Archive for

Palin Resigns Amid Speculation

Citing a desire to do good outside of politics, Governor Palin has announced that she will resign, effective at the end of the month.

It would be curious, indeed, if this were a preface to a national run. Indeed, her language seems to disclaim the other possibility, that she’s preparing a run for the Senate. But this announcement is too big to be explained by her stated reasons. Let the speculation begin.

Stream of consciousness speech follows:

Carnival of the Liberals #94: The Ultimate (?) July 4th Edition

Sadly, by “ultimate,” I mean “potentially last.”

Leo, our glorious leader, is having trouble finding hosts. And, the Carnival is suffering from the general malaise which has, lately, plagued the middle-tiers of the progressive blogosphere. Although there’ll always be a place for blogs like Kos, ThinkProgress, Wonkette, TPM, Crooks & Liars, etc., a number of small and mid-range blogs (like this one) found their voices in the day-by-day outrages of the Bush administration and, with his fading, have seen their traffic fade as well.

This blog will not close today, nor anytime soon. But others have, and still more have stopped submitting. So, it’s time to take stock. I strongly believe that there is a place for mid-range blogs like this one, and those whose submissions power each “Carnival of the Liberals.” We fill niches that generalist blogs like the much-loved powerhouses noted above cannot, or do not. As an aggregation tool, then, I find Carnival of the Liberals indispensable. But if there is another way to bring our voices together, perhaps we should explore it, or rediscover this one. Hosts, frequent readers, please leave your thoughts on this thread.

That said, I give you this latest edition, premised on the basic question, “what does the American promise mean to you?” As July 4th approaches, and the nation’s 233rd year begins, we owe it to ourselves to remind each other and the American populace at large that liberal ideals, like progress and equality, are what brought this nation into being, and those same liberal ideals are what sustains it. Like our founding generation, we embrace the future, rather than shirking from it. So, what does America mean to you?

1. TRUTH. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court continued its move rightward by sharply restricting a defendant’s right to introduce potentially exculpatory DNA evidence. How can we as a nation defend justice to a watching world, when we refuse to seek it out ourselves? (via the always excellent “Scientist, Interrupted”)
2. COMPASSION. When we rush to condemn missionaries, we’re missing some of the point; but when the rest of the world lauds them, they’re missing the entire damn thing. (via Greg Laden)
3. HONESTY. Sex ed works. Abstinence doesn’t. The anti-gay lobby lies about both, and more. These are the facts. (via “Winter Harvest”)
4. INTEGRITY. “Socialized” health care is neither socialized, nor… wait. It is health care. And good health care, at that! Don’t let people misrepresent the experience of other countries to the contrary. (via “Staring at Empty Pages”)
5. FREEDOM – EVEN TO ERR. In the battle against oppression, we should avoid becoming the oppressors, ourselves. Hence, don’t ban the burka — but don’t encourage a submissive, anti-feminist mindset, either. (via Russel Blackford)
6. COMEDY. God bless any nation that permits – even encourages! – the mockery of its leaders. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh. In limerick form. (via “Mad Kane”)
7. ACTIVISM. When we celebrate the birth of the gay rights movement, we’re celebrating what was, essentially, a riot. Take from that what you will. (via Greta Christina)
8. FAMILY VALUES. Never let anyone tell you that “liberals” hate “family values.” (via the inimitable PalMD, leading, as always, by example)
9. MORALITY. Real morality compels acceptance, not suspicion and hate. (via “TUIB Guy,” now with moar Pres. Bartlet!)
10. THE RULE OF LAW. Strange, isn’t it, that “judicial activism” is a virtue, not a sin, when engaged in by conservative jurists? (via… me!)

I hope this isn’t the last Carnival of the Liberals. We’ve done excellent things together, all submitters and bloggers, past, present, and future. Now is not the time to stop. We won an election, yes, but as a great man once said — “break’s over.” Get back to writing, hosting, and submitting!

And, as always -

A very happy Fourth of July!

We the Capitalists? The Right Rediscovers the Rule of Law, Eight or Eighty Years Too Late

Across the conservative side of the internets – the part that looks more like a dumptruck, and less like a series of tubes – you’ll see frequently corny, and always flamboyant homages to the Constitution. Or, what they think is the Constitution.

