I can't wait for the day a Democratic President will stand before the nation and say "I did not have sex with that goat."

I tend to agree with you on the " had there been, would sites like Powerline or Hugh Hewitt be recognizable voices of sanity and thoughtfulness? I'm guessing they'd be on the 'I disagree with my opponents, and therefore he has sex with goats' bandwagon."

Insanity appears to be an equal opportunity political aberration. However, might I point out that the 90's were an essentially 'meaningless' stretch of history wherein it was even postulated that 'history' itself was coming to an end in an orgy of the mundane.

If only. Instead we find ourselves living in interesting times , and understanding that Chinese curse a little too well.

On that basis the Democratic Insanity is 'objectively' much much worse. When nothing is considered to be overly serious, then the stupidly inconseqential is rapidly elevated to a higher level in order to fill the void. That the Democrats cannot elevate their game to take into account the new World Reality, puts them in a class by themselves. Hopefully they will remain there and the Republicans will not give them a run for their money should the relative postions be reversed.

A fundamentally 'insane' political system is probably not the best structure when the barbarians are arguably at the gates, and demanding entry in order to behead the 'infidel' effetes within.

So long story short--- at this point the Democrats ,in my jaundiced opinion, have the STUPIDITY Race pretty much sewn up. They might just have been the unfortunate beneficiaries of a poor historical situation, but until the Republicans demonstate that they don't take National Security seriously in a time of WAR because they prefer to play politics, the Dems are alone on the field.

Umm, Lee, have you seen Monica Lewinsky?

OK, that was both cheap and crass. Apologies all around.

(But it was funny.)

in a time of WAR

Could you show me the declaration of war? One that satisfies the constitutional requirement?

Didn't think so.

We are not in a time of war.

Off Colfax: Merrily slaughtering the time-of-war meme since 2005

This post above, Jane's Law and Religious Politics, is proof positive that you needn't write paragraphs and paragraphs, to have a salient, well-written, and humourous blogpost.

I, too, was taken aback by Glenn's longISh post on the topic, and I also know I am not the only one, who likes his shortISH posts most of all.

Still, it's wonderful to see him, and therefore you, commenting at any length about this topic, as the polarisation of the US' political spheres, is one of the single most disheartening occurences today.

We need as much temperate feedback on the topic, as possible.

For me, it has to do with one side of the political aisle, feeling that their agenda and especially, their world view, is not winning out to shape this country.

This has been happening for the past 20 years, namely, a tug back by the other side, which has won the biggest prize in US politics, the Presidency, more often than not in that span.

(More so, if you focus on the past half-century)

Economics is not the only sector which has a trickle-down effect, you know.

And for many people, as I mentioned on my blog once, progress is inconceivable without progressives.

What we are seeing now, is the tug after the tug back.

...finally, to use an sms'ism: LOL @ the goats search remark.

Cheers,
Victoria

I think the polarized atmosphere is a result of the information revolution rather than religion-based.

Maybe we are polarized because half the population continues to fully invest their trust in an out-dated, monolithic and tightly-controlled mainstream press who purposefully omit valuabe information in order to support an agenda or politician while the other half have moved into the 21st century's information revolution.

Before weblogging I was a 'liberal' who went along with the idols of information like Dan Rather then along came 9/11 and for me, the discovery of weblogging, a revolutionary means of gathering my own information. In the blackout days of the 90's I had no idea about William Buckely, Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz are any other 'conservative' thinkers.
My support today of the Republican party has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with with my access to information I was previously denied.

For example, I am a 44 year od female who once supported a 'women's right to choose' but after the last five years of reading from the perspective of 'the other side' I discovered that the other side makes a better argument as to why abortion is a bad policy not only for the female but for our culture in general. Back in the 90's I do remember the phase 'dumbing down of America' which I now understand that meaning. I was one of those dumbed-down Americans who was freed by the revolution of the information age. When I was a pro-choicer I never thought about the illogical premise made by the abortionists that on the one hand 'it's just a clump of cells' then in the same breath I would hear that we females are entitled to taxpayer funded monies for pre-natal care. Now, if it's been deemed just a clump of cells why then does the females need taxpayer monies to care for just a clump of cells? There are so many other illogical and inconsistant arguments made by the liberal side that I found myself unable to support the Democrat Party.

