Explaining, Justifying, Demonizing

--Sebastian

I think I have a better handle on what bothers me about Cornyn's comments and similar 'explanations' of suicide bombing against Israel.  In both cases, the speaker pretends to be engaging in an intellectual analysis of a problem.  But the explanation is framed to both blame the victim (often by a pretending that a non-homogenous class like 'Israelis' or 'Judges' is really homogenous) and to partially excuse the perpetrator (hemming and hawing about something being non-laudable but of course somewhat understandable given the difficult and emotionally trying conditions).  In both cases, the speaker attempts to transform an entirely unjustifiable killing into something which supports their only tangentially related agenda. 

The occupation of the West Bank does not offer a good explanation for blowing up oneself and a number of coffee drinkers in a town square.  Allegedly activist actions by some judge somewhere does not explain in any useful or moral way frustration against judges that might lead to killing them.  Using the deaths of these people to demonize a class of people that are somewhat similar to them is very ugly and dishonest.  It isn't explaining a problem.  It is using the dressing of explaining a problem to demonize a class of people by blaming the victim and partially excusing the perpetrator. 

Comments

[Don Quijote]

The occupation of the West Bank does not offer a good explanation for blowing up oneself and a number of coffee drinkers in a town square.

Yes, it does!!!
Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!

[stand_up_philosopher]

sebastian, i'd be happier if you would cite an example of an actual explanation offered by someone real rather than putting up the straw man who would just say "occupation of the West Bank" and leave it at that. i'm happy to admit the possibility of what you say. i'd just like to see an example of it. this whole thing started with your claim that an "unhealthy percentage" of the left did such a thing. we can start with one example and then proceed to your showing the percentage that propose such explanations.

but in any event, you're really on a dual use of "understandable." a morally culpable act can be "understandable" in the sense of being plausible based on what we know about human psychology without it being "understandable" in the sense of being forgiveable.

[Jesurgislac]

DonQ: Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!

Hush up, Don, you're not helping.

I was going to say, Sebastian, that it's equally true in the other direction: "Palestinians" are demonized to justify the monstrous things Israelis do to them.

But this is a good point in general, and an excellent post.

[Don Quijote]

Reuters - Iraqi Suspect Says U.S. Troops Took Mother Hostage

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi apparently suspected by U.S. troops of taking part in attacks in Baghdad accused U.S. forces on Tuesday of taking his mother and sister hostage to pressure him and his brothers into surrendering for questioning.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said he doubted the accusation and was not aware of such an incident. But neighbors interviewed around Arkan Mukhlif al-Batawi's villa in the capital's Sunni Arab suburb of Taji corroborated his account.

When some Iraqi blows himself up in a car in the US killing a couple of dozen civilians, Seb will probably condemn the barbarians for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, I on the other hand, will ask what took so long.

[J. Michael Neal]

There is another problem with Sebastian's analogy, namely the factual truth of the two statements. While certainly not justified, suicide bombings in Tel Aviv are motivated by the occupation of the West Bank. (Yes, there are a goodly number of extremists who want to push Israel into the sea; I suspect that they would have a lot fewer recruits in the face of a two state solution.) None of the recent killings of judges were, in fact, motivated by a dislike of activist judges imposing ideological biases. In two cases, you had criminal suspects shooting the judge presiding over their trial, and in the case of Joan Lefkow's family, a disgruntled individual whom she had ruled against in a malpractice case killed her family.

Jon Cornyn just made **** up in order to justify his veiled threats.

[kenB]

Leaving aside the details, I don't entirely agree with the general thrust of this post -- I think there are, or at least should be, contexts in which one can discuss root causes of violence without being branded an apologist. Perhaps the floor of the Senate will never be one of those places, but if you take certain topics entirely off the table, you potentially limit your ability to solve the problem. After all, simply pointing fingers and saying "bad, bad terrorists!" is unlikely to make them stop, and relying only on law enforcement and military action is never going to be a 100% solution.

[von]

Sebastian, I'm with you.

DQ, the occupation of the West Bank may be, in part, the stated cause why some idiots turn themselves into monsters, and kill innocent civilians. But it does not "explain" such an act.

[von]

When some Iraqi blows himself up in a car in the US killing a couple of dozen civilians, Seb will probably condemn the barbarians for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, I on the other hand, will ask what took so long.

DQ, this is not a statement that a member of the loyal opposition would make. This is a statement that the other side would make.

There is no excuse for specifically and intentionally targeting innocent civilians.* You've cited a loosely reported anecdote in which U.S. soldiers may have behaved improperly in the pursuit of an enemy combatant. Assuming it's true -- a huge assumption -- it is light years away from an intentional attack on civilians by a suicide bomber.

[Neolith]

Me too. I think there is a bit too much ahum-hurumping over this post. Nicely done, Sebastian.

[Edward]

J. Michael Neal nails it.

There is no evidence that either of the attackers in the cases of violence against judges Cornyn referenced was motivated by aversion to judicial activism. Cornyn just made that sh*t up. Moreover, as far I've read, there were no complaints that either of the judges targeted had been "judicial activists" in the context Cornyn is talking about either, so again, he just made that sh*t up.

Why that fool was not booed or laughed off the floor suggests our legislature is comprised of bullies and jellyfish. We so totally deserve better.

[Hal]

My lord, sorry to be blunt, but what a bunch of intellectual masturbation.

J Michael Neal indeed nails it. Sebastian is taking Cronyn's made up shit, polishing it up and then using it to justify his own biases.

If the Palestinians aren't terrorizing Israel because of their occupation of the west bank, then what the heck are they doing it for? I mean, it's not like there isn't a long history of "get the hell out of the west bank" and "we want our own country, dammit". Granted, this doesn't "justify" the killings, but it sure as hell does *explain* it. Fighting, killing and martyring one's self over occupied land has been happening as long as we've been human. Anyone who claims this doesn't "explain" it is smoking some seriously whacked sh*t.

My lord, how the bar has been lowered.

[dmbeaster]

Dead on.

You are in essence comparing the Cornyn tactic with Palestinian apologists who tut-tut terror bombings based on Israeli bad deeds, thereby sub silento justifying the unjustifiable. And its an apt analogy, except that as pointed out above, the recent judge killings had nothing to do with activism. And that makes Cornyn's behavior worse -- aping an assinine tactic in order to make a false conflation between violence and alleged activism.

By the way, Cornyn's also making up the activism part. Why is so much right wing rhetoric based on pure fantasy about what is allegedly going on?

