This is the anti-Bush crowd:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/
The Vietnam war may be in the past, but that doesn't help the people who were killed or had their lives ruined.
Three words: Roe v. Wade.
Just for starters.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!!!
These guys don't take it seriously --- they only care about it as an excuse to beat up those they didn't like anyway --- vide Pakistan vs Iran.
That's a major difference between then and now.
I'm afraid a Bush SC will weaken the 14th Amendment.
And, they could rule for the administration in a case like Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
while your considering: sure this election is not a mandate for a republican onslaught but who exactly will tell them? Be specific.
Well on #13, the obvious answer is "Bush v. Gore."
I appreciate this exercise. My fear about Bush is what it was, presciently, in 2000. It's not how he'll handle any of the issues on the table today. It's what he'll do with the one that we can't yet imagine.
But please, keep up these quizzes.
J
One worry: we know, and they know, that it's in their political interest to let an American city be destroyed by a nuclear weapon. That doesn't mean they'll plot to do it, but it means they don't have much *incentive* to stop terrorists from doing it, unless it's a city they happen to be in at the time.
If that does happen, on top of the horrifying event itself, then they'll have a field day: it's declare-the-Constitution-inactive, martial-law, shoot-Democrats-in-the-head time, and in the shock of the moment (imagine ten or twenty Sept. 11ths simultaneously) we will probably all roll over and let them do it.
This danger has, of course, existed already for a long time.
...As for your last item, the big worry isn't overturning legislation, it's *refusing* to overturn legislation. If the Supreme Court is actively in cahoots with the President and Congress, then you can effectively amend the Constitution with a simple Congressional majority, just by passing a law that the Supreme Court then decides is constitutional, by magic. You know, the "judicial activism" that conservatives hate so much. Consider the following exaggerated scenario:
1. Congress passes a law declaring criticism of Republicans illegal.
2. The President signs it.
3. Upon the inevitable litigation, the Supreme Court declares the law to be consistent with the First Amendment, because they say so.
The end. Everyone into the slammer. They probably wouldn't do anything this grotesque, but the mechanism is there.
How is "getting away with it" even an issue? I'm not a legal scholar, but their word is final, right? They don't really need reasons for anything!
Okay, I read ogged's posts below and I really don't think I ought to be indulging in any more of my silly low-probability apocalyptic fantasies here. Unf, I think some sort of intervention might be in order for ogged; I don't want him/her to do anything stupid.
"One worry: we know, and they know, that it's in their political interest to let an American city be destroyed by a nuclear weapon. That doesn't mean they'll plot to do it, but it means they don't have much *incentive* to stop terrorists from doing it, unless it's a city they happen to be in at the time."
Oh Jesus.
That's actually true. I don't think it is any part of the explanation for their complete failure to be serious about nuclear proliferation, even subconsciously but it is true.
That's when I flee the country. If I'm alive and sane, which I won't be because a good % of my family and close friends will be dead if I'm not.
Only then though. Till then we fight.
Interesting list of questions. I'm not going to answer all of them, since I don't know enough 20th century American political history. However:
4) We've been in wars that have gone badly (and where we've behaved badly) before. I believe our current most serious dispute with Vietnam is that we don't like how much shrimp they sell us.
--That was the Cold War. Different rules applied then. Big differences here.
6) Majorities overreach, and power corrupts. Especially those inclined to overreach and those eager for power.
--Agreed. There's a good chance that the Republican coalition will start breaking up. But there's also a chance that it won't...
7) On the international side of things, what exactly do you think Bush will do that will be so terrible?
--I think that he'll do nothing (other than stay in Iraq), and that's what is truly terrible. He won't get allied troops to help out, won't try to reform the UN, and won't start the process of getting an international consensus on processing failed states (Iraq, Syria, North Korea, etc.). We're going to lose way too much ground due to inaction.
10) Do you think acceptance of gays and lesbians will generally increase or decrease over time? Consider recent historical evidence when answering.
--Increase. Old people are dying and more tolerant youth are taking their place.
