Hullabaloo

Monday, December 17, 2007

 
The Revenge Wing

by digby

A conservative commentator says he "gets it:"

It took this recent post by Digby and this morning’s column by Krugman for me to “get it.” If you are a conservative, you should read the two pieces, not to criticize them nor ridicule them, but to understand their perspective. As briefly as possible, Krugman and Digby are speaking for the ‘Revenge Wing’ of the Democratic Party. “The GOP and big corporations are evil incarnate and we need to be ready to rumble, willing to do “what it will take to turn a progressive agenda into reality.”

These 21st Century Savonarolas believe that the next (Democratic) president must be willing to take the fight the enemy (the Republicans) and be willing to do whatever is necessary.

Thus when Digby says:

And so the new Democratic president will be nearly paralyzed, standing there like a deer caught in the headlights when the Republican Semi bears down on him or her, horns honking and whistles blowing.

It’s clear what she means: what the country needs is a Democratic president willing to plant an IED underneath that Republican Semi and blow it to kingdom-come.

Matt Stoller at Open Left also says “fight, fight, fight:”

Clinton and Obama both think that you can sit down and negotiate with these people [GOP and corporations], that they are reasonable and data-driven and deal in good faith. But they are not. They operate from a calculus of raw power, and evidence doesn’t matter to them. Iraq and our corporate dominated state is a systems problem requiring a realization that the different social norms reinforce each other. Without a leader willing to fight …

I don't deny that I desire a president who would hold Republicans accountable for lawbreaking and unconstitutional governance. I think the unitary executive is a form of dictatorship and I believe many of the activities of the Bush administration have been illegal and immoral.

But nowhere in my piece do I even come close to saying that I think we should exact "revenge" by "any means necessary" such as metaphorically "planting an IED under the semi and blowing it to kingdom come." (Jesus, these people can't stop with the terrorist metaphors...) I'd just like for the drivers of that truck to be cited for reckless driving and have their licenses suspended until they learn how to drive like law abiding citizens.

In fact, my rather depressing piece was actually about how the Republicans and the press will hold the Democrats responsible for the sins of the Republicans and that perversely Washington will be "cleaned up" only by Democrats being investigated and disgraced for trumped up charges that only resemble the real crimes committed by Bush.

This isn't the only conservative fellow who has commented on my post. This one wrote that my post was just a preemptive whine that the Democrats won't be allowed to get away with doing the things that the Republicans have, and he's having none of it. He even issued a warning that I should scrub my posts for "hypocritical" objections that will get me in trouble when I defend Democratic lawbreaking in the future.

Again, my post was not about the Democrats being unfairly denied their opportunity to govern unconstitutionally. I generally don't care for shredding the constitution no matter who does it. What my post pointed out was the fact that all the arguments that Democrats have used, impotently and to no effect, against the Republicans these last seven years, will be marshaled to keep them from governing legally and holding the previous administration liable for their crimes.

Mark Kleiman explains it more clearly than I:

* Rove, Ashcroft, and Gonzales used the prosecution as a weapon against political adversaries; in the feeble minds of the Beltway chattering class (as prompted by the right-wing noise machine) that will make any attempt to prosecute the multiple crimes of the previous eight years look like political persecution.

* The Bushoids have shamelessly abused the merit system to purge honest civil servants and "burrow in" their crooked and incompetent allies, including all those Regent University Law School grads now in civil-service jobs at the Justice Department. Any attempt to undo that damage will be greeted with howls of protest about how the new President is abusing the merit system.

* All of the scientific advisory committees have been stacked with reactionaries and industry shills; any attempt to unstack them will bring charges that science is being further politicized.

I actually don't mind being called the "Revenge Wing" of the Democratic Party. It somewhat amuses me that these manly conservative warriors are all trembly at the idea of the avenging left forcing their leaders to have a taste of their own nasty medicine. But the truth is that we are actually just the same old civil libertarian, constitution loving, safety net promoting, tolerant, pluralist liberals we've always been. The problem is that the conservative movement went way too far these last 15 years or so and now the country needs to sort out the terrible mess they've made.

And to that end, I'm entirely with Kleiman on his prescription for this problem:

It seems to me that the right first step is obvious (though it was obvious to Mark Schmitt before it became so to me. The new President should ask Congess to create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, empowered to subpoena records and witnesses, hold public hearings, and dismiss officials guilty of misconduct in office or appointed by improper means. And the Commission should have power to inquire into Congressional as well as Executive behavior, and to refer Congressional misconduct back to the Houses for appropriate disciplinary action. (That avoids the "speech and debate" problem.)

The key is using the criminal law only as a backstop: the Commission should be able to offer complete immunity from criminal prosecution for anyone who testifies fully and frankly, but impose complete liability for perjury or obstruction on anyone who fails to do so.

I don't want revenge (although I can't say it would bother me much to see somebody pay a legal price for this disgusting torture regime.) But over the course of the last three decades, the modern conservative movement made a calculation that accruing ever more power in the executive branch will benefit them. They defend it when they are in power and then use every means at their disposal to strip legitimate power from a president of the other party. I don't think that's good for the country, and I think most people agree. We aren't subjects, we are citizens and we have a right to know what has gone on these past eight years.

Nobody has to go to jail, but this must be aired out and examined and the public must be allowed to decide for itself whether that is the sort of government they want. It's not revenge. It's democracy, which I realize is anathema to the impeachment for blowjobs/election stealing/dictator(aslongasI'mthedictator) wing of the Republican party, but it's something I think a good many Americans still value.



Update: Let me point out that I have zero expectations that Democrats will do anything like this. They will instead, as I originally posted, be battered about like abused dogs, trying to gain the approval of those who abuse them and biting the hand of anyone who tries to interfere. They will pay the price for what the Republicans did and they allowed --- they are sin-eaters.


.
digby 12/17/2007 12:14:00 PM |