I wrote this at Salon:
The problem with far-right, state rights garbage is that if you strip away the racism that motivates much of it, you still end up with some pretty good arguments that rely on the actual words of our actual Constitution for their support.
Not only did our founders envision individual states with greater autonomy than what has since evolved, they also envisioned that the citizenry would be directly involved in their own defense and that an Army would only be raised in a time of War as declared by Congress.
The opportunity to remind everyone that our standing army and permanent state of war was not only anticipated by our founders but stronly warned against, can only be regarded as a positive development and if it takes a racist who panders to the religious right in order to raise that argument, then that's the fault of the Democrats who don't have the courage to raise those arguments themselves.
It appears that I'm not the only person who feels that way:
>dday guesting at Digby
Until some progressive takes to a big platform and makes these same arguments in a coherent way, there will always be room for an isolationist paleocon like Ron Paul to make it for them.
2 comments:
I'm curious: if it's the case that beneath all that hate-filled bigotry, there's actually a valid Constitutional argument...
...might it not be the case that the "bigotry" is just someone's excuse for not addressing the argument on its merits?
Might they not be making the argument simply because they think the US Constitution has some good ideas?
Might they not be making the argument simply because they think the US Constitution has some good ideas?
Some do. Some don't. That's why I wish a Democrat would take up the anti-empire mantle.
Post a Comment