Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com
21 October 1999
Sometimes news isn't news. Here in Whitewater country, that seems to
be the case with Mrs. Dole's departure. R.I.P. In peace is she
departed indeed: it looks like only one brief post breaks the perfect
silence, and that one hardly counts since it is from one of us disloyal
Clintonizing oppositionists, who can't be expected to make fine
distinctions about the other side.
Not only is there no Dole Patrol, there aren't even any Bush Pushers
around here to speak of. Few, if any "normal" Republicans. If His
Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in these parts than
the Vice President would have had.
We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is fine
as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between those who
dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton reasons and those
who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and John Galt reasons.
Though it may annoy Bredon and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
tendencies, let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-world
reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the Bushes and
Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no more defined by
billbashing than by isolationism. Both phenomena are obsolete rubbish
from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to say, the elephant people
have mostly "grown."
I don't say a word against the plan of pretending otherwise. Of
course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat Buchanan or
worse over on the wrong side of the aisle, since outstanding boobs and
maniacs on the other side are God's gift to everybody in politics for
tarring-and-feathering purposes. Nevertheless, there is in fact a world
elsewhere.
Hitherto political junkies have tried only to spin the planet, but
once in a while the great thing is to understand it.
Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
== Yours, J. H. McWAACN == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
insanit...@my-deja.com
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
> 21 October 1999
> Sometimes news isn't news.
But drivel is always drivel.
> Here in Whitewater country, that seems
> to be the case with Mrs. Dole's departure. R.I.P. In peace is she
> departed indeed: it looks like only one brief post breaks the perfect
> silence, and that one hardly counts since it is from one of us
> disloyal Clintonizing oppositionists, who can't be expected to make
> fine distinctions about the other side.
She might still be in the race, on a level playing field, if our kings
weren't annointed by private interests. But that would require campaign
finance reform, which you dismiss as a "gimmick."
> Not only is there no Dole Patrol, there aren't even any Bush Pushers
> around here to speak of. Few, if any "normal" Republicans.
This place crawls with "normal" Republicans. Dr. Kamikaz wallpapers the
place with boring, stupid, Rush Limbaugh type crap from World Net
Dumbly, as does Wayne Mann, etc. All of the cheers for continuing
nuclear proliferation are "normal" Republican Think.
> If His Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in these
> parts than the Vice President would have had.
This is a joke, right?
> We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is fine
> as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between those who
> dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton reasons and those
> who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and John Galt reasons.
Here comes the centrist sales pitch...
> Though it may annoy Bredon and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
> tendencies,
"I tend to support the OTHER centrist..."
> let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-
> world reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the Bushes
> and Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no more defined
> by billbashing than by isolationism. Both phenomena are obsolete
> rubbish from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to say, the elephant
> people have mostly "grown."
Into fine, Republicrat centrists...
> I don't say a word against the plan of pretending otherwise.
Yep, the Republican vs. Democrat "wars" are mostly just for show...
> Of course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat Buchanan
> or worse over on the wrong side of the aisle,
Just like Clinton's supposed to be a "socialist..."
> since outstanding boobs and maniacs on the other side are God's gift
> to everybody in politics for tarring-and-feathering purposes.
> Nevertheless, there is in fact a world elsewhere.
> Hitherto political junkies have tried only to spin the planet, but
> once in a while the great thing is to understand it.
From the centrist point of view, of course.
> Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
Farewell democracy, hello New World Order.
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth
the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to
challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the
laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson
bre...@no-spam.com
>Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
> 21 October 1999
>
> Sometimes news isn't news. Here in Whitewater country, that seems to
>be the case with Mrs. Dole's departure. R.I.P. In peace is she
>departed indeed: it looks like only one brief post breaks the perfect
>silence, and that one hardly counts since it is from one of us disloyal
>Clintonizing oppositionists, who can't be expected to make fine
>distinctions about the other side.
>
> Not only is there no Dole Patrol, there aren't even any Bush Pushers
>around here to speak of. Few, if any "normal" Republicans. If His
>Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in these parts than
>the Vice President would have had.
>
> We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is fine
>as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between those who
>dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton reasons and those
>who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and John Galt reasons.
>
> Though it may annoy Bredon
Gigadibs present, Sir!
> and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
>tendencies, let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-world
>reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the Bushes and
>Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no more defined by
>billbashing than by isolationism. Both phenomena are obsolete rubbish
>from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to say, the elephant people
>have mostly "grown."
Please do tell this to Congress immediately. There seems to be some
misunderstading about the CTBT. (Assuming they have now grown out of
Impeachment.)
Bush Jr and E.Dole and McCain opposed CTBT, for those who haven't
heard.
> I don't say a word against the plan of pretending otherwise. Of
>course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat Buchanan or
>worse over on the wrong side of the aisle, since outstanding boobs and
>maniacs on the other side are God's gift to everybody in politics for
>tarring-and-feathering purposes. Nevertheless, there is in fact a world
>elsewhere.
When it actually comes down to a vote in Congress ... even the Reps in
sheepskins mostly vote like ducks. What do you suggest?
>
> Hitherto political junkies have tried only to spin the planet, but
>once in a while the great thing is to understand it.
Needs at least one more category. Lip service fake Third Wayers or
whatever. Bush Sr talked about environmentalism, others talk about
equal opportunity -- but then they vote with the lumber companies.
Cheers,
Bredon
>
> Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
:-)
---
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)
John H. McCloskey
>
> In article <7un1b2$tu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
> > 21 October 1999
>
> > Sometimes news isn't news.
>
((I try.))
> > Here in Whitewater country, that seems
> > to be the case with Mrs. Dole's departure. R.I.P. In peace is she
> > departed indeed: it looks like only one brief post breaks the perfect
> > silence, and that one hardly counts since it is from one of us
> > disloyal Clintonizing oppositionists, who can't be expected to make
> > fine distinctions about the other side.
>
> She might still be in the race, on a level playing field, if our kings
> weren't annointed by private interests. But that would require campaign
> finance reform, which you dismiss as a "gimmick."
((OK. I am in the wrong. I should have got back to you about CFR, I really meant
to. I saved what you wrote away and meant to get back to it, but then I didn't. Of
course my negligence is partly because I really do think CFR is just a gimmick and
not THE ANSWER, but nevertheless. I'm sorry. On the other hand, this post is about
why billbashing has become the province of specialist cranks, not of the GOP
generally. Not about CFR.))
> > Not only is there no Dole Patrol, there aren't even any Bush Pushers
> > around here to speak of. Few, if any "normal" Republicans.
