Liberty Is Security By William Raspberry Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A23 Every once in a while, someone will circulate a petition asking Americans to endorse a set of principles that have been paraphrased to disguise the fact that they are the same principles contained in the Bill of Rights. And whenever it happens, large numbers of Americans say no. Many do so, no doubt, because they are leery of signing anything. But many others, I suspect, really don't like the idea that public school teachers shouldn't be allowed to lead their students in prayer, or that people should be allowed to say awful things about our government in public, or that the press should be free of any government control, or that the courts should let guilty people go free because of "technicalities." The occasional petitions ought to remind us how easily we can be persuaded to give up rights we imagine we will never need -- and how cavalierly we regard the rights of people who strike us as "strange" or "dangerous." To take a current example: The French Moroccan Zacarias Moussaoui, accused by the Justice Department of being a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks -- indeed the only suspect we've charged in those attacks -- is insisting on the right to face his accusers and to question a witness who could help his legal defense. But the government says that allowing Moussaoui to question that witness, an al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody, would be a threat to our national security, presumably compromising our intelligence sources. How many Americans would reach what seems to me the only legally defensible conclusion: that the government must choose between its competing interests in prosecuting Moussaoui and protecting its intelligence? My guess is that an awful lot of us would scrape our ethical barrels for a pro-government conclusion. This is war. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The defendant, who has repeatedly denounced America, is a foreigner not entitled to the protection of the Constitution. But the people whose rights we are quickest to jettison are nearly always those least able to resist, whether Japanese Americans during World War II or the hapless souls (at least some of them likely to be innocent) imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, unable to find witnesses or lawyers or even to have their families know where they are. And the abridgment of rights is almost always led by people who are sincere in their belief that the people they go after are dangerous. Make the danger vivid enough and those who ought to be protecting our liberties -- the legislatures, the governmental bureaucracies and, too often, the media -- will look the other way. So will too many Americans. But not all. Just last week, the American Civil Liberties Union hosted its first-ever membership conference, put together, according to Laura W. Murphy, director of the group's Washington office, "in response to a groundswell of opposition" to the Patriot Act, which suspends or weakens a number of long-established civil liberties. ACLU units in 123 jurisdictions have passed resolutions denouncing both the post-9/11 legislation and the freer rein on FBI surveillance of political and religious activities, she said. "People have come to Washington because they want to know what they can do about these incursions on our liberties." It's no surprise that the ACLU membership "gets it" -- or that rank-and-file Americans don't. It isn't that Americans are ignorant of the facts. We know about Guantanamo and Moussaoui and the difficulty of locating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But most of us don't know what to think of all these things until those we trust -- our political leaders, public intellectuals and the press -- help us sort them out. The government (and not just the current president and attorney general) always wants more power and more freedom from the impediments to its use. And the people, most often, will go along. Someone needs to remind us that what is special about America is not just its power, unprecedented in the world, but also its principles. The one is secure enough, the other in more peril than we're willing to admit.
Huh? I haven't a clue as to what you mean. Do you mean the states that carried Bush as opposed to Gore? No, that would not make your case. It might weaken it, so you couldn't have meant that. However, my use of the term "Bush Country" was not about where it was, geographically, that who voted for whom. It was about the direction we, as a nation, seem to be collectively being led by this administration. I would rise to your "challenge", but I don't know what it is. But reading the above post by Optional777 may make a point or two about what I did mean to express. Peace, RS
"Anything" has always gone for extremists. I wouldn't say that's what makes the world go round, but it does contribute to the overall tilt from time to time. Presuming that anyone who is "on the left" or who expresses perspectives associated with the left is "loony, stupid, treasonous, suffering from mental illness, demonic, anti-American" would itself be rather loony and stupid, might be reflective of mental illness, and, in certain circumstances, could even lead to treasonous or at least un-American behavior. There are leftists with solid credentials - lifetimes of activism and agitation for "progressive" causes - who support Bush precisely on the basis of his foreign policy. Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most notorious example among intellectuals or pundits, though it's also frequently forgotten by Republicans that Bush's great ally Tony Blair is a "man of the Left" (and thus a traitor in the minds of many leftists). Oliver Kamm, whom I c&p'd yesterday on another thread, recently offered another articulate presentation of the leftist case for Bush. In this country, Ron Silver comes to mind as a longtime celebrity leftist who strongly supported the Bush war policy. And there are obviously war opponents on the Left whose positions are at least debatable and coherent, and not based wholly or largely on falsehoods, inanities, tenuous theories, etc. At the same time, however, there are still many leftists whose pronouncements fully deserve to be dismissed, ridiculed, or even more strongly rejected, whether in short- or long-hand. Making such distinctions is part of any responsible approach to political debate and activity. That's a vapid generalization: There were some on the right who made extreme, very weakly supported, highly inflammatory charges against Clinton, and there were others who opposed him for a range of reasons. Though a few extremists and alarmists, as ever, detected in Clinton the outlines of an America in severe moral decline, in my judgment there were very few on the right who were making the kind of horrendous charges - of total, proto-totalitarian subversion of democracy, extreme corruption, criminal military aggression, etc. - that appear to be the everyday assumptions of many on the Left today. Regardless, however, of one's judgment on the relative proportions and dimensions of left and right extremisms, they can be criticized for what they are. Hm... when was the last time you personally posted an article or essay defending the Bush administration on any subject? That the author was writing in response to some "extreme right wing statement" is an assumption on your part, and wouldn't in any case excuse the faults and excesses in his own writing. It strikes me as rather more likely that his work represents his own commitment to an extreme left perspective, and he doesn't require new inspiration from an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage to act. In the midnight of Optional777's equanimity, all cats are gray. If we cease to make distinctions between lies and propaganda on the one hand, and honest, arguable and criticizeable arguments and disagreements on the other, then political debate loses all meaning. You criticize any comment from someone you associate with the right if, in your opinion, it appears to paint everyone on the left with the same broad brush, but you don't hesitate to do so yourself in regard to the right. What kind of question is that? Anyone has the right in this country to offer his or her opinion on any subject. What's wrong with offering criticism of what one believes to be ill-founded, dishonest, and potentially harmful material?
Quote from KymarFye: "Anything" has always gone for extremists. I wouldn't say that's what makes the world go round, but it does contribute to the overall tilt from time to time. Presuming that anyone who is "on the left" or who expresses perspectives associated with the left is "loony, stupid, treasonous, suffering from mental illness, demonic, anti-American" would itself be rather loony and stupid, might be reflective of mental illness, and, in certain circumstances, could even lead to treasonous or at least un-American behavior. Presuming that anyone who is "on the right" or who expresses perspectives associated with the right is "loony, stupid, treasonous, suffering from mental illness, demonic, anti-American" would itself be rather loony and stupid, might be reflective of mental illness, and, in certain circumstances, could even lead to treasonous or at least un-American behavior. There are leftists with solid credentials - lifetimes of activism and agitation for "progressive" causes - who support Bush precisely on the basis of his foreign policy. Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most notorious example among intellectuals or pundits, though it's also frequently forgotten by Republicans that Bush's great ally Tony Blair is a "man of the Left" (and thus a traitor in the minds of many leftists). Oliver Kamm, whom I c&p'd yesterday on another thread, recently offered another articulate presentation of the leftist case for Bush. In this country, Ron Silver comes to mind as a longtime celebrity leftist who strongly supported the Bush war policy. And there are obviously war opponents on the Left whose positions are at least debatable and coherent, and not based wholly or largely on falsehoods, inanities, tenuous theories, etc. At the same time, however, there are still many leftists whose pronouncements fully deserve to be dismissed, ridiculed, or even more strongly rejected, whether in short- or long-hand. Making such distinctions is part of any responsible approach to political debate and activity. The case for Bush is neither left or right in my opinion, nor is the case against Bush right or left. It is just an argument pro or con. Right and left really have little to do with the argument's validity or sense. That's a vapid generalization: There were some on the right who made extreme, very weakly supported, highly inflammatory charges against Clinton, and there were others who opposed him for a range of reasons. Though a few extremists and alarmists, as ever, detected in Clinton the outlines of an America in severe moral decline, in my judgment there were very few on the right who were making the kind of horrendous charges - of total, proto-totalitarian subversion of democracy, extreme corruption, criminal military aggression, etc. - that appear to be the everyday assumptions of many on the Left today. Regardless, however, of one's judgment on the relative proportions and dimensions of left and right extremisms, they can be criticized for what they are. You see the left worse now than the right during Clinton. I disagree. I saw and read severe attacks on Clinton for 8 years, many who made horrendous charges...which by the way did not pan out. You are entitled to your opinion that what is happening now by the anti-Bush