And ditto Jes's point that Israelis do the same thing -- tut-tut their bad deeds based on Palestinian bad deeds. Where would the Israelis be if the Palestianians had a leader with the wisdom and cleverness of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King (asssuming that Hamas would not have murdered him first)? Israeli bad behavior, rather than Palestinian terrorism, would have become the focus.

[Edward]

Oh, good...now Cronyn's calling us all dumb:

As a former judge myself for 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I certainly hope that no one will construe my remarks on Monday otherwise. Considered in context, I don’t think a reasonable listener or reader could. (emphasis mine)

He does go on to echo the most important critique of his statement, IMO, so that at least is good:

But I want to make one thing clear: I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have captured the nation’s attention in recent years.

But then he dives right back into it again:

My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well. We should all want judges to interpret the law fairly – not impose their own personal views on the nation. We should all want to fix our broken judicial confirmation process.

So for him the problem remains the judiciary, not the sociopaths who will from time to time target judges.

[CaseyL]

Edward: 49% of us deserve better. Unfortunately, we're outnumbered by the 51% who don't.

Cornyn issued another bleat today, complaining about how his words were taken out of context.

It's been pointed out that none of the recent murders of judges and judges' families have anything whatsoever to do with 'anger at an activist judiciary.'

Cornyn's warning therefore amounts to a pre-emptive justification for future, politically-motivated attacks on judges.

Seb's post is interesting in a way he possibly didn't intend: likening Cornyn's warning to ME terrorism acknowledges that what the Radical Right and its enablers in the GOP are threatening is, in fact, terrorism.

So what we have is a US Senator issuing a pre-emptive justification for terrorist attacks on the judiciary, by 'warning' the judges that any such attacks would be all their own fault.

The mind boggles.

[Anarch]

I think both stand_up_philosopher and, tangentially, von, have hit upon an important point: words like "understand" and "explain" have dual implications, one betokening an intellectual comprehension of events and the other a moral acceptance. I can, for example, "understand" why terrorists blow up cafés in the West Bank, or why Jeffrey Dahmer decided to make a meal of his friends and neighbors; I can "explain" that the Nazis believed in the purity of the herrenvolk so passionately that they euthanized "defectives", or that Mao and the CCP refused to understand that their agrarian Communism simply wasn't working in the Great Leap Forward and thus starved tens of millions of people to death for almost no reason; and I can do this without granting these people any kind of moral sanction for having done those actions, or giving them leave to do them again.

The specific problem I have vis a vis "explanation", the Middle East and terrorism is that, too often, explanations of the causes of terrorism are looked upon as excuses for the terrorist acts. Sometimes that's a fair complaint; most of the time it isn't. I see no moral problem in noting that certain actions, e.g. settling in the disputed areas, will likely increase terrorist activity because I "understand" the "explanations" for terrorism. [In fact, I feel obligated to point that out.] This has nothing whatsoever to do with giving the terrorists moral license, or approving of their actions, or anything like that; it merely recognizes that certain stimuli lead to certain consequences irrespective of the moral paradigm in which those actions play out and that, if the goal is a peaceful ME, such actions should be avoided.

[Anarch]

And DQ? Little piece of advice:

Yes, it does!!!
Palestinian terrorism is the direct consequence of Israeli policies. Tit for Tat. Israelis steal land, Palestinians get even by killing as many Israelis as possible any way they can!!!

If you find yourself needing to use three exclamation points to convey the depth of your emotion, you should probably reconsider posting.

[Edward]

Cornyn, not Cronyn, sorry about the lazy typing

Cornyn's warning therefore amounts to a pre-emptive justification for future, politically-motivated attacks on judges.

It's all part of the ground work for the upcoming midterms. They've passed as many anti-gay laws as they can without making even the most hardlined conservatives realize they're discrimination based, so they need a new scapegoat for their ad campaigns. Judges are it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Judges were the ad targets long before gay people (Think Roe v. Wade and the rise of the Christian Right). We aren't THAT special. :)

[Edward]

Judges were the ad targets long before gay people

Yeah, but I don't recall it being quite so concentrated an effort before...perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention.

We aren't THAT special. :)

Yeah, but they sure know how to makes us feel like we are.

[Fitz]

Your NOT that special....

The institution of marriage is THAT important..

That’s what this is all about – that’s why the outcry and massive legislative push came after Goodridge & not after Lawrence.
Its about marriage! (not gays)

[ral]

Sebastian, I share your disdain for those who make excuses for violence but I have to agree (I think) with J. Michael Neal and others that the two cases you cite are very different.

kenB: ... there are, or at least should be, contexts in which one can discuss root causes of violence without being branded an apologist.

A recent This American Life episode, "Know Your Enemy," featured a reading of a conversation between Israel's defense minister and a suicide bomber who decided at the last minute not to blow herself up. It's from a report in Ha'aretz.

In the story, the young woman's boyfriend was killed by an Israeli soldier. She was depressed, and when she finally blurted out that she wanted to be a suicide bomber, she was swiftly swept up and days later was wearing explosives.

There's essentially an assembly line approach by the bomb-makers -- the story is very revealing about the process.

[Paul]

they need a new scapegoat for their ad campaigns. Judges are it.

What the Republican Party needs now is a good 5¢ gay judge.

[rilkefan]

I'm still only seeing "nudge nudge wink wink" here, not a distinction between "explaining" and "explaining away", if you see one - otherwise one is stuck with
"why did x do something I dislike?"
"they're evil"
"yup"
as a conversation.

"In both cases, the speaker pretends to be engaging in an intellectual analysis of a problem."

This begs the question.

What about the Iraq-context situation?

[Francis]

Let's see:

SH, as usual, treads on dangerous ground by analogizing a political speech about the threat of violence to actual violence in Israel. While the point he makes is fair and on point, even the oh-so-reasonable posters here get twitchy on the keyboard whenever Israel is mentioned.

for example, it could be argued (NO, I'M NOT TAKING THIS POSITION) that occupied peoples may legitimately attack the civilian populace of occupiers. Israel is a democratic country, so the civilian voters are, it can be argued, morally responsible for the actions of their government. Since the Palestinians are voiceless, violence against the entire political system, including the electorate, is acceptable.

now, the reason i get into this is to respond to Fitz's pretty nauseating psuedo-justification of violence in prior threads, already starting to reappear here.

unlike in israel, most everyone in this country has the franchise, and those who don't have it are denied it for good reason (minors, felons).

there is, therefore, NO parallel to the defenders of terrorism in Israel. Don't like the federal judges? Get enough congresspersons elected to impeach. Don't like the state judges? Vote them out. Fantasize about violence? Expect an unpleasant visit from the FBI.

