Notes on the Atrocities
Like a 100-watt radio station, broadcasting to the dozens...

Friday, July 18, 2003  

Over on the Oregon blog, I was posting a response to a reader who said I was all wet in my definition of "neo-conservative." But that's not why I'm writing. While I was wandering way off point (the only virtue of which is that Holden Caulfield defends the practice), I happened to say something I think might actually be true. I thought I'd roll it out here and see what you big brained folk think.

I made the bold claim that every piece of legislation the President has proposed or avidly supported is motivated by one (or more) of five goals. These can, I spose, be stand-ins for neo-conservative national policy, but that's a different debate altogether (feel free to pursue it). They are:

1.) To strengthen corporate power relative to government oversight (or the reverse; weakening government to benefit corporations;

2.) To reallocate federal funds so that they go to the wealthy;

3) To strengthen the position of the executive branch relative to the judicial and legislative within the federal government;

4) To reduce individuals' rights as citizens;

5) To enforce a Christian moral agenda.*

(I wrote a parenthetical following this bold pronouncement, which I'll include here, because it still applies:

I'm tempted to say that it's limited to the first three; when I first wrote this, that's how I had structured it. Reducing individual rights and enforcing a Christian agenda may merely be fringe benefits to policies whose principal intent is one of the top three. But I'm waffling on that one.)

So there you have it, more analysis about the President. Enough of that movie business. All is right in the universe again: Emma has gone back to her earnest, President-watching ways.

[*Correction: as an astute reader noted, this shouldn't read "Christian moral agenda," but fundamentalist agenda.]

posted by Jeff | 8:14 PM |
Blogroll and Links