The Trouble with Bill
Friday September 15, 2006
Category: History and Profiles
I've written quite a bit about the Bush administration's civil liberties abuses, and I plan to write quite a bit more. But there's a difference between hating President Bush's policy decisions because they're bad policy decisions, and hating President Bush's policy decisions because President Bush made them. I have blogged before on the tendency many congressional Democrats have to demonize Bush and lionize Clinton, when civil libertarians who have been aware of these issues over the past decade know that there is no neat distinction between the two.
Who violated the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the name of national security? Both of them. Who permitted federal funding of religious groups? Both of them. Who exploited homophobia by attacking same-sex marriage? Both of them. Who made prudish assaults on the First Amendment by way of "indecency" crackdowns? Both of them. Who quietly sent detainees away to be tortured by foreign allies? Both of them. Who radically expanded the power of the presidency, and made signing statements restricting the enforcement of congressional legislation? Both of them.
If President Bush has been so successful in violating our civil liberties, it is only because he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Oppressive giants, with Bibles and spyglasses and a badly smudged copy of the Bill of Rights.
The lesson we can learn from the Clinton-Bush transition is that a change in party doesn't necessarily mean a change in policy. If we are going to be serious about civil liberties issues in the 2008 presidential election--and I don't think it's too soon to talk about that--then it won't be enough to just shrug and vote for a Democrat. Some Democrats are, frankly, more of a threat to our civil liberties than some Republicans. Over the coming weeks, I will be profiling likely 2008 candidates on their civil liberties platforms to give you a better idea of what I mean--but let's just say for now that when it comes to politicians, we should borrow a page from The X-Files and trust no one. That's not paranoia. It's just common sense.
Zoom to:
|
Who violated the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the name of national security? Both of them. Who permitted federal funding of religious groups? Both of them. Who exploited homophobia by attacking same-sex marriage? Both of them. Who made prudish assaults on the First Amendment by way of "indecency" crackdowns? Both of them. Who quietly sent detainees away to be tortured by foreign allies? Both of them. Who radically expanded the power of the presidency, and made signing statements restricting the enforcement of congressional legislation? Both of them.
If President Bush has been so successful in violating our civil liberties, it is only because he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Oppressive giants, with Bibles and spyglasses and a badly smudged copy of the Bill of Rights.
The lesson we can learn from the Clinton-Bush transition is that a change in party doesn't necessarily mean a change in policy. If we are going to be serious about civil liberties issues in the 2008 presidential election--and I don't think it's too soon to talk about that--then it won't be enough to just shrug and vote for a Democrat. Some Democrats are, frankly, more of a threat to our civil liberties than some Republicans. Over the coming weeks, I will be profiling likely 2008 candidates on their civil liberties platforms to give you a better idea of what I mean--but let's just say for now that when it comes to politicians, we should borrow a page from The X-Files and trust no one. That's not paranoia. It's just common sense.
Zoom to:
Comments
Tom Head, you are such a sensible and eloquent person–I enjoy your comments on various blogs and thoroughly appreciate your writing.
Not that that is relevant to your post.
I am likewise, not a big fan of Clinton.
I beg to differ–flattery is always relevant! ;o) Thanks for the kind words.
Cheers,
TH
Good article. I think this may be the first time I’ve agreed with you…..trust no one
I’m torn on Clinton. On one hand–what a damned penis-brained indiot. On the other, I wouldn’t have gotten the two years of college that I did get, if it weren’t for his administration. It’s sort of a mixed bag. However, since my choices appear to be “mixed-bag” and “totally screwed,” eh… what are ya gonna do?
Excellent articles, Tom.
I tend to think that anyone who wants power over me is suspect, which pretty much includes ANY politician (among others).
Thanks! ~el
>
If President Bush has been so successful in violating our civil liberties, it is only because he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Oppressive giants, with Bibles and spyglasses and a badly smudged copy of the Bill of Rights.>
Well said.
Although I also have to step back and really give a good chunk of credit for that to Reagan. Maybe even the lion’s share. Clinton did a lot of damage, but he in turn was standing on BIG shoulders.
Before that…well, i’m less well-versed. Lord knows Nixon did plenty to soil the atmosphere, and good ol’ Joe McCarthy and alla that before -that.- And per civil liberties, for that matter, i don’t think FDR was exactly stellar himself (hello, Japanese internment camps?
That said, they don’t call it the “Reagan Revolution” for nothing.
I think steamrollering on any issue, be it civil liberties or economic concerns, goes with the office and the power of the president. FDR tried to “pack” the Supreme Court when it didn’t give him what he wanted. Bill Clinton himself was very quick to pull the military trigger. Power does tend to corrupt. It also fortunately tends to bring those who would monitor that power out of the woodwork and into action.
This was the first article I have ever read at about.com and so far so good. I am a little nervous that this is going to be some conservative website but I am willing to suspend judgment.
It is long overdue for Clinton to be taken to task for many things and I am very glad you have exposed his civil rights legacy.
What has really gotten under my skin for years is how Clinton is seen as being such a good Pres in terms of the African-American community and a large segment of that community believes this. The truth is he was Pres when welfare was essentially demolished and he was Pres when the largest both in terms of impact and money anti-crime pro-police force legislation was signed sealed and delivered. That bill–I forget it’s exact name…maybe you can help me with that–that bill has been a major contributing factor to the unprecidented level of incarceration in the US and it was good ol soul brother Clinton that signed it.