A second point:

Cornyn, as a number of commenters have already pointed out, p*ssed all over his own quasi-apology. The system for naming federal judges comes from the constitution; it's pretty shocking for him to claim that the system is broken.

He got too much heat for "understanding" future violence against federal judges, so he shifted back to familiar ground: blame the democrats.

It looks to me like the famous Republican party discipline is collapsing. This should be fun to watch.

[CharleyCarp]

One can as well postulate that people are engaging in violence against judges because of 30 years of 'government is the problem' bleating. All those who have engaged in such are therefore culpable.

No, I don't believe this, although I think it much more likely than the notion that people are shooting judges because they're 'legislating' from the bench.

[Tad Brennan]

Mr. Holsclaw--

I'm in general agreement with your point here.

But, like some previous posters, I think you could express it better.

From your title, it sounds like you want to *distinguish* explaining from justifying. (The first would be like the neutral sense of "understand" brought up by s.u.phil.; the second would be like the approving, forgiving sense).

If you do want to make a distinction like that (e.g. we can explain but not justify Palestinian violence) then I think it is a mistake in your final paragraph to continue using the word "explain" as you do.

Esp. this part: "It isn't explaining a problem."

Isn't your point rather that, even in those cases where the person drawing the connection *is* explaining a problem, they need to make sure not to do the further thing of justifying the behavior?

(Set aside the fact that Cornyn's claim just doesn't even *explain* anything, since the actual deaths had no connection to the judges' manifesting the kind of behavior Cornyn complains about. So he is justifying w/out explaining, probably the worst of the four combos. But in the Palestinian case, it does not seem outrageous to cite the occupation as a partial *explanation*, while denying that it justifies. And then you'd want to say, I think, "It may be explaining the problem, but what is offensive about some people who offer this explanation is that they are also justifying it, and demonizing the victim".)

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Seb's post is interesting in a way he possibly didn't intend: likening Cornyn's warning to ME terrorism acknowledges that what the Radical Right and its enablers in the GOP are threatening is, in fact, terrorism."

That is exactly what I intended. I drew the parallel because I don't like it, and the two cases are similar in rhetoric if not in actual outcome (thusfar). That is the whole point of the post.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I think Anarch is clearly right about the potential ambiguity of the words "explain," and "understand." But I also think it fairly obvious that Sebastian meant them in the sense of "justify."

Whatever the defects of Sebastian's analogy, his point is solid. It is very easy to use "I understand the reasons for X's act" as a cover for "I do not really condemn X's act," and that, as I understand it, is what he suggests is going on.

[rilkefan]

Bernard, can one tell the difference? How does one answer a question about a politicized act without demonizing the bad guy or explaining away the bad deed?

[rilkefan]

Since hilzoy is pushing poetry month, I should note that the title of the post reminds me of a Wallace Stevens line (from "The Idea of Order at Key West"):
"Arranging, deepening, enchanting night."

Hear Stevens read the poem here (make sure that "loops" is not on).

[Edward]

Fitz

I think you're obsessed.

Even I don't think that much about same-sex marriage.

(And I'm willing to bet five years after it's national law, neither will anyone else).

[Fitz]

Ed, Im an Activist! What can I say!

(And I'm willing to bet five years after it's national law, neither will anyone else).
Your really banking on the Judiciary - aren’t you?

Some people disagree. (just yesterday! & vehemently!)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=645087

Do you know what a huge number 70% is.
If you follow politics, you should know that’s the kind of number politicians and even judges run and hide from.
Someone bit off wayyyy more than they can chew

[Edward]

Fitz,

First of all...thanks for using a link (we'll sacrifice a lamb or something and now start praying for you to be blessed with the skills one day to translate them into hmtl, but for now [and sincerly] this is good)

Second of all, we're not there yet, I know, but it will come. Historically speaking, it almost has to.

I'm sure you're sincere in feeling that gay marriage poses a threat to straight marriage, but I cannot see it, even remotely. To me, votes like the one in Kansas are about comfort levels with change.

You'll forgive me for feeling that this is not very brave of them.

If, on the other hand, as you suggest, this actually represents anti-gay sentiment, then the 70% people of Kansas who voted for this ban are ignorant and their governmental leaders should work to educate them, rather than exploit that ignorance for their own political gain, which, by the way, is really what this is all about, whether you can see that or not.

[Donny]

That is a false analogy. Terrorism is morally repugnant under any circumstances, but the fact remains that Palestinians are a genuinely oppressed people. Their grievances are for real. Those to whom Cornyn presumably refers, on the other hand, are not the least bit oppressed. Their grievances are thoroughly bogus, whipped up up and exploited by the likes of Cornyn and like-minded reactionary politicians. Palestinians are surely not blowing up buses because Israeli liberals are ordering them to respect the rights of gay people. If an American ever kills a judge for being "activist", however, I would expect that to be prominent among his reasons.

[sidereal]

Ah, Kansas. Has (had?) a sodomy law with a 6 month jail term. Yes, they're really the pulse of the nation, Fitz. And it's clearly not about gays there. That's why they have all of those laws against divorce, yes?

[Donald Johnson]

I agree with the need for a distinction between explaining and justifying, but apparently so does everyone else. I also agree that the conflation of explanation with justification goes on at least as much on the Israeli side as on the Palestinian side. When people explain Israeli atrocities against Palestinians in terms of what Arabs have done to Israelis, that's a partial explanation, but I get the distinct impression it's often also intended as a justification.

I also agree with those who say there's not a close analogy between what Cornyn said and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One really can explain (not justify) the bad behavior of each side in the I/P conflict by pointing to the bad behavior of the other side--nothing like that applies in the case of people shooting judges.

So far I have contributed nothing original to this thread, so to justify my post I'll mention that in my reading of people on the far left I occasionally do find someone who actually does defend suicide bombing. Ted Honderich (an English philosopher, apparently well-known) has done so. And I think there's a Canadian philosopher who has done so, but I'd want to hunt down the reference before naming him. (I'm sure about Honderich.) Once or twice I've seen people defend suicide bombing in questions they ask Chomsky at the ZNET site, but he slaps them down hard.

[Anarch]

I think Anarch is clearly right about the potential ambiguity of the words "explain," and "understand." But I also think it fairly obvious that Sebastian meant them in the sense of "justify."

Possibly, but sentences like "It isn't explaining a problem." blur the line sufficiently to warrant a more careful exposition. You're correct, though, that I was addressing a slightly more general point than merely that of the original post.

