God Save the King

So today the paper runs a national story from The Washington Post -- "Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying" -- along with a local reax story, "Some in Del. oppose spying on citizens."

The latter headline is accurate, some oppose the president asserting the unchecked power to spy on U.S. citizens -- but some don't.

The White House's claim, essentially, is this: The president may do whatever he sees fit in order to keep the country safe. For some, those last seven words justify and legitimize the unlimited powergrab of the first eight. But many of us cannot accept the beginning of that sentence -- "the president may do whatever he sees fit" -- regardless of what follows. Those of us who reject that claim call ourselves "democrats" or "republicans" -- words that refer to forms of government in which the leaders are accountable to the people and to the rule of law, and therefore may not simply do whatever they see fit.

"This is a different era, a different war," President Bush said in defending his right to be free of all checks and balances. What he means, clearly, is that this new war and new era also requires a new form of government. Democracy and republicanism, he is arguing, are luxuries we can no longer afford in this new era.

The astonishing thing to me is that only "some" oppose this claim.

"He's acting like a king!" I say, only to realize that not all of my fellow citizens view that as a bad thing. They don't disagree. They don't try to argue that this assertion of unfettered executive power is in any way compatible with the idea of democracy or our democratic Constitution.

Instead, they simply try to reassure me that George W. Bush is a good king who can be trusted to wield unlimited power benevolently. Loyal subjects, they insist, have nothing to fear.

And, of course, if only the disloyal and dangerous have reason to fear the unchecked power of the president, then any apprehension about such unchecked power must be perceived as a sign of a dangerous disloyalty.

Comments

[Scott]

Those of us who reject that claim call ourselves "democrats" or "republicans" -- words that refer to forms of government in which the leaders are accountable to the people...

..."He's acting like a king!" I say, only to realize that not all of my fellow citizens view that as a bad thing. They don't disagree. They don't try to argue that this assertion of unfettered executive power is in any way compatible with the idea of democracy or our democratic Constitution.

Instead, they simply try to reassure me that George W. Bush is a good king who can be trusted to wield unlimited power benevolently. ...

If enough of your "fellow citizens" are OK with King George the Fourth (The Third being the one we originally rebelled against), then hasn't society decided, and isn't that 'accountability'?

Besides, we cannot explicitly limit govt power - govt may need that power at some point to act For The Common Good (like to protect us from terrorists or poverty) - all we can do is elect good kings we think we can trust w/ that power like Al Gore or John Kerry.

[Michael]

The concept of "hey, who needs those stupid old rights anyway, YOU MUST BE KEPT SAFE" is unnerving enough. But this is being spoken by the head of an administration that, not four months ago, showed that if something goes horribly wrong it cannot step up to the plate and get anything done.

[diddy]

Incredibly, this administration has made America into a place where Monty Python and the Holy Grail is required viewing in civics class. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, and apparently the Constitution is no better.

(Just because some moistened nymph lobbed a scimitar at you...)

[Jay]

I'd be scared witless if I wasn't so busy sending Christmas cards to the ACLU.

The foxes are indeed guarding the henhouse. The more foxes, the safer the hens. This is life outside the reality-based community.

[Thlayli]

"Now we see the violence inherent in the system!"

BTW, Fred: there's this book I've been hearing a lot about, called Left Behind. Do you have any thoughts on it...?

[Mnemosyne]

It could be worse. Take a gander at today's LA Times headline:

"Bush Insists On Tools To Fight Terror"

[Bre]

The best part about having a King is that we get a new holiday. The Sixth of July has a much better sound than the Fourth of July, right?

[Scorpio]

Maybe we should just take on Charles and Camilla. At least Chas believes in global warming.

[Skyknight]

This reminds me of a letter to the editor I saw in today's Boston Metro (basically a "lite" newspaper for quickly checking headlines while on a commute). The sender said that he was dismayed at the Senate's recalcitrance over the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. His advice? Bush should force the thing into law anyway, and then imprison the dissenting senators (he's probably thinking of the charge of treason, but doesn't the phrase "aid and comfort" imply that you're EXPRESSLY siding with the enemy? Not unintentionally?). In the same letter, he said that the war in Iraq is actually a necessary step in dispelling Islamofascism.

One not-so-charming element about this fellow is that, in previous letters, he said that we also need protection from "spiritual terrorism"--which is anything that isn't Christian. Yes, you read that correctly. Atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, Baha'i, Judaism--these he regards as "spiritual terrorism". I forget the exact reasoning, but it had something to do with swaying us away from Jesus and towards Satan. He even had the temerity to say that the Founders never intended for this nation to contain any religion save Christianity. {ahem} Letters of John Adams? Jefferson's commentary on the Virginia laws that allowed for freedom of religion? Washington's assurances to the Jews of Rhode Island? {sigh} I'm waiting for him to eventually say that the United States are actually Israel Mk. II. (Has anybody yet tried to call Bush a prophet--using that exact word?)

I still think the great majority of this nation--that is, those who are neither sharply conservative nor sharply liberal, but are centrist and/or eclectic, or at least don't go much further to either side than Goldwater did to the right--can derail these chimerae. The problem is going to be getting the pundits to quiet down...

