The Importance of Civil Liberties

[A slightly edited version of this column appeared in the 4/16/08 edition of the Enquirer]

Andrew Bartmess (“Liberals seem two-faced on liberties,” April 11) sarcastically “thanks” liberals for protecting the civil liberties he obviously doesn’t care about and wouldn’t miss if he lost them. I can best answer him by quoting from an August 1954 Atlantic Monthly article by George Kennan, former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union:

A foreign policy aimed at the achievement of total security is the one thing I can think of that is entirely capable of bringing this country to a point where it will have no security at all. And a ruthless, reckless insistence on attempting to stamp out everything that could conceivably constitute a reflection of improper foreign influence in our national life, regardless of the actual damage it is doing to the cost of eliminating it, in terms of other American values, is the one thing I can think of that should reduce us all to a point where the very independence we are seeking to defend would be meaningless, for we would be doing things to ourselves as vicious and tyrannical as any that might be brought to us from outside. . . .

Bartmess apparently doesn’t understand that our civil liberties are what make us Americans. He seems all too ready to exchange his freedom for a false sense of security. How sad.

For the record, I want the U.S. government to spy on suspected terrorists. I just want them to do it legally. We are, after all, a nation of laws and not of men.

I want the U.S. intelligence community to gather information about possible terrorist activity. I just want them to use techniques that will result in usable, credible information. According to virtually all military intelligence professionals, torture does not provide reliable information.

And finally, I want the U.S. to hunt down and kill those who have carried out—or who are planning to carry out—terrorist activities against my country. Unfortunately for all of us, most of these individuals are currently residing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rather than Iraq.

That Boy's Finger Does Not Need to Be on the Button

[From 4/15/08, about Rep. Geoff Davis’ comment on Barack Obama: “That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button”]

To the editor:

Everyone who was incensed over Jeremiah Wright . . . everyone who was outraged over Barack Obama’s “typical white people” comment . . . everyone who believes that black people in this country never have any reason to feel angry or alienated . . . let me introduce you to Northern Kentucky congressman Geoff Davis, who this weekend called Sen. Obama a “boy.”

Naw, we don’t need a conversation about race in this country. All that’s behind us.

Constitutional Fundamentalists

[From 4/13/08, in response to a Walter Williams column about the Constitution]

To the editor:

When he was president, Thomas Jefferson—who knew something about the Constitution—had the opportunity to acquire the territory of Louisiana from France. However, his scruples against taking an action not distinctly authorized in the text of the Constitution caused him to hesitate. Yet we all know what he did. He bought Louisiana.

“What does the Constitution say?” This question is very much like asking, “What does the Bible say?” Some points are crystal clear: the president must be at least 35 years old/do not kill. But other points are disputable. Constitutional fundamentalists believe their interpretation is “right” in the same way biblical literalists insist that their view of scripture is the only correct one. Both ignore other scholars who have come to different conclusions after honest inquiry.

If all constitutional questions were as cut-and-dried as folks like Walter Williams (“Despite oath, U.S. presidents don’t respect hands-off spirit of Constitution,” April 13) believe them to be, there would be little need for the political process to exist at all.

Obama and Blue-Collar Bitterness

[From 4/12/08, about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s “bitter” remarks]

Let me get this straight. Responding to a question about his relative lack of support among white, blue-collar workers, Barack Obama tries to explain the years of frustration people in these small towns feel instead of going for an easy, less-thought-provoking answer. He doesn’t give the usual, “good, hard-working people of Pennsylvania rolling up their sleeves” response.

And for this he gets hammered?

The notion that people are thinking, “Gosh, I just lost my job and my house is about to be foreclosed on, but at least we have each other” has no basis in reality.

As Obama said, in small towns throughout this country, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. Americans are feeling the crunch from rising food prices and gas prices and they’re losing their homes.

Honestly, why shouldn’t people feel bitter about this? I do. Don’t you?

Obama is making a point about how people can lose hope when they try to play by the rules and still come up short. He dares to suggest that people might be hurting and might have complex reactions.

Obama is thoughtful and unafraid while defending a politically risky yet honest position. Contrast him with his critics, who are trying to gin up faux-outrage over his remarks, urging people to respond to his words as if they were children.

Listen, folks, you always say that you want a different kind of politician. One who doesn’t just recycle the same old talking points. One who delivers insightful comments about important issues that can’t easily be reduced to 10-second soundbites. One who can tell the truth in a nuanced way.

Well, you’ve got one in Barack Obama. If you want politics-as-usual, you know who to vote for.