One of the most truly extraordinary spectacles to witness is the way in which so many self-proclaimed conservatives have shed their core defining "principles" in order to justify and defend the ever-expanding powers of the Federal Government under the Bush Administration. Throughout the 1990s, conservatism was defined by its fear of expansive powers seized by the Federal Government -- particularly domestic law enforcement and surveillance powers. Conservatives vigorously opposed every proposal to expand government investigative and surveillance power on the ground that such powers posed intolerable threats to our liberties.
I've tried to make this general point before, citing, for instance, this article from Free Republic decrying the power of the Federal Government to obtain warrants from a secret court (!) called the FISA court, which authorizes the government to actually eavesdrop on American citizens without their knowledge! But if one goes back and actually reads the statements made by leading conservatives throughout the 1990s regarding not just surveillance powers but all matters relating to Federal Government law enforcement powers and the need for vigorous and objective investigations into allegations of government law-breaking, the complete and total reversal of all of their views upon taking over the government is truly mind-boggling. (And, by the way, John Kerry has no character because he apparently changes his mind on issues, which makes him a spineless flip-flopping opportunist).
Here's your trip down memory lane, when conservatives used to pretend that they believed in principles of limited government powers, the need for investigations into law-breaking accusations, and the preference for individual liberty over increased security:
Let us begin with Sen. John Ashcroft, warning in July, 1997 of the profound dangers posed by proposals for the Federal Government to overcome encryption technology in order to enable the Government to monitor international computer communications (justified by the Clinton Administration on the ground that terrorists use such communications and the U.S. government must therefore be able to monitor them):
J. Edgar Hoover would have loved this. The Clinton administration wants government to be able to read international computer communications – financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad – all in the name of national security.
In a proposal that raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, President Clinton wants to give agencies the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications. . . .
Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, he also threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. . . .
Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications.
Those who made such arguments in 1997 were great patriots defending American liberty. Now, anyone who says such things is -- according to Ashcroft himself -- an al Qaeda ally who is working subversively to destroy America.
Next we have Bush supporter Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in the May 8, 2000 edition of National Review on the dangers of federal government "storm troopers," as illustrated by the Elian Gonzales seizure, and specifically protesting the way in which such law enforcement powers are justified by highlighting the difficulties faced by Clinton Administration officials as they struggle with the difficult challenges of exercising power for our own good:
At every step of this drama, we have been invited to ponder how administration officials feel. Network anchors said that the standoff must be "tearing Reno up," given her deep concern for children; her deputy, Eric Holder, told us that he held her as she cried. Afterward, there was endless talk about the patient, compassionate attorney general. The INS agents who did the dirty work were also available to the press. They said they had never encountered such resistance before, citing the couch that had been placed against the door.
Let us hope this administration's mercy is never deployed against us. If that happens, we will be reassured that we are being pummeled and jailed for our own good. Our punishers may be psychiatrists, as Elian's are likely to be. For now, though, the style of government licensed by our carelessness does not touch us. We send a child to suffer tyranny for his own good, and to get him off the evening news. Like Winston Smith, we weep and realize that we love Big Brother.
Is that at all like the way we hear about how George Bush wakes up every day thinking about how to protect Americans and we should therefore be grateful to him for his spying on us as he struggles to defend us? Like Winston Smith, we weep and realize that we love Big Brother.
Then we have Bush follower Kate O'Beirne, expressing outrage in the September 27, 1999 issue of National Review over the inadequacies of the Congressional investigation into allegations of Federal Government abuses of power at Waco. It seems that our democracy is threatened when allegations of abuse of power are made against an Administration, the Administration withholds documents from Congress relating to the controversy, Congress fails to adequately investigate the allegations, and the wrongdoers are left in power with no scrutiny over their actions:
The FBI has returned Washington's attention to Waco by admitting that it used incendiary military devices during its raid on the Branch Davidians. There have been calls for special committees to conduct new investigations into the "cover-up," and conspiracy theorists are enjoying a new respectability. But the charge of a cover-up risks masking the truly important issues raised by the Waco tragedy.
Two House subcommittees held hearings in 1995. On the opening day, Democrat John Conyers declared that there was nothing to warrant the scheduled eight days of hearings. Another Democrat, Tom Lantos--who had presided over no fewer than 27 hearings on a now-forgotten HUD scandal--raised questions only about the gun lobby's interest in the hearings. Other Democrats cared about nothing but allegations that Branch Davidian leader David Koresh had committed child abuse.
For its part, the administration made a show of cooperation, but tried to impede the committees' access to relevant material. Thousands of documents were not made available until the hearings began. The Department of Treasury delivered documents in no apparent order, and provided an index only to the committees' Democrats. . . .
We already know the basic story of Waco, including many of its key details. And that story makes unmistakable what the real scandal is: that Janet Reno, who presided over the whole debacle and has never seriously investigated it or held anyone to account for it, remains the top law- enforcement official in the country.
So, according to O'Beirne, it is just outrageous when Congress refuses to conduct investigations into allegations that Administration officials broke the law, and the scandal is that much worse when the Administration withholds documents relevant to that investigation.
And then we come to Deroy Murdock, writing on April 13, 2001 in National Review Online on the grave dangers to our country from allowing political officials to act in violation of the U.S. Code without so much as an investigation:
[Cato Institute's Timothy] Lynch exposes a maddening culture of impunity in which few officials face serious consequences for violating the law. This double standard, in which federal badges become licenses for lawlessness, typified the Clinton-Reno years. The Bush-Ashcroft team should end this intolerable situation by prosecuting those federal officials who apparently broke the law at Waco and thereby contributed to the injury and deaths of scores of innocent American citizens. . . .
"Because numerous crimes at Waco have gone unpunished," Lynch states, "the people serving in our federal police agencies may well have come to the conclusion that it is permissible to recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people, lie to newspapers, obstruct congressional subpoenas, and give misleading testimony in our courtrooms."
While it is ugly but legal to lie to reporters, these other acts clearly are criminal. Private citizens are jailed for less. Unless "equal justice under law" is a slogan as hollow as a spent bullet casing, federal prosecutors must indict and try the law enforcement officials who, as Timothy Lynch convincingly argues, set the U.S. Code ablaze eight Aprils ago . . . .
Convicted felon and current Bush official Elliot Abrams spoke so very eloquently in the September 27, 1997 issue of National Review of the need in our system of government to have objective oversight and investigation -- not politicized and friendly rubber-stamping from the Justice Department -- when our highest government officials are accused of breaking the law:
For conservatives, Waco is in large part a quis custodiet problem: Who guards the guardians? Whatever faith we may wish to place in the professionals of the FBI, who guards them from error? Who looks over their shoulder? Who punishes their abuses?
This is a problem only in practice, not in theory. In theory, the answer is easy: the professionals of the Department of Justice. Distinguished practitioners of the law who are presidentially appointed to the department work together with Justice's career staff to provide a check on the FBI and other federal law-enforcement agencies. This is critical, because the balance between energetic law enforcement and limits on excessive government power will not be maintained if the Justice Department does not seek vigorously to maintain it.
And then we have Newt Gingrich, who, as reported by the May 11, 1995 issue of Roll Call (not available online), told us how those rugged individualist conservatives in the West and Midwest fear the Federal Government and insist on limiting its intrusion into our lives even if it meant giving up some security. Apparently, fear of the Federal Government is part of the core American character:
When asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about Rep. Helen Chenoweth's (R-Idaho) outrageous proposal to force federal law enforcement agents to check with local sheriffs before making an arrest, Gingrich finally got around to opposing it, but not before cautioning that "Easterners...and people who live in big cities ought to understand that there is, across the West, a genuine sense of fear of the federal government. This is not an extremist position in much of the West."
As a result of the federal assault on the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, and a shoot-out at a white supremacist's cabin in Idaho, Gingrich repeated, "There is in rural America a genuine - and particularly in the West - a genuine fear of the federal government and of Washington, DC . . . .
That was the glorious era when conservatives were fond of claiming that engrained in the American spirit is a fear and distrust of federal government power that the government ignored at its peril. Those who express distrust now over the Federal Government's having unlimited powers to detain and engage in surveillance against American citizens are paranoid, anti-American freaks. Back then, they were the rugged patriots from the salt of the earth. From the Los Angeles Times on May 15, 1995 (not available online):
Shedding an earlier caution, many Republican politicians have been speaking out with increasing boldness to support positions taken by right-wing militia groups.
Even as President Clinton has attacked the groups' claims to patriotism, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and a growing corps of allies from Western states have recently expressed sympathy for some citizens' fears of encroaching government, called for new scrutiny of federal law officers and rejected demands for investigations of the militias themselves.
While none are defending the Oklahoma City bombing or anti-government violence, they are seeking to focus the policy debate stirred by the attack not on the militias but on the government agencies that militia members and their sympathizers consider the enemy. . . .
Last week, Gingrich declared that Westerners have a "genuine fear" of the federal government that Easterners and city dwellers should try to understand. . . . Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) has declared his sympathy for Westerners angry at government, saying: "I don't disagree with their arguments." And Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Ida.) has said plainly that citizens "have a reason to be afraid of their government."
It is not only the most conservative Republicans who have joined the cry for new scrutiny of alleged excesses by federal agents. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the most liberal member of the GOP presidential field and a subcommittee chairman, jousted with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) last week over which one of them would preside at hearings into the federal assaults on the Branch Davidian compound and Weaver's home in Idaho.
Self-identified conservatives spent the 1990s relentlessly claiming to believe in principles of limited federal government power, and insisting that our very democracy and basic protections of individual liberty were gravely endangered by the existence of law enforcement and surveillance powers which are a small fraction of those which have been seized and are now exercised by the Bush Administration. And conservatives then demanded all sorts of sweeping Congressional investigations into every allegation of law-breaking by Administration officials, and depicted any resistance or insufficiently vigorous investigation to constitute a "cover-up" that was simply inconsistent with the rule of law and intolerable in our democracy.
It is the case, of course, that hypocrisy is common and our political discourse is not exactly characterized by great intellectual consistency. But when the contradictions spewed by political figures and pundits are this glaring and complete on matters of such central contemporary importance -- when our country's dominant political movement articulates positions which fundamentally contradict virtually every principle it previously claimed to believe in -- shouldn't they at least be asked about these things and compelled to provide some explanation?
Illustrating the utter corruption and dishonesty of Bush followers, both in the Congress and in the pundit class, is accomplished simply by comparing what they said then to what they say now. Isn't this something which the media ought to be doing much, much more of as Bush followers seek to suppress investigations into every allegation of wrongdoing on the part of our highest government officials?
FRIST!!!!
ReplyDeleteGreat work, Glenn. That Ashcroft passage by itself makes the whole argument. It ought to be read to every single Bush official on every talk show.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most truly extraordinary spectacles to witness is the way in which so many self-proclaimed conservatives have shed their core defining "principles" in order to justify and defend the ever-expanding powers of the Federal Government under the Bush Administration.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else remember the S&L scam? Under the pretense of "smaller, less government regulation" the industry was degregulated and the crooks (including the bush clan) immediately moved in to clean up and stick taxpayers with the bill.
I remember (in 1980's) a republican activist once telling me that "if you want to make a difference, you should join the republicans"
He said this because the party was fairly disorganized, didn't really stand for much. Sure, reagan was a "popular" president, but the party had not yet stolen the southern democrats.
Now I see that he was right... and that the crooks moved in. Guess a vacuum does regress back towards equillibrium.
