January 16, 2006

Thumbs up or down

On Al Gore's speech today?

I've never been a huge fan, and I didn't hear the speech, but Ive gone over the text. I like the "overreach and regret" theme. I understand linking to MLK and COINTELPRO today of all days. I certainly buy the Wilson references (I've got a half done post around here somewhere about that very thing).

Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.

But in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.

And he makes a case for why this might not be just another case of "excess and regret" that will be corrected in time, in a smack on Alito. The cognoscenti will get it, but I don't know if anyone else will.

There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.

Nice ties to the stuff that scares everyone about the bad old days.

The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees. For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases. Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."

A nice thumb in the eye to the Federalist folk:

The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)

Which I admit I do like, since it galls me when one party claims certain heritage or thinkers for themselves.

The Orwell is overdone, I'd say. I mean, around here, sure, but I'm not convinced. Orwell does fire up the civil libertarians though, and that's the most likely area for broader cooperation across parties.

In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.

The judicial stuff (trotting out the "umpire" metaphor) is OK, but I'm more pleased that he discussed the weakening of the legislature.

But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.

Although I thought his support for that line of argument was weak. Can't work in Congress because you're too busy raising money? That may be true, but it's off the mark for the rest of the speech. When he focuses on Congress being complacent in its own evisceration, I think he's adding to the money issue with negative views of the institution. I see it, I just think he could have played it better.

The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.

Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.

Positive points for mentionng Abramoff - which I think should be done early and often by the democrats - but where's he going with the broken Congress thing?

The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I'm just not sure that telling the American public that the legislative branch is "pitiful" is the best way to go about getting the American people to trust it to fix the situation. Because, of course, it's not going to be the executive branch and sure as hell not going to be the Supreme Court. Maybe he's trying to get the loser democrats in Congress to shape up, cast off their defeatism and Bork Alito.

Again, favorale points for citing Jefferson and Locke:

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

Again with the money and television stuff. Yawn.

And here there is cause for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates./p>

Good call on global warming. It's his bread and butter.

To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.

Excellent point...knock some reality into the Keyboard Commandos.

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

Insert bipartisan call here.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.

And protect the internet? What's up with that? Why did that come here in the wrap up? With nothing on the MSM? What, does the Creator of the Internet know something about all of us being spied upon?

Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.

It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.

And the summing up and quoting from Dr. King.

I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.

As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

Things I liked, things I didn't. Al gets a kick in the pants for not mentioning how control extends to the desire to have control over women's uteruses. Once again, women's rights are left out. He gets a C for substituting TV and money for a better and broader statement about the protection of rights.

UPDATE: Already. Go check out Hoffmania for several posts with links. Seems others were more pleased after watching Gore, and not just reading. Guess he got really fired up when talking about special counsel.

UPDATE 2: Yeah, I'm listening to it. It comes across better live. Go to Crooks and Liars and have a listen.

Posted by binky at January 16, 2006 05:08 PM | TrackBack | Posted to J. Edgar Hoover | Politics | The Ever Shrinking Constitution


Comments

It seems decent, if a bit scattershot (trying to tie Congressional problems, NSA spying, global warming and the problems of television into one speech that will resonate will likely fail).

It doesn't seem to be getting much play in the wider MSM. Don't know what to make of that.

Nice post.

Posted by: baltar at January 16, 2006 05:55 PM | PERMALINK

That's why I thought the TV/Money (and maybe even the global warming, though I think the crony/denial part was relevant) stuff was less relevant and that it could have been a individual rights slam dunk.

Posted by: binky at January 16, 2006 05:59 PM | PERMALINK

Things I liked, things I didn't. Al gets a kick in the pants for not mentioning how control extends to the desire to have control over women's uteruses. Once again, women's rights are left out. He gets a C for substituting TV and money for a better and broader statement about the protection of rights.

He couldn't do that and have it be a bipartisan call, but he snuck in such a beautiful statement about the culture of fear, and the collapse of our rights because of it, it's hard to imagine what else he could have been talking about. From Justice William Brandeis about the Salem Witch Trials: "Men feared witches, and women burned."

It was a powerful moment.

Posted by: StealthBadger at January 16, 2006 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

He didn't have to say "abortion rights." But I think (and check out Amanda, Twisty, Lauren, Echidne, etc etc especially around the issue of Kos and the democratic party elite) that there is a constant problem with women's issues being fungible. I got the witches statement, but that was a pretty clear dodge. He could have done a little dance about individual liberties - it was a libertarian venue after all - and linked back to civil rights and suffragists. Come on, TV ads?

Yeah, I wasn't there. And yeah, I got a chip. I get sick of the party assuming women'll support it, when they aren't willing to fight for us. Look at what Feinstein has been saying, for crying out loud.

I know Gore's not responsible for the whole party, and I'm glad he called Bush on the carpet. It just gets old feeling like the crazy aunt in the attic room that n-o-o-n-e-w-i-l-l-t-a-l-k-a-b-o-u-t-f-o-r- f-e-a-r-o-f-u-p-s-e-t-t-i-n-g-G-r-a-n-d-m-a.

Posted by: binky at January 17, 2006 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

i heard excerpts of the speech and was -- and not for the first time -- floored by the fire he's summoned repeatedly since his creepy mannequin-like performance in the 2000 campaign.

my question is: why? is he trying to keep himself visible enough to keep viable another run for the white house? this speech i've heard only in bits, and read the above post -- and binky, thanks for doing such a careful and thorough write-up -- but in the past couple of years he's given a couple of doozies. i always liked him, and i still do. could he really make a run for it? given the list of potential candidates right now, he'd probably have my presumptive vote going into primary season.

Posted by: moon at January 17, 2006 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

evidently, my belief that al gore presents a more interesting candidate than anyone else on the dem radar (unless, perhaps, obama decides to go for it) is shared by others.

Posted by: moon at January 17, 2006 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with what you're saying, as far as the Left consistently back-seating women's rights in favor of the "important part of the big picture" du jour, and if this was a rally of Democrats alone, I'd be frothing at the mouth right with you - especially with the apparent cave-in the Democrats are going to enact on Scalito.

Saying they trust him after Roberts lied about how he'd vote on right-to-die cases is utter garbage.

Back to women's rights: The whole point of the coalition was to be non-partisan, and part of the Republican party platform is the restriction of abortion. Gore restricted his comments to what he and Barr (and the Right-wing members of the coalition) can agree on without coming to blows on the stage. It was as close to an abstract Constitutional law critique as you're going to get.

Again: If Gore runs for President, and kicks to the curb the right of human beings to have a say about what happens in their own bodies (I take an alarmingly Libertarian view of the subject), then color me frothing-at-the-mouth. The omission of it from the speech was Not Good. It's not as big a problem as women's rights, but my own personal crusade (the shunning of the heathen unbelievers of which I am one of, not making any presumptions about anyone else), didn't even get a nod, with all the mention of prayer, praying, and providence. But I am guaranteed life in a theocratic state if That Usurping Bastard isn't held accountable.

Posted by: StealthBadger at January 18, 2006 09:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the libertarian view is what keeps all of us here at Bloodless Coup together.

And I'm not that peevy with Gore, just tired. And stuff like this doesn't help.

And a small p.s., hopefuly I haven't gummed things up in your nest, but I think I'm finally getting the hand of your new login system. :)

Posted by: binky at January 18, 2006 10:04 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?