Taking A Jackhammer To The American Foundation

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026312.php

TAKING A JACKHAMMER TO THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION.... When coming to terms with the radicalism of the contemporary Republican agenda, it's convenient to turn to the right's approach to the Constitution. This year, we've seen a growing number of prominent Republican officials and candidates talk about scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment, and proposing dozens of new amendments.

But this isn't just a question of what they want to do to the Constitution; it's the consequences of how they interpret the Constitution. Brian Beutler had an interesting item this morning.

It seems as if we've heard more about the Constitution this election than we did in 2008, when questions of due process and cruel and unusual punishment were bona fide election issues. Two years in to Barack Obama's presidency, after turning a blind eye throughout the Bush years, a key goal for the Tea Party this election is to "return" to the Constitution. Minus certain parts of it. And only if you read other parts in a very specific way.

We know the Tea Party has a ... unique interpretation of the country's foundational text, but it's hard sometimes to keep track of all the things their favored candidates would like to see abolished or relegated as part of this "return."

Their convenient reading of various amendments -- particularly the 10th -- would radically transform the country as we know it.

Quite right. We're not just talking about far-right candidates who disapprove of some of the bedrocks of modern American life; we're talking about far-right candidates who believe these bedrocks are unconstitutional and shouldn't exist.

Brian's list notes that Social Security and Medicare would have to be scrapped. As far as several GOP candidates are concerned, the minimum wage and unemployment benefits would necessarily meet the same fate. Some, including Nevada's Sharron Angle, would also eliminate American participation in the United Nations on constitutional grounds, and in the case of Kentucky's Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act isn't legally sound, either.

I have to wonder if the electorate fully appreciates what's become of Republicans' ideology in recent years.

—Steve Benen

[necso]

1. Perhaps now is a good time

to review a little relevant history.

The country was in a very bad way when this administration (and this Congress) took over. And like a boulder careening wildly downhill, the situation was inevitably going to get worse before it got better. (Just stopping the boulder before it hit bottom (and kept on rolling) was a first step.)

But this was no accident: the previous administration had, by neglecting its duties, giving itself over to an unrealistic ideology instead of good governance, and implementing narrow-minded, short-sighted policies, set us on this course -- and gave us great momentum in it.

So let's refresh our memories by hitting a few low points of the previous eight years. That is:
* The disaster of 9/11 (which, the cons seem to believe, happened in some mysterious void of time between when Clinton left office and w took office... or under Clinton);
* The unnecessary, costly and counterproductive invasion of Iraq (which used to be a secular state and a bulwark against Iran and violent "religious" extremists), while neglecting the war in Afghanistan, thereby leaving us with two festering wounds -- and empowering the Iranian government;
* Real-estate and "securities" bubbles that, when they burst, hammered the domestic and world economies (and that, in the real-estate (and securitizations thereof) arena at least, may have been wrought and fraught with fraud from appraisals to foreclosures);
* The capture of (supposed) government regulatory functions by the corporations supposedly being regulated;
* The inability of the government, in a timely manner, to rescue the citizens of New Orleans from flooding (of course, to the cons maybe it was "thinning the herd" or "getting rid of parasites");
* Running up a half-trillion dollars plus of new debt a year; and
* assorted other policies and actions that poisoned the well (economic, social, cultural, institutional well) that the great majority of us (but not the globalist elite) must drink from.

And let's be clear: Almost all -- if not all -- of these things could have been prevented by simple good governance, by merely not being ideologically-blinded-and-stupefied fools. (Moreover, by far the best way to deal with such difficulties is to avoid them in the first place; like avoiding busting a gallon jug of cheap red wine on your nice new carpet.)

Of course, in 2008 the American people rejected the party of all these failures.

But what was the response of the republicons to these, their, spectacular failings, and to the will of the American people.

Were they ashamed of their failures; did they admit their mistakes; did they chart a new course; did they accept the results of a democratic election.

No; no; no; no.

Rather the republicons dug in their heels; stuck to the same policies (and worse); obstructed, delayed, and attrited; cynically and deceitfully held out hope of compromise only to jerk it away; and sought to profit (like by destroying democrats; gaining power) from prolonging and exacerbating the country's misfortunes. In short, if the cons can't themselves reign, then they feel that nobody should be able to govern: ugly, wretched, hateful behavior, and poison to democracy itself.

Moreover, if the republicons are now rewarded for their despicable, calamitous, unAmerican behavior, then only more and worse can be expected... regardless of their lies and promises.

Indeed, it's paramount to recognize that in the face of the utter failure of extreme wrong-wing policies, the response of the republicons has been to push for even more extreme policies; to beat the head of the American people even harder against the wall.

Malevolence defined.