It’s been interesting to watch the reaction to the inauguration today around the Utah Bloghive. An eclectic set of perspectives on the 44th president, to say the least. One post really struck me though, in it’s simple yet powerful composition, as something worth passing around.
From JM Bell, Utah’s resident Militant Progressive:
“What’s next?”Repairing America. Resuming our course as the great experiment. Repairing our National honor by restoration of the Rule of Law and ending torture, warrantless wiretaps, extraordinary rendition; opening government and a guarantee of transparency; an end to cronyism; operating our government and living our lives by the examples of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
As a Democrat, I have the responsibility to monitor and report, to raise my voice, just as I have in the years past, when I disagree. Dissent, and the voice I have to use it, are the greatest tools granted to a citizen of the United States. To leave them dormant, due to Party allegiance, fear or ignorance is unpatriotic, un-American and, ultimately, intellectually dishonest.
If the American Government is to operate properly, it must react to the voice of the people. If the voice is silent, so too is the conscience of our elected leaders.
I’m optimistic today.
Indeed.
Not to be too pointed, but Bell’s words symbolize much of what is wrong with all of the hype surrounding Obama’s presidency.
1) Restoration of the Rule of Law: how exactly is the Rule of Law going to be restored? And that is assuming it disappeared sometime during the past eight years? Maintaining the Rule of Law requires that essentially, “no one is above the law.” How then do you defend Timothy Geithner’s appointment? While thousands of Americans are imprisoned on account of tax evasion, Pres. Obama ironically appoints someone guilty of the same crime to be the Secretary of the Treasury. If it is the Rule of Law you are concerned about, shouldn’t you be objecting to such an appointment?
2) Warrantless wiretaps and extraordinary rendition: Later in Bell’s comments, he speaks of “living our lives by the examples of the Declaration fo Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.” With that being said, how can Bell honestly make this indirect attack on the Bush Administration for operating the way it did with security matters? Has Bell never read the Federalist Papers? Is he familiar with the words of both Madison and Hamilton that this country was to protect itself from an overpowering legislature, by means of a strong and energetic executive? And in the Founding documents of this country, has Bell not gleamed that the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief, and that the Constitution (Article II) has long been understood to allow the President expanded powers to conduct the gathering of foreign intelligence in whatever way he deems necessary? Does JM Bell understand that the Supreme Court has defended such a position in numerous Supreme Court cases such as United States v. United States District Court(1972), and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).
In Hamdi, the Court stated: “The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.”
If we are to live accordingly to the examples of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independece, then we must be willing to accept that the Executive of this country was invisioned to have expanded powers and the powers of Presidential prerogative, without which, Presidents like Abraham Lincoln would be guilty not only breaking the laws of he land, but also infringing on the Constitution itself.
3) Opening government and a guarantee of transparency: If Obama is truly sincere about opening government and making a guarantee of transparency, shouldn’t he begin with his own cabinet? The most obvious case being his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a meaningful attempt to reveal overseas donors to her husband’s foundation. And shouldn’t the President, who appears to be so concerned with transparency, side with Sen. Cornyn in investigating the matter further? Or are we in a state of emergency which requires us to overlook such things as Clinton’s donors and Geithner’s tax evasion? Wouldn’t that be just a little hypocritical for a President who was so quick to criticize his predecessor for overlooking serious flaws within his own administration?
4) End of cronyism: Would it be wise to believe that Pres. Obama is going to truly make an end to cronyism when the First Lady herself was graced by employment opportunities and handsome promotions (not to mention the creation of a position for her) from Obama associates at the UC? What about Obama’s earlier connections to Blackwell Consulting? Or more recently, Obama’s surprising choice of Penny Pritzker for Commerce?
And how can we take such a dream seriously when Obama’s political party fosters such political dynasties as the Clintons (oh my, talk about cronyism)and the Kennedys, who have perfected cronyism and nepotism to almost an art.
I hope that Bell’s optimistic dreaming comes true, but it all sounds so terribly Disney-esque. We know very little about Barack Obama as a leader mainly because he has very little experience being one. We know Barack Obama the freshman senator of Illinois, we know Barack Obama the presidential campaigner, and we know Barack Obama the President-elect… but as much as we would like to envision Obama living up to all of the rhetoric which has intoxicated half of the population, we still have very little understanding of how this man will perform as the Executive of this nation.
