The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. Conor:

   Apparently it would be news to you that Obama did the politically expedient thing. You really do write these things just to get people angry, don’t you? I almost would think that you’re writing something that you don’t really believe. Because this post shows a shallowness that is akin to radio talk show hosts, TV wingnuts, high-paid internet journalists….

   So we’re supposed to think that just because an extreme leftist, Obama, ran into some harsh reality when he became President—ie, terrorists are too dangerous to let out while he’s President—that therefore, Cheney, Gingrich, Beck and Hannity are inconsistent? You, sir, are dangerously close to becoming the next great MSNBC TV host.

   — jd · May 16, 11:35 PM · #

2. JD,

   I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. Could you restate it? I am not at all surprised that President Obama acts expediently. I’ve long agreed with Daniel Larison that he is at bottom a savvy, opportunistic politician who advances his political interests without bothering too much about principle or loyalty.

   But I don’t really see what any of that has to do with my post. I’m relaying what a lot of other people think about Obama, and saying that their combination of beliefs is bizarre.

   — Conor Friedersdorf · May 16, 11:42 PM · #

3. This is all just the logical conclusion of the philosophy behind maximalist executive power. Deliberative bodies, everything from the courts and legislatures to the public sphere of critical discussion, are made worthless by all the familiar public choice theory problems. Competition, not deliberation or cooperation, is all that will save us. Therefore, the only rational tool the voters have to decide our Supreme Leader is Reagan’s “Are you better off now than four years ago?” Any limits on the executive power would only let Congress and the President point fingers at each other when things go wrong. Voters should never judge Means, only Ends.

   It doesn’t matter whether the things coming out of their mouths make sense. Voters don’t want logic, they want results. Just make sure that your tribe screams as loudly as it can, so when the other tribe stumbles, your tribe can move into place.

   I care very much about Means so I find all this absolutely sick. But there’s a certain logic to it, and many on the left seem to think this way as well.

   — Consumatopia · May 17, 01:37 AM · #

4. It’s a perfectly plausible strategy for someone on the hard left to say that “in foreign policy, I’ll be a realist and do what it’s in the national interest; domestically, I’ll use the power of the state to liquidate my enemies.” Indeed, it would be hard to come up with a better one sentence description of Soviet policy from 1917 to 1989. That is all that people are saying about Obama.

   It would also be a good strategy to manipulate useful idiots by making liberal internationalist noises while pursuing the national interest, rather narrowly defined, in actual foreign policy. That is what people are suggesting Obama is up to. The reader will have to decide who are the useful idiots this time around. For myself, I will not be a useful idiot again, having learned my lesson in the 1970s and 1980s.

   — y81 · May 17, 01:52 AM · #

5. It’s a perfectly plausible strategy for someone on the hard left to say that “in foreign policy, I’ll be a realist and do what it’s in the national interest; domestically, I’ll use the power of the state to liquidate my enemies.”

   It’s not about what Obama’s plausible motives, but what powers you want to grant Obama given that he has those motives.

   Indeed, it would be hard to come up with a better one sentence description of Soviet policy from 1917 to 1989.

   Agreed. So you think Soviet absolute power was a good thing?

   — Consumatopia · May 17, 02:12 AM · #

6. “So you think Soviet absolute power was a good thing?”

   This is an exceedingly hypothetical question, but if I were a Russian patriot—I don’t know what it would mean to be a Soviet patriot—I probably would have supported most of the foreign policies of the Soviet Union. I certainly don’t think those policies were more ill-designed than the average foreign policies to effectuate the national interest.

   — y81 · May 17, 02:21 AM · #

7. I didn’t ask about policy, I asked about power. Given that Stalin used these absolute powers to pursue BOTH the foreign policies you (hypothetically) approve of, AND he used them to liquidate domestic opponents, was it a good thing that Stalin had these powers? This is a package deal.

   — Consumatopia · May 17, 03:25 AM · #

8. “ It’s a perfectly plausible strategy for someone on the hard left to say that “in foreign policy, I’ll be a realist and do what it’s in the national interest; domestically, I’ll use the power of the state to liquidate my enemies.” “

   y81, that’s exactly Conor’s point. If Obama is going to “use the power of the state to liquidate” his perceived enemies, why in God’s name would those who think they’re probably on that enemies list want to give him more power with which to do his liquidating?

   It’s almost masochistic. It’s like they want the jackboot at their throat.

   — Erik Siegrist · May 17, 03:44 AM · #

9. Conor:

   I don’t understand YOUR point, unless the point you are making is as ridiculously trivial as it seems. Your point seems to be that there is inconsistency in supporting a strong executive with regard to foreign policy while opposing a strong executive with respect to domestic policy. I guess you can call that inconsistent, but who the hell cares? The more important part is that it reflects the constitution. We are supposed to be muscular in foreign policy and limited in domestic.

