Rush Limbaugh and the contradictions of conservatism

Rush Limbaugh is driving the Republican Party nuts. Ha! Of course, most Republicans who actually hold elected office won't admit it. But sober realists, of which there still are some in the GOP, must be just tearing their hair out.

What they don't realize is that Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate embodiment of conservative ideology. He is acting according to what is in his own short-term best interests. That is a basic organizing principle of capitalism and conservatism: the individual must have the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests.

The problem for the GOP is that what is in Limbaugh's best interest in the short term is NOT necessarily in the best interest of the Republican Party in the long term. Limbaugh's perspective is the next few days. He wants material for his daily talk show. He could care less about what happens six months from now, a year from now, 5 years from now. He wants to make money right now. So he denounces Obama, or "feminazis," or any famous Congressional Democrat, in strong terms, because the louder and more obnoxious he is, the greater the entertainment value for his listeners.

Rush Limbaugh has absolutely no interest whatsoever in any kind of reasoned discourse about policy. That's because he has no interest whatsoever in policy. Politics is just fodder for his ranting, that's all. He doesn't care about finding the best solutions to various problems. He would actually prefer that we NOT find solutions, because he thrives on chaos and confusion. The more nervous and scared people are, the better he does. If life were perfectly calm, he would have no business.

There are many members of the traditional GOP coalition who desperately want to work with Obama. There is hardly a business in this country that doesn't have problems with healthcare costs. Many, many members of the military, and their families, desperately want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end quickly. Large numbers of businesses want to see increased spending on infrastructure and education, and are willing to pay higher taxes to get that.

These people are not necessarily Limbaugh's audience. He doesn't care about the reasonable, moderate Republicans, the ones who are willing to vote for Obama because he's a decent, responsible human being. All he cares about is feeding his dittoheads' addiction to anger. He's like a drug dealer who gets people addicted to a drug, and then keeps feeding it to them.

His audience's addiction to anger distorts their perspective. Anything that threatens their addiction - like, saying the chairman of the RNC challenging Rush's influence - is met with the trigger-happy reaction of people denied a fix.

Thus we have yet another example of the ironies afflicting conservatism: a man who embodies the ideals of capitalism - that individuals should be allowed the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests - is wreaking havoc on the GOP precisely because what is in his best interests is contrary to the best interests of the party as a whole. Bwahahahaha!

There is, fortunately for the rest of us, a more powerful force at work in this country's politics than Rush Limbaugh, an organizing principle which encourages people to recognize that sometimes it is their best interests to understand what is in the best interests of other people. This organizing principle is called "democracy." It is vastly more powerful than Rush Limbaugh.

Obama Adjustment Syndrome and the OLC memos

I think I am suffering from Obama Adjustment Syndrome. The primary symptom of this syndrome is an inability to react to major policy initiatives from the Obama Administration in real time, because they come at you fast and furious. This was particularly acute last week, when I was sort of chilling after the Oscars. I blinked, and suddenly I missed Obama's major address to Congress, the not-quite-SOTU. So I started watching the video of that online.

Then all of a sudden there was the budget. OK, let me get a grip . . . Wham! We're pulling out of Iraq. Wow, that's great, can I get some details? . . . Bling! We're bailing out another one of the financial companies.

Plus there were a few other things that I'm sure were hugely important and that I have been waiting years for but that I can't quite recall.

Today it's the release of the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) memos. On this issue, attentoin must be paid to mcjoan at DailyKos, and Andrew Sullivan. And I must pay attention.

We cannot be thankful enough that the Obama Administration has begun to expose the criminal wrongdoings of the Bush Administration, and we cannot be too harsh in our condemnation of the crimes that were perpetuated by the Bushies, particularly Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo.

I have heard many calls for various levels of investigation into what happened under Bush. I have to admit that I have been somewhat reluctant to join the chorus, because I think there is a real temptation to "criminalize political differences," i.e. to make prosecutorial mountains out of the molehills of differences of opinion.

But when the conduct in question is criminal, then we have not just the right, but the responsibility to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute. We have done so before, during Watergate, and our democracy survived.

We are responsible in this respect not to ourselves or our constituents, but to our system of justice. We have certain responsibilities to democracy.

Democracy gives us the freedom to experiment with our politics, but then holds us accountable when those experiments fail. We are in such a moment right now.

In this democracy, we all have equal opportunities within this system, and we are all considered equal before the law. The problem with this is that we don't know how to ensure that all are equal before the law, and we have different opinions about what that means. Those in power tend to have very different ideas about what constitutes justice than those who are not in power.

The system works as long as enough of us believe that the system itself, despite all its flaws, is still better than any other system for giving us the closest we can come to equal opportunities. Essential to that ideal is the system of checks and balances. As long as most people have at least some voice within the system, they have an incentive to try and make the system work.

