At eighteen I probably registered as a Democrat because, after all, I didn't know anyone who was anything else, and to a young person without much knowledge of history, the Democrats were regarded as not being responsible for the Vietnam War. That conflict had ended in disaster for everybody only a year before, and, growing up in the locus of opposition to it, I had allowed the rhetoric surrounding it to shape my perceptions.
But then I noticed that Jimmy Carter was taking advantage of the peculiar post-pardon atmosphere to push ideas even I thought were impractical if not actually wrong, and I wound up one of the few people in Berserkeley to vote for Jerry ("I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln") Ford. After four more years had passed, I had learned: a) Jimmy Carter was an ineffectual loon, b) most Republicans were more libertarian if not more liberal than most Democrats, and c) party affiliation only mattered on Primary Election Day. So in support of some would-be state legislator whom I have long since forgotten, in 1980 I re-registered as a Republican.
Not a person who embraces change swiftly, I didn't feel like a Reagan supporter at least until his second term, if ever. I never liked Bush and his party-loyal country-club ways. I thought Dole was all right but he hadn't a chance against Clinton's charisma. Bush's kid had as governor of Texas developed a reputation as someone who works across the aisle, and he reportedly had strong personal skills, and was a lot more attractive than that dour son of a corrupt senator from Tennessee; but the Presidency was water far too deep and far too hot for him, and I only voted for him again because I believed in staying the course and besides, when Kerry came out ahead in the Iowa caucuses, it was apparent that the two-faced machine that runs our country had already decided Kerry would be the Democrat fall-guy and so my interest in matters Presidential lagged.
They remain lagged, in that I don't think of GWB as the WPE (not yet: Buchanan, the first Johnson, Harding and Carter are still in contention for my vote, with Carter leading in terms of disastrous consequences in the modern era). Watching the Republican party evolve and turn away from those of its core principles that I care about has also elicited a slow reaction in me. I tend to be patient. Brain-dead ideas such as Constitutional amendments to outlaw flag-burning or abortion or gay marriage don't get my dander up because they are expressions of political fashion and rabble-rousing and have slim to no chance of ever getting enacted. I still believe that a country cannot support humanitarian principles if it is not also prosperous, and so I approve of lowered taxes and deregulation and so on as a general rule. I am also confused, frankly, as to what good reasons people might have to loosen up our laws regarding immigration (which are already much more liberal than in, say, Mexico). So I remained a Republican. But the threads got thinner and thinner. Recent debacles that led to the well-deserved mid-term pounding stretched them unto breaking.
I decided this morning, after facts came to light as to the treatment by our current government of an American citizen who has been proven only to be an ignorant punk: to hell with them. The party that allowed and enabled all this shit can no longer have my name in its lists. I trust the Democrats even less, so they can't have me either. I submitted the form and am now Decline To State.
What factors influence our political associations and loyalties? Many of us like to believe we are all rational beings and that our political expressions grow out of processing our own unique wisdom and insight. But we're wrong. Mostly we are influenced by the people around us. Someone in Orange County and someone in San Francisco may agree about everything - but the former is far less likely to join a left-leaning party. Well, I read the news and so on, but it doesn't often sink in. I have to give credit for this final straw to flesh and blood.
25 comments:
A thoughtful treatise, sir. I consider my own political metamorphosis decidedly oddballian, having moved from right to left in the midst of a state as red as a baboon's arse. Still, I wish there were such a thing as DTS here, as I hold our two-party system in the lowest esteem.
Welcome to the DTSers, Don! We have better snacks.
Totally. And we get purple frosting on our cookies!
I know Southern Democrats whose ideas on nearly every issue are shockingly close to Northeastern Republicans. I think most people are decent folks who want the same things at the end of the day.
I keep waiting for a viable third party to spring up, one that is socially liberal, constitutionally conservative, ecologically and financially responsible, and rational when it comes to conflict. Hee. Isn't that cute?
Why is a third party so unlikely to get anywhere? They never do. Would it make more sense to become involved with the Dems or Repubs and work to make whichever one more moderate? Not a hypothetical.
-R
Roy, I hear people saying that's what they're doing all the time - staying within one party or the other to use their moderate vote to enact change. In a way it makes sense. Jon Stewart said something (only funnier than I'm about to) about the reason loons have taken over both parties is because the regular people have stuff to do. But you know, if we all voted... or some of the regular people even ran...
Ah forget it. Never work.
Welcome aboard, Captain.
You know, while I applaud your seeing the light, I have to say that you'll only really "get it" if you lose the notion that it makes a difference that Padilla is a US citizen. That is so not the point: the point is, this should not be done to anyone. That's what the Convention on Torture says -- no excuses, no special pleading, it's always and ever wrong -- and that's what the US signed up to. If you can accept that simple declaration, without hemming and hawing, and with no qualifiers, then yes: welcome to the land of the living.