At this point, I consider Liberalism a fraud in today's political environment because everything it has done, everything I was lead to believe it was over these past three decades turns out to be meaningless nothing used as a guise to cover those who wish to achieve socialist Marxism in America.

It could be said that Mr Reynolds (godfather of the blog) is the source and cause of polarization we are experiencing. Since he is basing his argument on religion I do hope however, he does not feel I am implying he is God or anything but I will acknowledge that he was responsible for liberating me from the deceptive culture I once lived under.

Another example I wanted to add concerns the gay marriage debate. As it stands now under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a women) gay-marriage advocates are using the false argument of 'equal rights' (Marxism at play) in other to justify gay marriage. As the definition and law stands now, there is NO inequalilty going on because heterosexuals are NOT allowed to marry same-sex any more than homosexuals are allowed. The Marxist activists are simply using females, homosexuals and the poor as a means towards achieving an Equalized utopian environment however, as we are beginning to recognize there can be no Liberation under Equalization. Equalization is really a collective form of serfdom demanding all conform to the whole. Our basic principles are founded in the words "liberty and justice' for all not equality and justice for all.

From the abortion fiasco I have learned the lesson that in general, the American people have been Oprahfreyed on many of the domestic issues we are facing and I for one will not be watching that show again.

I have a hard time believing powerline et. al. would become shills of that magnitude. They tend to rely on what can be proved or is 'plausible'.
To me, they essentially have the same tone I used in conversation before the internet. They just write it for all to see now.

Off Colfax, you can look here for the declaration of war. Unless you are claiming that the Constitution requires the Congress to pass an act that states "a state of war exists between the United States and [insert enemy here]", that is a declaration of war. If you are claiming that, I'd be curious as to the precedents or textual support for the claim.

Jeff,

As far as I am concerned there are only two parties in American politics - "The Party of Support" and "The Party of Opposition". All voting Americans belong to one or the other. If, at any give time, they claim neither they are enabling the "The Party of Support" and are, therefore, default members of that party.

The beneficial aspect of this system is that all voting Americans have to share in our mutual success or our mutual failure - there are no free passes. The other benefit is that it places those who like to pretend that they are above the fray (I am not a Republican or a Democrat) right back into the struggle of ideas where they belong.

Jeff is right. We did have a declaration of war good enough for government work.

And I recently discovered via Strategypage why we don't have full white glove-slapping declarations of war any more. See my post http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2006/02/declaration-of-war-like-activities.html

evolvedreason, I see from your comment an explanation for some of the things you've said in the past. I think I understand, now, where you are coming from.

But what a barren and pointless political world you must live in! One must either support or oppose the administration, you say. Completely, and only that? So if the administration is perfect on every front except that they want to raise interest rates to 80%, my choices are to utterly support them, or to oppose them on that issue? I reject that. I feel that it is critical to a civil, free society that we work to further those programs and policies that are good, and retard or eliminate or limit those programs and policies that are bad, regardless of who else supports or opposes those programs.

And what about those who don't care much, trusting the government to do what's right, and just voting for who they think will do the better job? Is there something wrong with their view? Certainly, that was the majority view in the US prior to Watergate: the politicization of all of American life is recent.

I would rather all Americans work towards our mutual success, or stay out of the way, than have a fairly large portion of the population invested in our mutual failure.

Jeff,

Oops. Came here direct from Instapundit and didn't see that you already commented on the same Strategypage post on decs of war.

BJD

Jeff, if a Dem was in power I think most of the Powerline guys would be as rational as they seem now, but they'd get less traffic than you. The high traffic site would be somebody who traces all ills of the republic to the party registration of Florida Supreme Court judges and so forth.

"evolvedreason, I see from your comment an explanation for some of the things you've said in the past. I think I understand, now, where you are coming from."

An understanding, like many of your other posted understandings, that is rooted more heavily in partisan opinion then fact.

"But what a barren and pointless political world you must live in!"

Personally I find my political views to be quite sharp. However, I would characterize someone who claims to have libertarian political views but who fails to write about the attack on the 4th amendment, and other challenged American liberties, as someone whose beliefs have withered and who lacks a true ideological point of view. Your posts speak loud and clear that you are in "The Support Party". They only speak the word libertarian when you are reminded of your current political choice.