[Beth]

And, of course, if only the disloyal and dangerous have reason to fear the unchecked power of the president, then any apprehension about such unchecked power must be perceived as a sign of a dangerous disloyalty.

That's the real catch-22, isn't it? We'll agree to preserve your freedoms as long as you agree to make no effort to hold us to that.

Scorpio, Maybe we could tell them we were just kidding about that whole revolution thing. Long live the Commonwealth!

[K]

I listened to the President's news conference yesterday morning. It is pretty frightening to realize some of the comments that he made. For example, he mentioned that we might not have enough troops in Iraq, but according to our president, 'history will judge'. Does this mean that we're not allowed to criticize our administration, but must wait until these events are long past?
Another comment he made went something to the extent of 'an open debate on law would tell the enemy what we're doing' (this is not an exact quote, I don't think). Again, the president seems to be suggesting that this is not something that we should talk about now, but wait until the future, and there is no telling when it would be appropriate according to our president to criticize or examine his actions.
Our president informed us that this is a different war, different era. But later in questioning, he mentions that if this NSA spying program were in place before Sept 11, it could have been prevented. I would not be surprised if (and this would probably be unlikely) we end the war in Iraq before the end of his term, he will insist on keeping this program so that terrorist attacks could be further prevented.
Ultimately, it seems as though our president wants us to put blind faith in him. He says that he's been sworn in, it is his responsibility to do what is right, and as long as we're not skeptical, and don't question him, things will be ok. If we question him, however, we will be "aiding the enemies".
So my final question is this: the president explains that it is in America's best interests to support the Patriot Act; so, whose best interest is being served by skepticism to the Patriot Act? The terrorists? Hardly.

[Cathy]

I had this discussion with my boss the other night. His take? "Ooh. Some Al Qaeda scumbag is having his rights violated. Cry me a river. You want to talk about civil rights being violated? How 'bout the civil rights of the 3000 people in the World Trade Center?" I got him, though. "But boss, you're assuming the government can correctly identify who is and isn't an Al Qaeda scumbag 100% of the time." "Oh. Umm. Yeah. That is a problem, isn't it?"

[Steve]

I thought the republicans did not want activist judges...but judges that will apply the plain language of the constitution?

Then why the hell do they put up with an activist president?

The opposition needs to latch on this phrase and repeat it over and over and over again. Activist president. Activist president. Activist president.

[Steve]

BTW, what we really need are a few slacktivist judges.

[Steve]

One other thing: Anybody else having trouble with Slacktivist this week? Missing entries...missing comment threads...and such. At one point all the posts after Dec. 8 disappeared. I wondered if it was my PC because no one was commenting on it...but it looked the same way from my work computer.

[Duane]

Same problem with the site.

[LL]

Not surprised that many people (what percentage, I'm not sure) feel it's ok to give the government every benefit of the doubt and every police power it desires, with no questions asked. Appalled, but not surprised. It's like nobody, not even the old people, remember the many, many, many times the govt has gotten the benefit of the doubt with the understanding that it deliver results and failed utterly to do so. I'm still baffled that the govt got a pass on the whole failing to detect a plot involving airplanes despite warnings from FBI people and various counterterrorism experts that such an attack was not only likely, but perhaps imminent. Rather than blaming the govt for failing to do its job and protect us from such an attack, most people seem to feel that that failure justifies giving the govt a blank check to do whatever it wants and we're supposed to take their word for it that they've got it all covered. I can't explain that, no matter how I try to figure it out. Stupidity is the only explanation I can come up with. It's not that Bush is necessarily doing a worse job than anyone else would have (though some people might make the argument that he is), it's that he seems to believe that because he is Bush, he deserves not to be questioned, no matter what he does or what results from his decisions. He seems to have only recently been informed that many of us are not impressed by his performance thus far. I consider the fact that we haven't experienced (in this country) another major terrorist attack a coincidence. It's not proof that the govt is doing a good job (though I'm sure there are competent, committed individuals within the govt), it's proof that terrorists aren't trying hard enough to get us again. Plus, how do you follow knocking down the two tallest buildings in America and damaging the military's headquarters? You wouldn't want to follow that with some puny subway bombing (no offense intended, and not making light of any bombings, just sorta trying to think like a crazy terrorist), you'd want to do something big. I would hope that someone in the govt is thinking the same thing and taking steps to avoid it, but FEMA's response to Katrina has not filled me with confidence in our homeland defense apparatus. Bushco's latest PR efforts look like desperation, not resolve.

[Skyknight]

Thinking about this and the letter-writer I spoke of, I think I know what a large part of the problem is. Many of US think of freedom, in the Constitutional sense, as "freedom to". The Bush groupies, though, only think of freedom--of any source--as "freedom from" (in this case, freedom from berserkers and "subversives"). I wouldn't be surprised if part of the problem with the latter is an at least minor case of solipsism--they can't imagine how anyone could have ideals dissimilar to their own (i.e. they can't imagine themselves as possible being extraordinary, unusual, etc.). What's the point of "freedom to" if everything unlike your own desires is nonsensical?

