McCotterism (?)
I notice a front page post on Red State from U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter, lamenting the lack of passion about last year’s bogey-man.
Let me just say that I don’t have a strong position on trade relations with communist and other oppressive governments. I strongly disagree with embargoes or long-term sanctions against entire nations. I also disagree with the legality of importing and purchasing slave-produced goods. I don’t have a philosophical problem with generous trade agreements, nor do I have a philosophical problem with an reasonable tariff on imports. But, I also don’t have a favorite policy to get behind. Let me just say that I think it is the saner of the Red-State commenters who like the idea of continued trade with China.
But boy-oh-boy is this a whopper of a thread. Although the post title was an attempt to humorously invoke the McCarthy craze, that’s not the only reason for the post. Let’s face it - the Democrats had Cynthia McKinney - you can’t judge a party by its crazies - even if they are in the U.S. House of Representatives… or maybe you can. Either way, it’s isn’t a big deal. McCotter’s hopes to return to the Cold War bogeyman are very unlikely to gain traction within the GOP at large - in part due to what one commenter snidely calls the “eco-cons” in the party (eco- meaning “economic”, not “ecology”). Funnily, that is a very similar complaint as ones often found on the anti-sweat-shop left, though it appears to be coming from someone a little harder core right than most of the Red State crowd.
It’s interesting to watch the combat over whether and how to be anti-communist, and to see whose anti-communist badge will shine brightest. Ok… I don’t like communism myself… or rather I don’t like totalitarianism, which is communism’s co-requisite. But, I mean, I don’t wear that attitude like a badge, you know?
I loved this comment from a Red-Stater who doubtlessly backed our Ongoing Mission to Explore New Iraqi Frontiers and Liberate New Iraqi Liberees:
Since when does America as a nation have a “moral duty” to emancipate the people of other nations? What other “moral duties” does America then have to assume are our burden, if merely engineering democracy in currently communist nations is one of them? A moral duty to prevent and stop genocide wherever it may occur? A moral duty to feed the hungry wherever they are? I’m quite happy to see American citizens work toward whatever ends they feel are moral duties for themselves - but the only duty American government has is that to the American people,…
Where was this guy in 2003, huh? Anyway I agree with him up to a point, except that he doubtlessly would not accept that the American government has a duty to the American people, to do as our conscience demands us have our government do with regards to helping out elsewhere in the world, or in our own hometowns, when there are problems that the “free market” hasn’t managed to solve. But, yes - the Government should exist to serve the people… it should only ever behave as though it has a moral obligation to people overseas if and when that is what the people truly demand of it. But… the way that final line really ends, without the ellipses I put in there — that’s killer:
but the only duty American government has is that to the American people, the preservation and extension of American superiority as the world’s single superpower (long may it remain so).
Now, that guy needs a civics lesson. Unless there is a Superiority Article in the Constitution I just missed somehow. The American government doesn’t have a duty to stop an on-going genocide, presumably - but it does have the duty to preserve America’s status as a superior, single superpower (presumably that would include a duty to prevent the ascension of any other superpower… heh).
Anyway… I don’t have a point here. The moon is not the finger that points to the moon & all that. It’s just interesting getting inside the group psychology of the other guys every now & then, & even if there isn’t a specific point to make. Anway…