[carpeicthus]

Great. Just starting to read this thread I see it begins with Don "Americans should die" Quijote and his fantastic moral calculus. Can't we have a nice discussion for at least 10 or so posts before unbalancing it?

[carpeicthus]

Ed: I like "Cronyn." Sounds short for Cro Magnon, which is appropriate.

Can we have a reality show with DQ and Fitz locked in a room? It would be strangely entertaining.

[ral]

Careful, carpeicthus, your fangs are showing.

[Jonas Cord]

Donny,

Terrorism is morally repugnant under any circumstances, but the fact remains that Palestinians are a genuinely oppressed people. Their grievances are for real. Those to whom Cornyn presumably refers, on the other hand, are not the least bit oppressed.

I don't think you're taking the "terrorism is morally repugnant under any circumstances" portion of your statement seriously enough. It does not matter whether the grievances that ostensibly lead to terrorist violence are legitimate or bogus - it remains morally repugnant, as you said, under any circumstances. So why bring it up?

[Edward]

Can we have a reality show with DQ and Fitz locked in a room? It would be strangely entertaining.

Throw in Andrew Sullivan and you've got a promising Revival of "No Exit" there.

[Slartibartfast]

All I've got to say about this whole thing is there's something very, very wrong when I start looking like a moderate in comparison with other posters. Very. very. wrong.

[rilkefan]

Mr. Slartibartfastianpause isn't in some platonic sense a moderate?

[Donald Johnson]

Jonas Cord, why bring up the I/P conflict at all? Sebastian did, apparently in order to condemn one side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, when both sides try to justify their own atrocities by pointing to the atrocities of the other.

Cornyn's statement would make some sense as an explanation (not a justification) if there were judges abusing their power and oppressing and killing innocent people and if in response some people started shooting judges and their families and court reporters and random people in the courtroom. And then you'd also have a close analogy to the I/P conflict and a reason to refer to it in connection to Cornyn.

I didn't think Sebastian's post was a good one for this reason--it could have been good if it had been fair, but it wasn't.

[novakant]

I personally think it would be helpful if, for once, ascriptions of vile intent and varying degrees of moral squalidness, definitions of terrorism vs. collateral damage and the whole unfruitful moralistic brouhaha in general would be left out discussions regarding the Israeli/Palestininan conflict (not to speak of comparing actors on one side to nutcases at home, just because you see a rhetorical opening) - because it doesn't lead us anywhere.
Both sides have ample blood on their hands, the dead are dead no matter who or what killed them: 1,042 Israelis and 3,579 have died since the beginning of the second intifada (link) and both sides are guilty in part of all sorts of atrocities. Many on either side wish the others would just die or go far, far away. Treat them both with an amoral attitude as self-interested, nefarious players in a war neither side can win, and there might be a chance for a forced peace.

[Catsy]

The specific problem I have vis a vis "explanation", the Middle East and terrorism is that, too often, explanations of the causes of terrorism are looked upon as excuses for the terrorist acts.

I don't know if "excuses" is the right term for this. When I, for example, offer explanations of this nature regarding insurgent attacks in Iraq, or terrorist attacks in Israel, and those explanations draw a cause and effect relationship between official government policies and said attacks, then I am making an implicit statement: your policies/actions share a portion of the blame for instigating this outcome.

I think this is a reasonable statement to make in the case of the I/P conflict: clearly both sides engage in tactics that, if not designed to, have the clearly foreseeable consequence of exacerbating the situation and provoking a lethal response from the other side. Less clear-cut, but also reasonable, is the suggestion that the US bears a measure of responsibility for insurgent attacks and terrorist bombings in Iraq: these people would not be there doing this if we had not invaded, or had done so more competently. For those of us who thought invading Iraq was a really bad idea, this is a valid point. It doesn't excuse the actions of the other guy, but it does point out that if you decide to address racial tensions by walking into Harlem and start shouting "nigger!" at people, you're probably going to get your ass kicked, and both you /and/ the person who did it share responsibility for your hospital stay.

Which raises the question: is this what Cornyn is trying to say about judges applying the law to difficult cases before them?

[Donny]

It does not matter whether the grievances that ostensibly lead to terrorist violence are legitimate or bogus - it remains morally repugnant, as you said, under any circumstances. So why bring it up?

I bring it up because I don't think Cornyn deserves the opportunity to slip off the hook on the basis of a false moral equivalency. Terrorism notwithstanding, it is reasonable to say that Palestinians are getting a raw deal from Israel. There is a real problem there that needs to be fixed. People in this country are not getting a raw deal from the courts in the way that the wingnuts would like us to believe. We are not oppressed by "activist judges". To say that Palestinian terrorism might be reduced or eliminated by ending the occupation and improving the conditions of their daily lives is not the same as saying that fewer Americans would want to kill judges if said judges would just stop being so damned "activist".

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"We are not oppressed by "activist judges"."

That I wouldn't agree with. I would say the activities of activist judges should be dealt with through things like impeachment rather than lynching.

[dmbeaster]

Fitz:

Here's a useful link to basic html instructions. Is simple and you will be able to type like the rest of us.

novakant:

Treat them [Isreali/Palestinian] both with an amoral attitude as self-interested, nefarious players in a war neither side can win, and there might be a chance for a forced peace.

Amen, although with AIPAC calling many of the shots re US policy, we are long way from that in this country.

[Catsy]

I would say the activities of activist judges should be dealt with through things like impeachment rather than lynching.

Assuming, of course, that the judges in question are really "activist". The more I see the term used, the more I'm convinced that "activist judges" is usually just another way of saying "judges interpreting the law in ways I disagree with".

[Jonas Cord]

Donald Johnson,

Jonas Cord, why bring up the I/P conflict at all? Sebastian did, apparently in order to condemn one side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, when both sides try to justify their own atrocities by pointing to the atrocities of the other.

It was not the intention of my question to ask why the I/P confict was raised. Rather it was why Donny saw fit to unconditionally condemn terrorism on the one hand, and on the other insist that when we are "explaining" and not "justifying," that legitimacy of a cause is a factor as to whether terrorism will occur. I have yet to see this notion adequately defended.

Cornyn's statement would make some sense as an explanation (not a justification) if there were judges abusing their power and oppressing and killing innocent people and if in response some people started shooting judges and their families and court reporters and random people in the courtroom. And then you'd also have a close analogy to the I/P conflict and a reason to refer to it in connection to Cornyn.

The "cause and effect" explanation of terrorism is so oversimplistic as to be useless from an honest, intellectual perspective in my opinion. So it does not matter to me whether the "causes" - Judges or Israel - are completely analagous, which I would agree they are not. They are analogous broadly speaking as calls to violence against the innocent, which I'm going to assume why everyone here is condemning terrorism.

