2012 Democrats: Remember That Civil Liberties Thing From 2008? Um, Nevermind
from the what's-that-about-power-corrupting? dept
For years, we've pointed out that neither major political party in the US seems to be very good on the issues that concern us most around here -- which is truly disappointing. With the Democratic National Convention going on this week, some are pointing out what a difference four years make. Back when President Obama was the outsider running for office, he made reversing Bush-era attacks on civil liberties a target for change in his platform. And then he won. Not only did he leave in place most of the programs against civil liberties, but he often expanded them. So here we are, after four years in power, and with the new platform out, some are noting that the strong defenses of civil liberties found four years ago are conspicuously absent this time around. Adam Sewer goes through this year's platform and the one from four years ago and points out all of the differences. Here's just one example, but click through to read them all:Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT ActThis is not surprising, but it's depressing just the same. Once they're in power, people tend to want to keep power, and one way to do that is to suppress the civil liberties of the public. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually elected a principled politician? Do they even exist any more?
2008: "We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war...We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."
2012: The platform is silent on this issue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, democrats, power
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tomato, tomato.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is an important part of why I cannot understand how lenient everyone is about lying politicians, and perhaps as important, on campaigns that focus on burning the opponent(s) instead of explaining their own vision and plans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The nearest you ever had was Jimmy Carter - and look what happened to him...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The other day I met Santa Claus on the streets and we were discussing about mythology and the likes. He actually said pretty much what my friends leprechauns and the Easter Bunny told me on the same topic: principled politicians are just a fairytale for children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, now that's slant.
Really, it's much simpler: When in power, they realize that they need to balance between outright liberty and the public's sometimes undesired need to be protected from itself.
Civil liberties are a very slippery concept, because what one considers liberty for themselves is often hurting the liberties of others. The government's job is to try to strike a balance. Those who want "more freedom" may see certain balance points as less desirable, but the concept is the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2 way street
Good luck with that though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yup that's what happens
Really, it's much simpler: When in power, they realize that they need to balance between outright liberty and the public's sometimes undesired need to be protected from itself.
and of course - being slimy politicans they always have a way of justifying it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
Years later I talked with a politician on a street corner. After a couple of minutes I walked away, knowing only that he was adept at evading questions, a basic skill. I don't remember his name, his platform or his party.
More recently I met a politician running for state office, as he was handing out fliers and talking about his platform. I said that his mandatory-minimum-sentence plank was a terrible idea; he cut short my argument by saying that I was in favor of child molesters. I walked away boiling mad and hating the whole breed.
We are the intelligent voters; they're not going to pander to a tiny minority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are other options
I'll be t you end up with Gary Johnson. And I'll bet he would actually lead without trying to maintain power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do they exist?
Not wanting to start a "but he sucks, look at x" flame war, but in my opinion, Ron Paul would have been the best contender for "principled politician". Also Senator Wyden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd rather it not take until 2020/24 though, which is when the demographics are supposed to turn and the country's future will lie in the hands of a bunch of young people who are completely screwed thanks to having astronomical student loans and terrible jobs if they have any job at all, leaving them unable to buy houses or start families.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Civil Liberties Platform
My advisers tell me that civil liberties are a very slippery concept and that too much liberty to one person robs another person of their liberty. As such, we will limit everyone's liberty, so that no one's has enough liberty to infringe on anyone else's liberty.
My opponent will say that this is a "redistribution of liberty" and will benefit only "the elites." But I am here to strike a balance. I will weigh your freedom against the freedom of banks and corporations and ensure that freedoms are evenly distributed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(1)A dude that hasn't kept his promises (self explanatory)
(2)A rich dude (he will want more money)
It's been said before, but Kim Dotcom would be a better choice than either of those two. (and I'm familiar of his past)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then there's the press
We're left with a pool of candidates who are milquetoasty free of character.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honest Politician
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IP & MAFIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As the country moves farther to the right
I don't think a country moving to the right is going to make civil liberties a priority. With all the talk of requiring voter IDs, requiring papers to prove you are a legal resident, a push to favor Christianity over other religions, and so on, you can see the trends here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
Dude.
It's a fashion statement.
( Geezers. Some people just never comprehend high art. )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If voted for prez, I guarantee only 4 years...
That is my platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Try saying that ten times fast!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's easy to say whatever when you stump for an election, it's harder to put it in motion.
I think we are better off in all areas compared to where we were 4 or 5 years ago. I don't see the Republicans putting up options that inspire me to watch to change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
Lower level elections like local governments you can find "Principled" politicians. Once you get higher up the food change they are already bought and sold by someone somewhere. No matter what side your on its the same people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
I would call him more eccentric than insane, but as you say, that's beside the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is why I think that voting, while important, is insufficient. A good politician is effectively neutered in the system we have now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This sentiment is in direct opposition with the fundamental philosophy the US was based on. The whole point of the US was that we don't need rulers to tell us what is good for us and to enforce things "for our own good". We don't need parents, or kings.
