Revising... a work in progress.

(This is my most current version of what I have proposed the Principles--and Sources--become. Hat tip to Doug Muder'sDan Harper's (thanks, Jess!) associate personality, Mr Crankypants, whose work provided the kicking off point for this effort. I welcome relevant suggestions and criticisms--those that directly address what the content, wording and such should be.

Changes? It's been boiled down to five principles (or four... if you read the final affirmation as simply replacing the Sources), and some wording has been tweaked either because the Holy Spirit of Editing moved me to improve it or because of things I've heard in discussions about the principles review.)


Affirming our faith's rejection of creed, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association covenant to uphold these religious principles:

We shall responsibly love and care for the Earth and all living things; we are a part of nature, not apart from it. We shall treat each other, and all beings, with justice and dignity, guided by knowledge, and tempered with love and compassion;

We shall depend on love, reason, responsibility and liberty in governing our religious communities; offering an example to the world;

We shall promote openness, fairness, and honesty in in our congregations, and in all interactions; resisting authoritarianism and living out the highest democratic principles;

We remain religious seekers; we are finite beings with limited understanding, we must therefore remain open and responsive to the insights of others;

We affirm that ongoing revelation offers new insights to humanity. We acknowledge the beauty and wisdom present in all the world's religious traditions and in science; we recognize our roots in the Western religious traditions and the rich inspiration we find in other faiths, as well as in the human struggle for knowledge. We affirm the value and need for mystery, wonder and reason, and we recognize our responsibility to re-interpret religious traditions in light of the present.

As free and interdependent congregations we enter into this covenant; we promise to one another our mutual trust and support; should we break this covenant, we shall listen, accept guidance and appropriate discipline by other congregations within this covenanted association. This is our bond of union.

On Tolerance

The demise of Jerry Falwell seems like an appropriate moment for a brief rant on tolerance. In amidst the range of people I've read who share my lack of sorry over his death (note that I offer my condolences to the bereft for their personal loss--but that doesn't change my reality or feelings), there have been a couple who've wailed over the lack of liberal--pardon me, that's 9 times out of 10 "librul"--tolerance being shown. I find that both droll and duplicitous. Or perhaps it's just ignorant.

So here is a definition to start off with:

The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

The problem is that people misunderstand tolerance. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a good thing. But tolerance is something that you offer, grant, provide. And you expect it in return. It is absurd in the extreme to refuse to offer it and to nevertheless expect it offered to you by those you've metaphorically exiled.

Having hated non-whites, supported segregation, opposed Martin Luther King Jr, and actively supported apartheid, one might have expected that the late Rev. Falwell would have learned some humility in the process of backing away from that shameful personal history. But no. Gays, liberals, followers of other faiths, and many others were folks he publicly reviled and declared collectively responsible for catastrophes like 9/11.

That's preaching intolerance.

Tolerance is a form of social contract. We agree to cut each other slack--a lot of slack--and to accept, acknowledge, put up with and ignore... as good neighbors do... the differences among us. We don't insist that they be just like us, do just like us, and think just like us. It's ok, you're different from me, and we're different from yet a third person. But insofar as we can live with each other and do each other no harm, insofar as we can civilly negotiate the inevitable conflicts among ourselves (and this is no different than living in a family where everyone's quirks and foibles have to be dealt with), we can allow each other a great deal of latitude.

Jefferson famously observed:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

It may be something I disagree with, but it does me no harm. So I can, should--and must, in a society that is tolerant--tolerate a view I think wrong... at least if I want to have any claim on being tolerated myself. Tolerance is a form of reciprocity.

This is where the claim on tolerance by, and on behalf of, the intolerant absolutely founders. You are entitled to tolerance by signing onto the implicit deal. We tolerate each other. But those who refuse to be tolerant have no claim on the tolerance of others. It may be extended, but if it is, it is a gift--and there is no right to a gift.

Falwell and his apologists have no claim to our sympathy and tolerance because they are not "in the game" as participants. Instead, they are predators or parasites on a system which functions well because of its broad tolerance. They want the benefits, but don't want to give back.

And for that, there is no tolerance.

Are You Moral Enough To Join The Army, Boy?

