Color Me Confused
Let's start with why, two years after the USA Patriot Act became the law of the land, we now have a lobbying effort by the Attorney General to rally support of the law. Shouldn't that have been part of the program when we were considering whether to pass the law in the first place?
But let's assume that there's actually something to discuss here. One would think, therefore, that Mr. Ashcroft would solicit views both for and against, and then make the case why the "for" outweighed the "against". It would be a triumph of democracy.
Alas, that's not his purpose. As David Israelite, John Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff, tells us, "He's not going on the road to debate the Patriot Act as much as to inform the American public about what it is and what it isn't, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there." [link]
Okay, so are we going to try to persuade people that the misconceptions are just that -- misconceptions? Actually, Mr. Israelite dismisses that kind of persuasion as unworthy of further discussion: "There are a lot of editorial boards and others who are very liberal on these types of issues, and they're not going to agree with us no matter what the level of debate is."
So if I understand the drill, John Ashcroft is attempting to rally support for a 342-page law that passed two years ago in hurry-up mode, though without debating the merits of that law. Instead, he is going around the country dispelling misconceptions about it, unless they're misconceptions held by liberals who wouldn't agree with him anyway. Wouldn't it be easier just to show people the U.S. Code and be done with it? After all, the best way to dispel misconception would be turn to the original text of the law, right?
But let's dispense with the idiocy of thinking that you can drum up support for something without "debating" its merits -- that's called "cheerleading" and it's not usually a verb that is positively associated with high-minded civic purpose. Instead, let's go right to heart of the issue: is the problem really that the opponents of the USA Patriot Act are "liberals"?
It's old news when Republicans demonize the media (that is, "editorial boards"). But the wrinkle is these mysterious "others" that Mr. Israelite disses as "very liberal". Who are they?
Well, how about the 3 state legislatures and 157 local legislative bodies that have passed resolutions objecting to the law? But maybe those are all in the blue states, so maybe they are liberal.
Then how about Rep. C.L. Otter, a member of Congress from Idaho who is . . . a Republican? Mr. Otter sponsored legislation that would repeal a section of the Patriot Act that authorized secret executing of search warrants and delaying notification to the subject of the warrant until well after the fact. Guess what? The measure passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 309-118. So do Mr. Ashcroft and his staff think that the Congress is also "very liberal"? Maybe, though that would surprise me.
OK, but what about Republican stalwarts? Surely, a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmond would qualify as sufficiently "right thinking" as to merit debate about "misconceptions", yes? Especially one who wrote a book called "The Dark Side of Liberalism"? Well, it turns out not to be; Phil Kent, the former aide and author, criticized the Bush Administration for not addressing people's concerns that the it may be "overreaching in its fight against terrorism" (as the Times put it). Kent had this to say about the Patriot Act: "The fact is, we shouldn't be making suspects out of 280 million Americans."
The fact is, also, that Mr. Israelite's statements typify the contempt that Mr. Ashcroft and other members have for people who disagree with them. Remember Ashcroft's warning that people who dissented against the USA Patriot Act were "aid[ing] terrorists"? [link]Or his boss's statement that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? [link] Or how about Donald Rumsfeld's statement yesterday that dissenters about our continued presence in Iraq hearten our enemies to strengthen their resistance? [link].
Sadly, that contempt seems to permeate the Republican Party even beyond the leadership. For example, Mr. Ashcroft has spoken almost exclusively to invitation-only groups of police officers and law enforcement types. Ordinary citizens are not invited, and apparently, neither are the local print media. But at the same time, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee told the Times that "He [Ashcroft] wants to get his message across directly to the voters, and the more he can do that without tangling with folks along the way, the better."
Excuse me, but how is it "getting his message across directly to the voters" when the only people he is speaking to are invitation-only crowds who are already (for the most part) not only converted to the cause, but also highly unlikely to voice even the slightest dissent? More importantly, who are the "folks" and what exactly does it mean not to "tangle" with them, anyway? And isn't "tangling with folks along the way" the process by which democracy happens?
I find it hard to believe that Republicans are really saying that it's "better" not to engage the American people directly, and stick only to friendly crowds. But that's where the evidence points. And it strikes me that can't be described as anything but contempt for the average citizen. Moreover, it sounds un-American.
Yet somehow it's unpatriotic to say so? Color me confused.
