I was listening to Cain's speech announcing he was ending his campaign and two things struck me:
1. He, like a lot of politicians, made a huge point about not being one of the political elite. Ironically he didn't even say much about "Washington". He could have convincingly said he wasn't one of the Washington elite. But he said "political elite". This bothers me to no end. If you are one of the top candidates for the president of the United States you are practically the definition of "political elite". It's like people who tell me that Ron Paul isn't one of the political elite (ya, ya - I'm bringing it back to him again). Ron Paul was a "Washington political elite" (and an effective one) when I was just a twinkle in my mother's eye. I don't see why these guys can't just say "I'm going to fight for you guys"? That's not hard. I know they don't want to announce they're elites and they don't have to. But why say "I'm not an elite" when it's so transparently untrue? I guess Cain supporters and Paul supporters are legitimately taken in by the lie (and it is a lie because they know damn well that they are political elites).
2. Second, I haven't been following the campaign much at all, but I've heard off and on that Cain is the real pro-American guy. He's the guy that's really inherited Reagan's "city on a hill" attitude, who wants people to be proud to be American. I'm not sure what distinguishes him in this except that his speech writers make a point of fitting that into speeches, but OK. Fine. He talks about it a lot. Fine by me. What killed me is that at the very end of his speech he said something like "Nobody's going to get me to apologize for being proud of America". Apologize?!? Who out there is trying to get Cain to feel bad about liking America? Who is hounding this man to apologize such that he can triumphantly end quoting Reagan and insisting he'll never apologize? Who's asking him to apologize? This again, I'm sorry to say, applies to Ron Paul too. People love to make themselves into martyrs - the last person standing up for the vision of the city on a hill! The last person standing up for liberty! The last person standing up for the Constitution! Thankfully these delusions of grandeur aren't true. Lots and lots of people are rightfully proud of America, and nobody's ever going to ask Cain to apologize for that. But you can bet he and Paul and many after them will continue to get electoral mileage and campaign contributions out of pretending that such a martyr dynamics are in play.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Politics when it comes to communication with the voting public is about the theatrical (thus we have political ads that look like the tv spots for films); just like an actor a politician has to engage in certain well worn tropes, etc. to get their point across (partly because the public just as a lot of balls in the air at one time) - this applies to retail politics as well as to speeches and TV buys. So one way to get across that you're not part of the "beltway" is to say that you're not part of the beltway elite; you just have to go there and hold your nose to get the business of the people accomplished. Presidential candidates in particular like to play the "outsider" role - both were themes of the most recent Bush campaign (in 2000) and the Obama campaign.
ReplyDelete"I guess Cain supporters and Paul supporters are legitimately taken in by the lie (and it is a lie because they know damn well that they are political elites)."
All of social life is based on half-truths.
"But you can bet he and Paul and many after them will continue to get electoral mileage and campaign contributions out of pretending that such a martyr dynamics are in play."
This would of course include Obama; after all, it is that terrible Congress that is standing in the way of all Obama has to offer - we hear this line time and time again from the President (and we heard from Bush too for that matter). They (politicians) have to say something, if they don't say something people will start ignoring them, so they might as well say something where they try to cast themselves in a good light.
If you read Roman political slogans and advertising it looks amazingly similar in many aspects to what you see today; the negative advertising in particular is strikingly similar. Karr's epigram applies in other words.
Daniel, the government is actively considering (not sure where it stands in terms of the legislative process right now) giving the military the official authority to detain people indefinitely, even if they are US citizens grabbed on US soil. I don't think there are too many people in DC standing up for the Constitution right now.
ReplyDeleteI know that's your interpretation, but I've never read in the Constitution that holding prisoners of war for the duration of a war are unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI was tremendously happy to see the Supreme Court finally stand up for constitutional restraint after many years of inaction by requiring that habeas corpus rights be extended to prisoners of the war on terror, to ensure that prisoners of war are actually being legitimately held. These prisoners have a right to due process. They do not have a right to this fuzzy logic that tries to weaken the distinction between criminal allegations (which do require a speedy trial) and prisoners of war and call it fidelity to the constitution.
I understand you see things differently, but then that's why we have a liberal democracy - because people see it differently.
