Bob Barr nails it on the incredible expanding imperial Presidency

[thatcrazycajun]

As if Junior Bush hadn't already demonstrated, by carrying out his promised veto of the spending bill with its out-of-Iraq timetable, that he does not consider himself the least teensy little bit bound by the will of the people who elected him, now comes a bill in which he seeks to arrogate even more broad, unconstitutional power unto himself and future holders of his ill-gotten office.

The more I read the columns of former GOP US Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia in our local paper, the more tempted I am to add him to the very short list of conservative politicos and pundits for whom I actually have some grudging measure of respect (although I think he may actually be more libertarian than conservative). This list includes Charles Krauthammer and George F. Will.  Barr's latest column reports on the above-mentioned atrocity wending its way through Congress presently. Kudos to him for recognizing courage in opposing it even when such courage is exhibited by the opposition; it must just be killing him to have to acknowledge hard-left Dems like Pat Leahy and Hank Johnson for standing up to the Bush Regime on this...and to have to break Ronnie Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican") and dis fellow GOPers for backing it.

At this point, I might almost—almost—be willing to forgive ol' Bob for being one of the Clinton impeachment managers back in '96. If he's willing to impeach Junior too, I definitely would consider it.

*Vince beat Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to that particular political filk by at least three decades.

Comments

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I've tried several times to find a polite way to express this. Having failed and abstained, I shall simply express myself directly.

it must just be killing him to have to acknowledge hard-left Dems like Pat Leahy and Hank Johnson for standing up to the Bush Regime on this...and to have to break Ronnie Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican") and dis fellow GOPers for backing it.

I highlight this sentence, becuase I find it typical of your political rhetoric, and it illustrates why I tend to skip your posts if I think they have anything to do with politics.

There is room in the sphere of public debate for reasonable people to disagree about a variety of issues. In that sphere, there will be people who hold principled positions, and there will be those who react to everything done by their ideological opponents with scorn and derision.

Honestly, I find most of your political postings as obnoxious and thoughtless as the most pinheaded conservative wingnut even when I largely agree with your position..

People on the left have a variety of valid points about the roles of government in society. People on the right have a variety of equally valid points. And we might just find common ground if we can stop sniping at one another and playing games of onedownsmanship and explore those differences in reasoned debate to find an equitable compromise.

I'm not saying that you should not discuss politics. Whether I agree or disagree with you on a given point, you have the right to express your opinions and I will argue anyone who says otherwise. But your tone and manner leave the impression that you are generating a great deal of heat without any noticeable light.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

All right, AC, you wanna have this out, let's have this out. Can you be a tad more specific on precisely why you find my posts so obnoxious? I'll grant I can sometimes go to extremes (my comments a few months back on Gov. Schwarzenegger of CA being one recent example, for which I did apologize), but I wasn't aware I offended you so much and consistently as to cause you to avoid reading my political postings.

Regarding the particular excerpt you cited, what precisely is so offensive to you about it? Recall that Barr was as hideously ideological as any of his GOP confreres when he served in Congress, particularly as regards the Clinton impeachment. Why is it so absurd to suppose that someone who has exhibited fierce ideological and party loyalty to his side should find himself at least a little dismayed at having to give the opposition devils their due? Or am I inaccurate in my recollection?

If what you desire is for me to be more informative or more wise than partisan, I am always seeking to do this, as I realize I am imperfect at best in my social skills and rhetoric (which is why I titled this journal as I did). But it gets a bit hard sometimes to keep an even keel when dealing with particularly obnoxious elements on the other side, or especially egregious proposals and policies emanating therefrom. I would hope I could ask you, as a friend, to be a little more patient with me knowing this, especially as I know you share my outrage over at least some of these policies and proposals. I am entirely open to suggestions as to how to make my political rants more readable to you and less irritating.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I don't want to "have this out". I was merely attempting to express what I found disquieting about your mode of expression, which I prefaced with an admission that I had been unable to find the words to do so in a less than blunt and inflammatory manner -- this is my failing as a correspondent, and no reflection on you personally.

What I find lacking in your posts is any sense, ever, that the other side may actually have a valid position, or a valid motive for their position. You express your outrage with a certainty that borders on zealotry, and I have never been comfortable with that.

You frequently resort to ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and other rhetorical tricks that have no place in reasoned discourse. In this post, you refer to the President as "Junior", in a tone that can only be intended as pejorative. You suggest that Barr must be deeply torn between his principles and his loyalty to his party, despite the fact that he has been a fierce critic of the Administration for years.

Why do you post these things? Are you just wanting to let off steam by shouting your outrage from the rooftops? If so, then carry on, you're doing a great job. Are you wanting to ingratiate yourself with like-minded folks? Again, you're doing well, but preaching to the choir has limited utility.