Such visions of change seem to be incredibly naive, especially when they contain such sweeping reforms as restoring the “Rule of Law,” and making “an end to cronyism.” I never refer to Obama as “the Messiah,” but such delirious confidence surely seems almost a little fanatical if not dogmatic.
FF – I think you’re really trying hard to make Obama look more Bushlike, which really can’t be easy. I think some of the hype surrounding the Obama administration is actually hype for the administration. For some Obama is inspirational and exciting, for some others, he’s not Bush and the last 8 years weren’t exactly great.
Now to your points:
1 – Ya, you just compared tax law to like habeas corpus, torture, warrantless wiretapping, over-reach of executive privilege (which is now illegal, more on this when we get to point 3). I agree, people should pay their taxes, they also shouldn’t torture people. Geithner paid his eventually, let me know when they start unwaterboarding people. Obama wants to close Guantanamo, and is against torture, oh and I hear he’s all for that right to speedy trial, or at the very least, charging someone with a crime to keep them imprisoned.
2 – I’m no constitutional expert, but if I take your word that Bush could if he wanted to even though he’d be violating other sections of the Constitution (which seems kinda sketchy to me, but whatever), that still doesn’t provide for a reason why he should. This one still boils down to the basics, warrants were attainable 72 hours after the phone call was tapped, and practically begging congress to give the telcos that helped you in your wiretapping game immunity doesn’t really sound like the actions of someone who was playing entirely in bounds. Bottom line here, comparing FISA to Lincoln doesn’t make it seem any less fishy. If for no other reason than I think it would be hard to not be, Obama will be more within the law on this one.
3 – Have you seen the new whitehouse.gov? It’s a start, also, there’s this. Oh and that whitehouse.gov is now indexable by search engines, which the previous administration went to great lengths to prevent. That’s pretty open and transparent for a day in office.
4 – In related news, sometimes people hire someone that they know for a job. I know this is shocking, but yes sometimes it happens. I don’t know that I’d point to job offers to Michelle Obama as evidence of President Obama (hey, that’s the first time I’ve typed that, yep, it felt good) being a crony, and in so doing I think you make a pretty weak case. Try and come up with some better support for this one (start by comparing Pritzker to Harriet Miers).
I understand your skepticism of Obama, it’s now time to see what he’ll do as President. But these arguments against JM’s piece is a stretch at best. But putting them in the prespective of your and JM’s political ideologies they make a little more sense. He had a better day than you did yesterday, with good reason.
President Obama
Ya, it’s still fun to type, I think JM would agree.
President Obama … yup. That’s fun to type… Ok, back on topic:
It’s got to be hard to be a right winger. You guys seem to have no vision, optimism or free will any more.
Let me start with Cronyism.
Hillary isn’t an old Texas buddy of Obama’s. She not being put in charge of a government entity after being fired from because she’s incompetent at setting up horse shows. She isn’t a lobbyist set up to run a department that regulates an industry she used to lobby for. It’s kind of like that.
Bush gave out appointments to massive contributors. I can’t find that Obama’s done that. Can you?
Now … Rule of Law … It’s all about protecting the Bush Administration. Still. Isn’t it?
Contrary to our nation’s proud traditions since the Revolutionary War, kidnapping, disappearance, torture and murder have now been officially sanctioned.
For the first time in our nation’s history, a President violated a statute passed by Congress that was enacted to prevent the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ communications.
For the first time in our nation’s history, the Geneva Conventions, other treaties, and US laws prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment have been ignored and violated by order of President Bush and other members of the Bush Administration. Also, in unprecedented fashion, the Congress has asserted the authority to re-write and restrict the protections against torture contained in the Geneva Conventions.
Contrary to his obligation under the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” President Bush issued hundreds of “signing statements” after signing bills into law, purporting to have the authority to disregard the laws.
In several instances, the courts have prevented challenges to egregious abuses of Executive power by accepting the Bush Administration’s claim that “state secrets” would be disclosed by allowing the cases to proceed, foreclosing challenges to the officially sanctioned practice of kidnapping, disappearing, and torturing people around the world and the illegal warrantless wiretapping of citizens’ communications.
Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which is subversive to our system of checks and balances, the right to habeas corpus, the most elementary notions of due process, and our commitments under the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and the War Crimes Act to refrain from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees.
No one is, or should be, above the law. Not a Republican President. Not even a Democratic one.