torture states love

[solarbird]

Torture states love secret law.

Torture states love titular "opposition" enablers who provide immunity for crimes.

Somewhat but not really very separately, The Volokh Conspiracy picks up on the "opposition == Satan" observation/cultural meme I've been talking about for many years now. Meanwhile, in slowly getting there news, Sullivan has caught up with me on the necessity of repudiation, as well. Sadly, I don't think that'll happen any more than the contributor he's quoting does. I think the Democrats will be all too happy to have the unlimited, unchecked, lawless powers the Bush administration has so far successfully claimed.

And, talking of Sully, I mentioned in a reply to dustin_00's post here (linked to earlier, but reposted for those who didn't follow the link) the problems with the current political dynamic. I want to copy it over to my own journal at top-level:

[The Democrats] are also failing to reign in even the worst of the legal and political power abuses of the current administration; I rather think they'd enjoy having that power themselves, tho' I think more of it is pure political cowardice and 2008 planning. The even bigger problem, of course, is that in this way both the war (and its doctrine) and the expansion of powers will be made bipartisan, which in this context means institutionalised, and permanent. There was a window for these to be repudiated; had either actually happened, the ball would still be in play. As it is, however - with both objectives being specifically repudiated by the Democratic leadership - it is literally the end of the limited-powers republic. That does not mean it is the end of democratically-elected government; it is still a democratic form of government, albeit a particularly non-responsive one dominated by an abstracted political class far more sensitive to its own needs than anyone else. It means merely that the last remnants of the old republic have been swept away, as it were - in reality, if not in form.

The United States has faced this crisis (or variations on it) repeatedly throughout its history, and has, on the whole, met it each time. This time, however, it appears to have failed. (This is not yet certain and I may yet be surprised. However, I would indeed be surprised. Pleased, but surprised.) I hypothesise that the demographics of the situation are key to the failure, in that whereas normally this phase of the generational cycle would see the current politically dominant generation - and its calcified set of conflicts - starting to lose its grip on power for various reasons, including simple die-off by age, this time, it - and by "it" I mean the "Baby Boom" generation - is so outsized (and fundamentally in better health than predecessors) that it was able to achieve power early, and then to perpetuate its holdings, and, in turn, perpetuate the crisis it has created. By doing so, and by being unable to respond coherently within itself, it has institutionalised the aforementioned calcified conflict set, and the abuses that have spilled out from it. Hence, the current predicament.

Sullivan touches upon that idea at the end of this entry, noting that "in the cycle America has been in since the sixties, the truth is barely relevant." Finally.

ETA: I don't mean to be picking on the Boomer generation in particular here; the key point is the size and health (and hence duration and extent of hold on power) being the new factor - not the calcification. Other politically-self-identifying generations have gone through similar sorts of ossification too. The important difference is that they haven't been as dominant as early or for as long, so the earlier iterations of this phenominon have been forced out of their stimulous-response cycles earlier than we're seeing now, simply by the fact they'd end up reasonably soon in positions where they were sharing power with people not sharing the same dynamic.

Comments

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I think your analysis of where we are right now is accurate, but your long term view is probably too pessimistic.

Some of the historical abuses that are similar to the current ones were not repudiated for decades after their institution. In terms of imprisoning Americans without trial, you need look no further than the imprisonment of Japanese Americans. The power of the presidency has been increasing for a long time--I think Sullivan is partially right to place the beginning of the current cycle in the 1960s, as this really grew out of the government surveillance and suppression of the civil rights and antiwar movements, starting with J. Edgar Hoover and then accelerating with Nixon. (It had earlier roots in Cold War policies dating to Truman, and the earlier career of Hoover, and in part was the legacy of the World Wars and the power those wars imputed to the presidency.) Aside from the brief backlash after Nixon's resignation, it's been a pretty steady march in the direction of increasing executive power ever since.

The Drug War's recent cycle (and resulting abuses of civil liberties and increased powers for police and government leaders) began with Nixon. Nixon was the first president to engage in widespread surveillance of his political enemies; that we ever had even the limited protections of FISA was a reaction to his abuses.

So I also have to reject the idea that the problem is the Baby Boom generation. That generation is split and is not overwhelmingly in favor of these measures, and in any case is beginning to age past its most influential years. In fact, this is a multi-generational crisis resulting from many interacting causes, and we're all responsible for turning things around. Ultimately, I think the problem is the rise of the current right-wing movement, which while at the height of its powers is beginning to exhaust itself. That movement has attacked society itself, the very idea that we live together and need to find common solutions to our problems. It has undermined the rule of law in favor of power by an authoritarian, moralistic leader. Most of America does not share these values and will turn on them in time. The other side of this coin is the intellectual bankruptcy and political irrelevancy of the American left. The real left in this country has been in decline since the end of WWII, providing no countervailing force to the authoritarians. Partly this is the result of McCarthyism. That broke the Popular Front alliance of liberals and socialists, leaving only a core of ultra-left ideologues who fell prey to Stalinism in one generation, Maoism in the next, and irrelevance ever since.

