The REAL Flip-Floppers

Ethics? What ethics??

John Bolton
I was never interviewed by the Inspector General.
Ooops. Gee. I guess I was interviewd by the Inspector General.

Bill Frist
Stem Cell research is against the "culture of life."
Ooops. Gee. I guess I may not be re-elected unless I support Stem Cell research!

John Roberts
I was never a member of the Federalist Society.
Ooops. Gee. I guess I was a member...and part of the Steering Committee!

Scott McClellan
Even though an investigation is in progress, the Libby and Rove allegations are ridiculous.
Ooops. Gee. I guess I can no longer comment on those allegations.

Karl Rove
I was never a source of classified information to the media.
Ooops. Gee. I guess I was a source of classified information to the media.

George W. Bush
I will fire anyone in my administration who leaked.
Ooops. Gee. I guess I won't fire anyone who leaked--I'll only fire them if they broke the letter of the law.

Ethics vs. Rove

What am I missing? Discussion of the Karl Rove fiasco continues to center around whether or not a law was broken--perhaps another Administration triumph at “framing the debate”. But I have yet to hear the word “ethics” or “unethical” used by commentators. Rove, who invented the divide-and-conquer election gambit and orchestrated surrogates to conduct horrific smear campaigns against Bush political opponents, always cloaked himself in the smug rhetoric of virtue. If I had garnered a vote for every time his team spoke of values, family values, morals, virtues, optimism, faith, etc., I would have won the presidency in a landslide. But from the evidence we already have, regardless off legality, Karl Rove’s media leaks were clearly unethical. They were directed at Former Ambassador Joe Wilson as part of an organized smear campaign--a sneaky, scummy, dirty, underhanded attempt to assassinate character and discredit. It was not the first time Karl Rove used dirty tricks to manipulate public opinion, but it was the first time the blood stains led directly to his doorstep. And they exposed the Karl Rove behind the cloak. An arrogant man lacking virtue, willing to do anything to gain advantage, whose so-called values should now disqualify him from public service. After five years of relentless virtue-speak, keeping Karl Rove employed at the White House would be utter hypocrisy and a national disgrace.

Fundamentalism is Against Democracy

Articles in this week's US News and World Report ("Confronting the Threat", Zuckerman, 8/1/05) and the Christian Science Monitor ("Why Jihadists target the West", LaFranchi, 7/28/05) examine the nature of terrorism and the factors that motivate young, mostly prosperous Muslims to blow up themselves and others. Though complex and multi-faceted, one of the main components of suicide bombing is an absolute belief that the action will be rewarded in paradise. Regardless of the broader goals of angry clerics or fanatics like Bin Laden, absolute faith is a tool they use to achieve those goals. When we discovered that the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers expected to receive seventy virgins in paradise--and let's be clear, they wanted to have sex with and be catered to by a harem of seventy virgins for the rest of eternity--we naturally gasp and think, "that's crazy!" And it is. Fundamentalism is crazy. But not just Islamic fundamentalism, which happens to be increasingly focused on jihad, violence and murder in the name of Allah. ALL fundamentalism is crazy. And in America, fundamentalism is disturbingly on the rise.

It is one thing to live in the spirit of Jesus, or in accordance with the Ten Commandments, or to believe in the wisdom of certain rituals or traditions. But to take the extra step, to place absolute faith in a book or a person or a myth, defies common sense. Which is to say, it is nonsense. To completely embrace the irrational, the nonsensical, the unprovable and the unknowable, is by definition crazy. Believing in "seventy virgins in paradise" is no more or less crazy than believing in The Rapture, which has become an obsession among a large number of our fellow countrymen. If this scares you, it should. Literal religion--fundamentalism--is an abdication of reason and common sense.

Some of our leaders would have us believe that our country is only made up of Godless Secularists and "People of Faith," a coded phrase describing fundamentalists. Using "People of Faith" like a bludgeon, they forget that a large, invisible middle ground exists between those two groups, occupied by people with a spiritual life but without absolute belief, people who haven't abdicated reason or common sense to a book or a self-proclaimed holy man. They may have strongly, deeply held beliefs, but their beliefs aren't absolute. In other words, they hold out the possibility that their beliefs might be wrong. And this possibility squares with the fact that many of our most empassioned questions have no clear answers. Much of life is mysterious and beyond our ability to comprehend. As such, spirituality is a form of humility, while fundamentalism, claiming absolute knowledge of the truth, is supremely arrogant. In the case of Muslim fundamentalism, it is also dangerously arrogant. If the 911 terrorists decided that their "seventy virgins" theory might be wrong, they would have stayed at home.

