Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Obama's Civil Liberties Record Understandable?
Both Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan say they think most people are too hard on Obama, but express disappointment at his record on civil liberties issues. I agree that the civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted, but I'm continually surprised that people are disappointed in this turn. Of all the things for an incumbent President of the United States to take political risks fighting for, obviously reducing the power of the executive branch is going to be dead last on the list. If you want to see civil liberties championed, that’s going to have to come from congress.
It's interesting how what was once lambasted as "Constitution-shredding" under George Bush is now nothing more than: Obama's "civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted." Also, the premise implicitly embedded in Matt's argument is the standard Beltway dogma that there would be serious political costs from reversing the Bush/Cheney abuses of the Constitution and civil liberties. The success of Obama's campaign -- which emphatically and repeatedly vowed to do exactly that -- ought to have permanently retired that excuse.
Even more important, Matt seems to be implying that he knew all along that Obama never really intended to fulfill his multiple campaign promises to restore civil liberties and dismantle the Bush/Cheney war on the Constitution. So all of those righteous speeches and commitments and campaign positions were nothing more than dishonest instruments for manipulating and placating the people who supported his campaign? I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. I neither believed nor disbelieved what Obama said during the campaign, but instead intended to wait for the evidence before deciding. And particularly once I watched Obama -- once his party's nomination was secure -- flagrantly violate his pledge to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity, I had no expectations that he'd feel at all compelled to adhere to his other promises.
But is it really that surprising that many people did believe that Obama actually meant what he said, given that the entire campaign was predicated on his self-proclaimed uniqueness as a candidate and his over-arching intent to rid our political culture of corroding cynicism and to restore hope and faith in the political process? If Obama ran a campaign which purposely elevated the hopes of so many people -- particularly younger and new voters -- while secretly harboring the knowledge that he did not feel at all bound by what he was promising, isn't that a fairly serious indictment of his character, as well as a dangerous game to play for the Democratic Party? And during the time he was vigorously supporting Obama's candidacy last year, did Matt ever point out that Obama didn't really mean what he was saying when he spoke about these matters -- a fairly significant point to make when commenting on the election? If Obama had no intention of "reducing the power of the executive branch," why did he repeatedly proclaim that he would?
But what strikes me as the most significant aspect of Matt's commentary is that this mitigating analysis was rarely, if ever, applied to Bush. I've been reading many arguments from Obama supporters over the last couple of weeks insisting that Obama can't possibly give civilian trials to all Terrorism suspects because having to free detainees whom they can't convict in court would be politically catastrophic; but doesn't that same reasoning justify Bush's decision to open Guantanamo and hold terrorist suspects without charges? After all, how could Bush afford to risk acquittals any more than Obama?
Similarly, if Matt's argument is true that it's natural and inevitable that Presidents will try to maximize their own power -- and that it's Congress' responsibility to check that -- doesn't that mean that Bush and Cheney got a bad rap all these years for their so-called "Constitution-shredding," and that the ultimate responsibility for their abuses lies not with Bush, Cheney David Addington and John Yoo, but rather with Tom Daschle, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi? If it's the responsibility of Congress to check presidential abuses -- since, as Matt argues, no rational person would ever expect the President to voluntarily impose or even accept limits on his own power -- then the real controversy should be about why Nancy Pelosi and company didn't do more to publicize Bush/Cheney extremism and impose limits on what they were doing. Matt, however, seemed to argue the opposite in the past -- as he when he insisted that the controversy over what Pelosi knew about torture was irrelevant because she was just a "bit player" in the whole affair. If complaints about Obama's civil liberties abuses are overheated because it's unreasonable to expect him to do anything different, shouldn't the same be said of Bush and Cheney?
I agree with Matt's explicit point that Congress has an important role to play in checking presidential abuses -- a role they've clearly abdicated no matter which party was in control. He's also right that Presidents don't easily relinquish power. But it's hardly unreasonable to object when someone runs for high political office based on clear and repeated promises that they have squarely violated. Whatever else is true, watching Obama embrace extremist policies can still be "disappointing" even if one isn't surprised that he's doing it. I could understand and accept a lot more easily this blithe acquiescence to Obama's record if it weren't for the fact that progressives and Democrats spent so many years screaming bloody murder over Bush's use of indefinite detention, military commissions, state secrets, renditions, and extreme secrecy -- policies Obama has largely and/or completely adopted as his own. One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain.
