I was watching this whole flap develop about Christine O’Donnell and whether or not she is ignorant of the First Amendment and whether there is a separation of church and state.
As I listened to the flap I did not really think it was a big deal. The conservative argument on the separation of church and state, after all, points out, correctly that there are no words “separation of church and state” found in the constitution. That is an accurate statement.
Liberals tend argue that those words mean that there is a separation of church and state and therefore the government ought to stay out of religion. Conservatives tend to argue that the intention was to prevent the government from interfering in religion and setting up a state religion. The free exercise clause therefore becomes more important than the establishment clause.
Liberals would argue that this means government cannot determine our personal faith or favor one religion over others. Thus they would argue that creationism cannot be taught in America’s public schools, because schools are run by governments, which are prohibited from endorsing a specific religious view.
In their debate, Democratic Senate Candidate Chris Coons argued in front of a law school audience against public schools teaching creationism. He based his view on the First Amendment, arguing that it requires a separation of church and state.
Mr. Coons argued that one of the indispensable principles of the Founding Fathers was the separation of church and state.
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” said Mrs. O’Donnell, drawing gasps and laughter from a crowd composed largely of law students and professors.
A few minutes later, Mr. Coons returned to the subject, this time arguing that the First Amendment establishes the separation between church and state.
“The First Amendment does?” said Ms. O’Donnell. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
After an exchange, Christine O’Donnell once again returned to this issue saying, “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?”
Chris Coons responds, “Government shall make no establishment of religion.”
To which Ms. O’Donnell responded – it is unclear if she responded incredulously or questioned it, “That’s in the first amendment?”
At this point the law school audience is roaring with laughter.
Ms. O’Donnell’s camp argued that what she really meant here was that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the constitution. That would be the conservative argument and she would be correct.
Matt Moran, a spokesperson for the campaign, issued a statement clarifying that she was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution,” Mr. Moran said.
Moreover, her final line was in response not to “separation of church and state” but rather to Mr. Coon’s statement that “government shall make no establishment of religion.”
It is not a direct quote of the First Amendment by Mr. Coons, but it is accurate. But that’s when she responded, “That’s in the First Amendment?”
If she was simply making the point that Mr. Moran made, then she ought to have stated that point. She did not with any sort of clarity.
At this point you might be asking, why does all of this matter? It matters because people like Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin and the like know just enough to be exceedingly dangerous.
They don’t have views based on some well-considered and thought-out position. They have views based largely on ignorance. They may hear conservative thinkers make these points, but they are largely parroting those positions, rather than showing any type of depth of understanding.
I put the Tea Party movement within the context of other anti-intellectual movements in this nation’s history. There is nothing extraordinary about them.
When Richard Hofstadter, an historian from Columbia University, wrote his classic, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” in 1963, he saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country’s democratic impulses in religion and education.
There is nothing new in this vein of American thought. We can trace back to early Colonial times, and it crops up time and again with various currents.
Dr. Hofstadter himself argues that America’s practical culture has never embraced intellectuals. Instead, their education and expertise are viewed as a form of power and privilege. For Hofstadter, the anti-intellectuals believe that the plain sense of the common man is altogether adequate and superior to formal knowledge and expertise from schools.
For me, history has a natural ebb and flow, and I think we get too caught up with the here and now, when things are in a good deal more flux. The Tea Party movement will likely burn itself out, much as some of the previous movements have.
There is no overarching foundational issue upon which Tea Party is built. It is rather a loose affiliation of individuals best described as “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” but with very little idea of what they are mad at or what the true causes of our problems are.
From this standpoint, the angry and hollow words of a Christine O’Donnell or worse yet, a more intelligent Glenn Beck, find a ready and highly uncritical audience, an audience who latches onto the emotion and passion without scrutinizing the content.
The good news, I think, is that there are already signs that the Tea Party movement is faring no better than the political parties. At least in California, the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll shows the movement gaining in negative impressions, with an unfavorable at 47 percent, up from 35 percent in March.
