(0 comments)
“They who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin had those fearful of the British in mind, but I imagine he’d apply the same statement to today’s tea partying Palinites. I’ll let Reason explain…
[..] judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement’s suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.[..] When it comes to economic affairs, the tea partiers agree that—as Palin put it—”the government that governs least, governs best.” When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government.
The conventioneers applauded when Palin denounced Obama for his approach to the war on terrorists. Why? Because he lets himself be too confined by the annoying limits imposed by the Constitution. “To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law,” she declares.
[..] facts have never been Palin’s strong suit. Nor do they matter, because what infuriates her is the mere idea that constitutional protections would apply to “a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution.”
This is not some bizarre paradox. Lots of people who despise our Constitution—Nazis, communists, Klansmen, Alaska secessionists—enjoy its protections. Does she think the Bill of Rights should apply only to people who share her views?
That would not leave much of the document she and the tea partiers claim to revere.
Besides, Obama didn’t invent the heretical notion of accepting limits on the government’s latitude with jihadists. The Bush administration turned hundreds of terrorism cases over to the federal courts, without audible complaint from the right. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution extends even to accused foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo.
The advantage of having a former law professor in the Oval Office is that he doesn’t have to be tutored in such elementary realities. But Palin evinces a bitter resentment of any information that contradicts her blind faith in a benevolent, all-powerful security regime. She’s more than willing to trade liberty for safety.
That went over conspicuously well [at the convention], where tea partiers cheered a leader who places excessive trust in government, disdains constitutional freedoms, and promotes a cult of personality. So remind me: What is it they don’t like about Barack Obama?
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Fast Food
Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
Blogroll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ars Technica
- Balloon Juice
- Crooks and Liars
- Daniel Larison
- Emily L. Hauser
- Ezra Klein
- FrumForum
- Glenn Greenwald
- Jonathan Chait
- Kevin Drum
- League of Ordinary Gentlemen
- Little Green Footballs
- Matthew Yglesias
- Radley Balko
- Right Wing Watch
- Steve Benen @ Washington Monthly
- Ta-Nehisi
- The A.V. Club
- TPM Muckraker
- Unreasonable Faith
- Washington Independent
- WTF Is It Now?!?
DOWN THE VINE
Popular Posts
- Overplaying Your Hand, Or Why John Boehner Is A Really Sucky House Speaker 0 comment(s)
- Mitch Daniels: The Latest Failure To Build A New McCain 4 comment(s)
- Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape 4 comment(s)
- Most Awesome Cake Ever 0 comment(s)
- Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie – Updated 50 comment(s)
Grape Explorer
- Eric Cantor Weasel Watch
- Rachel Maddow responds to Olbermann suspension
- Indiana Circuit Court Busts Mitch Daniels's Pandering Planned Parenthood Plan
- Asian-Americans, The GOP and Hoekstra: Another View
- Fake GOP Lie of the Day - Mandatory Wicca Education
- Rick Perry To The Rescue!
- Fox's Shepard Smith Openly Mocks Glenn Beck for Hours
- Quote of the Day: Krugman on Republicans
- You’ll Never Convince Your Crazy Uncle, So Why Waste Time Trying?
- Obama Calls the Health Insurance Industry's Bluff
Tags
2010 Election 2012 Election Abortion Barack Obama Bullshit Bush Christianity Congress Conservatives Deep Thoughts Democrats Economy Fail Foreign Policy Fox News Gay Marriage Hatred Health Care Ignorance Insanity Iran Law LGBT Issues Libertarianism Lies Media Mitt Romney Music Policy Polls Quotes Racism Rebuttals Recession Republicans Right Wing Sarah Palin Scandal Stupidity Teabaggers Torture Truth Video War Crimes War on TerrorArchives
- February 2012 (28)
- January 2012 (67)
- December 2011 (57)
- November 2011 (72)
- October 2011 (63)
- September 2011 (55)
- August 2011 (53)
- July 2011 (44)
- June 2011 (71)
- May 2011 (91)
- April 2011 (101)
- March 2011 (104)
- February 2011 (96)
- January 2011 (71)
- December 2010 (73)
- November 2010 (59)
- October 2010 (80)
- September 2010 (64)
- August 2010 (39)
- July 2010 (46)
- June 2010 (27)
- May 2010 (54)
- April 2010 (34)
- March 2010 (38)
- February 2010 (47)
- January 2010 (62)
- December 2009 (57)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (76)
- September 2009 (50)
- August 2009 (85)
- July 2009 (56)
- June 2009 (141)
- May 2009 (103)
- April 2009 (113)
- March 2009 (66)
- February 2009 (43)
- January 2009 (87)
- December 2008 (18)
Syndication



Great posts this month, Metavirus and GhD. Sorry I've not commented lately; only time to read. Thanks for keeping this great site kicking. Whatever happened to the Barlett interview???
i think neither of us felt up to the challenge :) (blush)
gosh, Reason sure does have a schizoid relationship with the tea partiers. half the time they're just good patriots, who are terribly concerned about government interference. then stuff like this comes along. well, credit where its due. that's an excellent article.
I would argue that both the left and the right are schizoid, caring about one type of freedom from government but not another.