   I just read Erik Siegrist’s comment. If that’s what Conor’s point is, well, all I can say is welcome to the world of wingnuts, conspiracy theorists and paranoid red-baiters. Can you imagine how Hannity, Beck, Gingrich et. al. would be vilified if they said that Obama wanted to use those powers on his domestic enemies?

   So the upshot is that for the sake of consistency, Cheney should insist that Obama sacrifice the power to protect from foreign enemies because otherwise he will use his power on his domestic enemies. Perhaps Conor and Erik would like to describe how that dialogue would play out on national television.

   It’s a huge danger, to grant the President such powers, especially a President who came from the most corrupt political machine in the country. I guess Mr. Cheney believes in the wartime powers of the President in a fight against the worst human beings on earth. Besides, Obama knows how to go after his political enemies with or without wartime powers.

   — jd · May 17, 12:47 PM · #

10. “Can you imagine how Hannity, Beck, Gingrich et. al. would be vilified if they said that Obama wanted to use those powers on his domestic enemies?”

    They won’t be able to say much once Obama’s ACORN stormtroopers take away their guns and have herded those dissidents into his FEMA concentration camps, will they?

    If you’re choosing to hide your head in the sand over the rhetoric Hannity, Beck etc. have been using, there’s not much of a conversation to be had here, jd. But their depiction of the president is explicitly one of someone who can’t be trusted with power.

    — Erik Siegrist · May 17, 01:42 PM · #

11. It is obvious to any sapient human, Obama is a machiavellian pragmatist and a systems guru. He is not “continuing Bush’s policies” but orchestrating a graceful degradation of service under expert military advisement.
    Palinism is simply going to kill the GOP.
    The idea that will is a substitute for intellect and skillz.
    I hope Ross and Reihan are happy now.
    They helped summon her.

    — matoko_chan · May 17, 02:34 PM · #

12. Conor:

    How can men who make these claims about Barack Obama simultaneously insist that a country governed by him is well served by an executive branch given expansive powers during war time?

    I’m a fan of Obama, but this is not a good use of “the rhetorical question.” It’s too easy to answer. Unless it’s sincere, and you really don’t know?

    I can think of at least three ways to answer it consistently. One, they actually believe in Bush’s policies, wish to see them continue no matter what, and you go to war with the President you have. Two, they never bought into the scary stories about, or potential for, blue-on-blue domestic abuse, so they don’t fear Obama’s impact in this capacity. Or three, they’re sincere in their preference for a strong executive; this belief exists independently of who occupies the White House at a given time; and they wish to preserve the prerogatives of the President even though they are nervous about Obama and his likely shenanigans.

    Of course, it’s still possible (and maybe even likely) that these men are being disingenuous or reflexive rather than deliberate. But the question itself is answerable.

    — Sargent · May 17, 04:21 PM · #

13. t’s almost masochistic. It’s like they want the jackboot at their throat.

    What “almost”? Conservatism is a philosophy of perpetual victimhood. Occasionally, the victimization is insufficient for conservatives and must be manufactured.

    — Chet · May 17, 04:48 PM · #

14. What jd said. It’s perfectly defensible to believe in a strong executive when it comes to foreign affairs, and a weak federal government (all branches) when it comes to domestic policy. Indeed, that has been the primary conservative position in Americaover the past half-century or so. It’s not more inconsistent than (on one side) supporting the death penalty but opposing legalized abortion or (on the other) supporting legalized abortion but wanting to protect the baby seals. Maybe absolute pacifists, or absolute libertarians, or whatever, are somehow purer, but very few people endorse those kinds of purist positions.

    And so, to answer the question: I want Obama to have a great deal of executive power to be used against foreigners in order to advance American national interests. Domestically, I want Obama’s attempts to use executive power to pursue the interests of his supporters against people like me to be resisted and limited by the other branches of the federal government, by state and local institutions, and by various popular institutions. It would be nicer if that resistance were not accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric, but, considering the insane, bizarre, and intellectually dishonest rhetoric that has emanated from places like Harvard Law School over the past eight years, complaints about the rhetoric of radio and television commentators strike me as exceedingly disingenuous.

    — y81 · May 17, 05:01 PM · #

15. One, they actually believe in Bush’s policies, wish to see them continue no matter what, and you go to war with the President you have. Two, they never bought into the scary stories about, or potential for, blue-on-blue domestic abuse, so they don’t fear Obama’s impact in this capacity. Or three, they’re sincere in their preference for a strong executive; this belief exists independently of who occupies the White House at a given time; and they wish to preserve the prerogatives of the President even though they are nervous about Obama and his likely shenanigans.

    But Hannity, Beck, Gingrich and McCarthy seem to be asserting that point Two is wrong—that Obama is exactly the kind of executive that would go after domestic enemies with illegal tools.

