Login
Forgot Password?

OR

Login with Google Login with Twitter Login with Facebook
  • Join
  • Profiles
  • Groups
  • SuicideGirls
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Shop
Vital Stats

signalnoise

Oak Park, IL

Member Since 2004

Followers 129 Following 336

  • Everything
  • Photos
  • Video
  • Blogs
  • Groups
  • From Others

Wednesday Jun 28, 2006

Jun 28, 2006
0
  • Facebook
  • Tweet
  • Email
Clarence Page has written a pretty nice little piece, in which he defends the duty of the media to investigate and report on the government, even at the risk of revealing state secrets. Page is specifically addressing the recent reveal by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal that the Bush administration has been secretly tracking money traveling through various financial institutions, all in the name of the national security. The president, of course, is pissed that the secret is out.

The problem here, so far as I'm concerned, has less to do with civil liberties and more to do with separation of powers - though, the two really are linked. Don't get me wrong: the whole invasion of privacy thing irks me. And I do think we need to be wary of government attempts to infringe our rights - if we don't defend them, they just might go away. But I also hate knee-jerk reactions, especially when those knee-jerk reactions are politically driven.

There is a tendency among some critics look at democracy (and its associated rights) as both teleological and fragile. In other words, they see the creation of democratic institutions as the "end," and wring their hands over any change in those institutions. Often, folks who think about democracy and rights don't seem quite able to get beyond that point. Of course, since so much of why we admire democracy is because it leaves space for individual self-determination - it means that democratic thinkers in many ways inherently *cannot* think beyond that institutional step. Which is fine, I suppose. Except it seems to lead to these "freak outs," on both sides of the ideological divide. Hence, any time there is sustained conflict, institutions change, or laws are enforced in a different manner, everyone screams that the sky is falling ... and really, things will probably be OK.

Geoffrey Stone has written a book, Perilious Times, tracing how civil liberty protections rise and fall throughout American history in accordance with panics over war. In many ways, this book is distressing - don't we ever learn to not protect our liberties? But, it should also be reassuring - after all, while there were unfortunate crack downs on rights during some times of conflict, it's not like the whole damn democracy ever fell apart. [To note: I'm at least open to the possibility that some conflicts *may* require some changes in how our poliitcal freedoms are enjoyed. Now, I'm not sure what should happen or how it should be regulated - that would be contextual. And I would accept any restrictions very warily, and ONLY with a great deal of transperancy. But, it's worth remembering that rights only exist because governments protect them. Hence, there may be times where, under certain circumstances and with certain legal agreements, it may be wholly rational to briefly restrict rights for the greater good in the long run.]

So, that's why the civil liberties angle doesn't bug me so much. What bugs me is how Congress is just rolling over on this one. The legislative branch is reallly how citizens pursue their interests (Re: what you call pork, I just call necessary infrastructure). Generally, Congress has kind of been the executive branch's bitch lately - going along with president ever since 9/11 with far too little questioning. In many ways, this continues, as Congress agrees with the president and is also pissed with the news media for leaking information about the money-tracing program.

BUT, Congress is also showing that it still has some guts, arguing that the president is being far too liberal in how he interprets and enforces legislation passed by Congress. This is good - this is Congress doing it's job. It's just not really clear to me what Congress we're going to end up with at the end of the Bush Administration - or whether it will even matter. I don't want to be one of those knee-jerk types, but executive power has grown dramatically over the past 50 years or so. This president seems to have radically increased it yet again, albeit under extraordinary circumstances. But I'm not sure that once we return to more "settled" times, that the executive branch will give up any power or that Congress will even demand it. It could be that this expanded executive authority has become *normalized.*

I don't think that Presidents are bad people ... I just don't think they do the job of representing the interests of the vast numbers of Americans very well. In addition, a powerful executive and a rubber stamp Congress is *not* a set-up conducive to the long-term sustenance of a republic. In essence, it is a danger to freedom, as the unitary executive enacts policy without consideration of competing interests or productive dialogue with dissenting voices.

I know this imbalance in federal/legislative power has been addressed by others folks. But I do think it's something that has not been looked at enough. Most of the critiques of the Bush administration are coming out of either a fairly partisan place or a more short-sighted debate regarding immediate rights. I think the long-term impact is going to be institutional arrangements, which are often created to be temporary but tend to establish an intertia that is hard to break. And *that's* what makes me uncomfortable.










VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
akirali:
Don't return. You'll never leave. The stories being told right now are just way too good
Jun 29, 2006
toothpickmoe:
We will. Especially of the power plant next door.
Jun 30, 2006

More Blogs

  • 07.12.10
    3

    Monday Jul 12, 2010

    Lately, I'm liking this: And this:
  • 07.10.10
    5

    Saturday Jul 10, 2010

    There is nothing that makes me feel like more of a douchebag than wat…
  • 07.08.10
    6

    Thursday Jul 08, 2010

    I am currently getting *just enough* work done to not feel bad. Whic…
  • 06.25.10
    2

    Friday Jun 25, 2010

    Sometimes, I don't eat enough dinner. And I have this feeling where …
  • 06.24.10
    2

    Thursday Jun 24, 2010

    Oh man: Tomorrow, we are taking the wife to her apartment just up th…
  • 06.16.10
    4

    Wednesday Jun 16, 2010

    My Macbook has died. Long live my (incoming) Macbook Pro. I'm reall…
  • 06.14.10
    2

    Monday Jun 14, 2010

    Guess what I didn't want to do today? If you answered "sit around an…
  • 06.12.10
    4

    Saturday Jun 12, 2010

    Yellowstone - it's totally obvious why this is a national treasure.
  • 06.04.10
    1

    Friday Jun 04, 2010

    Dear SG, Obligatory "I am not dead, just living life" post. De…
  • 05.04.10
    6

    Tuesday May 04, 2010

    For some reason, I am mildly obsessed with Omegle and Chat Routlette.…

We at SuicideGirls have been celebrating alternative pin-up girls for:

23
years
10
months
20
days
  • 5,509,826 fans
  • 41,393 fans
  • 10,327,617 followers
  • 4,599 SuicideGirls
  • 1,114,228 followers
  • 14,946,099 photos
  • 321,315 followers
  • 61,456,705 comments
  • Join
  • Profiles
  • Groups
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Shop
  • Help
  • About
  • Press
  • LIVE

Legal/Tos | DMCA | Privacy Policy | 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement | Contact Us | Vendo Payment Support
©SuicideGirls 2001-2025

Press enter to search
Fast Hi-res

Click here to join & see it all...

Crop your photo