The Tea Party, the states and the Constitution

That's what Ben and I talk abut in this week's Scripps column. Stop me if you've heard this before:

The proposed amendment spits in the eye of the same Founders whom conservatives make such a show of revering.

Before the Constitution, the United States was governed -- if you can call it that -- by the Articles of Confederation. Under that system, Congress functioned more like today's United Nations Security Council, a fractious and paralyzed body that let each state act as a sort of sovereign nation with veto power over every act of the national government.

It didn't work. Letting the states have that much power made it impossible to get anything done. The adoption of the Constitution didn't just fix those shortcomings: Read The Federalist Papers and it's clear the Founders believed the new system represented a decisive point when the multiple states decided they truly were a nation rather than a collection of small, weak, independent kingdoms.

There was opposition to that vision. A group of men who called themselves the "Anti-Federalists" wanted to continue the old ways of state primacy and campaigned hard against the Constitution. They lost the argument, or so it seemed. The emergence of the proposed new amendment suggests that -- for all their tri-corner hats and Gadsden flags -- today's Tea Party set has more in common with the Anti-Federalists who tried to stop the Constitution from becoming law than they do with the actual Founders. It's funny, if you think about it.

As a practical matter, giving states more federal power would also blur the lines between the two forms of government, making a real hash of things. Voting for state senators and governors and attorneys general might be determined by their stands on national -- rather than local -- issues. The proposed amendment doesn't just repudiate the work of the Founders; it's probably just a bad idea on its own merits.

Republicans block health aid for 9/11 workers

Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.

Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure, while Democrats, led by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York, have argued that the nation had a moral obligation to assist those who put their lives at risk during rescue operations at ground zero.

via nytimes.com

As Jonathan Chait pointed out at his blog, the Republicans just pressed very hard -- and successfully! -- for a tax cut for the rich that expands the deficit massively. It's clear that if 9/11 workers didn't want to get sick, they should've been rich and unpatriotic enough not to have worked at Ground Zero.

Jack Shafter agrees with me about Fox News and the public option

The call to refer to the program as the government option instead of the public option came from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Media Matters and Kurtz report. But this shouldn't disqualify the new term from the Fox News stylebook. Government option is superior to public option in that it emphasizes that the government—and thus the taxpayers—will be footing the bill. As a modifier, public has many nongovernmental uses, as in public appearance, public figure, public display, public-key cryptography, public editor, public enemy, public storage, and public opinion.

But when government is used as an adjective, there is no such confusion.

via slate.com

I agree with Fox News about the 'public option'

Everybody knows that Fox News is a messaging machine for the GOP, so I tend not to get worked up about new examples of the phenomenon. What's the point? But even by my relaxed standards, I really can't get worked up about this:

On Oct. 27, the day after Senate Democrats introduced a bill with a public insurance option from which states could opt out, Bill Sammon, a Fox News vice president and Washington managing editor, sent the staff a memo. Sammon is a former Washington Times reporter.  

“Please use the term ‘government-run health insurance,’ or, when brevity is a concern, ‘government option,’ whenever possible,” the memo said. 

I have no doubt the phrasing served Republican ends. But I don't care, actually, because the term is also accurate.

There's nothing wrong with "public option." But compared to "government option," the former phrase actually is less descriptive of the issue at play. Liberals -- including me -- were arguing that a government-run health insurance plan be added to the list of private insurance options Americans would have once health reform was passed. In that case, the word "public" possibly obscures more than it reveals to the average American citizen.

That's not to uphold Fox News as a journalistic paragon. It isn't. But if liberals are angry that the channel described a government-run plan as a government-run plan, we've got bigger problems than Luntzian messaging on our hands. 

 

From the comments: Not terrorism, but 'cyber-vigilantism'

I totally agree that the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" should not be uttered when describing non-violent acts. To paraphrase brother Joel, it puts "too much noise in the signal." The EFF, in denouncing the digital attacks on MasterCard and others, used the term "cyber-vigilantism" - which I think is a much better term. It reflects that the attacks have real consequences and are motivated by revenge, but are quite distinct from the physical violence that is part and parcel of genuine terrorism.

Robb, via joelmathis.blogspot.com

This sounds right. I was struggling with the language to describe what I saw as a disruptive -- and wrong -- response to the Anonymous hacking spree. 'Cyber-vigilantism' sounds right, and more accurate.

House Dems revolt on tax bill

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

via politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

I wonder if we're not seeing the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency on this. The Republicans are already rooting for the president's failure and working earnestly for it. It now seems that Dems are doing the same. There's nothing wrong with this, per se -- I tend to like it when Congress acts like a co-equal branch of government, and when members assert their prerogatives instead of rolling over for the president.

But in his eagerness to get a deal with the GOP, it now appears the president simply assumed he'd have the votes of his own party. That he doesn't -- or that he failed to persuade his own caucus -- is going to be a sign of weakness to voters, Republicans, just about everybody. That's not good for Obama. He's looking more like Jimmy Carter at this hour than he ever has.

From the comments: On cyberwar and terrorism

Is the Wikileaks 'cyberwar' actually terrorism? Of course not! It doesn't even begin to approach anything resembling a reasonable definition of the word, and it's very irresponsible to label it as such. (I'm looking at you, certain Republican politicians.) And I'm concerned when intelligent, informed liberals like Joel see the actions of Anonymous as "muddying the waters."

What is happening now is mostly (all?) simple DDOS attacks by a bunch of 4chan /b/tards. I've heard it argued that such a tactic is the 21st century equivalent of a sit-in, and I think the analogy does have some merit. All they are doing is temporarily denying access to a (virtual) location by occupying its access points (i.e. its bandwidth and/or SYN/ACK queue). The difference is one of scale and of repercussions for the activists/attackers.

I personally don't think it's a great strategy, as it is going to cause more harm to Assange and Wikileaks than it is to Visa, MC or Paypal. I can see a lot of people blaming this activity on Assange and Wikileaks, but it's clear that they do not have any role in it.

But it's NOT terrorism. Even entertaining that idea is dangerous and points us toward a world in which anyone who upsets the status quo can be tarred with the same brush as mass murderers.

via joelmathis.blogspot.com