That is so not the point: the point is, this should not be done to anyone.
Amen.
the point is, this should not be done to anyone
Of course it shouldn't, but the point clearly, if rather viscerally, was that it was done to an American citizen. You didn't see me repudiating the entire system when various suspect non-Americans were being treated thus at Gitmo, nor have I ever gotten exercised over the secret prisons (that many European countries collaborated with). We secure certain rights for our citizens; everyone else, being human, deserves the same, but I'm not at all sure that the same can be granted. I'll enter your land of the living when the struggle against violent international religious fanaticism can be won by being gentle. Of course, it would be easy to discuss where I am wrong here, but me being right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that I had my limits and they were finally reached.
work to make whichever one more moderate
That was my rationale for being a Republican for years. Since the overall Democratic Party philosophy is flawed and the overall Republican Party philosophy is less flawed (as taken from the voter's guide put out by the CA Sec of State) I held my nose and remained engaged. Twenty five years on, and we've only gone backwards. Enough compromise. I'm going to become one of those gnarly bald-headed radicals out in the desert who lives for the moment.
Don,
The complaint seems mostly to be that the guards look creepy and that he was blocked when in transport. Have you ever spent any time in a prison that houses violent criminals? Exactly how much of a sporting chance do you want to give the prisoners?
I have spent some time at a prison. The bottom line is that you have prisoners making bombs of urine and feces and throwing them at the guards, you have them attempting to give the guards HIV, collecting semen to throw on females who work at the prison, you have them doing all sorts of things that nice protected folk don't like to think about.
When folk do that kind of thing, you develop SOPs that protect the guards. There are two important parts of that protection. The first is called "universal precautions" much like those I use in the autopsy suite. That means that you assume that every person has HIV and that there's a reasonable chance that every person will try to infect you. That means that you wear all that protective stuff that makes them look like Imperial Stormtroopers. It may make them look icky, but it protects their lives.
The second principle is overwhelming force. This is a prison, not a summer camp. When prisoners tend to be resistive, ther *worst* thing you can do is use minimal force. That increases the chance that both the prisoner and the officer will be hurt. Instead, you use so much force that the prisoner cannot hurt either a guard or himself.
That doesn't mean beating the prisoner, but it does mean putting so many people on him that there's a person to control each limb.
Of course defense counsel alleges mistreatment. They almost always do. I suggest that you not convict the guards of atrocities unless there's a little more than accusations and photographs of them wearing protective gear.
this is not exactly your topic, but i've been doing this series on my blog of journal entries I wrote when I was much younger (most of them happening in 1985), and I just happened to have done one on seeing ronald reagan in raleigh, NC.
I also found one on 9/11/85, about talking to Reagan about our nuclear weapons....how prophetic I was as a kid huh? :-)
Billo: Your point is good if it's based on a prisoner's proven danger level. But even Padilla's own guards say he was never anything but a passive, docile prisoner. He never refused an order. He never had to be disciplined. He simply is not violent. He has never done any of the terrible things you talk about. So there can be no justification for treating him as if he had.
Actually, as billo suggests, it doesn't matter what a given prisoner's proven danger level may be. To protect your employees, as a prison you have to assume everyone is dangerous, the docile ones merely not having snapped yet, or laying low in order to surprise you, and mandate that all employees wear protective gear regardless of their personal assessment of a given prisoner as a threat.
I admit I haven't watched closely but the Padilla affair has seemed highly overblown, as if the authorities are trying to make a point at his expense. Honestly I don't mind so much when they do that with radicals from the Pakistani back country who see WMDs as the swords of Allah. But to an American citizen -- it's a gate I don't want opened. There IS a (legal) difference between being an American citizen, and not.
So billo's comments are well taken as always. I think as I said before the real point is this became my last straw. It might have been anything. I just don't want to participate in our broken system as a formal member anymore. I will always vote, hell yes. But to hell with the major political parties.
Would it make more sense to become involved with the Dems or Repubs and work to make whichever one more moderate?
Agreed .
...the point is, this should not be done to anyone...
[enthusiastic applause and cheers, with a few "Bravo!"s thrown in for good measure...]
Hey Don - anyone - what do you think of a parlimentary form of government?
jean laffite:
Your statement is a little like saying that there's no reason to wear a condom unless your partner is proven to have HIV. It doesn't work that way. This is particularly true with prisoners,since many use passivity as a method of lulling guards into a position of relative vulnerability. Indeed, there are evaluations made of relative threat levels,just as there are minimum, medium, and maximum security prisons.
But the default is to assume threat until it is proven that none exists, not to assume there is no threat until a guard is attacked or infected.