side is worse, but it is just an opinion. Hm... when was the last time you personally posted an article or essay defending the Bush administration on any subject? I defended the war during the war, now that it is over, I am back to questioning the current authorities, which is Bush and company. I do believe in questioning the establishment, to the point that they know people are watching and thinking critically. I can count on you, Hapaboy, Aphie, etc. to post plenty of support for Bush. I am of the opinion that whoever is in power should come under the most severe scrutiny at all times, Republican or Democrat alike. Should we get a Democrat in 04, you can check to see if I post articles that question that Democrat's direction and policy. That the author was writing in response to some "extreme right wing statement" is an assumption on your part, and wouldn't in any case excuse the faults and excesses in his own writing. It strikes me as rather more likely that his work represents his own commitment to an extreme left perspective, and he doesn't require new inspiration from an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage to act. Yes, that is my assumption, and you assumption that I am wrong. In the midnight of Optional777's equanimity, all cats are gray. Reality is black and white, how to respond to it going forward is often very gray. There are many choices available, and there is no road-map that works in every situation going forward. I assume Bush and company aren't going to spend a whole lot of time questioning themselves, so I see it as the job of the people to question the job of leadership. If we cease to make distinctions between lies and propaganda on the one hand, and honest, arguable and criticizeable arguments and disagreements on the other, then political debate loses all meaning. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if neither the left nor the right engaged in propaganda, hyperbole, innuendo, personal attacks, and were honest all the time. Political debate continues because the answers to the problems are not clear, and ideology is often based in religious belief or other strongly held, but not objectively supportable belief systems. You criticize any comment from someone you associate with the right if, in your opinion, it appears to paint everyone on the left with the same broad brush, but you don't hesitate to do so yourself in regard to the right. I criticize fanatics, yet. I criticize dogmatic thinking, yes. You seem to have forgotten how much I criticized Wild/MSFE for their dogmatic approach. What kind of question is that? Anyone has the right in this country to offer his or her opinion on any subject. What's wrong with offering criticism of what one believes to be ill-founded, dishonest, and potentially harmful material? You certainly have the right to your opinion, as did the author. When you suggest censorship of free speech, because you deem it to be "dangerous" or lighting the fire of anti-Americanism, or perhaps polluting the mind of the youth of America or Europe etc., that is where I raise an issue and disagree with your argument. We do have standards for free speech, aka, not yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. We have slander and libel laws. However, in the political spectrum of opinions and ideas there is a liberty in calling the President or the administration most anything we like. Bush and his administration are in the public domain, and you are making, in my opinion, a giant and fearful leap in what the author wrote and the potential to threaten national security such that his thoughts need to be controlled. Simply refute his argument, it is that simple. Sadly, we live in a time of drama, where we watch shows like Hannity and Combs and see people yelling at each other. We live in a time when authors, from both the right and left, resort to scare tactics. The Bush administration generates fear in my opinion, and the left in response generate fear of the Bush administration bordering on fascism. The tragedy is that a simple argument with no fanfare, just talking about the possibilities of this or that, the potential for this or that goes unnoticed in the world these days. The attention goes to whoever yells the loudest, and projects the greatest amount of self-confidence and certainty. We live in a most uncertain world, during a most uncertain and changing time. The masses long for security, not making difficult choices that are required these days. So the pundits structure their message not to the intelligentsia, but pander to the fears of the general audience. Sad, but true.
Error - Maybe I don't understand what you mean in the constitutional relevancy issue as compared to the Bush/Gore map. When you said "Bush country" I assumed you meant the geographic map depicting the states carried by each. As in my post by Henry Lamb of a few pages ago the upholding of the constitution is much more forefront in the states where the battle with the feds over private property, states rights, county rights, individual rights, and respect for the republic form of government is most intense. In the strongest private property states Bush is very popular and Clinton/Gore are hated. Bush has appointed secretaries and underlings that are most receptive to private property rights and local control, but the career bureaucrats that were hired under Clinton/Gore are the avowed enemy of anything but total federal government control. There is a disconnect between what Bush and the secretaries want and what is being carried out by the career people. When Clinton/Gore were behind the career people they wrote their own rules and continually broke the statutes and congressional mandates. Now at least they are getting reviewed from above, except where they file nuisance lawsuits against their own agency to stall or intimidate the attempt to rein them in.
