Friday, May 27, 2011

If they're for it, we're against it.

The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all.

Thomas Hobbes -

Scanning the Facebook page of my congresscritter, Tom Rooney (R-FL) I find the real interest not to be the simplistic banalities and the strained attempts to generate outrage against Barack Obama. It's not the continuing effort by Rooney to portray the assistance being given NATO's actions in Syria as a constitutional violation; it's more about the truly demented calls for impeachment by the people who post there; calls that remain in view without comment by Mr. Rooney, who claims that he maintains the page to be more "in touch" with the sentiments of his constituents rather than as a tool to promote irrational rage for political purposes.

If he has some constituents other than me who disagree with the "Oh I just hate, hate him" and "Oh he just makes me sick" and the "he uses the constitution to line his bird cage" swamp dwellers, they must indeed like me, be very reluctant to post comments there under their real names. He's created a milieu quite hostile to reason and reasonable people offering constructive criticism.

Yes, of course there are many questions about the legality of George W. Bush's legacy, some of which -- too much of which -- remains in place, but the War on Obama is not really based on his alleged and often misrepresented constitutional infractions, and we know it because they weren't presented as such during the previous administration and indeed were eagerly supported by the reactionary beasts who hang out on the Rooney page to congratulate themselves and outdo each other on the size of their hate. Indeed, that place is a microcosm of our war against ourselves, a war of all against all.

It's not that I like Senator Rand Paul or his familiar pose of principled outrage, but I am indeed on his side when it comes to addressing the real constitutional outrage of the Patriot Act. I have to smile at what may be the end of his naivete because it isn't the Democrats at war with the Leahy-Paul Amendment, designed to allow greater oversight of ever increasing Government warrantless surveillance powers under that cynically named act. It's the Republicans supporting precisely the kind of power they pretend to oppose while posturing as libertarians to the frothy-mouthed and furious rabble.
“Unfortunately, what we’re finding now is that the Democrats have agreed to allow me to have amendments but my own party is refusing to allow me to debate or present my amendments.”
Said Paul. Imagine that.

But as the man said, the joining of people into a society serves to prevent the chaos of nature, and I have to ask myself whether the effort to portray anything social or designed for the common good as the unqualified evil of Socialism, did not have the promotion of that very bellum omnium contra omnes; everyone at war with everyone and every man for himself as a purpose. Perhaps when everyone is against everyone, such things as consistent viewpoints are illusory as is anything resembling principle. If you're for it, I'm against it may be as close as we can get.


d nova said...

well! not sure how to react.

at very least, some are at war against all, and some are at war against some.

that leaves open the possibility that some are not at war. surely the belligerence of some intimidates some into withdrawal from the field.

that may be the real problem. i haven't looked at the whole country's results, but in my state (PA) in 2008 obama took 55% of the vote, winning by 620k. in 2010 corbett (R) won governorship with 55% and toomey (R) won senate race w/ 51%. analysts fairly consistently credit that to independents switching sides. but corbett got fewer votes than mccain, and toomey had fewer than corbett. looks to me like a lot of obama voters sat it out, and that was the real difference.

the question, as it often is, is "why?"

have unrelenting vitriolic attacks so intimidated so many voters?

is anybody organizing in your district to give your rep a real challenge? or is it permanently red?

Capt. Fogg said...

My current Rep, Tom Rooney won because Mr. Mahoney, his Democratic predecessor had a messy affair with his secretary. He replaced the notorious Republican Mark Foley who was making lewd passes at pages.

Red or blue, it's permanently sleazy.

d nova said...

by "it's" u mean ur district?

shhh. don't let them hear u.

(btw, i still have sufficient faith in humanity 2 blieve most congressional reps not involved in sleaze. on other hand, i know nuff psychology to think we're all sluts.)

Capt. Fogg said...

Yep, my Gerrymandered Congressional district. Sure, I think the worst offenders are a minority, but in Florida at least, our political fraternity isn't exactly the intellectual (or moral) creme de la Creme.

I will never forget the representative from Miami who thought animal husbandry was about allowing people to marry animals.

d nova said...

good one!

yeah, i saw the shape of the 16th when i looked it up after ur earlier reply. we have a couple good reps here n in neighboring district, but PA is not represented only by confucian superior persons. take our newest senator (toomey). please! [thank u henny.]

ur 16th, tho, appears headed for the record books! checking out it looks to me like rooney's doing his best to incite those calls for impeachment.