- Posted in
60 Comments so far
Show AllGlenn Greenwald's excellent article simply reinforces what Lance Selfa had laid out, from a leftist point of view, in his book The Democrats: A Critical History and that is that there is no substantial difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. This article also demonstrates that those in power, no matter what party it may be, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on the authority that they possess over the American people.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."-Harry S. Truman
bless harry he sure knew of what he spoke and he had much
in common with that statement. absolute power corrupts
its that simple.america is racing down the slippery slope
of a dictatorship imbedded in more than just money
and power.see the article on joe arpaio as reference.
Obama's vote on FISA should have been a wake-up call last year but it wasn't or the people bought into the notion that Obama would change course once in office. I wonder how many of these same people will say "Oh just wait until he gets his second term and then he'll be free to be himself !" The Congress of both parties are corrupt as is the White House, Dubya or Obama.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone who considers himself/herself the least bit progressive still supports Obama or the Democrats. The best comment on Obama I've read to date comes from someone on CD (and I'm sorry I forgot the person's name). He/she said: "Obama will be the first prominent African American who will be despised for something other than his race."
And also give racists fuel for their argument that blacks can't be trusted.
I can't understand how anyone who considers hirself the least bit *intelligent* can still support Obummer or the Dems! How can anyone watch what's going on and still believe the Obot "justalittlebitlonger" fairy tales?
While it is not surprising that Democrats in office will always support each other and make excuses for each other, the duty of the Fifth Estate, the journalists and commentators, to criticize what office-holders do. A supposedly liberal, progressive op-ed should not be making excuses for a Democrat for behavior that is considered horrific in a Republican. All during the Clinton presidency, the same kind of bias was expressed as it is now for Obama, that whatever he did it was well motivated or understandable or whatever, even though Clinton was one of the most effective presidents in getting Republican economic bills enacted, such as NAFTA, "welfare reform" and Gramm's bill to end the Glass-Steagall Act.
So here we go again. Obama is not ending the war in Iraq nor Afghanistan (which he actually campaigned to carry on,) he is not closing Guantanamo this year, he is continuing the economic shock doctrine of the monetarists (Friedman, Rubin, Summers,) and he is not demanding legislation in any definite form to help the public in health care, a jobs bill, any true stimulus, much less calling a halt to the massive number of foreclosures. He, like the Congress, received massive campaign contributions from the same financial interests as the Republicans, and he and they will not bite the hand that feeds them. But the MSM commentators who excoriated Bush are not criticizing Obama, because he is their party's president.
I think that the MSM should not be surprised that people are not buying newspapers and that there are low ratings for the national tv news shows, because even the public knows that there is little truth to be found there.
Obama's civil liberties record is not understandable. He campaigned to be a good guy, so we should hold him to the standards he set in his campaign, never mind that it was cynical in the extreme. If he made promises, he must be made to keep them. And it is on us, the public, to make these demands vigorously. Certainly, the MSM will not do it for us.
"Hurray for our team!"
It doesn't matter who owns the team, how it wins, and what it does after it wins. What matters is that it's OUR team and that we need to support it and make sure that it wins.
That's how you distract the populace from the major heist going on behind the scenes.
Margalo:
"Corrections made:" Indeed!
You meant the "FOURTH Estate"--not the "Fifth Estate".
The press is known as the "Fourth Estate".
I can't bother to finish your (possibly insightful) comment, given your lack of vocabulary power--sorry.
the fifth estate, you can find on you tube tunes. like, the group that played "ding, dong, the witch is dead" back in 1967.
True Patriot, I've been referring to the Fourth Estate as the Fifth Column for over 10 years. It was given First Amendment protection in order to have the freedom to inform the citizenry, a responsibility it has completely betrayed and abdicated. Of course now, First Amendment rights have been handed out like Halloween candy to everyone except those for whom it was intended. Free speech corrals, anyone?
