I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the right has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to FISA. These people should really try to wrap their minds about the fact that the country is very likely to put a "liberal fascist" in the White House in a few months and maybe -- just maybe! -- it's not a great idea to have this child-like faith that the essence of good government is utterly untrammeled domestic surveillance.
« More FISA, Less Sarcasm | Main | Over There »
Know-Nothings
15 Feb 2008 10:58 am
Comments (15)
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the right has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to FISA.
They don't need to know what they're talking about. All they need to know is what they've been told to say.
.
There's no real basis to think that they're worried at all. Recent history has shown that they are at their most effective and cohesive when they can present themselves as an "oppressed" minority. No one has seemed willing to call them on their hypocrisy so far, and their inevitable theatrical outrage that a (Democratic) President should have so much unchecked surveilance power should find many a sympathetic ear in the media. Rather than worrying, I'm sure they're salivating at the prospect.
I wondered this as well for a long time. After all, many of these people were warning of "black helicopters" and fretting about the police state actions of Janet Reno not too long ago. So yeah, in 2009 if the Democrats take power, what then?
But now I'm starting to think it's a calculated move by Republican strategists. If a Republican is in power, they get to spy at will and without oversight. If a Democrat is in power, they can rile up the base with "black helicopter"-style scare stories. It's a win-win.
It's all about power. If they can't keep national level power, they still have to keep power/influence over the base, for the eventual comeback. To acknowledge that the opposition has a point is to undercut the stand-upon-fear the right has taken to build its power. That's too frightening to think of -- for then they'd have to go back and develop a new rationale for the people to vote them into power.
The devolution of conservatism-as-hope to conservatism-as-fear-mongering (a strain which always existed, but is now totally dominant) has been an interesting spectacle. Unless you actually care about the nation, of course, and then it is just disgusting.
By the way, speaking of the devolution of the conservative intellectual, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_02152008_520.gif
I tried engaging my right wing Fox News all the time sister in a discussion of FISA - all she wanted to come back with was what an EVIL person Hillary Clinton is because (among other things) she wants to give rights to terrorists who are trying to kill us. That's basically the bottom line for them - anything else is irrelevent.
"I tried engaging my right wing Fox News all the time sister in a discussion of FISA - all she wanted to come back with was what an EVIL person Hillary Clinton is because (among other things) she wants to give rights to terrorists who are trying to kill us. That's basically the bottom line for them - anything else is irrelevent."
What's funny is all this secrecy and consolidation of power in the executive branch will only make a President Clinton or President Obama much, much more powerful.
One of my first moves as a democratic president (after mandating that Nascar vehicles have zero-emissions) would be to explicitly state that I was starting warrantless surveillance on every member of the GOP congress/ the WSJ editorial board, the Fox News board of directors / Rush and O'Reilly and NRA top brass.
I estimate we'd have a sensible FISA legislation in place in about 24 hours.
Maybe the Dems should try to pass a one-year extension of the "Protect America" Act, as is.
1) It would kill any arguments about the Dems not giving Bush the tools he needs to keep us safe.
2) It wouldn't give immunity to telecoms.
3) There's only a limited amount of spying GWB can do on us in the next 339 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes. So what the hey.
4) It'll be up to the next President to decide whether to push for a further extension. If Hillary or Obama wins, they probably won't bother. If McCain wins, chances are there'll still be more Dems in both houses, and they ought to do a better job of standing up to him than this Congress has done with Bush.
it's not a great idea to have this child-like faith that the essence of good government is utterly untrammeled domestic surveillance
They don't have that child-like faith.
They have the robotic conviction that a completely unrestricted executive authority is necessary whenever the President is a right wing Republican.
The moment the President is NOT a right wing Republican, they will moan and scream and sh*t their pants publicly at every moment about how the Democrats are threatening every right we have guaranteed in the Conschmitutin.
I suppose that I should not be surprised that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their sheepish followers would not appreciate the balance of powers between the House the the Senate. After all, they don't appreciate the balance of powers among the three branches of government, and they believe that Article II trumps Article I. Checks and balances is a totally unpalatable concept to them.
I think the right-wing position on FISA is really bad, and their lying about the proposed law, the consequences of allowing PAA to lapse, etc. is really despicable. But doesn't it seem a more plausible explanation of their behavior to say that they *actually believe* in this theory of vast executive power rather than that they only care about giving *Bush* this power, but either haven't thought about what will happen in 12 months, or think that they can do a 180 and undo it all? Give the Republicans a little more credit and least for thinking about their own political self interest, please. The more plausible explanation seems to be that it's a genuine difference of opinion. Which may be shocking, but not as crazy as the idea that they've never considered that a Democrat might win in November.
I'm sure many in the GOP will attack a Democratic president's use of wiretapping authority, but mainly in some posturing way that criticizes "liberal hypocrisy" rather than a way that takes a fundamentally different position on the issue.
Hillary in the White House would be the best news for civil liberties in years. Not so much because she'd respect them herself--shit, she'd probably bring back Janet Reno--but because the Republicans would start fearing the executive again instead of cheering on fascism like they're doing now.
"One of my first moves as a democratic president . . .
Posted by Strega Nona | February 15, 2008 12:20 PM"
Hey, I'd totally vote for Strega Nona for president. We could end famine, for starters . . .
Comments closed February 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
if there's one thing we don't have to worry about, it's whether the right, if in opposition, will oppose many of the things they supported while in power!
Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 11:02 AM