    And once you believe Two is wrong, it makes no sense to believe either One or Three—once you have a president who aims to convert the country to liberal “fascism” and socialist dictatorship by means of a “true revolution”, then these dangers to any reasonable person would have to outweigh both the threats of terror and the benefits of a strong executive.

    Because the combination of everyone deeply suspicious of Bush/Cheney and everyone deeply suspicious of Obama probably represents a majority of the country, this means a substantial chunk of those favoring expanded executive powers are utter fools. (Not Cheney himself. Cheney believes Two and possibly the others as well.)

    — Consumatopia · May 17, 05:14 PM · #

16. Can you imagine how Hannity, Beck, Gingrich et. al. would be vilified if they said that Obama wanted to use those powers on his domestic enemies?

    Janet Napolitano can.

    It’s a huge danger, to grant the President such powers, especially a President who came from the most corrupt political machine in the country.

    YES! There is no way to believe the second clause without being logically required to believe the first clause. It’s not only a huge danger—it’s the hugest danger.

    I guess Mr. Cheney believes in the wartime powers of the President in a fight against the worst human beings on earth.

    What if you believe the president is trying to turn the country into a dictatorship? Is that not a larger threat than anything terrorists could cook up?

    Besides, Obama knows how to go after his political enemies with or without wartime powers.

    Because once the White House press secretary has the power to make snide remarks about your favorite radio hosts, then it makes no difference whether or not the president also has unchecked executive power, warrantless wiretaps or brutal interrogations as well.

    — Consumatopia · May 17, 05:22 PM · #

17. It’s perfectly defensible to believe in a strong executive when it comes to foreign affairs, and a weak federal government (all branches) when it comes to domestic policy. … It’s not more inconsistent than (on one side) supporting the death penalty but opposing legalized abortion or (on the other) supporting legalized abortion but wanting to protect the baby seals.

    You are still not getting it. You’re talking about a distinction between foreign and domestic policy. But you can’t make a distinction between foreign and domestic power—we only have one president, and by the definition of the word “power”, he’s the one who gets to decide how to use whatever powers we give him.

    And so, to answer the question: I want Obama to have a great deal of executive power to be used against foreigners in order to advance American national interests. Domestically, I want Obama’s attempts to use executive power to pursue the interests of his supporters against people like me to be resisted and limited by the other branches of the federal government, by state and local institutions, and by various popular institutions.

    You say “I want him to have the power to do what I want but not the power to do what I don’t want”. But the nature of power is that Obama gets to decide what he does with it, and in which domains to apply it, not you.

    Do you want Obama to have expanded executive power, to brutalize detainees, to wiretap without warrants, and to be free from oversight of how he uses these powers? Note that the words “foreign” and “domestic” are missing from the question, and have no place in your answer.

    — Consumatopia · May 17, 05:44 PM · #

18. complaints about the rhetoric of radio and television commentators strike me as exceedingly disingenuous.
    y81 · May 17, 01:01 PM · #

    Obviously you have not watched the Glenn Beck Insane Clown Hour, where he screams at Obama to “just throw gasoline on us” and juxtaposes pictures of Obama with pictures of Stalin and Hitler in a wall-screen slide show.
    haha, the traditional conservative exploitation of the “low information” (read low IQ) base has culminated in Palinism, the doctrine that WILL can be substituted for intellect and skillz.
    I predict that Palin will be the 2012 nominee.
    Deal, y81.

    — matoko_chan · May 17, 06:14 PM · #

19. How delicious that the triplet stormcrows of traditional conservative dogwhistle IQ-baiting and race-baiting and class-baiting are coming home to roost.

    I’m loving this.

    — matoko_chan · May 17, 06:20 PM · #

20. I think the best way to explain it is that we conservatives want the President to excercise maximum powers against the enemies of the U.S. and minimal powers against the citizenry. If Obama is focussed on things the Federal Government should be doing, killing terrorists, interrogating terrorists, hunting pirates and intercepting missiles he will be less likely to focus on things he shouldn’t like running Chrysler, nationalizing health care or killing the unborn.

    — jjv · May 17, 06:57 PM · #

21. <em>They won’t be able to say much once Obama’s ACORN stormtroopers take away their guns and have herded those dissidents into his FEMA concentration camps, will they?</em>

    You guessed it, I think ACORN is corrupt; and getting wealthier exponentially thanks to community organizer in chief and former lawyer for ACORN. What a coincidence.