Commondreams feels like a free speech corral, since no one else hears us. To be fair, when I try to talk to people, for the most part they are clueless and disinterested. As things get worse, that could change.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Indeed, like Pullosi Punch and Judy Reid, John Conyas and Dis Obey, Uncle 'Bomb's merely another DEM No Account Reneger!
Corrections made:
While it is not surprising that Democrats in office will always support each other and make excuses for each other, it is the duty of the Fifth Estate, the journalists and commentators, to criticize what office-holders do. A supposedly liberal, progressive op-ed should not be making excuses for a Democrat for behavior that is considered horrific in a Republican. All during the Clinton presidency, the same kind of bias was expressed as it is now for Obama that whatever he did it was well motivated or understandable or whatever, even though Clinton was one of the most effective presidents in getting Republican economic bills enacted, such as NAFTA, "welfare reform" and Gramm's bill to end the Glass-Steagall Act.
So here we go again. Obama is not ending the war in Iraq nor Afghanistan (which he actually campaigned to carry on,) he is not closing Guantanamo this year, he is continuing the economic shock doctrine of the monetarists (Friedman, Rubin, Summers,) and he is not demanding legislation in any definite form to help the public in health care, a jobs bill, any true stimulus, much less calling a halt to the massive number of foreclosures. He, like the Congress, received massive campaign contributions from the same financial interests as the Republicans, and he and they will not bite the hand that feeds them. But the MSM commentators who excoriated Bush are not criticizing Obama, because he is their party's president.
I think that the MSM should not be surprised that people are not buying newspapers and that there are low ratings for the national tv news shows, because even the public knows that there is little truth to be found there.
Obama's civil liberties record is not understandable. He campaigned to be a good guy, so we should hold him to the standards he set in his campaign, never mind that it was cynical in the extreme. If he made promises, he must be made to keep them. And it is on us, the public, to make these demands vigorously. Certainly, the MSM will not do it for us.
Margalo:
"Corrections made:" Indeed!
You meant the "FOURTH Estate"--not the "Fifth Estate".
The press is known as the "Fourth Estate".
I can't bother to finish your (possibly insightful) comment, given your lack of vocabulary power--sorry.
To Margalo & True Patriot regarding the 4th & 5th Estate:
Wikipedia -
The term "Fifth Estate" has no fixed meaning, but is used to describe any class or group in society other than the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), the commoners (Third Estate), and the press (Fourth Estate).[1] It has been used to describe trade unions, the poor, the blogosphere and organized crime. It can also be used to describe media outlets that see themselves in opposition to mainstream ("Fourth Estate") media. The term is entirely different in origin and meaning from "Fifth Column", which is used to describe subversive or insurgent elements in a society.
Nimmo and Combs assert that political pundits constitute a Fifth Estate.[2] Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper argues that bloggers are the Fifth Estate.[3] The American periodical Broadcasting once proudly proclaimed itself to be "The Fifth Estate" on its cover.[4]
The Fifth Estate newspaper began in 1965 as an alternative bi-weekly publication of left-wing politics and the arts in Detroit, Michigan, as part of the so-called "underground press" movement of oppositional papers. It continues publishing today with editorial collectives in Detroit; Liberty, Tennessee; New York City; and La Crosse, Wisconsin. Its usage of the name was the first in the modern era and the editors have attempted to discourage other media outlets from adopting the name, but to no avail.[citation needed]
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation airs a newsmagazine called "The Fifth Estate" on its English language television network. The name was chosen to highlight the program's determination to go beyond everyday news into original journalism. And the title for the magazine show was also taken after a previously aired investigative documentary on CBC TV (January 9, 1974) on the CIA and espionage activities of the US and Canada entitled, "The Fifth Estate: The Espionage Establishment." see James Dubro
The Fifth Estate (band) formed in 1963 as The D-Men, but changed their name to The Fifth Estate in 1965 to indicate their part in the underground music movement and to indicate their musical stance as (if not directly in opposition to) at least "different" from and as an alternative to the top 40 musical scene of that time. In spite of this, through the 60s they had several minor hits and a major international hit (done in five languages) with "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in 1967
Don't fight, children. Look it up.