The right like these tea partiers adopts the mantle of economic freedom and "the Constitution!" to create some balance and cover for their desire to impose a security regime and their socio-cultural views.
Similarly the left adopts the mantle of personal freedom to create some balance and cover for illiberal economic redistribution via government spending and trade restrictions.
In both cases, it's easier to push for illiberal policies in your preferred area if you can adopt the mantle of "Freedom!" elsewhere.
Classical liberals or libertarians like me and Reason, while by no means perfect, are much more consistent in our desire for freedom in all areas. We'll make alliances with groups like the Tea Partiers when they seem to be acting in a way conducive to freedom, but we'll rightly call them out when they regress to Palinesque conservative populism and paranoia.
i don't think your construct works to the 50/50 equivalency you suggest.
the left/libertarian side of the equation wants due process, drug law reform and fair justice. they want less war, less police abuse, and MORE fundamental constitutional protections for our people.
what you refer to as "illiberal economic redistribution via government spending" is just the way that every modern democratic/capitalist system WORKS. there will always be a progressive tax system, in every major democracy/capitalist system in the world. always — it's never going to change. "redistribution" is just an inflammatory word to describe the services that government provides to keep us safe, provide for a common infrastructure and provide various social safety nets to cushion the productivity of our citizenry. yes, it is true that "the poor" use much more of the latter and "the rich" pay out more to support it. but that is just the way a modern democracy works.
besides which, the vast majority of left/right and center have no interest in doing away with the "redistributivist" progressive tax system, so its a misnomer to peg this at the feet of "the left".
so, at the end of it, you're left with a "left" that sees government being able to do good things (and, by the way, is the only game in town right now that is actually proposing to PAY for programs they want to implement) and a "right" that sees most any government system as worthless and will spend their last breath to tear down as much of it as they can.
Remember the Bush years? Not just the big stuff, but the small stuff. The "strangle the government baby in its crib" mentality was apotheosized. Nearly every agency of government was stripped of funds and talent and, as a result, we got an FDA and USDA that drastically cut back on food inspections and drug safety. We got an interior department that squandered billions of dollars in managed oil contracts due to cronyism and zero oversight.
so yes. one side believes that government can do some good and another side that recoils instinctively to most everything that is or would be done by government (with a complete and unyielding faith that the Oracles of Free Markets with bless us with their bounty)
and, no, i don't discount some of the anti-freedom, intrusive stuff that "the left" sometimes likes, like seatbelt laws, cycle helmet laws and the like. but really, again, that kind of relatively minor stuff is supported by the people who for vote them, who, again, run across the political spectrum.
the simple fact is that the republican party is the pinnacle of statist power and corporatist corruption. the dems have their bad traits too but when we're talking about who's really on the side of "freedom" and constitutional values like due process and the rule of law (including with respect to torture), there really is no contest.
I'm not proposing a 50/50 equivalency, at least not in any given snapshot of time. Don't compare the Bush years to the left now; compare the right now to the left in 1979.
And if you wanted to set up a naive equation these days, it would be closer to 66/33, as post-Soviet and especially post-9/11 the right has gone batshit on two legs of the stool, national security in addition to their socio-cultural authoritarianism.
Back in the eighties it was more like 33/66, and so we had fusionism (libertarians more closely aligned with conservatives)
i think matt yglesias said it best when describing the modern conservative approach to government power (which is pretty much as anathema to libertarianism as you can get): http://www.librarygrape.com/2010/02/conservative-…
"Conservatives didn’t like the Miranda ruling or any of the Warren Court’s other famous criminal procedure rulings. And since the Supreme Court became more conservative, right-wing justices have consistently sought to narrow the exclusionary rule, make it more difficult for convicted felons to get hearings for new evidence, etc.
For all the “tea party” talk of freedom, and the right’s general blather about “limited government,” unrestricted violence by the agents of the state is a core priority for the right-wing. The view is that ideally you just detain people indefinitely. If forced, they get a military commission. If you have to have a civilian court, the accused shouldn’t have any rights. People should be tortured as a routine investigative technique. Wars should be routinely against foreign countries that haven’t attacked us. It’s a worldview soaked in violence and authoritarianism, and the relatively narrow question of what venue you try terrorism suspects in is just a small part of it."
To my mind the greatest danger from the tea baggers is their built in racism and their willingness to use the government to enforce there view. And that their main points seem to be you are with us or you are our mortal enemy.
How is this the greatest danger? All this same racism existed on the right years ago, they just didn't have a big target like Obama to rally against. Far from being a danger, something getting them so riled up is a sign of progress.
Oh jeez, we have to go back to the 70s now? Face it, the dems havebecome more conservative than a lot of conservatives these days.Paying for programs, balancing budgets under clinton etc. They tookthe right's best ideas and left the rest
Go back to the turn of the 80s for the left's counterpart to how lost conservatives became at the end of the Bush years, sure. Times change.
And as for "facing it", the rest is not so simple--in part the right became a victim of its own successes in the 80s and 90s. It accomplished fine things (like the collapse of the Soviet Union and welfare reform) but supply side economics turned into a caricature of itself (as Bruce Bartlett puts it) and as you know everyone went batshit on the security front after 9/11.