These expressions are remarkable as much for their spontaneity (where were these “scholars” from 2000 to 2008?), as for their continuing selectivity. For example, you’ll never see TexasDarlin, Glenn Beck, etc., wax poetic over the Equal Protection Clause. No: their outrage is confined specifically to the Constitution’s economic implications, and always linked to anger over perceived “socialism.” It is altogether fitting, as the Fourth of July approaches, to examine these purportedly constitutional arguments, in some depth.

Most often, when right-wing bloggers invoke constitutional values, it’s in connection with (1) the bailout, (2) states’ rights viz. the bailout, (3) the defense of capitalism generally, (3) the “natural born citizen” clause, (4) the Tenth Amendment, or (5) judicial review. I’ve treated the last three points elsewhere (follow the internal links for more). But the theory that the Constitution enshrines a libertarian, Ron Paul-like notion of wholly unregulated capitalism deserves a rebuttal.

Before I start, I must note that neither I nor any proponent of “liberalism” or “progressivism” have any objection to capitalism. Who could? Competitive markets are the very reason for American hegemony, be it military, scientific, or (obviously) economic. That said, the American experience of the 19th century flatly rebuts the theory that unregulated capitalism is the solution to American problems. We need the FDIC; we need the Sherman Antitrust Act; we need the Securities and Securities and Exchange Acts. Period.

Nor does the Constitution require completely free markets. The Constitution is not an economic document. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it enacts neither Spencer’s Social Statics nor Adams’ Wealth of Nations. See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Indeed, the Constitution’s bulwarks against “socialism” are fairly light indeed, stemming from several basic concepts, now narrowly construed, rather than any overarching legal command.

First, Congress does have textual support for near-plenary control over the American economy. The drafters of the Constitution solved the most basic flaw of the Articles of Confederation by granting Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.” U.S. Const, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court construes this power broadly – maybe too broadly – but no-one can seriously doubt Congress’ ability to regulate banks, securities, and the basic elements of the American economy. Compare Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) with U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Second, conservatives can claim that progressive taxation, and government spending, approximate or equal American “socialism,” in contravention of basic constitutional values. This is false. Congress is explicitly granted the power to lay taxes and spend money to promote the general welfare, with very few real restrictions. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; but see South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Combine this with the previous point, and you’ve got the “Bailout Act” – done. Admittedly, the administration and internal veto provisions of the Act do pose some dangers to a formalistic model of the separation of powers, but it’s not clear who would have standing to challenge these violations. And, in any event, this nuanced and intelligent point has yet to be raised by any of the bailout’s opponents.

Nor does the Due Process clause vest in economic actors a right to be free from government intrusion. There was a time when it was just that kind of a safe haven. See Lochner, 198 U.S. at 45. Those days are over, so long as government regulation is “rational.” See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937); see also U.S. v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Welfare provisions like minimum wage laws are here to stay, and there’s nothing “socialist” about them.

Indeed, the Constitution mentions private property only twice in the entire document – first, in the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which nonetheless suborns property rights to the general welfare in some key situations, see Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), and the Contract Clause, which prevents the government from “impairing the Obligations of Contract.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1. But this protection, too, is more illusory than real, and also can be defeated by a sufficiently compelling public need. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934). Socialism!!

At the root of the far-right’s sudden rediscovery of the Constitution is the idea that the Constitution sharply curtails government action on matters economic, or always prefers private property over public need. This may have been true in 1920. It is no longer true today, and we are better for it. The Constitution has changed over time, from a document that protected private property above all else, to a document that, today, protects minorities from legislative caprice and the “tyranny of the majority.” There’s nothing wrong with that. The Founders never intended to cryogenically freeze 1789′s America. Rather, they meant America to grow, within limits, beyond which the current administration has emphatically not transgressed.

[W]e must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding. McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 407 (1819).

What Passes for Patriotism: Far-Right Reinvents the Declaration of Independence

Did you know that democracy is a lie foisted upon us by Hitler (and Obama), which the Declaration of Independence recognized by consciously implementing a top-down theocracy? Or that President Obama – the man we elected as President – is basically the reincarnation of King George III? Literally?

No, neither did I. Thanks, American Thinker! Remarkable: when we Democrats lose an election, we sometimes question the vote. As in, the totals. When these guys lose, they question voting. As a concept.