The Politburo Diktat

Commissar,

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you know I love you, man. However . . . in my opinion, this filibuster issue causes you to come unhinged.

Captain Ed has a point, but I think he perhaps exaggerates the connection between the filibuster and opposition to civil rights legislation. In other words, the filibuster has certainly been used for that purpose, but to read his post, you'd think it had hardly been used for any other purpose.

However, his exaggeration (if one agrees with me) does not excuse yours. I do not read his post as equating the compromise/capitulation with lynching. Nor do I believe that he is "[t]arring anyone who disagrees with intransigence as a lyncher."

You have linked his post, as any good blogger should, so that your readers can read his post and make up their own minds. I encourage them to do so. I think if they do, they will agree with me that your characterization of Ed's post is a bit of a caricature.

Commissar,

It might, however, be quite appropriate to point out that the anti-majoritarian use of the filibuster does not always go to protect minorities that deserve protection. The racists who were being protected from majoritarian politics many decades ago should have been forced to submit to majority rule, IMO.

In fact the tyranny of the majority argument loses quite a bit of its strength when one considers the type of "tyranny" to which the South would have been subjected in the 20's, 30's or 40's. And it is important to point out that the filibuster has a much more complex history than that painted by either side in the judicial nominee debate.

All the rhetoric could stand to be tamped down a bit but to point to the anti-majoritarian misuses of the filibuster is not necessarily to call modern-day obstructionists lynchers, IMHO.

Well said, Birkel.

Birkel, Patrick,

I agree that Capt Ed left himself plenty of wiggle room. He made no direct connection of the Gang of 14 and lynching, only the inferred, unfinished syllogism that: "The Gang of 14 protected filibusters. Filibusters protected lynching. ..."

Between this inference, the pejorative use of "GANG of 14," the recitation of the horrors of lynching, and the reminder of Byrd as a former KKK recruiter, the reader could draw his own conclusion.

Yes. And the conclusion I drew was that Captain Ed resents the effusive praise of a tool that has been used by racists to block legislation benefitting blacks. A good point, and very different from what you strained to read into his post.

You can cement the validity your position extremely simply.

Just answer the question.
"What I would like to know is what lives the Senate saved through the filibuster? What overarching principle has the filibuster ever protected .....?"

It's a list with no entries.

Captian Ed' rhetoric may have been extreme (subject to opinion), but his point was not.

I think the Commissar has the better half of the argument here.

Analogy: President Andrew Johnson used his veto pen to stop a great deal of legislation - albeit some pretty bad but some pretty good - that would have helped blacks in the South achieve a greater degree of freedom and justice post-bellum. This includes the famous "30 acres and a mule" legislation passed by the Republican congress.

If Bush vetoes, let's say, embryonic stell cell funding, may a liberal/leftist blogger use the historical reference of Johnson's veto of civil rights to Bush's veto of medical research?

I think not.

The analogy, like most comparisons, has its weaknesses. But I think it's close enough for us to see Captain Ed's references in a different and one hopes more enlightened way.

SMG

Commissar,

nyet that I would dare to contradict a comrade of your high standing, who proves that some bloggers are more equal than others, but it appears to me that the running dog, imperialist pig known as Captain Ed was merely trying to make the glorious pronouncements of politburo heavies appear to be untrue. While members of our politburo were waxing eloquent about the proud tradition of the filibuster, and how it has always been used to protect the common people against the heavy-handed majority, Captain Ed pointed out that one of the main uses in the last century, was that of continuing a tradition of racism.

I did not see him complaining that the only time the filibuster was used was to promote racism and lynchings. He merely pointed out that the "proud tradition" of the filibuster was used to promulgate some of the most heinous acts in the history of the People's Republic of the USA.

I have no doubt that I will go to the re-education camp at the Gulag Gitmo for this confession, but if I am wrong, it will be glorious for the commissar to correct me.

SteveMG,

First, the filibuster is far more associated with obstruction of civil rights legislation than is the veto.

But second, and more important, the issue is whether the Commissar has distorted/misread Captain Ed's post by claiming Ed equated filibusters (or the effort to preserve them) with lynching. I believe that is an unfair misreading of Ed's post.

I implore the Commissar to debate what people actually say. Please, Commissar: don't try to twist others' words by reading their posts in the most uncharitable light possible, as you have done with Ed today.

As my point was ignored I will copy it and paste it below. Commissar, if you wish to ignore my point please do so in a more straightforward way than was attempted above. I am quite capable of typing what I wish to type without the benefit of your interpreting it. Thanks in advance.

