Matt confuses the world with his description of the world. Most folks do...
A Little Night Nuance
by tristeroIn a post titled "A Little Nuance"Matt writes:
Perhaps this is just pointless hairsplitting, but I feel I should say that while I'm not at all happy with the precedents Bush is setting with regard to presidential power, that I think the case for strong executive power as such is actually pretty strong. The trouble comes from the nexus...[etc.]
We'll get to whether or not there's a little nuance, a lot, or none, in Matt's post in a moment. But one thing I can certainly say is that Matt was not splitting hairs. The trouble comes from the nexus between the world of reality and the assertion of a non-existent realm of principles (ideas) co-existent with that reality but independent of it. [P6: IOW, your model of the world is wrong.] In short, there's a little bit of an epistemological incoherence goin' on.
Inadvertently, Matt has fallen for one of the oldest trick in the rightwing's rhetorical playbook. They often assert a crude dualism where principles are divorced from reality, where mind exists apart from the matter of the brain, where you can just decide things and make them happen. Some examples of this strategy in action:
Regarding Alito, I was once asked, "Don't you think that, in principle, a president has the right to pick a Supreme Court justice in agreement with his ideology?" "In principle, isn't the removal of Saddam Hussein a good thing?" "Looked purely in regards to whose position it furthers and whose it doesn't, were not the peace protestors of early 2003 ojectively pro-Saddam?"
The problem with such characterizations is that the rhetorical tactic of "in principle" reifies a supernatural world.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
it wasn't supernatural
I disagree strongly with Matt here, but he was cut-off mid-sentence!
If he were talking only about 'in principal' it would be depending on a supernatural world, but the whole post was comparing the US system to British parliamentary system where there is a stronger check on executive power, while still allowing for strong executive power.
I think the thrust of the post was not that Bush's use of power was within principal, but that constitutional changes need to occur to check what's clearly an insufficiently checked power.
comparing the US system to
I still feel it's a bit fantastical. He's saying strong executive power would be great if it were easier to get rid of the president. But it ain't and won't ever be.
I should say I also agree
I should say I also agree with Tristero's response--that the Congress seems so cowed; that the Bush administration has actually gone into the realm of impeachable law breaking-related activities, that it seems like a moot point.
I guess it's a radical position, but I think amendments should be proposed and discussed much more often than they are. The right uses them as rallying points for their base, and there's something very progressive in 'fixing the system' rather than band-aiding a system.
If there's a single thing the Constitution does, it should be to maintain some minimum level of democracy. The current administration says to me that we have to get at least a bug or two out of the system ;)