I think that Rick Santorum’s statements about the repeal of DADT during the Republican debate were not just a revealing look into how conservatives view sex, but also a good example of how conservatives are using dog whistles.

I was having a discussion about this with a friend, and he asked me why the crowd would dare show such disrespect to a soldier, and how Santorum didn’t even thank him for his service. It’s obvious that their intolerance and bigotry have lead them to otherize gay and lesbian people, and so they don’t see the need to consider their feelings. They do not care that a gay or lesbian soldier would need to lie under DADT, the idea that they should consider the unfair predicaments it created does not cross their minds. And yet they know, on some level that this is not acceptable to express – so they get angry when a gay person dare put them on the spot and feel compelled to tap dance around the topic whenever it comes up.

As to why they don’t just come out and say what they are thinking and take the criticism as anyone else with a controversial opinion does, I think they prefer dog whistles for three reasons. It enables them to simultaneously proclaim that “gays are icky” pretend that they aren’t saying it and feel clever for not saying anything that can be directly attached, and finally feel brave and courageous for being so “un-PC.” Until we realize how much smug satisfaction the latter of these two points give conservative, we won’t be able to effectively argue against them.

Whether it is a better tactic to insist on clearer answers to questions or to simply point out their contradictions is open to debate. But we should keep in mind that conservatives are often speaking on multiple levels and we shouldn’t always take what they say literally without careful consideration.

Amanda wrote about her incredulity that we are still having an argument about whether or not government should exist. As my recent long discussion with some internet libertarians* about the legitimacy of government is winding down, I know very well how much this debate can feel like smashing your forehead into a brick wall.

What I got out of the discussion is that even though libertarians admit that the government does lots of good things that improve people’s lives, they insist they have deeply principled moral objections to the idea of a government that has the power to put people in jail.

It’s similar to what can be observed of pro-lifers – they present themselves as just loving babies but what they really want is to control everyone else’s sex life. Libertarians claim they just love freedom but in the end they are just sullenly complaining that a any authority exists above themselves, no matter how pragmatic or democratic it is.

This prioritizing of one’s own smug self assurance of the moral high ground at the expense of every other person in the country is in no way superior to those who accept the legitimacy of the state to exist. It ignores and demeans all of the work put into our country (and others) by elected representatives and civil servants throughout history. It disgraces the memories of the people who died for the right to self-government. It leads to the questioning of a person’s touch with reality.

A person who denies the need for a government, denies the existence of the commons problem, which has been a subject for philosophers since the days of Aristotle. The solutions that they do offer have no rigor that would stand up to a competent policy analysis and no explanation of how they would be achieved aside from fiat.

Because I support the idea of a democratic republic like the United States, I was called “an authoritarian.” I reject this label outright. I am a liberal. There is a large middle ground between Authoritarian tyranny and Seasteading Solipsism. The argument that there is not goes like this: in a Democracy, some people will not vote for various reasons, and others who vote will not have their candidate or proposition win a majority. Therefore, those people will not get there way. Thus, they are oppressed. That every single person cannot get their way at all times, is not oppression. I do not see a difference between the communal solutions they propose and efforts already being made at a local level by small communities. Even if environmentalists (or any other group) is not getting results at the federal level, policy changes are often quicker at state and local levels. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the granting of same sex marriage rights in several states come to mind.

It was proposed that because a majority of Americans say the government operates “without the consent of the governed” that our government is illegitimate. Another commenter pointed out that the question forced people to speculate about what others think of the government, not whether the person being asked has given their consent. I would add that for the average person not interested in political philosophy the difference between whether or not you agree to the actions of the current slate of elected leaders versus whether you felt that the mere existence of the government in general was contrary to your will is probably lost.

Finally, I want to address the comparison of government to rape. Over and over in the thread, it was brought up that a person saying nothing, laying silently cannot be considered to have consented to sex. I gave this a lot of thought because on it’s face it appears to be a valid argument. But the government is not like a rapist. No one is born being raped, they way they are born a citizen of the United States. Rape is a specific action which one individual takes upon another without the victims consent, or despite her protests. The United States Government is an institution created by its citizens which, while oppressive at times, changes in response to their participation. A rapist can be identified and held responsible for his crime, similar to the way individual corrupt members of an administration may be. But the idea of the United States is not put on trial by it’s citizens in any significant way – even though they would have the power to do so by electing people into office who promised to disband it. That we continue to elect people to use the powers proscribed for them is testament to our consent.

*Some of the people defined themselves as Libertarians, others as Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists. As they were all arguing that the United States Government be abolished and not replaces with anything else, I am grouping them together.

Earlier this week, my husband and I talked about the possibility of writing 9/11 posts to put up yesterday. But neither of us had much to say. The Onion and Amanda Marcotte pretty much said everything that’s on my mind. My hometown newspaper published a list of people from the community who had died on that day with their pictures, which was heartbreaking, but I felt a loving and respectful tribute.

But throughout the day yesterday, I noticed that things have changed a lot. On September 11, 2002, I was a junior in college in upstate New York. I remember feeling so unbearably sad. I could not believe it had been a whole year. Still a Catholic, I went to afternoon Mass between classes, attended a short vigil where the University Student Government Executive Board read the names of alumni who had been killed and then later that evening, Adam and I went to a ceremony that the entire campus was invited to – we sat on a blanket outdoors, and there was an interfaith statement from a Christian Minister, Jewish Rabbi and Muslim Imam calling for world peace. Then a professor of Creative Writing read a poem she had written for the occasion. I wish I could find a copy of it somewhere but it does not seem to be located on the internet. One of the lines was “I hope that there is never any such thing as a September 11 Linen Sale.” My mother told me I was doing too much, but I felt like I had to pay my respects to the dead. And shortly after that I didn’t feel the need to mourn much longer. I did know one of the victims – a neighbor of mine from when I was a little girl. I also have a close family member who was and continues to be a first responder who has never been the same. But with time, I felt that I had expressed all I needed to express.

It is not my place to tell others how to mourn. Many have lost more than I have. But as Amanda rightly points out, it seems that the less someone was directly impacted, the more of a show they need to make about how they will “Never Forget.” (As if we ever could.) I have always found 9/11 merchandise bizarre and distasteful, but I was never quite so disgusted as I was on Saturday when, walking into my grocery store in New York City, I saw a display of red, white and blue flowers and balloons for people to purchase. Then on Sunday, driving through Queens, I noticed a bar with a banner outside that said “We remember those who gave their lives today. Thank you for spending 9/11 at [Name of Bar]” What’s next? 9/11 drink specials? A simple American flag would have been sufficient.

I believe that people should take some time for quiet reflection if they need to. My hometown on Long Island has a small ceremony every Memorial Day where the names of anyone from the town who was killed as a member of the military is read. Events like these, I have no objection to. People were gruesomely murdered and we should respect their memory. But when people start asking me “What are you doing for 9/11?” as they have this year, I feel a deep unease. September 11 is not a holiday. It is the anniversary of a terrorist attack. The dead should be  honored and remembered, but there is nothing to celebrate.

From the news reports and internet hysteria, I had expected to find a bacchanal lasting for days, instead there were just a few joggers and some tourists quietly taking pictures.

Amanda Marcotte has been clear that liberals should not scold people for gloating over  the death of Osama Bin Laden. Neither scolding nor celebrating was my first response to the news – mostly I just felt overwhelming relief. And while there were indeed large outbursts of public rejoicing, they were spontaneous and short lived. I was in Washington DC on a business trip and took a walk past the White House late Monday afternoon – from what I had heard described, I thought there must be something still going on. But there was no sign of the revelry that had taken place just a few hours before. The debate about whether or not to “celebrate” this event feels like manufactured controversy – it detracts from the larger issues of the so-called “War on Terror,” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the loss of Civil Liberties and rise  of security theater here at home.

But the cheering crowds and atmosphere of New Year’s Eve or a home team sports championship for a few short hours on Sunday night and early Monday morning did deeply disturb some people whose opinions I respect.  I personally would rather that  Bin Laden had been killed by US forces than taken alive at the expense of American (or NATO or Pakistani or civilian lives) and so I see no reason to criticize what has been done. However, days later  I’m still reflecting on President Obama’s words,

“[Bin Laden’s] demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.”

I consider myself one of those people  – it’s pretty much straight out of the Unitarian Universalist principles – and I don’t know if I agree. If someone holds those moral values, there will be cognitive dissonance in celebrating the death of any human person. It’s difficult to accept that the beliefs you hold most sacred, may not be as strong as you have professed. The conflict between wanting to shout for joy in the streets after hearing of a military victory, and knowing that one has previously claimed to be a pacifist and to stand for human rights is not easily resolved. Public shaming of those who gave in to the desire to celebrate is an understandable, if not productive response.

In honor of Valentine’s Day, I wanted to write about John and Abigail Adams. They have been called America’s first power couple, and it’s said they shared the great American romance. My sources for this post are from the musical 1776, the book by David McCullough and HBO Miniseries John Adams and the book Dearest Friend: A Life of Abigail Adams by Lynne Withey.

I read John Adams in anticipation of the HBO miniseries. Before that, I had only thought of them as characters in one of my favorite musicals. McCollugh is an amazing storyteller, and he makes it easy to lose yourself in history. The pictures he paints of Philadelphia, Boston, New York and Paris of the late 18th century are so engaging. He quotes heavily from John and Abigail’s letters and personal diaries. They both had strong personalities which shone through in their writing.

