A manifesto
Apr. 13th, 2005 12:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumA friend of mine skeetermonkey posted a raillery against liberals. He made the usual tropes (all politicians lie, you only care about Bush because he’s across the aisle; Liberals don’t really support the troops; war sucks, get over it; what makes this war any more unjust than any other war; the press is a liberal shill; Bush can’t be both smart and stupid and you can’t stop him anyway; lots of silly screaming about things that aren’t going to happen is going on about things like women’s rights, civil rights, etc., etc., etc.).
You can go look at the original here. He’s not a bad writer, and could probably use more exposure to liberals who will stand up to him.
But it got me to thinking. I’ve said before what I believe in, what it is that makes me a “liberal”, but now I want to address the reasons I can’t support this president, nor the Party he belongs to.
Lies
I am not a moral relativist, more of a pragmatist. I know absolutes don’t work. Some lies matter and some don’t. I don’t think Clinton’s lies about Monica Lewinsky mattered because they didn’t affect the nation (well, not as a result of the purpose of the lie, as it fell out there was great affect, and not to the good, but not as the intended result of the lie. I digress). Nor do I think his being sworn mattered much. Perjury requires that the lies told be relevant to case at hand. U.S. Code 18 Part I Chap. 79 Sec. 1621 says,
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury
Since the statement of Clinton’s wasn’t material, he didn’t commit perjury.
I can't really accept the view of Matt, and many others, defending Bush, for his lies, because, “all politicians lie” Either they are admitting they have no moral ground for the impeachment (which they still defend, in part by using it as a stick to beat those who protest Bush’s lies) or they have no moral ground to support Bush in this. Consistency is a simple thing to expect.
I further take issue because Bush told his lies in a material matter, which had the intent of making grave changes in U.S. policy, in a forum where he had taken an oath. His Oath of Office requires him to uphold and defend the Constitution. He told lies (and I believe knowingly, because in my little corner of the Intel world we knew it was a load of steaming snake shit; foul, caustic and rank) to the American people in his State of the Union Address, which address is one of the few duties the Constitution demands of the President, "he shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,"which means that address is something he is required to do as president, and so is covered by his oath. To lie in the furtherance of a policy which will cost greatly, in blood and treasure, and which has proven not provide the gains promised; in that we are no safer (probably less safe) and have lost the goodwill of our allies, and increased the number and fervor of our enemies means I can’t equate the lies of the two men, for they as different in effect as they were in nature. The one was to save some personal face, lest he suffer shame, and the other was to engage in a war we didn’t need, on premises which were false.
So that does for the lies.
Now to the personal.
I can’t support him as a Catholic because he has engaged in an unjust war (per the Doctrines of the Church and the statements of the Pope) as well as for his support of capital punishment, which the Church decries. This in no way affects my loyalty to the Nation, nor the Army, because I can render unto Caesar. It does mean, however, neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
I can’t support him as a Fiscal Conservative because he has elected to cut taxes and increase spending, not as a mistake, when he thought there was a surplus, but as a continued matter of policy, when he knows the expenses are going to increase he still demands tax cuts. Further he has engaged in misrepresenting the true state of the nation’s finances by continuing to carry the costs of the war off the books. For that violation of his fiduciary responsibilities he, nor those of his mind cannot keep my vote.
I can’t support him as a Libertarian, because he has appointed those to office, in the role of oversight of law enforcement who say the Treaties we have signed are irrelevant, and have argued; without repudiation, that the President is the law; because it is inherent in his office to set aside those laws with which he does not agree. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
I can’t support him as a Progressive, because he has shifted the burden of paying for the great expenses he has incurred to those least able to bear them. His reduction of the top rates, and maintenance of the Alternative Minimum Tax, means those at the bottom (esp. those who are married and have children) will have to pay the greater share of the burden. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can keep my vote.
I can’t support him as a person of conscience, because he encourages, both passively, and actively a style of politics which divides the nation. His insistence, and his party’s habit, of demanding that anyone who makes statements which might be seen as detracting, or extreme be denounced; even when the charges are factual, while refusing to denounce; and pleading inability to dissuade, those who practice lies and calumnies against his opponents, for that neither he, nor those of his mind can keep my vote.
As a believer in the Constitution, I can’t support him, because of his practice of preventing those who disagree with him from having the chance speak their minds, much less to petition for redress of grievance, at functions he is spending taxpayer money to make possible. Functions where he is trying to use the bully pulpit of his office, and the kind treatment of the press, to make it seem his policies are supported far and wide, even when they are not. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
For these reasons, and so many others, alluded to here and in the wider world, I am opposed to this man’s ideology, his practice of politics. For his moral vacuity, if not actual turpitude and his lack of any real piety, despite the outward show of faith, I am disgusted with not merely him, but those who have looked on his works and decided, for whatever reasons, they can be accepted, without demurrer, and more without seeing any reason why men of good will might be so opposed.
skeetermonkey posted a raillery against liberals. He made the usual tropes (all politicians lie, you only care about Bush because he’s across the aisle; Liberals don’t really support the troops; war sucks, get over it; what makes this war any more unjust than any other war; the press is a liberal shill; Bush can’t be both smart and stupid and you can’t stop him anyway; lots of silly screaming about things that aren’t going to happen is going on about things like women’s rights, civil rights, etc., etc., etc.). You can go look at the original here. He’s not a bad writer, and could probably use more exposure to liberals who will stand up to him.