"The government is the problem, not the solution!" manta is a perfect cover for corruption -- after all, chimpy and gang are really just doing what they promised to do: prove that government CAN be corrupt and full of thieves.
Of course, we all knew this. Expecting the crowd that proclaims to the world how terrible the govenment is to actually give us government that works is.... well, insanity.
Our real problem, however, are the powers that catapulted chimpy and gang to the presidency. They did it by "hook and crook". They did not do it to "uphold the constitution"
They believe it is a "damn piece of paper."
The "beauty" of their scam is that even if we throw chimpy and gang out, they will use the resulting chaos as a distraction and find other fools to do their dirty work.
We need to talk about problems and not the symptoms. Good post, glenn.
It's amazing what winning seven of the past ten presidential elections will do to your view of the proper scope of executive power.
ReplyDeleteHat tip to Lord Acton.
hatred for big brother is soooo pre-911.
ReplyDeleteconservative = hypocrite
ReplyDeleteIt is as simple as that.
Anyone want to bet our resident contrarians won't touch this post (at least not on any substantial point or issue)?
ReplyDeleteBut Glenn, 9/11 changed EVERYTHNG, doncha know, everybody knows that! We're in the never-ending war on terror now, so the old rules don't apply. Besides, all those rugged Westerners who used to be so terrified of the Federal government? They ARE the Federal government now, so it's all OK, see? Helen Chenoweth is surely not afraid of Dick Cheney, is she?
ReplyDeleteI joke only because otherwise I would stick my head in an oven.
It is the case, of course, that hypocrisy is common and our political discourse is not exactly characterized by great intellectual consistency.
ReplyDeleteThat is true, but it doesn’t explain the media negligence in pointing out this hypocrisy – especially when, as you say, it fundamentally contradicts every principle they ever held.
Where are the news clips of Ashcroft’s statement, and why aren’t they being played back to administration officials as reasonable questions are being asked about this program?
I’m sure that if the Republican Party loses power that they will suddenly find their affection for investigations, separation of powers, and the rule of law. That is to be expected, and I understand the reasons for it.
I also believe that will be the case with the media.
Why would that be? Why will the media all of sudden find its spine and remember what journalism is supposed to do when Democrats take power?
That, I don’t completely understand – as a matter of fact, I don’t understand it at all.
Am I the only one who believes that the media will act completely different with the Democrats in power?
This is an exercise in futility.
ReplyDeleteThe left has a long and consistant history of calling FISA unconstitutional.
"The possibility of FISA-sanctioned fishing expeditions was only one of the potential abuses that alarmed legal scholars and people concerned with civil liberties. It's absolutely ripe for abuse, said New York City defense lawyer Ron Kuby. There are hundreds of solidarity groups that American citizens work with, and all of those groups could be targets under FISA. 16 These groups and individuals, engaged in legitimate dissent and solidarity work with the victims of U.S. foreign policy around the world, fear that their First and Fourth Amendment rights will be eroded.
Others worry that under cover of secrecy, the court would exceed even its own broad legal mandate. Clearly the FISA court was strengthened to allow the government to conduct searches they would not be allowed to conduct under the traditional constitutional provisions, said Turley. That means the government could attempt and fail to secure a search warrant under traditional constitutional arguments, then go to the FISA court and convert the case artificially into a national security investigation and secure approval for the very same search."
http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html
I could dig up 50 quotes from liberals during the early days of FISA decrying secret courts and how unconstitutional the process was.
The ultimate in hypocrisy is the left defending FISA, which liberals like Turley have cried for 20 years how it was unconstitutional. Now suddenly, Turley et al are testifying that it is a wonderfully constitutional treasure, that protects us from monarch presidents and how he must be imprisoned because he broke the settled sacred law of the land.
If anyone is hypocritical on this issue, it is the liberal side.
“peachkfc said...
ReplyDeleteBut Glenn, 9/11 changed EVERYTHNG, doncha know, everybody knows that!”
Yes, they do, peachkfc. And that is why no one but the choir pays any attention to posts like this. Might as well by posting quotes from Republican cavalry officers citing the irreplaceable utility of horses in the Great War. Ho-hum, just another strawperson sacrificed for the base. I do have to say that it is an interesting historical analysis; much more interesting and relevant than the horse thing. Mr. Greenwald, got any ideas about what a majority Democratic Congress might do if elected?
I could dig up 50 quotes from liberals during the early days of FISA decrying secret courts and how unconstitutional the process was.
ReplyDeleteFISA was ruled constitutional. It doesn't matter if someone thinks a law is unconstitutional. Until it's declared to be such by the courts, it is the law and has to be obeyed.
There is no hypocrisy or inconsistency whatsoever - none - between the view that certain law is unconstitutional and the view that it has to be obeyed unless it is invalidated by a court. That's what it means to live under the rule of law - we have to abide by the laws we like and the ones we don't like - and in this country, "we" includes the President. At least it used to.
What cannot be reconciled are: (a) the quotes in the post regarding the great threat to liberty posed by federal government powers that are a fraction of those exercised now, and (b) arguments, often made by the same people, that we must give much greater powers to the Bush Administration.
I attended college in Washington DC during the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. I arrived as a arch-conservative and left as a leftist radical. My contact with conservatives then completely disillusioned me.
ReplyDeleteI especially remember running across a description of Republican political ideology: "Any weapon to hand".
Whatever stick was available to beat Democrats with was okay. I note that principle hasn't changed an iota.
You have overlooked the one principle which they still believe: We are the only true Americans because we alone are virtuous and God-fearing patriots; everything we do is good and patriotic just because we're the ones who are doing it. Democrats and other filth will find they have no standing before the Highest Court, so we can brush their quibbles aside.
ReplyDeleteBut Glenn, 9/11 changed EVERYTHNG, doncha know, everybody knows that!”
ReplyDeleteNortherBob: Yes, they do, peachkfc.
I appreciate when Bush followers come out and admit that their fears of terrorism mean that we should radically change our whole system of government and that it has scared them so much that they have actually thrown away all of their "principles" in its name. At least there is an honesty in admitting that and in standing revealed as fear-driven cowards who want to radically change our country because they're scared.
The reason why it's quite unpersuasive, though, is that the proposed power expansions of the 1990s which they opposed were also justified by the need to stop terrorism - domestic terrorism of the type we saw at Oklahama City as well as international terrorism. Conservatives then argued that we shouldn't throw away our liberties in exchange for protection against such threats. Now they say the opposite. No matter how you slice it, that is as unprincipled and hypocritical as it gets.
Great post, Glenn. Too bad the craven Democrats will not stand up and fight.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Glenn. Too bad the craven Democrats will not stand up and fight.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteI got to say, I don't think this post has any real point at all.
"...shouldn't they at least be asked about these things and compelled to provide some explanation?"
To what end? Especially as you say in the immediately FOLLOWING sentence:
"Illustrating the utter corruption and dishonesty of Bush followers, both in the Congress and in the pundit class, is accomplished simply by comparing what they said then to what they say now."
It certainly seems you're looking to ask questions the answers to which you know already. Why bother?
"Isn't this something which the media ought to be doing much, much more of as Bush followers seek to suppress investigations into every allegation of wrongdoing on the part of our highest government officials?"
In what sense "OUGHT" the media be doing this? Isn't exposing the betrayal of principle, which you have already shown to be easy, a much less important task than actually just reporting the facts of the case – e.g. reporting in plain language that the president broke the law, continues to do so, the congress is in the process of abdicating its oversight responsibilities, and the media has (for years) actively participated in what amounts to a conspiracy to misinform the public? The failures of the media are manifold, but isn't the greatest one that they just aren't getting the facts right?
If the media just reported what was going on, the mighty Wurlitzer would break down in a second.
So conservative politicians and pundits are lying sacks of shit. So what? What – other than therapeutic venting of anger - is to be gained by pointing this out over and over and over? One of the more effective means of ideological insulation and reinforcement among conservatives – or at least one of the ways they keep their heads from exploding from the cognitive dissonance - is the whole-cloth dismissal of any view that conflicts with the currently approved one as “Bush hating” or “pre-9/11 mindset” etc. So you aren’t going to be effectively speaking to conservatives by bringing up the principles they once held: they once had a pre 9/11 mindset too, see, and besides you’re obviously a raving Bush-hating moonbat. It’s like a linguistic lobotomy, and it’s a stupid, losing game to even engage them.
Fortunately, most people outside of this ideological bubble can both use google and see the obviously conflict between then and now – which is why they ALREADY believe both that the president broke the law and that it’s a big deal.
So who are you talking to, and why? Usually there’s an element of expert analysis and insight in your posts, but this one is almost totally a waste.
anon admonishes Glenn:
ReplyDeleteSo who are you talking to, and why? Usually there’s an element of expert analysis and insight in your posts, but this one is almost totally a waste.
I could not disagree more strongly. Bush's approval ratings are awful, and there are plenty of small govt, freedom-loving conservatives who should be primed -- given their general disillusionment with Bush -- to remember their actual values.
Those values were not casually held, and never has the moment been better for reminding them of that, especially in light of the NSA illegalities. Glenn's post is, in my view, enirely in keeping with his usual standards of sharp insight and excellent analysis.
I appreciate when Bush followers come out and admit that their fears of terrorism mean that we should radically change our whole system of government and that it has scared them so much that they have actually thrown away all of their "principles" in its name. At least there is an honesty in admitting that and in standing revealed as fear-driven cowards who want to radically change our country because they're scared.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who spent 20 years in the military during the Cold War, when there was reason to be fearful, I find the whole, one little ragtag bunch of terrorist frighten me to death stuff ludicrous.
Wow!!! Great Work.
ReplyDeleteAnother question begging to be asked - why are you now accusing the citizens of Xenophobia as the reason for the port deal collapse?
When only a few weeks ago invited guest speaker Coulter was being
cheered on - as she spewed out her hate speech?
You shoulda said something to insulate yourself against the trite-but-guaranteed rightwing response: "it's not flipflopping, everything changed after 9/11".
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, an excellent article.
Anticipating FR removing the article you linked to, I've printed a pdf of it for posterity...
Bravo, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteEvery Democrat running for office in the next cycle should be cataloging your posts for talking points.
(Maybe someone could automatically podcast to them...).
I'm no more optimistic today than I was yesterday about the future, but just reading your informed posts fills me with a lovely, irrational exuberance.
Thank you.
Déjà vu all over again. I thought I was reading my own quote from 1997. Who knew Ashcroft was so eloquent on the subject of civil liberties? The Eagle Soar(ed) a little too close to the sun, flew off course into hegemony in the Middle East, dragged our civil liberties along with her, contracted the avian flu and died an agonizing death in the halls of Congress. Now a bunch of Senators dressed up in chicken suits, sitting on committees, are pecking at the remaining specks of our Constitution. I’m with Benny Franklin – the turkey should be our national bird; although my personal preference would be Charlie Parker.
ReplyDeletehypatia
ReplyDelete"Those values were not casually held, and never has the moment been better for reminding them of that, especially in light of the NSA illegalities. Glenn's post is, in my view, enirely in keeping with his usual standards of sharp insight and excellent analysis."
I guess i just keep coming back to the fact that this "debunking" is all over the place - not yet in the MSM, but everywhere online - and Glenn's done precisely this kind of post before and, really, did you learn anything new here? Do you, or anyone else, have any more of a plan now?