Here's what helps us in the long run:

* Demographics are changing. The country is becoming more urban, more diverse, more accepting of differing identities and ways of living. All of this undermines the center-right majority, which is based on support by white males. Once that majority breaks apart, the social conservatives and authoritarians will both lose influence, and there becomes a real political opening for a renewed anti-authoritarian center-left alliance. But so long as the center-left is in the minority, it is toothless, which we see evidence of every day.
* While technology provides ways for governments to control the population, it also provides the means to counter government abuses. One could look at Burma and say that the people are going to lose, but I'm with David Brin in believing that in the long run technology will make authoritarianism unsustainable, but with a loss in privacy that is unfortunately largely inevitable.
* Economically and ecologically, authoritarianism is a losing proposition. It's more efficient for people to make democratic decisions as close to where they are implemented as possible. Faced with a multifaceted global crisis of resources, people will grab the power they need to survive at the expense of centralized executive power. This will transform existing social institutions, including moribund political parties. The result will incorporate the best aspects of libertarianism and social democracy. But we have to make this happen; we can't just wait around for someone to save us. The whole point is that we have to take our own lives into our own hands.

[solarbird]

I'll probably reply more to this later, but I do want to make clear that there's nothing unique about the Boomer generation except their longevity in power and numbers. These make problems that occur regularly with a generationally-identified political group significantly more severe. So I'm not really blaming them in any special way - this part of it is their fault, but not in any way that it wouldn't be the fault of any generation that happened to be both larger and healthier than historical norms. Does that make sense?

(I have significant issues with your internment camps example on the basis that I see it as a continuation of racism and not a new institutionalisation of a new abuse, and, indeed, a continuation of - even an improvement over! - previous iterations of severe spams of racisms that tended to result in mass slaughter or expulsion rather than internment. C.f. the Chinese worker experience in America. Oh look I'm already starting. Let me make lunch, maybe I'll be back in just a few minutes after all.)

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Fascinating thoughts, and I regret that I will be offline for a while and will miss seeing how this unfolds. I have reached the point in life that I am actively fearful of coming to the States, even for a few days, and I find it somewhat unsettling that the majority of our people live clustered up against an utterly indefensible border.

This time last year, the American ambassador to Ottawa was flexing his bellowing muscles on the subjects of:
1) socialised medicine
2) same-sex marriage
3) bulk water export pipelines
4) China making subtantial investments in what he regarded as America's national oil supply (in northern Alberta).

Now, my papers are in order, both in hand and in the computer. I don't think the border people ever clock me as I'm passing through. They almost certainly know I'm married to another woman (after all, we had our banns published widely, and by now they must have been Googled up). I stand there in front of the dais and watch the shifting expressions of fear and xenophobia on the inspector's face, and I always ask myself: "Is this the trip that the border closes and I am stuck in Gilead?" -- and the still small voice responds "Is this journey really necessary?".

I hope, and do suspect, that things will improve in your country, eventually. But it may well take an entire generation of disengagement and refusal to follow orders.

[solarbird]

I have a few friends who won't come to the US anymore. I have other friends emigrating. I know still other people who have set up escape hatches. I have other thoughts, hopelessly impractical tho' they might be.

[solarbird]

I wrote a reply, but it's much almost twice as long as comment fields will allow. So I've copied it into a new post here.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Mmm, yeah, quite agreed.

I have dear friends in New England and around Puget Sound, who are seriously thinking about the 'what if, then what' scenarios. All I can offer at my end is a place to rest and regather one's life, to the extent that our reactionary party-in-power will allow it.

Problem for us, of course, is that we have a limited capacity to generate internal capital -- so much of it is siphoned away across our borders. I ran the numbers once on the opportunity cost of not owning a tellie or paying for cable access. It worked out to about three thousand per year.

Now, given that I'm reasonably settled in life, if I feel unsafe about crossing the Styrofoam Curtain, I shouldn't be surprised that others feel that way as well.

Stick with the impractical thoughts. They hold the greatest potential.

[solarbird]

I ran the numbers once on the opportunity cost of not owning a tellie or paying for cable access. It worked out to about three thousand per year.
How's that work, then?

Stick with the impractical thoughts. They hold the greatest potential.
Long term, more than short, but I'm aware of that. C.f. a long discussion in comments here, particularly in response to technoshaman.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Gosh, it's discussions like these that make me realise that I do respect the way you think.

Opportunity cost of not owing tellie and cable access up here is about three thousand a year, worked at 230/month for cable fees (which are pricey on the Island), 18/month for capital costs on the tellie itself, and 2/month for the tellie's share of my Hydro bill. Say, in round terms, 250/month times 12, thus 3000. Should have flagged that opcost with a minus sign, though, since it's a negative cost for a negative option.

Impractical thoughts are really important. I reckon that the Gods assembled me in the bizarre and impractical way that they did so that I would have to learn how to think on my feet and be well-practiced at the arts of invisibility from an early age -- that's part of why my writing-partner called me the most unlikely candidate for elfhood that he ever knew -- myself, I prefer lerhood but that's a matter of paint-jobs, not genetics.

Will duly follow flagged linkage. Thank'ee much,

Angharad,
rain-sodden, data-drowned (client just sent lots of strange files to me and now I am sitting here in the hotel bar reading them).

[solarbird]

The negative sign - or rather, the lack thereof - was what confused me, as I couldn't see how you'd get a positive opportunity cost out of not having a set. ("How does not having a television cost you opportunity? What is the lost opportunity? Discounts at Canadian Tyre? What?") So there you go.

That said, TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FOR CABLE ZOMGWTF?! Srsly. Crazytalk.