For a simple reason as to why I dismiss the "cause and effect" explanation, it's worth examining the victims of tragedies of oppression and violence, let's say the Bantu. I think an honest evaluation of the situation these people find themselves is an order of magnitude worse than that of the Palestinians, which is not to belittle Palestinian suffering but rather to emphasis the scope of what has happened, currently and historically to these people. Yet, as far as I can tell, no terrorist actions have been made by the Bantu in retribution. Therefore, I believe it is only reasonable to imply that a theory of why terrorism happens is going to be very complex, and not a simple cause-and-effect formulation.

Donny,

Terrorism notwithstanding, it is reasonable to say that Palestinians are getting a raw deal from Israel. There is a real problem there that needs to be fixed. People in this country are not getting a raw deal from the courts in the way that the wingnuts would like us to believe.

You're giving me a political argument when something more substantive is needed. As it is demonstrated by the nature of their acts, terrorists are not reasonable, therefore it is absurd to say that it matters whether the rationale behind the violence is reasonable or not. As Donald Johnson said as a hypothetical example:

Cornyn's statement would make some sense as an explanation (not a justification) if there were judges abusing their power and oppressing and killing innocent people and if in response some people started shooting judges and their families and court reporters and random people in the courtroom.

What you guys aren't taking into account is that there are nuts who actually believe that such things are taking place because of Judges. Whether it be on the right with Schiavo or abortions; on the left with the death penalty. Just because the justifications for hypothetical violence against judges don't seem reasonable to me doesn't mean it won't happen, and doesn't mean that's it is somehow less important as when terrorism occurs for a reason I'm sympathetic to.

[Francis]

If "activist" means, to be fair to SH, "acting, according to many people, in excess of constitutional powers", then it is true that on occasion both state and federal courts have been activist over the last 200 years.

It's pretty clear to me, though, that the Executive and US Congress, not to mention a whole bunch of state legislatures, are doing a bang-up job of being activist too. The problem is that too many voters approve of that activism.

For example, looking at the text of the 5th and 14th amendment, it's pretty hard to tell whether a state may deny a pregnant woman an abortion when her life is endangered by the pregnancy. But a legitimate argument can be made that such a denial violates her liberty interest in life. And the US Sup Ct has agreed with that argument, so abortion restriction laws must contain health-of-the-mother exceptions.

Now, in recent years, it appears that the Congress as well as a number of state legislatures have passed abortion laws that do not contain constitutionally adequate mother's health exceptions. It has been argued that these exceptions are kept out so that the laws will fail and the religious right will continue to be outraged and make campaign contributions. It has been argued that many Republican legislators are terrified of abortion restriction laws being upheld, for fear of massively re-energizing the Democratic party. Whether or not the arguments are correct, it is undisputed that recent attempts to restrict abortion have, as far as I can tell, largely (entirely?) failed to pass constitutional muster.

Who, precisely, are the activists?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

It has been argued that health-of-the-mother exceptions are so large as to swallow up almost any proposed rule.

[Jonas Cord]

My apologies for getting long-winded, but after walking around the block my central point has become more clear.

It does not matter to a terrorist whether Donny, Donald Johnson, or myself believe their cause to be legitimate. It need only be legitimate in their mind.

That being said, asserting the moral legitimacy of the motivation of terrorists can only serve one possible purposes that I can tell -

One believes that the terrorist has a legitimate greivance, and that this is not a subjective judgement but rather an objective reality - one that presumably is so real that it can provoke otherwise peaceful people into fits of senseless violence*.

And forgive me, it's an excuse to assert the complete validity of ones own grievances when they happen to be in alignment with those of terrorists, i.e. "Of course this horrible thing happened, I'm right about them being wronged."

* I can't accept this when terrorism can happen for what most here, left and right, would accept to be absurd and illegitimate grievances - the Unabomber, for example.

[hilzoy]

Hi everyone (back from a nice long day at work). I like this post. I think that the distinction between explaining (trying to understand the causes of) something and excusing it is crucial. After 9/11, I found it understandable that this distinction got blurred, so that people who were genuinely trying to understand why something like that might have happened were lumped in with people who were trying to make excuses for terror, but I also thought it was disastrous: understanding why something happens is the only way to figure out what you can do to make it less likely to happen again, and the idea that there might be some such thing to do does not at all imply that it's your fault. So here.

Also, like everyone else, I think that the fact that the Palestinians are motivated by real grievances against Israel while the killers of judges are not motivated by real grievances against activist judges is crucial.

But I also think that one thing that can make claims like the ones Sebastian is considering deeply suspect is context. For instance: in the case of Cornyn's remarks, the following facts seem to me to be relevant: first, I do not think there has been a wave of activist judging recently. (Note: I do not think that when a judge rules on the basis of a reasonable theory of interpretation that I think is wrong, I should call that judge 'activist'; nor do I think the term 'activist' should be applied in cases where a judge gets it wrong in what one might call a normal, 'humans are fallible' sort of way. So if I were Sebastian and Katherine were a judge, I wouldn't call her an activist judge just because she interpreted the law as she thought it should be interpreted, or if she just got something wrong.)

Second, there has been a wave of conservative criticism, sometimes rising to the level of vitriol and venom, against the judiciary. Third, there have recently been calls for rebellion against the judiciary (see my post from 10 days or so ago.) Again, these have chiefly come from the right. Both of these things tend, in my view, to undercut respect for the judicial system. And while I think one should criticize the judiciary when it deserves criticism, I also think one should be especially careful about checking to make sure that one has ones facts right before criticizing it, and that one should never criticize it when it's not deserved (e.g., to score partisan points), since respect for the rule of law is very, very important.

Against this particular backdrop, when a Republican senator gets up and says, Hey judges, your activism is making people lose respect for you, and maybe that's why you all are getting killed, -- then I think: what's wrong with that is not just that it seems to excuse the violence, and that there is no such connection; it's also that Cornyn is one of the very people who are undercutting respect for the judiciary, and he's doing it some more in this very speech, even though he says it pains him to point out how judges are provoking people with their activism.

I don't mean this to be a cheap partisan point. I would feel exactly the same way if, let's suppose, an SDS member in the 60s had spent ages publicly railing against the police and their corrupt establishment ways, and then after some police officers had been killed or injured, said: gee, it really pains me to say this, but maybe it's because the police are so corrupt and brutal; that sort of thing can provoke people.

