Raoul's Blog

Siddique's Disgusting Hatchet Job

RaoulDelano — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:29:04 EDT

Much more than necessary has been written about the record and character of Senator Joseph Lieberman over the past several weeks. I personally was not terribly sorry to see him lose the primary, as I do believe he had his head up his ass on many matters related to the Iraq war, often showing more obsequiousness to Bush's failing war strategy than some Republican members of Congress (Hagel comes to mind). Given that record, and the overall unpopularity of the Iraq war today, his loss is quite reasonable and understandable to me. Nevertheless, I had to respond to this ridiculous hatchet job of Lieberman, performed by one of this site's most talented hyperbole artists.

First of all, Siddique does not seem to understand the concept of moral relativism. Moral relativism is "the belief that nothing is objectively right and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period." Lieberman clearly believes that some things are objectively right and wrong; any cursory review of his record and rhetorical style would illustrate that he is not a man afraid of absolutes. He simply believes that Islamic jihadist ideology is as wrong and as evil as Nazi ideology. That is an arguable point. However, given that Islamic jihadist ideology encourages the murder of innocent civilians on a massive scale, aims to establish a pan-Islamic theocracy and impose religious law in such a manner so as to create one of the most oppressive systems of government known to mankind, I hardly can see how it is an "absurd" point.

Secondly, the fact Islamic jihadists are not currently as powerful or threatening as the Nazis or Soviet communists once were totally misses the purpose of the comparison that is being made here. The whole point in likening the character and ideology of Islamic terrorists to that of the Nazis to call out the danger in appeasing or downplaying the threat that they pose today.

Seventy years ago, in 1936, the Nazis had also not "murdered six million people in an effort to exterminate an entire race of people" nor had they "conquered sizeable areas of any continent, subjecting populations to slavery and eugenicist extermination policies." Only because the West chose to ignore them at some times and capitulate to their demands at others were they ever able to gain the strength they needed to accomplish those heinous acts.

I believe the point that Sen. Lieberman made here is that the Islamic jihadist movement carries an equally evil ideology as the Nazi movement - and is capable of an equally evil threat to civilization if they are not opposed vigorously and prevented from gaining further strength. Again, it's an arguable point, but hardly an unreasonable one, given the nature and aims of the enemy we face today.

The fact that Siddique would assert that Joseph Lieberman, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants who themselves survived the holocaust, is somehow intentionally minimizing the evil of Nazism - well, that is the only thing "sickening" and "disgusting" here.

Charges of Racism

RaoulDelano — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:18:55 EST

Quite a brawl broke out on this site as a result of Lauren's rather provocative essay beseeching illegal immigrants to return to Mexico. Now I can't say I agree with Lauren; the logistical and ethical challenges of a massive deportation program would be so great they are hard to imagine. However, what I have to take to task was this reaction that Lauren's blog was somehow racist.

Facile charges of racism seem to be becoming more and more popular in our political discourse (and particularly on the left) as a means to quickly de-legitimize an opponent's argument and shut down the debate. Due to this country's collective guilt over our history of mistreatment to American blacks, there is nothing an educated white person is more afraid of than being labeled a racist. Liberals recognize this fact well; they have learned that charging someone with racism is the easiest and quickest way to put them on the defensive and cast doubt on their personal integrity and thus the validity of their argument. Conservatives have started to pick up on this too; we saw a bit of it from them in the early defense of the Dubai ports deal. It's a blunt but effective tactic of debate, and that's why I think we are seeing it more and more, despite the fact that our society has continued to become more diverse and is evidently more racially tolerant than any other society in the history of the world.

Calling all illegal aliens Mexican is not racist. Imprecise? Certainly. Politically incorrect? Definitely. Racist? No way. Racism is the application of a preconceived, unreasonable, and adverse judgment against all people of the same race or ethnicity. Referring to Honduran immigrants as Mexicans is not applying any prejudice to either group; it's simply an incorrect appellation. There is no malice or adverse judgment involved. Making a statement in favor of the earnest enforcement of our current laws - and the punishment of those who have violated them - is inherently not a racist position. The fact that such an action would impact one racial group much more than any another is just a simple result of geography and economics (specifically, the huge, open border we share with a substantially poorer country) - not racism.

So can we please try to restrain the urge to charge each other with racism? 99 times out of 100, it's just not true.

Considering the End of Roe

RaoulDelano — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:41:09 EST

Much of the hand-wringing we've seen in response to Samuel Alito's nomination and confirmation has been done in angst over the long-term prospects of 1973's Roe v. Wade decision. Many on the left have glumly concluded that this man's elevation to the Supreme Court has hastened the day when that landmark decision is finally struck down. Of course, we don't know for sure whether or not Justice Alito will vote to overturn Roe (as an appellate judge, he had a record of supporting limited abortion rights), but what I question is why do liberals/progressives retain such a fierce attachment to this decision in the first place? What in the past 33 years since Roe came down leads you to believe that our current station on the issue of abortion is a good one?

I would like you to consider for a moment the broader question of how we as a democratic society should go about grappling with and resolving the divisive social issues that inevitably come before us. We are the United States of America, a thriving, dynamic and diverse country where strong differences of opinion and perspective inevitably erupt and sometimes produce spectacular clashes on the national stage. This in and of itself is not a bad thing; this cacophonous chaos that defines a vibrant democracy. The critical question is: how should we as one nation handle these differences? What are the best ways for us to take on our most vexing and controversial problems so that we can find the resolution that we need to continue to live together, celebrate our shared values, and strive toward our common goals?

Now consider the impact of Roe over the past three decades. Has it provided the settlement to the abortion question that our nation so desperately needs? I cannot imagine that any of you would honestly say that it has.

I assert that the end of Roe would be a good thing for America. Before some of you have a heart attack upon reading that, please remember that overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion; it would simply return this divisive social issue to exactly where divisive social issues belong in democratic societies - before our representative institutions. Each state would be free to develop the abortion regulatory structure that it wanted. And, given the widespread view today that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, the practice would likely remain legal in almost all 50 states.

Most importantly, after time, this issue would finally recede from being the destructive, all-consuming blight on our polity that it is today. We will have had a healthy debate, arrived at a unique array of carefully constructed compromises, and moved on with our lives. That is precisely how a federal, democratic system is supposed to work. I cannot emphasize that point enough so let me say it again. That is how our system is supposed to work. Let the people hash it out.

Having the most unaccountable branch of government impose one side's wishes forever on the whole country will never ever resolve any divisive social issue like this. It only makes resentment fester and disagreements grow even more intractable. If Roe v. Wade stays on the books, we will still be having the exact same fight 25, 50, 75 years from now, driving each other even more batshitcrazy than we all are today.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted, Roe was a "heavy-handed judicial intervention [that] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Such an intervention is not the purpose of our judiciary; indeed, it is not the purpose of any branch of a democratic government. Roe v. Wade should be overturned.