I have written before that the American system of democracy was designed to withstand the maximum damage that can be inflicted on it, either from outside, or from within. The Bush Administration's misdeeds have been one of the attempts to inflict severe damage on the system of American democracy. The release of these OLC memos demonstrates that. Unlike almost every other politician in our system, Bush and his cronies did not believe in the system of checks and balances. They did not believe that all people are equal before the law. They believed that the President, and, by extension, those who worked for him, was above the law. Perhaps the hideous implication of this idea is that it grants to the president the right to decide who is outside the law, who does not deserve the protection of the law. That is the definition of a dictatorship.

Investigating the abuses of the Bush Administration does not constitute "criminalizing political differences."

Criminalizing political differences is what the Bush Administration did.

Elections today in Los Angeles!

There are elections today in Los Angeles. More democracy! Find your polling place here. I'm voting for Antonio Villaraigosa for Mayor, because he's done a decent job. Some newspapers have complained that he hasn't risen to his potential, and that he is focused more on his next campaign than on his current job.

I think Antonio has done a good job just keeping LA going during this crisis. His school reforms haven't gone as far as we would all like, but that's also a huge job. He's gotten the Subway To The Sea off the ground, which is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, we won't see the results of that for a long time. His best quality is just his sheer enthusiasm. There is something to be said for a politician who puts his heart and soul into improving the quality of life for his constituents. Say what you will about his policies, you can't question his dedication or his professionalism. As for his campaigning for the higher office; he will probably be running for either senator or governor very soon. But an essential part of his campaign is how well he runs the city today. If you don't like the fact that he's spending more time running for senator or governor than being mayor, send a message and vote against him in that next election. I do agree with his critics who think that he should have participated in mayoral debates. None of his competitors were serious candidates, but he did have nine of them. You would think that the Mayor of Los Angeles would understand that he has a certain responsibility to provide his constituents with some entertainment value. Particularly during a campaign.

As for the rest of the offices, I just use the LA Times endorsements. The one contentious ballot measure is Measure B, which would encourage the use of solar power in LA. That sounds like a great thing, but I've read too many criticisms of it as a power grab by the electrician's union (installations of solar power facilities would have to be by the union). Laura Chick has reached the end of her term limits, which is too bad; she's been a great Controller. Yet another great reason to oppose term limits, the stupidest idea currently inflicted on American democracy. On the other hand, I am NOT going to miss Rocky Delgadillo as City Attorney. He's had something of a bizarre tenure, which I don't even want to think about.

Restoring the Constitution

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers makes several excellent points about Obama's efforts to restore the Constitution. It's an excellent post, and deserves to be read in full (it's not very long). A reminder of how deep the corruption went:

[the Bush administration] didn't just break run of the mill laws -- they broke the central stuff that's laid down in the constitution. Their whole program was rooted in this violation of the constitution -- without that enormous breach, they couldn't have their expansive conception of executive power, upon which so many other things depended.

Democracy works because most of us - most, unfortunately not all - believe in the system, and respect the idea that the system is more important than us. But there are a few people who do not believe in the system of constitutional law, and are willing to subvert it in ways that the rest of us can barely imagine. I don't know if Bush was one of these people, but I do know that he tolerated them, and that Cheney and people on his staff were this type. I doubt Bush on his own would have trashed the Constitution as thoroughly as his Cheney and Addington did, but he sure enjoyed the benefits.

The reader points out that Obama's life as a professor of constitutional law has not gotten much attention (not as much as, say, his career as a community organizer), but that this is a key to his success. I completely agree. Lawsuits and court cases are won by three things; the facts, the law, and the ability of the lawyer to make his/her case. When it comes to repudiating Bush, Obama has the facts and the law on his side. But more importantly, he has the ability to make his case. He does so with a variation of the Powell Doctrine; he engages his opponent with overwhelming force, with the support of the American people, and with a clearly defined exit strategy. Because Bush isn't very bright, he wasn't able to build an intellectually robust defense of his philosophy of governing. Sullivan's correspondent again:

[t]his is one area where there is an enormous difference between Obama and Mrs. Clinton. She would not have moved to reestablish the proper constitutional role of the executive. She wouldn't have understood that it's the distortion of that role that's at the center of so many of our problems. Every single thing he's done points to an understanding that Cheney's distorted view of the executive is to blame for so much that's wrong, and there has been no hesitation, no wavering, in his response. He's gone in surgically and attacked it.

Liberals were frustrated at trying to engage Bush intellectually; he just brushed us off. Many liberals ended up forgetting the role that intellect plays in political combat; what good is being smart if your opponent ignores you and apparently gets away with it?