[rilkefan]

Jonas: "That being said, asserting the moral legitimacy of the motivation of terrorists"

I suspect you're doing something like question-begging with your use of the term "terrorist". A "terrorist" act is by definition unacceptable. What about acts not considered terroristic by the actor?

Nevertheless, there needs to be some criteria to distinguish discussions of the motivations of terrorists in terms more complex than "they're terrorists" from apologies for their actions.

hilzoy: "it seems to excuse the violence"

This is what I don't understand. Say people have legitimate (perhaps according to a partisan view) grievances, a subset of them become angry, and a subset of those resort unacceptably to violence. Can I describe this situation in a non-exculpatory way?

Or if there is no legitimate grievance? If I say that when y mugged x, it was on a dark street and x was shouting "I just won the lottery!" and y just got fired and his kid needs a doctor, am I explaining away?

I do acknowledge the "explaining away" problem - "the woman who was raped was wearing a mini-skirt" rhetoric jumps to mind.

[hilzoy]

rilkefan: I think that interpretation depends on context. In this case, it's very hard for me to see what Cornyn said as a genuine attempt at explanation, what with there being no connection between the supposed cause and the actual recent violence against judges.

[rilkefan]

So you read his "I was a judge, violence against judges is repugnant, both sides are poisoning the discourse about the judiciary, etc" as the deepest hypocricy?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Can I describe this situation in a non-exculpatory way?"

Sure it is possible, it just doesn't happen much. In the context of the Cornyn speech it sounds exculpatory becauses his focus is on the 'legitimate' complaints people might have with respect to the victim class of 'judges'. The suicide bomber question typically comes up in response to a suicide bombing where the speaker then demonizes the class of people 'Israeli' that just got murdered.

[rilkefan]

"his focus"

Seems to me he has a legitimate concern about the way the judiciary works - I happen to think his view is extremely, partisanly wrong, but he gets to raise the subject.

There's one paragraph phrased in extremely conditional terms -
"Finally, I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection", "I wonder whether there may be some connection" - which is the focus of everyone's concern. It's one paragraph buried in a long, tedious speech. It doesn't strike me as in any way consequential to Cornyn's purpose in making the speech.

[Francis]

when Senators speak to an empty chamber, it's for the purpose of creating a sound bite. GWB's speechwriters have mastered the art of placing coded language in speechs that can be turned into soundbites which resonate strongly with his evangelical audience.

Cornyn knew exactly what he was doing -- tossing red meat to his anti-elitist constituency. He got caught, "apologized" and did it again by referencing the broken nomination process.

[Donny]

The suicide bomber question typically comes up in response to a suicide bombing where the speaker then demonizes the class of people 'Israeli' that just got murdered.

Does it really "typically" come up that way? Is that a fact? I read Cornyn as making an oblique threat to jurists who don't toe the rightist line. Of course, he disavows his own part in fueling the delusional thinking that grips these aggrieved citizens. I do not read critics of Israeli occupation policy as tacitly threatening Israel with further attacks if they don't shape up. And they are certainly not actively fanning the flames of Palestinian intransigence. Why do you want to give the toxic Cornyn a pass like this?

[rilkefan]

Billmon is also willing to give Cornyn the benefit of the doubt.

[hilzoy]

rilkefan: I don't know that I disagree with Billmon, exactly. I mean, I don't know Cornyn, etc., but my sense on reading the speech was that he was talking about activist judges, and something impelled him to give it this little extra kick; not that he was delivering a coded message to his followers with the baseball bats. Likewise, I can imagine my hypothetical SDS member saying what he did just because he got swept up in the rhetoric. But I don't really think that that would excuse it in either case. There are certain kinds of stupid that, according to me, you don't get to be, especially when you're a Senator.

See in this context the poem I just posted.

[Jonas Cord]

Rilkefan,

A "terrorist" act is by definition unacceptable. What about acts not considered terroristic by the actor?

Most, if not all, acts of what we both (I assume) consider terrorism are not considered terroristic by the actor. So I don't know where that gets us, other than distinguishing our (you and I) moral values versus that of the terrorists. I don't think that whether the motivation is perceived by most people to be legitimate ameliorates this moral divide at all.

Nevertheless, there needs to be some criteria to distinguish discussions of the motivations of terrorists in terms more complex than "they're terrorists" from apologies for their actions.

And I don't think we get anywhere towards that understanding by assuming that having a legitimate grievance is the cause to the effect of terrorism.

Say people have legitimate (perhaps according to a partisan view) grievances, a subset of them become angry, and a subset of those resort unacceptably to violence. Can I describe this situation in a non-exculpatory way?

I think you just described the situation quite nicely, assuming that you do not believe that the legitimacy of the grievance is a prerequisite for the violence.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Why do you want to give the toxic Cornyn a pass like this?"

What I am doing is the exact opposite of giving Cornyn a pass. I am explictly comparing him to the kind of people who slyly excuse suicide bombing. From my philosophical context, that is about as bad as it gets without actually funding the suicide bombing apparatus or killing a judge yourself.

[kenb]

And I don't think we get anywhere towards that understanding by assuming that having a legitimate grievance is the cause to the effect of terrorism.

Jonas, are you saying that some people are inherently inclined to acts of terror and will find any pretext for them? That, say, defusing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would have no net effect on the incidence of terrorism?

This is not my impression -- certainly some few people are more inclined to such violence than most others, but I'd say they're like piles of gunpowder that still need a match to ignite them.

[Fitz]

Guys
You fail to see the anger over judicial activism on the right.
You have to go all the way back before Roe to the Griswald decision.
Did you know there was no violence against abortionists after Roe, No it was not until Casey that violence began to happen,
Do you understand the relevance of that.
A whole series of decisions on a number of levels (from pornography to religion)
We feel we are watching a small, powerful, unaccountable elite- slowly demoralize our country (literally & expressly de-moralize the law)

And were right! That’s exactly what their doing!

[sidereal]

"Most, if not all, acts of what we both (I assume) consider terrorism are not considered terroristic by the actor."

I don't think that's accurate. If you predefine terrorism as something like 'an evil thing that people do' then of course you're right, because very few people believe they're evil (and of course a lot of people seem to use this definition in political rhetoric. ie 'journalistic terrorism', 'economic terrorism', blah de blah. But we know they're clownshoes). A more reasonable definition would be something like killing a bunch of noncombatants in order to terrify the population. And I expect that most terrorists would heartily agree that that is, in fact, exactly what they're trying to do.

[Fitz]

Its killing innocent civilians for political gain.

