Extremists trying to trump rule of law?

The Coffee Shop
1

As an American, I believe in the virtues of our form of democracy. The latest piece from Paul Krugman does a nice job of showing the strain being put on our rule of law by extremists. Flame away. March 29, 2005

OP-ED COLUMNIST What’s Going On?

**By PAUL KRUGMAN **

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/d.gifemocratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it’s also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that “one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Now he and his party, shocked by the public’s negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn’t let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what’s going on in America.

One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents, hasn’t killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that’s going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through “Terri’s law.” But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge’s order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won’t stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward “conscience” or “refusal” legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can’t count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he’s on a mission to bring a “biblical worldview” to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren’t seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association’s statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it’s hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

2

But but but thats from the New York Times which is only just to the left of Pravda!

Mainstram media bias…blah blah blah…Dan Rather…blah blah blah…

3

Does Krugman actually believe this? No chance. He is way too smart for that.

This is the just about the most open, tolerant society in the history of the world. Yet to Krugman, the sky is falling.

Note to Krugman: Spend some time out of your Princeton Ivory Tower and get to learn about the wonderful people who make up this great country.

4

You’re overreacting, Art. I don’t think he says the sky is falling. Nor does deny that we are a tolerant society. In fact, I think that’s part of his point. I’m quite sure he does not deny that the country is filled with wonderful people.

On the other hand, I think he believes everything he says. And with good reason. The examples he cites are not fiction.

5

You don’t think this article says the sky is falling? What about the climate of fear language along with many other constructs along the same vein?

If there is room for the Krugman’s of the world to live in $3,000,000 houses in Princeton, NJ, I think there is hope for an open, tolerant society.

6

When all else fails, make fun of the guy’s credentials and income. Disappointed.

When I read the article, it said there is a disturbing trend developing in which people with extreme views are, more and more, employing strong-arm tactics beyond the scope of our tried and true system of making and enforcing laws to impose their beliefs on others. It then suggests that the moderate folks still in power need to resist this more strongly. All of which I think is true. What article did you read?

7

I didn’t make fun of the guy’s credentials, and I certainly didn’t make fun of his income. He is one bright guy, and I assume he has earned everything he has got. Good for him. I love it when people are successful.

News flash: There are always people with strong views that try to get those views adopted as policy. Krugman makes no historical case whatever that this trend has increased because, of course, the opposite is true.

So long as we have room in this country for an ACLU that defends the rights of the Man Boy Love Association to publish instructions on how to rape young boys, I think we maybe have quite a bit of tolerance in this country. Maybe not in academia as Larry Summers recently found out, but in the real world.

8

“So long as we have room in this country for an ACLU that defends the rights of the Man Boy Love Association to publish instructions on how to rape young boys, I think we maybe have quite a bit of tolerance in this country”

Art, I think you missed the thrust of the article. The whole point was that our tolerance for various beliefs leaves us open to extremists. We are so worried about appearing intolerant, that we are slow to quash even the dangerous groups, or to call them on it when they attempt to push their views on the public regardless of the law.

9

Art, I’m glad you brought up the “Man Boy Love Association.” I was beginning to think you guys didn’t read the news: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/30/scouts.charges/index.html

This article probably deserves its own thread, but I won’t beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say the irony was not lost on me.

10

The article was about a climate of fear. Some phrases used to jolt the reader:

threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy

where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion

One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear

the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation

many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs

expose doctors to pressure and intimidation

Again, there is no effort to do a historical comparison. All of these things could be said of any country and of any time in worse terms than modern America.

11

No Art, the article was about how democratic societies like ours are in danger of allowing dangerous groups to develop because of a fear of standing up to them and being accused of intolerance. Just read the first paragraph:

“Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself”

12

Quote: We are so worried about appearing intolerant, that we are slow to quash even the dangerous groups, or to call them on it when they attempt to push their views on the public regardless of the law.

Almost, but you left out the key factor. People with extreme views only become a problem when they ignore our existing process for making and enforcing laws. Like Jeb trying to send in the troops to the hospice, or that yahoo judge from Alabama who refused to comply with the federal court rulings.

13

Yes, he puts the thought at the start of the article, but then never develops it. Very poor writing actually, now that you mention it. He presents the thesis sentence, then never develops the purported thesis.

He doesn’t argue for being less openly tolerant for example. He can’t. He is a liberal writing for the NY Times, but then I repeat myself.

Somehow, democracy survived when Jeb analysed his legal situation and the Judge was forced to obey the higher authority. Pardon me, I don’t see much of a threat here. It seems like the system worked exactly as designed.