But it got me to thinking. I’ve said before what I believe in, what it is that makes me a “liberal”, but now I want to address the reasons I can’t support this president, nor the Party he belongs to.
Lies
I am not a moral relativist, more of a pragmatist. I know absolutes don’t work. Some lies matter and some don’t. I don’t think Clinton’s lies about Monica Lewinsky mattered because they didn’t affect the nation (well, not as a result of the purpose of the lie, as it fell out there was great affect, and not to the good, but not as the intended result of the lie. I digress). Nor do I think his being sworn mattered much. Perjury requires that the lies told be relevant to case at hand. U.S. Code 18 Part I Chap. 79 Sec. 1621 says,
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury
Since the statement of Clinton’s wasn’t material, he didn’t commit perjury.
I can't really accept the view of Matt, and many others, defending Bush, for his lies, because, “all politicians lie” Either they are admitting they have no moral ground for the impeachment (which they still defend, in part by using it as a stick to beat those who protest Bush’s lies) or they have no moral ground to support Bush in this. Consistency is a simple thing to expect.
I further take issue because Bush told his lies in a material matter, which had the intent of making grave changes in U.S. policy, in a forum where he had taken an oath. His Oath of Office requires him to uphold and defend the Constitution. He told lies (and I believe knowingly, because in my little corner of the Intel world we knew it was a load of steaming snake shit; foul, caustic and rank) to the American people in his State of the Union Address, which address is one of the few duties the Constitution demands of the President, "he shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,"which means that address is something he is required to do as president, and so is covered by his oath. To lie in the furtherance of a policy which will cost greatly, in blood and treasure, and which has proven not provide the gains promised; in that we are no safer (probably less safe) and have lost the goodwill of our allies, and increased the number and fervor of our enemies means I can’t equate the lies of the two men, for they as different in effect as they were in nature. The one was to save some personal face, lest he suffer shame, and the other was to engage in a war we didn’t need, on premises which were false.
So that does for the lies.
Now to the personal.
I can’t support him as a Catholic because he has engaged in an unjust war (per the Doctrines of the Church and the statements of the Pope) as well as for his support of capital punishment, which the Church decries. This in no way affects my loyalty to the Nation, nor the Army, because I can render unto Caesar. It does mean, however, neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
I can’t support him as a Fiscal Conservative because he has elected to cut taxes and increase spending, not as a mistake, when he thought there was a surplus, but as a continued matter of policy, when he knows the expenses are going to increase he still demands tax cuts. Further he has engaged in misrepresenting the true state of the nation’s finances by continuing to carry the costs of the war off the books. For that violation of his fiduciary responsibilities he, nor those of his mind cannot keep my vote.
I can’t support him as a Libertarian, because he has appointed those to office, in the role of oversight of law enforcement who say the Treaties we have signed are irrelevant, and have argued; without repudiation, that the President is the law; because it is inherent in his office to set aside those laws with which he does not agree. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
I can’t support him as a Progressive, because he has shifted the burden of paying for the great expenses he has incurred to those least able to bear them. His reduction of the top rates, and maintenance of the Alternative Minimum Tax, means those at the bottom (esp. those who are married and have children) will have to pay the greater share of the burden. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can keep my vote.
I can’t support him as a person of conscience, because he encourages, both passively, and actively a style of politics which divides the nation. His insistence, and his party’s habit, of demanding that anyone who makes statements which might be seen as detracting, or extreme be denounced; even when the charges are factual, while refusing to denounce; and pleading inability to dissuade, those who practice lies and calumnies against his opponents, for that neither he, nor those of his mind can keep my vote.
As a believer in the Constitution, I can’t support him, because of his practice of preventing those who disagree with him from having the chance speak their minds, much less to petition for redress of grievance, at functions he is spending taxpayer money to make possible. Functions where he is trying to use the bully pulpit of his office, and the kind treatment of the press, to make it seem his policies are supported far and wide, even when they are not. For that neither he, nor those of his mind can earn my vote.
For these reasons, and so many others, alluded to here and in the wider world, I am opposed to this man’s ideology, his practice of politics. For his moral vacuity, if not actual turpitude and his lack of any real piety, despite the outward show of faith, I am disgusted with not merely him, but those who have looked on his works and decided, for whatever reasons, they can be accepted, without demurrer, and more without seeing any reason why men of good will might be so opposed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:48 pm (UTC)"I can’t support him as a person of conscience, because he encourages, both passively, and actively a style of politics which divides the nation."
I have directly experienced this, having lost a friend of many years due to virulent disagreement over this man's policies--in particular, his ardent support for a Federal Marriage Amendment, the underlying religious motivations that drive it, and my failure to help my friend to see that people can subscribe to a whole host of differing, disagreeing religious beliefs and yet still be ethical, moral people.
