What does it mean to be a Democrat let alone a progressive one these days? The question was prompted by my recent op-ed in Minnpost where in response to an argument against the State of Minnesota granting the NFL tax exemptions to host the Super Bowl, one reader wrote that he supported public funding for the stadium along with the tax breaks, and that he was a Democrat and a “fairly far to the left one too.”
Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford? I thought that was what the Republican Party did? With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days? It is certainly not good old-fashioned economic liberalism. This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked.
Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal. It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats. It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people. It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe. Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over. But now consider the Democrats.
Start at the top. Obama ran promising change. The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises. At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched. Carpe diem was not his motto. But in reality, Obama was never a progressive. He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts. Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.
Obama has deported more individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before. Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity. They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods. They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on. They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs. They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight. Why? Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government. They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people. But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink. But guess what? By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
What passes for progressive Democratic Party politics seems so bland. Same-sex marriage? Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream. Opposing NSA spying on Americans? Even Rand Paul does that. No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation. This is not progressive politics but just common sense. Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party. Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party. One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose that means the Republicans win. It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in. It also means believing in something worth fighting for.
Showing posts with label NSA spying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSA spying. Show all posts
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
NSA Spying and the Constitution: Why Obama does not get it
“[N]othing that I have learned since indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.”
–Barack Obama, January 17, 2014
Barack Obama simply misses the point.
In a windy speech seeking to address NSA spying on American citizens and foreign national, including our allies, Obama’s speech amounted to nothing more than “trust the government to do the right thing and protect your rights.” Such a sentiment completely misses the point about why we have a Constitution and in particular, the Fourth Amendment and the demands that searches be conducted only upon probable cause.
Let’s first start with why the speech. The speech did not take place because the president was genuinely concerned or worried about the threat to individual liberties associated with the NSA intelligence gathering of our phone, e-mail and other metadata. Instead, the only reason the speech took place was because of the disclosures by Edward Snowden. Had those leaks not occurred it seems unlikely that the public would have known about the NSA spying. After all, the FISA Court that issues warrants to allow for activity like this is a secret court–no different than the old Star Chamber of the British monarchy. One can debate whether Snowden is a hero or a criminal but the truth is that he revealed something that the public would not have known about.
As a result of Snowden we have come to learn of the extensive reach of the NSA in terms of spying on Americans and others across the world. We have also come to learn from a few scattered court decisions issued that the NSA has not always complied with court warrants, often exceeding them or acting way beyond their scope. All in the interest in keeping us safe and secure from terrorism. But Snowden’s disclosures have forced a public debate, pushing the president into the position of having to form a task force to reevaluate they NSA activity. His speech on January 17, was a response.
To say the least, Obama was unapologetic if not defiant. He first appealed to fear and the threats to our security that terrorism poses and then he defended in a sanitized version how effective our intelligence gathering has been to protect us throughout history. The ends I guess justify the means.
But then Obama outlines the changes to the spying program. Frankly, there were no real substantive changes. The NSA will continue gathering metadata and will not stop monitoring calls and e-mails. He does call for some minor changes in the FISA court but they are not really clear what they will be. The major change is to say that the NSA cannot store the metadata anymore. Someone else will? But whom? Private vendors, like the one who Snowden worked for? Or companies like Target and Neiman Marcus? Whether in private or public hands the data still exists, is still being examined, and still constitutes spying.
Moreover, Obama misses other fundamental issues. First, the issue is not whether the data has kept us safe and secure. The issue is about following the law. Rarely do I echo Rand Paul but he got it fundamentally right on CNN. If we suspect someone is doing something illegal then get a search warrant. The fourth Amendment requires particular suspicion to do searches–it does not allow for general fishing trips to look for information or to round up the usual suspects. It’s not hard to get search warrants–I did it when I worked in government.
Morever, the security versus liberty dichotomy is a false one. When are only secure when our liberty is protected. Additionally, there is no evidence that this wholesale spying is efficient or produces real intelligence. It is overreach. Use real intelligence to focus on real suspects.
Third, to capitulate on the Fourth Amendment means we have lost. Immediately after the events of 9/11 President Bush declared: “The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life, is to force us to retreat, is to force us to be what we're not. And that's--they're going to fail. They're simply going to fail.” Bush was correct in saying what he did even though he would fail to honor them. We fail as a country if we fail to respect our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are the “shining city on the hill” because we respect and do not abuse rights. That is why stories about spying and torture are so bad.
But finally, Obama misses it because in the end he speech comes down to no more than simply “trust the government to do the right thing.” Tell that to James Madison and the constitutional framers. Constitutions and bills of rights are written because we fundamentally should not always trust the government. Both are written to restrain the government. This is what Obama misses.