******************************************

It might, however, be quite appropriate to point out that the anti-majoritarian use of the filibuster does not always go to protect minorities that deserve protection. The racists who were being protected from majoritarian politics many decades ago should have been forced to submit to majority rule, IMO.

In fact the tyranny of the majority argument loses quite a bit of its strength when one considers the type of "tyranny" to which the South would have been subjected in the 20's, 30's or 40's. And it is important to point out that the filibuster has a much more complex history than that painted by either side in the judicial nominee debate.

All the rhetoric could stand to be tamped down a bit but to point to the anti-majoritarian misuses of the filibuster is not necessarily to call modern-day obstructionists lynchers, IMHO.

Is that what the GOP stands for? Waving the bloody shirt? Tarring anyone who disagrees with intransigence as a lyncher?

No the GOP doesn't stand for that. The extremist elemtns who think every problem can be colved by 'marketing' no matter how bizarre, ill-conceived, or undemocratic are like that. The Bush WH is like that. But they don't just tar them, the also ruin their lives, careers, reputations, and get them fired etc, simply for offering honest dissent and counter points. And that's oprecisely why they've screwed up. I think Bush and crew are surrounded in a bubble of sorts and they honestly believe that haven't blown a hole in the budget so big it will saddale us with debt for life, they might hoenstly believe that things in Iraq are going 'well', and they might truly feel that handing out checks to big tobacco and mercenary businesses as well as wrecking social security is a popular idea. That's what happens when you quell dissent Komm.

Current victims are Valeria Plame, Max Cleleand, John McCain, and many lessor known figures, etc.

And the reaosn you're being asked if you still a Republican is because most of the power and ego in the GOP these days ceom from folks who are true believers in all kinds of nuttery, creationism being and example you can appreciate. And, if you break ranks and speak the truth or try to make a counter argument, your patriotism, moral values, and intelligence, will also be attacked. The only way to fix the GOP Komm is to vote them out of power to teach them the values of not pandering to lunatics and corrupt shills. That worked for the democrats after reagan they got their presidential shit together, after the 94 repub sweep they got hungry in Congress. I hate to say it but the current incarnation of the GOP is haevily influenced by bat sht crazy religious funies and spineless corrupt, bought off, worms who pretend to take them seriously. You and I my friend are far, far, mor expendable n their minds than a preacher who denounces geology as satanic deception, claims AIDS was a punishment from God, and is planning for the Rapture 'any day now.

Hmm. Captain Ed starts by making an abstract point that anti-majoritarianism can be used to tyranize a minority, a valid point I think (and I agree also with his comment on historical revisionism.) But it goes downhill, particularly in the updates, first 'dumping the filibuster' as an apology...

If the Senate wanted to truly make amends for its transgressions, it would eliminate the procedure that kept the nooses in play for decades without fear of prosecution.

Then, to prevent future tyranny?! I mean c'mon... is this really relevant to the use of the filibuster today?

Perhaps this latest effort to give the proper historical perspective to the filibuster will awaken the American people to its true use in our history to extend terror and oppression, and finally force the Senate to disavow the antidemocratic procedure that has been stained with the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims that the Senate could have saved.

Commissar, I don't think he went as far as to tar all filibuster-compromisers as lynchers. Paterico and Birkel, he did go as far as to call compromisers "morally depraved";

these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court. That includes one nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, whose family suffered under the threat and terror of lynching because of the same filibuster the Democrats used to keep her from her bench assignment. That isn't ironic; it's morally depraved.

I think the particularly disgusting history got the better of his emotions, which he pretty much admitted to...

Perhaps I should refrain from blogging when I get pissed off

and...

when Beth, Preston, and Rick tell you you're drunk ... well, it might be time to give the keys up for the evening.

'compromiser'... urgh.

Lazar,

Good point about the "morally depraved" phrase. I agree that Captain Ed got a bit carried away -- though I understand why.

It seems to me that the Commissar could easily have criticized Ed's post *without* mischaracterizing it. It's the mischaracterization that I object to.

For crying out loud Patterico, even Capt Ed has backed down. And half a dozen other bloggers also called him out on it.

You talk about "uhinged and overwrought" while living here in my comment thread hammering away endlessly? You have your own blog, and have had your say there, too.

I feel like Okrent arguing with Krugman. Give it a f*cking rest, okay? So take the last word here; I am done.

Let's start with where we agree.

