Category: Politics

Time for a risky comparison.

In the year 2003, we’ve had three high-profile examples of a minority body using their legal ability to either effect or prevent change. The first is the Democratic filibusters used in the Senate to prevent three (out of many) of Bush’s judicial nominees from reaching the federal bench. The second is the Killer Ds — the Texas Democrats who fled the state to block redistricting. The third is the California recall election.

All of these represent a minority taking advantage of an established, legal tactic. If I argue (as I have) that the Texas Democrats are legitimate in their actions because the law allowing them to do so is well-understood and in effect supported by the citizens of Texas, I think I must make a similar argument for the California recall. The law allowing the recall is no surprise; there have been plenty of attempts to recall California elected officials. It’s just that most of them fail. If it’s a bad law, Californians have had every opportunity to repeal it.

Any of the three tactics may be ill-advised, in the way that running Bush for President may have been ill-advised. You can say any particular one of them shouldn’t have happened and was a mistake. But I don’t think you can call any of the processes by which they occurred an abuse of the democratic process unless you’re willing to call all of them an abuse of the democratic process.

In other words: minorities sometimes get to exercise power, even when the majority disagrees.

There are a couple of qualitative differences between the various situations. Most obviously, the California recall is an example of a minority actively effecting change, rather than an example of a minority actively blocking change. I’m not sure there’s a moral difference there, however, particularly in light of the other obvious difference: namely, the California minority voice only created a situation in which a full vote can take place rather than enacting change in its own right.

Now, the California recall voting process itself is pretty questionable. (Wow, what a great opportunity for approval voting…) But I think I want to consider that separately from the process which leads to the recall vote, and I don’t think we’ll really know until closer to October whether or not a very small minority (i.e., under 40%) will actually choose the next governor of California. My bet is on the usual dynamics of winner-take-all voting to come into effect in mid-September as the field narrows down to two “real” choices.

Not getting so very much press, but there’s a little war brewing between Ashcroft’s Justice Department and the American jucidiary. The proximate trigger was a recent Ashcroft’s directive to federal prosecutors: he wanted ‘em to research judges who give light sentences.

Ashcroft has kind of been under the radar recently, what with the war and all. Seems as good a time as any to link once again to his interview with the neo-confederate magazine Southern Partisan. (They called him “a jealous defender of national sovereignty against the New World Order.”)

Amazing how much he defended state’s rights at the time, compared to how he seems to feel about them now.

As we all know, many suspected terrorists in the United States are enemy combatants. This designation is used for those whose detention is a matter of national security. They don’t get the same rights as you and I, because giving them an open trial — or even access to their lawyer — is a risk. Can’t take risks with American lives.

Meanwhile, in that bastion of civil rights that is Indonesia, the Indonesian government somehow managed to give Bali bomber Amrozi bin Nurhasyim a relatively normal trial. This, despite the active network of terrorists inside Indonesia. You’d think that if the United States is at risk when letting suspects talk to lawyers, Indonesia would be more so.

The California recall election is definitely the most hope-inspiring thing to happen to third party politics since Perot. Here’s a theory laying out how a libertarian could win it all.

Look, like it or not, the whole line about winning with 15-20% of the vote is wishful thinking. Either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to come together behind one candidate. The winning candidate is going to have upwards of 35% of the vote.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about all this excitement at the prospect of winning an election with such a small percentage of the vote, anyhow. It seems uncomfortably like putting political interests ahead of serving the people, which is at least one thing democracy has going for it.

The Green Party is floating an interesting scenario for the California recall election. It’s possible that the Republican candidates will split the vote among them, and that the Democrats will hold firm behind Davis and not field another candidate. In that case, Peter Camejo, the Green candidate, picks up the Democratic vote and waltzes into the Governor’s office.

I don’t think it happens, because there are too many things that have to fall the right way. If Camejo becomes accepted as an alternative to the Republicans, the Democrats lose any advantage they have by not running a candidate, so they go ahead and get Feinstein to run. Also, you have to assume the Republicans don’t pull together behind Riordan.

Still, it’s an interesting scenario.

Randy Barnett gives Den Beste much stroke over at the Volokh Conspiracy. While I think Den Beste is skimming over some issues, I must credit him with linking to someone who refutes him nicely. So no picking on Den Beste today.

