Rightwing in Gay Panic Mode Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Social conservatives are in gay panic mode over the prospect that Congress will eventually repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The National Research Council released a bogus report warning that "gay rape" will surge in the military if Congress repeals the policy. I guess NRC is only worried about "gay" as opposed to "heterosexual" rape. Besides, rape is really about violence and domination, not sexual identity.

In addition, Think Progress reports that the socially conservative group America's Survival has produced a video proclaiming its opposition to allowing the threat of "disease-tainted gay blood" in the military. The group believes that gays will spread HIV in the military, even though the virus has no sexual boundaries. Furthermore, the military already conducts HIV screenings and excludes HIV-positive individuals from service.

In an effort to attract social conservatives, Senator John McCain is having a nervous breakdown over the prospect that Congress will lift the ban. As someone who was captured and tortured during war, McCain should realize that gayness is not the enemy of the nation's troops. Instead, he is shamelessly seeking votes by any means necessary.

Of course, the Democrats are making themselves vulnerable to some Republican criticism, including from McCain. Because Obama has moved painfully slow on this issue, he has faced condemnation from his liberal base. Representative Patrick Murphy and Senator Joe Lieberman tried to speed up the process by proposing legislation repealing the ban. Obama, however, announced a year-long study of the policy and asked Murphy and Lieberman to alter the bill to delay any repeal until the review is complete and the military has decided that the repeal should actually occur. Now, the legislation is in tension with itself. Still, the rightwing deceit and homophobia are reprehensible.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto: More Rightwing Hysteria

Yesterday, the economist Thomas Sowell echoed the rallying cry of Tea Party participants in an essay warning readers that "politicians" (i.e., Democrats) are robbing them of their freedom. Sowell, however, fails to identity any actual rights that politicians have stolen from the public.

Today, a group of conservatives has released a document called the "Mount Vernon Manifesto," which similarly asserts that the federal government is robbing people of individual liberty. The document, however, fails to specify any particular right that the government has infringed.

The document also contends that the federal government has exceeded the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers. The document, however, does not provide even one example of an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority.

Vague Allegations of Rights Infringement
Rather than providing specific examples of rights infringement, the Mount Vernon Manifesto argues in very vague and unsubstantiated terms that the government has improperly constrained individual liberty. This flaw makes the document read like a paranoid conspiracy theory, rather than a credible statement about the status of constitutional rights.

The document borrows from the Declaration of Independence as a blueprint for its analysis of liberty. In so doing, the document purportedly "asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue."

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the conservative manifesto, however, supplies a concrete listing of specific liberty interests. Similarly, the Mount Vernon statement does not demonstrate how the government has denied such rights.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto Is Not Even Inherently "Conservative"
Although the Mount Vernon Manifesto repeatedly claims to advance conservative values, the document is not even inherently conservative. The substance of "self-evident" liberty interests will depend upon the perspective of the beholder.

Liberals believe that "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" extend to sexual freedom, autonomy over reproductive choices, and even to imposing affirmative obligations on the government to make liberty meaningfully accessible to all citizens. Social conservatives, however, do not believe in these rights. In other words, the same (ambiguous) text in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence can support a host of different values -- liberal or conservative.

This observation applies with equal force to the portion of the document that advocates limited government. Since the ratification of the Constitution, all commentators have agreed that the document limits the power of the federal government. The precise boundaries of those limits, however, have been subject to vigorous debate throughout American history.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson did not see eye to eye on this subject. Both intellectual camps that they represented made reasonable appeals to history, tradition, and to the text of the Constitution to support their arguments.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto, however, treats history in completely uncomplicated terms. It assumes -- incorrectly, that the Framers viewed the boundaries of federal power and individual rights in unified terms, but that modern politicians have corrupted the system of government. This is a deep and fatal inaccuracy.

Final Take
The Mount Vernon Manifesto is clearly a political document. It is not designed to approach U.S. history and the Constitution in the nuanced terms that an honest portrayal requires. The failure of the documents' authors to specify concrete governmental invasions of liberty or excessive and unconstitutional use of governmental power renders the document meaningless as a serious statement on the status of government and history. Apparently, the authors are in pursuit of other agendas.