    <em>If you’re choosing to hide your head in the sand over the rhetoric Hannity, Beck etc. have been using, there’s not much of a conversation to be had here, jd. But their depiction of the president is explicitly one of someone who can’t be trusted with power.</em>

    I never claimed that they have not said that Obama has consorted with terrorists (Ayers). I’m not disavowing what they’ve said. (Though, actually Beck has said that he would not be in favor of the Patriot Act if he knew what Bush was going to do with it.) I agree with most of what Hannity says, but I can’t stand to listen to him, he bores me. Sometimes Beck bores me, because sometimes he’s depressing. However, he is at times, extremely entertaining. In general, they are both afraid of Obama with good reason. That’s what Conor and you don’t seem to understand. Indeed, all those people who disparaged the tea parties and Beck seem to have misplaced their fears.

    — jd · May 17, 06:59 PM · #

22. The common thread among the people above who don’t understand Conor’s point is the failure to see that powers that are ostensibly in the realm of “foriegn policy” can be (and, historically are likely to be) abused in the “domestic” sector.

    Whether the pundits referenced by Conor are making the same mistake, or are just cynically making inconsistent arguments, is uncertain.

    — LarryM · May 17, 07:19 PM · #

23. I think the best way to explain it is that we conservatives want the President to excercise maximum powers against the enemies of the U.S. and minimal powers against the citizenry.

    How much power should he exercise against the citizenry who are enemies?

    — Chet · May 17, 09:44 PM · #

24. Larry……how can it POSSIBLY be anything other than cynical posturing and whipping the low info base into a lather? Socialism! Fascism! Hitler! Stalin! FEMA camps!
    Did you know Poplawski posted the clip of Beck musing about FEMA camps to FREAKIN’ STORMFRONT?
    Like I said, if jd is taken in by insane clowns, he must be a juggalo.

    — matoko_chan · May 17, 09:46 PM · #

25. Conor:

    Just out of curiosity, since I’m not that familiar with your thinking, who is more offensive to you, Glenn Beck or Matoko Chan?

    — jd · May 17, 10:06 PM · #

26. P.S. I’m not saying that everyone was being rude to Conor—I was just expressing how I feel about hanging around with people who are smarter than I am—but I do it because I want to learn more and I can’t afford to go back to school! :-)

    — Joules · May 17, 10:17 PM · #

27. And here’s the pre-script to my post-script, since I forgot the two-step comment process: I was expressing that I can’t enjoy hanging around with intellectuals for long periods of time because they so often ignore or mock me when I have questions. I noticed that a few people questioned your question as if it were too simple or naive. My answer to the question: Hannity, Beck, etc. are dedicated to their beliefs and principles—and to saving face—so they ignore inconsistencies like giving the President they disagree with more power.

    — Joules · May 17, 10:24 PM · #

28. JD, Glenn Beck is a nationally known television personality who garners millions of viewers, and degrades public discourse on a grand scale. He is far more offensive to me than any unknown blog commenter could ever be, no matter what that commenter said or did.

    What I will say about Matoko Chan is that I wish she would format her comments correctly, and refrain from posting multiple comments all in a row, which tends to derail conversations.

    — Conor Friedersdorf · May 17, 10:48 PM · #

29. There is no difference between foreign and domestic powers? Huh? Does that mean the president has the power to deport MY children to Cuba? Because I would be very opposed to that. But that isn’t the way it works. The courts, the legislature, and yes, even the American people, except for a few loony law professors, are capable of distinguishing foreign and domestic, usually with ease.

    — y81 · May 17, 11:02 PM · #

30. Does that mean the president has the power to deport MY children to Cuba?

    The Bush administration argued they could do this in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. More to the point, the Right’s loudest cheerleaders yell in support of stronger state secrecy, so you’d never know if Obama were abusing “foreign powers”.

    This notion of “foreign powers” is something you invented, BTW. Andy McCarthy, for example, was extremely opposed to “The Wall” between criminal investigations and intelligence operations. He may have be right to oppose it, but that means that the biggest thing stopping the president from abusing intelligence powers for political reasons is the president’s own conscience, which I thought we were assuming was nil. Most ironically, if honest people like McCarthy <cough> are now refusing to cooperate with Obama’s executive branch, this would just make abuse all the easier.

    — Consumatopia · May 17, 11:41 PM · #

31. Doesn’t Fox have to fill the day with programming that will appeal to as many people as possible in their target audience? I’m sure there are plenty of people who think Beck is a genius and great entertainment. I don’t like what I’ve seen of the Fox network but they’re good at coming up with content that will appeal to their audience. I would love to see a conservative-leaning News Hour with Jim Lehrer-style news program.

    — Joules · May 18, 12:12 AM · #

32. Umm, consumatopia, I can find you about a thousand court decisions that draw a distinction between the president’s foreign powers and his domestic powers. It may not be a valid or useful distinction, but it is assuredly not something that I, y81, New York real estate lawyer, invented.

