July 28, 2003
Relative Newcomers
According to George Will, speaking on the botched EU constitution:
When in January Donald Rumsfeld, responding to reporters, distinguished between "old" and "new" Europe, he misspoke. He intended to note differences between old and new components of NATO -- between the older members and the Eastern Europeans who have fresher memories of tyranny. Rumsfeld had been bombarded by reporters' questions containing dubious assumptions of continental homogeneity -- "Europe" believes such and so; "Europe" opposes this or that. Wanting to make a point about NATO, he instead made a provocative characterization of the entire continent.
However in one particular, all of Europe is, relative to the United States, remarkably young, meaning naive and inexperienced regarding the writing of a constitution. The handiwork of the 105 members of the convention which, led by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, drafted the document for 16 months reflects a failure to grasp what a proper constitution does and does not do.
Erm, okay. You know, the French were only behind us a couple years, but I guess it doesn't matter. The esteemed Mr. Will explains later that the French have changed theirs too frequently, so each time must count anew. Clearly, they can't have been any good at it. We got ours right the first time, bub, so sod off.
But what about these guys?
Magna Carta is often thought of as the corner-stone of liberty and the chief defence against arbitrary and unjust rule in England. In fact it contains few sweeping statements of principle, but is a series of concessions wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons in 1215. However, Magna Carta established for the first time a very significant constitutional principle, namely that the power of the king could be limited by a written grant. ...
It could occur to a person that without the precedent of the Magna Carta, even leaving aside all the european philosophy imbibed by our Noble Founders, it would have been a bit more of a stretch to challenge the previously unquestioned Divine Right of Kings. But they didn't get it right the first time either, still had a bloody king afterwards. Doesn't count.
A couple weeks ago I saw a T-shirt for sale that had the word "Freedom*" stenciled across the front. I took a closer look, noting that it also said in smaller type, "*Trademark of the United States of America." Perhaps Mr. Will found a similar T-shirt that replaced the word Freedom with the word Constitution? Another term whose 'one true meaning' our right wing has declared itself the arbiters of.
Posted by natasha at July 28, 2003 09:58 AM | TrackBackHey Natasha. Off-topic, but I can't find an email link. Thank you for restoring the bit Pooh deleted from my Amp comment to imply that I'm an anti-semite. I posted three answers, but DeLong deleted all three. Since they said nothing about him, I can only believe that he wanted his readers to think that the person questioning his honesty was a Holocaust denier. Not his finest moment. He's deleted five comments of mine now, starting with my long, final answer to Will Allen, who refused to accept that the Holocaust was in any way worse than Stalin ("Dark Star" is the post). Four in two days, and a commenter notes that DeLong also deleted his question for evidence for a DeLong assertion in that first Chomsky post. DeLong actually responded to challenges to his post on Chomsky with another post on Chomsky, and now has a new post attacking Bush's firing of critics. Frankly, that seems bizarre if not pathological.
Anyway, the only thing that really matters is thank you. I think your comment will stay there.
John, was going to delete both of these but I'm too lazy to send you an email. You're welcome. I read Alas a fair bit, and I didn't remember anyone saying something that awful in a serious tone, because it would have started a foaming, hissing, raving free-for-all which Amp would have had to shut down. And you can always remember after reading *those* threads.
I think Brad just really hates Chomsky. It seems to be this thing with some people, they feel tarred by association and must strenuously denounce him to avoid the... um... scorn regularly heaped on him by people who are trying to avoid being associated with him. The right doesn't even have to do a thing, except imply that all leftists agree with him, and he gets taken apart of our own free will.
But I will say that there's no point arguing with someone who's taken this stance. Nothing will be served, because it becomes a religions debate. "Is Chomsky the Devil vs. No He Isn't." Nobody wins religious debates, trust me, I should know.
Chomsky's taken some out there stands, but he's also made many good points. As long as he isn't claiming to be divinely infallible, and I don't have to agree with everything he says, who cares? I don't have to defend him, or attack him, and I don't have to care if anyone else does either. It's so much nicer that way.
Posted by: natasha on July 28, 2003 07:39 PMYeah, I just said that sure Chomsky's dishonest, but if you're going to link him to Holocaust denial you should point out he's Jewish (two of my brothers took classes with Chomsky at MIT). Then, to Pooh, I noted my personal links to the Dershowitz family (my brother Brecht goes to his summer party) and my very long debate with Will Allen about the Holocaust in Brad's Dark Star thread. Brad felt these comments should be deleted. The Unbearable Lightness of Being opens with a photo containing a floating hat where a human being used to be. That's deletion. It stifles dissent.
Anyway, God knows what's in Brad's comments threads these days. They're his, he can delete away.
Saw your new comment. It strikes me that you were also defending Ampersand for readers who don't know it. Anyway, delete all this if you like.
Posted by: John Isbell on July 29, 2003 12:59 PM