>
> This place crawls with "normal" Republicans. Dr. Kamikaz wallpapers the
> place with boring, stupid, Rush Limbaugh type crap from World Net
> Dumbly, as does Wayne Mann, etc. All of the cheers for continuing
> nuclear proliferation are "normal" Republican Think.
((What can I say? I heartily approve of American politics, of spinning and
propagandizing and all that good partisan stuff, but I approve even more of know
exactly what we are doing when we are doing it. This post that gets me into trouble
with you was deliberately intended to be peculiar in that the spinning and
propagandizing were suspended for just this once, and I just said, as I would to a
visiting Martian, that Bush and Dole are normal Republicans and the other GOP
candidates are abnormal, kookish or loonish or whatever. And most of it was about
people too kookish or loonish even to be rightmost Republicans. That seems
undeniable, as long as we are explaining to Martians or frankly speaking among
ourselves. About "isolationism" the case may be different. I fear some of the WH or
DNC people really believe the GOP is "isolationist." Yet who am I, who despised
Secretary Albright's War, to say for sure, I who want to let foreigners be
foreigners myself?))
>
> > If His Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in these
> > parts than the Vice President would have had.
>
> This is a joke, right?
((Not exactly. The kooks and loons and anarchos, the impeachsters and
the treatybashers, will, perhaps, mindlessly and vindictively celebrate in early
November, but they'll repent at leisure in late January and afterwards when they see
that Bush really is a Clintonist now.))
>
> > We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is fine
> > as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between those who
> > dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton reasons and those
> > who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and John Galt reasons.
>
> Here comes the centrist sales pitch...
((Not at all. I'm quite as left as thou, I think. If you'll explain me a good
strategy for selling leftism (mere traditional New Deal values, I mean, common
American and civilized things we all agreed on not that long ago) in a Gore-Bush
America, I'll be glad to learn.))
>
> > Though it may annoy Bredon and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
> > tendencies,
>
> "I tend to support the OTHER centrist..."
((If not Bradley, what? Well, maybe I'm not quite as left as thou. You gotta
understand that all those nice folks WANT centrism.))
>
> > let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-
> > world reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the Bushes
> > and Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no more defined
> > by billbashing than by isolationism. Both phenomena are obsolete
> > rubbish from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to say, the elephant
> > people have mostly "grown."
>
> Into fine, Republicrat centrists...
((Just so. Or call 'em "Clintonists."))
>
> > I don't say a word against the plan of pretending otherwise.
>
> Yep, the Republican vs. Democrat "wars" are mostly just for show...
((Not at all. Traditional American bipartisanship is hard to explain because the
parties manage to overlap immensely and nevertheless differ fundamentally. They
really do. Or at least, if they don't, they've taken in sixteen or eighteen decades
of dupes before duping me.))
>
> > Of course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat Buchanan
> > or worse over on the wrong side of the aisle,
>
> Just like Clinton's supposed to be a "socialist..."((Hopefully more plausibly, since our side tends to beelsewhere-schooled. But that
is the general idea.))
>
> > since outstanding boobs and maniacs on the other side are God's gift
> > to everybody in politics for tarring-and-feathering purposes.
> > Nevertheless, there is in fact a world elsewhere.
>
> > Hitherto political junkies have tried only to spin the planet, but
> > once in a while the great thing is to understand it.
>
> From the centrist point of view, of course.((Yes. I think so. Though we may wish the center were located someplace better,
when it comes to just understanding, we must take where it actually is to be central.
Sorry about that.))
>
> > Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
>
> Farewell democracy, hello New World Order.
((Piffle! Democracy was here first. Capitalism is just a transitory fad,
a globalized hula-hoop. Cheer up, Lefty, it's Morning in America. It always will
be. I kid you not.))
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
John H. McCloskey
>>>
> Needs at least one more category. Lip service fake Third Wayers or
> whatever. Bush Sr talked about environmentalism, others talk about
> equal opportunity -- but then they vote with the lumber companies.
>>>>>>
Right, Smiley. You got it. Who wants to go up against the cutting edge of a
chain saw? You wanna be a tree or a lumberjack? Think about it!
Therefore Bill Bradley.
(At least he's not Billy Beck!)
> > Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
> :-)
Flattery will get you nowhere, Smiley. !Abajo Peretz!
johnz
>bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>>>>
>
>> Needs at least one more category. Lip service fake Third Wayers or
>> whatever. Bush Sr talked about environmentalism, others talk about
>> equal opportunity -- but then they vote with the lumber companies.
>>>>>>>
>
> Right, Smiley. You got it. Who wants to go up against the cutting
edge of a
>chain saw? You wanna be a tree or a lumberjack? Think about it!
>
> Therefore Bill Bradley.
>
> (At least he's not Billy Beck!)
>
>> > Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
>> :-)
>
> Flattery will get you nowhere, Smiley. !Abajo Peretz!
If the political dice came up in the necessary combinations to require it,
McCloskey, I'd suspect that the logic of your position would require you
to join the Buchananite/populist/ camp - if they seemed like the best, or
only, possibility of forstalling the awful possibility of any libertarian
or A/C ideas being seriously considered. Mr. Buchanan attacks big business
and is very community minded, after all. Mr. Kaplan, the ATLANTIC
MONTHLY's fevered authoritarian and police state booster, would make a
nice third in this little kaffeeklatch, to be sure.
After all, a police state is better than no state, right? Resentful
authoritarian populism would be preferable to libertarianism, wouldn't it?
JS
John H. McCloskey
>
>
> If the political dice came up in the necessary combinations to require it,
> McCloskey, I'd suspect that the logic of your position would require you
> to join the Buchananite/populist/ camp - if they seemed like the best, or
> only, possibility of forstalling the awful possibility of any libertarian
> or A/C ideas being seriously considered. Mr. Buchanan attacks big business
> and is very community minded, after all. Mr. Kaplan, the ATLANTIC
> MONTHLY's fevered authoritarian and police state booster, would make a
> nice third in this little kaffeeklatch, to be sure.
>
> After all, a police state is better than no state, right? Resentful
> authoritarian populism would be preferable to libertarianism, wouldn't it?
>>>>>
Oh dear. Once again the baddies have figured out what I'm "really" up to. How
embarrassing!
But seriously, somebody seems to have been reading my verbiage carefully enough to
make a valid inference for a change. Mr. Buchanan, viewed from a certain direction
under carefully deployed lighting, can indeed look rather like a democrat. If
anybody really wants a lecture on populism-versus-democracy, I can crank it out
easily enough.