/cm
Sioux Rose
So there are torture shows on TV and suddenly torture becomes a procedure acceptable to a "civilized" nation.
Most of the views on war are those that describe relative plays or strategies that would hypothetically lead to this elusive state known as "winning." The morality of the war and its costs are barely discussed at all. It becomes the semblance of a sporting event where the strategic moves and numbers become what is acceptable in the way of public discourse.
In the political arena, the basic MO of fascism lite becomes the preferred norm utilized by both theoretical camps (demo & repub) so that the public accepts the constraints as the ordinary costs-benefits give-and-take of a "democratic" society.
Fear is a major player in all of it. Have you noticed that lately we are expected to fear the new flu strains, terrorist actions, local crime, loss of income, loss of access to health care (in those who have rudimentary insurance), and numerous other things. When fear becomes the "normal" emotion of a citizenry, drummed into them at EVERY turn, controls used by "leaders" SEEM to be put in place to protect the interests of the governed. Of course these fears are being manufactured, their sources stirred up to practically ensure a self-fulfilling prophecy. The density of corruption has become so thick that truth is barely discerned even by the ingelligent. The few that see through are seen as such wingnuts as not to be believed when they do their best to wake up fellow citizens with the hope of fomenting a critical mass awakening.
This must be the same fear my family uses to be bug me to get that swine flu shot or I can't go to India this winter. I eat well, sleep well, and agree that these swine flu shots actually harm more than hurt but they won't listen. Not too long ago on the tv, there was a show on CNN discussing the flu vaccinations and the guests saying that they would prefer to settle for the flu shot's side effects. They'll believe that over us proving to them that the sides effects of the vaccinations can be as bad or worse than not getting the shot at all. I'm told that if I cough at the airport in India that I'll get held back if I'm not vaccinated for swine flu. I find that hard to believe.
"The density of corruption has become so thick that truth is barely discerned even by the ingelligent." –(Sioux Rose)
Beyond even this astute comment is the even larger and darker reality: that the 'truth' has become all but irrelevant–subsumed and effaced to the point that even when manifested as a clear catastrophe– stirs barely a ripple in the consciousness (and consciences!) of its American victims and perpetrators alike.
The only thing axiomatic when speaking about the 'truth' of modern America is that it is always mangled into 'options' and open to selective 'interpretations.' It can always be 'explained away' through disputation as something other than what it is, and thus mitigated–if not entirely denied. The drift into undisputed economic corporate fascism under Obama, Geithner, Summers is but one example: The very disease becomes the cure.
Americans live through disaster as if it were manna for all that ails them; similarly, they live through overseas war crimes, state terror and mass murder in complete insouciance– abjuring any moral dimension of the barbaric catastrophe to which they remain blissfully inured. The "density of corruption" has become so totalized one can say it has become petrified, almost 'entombed.'
Again, when speaking of America, the 'real' truth– when it peers out from the stygian abyss–is always far darker than it is ever allowed to appear.
There lies the reality of a dead state, a dead nation and a dead people.
They who lurch endlessly– like zombies– into a night that appears to them as benign as a bright morning in May. –(Jill Bains)
Coming late to this article, another bulls eye from Greenwald, I was going to say something but notice Sioux Rose and Amfortas stole my thunder. And said it better than I might have.
Yes, I'm afraid it's all too easy to understand Obama's civil liberties record.
Yes, if one assumes selfish and malevolent intentions, US government actions suddenly become coherent.
You cannot have a corrupted government without having a corrupted news media.
There is no oversight by any entity at this point. All are working together for the corporate elite, from the president to congress to corporations or scientific forums to our mainstream news.
Where do you start? Well, it would have helped if people didn't overwhelmingly vote for one of the two corporate parties, time and time again.
Time and time again we place our trust in the very entities that are working against the public's well-being, and destroying the planet in the process.
Clearly the only difference between the democrats and republicans is how far they hold your head under the water.
vote third party, at least it is a start.
The best argument for supporting a third party I have heard! dh
The best argument for supporting a third party I have heard! dh
"One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections [to Bush's policies] were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain."