    — y81 · May 18, 12:18 AM · #

33. By the way, I started my own blog and would love it if any of you would visit and give constructive criticism. I’ve had a whopping 10 views in the past two weeks.

    mulch4us.wordpress.com

    — Joules · May 18, 12:36 AM · #

34. Mr. McCarthy,

    You do yourself a disservice, and radically decrease your credibility in my eyes, by casually lumping Glenn Beck in with the purely partisan players you name. Beck objected to excessive domestic expansion of federal power under the Republicans as well. He is neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Donkey nor Elephant.

    — Bubblehead · May 18, 12:45 AM · #

35. Umm, consumatopia, I can find you about a thousand court decisions that draw a distinction between the president’s foreign powers and his domestic powers.

    Notice how if you google “foreign powers”, the term doesn’t have the meaning that you’re trying to use here? That’s a good hint that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    — Consumatopia · May 18, 01:39 AM · #

36. I smell a powerful wind a brewin’, one that will blow the current bevy of intellectual parasites right out of the body of our beloved conservatism. Then clean, inside and out, leaving a foetid, writhing pile of “Friedersdorfs” and “Salams” and “Schwenklers” and “Manzis” and “Sudermans” to the rear, the conservative colossus will stride once again across the purple mountains and fruited plain, all the way across the banks of the foul Potomac where it will wrench the wheel of destiny from it’s smooth talking, community organizing, basketball playing captors. ANd the writhing pile of intellectuals with their funny names and fancy ideas will be all like, “blog…! Blog blog blog!” But no one will pay attention to them because the powerful wind of cleansing righteousness, like their 15 minutes of fame, will have passed. And they will get menial jobs at the conivence stores and falafel huts and pretzel works of their country men and no one will remember that brief moment in history, when battered, beaten and dazed, the yeoman conservative bent his mighty head to listen to the nauseating susurrations of a pointy headed elite.

    — cw · May 18, 03:05 AM · #

37. I hope you’re just teasing, cw. We need our intellectuals. I would be frightened to live in a world without them.

    — Joules · May 18, 03:30 AM · #

38. “We need our intellectuals. I would be frightened to live in a world without them.”

    Are you mocking me Jouels? Becasue I will not be mocked. If I find out that you are mocking me I will deliver you such a blow as you have never felt before. The internets will literally reverberate with the vibrations my blow will cause you. So if you are mocking me, you better start arranging your brain to erase every tincture of irony or humor from any sort of thoughts you had realating to me or my comments. Any thoughts you had that might have been ironic mocture re myself had better quickly be converted into genuine straight-forward innocent type single-layer thoughts. In other words, you need to own those thoughts, Joules, whole heartedly and right down to your toes, and pretty darn soon, because I’m fixin to wind up………….

    — cw · May 18, 03:52 AM · #

39. Conor, this post and others make me believe you want to, what, hold up a mirror to conservatives? — make a point out of the blemishes? — drive home the ugliness of its public face?

    All worthy goals in my opinion. And yet, I don’t think you have articulated a grand unified theory that would tie all of these posts together. It leads this reader to wonder what the payoff is.

    Let’s take as given that a large enough segment of Americans will always buy into conservative-shrouded populism. They will always tune in to watch a Beck or listen to a Rush. Let’s also take as given that there is something about the tone, rhythm, and themes of superficial conservatism that makes it salable to those kinds of low audiences at a rate that can’t be matched by vulgar liberalism (this is arguable).

    What then? Do you embrace the Hannitys and the Becks of the future, or do you try and do the impossible: win elections and govern with intelligent ideas only.

    — Sargent · May 18, 04:10 AM · #

40. no one will remember that brief moment in history, when battered, beaten and dazed, the yeoman conservative bent his mighty head to listen to the nauseating susurrations of a pointy headed elite.

    Palinism FTW!
    Hahaha, just watch…..she will be the nominee.

    They will always tune in to watch a Beck or listen to a Rush.

    Problem is Sargent, no one in my demographic wants to be in the same party as Rush and Beck.
    So that kinda limits the ability of the GOP to attract the youth demographic votes.
    Everyone my age that is into insane clowns is already a follower of Shaggy 2 Dope and the Dark Carnival.
    A tribe without reps cannot survive.

    What if….conservative memes simply aren’t viable in the 21st century?
    Then all you have is IQ-baiting, racism and classim.
    Behold! The Future of the Republican Party!

    — matoko_chan · May 18, 05:22 AM · #

41. This debate should have been stopped by Chet’s very basic and astute question. But then again, it’s kind of funny watching y81 devolve to completely making shit up.

    — Derek · May 18, 11:28 AM · #

42. matoko_chan:

    People of all political persuasions are capable of believing all sorts of crazy stuff on a daily basis. Look at Y81’s response to my post; I’m sure that it is 100% sincere, yet is displays a profound ignorance of history generally and of the specifics of the claims that the Bush adminstration were making about presidential power.