Mr. Kaplan is not somebody I know about, but I'll go check him out and report back.
Rather than talk Dilbertarian science fiction about "no state," let me burnish my
classical liberal credentials by saying that I agree with Mr. Locke and Mr. Hobbes
that the state of nature was *not* the reign of God. 100.00% orthodox and
traditional, no? Why, if I were Steve Forbes, I'd speak of the Hobbes-Locke-McCloskey
social contracting theory....
== Yours, J. H. McHumble == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
insanit...@my-deja.com
"John H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote:
> >
> > In article <7un1b2$tu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
> > > 21 October 1999
> >
> > > Sometimes news isn't news.
> >
> > But drivel is always drivel.
>
> ((I try.))
So do I.
> > > Here in Whitewater country, that seems
> > > to be the case with Mrs. Dole's departure. R.I.P. In peace is
> > > she departed indeed: it looks like only one brief post breaks the
> > > perfect silence, and that one hardly counts since it is from one
> > > of us disloyal Clintonizing oppositionists, who can't be expected
> > > to make fine distinctions about the other side.
> > She might still be in the race, on a level playing field, if our
> > kings weren't annointed by private interests. But that would
> > require campaign finance reform, which you dismiss as a "gimmick."
> ((OK. I am in the wrong. I should have got back to you about CFR,
> I really meant to. I saved what you wrote away and meant to get back
> to it, but then I didn't. Of course my negligence is partly because
> I really do think CFR is just a gimmick and not THE ANSWER, but
> nevertheless. I'm sorry. On the other hand, this post is about
> why billbashing has become the province of specialist cranks, not of
> the GOP generally. Not about CFR.))
Bill needs to be bashed. He's a more successful Republican than Reagan
or Bush were. But yes, this place, where he's called a communist of all
things, is the province of true loons. It's hard to believe that they
(the right-wing "billbashers") believe what they're saying, themselves.
I think the aim is to portray the Democrats as being "way out
leftists," so that uninformed (or just plain stupid) "lurkers" will
accept that the Democrats are actually an "opposition" party.
> > > Not only is there no Dole Patrol, there aren't even any Bush
> > > Pushers around here to speak of. Few, if any "normal"
> > > Republicans.
> > This place crawls with "normal" Republicans. Dr. Kamikaz wallpapers
> > the place with boring, stupid, Rush Limbaugh type crap from World
> > Net Dumbly, as does Wayne Mann, etc. All of the cheers for
> > continuing nuclear proliferation are "normal" Republican Think.
By which I mean "corporate" think, or "Wall Street think."
> ((What can I say? I heartily approve of American politics, of
> spinning and propagandizing and all that good partisan stuff, but I
> approve even more of know exactly what we are doing when we are doing
> it. This post that gets me into trouble with you
(Not that "being in trouble" with me means anything. I'm not the school
principle. :-)
> was deliberately
> intended to be peculiar in that the spinning and propagandizing were
> suspended for just this once,
I wish there was never any of that. There's a whole world of misery out
there, and I see too many posts that are just SO stupid. I post crap,
too, but I try to steer attention to what I think are "bottom line"
issues. Something like 50,000 human beings die every day of starvation,
for Christ sake. I see too many people ignore atrocities our own
government commits. Who gives a shit about "pornographic art," while
we're killing thousands of Iraqi kids, supporting death squads, etc?
Why argue about blowjobs while our prisons are being crammed full of
non-violent "offenders?" Most of the arguments here are very petty and
meaningless.
> and I just said, as I would to a
> visiting Martian, that Bush and Dole are normal Republicans and the
> other GOP candidates are abnormal, kookish or loonish or whatever.
> And most of it was about people too kookish or loonish even to be
> rightmost Republicans. That seems undeniable, as long as we are
> explaining to Martians or frankly speaking among
> ourselves.
> About "isolationism" the case may be different. I fear some of the
> WH or DNC people really believe the GOP is "isolationist."
No way. "Both" parties are committed to globalization and the golden
calf of so-called "free trade."
> Yet who am I, who despised
> Secretary Albright's War, to say for sure, I who want to let
> foreigners be foreigners myself?))
> > > If His Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in
> > > these parts than the Vice President would have had.
> > This is a joke, right?
> ((Not exactly. The kooks and loons and anarchos, the impeachsters
> and the treatybashers,
Some treaties need bashing. NAFTA and GATT come to mind.
> will, perhaps, mindlessly and vindictively
> celebrate in early November, but they'll repent at leisure in late
> January and afterwards when they see that Bush really is a Clintonist
> now.))
Nobody gets to play President who doesn't take orders from the real
rulers, who we don't get to vote for or against. Clinton carried on
with the main agendas of Reagan and Bush, and Shrub Bush would, as you
say, carry on in much the same manner as Clinton. I think JFK was the
last President who was foolish enough to believe that he could actually
act independently.
> > > We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is
> > > fine as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between
> > > those who dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton
> > > reasons and those who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and
> > > John Galt reasons.
> > Here comes the centrist sales pitch...
> ((Not at all. I'm quite as left as thou, I think. If you'll explain
> me a good strategy for selling leftism (mere traditional New Deal
> values, I mean, common American and civilized things we all agreed on
> not that long ago) in a Gore-Bush
> America, I'll be glad to learn.))
You can only lay so much weight on people's backs. Right now,
everything is being sacrificed for the profit of the few. All we can do
is point that out. It's a daunting task, because the "other side" owns
the media, lock, stock, and barrel. The corporate disinfo campaign to
portray the very media they own as "the liberal media" would be funny,
except for the fact that so many people fell for that big lie. The
corporate media divert attention from issues like the global economic
treaties, which are literally setting up a one-world corporate
government. Don't laugh. Instead, go read the text of the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment. That monstrocity was defeated, for now at
least, by concerned activists. There's going to be a huge anti-WTO
protest in Seattle next month. The tide just might be turning.
> > > Though it may annoy Bredon and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
> > > tendencies,
> > "I tend to support the OTHER centrist..."
> ((If not Bradley, what? Well, maybe I'm not quite as left as thou.
You gotta understand that all those nice folks WANT centrism.))
"Centrism" doesn't mean "moderate." It's the philosophy of corporate
globalism. Neo-liberalism.
> > > let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-
> > > world reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the
> > > Bushes and Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no
> > > more defined by billbashing than by isolationism. Both phenomena
> > > are obsolete rubbish from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to
> > > say, the elephant people have mostly "grown."
> > Into fine, Republicrat centrists...
> ((Just so. Or call 'em "Clintonists."))
Might as well.
