MB has another thoughtful post up today regarding the need for Democrats to criticize Democrats. In it, he refers us to this Glenn Greenwald article. This part of the article jumped out at me:
Telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.
I’ve mentioned in this space Black Agenda Report on a number of occasions. BAR has had no problem with criticizing Democrats in general and Obama in particular. In fact, what Greenwald said has been written over and over, most recently in this post:
Obama is held to no standard at all. He is free to do exactly as he pleases to black people, who are all too happy to go along with any treatment that he chooses to mete out.
As Greenwald points out, this is “warped authoritarianism,” and it is what brought us the Bush years. In his book, Conservatives Without a Conscience, John Dean lays out how the Republican Party tacked right. As I wrote a couple of years ago, these folks are more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.
If Democrats refuse to hold our “leaders” accountable, how does that make us different from Republicans?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Remember, when Obama wins the presidency he’s going to inherit all of the imperial powers of the Presidency that Bush carved out.
“Yes We Can!” doesn’t stop on November 5. It requires us to take an active part in the formulation and execution of policy throughout the coming progressive era of American politics.
Voting is no longer enough. The right of free speech has now become a requirement.
Who opposed Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act? Conservatives.
Who opposed Bush’s expansion of Medicare to prescription drugs? Conservatives.
Who opposed Bush’s SCOTUS appointment, Harriet Miers? Conservatives.
Who opposed Bush’s (and MCCain’s) immunity for illegal immigrants? Conservatives.
Who opposed McCain-Feingold, which Bush signed, believing it was unconstitutional? Conservatives.
Meanwhile….
Who wants the government to control our health care? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control our schools? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control our retirement money? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control campaign contributions? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control what kind of cars are produced? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control what goes into gasoline? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control how much an employer can pay? Liberals.
Who wants the government to have the only firearms? Liberals.
Who favors totalitarianism?
Who’s an idiot? Mouse.
Yes, MB again resorts to ad hominem attacks, because he cannot refute the arguments presented. Thank you for being so predictable.
Conservatives are great about protecting individual liberties as long as you don’t make a decision you disagree with.
Who wants to amend the constitution to define who can and cannot marry?
Who wants to legislate an individual’s personal choice on abortion?
Who wants to blame activists judges for insisting that habeas corpus is still a constitutional right within our legal system?
Incidentally, while I agree with a few points you made (I’m just as strong a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights as I am of 1st Amendment Rights) you have to wonder, with a little bit more oversight of subprime lenders and a little bit more effort to reduce our demand for gasoline, what shape would our economy be in today? And the Federal government involvement in schools to create some standards for education? That was in large part the United States Army’s idea.
I don’t know if you got the memo, Mouse, but conservatives largely surrendered the libertarian highground back when they started trying to write constitutional amendments about marriage, abortion, flag burning, etc….
Anyway, thanks for the nod, Vivian. I think part of this is that everyone fancies themselves pundits, rather than citizens. This then brings the conversation to form over substance (yet again).
Chris Dodd gave an excellent speech yesterday, which I’d advise everyone to read – it’s an incredible (and dead-on) indictment of our government as a whole. But this part really stood out for me:
Must have missed it. Let’s see…
1) Marriage — Putting into the Constitution the definition of “marriage” that every society has used for 5000 years, rather than having it redefined by judicial fiat (that authoritarianism again). Since the state amendments have all required a popular (as in populi, the People) vote, they cannot be authoritarian, can they?
2) Abortion — Don’t remember a Constitutional Amendment proposed, but if you say so…. Still, I thought liberals wanted to protect the helpless?
3) Flag-burning — Yes, I have come to the conclusion that the “intellectual proletariat,” such as MB, are incapable of verbalization, and must resort to mindless displays of “protest” instead.
Dang — messed up those italics again. Thanks in advance, Vivian.
(Is there any way to put a PREVIEW button on here? I think I asked before, but I’m not sure.)
(Mouse – no comment preview is available. I fixed the italic where I saw the second part of it not being closed.)
You miss the point, Mouse, as usual. First of all, you are not a Democrat. Your complaints about what Ds do or don’t do is expected. This conversation is about what Democrats are doing or should be doing when it comes to our “leaders.” It’s not an “us versus them” conversation. It’s an “us versus us.” And since you aren’t one of us, I don’t know how you can weigh in on the subject matter at all.
anon – I fished you 12:38 comment out of the spam filter. And ajc – I fished yours out, too.
I’m going to ask wp.com for a whitelist.
Sorry if I missed the point, Vivian.
I was responding to “these folks [in the Republican Party] are more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.” More likely than whom?
I was responding to your final comment: “If Democrats refuse to hold our ‘leaders’ accountable, how does that make us different from Republicans?” I took that to be an offhand attack, and I responded.
——————————
Dang, MB, it seems we agree again. Dodd’s speech is dead on. Anyone who says waterboarding is not torture should be required to endure it, and then give their opinion.
One other thing on the national security issue….
If a court trial would require divulging classified data, why can we not just have a jury made up of those who hold security clearances?
It’s an interesting idea Mouse, but there are a couple of questions that sort of thing would raise for me:
1.) How could such a jury be reasonably expected to restrain the scope of their deliberations to the facts entered into evidence? Assuming that jury member obtained a security clearance for work-related purposes (which seems logical to me) then it would be more likely that the panel would have access to facts or opinions outside the scope of the case that might influence the outcome in a way that wouldn’t happen with a normal jury of one’s peers.
2.) How would the juror’s routine handling of classified information influence his skepticism of that information? Might he be less likely to challenge the validity and veracity of information of dubious quality from a questionable source?
There aren’t any easy answers but I wish more people in the administration were like you insofar as their willingness to think outside the box.
1) The vetting procedure for jurors would not be eliminated. Thus, someone cleared for his work making spy satellites would not be likely to have no outside facts and opinions about our nuclear secrets, but someone who works with the CIA would be excused from service on a jury that must examine CIA evidence.
The biggest issue in classification is the revelation of sources and methods. It is not, generally, that the data is so sensitive, but that we have the data at all. The classic example is, “The premier had Eggs Benedict, Canadian bacon, orange juice, and black decaf with two sugars for breakfast this morning.” Who cares? No one. However, the fact that we have that information reveals that we have someone close to the premier, and that our source can get the data out to us promptly. If it becomes know that we have this information, our source is compromised and is put at risk of capture, torture, and death. Thus, such information would be classified at the highest levels to protect its source.
2) An excellent question. Routinely seeing revisions of data as questionable intelligence is updated by equally questionable intelligence would naturally make one skeptical. However, if the data one normally works with is routinely verified, one would be less skeptical.
There is no easy answer, but I like neither holding people without a trial with the excuse that the evidence is classified, nor letting people go because we cannot hold a trial without revealing “sources and methods.”