"One must either support or oppose the administration, you say. Completely, and only that? So if the administration is perfect on every front except that they want to raise interest rates to 80%, my choices are to utterly support them, or to oppose them on that issue? I reject that."

You only have one vote and with it you can only make one choice. It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the current administration has no desire to even give an ear to the opposition party. For them reaching a consensus after a rational debate is pre Bush. This climate, one which the current party in power feigns confusion while they fan the flames, makes any other reality misguided.

"I feel that it is critical to a civil, free society that we work to further those programs and policies that are good, and retard or eliminate or limit those programs and policies that are bad, regardless of who else supports or opposes those programs."

In todays political climate (Delay's K Street) you can no more influence an individual program any more then you can influence the weather - unless you consider exhaling into the wind influencing the weather. If you are lucky you might influence your Senator to insist on hearings about an important libertarian issue like the NSA spying program - which they are about to deny. However, since your "The Support Party" posts take precedence over your ideological beliefs even this little bit of influence goes to waste.

"And what about those who don't care much, trusting the government to do what's right,"

Then they are placing their responsibility, and their future, in the hands of another.

"and just voting for who they think will do the better job?"

If the ship is heading in the wrong direction another obedient sailor won't make much of a difference.

"Is there something wrong with their view? Certainly, that was the majority view in the US prior to Watergate: the politicization of all of American life is recent."

The current political climate is what I am opposing. We may argue about why it exists but I can tell you for a fact that it has not been getting any better and grows worse with every year. And the current party in power has made every effort to continue this polarization with their "with us or against us" mentality. Americans can be described by many visual images but a dog pulled by a leash is not one of them.

"I would rather all Americans work towards our mutual success, or stay out of the way,"

As long as you get to define what a "success" looks like no doubt. My purpose is to make sure that I also get to help define what an American "success" looks like.

"than have a fairly large portion of the population invested in our mutual failure."

America's success depends on the educated many. Its failure, if it occurs, will be caused by the many trusting the few.

"One must either support or oppose the administration, you say. Completely, and only that? So if the administration is perfect on every front except that they want to raise interest rates to 80%, my choices are to utterly support them, or to oppose them on that issue? I reject that."

You only have one vote and with it you can only make one choice.

I'll take that as a "yes". But you must realize that, by defining yourself as "opposition", with no thought required beyond that, you create what you claim to oppose:

The current political climate is what I am opposing. We may argue about why it exists but I can tell you for a fact that it has not been getting any better and grows worse with every year.

Well, I don't suppose you must realize that, but it would be a nice sign of rationality. To define politics in such stark and uncompromising terms — and to applaud the Democrats' response to George Bush's early attempts to reach out to them, which was to laugh gleefully while they shot down every idea he had, no matter how much of a compromise it was — is to create the current political environment of stark and uncompromising partisanship.

You can define me, in your own mind, however you like, but I reject for myself your definition, which limits me to either blind opposition or blind support.

"You only have one vote and with it you can only make one choice. It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the current administration has no desire to even give an ear to the opposition party. For them reaching a consensus after a rational debate is pre Bush. This climate, one which the current party in power feigns confusion while they fan the flames, makes any other reality misguided."

I have problems with evolvedreason's logic on a lot of levels, but this one point struck me. Yes, in any given race during any given election, I get to vote for one person. (Even that is a simplification, but close enough for government work, as they say.) But I reject the idea that my one vote is the limit of my political power.

Evolvedreason, have you given even a single thought about what you’re doing when you write on your blog or comment on other blogs? You are attempting to move the debate in a direction. (I happen to think the direction you would move the debate is wrong-headed in the extreme, but that's only an opinion, even if it is much more rational than yours.) So, each of us push the ideas that we hold dear, and move the center of public opinion as much as we can, and the politicians and/or parties that best suit the public's aggregate will get elected.

My vote is a feeble, one-shot deal. My ability to reason and persuade is feeble too, but not as much, and can be spread out over time.

Yes, I voted for Bush. My perfect candidate didn't run. As a matter of fact, my 20% perfect candidate didn’t run. So I voted for the least-bad option. If you don't agree with how I voted, that's obviously your prerogative and doesn't make you evil. But I would appreciate it if you and yours would refrain from painting everyone with whom you don’t agree as being ignorant louts being led by the snouts by an evil "party in power."