It doesn't make any sense to me to write repetitave, obvious posts for the benefit of some putative "small government conservative" wandering around the blogosphere hoping to be reminded of their values "especially in light of the NSA illegalities." First off, those people don't exist - though lurkers, feel free to prove me wrong here: it's an open call for open-minded small government conservatives who've discovered that their leaders are hypocrites by virtue of Glenn's post. anyone? oh, and does anyone know any of these people who would be influenced second hand by Glenn's post, say via a heart-to-heart conversation?
Second, this particular post isn't that well done: so X pundit said something that conflicts with what he said later? Sure, I see the hypocrisy and why it's important, but just pointing it out does nothing to either defuse their answers (pre-9/11, bushhating blah blah) or to point out why any of it's important right now. these people are using the foundational documents of our country as toilet paper. so what if they also happen to be hypocrites?
I guess I just have a lot of respect for Glenn and I wish he would leave the easy, obvious work to the more mediocre blogs around.
I guess i just keep coming back to the fact that this "debunking" is all over the place
ReplyDeleteWhere? I never see it. I've seen the point made here and there by a handful of bloggers that the Administration's theories of executive power fundamentally contradict conservative principles, and I've made that point myself, but nowhere near with the prominence that, in my view, it merits.
Glenn's done precisely this kind of post before and, really, did you learn anything new here? Do you, or anyone else, have any more of a plan now?
In the course of doing some research for something else, I came across these quotes. I think they're amazingly enlightening and, particularly the Ashcroft and Gingrich quotes, uniquely effective in demonstrating how fundamentally conservatives have abandoned their core views and adopted the reverse position in order to justify the Administration's policies. I hadn't come across those quotes before. So, having found them, I posted them. Why wouldn't I?
It doesn't make any sense to me to write repetitave, obvious posts for the benefit of some putative "small government conservative" wandering around the blogosphere hoping to be reminded of their values "especially in light of the NSA illegalities."
First off, those people don't exist - though lurkers, feel free to prove me wrong here: it's an open call for open-minded small government conservatives who've discovered that their leaders are hypocrites by virtue of Glenn's post.
That's completely wrong. A substantial portion of the people who read this blog are not liberals and many of them are exactly the type of small-government conservatives you claim don't exist. Sadly, some of the most articulate and principled opposition to the Administration's law-breaking have come from exactly the type of small-government conservatives whom you want to ignore.
I have long thought this issue (meaning issues surrounding the Administration's theories of its own power) transcends partisan divisions and that one of the keys to having it have an impact is demonstrating that opposition to the Administration's law-breaking is not the by-product of liberal ideology but a belief in the basic American principles of our government. The fact that conservative principles as articulated for 4 decades themselves compel opposition to the Administration's conduct is, in my view, extremely significant.
I also think that the more wedges there are implanted between Bush followers and groups which previously supported them, the better. As far as I'm concerned, it can never be argued enough that the Bush Administration is not, in any respect, a conservative administration.
oh, and does anyone know any of these people who would be influenced second hand by Glenn's post, say via a heart-to-heart conversation?
If you think that people are beyond being persuaded and that it's impossible to show someone evidence to cause them to change their mind, then you ought to think that not just this post, but every post ever written, is meaningless. I don't share that view. I think people's minds can be changed and are frequently changed by compiling evidence and asssembling facts and making a rational case that the things they think now are insupportable, sometimes as a result of other things they also believe in.
Great post Glenn.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a diary a year ago, to try and help Democrats win, and the hypocracy of Republicans, was an aspect of which I touched on breifly.
If anyone is interested in reading it...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/
184631/6088
Julian said...
ReplyDeleteI appreciate when Bush followers come out and admit that their fears of terrorism mean that we should radically change our whole system of government and that it has scared them so much that they have actually thrown away all of their "principles" in its name. At least there is an honesty in admitting that and in standing revealed as fear-driven cowards who want to radically change our country because they're scared.
As someone who spent 20 years in the military during the Cold War, when there was reason to be fearful, I find the whole, one little ragtag bunch of terrorist frighten me to death stuff ludicrous.
It is ludicrous. I grew up during the Cold War and vividly remember "duck and cover" drills, where we were taught that when the bomb alert siren went off, we were all to crawl under our little wooden desks and cover our eyes and heads with our arms so the blast wouldn't blind us.We had this, and backyard bomb shelters, and the Cuban Missle Crisis, and the Berlin Wall, and God knows how many other things, and nobody was ever afraid the way these pathetic people are now.
The difference, I think, is that even with all the talk of the bomb during the Cold War, nobody ever really believed that the bomb would drop on us; if it dropped anyplace, it would be on them. This, of course, was incredibly naive. The reality was that not only could the bomb have dropped on us, but the entire world could have been obliterated at any time.
What changed for the Bush followers on 9/11 is that the bomb, so to speak, did drop on us. The fact that the bad guys actually came over here and committed this horrible act on our territory has caused their fear to escalate out of proportion to the current threat and also to morph into a slightly different fear. I think the overriding fear among the Bushies is not the fear of more death and destruction, but the fear of "the other" coming onto our turf. It's as if they think the enemy is massed just out of sight over the hill like the Mongol hordes of old, patiently waiting for us to give them a tiny opening to rush in and take over. As Bush is so fond of saying, that's why we've gotta fight 'em over there, so we don't have to fight 'em over here.
Yes, it's ludicrous, and stupid, and as Glenn said, the Republican about-face is unprincipled and hypocritical. But they genuinely don't see it that way, which is why we and so many others are so frustrated and angry. I thnk Paul Rosenberg's post above about "How They Think" is very enlightening, albeit depressing as well. When you realize that we are dealing with people whose brains function on a completely different system than ours and that they are incabable of entering into a genuinely rational discussion because they are genuinely incapable of rational thought, it does start to feel like the whole endeavor is hopeless. Nevertheless, although I'm a chroninc depressive who's long past any youthful idealism or optimism and is as cynical and miserable about all this shit as they come, I refuse to give up and let Bush and his minions win. It's too damn important.
So, yes, posts like this from Glenn may be preaching to the choir, but Reverend Glenn, keep on preaching. Your congregants need it and I just hope that if we all keep evangelizing, screaming on street corners, if need be (like a lovely lady in Philadelphia I used to know who used to tell passersby that they were all going straght to hell because they hadn't been saved)we will somehow save this country from the grip of that old devil Bush.
OK, enough bad metaphors, and end of rant, for the moment, anyway.
“I appreciate when Bush followers come out and admit that their fears of terrorism... fear-driven cowards who want to radically change our country because they're scared.”
ReplyDeleteI wonder who is on the “Reply” desk this weekend and if Mr. Greenwald is enjoying his day at the beach. Whoever you are: the proper election of a reply to my comment was filed under “What to respond – Voting - No positive reasons for voting for Democrats.” Instead you hit the key for “What to respond – Wingnut says – Everything is different after 9/11”. Or it may have been: “What to respond: “Generic – When you don’t know what else to respond with – Mr. Greenwald’s Post is not relevant to anything important.” Anyway, can you please hit the appropriate key for me? Thank you.:) [sarcasm/humor alert]
Very good article Glenn. It really shows the hypocritic litany from those self-described "conservatives" on the right.
ReplyDeleteBut, it also shows the same for the democatic party. Politicians seem to easliy drop whatever they passionately profess to believe in when the hand of power changes. this is one reason why I do not personnally believe the dems can be trusted either. which ever party happens to be in the minority, that's when they "pull out" the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wave it in the face of us Americans and decry it's destuction by the party in power and then conveniently "toss" it aside when the hand of power changes in whosever favor again, and then it's "political purpose accomplished", and our founding documents are tucked away and hidden again by the actions and unconstitutional behavior of those that so temporarily and conveniently championed it just a short time ago.
In the short term, it seems best for our sakes that the congress is divided between the two parties so that gridlock and some forced compromise is the order of the day.
but in the long term it is the "power of the people"(and this was clearly shown by the port scandal when elected officials jobs may be on the line cause of voter outrage) that will only be able to effect a long term change by electing people with integrity and honesty(that's the trick)and those willing to stand up for our rights, even if and maybe even preferable to those who make up third parties.
Another trick is getting the people as a whole to grasp some basic principles of the way we should be governed and to unite towards that goal and strip the chains of extreme ideological views from our vision.
I know, a very hard task but anyway that's my point of view.
I made a similar argument at the Volokh Conspiracy here and then here. The context was a bunch of conservatives freaking out about unchecked police power and me wondering why they weren't freaked out about Gitmo.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the claim that liberals are being hypocritical because they once said FISA was unconstitutional, there's one remaining point that I don't think has been made:
Liberals, like conservatives, said FISA was unconstitutional because it went too far. Bush has now gone even further, and so-called "conservatives" are praising him for it. Falling back to FISA's (insufficient) constraints is perfectly consistent with preferring even more constraints on executive eavesdropping than FISA offered, which is what was originally cited.
Dave
Well, here's the thing though. I never took that whole "standing up for civil liberties" pose those earlier quotes show as anything but transparent opportunism.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood how libertarians have been suckered into voting GOP. These are people who still look to Hoover, McCarthy and Nixon as heros. You want government bullying its way into the most intimate, fundamental decisions about your life? Vote Republican. Just ask Mike Schiavo.
Those earlier utterances were an aberration, a posture cynically lifted from the Left and adopted temporarily as a handy tactic to use against a Dem president. The GOP has always striven to advance the national security state and has always appealed to the fear of the External Enemy to do so.
It's amusing to see Glen holding their feet to the fire over this earlier pretence, but that's all it ever was.
I'm glad I held off making my second point for a separate posting, since I see Dave has already made it.
ReplyDeleteThat "anonymous" can't figure this obvious point out is more evidence of the tragic effect of too much Kool Aid on the human brain.
I agree with you on right wing hypocrisy but I came across this information reading professor Athan Theoharis's book from 1982 "Beyond the Hiss Case: The FBI, Congress and the Cold War" (1982) in the introduction. Following the revelations by the Church committee and other committees investigating abuse by the FBI in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, two "FBI Charter" bills were introduced to limit the authority of the agency. One bill was S. 1612 was by Sen. Edward Kennedy and the other S. 2928 by Sen. Paul Laxalt. Both bills would have allowed great latitude for the FBI to investigate "terrorist activity" conduct "foreign intelligence"and 'foreign counterinteligence, as well as investigate crimes, civil disorders or threatened civil disorders and allow the FBI t assistt committees like the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Laxalt conceded that S. 2928 left open the door for reoccurrence of the FBI abuses but thought these were of the past.
ReplyDeleteHere is the corker: "Not content with even S. 2928's proposals, the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing research organization) in November 1980 released a three thousand page repprt urging the newly elcted Reagan Administration and the Ninety-seventh Congress to adopt a harder line toward dissident organizations and activists. Its major premise was that 'individual liberties are secondary to the requirements of national security and internal civil order.' Accordingly, the Foundation recommended reviving HUAC and the Senate internal Securoity Subscommittee; rescinding Attorney general Edward Levi's narch 1976 guidelines and President carter's Executive order 12036 of January 24, 1978 limiting Bureau investigations of 'terrorist' and 'potentially subversive' organizations; authorizing the FBI to use 'such standard intelligence techniques as wiretapping, mail covers, informants and (at least occasionally) 'illegal entries'; exempting intelligence agencies from the disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts; and abolishing the secret court, created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that reviewed and authorized all 'foreign intelligence' and 'foreign counterintelligence' electronic surveillance.'"