UPDATE
At least one commentator agrees with my conclusion that the document is "meaningless" as a serious document regarding government policies and liberty. Daniel Larison, writing for the American Conservative Magazine, observes that:

The statement itself is so anodyne, unobjectionable and filled with stock phrases that no one to the right of Olympia Snowe could have that much to say against it. The statement was written specifically to be as inclusive, vague and undemanding as possible. It was done this way so that every movement faction could accept it without complaint. It reads like remedial instruction on civics from the Claremont Institute, and the actual politics of most of the signatories have about as much to do with “the Founding” as does Claremont’s distorted understanding of the same. If I thought it worth the time, I might pick apart some confused ideas about “the conservatism of the Declaration,” but as far as conventional movement conservative rhetoric goes this is unremarkable stuff.

There is no danger here of an unreasonable “purity test.” The standard being set by this statement is so low that anyone in the conservative movement could claim to agree with everything in the document and still merrily go about his way violating both the letter and the spirit of the principles to which he supposedly just subscribed. The statement is so generic and so divorced from any contemporary policy debate that everyone from Marc Thiessen to Ron Paul could endorse it without the endorsement having any effect on their current policy views. Any consensus this broad and unrelated to actual policy is pretty meaningless (emphasis added).

UPDATE II
Jesse Walker of Reason.com argues that:

[T]he manifesto's rhetoric. . .is so all-inclusive and platitudinous as to be practically meaningless. Even the plank on foreign policy is carefully phrased so that both hawks and doves can embrace it: The text supports "advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world" while adding that we should "prudently" consider "what we can and should do to that end," a resolution that depending on your concept of prudence could entail anything from cutting a few dictators' share of the foreign aid budget to invading China (emphasis added).

The Onion Eerily Accurate: Lampoons Lunatic Rightwing Arguments About the Constitution

The Onion continues to outshine the mainstream media. While the media passively report the silliest arguments rightwingers advance regarding the Constitution, The Onion has actually challenged this rubbish. The article, Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be, responds to many of the paranoid and baseless arguments that the extreme right has made since Obama became president. Here is a snip:

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Great stuff!

Being Right About the Right

Glenn Greenwald's latest column places some perspective around the latest clashes between liberals and conservatives. Although Greenwald acknowledges that "some people react with particular animus towards the first black president," he contends that "there is nothing new about the character of the American Right or their concerted efforts to destroy the legitimacy of Obama's presidency."

To support his claim, Greenwald chronicles some of the nasty, partisan attacks on Bill Clinton. The Monica Lewinsky drama is obvious, but some people may not remember many of the other unsubstantiated and totally lunatic allegations against Clinton. Visit Greenwald's page on Salon.Com (or see Dissenting Justice) for a list of some of these outrageous assertions.

Being Right About the Right
I completely agree with Greenwald. In fact, back in October 2008, I saw this happening already with respect to Obama. I used the moment to "school" some of the younger voters who mistakenly believed that Obama would unify the nation, the world, the parties, etc., but that Hillary Clinton was too divisive for the Democratic Party. I am probably understating things by saying that I found this argument utterly annoying, naive, and misguided.

Although I am modest, I love being right. Here's a snip from Dissenting Justice, 10/18/2008:

One of the things that perplexed me the most during the Democratic primaries was the portrayal of the Clintons as "divisive," a charge that made Hillary Clinton unfit for the presidency. Many of Obama's younger supporters, following his lead, said that Clinton represented "failed politics" of the past, that she would just bring "more of the same" and that all she knew how to do was fight. Obama, they said, offered a "fresh face" and practiced a new form of politics that would unify the country and the world. Recently, Obama himself said he would, in fact, change the world. . . .

[T]he notion that Obama could somehow escape Republican attacks and bring unity to the two parties seemed like a dubious claim. Some of my closest friends labeled me "too cynical" for making that argument, but in political analysis, I take the cynicism charge as a compliment rather than a slur. . . .

Many of Obama's supporters are voting and paying attention to politics for the very first time. . . .But I wonder whether these young and excited O-voters. . .know that division is a natural part of our two-party system? Have they come to grips with the reality that if Obama wins, the smearing will only get louder and the digging deeper? Do they now realize that political work is often messy -- even dirty -- and that meaningful, large scale change only comes through contestation and battle?

For the full read, check out: Look Who's "Divisive" Now: The Anti-Obama Attacks Similar to Republican Smearing of the Clintons.