A Progressive on the Prairie

It shouldn't be surprising given the political climate in this state, but South Dakota now has its own Constitution Party. I learned all I really want to know from the national organization's mission statement. One of its main goals is to "restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations." Gee, I don't remember there being a hornbook on Biblical common law in law school. Oh that's right. That's the problem with this country.

If that isn't enough to scare you away, here is their claim as to what distinguishes them from the other political parties in this country:

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-second amendment, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism.

The sad thing is that while they claim to have 300 members, under that criteria most of this state's legislature and statewide Republican candidates/officeholders would qualify as members.
0 comments

What is it about Minnesota? It gave Dennis Kucinich his best showing in the primary season. I am right next door and guarantee you Kucinich would be lucky to be even a small blip in a primary here (as he was in many other states). Someone explain how it is that Minnesota comes from about the same type of ethnic stock and background yet can give Kucinich his due and put someone like the late Paul Wellstone in the Senate.

Truth be told, I am/was like probably far too many. I loved Kucinich's ideas but believed him unelectable. At the same time, I thought that while somewhat overstated Matt Taibbi's comment in the New York Press was very valid:

I will never forgive America for what Dennis Kucinich went through this year. Because he has had the audacity to call for an end to all wars, to announce plans for the creation of a Department of Peace, to question the very culture of viciousness and intolerance and crass commercialism that rules our public discourse, he has been labeled a lunatic by nearly every "responsible" press organ in this country and cruelly mocked to a degree that no civil society should allow an honorable man to endure.

* * *
I am a Dennis Kucinich supporter because I believe America’s greatest problem is its incivility, its intolerance to new ideas, its remorseless hatred of weakness and failure, the willingness of its individual citizens to submerge their individual cowardice within the vicious commerce-driven standards of our national self-image. George Bush is a terrible president, but he is merely a by-product of these wider national tendencies, which exist outside of him and independently of him. And these tendencies are symbolized exactly in the laughter directed at Dennis Kucinich. To vote for Dennis Kucinich, I believe, is to vote for man’s right to publicly be who he is and not be ridiculed for it. If we are peaceful people, it is a vote for our right to merely be who we are.

(Via Cursor). While I don't know that incivility is our "greatest" problem, there's no doubt Dennis Kucinich's vision of America is a far better one than Bush's. Of course, agreeing with Taibbi just indicates I retain some glimmer of altruism not yet totally crushed by modern American politics.
0 comments

Since I'm again touching on the gay marriage issue, I wanted to note the excellent column by Paul Starr in the most recent issue of The American Prospect. He makes a point that's been percolating in my mind. What, if anything, is the significance of using the term "marriage," particularly if you can get state law to provide that a civil union or whatever other term is used creates the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities?

I realize I can easily be classifed as out of touch on this issue. But it certainly seems a focus on the word marriage helps the right galvanize those who might otherwise be more supportive on this issue?
0 comments

Showing just what wide-ranging impact this blog is beginning to have, Kos is now recognizing my argument below regarding Stephanie Herseth and the gay marriage issue. Okay, he's actually following Ben Hanten's suggestion and has probably never heard of, let alone read, this blog. Just remember, if you happen to be one of the miniscule number of people who stumbled across this site, you read it here first.
0 comments