I agree that Ed exaggerated the connection between filibusters and lynching, as I said early on in this thread. I also agree with a recent commenter that for Ed to call supporting the filibuster deal "moral depravity" is getting carried away. And I have said that as well.

Ed seems to have acknowledged that his language was a bit strident. If that had been your only criticism -- "Ed was too strident" -- you wouldn't have heard boo from me.

My only beef with you, Stephen, is your (incorrect) claim that Ed equated the filibuster (and efforts to preserve it) with lynching.

Ed has most assuredly not done that, and he has not "backed down" in the slightest on that issue, which is the sole issue I fault you for. Ed has said: "Perhaps I should refrain from blogging when I get pissed off ... but if you read this carefully, you will not see me calling the Gang of 14 lynchers or racists."

That's exactly what I'm saying: Ed did not make that equation. Yet you claimed he did, and that's why I have been commenting and posting about your post.

I think I'm being quite reasonable here, Stephen. I am conceding what should be conceded, and taking you to task for straining to read Ed's post in the worst possible light.

I can't understand why that would make you upset, as you so apparently are. I can only conclude that emotion is interfering with your reasoning powers.

Saw "Madagascar" today. Not bad, but not great either.

Patterico, while Stephen's post is a bit strident as well, I think that you underplay the emotional connection that Ed's post made between lynching and the filibuster's defenders. I mean, the point is a convoluted one to begin with, but the connotation of "Gang of 14," lynching, Byrd, KKK and "morally depraved," all over the attempt to preserve a legislative procedure that has no intrinsic morality ... well, it's pretty over the top. And you underplay the emotional significance of the construction of Ed's argument.

In fact, if the ideological shoe was on the other foot and a liberal MSM outlet built the same chain of associations in a piece about the Republicans trying to end the filibuster (or something similar, especially prior to the election), the right blogosphere would be all over them, and not opining about it in muted tones, either.

You say I "underplay" Ed's connection between lynching and the filibuster's defenders. Your description of Ed's post is that it is "pretty over the top." Mine was that Ed got "carried away" and "perhaps exaggerates the connection between the filibuster and opposition to civil rights legislation."

I don't see a big difference between your description and mine.

Meanwhile, Bill, I think that Stephen's title (COMPROMISE=LYNCHING) and his claim that, according to Ed, the compromise was about "facilitating lynch mobs" -- well, that's just not what Ed was saying, and it's an unfair characterization.

What's more, Stephen's update edits out Ed's unequivocal denial that he made that equation. If I wanted to be uncharitable, like Stephen has been with Ed, I would say that Stephen is falsely trying to make it sound like Ed has apologized for equating filibusters with lynching. In fact, Ed has made no such apology; quite the opposite.

(I'm *not* saying that. I prefer to give Stephen the benefit of the doubt. But I think it's a good analogy to show what happens when you *don't* give someone the benefit of the doubt.)

I have no problem with criticism -- of Ed, me, or anyone else. But criticize what we say -- not what your fanciful imagination thinks we might be saying, if you assign us the most impure motivations possible.

It's all about giving someone the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, Ed sure deserves that benefit a lot more than most of Big Media.

Footnote:

Or sidebar, whichever:

That lynching pic that the Commissar linked to has a story behind it. It took place in Marion Indiana, in the 1930s. Two young men are shown strung up on the tree, but a third youth was also seized. For mysterious reasons, he was not lynched by the mob. He wrote a book about his ordeal much later, A Time of Terror.

Comm, I normally agree with you but not this time. Sorry.

I'm mostly skimming but the Gang of 14 reference...is because that's what they're called right now in the press. It's a adapation of the "gang of 7" that was the the name the group of generally moderate Republicans which McCain belonged to.

I figured you'd know this?

Another good point which I knew but hadn't mentioned. The "gang" bit has nothing to do with lynching, Commissar.

I can't understand why that would make you upset, as you so apparently are. I can only conclude that emotion is interfering with your reasoning powers.

First: That's an old rhetorical joke, saying that a difference of opinion is due to "emotion." Come on, Patterico, you know that. The same could be said about you, if you think about it--since you are determined to drag this out. In fact, I've found a new tenant in my comments too, who I just banned because I got tired of his emotional attachment to the post. (Needless to say, you'd be even less impressed with my take than Stephen's.) Anyway, if you had used that one on me, that comment would have ended the dialogue right there.