[Ross]

Steve, I think what you're forgetting is that, "activist" to them literally means "disagrees with our interpretation" (Also, they have a nonstandard definition of "literal"). "Literal" or "plain" interpretation doesn't really enter into it. The "literal", "plain" or "common sense" reading of the constitution is just "the reading that makes it mean what we want it to mean."

I usually don't have the balls to point out that the people running the party don't really believe a lot of the same things as the people supporting the party, they just find it expedient to appear to do so. But in this case, there is a really strong overlap between the way the political right thinks and the way the religious right thinks -- because that's exactly the same way that far too many of the folks who go around calling themselves "Christian fundamentalists" define "literal", "plain" and "common sense" readings.

[lbb]

I listened to the President's news conference yesterday morning. It is pretty frightening to realize some of the comments that he made.

Indeed. From the AP, by way of the Boston Globe:

"President Bush used his year-end news conference yesterday to resume his public relations offensive against his critics, saying he wants the Justice Department to find out who committed the 'shameful act' of leaking word that he secretly approved a special program to spy on US citizens."

So let me get this straight. The illegal act of leaking a CIA agent's identity is somehow okay and doesn't merit investigation...but leaking (sort of) information about an illegal act is a "shameful act" and merits investigation by the Justice Department, toot sweet.

Can someone provide me with a reason why this man is not the worst and most dangerous president we've ever had? Quick, please, or I'm off to Bolivia to join the revolution and grow coca leaves.

[pharoute]

A little something from the Declaration of Independence:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Yup
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. In spirit if not in letter
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. Yup
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. Yup
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: Yup (foreign equals not of the Constitution)
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: Not yet…
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: soon alas
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: Yup
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: Yup
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: Yup
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. Yup
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. “If you is not an enemy combatant you got nothing to fear and I’m the one doing the deciding”
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. Or let Nature do it for him
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. BIG TIME

[chris]

Maybe we should just take on Charles and Camilla.

Pretty please? We'll give you a discount. (from England)

Isn't there a story that when the drafting commission for the US constitution broke up, somebody approached Franklin and asked, "Do we have a republic or a monarchy?", to which Franklin replied, "You have a republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Presumably he didn't imagine that some federalist worthy was going to be crowned in pomp while everybody's attention was distracted: what he had in mind was what we're seeing now.

[Drocket]

A truly great exchange on the Senate floor today:

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death."

This, really, cuts to the heart of the 'debate' (such as it is...) Our founding fathers believed that concepts such as liberty, freedom and justice were more important than life itself. There are still people who disagree with that assessment. So here we are, 200-odd years later, still debating the ideals that founded our country.

[moonbiter]

Give me liberty or give me death.

"This, really, cuts to the heart of the 'debate'"

Pretty much. There is a term for people like Sen. Cornyn: "coward."

We are allowing our national discourse to be dominated by bullies and cowards who respect no rights outside of their own need to feel safe. They would trample the standards of civil liberties, human rights, and simple human decency into the mud to protect their own worthless hides.

I miss my America, a nation formerly known as the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave."

[Drocket]

There is a term for people like Sen. Cornyn: "coward."

No, no - Cowards cut and run. Brave men like Cornyn are willing to send as many of other people's children as necessary off to die for the grand ideals of maximizing Halliburton's profit margin.

[sophia8]

The problems with Fred's blog this past week have been a Typepad problem, affecting lots of users: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/typepad_titsup/

Glad to see you back!

[Steve]

Ross: I agree with everything you say. i.e. the term "activist judge" is just a hot button phrase for them to raise people's ire. And yes, anyone with a simple understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics knows that sometimes you have to do a little research and interpretation of older texts (whether 200 years old or 2,000 years old) to understand the language used and the context in which it was used.

My point was, this is a case of a pretty liberal interpretation of the constitution...so why not throw it back in the administration's face. Of course, they don't seem to have problems accepting the fact that they are totally inconsistent. But, hey, Bush should be ridiculed over this using his own words.

Of course, the response will be something like "the founders could have never anticipated modern technology and terrorism like we face" ... which then is more cause to say, and yes, the founders could also not foresee a host of other issues...and that is why we select judges and trust them to make interpretations of the constitution. There is no "plain" reading.

[LMM]

So are the previous comments sections gone for good? Because the Left Behind comments are the best part. :(

[jhlipton]

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: Not yet…

Another way that Iraq is a foretaste of what they have in store for us -- this is happening over there (so it can happen over here later).

[jhlipton]

BTW, I see that Scott is persisting in thinking that Gore and Kerry would be king in the way that Bush is. Yeesh.

Can we please disenvowel what is, to all intents and purposes, a troll?

[dave heasman]

He's not acting like a king, he's acting like a pre-1789 French king. Or a pre-1649 English one. (Noone pretends that the American Revolution was anti-monarchy, do they? The king by then was totally dependent on parliament.)
It's Christianity, isn't it? All this bollocks about "Christ the King" means that kings are all right. They're not, not really, are they?