I've had a hard time coming up with a coherent response to your comment, Johnny.
While I don't want the Dems to seem weak in any way, national defense has never been one of our strengths. Therefore, I get angry about this kind of talk from Kerry for two reasons: first, it keeps the game on the right's turf and second, it casts the debate on the right's terms. I feel this is an aggressive response, but in the wrong way. It's aggressive in the "let's stick it to brown people no matter the cost to the Constitution!", where what we need is a response that highlights the following: Bush broke the law by instituting surveillance without the FISA court's approval. Not only did he break the law, but he did it to little effect, wasting the NSA's and the FBI's time and resources to tap the phones of people that often had little or no relation to terrorism suspects. If Kerry wants to seem tough on terror, let's see him call Bush out on his underfunding of toops, lack of focus on man and material on where it's needed to effectively hunt Al Qaida, economic policy that encourages wasteful spending and a lack of attention paid ot the war effort, his silence in calling for the sacrifices needed to wage and win a successful war, and a foreign policy that makes America look like a lumbering, whiny toddler.
Now, all of this is secondary to the damage being done to the Constitution itself. I think the subtext of this statement is pretty clear, even if Kerry doesn't realize it. By saying that he is okay with eavesdropping anytime and anywhere, Kerry is undermining a very basic tenet of our founding document: the right of privacy in your person and (to a lesser extent) your posessions. By taking the "my dick would be just as big as yours were I in office" approach, Kerry is also placing the idea of a executive beholden to the checks and balances with the other two branches of government in jeopardy. In Bush's presidency, the executive sits atop the governmental pyramid and is served by the courts and the legislature (the bottom points of the pyramid). This is contrary to the Constitution (see a good bit of articles two and three, for example), which places the legislative body at the head of the pyramid (making the laws), with the support of the executive (enforcement of laws) and judicial(interpretation) branches. I know this is all basic civics stuff and I'm sure you already know most if not all of it, but it's crucial to my interpretation of our little situation here. I think that the crucial point is Bush is trying to further recast the executive as one who has a majority share if not the whole say in MAKING LAWS. This is not his job, it's not supposed to be his job, nor should it be his job. The job of MAKING LAWS rests (where it should) in a body of many, many people drawn from the populace. Changing this balance of power in favor of the executive creates, in effect, a one-man governing apparatus. If one man can both make and enforce laws, he has no need of a body to make laws for him, nor a body to interpret the laws he makes. These laws will surely always be in his best judgement.
I don't have a great way to summarize this second argument. Not a lot of people know enough about the Constitution or our government to read into Bush's behavior what I think he's actually trying to do: install himself as sole ruler/king/emperor/shah/whatever. But this, I think, is what we have to try and communicate to people.
i'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but remember that you and I are way further left than most of the country. Kerry can not just run out and do those things because it alienates him from centerists. it's politics. do what would get you the most votes. don't be upset with the man for playing the game. Kerry is not a reformer. He is a career politician. He's not the one who has the sway to stand up and say "hang on a minute..!" Keep on keeping on, my liberal chum. The left keeps society progressing, the right keeps the left from doing too much at once.
While I don't want the Dems to seem weak in any way, national defense has never been one of our strengths. Therefore, I get angry about this kind of talk from Kerry for two reasons: first, it keeps the game on the right's turf and second, it casts the debate on the right's terms. I feel this is an aggressive response, but in the wrong way. It's aggressive in the "let's stick it to brown people no matter the cost to the Constitution!", where what we need is a response that highlights the following: Bush broke the law by instituting surveillance without the FISA court's approval. Not only did he break the law, but he did it to little effect, wasting the NSA's and the FBI's time and resources to tap the phones of people that often had little or no relation to terrorism suspects. If Kerry wants to seem tough on terror, let's see him call Bush out on his underfunding of toops, lack of focus on man and material on where it's needed to effectively hunt Al Qaida, economic policy that encourages wasteful spending and a lack of attention paid ot the war effort, his silence in calling for the sacrifices needed to wage and win a successful war, and a foreign policy that makes America look like a lumbering, whiny toddler.
Now, all of this is secondary to the damage being done to the Constitution itself. I think the subtext of this statement is pretty clear, even if Kerry doesn't realize it. By saying that he is okay with eavesdropping anytime and anywhere, Kerry is undermining a very basic tenet of our founding document: the right of privacy in your person and (to a lesser extent) your posessions. By taking the "my dick would be just as big as yours were I in office" approach, Kerry is also placing the idea of a executive beholden to the checks and balances with the other two branches of government in jeopardy. In Bush's presidency, the executive sits atop the governmental pyramid and is served by the courts and the legislature (the bottom points of the pyramid). This is contrary to the Constitution (see a good bit of articles two and three, for example), which places the legislative body at the head of the pyramid (making the laws), with the support of the executive (enforcement of laws) and judicial(interpretation) branches. I know this is all basic civics stuff and I'm sure you already know most if not all of it, but it's crucial to my interpretation of our little situation here. I think that the crucial point is Bush is trying to further recast the executive as one who has a majority share if not the whole say in MAKING LAWS. This is not his job, it's not supposed to be his job, nor should it be his job. The job of MAKING LAWS rests (where it should) in a body of many, many people drawn from the populace. Changing this balance of power in favor of the executive creates, in effect, a one-man governing apparatus. If one man can both make and enforce laws, he has no need of a body to make laws for him, nor a body to interpret the laws he makes. These laws will surely always be in his best judgement.
I don't have a great way to summarize this second argument. Not a lot of people know enough about the Constitution or our government to read into Bush's behavior what I think he's actually trying to do: install himself as sole ruler/king/emperor/shah/whatever. But this, I think, is what we have to try and communicate to people.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment