Month: July 2006

Liberal Ballast

by digby

The next time somebody asks you about what the blogosphere really means to politics, pull this out:

The great benefit of the blogosphere is that it isn’t really an “interest group”; it’s more like an old-style membership organization (or a series of such organizations) whose existence used to do something to check what’s now become the out-of-control influence of business groups over the policy process.

That’s from Matt Yglesias. He’s responding to a post from Noam Schieber examining whether the blogosphere is a good thing, on balance, as its influence starts to crowd out the influence of liberal interest groups. Yglesias nicely analyzes that notion and I tend to agree with what he says, although I think the Republican coalition offers some lessons in how interest groups and a strong partisan identity can work fairly comfortably together.

Scheiber’s post suggests that the problem with the netroots is that we are going to make the party more liberal and that means we will lose elections. That would be the conventional diagnosis of what is wrong with the Democrats generally and it’s been the conventional wisdom as long as I can remember, at least since 1968. Yet, somehow, the society itself has become much more liberal. It’s true that the politics of the day seem extremely conservative, but if you look back at the way people really thought and spoke 40 years ago, you’ll see that this country was unrecognizably intolerant and thatwhile the unions were much more powerful and the middle class was still growing, the workplace was inhospitable to at least half the population.

Yglesias explains it this way, and I think it’s very astute:

I generally doubt that systemic social change will radically alter election outcomes since I tend to believe that the parties will more or less alternate in power — the important issue is the terms of debate between the two parties, and I think that insofar as the netroots become more influential (which I think is a fairly open question) the aggregate impact will be positive.

This is where the modern conservative movement has had its great impact: the terms of the debate. Progress marches on — or, at least, it has so far. Despite the most conservative political era in a century (maybe ever) the basic idea of extending rights to all, of opening the work force to all comers, to liberalizing society in general has continued, at least in fits and starts. But as an example of the terms of the political debate changing, where once it was considered natural to tax the rich more for the common good, the conservatives have managed to convince a good number of people that the common good is served by rich people keeping as much money as possible so they can “create jobs.”

Democrats have spent the last two decades trying to adapt to that change in the debate, sometimes out of a sincere desire to experiment with new ways of doing things, which is a liberal trait. But it was often a failure of imagination and fundamental commitment, as well. And in the end the DLC experiment failed liberalism. Trying to solely use capitalistic methods and modern business techniques to supplant government functions to solve problems has resulted in corrupt politics, inefficient government and huge income inequality. (Let’s not pretend that the plan wasn’t terribly tempting because of the vast sums of money that would flow from tapping into business and industry.)As Yglesias points out, the Netroots may just provide a needed counter weight to that system by challenging some of the plainly illiberal policies that have become so ingrained in the establishment that politicians today seem stunned that their constituents are objecting. (The bankruptcy bill comes to mind.)

But there is more to it, I think, than just counterweight against the influence of business, although I think that’s vastly important. I have described this current political stalemate before as a tug of war rather than a pendulum. Liberals let go of the rope for a while and failed to pull their weight in the debate. Without them — us — being there, helping to shape the debate (which sometimes means we are here to be triangulated against, btw) politics and society become out of wack as they clearly are now.

Conservatives benefit from their appeals to fear. It’s actually the very essence of conservatism — fear of change. And that is their weakness because in a democratic, capitalistic society optimism and a willingness and ability to risk are necessary for the society to thrive. Liberals’ job is to articulate that optimism, that belief that problems can be solved, that democratic government of the people is a positive force that provides the necessary structure for individuals and businesses to thrive and grow. It is that general sense of liberalism that the netroots, as a loosly affiliated organization of activists, thinkers, businesspeople, gadflys and interested observers might also bring back into the public debate.

We could potentially provide the ballast to the conservative political machine that has pulled the debate too far over to its side and created this nauseating sense of political instability. I think the country would welcome a little equilibrium (and by that I don’t mean a continuation of the 50/50 political stalemate.) We function better when society and politics are more in synch than they are now. And since progress is marching on as always, liberal politics are what’s necessary to end the cognitive dissonance.

.

Boxer Rebellion

by digby

Wow. According to Jane, Ann Althouse is claiming:

Boxer is one of the Senators who, we now see, will be campaigning for Lieberman (second link, above). So the shock she experienced at YearlyKos propelled her away from the candidate they are pushing (Ned Lamont), and caused her to become especially conspicuous in her support for Lieberman.

Barbara Boxer has been the most vociferous supporter of women’s rights in the US Senate. Can it be true that she is going to stump for Joe Lieberman because she is so turned off by Ned Lamont’s pro-choice supporters? I hope not. Ned Lamont’s allegedly extremist pro-choice supporters include Planned Parenthood and NARAL, not to mention 78% of the Connecticut electorate who support the bill that would have made it mandatory for hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims — and which Joe Lieberman opposed.

