Idyll Reflections

Howard Dean, Unilateralist? (Gasp! Horror!): Check out this interview with Howard Dean. Note the dangerous "go-it-alone" rhetoric of imperialism:


"What kind of rules would you introduce to stop corporations moving jobs abroad, as you keep criticizing?
[Dean:] Well, you can't just stop corporations. You have got to make the rules fair if they do it. I believe that globalization is inevitable. But I believe that all we've done is globalized the rules for multinational corporations. We haven't universalized, or in this case globalized, working rights. So if this is a global economy, we're going to have to have the same labor standards, en--vironmental standards and human-rights standards. We have to start incorporating those in every trade agreement and go back and revise the trade agreements that we have.

If they won't incorporate them?
[Dean:] If they won't incorporate them, then probably we aren't going to be able to continue to import their products. Because we're essentially subsidizing their economy. Now I'm a convert to this. [Dick] Gephardt correctly points out that I supported China's admission to the WTO, and NAFTA. The reason my position has altered is because I've seen what's happened to the Midwest in this country. It is shocking. Small towns losing their one factory. "



Can there be a better example of extremist, capitalist-imperialist swill? "Globalization is inevitable"! And don't get me started on that nonsense about "universalized/globalized" environmental standards and (ach!) "human-rights" standards! What makes him think that he knows what "right" is! Talk about hubris!

Sarcasm aside, Dr. Dean does seem to be setting forth some unilateralist agenda in trade. After all, the US would seem to be deciding what appropriate standards are (perhaps in conjunction with a "coalition of the willing," but we would still have final authority) and punishing those countries which do not meet them through not importing their products. He even would tamper with one of the supposed icons of the supposed "left;" international agreements. Not that I think "unilateralism" is necessarily a bad thing (the groupthought-tendencies of "multi-lateralism" (oh political rhetoric!) might give a number of people some pause), but Dr. Dean and a number of his fellow would-be contenders seem to criticize the Bush administration for the same thing, albeit in a different theater (military). However, so far we have seen little open recognition or discussion of the proper uses of multi-lateralism vs. unilateralism from these individuals (and, yes, I know about all the politics of the matter, but I can't keep my foolish curiosity in check all the time). Such a clarification would certainly be very helpful and worthwhile. I'm keeping my eyes open.....

More Reflections: Matt Drudge rightly links to Peggy Noonan's essay in The Wall Street Journal; it shows a sensitive and humanistic optimism. Bravo, Ms. Noonan, especially on that conclusion!
Also via Drudge, check out the pieces in Time and Newsweek about Saddam's capture.

Ravaged and Haggard: Not a bad essay by Lee Harris about the aesthetic effects of the bearded Saddam. I appreciate his cautiously limited optimism:

"That is the problem of living through history, rather than reading about it when it is over. What at first appears a triumph may be just a prelude to disaster; what at first seems a failure may prove to be merely a necessary step toward a final success. The capture of Saddam Hussein may not prove to be the turning point when, decades from now, we look back on this period; but, for right now, it certainly feels like it. "


Our views are often limited between the waves of history. However, we should keep trying, and the difficulty of making judgments about success or failure need not dispel our obligation to try our hardest to know and do what is right.

Change is in the air: Well, as you (and it probably is a single reader by now) can see, I've made some changes to this little part of the 'sphere. A comments section has been added for your egalitarian, democratic pleasure. Also, the links have been changed a little bit. And maybe (just maybe!) I'll be making more of an appearance after a few technical trials and tribulations.
All the best,
Calidore.

GOT HIM! What a great and proud day for Iraq! What a wonder for all the world! The nobility of the action and the heroism of the actors is startling and wondrous. The celebrations of the people of Iraq at the capture of their former oppressor is truly moving. To see the bliss of their triumph! Oh happy day!

The Age of Liberty: Do read President Bush's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. It shows a powerfully optimistic vision and sensibility.

