The New York Times reports today that alarm has been spreading among “left-wing bloggers or purists holding Mr. Obama’s feet to the fire on one issue or another,” among them FISA, free trade, public financing of his campaign, and on and on. Lawrence Lessig, writing about Obama’s FISA repositioning, tells “fellow liberals, or leftists, or progressives, get off your high horse(s).” But some leftists aren’t getting the message. Glenn Greenwald, in typical Far Leftist fashion complains today about torture and FISA, going so are as to link both issues to a more fundamental problem: the “subversion” of the so-called “rule of law”:
This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want — including breaking our laws — and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country — live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We’ve collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws — that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. We’ve thus become a country which lives under the proverbial “rule of men” — that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed — and Mayer’s revelations [of widespread torture] are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice.
Rule of laws, rule of men, whatever. The sissy ninny latte-sipping liberal communist-anarchists on the rabid hysterical moonbat Radical Far Left whine and whine, while sipping lattes and poofing their expensive haircuts, about such trivial “rule of law” issues as: Bush’s legalization of warrantless wiretapping; the suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants; the use of torture as an instrument of state power; the use of executive signing statements and executive orders to define, circumvent, and nullify laws passed by Congress; the wholesale nullification of the Rule of Law in pursuit of the Global War on Terror; and on and on. They claim that there’s some kind of “problem” if Democrats–the ostensive opposition party–authorize or facilitate these powers. They act as if there was some ideology that links together these disparate abuses all together, something like the Unitary Executive Theory of presidential power. Unitary, smunitary, I say.
As a sissy ninny Latte-Sipping Liberal Far Leftist myself, I tell my comrades on this side of the aisle (really the dark rat-infested corner in the basement of the Capitol building): chin up. You’re looking at all of this the wrong way. We act sometimes as if the fact that our chief executive has absolute power and immunity to the law is a bad thing, but imagine the possibilities if we take the reins of power. If we can do that, and hold these very same Unitary Executive powers in our well-meaning and infallible hands, then we get to define who is the terrorist and who is the patriot. If we seize power, we decide where the Pentagon bombs and where U.S. aid money flows (hint: we will bomb the Midwest and use tax dollars to finance Al-Qaeda). So the best thing we can do to see our ideals and beliefs realized isn’t to cry over spilt milk–i.e. the Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the very concept of the rule of law–but rather to wholly embrace the total and complete death of the rule of law in favor of the rule of men. Men we like. Men like us.
In that spirit, I propose the following plan of action to America’s first Moonbat Leftist President, whoever he or she may be:
* Use your warrantless wiretapping powers to listen in to the phone conversations of the editorial offices of the Wall Street Journal, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, and so on.
* Arrest every right-wing talk radio host you know, and fly them all to Guantanamo Bay. Do not charge them with any crime, but simply insinuate they’re terrorists.
* Torture–via water boarding and any other means you like–any who refuse to confess to the nature of their Secret Plot to Destroy America or any who refuse to divulge the location of the deep-underground cave where Norm Podhoretz will be in hiding.
* Institute by signing statement and executive order any or all of the following: national health care, progressive taxation, income redistribution, protectionism, welfare, housing subsidies, and a free lollipop for every American.
* Declare right-wing militias (anyone who owns guns), militant anti-abortion activists (anyone who thinks abortion is wrong), slightly-too-religious Americans (anyone who attends a church) terrorists. They are, after all, all of them: so it’s best to call them what they are, declare a war on them, then also stipulate they’re not covered under the Geneva Convention, since they’re not uniformed soldiers.
* Appoint supreme court justices who will not be activist judges who claim to want to “protect and defend” the Constitution. Anything that restricts executive power is, as we’ve learned, by definition unconstitutional.
I think when you consider all the possibilities inherent in Unitary Executive Power, you will come to understand how mistaken you were to complain about this FISA and torture nonsense. Think instead of all the myriad opportunities that come with Total Power!
Note: I hope it’s entirely obvious that the above post is a satire, and that I do not advocate any of the above bullet-pointed items, for the obvious reasons: the “rule of men” is wrong when our political opponents advocate it, but it’s equally wrong when those we agree with do the same, even if it’s just a formal possibility in their hands, and remains unused.
I enjoyed your post, but I do think it’s important to emphasize that the war you intend to fight — a war against our domestic enemies, the right-wing evildoers who want to steal the American people’s money and send them off to die for no reason — isn’t a war of choice. It isn’t a war we want to fight. We take no pleasure whatsoever in carting off the right-wing radio talk-show hosts to secret prisons and torturing them until they admit their plans to destroy this country. We don’t derive any gratification whatsoever from eavesdropping on the enemies-of-America posing as “journalists” and “columnists” at the Wall Street Journal. We’d much rather sit back and enjoy our own personal lives and interests without regard for the greater dangers facing this country. But as patriotic Americans, we cannot sit idly by and watch as our nation is overrun by domestic enemies hell-bent on destroying the American middle class, its culture of tolerance, etc.
We’d certainly prefer to hide behind abstract notions of a “Constitution” or the “rule of law,” as you point out, in order to avoid taking up our responsibilities as patriotic Americans. But these are extraordinary times, the threat could not be more extreme or more insidious, and if we don’t take aggressive measures to destroy the right-wing political machine, we risk a world-wide descent into post-apocalyptic nightmare.
Make no mistake: We shall not shirk our responsibility to destroy our enemies in the name of America. By any means necessary.