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

That's General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Morality, speaking to the editorial board of the Chicago Times, the other day. This, no doubt, with one eye to the gay soldiers serving in the coalition forces provided by the UK, Australia.... You see, it's those immoral soldiers that are causing us to lose the war in Iraq; not that we're losing, not that it's a war, really.

Yesterday, caught in the firestorm, he released a statement that affirmed;

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

Ya think?

In a Jan 2nd New York Times Op-Ed, another general offered this;

"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

Just to remind the reader, General Shalikashvili is one of the victims of the Bush purges; an officer who had the chutzpah to disagree with the plans (so-called) for Bush's Excellent Little War, and to suggest that perhaps they needed to reflect military wisdom, experience and the lessons of history.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

But then, the very idea that anyone in this administration might have even read Tennyson is ludicrous.

I Sooo Want To Ask Peacebang About This...

Abomination or merely cause for eye-bleaching?

I'm chortling to myself, trying to imagine Peacebang's commentary on these outfits, over at Beauty Tips For Ministers.

Dress up for church!, she exhorts...

(Readers, please note that the management is not responsible for any mental injury, nightmares, and loss of taste incurred)

Sinning with Class

The text of today's sermon (it's mine, so I have permission to post it). It should be understood that it was bracketed by a short contemplation on the meaning, value, and importance of the idea of 'sin' to religious liberals, and a shorter piece talking about where we might go, what hands-on stuff might be done in response. This because our beloved minister was still bitter about my gnawing my way through Salvation as a useful topic, and wasn't about to let me have the whole pulpit to discuss the nature of sin and then to tackle classism all by myself.

No, she had to hog all the sin for herself.

Brothers and sisters... I want to tell you a lie. We live in a classless society.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Every society has taboos. We've acknowledged that we have some taboos in our own community here; there's an observation that it's easier for UUs to talk about sex than it is to talk about money. There's reality in that bit of humor; we talk about planning sex ed programs for the youth and no one twitches. Talk about how much money we pledge, or make... and people fidget.

There is a strong taboo about class in America. Bringing up class issues results in accusations of fomenting class warfare (which admits there are classes... and pressures the speaker to shut up, now).

It's not that similar sins don't exist elsewhere; India's caste system, for example. It's easy for us to see how the class structure is woven into India's society, it's easy to see how wrong it is, how it damages and injures people. It's easy for us to see how unreasonable it is. Classism is a serious problem everywhere. But we have a myth that says we're a classless society, so we ignore it here. The Biblical admonition to tend to the beam in one's own eye before tending to the mote in someone else's is clearly applicable. To do otherwise is simply self-righteous hypocrisy.

The sin of classism reaches back before the American Revolution. It has shaped, twisted and distorted society from literally the first English settlements here. Gentlemen—the upper class—expected not to sully themselves with work, and did not work, at Jamestown. Work was beneath their dignity. Not until the colony faced starvation and extinction did the governor force them to work, to work if they expected to eat. That egalitarian action was scandalous, and only undertaken with survival at stake.

We know more about class than we admit. Maybe your car suggests something, or your clothing marks you, or the jewelry you wear does. Social scholars generally divide American society into six or more classes—and they note that the vast majority of Americans believe that they're middle class, whether they're below it or way above it.

Note that. Classism makes it uncomfortable, unacceptable, to be other than middle class. Though there is more demonstrable disadvantage in being poor, there's also much social disfavor for being wealthy—and that's an attitude that Unitarian Universalists can easily fall into. Either way, it's classism; a clear violation of our first principle, which affirms the worth and dignity of every person. There is no moral defect or virtue inherent in being poor, just as there is no moral superiority or deficiency in being rich. Your ethical or moral status depends on what you do, not what you have. Discussing the behaviors and failings of a group runs towards stereotyping, demonizing, and dehumanizing people for being “other.” Grappling with classism means struggling with people's fear and misunderstanding.

A class consists of a large group of people with a similar economic position in society based on income, wealth, property ownership, education, skills, or authority in the economic sphere. Class affects people on more than just an economic level. Class is subjective (how we feel) and objective (in terms of position or resources).

Classism is any form of prejudice or oppression based on actual or perceived social class.