"One can't help but wonder" is too weak a phrasing; the quotes from Obama apologists that Glen Greenwald includes in his article are sufficient proof of the conclusions Mr. Greenwald wonders about.
Mr. Greenwald skillfully uses rational argumentation in the service of ethical principles as a weapon against the corporate courtiers, but unfortunately, those groups don't care a whit about rational arguments or ethical principles. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Obama has been in office for only one year. He is faced with total rejection of his policies by Republicans, and a split Democratic majority. He knows that he can't force his will on congress, and so he is working the crowd. He has done a lot of good things, but most progressives ignore them and attack, attack, attack. It is fine to point out where Obama has gone wrong, but why all this viciousness? Guide him, but don't destroy him. This is an imperfect world, we cannot expect our presidents to be perfect. When it comes to elections, we must choose the lesser of two harms. There's not ONE Republican alive that can do better than Barack Obama. NOT ONE! I will be glad to vote for him in 2012. By that time he will have four years experience, and those four years will outshine any Republican that would take his place.
And for the thousandth-plus time, that mentality of accepting anything whatsoever from Democrats is how we got where we are today.
Sooner or later, policy has to matter.
Policy already matters but people like genierae would much rather waste efforts on getting any "Tom, Dick, and Harry" with a "D" next to its name elected rather than open their hearts and minds to true and top quality progressives/liberals who take policies seriously. I think you meant to say that sooner or later, the majority of the electorate will have to face the fact that policy does matter.
Amen, & amp; Ojala, profe.
"but why all this viciousness? " –(genierae)
–There is not ENOUGH "viciousness," and there lies the problem.
There are no countervailing oppositional forces within American society to counter Obama's fascism.
Instead one finds a supine and decorous acquiescence–if not an obsequious politeness in the face of his murderous right-wing agenda.
Instead of righteous anger one is treated to an ongoing chorus of dissembling– an obscene apologia and rationalization of the unconscionable from the likes of useless toadies like Matthew Iglesias and Kevin Drum.
The only thing in question here is why does Glenn Greenwald continue to be so deferential–despite levying a long overdue criticism– to this loathsome pond scum? Is he a victim of a misplaced professional collegiality and fraternal loyalty among the 'liberal' punditry?
Or is the truth that when this so called liberal punditry is scratched, one finds not a progressive, but another fascist?
I think what you meant to say is "why all the obeisance?"
–(Jill Bains)
Either genierae has been living under a rock since 2005 when Obama entered the Senate or has been drinking too much GE koolaid to come to grips with the reality that much of the public has bent backwards way too far in trying to guide him. Nobody is destroying Obama other than Obama ruining himself.
"Obama has been in office for only one year... I will be glad to vote for him in 2012."
First you tell us not to judge him after "only one year" and then you act like a hypocrite saying that you'll proudly vote for him? For what? Moving to the right of Dubya? Well, two can play at that game. He's done as much if not more damage as Dubya within his first year in office that I won't be surprised to see him struggling against even the lamest Republican, Sarah Palin, in 2012 !
"By that time he will have four years experience, and those four years will outshine any Republican that would take his place."
I'm sorry but it is not the number of years of experience that counts but the quality of his experience. He has been in the Senate long enough to know how Congress works and he has had plenty of time to come up with strategies on what he can do to overcome the anti-people pro-corporatist mentality in the Senate and House but nooooooooo, he had to spend more time getting on the tubes and "boldly" trashing the anti-war protesters. He even went cuckoo being proud of voting with the GOP.
"He is faced with total rejection of his policies by Republicans, and a split Democratic majority. He knows that he can't force his will on congress, and so he is working the crowd."
Oh please ! This administration has no problem gathering Republican and Democrat votes on legislation designed to benefits the corporate/military/religious right elites. He has used his bully pulpit on Congress on war spending and more Wall $treet bailouts.
"This is an imperfect world, we cannot expect our presidents to be perfect."
In other words, we should just concede and allow mediocre lame brain puppets to mislead us. He's doing perfectly well for the corporate/military/religious right elites even as they beg for more when they ought to be given Trumenesque thrashings !
"When it comes to elections, we must choose the lesser of two harms."