Professor Theoharis states on the following page:
"Although Reagan Administration officials denied that presidential policies governing the intelligence agencies and internal security would follow th heritage Foundation recommendations, the report nonetheless offers insights into the priorities of conservative Republicans for the 1980s." Professor Theoharis notes that in the first two years of the Reagan administration when the republicans had control in Congress, they introduced legislation to revive the Senate Internal Security Subcommitee and a "Congressman John Ashbrook(sic)"(Ashcroft?)introduced two bills in January, 1981 to create a Joint Committee on Internal Security and a House Committee on Internal Securoty reestablishing the House Unamerican Activities Committee.
A total police state is what these cretins have been after for a long time. FISA is a bump in the road for them. When people like Ashcroft start mouthing syllables that he is afraid of the threat to civil liberties, they are only expressing their fear that they cannot themselves use it.
Yes, the previous comments made by the previous small government and police action pre conservatives were made pre 9/11. As Glenn has tirelessly pointed out, those views were formed and held after 2 world wars and a very existential threat posed by the evil empire.
ReplyDeleteWe survived these things and beheld the fall of the "Iron Curtain" with our constitution and these conservative principles intact. So twelve guys with boxcutters has transformed our country into a nation of bedwetters and caused these conservatives to abondon there principles.
So, was it the twelve guys with boxcutters that wimped out the conservatives, or the fact that Dubya has the steering wheel?
Glenn –
ReplyDelete(sorry this is a bit long.)
“ ‘I guess i just keep coming back to the fact that this "debunking" is all over the place.
Where? ‘ “
Hullabaloo, FDL, many diaries at KOS, and a great many others expend a lot of time on “debunking” of a general nature. Admittedly, I might see this as being more widespread than is actually is simply because I read these blogs and a lot of others all the time.
“I've seen the point made here and there by a handful of bloggers that the Administration's theories of executive power fundamentally contradict conservative principles, and I've made that point myself, but nowhere near with the prominence that, in my view, it merits.”
But Glenn, that’s not what you did. If you want to write about a conflict of principle, then do so, but to engage in the “X said this and now says this other thing” post weakens the point considerably. There’s no reason not to post the quotes you found – it’s your blog, after all - and they’re illustrative of rank hypocrisy, certainly. But I would suggest a rhetorically stronger tactic would be to lay out the particular conservative principles you view as being contradicted by the current actions of conservatives (and the arguments for these principles, just for fairness) and then to show just exactly how they’re being contradicted. (which you’ve done, in spades, sure. But that’s why I don’t see that this post adds anything.)
That critique would be incomplete if you left the potential responses to your arguments unanswered – e.g. note the troll “post 9/11” comments here already. By simply laying out instances of self-contradiction by pundits and politicians, you weaken the point from one of principle to one of politics: people are allowed to change their minds but principles should remain valid so long as their underlying premises remain unchanged.
“That's completely wrong. A substantial portion of the people who read this blog are not liberals and many of them are exactly the type of small-government conservatives you claim don't exist. Sadly, some of the most articulate and principled opposition to the Administration's law-breaking have come from exactly the type of small-government conservatives whom you want to ignore.”
I don’t have any stake in ignoring anyone or denying that principled conservatives do indeed exist. I just think there are better ways to approach them than the one you chose this morning: they wouldn’t be convinced “by virtue of your post.” If you want to talk about principles, do so. It’ll be a service to those conservatives you wish to address.
“ I also think that the more wedges there are implanted between Bush followers and groups which previously supported them, the better. As far as I'm concerned, it can never be argued enough that the Bush Administration is not, in any respect, a conservative administration.”
Agreed. But again, why chose to argue that point based on interesting quotes from hypocrites? The essential problem with arguing points of principle by identifying them with certain spokesmen and then pointing out the hypocrisy of those spokesmen is that it leaves the underlying principles unaddressed.
“ ‘ oh, and does anyone know any of these people who would be influenced second hand by Glenn's post, say via a heart-to-heart conversation?’
If you think that people are beyond being persuaded and that it's impossible to show someone evidence to cause them to change their mind, then you ought to think that not just this post, but every post ever written, is meaningless. I don't share that view. I think people's minds can be changed and are frequently changed by compiling evidence and assembling facts and making a rational case that the things they think now are insupportable, sometimes as a result of other things they also believe in.”
Well, that’s a pretty unfair strawman isn’t it: I’m not arguing that people can’t be convinced on the basis of evidence. I’m simply saying that the way you’ve chosen to approach the problem isn’t the most effective. There’s no reason not to post interesting quotes, but it would be better to either leave them to their manifest hypocrisy or to address the underlying issues. Pontificating on hypocrisy is easy, but it isn’t very useful. Full stop.
I have a lot of respect for the work you do, I think it’s valuable and I wouldn’t bother commenting here if I didn’t. I just wish you’d avoid the more obvious pitfalls of arguing this issue: it’s not about powerful people and politics, it’s about LAW; it’s not about scandal or hypocrisy, it’s about bad, abusive government. By engaging the issues at the level of pundits and scandal and hypocrisy, you give everyone predisposed to ignore these issues a good reason to do so and you open yourself to the machinations of a polished and successful media strategy designed just for the purpose of handling critique. Given, you fall into these pitfalls very rarely, but you did this morning.
Excellent bit of research there Glen!
ReplyDeleteI've been arguing the exact same thing with Bush-bots the last few years on several different forums, the amount of hypocrisy by these people is nothing short of incredible.
Virtually everything they said a decade a go is the opposite of what they are saying now.
He is not a leader, that much is obvious in the way he sat and waited for the wheels to start moving on 911, and Katrina was a disgrace. He is not honest nor has he any great strengths or exceptional abilities in any area.
I am still at a loss as to how anyone, except those with an obvious agenda, can support Bush and his cronies.
If it were not for the family GW Bush were born into he would be a nobody, and probably an insignificant one at that.
My website...http://hypocrisyandlies.blogspot.com/ gives a perspective of some of their shenanigans from an Australian perspective.
Once again Glenn has shown his wonderful litigator’s perfidy to show a skewed argument to make a point against the Bush administration while ignoring the fact that most of the conservative comments quoted were against an administration that treated terrorism as a criminal faux pas & not the product of declared war as it was. Curious how the 210+ illegally obtained & kept FBI files of “domestic” political adversaries by the Clinton Administration is never mentioned as a violation of civil rights or an abuse of the Executive Branch’s power by Glenn. How about the DSCC’s illegal credit check & use of credit information of “domestic” Republican Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele? Both examples are absolute clear violations of “domestic” election laws & civil rights that don’t warrant a mention, much less investigation. But let it be known that the NSA is performing wiretaps on a group that has attacked American interests & American territory or soil, has shown the ability to place terrorist’s cells within the borders of the US, had vocally & publicly declared war on the US & suddenly the sky is falling & the Administration, which he loathes, is guilty w/o proof… their supporters cult members & the Administration’s motivations cheap political ploys or at worst a power grab. Completely ignoring the fact that American’s have traditionally spied on their own citizens, in times of war, since the American Revolution.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof? Who has been tapped? How has any information collected been used? Why didn’t the Democratic Congressional members informed of the program make it public knowledge years ago? Why did the NYT sit on the information for over a year & release only after Fox News & Rupert Murdoch was going to release it? None of these questions are ever answered & their omissions are quite telling about the motives of the Democrats & their supporters; about the pure political nature of its use & quite possibly about how important or effective the use of such tools have been in fighting an enemy that follows no rules. Why else would the Democrats have sat on their hands for so long?
We all know that if the Bush Administrations actions prove effective, that the Democrats will be shown to be ineffective in regards to protecting American citizens, yet again. How else could they justify their most popular President’s inability to recognize, much less respond appropriately to Al Qaeda’s previous attacks: bombing of WTC in 1993, attack of USS Cole, bombing of US embassies in Tanzania & Kenya, attempted bombing of LAX, 9/11 hijackers coming into America in the first place, etc. I agreed that if the program did violate the law it should be investigated, but it isn’t being investigated because of a perceived abuse of power, it is being used as a means to regain power & as a political club & nothing more. If the program is found to be illegal, the NYT & Democratic Congressional members were willing accomplishes in the crime by being informed & remaining quiet, they should be tried as well for not releasing the information immediately or informing the public ever. If you don’t hold them just as accountable, the Clinton administration accountable for its previous violations, then you aren’t seeking justice, only vengeance. But I’d imagine that none of you, Glenn included, want that. Your only goal is to hurt Bush & his supporters, embarrass them & make your side appear stronger or more honest, isn’t it? Yep, we sure are “cultists.” Yep, we are hypocrites. I hope that it is investigated & not swept under the rug like Clinton Administration’s violations were. But if your goal truly is justice, then the Democrats involved are just as guilty, but funny how their involvement is never mentioned or questioned by Glenn or most of the commentors here.
"By any means necessary" should be the Democrats battle cry for the 2008 elections, because they have shown again that their only motivations are only political in nature & that they couldn't win on their ideas or policies alone. Trump up unfounded charges, ignore their own violations & scream the loudest is their platform. How well did that work in 2004?
Excellent post Glenn!
ReplyDeleteAnon’s claims of irrelevance are only highlighting his erroneous perceptions of an educated electorate. If you think because you can google issues to see the hypocrisy of this administration and current group of bootlicking republicans, you are putting a much higher esteem on the political prowess of Joe six-pack and his kin.
First, one would have to believe that if someone was astute enough to google these queries, that they did not already have an ideological mindset. Most Americans do not ponder the goings on of the political landscape. They worry about everyday life issues, and the government to too far removed from those occurrences.
Even in election years, most Americans don’t bother to read up on the issues to see if there is a true conformation of there own undefined ideology vs. that of the candidates. It is the highlighting of issues, such as these, that enable the everyday folk to see differences in opinions and to see the politicians as there hypocritical selves.
That is exactly why the ridiculous flip-flopping meme stuck on Kerry. Plenty of people I know (who incidentally could not give the slightest damn about politics, and could not articulate a single issue) were adamant about Kerry’s character flaw of inconsistency, although they only knew the sound bite about “voted for before against”, and clearly did not know what the vote entailed.
Anon made a good point which contradicted his argument about the futile nature of Glenn’s post; it was that it has not been picked up by the MSM. Until it is, it will go largely unacknowledged, and therefore, unknown by the majority of the American public.
Access to computers and google, does not equate to and educated electorate (a general contradiction in terms as it is). Most people I know use the computer or internet for multimedia purposes, such as downloading music, pictures, entertainment and just general forwarding of ridiculous emails containing the latest dick and fart jokes.
Glenn, keep “pushing the teetering monster” until it becomes as obvious to the public as Kerry and flip-flop sandals and purple heart band-aids. People need to see the hypocrisy as it is, and until the media picks it up and runs with it, we need to be the cattle prod to remind them of these facts.
sorry, this ended up being a bit long, but i think it's on-point so i'll post it. if you don't have the patience, um...sorry.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to address some of the problems created by arguing against conservative ideology by quoting conservatives. The main problem is that it underestimates the depth of conviction and intelligence of those with whom you disagree (the actual conservatives, not their pundits). Further, it leads to accusing people of hypocrisy when they are acting in ways they believe are justified. At the level of principle:
To some great degree, conservatives in opposition in the 1990’s and prior articulated principles different from the ones by which they have chosen to govern for the last few years. However, they view one of the premises upon which they were basing their views as having been shown to be wrong: to them, 9/11 showed that their presumption of safety from external threat was flawed. They are thus justified in altering their views of the proper role of the police powers of the state. They’ve changed their minds on the basis of new evidence and they’re allowed to do so without opening themselves to charges of hypocrisy. (Whether they’re over-reacting is beside the point, at the level of principle.)