Classism isn't necessarily intentional, it can be structural. Some argue that the American electoral system, resting on huge donations and fund raising, is classist—because only the relatively wealthy can really participate. That doesn't mean that the system was designed to be classist, but the lack of intent doesn't mean there's no problem. Lack of intent doesn't mean that there's not a crime—that's the distinction made between murder and manslaughter.

Classism assigns characteristics of worth and ability based on social class. It includes some rationale that supports these valuations and the culture that perpetuates them. (In India, untouchables are what they are because of their karma. In the US, the poor are deemed to be poor because of their inability, weak wills, and personal failings.) It is classist to believe that the poor deserve being poor, and classist to denigrate the humanity of the wealthy.

Classism is a sin that nurtures other sins. In America, class is racialized. A larger percentage of people of color are harmed by the rules of our economy. And racism keeps people whose economic self-interest is similar from uniting to improve their conditions. Racism serves to support a classist society.

Some people are surprised that African American, Latino, and Native American people have rates of poverty and unemployment that are more than double those of white Americans. Other people are surprised that most poor people are white. Classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism; all of them function in ways that support each other. We have to understand how these oppressions are interwoven, because they are—and because we cannot solve any one of them without addressing the others.

Classism truly lies at the roots of racism, in America. In the late 17^th and 18^th centuries, common English stereotypes of the poor were often identical with descriptions of blacks in the colonies dependent upon slave labor. They suggested the subhumanity of both: the white poor were ‘the vile and brutish part of mankind’; blacks ‘a brutish sort of people.’

Until 1660, indentured servants outnumbered slaves on the Virginia tobacco plantations, and were treated in very similar ways. Poor, bedraggled English men and women were shipped as indentured servants to Virginia, and when their masters put people of another color in the fields with them, the unfamiliar appearance may have struck them as only skin deep. There is evidence that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing a predicament. It was common for servants and slaves to run away, steal hogs, get drunk—together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together.

African-born slaves and European-born indentured servants collaborated. Race laws began being passed in 1661, when both Maryland and Virginia passed statutes that forbade miscegenation, mixing of the races—which remained Virginian law until it was struck down in... 1967. Ministers were forbidden to marry mixed race couples—with a stiff fine for violating the law. In 1691, Virginia decreed that any white woman who bore a mulatto child pay a fine or face indentured servitude for five years for herself and thirty years for her child. In Maryland, a white woman who married a Negro slave had to serve her husband’s owner for the rest of her married life. In the British West Indies a law was passed in 1701 forbidding the importation of Irish Catholics, later any Europeans, to the island of Nevis because European servants had joined with African slaves, rebelling against the ruling elite. The Virginia race laws by which plantation masters elevated the racial status of white servants, workers, and other “rabble” were enacted for the same reasons as the Nevis ban—to protect a rarified elite. Making one group superior to another, by law, allowed a wedge to be driven between two groups who had collaborated against their mutual oppressors.

The very pale-skinned Irish were seen as no better than the black Africans, and in fact, there is a record of of a black house slave in the 19^th century American South complaining that his master treated him like he was “common Irish.” Racism allowed a slave to feel inherently superior to someone else, someone lower class than even a slave. Racism was actively encouraged, because it was useful as a mechanism for supporting and sustaining a highly classist society.

It's our problem. Ours. Not just America's. It's not a problem that exists just among the people of one class. It's a problem that exists throughout American society. We share it. It's ours.

Very few Unitarian Universalists are among the truly wealthy, the major beneficiaries of the class system, and few UUs are part of the lower classes. If, in coming to the aid of the real victims of classism—or any oppression—we butt in, take over, take charge and become their voice, we have made ourselves beneficiaries of classism. This is simply adopting the mantle of victim status. It is crucially important to support and assist people; it is equally important not to disempower them while helping them. Oppression ends when people are made able, empowered and in possession of the resources to control their own lives.

The idea that our society is classless is absurd—but it is a useful absurdity; it allows people to pretend that economic inequality has no real victims, because... after all, we are all middle class, right? The entire middle class is generally defined as being about half of all Americans. That middle class shares a one-fifth of the nation's wealth with all of the lower class and with what we call the upper middle class. Think about what that means. Think about the social and economic inequality implicit in the fact that four fifths of the population—everyone from the upper middle class down, shares a fifth—a shrinking fifth, too—of the nation's wealth.

