Senate 2006: Map

Earth Day

Today is a good day to reflect on the global warming debate. I am still shocked to see some conservative commentators and bloggers to be arguing that global warming doesn't exist, or worse that it is a deliberate hoax. I was glad to see this week that Mother Jones magazine has run an article explaning why this "debate" still exists. It turns out that one oil company, ExxonMobil, has funded the entire "global warming dosen't exist" enterprise. Every scientist. Every paper. Funded with Exxon money. This wasn't too much of a shock to me, but it does indeed boggle the mind that some people actually buy into this "science", when it is so obviously perverted to serve the needs of the oil industry.

The Italian Victory

Of the European governments who supported George Bush's war in Iraq, Italy was second only to the United Kingdom in backing up its support with real commitments of troops and supplies on the ground. This position did not endear Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to the Italian people, and they showed their displeasure earlier this month at regional elections. Berlusconi's conservative coalition was massacred, loosing control of six of the eight regions they governed, and taking none from the center-left opposition. The losses were so massive that a party in Berlusconi's coalition withdrew its support for his government, forcing his resignation. Mr. Berlusconi is now trying to hobble together a new government, hoping to make it last until the next elections are due in 2006. However if he fails to do so, elections could be called in the coming months, with victory for the left assured. Either way Berlusconi's days of dominating the political agenda in Italy are over.

The fall of Berlusconi is a great victory for democracy and justice. Italy's richest man, Mr. Berlusconi bought his way into the premiership. As prime minister he controlled nearly all the media outlets in Italy, controlling the state-owned stations through his premiership and most of the privately owned ones through his own investments. He abused this massive power for political gain. He was often charged with corruption, and was only let off the hook because of a special law his government passed to prevent his case from going to trial. His support for Bush's failed foreign policy was unwavering. The first Italian troops to die in combat since the Second World War died over his decision to send them to Iraq. There was something chillingly autocratic about him. The Economist magazine even called to resign years ago, a suggestion he took as an invitation to sue the respected British newsweekly. He was in coalition with the descendant to Italy's fascist party.

All over Europe rightist and authoritarian governments are falling. Spain and Ukraine offer the latest examples. Another victory for the left in Italy and another crushing defeat for the right in Britain, two of the EU's "big four", would signal the beginning of the end for conservatism in Europe.

The Activist Judges

Conservatives don't like it when things don't go their way. Case in point is conservative anger over the so called "activist" judiciary. Conservatives argue that judicial decisions they don't agree with, such as Roe v. Wade, are poorly constructed because they are not written by "strict constructionists", judges who only interpret the exact wording of the constitution, and do not adapt it to new circumstances.

There are two things wrong with this argument. The First is that the adaptation of constitutional principles, even those not specifically enumerated in the constitution, is essential. The framers of the constitution had no concept of such issues as medically safe abortions, wiretapping, "enemy combatants", or desegregated public schools. These things simply did not exist at the time the constitution was written, thus the fact that the constitution makes no mention of something such as abortion does not prove the framers intended to deny citizens the right to have one. In order to remain relevant, the constitution must adapt.

The second fallacy of the conservative argument is to claim that judicial decisions that adapt the constitution to new circumstances always favor liberal ideals. The constitution says nothing about corporate personhood, yet the Supreme Court arbitrarily declared that corporations are legal persons, protected by the constitution. The constitution says nothing about the right of an employer to pay their workers whatever they want, yet for decades the Supreme Court ruled that the federal minimum wage was unconstitutional because it denied employers this "constitutional" right. The constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the authority to decide a disputed presidential election, and yet that is precisely what they did in Bush v. Gore. I didn't hear any conservatives complaining then.

The fact is that when conservatives disagree with court rulings, they attack the court's integrity. When the agree with court rulings, they are silent on the matter. Its a blatant case of hypocrisy, but their massive media machine has made the myth of the "activist judiciary" so powerful, even the average layperson is now inclined to agree that the courts are "out of control". This is a very dangerous state of affairs, threatening the separation of powers. In fact some are threatening more than that, with a Republican United States Senator recently making veiled threats on the lives of judges on the Senate floor. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Republicans have been able to make the judges an issue. Fortunately for Democrats, the debate of the judiciary is an easy one to win, for the conservative's hypocrisies are so glaring. All we need to do is engage in the debate.

More To Explore:
NYT Op/ED

The Western Agenda

The mainstream media is now touting what many western Democrats have been saying for years, that the future of the Democratic party lies to the West of the Mississippi. A very good recent article in the L.A. Times highlights the Democrats efforts to make inroads in the West

British Elections

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced today that he will ask the Queen to hold parliamentary elections on May 5th. This will be an extraordinary election, the first time Tony Blair's Labour Party will face the polls after its unpopular decision to take the UK to war in Iraq.

Traditionally the Labour Party has been the "left" in British politics, corresponding to the Democratic party in the US, and the Conservative Party has been the "right", corresponding to the Republican party in the US. As the Iraq war illustrates, however, the Labour party has moved right in recent years becoming more centrist than anything else. The space on the left is now being occupied by the Liberal Democrats, a free-market, pro-environment, pro-civil liberties party led by the Scottish Charles Kennedy. Many on the left who are disaffected with Labour's drift to the right are thinking about voting LibDem this time around.

Although Labour is almost guaranteed to win the election,(due to the perverse voting system Britain uses) the real fight is for second place. If the LibDems can garner enough support they may overtake the Conservatives as the primary opposition party to Labour. The Labour party has unfortunately left its roots as the defender of workers and enemy to imperialism. It now has made the dangerous mistake of sending British soldiers to Iraq and has bungled badly on terrorism where its scaremongering and blatant disrespect for civil liberties show that it is a party badly in need of a kicking. The United Kingdom has no written constitution to guarantee the rights of individuals, as we do in the United States. Of the three parties going to the polls on May 5th only the Liberal Democrats oppose the Labour government's efforts to undermine civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. For this reason alone, they deserve the support of progressives, liberals, and Democrats on this side of the Atlantic.


There is another important reason why the LibDems should receive our support. The Liberal Democrats overtaking the Conservatives may permanently shift British politics to the Left, following a trend around the globe where several important nations, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Canada, and Mexico have elected strong left-wing governments with very weak Conservative opposition. Indeed in many nations conservatism itself is dying. Right wing parties in most European nations now have positions that correspond to the Democrats' here in the US, and even then they are often in the minority. In Latin America the only right wing leader of note oversees a nation undergoing a civil war. In Asia, both Taiwan and South Korea have recently ousted their rightist authoritarian parties that governed them in the decades of dictatorship. In the developed world, only Australia and the United States seem to have truly Conservative governments, and Australia's is almost wholly supported by the Australian economy which has grown at an unbelievably fast rate in recent years.

Supporting the Liberal Democrats in this election will force the Labour government to take its commitment to liberal ideals seriously, and may spell the end for the party of harsh conservatism and Margaret Thatcher. Current polls have Tony Blair's Labour Party leading with 37% of the vote, Michael Howard's Conservatives trailing narrowly at 34%, and Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats behind with 21 % (with smaller parties totaling 8%). Although this looks bad for Labour, because of the way Britian elects its MP's, Labour is likely to retain a substantial majority despite coming almost even in the polls. The conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Democrats will rise to the polls after the start of the official campaign season, becasue their charismatic leader shines in the spotlight. Let's hope that happens.