Real Time 112

Politics International Politics
1

I was just about to send this PM to two of my friends, jdsmith and Jaboney, because I know they both enjoy Bill Maher’s talkshow show, Real Time. Then I thought “You know, maybe I should just make it a thread in IP? That way I could see both their responses in the same place. Much more convenient that way. And who knows, maybe some other people might also enjoy the show, and feel like chiming in as well…”

(I’m adding this explanation because I’m honestly not looking pick a fight or start a pissing contest with anyone here. I’m just sharing some random thoughts that I had after listening to a podcast. That’s the idea. I guess this is a bit of an experiment. So if you see the IP Forum as some kind of juvenile “debate”, in which the goal is to “score points” by being obnoxious or pedantic or insulting or cut&paste spamming your pet causes or what-have-you, please (seriously, please – this is a good faith request for a favor here) just move on to the next thread. There are plenty of other threads where people look at things that way.)

Hi JD/Jaboney,

So have you heard Maher’s latest episode yet (112)? I’m not even to New Rules yet, and already it’s been one of my favorites. Almost makes up for his putrid first episode earlier this season. The 911 conspiracy nutcases in the audience at the beginning of the show got the entertainment rolling early. =)

John Edwards as the phone-in guest came across as very likable and genuine, I thought. This dismayed me a little. Only a little, though, because I do still think/hope that Hillary has it sewn up. John Edwards really must be one of the least likable/genuine politicians I’ve ever heard (and that’s without even getting into his terrible policy ideas). Oh well, hopefully this appearance by Edwards is an aberration, and the Dem race will be over soon, and I won’t need to hear from Edwards again. Ever.

Kasparov was excellent. I’d heard him interviewed before, but he was even better off the cuff. The guy tied Bill’s arms behind his back and playfully slapped him around. And Bill (to his credit – I really do like the guy) took it very well. If the US presidential field was full of Kasparovs I could almost embrace a “Jabonian” view of government, and support the idea of giving those in charge a lot more power. Almost. :wink:

The point Bill raised, about the Mukasey nomination and the role of Congress under the Constitution was pretty funny too. Maher seemed positively shocked by the notion that the presidency had powers under the Constitution that could not be limited by an act of Congress. It made me wonder whether Maher had even a rudimentary grasp of the concept of separation of powers. Of course the president is given powers that cannot be limited by congressional action. The judicial branch of government also has powers under the Constitution that cannot be overridden by congressional action. That’s the whole point of having three branches of government.

If Bill thinks that water-boarding or wire-tapping or whatever else does not happen to fall within the set of presidential powers that cannot be limited by Congress, then fine – have the debate about that. I might even agree with him. But to express outrage that an act of Congress can ever be ignored by the president is absolutely absurd.

I felt like asking him this: “If a Republican congress had passed a law in 2004 that gave Congress the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, and Bush had signed it, would President (H) Clinton be bound by such a law? Would this “law of the land” apply to her or not?”

Of course it wouldn’t, because the power to nominate Supreme Court justices is given to the president by the Constitution, and no act of Congress, even if signed into law by a sitting president, can take away that power.

Tell that to Maher, though, and my guess is that you’d get him screaming at you about how outrageous it was that the president was not bound by a law passed by Congress. “It’s the Law of the Land! How can she say she’s not bound by it! It’s an outrage!” etc.

Oh well. :slight_smile: It was a good episode. So be sure to download it if you haven’t already.

H

2

Thanks for sharing. Are you planning on voting for Hillary for President if she secures the party nomination? Or going to wait and see who the Republicans put forward?

3

I don’t know, GBH. That’s the honest answer.

I’m not terribly enamored of any of the current candidates. But I suppose that’s always the case … and to that extent it’s probably a cop-out answer. I think it’s very rare for anyone to get a choice between two candidates, each of whom is so close to one’s views that one can’t decide because “well… each of them is just so great – I can’t pick!” :slight_smile:

I guess I’m still reading and thinking at this point.

How bout you?

