A question for the politically-minded

[astro_l]

I feel a little too underinformed about this question, and I'd like people to explain/answer/correct/confirm me on it. I admit it makes some sweeping generalizations, so if it's a strawman, let me know where it falls apart, but here it is:

Why for the past eight years has the American conservative (principally Republican) movement been cavalier

Comments

[obsequiosity]

Quite a bit of it is the rationalization that the bastards I voted for won't take it as far as other people's bastards. The other is a question of priorities ; I note that you call habeas et al ”real” rights implying that the property rights issues have less to do with rights. I'd say the latter is a requirement to secure the former. Any future rebellion to restore habeus would first require a re assertion of ones rights to pitchforks and torches. Indeed I find it puzzling how the right will sign away all their basic rights while fighting tooth abd nail for the foundation to re secure them, while the left will abandon the tools of rebellion for a promise on a piece of paper. Of course neither side is as crazy as the guy who will attempt ti type all this on a blackberry.

[astro_l]

Indeed, I called the legal rights "real freedoms" as part of the general exaggeration for the sake of driving home the point. There are many arguments against the government-economic-intervention strategy; the news is full of that debate right now. What I want to focus on is, how does that square in the conservatives' minds with their historically blasé attitude towards legal rights? It sounds like you're as confused as I am about that

[obsequiosity]

Neither party has a consistent philosophy. I don't think anyone with a consistent philosophy could stand to be in politics.

The right had their blind side when they were in power (even on the economic stuff, some of the bank takeovers took place on Bush's watch.) And for the left: other than a grand gesture involving Gitmo being dropped for another lower-profile prison, Obama's policy on detainees is remarkably similar to Bush's. Despite his being swept into office on the outrage about such abuse of power, no one on the left seems to mention it aside from the occasional peep from the ACLU.

Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane." I was amused as hell when I read that back in '04. It still rings true today.

[gigerlicious]

I think you're going a bit deep. I think most of the hysteria on both sides is just excellent political spin.

[astro_l]

So - if I'm understanding you correctly - we could contrast your view with Obs':

Obs thinks that both "freedom crises" do matter, but both sides are equally myopic in what they choose to worry about. You think that neither "freedom crisis" matters that much, but both sides are equally hyperbolic in playing to their audiences for their own gain. Do I have that about right?

[gigerlicious]

I think power corrupts and the ones that have it will do whatever necessary to keep it, those that desire it will do whatever it takes to get it. In the end the government is still just a Big Man Society dressed up in Greek revival architecture and news tickers.