That's Some Hall Pass: If you want to see something pretty frightening, check out this story about a drug raid at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South Carolina. The video is especially disturbing. Of course, though police dogs "indicated" the presence of drugs in twelve bookbags, no drugs were found, despite the students in the hallway being forced to lie on the ground with fourteen officers ready with drawn guns. Was/is the supposed drug problem bad enough in the school to warrant a fruitless crackdown on the legally innocent?
What is especially troubling, however, in my opinion, is Principal George McCrackin's (the perhaps-truth of a name!) response to student concerns: "I'm sure it was an inconvenience to those individuals who were in the hallway, but there is a valuable experience there." There certainly is: the experience of tyranny can remind those students of how precious liberty is and how worthy it is to fight for it. While I don't know the full context of this situation yet, this certainly isn't a good start.
(Thanks to Matt Drudge for bringing my attention to this story.)

A Potentially Troubling Development: Though I always had mild suspicions of the Patriot Act, this news story does potentially increase my fears. It's one thing to be quick and dirty when there is a clear and present danger to the nation's security and well-being; its quite another to use the name of the act to go after more run-of-the-mill corruption. Of course, the facts revealed later might show how such a use of the Patriot Act was appropriate in ways beyond the mouthing of the law. Hopefully, time will tell. In any case, however, the future of the Patriot Act continues to be shrouded in fog.

Safety and Freedom: Check out this piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a professor's inflammatory comments. It has some interesting turns, though few are particularly new.

How Supreme?: This article by Sandy Schulz touches upon a trend that I myself have noticed and been concerned with in recent Supreme Court decisions. The links in the article are especially helpful. It is very dangerous for the Supreme Court to start to privilege the views of "other countries" over our own national laws simply because such an approach can quickly lead to tyranny; following this method, the justices could conceivably cite from whomever they felt like. We would not have an interpretation of American laws but a projection of whatever the justices felt like. (Of course, the justices may have made the "right" decision in a given ruling, but this decision should be based on the right judicial reasoning. The legislature need not confirm to the same standard of judicial reasoning and should not; it is not solely a judicial body.) Continuing with a citation of foreign sources, why doesn't the Court take into consideration the views of Saudi Arabia on the separation of church and state? How about China on search and seizure or Germany or South Africa on free speech? Clearly, the opinions of the jurists of other nations can be very helpful in informing the sensibility of our own lawpeople and offering a context within which to place a law. Certainly, the history of law can be especially useful. However, such an "informing" can only go so far before it becomes the snap of an order. The words of our Constitution and laws should not be dissolved of meaning in order to appease the "conscience" of our judicial activists/frustrated legislators.
In passing, I really should note how intriguing Ruth Bader Ginsburg's speech is on this issue; its argument demonstrates a number of the prejudices and rhetorical sleights of hand that might be used to support such notions of international dominance of the individual nation. Her citation of Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) as a supporter of strict interpretation of the Constitution is amusing; perhaps she is trying to inflame passions in order to occlude the fact that a number of more distinguished Americans have held that view. The way in which she draws support for the idea of comparative jurisprudence from the framing language of founding documents (which seems closer to a legislative task to me) is also very telling. Also, it is striking to note that so much of what Ginsburg takes as early support for a comparative perspective emphasizes that the country should take into consideration the views of other "civilized" nations. Such notions would seem to run counter to the pure multiculturalism espoused by many likely supporters of such a comparative perspective today; it implies that there is such a thing as civilization (as opposed to barbarism). Also, I think she does not fully take into account the (amazingly heroic) notions of the time of the founding of this nation in the shaping of its language of the laws of nations and mankind.
There is also a sense of the naive in her remarks; it is as though the "world community" (whatever that is) is always in the right and that it should always be followed after. You must forgive an American individualist, but I do not see how the mass of opinion being in agreement upon a point makes it necessarily right. Need Justice Ginsburg be reminded that, at the time of the Civil War, quite a bit of European opinion was profoundly racist and supported slavery in the South? Should the American North have, in that case, undone its "lone ranger" mentality in favor of achieving a wider consensus within the international community? The fact that we are living in a post-1960's world does not imply that the majority is always right. An even more dangerous idea is the notion that judges should endlessly subvert laws of their own nation in favor of those of another in the name of "right." Yes, at times such choices in favor of right must be made, but we should not so easily forget or discount the wisdom of the law and law-making. Nor should we so easily surrender our own consciences to those of another people in favor of the cloak of conforming community.