> > > I don't say a word against the plan of pretending otherwise.
> > Yep, the Republican vs. Democrat "wars" are mostly just for show...
> ((Not at all. Traditional American bipartisanship is hard to explain
> because the parties manage to overlap immensely and nevertheless
> differ fundamentally. They really do. Or at least, if they don't,
> they've taken in sixteen or eighteen decades
> of dupes before duping me.))
When you read candidate's pamphlets, or watch a TV soundbite, what do
you see? They all say almost exactly the same thing, regardless of
whether they're Democrat or Republican. What were the real, major
differences between Clinton and Dole? Clinton gutted AFDC, signed NAFTA
and GATT, expanded NATO, boosted Pentagon spending... how is that
different from what Dole would have done?
> > > Of course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat
Buchanan or worse over on the wrong side of the aisle,
I happen to be a "leftie" who agrees with Buchanan on several points.
> > Just like Clinton's supposed to be a "socialist..."
> ((Hopefully more plausibly, since our side tends to beelsewhere-
schooled. But that is the general idea.))
> > > since outstanding boobs and maniacs on the other side are God's
> > > gift to everybody in politics for tarring-and-feathering purposes.
> > > Nevertheless, there is in fact a world elsewhere.
> > > Hitherto political junkies have tried only to spin the planet, but
> > > once in a while the great thing is to understand it.
> > From the centrist point of view, of course.
> ((Yes. I think so. Though we may wish the center were located
> someplace better,
> when it comes to just understanding, we must take where it actually
> is to be central. Sorry about that.))
> > > Farewell, Elizabeth! Hello, world.
> > Farewell democracy, hello New World Order.
> ((Piffle! Democracy was here first. Capitalism is just a transitory
> fad, a globalized hula-hoop.
I make a distinction between simple capitalism and corporate globalism.
> Cheer up, Lefty, it's Morning in
> America. It always will be. I kid you not.))
Study MAI, and let me know what you think. What's your opinion on the
prison-industrial complex? Good grief, it's 4:00 AM. Nighty night...
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth
the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to
challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the
laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.tnews.com/text/corp_charter.html
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com
but maybe it can stand one more add-on without a complete reformatting.
My new stuff is marked with my initials. [JHM]
In article <7uuq5r$6ec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
[JHM] Naughty little Billy deserves to be spanked by those of us who
love him, not lynched by heartless vrooks. But even we ought to be calm
and fair before deciding we absolutely have to bend him over for some
ideological discipline.
I'm well left of Bill and you seem well left of me. Let's face it,
though: where we are is not the middle of the road. It ought to be.
But it ain't. I don't think there is much doubt St. Bill genuinely
wishes he could be over here with us, but he really can't. He has to be
where the votes are. What we really want, if we think it through, is an
America that wants to be more liberal, not a President who somehow dupes
it into being so. (You may detest that "we" that seems to put my ideas
in your mouth, but remember: you're free to use the same pronoun on me.)
I have thus raised the issue of "leadership," as journalists call it,
meaning the ways and means of getting people to do things they don't at
the start want to do without using either force or fraud. St. Bill's
score in this category is not as high as I'd like, but we should
remember what he was up against, especially after November 1994. He has
compromised with the baddies more than I like, but he hasn't sold them
the store. In the end, with the Impeachmentgate fiasco that Gingrichism
dwindled down to, I think Bill Clinton did manage to halt the rightward
swing of the American pendulum. The VRWC took their best shot at him
and missed by a mile. The best and most important thing about
Impeachmentgate was the way popular support for the President held
rock-solid throughout, a solidarity which I didn't expect, which the
right wingnuts certainly didn't expect. America beautifully
disappointed Ayatollah Bill Bennett and that crew. Perhaps the CTBT
defeat can be regarded as a sort of consolation prize for the
Gingrichite losers, although those losers are mostly too sore ever to be
consoled. Voting out is what they require.
The Clinton Administration may be Dunkirk rather than D-day, but it is
no small thing that we good guys are still around to fight another day.
Can you image where we'd be if Americans had decided they liked the
Contract-with-America zealots? Partial victories are still victories.
Light gray is better than dark gray. Cheer up. Don't expect Utopia
Now!
As to the VRWC idea of how "leftist" the Clinton Administration is, I
take that to be sincere enough, not clever scheming but blank ignorance,
a natural result of home schooling. Every time they mention a word like
"socialist" they make it very clear they haven't a historical clue what
the hell they are talking about. It would be absurd to be afraid of
them.
[JHM] What can I say? If you figure out how to improve the situation,
please let me know at once. Lots of luck. You are up against the fact
that almost all the regular posters are infinitely more interested in
teaching about their favorite old issues (the assassination of V.
Foster, &c.) than in learning about new ones.
>
> > and I just said, as I would to a
> > visiting Martian, that Bush and Dole are normal Republicans and the
> > other GOP candidates are abnormal, kookish or loonish or whatever.
> > And most of it was about people too kookish or loonish even to be
> > rightmost Republicans. That seems undeniable, as long as we are
> > explaining to Martians or frankly speaking among
> > ourselves.
>
> > About "isolationism" the case may be different. I fear some of the
> > WH or DNC people really believe the GOP is "isolationist."
>
> No way. "Both" parties are committed to globalization and the golden
> calf of so-called "free trade."
[JHM] Of course. But after all, isn't Free Trade a gimmick that works
in America's favor, for American dinkeys as well as for American
elephants? Being selfish isn't nice, but there is no use pretending
that it is insane.
>
> > Yet who am I, who despised
> > Secretary Albright's War, to say for sure, I who want to let
> > foreigners be foreigners myself?))
>
> > > > If His Texcellency wins, he'll have a smaller victory party in
> > > > these parts than the Vice President would have had.
>
> > > This is a joke, right?
>
> > ((Not exactly. The kooks and loons and anarchos, the impeachsters
> > and the treatybashers,
>
> Some treaties need bashing. NAFTA and GATT come to mind.
>
> > will, perhaps, mindlessly and vindictively
> > celebrate in early November, but they'll repent at leisure in late
> > January and afterwards when they see that Bush really is a
Clintonist
> > now.))
>
> Nobody gets to play President who doesn't take orders from the real
> rulers, who we don't get to vote for or against. Clinton carried on
> with the main agendas of Reagan and Bush, and Shrub Bush would, as you
> say, carry on in much the same manner as Clinton. I think JFK was the
> last President who was foolish enough to believe that he could
actually
> act independently.
