We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, October 7. 2011
The extremism of R2P’s leading proponent is exhibited in Anne-Marie Slaughter’s op-ed in today’s New York Times. Slaughter likens the Wall Street protesters to those demonstrating against oppressive regimes in the Middle East and recommends removal of the US system of checks and balances that protect minority views and avoid poorly developed political stampedes. (Slaughter doesn’t mention or give credence to the more numerous, mature citizenry participating in or supporting the Tea Parties more peaceful protests for more limited government intrusions into Americans’ private lives and earnings.)
R2P’s leading proponent, Anne-Marie Slaughter of Harvard, believes that US foreign policies and military interventions should prioritize the Right To Protect severely repressed peoples through US obeisance to liberal internationalist elites’ sentiments in favor of some they like regardless of the US Constitution or laws or national or security interests.
In today’s New York Times, Slaughter takes her R2P home to the US, advocating that majorities rule regardless of the formal and informal checks and balances of our political system and overriding the rights of political minorities. Again, it is the majorities that liberals like who should be given more powers.
Without any sense of proportionality or of core differences between the US and Middle East satrapies, Slaughter says, “Indeed, the twin drivers of America’s nascent protest movement against the financial sector are injustice and invisibility, the very grievances that drove the Arab Spring.” Slaughter then concludes, “The only effective response is a political response, of a nature and magnitude that convinces protesters on the streets that they can in fact secure the change they seek within, rather than outside, the system.”
Slaughter’s system, however, would reduce the ability of permanent or transitory political minorities to protect their interests. They would, also, further factionalize the US and make compromises more difficult as the power of centrists is reduced.
Slaughter would eliminate the filibuster that ensures that a temporary electoral minority in the US Senate cannot be ridden over roughshod by the majority of the day (which, in the latest 1-vote US Senate Democrat majority vote has – as Politico headlines – put the “Senate in chaos”). Slaughter would install proportional representation, which often result in more unstable governance and unsavory alliances that revolve around access to the public purse and less accountability to any but each faction's die-hards. Slaughter would bar private funding in elections, by which the smaller number of wealthy can counterbalance the votes of the poorer who blithely may support expropriatory programs. (Note: The US Supreme Court has ruled such laws unconstitutional.) In effect, Slaughter supports transitory mob rule, politely of course.
Slaughter ends by commenting, “I am beginning to suspect that people abroad with long experience of disenfranchisement and trampling of their dignity may in fact understand the fissures in our society better than we do ourselves.”
Instead, Slaughter exhibits her liberal elitist view of the US, and demonstrates that she is as extremist in domestic policy as in foreign policy.
What makes me suspect Slaughter and her ilk would be more hesitant to endorse simple majority rule after the 2012 elections?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Slaughter received her A.B. from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University in 1980, her M.Phil. in International Affairs from Oxford University in 1982, her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1985, and her D.Phil. in International Relations from Oxford in 1992
In the 1980s Slaughter was part of the team headed by Professor Abram Chayes that helped the Sandinista government of Nicaragua bring suit against the United States in the International Court of Justice for violations of international law, in the case Nicaragua v. United States (1986).
That's about all you need to know about Slaughter and why she should automatically dismissed as an intelligent voice. Another academic who knows what's good for everybody.
Besides, does anybody read the Op-Ed of the NYT and really not understand what side of the idiot divide they are coming from? :>)
The NYT has always been on the side of tyranny. In the 1930s they were praising Stalin. In the 1970s they claimed the cambodians would be better off under Pol Pot. After all, Pol Pot and his henchmen were intellectuals and some of the best educated people in cambodia, so they knew what was good for the peasants.
Wall street and the banks did not "cause" the recession that became a depression. Congress caused the recession and the president and congress caused it to become a full blown depression. This attempt to shift the blame for all our economic woes is a tried and true political dirty trick that Hitler used when he blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems. The brown shirts on Wall street are eerily reminescent to Hitler's brown shirts. Now the left, the unions and George Soros (talk about irony) are calling for a Kristallnacht. Forget history and you will repeat it.
Apollogies for using the Hitler reference and although Godwin was right, this is just one of those cases where the reference is right on. Does anyone else see the similarities to Germany in the 30's? what is next? the burning of the Reichstag, I mean Capitol building?
The nazis had been amping up the hate speech against Jews so much so that sooner or later somewhere a Jew was certain to blow up and shoot a nazi.
Sure enough, it happened, in Paris. And back in the German cities, the nazis were ready, they knew to whom and how to express the news. The result: Kristalnicht.
Nazis may well have started the Reichstag fire --but they didn't have to fake a crisis for Kristalnicht. They just had to heat up a dense mixed urban population, and then wait for the incident.
They had their crowds already in touch with each other, thanks to party rallies where contact info was exchanged and people from diverse areas had met each other face to face under the big blue "O" --ooops i mean the big black swastika.
IOW, the set-up was like this thing happening now in 150 American cities.
R2P is a scary doctrine. When applied selectively, it causes chaos. People can not understand why it is applied one place and not another. It is a tool to perform selective military actions by the one world government.
Our policies have been misguided since Woodrow Wilson. The globalists are running amok. Time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. We can do this without becoming isolationists.
Slaughter is very close to Hillary, so anyone who believes there might be some daylight between Hillary and the Empty Suit on R2P should understand that is mistaken.
Democrats who maintain some hope that electing Hillary will somehow rehabilitate the Democrat party in the eyes of America are fooling themselves, she is as bad as he.
I would speculate that the rationale for R2P is justification for siding with the Palestinians, should they go to war with Israel.
That would help explain the "R2P" attack on Libya. Precedent, and nearby.
Also dovetails with the two massed human wave attempted over-runs of Israel's borders earlier in the summer. Attacks which failed to become major tragedies only by dint of extraordinarily adroit Israeli responses.
IMHO, the NYT editorial is rather tame. She seems not know the USA already has system where "each citizen [gets] a vote that counts as much as the vote of every other citizen."
Her theory that more direct democracy will improve the country repudiates the Founding Fathers, of course. And she's wrong, IMHO.
But I would be in favor of a law that permitted only registered voters to contribute money to a candidate and only to candidates within their districts.
Yes, I always thought the US was exactly like Egypt...