Classism is the first monstrous child of the sin of othering people, of affirming that some group is less than truly, equally human. Once you subscribe to that seductive notion... it seems to me that classism is an inevitable result. Having defined our own group as the standard of what being human really means, then other lesser groups are—almost must be—subhuman. They don't reach the standard, they don't make the mark. That thinking seems to mandate some form of classism, and it allows for all kinds of other -isms; racism, sexism, and heterosexism.

In order to deal effectively with classism we need to deal with racism and sexism. And in order to deal effectively with racism or sexism, we need to deal with class.

Bill Fletcher, president of TransAfrica and a former union leader, has written, "Class is the fault-line of US society, and race is the trip wire."

Rev. Bill Sinkford, the president of our Unitarian Universalist Association, has observed “For persons of color, class always needs to be seen in the context of race . . . . (and) race needs always to be viewed through the lens of class.”

Classism violates the ideals of America, where we affirm that every human being is created equal, that no one is entitled to a life of ease, comfort, privilege and power because of their birth. That violates our principles. It violates our affirmation that every person is someone of worth and dignity. It violates our affirmation of justice, equity and compassion in human relations. It mocks the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.

It's not going to be fast or easy to correct. There have been many revolutions over the centuries rooted in class conflicts, and most of them have resulted in bloodshed... and the redistribution of the advantages of class to a small elite of the victorious, creating a new elite class. Revolution is not the answer; violence is not the answer. Solutions rooted in fear, hatred and dehumanization will not be the answer.

What might work is striving for the beloved community, where no person is dehumanized, where no injustice can be ignored, no evil is tolerated. What can work is seeing past our superficial differences, building bridges—treating each other, in our community and beyond as equally valuable human beings, worthy of our respect, appreciation and love.

Well, this should be interesting

So Scooter Libby's guilty on four of five counts. Valerie Plame really, really was a secret agent and someone in the Bush administration (or, more accurately, several someones) outed her--a felony.

Fitzgerald says he expects no further charges to be filed (expects...).

Libby will appeal. Will Bush pardon (before he's impeached--see Chuck Hagel's remarks...)?

But no one will be brought to justice for revealing a secret agent's identity, even though it not only severely damaged US intelligence gathering and counter-proliferation work (in the Middle East, no less) and may have resulted in the death of a US agent. Or... will they?

With the other news hitting the... well, hitting... today, it's hard to imagine what a good news cycle could be for the administration. There's so much out there waiting to be stepped in, or to explode, that it's implausible. Maybe more Anna Nicole Smiths could die to distract the media.

On Impeachment...

First, I want to observe that impeachment is a political process garbed in judicial guise to grant it some gravitas. It's not a judicial process, and the penalty for being convicted on an impeachment charge (in the USA) is limited to removal from office and, possibly, permanently being barred from holding any post for the federal goverment.

Most of the legal rules don't necessarily apply. There's no impact on potential judicial actions on the same subjects; a judge, official--or president--impeached and convicted and removed from office can be tried on criminal charges and civil charges associated with the same matters. There's no claim of double jeopardy because of impeachment.

Impeachment is serious; it's intended to be.

It's not exclusively limited to actions that are crimes. Remember, it's a political process, not a judicial one. Crimes are certainly grounds--potentially--for impeachment. But the Founders considered impeachment at some length, and the words chosen were intentional. Impeachment is certainly justified and called for in the event of bribery and treason--those are explicitly called out. But it's also called for in the event of "other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Misdemeanors does not here refer to the sorts of minor crimes that are usually described as misdemeanors. And "other high crimes" is intentionally vague. The intent was to establish the extreme gravity of impeachment--it should be used for things that seriously damage, injure and imperil the nation and/or threaten good government. But it is intentional that those crimes are not listed in detail; the measure of what "other high crimes" includes is left to the House to determine, at such time as it needs to decide, for the case at hand. Misdemeanors refers generally to behavior grossly and seriously inconsistent with the post; it permits Congress to decide that the good of the nation requires someone to be removed from office, even if they have not actually committed a crime.

And so it should be. No office, no post in a republic should be secure and without possibility of removal, should one commit significant crimes or simply be grossly incompetent. Election and appointment do not confer the right to holding that post no matter what one does or says. They confer the privilege of holding that post, so long as it is deemed reasonable to keep one in that post.