[hilzoy]

Fitz -- when you reflect on the fact that the judges who pass these decisions are, by now, mostly appointed by Republicans, and most of them are not at all liberal, do you ever wonder whether you're right to describe the pro-Griswold party as a 'small minority'?

[Fitz]

Hilzoy

Its not Republican or Democrat
Plenty of republicans are seduced into this thinking. It’s the Georgetown cocktail set.
An inside the Beltway/European - Ivy League “sophisticate” point of view – that thinks it always knows the direction of “progress”.
Well – you may believe that they should rule over the country by decree, but I don’t.
And the constitution doesn’t not give them the power to.

[Fitz]

doesn’t give them the power to.

[sidereal]

"Its killing innocent civilians for political gain."

You need to insert an 'intentionally' in there. Otherwise there are a bunch of terrorists running around the capitol.

[kenB]

And the constitution doesn’t not give them the power to.

I couldn't not disagree more.

[Jonas Cord]

kenb,

Jonas, are you saying that some people are inherently inclined to acts of terror and will find any pretext for them? That, say, defusing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would have no net effect on the incidence of terrorism?

I think it's completely unambigious that people do not need a good reason (i.e. a legitimate grievance) to commit acts of violence, including terrorism.

It's my hunch that defusing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - let's say peace talks ala Barak/Arafat/Clinton came to a mutually acceptable conclusion - would likely reduce violence but not eliminate it. Too many terrorist organizations would both be too hardline to accept the resolution ideologically, and as a practical matter would also find that there was little other than slaughtering that they were competent to do.

Sidereal,

A more reasonable definition would be something like killing a bunch of noncombatants in order to terrify the population. And I expect that most terrorists would heartily agree that that is, in fact, exactly what they're trying to do.

Come to think of it, I agree completely, very well put. All I meant is that the terrorists clearly do not share the moral outlook that makes such actions, as many have said here, unacceptable under any circumstances.

[sidereal]

"An inside the Beltway/European - Ivy League 'sophisticate' point of view"

I'm curious, Fitz. What percentage of the 59 million people that voted for Kerry do you think attended Ivy League schools and drink cocktails in their Manhattan condos?

[Fitz]

I'm curious, Fitz. What percentage of the 59 million people that voted for Kerry do you think attended Ivy League schools and drink cocktails in their Manhattan condos?

If a 40 year spate of CONSERVATIVE judicial activism started (and it could) - people like that would notice (and quick)

Obviously - If you like the outcomes, you end up not careing about the means.

[kenB]

I think it's completely unambigious that people do not need a good reason (i.e. a legitimate grievance) to commit acts of violence, including terrorism.

Sure. But in most cases they do in fact need a reason, and if the goal is to reduce incidents terror, it seems silly not to at least consider what motivates terrorists and what might be done to eliminate those motives.

[John Thullen]

Can we agree that Cornyn's rhetoric is stupid and dangerous, which I think is Sebastian's point, although I understand Sebastian states his positions as wheels within wheels and you have to get your timing down?

There is a lot of stupid, dangerous rhetoric abroad in the land by people who should know better. That it is only slightly more stupid and dangerous than stuff said on my side of the aisle gives me no comfort.

I see George W. Bush, the leader guy, was peering into a file cabinet the other day and declaring the Social Security Trust Fund a pile of worthless I.O.U.s. A little later I was cashing a check at my credit union and considered for a moment asking to enter the vault and touch my money. Since I know my money is in someone's car loan or mortgage, I resisted because I'm not quite ready to start a run on the money system, but it occurs to me that it might be exciting. Same with the accounts at Schwab etc., you know, those little pulses of energy which pose as stock certificates.

Also, today in my very local neighborhood paper, for crying out loud, I read a letter to the editor from a jackel in Texas (spare me) repeating the blood libel that Democrats (yeah, me and the rest of the 49%) murdered Terry Schiavo.

So, there is only one short post that needs to be written about John Cornyn and Tom Delay's views on the judiciary, George W. Bush's smirkingly demagogic comments on government bonds, the Terry Schiavo blood libelers, Palestinian terrorists, and nutcake Israeli settlers stealing holy land ..

Shut the fuck up. Everyone feel better now?

[sidereal]

"Obviously - If you like the outcomes, you end up not careing about the means."

Not true at all. For example, I liked the result in Roper but I thought the means were completely inappropriate. . especially the nonsense about looking to foreign law to get the sense of US morality. Katherine, as another example, has been quite forward in her disappointment over Roe v Wade, even though I assume she likes the (legal) outcome.

The difference is that even if you think they're wrong, it doesn't necessitate that they're illegitimate. And your criticisms are worthless unless they're grounded in process. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state constitution as requiring equal access to marriage for gays. You may not like it, but if you think they're wrong, you need to have at least as good an understanding of Massachusetts state law as they do, which seems unlikely.

[freelunch]

I don't believe Cornyn's attempt to excuse his remarks of Monday. He and the rest of the radical reactionaries are the ones who have been trash talking judges. They have been the ones who whine about decisions that judges make. They are the ones who insult and tear down the judiciary. They are the one who finds reasons for folks to justify murder. They should hold themselves personally responsible for the next judge who is killed. If an important wing of a political party campaigns against the rule of law, should they be surprised when they manage to destroy the rule of law? No, no they should not, they should expect what happens and be held accountable for it.

The rule of law cannot work if politicians repeatedly attack the law and the judges who enforce it just for their own personal political purposes. They should feel shame. They must stop making excuses and change their behavior.

I have no confidence that they will, not until they get thrown out of office.

[Slartibartfast]

Posting rules, John Thullen.

[John Thullen]

Yes, but I thought it would be good to cut to the chase.

And now, I retract. Edit my post or delete.

Change those words to "Could everyone please be a little nicer and quit saying silly things?"

Well, we'll see. At least the servers at everyone's workplaces will feel better.

Sorry, Slart.

[st]

Its killing innocent civilians for political gain

Yeah, well, I don't think that even the insertion of "intentionally" saves this one - unless you believe we firebombed Dresden to knock out 10 ball bearing factories, nuked Hiroshima to get that aircraft plant, carpetbombed Hanoi to knock out Hanoi Hannah, etc., etc....

Intentionally killing civilians for political gain is a central tenet of modern war as practiced by every nation on earth including us. 9/11 didn't change that. Terrorism requires a more nuanced definition, which addresses its status as the preferred tactic of those who have no other possibly effective military response to a perceived enemy. The Palestinians blow up buses because if they stood up like soldiers and attacked the Israelis, they would be abjectly slaughtered and the intifada would end in a day. Ditto al Quaeda, versus the foes that they have chosen. This is not an excuse for the murders they commit, but any definition of terrorism that excludes or ignores this fact is simply a convenient and self-serving fiction. I don't hate al Quaeda because they slaughter innocents. We do that, too. I hate them because they slaughter innocents in the service of a medeival, cruel, authoritarian and insanely repressive misreading of Islam that is the ideological equivalent of Komodo dragon saliva - filthy, infectious, and lethal.