11) You live in a country that has seen the likes of the following: John Calhoun, Ben Tillman, Charles Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, and Pat Buchanan. Why are you so surprised with your fellow citizens? Are current Republicans really worse than these men?
--Its not so much that there are worse people out there right now, but that the number of people aspiring to be like the above-named individuals has become pretty frightening. Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and others say some terrible things, but are not quite on par with Father Coughlin and most of the others you list. Unfortunately, that means they're a little more acceptable to the mainstream. They're 'gateway pundits' that skew the populace to the Right. What makes me worried is that the sheer number of people who hold eliminationist views toward their opponents (i.e. fellow citizens) is much higher than it used to be.
"This is the anti-Bush crowd:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/"
--abc123
Lol. Yeah, those Black Bloq guys are interesting, aren't they? Its a good thing there's only about 100 of them in the whole nation. I'm much more concerned with those terrorists that keep popping up every couple months with the intent to kill hundreds of their countrymen--sometimes with sodium-cyanide bombs and ricin too!
Seriously, the far-right is much more dangerous right now. I'm sure the far-left is going to experience a resurgence in the next 4 years, but it will still pale in comparison to the amount of right-wing violence that takes place in this nation.
See http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.html#002565
About the Supreme Court:
Starting in 1995, the court began to apply stricter scrutiny to legislation passed under the Commerce Clause, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and the Violence Against Women Act as being outside Congress' Art.I, section 8 powers. Certainly, a more conservative court would move further in this direction, and tie Congress' hands in future legislative efforts to do good things.
Not that this Congress is likely to do good things...
I don't have high hopes for 4th amendment jurisprudence, but that can't really get much worse than it already is.
Also, this probably means that gay rights will stay in its "rational basis" ghetto for the forseeable future. but I suppose that can be resolved with legislation.
My only ray of hope is that state supreme courts have become more active (not "activist") in interpreting their own constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal constitution.
Bush/Cheney '08: No matter what the activist judges say.
Just for the hell of it:
"1) . . . Do you really think that the country is worse off, or in greater peril, or less respected internationally, now than it was [in various other epochs]? If so, why?"
"Worse off" depends on how you mean. The US' economic position -- from which its global hegemony since 1917 has derived -- is probably more vulnerable now than it has ever been. And the ruling GOP is dedicated to exacerbating this problem (cf. the "deficits don't matter" mantra).
"In greater peril" almost certainly. The US has emerged into an era where asymmetric tactics can yield mass death, and has a leadership that's still bent on building missile shields and thinks terrorist networks need state sponsorship. Its major ruling party has ceased to have anything more than a nodding respect for democracy and has a demonstrated fondness for summary imprisonment, secret military tribunals, torture, and declaring the President above the law.
"Less respected internationally" without doubt, at least since 1917 (before that is more ambiguous). The Bush era has alienated the entire political spectrum of traditionally allied powers. I can't think of any other White House in any era that can claim such a feat.
"4) We've been in wars that have gone badly (and where we've behaved badly) before."
In regions perched strategically on the largest global share of the world's most precious raw resource?
"7) On the international side of things, what exactly do you think Bush will do that will be so terrible? Invading any of Iran, Syria, or North Korea is not on - not without a draft."
Isn't it? Why not? And supposing they do decide to institute a draft -- who but an unpatriotic anti-American commie terrorist symp would oppose it? Never mind that Bush himself is on record saying there won't be a draft, that's what the Memory Hole is for.
"8) Please explain why a President Kerry would have eliminated (or even greatly reduced) the threat of Islamic terrorism against the US."
"Eliminated," unlikely. OTOH, surely an Administration that shows some sign of caring about things like "homeland security" beyond the rhetoric would stand a better chance of reducing it.
"11) You live in a country that has seen the likes of the following: John Calhoun, Ben Tillman, Charles Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, and Pat Buchanan."
Name an American political movement pre-2003 in which any prominent figure could have gotten away with comparing sexual torture to fraternity hazing or "good old-fashioned American porn."