Embedded in that increasing unpopularity, however, is the fact that the Tea Party movement still remains less unpopular in California than either the Republicans or Democrats. The PPIC reports, “However, the Republican Party has a higher unfavorable rating (62%) than either the Tea Party (47%) or Democratic Party (51%).”
On the other hand, that simply reflects the fact that, unlike the two political parties, the Tea Party movement does not have to govern and therefore can make unrealistic promises and complaints about the political system. Once their adherents are inevitably elected, they will become part of the system and the movement will eventually burn itself out – consumed by its inherent inconsistencies and lack of cohesive governing strategy.
Do we fear this sideshow or simply laugh at its uncanny ignorance? Tough call. But for me, there is a longer list of real worries.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Commentary: Alan Grayson shows the ignorance of the Democratic Party
How’s that for a headline? Unfair you think?
Every party has its fools but it’s ignorant to paint the whole party based on one candidate.
You’ll note I did not blame the Republican Party. But who would be your examples of the non-fools who consider themselves tea party adherents?
[quote]Every party has its fools but it’s ignorant to paint the whole party based on one candidate.[/quote]
How about:
Sarah Palin
Sharron Angle
Carl Paladino?
How about comments made by others like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Even Newt Gingrich, who is intelligent, has made a number of questionable statements.
I’m an independent and don’t particularly like the Democrats. I don’t think Pelosi is a brain surgeon either, but the ignorance coming out of the rising wing of the Republican party is astounding.
Don’t tell me the folks that don’t want to teach evolution in schools are a fringe part of the party–they maybe in the minority but they are in the drivers seat on the right.
If you aren’t scared you should be.[quote][/quote]
I can list many Democrats who are fools in my mind just as you liberals can list many Republicans or Tea Partiers who are fools in your mind. It doesn’t prove squat.
This is an article that was written with a preconceived conclusion based on bias and not worth the cyber page it was written on.
Now you are dodging the question and trying to change the subject.
Rusty: “Every party has its fools but it’s ignorant to paint the whole party based on one candidate.”
DMG: “But who would be your examples of the non-fools who consider themselves tea party adherents?”
Rusty: Doesn’t answer.
No, actually David you missed the point. It doesn’t matter who I might name as you will find something to degrade that politician based on your bias just as easily as I can degrade any Democratic politician you might name.
What you fail to differentiate is that I see a difference between a Christine O’Donnell who lacks basic knowledge of government and even her ideology, and someone like a Dan Lungren or Steve Cooley, who I still very much disagree agree with but believe they are knowledgeable and intelligent individuals. You can go down the list of Tea Party people, I don’t see many if any individuals who are simply people I disagree with.
The key point is that the no-nothings seem to be taking over the Republican party. These no-nothings don’t believe in evolution, one of the most basic and well established scientific theories. They don’t even understand evolution. They claim to be fiscally responsible but have no good ideas–and when Republicans are in power they are no more fiscally responsible than the democrats. Indeed, Bill Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 30 years (Bill was the best Republican president in my lifetime).
Climate change is well established but prominent Republicans are running away from that as well.
The Democrats are no picnic either, but the stupidity coming from these Republicans is astounding. If you are a Republican you should be worried. Yes there are plenty of intelligent Republicans–but they are not ascendant in the party–they are not driving the message. The no-nothings are.
I find it interesting that there is one side of conservative spectrum that doubts evolutionary origins of life, but another fragment of conservatives who refer to Darwinism in nature in reference to a free market economy.
[quote]I’m giving you the chance to correct the record and give me the examples of the non-fools who are tea party adherents. [/quote]
Can we define the word “fool” in this context? I’ve seen a number of contributors to this space who may well define:
fool; someone who disagrees with me on an issue, and when I explain why they’re wrong and I’m right, continues to hold their original belief.
elsewhere, a definition of fool/’insane person’, is one who keeps trying to resolve an issue (unsuccessfully) in the same manner each time, expecting a different result.
