As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base.
In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.
Obama has been more or less the right-center President he was as a candidate. People who are surprised by this wishfully read too much into his rhetoric.
E.g. Obama has continued interventions in Pakistan, etc, even though some people pinned their hopes on him as an "anti-war" candidate. But he was never "anti-war." He was "anti-Iraq war." He ran on a platform of "Bush took us into Iraq instead of hitting the terrorists harder in Afghanistan." So why should anyone be surprised he took troops out of Iraq and put more in Afghanistan?
E.g. re: drone strikes, is it really any worse than the cruise missiles Clinton was fond of using?
"Civil liberties" in the abstract sense, are not a core issue to Obama's base in the same way that say abortion rights are. During Bush, Democrats opposed expansions such as military tribunals in Guantanamo, etc, but things like NSL's have been around since the 1970's. I don't think the bulk of Obama's base have a problem with the status quo circa 1995, or ever did, regardless of what adherent civil libertarians might have hoped.
Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo[1], restoring habeas corpus for "enemy combatants"[2], abolishing military commissions for detainees[3], etc.
Moreover, as an Illinois state Senator, one of Obama's signature accomplishments was a reform in how prisoners were interrogated.[4]
Obama made less specific pledges about reducing the state secrets privileges. You can check out how surprised some judges were when, one month into his presidency, the Obama administration continued the Bush-era position that extraordinary rendition was too sensitive to even discuss in court.[5]
We can argue about how much his promises mattered to his getting elected. And I agree that his rhetoric interpreted wishfully by his supporters. But even with all that, there's no question there's been a real about-face once he took office.
re: drone strikes, is it really any worse than the cruise missiles Clinton was fond of using?
Clinton wasn't targeting Americans.
If due process can be denied to any American, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit. Even child molesters, and foreign spies, are afforded a trial. Terrorists should also face a trial, as well as punishment when convicted.
As for the right-center President, there is very little difference between the actions of Democrat and Republican presidents. It's like the difference between CocaCola and Pepsi when all we want is water.
Exactly right. A moral high ground built on an axiom of 'our citizens are now deserving of human rights than anyone else's' is more of a moral tar pit than a high ground.
If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights. The US doesn't rule the whole world, and the world doesn't want US to. Therefore, conflicts will arise, and there is no fair play among warring nations.
This might be a fair point if the US government was only claiming that the (supposedly inalienable) human rights which it respects in its own citizens are only suspended as against citizens of countries the US is in a state of war with.
But it doesn't. It claims that they don't apply to any non-Americans (outside US borders, at least - non-US citizens inside US borders do have some protections, IIRC). And the US courts seem to agree (e.g. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez)
The US is not at war with the entire rest of the world.
> If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights.
The original assertion was about what is moral. To make sure I understand you correctly - you're claiming that because I don't have responsibilities to the US government (I don't pay US taxes etc. being not a US citizen), it's not immoral for the US government to act in a way that, if I was a US citizen, would be an actionable breach of my fundamental rights?
The depressing part is realizing that Obama is actually the lesser of two evils (two elections running), and that worse could be happening right now in terms of rights erosion and increase in security-state.
There is no left-wing remaining in power in this country. You only have corporatists and reactionary extremists corporatists.
It seems as though you may need to be a corporatist to raise a war chest comparable to the corporatists. It seems like the logical/natural steady state of elections with deregulated campaign finance...
Just something to chew on: I think you've set up a false dichotomy. It is also possible that the problem is not deregulated campaign finance but rather the increasing shift away from a constitutional republic form of government to a democracy.
One of the big benefits of a republican (small "R", not the party) form of government is that it's far more difficult to buy off because at conventions each delegate (which are generally grass-roots involved people who have no financial incentive) has the same influence regardless of which candidate has the most money.
Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules?
The problem is fundamental to the structure and it is inevitable that, over time, every government becomes tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson made it clear for the ages, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Governments are of man and man is prone to taking advantage of and abusing his or her peers.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
> Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules?
Ideally,
> the people
I think the "people -> government" relationship is broken in the US and I'm not sure whether all the "blood of patriots and tyrants" talk helps or hurts that.
Well, the US is a Republic and not a democracy. Even in the case of a direct democracy, should we have 50.1% deciding for the 100%? If only it were a trivial game it would be an easy answer!
Quoting Jefferson isn't a call to action, but a call to remember those words, the context and the inspiration. It's insightful to remember that Jefferson was the founder of a third-party known as the Democratic-Republicans.
As much as people think the world is different, the difference is really only technologically. Instead of stealing horses, people steal cars. Instead of bootlegging liquor, people run marijuana.
Instead of slave masters, we have human resources.
Two political Sects have arisen within the U.S. the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other that like the analogous branch in the English Government, it is already too strong for the republican parts of the Constitution; and therefore in equivocal cases they incline to the legislative powers: the former of these are called federalists, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats, and sometimes tories, after the corresponding sect in the English Government of exactly the same definition: the latter are stiled republicans, whigs, jacobins, anarchists, disorganizers, etc. these terms are in familiar use with most persons."
- Jefferson in 1798 - you'll note that he was arguing that the republicans of his day were insufficiently democratic, rather than the other way round.