    Now, at some level I think that what’s going on is an unconcious suspension of critical thinking for partisan reasons, and I’m sure SOME of the people that Conor is talking about are fully aware of the contradiction, but I think we underestimate at our peril the (a) historical ignorance, and (b) lack of critical thinking of many (most?) of our fellow citezens of all political persuasions.

    — LarryM · May 18, 12:07 PM · #

43. consumatopia, derek, et al.: you seem to be unfamiliar with Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown, and thus unqualified to discuss the relevant legal issues. Try googling this:

    “I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain [the president’s] exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward not because of rebellion, but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence.”

    — y81 · May 18, 12:12 PM · #

44. but I think we underestimate at our peril the (a) historical ignorance, and (b) lack of critical thinking of many (most?) of our fellow citezens of all political persuasions.

    The soi disant republican leadership can’t even talk about Palin and Beck. They are invisible to every one but the base and the opposition and……independents and swing voters. Even the Corner is starting to get it, but they can’t say the B-word yet.
    The traditional republican model is the Kylon model. All men are created equal. Will is a substitute for intellect and skill. Before, the republican leadership just scammed the base with socon issues, anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism, and dogwhistle racism and overt homophobia.
    But the leadership was still elite. Just pretending to be yeoman conservatives.
    I don’t see how this model can work anymore. There is a huge divide between the base and the party elites.
    Can a political party survive without elites?

    — matoko_chan · May 18, 01:14 PM · #

45. Barak Hussain Obama illustrates the problem with democracy: given the right circumstances—a noble conservative class made weary by the job of defending America against global terrorism while at the same time fighting off the tratorous machinations of more than half the population—it is possible for coniving chicago pols to shimmy thier way into the presidency. So now were on our way to a shitstorm in a handbasket and who knows what the country will look like when yoeman Conservative picks himself off the floor four years from now to stick his meaty finger into the dike. A ruin, that will be mighty hard to untangle, is what I suspect.

    I propose a change in the way we select our leaders. I propose a Council of Elders made up of men of wisdom, experience, and wholesome knowledge of the world who then select from amongst themselves a President to serve for a certain duration with the guidence and consent of the council. Dissolve congress and the supreme court. Give members of the Council purview over areas of governmental importance. Governing this God blessed country is a sacred duty fraught with such grave importance that it cannot, must not, be left in the pale damp hands of the “people,” a coterie more interested in what intruiging foriegn flavoring they are going to have sprinkled onto thier lattes this morning, than they are in immenent apocolyps our swarthy bearded adversaries have planned for us.

    — cw · May 18, 01:16 PM · #

46. Okay y81, this is an improvement since you’ve abandoned your attempt to invent a concept of “foreign powers”. “instruments of national force”, of course, can be applied to both foreign and domestic enemies—against both the outside world, and internal rebellions, as Jackson made clear.

    And since we are apparently in a “Long War” with enemies that respect no national boundaries, since the Right argues that the post-9/11 Authorization to Use Military Force gives the president the power to fight at home and abroad, then we really are talking about “instruments of national force” in a domestic context.

    And, especially following the release of the DHS report warning of right-wing extremism, and given the historic tendency of intelligence and surveillance powers to be abused for political purposes, one would think that those on the right would be more worried that these instruments were exactly the sort of thing most open to abuse.

    — Consumatopia · May 18, 01:20 PM · #

47. consumatopia, if your point is that I should have used the phrase “presidential power to conduct foreign affairs” instead “president’s foreign powers,” fine. I take it that, with that change, we are in agreement. There is a perfectly principled and defensible argument that the executive should have considerable power, flexibility and autonomy with respect to the president’s power to conduct foreign affairs; there is also an argument that the powers of all branches of the federal government should have very limited power with respect to domestic matters; and those who, like Conor Friedersdorf, profess themselves unable to comprehend this rather elementary distinction are not elevating the level of public discourse.

    — y81 · May 18, 02:23 PM · #

48. Y81,

    I comprehend the difference between the president’s powers to conduct foreign affairs and his power with respect to domestic matters, but I also see that there is no neat separation between these things in all circumstances. Take domestic warrantless wiretapping. Or declaring an American citizen an enemy combatant.

    And as others have pointed out in comments, while it is perfectly possible to have a president with dramatic foreign powers and few domestic powers in theory, a president who can summon dramatic powers as commander in chief will in practice be much more able to use his power at home too.

    Personally, I don’t think Obama is going to wiretap my phone or declare me an enemy conbatant, ship me off to Gitmo and waterboard me. But if I thought he was trying to make the United States a socialist dictatorship — that is to say, if I thought what Glenn Beck says he believes — I’d sure as hell be worried about those things.

    — Conor Friedersdorf · May 18, 02:45 PM · #

49. cw, you can’t scare me—I have a son with autism. “I am one of the bravest women I know,” she said modestly. Please visit my new blog and we’ll chat.

