Cogitamus

Ruth Marcus, High Priestess of Bothsidesdoitism

The Bothsidesdoitist faith isn't technically a religion, but it might as well be: it's the belief system that the Village pundits and opinionators all subscribe to.  As its name suggests, its guiding tenet is that, whatever it is, Both Sides Do It.  

If one party is unprincipled, has policy proposals largely unmoored from reality, only recognizes what the scientists are telling us if it happens to fit with its ideology, or is outright crazy, then the same must be equally true of the other party.

The cool thing about this, from the Republican point of view, is that no matter how great their separation from reality, the mainstream media will never call them on it, because of the MSM's adherence to the tenets of Bothsidesdoitism: those tenets stipulate that the Dems must be equally unhinged, so the GOP can't be singled out.

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

So that brings us to Ruth Marcus' latest column.

As Ed Kilgore summarizes, "Think about what that opposition has said and done on the Iran deal: they invited a foreign head-of-government to attack it in the U.S. Congress while negotiations were still ongoing; they denounced it as treason before they had even read its terms; and now the presidential candidates among them are swearing they will abrogate it at the very first opportunity."

Yet it is Obama who Marcus says is "embittered and unfair over Iran."  And this is despite the fact that Marcus agrees that this is not only a good deal, but a necessary deal with no good alternative.

How the hell does Obama come out to be the Bad Guy in all this?  If you put the craziness of the deal's opponents on one side of a scale and the impatience of the President with the deal's opponents on the other, which side of the scale weighs more?  

If you're Ruth Marcus, and you need to make sure everything works out that Both Sides are equally irresponsible, it's apparently the President.

Being a religious sort myself, and being aware that Marcus purports to be Jewish in addition to Bothsidesdoitist, I'll close this post with a reading from the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy:

"Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly."

Like the song from Godspell says, first you've gotta read 'em, then you've gotta heed 'em. 

Constitutional Amendments We Need (3): Voting Rights

"Article 1. All United States citizens of age 18 or older, not physically incarcerated, and not found mentally incompetent by a court of law, have the right to vote in all elections in the state and locality where they reside.

Article 2. The efforts of governments to ensure that persons not eligible to vote under Article 1 are prevented from voting must not impose obstacles that have the effect of making the exercise of the franchise more difficult for those entitled to vote under Article 1."

Yes, let's go all Founding Fathers and italicize 'effect' for emphasis.  Screw intent: if a law intended (or 'intended') to prevent voter fraud makes it more difficult for persons eligible to vote to vote, then it should get tossed.

Also, this amendment, while not requiring states to allow persons physically in prison or jail to vote, would require that persons out of jail couldn't be prevented from voting due to having served time in prison, or being on parole or probation.  If you're not actually in the pokey on Election Day, you should be able to vote.

Constitutional Amendments We Need (2): Bring Back the ERA, and Include LGBT Rights This Time

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identification."

If the last two words aren't the proper choice of wording to put transgender rights in the Constitution, then substitute better wording.  If this were something that was actually happening, I'd be consulting transgender rights advocates for the ideal wording.  But this is a blog post, so I'm just doing the best I can off the top of my head.

As I said in the previous entry in this series:

Obviously there will be no such amendment anytime soon, but any push for a Constitutional amendment starts off as something aspirational - a way of saying, this is what we're for, this is how things should be.

Then after you've said that for enough years, it either starts to make overwhelming sense to enough people that it becomes possible, or you get to a point where it's clear that it just ain't gonna happen.

So I believe the Dems, or if necessary, a group of more progressive Dems, should start pushing a number of potential amendments to the Constitution.  This is one.

Though actually, I think this one would have a chance if the Dems would push it.  Phyllis Schlafly will go to the grave one of these years, and take her unisex bathrooms with her.  And right now, we're on a wave of increasing acceptance not just of gays, but of transgender persons.  Obama has appointed several openly transgender persons to positions in his administration, going back as far as 2010.  He appointed one just two months ago.  Do you remember the outrage over that?  Me either.  

So maybe we ought to go for broke on this one.  If it becomes the law of the land, then it will be a great day indeed.  And even if it doesn't, it will clarify for people which party is on the side of the angels, and which one is fighting against equal rights for all.