Don - I know these are just baby steps you're taking across the line, but I'm a bit curious as to how you rate Jimmy Carter "leading in terms of disastrous consequences in the modern era" the race for WPE. That is given all that GWB has done/not done and obfuscated doing/not doing in six years.
I wondered if anyone would ask. Now I wonder how well I can answer.
Carter took the position that the USSR was not so different from us and that they weren't really an enemy. He made it clear that we were wanting to be partners and not adversaries. This clarified for the Soviets that he was a new breed of ill-confident, non-confrontational American. Thus they were encouraged to go ahea and invade Afghanistan after their puppet government was overthrown by mujahadeen. Their instinct was proven correct when Carter's reponse was to ... boycott the Olympics.
Carter was right that we needed to stop coddling and enabling dictators. Unfortunately he was far too early and went about it all wrong. When the Shah got into trouble (of his own making, for the Shah was not clever), he quickly abandoned him and put his hope into a spiritual leader he assumed would be another Gandhi ... but that's because he never actually read what Khomeini had written. He effectively midwifed the Iranian revolution.
Even then, as a kid with nothing and living in the East Bay, I thought foolish his tack that the U.S. must have lowered expectations of prosperity. That never sells, but more importantly it's never true, not for long. Now there was a lot going on to hamper the economy back then and I don't know enough to blame Carter's policies. He just impressed me back then as someone who didn't have a clue.
That's true for GWB as well. The important things are long-term consequence. Buchanan would be better remembered if he wasn't followed by Lincoln, for it was Lincoln's election that inspired secession. If Breckenridge or someone had won instead, Buchanan would be nowhere near the running for WPE. Carter OTOH brought a fresh spirit and attitude to the White House, one that enabled the Afghan mess and almost single-handedly created Iran as it is today. The results of his appeasing foreign policy are still with us, millions of deaths later. Of course we don't know what the alternatives might have been, but I can't imagine how they'd have been much worse, even with Jerry Brown in there instead (as could have happened, for he was one of the leading contenders in '76).
Wiggy, we do have a parliamentary form, in the broadest sense. It differs from Britain's chiefly in that some of Britain's seats are inherited. I'm curious to know what you would change. Personally I'd get rid of the lobbyists. Maybe have term limits, but at something more than two terms, maybe four or five. Find a way to give credit for repealing laws, not just for writing them.
Oh, on dictators, Carter coddled some of the worst. When he abandoned the Shah he absolutely chose the wrong dictator to abandon.
I know we can't know, Don - but can't you imagine what kind of lead Bush may have "in terms of disastrous consequences in the modern era" in our lifetimes? What has occurred in Iraq is somewhat of a disastrous mess, dontcha think? And couldn't this have disastrous consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East - and therefore, the world?
The results of his appeasing foreign policy are still with us, millions of deaths later.
I don't think this can be single-handedly blamed on Jimmy Carter. Despots and dictatorships and the like have come and gone throughout the history of mankind. And the Middle East has been the source of misery for the entire world for many many moons - far before Carter was a twinkle in his mother's eye...
It's actually too early to know what Bush's legacy will be. Iraq won't be in chaos forever. Nor could it become an Iranian satellite. Iran has been the big winner so far, and so long as the religionists hold sway that's bad. I concede that Bush may yet become the WPE: By going against Saddam without sufficient justification, he's harmed America's position over there for a long time to come. And a lot of that blood has to be on his hands, for he was the stupid kid who took his big stick to the hornet's nest. But as you say, whenever things go this wrong, there are a lot of other people to blame too.
We've got to stop switching chairs on the Titanic and get off the f*cking boat. Who says we can't have a third party? Them? Anyway, thanks for the post. Reality favors those who embrace it.
Chiming in late as usual, I just read the remark blaming what happened in Iran on Carter. That's nonsense. the support Khomeini had among Iranians was due more to the abuses of the Shah than anyone. The Iranians were ripe for someone, anyone perhaps, to come and kick the Shah out. Also, how did any of us in the mid Seventies, after three years at Berkeley High, know enough to be able to judge that Carter didn't have a clue?
Yes, support for Khomeini was due to the Shah being yet another asshole dictator. Things got bad for the Shah, and Carter said (I quote), "Fuck the Shah." A tyrant; but also a solid ally, against whom Khomeini was a worse tyrant and no ally at all, as Carter's people would have known were they less idealistic and more prone to reading up on what Khomeini had actually been saying. Iran and Afghanistan are what having a weak foreign policy gets you.
I don't remember what clue I had, except that I didn't vote for him either time. That was about the time I was coming under the influence of conservative science fiction writers like Jerry Pournelle, who liked to point out that though the environmental movement made some good observations, they were sorely lacking in solutions that could actually get implemented. Things have improved.
Post a Comment