That said, I know where he's coming from--the same place I am. It's using the same tired old rhetorical tools to make one's point, such as dragging out the hoods, the swastika, the hammer and sickle ('scuse me, Commissar). Seriously, how many times have you been called a fascist/Nazi/whatever or heard Bushitler... just LOOKING at Ed's post set off alarms. I know what he meant about "lynching," just as Stephen did. Obviously Ed didn't mean the Senators in question were lynchers, but there was more than a subliminal implication there, whether he intended it or not.

Basically, there are many of us who are just sick and tired of hearing talk from our side that shrinks the "tent" to an even smaller size. I'm not the right kind of conservative because--shock!--I have a potty mouth! And worse! I don't think the filibuster compromise is "morally depraved!" And I...well, you get the point. And while people like Stephen and I are maligned by blind ideologues, those ideologues are issuing threats to the national leadership for not dragging the GOP farther to the right. You know, no-mans-land, where no one gets elected.

The question I have is, do you agree with demonizing your opponents (on your own side, even)? Or would you agree that the way to bring others to your side is through actual dialogue? I'm of the side where "you draw more flies with honey." Too many people aren't--and then we wonder why there's such a vicious, hostile political environment these days.

Look at the comment from ~DS~ above. That's what I'm talking about. He's so far off from the reality (sorry DS, but your assessment IS incorrect) of Republican voters it's comical (yet aggravating, to be sure). But why wouldn't he think that, with the kind of bulls*it he undoubtedly reads--from people whose politics I actually share! It's time for a lot of people to stop freaking out and start thinking for a change.

Sorry, Stephen, for writing a freakin' essay in your comments. Next time, I'll just blog it. ;-)

Anyway, if you had used that one on me, that comment would have ended the dialogue right there.

That's why I am commenting here and not at your blog, Beth. I'm not going to comment somewhere where the host bans people when she doesn't like the way they disagree with her.

At least Stephen has the guts to allow people to debate issues robustly in his comments section, instead of simply suppressing contrary opinions when not expressed just so.

I’m with Patterico on this one, questioning the accuracy (rightly imv) of a part of the Commissar’s post I don’t call obsessive, and he did criticize the content of Captain Ed’s (again rightly.)

you underplay the emotional connection that Ed's post made between lynching and the filibuster's defenders

Maybe Patterico does. Maybe not. Bill, I think we (I would like to think of an ‘us’) would benefit from avoiding demanding a certain level of condemnation toward wing-nuttery (and I'm not calling Captain Ed a wing-nut, I mean in general,) it serves to inflame their emotionalism, and leaves us open to a charge of hypocrisy when we criticize (e.g.; Terri Schiavo, One Hundred Percent.)

Cordially.

As a totally uninterested observer, and after reading the good Captains original post and the posts here, there can be little doubt that the Captain used the tactics of the left.

It was a smear, albeit partially unintentional, at us ignorant, vile whites in the South. I'm pretty sure that he intended to be critical of the process of the filibuster, etc.

However, what he did do, irregardless of what Patterico says, is drag that race card out and trump what otherwise would have been a great post.

Many Southerners, who now vote Republican, including myself, get sick and tired of this behavior on the part of our brothers in the North, and, in the case of Patterico, the West.

Stick to the facts, Captain, just the facts.

I hate to get back into a 'forsworn' thread, but I must.

This is insane. Clinical.

Capt Ed linked, associated, inferred, (or whatever weaselly verb you like) the filibuster compromise with lynching. "[The Senate should] eliminate the procedure that kept the nooses in play for decades without fear of prosecution." ... "the procedure that KEPT THE NOOSES IN PLAY."

That was a F*ing outrage. As Bill noted, if the other side tried a stunt like that, we would have freaked out, far beyond my "stridency."

Defending such vitriol with Clinton-esque evasions that pointedly avoid the explosive, emotional point of such rhetoric is not even close to reasonable. You're drinking the official Party Line Kool-Aid if you do.

Bringing lynchings into this matter "deserves the benefit of the doubt?" No way. It does not. It is hate-filled rhetoric, used to inflame the Party Faithful against anyone who DARES to break Party discipline.

It is NOT "unhinged, overwrought, emotional, and unfair" to point out lynching comparisons.

To link a compromise on a point of Senatorial procedure with lynching is "unhinged, overwrought, emotional, and unfair." Defending such extremist rhetoric with hair-splitting nonsense is also "unhinged, overwrought, emotional, and unfair."