[JHM] There is a consensus about foreign policy. But foreign policy is
nobody's main agenda in American politics. It would take a full-length
essay for me to set out the reasons for believing that "taking orders"
is not at all how the present system works. Some of those reasons got
into the comments I made yesterday on the "Absolute Power" article.
Here is my position without qualification and argument: there exists no
power elite ruling America from a back room by pulling politicians'
strings. "Who rules America" is not a trick question. WYSIWYG.
> > > > We none of us Whitewaterites have much use for the GOP. That is
> > > > fine as far as it goes, but there is a great yawning gap between
> > > > those who dislike the GOP for Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton
> > > > reasons and those who prefer to dislike it for John Birch and
> > > > John Galt reasons.
>
> > > Here comes the centrist sales pitch...
>
> > ((Not at all. I'm quite as left as thou, I think. If you'll
explain
> > me a good strategy for selling leftism (mere traditional New Deal
> > values, I mean, common American and civilized things we all agreed
on
> > not that long ago) in a Gore-Bush
> > America, I'll be glad to learn.))
[JHM] No, I've reconsidered. Thou art leftlier than I.
>
> You can only lay so much weight on people's backs. Right now,
> everything is being sacrificed for the profit of the few. All we can
do
> is point that out. It's a daunting task, because the "other side" owns
> the media, lock, stock, and barrel. The corporate disinfo campaign to
> portray the very media they own as "the liberal media" would be funny,
> except for the fact that so many people fell for that big lie.
[JHM] It's a big "few," and lots of people think they belong to it who
really don't, which makes it even bigger on election days. Of course
since I don't think there's a power elite, I also don't think there is a
"disinfo campaign." You make these people out to be much smarter and
much more diligent than they actually are.
The
> corporate media divert attention from issues like the global economic
> treaties, which are literally setting up a one-world corporate
> government. Don't laugh. Instead, go read the text of the Multilateral
> Agreement on Investment. That monstrosity was defeated, for now at
> least, by concerned activists. There's going to be a huge anti-WTO
> protest in Seattle next month. The tide just might be turning.
[JHM] Seattle will be interesting. Most of what I'd say about this is
already in the "Absolute Power" thread.
>
> > > > Though it may annoy Bredon and expose my Benedict-Bradleyite
> > > > tendencies,
>
> > > "I tend to support the OTHER centrist..."
>
> > ((If not Bradley, what? Well, maybe I'm not quite as left as thou.
> You gotta understand that all those nice folks WANT centrism.))
>
> "Centrism" doesn't mean "moderate." It's the philosophy of corporate
> globalism. Neo-liberalism.
[JHM] A Euro term, no? With us, the last time I heard "neo-liberal" it
meant Gary Hart or some such. Ah! where are the Atari Democrats of
yesteryear?
[JHM] Begin with the obvious. Dole would have signed all the
Contract-with-America gunk into law. If Dole had been elected,
Gingrichism would have been a success. Yeeeeech.
>
> > > > Of course we Demoncrats must go on claiming they are all Pat
> Buchanan or worse over on the wrong side of the aisle,
>
> I happen to be a "leftie" who agrees with Buchanan on several points.
[JHM] I suppose Free Trade and not the origins of WW2?
[JHM] I think I did the prison number on the Governor of Texas, but
possibly I didn't actually post it. (Think of that, O newsgroupies!
what must the ones McCloskey himself doesn't think good enough be like?
The mind boggles.) MAI I shall check out.
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
insanit...@my-deja.com
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This thing is getting to be a trackless waste of right angle brackets,
I agree. I'm dumping the old stuff.
> [JHM] Naughty little Billy deserves to be spanked by those of us who
> love him,
I don't love him at all. I think he's been horrible, on everything from
the phony "war on drugs," to bombing the 3rd world. I could go on for
some time here...
> not lynched by heartless vrooks.
The impeachment was a bad joke, I'll agree on that.
> But even we ought to be calm
> and fair before deciding we absolutely have to bend him over for some
> ideological discipline.
It's not "ideology." It's millions of "evil" pot smokers busted, the
increase in forfeiture abuse, several hundred thousand dead Iraqi
children, cruise missles shot into little countries for no good reason,
and a lot more.
> I'm well left of Bill and you seem well left of me. Let's face it,
> though: where we are is not the middle of the road. It ought to be.
> But it ain't. I don't think there is much doubt St. Bill genuinely
> wishes he could be over here with us, but he really can't. He has to
> be where the votes are.
He has no balls, is what you're saying. What difference would it have
made if Dole had won? I think the American people would LOVE having a
President who told the truth, and acted in their interests. Clinton has
done neither.
> What we really want, if we think it through, is an
> America that wants to be more liberal, not a President who somehow
> dupes it into being so.
We've got Presidents who are duping us now, but in the other direction.
> (You may detest that "we" that seems to put > my ideas in your mouth,
> but remember: you're free to use the same
> pronoun on me.)
> I have thus raised the issue of "leadership," as journalists call it,
> meaning the ways and means of getting people to do things they don't
> at the start want to do without using either force or fraud. St.
> Bill's score in this category is not as high as I'd like, but we
> should remember what he was up against, especially after November
> 1994. He has compromised with the baddies more than I like, but he
> hasn't sold them the store.
He IS a "baddie." Go down to Latin America and ask some relatives of the
"disappeared." Go to a U.S. prison and ask a black kid who got a
sentence a hundred times worse for "crack" cocaine than a white kid
would for the same amount of "powder" cocaine. Go ask some unemployed
Americans whose jobs got shipped off to Mexico.
> In the end, with the Impeachmentgate
> fiasco that Gingrichism dwindled down to, I think Bill Clinton did
> manage to halt the rightward swing of the American pendulum. The
> VRWC took their best shot at him and missed by a mile. The best and
> most important thing about Impeachmentgate was the way popular
> support for the President held rock-solid throughout, a solidarity
> which I didn't expect, which the right wingnuts certainly didn't
> expect. America beautifully disappointed Ayatollah Bill Bennett and
> that crew.
That's what I mean when I say the American people would love to hear
the truth. They saw the impeachment for the bullshit it was. If Clinton
told the truth on important issues, and stood up to the powers that be,
he would be wildly popular. Of course, he might get shot.
> Perhaps the CTBT
> defeat can be regarded as a sort of consolation prize for the
> Gingrichite losers, although those losers are mostly too sore ever to
> be consoled. Voting out is what they require.
That goes beyond politics, I'm sure. The defense industry stands to
rake in billions and billions on "Star Wars," and without the CTBT,
it'll be much easier to justify SDI. (Not that the GOP hacks didn't
enjoy denying the Dems credit on the CTBT.)