    — Joules · May 18, 03:02 PM · #

50. y81, “power to conduct foreign affairs” usually means State Department, ambassadors, diplomats and the like. The stuff in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2. Not the FBI/CIA/DoD/etc stuff that we’re worried about here. As we could see from reading the very Jackson quote you quoted, the latter very much has domestic implications, especially in the current environment.

    There is a distinction between defense/intelligence/national security/law enforcement and commerce/regulation/economic power, but both of these have domestic and foreign affairs components, both of them can be dangerous to domestic political enemies.

    — Consumatopia · May 18, 03:13 PM · #

51. Well, Mr. Friedersdorf, I agree that there is a possiblity that President Obama will misuse the powers he has been given with respect to foreign enemies to target his domestic opponents. But the proper remedy is not to upset long-established constitutional understandings, but to resist energetically any domestic usurpations by President Obama. You appear to be saying that the preceding sentence violates the canons of Aristotelian logic.

    — y81 · May 18, 03:13 PM · #

52. A sharp distinction cannot be made between a President’s domestic- and foreign-operating powers. Maybe Y81 is thinking of jurisdiction, which is Government-writ-large rather than a Presidential issue.

    And Conor, I don’t think that yours is as strong a point as you seem to think (I think). Their fear is how Obama will change the law, not how he will ignore or subvert the law. At least, that’s what I’ve taken from my very modest familiarity with the life and opinions of the Funnypeople.

    — Sargent · May 18, 03:31 PM · #

53. Sargent, it is Justice Jackson with whom you need to engage, not me. I am just repeating Con Law 101: I am not inventing anything, nor thinking of anything not found in any basic hornbook.

    I suspect that Justice Jackson, like most lawyers, would probably respond that occasional difficulties in drawing a line hardly render a distinction illusory, which is what you seem to be saying.

    — y81 · May 18, 03:38 PM · #

54. But the proper remedy is not to upset long-established constitutional understandings,

    I think the problems with your understanding of the long-established constitutional understanding have been well explained, but since it’s kind of a distraction from main issue here I’ll try to drop it.

    but to resist energetically any domestic usurpations by President Obama

    Two flaws:

    Beck et al. have also objected to any oversight of the executive, and campaigned loudly for the president’s right to more strongly classify information, so you have limited tools to monitor domestic usurpations thanks to your own efforts.

    Secondly, the claim is not merely that Obama will occasionally abuse his power, but that Obama is aiming to be a socialist dictator. This would be a larger threat than the terrorists the executive is ostensibly supposed to be fighting, and it would therefore make sense to move towards greater oversight and restraint, to protect us from the larger threat.

    — Consumatopia · May 18, 03:39 PM · #

55. Was internment of the Japanese an exercise of “foreign powers”

    — Derek · May 18, 03:48 PM · #

56. Y81, I think what you’re saying can more easily be understood as a question of jurisdiction and federalism. Using the foreign/domestic powers dichotomy hides as much as it reveals. To me.

    As you’ll recall, the two big types of distinctions concerning Presidential powers are 1) whether Congress agrees, disputes, or is silent on the issue, and 2) whether an emergency exists. I’d include a third (whether the powers are enumerated in the Constitution) but that distinction hasn’t really helped the Court in the past since Article II is so brief and vague.

    Consumatopia, I suspect that “socialist dictator” is used as a poetic truth more often than not. What I assume they mean is that Obama will preside over a socialization of America — via legitimate acts of Congress, and by exploiting the fact that Congress has delegated much of its authority to administrative bodies controlled by the President — not that Obama will suspend the Senate, don the laurels and the scepter, and declare himself Caesar.

    Of course, if that is what they truly think, then inconsistency is not the greatest of their problems.

    — Sargent · May 18, 04:32 PM · #

57. Well the problem with the foreign/domestic powers dichotomy is that it’s non-existent. War powers/national security powers can be executed in domestic contexts (see: suspending habeas corpus, declarations of martial law, japanese internment, domestic wiretapping etc.) Security threats aren’t always foreign and wars aren’t always solely fought on foreign land. Which is why this absurd foreign/domestic distinction falls completely short.

    — Derek · May 18, 05:14 PM · #

58. Let me add something that actually relates to the topic though. The problem isn’t constitutional interpretation. The problem is abuse. If you allow a president the right to kidnap and torture people in secrecy, then obviously you trust that president a great deal. Because you don’t really know whether or not he’s kidnapping foreigners, or the guy that wrote a bad editorial about him. You don’t know whether he’s spying on terrorists or on political opponents. Why? because you are refusing even basic oversight of his actions. So if you give the president this much trust, then how can you also think he’s a corrupt terrorist.

