True Belief

Another dynamite post by Glenn Greenwald, this one about Russ Feingold. A couple of thoughts on it:

[W]hen Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying.

The comment here is simply "Why is it so easy to believe, against all the evidence, that religious belief should be the directing force of national policy (and not a general sort of belief in a Creator as demonstrated by the Founders, but a specific belief in the nasty, vengeful and unloving God held up by the Pope, the Dobson Gang, and the President) but it's so hard to accept the idea that someone can actually believe in our Constitution? Based on Greenwald's comments and what I know of Feingold's record, he seems to be one of the few politicians in this country who actually has a grasp of the morality of public life and government policy.

Quoting David Limbaugh about Feingold's introduction of the censure resolution:

Feingold's move is not one of moral courage, but raw political ambition. In the words of Democratic senator Mark Dayton, Feingold's move is "an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country."

I remember how disgusted I was, as a voter likely to lean to the Democrats, with the Democrats in Congress for running wildly away from the issue: the president broke the law, and the Democrats went along with it.

(Snarky Sidebar:

In an online editorial titled, "Feingold's Gift to the GOP," the conservative magazine wrote that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman would hug Feingold if given the chance.

I'm sure he would, but not because of the censure resolution. In fact, I'm sure Mehlman would do more than hug -- Feingold's an attractive man.)

The thrust of Greenwald's comments is how out of touch and completely off-base the Washington insiders are. But I think it's interesting to contemplate the idea of a politician who actually believes in something besides lining his pockets while holding on to power.

It's a real shame Feingold has decided not to run for president. He's probably the only one worth having in the Oval Office at this point.

And, believe it or not, this post by David Neiwert at Orcinus is related. Honestly.

It's clear to any cognizant non-Kool-aid drinker that the public had had enough of the bile and antics -- and really, the core extremism -- of people like Hayworth. And Beck. And Limbaugh. Malkin. Coulter. Hannity. The list just became too long.

Guys like this, of course, want to force Republicans to swim farther out to sea after this tidal wave because that's the only direction they know. I mean, if Republicans were to wake up and realize what's happened to them -- that their formerly good name has been sullied by years of being led by fanatical demagogues -- folks like Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, and Hannity would shortly be out of demand and out of work.

The point being, of course, that the named pundits don't believe the crap they spew any more than their controllers in the government do. (Think about Limbaugh's relief that he no longer has to be a "water carrier" for the Republicans. Excuse me -- just who was holding a gun to his head?) The "institutional conservatism" that Greenwald refers to in this post is just that: the loyalty is not to the conservatism, but to the institution. It's an institution composed of many facets -- the Israeli lobby-neocons, the Christianists, the anti-immigration white supremacists, and even a few genuine theoretical conservatives (those who haven't been marginalized, as was Andrew Sullivan) -- directed toward one goal: the acquisition and retention of political power, the "permanent Republican majority." (Which in and of itself is not something I think is desirable -- that is to say, a permanent majority of either party would be a disaster for this country. Twelve years has been bad enough. Of course, that kind of thinking denies the lessons of history (quelle surprise!) -- it's a series of reactions, so a permanent majority is a pipe dream to begin with -- unless, of course, you're prepared to do away with the last vestiges of democracy.)

Of course, when ideology meets reality, something's got to give. In Feingold's case, it seems to be the ideology. In the case of the Republicans, it comes back to their Reaganite guiding principle: if you say it often enough and loudly enough, it's true.