The government is supposed to be us making collective decisions. The government is not supposed to be an elite class making decisions for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As the country moves farther to the right
One tiny speck of hope - we only have to go through 2 extremes: fascism (on the right), then communism (on the left) to return to a balance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Government has gotten bigger and more powerful. What was once considered immoral behavior is now acceptable. Regulation by government has increased almost exponentially. Government control over social programs has expanded continuously over the last century. All of these are principles endorsed by the left.
The right, on the other hand, endorses reduction of government power and programs. Even if they never follow through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But instead, I'll settle for going with the obvious, irrefutable rebuttal:
2008 was not the democratic party's first time trying the whole "presidency" thing. Barack Obama did not fall off a turnip truck and happen to wind up on stage at the DNC. That civil liberties were in the platform at the time was cynical manipulation. They're no longer there because to campaign on something he failed to deliver for 4 years invites people to bring that up.
Incidentally, the freedom to speak anonymously is one of those pesky "civil liberties" that the government needs to protect you from using. But since you are such a good little citizen, you should really save them the trouble of having to draft laws and then make up ridiculous legal justifications and just stop posting like an anonymous coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
The government keeps expanding under Republican administrations, too. And some Republicans want to set up a vast border patrol to keep everyone out. That takes money and expands the government. And then you've got Republicans advocating additional laws to prevent abortions, gay marriage, etc. Republicans want government just as much as they accuse the Democrats of wanting it. The Republicans just want to dole out the money to different groups.
The thing is, economically no politician dares to drastically slash government or the economy tanks. Imagine what happens if the government no longer employs people, no longer pays for contracts, and no longer provides funding to citizens. The country might benefit from that sort of tough love, but if you suddenly stop handing out government money, every company in the country loses the cashflow that comes from government money, directly or indirectly. I dare the Republicans to actually stop government in its tracks and no longer pay anyone. What I am worried about is that we'll get another Bush -- a President who cuts taxes AND raises government spending. If you are going to fight a war, damn it, make citizens actually pay for it. And if they don't want to pay, maybe we won't get into so many.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
If by "endorses" you meant "pays lip service about", then I would agree with that statement. The right has no more intention of reducing government than the left; they just want to shift from social funding to military/defense funding. I couldn't possibly guess why this might be...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
You can't get more government than the military. My father was a career military officer. I thought it was a great life and if the government wants to hire more military personnel and take care of their families, I'm all for it.
We had government health care. We had government housing. We shopped in government run stores. We attended government run schools. The government provided a generous pension after to anyone who served 20 years or more.
The fact that I lived a government-owned life is why I don't fear the government. It was very good to my family and me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe those in power gain access to information not available to those on the sidelines, such as the volume of / nature of threats and the efficacy of the tactics mentioned?
I have a hard time believing this administration (or any administration) purposely suppresses civil liberties in order to maintain power.
But perhaps I'm just naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Obama is all bad but "we are better off in all areas"? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Christianity has never been LESS favored in this country than it is right now.
Right now, you can't say a single negative word about a Jew or Muslim for fear of offending them, but Christians are open season.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
There are some folks who want to declare Christianity as the official religion of the US. They'd like to move us ever closer to a theocracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
But do keep in mind that he is better on this sort of thing than most politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
It's when checks and balances are ignored or side-stepped that we start to have problems.
If what was once considered immoral behavior is now considered acceptable, wouldn't that suggest that we're decreasing regulation? At this point, if you're a corporate entity especially, you can get away with just about anything...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to say but not to do? You say that as if we we've always been doing this. We haven't. That's the problem with government, once they apply the wrong remedy they claim it's now impossible to go back.
Better off in all areas? Really? You must be blind to a lot to make that kind of claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
If a person isn't allowed to change stance or take different stances than those of the party, you will be sure to see absolutely nothing happen from 6 months to end of period.
In most cases I see principled as a motivational way of saying insane and oblivious. A truely principled man do not want to change opinion, no matter how far away his beliefs are from reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Thank God...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The United States continues the decline that began a few years ago, falling two more positions to take 7th place this year. Although many structural features continue to make its economy extremely productive, a number of escalating and unaddressed weaknesses have lowered the US ranking in recent years. …some weaknesses in particular areas have deepened since past assessments. The business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions (41st). In particular, its trust in politicians is not strong (54th), perhaps not surprising in light of recent political disputes that threaten to push the country back into recession through automatic spending cuts. Business leaders also remain concerned about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (59th), and consider that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (76th). A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness (111th, down from 90th last year)."
