Long-time off-and-on cohort, co-conspirator, and partner-in-crime Morte references a most astounding article from The American Conservative that raises a number of questions regarding the state of the United States’ democracy, as thoughtfully reflected upon in a recent posting. More disturbing, to me, was the following statement by writer Scott McConnell:

There may be, among some neocons and some more populist right-wingers, unmistakable antidemocratic tendencies. But America hasn’t yet experienced organized street violence against dissenters or a state that is willing, in an unambiguous fashion, to jail its critics.

Were there organized street violence against dissenters, as opposed to the disorganized but eerily-public vandalism of protesters’ property, it would already be too late for this discussion. Waiting for an American Kristallnacht isn’t adequate. By then our only recourse will be armed revolt, and history will forever reflect that, at least for a time, the American experiment failed utterly. This is especially true in light of the widespread complacency amongst major news outlets, who would rather chase after ratings with high-profile but politically insignificant criminal proceedings instead of working towards fostering an informed citizenry.

Discussion and deliberation of the merits of public policy must be constant and honest. This is the individual responsibility of everybody that values democratic principles just as it is the individual responsibility of every good muslim to wage a defensive jihad.

It has come to my attention repeatedly that by providing anchor chairs to partisan wonks such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity that Fox News has some problems with maintaining even a passing appearance of being fair or balanced in regards to political issues. Somebody like Brit Hume, the straight-man of Fox News lending a much less shrill neo-con flavor to the Fox lineup, should be above this sort of thing:

…it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, ‘Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,’ adding that government funding, ‘ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.’

This is a gross distortion of the facts. It’s a gross distortion of rather easily-checked facts, as the United States of America has a long and distinguished record of keeping track of just about every little thing a sitting President has to say about just about anything. Here’s what Roosevelt actually had to say, context included:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

There are three possibilities I can think of for why Brit Hume said what he did that I can think of:

1. Brit Hume is not a journalist, as purported in his official Fox News Bio, and was reading the teleprompter without any prior preparation or though processes
2. Brit Hume was involved on at least a cursory level with the preparation of this report, but lacked the intellectual capacity to recognize FDR‘s careful use of the terms “pension” as opposed to “annuity,” or did not understand what these terms mean, or was otherwise incapable of recognizing his error
3. Brit Hume intentionally manipulated the 1935 quote to fit some agenda, likely that of encouraging Social Security privatization

In the first case, this is a problem that can be solved by simply redacting his bio; he isn’t a journalist, he’s just a talking head. In the second case, he should be fired; incompetence of this magnitude is inexcusable when fulfilling as important a role in informing this nation’s electorate. In the third case, Fox should extend a public apology in prime time, and Hume should commit seppuku; there is honor in death.

Today something that shouldn’t be unusual or unexpected happened. It should be a normal, expected, and predictable response to what some consider to be a weakening of the principles of self-governance that the United States of America were ostensibly founded upon. Today a single US Senator objected to the acceptance of a slate of electoral votes from a state that suffered a broad variety of rather severe voting irregularities. A single Senator had the nerve to show the appearance of standing up for democratic principle in resistance to the systematic disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. I don’t think anybody actually believes that the objection to Ohio’s 20 electors will actually change who will have to mow the big green lawn at the White House this spring, but at least there will be a footnote in future history books showing that somebody thought things were fishy.

It is unfortunate that even making a minor procedural stand for voters’ rights is being viewed by 99 out of 100 Senators as political suicide. Thank you, Barbara Boxer, for not embarrassing your constituency today, unlike our other Senator, who apparently could not be bothered.

CNN Article: Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes
Fox News Article: Lawmakers Dispute Electoral College Results
Fox News Archive: Raw Data: Boxer Letter
MSNBC Article: Congress debates Ohio, then to certify Bush win