Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Past imperfect

by Capt. Fogg

Anna Quindlen writes in the current Newsweek about Loving V. Virginia, the mostly forgotten 1967 Supreme Court opinion that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" thereby ruling against the Racial Integrety act of 1924. Of course we consider a ban on interracial marriage a bit archaic today, even though the fundamentalists who told us that since God had "separated the races" we shouldn't allow them to mix are still here and telling us what God wants and damn the Constitution and its heretical equal protection clause. It's probably what they mean by "Judicial activism" when they complain about the Supreme Court of the 1960's, but of course our constitution was specifically designed to thwart the impositions of religious institutions; impositions that are still the backbone of Conservative culture.

Does anyone sane still think the purpose of our government is to enforce sectarian rules as interpreted by self appointed mullahs? Apparently so. Karl Rove sets forth in the same issue to tell us that in reconstituting the Republican party, the values traditional to people who traditionally oppose any concept of freedom other than their own freedom to impose rules, should absolutely never be compromised. Can we really separate the "conservative culture" he champions from the long standing tyrannical opposition to things as diverse and numerous as "Misogyny," Women's suffrage, the five day work week, segregation or Social Security? Can Republicans seriously consider themselves to be the "Party of Lincoln" when Lincoln was a Liberal willing to ignore biblical tolerance for slavery?

The Social Conservatism of Karl Rove, whether or not it's a smokescreen hiding the dragon of tyranny, is outmoded and has been abandoned by countries along with fundamentalist religiosity and bigotry toward social minorities. In fact it's obvious that much of the world has begin to recognize the freedom of people to define their own family relationships, make domestic contracts and partnerships as they see fit. So far, despite the Fallwellian demagoguery, nothing bad has happened and isn't likely to happen when we catch up with the Canadians, as eventually we will do.

Republicans should come across ( not necessarily be) as morally serious, says Rove, although Rove has long demonstrated that victory is the root of morality. What escapes him is that the Constitution of this country protects me against other people's moral seriousness when it comes to the rights it guarantees. What escapes him is that his vision of a reconstituted party is a party still attached to the losing side of history.
"We can't just dwell on the past" says Rove without any apparent sense of irony. "The Future is already here."

Indeed it is and I'm hoping that the conservative impulse toward clinging to that past is part of the past and that Karl Rove and the other enemies of liberty and personal responsibility are not part of the future.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Brilliant as always, Fogg.

    Heh. Word verify = voter

    By Blogger Libby Spencer, at 10:37 AM  

  • at this point, i am kind of hoping we can all escape rove. the religious won't go down quietly- there's too much fear and greed- for money and power- for the shepherds to let go of their flock. perhaps in the hands of the millenials- america will move into the 21st century in spite of herself.

    By Blogger billie, at 1:38 PM  

  • People like him have always been here and always will. All our religious literature is about following the old ways and old authorities and the old rules and resisting individual liberty. It's no accident that other countries have allowed more individual freedom as religiosity declines.

    Salmon Rushdie once said that fundamentalism isn't about religion, it's about power, and I agree.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 3:01 PM  

  • How about marriage among THREE people? A man and a dog? A woman and a dog? A man and Siamese (oh, excuse me) conJOINED twins? Barney Frank and Larry Craig (that one's bipartisan)? Oh Loving v. Virginia, your examples go on and on, except for those nasty Negroes in California who voted against Prop. 8 70%-30%!!!!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:57 PM  

  • Since that wasn't a rational ( or coherent)response, It's probably foolish to attempt a rational reply. It does typify the hysteria of the religiously microcephalic underclass however, if anyone is interested.

    Of course Dogs can't enter into contracts, nor can minors, but if you knew diddly about history you'd remember that Chang and Eng, the "siamese" twins, were in fact both married -- sorry they didn't ask your permission. And that brings up the obvious question: what the hell gives you the right to tell people what they can or can't do in any matter that harms neither persons nor property?

    That's right -- nothing, so as Mr. Cheney once said -- go fuck yourself. It's perfectly legal, you know.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 9:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home