And so... to the (obvious) case at hand.

Should President Bush and Vice President Cheney be impeached?

Actually, that's not the object of this. I happen to be of the opinion that both should be, and that both deserve to be convicted, removed and barred from office.

But I'd like to talk about the how--and why--of process.

There are a good number of people who want them impeached and gone, yesterday. I even sympathize. But it's important to step back and look at how, and why. If one is intent on impeachment, then one really does--or should--believe that the individual being impeached should be convicted; impeachment should not be trivialized as a stage on which to try to injure someone.

If one sincerely believes that, then it's crucial to do it right. This is a political process, and because of the nature of politics, the chance to do things over is--usually--exceedingly rare. The victors seize their spoils, spin things and race off. In addition, and particularly in the impeachment of a senior official, it's a process which the nation pays attention to--which makes it political all over again. Even in the event that someone deserves, in the public's mind, to be impeached, failing to convict is going to tend to protect him (or her) from a future impeachment effort. Though it's not a judicial process, there's a deeply rooted sense that double jeopardy isn't fair or just. So while it might be legal (and it would be), it's not going to sit well with the public to try to do so.

To do it right means... not rushing. Aggravating as that may be, it means taking the time to collect the evidence, complete the investigations, and to make certain that the case and evidence are well understood by those who will vote on it--the senators--and by the public (so that senators understand the public's opinion... remeber, this is a political process, not a judicial one. The opinions of the public should matter, and senators should take into account the political will of the nation and their states).

Because there will be only one chance to do it, so it must be done right.

There's nothing to say that investigations have to take many months. Delays need not be brooked--and should not be.

Should impeachment be attempted, and fail because it was hurried and the waters muddied, or because too many senators were willing to vote on party lines, feeling that they would not be punished -- or not punished hard enough -- by their constituents, the results would be disaster. We'd end up with a presidency which felt that it had been "cleared" of charges by acquittal, that this was a new mandate, and that its actions had been affirmed and supported by the refusal of the Senate to convict. It would feel empowered to continue its excessed, abuses and even to extend them.

It's important that abuses and excesses not be granted authority and the power of precedent because of the urgency felt to impeach. If they're serious enough to justify impeachment, then it's serious enough to take the time to do it right.

The people currently would support impeachment. But it's only a majority, not a supermajority. We all know that the politics of the nation are not as extremely polarized as is sometimes depicted; "Red" states and "Blue" states are not nearly as monochromatic as the media and conversation would suggest. Still, the shades of purple range widely. Impeachment will require that the case is made, presented and laid before the people of the various states so that a solid majority in enough states support impeachment. Their senators need to know that their states really do expect them to vote to convict. And there needs to be that supermajority. Over a third of the Republican senators in the current Senate would have to agree and vote for conviction (assuming no real Democrats break rank). That's a high standard, particularly when one recognizes that there are certain senators who might vote against it "on principle" (though one would be hard pressed to identify what that principle was--other than Its OK If You Are Republican), even if their constituents wanted them to vote to convict.

I wouldn't count, for example, on Brownback or Coburn--they appear to live in a different reality than I do. Nor would I count on Chambliss, a man comfortable with the most venal politics I can think of.

But I could be wrong. Bob Barr's become a sincere critic of the current GOP.

Do it right. Even if it feels that there isn't time, do it right.

With profound regret...

I'm enabling moderation of comments.

Robyn Edgars has chosen to spam this blog, as with so many others, with off-topic remarks which revolve entirely around his bone-bruised ego and a run-in with a number of UUs years ago.

When I can figure out how to filter just his comments, I'll do so. And as long as they're on-topic, and not part of his dog-returning-to-its-vomit routine, I won't filter out those.

Censorship!, I'm sure Robyn will cry. But this isn't a public place. This is my semi-public, private space, and people who misbehave get chastised for it. I don't let guests come and insult me in my home--and if they do, I'm more than willing to show them the door and invite them not to return.

Robyn can have his own blog and complain all he wants to all who want to come listen there.

At this point, he's so abused the patience of a number of bloggers that I have trouble mustering up concern about his complaints.

Vote for God

(What the...?) I hear you cry.