> The Clinton Administration may be Dunkirk rather than D-day, but it
> is no small thing that we good guys are still around to fight another
> day. Can you image where we'd be if Americans had decided they liked
> the Contract-with-America zealots? Partial victories are still
> victories.
What partial victories are you talking about? Just that Clinton avoided
being removed? So what?
> Light gray is better than dark gray. Cheer up. Don't expect Utopia
> Now!
I don't expect Utopia, ever. I'd just like to avoid hell.
> As to the VRWC idea of how "leftist" the Clinton Administration is, I
> take that to be sincere enough, not clever scheming but blank
> ignorance,
It CAN'T be sincere. Clinton has behaved in office just like a good
Republican. I can only think of one or two "major" issues where he
differs with them. I agree with his defense of women's right of choice
on abortion, and maybe a couple of other points, but on the whole, he's
obviously working for global corporate interests, just like the GOP.
The differences between the "two" parties are so slight, that they have
to squabble over a few things, just to maintain the illusion. And there
are always power struggles within the ranks of ruling elites.
> a natural result of home schooling.
My daughter did home schooling for about half of one school year. It
was OK.
> Every time they mention a word like "socialist" they make it very
> clear they haven't a historical clue what
> the hell they are talking about.
"Socialist," "Liberal Media," etc, are just buzzwords. It's a standard
propaganda technique. Some of the posters here appear to be stupid
parrots, but others are here just to blow smoke, and know what they're
doing.
> It would be absurd to be afraid of them.
The future of democracy, and of the whole planet are at stake. I see
the philosophy of "profit above all" as a kind of mental illness. These
people are sociopathic. They have no conscience. The exploitation and
suffering of others, and destruction of the environment mean nothing to
them, only money is important. What's scary is that they're willing to
literally kill us off as a species, for the sake of temporary material
gain for themselves. I've seen posts where they've admitted that.
> [JHM] What can I say? If you figure out how to improve the situation,
> please let me know at once. Lots of luck. You are up against the
> fact that almost all the regular posters are infinitely more
> interested in teaching about their favorite old issues (the
> assassination of V.Foster, &c.) than in learning about new ones.
The Vince Foster thing is pretty pointless, but that's the point of it.
Is it not absurd to waste time arguing about whether ANY President had
one individual killed? Johnson and Nixon killed millions. Reagan
killed. Bush killed. Clinton kills. They ALL kill. The Foster debate is
just more smoke, intended to sucker people into defending one side or
the other. If you get people to identify with a "side," that's all
they're going to focus on, and they'll miss the bigger picture. That's
the point of this newsgroup. That's how our "soundbite" political
system works. I often wonder if the impeachment wasn't just a scripted
melodrama. Of all the real issues the Republicans could have pursued,
they chose lying about a blowjob?
> [JHM] Of course. But after all, isn't Free Trade a gimmick that works
> in America's favor, for American dinkeys as well as for American
> elephants? Being selfish isn't nice, but there is no use pretending
> that it is insane.
One example: Nike. They haven't made a shoe in America for over ten
years. Who benefits? The CEO. That's what globalization is doing. It
only benefits the few. The "dinkeys" get fucked. Are Nikes any cheaper
now, than before they started using sweatshop labor? Hell no.
> [JHM] There is a consensus about foreign policy.
Yes. It's the consensus of the establishment. Administrations come and
go, but the overall policies remain the same.
> But foreign policy is nobody's main agenda in American politics.
Right, and the Roman empire didn't care about foreign policy, either...
> It would take a full-
> length essay for me to set out the reasons for believing that "taking
> orders" is not at all how the present system works.
Money dominates. Special interests dominate. Why, for example, did LBJ
reverse Kennedy's Vietnam withdrawal order two days after the
assassination? Do you think it had something to do with the profits
that were going to be made over there? What's the reason for NATO
expansion? Profit. Why do we support brutal military juntas? So that
our corporations can exploit the natural resources of those countries,
while our goons keep the populations under control. Read up on the
history of United Fruit, or AT&T, in Latin America. We overthrow
democratically elected governments all the time, if they don't kiss our
ass. This may sound radical if you haven't studied this, but it's
absolutely true.
> Some of those
> reasons got into the comments I made yesterday on the "Absolute
> Power" article. Here is my position without qualification and
> argument: there exists no power elite ruling America from a back room
> by pulling politicians'strings.
That's an over-simplification. No, it's not ten or twenty individuals
sitting in one room somewhere. But who do you think politicians answer
to; Joe Sixpack who contributes nothing and probably doesn't even vote,
or the banking system that contributed a half million bucks to the
party? Or the defense contractor or oil company that shelled out a few
million? And there ARE meetings of these powerful groups. There are the
Bilderburgers, for example. Remember, the richest 1% of Americans own
more than 40% of the national wealth. Those are the people who control
our "two party system." They own the national media. They are, in fact,
the ruling elite.
> "Who rules America" is not a trick
> question. WYSIWYG.
> [JHM] No, I've reconsidered. Thou art leftlier than I.
It's not so much "left" or "right." It's more like "up and down."
> [JHM] It's a big "few," and lots of people think they belong to it who
> really don't, which makes it even bigger on election days. Of course
> since I don't think there's a power elite, I also don't think there
> is a "disinfo campaign." You make these people out to be much
> smarter and much more diligent than they actually are.
Are you saying that you believe the media doesn't tell us lie after lie?
Do you think public opinion isn't molded? C'mon, you're smarter than
that.
> [JHM] Seattle will be interesting. Most of what I'd say about this is
> already in the "Absolute Power" thread.
I really want to go. I'm negotiating with the Mrs.
> [JHM] A Euro term, no? With us, the last time I heard "neo-liberal"
> it meant Gary Hart or some such. Ah! where are the Atari Democrats of
> yesteryear?
As we said, they've melded into the Republicrats. Pulling the stubborn
remnants of the old party into the new "mainstream" was probably
Clinton's assignment. He did well. Reagan and Bush couldn't get NAFTA
and GATT passed because of Democratic resistance. Clinton came along
and got them passed by coming up with enough Democrat votes, to the
delight of the corporations.
> [JHM] Begin with the obvious. Dole would have signed all the
> Contract-with-America gunk into law. If Dole had been elected,
> Gingrichism would have been a success. Yeeeeech.
Most of it DID become law, didn't it?
> MAI I shall check out.
Yes, I see that you did. Do you see a connection to a "ruling elite?"
Or do you think I'm just nuts? Both?
> == Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
http://www.tnews.com/text/corp_charter.html
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com
insanit...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>
I'll quote one short passage from the original, but the following
response is about everything in general. Maybe latter I will discuss
other specific points.
"That's what I mean when I say the American people would love to hear
the truth. They saw the impeachment for the bullshit it was. If
Clinton told the truth on important issues, and stood up to the powers
that be, he would be wildly popular. Of course, he might get shot."
You must have had this same conversation a thousand times already.
You know in advance what people like me (?"tame leftists"?) are going to
say, and I know in advance you're going to rule it all out of order.
Nevertheless, here goes: Believe it or not, lots of Americans (a solid
and stable majority for electoral politics at very least) more or less
understand what "globalizing" capitalism is and nevertheless are for it.
The truth you want BC to tell them boils down in the end to that they
*shouldn't* like it. Quite apart from the fact that he doesn't believe
that himself, BC would only get himself laughed at by preaching it.
The right wingnuts are sounder on BC than you are, I am afraid.
They'd agree with me that he is the world-champion expert on what is
wildly popular in the USA. They think that kind of expertise discredits
him ethically and politically, and I think they are idiots for thinking
so, but about the basic "pandering" or democratic side of Clintonism we
do agree. If there were more political mileage in exposing the
malefactors of great wealth, Bill would be doing it.
We do, of course, have the Microsoft antitrust suit, but I suppose the
Administration ran that one up the flagpole only on the off chance that
somebody might salute it. Nobody seems to have done so. The only
commentary I ever see on it at all is from vrooks who think poor Mr.
Gates, that immensely valuable public-spirited hero and genius, is
being outrageously persecuted. The whole mindset of 1912 among
Democrats and Progressives alike is gone with the wind. President
Taft's values are almost universally accepted. Sounding like Wilson or
Roosevelt in 2000 will do no politician in America any good worth
mentioning.
This is deplorable. But what we must deplore is that Taft's values
are *accepted,* not that they are imposed. They aren't imposed.
Americans more or less know what they are doing and are certainly doing
it on purpose. They are not dupes. They are not blind. They are not
making some sort of elementary dumb mistake. Of course they don't know
the exact details about why Microsoft or NAFTA or whatever is a racket,
but they understand well enough that these things are rackets of some
sort. Their aspiration is to join the racketeers, however, not to lick
them.
The People, YES. Democracy, of course. "Leftism"? Well, only if we
agree that we want it, which at the moment we don't. Two hours of Ralph
Nader on broadcast TV daily is not going to make us want it; that scheme
would only make sure that nobody watches broadcast TV. I can't think of
any plan for exposes and muckracking that would work, given the basic
mental climate. People would deliberately not attend to the exposes,
because they understand about the racketeering side of capitalism and
don't want to be forced to disapprove of it.
The way people talk is very indicative of this ostrich attitude.
Apart from theoretical kooks, loons and anarchos, the only people who
use the word "capitalism" itself are hostile to it (although perhaps not
totally hostile). This, by the way, is why one ought to use double
shudder-quotes to speak of "conservative" "intellectuals." The last
thing in the world everyday conservatives want is to be forced to think
about what they are doing and what they are consenting to.
Conservatives need intellectuals the way dogs need fleas. Nevertheless,
what they do and what the consent to are entirely voluntary affairs,
human actions that human persons must be held fully accountable for.
(There! isn't it nice to be able to turn the rightists' pious
sermonettes about responsibility back on them?) But of course they will
become judiciously deaf the instant we attempt to arraign them for
pretending to be deaf.
I seem to be lapsing into one of my own prepared speeches. I beg your
pardon. The point at present is not the details of what I have started
going on about, but rather that that *kind* of thing, considerations
about how "everybody" thinks in America, not your kind about a handful
of hidden corporate and media manipulators, is where to look for
explanations of why we Americans have slithered so far to towards the
right edge of the civilized world.
I take for granted that you will respond, politely or otherwise, to
the effect that I myself am the dupe of just such manipulators, whose
greatest triumph is that even people like me, tame liberals, refuse to
recognize that they exist. I've heard your side of this conversation as
often as you've heard mine. I was just reading some Noam Chomsky, whose
calm and unflappability in the face of a world of dupes is a remarkable
accomplishment in itself.
In any case, arguing off to my left is a very new experience for me to
have here in Whitewater country.
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
insanit...@my-deja.com
suppose "most Americans" think globalization, NAFTA, and GATT are just
great? Are you aware of the college campaigns against sweatshops? The
more people find out about the misery being created, the environmental
destruction, etc, created by globalization, the more they're against
it. The corporate media bury the truth, but it IS getting out.
bre...@no-spam.com
>This thing is getting to be a trackless waste of right angle brackets,
>but maybe it can stand one more add-on without a complete reformatting.
> My new stuff is marked with my initials. [JHM]
>
>In article <7uuq5r$6ec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> insanit...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <380FC...@iName.com>,
>> "John H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote:
>> > insanit...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <7un1b2$tu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > > jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Portrait of the NG as a Superannuated Crank
>> > > > 21 October 1999
/snip/
>>
>> > > > let me underline the real-world moral of these virtual-
>> > > > world reflections: the actually existing Republican Party, the
>> > > > Bushes and Doles out there where the CRT doesn't shine, are no
>> > > > more defined by billbashing than by isolationism. Both
>phenomena
>> > > > are obsolete rubbish from the mainstream GOP standpoint. Sad to
>> > > > say, the elephant people have mostly "grown."
>
/snip/
>
>[JHM] Begin with the obvious. Dole would have signed all the
>Contract-with-America gunk into law. If Dole had been elected,
>Gingrichism would have been a success. Yeeeeech.
Yes. So what is the point of praising the normal Republicans, when at
the moment they end up voting with the crazies when it matters?
(Impeachment, CTBT etc).
Or rather, of talking about them without suggesting why they do this,
or how they could be freed to vote their normality.
Cheers,
Bredon
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com
> >[JHM] Begin with the obvious. Dole would have signed all the
> >Contract-with-America gunk into law. If Dole had been elected,
> >Gingrichism would have been a success. Yeeeeech.
>
> Yes. So what is the point of praising the normal Republicans, when at
> the moment they end up voting with the crazies when it matters?
> (Impeachment, CTBT etc).
>
> Or rather, of talking about them without suggesting why they do this,
> or how they could be freed to vote their normality.
>>>>>>
They have been freed. Dole lost. Newt went away. Voting for the GOP
next year will not be a matter of underwriting Gingrichite abnormality
and politics-hating. That much is already settled, so I don't have to
try to make it happen. If I *did* want to try to propagandize normal
Republican voters, alt...whitewater is surely the very last place in the
world I'd try to do so. They aren't here.