14

“Somehow, democracy survived when Jeb analysed his legal situation and the Judge was forced to obey the higher authority. Pardon me, I don’t see much of a threat here. It seems like the system worked exactly as designed”

So does he. He isn’t claiming that we’re living in a world of fear. Which is why he ended with this sentence:

“America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.”

It’s just a warning. He’s pointing out a potential weakness of democracy.

15

He is claiming exactly that. He is claiming that basically those that disagree with him are dangerous radicals that you must fear. That is the underlying message.

Your quoted passage is the perfect example. The operative word is yet.

Note he makes not one justification that there is a “growing power of domestic extremists.” By that term he seems to mean Senators who want judicial fillibusters stopped for example. He means Jeb Bush. He means Randall Terry, the attorney for the Schindlers. He means Tom Delay. He means Congress for passing a bill overwhelmingly.

Yes, we should all live in fear of extremists that want to change fillibuster rules or we will no doubt soon be fearing political assassination.

Puh-leze. Krugman doesn’t believe any of this. He is way too smart for that, but he figures his readers are not.

16

He doesn’t argue for being less openly tolerant for example.

No, he argues that the moderates should be more emboldened against the extremists, just as slowguy said.

He is a liberal writing for the NY Times, but then I repeat myself.

Uh-oh, the “L” word. Next you will call him “Elite.” I don’t trust them college boys.

Somehow, democracy survived when Jeb analysed his legal situation and the Judge was forced to obey the higher authority. Pardon me, I don’t see much of a threat here. It seems like the system worked exactly as designed.

I’m not predicting the demise of democracy, but your expectations are surprisingly low. I prefer my governors and state supreme court judges to obey federal court rulings in the first instance. You’re more of a no harm, no foul type of guy, I guess. Seems like as long as it doesn’t involve sex or a democrat, conservatives aren’t bothered by scandalous behavior by public officials.

17

“He is claiming that basically those that disagree with him are dangerous radicals that you must fear”

Art, you are reading way too much into this article. He’s only saying that we need to understand the potential for allowing extremists to walk all over the law in the name of tolerating others viewpoints.

Considering the fact that a 250,000dollar bounty was taken on Michael Schiavo’s head, and several death threats were made against the judges in that case, I think he’s right to be concerned. His concern is that, instead of accepting the fact that the Schiavo case was decided within the laws of the state of FL, those on the religious right who were against allowing her to die were perfectly willing to flaunt the law in order to get what they want. they were willing to call for Jeb Bush to step down when he said he had no more legal recourse. They were willing to attempt to run into the hospice past police. They were calling for the executive and legislative branches to stomp all over the jurisdiction of the courts, because the law didn’t support their point of view.

18

The governor did obey the courts in the first instance. Whether he had to or not is an interesting question, since he is a coequal branch of government, but I digress.

One judge went over the edge as an occasional judge or other human will do. He was dealt with appropriately. Why the big deal? It is not like the monument was a threat to anyone, and it was disposed of with dispatch. Pardon me if it doesn’t inspire me to fear political assassination as Krugman would want me to so fear.

Krugman just can’t come to grips with the fact that this country just keeps getting better and better every day. The sky is always falling. Besides, if it isn’t, no one will read his articles.

Now there is an interesting constuction. “Moderates should be emboldened.” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? I don’t remember ever seeing an emboldened moderate, do you?

19

People in the middle of a hotly debated public issue always encounter these problems. Again, no showing by Krugman that any of these developments are new. Sounds like the same old, same old to me.

I don’t like the scene outside the hospice, but it all looks like well behaved civil disobedience to me. Arrest those that step over the line. Release them when they have calmed down. Drop the case. Nothing new here.

Extremists by Krugman’s definition are clearly those who disagree with him. Thus, those trying to change an internal Senate rule are extremists. When Byrd did it four times years ago, that was moderate.

20

**The governor did obey the courts in the first instance. Whether he had to or not is an interesting question, since he is a coequal branch of government, but I digress. **

Not only do you digress. You’re just dead wrong.

“Moderates should be emboldened.” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? I don’t remember ever seeing an emboldened moderate, do you?

You’re right. You don’t see too many of them. There’s no reason, though, why someone couldn’t have middle-of-the road substantive views and a fiery persona. Well, I sort of think of Howard Dean this way, but you probably think of him as a commie.

A true contradiction in terms is “extreme conservative.” On the other hand, there are many “extreme Conservatives.” Subtle, but important difference.