The excerpts of the letters I have read are fascinating from a historical perspective, and so charming and moving. John and Abigail wrote to each other of their daily lives while he was away in Congress and later representing the United States to France, Britain and Holland. But the letters from their courtship are worth a read as well. They wrote to each other while John was traveling for his law practice, and when he went to be inoculated for small pox very soon before their wedding. The HBO miniseries really captures the trials of their marriage, and how much time they spent away from each other. This profoundly effected them and their relationship, and I think it’s what has captivated people about them. We romanticize separated lovers and John and Abigail’s story was not only true, it had a happy ending. They were reunited after years apart and spend their remaining years together.

I am currently reading Withey’s Dearest Friend which focuses on Abigail’s life. It’s very good so far and I would also recommend it.

Some have paralleled the pamphlets of the American Revolution with today’s blogosphere. The similarities are numerous. One of my favorites is that people in those days often took pseudonyms, like today’s screen names. Abigail went by Diana to some of her friends as a teenager and later as Portia. She often called John Lysander.

The thing I find most compelling about John and Abigail’s relationship is the deep respect they had for each other and that it was known to everyone that he valued her advice above all others. They were products of their time, but progressive on their ideas about the role of women. Of course, we only know of Abigail’s talents because of her husband. But that he was enthusiastic about her participation is remarkable for the time, and still admirable today.

The one thing I would really like to know about their story is whether of not there was a place called Cupid’s Grove in Massachusetts. Obviously in 1776, the term is used as a euphemism for having sex. It might very well have been… but John Adams referred to it with regard to both Abigail and her cousin Hannah, who he unsuccessfully courted before her. And in his memoirs he was adamant that he was chaste before marriage so I’m left wondering if it was a name he bestowed on a particularly scenic portion of countryside.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

President Barack Obama’s vision of America is truly inspiring. This section of his speech is reminiscent of the famous “Audacity of Hope” speech from 2004. “There is not a Red America and a Blue America, There is a United States of America!…”

It makes me feel good, and it was super cute to see members of Congress on their bipartisan dates, but I don’t know if there’s a there there. I still think Melissa McEwan said it best a few years ago, but I have more to add because the situation has not changed much in 3 years, it might have even gotten worse. George W Bush supported Immigration Reform, the START Treaty and the assault weapons ban – all unthinkable in today’s Republican Party.

One of my favorite questions about America today is brought to the forefront of my mind when I hear rhetoric like President Obama’s. I like the idea that despite our differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and class we are all Americans. My father was not born in the US, and yet he is a proud citizen and veteran. I’m the daughter of a family containing different ethnicities and faiths, but in addition to the love that makes us a family, we also share a national identity as Americans.

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is this – what about people who don’t agree with the Constitution? People who oppose Birthright Citizenship, The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act or even Women’s Suffrage? If the definition of an American is one who believes in the vision of the founding fathers, in what way are those people Americans? I am deeply troubled by this question.

This question is one the President seems to ignore, and it makes it difficult for me to really believe that he is as effective of a leader as he could be because of it. It’s alienating to liberals like myself and I doubt it does anything for conservatives. I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m asking a question about his political worldview. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” President Obama wrote,

What’s needed is a broad majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill – who are reengaged in the project of national renewal, and who see their own self-interest as inextricably linked to the interests of others.

I don’t know what that means. I know that I am a liberal because I believe that my self interest is inextricably linked to the interests of others, among other reasons. But that view is wholly incompatible with modern American conservatism. It is in fact, fundamentally opposed. Why, then would President Obama write as if we have any philosophical common ground? We might have common ground on certain issues or policies. But not that one. Collectivism is a liberal, not a conservative value and you can’t just make it something everyone holds dear by fiat because it gives you goosebumps.

However, I might be wrong. In his first two years, President Obama has achieved an impressive amount of legislative victories, and if his incomprehensible (to me) point of view has contributed to his success in any way, I hope that he will continue to hold it. I would rather be making progress than have a leader who sits on his hands out of spite.

Tune in and watch President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight. I will be commenting on Twitter. It is my fervent hope that The State of the Union Drinking Game will be updated in time.

Update:And it has been!!

On Saturday, liberal blogger Atrios tweeted “The real victim today is Sarah Palin.” When I read Sarah Palin’s statement yesterday, at first I was relieved. She spoke about peaceful assembly, shaking hands and finding common ground. Over the past week I have heard calls for unity from people on the right – moderates that I know personally. But nothing from people with a lot of influence. Finally, someone in power on the right is stepping up. Palin, however seemed not to be able to help herself. She did not stop with simple condolences and a call to tone it down. Palin proved Atrios right when she compared criticism of her rhetoric and the idea that it might have played a part in Saturday’s violence in Arizona to “blood libel” – the anti-Semitic belief that Jews kill Christian children and use their blood to make matzoh for Passover. This is especially appalling, considering that Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish.