To the point I think is in this “thread”, I would posit that anyone who zealously accepts EVERY plank of their “party’s” platform, who cannot rationally discuss an issue and be open to realizing that they are at least partially ‘wrong’ and the other party is at least partially right (and modify their opinion accordingly), and/or needs to label their opponent as a “fool” in a desperate attempt to win an argument, these are the true FOOLS.
David I think you miss the real point and its halloween witch filled horror. The words aren’t in the constitution but it has been settled law since Jefferson. The freedom of religion and the lack of a state religion are the foundations of American life. It is the zealous desire of the religious right that would lead us to burning Korans then torahs then the book of Mormon then who knows what in the name of their own idea of religious correctness that would undermine our country and send us into a holocaust more than any social policy that the Obama administration would ever implement. This desire to go back to the original words of the constitution while ignoring over 200 years of law is chilling. It isn’t her ignorance, it is her beliefs, that make her unfit to make decisions that effect the rest of us.
Rusty, my wife and I were in Delaware for three days the beginning of this month, and what we heard and observed while there may be something you may want to consider when taking an objective look at Ms. O’Donnell. I can not remember a single person (out of hundreds) who doesn’t see Ms. O’Donnell as an embarrassment to all Delawareans . . . and the word that was repeated over and over again was “ignorance.” We were sitting on the outside porch of a restaurant on the Wilmington waterfront and all four tables around us were in animated conversations on whether the rest of the country thought all Delawareans were equally ignorant. I observed and heard similar conversations at the duPont Country Club and Buckley’s Tavern in Centerville (both bastions of Republicanism). The cherry on the top of this metaphorical sundae came at Goldberg’s Bagel Bakery in Pikesville, MD. The Republican candidate for Congress (H of R) had set up shop to garner votes from the noshers. He and I had an extended conversation about Health Care during which he gleaned the fact that I’d just come from Delaware. He asked me, “What do you think about their Senate race?” I demurred, citing not enough knowledge, and then asked him what he thought. He was very clear in saying that “people like Christine O’Donnell were ruining the Republican Party.” When I asked him why he felt that way, he answered that “their ignorance of the issues was appallingly transparent, and that when placed in the spotlight of the political process, their public performances would make the Republican Party look incredibly stupid.” I pointed out to him that since they were Tea Party, not Republican Party, wouldn’t the public (and the voters) see the difference, and he answered. “No, because in the voting booth, and on the campaign trail, they are Republicans.”
I wonder if the rest of the nation laughs at our budget process.
Dr. Wu: “Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 30 years (Bill was the best Republican president in my lifetime).”
I think the Republican’s Contract w America had something to do with Clinton’s “success”… but I would add Clinton’s moral bankruptcy as a person had very negative repercussions to our nation…
Dr. Wu: “The Democrats are no picnic either, but the stupidity coming from these Republicans is astounding. If you are a Republican you should be worried. Yes there are plenty of intelligent Republicans–but they are not ascendant in the party–they are not driving the message. The no-nothings are.”
What I find troubling is the flight of moderates from Congress, and the ascendancy of the fringe elements from both sides of the aisle. We have too many extremists running politics these days. And part of the reason they are able to hold sway is bc the news media perpetuates them with its 60 second sound bites of sensationalism. And now political campaigning has turned vicious, so no good/decent candidates wish to run for office. And look who we are getting as a result…
hpierce: “To the point I think is in this “thread”, I would posit that anyone who zealously accepts EVERY plank of their “party’s” platform, who cannot rationally discuss an issue and be open to realizing that they are at least partially ‘wrong’ and the other party is at least partially right (and modify their opinion accordingly), and/or needs to label their opponent as a “fool” in a desperate attempt to win an argument, these are the true FOOLS.”
I would strongly agree. Issues are not partisan. Politicians should be doing what is right for the nation, not is what in the best interests of the party and/or getting elected, e.g. gotcha tactics, smear campaigns. The irony here is that if politicians did concern themselves more with what is good for the nation/state/local gov’t, they would increase their chances of getting re-elected.
Matt Williams: “When I asked him why he felt that way, he answered that “their ignorance of the issues was appallingly transparent, and that when placed in the spotlight of the political process, their public performances would make the Republican Party look incredibly stupid.”
I would say the Republicans (and Democrats) have gone a long way to make themselves look stupid, never mind the Tea Partiers. A prime example of this was in the Congressional hearings about the Gulf Oil spill. The CEO of BP was on the hotseat, taking a grilling. The Chair of the Congressional Investigative Committee (a Democrat) was attacking BP relentlessly, often with stupid questions and dumber accusations (there was plenty of more intelligent ammunition that could have been used but wasn’t). Most Congressman were asking questions that were unknowable at the time. Most of it was political grandstanding of the worst type.
One Democrat on the committee had the courage to speak up and say “I would like to see members of the federal agency who were supposed to be overseeing off shore oil drilling questioned as well. We need to understand their role in this mess.” But this Democrat’s idea was rudely dismissed, and he was chasitized for interrupting the proceedings with such a ridiculous idea. That interchange was indicative of the stupidity/lack of integrity that those in positions of power hold these days, that is discouraging those who do have some integrity to speak up and make any headway.
Matt Williams
“Rusty, my wife and I were in Delaware for three days the beginning of this month, and what we heard and observed while there may be something you may want to consider when taking an objective look at Ms. O’Donnell. I can not remember a single person (out of hundreds) who doesn’t see Ms. O’Donnell as an embarrassment to all Delawareans . . .”
Matt, I “don’t” think O’Donnell is a good candidate. If you follow the posts my point was that David has no basis for making a blanket statement that “O’Donnell shows the ignorance of the Tea Party movement” anymore than a Congressman like Alan Grayson shows that the Democrats are ignorant. All parties have their fools.
By the way, I was just visited Annapolis and Columbia and loved it. Did you get a chance to see Rehoboth Beach when in you were in Delaware? I spent a week on the ocean there a couple of years ago. Beautiful area.
Here is a list of positions held by candidates endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Some are established politicians with voting records and public positions on issues. Except for Minnick, most are very far-right conservative Republicans.
California — Chuck Devore (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_DeVore#Bills_and_policy_positions[/url]
Florida — Marco Rubio (R)
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm[/url]
Kansas — Todd Tiahrt (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#Political_positions[/url]
Kentucky — Rand Paul (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_views[/url]
Nevada — Sharron Angle (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle#Positions[/url]
Pennsylvania — Pat Toomey (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Toomey#Political_positions[/url]
South Carolina — Jim DeMint (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint#Political_stances_and_beliefs[/url]
House Candidates:
California — 4th Congressional District, Tom McClintock (R)
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_McClintock.htm[/url]
Georgia — 6th, Tom Price (R)
[url]http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=11853[/url]
Idaho — 1st, Walt Minnick (D)
Minnick is a Blue Dog Democrat who declined the TPX endorsement, whereupon they promptly endorsed his (R) opponent.
Indiana — 6th, Mike Pence (R)
“Pence describes himself as ‘a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.’” [Wikipedia]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#Political_positions[/url]
Minnesota — 6th, Michele Bachmann (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Congressional_career[/url]
South Carolina — 2nd, Joe Wilson (R)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)#Other_controversies[/url]
Tennessee — 7th, Marsha Blackburn (R)
Blackburn scored 100% on American Conservative Union’s 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 Ratings of Congress.
DPD: They don’t have views based on some well-considered and thought-out position.