Bits and Pieces: Well, I continue to be busier than I have expected. Nevertheless, I hope to start posting again, if only a few impressions here and there. Still, what I can offer, I will when I can.

Two Years Ago

Two years ago, we witnessed the horror of terrorism. Let us not forget the pain and rage of those hijackers and their supporters. Let us not forget the virtues of progress or lose faith in liberty. Let us not lose faith in ourselves, but keep strong and wise in our self-knowledge. Hatred cannot be appeased; it can only be fought. May we continue in the just fight...realizing that it is not over.

Cognitive Dissonance: This link shows how much life has changed for the better in post-Saddam Iraq; this one shows an interesting statistic.

Reich's Right: A pleasantly constructive article in The American Prospect this week. Robert Reich is quite correct in noting the trend toward "permanent campaigns"/"permanent elections." However, I think that this shift began at least in the late nineteenth-century (though let's not forget about Andrew Jackson's multi-year campaign against J. Q. Adams) with the rise of "progressive" politics. Certainly, by the early twentieth-century, the adoption of direct election of senators was a shift away from political in-gaming to public pandering. Certainly, the GOP bears a unique responsibility for this shift (after all, the GOP was the progressive party during the early twentieth-century and has made use of the contemporary tactics Reich has mentioned), but progressive rhetoric bears its a very heavy burden for this as well; it encourages the notion that "the people" (i.e. the mob) are always right. It tends to place sheer mass of will over reasoned arguments, noise over speech. Certainly, the use of the recall is a tactic for further democracy; it makes the elected official even more dependent upon the will of the people. Of course, it also dilutes the authority of this will and status of the people. Indeed, permanent election is not the tool of a liberal democratic republic but of a democratic tyranny.
However, I must take issue with Reich's complaint about the election of 2000. A republic needs law well established and fairly delivered, and the methods of the Florida recount seemed hardly inclined to determining the will of the people; instead, the methods better served the delivery of the will of the vote counters. There were egregious problems with the recount process. It was not the case of encouraging a "permanent election" as much as a highly complicated dance of political and legal wrangling.

California Dreaming: With the governor's race heating up in California, so too has the rhetoric of the blogosphere. The whole Bustamante-Mecha controversy really has the fires going. Here's an intriguing post by Lowell Ponte on Frontpagemag; a somewhat shoddily researched and argued would-be "debunking" of the controversy; and Tacitus' response to it. It seems pretty hard to deny that there certainly is some "hate speech" happening in a lot of Mecha rhetoric, and there definitely does seem to be some hardcore radical history to the organization. Of course, that in no way implies that the majority of its members or the whole of its ideology supports such principles. However, as even Bustamante's defenders will note, it is extremely puzzling why the Lieutenant Governor has not come out more strongly in support of the the principles of Mecha that he supports, rather than making a few tepid statements that resolve very little. Of course, I realize that he is a elected politician and therefore wants to build enough of a coalition to win (as Lowell Ponte's article notes, Bustamante seems capable of spinning/doing almost anything to win) but couldn't he make at least some attempt at a clear elucidation of principles?
Ted Barlow's link to a piece about the NRA and its rhetoric is extremely interesting; the rhetorical twisting and venomous bias of the article give a fair testament to the grim tools of the enemies of the second amendment. Also in passing, I don't find the argument that Mecha does a lot of good for the community particularly powerful or the anecdotes about how "my experience with Mecha was very positive; we only did "good" things; it's a fine organization" very compelling. Even though some members of a society may encourage social good, the good attempted does not do away with the hate of the rhetoric. Bustamante should make a stand on the rhetorical ideology of Mecha and, even perhaps, express his own ideology. In my opinion, that's what really matters. And the blogosphere should try to continue to find out what the rhetorical ideology of Mecha really is.

I'm Back: It's been a busy few weeks, but Calidore has returned! Onwards, good sir, onwards!