Not sure what that has to do with the post at hand, but I'm sorry - I just can't let such a smug pat answer go uncontested.

[st]

Just for context, the PATRIOT Act definition of terrorism (Sec. 802(a)(5))is as follows:

[A]ctivities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Which, of course, suffers from the same broad failings outlined above; what act of war, after all, is not intended to accomplish these goals? However, despite my own problems with other aspects of the PATRIOT Act, this language is serviceable as a criminal statute to prosecute terrorists - such statutes need not wrestle with the issues mentioned above, but must accurately describe general categories of specific behavior, which this language does.

[rilkefan]

st, I don't think sidereal was being smug - a bit offhanded, perhaps. But I agree that the definition of "terrorism" is both important for understanding the world and a political bone of contention.

[st]

Fitz's 8:31 was smug, standing alone as if it ended all arguments. That is the comment to which I was responding. Sidereal's 8:43 correction, reacting (I believe) to this smugness, didn't capture the true fallacy. I apologize to sidereal for the unclear reference.

[rilkefan]

Oops, st, you were clear enough. I haven't been reading Fitz's comments for a while now and jumped to conclusions. Apologies to the injured parties.

[Don Quijote]

We do that, too. I hate them because they slaughter innocents in the service of a medeival, cruel, authoritarian and insanely repressive misreading of Islam that is the ideological equivalent of Komodo dragon saliva - filthy, infectious, and lethal.

But what are we slaughtering people for?

[st]

what are we slaughtering people for
Well, in order of the examples I cited, the extirpation of Nazism, the end of Japanes Imperialism, and the defeat of Vietnamese communism. Two of those goals were worthy. None of those goals could have been accomplished without knowingly killing civilians. Spin that and paint me any way you like, DQ, but a world without slaughter of innocents is a world without war, and thus, not the world we do, or ever will, live in. Do I wish it was different? Lord, yes.

[Fitz]

Sidereal (wrote)

“”but if you think they're wrong, you need to have at least as good an understanding of Massachusetts state law as they do, which seems unlikely.””

How ridiculous – What does that mean exactly, that only Massachusetts lawyers have any right/ability to comment? Or is it only Mass. Constitutional experts ect. What level of expertise is required? You do understand that there ERA amendments, equal protection clause & rational basis requirements mirror those found in the U.S. constitution (if applicable) and similar provisions found in many state constitutions?

Are you (sidereal) an expert in U.S. Con-Law and if not – why are you qualified to comment on Roper? Is Katherine an expert, and if not – incapable of commenting on Roe v Wade?

[Edward]

Fitz,

by the way, note that it IS going to happen:

The state Senate easily approved a bill that would make Connecticut the first state to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples without being pressured by the courts.

It will be the progressive folks in blue states like Connecticut who bravely lead the way, but the day will come when gay Americans are no longer treated like second-class citizens by their government. Kansas et al. will catch up eventually.

It's the American way, an American tradition, if you will, to expand equality and rights. It's also the fair thing to do.

[Fitz]

Yes Ed, I read the article the other day in the NYT.

The argument for “inevitability” is no argument at all. Nothing is foreordained (unless you believe it’s the will of God or something) Just because you call a State progressive, doesn’t make everything its legislature does progress.
The type of “historical inevitability” that you are talking about has its roots in Marxist and Hegelian philosophy. Marx’s “dialectic materialism” is little more than a twisted rip off of Hegelian dialectic. However, both believed that humanity was “progressing” to some inevitable conclusion. For Hegel it was “freedom” and to Marx it was a workers paradise. The notion that there is a “progression” that can be seen in history is very Western, which makes the Left’s love affair with Marx even more amusing when you look at how much the Left tries to claim that they care about understanding other cultures. This is probably why Leftist academics were so spectacularly wrong about the collapse of the Soviet Union and why Left wing experts on the Middle East are also being proven incorrect over and over again. The Left don’t care about other societies all they care about is how they can use other societies to prove what they “know” to be true, which is the “progression” towards an “inevitable” socialist paradise.
PS – Hegel defined “freedom” as increased submission to the state. To some, relieving the burden of choice is “freedom.” Just look at Western Europe.

[hilzoy]

Fitz: I am an expert on philosophy, and I can find nothing in what Edward says that specifically points to a Hegelian or a Marxist version of historical necessity, as opposed to the much more common "I think this is bound to happen sooner or later", which has been around a lot longer.

Your blanket statements about the Left are idiotic.

[Fitz]

Just calling something "progressive" doesn’t make it progress.
57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
62-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.
Now either all those people are simple bigots or you have not bothered to take their arguments seriously. Maybe its not a question of gays but a question of marriage.
Just maybe they are all concerned about the institution of marriage and its overall health?
Something to consider, (many of those states banned civil unions as well – including many blue ones)
(I think you only want to hear one side of the debate!)

[st]

The type of “historical inevitability” that you are talking about has its roots in Marxist and Hegelian philosophy.
Not to speak for Edward, but that is bulls**t. If I read Edward right, he's saying that there is an American tradition of not standing idly by while a group of people is mistreated and shut out for no reason other than ingrained prejudice. Eventually, the disconnect between our principles and our practice just gets too broad.

Nice headfake into the "all liberals are commies in diguise" nonsense though. Smoooooooth.

[liberal japonicus]

However, both believed that humanity was “progressing” to some inevitable conclusion. For Hegel it was “freedom” and to Marx it was a workers paradise. The notion that there is a “progression” that can be seen in history is very Western, which makes the Left’s love affair with Marx even more amusing when you look at how much the Left tries to claim that they care about understanding other cultures.

Wow, who would have guessed? Fitz as defender of other cultures (presumably only those who severely punish homosexuality need apply) But if Fitz thinks that the notion of progress is illusory, why is he bothering commenting here?

[Edward]

Do you have a point that relates to the issue Fitz?

My belief is not one in Marxism or Hegelism, but rather Americanism. The idea that all people are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness.

The "inevitability" I reference is in seeing parallels between other minorities in US history who's lack of access to the benefits our government provided other people was eventually seen as unfair, unconstitutional, and unAmerican.

I'm sorry you have so little faith in our country. ;p