That was my reaction. I even stopped and re-read the sign.

There it was, your standard American election sign, the kind that litters the side of every major street and every median, repeating the name of the same candidate 17 times in a row (taking up space to keep competitors from edging in, I guess). Just like those.

This one looked just like one.

White background, red ink, nothing else--an inexpensive sign. The graphics depicted a waving American flag. And the text read;

Vote for God

Oh dear. It didn't say what office she's running for; I'm going to have to look very carefully at the ballot to make sure I don't screw up and vote against her, because... well, you know, some candidates can be a mite vindictive about these things.

Vote for God?

I can't even begin to fathom the kind--or state--of a mind that would suggest such a thing, much less print it and post it. Right there, by the YMCA.

It kind of worries me. I mean... almost all candidates are members of a party. And this party would obviously be the Party of God. Which would be the same as Hezbollah. But that means that voting for it might get me in trouble with the feds, because that's a terrorist organization and I could find my butt in Gitmo doing serious, indeterminate long-term waterboarding at the president's pleasure.

The Elephants' Graveyard

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy...

I am no great fan of modern American journalism, its practitioners oft seem to have fallen to such a shameful state that it seems one could start stacking sins (venal and mortal, both) on their doorsteps. Slothful, proud, greedy, they have prostituted themselves and dragged a profession, once held in high regard, to the level of public esteem generally reserved for used car salesmen, IRS agents, divorce lawyers and politicians.

Thus it is with hesitation that I put much weight on the Washington Post's articles on the woes of the GOP in the Northeast and the Midwest. But I see signs of the same thing in other parts of the nation, as well as in other media. The Mountain West is restive; when Idaho Republicans (elected Republicans, too!) are out badmouthing the GOP incumbent in the 1st District there... there's blood in the water. The Democrats have been capturing governorships, state legislatures, house and senatorial seats in those states; the leave-us-alone little-"l" libertarians have started to abandon the GOP in a big way. When some of the most popular governors in the nation are in places like Montana and Kansas... the GOP's in trouble. When Kansan moderates have given up their marriage of convenience with the far right, and are leaving the GOP to run for office as Democrats... well, we're not in Oz anymore.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

The GOP claims to stand for things like patriotism, states' rights, the Constitution, small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and keeping the government out of people's lives. It's never made any secret of being cozy with big business, but the rest of that platform has real appeal to many, many Americans.

However, the long, promising fan dance seems to have failed. What was hinted at, promised teasingly... turns out to be a fraud. In every case, what the GOP has delivered has been--at best--a shoddy imitation of the real thing, a Wal-Mart version of some public good. All too often, it's been an outright fraud.

GOP patriotism has turned out to mean flag waving; as if to prove the bitter observation that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, the GOP's loudest voices in favor of asking Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation--to put their lives on the line and volunteer for military service during wartime--belong to a cadre of gutless cowards. Almost to a man (and woman) they've never served in the military; not even in peacetime. Young Republicans, the ones being groomed (and grooming themselves) for power, are studiously avoiding service. When called on it, their feeble excuses range from having more important things to do, to having families to support and raise, to being busy fighting the culture war. Those are stained banners, borne by small, craven men and women. Anyone who would ask, encourage and expect their countrymen to take up arms, and not be willing to do the same is simply yellow, despicable, and a disgrace.

States' rights turns out to have largely been a code phrase, a tip of the hat to the trailing edge of open racism that the GOP embraced in its "Southern Strategy." When put to the test, the GOP has been more than willing to blow hot and cold about states' rights, depending on no principle more substantial than convenience and opportunism. If it might buy votes, then states' rights was a cause to uphold. If it cost votes, it was to be ignored. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

GOP support for the Constitution has been similarly marked with a lacksadaisical disregard. There's barely an amendment in the Bill of Rights that the current administration hasn't trampled, and the GOP Congress has not only ignored that, it's proposed laws to approve--ex post facto--the violations. The fundamental concept of our form of government, dividing power between branches consciously and willfully set somewhat at odds with each other, in order to impose limits and constraints on each other, has been assaulted. The presidency has claimed legislative powers with its signing states, the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress (on the grounds that the presidency has vast, inherent powers that the Congress may not infringe--and interpreting that in ways that might shame even a Caligula), and has generally abused the judiciary, essentially ignoring it when decisions were inconvenient and even running media campaigns to discredit judges and decisions not favorable to the administration.