This had better be a tongue in cheek response.
Fine retort! I would only add that adults do not attempt to "guide" con artists; we expose their con, and oppose them. Nine Dollar Barry (Obama) will continue to chum the gulls as he promotes the same agenda--corporate welfare & world domination--as the previous administration, the one before that . . . and so on. The next inhabitant of the Oval Office will do the same generic thing, and again there will be cheers of "lesser evil" from those unable to admit the insultingly obvious pattern of "bipartisan" rule (one corporate capitalist party with two right wings).
"This had better be a tongue in cheek response." –(Jennifer Bedingfield)
You continue to do as good a job as anyone in patiently answering the 'genierae's' of this world.
Darn, I wish her response was 'tongue in cheek!'
Over the Holiday, I was treated to much the same vulgar complacency from many 'supposedly' very intelligent, well educated Americans. One can say that they should know better, but they do not. Nor are they about to. To those that do know better, the reality of the Obama catastrophe matters little.
Then the grim truth was glaringly revealed: Obama does indeed represent who they themselves ARE, what they BELIEVE in, and what they see as the FUTURE of America! Good California liberals, one and all. Obama, it could be said, represented their continued 'prosperity' in the larger scheme of things.
Once again– at least from my perspective– the underlying fascism that goes hand in hand with American Liberalism was on ghastly display. We were not asked to 'leave,' but that was certainly in the offing had we stayed. The conversation was veering into who will replace the 'great' Dianne Feinstein and the 'goodness' of Israel.
It is not a question of enlightening these drones or educating them to the reality of Obama's hideousness: The truth is that Obama's very (incontestable) awfulness is what they themselves are comfortable with. It is not they did not 'know' what he had turned out to be, but that they were 'cool' with it–even vaguely apologetic!
We left shortly thereafter and had a great few days off. Chestnut-Apricot stuffing is the best as is homemade Gravenstein apple cider.
–(Jill Bains)
Republicans may dislike 0bama, but they are in considerable accord with most of his policies (see Jeff Cohen's recent Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance on CD).
What good thing has he done?
As to "not one Republican," even George Will is advising 0bama to get out of Afghanistan.
Some viciousness is just viciousness, but most viciousness against 0bama comes from natural resentment over his deep and consistent and betrayal, performed with malice aforethought and executed with murderous psychopathy.
Hopefully, but 2012, you also will have 3 more years of experience. But don't wait! Check out his approval of coal and mountaintop removal mining; rejection of green jobs initiatives; watering down and ignoring of pollution limitations; escalation of hostilities in and around Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Colombia; and his renewed romance with torture, rendition, 4th Amendment violations, and the American Gulag in general.
Besides, some of us who criticize 0bama have no intention of being vicious to you-all who would defend him. If someone murders and defrauds, there seems little reason on that basis to call those who call the man a murderer and fraud "vicious."
0bama continues to murder poor Middle Easterners in 3 countries (and two more part-time) and torture citizens of a dozen or so countries on at least two pretences: that countries like Afghanistan constitute a military threat to the USA, and that killing and torturing the citizens of those countries and others reduces that threat.
If he did not know better, he could ask his 16 intelligence services. They have produced reports denying the efficacy of such actions repeatedly at least since 2001.
Genierae, if you voted for 0 thinking to vote for a progressive or moderate candidate, my best to your good intentions, and I will even offer an apology for my colleagues who get personal in their I-told-you-so's.
However, you owe your good intentions research, and if I read you correctly, you should brace yourself.
Here we find the enthusiast of the lesser of the evils.
geniera 4:14 ------- Please list the concrete good accomplisments.
I am going to do something does not count, as in reduce nukes, create jobs, create a renewable energy system ( miniscule).
I can think of only one good thing Obomber has accomplished and it pales besides his crimes.
Saying KSM was going to be convicted and executed is as unconstitutional as anything Bush did.
If Obomber cannot produce much of anything with a unitary presidency and a super majority when can he do good?
"It's interesting how what was once lambasted as "Constitution-shredding" under George Bush is now nothing more than: Obama's "civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted.
