Welcome the Police State
by KevinAugust 20th, 2007
This is where Kos’ emphasis on things other than ideology really comes back to bite us:
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
I imagine there were a lot of reasons for the Dems caving on tis, form residual fear of being painted as “weak” on anything (the Blue Dogs probably pushed pretty hard for this) to fear of the media blaming them for an attack if they did not pass this bill. But a large part of this, as I have mentioned before, is that the foreign policy and national security apparatus has a very, very authoritarian view of the world, both at home and abroad. If you operate under the assumption that you have the right to impose your will on anyone, anyone eventually becomes your own people. The notion that you cannot have security if you have freedom (the less wishy-washy term for civil rights) flows naturally from the desire to control others.
Electing Democrats is good but it is not as important as electing progressives. And you cannot elect progressives without a forceful and articulation and defense of progressivism. In that respect, the Blue Dogs are worse than Republicans; they act as a constant, internal brake on the progressivism of the Democratic Party and are invaluable propaganda tools for the GOP and the media. “Even Democratic Congressman X says that Bernie Sanders goes to far …” As I said, there is nothing wrong with trying to elect Democrats. In fact, electing Democrats is a positive good (the best hope of rolling these measures back is a progressive in the White House, for example) but not every Democrat is worth electing. The notion that because someone is a proud Democrat that makes them automatically good is incorrect. What matters is that they are a proud progressive. They two are not, unfortunately, the same. Not recognizing that leads to a Democratic Party that is not progressive enough to use the current situation to rollback the reactionary gains of the last thirty years. It leads to a situation where “good” Democrats are still in thrall to the authoritarians that dominate our national security and foreign policy establishments.
Categories: Legal Issues, Politics |
New law may go far beyond wiretapping / It could even allow physical searches of citizens, experts say…
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to…
Kevin wrote: “Electing Democrats is good but it is not as important as electing progressives.”
Good point, given the “big tent” philosophy of the major parties. How many current Democrats would you consider truly progressive aside from Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold? Complicating the issue is some Democrats are “progressive” on some issues, health care reform seems to be a point of consensus among most Dems now, while less so on other issues, say the death penalty, gun control etc. It seems to me that making progressives electable in the mid-west and Rocky Mountain states will require a cultural shift, one that has to be initiated by the Democrats. Buckling under on issues such as granting broader surveillance powers to the government or habeas corpus because you don’t want to appear soft on security is not the way to accomplish it.
Would you really consider Feingold particularly progressive/liberal in the classical terms? I mean, she’s nearly on point with fuggen McCain when it comes to free speech, and he’s bad enough that even I the classical conservative can’t stomach him on that vote.
As for buckling to the conservatives on this issue, the Democrats gave more than the Republicans even asked for. Unless they know something we don’t, it seems less like trying to get popular votes (particularly when the public constantly polls against “invasive security measures”) as it does plain poor thought.
the Democrats gave more than the Republicans even asked for
“The” Democrats didn’t give the Republicans anything. The bill wasn’t written by the Democratic leadership, and the vast majority of Dems voted against it. A handful (maybe a double handful) of Dems broke ranks with their party, and voted for a Republican bill. It sucks, but let’s not pretend that this was the Dems’ doing as a party.
I also wonder how differently the voting would have gone if the Dems had had, say, a 53-47 majority, instead of the nominal 51-49 they have now.
Right now, with Lieberman playing cowboy and Johnson recuperating, the Dems have 49 votes in the Senate, with the GOP holding 49 and Lieberman playing both sides. Lieberman was always going to vote the wrong way on this bill, so even if the Dems had maintained complete discipline, they’d have lost 50-49.
Given that context, it’s not surprising that a few Dems from conservative states chose to vote the popular way rather than standing on principle. I don’t like it, but I understand it.
Yeah, Brooklynite, and the Republicans never gave or didn’t give things to Clinton-era Democrats.
It’s not like either side could have blocked votes, or did forward amendments.
Brooklynite wrote: “Given that context, it’s not surprising that a few Dems from conservative states chose to vote the popular way rather than standing on principle.”
Do you recall the number of Democrats who supported the bill? I seem to recall reading the roll through a link on this very page, and I thought the number of Democrats voting in favor was disturbingly high (I could be wrong). It also seems to me that an issue like this one, is the type where representatives from conservative states *could* vote on principle. The classic conservative mantra decries “big government”; here was an opportunity to take a principled stand against unnecessarily intrusive government, and what happens? Particularly if polls show most people are *not* in favor of excessive security measures. This is not a case of What’s the matter with Kansas, this is what’s up with the Democrats.