Nah. Let’s quote Barnett instead. The emphasis is his.

Funny, how you have to read blogs or websites like NRO to learn ANYTHING about what is or may be really going on. The news media is hopeless. Bias to one side, you simply cannot be informed by reading or listening to the mainstream press.

So, ah, where did Randy think Den Beste got his facts? I mean, Den Beste doesn’t actually have any sources that are denied to the rest of us; he learned what he knows about the current state of North Korean diplomacy by reading the BBC and ABC News, just like you and I. You can tell, because he links to their sites to establish his facts. He then analyzes those facts and presents his conclusions.

Randy, in his enthusiasm, confuses “being informed” with “accepting someone else’s conclusions.” This is dangerous. We have, in this era of the Internet, more sources of information available to us than ever before. Many of them are false. It’s vital that we learn to assess primary sources for ourselves; it’s vital that we learn to reach our own conclusions.

Den Beste is not running a news site, nor does he claim to be. He’s running an opinion site. We shouldn’t confuse the two. Read his opinions, by all means — but then go to the same sources he uses, and others, and decide for yourself if his conclusions match yours. Simply reading an opinion, or even many opinions, does not cause one to be informed.

Update: Hi to everyone who dropped by from USS Clueless, and thanks for visiting. Be warned that I tend more to the left than the right, but don’t assume that makes me a Democrat.

Daily Kos speculates on Iowa caucus maneuvering, which might make one wonder why anyone cares about the Iowa caucuses at all. He’s outlined a scenario under which Kerry supporters might throw their votes to Gephardt in order to derail a Dean victory. And yep, that’s about the kind of thing that happens in caucuses.

I don’t think it really requires cell phones to happen, though; Kerry’s campaign can make that decision the night before and pre-arrange the votes instead of waiting till the last moment. They’d sacrifice up to the moment decision making, but they’d gain reliability.

Either way, it’s all a game of perceptions.

Adam Tinworth points out this and this regarding the Kelly case. The latter is in particular full of pertinent details.

Also, the Hutton Inquiry has a web site. It includes full transcripts of the entire hearing to date. This sort of transparency impresses me. Between Adam and Lord Hutton, one suspects one might get all the necessary coverage and pointers.

The Boston Globe reports that we may put out a kill order on Saddam rather than attempt to capture him. The reports come from the infamous anonymous officials, of course. This is pretty much a conspiracy theorist’s wet dream, but interesting nonetheless.

Just bear in mind it could be bad reporting, it could be Bush floating a trial balloon, it could be the CIA honing their knives in the backs of Bush, or it could be absolutely true.

Not so big on free speech in Iraq.

During a patrol in Tikrit early Wednesday, U.S. forces came across a black flag strung up in front of a local government building. The writing mourned the passing of Odai and Qusai.

After asking his translator to read the gold and white lettering to him, U.S. Lt. Col. Steve Russell, whose 4th Infantry Division, 1st Battalion is leading the raids in Tikrit, took out his pocket knife and cut it down, crumpling it in his hands before taking it away.

Also of note: Mahdi Obeidi, the helpful scientist who handed over the centrifuge parts over to the CIA, says those infamous aluminum tubes really were for rocket launchers. Of course, it’s all a plot to distract us from the truth. Whatever that is.

Back in April, I did some numbers on Bush’s pre-war speeches. I had a feeling back then that people would start pretending the WMD claims didn’t matter. I was right. Den beste has forgotten his own words, apparently. The State of the Union speech convinced him that the purpose of the war on Iraq was disarmament. Well, as I said in April:

“When my President tells me we’re going to war for a purpose, I expect that purpose to be fulfilled. I expect his rationale to be justified… I really want to know if our President’s claims about threats can be relied upon or not. Is that so much to ask?”

Those who don’t care about Presidents misleading them say the war is justified anyhow, and it’s not like anyone cares. Sure. That’s why India and Germany are refusing to send troops to help out. That’s why Bush is seeking European help in Iran. Get with the program: trust matters.

And that’s where we link back to the beginning of this post. We need to carry out our promises in Iraq. One soldier restricting free speech — not really a big deal, and you can’t take it as indicative. But you can keep an eye on that sort of thing. It must not be allowed to be a trend.