But in America, Christian fundamentalism is also becoming dangerous. When states decide that pharmacists are no longer required to dispense contraception, they create a medical hazard. When states and other institutions spread lies about the effectiveness of contraception, they increase the general suffering. When environmental issues are trivialized because "the plants and animals were put here by God for our use," our long-term prosperity is diminished. When science is demonized, as in the case of evolution, ignorance flourishes. How long will it be before Christian fanatics try to outlaw pre-marital sex? If you think I'm exaggerating or being flip, you're sadly mistaken.

The large and growing number of Christian fundamentalists have an extreme and restrictive agenda. It is not enough for them to behave according to their beliefs. They must also force those beliefs on the rest of us, which they think "their faith" calls them to do. So when we hear about Muslim fanatics trampling the rights of women and supporting suicide bombers, all in the name of Allah, and we feel duly sickened and outraged, we shouldn't forget the fundamentalists in our own country who are absolutely certain of their righteousness. Like Muslim fanatics, their "faith" is blind, intolerant and arrogant, and has a tyrannical urge.

In any form, at its core, fundamentalism is an enemy of liberty and against democracy.

Roberts is Radical

The heated discussion of Supreme Court Nominee Roberts continued today, and many commentators, including MSNBC's ridiculous Monica Crowley, wondered why his alleged affiliation with the Federalist Society is such a big deal. But if she would stop interrupting her guests and listen for a change, she might get the answer. It's a big deal because the Federalist Society is a RADICAL organization. It is neither mainstream nor moderate, as it aims to radically alter the way our courts decide cases. President Bush has every right to nominate anyone he chooses to the Supreme Court, and, given the Republican stranglehold on the Senate, Roberts will likely be affirmed no matter what comes to light about his past. But the radical right likes him because his views are reliably radical. Going against the last forty years of judicial opinion, and public opinion, it is becoming clear that Roberts does not believe the Constitution provides a right to privacy. Now matter how attractive his exterior, his radical views should cause us concern.

Federalism is Fundamentalism

The debate over Supreme Court Nominee Roberts is becoming a referendum on textualism, a theory that the Supreme Court isn't entitled to "interpret" or second-guess the Constitution when deciding a case. Justices must follow "the words of the Constitution" with strict precision. Federalists use this theory in their crusade to limit the Government's ability to make laws, claiming that the Constitution restricts the Government's power to a few specific arenas, like slavery and voting rights. Since the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right of privacy, for example, neither the Federal Government nor the Supreme Court have any authority to protect a woman's right to an abortion, an adult's right to buy contraception, and so on. In contrast to the last forty years of Congressional legislation and Supreme Court opinion, federalists contend that matters unspecified in the Constitution must be left to the states.

In an era when television, cell phones and the Internet are rapidly transforming our planet into a global village, and when people are traveling, commuting and re-locating as never before, why would some citizens and politicians want to Balkanize America, reducing federal power while giving the states more autonomy and power? It has nothing to do with upholding the sanctity of the Constitution. After all, the Constitution has been a living document since the initial passage of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself is murky and full of textual ambiguity. The simple answer is that some people, unable to restrict the behavior of mainstream society, want to enable smaller enclaves (states) to pass laws they desire without government interference. Put to a nationwide vote, women would retain the right to have an abortion. But in certain radical enclaves (states), they wouldn't. Federalism is an expression of intolerance, nothing more.

Federalists can't tolerate a pluralistic nation where liberty includes activities they deem to be evil, immoral or unnatural, such as pre-marital sex, contraception, vulgarity and in many cases, science. Obviously, their views often stem from extreme, literal religion. Thus, federalism is a form of fundamentalism, and it aims to erode liberty and reverse progress. By taking hold in certain radical states, they hope to gradually impose their restrictions in ever-widening circles. So when you hear the word "federalist" or "textualist," make no mistake--it is merely code for tyrannical intolerance. Federalism is fundamentalism, and fundamentalism, by its very nature, is against liberty and democracy.