The apologetic wing of the Dem Party is legion. Probably why they are keeping their mouth shut on war escalation, If this was Bush pushing for more troops, they would be running their mouths over time.
What you said.
again, who will run against obama in the 2012 new hampshire presidential primary? sorry, guys, girls, and lady gaga, i just can't vote for a president who thinks we need to send people we capture to egypt or syria for questioning, or a president who says the us is immune for damages it caused that poor candian whom our guys mistook for a terrorist, seized at a us airport, and kept in a sewer of a prison for six months. that just don't do it fer me, as they say down here in tennessee.
"again, who will run against obama in the 2012 new hampshire presidential primary?"
–(johnny u)
It does not matter one lick who will run against Obama in 2012. Only fools even care.
The system itself is on 'lockdown.' The tracks have been laid. The American people are incapable of electing a President who is not a fascist. That train moves only one way.
The horses have all left the barn. All the dice have been rolled. House burning down.
And even if perchance "We, the people" decided not to elect a procurer for the oligarchy, a fascist would be imposed one way or the other.
It behooves rational thinking minds to jettison the pretense and see things for what they are.
Presidential primaries my ass!
–(Jill Bains).
"...to restore hope and faith in the political process" Is this not precisely the issue? Our mistake was in believing that what Obama promised was still possible. We knew in our hearts that true progressive reform was no longer possible within the current political and economic context, yet still we wanted to believe. And that belief has worked to destroy the last vestiges of the possibility of progressive reform and continues to do so as we see from Matt Yglesias' cynical self-justification. Greenwald is right to question the genuineness of the anti-Bush tirades when exactly the same policies are practiced by Obama, but I think we need to go farther and question the system that makes a Bush and an Obama govern in exactly the same way.
Correct.
It is wise to point out just how oxymoronic it is to believe that "hope and faith in the political process" are little other than cynical and grotesquely incoherent fictions indulged by the terminally naïve. –(Jill Bains)
This was most obvious when, after a campaign season full of declarations about the illegal nature of almost every aspect of the Bush regime, once having regained the house, the Pelosi gang promptly took impeachement off the table and silenced their most outspoken progressives. Conyers' turn-around was perhaps the most disappointing and most blatant: even I, a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and independent, was taken in by his passions, and then, pthwwwwpttt!, there was nothing....
"even I, a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and independent, was taken in by his passions, and then, pthwwwwpttt!, there was nothing...." –(bobv)
It is good to admit this, quite another to train oneself that it will never happen again.
There was ALWAYS "nothing." This was so BEFORE you realized it was such. Certainly a modest error, but would not it serve one better to know such things in advance?
That should remain an inviolable certainty that is impervious to counter argument Or the sentimental blossoming of new, false hope.
Americans are forever 'surprised' about such things, but never enough where they refuse to buy into the ongoing farce. One would hope that Americans would grow weary of such ridiculously affirmative and delusory thinking?
There will perhaps come a time when the luxury of such 'disappointments' will be too obvious to ignore, to the point they can no longer be afforded? Sadly, the revolving circus of bad faith will come again soon to a voting booth near you.
The same recurring travesties will suit up once again, riven by the same false hopes, soon to shattered once again. Prepare, one non-voter at a time and beyond.–(Jill Bains)
How I see it
http://www.gpln.com/howiseeit.htm
.
Every article in the US Constitution's first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), which constitute the final legal guarantees of citizen civil liberties and the process of law for internal govenment operations, is derived from the premise that every citizen has certain, fundamental human rights which none of the three branches of government can legislativly override, executively suspend, or judicially nullify. Except, of course, for those special conditions stated as provisos, or via in-situ judments of 'reasonable' and 'excessive,' allowed to sitting officials, in the amendments.
But it was no profound revelation, at the 1789 outset, for the more honest Framers to declare that if citizens (however initially only white, male, property-owning persons) began electing, cycle after cycle, unreasonable and/or dishonest people to Congress and the Executive, that, then, the composition of Supreme Court jurists would soon enough come to reflect such corruption, with the High Court itself becoming no better at guaranteeing civil liberties than the other two branches.