Further, their newly articulated view of the proper exercise of the police powers of the state is pretty much consonant with other long-standing themes in conservative ideology: conservatism has always been a fundamentally authoritarian political ideology. I take “authoritarian” here in a more or less neutral way: i mean “presuming to have knowledge of wrong and right, and to be an appropriate arbiter of wrong and right in the lives of citizens.” Part of subscribing to an authoritarian ideology is believing that the authorities are right in exercising the powers at their disposal to protect those under their care, and that people who seek to hinder the authorities in protecting the people under their care are thus wrong. Thus, conservatives are justified – from within the point of view of their own ideology – in abandoning beliefs in limited government and overall skepticism of state power when confronted with what they take to be an overwhelming external threat, and in accusing those who remain skeptical of the expanded exercise of police power by the state of bad faith – of “being with the terrorists.” (Again, at the level of principle it is beside the point whether they’re over-reacting, or even whether they’re acting out of principled concern as opposed to, say, a desire for political power.)
At the level of articulated principles, they simply aren’t hypocrites. (In the somewhat different realm of practical political action, they most certainly are, but that’s different.) And this is why all this discussion of hypocrisy misses the mark. It just demonstrates that you haven’t bothered to understand what they’ve been constantly saying for the last six years.
It’s a huge mistake to reduce the conversation to one of hypocrisy. If you want to actually engage conservatives in a dialog, you have to articulate why 9/11 didn’t change anything important (which, practically speaking, it didn’t, or needn’t have necessarily) and why they should still ascribe to their previous beliefs. The cynical liberal response – point out apparent hypocrisy, question motives, demean intelligence, etc. – is ultimately self-defeating because it invites the cynical conservative response (e.g. pmain) which does an equally poor job of addressing itself to the actual views of liberals.
Instead, explain to these people, who have been purposely frightened for years on end, why they ought to believe themselves safe. Explain to them that there is no “clash of civilizations,” no “existential threat,” explain to them that a certain small group of people in the world disagree with some actions taken by America as part of our foreign policy and not because they “hate our freedoms,” explain to them that there’s no compelling reason to allow the benevolent authorities into every area of their lives. Then you’ll have actually entered into a meaningful dialog. ‘til then, you’re just missing the point and contributing to the already noisy, disrespectful, disasterous political dialog in this country.
Speaking of right-wing.....
ReplyDeleteJust another fun day at CPAC:
"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" [Bob] Barr [R-Georgia] beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"
Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."
But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.
By Anon:
ReplyDelete“They are thus justified in altering their views of the proper role of the police powers of the state. They’ve changed their minds on the basis of new evidence and they’re allowed to do so without opening themselves to charges of hypocrisy.”
Wrong! They attempt to justify it because they are in power. If it were a democratic majority and Presidency taking these actions for the same erroneous justifications, they would still be screaming their heads off and citing their previous quotes themselves. That is what underscores their hypocrisy.
For the most part, this new “big brother” government is not a conservative value, it’s a power value. These neocons did such a sufficient job of scaring the crap out of the mindless droves of blind followers, that they actually think this is what they’re all about.
The “post 9/11 mindset” meme is only a talking point used to distract would be voter’s from questioning their integrity. They don’t believe it anymore than I do. It has recently been highlighted by the utter debacle of the Port’s deal. Money and power is the impetus behind all things neocon. If security was their greatest concern, they would have never messed up so big on this issue.
And before anyone claims that the republican congress is the one who made this an issue, you need to slow your roll. Repub’s are frightened of Bush’s dropping numbers and are trying to delicately distance themselves from him on issues they think they can prevail. Fear mongering has worked great for them so far, so their sticking to it.
Just because Frist crawled back with his tail between his legs, only highlights his cowardice. He wants the big chair and needs Rove to help him. The other repubs are just fighting for their life trying to hold their seats. So they can go back to their constituents and hold up the flag and declare their willingness to protect them from the evildoers.
It is all 100% hypocrisy.
By anon:
ReplyDelete“i'm kin to joe six-pack and you're a self-righteous, pretentious blowhard. on behalf of the uneducated drooling masses who aren't capable of using google or understanding politics: go fuck yourself.”
So am I (kin to them), I’m married to one. I’m not being self righteous, I’m pointing out an observation. Perhaps all of your kin are frantically searching for truth in politics, mine aren’t and neither are my friends. That doesn’t say that I am superior, only that I have different interests.
And obviously (aside from your smartass remarks), you are not among the “drooling masses”(your words)”
And for your proposition, Thank you, No!
Déjà vu all over again
ReplyDeleteRedundant? Is there any other kind than "over again"?
“This is like deja vu all over again.”
ReplyDeleteIt is a quote attributed to Yogi Berra (New York Yankees, famous for nonsensical sayings)
Generally used in a sarcastic manner, to say “here we go again”
I don't agree with the premise that essays such as this are useless because they do nothing more than preach to the choir. Demonstrating clearly that the path being pursued by the current administration has, in the past, been so vehemently rejected by the same people cheerleading it now should help serve as a valuable tool for reminding citizens where we've come from and hopefully, where we'd like to be.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I submit such an exposition carries less weight than it otherwise might with an audience of "true conservatives" who've lost their way with regard to these issues when it fails to mention a similar hypocrisy on the part of those who resisted such reasoning ten years ago. And, I think to a very large extent, continue to do so today. In my experience it's pretty hard to find "liberals" who (then or now) regarded the Waco and Ruby Ridge events as worthy of any kind of outrage (unless it's directed at the people who were killed). The denial of rights extending all the way to killing of fellow citizens has largely been greeted with anything from a yawn to jubilation. The power of the government to behave in this way has never been seriously challenged by most on the left...and the rights eroded in these kinds of situations have been endorsed.
So, to hear so many on the left to express alarm at the shredding of the Constitution at this moment in time strikes me as being just as opportunistic and bereft of principle as those who Glenn has so ably demonstrated to be likewise naked.
I'd like to suggest that we if really want to build an alliance that will serve to reverse this trend (and NOT just score points for our "team"), full disclosure complete with our OWN mea culpa is more likely to bear fruit.
So the question is, do all of you who NOW claim to hold the principles of the Constitution sacrosanct really mean it this time...have you come to see the light that will allow you to recognize your complicity in this sort of trend in the past, or will you equivocate in order to protect your image of yourself as always being on the side of right and good...and sacrifice the principle yet again in so doing?
cdj,
ReplyDeleteJust checked out your blog, and I see you are very much on the same page as I. Thanks for the backup. Concise and well said.
From Glenn's post:
ReplyDeleteEven as President Clinton has attacked the groups' claims to patriotism, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and a growing corps of allies from Western states have recently expressed sympathy for some citizens' fears of encroaching government, called for new scrutiny of federal law officers and rejected demands for investigations of the militias themselves.
Rove:
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Tea and sympathy for terrorists...it's not just for conservatives anymore.
Anonymous x 3:
ReplyDeleteIf you think this post is "futile," then skip it. Your critique is both shallow and self-absorbed, a waste of my time if not yours.
If you continue to post, please have the courtesy to use a nickname. This will eliminate the need to read another "anonymous" comment only to realize it's just you on your hobbyhorse again.
Many thanks.
I don't know how to link to other blogs from this comment. I hope someone more saavy than I will do so.
ReplyDeleteWhile this post is very good, Hunter over at Daily Kos makes the larger point; i.e. that the conservative philosophy of governance is always, I repeat always a bust. Unfortunately, we have to relearn that fact every decade or so.
Conservative theories sound great from the stump and on the talk shows but in truth, conservatism is anti-governance and anti-intellectual. Whether its "pro-life", "supply-side economics", or neo-con military dominance, their theories are literally unworkable.
Someone go get the whole thing.
Hypocrisy flourishes among patriotic fools! Nice post, Glen.... Very nice.
ReplyDeleteLatest- Tom
Anon at 5:55 writes: It’s a huge mistake to reduce the conversation to one of hypocrisy. If you want to actually engage conservatives in a dialog, you have to articulate why 9/11 didn’t change anything important (which, practically speaking, it didn’t, or needn’t have necessarily) and why they should still ascribe to their previous beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI'm too busy now to go back through Glenn's archives for links, but I recommend that you peruse those archives. On multiple occasions he has addressed why 9/11 does not justify departing from our commitment to civil liberties and traditionally conservative suspicions of vast police powers.
propulgate:
ReplyDelete"“They are thus justified in altering their views of the proper role of the police powers of the state. They’ve changed their minds on the basis of new evidence and they’re allowed to do so without opening themselves to charges of hypocrisy.”
Wrong! They attempt to justify it because they are in power. If it were a democratic majority and Presidency taking these actions for the same erroneous justifications, they would still be screaming their heads off and citing their previous quotes themselves. That is what underscores their hypocrisy."
um... you've entirely missed the point of my comment: you’ve given a cynical response to a point of principle. Look, practically speaking, I don’t doubt that conservative leaders are a bunch of rotten hypocrites and ought to be rode out of town on a rail, but my entire point was that people are judged to be hypocrites by virtue of both the principles they hold – e.g. no action is hypocritical unless there is a previously articulated normative principle to guide action, right?
So, practically speaking, "they" have to justify their behavior because they are in power and want to stay in power, yes, and they would likely be screaming their heads off under a democratic government, yes.
However, “they” are constrained to speaking within a specific ideology. If your aim, or Glenn’s, is to enter into a meaningful dialog with conservative citizens it is worth taking the time to understand their views and talk to them in a way that respects those views. This means doing the work of thinking through the conservative reaction to 9/11 and seeing how it fits within the overall structure of their ideology: conservatism – a set of beliefs - changed in response to 9/11, and any effort to point out supposed “hypocrisy” has to take account of that change by addressing both the reasons for changing those beliefs and the actual new content of the beliefs advanced. Saying “look you said X and now you say not-X, aren’t you a hypocrite?” ignores that there are compelling reasons someone might say X one moment and not-X the next. Conservatives have spent the last five years explaining themselves and why they believe what they do now. Shouldn’t the first step of talking to them be to go to the trouble of understanding what they’ve been saying?
The cynical liberal response, which you gave, saves liberals from having to do any thought: since their leaders are hypocrites (according to your ideological viewpoint), if we point that out to conservative people everywhere, they’ll stop supporting their leaders, right? Except that within their ideology, their leaders are actually behaving responsibly: they have identified a mortal threat to the country and are taking the appropriate measures to counter that threat. (…and as corollary, you are being irresponsible by hindering their efforts.) Within their ideology, there isn’t any perception of hypocrisy: their leaders have reorganized their pre-existing authoritarian priorities and now emphasize protection over self-dependence and autonomy. And there won’t be any perception of hypocrisy for conservatives until their leaders are shown behaviors that conflict with the current iteration of their value system.
Any way, instead of attacking people for hypocrisy, it would be more useful for people take the time to explain to conservatives why they weren’t justified in changing their views of security and the proper role of state police power post-9/11.
It’s comforting to be right, isn’t it? And it’s comforting to tell people you’re right. And that’s precisely what liberals do when they point out the hypocrisy of the GOP. But reiterating your moral superiority all the time is a piss-poor way of having a respectful conversation with people you take to be your equals, whose opinions you value, and who, as citizens, have a mutual stake in the future of this country.