Perhaps you could call and ask if she really thinks that taxpayers should support hospitals that would make rape victims drive all over Connecticut to get emergency contraception because of their absurd belief that birth control is immoral. And while you’re at it, ask her how a Democrat like Joe Lieberman, who endorses this, can really be considered a supporter of women’s rights?

You can call her office in DC at 202-224-3553, Sacramento at 916-448-2787, or email her here.

.

Ahem, Jonah Goldberg

by tristero

Like I said yesterday, torturing people has no relationship to keeping this country secure. But a decent computer system for the FBI sure as tootin’ does.

Foggy

If they do an autopsy, I wonder if they’ll find that spot where the brain stores its delusions: the money, the country club, the cruises, the jets, church, the board of directors, aspen, fame, prominence, self-righteousness, self-importance. In this case, that spot would be the size of Montana. It’s no wonder his heart exploded.

Raping Hadji Girl

by digby

Via Arthur, in this fine post, I see that former right winger Paul Craig Roberts is at it again:

Americans who get their propaganda from Fox “News” or are told what to think by right-wing talk radio hosts are outraged at news reports that U.S. troops planned and carried out the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman. They are not outraged that the troops committed the deed; they are outraged that the media reported it. These “conservatives,” who proudly wear their patriotism on their sleeves, dismiss the reports of the incident as a Big Lie floated by “the anti-American liberal media” in order to demoralize Americans and reduce public support for the war.

Playing to this audience, Col. Jeffrey Snow, a U.S. brigade commander in Baghdad, told AFP News that news coverage could cause the U.S. to lose the war. In other words, what we are doing in Iraq cannot stand the light of day, so reporters must not report or the word will get out.

Many Bush supporters believe that truth is not on our side and must be suppressed. Yet, they support a war that is too shameful to report.

This story is haunting me because it comes on the heels of that earlier story about the song Hadji Girl. Remember?

I guess it’s the cavalier killing of Iraqi girls in that song that gets me. Iraq is not a culture of strong female fighters. Women are kept down. I haven’t seen any evidence that they are being used to plant IED’s and there has only been a couple of occasions where a suicide bomber was female in my recollection. Women are being repressed in this new regime. There is little reason to see them as the enemy. And yet, those guys in the Hadji video are laughing and hooting uproariously at the death of these girls. They seem to have bought in to the conservative Muslim view that women are male property and any humiliation of them or their person is an insult to males. (Or maybe they just get off on killing women, I don’t know.) Are these guys really that close to their lizard brains?

Now I know that rape has often been a common feature of war. But this isn’t really a war in the classical sense. It’s a hybrid war/occupation/police action/whatever and it seems to me that there is something quite sick about all the psychosexual aspects of it generally. From Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to this horrible rape and killing, it seems to me that there is a very strong desire on the part of Americans to sexualize and feminize the enemy. Maybe it’s always been this way. I’m no expert. I can’t help but remember Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal; he was so excited that “the babes” were meting out the torture and he clearly thinks forced sexual humiliation as all in good fun. There is just something very odd about all this. I wonder if someone is studying it.

Meanwhile, here at home, its pure ostrich time on the right. Don’t tell them what’s actually going on over there, don’t show us any returning dead, don’t make them see the wounded. They’re waiting for the Mel Gibson movie in which only the blood of ruthless terrorists were spilled as our brave soldiers fought them there so they wouldn’t have to fight them here. Pass the popcorn.

.

Maverick Mambo

by digby

McCain positioning himself for ’08 is becoming quite an interesting pas de deux. It appears to me that he’s decided to kiss up the religious right and run against K Street, using his campaign finance reform cred. And he’s prepared to do battle with Grover Norquist to that end.

I suppose the first question that comes to my mind is whether this is all some sort of kabuki. Norquist is a movement darling and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to pick on him personally. And, make no mistake, they are picking on him personally. McCain’s campaign manager, John Weaver said:

“The one thing I admire about Grover is how hard he works to make himself relevant. But he’s not relevant. He never has been and never will be. He should go pick on some fourth-graders.”

On the other hand, Grover is tainted by his long association with Abramoff and Reed and the big money boys may have decided that he’s outlived his usefulness. There are a lot of strings yet to be pulled in the Washington corruption scandals and Norquist is one of the architects of the K Street Project and may end up being the Zelig of the corruption scandals. In fact, McCain’s staffers not so subtly indicate that there may be more to come:

“It’s simply ‘How did this scheme unfold?’” McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, said of the report. “We didn’t invent this stuff. Grover’s got a hell of a lot more to rebut than what may or may not have been in the committee report.”

I’m not sure how well this really shores up McCain’s maverick reputation, however, if that is how he’s going to play it. The only people who know who Grover Norquist is are Republican players, insiders and political junkies. Maybe he can make hay out of it and redeem his maverick reputation, but from the public’s point of view it’s the ring kissing of Jerry Falwell that has the resonance. The ads with McCain’s disdainful words about Falwell and Robertson in the 2000 primary practically make themselves.