When you say "voting with the crazies," you mean Congress or maybe
the NG, not America. Part of the zombie solidarity is just left over
from the bad old days, but there is another part we're bound to disagree
about. I'm afraid I believe in political parties. "Parties" in the
dual number. Elephants too. Up to a point, voting with the caucus just
because it is the caucus constitutes a very adequate justification of a
Senator's or Representative's vote. Even if they are Republicans.
Note that disagreeing with me about this point only reduces the merit
of politicians' conscientiously breaking with the caucus on occasion.
Chafee, Jeffords, Gordon Smith and Specter are the more admirable for
supporting the CTBT because it would *not* have been sheer mindlessness
on their part to make the partisan wrong vote unanimous.
Dr. Erb (RIP) never did explain why he thinks Collins and Snowe voted
with the blundering herd. My general theory of why the less rabid
elephants went along with Helms, Kyl, Lott & Co. is this: although not
complete fools and chauvinists, they nevertheless do incline to agree
with the rest of the GOP that treaties are only glorified scraps of
paper. Therefore voting one particular scrap up or down, no matter what
was in it, simply wasn't important enough to be worth the unpleasantness
of arguing with Trent and Jesse about it. And since CTBT was "only"
foreign policy, the chance of offending voters back home hardly came in.
On those grounds, voting either way strikes me as presentable behavior
in a normal Republican. Those are not *my* grounds, of course, and
voting against CTBT would have been inconceivable if I were in the
Senate. But if I were, it would not be as a Republican in the first
place. So it might be more profitable to talk about Byrd's "present"
vote than the Maine Senators' "no." What do you think Byrd was up to?
Is he a deadly enemy working from within against everything fine and
noble like Benedict A. Bradley and me?
== Yours, J. H. McDemoncrat == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
bre...@no-spam.com
>In article <38164ec0...@news.sonic.net>,
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:11:15 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
/snip/
> My general theory of why the less rabid
>elephants went along with Helms, Kyl, Lott & Co. is this: although not
>complete fools and chauvinists, they nevertheless do incline to agree
>with the rest of the GOP that treaties are only glorified scraps of
>paper. Therefore voting one particular scrap up or down, no matter what
>was in it, simply wasn't important enough to be worth the unpleasantness
>of arguing with Trent and Jesse about it. And since CTBT was "only"
>foreign policy, the chance of offending voters back home hardly came in.
So why did they vote with the crazies on the impeachment?
>
> On those grounds, voting either way strikes me as presentable behavior
>in a normal Republican. Those are not *my* grounds, of course, and
>voting against CTBT would have been inconceivable if I were in the
>Senate. But if I were, it would not be as a Republican in the first
>place. So it might be more profitable to talk about Byrd's "present"
>vote than the Maine Senators' "no." What do you think Byrd was up to?
Dunno. At the beginning of the impeachment trial, I had a strong
impression of at the last moment, and looking very grave.
jhmccloskey
>Date: Mon, 01 November 1999 12:33 AM EST
>>>>>> And since CTBT was "only"
>>foreign policy, the chance of offending voters back home hardly came in.
>
>So why did they vote with the crazies on the impeachment?
>>>>>
I'm not sure how to take the question, but I guess you mean "Why didn't they
see that Impeachmentgate wouldn't be popular?"
To which I answer, (1) they hated Bill Clinton so bad they just didn't care,
and/or (2) they thought it *would* be popular and only found out otherwise
after they had run off the rails and couldn't recover gracefully.
Since I lack your total dedication to incumbency as such, I had some doubts
about (2) myself, but America came through nobly. Erb bless us every one.
Also I should mention (3), that part of what I was explaining to myself about
the CTBT vote was why some sane Republicans voted down Clinton's removal but
also voted down the treaty. Of course by the time Hyde's Folly got to the
Senate, anybody could figure out which way the wind was blowing politically.
Very speculatively, one might add (4) that the plan of President Sorensen's
magisterial work on courageous profilism excluded the 1919-1920 treaty
rejection, since there was no "hero" in the Senate. The 1868 impeachment was,
of course, discussed and is probably the thing most mentioned in connection
with the book. (For Rio Limbaugh: he means that intelligent elephants knew
from "JFK" better than to be like Ben Wade, but hadn't ever been warned about
not looking like Cabot Lodge.)
I admit that guessing what books account for the attitudes of our pols and
our public is a doubtful enterprise. I don't think most people know themselves
what they've been influenced by. But I see that I have wandered utterly off
the topic and shall desist at once.
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
John Kennedy
wrote:
>>From: bre...@no-spam.com
>>Date: Mon, 01 November 1999 12:33 AM EST
>>>>>>> And since CTBT was "only"
>>>foreign policy, the chance of offending voters back home hardly came in.
>>
>>So why did they vote with the crazies on the impeachment?
>>>>>>
>
> I'm not sure how to take the question, but I guess you mean "Why didn't they
>see that Impeachmentgate wouldn't be popular?"
>
> To which I answer, (1) they hated Bill Clinton so bad they just didn't care,
>and/or (2) they thought it *would* be popular and only found out otherwise
>after they had run off the rails and couldn't recover gracefully.
>
> Since I lack your total dedication to incumbency as such, I had some doubts
>about (2) myself, but America came through nobly. Erb bless us every one.
To paraphrase Aurthur Dent: Ah. This must be some strange new meaning
of the word "nobly" I wasn't previously aware of.
>
> Also I should mention (3), that part of what I was explaining to myself about
>the CTBT vote was why some sane Republicans voted down Clinton's removal but
>also voted down the treaty. Of course by the time Hyde's Folly got to the
>Senate, anybody could figure out which way the wind was blowing politically.
>
> Very speculatively, one might add (4) that the plan of President Sorensen's
>magisterial work on courageous profilism excluded the 1919-1920 treaty
>rejection, since there was no "hero" in the Senate. The 1868 impeachment was,
>of course, discussed and is probably the thing most mentioned in connection
>with the book. (For Rio Limbaugh: he means that intelligent elephants knew
>from "JFK" better than to be like Ben Wade, but hadn't ever been warned about
>not looking like Cabot Lodge.)
>
> I admit that guessing what books account for the attitudes of our pols and
>our public is a doubtful enterprise. I don't think most people know themselves
>what they've been influenced by. But I see that I have wandered utterly off
>the topic and shall desist at once.
>
>
>== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/