Perlstein: Is Obama's "religion of Secular Humanism" this election's viral RW meme?

Yes, you read that right. Seems really stupid doesn't it, that something so ... stupid ... could suck all the air out of an election campaign. Yet that's exactly what happened in 2004, with the swiftboatage of John Kerry. Stupid; and so very effective.

For Perlstein, the Kerry part of the story — the analogy that sets up the Romney prediction — started with a stupid little self-published booklet he discovered in 2004 floating around the fringes of a right-wing event.

Here's his intro (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Once upon a time, in early 2004, I attended one of hundreds of "Parties for the President" organized nationwide for grassroots volunteers who wanted to help reelected George W. Bush, at a modest middle class home in Portland, Oregon.

At one point, a nice old lady politely pressed into my hand a grubby little self-published pamphlet she had come upon, purporting to prove that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had faked the heroics that had won him three purple hearts in Vietnam. I added it to my mental store of the night's absurdities that I expected to hear rattling across the wingnutosphere the entire fall: "I still believe there are weapons of mass destruction"; "There is an agenda—to get rid of God in this country"; "John Kerry attended a party in which there was bad language!"

What I didn't expect was to see Kerry's war-hero cred earnestly debated night after night on CNN. Then came August and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" — and that little old lady's fever dream began dominating the media discussion of the campaign, and the rest, as they say, is history.

That's the way, in my experience, the ecology of right-wing smears works: Insane horror stories – Clinton is running cocaine out of an Arkansas airport! Barack Obama had gay sex in the back of a limo! – bubble up from the collective conservative Id at the outset of an election year; professional conservatives in Washington identify the ones that seem most promising and launder them through the suckers in the "balance"-hungry mainstream media; and presto, before you know it, it's death-panel-palooza, 24/7.

Presto; yet this is not magic, but art. These are professionals. Watch and learn — here's how the process breaks down. They:

• Figure out how the rubes want to be lied to
• Figure out which lies have "legs"
• Figure out which lies also advance the Movement Conservative Project
• Focus-test all of the swamp-meat prose they come up with
• Deliver the stinkiest rot to the eager flies using the fly-seeking "professional" press
• Count the money (note to students: the MoveCon Project pays extremely well)

This is how it's done when the pros do it. There is nothing uncalculated about advertising. (Hint: Ask yourself why there are so many black men in the "can't get hard" ads. Go ahead, ask. There's an answer, and it's perfectly thought through.)

Perlstein has much more. He traces the history of this particular fantasia — from a 1961 Supreme Court decision footnote; to a 1974 near-miss court challenge to the "religion of Secular Humanism"; to its demonization in a 1984 right-wing classic; to ... well, read on. It's Perlstein doing what Perlstein does quite well — tell a great story.

I can't close without giving you this, the current season's seed, from the Rolling Stone article I've been quoting and Crooks and Liars. (If by chance you listen to this vid twice, ask yourself if the questioner isn't a shill, a ringer.To my ear she sounds way too focused on asking the question from a very precise angle.)

Romney in Wisconsin (that's Paul Ryan on stage with him):



In defense of Perlstein's prediction, the Catholic Bishops PAC is all over this one. I agree with Perlstein — it's not going away on its own.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Supreme Court okays strip searches for traffic fines

Your Supreme Court at work. Five-four decision (natch). Do you think this decision will be used by some to target more blacks than whites, more women than men, more Latinos? Or to intimidate Occupyers? (So do I.)

Via the Guardian (my emphasis and paragraphing):

The US supreme court ruled on Monday that jails do not violate privacy rights by routinely strip-searching everyone, even those arrested on minor traffic offenses. By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative-liberal ideological lines, the high court ruled that privacy rights involving the searches were outweighed by security concerns by jails about a suspect hiding drugs, weapons or other contraband.

Writing the opinion for the court's conservative majority, justice Anthony Kennedy concluded the jail search procedures struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institution.

You remember Kennedy, don't you? He's the great "centrist" hope.

The case on which this was decided is particularly egregious.

