Skip to main content

View Diary: A point that should have been raised in DOMA arguments today (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is helpful to remember that the Cons almost (0+ / 0-)

    always have ulterior motives. Their issues are almost never about what they seem to be about. So, in this case, whether married persons are entitled to equal treatment, regardless of the gender of the partners, is really a subterfuge for the Congressional prerogative to distribute benefits and rights and penalties in the interest of promoting the longevity of incumbents in office. Can Congress allocate resources to advantage special interests and constituencies, or not? That is the question.

    In the case of matrimonial benefits and rights, the Congress employed its legislative powers to "reward" a particular religious perspective by depriving individuals, who are out of compliance with that religious perspective, of material benefits extended to those who comply.

    Congress has become particularly adept at showing favoritism to particular constituencies by visiting deprivation on the opponents of those constituencies. Depriving labor unions of standing in the courts is another example of Congress showing favoritism indirectly to corporations from whose coffers they expect campaign contributions.

    Congress has turned "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" around to read, "the enemy of my friend is my enemy" in the interest of incumbency.
    Showing favoritism by imposing deprivation is, of course, not a new tactic. It's what the 3/5 compromise did in depriving one population of human rights and providing property owners with additional political influence. Assigning costs to one party and benefits to another has a long tradition.

    Perhaps the binary model leads to this pattern, which is essentially triangular, being overlooked. Perhaps it is a matter of the action taking place in the space where the two parts intersect/interact -- the nexus or, if we're considering the economy, the market or venue of the middlemen.

    If Congress can't discriminate in the interest of securing the tenure of its members, then that's a serious blow to the Cons. Authority would have to be based on competence, rather than the power to distribute punishments and rewards. Moreover, if no population can be singled out to serve as an example, then deprivation will have to be enforced across the board. Which, of course, is what the sequester is about. The electorate has misbehaved (how else to categorize 160 freshmen in the House in two elections?) and must be punished until behavior improves.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:43:48 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site