If, on the other hand, you want to try and reach people and convince them of the rightness of your opinions, well....I don't think you're being effective. Saying, in effect, "You are all a bunch of evil moronic f***heads" isn't going to win you any debates, even when it's true. To get someone to see your position, you first have to make them feel that you're capable of seeing their position. if they feel like you're dismissing them out of hand, then you're not having a conversation, you're lecturing, and who wants to be lectured to.

Does the other side use the same tactics? Absolutely. Does that mean sinking to their level is appropriate? No. I maintain that it IS possible to keep the high road without being steamrolled. It just requires effort.

I didn't bring any of this up to slam you, Matt. If I thought so poorly of you as that, I wouldn't have bothered. I'd have just dropped you from my flist and put you on /ignore. (Yes, I've actually done that in the past to someone.) So please take this in the spirit in which it was offered.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking the time to think about your answer and to answer in the first place. You have given me much about which I will obviously have to do some serious soul-searching.

I will say this: I call the current President "Junior" for two reasons: 1) to distinguish him from his much more sane and sensible father, who held the office previously; and 2) to call attention to his continuing pattern of immature, frat-boyishly arrogant attitude toward most of the opposition leaders, voters (especially those who vote Democrat), other nations and their leaders, and the world community at large. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there who views him in this fashion; read any good progressive magazine's columnists, particularly writing by the late Molly Ivins if you doubt me.

As for why I post these things, maybe I am seeking reassurance that I'm not the only one bothered by what goes on in our nation's political arena. I have noted many other posters, some on my friends list, who put up posts every bit as passionately written about Bush, the GOP and conservative movement as mine are. (Check out filkertom's blog lately? He has often used the phrase, "The Evil Fucks Just Never Stop" in reference to the GOP. Does his rhetoric bother you too?)

Maybe I am often preaching to the choir; I am sometimes tempted to post to more conservative Websites my own opinions, though I admit to not having a taste for the kind of behavior you cite being aimed at me upon doing so. I do occasionally get responses from the pews beyond the choir loft; my post last year on the Confederate battle flag was one example.

I am by no means blind to there being valid points on the other side; I mentioned at the outset that I do have respect for some conservative commentators, and named them, and even find myself agreeing with them on occasion. That was part of the whole point of my reflection on Barr's column; I find myself in agreement with him on a surprising amount of his views as regards civil liberties and the Bush Regime's trampling thereof, among other things. Also, I grew up in a quite conservative Southern family, which remains so (one reason why I avoid political discussions with them), so I do have an understanding of why they see things as they do, albeit a limited one.

I will try henceforth to be more aware when I am descending into ad hominem attacks and other such poor tendencies as you cite, and at least attempt to restrain myself to some degree therefrom.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

For those of us that care, it is often a challenge to resist responding in kind, especialy after years of abuse. That is, after all, what made the current vangaurd of the Republican party the way they are.

I believe it is possible to advocate passionately. I believe it is possible to have a strong ideological view that I press vigorously and without apology or mealy-mouthedness. And there are those who will attack any criticism of their politcal heroes or agenda of the moment and try to play the "politeness card" to stiufle debate (which, I hasten to point out, is not what Autographedcat is doing here).

But it is a challenge.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

One other reason I forgot to mention for calling Bush "Junior": 3) that it positively sticks in my craw to call this man "President" when an ever-growing body of evidence indicates that he and his party, through voter intimidation, vote count irregularities and naked, outright fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, stole not one, but TWO elections in order to gain him that office. I refuse to dignify him with a title he has not earned, either by dint of popular vote or by his conduct in said office since attaining it. If that makes me petty and name-calling, so be it.

A few points . . .

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

1) On the Imperial Presidency thing: this part is actually how the Constitution spells it out. When the President and Congress have a fundamental disagreement, this is part of how the negotiation takes place. The accountability to the people is at the polls. It was set up this way to avoid mob rule and give members of Congress and the President an ability to stand up to the sentiment of the moment for what they beleive is the greater good.

My problem is not the veto. My problem is that Bush and most of his cohort have never understood the way government is actually supposed to function. Ronald Reagan was a master at getting stuff through a hostile Congress because he understood the business of politics i.e., the art of people getting along. So did Tip O'Neil, Bill Bradley, and a bunch of others. then a new generation arose and decided to declare total war. They are now reaping the price. And will continue to do so. Because with the exception of Kevin Martin, the Bush Administration has refused to come to grips with a new political reality.

2) The issue of rhetoric is always a hot button one. God knows I am no softie on this. But I generally try to acknowledge when I am having an ideological argument and when someone is being a dickweed. I have frequently challenged (in very vociferous terms) the free market ideology of my opposite numbers. But I can distinguish between someone like Scott Walsten at Progress and Freedom Foundation, who I think is wrong but respect as a person, with others I can name who behave like total dickweeds and sell their opinions to the highest bidders.

3) And, as a general movement matter, I am always dismayed when it becomes us v. them and when we fail to welcome the recent convert to the fold. I am glad to see an increasing number of Republicans dismayed at how the current administration is working out. I want to make it easier for them to agree with me by not saying that all Republicans are evil facists.