Glad to be able to keep you amused. You better be careful, that is Rush's secret too. He's entertaining, you listen and pretty soon you realize he's right. Ok, about McCarthyism. Good definition, particularly the "baseless defamation" part. Read Ann Coulter's book and you will learn that the famous Verona intercepts, which were released after Reagan won the Cold War and which have been conmfirmed by defectors independently, establish without any doubt that McCarthy was right, and for whatever reason, Ike and Truman were just dead wrong. That doesn't mean they were commies, but they clearly had commie spies in their administrations. No doubt they would have preferred that McCarthy looked the other way, but he was that oddest of Washington creatures, the guy who wouldn't go along to get along. You sound disappointed that Hiss was unmasked or are you still claiming he was innocent. Sorry, that ship has sailed. He was guilty, he perjured himself and he was a spy. Hint: the Rosenbergs were guilty too. ps. sorry about that spie thing. Sometimes I forget and use the english spellings.
Gotta love the way that extreme rightwing Supreme Court that takes its marching orders straight from Bush and John Ashcroft ignored the Constitution last week in those cases involving minorities and gays. Only problem is they supported the minority and gay positions, Maybe Ashcroft was talking in tongues and they got their instructions wrong.
It always bothers me when someone misstates the opposition's position, then triumphantly demolishes the strawman they created. Ann Coulter never said half the country were traitors. She did say in effect that specific Democrats, and rather large numbers of them at that, have demonstrated by their actions that they cannot be trusted with defending this country's best interests. That is a harsh charge, but she at least backs it up with evidence. The same media heavies who have been so quick to say she is out of bounds have no problems with Democrat attacks on the Republicans that they are out to poison the environment, starve children and deny seniors medicine, all so they can give enormous tax breaks to the rich while invading countries that pose no threat to us. At least Coulter has copious evidence to support her charges.
AAA....you KNOW I enjoy being entertained. So yeah, the fact is, when I get a chance to waste some of my valuable time, I will try and listen to Rush. I think he is a riot. And I also happen to think he takes himself a LOT less seriously than many of his listeners. As for Hiss, sure he was guilty. So were the Rosenbergs. No doubt about it. I never meant to imply otherwise. My point was more about Nixon, and HIS way of being "entertaining". Discovering the incriminating proof in Hiss's pumpkin patch was just comical. Do you think that would have played to today's audience? How about his "Checkers" speech. Now I admit to having had a very intense dislike for Nixon. Not because he was a Republican. I hated LBJ also. But Nixon was a caricature of himself. And his "discovery" of the proof of the guilt of Hiss was just classic comedy in retrospect. Imagine trying to convince today's (somewhat more) media sophisticated public that that was not one of the all time classic set ups. People believed what they saw on TV and read in the papers. So McCarthy had a perfect audience. Joe Stalin was DEAD before a lot of people were blacklisted for "working" for him. Were there people with sympathies for socialism? Yeah, there were. They had suffered through the Depression, and socialism made a certain amount of sense to those who suffered worst. Did that make these people Soviet spies? Or communists at all for that matter? If you cannot differentiate any distinctions between having "socialist sympathies" and being Soviet spies (or communists of any flavor), then I suggest you do a little simple research. Maybe start with a dictionary. However, just to make things simple, ask yourself this: what possible benefit would be derived by successful highly paid (capitalist) Hollywood producers, writers and actors by being "commies"? (Let alone working for "Uncle Joe") Of course in the early 50's, America was so naive that it made perfect sense that all married couples on tv slept in separate twin beds, the word "pregnant" couldn't be used on tv even though the birth of "Little Ricky" on I Love Lucy was the most watched program ever up until that time. And if we "ducked and covered" under our desks at school, we would survive a nuclear attack. Those "good old days" may have been good, if ignorance is bliss. And they were. Except for McCarthysim. Peace, RS