    — Derek · May 18, 05:20 PM · #

59. Of course, if that is what they truly think, then inconsistency is not the greatest of their problems.

    That is NOT what they really think, but it is the snake-oil they are selling to the low information base.
    Its all Beck has….if the president succeeds in his endeavors for the country, republicans will be out of power for 40 years. If Beck and Rush say they hope Obama fails, that is not a successful meme for wooing Joe Sixpack who has lost his job and is losing his house. So they have to say Obama is a socialist, that hes cheating. So they also say that that GW needed those “enhanced” executive powers to protect us while Obama is going to use them to oppress us. Because Obama is a socialist or something.

    And cw does scare meh……quite a bit.

    — matoko_chan · May 18, 06:00 PM · #

60. Sargent, while I’m sure there are great number of reasonable conservatives who see things that way, indeed that’s probably how Jonah Goldberg is using the term “liberal fascist”, I can’t see how that could characterize the thinking Conor described.

    If they don’t fear politically-motivated legal violations from a president who was as evil as they claim Obama is, then that is an inconsistency of its own.

    And further, while it may be a logically consistent thing for someone to believe that the government’s powers within the law are more dangerous than those outside the law, I don’t see why this is an inherently conservative thing to believe for any reason other than the historical accident, and I think the contradictions of Beck et. al. serve to highlight this tension.

    — Consumatopia · May 18, 06:17 PM · #

61. Folks –

    This was all covered in Star Wars. The Emperor used a foreign policy emergency to declare Marshall Law and dissolve the Senate.

    — Paul · May 18, 08:39 PM · #

62. But Obama is Luke Skywalker, not the Emperor.
    Cheney was the Emperor to Bush’s tragic Vader.

    lol

    — matoko_chan · May 18, 08:48 PM · #

63. “And cw does scare meh……quite a bit.”

    You are wise to fear me, young Matoko-Chan. Fear is the most powerful force in the universe. Join me on the dark side and I will show you how to make fear your servant.

    — cw · May 18, 09:46 PM · #

64. Theory: the behavior of the people cited is because they are trying to save the bacon of members of the former administration, while simultaneously opposing the new administration. They have to support the continuation of the prior administration’s overreaches, because if they started opposing those executive powers now, that would probably not help former administration members resist calls for investigations
    into abuses.

    The goals of both shielding the Bush administration, and attacking the Obama administration, are important enough for these people that they simply ignore the conflict.

    — Jon H · May 19, 01:31 PM · #

65. “Cheney was the Emperor to Bush’s tragic Vader.”

    Cheney was Jabba to Bush’s Salacious Crumb.

    — Jon H · May 19, 01:35 PM · #

66. Sargent, JD, etc. continue to miss the point that Consumpatopia, Conor and others are making:

    1. Perhaps it is easy enough for the courts, Congress, and common sense to make the distinction between domestic and foreign policies and powers. But if there is a unitary executive that operates in secret, then ONLY THE PRESIDENT determines the difference between these two.

    2. The Bush Administration argued that ONLY THE PRESIDENT could ultimately determine who classified as an “enemy combatant” for the purposes of the war on terror, which MAY INCLUDE US CITIZENS. This means that the distinction between a foreign threat and a domestic threat is arbitrarily determined by the executive, according to how the executive deems a threat to the nation. So long as terrorists can carry out domestic terror attacks, there is no uniform distinction between “domestic” and “foreign”: in the war on terror, there are only enemy combatants/terrorists, and this category can include ANYONE.

    3. Therefore, if you believe that Obama is vile and dangerous, you shouldn’t be arguing that he have the power to do whatever he likes, because that power automatically negates the distinction between domestic and foreign powers, and it automatically grants him the ability to undermine any recourse we may wish to have.

    — Dirk Gently · May 20, 02:15 AM · #

67. The mystery here is why anyone would consider this a mystery.

    The GOP & its supporters are simply being ideologically correct: a turbocharged Unitary Executive syncs up perfectly with their authoritarian nature, & by definition ANY Democrat is a crypto-Marxist secretly plotting to destroy America.

    These people are quite comfortable with Doublethink – they wanted Clinton fired for lying about oral sex with an intern (& saw his completion of a second term without criminal charges as a heinous tragedy), but see no problem whatsoever with Bush setting up secret prison-ships or turning war-crimes like waterboarding – a form of torture for which Japanese soldiers were hung at Nuremburg – into official policy … compared to THAT, the level of cognitive dissonance this post points out is chump change.

    — jim · May 20, 06:43 AM · #

68. Conor, here is another example of “cognitive dissonance”……or perhaps we can just call it lying.
    Because that is obviously what it is.
    Still, perhaps appearances are decieving and jd can translate Beckese into something sane and human for the rest of us.

    — matoko_chan · May 20, 06:28 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Ezra Klein Makes Policy Fun

↓ Questions for Andy McCarthy

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.