Why? Because I actually want the party in power to get some serious opposition, and if the party out of power continues to be persuaded by your logic (which pretty much mirrors the gestalt of Kos, Atrios, HuffPo, etc.), that simply ain't gonna happen.

My guess is that most of the "educated many" you talk about are a bit more nuanced than your worldview suggests, and find your blunt-object philosophy off-putting.

"the Democrats' response to George Bush's early attempts to reach out to them, which was to laugh gleefully while they shot down every idea he had, no matter how much of a compromise it was — is to create the current political environment of stark and uncompromising partisanship."

OK Jeff, let's take this discussion into the rational (fact based) world. Detail for me a few of those early attempts by Bush to reach out to the minority party.

I'm not in a position to give a comprehensive list right now, but I'll give one off of the top of my head: President Bush announced that he was very interested in having Democrats in his cabinet, in fairly high-level positions. But the Democrats' reaction was to make clear that any prominent Democrat taking such a position would be persona non grata, and the President was left with a few minor holdovers instead.

Mark,

"But I would appreciate it if you and yours would refrain from painting everyone with whom you don’t agree as being ignorant louts being led by the snouts by an evil "party in power.""

I never used the words "ignorant louts" or "led by the snouts by an evil party" although it is interesting that you heard it that way. If we can't agree on anything else then let us both agree that the primary ingredient to a rational debate is strict adherence to facts.

What I did imply is that when the party in power refuses to take into consideration the views of the minority party then the only course of action to take is to oppose, with every vote, "the party in power". This view is not static and unchanging over all time - it is simply a reflection of a current political reality. As an American I refuse to have my opinions saddled and broken because of the stubbornness of one man or one party. Now, if I am treated as an equal and find some actions to those words of rational understanding then we can both move forward and maintain our individual dignity. Unfortunately that is not the political climate today and that is not the temperament of the current party in power. Those who do not oppose this behavior have no need to be led by any part of their physical anatomy - they do so freely and without resistance.

"Why? Because I actually want the party in power to get some serious opposition, and if the party out of power continues to be persuaded by your logic (which pretty much mirrors the gestalt of Kos, Atrios, HuffPo, etc.), that simply ain't gonna happen."

You want opposition but not my opposition because, in your view, my opposition is in line with the aforementioned blogs. It is interesting that I can be dismissed so easily without even a specific fact on my views being mentioned. Here is a suggestion for you Mark. Since you know exactly what kind of opposition you want why don't you grab the rope and give it a tug. If you already are then don't criticize my grip on the rope. If you aren't then stop using the word opposition and move to the other end of the rope. Which, in essence, sums up my original post about the political reality of the day.

evolvedreason says:

[W]hen the party in power refuses to take into consideration the views of the minority party then the only course of action to take is to oppose, with every vote, "the party in power". This view is not static and unchanging over all time - it is simply a reflection of a current political reality. As an American I refuse to have my opinions saddled and broken because of the stubbornness of one man or one party. Now, if I am treated as an equal and find some actions to those words of rational understanding then we can both move forward and maintain our individual dignity. Unfortunately that is not the political climate today and that is not the temperament of the current party in power.

That actually is a pretty good summary of the current position of Congressional Democrats. But I don't think that they've thought it through in game theory terms; instead they are still stuck on their position during the Clinton administration.

President Clinton was able to get a lot of his policies through and block a lot of Republican policies (though he had to surrender on some big ones like welfare reform) for two basic reasons: Clinton was able to rally public opinion to the support of positive policies (we will do X) and the Democrats had majorities or near-parity in the House (early on) and Senate (most of Clinton's terms). This gave President Clinton the ability to win policy decisions with very few "defections" from the Republicans, even when the Republicans decided to vote more or less as a bloc. An exception was the budget showdown that shut down the government, a confrontation Clinton won because the Republicans were suffering horribly in public opinion.