END OF SATIRE.
That phrase “by any means necessary,” was made famous by Malcolm X. Isn’t it ironic that 40 years later a conservative President would take this unfortunate maxim so closely to heart. At least Malcolm X was (a) honest about his goals, and (b) honest that he would achieve them even if it meant violating the principles that bind our society together. Bush has told the American people that we don’t torture — an obvious lie that should disgust all patriotic Americans — and he has told the American people that the goal of his foreign policy is to protect American citizens from a terrorist attack — another obvious lie, as his policies ignore real threats and focus instead on wrong-headed cynicism and/or sophomoric idealism. (Did we accidentally put a cocky, petulant high school student in charge of our entire civilization? It feels that way sometimes.)
I love American democracy. I love the rule of law — the notion that no man, no matter how powerful, is above the laws that we collectively decide upon. That’s why the “latte-sippers” are so furious about the FISA vote. That’s why they’re so furious about torture, signing statements, the horrifying reality that America is arresting people and holding them without charges, without rights, perhaps without any evidence whatsoever.
The principles that restrain the executive branch are the product not only of the wisdom of our founding fathers, but also of more than two centuries of national experience. The post above just shows that nobody is safe when these principles are thrown out the window by armchair warriors with wild, childish notions.
That’s why this election is so important. That’s why it’s important to elect Obama. I’m not asking patriotic Americans to abandon their principles just to avoid embarrassing Obama’s campaign. (I swear I’m not.) But it’s a terrible, terrible mistake to just hand the election to John McCain because you’re pissed at Obama for being a politician. You can support a candidate without supporting every decision they make. You can also decide to withdraw from this presidential campaign in a fit of disappointment — and then you can watch from a privileged distance, perhaps, as McCain leads this country even farther from its core principles. If you use your ideals as an excuse to withdraw support for the Obama campaign, you’re putting your own abstract ideology ahead of what’s best for the country, which is for Obama to take the oath of office in January 2009.
Comment by iabagley — July 13, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
I agree completely.
Comment by Lee — July 13, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
One more thing: Glenn Greenwald doesn’t need to “get off his high horse,” but he does need to understand that his intense rhetoric effectively encourages people to vote for somebody else besides Obama this fall. If Greenwald thinks a McCain victory is best for the country, then I deeply disagree. I respect his patriotic stand in defense of American democracy, but I heard him last week on National Public Radio’s “On Point” last week and he sounded weak and confused when responding to a caller who said he was going to vote for Nader in November because Obama wasn’t good enough. Can Greenwald advocate for Obama as well as he advocates against him? Because this country needs leadership, not just naysaying. Speaking as someone who voted for Nader in New York in 2000, I believe that things have changed since then. The two parties aren’t the same, and another Republican in the White House just isn’t an option. Period. It’s time we get clear on that, or else the attorney general who replaces Mukasey won’t be any better than he is. Obama’s enemies would love to attack Obama for opposing the new FISA bill — and that’s why Obama ended up supporting it, albeit reluctantly. Maybe it was the wrong decision, but is that a reason to hand the White House to John McCain?
Comment by iabagley — July 13, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Rereading my post, I also wanted to make another I hope wholly unnecessary clarifying point : I do not think any of the “proposals” of the fictional “Moonbat Leftist”–an amalgamation of what certain right-wingers imagine “leftists” privately think–in whose voice I wrote the post above are “good” ideas.
I do not want to bomb the Midwest, or subsidize al-Qaeda, or give free lollipops out to Americans. I think torture is a moral abomination (not to mention a strategically terrible idea for the torturing country), and I believe that gun-owning, anti-abortion, and religious Americans are on the whole honorable and decent people, even when I disagree with them on specific political issues (especially on interpretations of the Second Amendment and the time human life can properly be said to begin). The above-mentioned conservative journals, newspapers, and right-wing radio hosts should not be arrested and jailed indefinitely, and not only on legalistic grounds (I’m sure they’ll be happy to hear!) but on moral ones.
I do believe that taxes on the wealthy and redistribution are a good idea. I do believe protectionism not always a great idea but has gotten a bad rap (read Ha-Joon Chang’s “Bad Samaritans” if you doubt me on this point). I do think that national health care–and not just universal health care–would be desirable, but I’d be happy with universal health care if it can be attained.
My main point in the above post was to write specifically about the rule of law. My thesis, so to speak, was that these rule of law issues cut many ways, politically, and are in no way “leftist” or even “liberal” issues. That’s why the Daily Show was so brilliant in cutting together Fox News segments showing conservative pundits waxing poetic about Constitutional principles (when it was a Clinton administration) and explaining how the executive can do anything he wants (under W. Bush). Same people, radically different opinions when it’s their preferred candidate in power.
Comment by Lee — July 13, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
It’s a complicated thing. It is possible to be critical of your candidate and also support him (or her). If I saw evidence that the activities of Glenn Greenwald or other bloggers were harming Obama’s chances, then I would have to speak out against these bloggers. But absent, that, I think being critical of Obama on a particular issue actually strengthens one’s endorsement of Obama.
In a sense, Greenwald has the credibility to speak to purists precisely because of his unwillingness to relent on FISA. When he turns around and says emphatically to them VOTE OBAMA–which he does, again and again–then it’s clear what he thinks: Obama is wrong on this issue, but right for America. We must ensure that he is elected president.
I agree and will vote Obama in November without a moment’s hesitation.
Comment by Lee — July 13, 2008 @ 1:03 pm