitutional right to associate is also a right to disassociate.

Hasting’s reply is sure to be, CLS is free to associate or not associate with anyone it pleases. But if CLS excludes people based on their religion (or lack thereof) or their sexual orientation, the School is free, based on sound non-discrimination policy, to not extend official recognition to CLS - which would give them access to student fee generated funds. In other words, the School is free not to officially associate with a group that discriminates based on religion and/or sexual orientation.

For what its worth - and you must think it worth something if you're reading this - I worry that a ruling in favor of CLS would be a huge step backwards in our discrimination jurisprudence. I see no way for the Justices to rule in CLS’s favor without essentially holding that religious beliefs trump the need to abide by non-discrimination policies. If the Court goes there, or anywhere near there, we’re going to see a lot of discrimination justified by theology, a legal strategy that our courts have hitherto soundly rejected.

Joe H.

National Day of Prayer Bru Ha Ha.

Apparently, some very prominent Christians are complaining that President Obama dissed the National Day of Prayer. Our nation began celebrating a National Day of Prayer during the Truman Administration. Until President George W. Bush came along, Presidents simply issued a declaration and urged citizens to pray for the nation. President Bush enhanced the celebration by holding very public ceremonies to which Christian dignitaries were invited. In a reversal of sorts, President Obama announced his decision to issue a proclamation and to “pray privately.”

The irony of these prominent Christians complaining about President Obama’s decision not to hold a public ceremony, but to instead issue a proclamation and to “pray privately,” is simply astonishing. Jesus pointedly criticized those who pray publicly to impress others. He specifically instructed his followers to “go into your closet and pray in secret.” George W. Bush held National Day of Prayer ceremonies for political purposes - to stroke the egos of evangelical leaders and maintain the political support of “people of faith.” He did this in direct defiance of Jesus’ explicit instructions regarding the political exploitation of prayer. For Christians to honor George W. Bush for this behavior, and to then criticize President Obama when he acts precisely as Jesus instructed, tells us a great deal about American evangelical culture - and it is not good.

Such complaints demonstrate that these “Christian” leaders care little about what Jesus actually taught us, but are greatly concerned that “Christianity” and Christians are paid their proper cultural homage. That is sickening.

Joe H.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield Knew They Were Innocent?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, senior aide to the Bush administration's initial Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has submitted a signed declaration in support of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, declaring that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield, all knew they were holding scores of completely innocent men at the Guantanamo facility, but intentionally kept them incarcerated for political reasons.

Declarations in a civil lawsuit are submitted "under penalty of law." That means they are equivalent to testimony given under oath. Declarations must also be based on personal knowledge. Given these requirements, this is an extraordinary charge for a former Bush administration official to level. Even more remarkable is the fact that Col. Wilkerson's charge has gone mostly unreported by the U.S. media.

With all of the other information revealed about the Bush administration's post 9/11 behavior, I am inclined to believe Col. Wilkerson. That doesn't mean we should summarily conclude that what he said is true. But the fact that these allegations were made under oath, by a high ranking official of the Bush administration, should be cause for investigation. Such conduct by our elected leaders threatens the very essence of our constitutional democracy.

What greatly concerns me is there appears to be a national conspiracy to ignore such allegations. No comments from the Obama administration. Little to no coverage of the story in the U.S. media - particularly in comparison to its coverage in rest of the world. No concern among the population at large - who probably doesn't know about the charge, but wouldn't much care if it did.

This is a bad sign for our form of government.

Joe H.

Diane Wood for the U.S. Supreme Court

Glen Greenwald has posted a comprehensive review of Seventh Circuit Court Justice Diane P. Wood's legal career, as well as her views on the rule of law. What Greenwald posted, including this inspiring law review article , written by Wood in 2003 - remember the national mood in 2003 and consider the professional risks she took in publishing this article at that time - convince me that she is an ideal choice for the Supreme Court.

Joe H.

Rooting Against a Policy?

Since Barack Obama became president, a number of conservative politicians and pundits have publicly stated that they want President Obama’s policies to fail. Now, I can understand why they would want President Obama to fail - that is the surest way back to political power. But why would anyone want a “policy” to fail?

It is one thing to believe that a policy is wrongheaded and will, indeed, fail. It is quite another thing to want that same policy to fail. Wanting a policy to fail reveals one’s love of an ideology, irrespective of its truth. If a conservative government enacts a policy that I, as a liberal, hope fails, I am declaring that I am not interested in the truth. I am so attached to my current beliefs that I am rooting for them, literally. I am rooting against alternative beliefs.

This is a very interesting phenomenon. Rooting for a belief to be true instead of wondering if it actually is true.

This can’t be a good development.

Joe H.

Nebraska and Abortion - UPDATE

Nebraska has passed a new law banning abortions after a fetus becomes 20 weeks old - the shortest time period of any law in the United States. What is fascinating about the law is that it is premised on alleged evidence that a fetus can feel pain by the time it reaches 20 weeks.

I don’t know if a fetus is capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks. But if a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, I’d be hard pressed not to favor such a law.

Some background. I’ve long agreed with Ronald Dworkin, who argued that the “right to life” argument and the “sanctity of life” argument were distinct and relied upon very different moral concepts. Most of us believe, for good reason, that human life is, in some way or other, “sacred,” at every point in its existence. We also believe, for that reason alone, that human life at every stage should be afforded a certain degree of respect - although Jesus himself illustrated several times that what is sacred is not necessarily inviolable, if other important values are at stake.

But it is the “right to life” argument that does all the heavy lifting with respect to shaping what the law ought to be. If a fetus is a rights bearing entity - a “someone” - then she is entitled to the protection of the law, just like everyone else. Everyone agrees, and has always agreed, that it should be illegal to murder human “persons,” or “someones.” The disagreement has always centered on when fetal life achieved that status.

Pro-life proponents - those who favor banning abortions - answered, quite implausibly, “at every stage of its existence.” Pro-choice proponents -those who favor legal abortions during the early stages of pregnancy, answered, more plausibly, albeit vaguely, “at some later point.” Disagreement among pro-choice proponents concerned where to draw the line.

But it seems undeniable that to feel pain, an entity would have to have some degree of mental life. And I think a level of mental life enabling pain would make 20 weeks old fetuses “someones.”

Assuming the premise is true - and 20 week old fetus’ really can feel pain, I’m with Nebraska.

Joe H.

I guess the science is not settled on the "pain at 20 weeks" question.

UPDATE:

I'm Back - Judge Vaughn Taylor's Ruling

Sorry for the long absence. It was precipitated by a couple of things. I was very sick for nearly two weeks. But I have also been busy planning another endeavor that I will reveal in a few weeks.

I did want to comment briefly on Judge Vaughn Taylor’s ruling in In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation that President Bush’s electronic eavesdropping without warrants was illegal. The first thing to be said is that the government’s spying on the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. was not merely “illegal” in some benign sense. It was criminally felonious .

The second, and more important thing that needs to be said is, now that a sitting federal judge has determined, in effect, that the Bush administration committed numerous felony offenses, what are we going to do about it?

I anticipate that the answer will ultimately be, “nothing.” And that’s a prospect I find alarming. If we fail to summon the national will to hold our leaders accountable for judicially determined criminally felonious behavior, we are saying that our leaders are not bound by the law. That is about as un American a position as we can take.

Joe H.