They say birth is a bitch ... so, though she never had one, perhaps Condi Rice used the right metaphor when talking about the "birth pangs" of change in the Middle East. OTOH, she was talking not about pain and such, but bloodshot and horror. Now, babies can be a horror -- my teething is still mentioned (wah wah) -- but that might be an unfortunate metaphor. Then again, maybe like stem cells, these were going to die anyway. Wait ... they generally would not die in this fashion, are actual fully formed human beings, and President Bush was against stem cell funding. Something about them not being spare parts or something. I guess, with apologies, he is a believer in foolish inconsistency.
John Dean has added another useful book to the "how things are so f-up, Bush edition" cottage industry. He was on C-SPAN yesterday, or rather a taped appearance was, and I do wish he would have fully answered a question many have: don't these people know they won't be in office forever? Snarky election skullduggery comments aside, it is a serious matter. Still, one answer, other than short-sighted immediate gratification, is that they sort of think they will. After all, except for "unfortunate" breaks like Carter and Clinton (he who shall not be named), they did control the presidency since 1969. Likewise, the Democrats controlled Congress for decades, so why shouldn't Republicans? Sure, things are different these days, but it might influence their thinking.
Dean speaks of the authoritarian personality of conservatives. As GG notes, psychoanalysis and social science evidence is not as convincing as the actions themselves. Though I am sure it is of some value, I am loathe to overly psychoanalyze my opponents, trying to imagine their worldview and mind-set. This leads to some stereotyping, including appeals to the "end of the world" views of the other side, which simply put, I do not believe amounts to enough people to control events. I hate, therefore, when certain sorts go and on about this sort of thing, using it to explain the bloodshed -- hey, we are going to die soon anyway, right? This is not to say I think the other side is necessarily always rational -- I doubt it unless the word is used loosely -- but the irrationality is complex and interlocking.
Still, the "authoritarian" theme works for me. A general idea here is that there is an authority, we should trust in it, and those who do not are irrational and/or clearly malign forces. A tad bit of projecting there, perhaps? In another context, someone noted it was a sort of king/priest thing, temporal and religious authority. I simply don't see things in that light. This is where the disconnect comes in. Sure, I don't like this authority in particular. This can confuse things. But, simply put, I distrust authority as a general principle -- it does help that I have somewhat atypical thoughts about various things. Likewise, I do not think we can overly favor one "authority" over another. This seems a basic violation of equal protection. It is in effect a title of nobility. Again, for a totally ignoble group, but that is only part of the problem.
Now, I assume this is basically at the core of "the republic for which [our flag] stands," but Dean suggests there are about a quarter of Americans that do not quite see it that way. They focus on the flag, or rather, the authority over the principles themselves. This is their principle -- America is good, certain people are rightly defending it, and given the perilous times (particularly so now, but they always seem to be dangerous -- note how many always seen to be targeted by forces beyond their control ... "them" aka "liberals" or "activist judges" etc.), we need to trust certain authorities.
Likewise, given the dark world we live in, violence is clearly necessary, and deserved since the enemy is simply evil. Life is a bit more complex. But, to consider that we might be "evil" as well ... that is simply traitorous. "We" are good. Only "they" are evil. This includes those who simply do not understand the importance of authority. Now, if I fear anything, it is an overwhelming authority that supersedes civil liberties and long practiced balancing of power to promote selective ends that are promoted by people I simply do not trust.
But, again, it is a bit dangerous to focus on any particular authority. Simply put, I do not trust anyone to play outside the rules. I do not quite share Dean's sentiment that "the left" are not authoritarians ... perhaps, there is a certain clear shift in one direction, but both sides have their authoritarians and sacred cows. I distrust them both. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.
- Letter to Henry Lee (August 10, 1824)
In actuality, "the people" can be taken in as well, especially if there is a strong united authoritarian class which results in a much narrower margin of error. But, the sentiment overall is still true, especially in the promotion of equal rights for the people at large. This includes not favoring the will of authority over the rights of the people at large. Following the "will of the people" is not enough -- our republic has certain fundamental rights, based on the sentiment that even a majority cannot favor rights of some over the rights of others. Poll numbers suggest, however, that even this is not really the problem ...
the "authority" here is in the minority, but supposedly should be followed all the same. Jefferson, an authority so not totally trustworthy, is pretty right after all.*
---
* A certain someone has written some interesting stuff, including Rights From Wrongs, which touches upon Jefferson's views and rights philosophy overall. He also is biased in support of Israel and now insists that torture is right after all. And more. But, hey, I still liked that book and the one on the Declaration of Independence.
Really ... I quoted it in my own. Still, a tad bit inconsistent. Like, I remember once some time ago reading how you thought the courts and so forth did not properly honor "unwritten rights" (Ninth Amendment). Later, you criticized this theme, especially in respect to abortion rights, which you see, clearly led to Bush v. Gore. [Judicial activism etc.]
Fire leads to arson. Darn cavemen.