The post 9/11 world has re-acquainted us with the truly unfortunate reality of American politics. The lowest common denominator wins out nearly every time. It's been this way for decades.

Back in the 1960's, when the biggest issue in American politics was the civil rights legislation pending in Congress, it was easy for conservative politicians of both major political parties to oppose equal rights for all. They knew that racism was rampant in American society and that the best way to win votes was to bash racial minorities. A book revew his month in the New York Review of Books reprints two quotations from prominent conservatives during the 1960's. One politician, who later went on to become President, said of the fair housing laws:

"If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."

Ronald Reagan said that in the context of promising to repeal the fair housing laws as he ran for governor of California. It's impossible to imagine any American politician saying anything like this today.

Another prominent conservative, William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review, made a similar comment at the time:

"The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal— is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

In other words, according to the father of modern conservativism, whites have the right to suppress the advancement of blacks in order to maintain their control over American society, simply because whites are "the advanced race."

Again, its impossible to imagine any prominent conservative saying this and being taken seriously. Buckley is not like the flame-throwing right wingers of the new millenium, who make outrageous statements for the sake of selling books and television and radio ratings. He's regarded as a "reasonable" conservative. I doubt he feels that way about blacks today, but that he could make the above statement back then without any public outrage tells us a lot about the supposedly progressive 1960's.

There are fewer racists in American society today than during the 1960's. Instead, there are new outrages that pass for respectible public comment and which do not destroy political careers. There are new ways to peddle fear, and 9/11 provided American politicians all the cover they need.

Waterboarding is one of those words that's new to everyone; no one talked about waterboarding 10 years ago. We know about it now because its shorthand for the Bush administration's terror policies: fight terror with more terror. But what does waterboarding look like? Click here to see what waterboarding looks like.

Waterboarding is simulated drowning. The point is that the guy being waterboarded will tell all to avoid drowning. He'll tell us about the next terror attack, or where bin Ladin is hiding. Except that experts tell us that torture does not work. It creates false leads that waste resources as specialists try to confirm the prisoner's confession. It also creates blowback. We torture them, they torture our brothers and sisters in Iraq and elsewhere. Torture may sound good if you're angry about international terrorism. But it probably doesn't work. And anyone familiar with the months prior to 9/11 knows that old-fashioned detective work and administrative competence could have derailed the plot.

There is no question that waterboarding is torture. In a more enlightened time, students of history will wonder why we allowed politicians to endorse waterboarding or, at the least, refuse to rule it out. Not today. These days, a Republican candidate for President has to either endorse or remain neutral on waterboarding in order to satisfy the red-meat conservatives who think the Democrats are "weak on terror" traitors. No one ever won elected office in defending the rights of political and racial minorities. The Republicans cannot win over the faithful unless they pander to the lowest common denominator. According to the New York Times:

In recent weeks, three candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred D. Thompson, have embraced some of the more controversial policies on the treatment of those suspected of supporting terrorism, backing harsh interrogation methods and refusing to rule out the use of waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, on detainees.

The above link from Current TV shows what waterboarding is like. The prisoner will say anything to stop the torture. Waterboarding also makes mice out of men. The current nominee for Attorney General, a respected former Federal judge, Michael Mukasey, simply cannot bring himself to condemn waterboarding. It's nice to see that even some Republican Senators are aghast at Mukasey's refusal to condemn waterboarding, but it's not going to matter. The Republicans have the votes in the Senate to confirm Mukasey as Attorney General. Shocking as it was to have an outright racist like Ronald Reagan serve as governor of California during the 1960's and become President in 1980, future generations will wonder how a guy like Mukasey became Attorney General even after refusing to condemn a tactic deemed illegal under international law.