Let's start with why, two years after the USA Patriot Act became the law of the land, we now have a lobbying effort by the Attorney General to rally support of the law. Shouldn't that have been part of the program when we were considering whether to pass the law in the first place?
But let's assume that there's actually something to discuss here. One would think, therefore, that Mr. Ashcroft would solicit views both for and against, and then make the case why the "for" outweighed the "against". It would be a triumph of democracy.
Alas, that's not his purpose. As David Israelite, John Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff, tells us, "He's not going on the road to debate the Patriot Act as much as to inform the American public about what it is and what it isn't, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there." [link]
Okay, so are we going to try to persuade people that the misconceptions are just that -- misconceptions? Actually, Mr. Israelite dismisses that kind of persuasion as unworthy of further discussion: "There are a lot of editorial boards and others who are very liberal on these types of issues, and they're not going to agree with us no matter what the level of debate is."
So if I understand the drill, John Ashcroft is attempting to rally support for a 342-page law that passed two years ago in hurry-up mode, though without debating the merits of that law. Instead, he is going around the country dispelling misconceptions about it, unless they're misconceptions held by liberals who wouldn't agree with him anyway. Wouldn't it be easier just to show people the U.S. Code and be done with it? After all, the best way to dispel misconception would be turn to the original text of the law, right?
But let's dispense with the idiocy of thinking that you can drum up support for something without "debating" its merits -- that's called "cheerleading" and it's not usually a verb that is positively associated with high-minded civic purpose. Instead, let's go right to heart of the issue: is the problem really that the opponents of the USA Patriot Act are "liberals"?
It's old news when Republicans demonize the media (that is, "editorial boards"). But the wrinkle is these mysterious "others" that Mr. Israelite disses as "very liberal". Who are they?
Well, how about the 3 state legislatures and 157 local legislative bodies that have passed resolutions objecting to the law? But maybe those are all in the blue states, so maybe they are liberal.
Then how about Rep. C.L. Otter, a member of Congress from Idaho who is . . . a Republican? Mr. Otter sponsored legislation that would repeal a section of the Patriot Act that authorized secret executing of search warrants and delaying notification to the subject of the warrant until well after the fact. Guess what? The measure passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 309-118. So do Mr. Ashcroft and his staff think that the Congress is also "very liberal"? Maybe, though that would surprise me.
OK, but what about Republican stalwarts? Surely, a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmond would qualify as sufficiently "right thinking" as to merit debate about "misconceptions", yes? Especially one who wrote a book called "The Dark Side of Liberalism"? Well, it turns out not to be; Phil Kent, the former aide and author, criticized the Bush Administration for not addressing people's concerns that the it may be "overreaching in its fight against terrorism" (as the Times put it). Kent had this to say about the Patriot Act: "The fact is, we shouldn't be making suspects out of 280 million Americans."
The fact is, also, that Mr. Israelite's statements typify the contempt that Mr. Ashcroft and other members have for people who disagree with them. Remember Ashcroft's warning that people who dissented against the USA Patriot Act were "aid[ing] terrorists"? [link]Or his boss's statement that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? [link] Or how about Donald Rumsfeld's statement yesterday that dissenters about our continued presence in Iraq hearten our enemies to strengthen their resistance? [link].
Sadly, that contempt seems to permeate the Republican Party even beyond the leadership. For example, Mr. Ashcroft has spoken almost exclusively to invitation-only groups of police officers and law enforcement types. Ordinary citizens are not invited, and apparently, neither are the local print media. But at the same time, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee told the Times that "He [Ashcroft] wants to get his message across directly to the voters, and the more he can do that without tangling with folks along the way, the better."
Excuse me, but how is it "getting his message across directly to the voters" when the only people he is speaking to are invitation-only crowds who are already (for the most part) not only converted to the cause, but also highly unlikely to voice even the slightest dissent? More importantly, who are the "folks" and what exactly does it mean not to "tangle" with them, anyway? And isn't "tangling with folks along the way" the process by which democracy happens?
I find it hard to believe that Republicans are really saying that it's "better" not to engage the American people directly, and stick only to friendly crowds. But that's where the evidence points. And it strikes me that can't be described as anything but contempt for the average citizen. Moreover, it sounds un-American.
Yet somehow it's unpatriotic to say so? Color me confused.
posted by Daniel at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home