Small government? The GOP doesn't believe in that. Under Reagan, it bloated. Under Bush II, it's ballooned.

The idea of fiscal conservatism is, I believe, dead. Or rather, it's been done to death, most foully. It's a phrase that's now mostly bitterly ironic; if someone talks about fiscal conservatism... grab your wallet and start actively protecting the well-being of your children... and grandchildren. The numbers simply don't lie; fiscal conservatism has meant the open plundering of the treasury for private gain, massive transfers of wealth to the already very rich, and running up debts at a rate that is simply staggering. It's hard to remember that only six years ago, the federal government was running a surplus and paying down the debt. Debt, deficit, credit spending and profligate borrowing turns out to be the definition of "fiscal conservatism." It's a phrase to avoid for future politicians. It sold the idea that conservatism was good and responsible... and reality has shown otherwise. Americans wanted fiscal responsibility, and got sold a bill of goods.

Low taxes. Ah, yes, low taxes. This is the best example of bait and switch in a long time. You see, taxes were lowered mostly on the very rich and the merely rich--and particularly on the staggeringly rich. For the middle class, a three-card monte game was played. The numbers were fudged to make it look like there were tax breaks--but what was given with one hand was taken by the other. Worst of all, since the idea of a balanced budget was being gleefully raped by the GOP at the same time, the reality is that taxes were merely delayed. We'll still have to pay them. But we'll pay later, with interest. And so will our children. Claims that the economy would magically improve from all the careful GOP tending have panned out with the weakest "recovery" in modern times. Wages for the average worker are flat after taking inflation into account, even while profits are up... and corporate executive salaries are up strongly. The idea that tax receipts would be made up by a booming economy turns out to have been nothing but the blandishments of snake-oil salesmen.

Talking about staying out of people's lives is bitterly ironic. Even without dipping into the repeated efforts to turn homosexuals into offically second class citizens, the hypocrisy of this claim is apparent. The administration, openly abetted by Congress, has violated the privacy of millions and millions of Americans, spying without warrants and without cause, blatantly violating the Constitution as well as FISA.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people

Still, much of the above seemed obvious to many of us before the 2004 elections. Were it not for watching GOP candidates, including incumbents who've lived in Bush's bed, running to get distance from his leaden polling numbers, I would doubt. Were it not that leading behind-the-scenes arch-'conservatives' like Richard Vigurie are counselling a retreat; retrenchment in their think tanks and bastions, hoping that somehow the people will turn back to the GOP after a few years (for what?), I'd worry even now.

It's a bitter thing to recognize that what one has put one's trust, faith, belief in is a lie--and that's kept many Repoublicans from looking at the performance of the administration and the GOP Congress and recognizing it for the disaster it is. WHen that faith shatters, the price paid by the GOP will be high, very high.

You were a stranger to sorrow: therefore Fate has cursed you.

The GOP has played politics ruthlessly and with only one objective--power. To a degree, that's the nature of politics; it's not a gentle sport, nor a genteel one. But it does have certain fundamental rules, the foremost of which is that it has to be practiced with the public good foremost in mind. Were the economy glorious and diplomatic success crowning the laurels of military adventure, the people would forgive, forget and ignore a lot--mulcting the public treasury, sex scandals, etc.

But the economy isn't good. Diplomacy appears to have been made a prostitute for military and political short term objectives, and military adventures are... well... just this side of disasterous--so far. All the evidence tends to suggest that the sacrifice of American lives (not to mention the long civilian casualty list in Iraq), treasure, and international stature will have been for nothing. In terms of history, this administration promises to be the Ozymandias Administration; nothing but vainglorious boasts inscribed... surrounded by vast wastelands.

And this will all have been done under the rubric of "compassionate conservatism," in an era where the GOP has had almost unfettered control of the entire apparatus of government.

Fate will not be kind to such incompetence and failure. It's that which leads me to think that the near future holds an elephant's graveyard. Better to fashion a new party, devoid of the baggage and evil-reputation staining the GOP, to forge new alliances, than to try to persuade people who remember just how bad conservative control of government can be.