If one stays away from the sweeping condemnations on far Right blogs directed at the Obama administration, what happened in Honduras is what it looks like to many people. Slightly complicated and some seemingly small details make a big difference. It is one of those situations which lend itself to lesser and greater evils then moral absolutes. I admit to a cultural and political bias having grown up in a country, that while it has its problems with a political party that cannot differentiate between patriotism and ultra-nationalism, there is a general consensus in the U.S. that a military take over of the government is a nightmare, an assault on democracy, regardless of intentions – rent the DVD of John Frankenheimer’s classic Seven Days in May(1964). A ‘coup’ in Honduras? Nonsense. – Don’t believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution. (Octavio Sánchez on the Honduras constitution)
[ ]…Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”
[ ]…The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution.
I’m somewhat repeating what I wrote in a previous post when I say that Obama seems to be looking at the situation in Honduras through the lens of American culture and history – something the Right in its criticism fails to even notice, much less acknowledge. That same culture does not apply perfectly to Honduras. In a situation where there were not a lot of options lift for the Honduras Congress, courts and the military the results seem to have not just been convenient, but legally justifiable. The U.S. should be happy that Honduras has sent a signal and set an example for Latin America, the law was more important then one president who seemed to have put his ego before his country.
The National Review’s Jim Geraghty has pulled at that battered violin that Republicans have worn out in raging fits of hypocrisy to point out the reasons liberals purportedly hate some Republican – in this case, poor Sarah Palin, OH CRAP, NOT THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN
Yeah, right. We liberals hate people in long-term, happy traditional marriages who have kids. That’s why we utterly despise Barack and Michelle Obama. That’s why we worship the likes of Ann Coulter (unmarried, childless), Rush Limbaugh (thrice divorced, childless), Rudy Giuliani (thrice married, barely speaking to his son), and Mark Foley (pedophile sexual harasser) — these people have non-traditional lifestyles and we adore them for it. We can’t say enough good things about them!
One can only guess that when Palin was criss crossing the coutry implying that Senator Obama was a terrorist and cheered on by crowds, that was not hate, but some warped form of civil debate and mutual respect. Non-Palin worshipers, unlike Geraghty and Bill Kristol do not seem to understand, or more likely its inconvenient for them to acknowledge, there are some honest political differences between Palin and mainstream America. Her politics are abhorrent, she’s less corrupt then some other Republicans in Alaska’s long history of corrupt conservatives, but she is corrupt, politically and morally. She has a history of petty vindictiveness and crony patronage that reflects a mind and character ill suited to be a governor, much less presidential material. The National Review and her other defenders do not want to deal with those serious issues head on, instead they would very much like the debate about Palin to remain at the grade school playground level where its all about the cult of personalty.