DPD: They have views based largely on ignorance. They may hear conservative thinkers make these points, but they are largely parroting those positions, rather than showing any type of depth of understanding.
that is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. lets not forget that obama got into office by saying we can’t take another four years of bush, then had his rabid groups ACLU moveon.org do their chants. hardly intellectual and well thought out positions. also, colleges – bastions of intellectualism promote the most retarded, non – well thought out reasoning, with all their support for fringe radical movements, especially in the 60’s.
lets look at how much our president really understood. Obama is a so called “intellectual” from harvard. Yet he held the torch to shut down guantanamo bay and begin civilian trials, which if he had a fundamental understanding of the law, he would have recognized that as impossible. then he wasted about a year on it. now he never even brings it up, because any idiot could have told him from day one that based on the inherent differences between the military and police, a civilian trial would have resulted in the immediate aquittals of the terrorist suspects on basic legal technicalities.
obama wrote a letter to french president jaques chirac, which if he had followed french politics at the time, would have recognized that Chirac WASNT PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. Bush never made that mistake.
I listened to a speech from obama on foreign policy. he said that we should deal diplomatically with iran, because we dealt diplomatically with russia and russia was large, but iran is small – the point he was making was iran is a smaller threat because the country is smaller, which, if he had remembered his basic history on WWII would have immediately seen the inherent fallicy in that argument.
then I watched Obama chastize the CIA on national television for failing to detect the terrorist suspect that tried to blow up the airliner on Xmas. If obama had read his own job description, he would have recognized that the CIA ANSWERS TO HIM. Obama had to do damage control by getting on national TV and saying “sorry, the buck stops with me.” Its like the manager of a company getting on TV and publicly chastizing the assistant manager of the company for failing to do his/her job properly.
and pardon me, but you voted for this dumb f…. you would probably vote for him again.
so, forgive me, but if you’re going to accuse us conservatives of having a lack of intelligence, then you are going to have to take the heat as well. and I’m sorry, but these so called intellectuals, we don’t need idiots.
E Roberts Musser: “I would say the Republicans (and Democrats) have gone a long way to make themselves look stupid, never mind the Tea Partiers. A prime example of this was in the Congressional hearings about the Gulf Oil spill. The CEO of BP was on the hotseat, taking a grilling. The Chair of the Congressional Investigative Committee (a Democrat) was attacking BP relentlessly, often with stupid questions and dumber accusations (there was plenty of more intelligent ammunition that could have been used but wasn’t). Most Congressman were asking questions that were unknowable at the time. Most of it was political grandstanding of the worst type.
One Democrat on the committee had the courage to speak up and say “I would like to see members of the federal agency who were supposed to be overseeing off shore oil drilling questioned as well. We need to understand their role in this mess.” But this Democrat’s idea was rudely dismissed, and he was chasitized for interrupting the proceedings with such a ridiculous idea. That interchange was indicative of the stupidity/lack of integrity that those in positions of power hold these days, that is discouraging those who do have some integrity to speak up and make any headway.
Elaine, I may be making a distinction that is different in words, but not in substance, but . . . I think that ignorance and gratuitous political grandstanding are birds of two different species. I’m not sure that the Republicans and Democrats that you are referring to are stupid, but rather venal.
O’Donnell on the other hand (based on my limited exposure to her), appears to be a whole less venal, but much more stupid.
Rusty, I hear your point regarding O’Donnell. With that said, David has asked a very reasonable question, which as yet is unanswered. If I may, let me ask it in a slightly different way, “Is there any candidate who has come up through the Tea Party ranks who is any better of a candidate than Ms. O’Donnell is?”
For anyone baffled by the reference to “obama wrote a letter to french president jaques chirac,” here is the story:
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0323/obama-writes-letter-to-chirac-blogosphere-goes-crazy[/url]
Michael Bloomberg has done an excellent job as mayor of NYC, is a moderate, ran originally as a Republican and apparently would like to be president. He couldn’t get the nomination of either party–he’s too moderate for the Republican party and yes too pro business for the Democrats. If he ran as an independent he is worried that he would not get 270 electoral votes which would throw the election to Congress–which is run by the two parties.
WE have talented people, but our political system seems to allow the crap to float to the top.
Kane607: obama wrote a letter to french president jaques chirac, which if he had followed french politics at the time, would have recognized that Chirac WASNT PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. Bush never made that mistake.
Where’s your source for this? This is the first time I’ve heard of it.
wdf: it was a tempest in the teapot of the right-wing blogosphere. See the link above.