Sharon Angle issued a similar statement, denying that repeatedly calling for “Second Amendment remedies” would influence anyone to actually shoot someone. What else could she have been calling for?

I do not believe that Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle are guilty of the deaths or injuries of the people shot on Saturday. I think that the violent, hateful and eliminationist rhetoric of the American Right as a whole – including talk radio, television shows, internet forums blogs and comments, and the signs and slogans of the Tea Party did play a part. No one person saying or writing something inflammatory is to blame, but as a whole their impact on the political climate in America was significant. In addition there was the actions of the shooter, (hat tip) our insufficient mental health services, and the ease at which a person, a deeply troubled person no less can acquire weapons that can do so much harm so quickly. However, I stand by my statement that it’s dangerous to deny the role that our political climate plays in these things.

I’m not the only one. Several moderate Republicans have resigned this week because they have been receiving threats from Tea Party members. In addition, some Republicans are speaking out against the vitriol they see in their party. Mike DeMoss, a conservative Christian tried to get Governors and Members of Congress to sign a civility pledge. He has since given up

“The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” he said. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn’t hear from them.”

After listening to President Obama’s speech, I considered my point of view. I was deeply moved by his words and I liked that he was calling for unity. However, I must concur with Peter Daou:

Nothing contradictory about praising Obama’s speech and simultaneously warning that one side’s language of incitement risks more tragedies

Finally, this video from Media Matters founder David Brock on the subject should be re-posted everywhere.

One thing that has been on my mind in the wake of the horrific shooting in Arizona on Saturday is the depth of the denial that exists left, right and center in the United States on the amount of violent and eliminationist rhetoric that is spouted every day. It’s not politicizing the tragedy to talk about this, a federal judge and a Congresswoman were shot at a political event. Assassinations and attempted assassinations are inherently political.

Loughner may be mentally ill or he may not be. That is irrelevant when you consider the scope not only of the violence that has been perpetrated, but the scope of the threatening rants and vile hatred that are broadcast, not just on the internet, or radio or television – but by official candidates for Senate and other offices in the Republican party. One of the ideas that seems to be recurring lately is that any individual can soak up toxic ideas in the culture around him or her and they can manifest themselves in surprising and unpredictable ways. This is true.

To call for “both sides” to tone it down is meaningless. On the left, there is no talk of “second amendment remedies” for “domestic enemies in Congress.” No one dares suggest that “if ballots don’t work bullets will.” There have been no calls to “gather your armies” or “break their windows” (with subsequent broken windows, cut gas lines and threatening phone calls). Howard Dean, Bill Richardson or Kirsten Gillibrand – all Democrats who are also strong 2nd Amendment supporters have never ever held fundraisers where people shoot M-16’s to signal their enthusiasm.

A conservative acquaintance brought up the example of Congressman Manchin shooting a copy of the cap and trade bill in a commercial. But to me that proves my point. He was outdoors, with a rifle that looks more appropriate for hunting deer than armed insurrection, (Newt Gingrich however has said that the 2nd amendment is not for those tree hugging hunters-it’s for shooting the gubbermint) and Manchin wasn’t shooting Waxman and Markey – the people who introduced the bill – or any facsimile of their faces or bodies. He was destroying the actual piece of paper their ideas were on that he disagreed with.

In fact our leaders on the left take pride America for being a peaceful country. Nancy Pelosi pointed out how amazing a non-violent transfer of power was when she passed the gavel to John Boehner. Contrast this with the American Family Association claiming that we have sullied the Medal of Honor in recent years by giving it more often to service members who save lives than those who kill on the battlefield.

For anyone still insisting that somehow liberals are as violent as conservatives, how would you explain why Barack Obama has received an unprecedented number of death threats? George W Bush was thoroughly reviled on the left. Liberals broke Godwin’s Law every day. Any yet, there were no records broken with regards to actual violence.

I like Amanda Marcotte’s post about how pointing this out is hard to do, even when you know it’s important. She compares it to putting a cat in their carrier. But it must be done. If no one is calling out rhetoric that incites violence, people can go about their lives ignoring it. And when tragedy strikes, we think “oh that’s terrible” and then after a day or two we continue about our lives until the next time it happens. We must analyze these events together and alongside the causes. If no one is telling specific individuals that they need to take responsibility for what they say, their intensity and vitriol will grow – as will the number of people who take those messages to a twisted conclusion.