Here ya go Mo:
ReplyDelete(the link you requested)
The Great Conservative Walkback
deregulation = de-accountability. Say it over and over when they spout their dereg. nonsense. They don't ever want to be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteMo and Zack, that diary is full of doggy doo-doo, to quote it on Bush 43's reign:For every saddened, blustering new critic of utterly failed conservative policies -- and make no mistake, these have been conservative policies all along, to their very core -- there has been a critic who was right in the first place.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush is not a conservative in any sense but on narrow social grounds, and nowhere has that been made more clear than at this site by Glenn Greenwald. Those who broadly support him also are not conservatives.
Bushism and neoconservatives, as I've argued before, adopt all the worst errors of the left.
hypatia
ReplyDelete"I'm too busy now to go back through Glenn's archives for links, but I recommend that you peruse those archives. On multiple occasions he has addressed why 9/11 does not justify departing from our commitment to civil liberties and traditionally conservative suspicions of vast police powers."
Hypatia –
I know.
I don’t need convincing and I never did.
I think you’ve missed the larger point:
I’m not arguing that conservative leaders aren’t hypocrites, nor am I arguing that they aren’t completely blowing things out of proportion.
I’m essentially arguing that to talk about conservative “hypocrisy,” you need to attempt to understand conservatism (hypocrisy is acting in a manner that does not accord with your principles; conservatives advance conservative principles; they can therefore only be judged hypocrites if they fail to act in accordance with conservative principles), and if you make that effort, you’ll see that they don’t identify their leaders actions as hypocritical. Further, you’ll see why: 9/11 caused a change in the order of priorities in conservatism. To take quotes from the 90’s and compare them straight to contemporary quotes and then to call the results hypocrisy is willfully ignoring an important structural change, and (thus) comparing apples to oranges. The charge of hypocrisy is meaningless.
Glenn can’t claim to be addressing conservatives with this post because he ignores pretty much everything they’ve said about the principles they uphold for the last six years. He can only be addressing people who aren’t familiar with – haven’t thought through – the ideology of conservatism, because that’s the only way that the charges of hypocrisy make any sense. And that’s kinda’ silly, given that he’s talking about CONSERVATIVE hypocrisy, isn’t it?
the point about it being a waste to reduce the conversation to accusations of hypocrisy was really a side issue, where accusing someone of hypocrisy is pretty much always engaging in self-righteousness and it's rhetorically a bad way to conduct a civil discussion.
Bushism and neoconservatives, as I've argued before, adopt all the worst errors of the left.
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha! Oh, I knew that diary would give Hypatia gas.
I think she’s stumbled upon her new theme: Bush is a Liberal!!!
Thanks Zack.
ReplyDeleteHypathia said..
Bushism and neoconservatives, as I've argued before, adopt all the worst errors of the left.
Well, this is rather astounding. And what are the "worst errors of the left?" The "left" hasn't been in power for forty years. More importantly, frankly, I don't know what "principles" the right stands for so how about outlining them for us. I know the soundbites about smaller government, less taxes, etc. But those are not principles in the sense of governance. Shorter version of those soundbites is government bad, strangle it .
Great post, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteMany of us have been asking this question in some form for quite a while now: "What would conservatives say if it were a Democratic President breaking the law and violating our civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism?" I think you've answered that question.
One of the things we'll have to do if we want to make Republicans change their tune is to throw these words in their faces and demand that they explain them in the context of their current inaction.
Ha ha ha! Oh, I knew that diary would give Hypatia gas.
ReplyDeleteI think she’s stumbled upon her new theme: Bush is a Liberal!!!
No, as I've repeatedly written, George Bush is a species of populist. And, as Julian Sanchez over at Reason argues -- and I linked to it a few weeks ago -- Bush and neocons borrow some of the worst ideological assumptions of the left.
But in any event, nowhere has it been more clearly and forcefully stated than at this site that George Bush and his GOP are not conservatives.
Anon @ 7:49:
ReplyDeleteAll very good points, with particular regard to the blind followers. My response was centered around the leaders, not the followers. For the most part, the sheep who follow these neocons can not necessarily be lumped into the same hypocritical crowd. Their pavlovian responses have been conditioned by the din of fear-mongering rhetoric.
This is primarily why I cite Glenn’s work, on this issue and others, as so vitally important. Until we can change the bell ringing of fear and hypocrisy to one of substance, we have to uncloak the perpetrators for what they are and what they are doing.
Hopefully, the MSM will pick up on the sheer hypocrisy of the neocon agenda and make clear to the public what they are really about -- money and power.
The fear-mongering has worked and as you state has penetrated the psyche of many-a-conservative voter. Your point of addressing them and their (irrational?) fears is accurate, to a point. Politically speaking, we have no time for deprogramming on a mass scale via intellectual and empathetic arguments. Realistically, we have to move quicker and pull the wool off of their eyes quickly (like ripping the purple heart band-aid off fast to minimize the pain and embarrassment) .
The only way I see to do this is by pulling back the curtain and banging them over the head with reality (sorry for all the metaphors).
So, although you are right, that there may be some deep seeded issues which can be dealt with on many levels, we unfortunately need to keep this to a more superficial level for the blind Bush backers. They seem to respond well to bumper sticker wisdom.
Your statements about liberals being right and basically standing on a soapbox of superiority is not at all what I’m trying to do. I have conversations with conservative friends all the time. It is not an easy matter of explaining the virtues or nuances of a particular issue. There are people out there who have been so indoctrinated into this mindset, that rational dialogue is dismissed as liberal-elitist, welfare-loving, bush-hating, anti-American, wishy-washy double-speak. Colbert’s parody is right on. It seems that no matter how valid the argument you pose, they just sit there and wait for a pause so they can throw out some ridiculous talking point(and those are the ones who actually follow politics at all (foxnewsers).
To me this is a matter of urgency. If you know of a faster way to deal with the issues, I’d love to here them.
But in any event, nowhere has it been more clearly and forcefully stated than at this site that George Bush and his GOP are not conservatives.
ReplyDeleteWell on that point we agree, these are radicals who want to undermine the rule of law and everything this country stands for.
If our democracy survives these thugs, then we can go back to arguing other philosophies, but in the meantime, getting rid of them and returning to basic democratic principles is the priority.
Awhile ago pmain outlined someting approaching a counter-argument making the usual citations about Clinton Administration's own wrong-doing (210+ 'illegal' FBI files, and the DSCC's activities against Michael Steele), which naturally misses the original point of this post.
ReplyDeleteOf course the expected defenses are trotted out (we are at "war", the enemy is insideous and everywhere, etc.). Perhaps the most irritating element of this argument is the lumping of the 1993 WTC attack in with 9/11, conveniently ignoring the fact the 1993 attack had no ties with Al Qaeda, then claiming the Clinton Administration 'failed to respond appropriately' to the bombings in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in last 2000. Please remind me which administration actually formulated a plan to deal with Bin Laden and his network that didn't involve invading a country that had nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or those attacks?
Sadly the commentator still misses the underlying issue: that many a 'conservative' commentator and ideologue is singing a vastly different tune today than they were 10 or even five years ago, no longer professing a suspicion for expansive federal authority or what amounts to potential vioaltions of the Fourth Amendment, all in the service of an undeclared war against an undefined enemy.
Forgetting the almost comedic hypocrisy of it all, the commentator does point out there is presently no actual proof of agregious violations of the law with respect to this program (overlooking of course the President himself admitted it fell under the FISA statutory framework, which he felt empowered to ignore without offering a clear rationale or statutory authority to do so), again missing the small point that it is precisely this lack of "proof" that is the problem.
Were we actually at war with a defined enemy, as opposed to sending our troops into a fool's errand in Iraq and allowing anarchy to spread in Afghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps this administration could be given the benefit of doubt as to its intentions. As it is, well, the creditability is only slightly above that of the Flat Earth Society.
Pmain closes with the following:
"By any means necessary" should be the Democrats battle cry for the 2008 elections, because they have shown again that their only motivations are only political in nature & that they couldn't win on their ideas or policies alone. Trump up unfounded charges, ignore their own violations & scream the loudest is their platform. How well did that work in 2004?"
"Reality-challenged" doesn't quite do this justice, does it?
Sorry to disagree, but GWB is the ultimate conservative. Proof positive: There is nothing Bush believes in more, to include his brand of "born again" Christianity, than "privatization" and "free trade". Translation: Screw Americans in favor of corporations. Can't lose sight of the ball here and bye the bye, Hypathia, I await your list of "conservative principles."
ReplyDeletezack writes: If our democracy survives these thugs, then we can go back to arguing other philosophies, but in the meantime, getting rid of them and returning to basic democratic principles is the priority.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I'm actually working on something, making the argument that there are Bush supporters who have grown sufficiently disgusted with him, even tho they supoprted his foreign policy, that feeling them out for a new political alliance to save us all from this...this lawless, big govt populism that trashes the rule of law, seeing what can be worked out with those types might be in order.
But let me say this: I don't have a problem with "liberals," as that label has historically been understood. As a Hayekian libertarian, I share some values and beliefs with them, as I also do with Goldwater type conservatives. Bushism is neither liberal nor Goldwater conservative, and is nearly as much the antithesis of all I adhere to as is Stalinism. (Tho I am NOT saying Bush is akin to Joe Stalin.)
I do have issues with those I describe as leftists, as I do with authoritarian conservatives. But at this point I'll work with anybody to remove the Bush/Frist GOP from power.
Mo says:Hypathia, I await your list of "conservative principles."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe they really have any. Previously I've posted Jonah Goldberg's working list of conservative principles (borrowed from John Derbyshire), but I don't see that they hold to general principles from which their specific policy views can be predicted with reasonable reliability.
But as a purely sociological matter, Bushism does not conform to anything previously understood to be a strand of conservatism, so much as it does to a type of religion-driven populism.
"To me this is a matter of urgency. If you know of a faster way to deal with the issues, I’d love to here them."
ReplyDeletei don't believe there is any productive way of dealing with these issues than to have conversations with people that respect their intelligence, their depth of convictions and their emotional attachments to their ideology; conversations that attempt to restore (or create entirely) some common ground between citizens who have been purposefully divided and exploited by demagogues.
i think posts like this one aren't particularly useful for that purpose. and i don't think the cynical liberal response (unceasing attack on the hypocrisy of leaders) reiterated over and over in these comments (as a direct result of the accusation of hypocrisy in Glenn's post) is particularly useful for that purpose either. both serve only to perpetuate the divisive tone of american political discourse and are ultimately counter-productive.
but i digress....
The key to Republican principles can be found in the damning phrase of the "Downing Street Memo"--fixing the intelligence--.
ReplyDeleteThis is also the founding principle of those who wish to consolidate wealth and power for the ruling elite. What they say during a campaign is carefully choreographed with focus groups and high calibre PR types with double master degrees in psychology and marketing.
The campaign has no relevance or bearing whatsoever on the policies enacted once they assume power. The facts cannot be disputed when one looks into the gianormous abyss of our once flush national treasury--left by the previous administration.
The moral reletavism pointed out by Glenn in his post are the fingerprints left at the scene of the crime--which is the looting of our national treasury. I do not differentiate moderate or conservative republicans. Each and every one of them are complicit in this crime. Don't forget to flush during the midterms.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteI truly understand your position, but it is simply a reiteration not a digression. Your position is respectable but you seem to ignore the fundamental argument of leader vs. follower.
You may be able to reach some with thoughtful dialogue, I have not been nearly as successful. I don’t think it is because I am inarticulate or disrespectful of their ideologies. The problem seems to be that the followers have been deceived and their faith in their leaders is misplaced.
To expose their leaders as hypocritical and antithetical to their core principles is probably the most effective way. Again, empathy and conversation may work on a small scale, but when they perceive that information coming from someone (who is in their eyes a bush-hater), there is an immediate distrust of opinion.