David is right that the Tea Part attracts some ignoramus wacky members.
But so do the Republicans and Democrats, as also pointed out.
And they have a lot more power.
Just today, our wacky Vice President claimed twice that Republicans spent 200 Billion dollars on campaign ads.
And Republicans like Lisa Murkowski show how desperate both major party politicians are to retain their power.
Even our local Davis City Council attracts some pretty wacky individuals.
At least the Tea Part movement is a real change, unlike the last one. Boy do we need that. Hope and Change!
Change and Hope!
Fr. Wu: “WE have talented people, but our political system seems to allow the crap to float to the top.”
Well said and to the point! LOL
J.R.: “Change and Hope!”
Love this statement too! LOL
At least the Tea Part movement is a real change
How do you know?
I’m not a Tea Party member but I do agree with many of their proposed policies especially fiscal responsibility. If the choice is between a Tea Party backed candidate or a left wing liberal I’ll opt for the former everytime. It’s hillarious to me to watch how the Democrats try to demonize the movement because they know it’s a revolution that’s ultimately going to throw them out of office.
rusty49: “I’m not a Tea Party member but I do agree with many of their proposed policies especially fiscal responsibility. If the choice is between a Tea Party backed candidate or a left wing liberal I’ll opt for the former everytime. It’s hillarious to me to watch how the Democrats try to demonize the movement because they know it’s a revolution that’s ultimately going to throw them out of office.”
The Tea Party movement has also thrown a lot of seasoned Republicans out of office in the primaries, which may or may not be a good thing 🙂
If the choice is between a Tea Party backed candidate or a left wing liberal I’ll opt for the former everytime.
Even O’Donnell over Coons?
Yes I’ll take O’Donnell over Coons just because I know she will be for reigning in the spending where Coons will be nothing more the a rubber stamp of Obama and Reid’s overspending policies though hopefully Reid will be toast.
” I know she will be for reigning in the spending”
What do you base that on? She has given no indication of how she would vote to cut any federal spending, and would certainly not vote to cut defense spending. I have yet to hear any credible deficit-reduction policy enunciated by any candidate for office, including those backed by the Tea Party groups. In fact, all fiscal policies of both parties, including both wings of the Republican Party, contain inherent contradictions when it comes to reducing the deficit.
Reducing the deficit and the debt involves the following:
cut Social Security
cut Medicare
tax increases
cut military spending
cuts from all the remaining discretionary federal spending.
Reducing the deficit and the debt involves the following:
cut Social Security
cut Medicare
tax increases
cut military spending
cuts from all the remaining discretionary federal spending.
The Sunday Doonesbury strip dealt with this topic:
[url]http://www.doonesbury.com/[/url]
Rusty,
“Alan Grayson shows the ignorance of the Democratic Party”
How are Grayson and O’Donnell on the same level of ignorance, intellect, etc? Admittedly, I don’t know all there is to know about Grayson, but based on what I do know, he is not even comparable to O’Donnel and her inability to grasp the issues and apparent lack of intellectual curiosity.
“How are Grayson and O’Donnell on the same level of ignorance, intellect, etc?”
A fair point. O’Donnell is unusual in her ignorance.
Grayson, unfortunately, has much company among Democrats in his vileness.
Grayson and O’Donnell are the classic representatives of the evil party and the stupid party, respectively.
At this point I prefer stupid to evil. I think on election day we’ll see a lot of people voting to throw out the evil party. Maybe we’ll feel differently if the Republicans give us a reprise of the Delay era. But at this point, it’s a reasonable choice to throw out the incumbents who have proven their ability to continue along the economic disaster that the Republicans got us into, only more so.
How about comments made by others like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?
Re: Glenn Beck, Fox News may be losing some of its appeal:
Q3 2010 Ratings: Fox News Still on Top, but Down Double Digits
[url]http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/q3-2010-ratings-fox-news-still-on-top-but-down-double-digits_b32847[/url]