Ah, that next chapter has finally arrived

We appear to have the next chapter in the exciting conspiracy theory novel that has become Republican politics; in the latest plot twist, the neoconservative movement appears to be outright declaring itself an absolutist movement. A monarchist movement, if you will; a dictatorship movement, perhaps; not quite fascist, because it's missing key elements of that particular form of absolutism - but perhaps they're just still looking for their Francisco Franco.

Here's the Wall Street Journal editorial section (the OpinionJournal) running an op-ed condemning the rule of law and endorsing - no, demanding - a "strong president" that is specifically above said rule of law and calling outright for one-man rule in the form of a "prince":

Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances...

The other defect is that the law does not know how to make itself obeyed. Law assumes obedience, and as such seems oblivious to resistance to the law by the "governed," as if it were enough to require criminals to turn themselves in. No, the law must be "enforced," as we say. There must be police, and the rulers over the police must use energy (Alexander Hamilton's term) in addition to reason. It is a delusion to believe that governments can have energy without ever resorting to the use of force.

The best source of energy turns out to be the same as the best source of reason--one man. One man, or, to use Machiavelli's expression, uno solo, will be the greatest source of energy if he regards it as necessary to maintaining his own rule. Such a person will have the greatest incentive to be watchful, and to be both cruel and merciful in correct contrast and proportion. We are talking about Machiavelli's prince, the man whom in apparently unguarded moments he called a tyrant.

Meanwhile, here's Thomas Sewell at National Review Online pining away for a military coup d'etat in the United States:

Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as “understandable” all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.

[...]

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Here's townhall.com blogger Dean Barnett dropping the bullshit and saying outright that he's pro-torture. The thing about torture is that it's no damn good at all at getting the truth; it's good at getting people to say what you want to hear. That's not the truth; it's the enemy of the truth. At least his explicit support for torture, while not sane, is now honestly stated, if not honestly supported:

The anti-torture argument sits on a fragile branch of moral vanity. The torture opponents’ entire premise rests on the erroneous notion that one can successfully wage war without cruelty and savagery. I wish they were right. But they’re not.

And here's a YouTube link to Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA), in the House of Representatives, endorsing torture, and, more specifically, the idea that arresting, detaining, and torturing even innocent people is okay because we Just Can't Risk The Alternative. No quote, since it's a video; you can watch it yourself.

How appalling a place these people would lead us. How pathetic and sad, this weak revival of the old, failed, absolutist vision. Go on, you wretched pukes; if you want to be fascists, then just go ahead and be fascists. Ignore every lesson of history. Pretend the cycle of history will stop with you.

Personally, I'll enjoy your screams on the way back down.

Oh, and for those five people out there...

Oh, and for those five people out there still supporting the Bush administration because of gun rights, please to buy a fucking clue:

Gun Control Bill Seeks to Close 'Terror Gap'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
May 02, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A Second Amendment group says Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign as the nation's highest ranking law enforcement officer, given his "troubling support" for a new gun control bill that seeks to close the "terror gap" in federal law.

S. 1237 would give the attorney general, a presidential appointee, the authority to suspend or cancel someone's Second Amendment right, even if that person has never been charged with a crime, the Second Amendment Foundation warned.

[...]

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the bill "raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a 'suspected terrorist.' Nobody has explained how one gets their name on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one's name off such a list."

There's also a larger concern, Gottlieb added: "When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone's constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?"

Leaving aside how some of us have been complaining about this for years now, and leaving aside the insane idea that somehow arbitrary arrest and detention without charges on Presidential whim is somehow not as bad as this, I just need to add LEARN, DAMMIT! ABSOLUTISTS DON'T SHARE POWER. THAT INCLUDES WITH YOU. FIGURE THAT THE FUCK OUT NOW PLEASE.