But let's look at it from a game theory perspective. The game for each party is this: pass policy proposals favored by my party. How do you do that? You have to get a majority of votes in each house of Congress, and the President to sign or at least not veto. This implies that, if you have the presidency and the majority in both houses, the key to winning a contest is to enforce party discipline. If you are in the minority, your only way of getting policies enacted is to vote strategically: take something that the opposing party really wants, and you can live with, and fight that until you get a concession on something you really want, and that the opposing party can live with. Then you trade votes. It doesn't have to be the entire opposing party, just a few votes at the margins, which is enough to tip the balance at least in the closely-divided Senate.

But this requires that you actually have positive policy positions that you have stated. By simply taking an opposing position on any issue that comes up, as evolvedreason suggests, implies that the minority party has no votes to trade: they are all tied up in opposition. As such, the majority has no incentive to compromise on any position, and the minority has no "wins" to point to in elections. In other words, the only way the minority party can gain votes is to make people hate the majority more, so that majority defeats count more than the lack of minority gains.

To my knowledge, that has never been a winning position in American politics, because it depends on cynicism and pessimism, which are not widespread American traits. Thus, as long as the Democrats sustain that position, and barring an extrinsic crisis. the Democrats will stay out of power. And that is a shame, because as Mark pointed out, America needs an opposition party, to prevent the "smug and arrogant" part of Jane's law from operating to our detriment.

I don't know about Mark, but I reject your opposition not because of who else it might align with, but because it poisons the well of politics, making compromise and accommodation impossible. That's not opposition in the sense of keeping the majority honest and useful; it is opposition in the sense of a three year old's temper tantrum at being told it's bed time. And that we don't need.

Jeff,

"I'm not in a position to give a comprehensive list right now, but I'll give one off of the top of my head: President Bush announced that he was very interested in having Democrats in his cabinet, in fairly high-level positions. But the Democrats' reaction was to make clear that any prominent Democrat taking such a position would be persona non grata, and the President was left with a few minor holdovers instead."

And to be honest I am not in a position to even attempt to research this issue factually without some reference (and access) to a specific article or articles that speak to it. I will watch this thread and look forward to seeing these future references. I can remember countless speeches by President Bush which used words of reconciliation but those words took no real form once the intended ears had left the room.

" . . . would sites like Powerline or Hugh Hewitt be recognizable voices of sanity and thoughtfulness?"

We really do live on different planets . . . did you write that with a straight face? Does Powerline still think Carter is 'on the other side?'

I'm also curious to see the info regarding Democrats putting the kabosh on high-level Democrats joining the Cabinet. I don't remember that occurring at all.

evolvedreason-

"I am not in a position to even attempt to research this issue factually without some reference (and access) to a specific article or articles that speak to it."

Here's two:

No Child Left Behind:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/%7Ekennedy/statements/02/01/2002109901.html

CAFTA:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113347893605911738-MSaTPv0UYrdaslT74P2H2teI718_20061205.html?mod=rss_free

Jeff, if you had clicked through the link I had already provided in my original post, you would have seen my argument in that Sen. J.R. 23 is not, by the legal definition, a declaration of war. (Funnily enough, we happen to link to the exact same page in our arguments.) But to sum up:

Sen. J.R. 23 is written under the auspices of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The WPR is specifically delineated from, and considered seperated from, the Art. 1 Sec. 8 Congressional power of war.

Therefore, Sen. J.R. 23 is not a declaration of war.

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no power granted Congress in the Constitution to sorta kinda declare war. If the Congress authorizes a private person to commit acts of war, it has issued letters of marque or reprisal (depending, IIRC, on whether the powers are granted at sea or on land), no matter what it calls it or how it cloaks it. Similarly, if the Congress authorizes the President to commit acts of war, the Congress has declared war, no matter what it calls it. There is no in between state recognized in the Constitution, and the War Powers Act has been held unconstitutional, but not yet tried in court, by every President since its passage.

Now, I happen to believe that it would be a good idea to amend the Constitution to recognize when the President can use force without Congressional authorization, and in doing so there would almost certainly be provision that would echo the war powers act, allowing a so-so war state to exist. But until that is done, the Congress does not have the power, even if it claims to to declare a sort-of war.

And if such an amendment passes, the laws you reference, and many others, would need to be rewritten to be more precise about which levels of war trigger which statutes.

State of War? I think it was declared bin Laden, Osama.

Just because the USA has not dotted all "i"s and crossed all the "t"s does not mean there is no war on.