Attorneys for Albert Florence, who was strip-searched twice at two New Jersey jails in a six-day period after his arrest for an unpaid traffic fine, argued jailers must first have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

I've seen reports [see update below] that not only had he paid the fine, but he had proof of that in the car — 'cause, you know, driving-while-black and all. Didn't matter, apparently, to Mr Moderate-Justice Kennedy.

Oh, and not to forget, this tickled my fancy as well:

The decision was a victory for ... the Obama administration, which argued for an across-the-board rule allowing strip-searches of all those entering the general jail population, even those arrested on minor offenses.

Cornel West, anyone? (Just asking.)

Your SCOTUS news of the day. For more information, watch this excellent Maddow Show segment — she interviews the subject of the case and provides her thoughts.



Sigh.

UPDATE: Here's the report that Mr. Florence had proof of payment in his glove box at the time of his arrest. Wash Post:

He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, that he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glove box because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars.

Driving While Black? Only the arresting officer knows for sure.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

What's at stake if SCOTUS cuts back the Commerce Clause?

Via Sam Seder and the Majority Report, we're pointed to this excellent commentary by Chris Hayes on his new Up With Chris show.

It's short, tight, and puts this momentous decision in good historical context. Watch:



Ah yes, the social contract; something we've been on about as well.

Seder also points us to this comment by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker. Very smart. According to Toobin, there's 70 years of settled law at stake (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”

Every premise of that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. ...

Kennedy’s last point, about the “heavy burden” on the government to defend the law, was correct—in 1935. That was when the Supreme Court, in deciding Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States—a case involving the regulation of the sale of sick chickens—struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act [which established the NRA], a principal domestic priority of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the ground that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Two years later, however, the Court executed its famous “switch in time that saved the Nine” and began upholding the reforms of the New Deal. The Justices came to recognize that national economic problems require national solutions, and they deferred to Congress, usually unanimously, to provide those solutions, under the Commerce Clause.

This isn't just about the ACA or getting a second crack at the Public Option; it's about settled law and the Commerce Clause. Untimately it's about the New Deal government that we've all been living under and benefiting from — the one we assume is bullet-proof, here forever.

Not so, says Toobin (and Hayes in the clip above). Toobin again:

In the more than seven decades since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has avoided this sort of line-by-line parsing[.] ... Now, instead, the Supreme Court acts as a sort of supra-legislature, dismissing laws that conflict with its own political agenda.

It's own "political agenda"? Would that be one more voice saying this? He continues:

[This] decision is a great deal more important than its immediate political aftermath. It’s about what the government can do, not just who runs it. If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation. ... It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments.

Maybe. On the other hand though, if you totally love power, and totally can't be removed by any agency on earth — why not just use it?

After all, it's not like you haven't had practice swinging some pipe; you totally gave us this guy:

Nearly a century of settled law won't repeal itself, you know, and time's totally wasting.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Why health insurance isn't broccoli (the short version)

Paul Krugman spends his precious Times inches on the Supreme Court ACA-broccoli debate. Along the way he has a nice tight explanation about why the two aren't comparable.

He writes (my emphasis):

Let’s start with the already famous exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia compared the purchase of health insurance to the purchase of broccoli, with the implication that if the government can compel you to do the former, it can also compel you to do the latter. That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.

Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has.

That's pretty straight-forward. As to how to fix the problem, Krugman clearly sees the options:

There are at least two ways to address this reality — which is, by the way, very much an issue involving interstate commerce, and hence a valid federal concern. One is to tax everyone — healthy and sick alike — and use the money raised to provide health coverage. That’s what Medicare and Medicaid do. The other is to require that everyone buy insurance, while aiding those for whom this is a financial hardship.

Krugman doesn't have a SCOTUS ACA prognosis, but he does say that:

it’s hard not to feel a sense of foreboding — and to worry that the nation’s already badly damaged faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to stand above politics is about to take another severe hit.

Yes, Professor. We all have that foreboding. We've been forebode before.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)