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.

Iraq: Five Years Later

[A slightly edited version of this column appeared in the 3/23/08 edition of the Enquirer]

Five years ago, I supported the American invasion of Iraq. But our five years there have not made America safer. Instead, our actions have gained us the enmity of the world, damaged the U.S. economy, and distracted us from more pressing matters in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Those who wish to continue the war in Iraq point to the success of the surge as evidence of “progress.” And the surge strategy has indeed reduced violence in Iraq to levels of the summer of 2006. But the fundamental goal of the surge—according to its advocates and the president—was to generate breathing space for Iraqi national reconciliation. This hasn’t occurred.

Just last week, according to the Washington Post, U.S. General David Petraeus admitted that Iraqi leaders are no closer to resolving their political differences than they were before the surge began. And this past January, Iraq’s defense minister confessed to the New York Times that his nation will be unable to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 and unable to defend its own borders from external threat until at least 2018.

Proponents of the war simply have failed to grapple with the political failure of the surge. They offer absolutely nothing other than the continued occupation of Iraq—for the next 100 years, to hear John McCain tell it.

They have nothing to say about the trillions of dollars we’re pouring into Iraq, the huge amounts of wealth being piled up in China, the oil-fueled resurgence of Russia, the weakness of the dollar, and the rising tide of anti-Americanism around the world. Nothing, other than “stay the course—only cowards cut and run.” No plans, no endgame, nothing.

They apparently believe that fighting jihadists in Iraq or policing the country’s sectarian and ethnic disputes is our nation’s highest calling. Most of their fellow Americans, belatedly but thankfully, demur.

Cunningham, Obama, McCain

[From 2/26/08, about radio host Bill Cunningham's "Barack Hussein Obama" comments at a John McCain rally]

To the editor:

According to Enquirer reports, Bill Cunningham’s comments about Barack Obama “delighted” the crowd assembled Tuesday at Memorial Hall to hear John McCain speak. That’s rich. I love how Republicans can cheer comments like Cunningham’s and then have the nerve to say that it’s the Obama supporters who are being duped by empty rhetoric.

It must sting to be publicly repudiated by a genuine national hero, eh Willie?

"True Conservatives"

[An edited version of this letter appeared in the 2/06/08 edition of the Enquirer]

To the editor:

David Brooks’ February 5 column was right on the money. If John McCain can no longer be considered a conservative, then the degradation of the Republican Party has become complete. John McCain: the man who receives a 75% approval rating from National Right to Life; a 100% rating from the Club for Growth (which endorses candidates who support limited government/lower taxes); and a zero from the National Organization for Women.

Pundits like Rush Limbaugh are the ones who aren’t “true conservatives.” Restructuring government to create an unaccountable executive branch is not a conservative principle. Nor is building a security apparatus designed to spy on Americans. Deficit spending, swollen budgets, torture and permanent aggressive war, fearmongering—none of these are conservative principles. These are the values of thugs.

McCain isn’t a conservative? Please. He simply hasn’t bought completely into Bush-Rove.