For me, this put the lie to his claim that he is "a uniter, not a divider."
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 08:11 pm (UTC)The thing that scares me is the possibility that, because of the same reasons cited in your constitution arguement, we might end up with another of his ilk next time around.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 08:41 pm (UTC)Para. 2: I'm not a fiscal conservative as such, but I agree with your points. I am not necessarily against increased spending in and of itself, but I strongly disagree with his priorities.
Paras. 3-7: I agree.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 08:49 pm (UTC)As I see it, the rules of such spending are not unlike those of a well run house. Spend only what you have, barring emergency. There are times to borrow money (house, sudden medical problems, car; and repair of same, education), but one has to accept that other spending will be constrained in the future, and that to maintain such a level of spending requires an increase of income.
Don't, in other words, live beyond your means.
To use a trope with which liberals have been bashed, "If you want to spend, you have to tax."
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 10:15 pm (UTC)If you ask me, if you were in the military, you've rendered unto Ceaser more than most. (Up until July of last year I worked in the mail room for a major mortgage company. After the "rumble" in Iraq started we began to get the occasional bit of "Soldier & Sailor's Act" paperwork sent to us in error, and even little evil liberal me busted his butt making sure it got sent to the right person Right Damn Then!. I figured these people had enough on their plates, and they didn't need to have their mortgages screwed up.)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 01:30 am (UTC)I can’t support him as a Catholic because he has engaged in an unjust war (per the Doctrines of the Church and the statements of the Pope) as well as for his support of capital punishment, which the Church decries...."
Terry, are you for or against the use of condoms?
I'm asking because your answer is important in my chain of thought....as in, what if you're for the use of condoms?
It seems to me that if you're going to bring up "the statement of the pope" as a part of why you cannot support Bush as a Catholic, doesn't that mean that *you* need to also follow "the statement of the pope" in what you believe? To pick and choose on the pope's list in order to make a statement about not supporting Bush as a Catholic is hypocritical, no? Especially if you don't follow the entire list yourself? Why can you ignore some of the pope's statements and Bush can't?
Just a thought.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 02:01 am (UTC)The fundamental difference I have with the Church right now all stems from the Bull, Ex cathedra which makes the pope infallible in matters of doctrine.
As I've said before, this is not something to which I can, in good conscience, nor as a rational member of the Church, accept, nor abide.
Taking that into account I can, and do, then look at the greater Doctrine, and Dogma, of the Church. I can also draw lines between public policy, and personal behaviour. The encyclicals of John Paul II are interesting reading, because they were not declarations, but rather extended arguments, meant to persuade the reader of the rightness of the position. So even though, as binding proclamations he didn't need to persuade, he made efforts to explain. Evangelium Vitae is a very good example of this, and bears on the issue (because it is where he denied birth control, save rythmn to the Church, and by extension to all whom the Church attempted to aid). When reading it one, as with any other argument, is struck, and persauded by different things. As I (and it is the source of my lapse) repudiate, by virtue of the Free Will endowed me by my Creator, the Doctrinal infallibility of the Pope, I can take this passage, "it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual's earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an "ultimate" but a "penultimate" reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters." and accept that birth control can be a moral good, even a moral need.
Certainly as I am not abstinent, and in no position to rear a child, to not engage in preventing pregnacy would be a greater sin than any fornication I might indulge. The greater good therefore mandates I, as a person looking to nurture that responsibilty referred to above, use some form of birth control.
And knowing that abstinence isn't going to happen, preserving the health and happiness of my fellow man means I can't, in good conscience deny them the same.
But on things like the war, I can condemn those who chose to wage it. I can look to the principles of "the Just War" and see that this one doesn't meet them. I can see the arguments of the Pope (who is Primus inter pares among the bishops, and like any king to be deferred to where-ever his writ is not detrimental to the polity, in this case my interpretation of what will damn me) and finding them consonant with mine, take them as support; and a support more valuable than most, in my decrying the war (and capital punishment).
I can also compare the things for which the Popes views are being used (in the case of Kerry, abortion) and see that the demand was that secular leaders adhere to Canon Law (which was the great fear of the right when Kennedy ran, now reversed) and compare the ways in which Bush fails to meet those standards, and so weigh my vote.
Is it a perfect method? No, but unless I cede my intellect, and slavishly follow what those who interpret the Canon for me; instead of looking at it with the mind God gave me I can't see doing better.
If I'm wrong, at least I have chosen the path I saw as most just (see Micah 6:7-8) and I can stand before God with a clear conscience.
Did that help?
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 06:04 am (UTC)Very thorough and sound to me.....I just really don't understand how so many people can be so blind to this reality.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 03:09 pm (UTC)Probably the greatest hit Ex cathedra took for me was the papacy of John Paul I, who had an encyclical permitting birth control penned, but not published when he died.
Either God was so pissed at this that he killed him over it, or one of the two men is wrong. Since both were pope when they made their decisions, and those decisions were diametric one of them must have been. Which means Ex cathedra has to be flawed.
It's sophistry, but it works for me.
TK