Political potpourri 9/7/11

1. Doubling down on Bushism.
2. Corruptio optimi pessima.
3. Californicating the law.

I apologize for the reversion — brief, I hope — to a few more or less frankly political topics.

1

Rod Dreher, having bounced around a bit since leaving the Dallas Morning News, lands at The American Conservative, resumes blogging, and immediately begins saying stuff better than I could say it, such as my disgust with the Presidential Field:

The ideological recklessness with which the GOP treated the debt ceiling issue made me fearful of what they would do if they captured the White House again. Plus, I had foolishly hoped that the loss to Obama would compel the GOP to take a hard look at its ideology in light of conservative first principles, and make some changes. Instead, they seem to have doubled down on Bushism …

There are no outrages (e.g., extraconstitutional wars in Libya, mollycoddling bankers) that Democrats won’t put up with as long as nobody touches Social Security, no homosexual is denied a wedding or a military commission, and no abortion is ever discouraged. There are no outrages Republicans won’t put up with as long as no taxes get raised, and the GOP commits itself rhetorically to opposing gay marriage and abortion. Above all, the raison d’etre of each party seems to be, at the core, demonizing the Other. I’m tempted to believe that the GOP Congressional leadership would just as soon see the country suffer rather than yield a political inch to Obama …

Welcome back, Rod. I missed you.

This means, by the way, that The American Conservative is even more indispensable now.

2

Well: would “the GOP Congressional leadership [really] just as soon see the country suffer rather than yield a political inch to Obama?”

A 30-year veteran GOP staffer on The Hill, Mike Lofgren, has resigned and written a kiss-and-tell for the “progressive” website, Truthout. His answer is, basically, making the country suffer is the whole point; it’s nothing personal about Obama.

Kiss-and-tells make me squirm, from whatever quarter they come. But I understand the impulse to expose rot, quite apart from possible financial incentives.

Lofgren’s exposé strikes me as especially plausible. The details just seem to fit the facts as I know them. Just this evening, in the car on the way home, I heard GOP leaders saying exactly the sorts of things they’d say if this were true:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

(Emphasis added) That also makes sense of the joke (??? I’m not so sure now) that Republicans say government doesn’t work, and when elected, they prove it.

Look at Rod Dreher’s summary in the preceding item of what the Democrats value so much they’ll tolerate any outrage to preserve it. That’s why I despise the national Democrat party.

When I believed in Republican sincerity about its platform, I thought the GOP the superior party. But corruptio opimi pessima.

Do you find Lofgren plausible? Even convincing?

Any suggestions of genuinely conservative Third Parties (Theocrat wannabes need not apply)? I need someone new to be disappointed in.

3

Meanwhile, in California, the legal twists and turns attending a referendum process continue. You may recall that:

• The California Supreme Court decreed same-sex marriage for the Golden State.
• Opponents then organized a referendum, Proposition 8, to nullify that decision by amending the California constitution.
• The Campaign was predictably ugly. If a Corporate Executive gave to support Prop 8, his company was likely to be boycotted, at least until he fell on his sword.
• “Prop 8” passed by 51% to 49%.
• Ted Olsen and David Boies teamed up to challenge it, symbolically uniting left-liberalism and Chamber of Commerce conservatism.
• California governor Jerry Brown and attorney general Kamela Harris not to defend the law in court, although it is their duty to defend duly enacted laws.
• Proponents of the law stepped in to defend it – in the name of the State, as it must be.
• Olsen and Boies objected: “They’re not California! They can’t do that!”

To formulate the question thus posed, which was argued in the California Supreme Court yesterday,

Justice Carol A. Corrigan emphasized that dismissing the case for lack of standing would basically equate to giving the governor and attorney general a “pocket veto” over laws that they don’t like, but were otherwise passed lawfully.

More information here and here.

This, folks, is why government by judiciary is a lousy idea, as ugly and dysfunctional as our politics may be right now: one side – let’s call them “The Black Sox” – can forfeit the game in defiance of the political will; maybe worse, they can go through the motions of playing the game while deliberately throwing it.

I’ve got my suspicions that there will be some “kiss-and-tell” books coming from offices of attorneys general in the coming years, on how officials expressly charge with defending the laws perfidiously went through the motions of doing so while consciously (probably for reasons that felt ideologically noble) throwing the game. The lesser evil may be, as did Governor Brown and A.G. Harris in effect, to frankly say “A majority of Californians are bigots and to hell with them!”