Obama never forgot this. Moreover, he is accustomed to winning debates on their intellectual merits in one of the toughest environments in the world. Because the foundations of Bush's ideas were so weak, Obama was able to dismantle them with a few strokes of his pen.

Republicans have no idea what has hit them. They will not have an idea for a while.

Sullivan's succinct response is worth quoting in full:

I agree. In fact, I'm staggered by how deep and profound the change already is. The antidote to the Cheney poison has been delivered. It will take some time to work through the system. But America is back.

I would only disagree with the last line, and I do so not because I do not think that America is back (although I appreciate the rhetorical power of the phrase), but because I don't think America ever left. The Constitution may bend, but it doesn't break.

American democracy is designed to withstand the maximum damage that can be inflicted on it, either by enemies outside or within. We have just witnessed that in action; both the infliction of severe damage, and the ability to contain that damage. What we will be witnessing for the foreseeable future is the recovery process. That requires, at the very least, five things: passion, political skill, commitment to the system of laws known as American democracy, wisdom, and strength. We are fortunate to have a president who has all five. But we are even more fortunate to live in a country where someone like Obama can not only flourish, but who the system calls forth at time of dire need. Like now.

The Transition - One big miracle, many small miracles

At a time like this, when there is the peaceful transition of power between two opposing political parties in American democracy, it's almost cliched to note what a powerful comment is on the stability of that democracy. It is unfortunately still rare in this world.

But inside the larger picture, there are lots of minor miracles. There are thousands of people involved in this process, from the Presidents themselves to the Secretaries, to the Secret Service agents, to the interns. And every single one of them does what they have to do. All of the Republicans (well, almost all, Bob Gates is still there) pack up their files and clean out their desks and unplug their computers. Then the Democrats set up their files, sit down at their desks, and plug in their Blackberries and laptops. Some of these transitions take place over days, weeks, months. Some of them are scheduled within seconds, like the Secret Service agent who will, at 12:01, move to stand behind Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. There will be snafus and mistakes, but we won't hear about many of them, if any.

Obama's people will start changing what Bush's people did. They will begin rewriting regulations, moving personnel, changing policies. The Bush people know this. They aren't happy about it, but they accept it. Within my grandfather's grandfather's lifetime, this transition precipitated a great deal of bloodshed.

The Civil War took place four score and seven years after the founding of this country. We are 144 years past 1865. Well more than half the lifetime of this country is now between us and the era of Lincoln, but it is close enough that Barack Obama is consciously echoing Lincoln's Inaugural, including his journey by train, even using his Bible for his swearing in.

There have been disputatious transitions since then, most recently in 2000. There have been instantaneous transitions forced by tragedy in the form of death or resignation (Johnson, Ford).

But we have survived every transition. We think nothing of the fact that Barack Obama and his appointees will now have the ability to possibly prosecute members of the Bush administration. Well, I shouldn't say that we think nothing of it - we are thinking a great deal about it. Whether or not those who might have committed war crimes will have to pay for them hangs heavy on many hearts. But if the Obama administration does bring criminal charges against members of the previous administration, we can be confident that the union will survive. There will be no question of that.

A long time ago I realized that one of the great virtues of American democracy is that it is designed to withstand the maximum damage that can be inflicted on it. Many people have tried to destroy this country, either purposefully, from without or from within, or inadvertantly, by virtue of their malfeasance while in office. None have been successful, because there will always be a far greater number of people, both within and outside this country, who have invested their souls in its success. As much as we complain about the current government's policies, as imperfect as our system is, we all benefit far more from it in extraordinary ways, and for that reason, we all have extraordinary reasons to believe in the system of American democracy.

There have been many small miracles over the last couple of months, and there was one big one on November 4th. Tomorrow we will all witness the greatest miracle of all.

An idiotic civics test

Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, writes in the WaPo about one of those civics test that occasionally demonstrate just how stupid the American public is.

O ut of 2,500 American quiz-takers, including college students, elected officials and other randomly selected citizens, nearly 1,800 flunked a 33-question test on basic civics. In fact, elected officials scored slightly lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent compared to 49 percent.

Only 0.8 percent of all test-takers scored an "A."

I took this test a few days ago, and got 31 out of 33 right, so I guess I am part of the 0.8%. Parker doesn't provide a link, but I googled it, and retook it - this time I got 100% (I remembered the correct answers the two that I got wrong the first time).

Parker goes on to bemoan the lack of intellectual curiosity of the average American (Parker is one of the few conservatives who have criticized Sarah Palin, which has gotten her in trouble with fellow conservatives), and proposes some solutions, including forcing high school and college students to read newspapers. Good luck with that.