They have to see, on a larger scale (such as the media), that they have been deceived (by those who espouse similar beliefs) into carrying the water of their hypocritical, lying leaders.
Anonymous said (and asked)...
ReplyDelete"Déjà vu all over again"
Redundant? Is there any other kind than "over again"?
Sorry Anony, you're correctly right. I attempted a self-parody of myself, by myself. Unfortunately, sometimes if we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure. So if your asking, was I redundant, the answer's an affirmative yes.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"both serve only to perpetuate the divisive tone of american political discourse and are ultimately counter-productive."
Well, Bush claimed, during the campaign of course, that he was going to be a "unifuckator", or something like that. He has failed at that too.
And we didn't even get a reacharound.
It's very difficult for conservative messages to penetrate my tin-foil hat which locks in the notion that these sons-a-bitches are no account crooks born to entitlement and have never worked an honest day in their life.
ReplyDeleteWhen there leaders cast aside bedrock principles they shield cries of hypocracy with national security (remember, we're talking about twelve guys with boxblades). But if a Democrat deviates even the slightest from any position he is plastered with being a feckless flipflopper.
Puleez. I don't care to play nice with these snaky bastards. Anyone who apologizes for A president who lies us into war, steals elections, breaks the law by invading your privacy, tortures little children by mashing their testicals to get daddy to talk plainly is not an American.
propulgate -
ReplyDeletefair enough, there's a difference between leaders and followers and they have to be addressed differently.
but when you talk about conservative hypocrisy, that hypocrisy is relative to conservative beliefs. their leaders are a big ole bunch of powermad crackhead liars, but they nonetheless aren't necessarily "hypocrites" to/for conservatives because conservatism (for a large number of conservatives, anyway) has changed. many conservatives simply will not see the things you point to as hypocrisy. not ever.
i think what you mean to say is that they're liars - which is very different from being hypocrites because being a liar is judged with reference to some shared value: "truth."
it's a much stronger point, saying they're liars.
oiilfieldguy - thanks for giving a great example of the cynical liberal response. and you're right, we got lied to and we got reamed.
Something I found over at Digby's. He's a real gem:
ReplyDeleteFirst male prostitutes in the white house press room and now shoplifters in the president's inner circle. The vice president shoots an old man in the face. To say nothing of the indicted and soon to be indicted perjurers and corrupt GOP congressmen and Senators.
These are the people who are asking the nation to trust them with unfettered executive power because they are protecting the country. OK.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteLiars rather than hypocrites.
A rose by any other name…
Well, if that works, then so be it. To me, the two words are nearly synonymous. So you then agree with what Glenn is doing with his posting, you just disagree with his semantics.
I truly wish that in this post, all could agree on a simple set of principles for one reason. Rove/Bush/Conservativism has risen to power by polarizing the country. In truth, there are few divisions among Americans. I invite all to set forth at least one principle of government to which he/she aspires. Let's see who agrees.
ReplyDeleteMo said:
ReplyDelete"I invite all to set forth at least one principle of government to which he/she aspires. Let's see who agrees."
Agreed. Let's start with the money and a rational tax policy. Elimination of all corporate tax shelters. Outsourced jobs into third world sweatshops imported to America would be taxed accordingly to offset any benefits for eliminating American jobs.
I invite all to set forth at least one principle of government to which he/she aspires. Let's see who agrees.
ReplyDeleteThe peaceful resolution of disputes pursuant to generally applicable law, law which necessarily must bind all.
oilfieldguy writes: Let's start with the money and a rational tax policy. Elimination of all corporate tax shelters. Outsourced jobs into third world sweatshops imported to America would be taxed accordingly to offset any benefits for eliminating American jobs.
ReplyDeleteThose are specific policy views, not principles, which is what Mo called for. What abstract principles do you believe to be crucial to the govt of a civil society?
Paul Rosenberg said:
ReplyDelete"The "principles" used to justify this agenda, and make it look morally appealing may take virtually any form that historical developments demand."
Yeah, I think that's what I said, only not nearly so purty. Would this be the "me first" agenda?
My IQ is only about room temperature but I kind of figured out the Ruling Elite v. huddled and frightened masses things these guys want. Seemingly they have fooled lots of folks way yonder smarter than me. Either by getting votes or hiring clever voting machine hackers, or both.
Hypatia said:
ReplyDelete"Those are specific policy views, not principles, which is what Mo called for. What abstract principles do you believe to be crucial to the govt of a civil society?"
Oh, I'll have to think on that principle not policy thing. See my previous post for understanding of my situation.
Yankeependragon,
ReplyDeleteYou’ll have to forgive my “reality challenged” version of the facts in the 1st WTC attack. I guess we cannot exclude the fact that 2 of the 1993 bombers were in fact trained by Al Qaeda, that Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahmann (who was convicted for masterminding the bombing) & his numerous Islamic organizations have not only to been shown & linked to, but financed by Al Qaeda as proof for Al Qaeda’s involvement alone. Let’s not forget the direct links shown between him & Osama bin Laden, both prior to the bombing & after. Let’s forget the fact that Osama used those that planned the bombing to aide in planning 9/11 as well. Nope, no relationship to or Al Qaeda involvement there, but another example of pure propaganda to further the Bush Administration’s agenda to destroy your rights.
I wasn’t defending the Bush Administration per se, merely questioning those that assume guilt & refuse to look at their own party’s involvement in the cover up of the possible scandal or their use of it as a political club to garner votes. That the same level of concern was never raised by those now demanding the Bush administration’s actions be investigated or would you like the Democratic responses to either example I cited & their response to the current NSA wiretappings? They are available via a simple google search.
Of course conservatives are singing a different tune now, Clinton was spying domestically solely w/o the benefit of being at War or starting w/ confirmed enemies of the US as an initial source. Bush’s actions can possibly be justified though found illegal, Clinton’s can’t be forgiven & should raise more of an alarm to both sides because they were used to further his “domestic” political agenda & possibly attack “domestic” political enemies, not possibly as a tool to find those that would harm us. My point was the hypocritical nature of those doing the questioning both as officials of the Democratic Party & here as posters or commentators.
My closing point was to show that those raising these questions cannot answer the ones I have & like you, refuse to do so. I notice you don’t answer why the NYT held onto the information… Or the fact that Democratic Congressional members were informed years prior & never once publicly brought it up. If the crimes are so great, why did they not? If Bush is guilty then they are guilty as well, but to suggest so takes Glenn & the rest of left off of their true mission, which isn’t to protect the Constitution or right a wrong, but to help the Democratic Party achieve political power. Whatever high ground could have been gained is lost because it is no longer a question of right or wrong, but how effective of a weapon can it be used against their political enemies – just like the Clinton Administration’s abuses that they will never ever question the legality of. Sorry, but I think an egregious act like subverting the Bill of Rights is worth more than winning an election & cannot support or take seriously any who would make it a political tool. This is what Glenn’s post & the majority of your fellow commentors do by making it a right against left argument. So call me “reality challenged” or any name you like, I am for an investigation, but don’t want it to be used as political fodder like it has & will be. I’d prefer that this Administration be held innocent until proven guilty until there is actually proof of a misdoing – like physical proof, such as illegally obtained FBI files being found in the West Wing & lied about, repeatedly. Did I really miss the “underlying issue” as you claim or are you not honest enough to admit that this is more than likely politics as usual, since the Democrats were involved from the program’s beginning & the NYT sat on their hands for over a year, which should prove that it is more than likely the case?
Okay, I'll start. I believe on principle, that government should work to the benefit of the governed.
ReplyDeleteWhat about this sentence is so hard to understand by the socialists on this site who call themselves liberals?
ReplyDeleteA CORPORATION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUALS.
If any of the socialists know of a corporation which is composed of something other than individuals, say trees or kitchen sinks, please let me know.
A corporation has no power to hurt you. It doesn't control you, take your money, declare war, torture people, arrest them, spy on them or anything else. If you don't want to do business with it, don't. It's that simple.
But a corporation which has the protection of the mob (government) can work with the mob in a limitless number of ways to deprive you of your freedom, but not directly. It has to work through the mob, which acts as the ultimate enforcer.
The problem is not liberal vs. conservative. The problem is that all of the members of the political parties which we now have in place in this country support the mob (Big Government) and in so doing, they support the only enemy of the individual who has both the authority and the power to do him harm.
Goldwater was in favor of gay rights, supported Roe vs. Wade, thought Nixon should be impeached, was for small government, legalized drugs, was a champion of individual rights, and was against the war in Vietman, but our lefty socialists hated him with a passion.
Why?
We all know why. He didn't hate the rich. So he was evil.
The enemy of the people is what it has always been: Government.
Our Framers were the ones who best recognized this fact and hence devised the most perfect system of government known to mankind. The entire Bill of Rights and Constitution were written expressly to protect INDIVIDUALS from government, recognizing only the proper, limited role of government which is necessary to protect a nation from others and keep order among its citizens.
The lefties are shocked, SHOCKED that the BIG GOVERNMENT that they have always been in favor of acts corruptly once it is given unbridled authority to steal and starts handing out the money to themselves, cronies, unprincipled, subsidized corporations, and in support of the war machine.
Why so shocked? That's human nature. That's what politicians do. If you don't want them to have that power, don't give them the money.
The last people who should cry foul when the the mob starts to betray and harm private citizens are the people who always have argued most ferociously that the mob should get bigger and bigger, be given more and more power, and take over more and more functions that are best held in the hands of private individuals.
Notice how lefties don't really like the word "individual." You rarely see them using it. Everything is "the people" or "civil liberties", never individual rights.
I am always amused by that. It's like they cannot FORCE themselves to say the word "individual", and have to sustitute "the people" in every sentence.
But they don't really mean the "people", of course, not in the sense of a collection of individuals. They mean GOVERNMENT acting as a broker to dispense its goods, taken from private citizens, to groups who the lefties think of as "the people."
Hypatia, it's really nice to read your posts. It's hard seeing you have to put up with the annoying, stupid attacks of some on this site, although you do it so graciously that it suggests they don't bother you.
Just wanted to say there are those of us who really benefit from your observations and are cheered by them.
If Frederich Hayek were President, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Finally, oilfieldguy, mind telling me why you named your blog what you did?
pmain sounds like he's on the payroll. With my limited bandwidth I'll try to shed some light on his "I know you are, but what am I" diatribe.
ReplyDeletepmain said:
"Where is the proof? Who has been tapped? How has any information collected been used? Why didn’t the Democratic Congressional members informed of the program make it public knowledge years ago? Why did the NYT sit on the information for over a year & release only after Fox News & Rupert Murdoch was going to release it? None of these questions are ever answered & their omissions are quite telling"
The proof is the goal of an investigation that the republicans have stopped. Welcome to the land of the rest of us pmain in the pursuit of proof and justice. We would like to know who has been tapped and how that information was used. They won't fucking tell us, or congress or judges and they say they don't fucking have to. The cursory breifings they gave to some congress members, much fewer than is required by law, were held in confidence of national security, and by law, they are barred from speaking publicly about the intelligence. They regard the law more than the president apparently.
The NYT held the story which is unforgivable. Now that they have published it they will feel the sting of the wrath by King George.
So you are asking for proof that cannot be produced without an investigation. Please notify your congressman that you want this information.
As far as blaming Clinton, BWAHAHAHA! Republicans nuked his ass for eight years and all they got was a stain on a blue dress. Talk about misdirection! STFUP
Okay, I'll start. I believe on principle, that government should work to the benefit of the governed.