As much as people think the world is different, the difference is really only technologically. Instead of stealing horses, people steal cars. Instead of bootlegging liquor, people run marijuana.
Instead of slave masters, we have human resources.
Well, there's a slight qualitative difference in that if you quit your job, HR can't come after you and compel you stay in it. Your creditors may sue you for everything short of the shirt off your back, but you can't be forced into servitude.
I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before, so I value economic freedom and good governance and my estimate of the lesser of two evils goes the other way.
But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way).
"I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before,"
If only the government would get out of the hero entrepreneur's way so he and his fellow Bay Area/Boston/Chinese/Indian/Nordic/Eastern European/<insert leftist area> engineers could bring their unique vision to life.
"I value economic freedom"
For today's GOP "economic freedom" translates to lower taxes for rich people, carte blanche to piss in the pool, and closing economic doors for the less fortunate.
"good governance "
Turning the government over to lobbyists, destroying public education, weakening clean air and water standards, ignoring global warming, starting pointless wars, neo-creationism, disenfranchising hard fought voting rights, monetary crankism, opposing any and all reasonable regulation of firearms, etc. None of these sound remotely like "good governance". The Democrats are no saints but the modern GOP is repugnant on many fronts.
"But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way)."
As bad as Obama is on civil liberties he stopped torture that went on under GOP and he tried to close Guantanamo but was prevented by the GOP. At the end of the day, presidents of all parties tend to vote for more executive power. For the parties themselves, it's progressives that have been the best defenders of civil liberties and that can be seen clearly in something like the Patriot Act votes.
Blue areas are in a perpetual state of what I call "bad governance". California is an example - a high tax burden, poor public services, and a chronic budget deficit. If you investigate a bit further into how they could suck in so many ways you find out that Democrats held both houses of the legislature for three or four decades straight and that the public unions are their biggest financial supporters. And of course the unions get rich benefits while the rest of us get screwed. So we get high taxes but not even good services to show for it.
The California government is propped up by Hollywood and Silicon Valley, otherwise it would collapse under its illogic. Other blue state governments don't have that luxury and they are in far more dire straights. They have promised their unions more than they can pay and the unions have the power to hold on to it.
I know everybody has different ordering on the importance of issues so reasonable people disagree on politics. I want governments with balanced budgets, long-term planning horizons, decent public services, and a light burden on the private economy and I think the GOP is best suited to provide those things in most areas. It's certainly true in California.
Ha! I'm poor, but optimistic. In my experience it's the people who are born privileged that believe in the leftist narrative that all your success is due to luck/privilege, and people born in poor families in poor red states just want the government to leave them alone.
But regardless, I don't mind paying taxes if it goes towards quality public goods. I do mind paying taxes that go straight into union members' pockets. It's shameful how much the Dems have sold out taxpayer interests in blue states to feather the beds of their union masters. Blue states budgets are sinking under union pension obligations. Shameful.
Bringing change is easier said that done. Consider an example from last week's news; US agents captured Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, a former Al Qaeda spokesman, and have brought him to New York to stand trial. Some politicians are incensed, saying that it willmake NY a terrorist target and that he doesn't deserve a criminal trial, and demanded that the fellow instead be sent off to Guantanamo bay and interrogated, with his fate to be decided by a military court (summarized here: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-09/opinions/37579... FWIW I agree with the conclusion of this editorial).
You might remember that Obama attempted to close down the detention facilities in Guantanamo soon after taking office, and wanted to try alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in NYC, but the plan was shelved following vociferous objections, public demonstrations etc. Now I don't want to go all partisan, but I can't help observing that the very same Tea Party type Republicans that object to big government were the very same people that rallied in the streets of NY to argue against transparency and the application of the criminal justice system. For the administration, it's kind of a 'heads you win, tails I love' situation.
Part of the problem is that civil libertarians are not very organized. They don't march on TSA headquarters to demand the right to leave their shoes on, or parade through the streets of NY to champion the criminal justice system, or picket the headquarters of the NSA. When the administration does stand up for civil rights (even in a small way like the above), they get virtually no popular support.
...They don't march on TSA headquarters to demand the right to leave their shoes on...
I don't know about you, but I'm too busy trying to keep a roof over my head to go traipsing off to New York, or to join a march in demonstration of the TSA.
He also signed into law a further restriction of the 1st amendment; it's now legal for the secret service to a.) be sent to guard any arbitrary person and b.) to arrest anyone demonstrating (like just holding a sign) within a specific distance from said protected person.
> and is trying to seriously infringe the second amendment.
Oh, come on. Free speech is way more infringed than the second amendment and all anyone cares about is firearms which are more dangerous than useful against tyranny.
Just because chose to excerpt my statement down to the second amendment doesn't mean that it's the only one I care about. It's also not all that "anyone" cares about.
The president now asserts the right, but he does not actually have it. If our ossified judicial system has any remaining merit, he will (eventually) be called to account for his unlawful use of military force--assuming his successor doesn't pull a Ford and pardon him.
How about the unlawful use of torture by the prior regime? This stuff goes back a ways, are you going to put every living former commander in chief on trial?
In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.