Yet, the big lesson is the complex one. The nominal Democratic majority in Congress is virtually indistinguishable from the anti-liberty party, a.k.a. the Republican one. On key political and philosophical issues, Democrats are increasingly to the right of the American public. An excellent analysis of that came with last year’s huge longitudinal Pew study showing voters are increasingly in favor of Democratic Party planks, while the Congressional votes are far more right wing, anti-liberty, and well, Republican.
On the Wrong Side
To his disgrace, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama voted for FISA. Oddly enough, regular supporter of this and similar legislation, Hillary Clinton, voted against it. The obvious is that Obama is cluck-cluck terrified of being called soft on terrorism as he runs for office. I shall be fascinated to see how he spins this one. Giving the Bushies and the telcos a free pass on years of violating our essential rights is repulsive.
My conclusion has for too long been that the capons in business suits in the Congressional coop are chicken, so to write. Even Democratic members of House and Senate live in amoral fear of losing their powerful positions. To please big-money contributors, they vote right wing and parrot such lies as, “I’m trying to keep us safe from terrorism.”
What we have seen since 9/11 is a steady dissolution of those liberties we pretend to strive to protect. Why should any nation – Iraq, China, Germany, any nation – believe us when we say, “Support us, emulate us, and do as we do to make the world better!”
They have all seen us spy on our own people as well as many thousands overseas. They have seen us kidnap, torture and kill without process or adherence to our own or international law. They have seen us repress at home and abroad in a perverted and totally dishonest melodrama we call In The Defense of Liberty.
Courage Infusion
Contingent on 1) the Dems taking the White House in four months and 2) substantial Dem increases in Congress, the real reform can happen. With our brood of professional cowards hiding as Democrats in Congress, new people who are not jaded, who still love liberty, and who do not live in fear of losing their stuff have to shake the old men and women awake.
An Obama administration is not likely to be anywhere near as bold as I’d like. He certainly is not anywhere as progressive as I want even now. If he follows the century-old pattern of other self-identified progressives, he won’t accomplish many of the huge goals he outlined early on.
Yet, what progressives from Woodrow Wilson on have done in seminal victories is set the tone at national and state levels. They have given direction and hope those who do care about the underclass, about the protecting and restoring freedom, about justice for all, about equal opportunity, and about being the example for the developing world. It is after such elections that we have seen myriad improvements for the larger society, not just huge gifts to the already powerful and wealthy.
In such an environment, our capons might turn into humans with honor as well as hope. As the interest groups have given them permission of watch as liberties shrink, a major progressive shift could give them permission to stand up for actual American values.
At the optimum, we might be able to build on this in the next several elections. Think of more progressives entering Congress and reinforcing those principles. We have had decades now of anti-liberty Republicans and complicit Democrats. We could use eight or more years of courage and respect instead.
A very different kind of President and a flood of Congressional non-effete reinforcements could, would and should make this a very different nation. Don’t think just of Obama. Think of a vastly improved culture.
I was more disappointed in the Democratic Party after the last election. Their performance has made me change to Independent. Most people I know voted for them to counter the totalitarian Republican ideals that do so much damage to the country. Instead they joined the orgy of corruption, institutional terror and general lawlessness. The only question now is, “Which party is the least rancid?”
<
p>If the Rasmussen poll indicates that 9% of the American people believe that Congress is doing a good job. Where did they find 9% Pollyannas?
<
p>This year I’ll vote for non-incumbents but for president. There I’ll vote for Obama in the forlorn hope that he can’t be worse than the prospect of four more years of Republican administration.
Another possibility which seems likely is that, since he’s more confident now than he was when he pledged to support filibusters against immunity that he is in fact going to be president in a matter of months, he figures all things considered he’d prefer having more power to having less.
Not too long ago I spoke about giving the people of MA a chance to vote on something rathe than letting our legislators make the decisions. The response on this blog was our “voting” on issues was impractical and that is why we elect people. The powers in office just voted overwhelmingly 69-28 in support of this bill. Obviously, the members of the Senate, who have far more access to intellegence information than we do believed this controversial bill warranted support. Now it is law so get over it. Try to deal with the fact that if the government is listening to you talk dirty to your spouse on the phone, then you can’t sue them for $100M.
