A Byrd in the hand

Sometimes these things are so overblown so quickly that I lose the energy to refute them. Some would say I shouldn't bother. They would argue that the right doesn't listen to logic, and that these kind of posts are pointless. I disagree, often getting reasonable comments from both sides of the political struggle. I hope that will continue.

What is it that weighs me down today? This post from Capitan Ed, trackbacked numerous times and causing an explosion on the blogs that claims Robert Byrd, Senator from West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and "compare[d] Republicans to Nazis."

This, in fact, did not happen. Byrd did give a speech on the senate floor, and he does have it posted on his website (like every other speech he seems to have given). But this speech, upon my reading, does not equate Republicanism with Nazism, and does not, as Ed claims, imply death camps and genocide toward political enemies.

There is that old saying that goes "those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it." Byrd's speech provides a history lesson for us all, one that he borrows (and attributes, by the way) from the works of Historian Allan Bullock. Byrd quotes mostly from Bullock to remind whoever will listen the during Hitler's rise to power he subverted existing law to get it on his side through majority rule. Byrd then warns that he can see a similarity in the current attempt to overturn the filibuster on judicial nominees in the Senate.

Now he does not declare that Republicans are using Nazi Germany as a blueprint for America, or that the GOP will soon have us goosestepping down Main Street anytime soon. Instead, he provides Bullock's words as a warning to all those who read or hear his them.

You should note, too, that it is not the people Byrd is speaking out against, but the action itself. Anyone who attempts to subvert the filibuster is addressed here, whether they are Republican or Democrat (or Independent, Jim Jeffords).

I also want to point out there have been numerous instances where folks on the right have compared folks on the left to different roles in Nazi Germany. These moments apparently deserved no outcry from the right.

Ed later seems outraged that the left has ignored the words of Byrd, and claims they are attempting to overblow a statement made by U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons as their defense. Gibbons, Ed shrugs, called Democrats "tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals" for opposing the war in Iraq.

However, he smartly leaves out the part generating complaints:

[Gibbons] said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.

"I say it's just too damn bad we didn't buy them a ticket," Gibbons said.

Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause.

Nice, huh?

Here's where all this has left me - I've become disenchanted with blogging. While I thought I would find an open exchange of ideas and discourse, instead I have discovered mostly partisan hackery. Note that the outrage on the right is that Byrd had the audacity to quote from history on order to teach us about past abuses in power. The right so far doesn't deny anything Byrd says, they simply are offended that anyone would suggest it.

Blogs are not going to be the great salvation of the media. They contain a bias that one cannot escape, and this story makes that clear. Captain Ed and his followers are screaming about how offended they are, while over at Kos they cheer Byrd on for in their view calling it like it is. Rather than the sides sitting down and parsing a middle ground which would no doubt help improve the state of the nation, each side withdraws further into their shell and becomes feral, lashing out at any who enter their lair.

There is more than partisanship at stake in this country today. There are ideas, hopes, and dreams on the line - not Republican dreams or Democrat dreams, but American dreams. We should be moving forward, not stuck in the mud while each side argues that their plan will get us moving faster - all the while sinking deeper and deeper into the mud.

Perhaps the problem is simply solved by ignoring those that scream the loudest. Those shouting at the wind seldom have much worth listening to anyway. They scream in order to scream, and were the world a perfect place for them they could still find things to get angry about. So I'm openly listening to recommendations on level-headed right wing blogs. Please leave one or two in the comment section below.

But back to the matter at hand. For those interested in the use of the filibuster and the need for cloture in the history of the Senate confirmation process, go here. The summary is a worthwhile read and provides this gem of a quote from Republican Senator Bob Smith:

I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone down before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true.

And I find myself agreeing with this from George Will:

[T]he Senate is not obligated to jettison one of its defining characteristics, permissiveness regarding extended debate, in order to pander to the perception that the presidency is the sun around which all else in American government - even American life - orbits. . . . Democracy is trivialized when reduced to simple majoritarianism - government by adding machine. A mature, nuanced democracy makes provision for respecting not mere numbers but also intensity of feeling.

That's a couple of Republicans defending the right to filibuster, one specifically referring to judges in the Senate. But for now, the right feels it's best to ignore the more levelheaded and listen to those shouting in the breeze instead.