I am not conspiracy theorist. It was a single shooter in Dallas in 1963. But what should be skeptical about the NSA spying. We are told they are not listening to our phone conversations or looking at the content of our e-mails? Should we believe them? Remember Nixon and the extent of his spying and his assertions that we should trust the president when it comes to national security?
Obama missed a great opportunity. It was a chance to do what candidate Obama promised. It was a chance to also reign in private business data gathering. It was a change to move us to a new discussion about privacy and rights. But he failed to do that and instead simply missed the point about spying.
–Barack Obama, January 17, 2014
Barack Obama simply misses the point.
In a windy speech seeking to address NSA spying on American citizens and foreign national, including our allies, Obama’s speech amounted to nothing more than “trust the government to do the right thing and protect your rights.” Such a sentiment completely misses the point about why we have a Constitution and in particular, the Fourth Amendment and the demands that searches be conducted only upon probable cause.
Let’s first start with why the speech. The speech did not take place because the president was genuinely concerned or worried about the threat to individual liberties associated with the NSA intelligence gathering of our phone, e-mail and other metadata. Instead, the only reason the speech took place was because of the disclosures by Edward Snowden. Had those leaks not occurred it seems unlikely that the public would have known about the NSA spying. After all, the FISA Court that issues warrants to allow for activity like this is a secret court–no different than the old Star Chamber of the British monarchy. One can debate whether Snowden is a hero or a criminal but the truth is that he revealed something that the public would not have known about.
As a result of Snowden we have come to learn of the extensive reach of the NSA in terms of spying on Americans and others across the world. We have also come to learn from a few scattered court decisions issued that the NSA has not always complied with court warrants, often exceeding them or acting way beyond their scope. All in the interest in keeping us safe and secure from terrorism. But Snowden’s disclosures have forced a public debate, pushing the president into the position of having to form a task force to reevaluate they NSA activity. His speech on January 17, was a response.
To say the least, Obama was unapologetic if not defiant. He first appealed to fear and the threats to our security that terrorism poses and then he defended in a sanitized version how effective our intelligence gathering has been to protect us throughout history. The ends I guess justify the means.
But then Obama outlines the changes to the spying program. Frankly, there were no real substantive changes. The NSA will continue gathering metadata and will not stop monitoring calls and e-mails. He does call for some minor changes in the FISA court but they are not really clear what they will be. The major change is to say that the NSA cannot store the metadata anymore. Someone else will? But whom? Private vendors, like the one who Snowden worked for? Or companies like Target and Neiman Marcus? Whether in private or public hands the data still exists, is still being examined, and still constitutes spying.
Moreover, Obama misses other fundamental issues. First, the issue is not whether the data has kept us safe and secure. The issue is about following the law. Rarely do I echo Rand Paul but he got it fundamentally right on CNN. If we suspect someone is doing something illegal then get a search warrant. The fourth Amendment requires particular suspicion to do searches–it does not allow for general fishing trips to look for information or to round up the usual suspects. It’s not hard to get search warrants–I did it when I worked in government.
Morever, the security versus liberty dichotomy is a false one. When are only secure when our liberty is protected. Additionally, there is no evidence that this wholesale spying is efficient or produces real intelligence. It is overreach. Use real intelligence to focus on real suspects.
Third, to capitulate on the Fourth Amendment means we have lost. Immediately after the events of 9/11 President Bush declared: “The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life, is to force us to retreat, is to force us to be what we're not. And that's--they're going to fail. They're simply going to fail.” Bush was correct in saying what he did even though he would fail to honor them. We fail as a country if we fail to respect our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are the “shining city on the hill” because we respect and do not abuse rights. That is why stories about spying and torture are so bad.
But finally, Obama misses it because in the end he speech comes down to no more than simply “trust the government to do the right thing.” Tell that to James Madison and the constitutional framers. Constitutions and bills of rights are written because we fundamentally should not always trust the government. Both are written to restrain the government. This is what Obama misses.
I am not conspiracy theorist. It was a single shooter in Dallas in 1963. But what should be skeptical about the NSA spying. We are told they are not listening to our phone conversations or looking at the content of our e-mails? Should we believe them? Remember Nixon and the extent of his spying and his assertions that we should trust the president when it comes to national security?
Obama missed a great opportunity. It was a chance to do what candidate Obama promised. It was a chance to also reign in private business data gathering. It was a change to move us to a new discussion about privacy and rights. But he failed to do that and instead simply missed the point about spying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)