Commissar, I think neither you nor Captain Ed were "unhinged," I think Captian Ed's post was "overwrought, emotional, and unfair" as a whole if not all parts. I do not think Ed initially intended to make a direct connection although that's almost what he ends up doing aka "morally depraved," my feeling is that he started out with too much laxness toward the relevance of the issue, probably because it agreed with his position, I think that was probably subconscious. I agree with the broad thrust of your post, its just a few of the adjectives (I don't think Captain Ed's writting was hate-filled or vitriolic, I think he got a bit upset with the history) and that other minor complaint.

As always, its difficult to divine intent.

Lazar, I greatly appreciate your many temperate comments.

Re: "hate-filled and vitriolic" All of those criticisms apply to the content and the impact of the post. As you note (and as I have experienced), assigning intent and motivations to others is not a good idea.

I've read Ed's post 4 or 5 times now. I would have worded it differently. Just to take one example, what he calls "morally depraved" I would have called "bitterly ironic."

But, that said, I think he has a good point overall. It *is* ironic in the extreme for Democrats to get so teary-eyed about a procedure that has been so famously used to the detriment of blacks in this country. It is even more ironic when you consider that Robert "KKK" Byrd was one of the principal architects of the compromise. And the irony becomes almost overwhelming when you toss Janice Rogers Brown and her history into the mix.

But my guess is that if you proudly support the compromise/capitulation, as many of you clearly do, you are less apt to see the irony. In fact, you are bound to see Ed's post as a personal attack, on you and anyone like you who agrees with the compromise. You will likely read Ed's post as someohow connecting your support for the deal with a support of lynching. And you'll be outraged. After all, you supported the compromise for what you feel are perfectly valid reasons, which have nothing to do with racism. And you resent any argument that seems to imply to the contrary.

In short, you feel personally attacked by Ed's post.

It's common for people who feel personally attacked to exaggerate the claims made by the alleged attacker. If you tell me that my argument sounds like the sort of argument a Stalinist might make, I will later claim that you accused me of personally starving millions in a pogrom.

This sort of exaggeration is human nature, but that doesn't make it helpful.

So we're back to where we started. I think Ed had a point, and outraged righteousness caused him to get carried away and use intemperate language. Then Stephen felt personally attacked, and consequently caricatured Ed's point -- and bared his teeth at anyone (like me) who dared point that out.

I'd have preferred it if Ed had not said things like "morally depraved." And I'd have preferred it if Stephen had criticized Ed's argument for what it was, rather than reading into it an equation between the compromise and lynching, which I believe Ed did not intend.

As you note (and as I have experienced), assigning intent and motivations to others is not a good idea.

Quite recently I was described, by virtue alone of my position on the Schiavo issue (similar to Bill's,) as a Nazi and a eugenicist. A bit earlier in the very same thread, and with only the mildest trace of irony, another commenter suggested exterminating us.

The energy of the election has turned inward somewhat.

Like you, I'm quite concerned at some of the directions being taken.

I find it very interesting tho that the more vitriolic among Republicans are not randomly distributed.

I'm not fretting, but a defcon 4 'bit apprehensive all the same,' and very happy that sane and aware people are keeping an eye and applying the hammer when necessary, a pretty thankless task given it attracts the bores chiming for more 'bashing of the democrats' and less you-know-what.

Patterico, I disagree with you on this one. I don't see people here proudly supporting the "compromise/capitulation" as you call it.

As a matter of fact, most here probably oppose it, but think that Ed went over the top in his original post by bringing up the lynching subject in the first place.

What purpose could it possibly serve other than a crude attempt to paint anyone who might not support the "nuclear option" as a racist?

This is a tactic broadly used by liberals and I hate to see Captain Ed fall into this trap.

As for the filibuster, I think we had better be very careful about throwing out a rule that might prove useful for conservatives in the future.

Besides, there were never enough strictly Southern senators to filibuster the lynching laws. They had to have help from other states, but that's a subject for another post.

jesusland joe,

The Commissar is a fan of the compromise. I'm pretty sure Bill from INDC is as well.

As I said, I agree that Ed got a little carried away with his language, but I thought his broad point was a legitimate one. As I said in my last post, there's some irony there. Now, I can say that without thinking supporters of the compromise are generally racists, which would be a silly thing to think anyway.

We never used the filibuster tool before to defeat someone who clearly would have gotten through otherwise. So why worry about losing it for the future?

The filibuster should be abolished for all purposes. I don't care if it might help conservatives in the future. It is anti-democratic. If there is a majority for something, that is fine. Let them pass it.

Leaving the current judge controversy aside, has the filibuster ever accomplished anything positive?