The Challenge

I haven’t posted anything overtly political in a while, so here goes:

From a speech by Al Gore, 16 January 2006:

. . . As President Eisenhower said, “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

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.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens’ right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President’s apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

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.”

From the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in 1861 and 1862, from the Espionage Act of WWI to the forced internment of US citizens during WWII, from the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklists of the late 1940s and early 1950s to domestic spying by the FBI during the Vietnam conflict, right up to the current administration’s attempt to replace our system of checks and balances with an all-powerful unitary executive, our leaders have shown, again and again, a cheerful disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And the people? I think it’s safe to assume the majority value safety and security above all else. People I know – intelligent, educated people – tell me they welcome domestic spying, as long as it saves one American life. Freedom of speech? The right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If our betters curtail those rights, they must have a good reason. After all, we’re at war. With Terrorism!

Our founders put their lives on the line to secure our rights and protections. Never mind that the founders intended those rights and protections to apply only to white male landowners; today they apply to all of us, and Mr. Gore and I find it no less than miraculous that we’ve managed to hold on to them.

We’ve endured, and survived, far greater catastrophes than terrorism. Measure the threat of another Al Qaeda attack against the Civil War, when more than half a million Americans lost their lives and our nation came within a hair’s breadth of total collapse: there is no comparison.

But whenever there’s been a threat to domestic tranquility, frightened politicians (cheered on by an equally-frightened citizenry) have tried to shitcan civil liberties and the rule of law, while calling those who insist on protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights traitors. Whenever there’s been a threat, presidents have tried to expand their power. But this President’s power grab is unprecedented in its scope and audacity, and presents a clear threat to the continued rule of law in this country. Mr. Gore quotes Bob Barr, who said: “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.”

Where people stand on the American Civil Liberties Union tells you where they stand on expanded executive power and domestic spying. If they hate the one they embrace the other. Where do I stand? I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Who, today, is working to protect the Constitution? The executive branch wants to rewrite it, for our own good. The legislative branch is running scared and can’t be trusted to protect it. The judicial branch, traditionally the bulwark between reaction and the rule of law, is about to undergo a sea change, and I don’t think it’ll be much of a bulwark after Alito joins the Supreme Court.

I’m not a politician. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a lobbyist or a wealthy contributor. My vote? Under our winner-takes-all electoral system, it only counts if I vote for the winner. I have absolutely no influence on events. But by supporting the ACLU, I can help people who do exercise influence. That’s what I’m doing in response to the President’s challenge. I hope you will too.

2 thoughts on “The Challenge

  • Dick 02/01/06 1:36 PM

    Paul, obviously I am coming from a different place than you on this. In terms of a philosophical perspective, perhaps Reinhold Niebuhr put it best in “Moral Man and Immoral Society” with his concept of ‘Christian Realism’ i.e. read ‘moral realism,’ when he wrote about the undeniability of human freedom and at the same time the inescapability of its limits. He points out that it is difficult to map, much less apply (oops, sorry, application is an ethical algorithm ((pun intended)) so disregard), the complex moral realities that shape our politics and our history. But history does have an over riding lesson for us: without a certain level of security, there can be no freedom.

    What that level of security is, and the practical ways to secure it, should be the focus of political debate. As a nation we have an interesting track record in this regard. During times of crisis, we go for security at the expense of civil liberties, then afterwards, we sort it all out. In the end, we have always come out with a stronger, and more clearly defined knowledge of what those “inescapbable limits” Neibuhr spoke of are.

    Let me restate this. When you are in a pissing contest, you better have a higher mainfold pressure and longer augmentor tube or you will be the pissee and not the pissor. Cicero understood this when he wrote, “Law stands mute in the midst of arms.” Oh, hell. Honor the fuckin’ threat in the air and argue the ROE in the debrief.

    Hey, maybe I need a life or another beer.

  • Paul Woodford 02/02/06 10:59 AM

    Good points, but debatable. For example, must we surrender all rights and protections in order to be strong enough to beat the terrorists? Personally I don’t think we need to surrender any of them. Perhaps if we were really at war I’d buy parts of your argument. But the only part of our society that is at war is the military. The rest of us are laying about the house watching Oprah and eating bon-bons.

    And with Darth Cheney in charge, will there ever be an afterwards when we can sort things out? Not if he can help it, I bet.

    Democrats in the House & Senate aren’t going to keep this administration honest. Neither will the press. That leaves the ACLU, god bless ’em!

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge