Let me get this straight. As republicans and conservatives, part of our principle set is the idea that big government, more government, is not the solution to the pressing social and economic ills we face. We distrust government solutions to problems. We don't like government on poverty, on the economy, for any serious issue and rightly so. But.....we do seem to like untrammeled, unfettered government power for things like warrantless surveillance? We republicans seem to trust government with this kind of power? The issue is two fold. The administration wants two things: they want a near effortless capability to initiate wiretaps without warrant and they want immunity for the private sector who's help is required in order to make that stuff happen, an immunity which allows them to protect their complicit telco partners particularly given that they have likely broken the law in pursuing wiretaps.Republican leadership and the President are frothing that Congress must pass what they want as though this government power is not subject to abuse, is somehow exempt from the issues that make big government a bad solution for so many others things. It shows clearly that republican leadership is bankrupt and devoid of true conservative principles.
Are there politicians that are in office, that hold political power, that really live up to the tenents of their party?
ReplyDeletePerhaps there are not. I get exercised about the apparent disconnect between the professed conservative values of republican leaders and the policies they pursue. They supposedly believe in limited government when it comes to the social safety net, but rabidly champion the expansion of the power of the executive in the name of law, order and national security without meaningful check or balance. I find it flat out dangerous.
ReplyDeleteExactly! I think there is a culture outside of the "will of the people" going on in Washington and I'm concerned that there is too much of a "if you can't beat them join them" standard in DC. Obama talks a great game, he may never join them but,I really believe he will be dead in the water when it come to accomplishing his goals.
ReplyDeleteSmall government in action:
ReplyDeletehttp://acropolisreview.com/2008/02/graphic-video-beef-small-government-in.html
Ensayn, the issue of Obama and the culture of Washington is really key when we talk about keeping perspective. I see a lot of criticism leveled at some Obama supporters because their enthusiasm seems to know no bounds and I wonder what happens to all that energy and excitement the first time Obama REALLY lets them down, which is absolutely going to happen. I've said it here before, that Obama is no savior of the democrats or black people for that matter. On any number of issues, assuming he becomes POTUS, his ability to enact the policies he is championing will be mitigated by the makeup of Congress on domestic issues and by events outside of his control on foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteAt the state of the black union, Tavis asked what I thought was a great question, which is what do we do if he loses? All these people who got involved, gave money for the first time. What do we do if our aspirations as embodied in Obama are frustrated? My answer would be we have to stay focused on the agenda, not on the personality. Its where the SOBU I think breaks down, because with all those great thinkers up there, the fact is, few of their ideas or agenda items has the requisite organizational infrastructure on the ground to make it happen or even make reasonable progress towards these policy goals.
Coming back around to this topic of big government and warrantless surveillance, I think that these forces operating outside the will of the people as you framed it, have a stake in the idea of the "unitary executive" which Cheney and Bush have ardently championed and tried to build institutional infrastructure for. The effect of the power they want to give the President would be to make the Congress a subservient arm of government. If they can give the executive great latitude and ability to act unilaterally, it automatically advantages the president's powers over congress, which requires moving the will of many to act. And the will of that many is all too easily manipulated by corporate and other interests.