The Last Word: Andy McCarthy's Rebuttal
Andy McCarthy replies to my recent post:
At the American Scene, Conor Friedersdorf gives me credit for being honest but wonders how I could think both that Obama has revolutionary, dictatorial tendencies (anti-constitution, anti-individual liberty, criminalizing policy disputes, putting politics above the rule of law, etc.) and that the chief executive has expansive powers during wartime. I’m afraid I don’t see how the two things are inconsistent.
I acknowledge the danger (well documented in books by Jonah and Mark Levin) that a president can pre-textually use his daunting wartime authority to expand his powers over spheres intended by the Constitution to be the domains of Congress, the courts, the states or the people. But doing that is an abuse of power, and the Constitution provides us with remedies to address such abuse (e.g., impeachment, Congress’s power of the purse, the states’ ability to defy unconstitutional presidential excesses). On the other hand, the framers vested in the office of the president all the might of the nation necessary to overcome foreign threats to national security. When the president uses those powers — which are undoubtedly awesome because threats may be awesome — for their proper purpose, that is not an abuse.
Mr. Friedersdorf asks: “How can men [like moi] 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?” The answer is straightforward — though not necessarily simple. The president is given expansive war powers during war time. Not expansive power in general — not a warrant to remake the government or our society.
He still doesn’t understand the problem. How can Mccarthy say on one hand the guy is “anti-constitution,” then on the other hand assume he’s not going to abuse his power? How can Mccarthy talk about constitutional remedies to abuse and then oppose judicial or congressional oversight of war time actions?
— Derek · May 19, 03:25 AM · #
I wish he’d answered the earlier post about him.
— Matt Feeney · May 19, 03:31 AM · #
Andy McCarthy’s brain is all over the place. You cannot say that you’re afraid a man will start a revolution that you don’t favor, and that he ought to be trusted with more power. You have to choose.
And I’m just wondering why Andy didn’t follow up on that whole Ayers-as-Obama’s-ghostwriter thing – that’s a major story! I like to imagine Andy writing all this stuff all earnestly and seriously with a little furrow in his brow.
This might have all been distressing 5 years ago but these people (The Corner + readership) are a big joke now. The whole operation seems like it exists for my entertainment.
— Steve C · May 19, 05:40 AM · #
This is obviously a case where epistemological perceptions differ so greatly as to prevent useful discussion. Each side believes the other is violating the elementary laws of logic so egregiously as to preclude the possibility of good faith.
— y81 · May 19, 10:31 AM · #
Since we’re self-referencing, this is my comment from the last post:
McCarthy went with number one — the War-President Lemma. Conor, do you still think your point was solid?
— Sargent · May 19, 02:26 PM · #
I don’t think that’s a consistent answer at all, Sargent. “You go to war with the president you have, even if that president is actively working against you and your interests”? How is that a rational position?
— Erik Siegrist · May 19, 03:04 PM · #
I think what folks are missing is that McCarthy is arguing from what he believes of the Constitution, not from personal preferences (though it’s easy to see that the two are aligned). To attack his position, you cannot argue that he is being inconsistent. You have to either say that his interpretation of the Constitution is in error, or that the Constitution is inconsistent.
BTW I agree with Matt, and wish that McCarthy would answer Conor’s first question to him.
— Blar · May 19, 03:46 PM · #
Derek,
He can oppose congressional and judicial oversight of presidential “war powers” because he believes the listed remedies are the exclusive ones provided for by the Constitution. Why would belief in the existence of a certain set of limitations on presidential power require support for a different set of limitations?
And further to Blar’s point, McCarthy isn’t saying that Obama SHOULD be trusted with expansive power, he’s saying that as President, the Constitution gives him that power. As I recall, McCarthy was pretty clear about his view Obama shouldn’t be trusted with that power during the campaign. It’s to his credit that he doesn’t change his view of the Constitution based on who’s in power; criticizing his position as inconsistent seems to get things precisely backwards.
— Alex · May 19, 06:12 PM · #
Erik: How is that a rational position?
It might be hackery of the first order, but it’s not inconsistent. And pace McCarthy this can be easily demonstrated. All you have to do is assert ‘War’ and say you’re advocating ‘expanded war powers’ for “Presidents”, the category, to get us through this war. Then either limit your worries to “Obama”, the person, and say the existence of these ‘war powers’ is still a net positive (winning the war is priority one), or define your Obama worries in such a way that they fall outside the war-issue, i.e., fall outside the conduct-space enabled by expanded Executive war powers.
— Sargent · May 19, 09:06 PM · #
I’m surprised he didn’t mention the vast number of comments on your last post. ;-)
— Joules · May 19, 09:34 PM · #
Since when are the laughable books by Mark Levin and Jonah Goldberg considered “documentation”. If there’s a point to make, find a credible source with a normal level of integrity. Partisan rhetoric is NEVER acceptable support for an argument.
— Ray Butler · May 21, 06:38 PM · #
y81 – I strenuously disagree that both “sides” are equally at fault for the rhetoric. There is only one side: the truth. Make a two-column list sometime and you’ll see that the worst conflation in the history of American politics is coming from the Right. They exist inside a bubble of Talking Points and naked bias, supported by great masses of idiots easily scared into thinking some swarthy men are gonna git ‘em.
— Ray Butler · May 21, 06:42 PM · #