H

4

Hey Hobbes. I had much the same thought this morning.
(I listened to the podcast on the way to work, and was picking up breakfast as Kasparov checkmated Bill; at which point I thought, “Damn, Hobbes will love this.”)

Chris Whatzhisname summed that bit up well after Kasparov poured scorn over the “there’s something in the soul of the Russians that craves authoritarian rulers” canard: “You ever get the feeling that they’re playing chess and we’re playing checkers?”

BUT! Mr. Hobbes, this… is silly. [quote]If the US presidential field was full of Kasparovs I could almost embrace a “Jabonian” view of government, and support the idea of giving those in charge a lot more power. Almost. :wink: [/quote] If you had a few Kasparovs in gov’t, you wouldn’t need to give the gov’t any more power: they’d be clever enough to wield limited power to good effect, and understand that the effect would be all the more profound for not having been hammered into being.
(How’s that for an argument for setting higher standards for competence?)

I get your point about the Mukasey nomination dance and the role of Congress in limiting the powers of the presidency…[quote]If Bill thinks that water-boarding or wire-tapping or whatever else does not happen to fall within the set of presidential powers that cannot be limited by Congress, then fine – have the debate about that. I might even agree with him. But to express outrage that an act of Congress can ever be ignored by the president is absolutely absurd.[/quote]…but I get Bill’s too.

Ever since I read Elster’s “Ulysses and the Sirens” I keep coming back to thinking about constitutions in terms of self-binding. (Punchline: Ulysses has his men bind him to the mast and orders them to ignore his order utterly while they row flat out with wax stuffed in their ears. Given acceptance of mutual limitations, he’s able to safely hear the Siren song while they all stay on course.)
The thing is, the Bush-Cheney administration appears to recognize so few limits on its power that it can’t be trusted not to take the country onto the rocks. Its actions, in a number of areas, have been absurd… making the everyday sense of what’s absurd, seem well… kind of Alice in Wonderlandish.
(Good outsider’s perspective on the absurdity of waterboarding here.)
So, as the old rules of normalcy don’t seem to apply, the application of additional, robust restraints (even if reactionary) seems entirely logical and necessary… dangerous though that reaction maybe. IMHO, any cynic, skeptic or realist, looking on the Bush administration’s declaration that power X is beyond Congressional oversight would be alarmed.

Go back to the sea captain and crew example. What do you do if the captain appeared to be sunbaked, a bit off his rocker, or merely reckless? Do you continue to rely on the traditional code of naval discipline? Wouldn’t you instinctively believe that some other party (even if acting on no greater authority than common sense) ought to step in to check his actions? Again, it’s dangerous. But I think that kind of instinctive reaction lies behind Maher’s incredulity.

Having written that, I now read this in Slate: [quote]If confirmed, Mukasey would probably reinvigorate the Justice Department’s depleted and demoralized upper management and make a start on the long job of restoring the department’s reputation for integrity and professionalism.

Sadly, that’s not enough. The problem is not Mukasey’s intellect, competence, or personal probity. It’s that—as became clear on the second day of his Senate testimony—he is wrong about the fundamental moral question of whether reasons of state can justify or excuse the official embrace of torture. And he is even more wrong—dangerously, subversively wrong—about the place of the president in American constitutional government. If the senators on the judiciary committee really listened to what Mukasey said, and listened as senators and citizens rather than as nervous party politicians, they would reject his nomination on constitutional principle and as a matter of institutional self-defense.[/quote] Takes the argument further, and in a somewhat different direction than I was headed, but our starting points are the same (in case I was unclear).

5

Not sure. None of the candidates really ring my bells either, and since I’m all over the political map with my beliefs in the first place, it’s pretty tough for me to find a candidate I really like. I’m currently reading, “The Truth About Hillary Clinton” by Ed Klein. It reads like a typical right wing hatchet job, so it’s pretty hard to believe it was written by the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. The tone is vicious and some of the language so over-the-top insulting that I find myself literally laughing out loud because they read likes jokes, not serious analysis. He makes outrageous claims which have been criticized even by conservatives. So I’ll be looking for a more balanced book about Hillary after I finish this one, since I’m fairly sure she’ll win the party nomination.