<
p>Thanks to Democratic Senators Bayh, Feinstein, Obama and Webb for their support of the President’s efforts.
that’s a funny thing to say, since laws can be changed in a democratic system. are you trying to imply that we no longer have a democracy? if so, i might almost agree with you.
But until that happens, be careful what you say on the phone because G. Bush is listening.
<
p>As far as I can tell, we have a Republic not a Democracy.
<
p>
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
<
p>What would people in a government do if they could search citizens and their effects without probable cause supported by oath?
<
p>
I think the reasons that most people voted in favor of this bill was to protect corporations from a lengthly civil litigatory process that really they didn’t deserve to be subject too since the government in fact basically forced them to hand over the records in the first place.
<
p>That said I agree that the Democrats have been incredibly spineless and there should be investigations and dare I say impeachment proceedings to weed out the corruption in our government as the framers intended Congress to do.
<
p>The other alternative is that Obama now feels that he would need this power as president, again not a good reason to vote in favor of this proposal, but I do still trust this power in his hands then in the hands of the current crop of criminals running the government or that same crop under the McCain label.
<
p>Also progressives finally need to realize that the majority of the country is not with them on this issue. The average American citizen cares more about feeding their family, putting gas in the tank, and being free from bodily harm than they will ever care about their liberty-which is why the true safeguard of our liberties has become the courts since they are free from the whims of an ignorant electorate. And another reason to pull the lever for a new Democratic majority is to ensure that the courts continue to be pro-liberty.
<
p>Lastly compared to most democratic countries including Britain and Germany our country is still, at least for its citizens, comparitively more free especially when it comes to issues such as privacy rights and warrants. Remember the brits still do not have habeas corpus enshrined in any document and parliament could concieveably remove it by fiat if it so choose. So we are in theory better off. We are not in an era worse than McCarthyism or the red scare under Wilson (who was not a progressive!) but we could be approaching that point. The argument that needs to be made is that terrorism is not a threat that constitutes this magnitude of seizure of power and cessation of liberty. That is the debate. So long as we are debating who is better equipped to stop terrorism-a debate liberals have engaged in-we will continue to lose on the civil liberties front since you cannot both fight terror and protect liberty. Its time we conclude that terror is not a threat that justifies the response it has recieved.
<
p>Wilson may have been the president of Princeton and a Democrat, but you may want to dust off your college history textbooks about the suppression of civil liberties in WWI. His actions actually led to the founding of the ACLU.
<
p>http://www.observer.com/node/4…
As in the post, it’s not the individual politician, rather the mood and attitude. Wilson also had nothing personally to do with state-level progressive improvements. It is that his election was part of the times and movement. That’s the parallel with now.
<
p>Unfortunately, another is likely that the timid and overly vague Obama would also not likely force great change as prez. However, if the election brings in more progressive pols to Congress and state governments, that is like other such times. Good things will happen as part of the larger movement.
<
p>Alas, the taste for progressivism does not last long, if history is an indicator here. We should ride it for as long as we can to institute incremental improvements though. We’ll swing back to the center and right soon enough.
Your “analysis” is overwrought. Did you read the law’s summary? I don’t see much in there for me to be scared about, especially given the FISA court oversight.
<
p>Where’s the stripping of freedom? The summary you cited says nothing about DOMESTIC eavesdropping. FISA allows for the acquisition of foreign communication there and here, but does not authorize listening in to my conversations here at home.
<
p>Here’s what it sez:
<
p>
<
p>Please explain how this repeals the 4th Amendment.
<
p>PS — History has proven Whitaker Chambers right. The Red Scare was real. Please read Brian Crozier’s “Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire.” Alger Hiss WAS a Communist spy!
This is the abstract, idea commentary. An analysis of the FISA content is only meaningful in the context of the current Administration’s disdain for the Constitutional guarantees, including the 4th Amendment. That’s a different and much longer discussion. There’s no dearth of cases and commentaries on abuses and covert operations domestically. A little research will give you as much as you can handle.
<
p>Moreover, those alleged court safeguards are laughable in the face of seven years of spying first and much later or never seeking permission. I certainly have no faith in this Administration obeying even these modest restrictions. Why should they start now, just because FISA says so? Just trust Bush and Cheney, right?
<
p>Your narrowly focusing on what the law specifically says out of context of the past seven years avoids the bases for concern and even fear.