I could say you're not "standing up for the Constitution right now", but I know better than that - I know we just interpret it differently. I'm not sure why you have this need to regularly make that assertion about others.
Of course "the duration of the war" is tricky in this case. I'm certainly wary of abuses as these things wind down. Presumably we're always going to be taking some form of military exercise against terrorist threats for decades to come. I don't see how that provides a precedent for holding hundreds of people in prison indefinitely. How that plays out will be very important to keep an eye on.
ReplyDeleteMy take is this - we are taking cohesive military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. When those operations end we don't really have grounds for holding people associated with that fight. If we can build a criminal case against them (like the Nazis after the war), great. Do it. Otherwise, the grounds for imprisonment seem to run out with the war.
"I was tremendously happy to see the Supreme Court finally stand up for constitutional restraint after many years of inaction by requiring that habeas corpus rights be extended to prisoners of the war on terror, to ensure that prisoners of war are actually being legitimately held. These prisoners have a right to due process. They do not have a right to this fuzzy logic that tries to weaken the distinction between criminal allegations (which do require a speedy trial) and prisoners of war and call it fidelity to the constitution."
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court long recognized that people caught on U.S. soil were due access to the civilian courts (thus the habeas review of the German conspirators caught on American soil in NY state); what the court had not been clear on was the status of people in institutions like Gitmo - which the Bush administration argued were outside the control of the civilian courts based on jurisdictional arguments.
"Otherwise, the grounds for imprisonment seem to run out with the war."
That isn't the position of the Obama administration; the Obama administration argues that they can and will hold people indefinitely no matter the outcome the so-called war because - according to the administration - they can neither try them (even in the military tribunals) nor risk letting them go. This of course doesn't even get into the inherent powers claimed by the current and the most recent President re: the detention of individuals whether in the U.S. or out; which are based on quite questionable constitutional claims.
Bob Murphy,
You're exactly right; the Supreme Court recognized in the wake of the Civil War and the various abuses of the Lincoln administration that if the courts are open that the U.S. government may not try American citizens in military tribunals - they must go through the civilian system. At best the government may - when the courts are not open - hold a citizen in military detention. Note that the Bush and Obama administrations have actually treated American citizens differently from non-citizens when they have them in custody and have sent the former through the civilian system (or in at least one or two cases sent them to a nation they could negotiate an entry into).
Bob Murphy,
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the provision in question is no longer part of the omnibus bill it was part of. Neither the military nor the FBI wanted this provision to pass; the military would have had to create an apparatus to do this thing that it doesn't have (with no new funding that I am aware of), and the FBI already exists to do this very thing - arrest people planning, etc. terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Anyway, the very last thing we need is more military involvement in domestic policing affairs; we already have enough of that already.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteMilligan committed crimes against the United States.
If criminal charges can be brought against these people, it's a good idea to pursue that. That's one thing.
It seems to me that holding prisoners of war for the duration of the war is a different matter entirely. Mulligan was about convicting citizens of criminal charges in a military court when civilian courts were operating.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteHe and his fellows attempted to commit an act of war against the United States; namely to free to a bunch of Confederate prisoners by force. Trying to blow some stuff up in the U.S. or conspiring to is also an act of war as well as a crime. So are cases where someone might be aiding a terrorist group - in however one might aid them. Indeed, the vast majority of cases of long-term detention look far more like what Milligan tried to do than say capturing a member of the Wehrmacht on the battlefield and sending them to a POW camp for the duration of the war. This is the major reason why the Bush administration tried to craft the class of "unlawful combatants" as broadly as it could I would say - and the Obama administration has followed that same path. They wanted to both have some sort of legal judgment made against them, but also to hide them from the civilian court system as much as possible - one could think of the various motives why they would want to do this. They did recognize (and rather early) that the Supreme Court had carved out a huge reserve for American citizens however, so they treated American citizens differently from the start.
If I'm not mistaken, what was overturned was his conviction in military court. I don't think they offered any suggestion that holding him as a prisoner of war was unconstitutional. You need to stop mixing this question of due process in criminal prosecution with due process in holding prisoners of war.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong to note that the problem in Milligan was failing to try Milligan in a civilian court?