I have a better solution: let's all completely ignore idiotic tests that do nothing except make us feel bad about ourselves. This test is not a worthwhile examination of a person's understanding of American democracy. Some of the questions have nothing whatsoever to do with America, and some are so obscure that only people with a well-above-average interest in history or politics even have a chance of getting them right. Try this one:

13) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:
A. all moral and political truth is relative to one’s time and place
B. moral ideas are best explained as material accidents or byproducts of evolution
C. values originating in one’s conscience cannot be judged by others
D. Christianity is the only true religion and should rule the state
E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason

"D" is a trick answer: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all lived in ancient Athens, a good 300 years before the birth of Christ; they could not have been Christians. "Evolution," as in what we learned from Darwin, was also an idea formulated in an era somewhat past their time. I have a degree in philosophy and I had to think hard about the answer, and took an educated guess. The correct answer is "E." I don't associate "E" particularly strongly with any of those four philosophers, and I've read several Platonic dialogues. In other words, very well-educated, politically aware and sophisticated people could easily get that wrong. It's absurd to claim that average Americans are not politically aware because they got that question wrong.

There's a very subtle hidden agenda at work here. "A" and "C" are clearly statements of moral relativity. "E" does not say anything about moral absolutes, but it forces you to define these four philosophers in a way that specifically DOES NOT associate them with moral relativism. At the end of the test, there are several questions about how to define capitalism, which strongly suggests that the writers of this test designed it to put conservative, "traditional" values in a positive light. There's nothing wrong with that, except that they're not upfront about it.

Or consider this question, which is about American history, but is very obscure:

11) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax

I've lived in Washington, DC, and have been an avid student of politics and American history for decades, and I had to take an educated guess on this one. I guessed "A," because the term "Anti-Federalists" suggest people skeptical about the power of the federal government, and part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to constrain the power of the government (the First Amendment being a prime example). But I couldn't name a specific "Anti-Federalist" off the top of my head if you paid me. The question implies that they had an impact on the Constitution when it was being written, which also leads me to the Bill of Rights. But, again, it's a tricky question, and not being able to answer it correctly says essentially nothing about a person's knowledge of American politics or history. You would have to have specifically studied this one group in one era of American history to know this well. I haven't done that, and I have an excellent education.

And then, some of the questions are open to interpretation:

29) A flood-control levee (or National Defense) is considered a public good because:
A. citizens value it as much as bread and medicine
B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
C. government construction contracts increase employment
D. insurance companies cannot afford to replace all houses after a flood
E. government pays for its construction, not citizens

The correct answer is "B." I got this wrong the first time (I think I chose "D"), but just about any of those answers could be considered valid. A member of a construction workers' union would probably choose "C," and who could blame her? And isn't "D" technically correct? If I were the CEO of an insurance company, that would probably be my answer.

Finally, some of the questions touch on important topics, but do so in a trivial way:

15) The phrase that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington’s Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson’s letters

Separation of church and state is a fundamental American democratic value, but the fact that the specific phrase "wall of separation" is found in Thomas Jefferson's letters ("D") is a piece of trivia. Again, I had to take an educated guess, and used the process of elimination: I doubt George Washington talked much about the separation of church and state. It probably wouldn't have been an issue in the Mayflower Compact, because that was a small group of people from the same religion; the issue comes up once in the Constitution, in the First Amendment, which doesn't use that phrase; and I've never read it in the Declaration of Independence, which was about justifying the separation of the colonies from England. And I know that Jefferson was particularly proud of his efforts to advance the cause of religious freedom. But knowing the origin of that specific phrase signifies nothing about whether or not a person understands the significance of the idea of separation of church and state in American history and politics.

I could go on. There are a number of questions that are, in fact, perfectly legitimate, simple questions that, I agree, Americans should know.

3) What are the three branches of government?
A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local

That one everybody should get. But without seeing any results, we don't know how many people did, in fact, get that one right. It's possible that 99% of the people who took this test got that question right. I have no idea. So I am not going to worry about it.

This test is garbage. If it were a test designed to test students of a particular course, it might be worthwhile. But it asks questions that highly educated people could easily get wrong for perfectly valid reasons. The fact that there are journalists out there who use this test to complain about the political and historical literacy of the American public says more about those journalists' lack of critical faculties than it does about the American educational system.

Countdown to happiness

Get ready to be happy. Or at least not horrendously depressed. Get ready to imagine new possibilities. Get ready to worry differently, about different things, and different people. Get ready for different judgments from the media, different stereotypes, different narratives floating through the culture.

You aren't ready. I'm not ready. Barack Obama might be. But none of us really are.

But in another sense, you are ready. I'm ready. I'm incredibly ready. I'm desperately ready. So many people are so desperately ready for this change. It might take some adjusting. It will take some adjusting. We are, and we are not, ready for this. But we are about to witness a peaceful transfer of power between political parties, which is a small miracle every time it happens. We are extraordinarily ready for that. That - practicing the nuts and bolts of democracy - that part, we're good at.