This posting is relevant to this blog because it shows the mainstream or white man's perspective vs. the multicultural or Indian's perspective. In the former, we revere (our interpretation of) dead white men's words as if they were holy writ. In the latter, we use our common sense and take whatever approach works best to solve a problem.
5 comments:
Not only that, but the screed calls the person who introduced the bill a "neocon". It was in fact introduced by Jane Harman, who is a mainstream leftist/liberal (not a conservative of the neo or other kind).
I did note, however, that Ms. Harman is Jewish. Sometimes those who mindlessly toss around the term "neocon" also apply it to Jews, as part of the old "New World Order" myth, and the idea that Jews are part of a global control conspiracy. I suspect that cone1 is a garden-variety antisemite too.
----------
Now, I am not sure of your point. Is it that we should ignore the Constitution in favor of modern-day pragmatism? Or...?
And what is "the Indian's perspective" ? Aside from the Yeagley-style nuts, I have found a diversity of political opinions among the Natives I have met and talked to, not one single perspective. That would be stereotypical.
Some people claim that "neocon" is synonymous with "Jew," but I've never believed it. In all the articles I've read about neocons, I never saw a hint of Semitism or anti-Semitism until someone made this claim.
Only when the Constitution is crystal-clear (e.g., the president's term is four years) should we treat it as a strict set of rules. When it requires interpretation, we should be free to interpret it. That includes the broad, general statements of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
A recent article in the New York Times made a similar point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101414.html
WHAT WOULD GEORGE DO?
Okay, He Never Saw a Chopper, but He Can Still Teach Us a Thing or Two.
By Joseph J. Ellis
Sunday, December 23, 2007; Page B01
Because Jefferson was the prophet of the American promise, the author of those 55 words that begin "We hold these truths to be self-evident," he has always been a historical trophy that all sides seek to claim. For Franklin D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Jefferson was the ultimate prize, the ace of spades in the American political deck.
This would have struck Jefferson as highly ironic, for he was on record as believing that each generation should be sovereign, not weighted down by what he called "the dead hand of the past." In that sense, Jefferson's greatest legacy was to oppose all legacies. He also made it clear that, once the United States became a thickly populated, urban, industrial nation, his agrarian vision became essentially irrelevant. That means that our political context for nearly 100 years has been resolutely post-Jeffersonian. Those folks claiming his mantle, such as those Supreme Court justices who declare their allegiance to the "original intentions" of the framers, are invariably imposing their own values and convictions under the cover of his name.
I did say the "multicultural or Indian's perspective," right? That was my way of saying the so-called perspective is a broad category of views and not all Indians share it.
But today's conservative courts have routinely shafted Indians with their rulings that supposedly rely on the Founders' "original intent" or a "strict interpretation of the text." I'm guessing most Indians, if they knew their constitutional law, would favor a loose rather than strict reading of the Constitution.
Why? Because loose readings lead to liberal results and Indians historically have favored liberal results. Our whole structure of progressive civil rights came about when the courts began interpreting the Constitution liberally, for instance.
I have read some bashing of neoconservatives from the Right (Pat Buchanan and rightward) who make a big deal of the movement supposedly having Jewish leaders/members/founders. To then, "neocon" is closely related to New World Order, "Z.O.G.", "Jews control the media" and all that.
Just do a google search on:
jewish neocon
to find the claimed connection.
I think the reason you (Rob) never saw this claim/connection because you didn't read stuff as kooky as some of the stuff I have read about it.
I brought this up because I suspect that the bashing of Ms. Harman in eone1's original posting as a "neocon" is at least partially because she is Jewish. He's probably an antisemite too.
Post a Comment