From this year's WEF Global Competitiveness Report.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Off point but an interesting thought , give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's where the arrogance comes in; who the hell are they to think it's okay to take away the citizenry's liberties to protect said citizenry from itself? Especially when what they are trying to protect said citizenry from is a figment of the cloistered politician's imagination, bolstered by their cronies tilted view points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 2 way street
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
As for 1), he did say "Even if they never follow through".
As for 2), Republicans claim to be on the right. Right and left is about ideals, Republicans and Democrats are specific implementations. Those implementations aren't necessarily inline with ideals.
Of course, if there is only right and left on the continuum, and you have fascism on the right and communism on the left, then I can see how some think we've moved to the right. But if you have big government on the left and small government on the right, then we have absolutely moved to the left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As far as I am concerned government should be able to justify their policies on all counts. They don't need to provide all the details but it is certainly possible to present the general picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Funny how your perspective colors your view of reality, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
It's my understanding that they didn't like it very much...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
When "principled" also means taking a "consistent" stance on something where the scientific evidence has changed or your argument no longer applies to reality, it is just a bad idea. Also: The worst thing in the world is following one single ideologi in all walks of life. It means that you have neglected to take stances from conviction and slavishly defers to old arguments. God forbit, that you learn something new!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There are other options
Guess you'd lose that bet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
It's my understanding that they didn't like it very much...
I'm just saying that the US military is a government-owned life. No getting around that. Expand the military and you are expanding government. Put more people in the military and give out more government contracts for military operations and you are expanding government.
It was nice to have all that free medical care. And retired military do appreciate the pension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There are other options
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Where would you put the shareable movement? Let's say people are forming cooperatives but the government isn't involved. Is that left because it involves a form of communal ownership or right because it is outside of standard forms of government?
Is the worker-owned collective more on the right or more on the left?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
www.lp.org
www.jillstein.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
The far left and the far right could probably find a meeting of the minds if politicians weren't trying to divide and conquer. For example, does this sound left or right?
About the Institute for Local Self-Reliance | Institute for Local Self-Reliance: "ILSR challenges the conventional wisdom that bigger is better, that separating the producer from the consumer, the banker from the depositor and lender, the worker from the owner is an inevitable outcome of modern economic development. Surprisingly little evidence supports this conventional wisdom. In every sector of the economy the evidence yields the same conclusion: small is the scale of efficient, dynamic environmentally benign societies."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?
Reality: writes and introduces federal abortion ban bill, which is not based on any enumerated power
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Worse, he seems to think that the US is ruled by a monarchy and that he was elected king rather than president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
IPS – U.S. Foreign Weapons Sales Triple, Setting Record | Inter Press Service: WASHINGTON, Aug 27 2012 (IPS) - "U.S. weapons sales around the world have massively expanded over the past year, setting several records. Agreements for foreign arms sales in 2011 totalled around 66.3 billion dollars – three times higher than the previous year and constituting an 'extraordinary increase', according to the Congressional Research Service."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tyPo gRaphiCal eRror
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
Yes, we could sell the weapons to other countries, and then increase Homeland Security and the Defense Department to protect us from the weapons we have just sold. We'd make money on the sale, and then create jobs by hiring inspectors and soldiers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't think that's strictly the case.
Modern politics is the politics of fear. There's nothing that makes the population more scared than saying "they're among us".
And then they believe their own hype.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Principled politician?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 2 way street
even further, it is the party insiders/king-makers who choose which of the two flavors of the one Korporate Money Party we are allowed to confirm for them...
the WHOLE SYSTEM is bent towards excluding virtually ANY third party insurgency...
(yes, it is *technically* possible, there are just so many roadblocks and bottlenecks PURPOSEFULLY erected by the duopoly, that it is *practically* impossible...)
that *some* few third party campaigns have done as well as they have, is testament to the dissatisfaction of everyone, NOT that 'our' (sic) system is amenable to running a third party campaign...
as i see it, we are fast approaching a fork in the road: one leads to a renewed small-dee democracy, and one is leading us to a repressive, fascist totalitarian regime...
dismantling the present duopoly is a prerequisite for reclaiming democracy; the alternative is revolution...
at this point, i'd just as soon go the revolution route...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There are other options
only 5% more, and you'll be a fully qualified Master of the Universe ! ! !
then you too can screw over your fellow human beans without a shred of conscience...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
NO standing armies...
what *did* happen to that sagacious principle ? ? ?
hmmm...
oh, that's right, we can't afford principles anymore...
methinks we aren't as wise -or brave, or free- as our fore-um-persons...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right
That's not even remotely close to true. 2/3 of GDP? Think about what that would mean. Did someone slip in a 67% income tax rate (with no deductions) when I wasn't looking, and spend ALL of it on the military?
And before you say "I meant 2/3 of the budget" it's not 2/3 of the budget, either, because SS and Medicare and interest on the debt take up WAY more than 1/3 when you put them together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obama = Bush on steroids
[ link to this | view in thread ]