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"You need to stop mixing this question of due process in criminal prosecution with due process in holding prisoners of war."
What you're not appreciating is that these are in fact linked - particularly in this current so-called war on terrorism. The status between the two bleed into one another. So there is a reason to "mix" them, because that is exactly what the Bush and Obama administrations have done and done repeatedly.
The vast majority of persons picked up and held indefinitely are facing some sort of actual or potential prosecution (each one has a dossier which discusses what the government wants to do with them); so it isn't merely and has never been merely since 9/11 an issue of the due process of holding POWs. If it were merely the latter then we'd have a much less weedy issue on our hands. Throw into the mix the fact that many of them have been declared by executive fiat that they are unlawful combatants and the weeds grow a bit higher. But there is no for the most part simple dichotomy as you suggest when it comes to these detainees.
ReplyDeleteProsecution of any dossier item must follow due process. I don't personally think there's any question of this.
ReplyDeleteI have not offered a simple dichotomy. I've recognized over and over again that both systems are quite relevant to these prisoners. Why you still think I offer a simple dichotomy is beyond me. I don't know how many other ways to say this. It's as if it doesn't even matter what I write. Anyway, thanks for playing.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that we are not dealing with cases of mere lawful POWs for the most part (or people the government has applied that status to); we're dealing with people that the government wants to prosecute for a crime or hold forever because they feel a case cannot be brought against them even in a military tribunal because it might either mess up methods and sources or because even in a military tribunal the evidence cannot be admitted because it was gathered in such a way as to be inadmissable. All this provision would have done is add more complexity to an already thorny legal issue and of course given the military a domestic policing ability that is common in tinpot dictatorships.
Yes - the Bush administration (and perhaps the Obama administration? I know they've cleaned up some of it but don't know all the details) pretty much fucked up the chance of prosecuting a lot of these guys for things we could have prosecuted them on.
ReplyDeleteI've always been of this view, Gary.
This does not mean we shouldn't still hold legitimate prisoners of war.
I don't know the details of the recent kerfuffle to say what I think of it. You'll understand if I don't take your "given the military domestic policing ability" claim at face value. I've heard different things on what it actually entails.
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"This does not mean we shouldn't still hold legitimate prisoners of war."
No one suggested otherwise. But that is rather beside the point. That has never really been controverted. What has been controverted (amongst other things) is the ability of the executive by EO to label people unlawful combatants and then hold and try them via military tribunal. That's much of the source of the current controversy for obvious reasons.
I am sure you have heard different things. I've got my view of things, other people have their view of things.
Anyway, I see this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I'll stop talking about it now. Don't blame me though!!! ;)
ReplyDeleteCain is referring to Obama's infamous (and infuriating, to people who love this country) habit of going overseas and apologizing for America's sins, real and imagined.
ReplyDeleteOff topic question for Bob Murphy: Has your blog been suspended again?
ReplyDeleteSorry Bob, I misninformed you, it did apparently pass in the Senate (I thought some of the Senators in opposition had found a procedural way to strip it from the omnibus bill - that was apparently only a temporary measure): http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/05/shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer-the-defens
ReplyDelete"Cain is referring to Obama's infamous (and infuriating, to people who love this country) habit of going overseas and apologizing for America's sins, real and imagined."
ReplyDeleteAnd that "habit" is purely imaginary. That this is a lie about Obama has been shown many times, but people just won't stop telling it, will they?
In case anybody doubts that Obama's "apologizing tendency" is a real issue (even though I agree with Gene Callahan - it's simply imaginary), look at his response to the recent deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers on the border with Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of "regret" and "condolences," but we may not be holding back with an apology because we believe the Pakistanis are somehow at fault - rather we may be holding back because the President doesn't want to be seen as weak to domestic players - at least that's the conclusion that a recent piece I read on Obama's "apologizing" came to (I don't have a link handy, sorry - but just look up Obama, apology, Pakistan, and you'll find plenty of sources). Even Senator Kerry, enlisted by the White House to send messages to Pakistan, won't talk about apologies.
Edwin Herdman,
ReplyDeleteSeems like something the U.S. government should apologize for and promise diligently never to do again.