Gattsuru wrote: “Would you really consider Feingold particularly progressive/liberal in the classical terms? I mean, she’s nearly on point with fuggen McCain when it comes to free speech…”
Are you referring to Russ Feingold or Dianne Feinstein?
The real issue is that Dems don’t really care about civil liberties–as long as the person running roughshod over them is a Democrat.
All this means is they think they’re going to win the Presidency in ‘08 and they want to make sure President Clinton or Obama has even more unitary executive authority than the person they’re replacing.
Janusz:
The counts are here. 16 Democrats plus Lieberman voted the wrong way in the Senate. These Democrats are as follows:
Bayh (D-IN); Carper (D-DE); Casey (D-PA); Conrad (D-ND); Feinstein (D-CA); Inouye (D-HI); Klobuchar (D-MN); Landrieu (D-LA); Lincoln (D-AR); McCaskill (D-MO); Mikulski (D-MD); Nelson (D-FL); Nelson (D-NE); Pryor (D-AR); Salazar (D-CO); Webb (D-VA)
The 41 Democrats who voted the wrong way are:
Altmire; Barrow; Bean; Boren; Boswell; Boyd (FL); Carney; Chandler; Cooper; Costa; Cramer; Cuellar; Davis (AL); Davis, Lincoln; Donnelly; Edwards; Ellsworth; Etheridge; Gordon; Herseth Sandlin; Higgins; Hill; Lampson; Lipinski; Marshall; Matheson; McIntyre; Melancon; Mitchell; Peterson (MN); Pomeroy; Rodriguez; Ross; Salazar; Shuler; Snyder; Space; Tanner; Taylor; Walz (MN); Wilson (OH)
The House Republicans who should be praised for crossing party lines and voting the right way are:
Johnson (IL); Jones (NC)
I’d give credit to the Senate Republicans who voted against it, but there simply weren’t any.
Russ Feingold, after the previous comment (by you?) stating “How many current Democrats would you consider truly progressive aside from Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold?”, and my personal reaction that it’s difficult to consider Russ Feingold a progressive even by today’s garbled stance thanks to his work on McCain-Feingold.
I mean, jeez, when you sponsor something that the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and the SCOTUS think is an unconstitutional violation of human rights, you might have some difficulties with your progressive card.
He’s rated highly Democratic by partisans, but then again, so was Lieberman (a whole three points away from Fiengold’s ADA score) and see how far that got him.
Thanks, Tgirsch. I think you had supplied the link earlier, if I remember correctly.
I’m sorry to see Bayh’s name included among those who voted in favor. I seem to recall his father as being much more sensible.
In spirit, at least, I agree with Stormy.
What are all the bandwagon Bush-bashers going to do when a Dem takes over and continues straight down the path to erode human rights, support environmentally unsustainable industry, rob from the poor and giving to the rich, etc.?
This isn’t the agenda of righty wingnuts, this is the agenda of American politics and global capitalism. And, it has been progressing in the same general direction for a long time, regardless of the affiliation of he who was steering the ship.
Here’s a statement that people would call you ridiculous if you made:
Red Sox and Yankees players vote in opposition to each other at Players’ Union meetings because their affiliation with different teams leads them to place the views of their fans/supporters above their individual and class/group interests…
Crazy - of course!
Players vote in the interest of players, and whatever uniform they happen to be wearing is almost entirely irrelevant. This blindingly obvious truism is fully apparent when the “players” are wearing cleats and ball caps, miraculously, we think it changes when they wear sports coats and wingtips…
>The House Republicans who should be praised
>for crossing party lines and voting the right
>way are:
I’m sure Ron Paul would have voted no had he been there.
gattsuru:
Look back on comment #3. You said Feingold, but then went on to say “she” — I’m sure that’s what spawned the confusion.
digglahhh:
Just because one is bad doesn’t mean the other isn’t objectively worse. So it makes sense to continue to support the far-less-bad of the two. [Insert strenuous LarryE objections here.]
Ah, sorry. I’ve never been too good with remembering gender. Thanks for the correction.
tgirsch -
Well, since you bring it up….
Just remember that “less bad” is still bad and therefore still amounts to things getting worse, just more slowly. (Which actually appears to mean you’re kinda moving in my direction. LOL)
I still say that realistic options are the only ones worth considering, unless there’s truly no difference at all between them.
thanks..