As recently ago as Nixon Times, there was still enough semi-integrity within our sullied and always corrupt political system, and within the US popular/MSM culture at-large, to still compel a blatantly would-be Caesar's resignation.
No more, though.
Now we've arrived at, and are faced with, the final functional collapse of all such power restraints - official and otherwise.
We The People have now elected to the presidency an official Constitutional Scholar who [nevertheless...?] continues to shred that Document's root intentions no differnently than his 8yr-enthroned predecessor Bush; Bush having been at least an unabashed troglodyte who was candid in his calling the US Charter nothing but "...a goddamned piece of paper."
If the better of the initial Framers could somehow speak today, I suspect they would not see the US's accelerating implosion as first lying in what corrupt and government officials are doing or not doing, nor alone in the actions of any resulting, crypto-ruling, invisible oligarchy.
I think they would first try to comprehend what efficient force or combination of forces supressed the political consciousness and moral discernment of the average American?
If they asked me, I'd tell them: You folks engaged in too much magical thinking about what humans are as elemental creatures.
You didn't pay enough atention to what you were, yourselves.
Where is it that the Constitution limits to citizens the rights of the amendments? The Declaration of Independence refers to inalienable rights, so they cannot be limited to citizens. That would alienate the rights from non-citizens.
"I think they would first try to comprehend what efficient force or combination of forces suppressed the political consciousness and moral discernment of the average American?"
Great post. I hesitated to even comment about this article until I read what you have put together here.
But I think it is important to let go of our current understanding of what "the average American" means. Certainly, as you have aptly stated earlier in your piece, the club of the average American in the late 18th century was particularly exclusionary and nothing at all like any modern day progressive interprets it.
We have, and rightly in my mind, so extrapolated and stretched the Founders’ conscious intent that I am not sure they would recognize, even with the more sad than usual stretch of administrators who have occupied the Oval Office recently, how their words have been used to encompass parts of the general population that they would not have even considered (or were at the very least conflicted about) including in their broad statements of who their idea of "All Men" were.
We have been right, of course, and will continue being right, regardless of how many Obamas and Clintons, Pelosis and GW Bush's come our way, trick us into voting for them by repeatedly using our disdain for their Imperialist leanings during their fights against each other, and then throwing our own concerns and rights away.
The truth is that the only way those who were not automatically included in that rather ill-defined, ill-considered, grouping of "All Men" ever got anything out of those who were included, those who could not see beyond their own land and resources and slave-holdings into the eyes of the real people who held those "holdings" up and marched them around the world by the sweat of their brows and the blood of their children and spouses, was through rabble-rousing.
From tea parties in the original sense, to massive demonstrations and sit ins at lunch counters, take-overs of buildings, to work stoppages, letter (and comment) writing campaigns and just plain quiet refusals to cooperate and/or refusals to believe the cruel PR lies about hope and change, the only real way any of us has had any shred of the happiness and pursuit of liberty promised to the rich white landowners and their gofers and houseboys in the white house was when we demanded it long enough and hard enough to scare the dickens out of them.
We will keep it up. This is multigenerational work. We move between active protest, to gathering of information and strengths, to teaching our children and watching them learn. It is hard to watch them hurt over the things we know have not changed, hard to see them duped by a campaign aimed only at a cruel parody of their real hopes for their lives and their dreams. But they will rise to the occasion. I can see it happening now.
"Bush having been at least an unabashed troglodyte who was candid in his calling the US Charter nothing but "...a goddamned piece of paper." –(Publius)
–Who could have predicted that in merely a year's time such honest candor would come to be seen, in retrospect, as 'refreshing'–with more dark integrity than the present hypocrisy?
–(Jill Bains).
Seed
Read "Understanding Obamacare" in this month's Harper's Notebook. This just in: the dream of Obama as change agent is definitively dead(just in case anybody ever thought it was alive). In the absence of any real change it would be amusing if an incumbent president or presidential candidate were willing to throw an election just once by proclaiming the truth on prime time TV about how the world actually turns, not how the earnest left wishes it did or the paranoid right imagines it does. But that won't happen, will it? Well, that's my dream. Silly, huh? Anyway, most Americans wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up and bit them on the derriere. Just sayin'.