ReplyDeleteReject that. It says nothing.
I'd say: Government should be reduced to 1/100 its size and should stay out of the way and allow people to freely go about their business. Maintain an army to wage war if the nation is attacked by another nation, have a judicial system to adjudicate disputes between citizens and a police force to apprehend those who threaten the lives or property of other citizens.
That's it.
"conservative principles"
ReplyDeleteWTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Oxymoron...
Like "conservative values"
...... doen't really exist
To eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteI understand your position of corporate structure, and it seems to me you are in favor of laissez faire type of policy, or social darwinism. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is what I sensed.
I do understand these points and they are good ones, I just happen to disagree completely. Raw capitalism, when it has been tried, achieves the goal of consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of the few and an eff ewe for everybody else.
Consider the quarterly statements of the corporation. A mid level manager knows if he could just save some money by bypassing all these environmental concerns and dump that shit over there, well, he just might get a nice bonus.
Enter Jack Abramoff. "I got so focused on winning, I wasn't paying any attention to what I was doing."
The motivated excel. Shortcuts are rewarded. Winning and profits are holy. A check on corporate greed is mandatory. Anti trust laws have been passed. This process is evolving even today. Still men die in coal mines for lack of safety. Wives have no husbands and children will grow up fatherless.
Companies must be forced, kicking and screaming, to provide safe work environments. Naturally, these were non-union mines. When companies kill their workers in the hunt for profit they can't just be allowed to holler, "next".
I named my blog what I named it because the name was not taken. And it was late and I was getting tired of outguessing everybody. I know, it kinda sux, huh.
BTW
ReplyDeleteWere you calling me a socialist?
That's sort of an insult, isn't it?
I'm all for profit and enterpreneurs and I'm cuttin' a fat hog out here in the oilfields of Oklahoma. I just think their needs to be room for the little guy.
To eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteYeah, your even further over than I thought. Ayn Randier huh?
I like reading Hypatias posts too. Cept she uses words I never heard of and fit them together in ways that makes me knit my brow.
ReplyDeleteHere pretty quick I'm sure I'll be all knowed up though.
DROP EVERYTHING. Have you all seen this video yet? If not, you have to watch it right now. This is an earthshattering moment, that this woman would come out of nowhere and speak the words she does, at risk to her own life and those of her family. Don't read the transcript, you have to listen to her passion and the way she speaks.
ReplyDeletehttp://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
----------------------------------
Her latest appearance took place Feb. 21, when Ms. Sultan engaged the Egyptian cleric Ibrahim Al-Khouli in a live debate about the "clash of civilizations" on the talk show "The Other Direction" on al Jazeera TV. Mr. Al-Khouli had previously compared Christians to apes and pigs. The transcript and subtitled video are available in English (www.memri.org).
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you compare yourself to Hypatia. The difference that I see is that she tends to contribute to the debate, whereas you just rant. What does your little diatribe have to do with anything?
"A corporation has no power to hurt you ... But a corporation which has the protection of the mob (government) can [use government] to deprive you of your freedom."
"The enemy of the people is what it has always been: Government."
So, X (corporations) and Y (government) are teaming up to hurt me, but I should only blame Y?
"A CORPORATION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUALS."
Agreed. When people say "blame the corporations," that's just shorthand for "blame the rich SOBs who are running the corporations." What's the difference?
"Socialists" put faith in government for the same reason "libertarians" put faith in corporations. In the end, it's just a collection of individuals trying to do their job.
oilfieldguy: you didn't answer my question. Why did you name your own blog what you did?
ReplyDeleteI'm calling you a monster, that's what I am calling you.
fuk'n a -
ReplyDeleteoilfieldguy, eyes wide open, mo - you all deserve each other. wallow in comfortable, reflexive, thoughtless, self-righteous stupidity forever.
i cry a solitary slo-mo tear that in some pitiful future any of you might arrogate the role of spokesman to yourself and embarass anyone with poor enough taste or bad enough luck to be caught behind you.
but thanks for demonstrating yet again that the lowest common denominator can and will rise to ruin any occasion.
. . . .Looking for a solution . . .
ReplyDeleteThere's been some consternation of what to do about the abuses by the President, and the inaction by the Congress. Well, we need to look at the issue broadly: It's not just a problem with the member of congress or the President.
The other problem is the existing system which fails to [a] protect rights; and [b] prevent the abuses of the power.
. . . going forward: We can argue that the solution isn't simply new elections with new leaders. Rather, to really solve the problem we hvae to fix what currently isn't working: Something in the Constitution doesn't trigger a protection of rights while also preventing abuse of that power.
. . . here's the quick step:
Argument: A defect in the Constitution fails to prevent the abuse of power. [ Click ]
Mechanism to correct: Constitutional Convention to discuss this issue [ Click ]
Remedy: Revoking powers that are abused, and lawfully adjusting the Constitution to mandate that rights are protected -- and power is not abused.
There needs to be some sort of consequences on Congress for failing to act -- namely Congress needs to be stripped of absolute immunity when it comes to "continuing to appropriate funds for unlawful programs and illegal wars."
We can also change the rules about what does or does not enforce rules -- revoking the power of Congress to make rules [Article 1 Section 5] and transferring that power to the States.
Recommendation: Details
Language: Here's a sample outline of what could be changed, and how this would occur: [ Click ]
Summation
Don't lose hope. There are other options. Take the broad view.
Perhaps you have other ideas on what really needs to be fixed to prevent abuse and protect our rights.
You are not alone.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteGreat work, as usual. Your post makes it easy to understand why the Right doesn't like Google.
We had better get ourselves for the next big fight in this country- keeping the Internet free and open.
Glenn, I find this line of argument somewhat troubling. I'm one of those governement-suspicious westerners that Newt Gingrich referred to in your post. I was troubled by the actions in Waco and with Elian Gonzales. I've been an avid reader of your blog and an supporter of finding out more about the NSA program(s) and punishing the politicians if they did something criminal.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I find this post troubling is that it opens you and others up to the criticism that no one has a principled view of this everyone is just seeking partisan advantage. I really hope that won't happen.
Randy
er...it didn't work. Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14071149.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics
paul rosenberg
ReplyDeleteIn your refutation of EyesWideOpen in which you go for miles to show everyone both your profound grasp of the rules of discourse and the subtleties of libertarian thought, you conveniently avoid addressing the central point:
Corporations do not legally have the power the state claims to force citizens to behave in a certain way. All of your demonizations of corporations conveniently begin from the opposite premise, ie, that General Motors, by virtue of being a corporation, has the license to infringe on you and your life. Further, to suggest that corporations as entities wouldn't exist without being legitimized by government helps defeat the point you're trying to make. To the extent that General Motors can get away with criminal activity is the exact same extent that they have received special dispensation from the government.
Libertarians don't believe that government has a rightful claim on the use of violence to enforce any preferred outcome in what would otherwise be peaceful and lawful transactions between any two parties. Obviously, they further don't have a legitimate claim to dispense such license to the corporations you love to demonize as though they act in a vacuum. The whole IDEA that General Motors has any chance of getting away with unlawful practices can only be supported with such a license. Lacking (misplaced) government authority, those who were found to be guilty of crimes would be penalized accordingly.
I recognize that most people who love to sneer at libertarianism cling to the idea that this sort of special government dispensation is equivalent to a "free market." It isn't. And just the fact that so many uneducated people say it over and over and over again doesn't make it true...although it serves the purpose of drowning out meaningful dialogue very well.
Similarly, to claim that Social Security is not socialism is not a fact just because you shrink from the socialist label yourself.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteNice post, and does indeed show the breakdown of conservatism in the U.S. Or does it? Every reversal of principle by the GOP that you identified is coupled with a similar reversal by the DNC. The moral? Our entrenched political class will say/do anything to keep/expand their power at the cost of principles, reason and potentially even this nation.
Anyone that thinks either party is less corrupt/corruptable than the other is fooling themselves. You've got a few real statesmen on either side of the aisle swimming in a sea fo human garbage.
"Congressman John Ashbrook(sic)" (Ashcroft?)introduced two bills
ReplyDeleteJohn Ashbrook ran for president against Nixon in the 72 primaries ... how soon they forget ...
You ideologues crack me up. Any conversation or debate is fair game to point out how, if the entire world only lined up behind your extreme ideology, all would be well. For us non-believers, that seems a lot like spam.
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg:
I don't have to do business with GM to be polluted by their cars and trucks
Rothbard:
All of your demonizations of corporations ...
Paul Rosenberg:
Social Security does not lead to Stalinism
Rothbard:
to claim that Social Security is not socialism is not a fact
You are just making stuff up. Please, leave the rational debate to those who are competent to handle it.
Glenn, you're seriously the last journalist alive. Good job.
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg:
ReplyDelete"I hope you will read more carefully in the future."
Or, perhaps, write more carefully. I wasn't calling you an ideologue, only Rothbard. His responses to your points were completely unrelated ... hence the "making stuff up."
paulrosenberg
ReplyDeleteI recognize that I'm supposed to pack up my tent in the face of your withering analysis, but I'll take one more shot.
I spent 90% of my response talking about the power claimed by government to enforce its agenda on citizens and the subsequent assigning of such power to corporations. I made the claim that this doesn't amount to a free market and that such government protection permits all of the abuses you claim are inherent in the existence of corporations. You didn't address this point at all.
Further, you agreed with me on a point I never tried to make: corporations do good things. I took no such particular position, yet you interpolated that based on your incorrect deduction that I'm a "right-wing ideologue."
Rather, you spent nearly all of your response to me correcting my reference to socialism...which was a likely ill-advised PS to your post. However, in that regard, you'll have to forgive me if I don't assign you the philosophical authority to a) determine how many socialist programs it takes before the system is properly called socialism and b) likewise, the line that must be crossed before socialism is called Stalinism. The amount of time you spent defending your socialist tendencies belies far more sensitivity to the label than I ever suggested you ought to have.
Nearly ALL proponents of "government as the solution" don't ever question the fact that the exclusive franchise for the use of violence on behalf of the mob is right and good. By extension, they refuse to acknowledge or address the consequences of that system as being what they are. In the case of this discussion, the consequences are the immoral and once unlawful actions of corporations. The system isn't questioned...it's the benefactors who are permitted to operate outside the law who are characterized as the SOURCE of the problem.
And I suspect that your further responses will keep the streak of not addressing the issue intact.
Some Quakers feel that all government activities are the product of violence, as they are funded with taxes, which are necessarily extracted with the threat of very real force.
ReplyDeleteThis line of reasoning doesn't seem that crazy to me.
Rothbard, Paul Rosenberg:
ReplyDeleteYou should know by now that you can't "debate" your viewpoints or ideologies. It just becomes a shouting match.
Rothbard:
[It's] hard to find "liberals" who (then or now) regarded the Waco and Ruby Ridge events as worthy of any kind of outrage
So the question is, do all of you who NOW claim to hold the principles of the Constitution sacrosanct really mean it this time...have you come to see the light that will allow you to recognize your complicity in this sort of trend in the past, or will you equivocate in order to protect your image of yourself as always being on the side of right and good...and sacrifice the principle yet again in so doing?
I do think this is a decent point. Obviously, it doesn't affect the basic logic behind the arguments that Glenn et al are making. In any case, President Bush has broken the law.
However, I can imagine, in the Court of Everyday Conversation, a little "mea culpa" might go a long way. Especially if, as Glenn suggest, the belief in the Rule of Law is not (or should not be) a partisan issue.
For the record, I do think Waco was outrageous.