It’s interesting to watch this play out. McCain is the best positioned to run against the culture of corruption as a Republican. He’s also the guy who stands the best chance to disassociate himself from the Bush administration, even though he’s been kissing his ass like crazy for years now. (Beltway McCain lovers find his Bush ass kissing a further sign of his macho-maverickness, because we all know he doesn’t really mean it. Love is blind.)

Everyone believes that McCain will have trouble with the GOP base but I really doubt it. The old saying is true: Republicans fall into line, Democrats fall in love. The religious right will do as its told. They always have and they always will. At the end of the day I think McCain wins the nomination and the wingnut Christians support him.

If I were a Democratic strategist, I’d be looking toward the general election and plotting the destruction of his reputation as a man of integrity right now. Just as Ned Lamont is portraying Lieberman as a man who has tried to have it both ways for years, I think the way to go after these self-styled (self-serving) rebels is to call them on their vaunted integrity. They don’t care about anyone but themselves — they want to have it both ways — they have no loyalty and care nothing for the common good. If McCain becomes the GOP nominee, and I think there is an excellent chance he will, get your mirrors out to take to campaign events. McCain likes to look right in the eye of the constituent who matters most — himself.

.

When The Playing Field Is Skewed To The Right: Part Two

by tristero

The comments to my post on Goldberg’s cynical partisan query were mucho thought-provoking. Just a few clarifying thoughts:

1. Goldberg’s formulation – which is becoming a right wing blather point and makes it worthwhile to examine – conflates two entirely unrelated ideas. It’s a false dichotomy – either the US must torture or we are not serious about keeping ourselves safe. It’s also a bait and switch. Liberals will immediately seize upon the mention of Geneva as an invitation to affirm their committment to human rights. At which point the right easily trumps that because that’s not the topic theyv’e chosen – repeat, they’ve chosen – to discuss. The real subject under discussion is keeping the country safe: Human rights conventions do not require a country committing suicide if that’s what it takes to uphold them.

My point is that there is no reason to fall for this bait and switch. These are two separate issues, for one thing. Nothing helpful is learned by trying to discuss both together. I’m sure someone can tweeze a small association between any two topics, but there’s no serious insight to be gained unless there is a genuinely significant one. And once again, there simply is no positive association between government torture and the safety of the citizens of that government. On the contrary, torture seems to make many country’s citizens less safe, especially from abuses by their own government.

2. As an American citizen, I naturally, and strongly, believe this government has a solemn obligation to protect me, my family, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens. That is a self-evident responsibility.* It is vital that serious thought, not Bush-league bloviations, be given to the importance of protecting this country’s citizens abroad. This is a very important topic (and I don’t need people the caliber of Jonah Goldberg to tell me so). More “humint” inside the rightwing militia movement, inside North Korea, inside the Middle East – those are serious important discussions to elaborate on.

3. I am utterly opposed to the use of torture under any and all circumstances. I support the Geneva conventions and believe that all American politicians should proudly say so. The hypotheticals such as the ticking bomb scenario are just tv show plots, and cheap ones. The real world doesn’t act that like that. The mindset that assigns serious importance to such hypotheticals is all of a piece with the kind of mentality that thinks, “Hmmm, invading Iraq just might lead to flowers, cakewalks, and democracy.” Back here on planet Normal, we know better.

But Jonah’s question did not address Geneva and to respond to that deliberately placed distraction is to make a spectacular rhetorical error. It was a question about government’s responsiblity to protect American citizens. The mention of Geneva was a red herring. Of all the sub-topics subsumed under the topic of keeping Americans safe, re-examining human rights as a way to us safer is among the least direct and least helpful. A competent computer database at FBI and CIA and a thorough re-examination of American policy priorities are serious concerns. Permitting the use of torture is not; it will make no one safer and will almost certainly lead to more Daniel Pearls.

That Goldberg would conflate the two concerns is prima facie evidence of his intellectual incompetence. That he would pose a discussion about security in such a fashion demonstrates that he understands nothing about the seriousness of the issues involved, or has any insight in how to grapple with them.

4. It’s true, I am often not terribly good at speaking TeeVee – ie, short bites. Anyone care to make these points in a succinct fashion?

5. In re: Lakoff. I’m not a Lakoffian for many, many reasons. But that doesn’t mean I discount rhetoric. On the contrary, it is crucially important that Dems and liberals get their act together. They need to understand what people like Goldberg, et al, are actually saying – as well as why they are saying it and whom – if they are going to be effective in devising a strategy to fight them. I know, I know, they’re saying nothing. But the way they are saying nothing – that plus some creative ballot counting has helped lead this country into an early form of American fascism. It behooves us to listen very, very carefully and never unwittingly accept their framing of any issue. Never.

6. The Hero who dunnt speak much but speaks the truth, as opposed to the slick-talkin’ hair-splitters is an ancient Western myth, going back at least to Moses and Aaron. But it is a myth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: Lincoln and Paine. Don’t kid yourselves. They knew the rhetoric of the English language as thoroughly as my daughter knows all the diifferent Pokemon. ‘Tis a gift to be simple, it’s true. But most of us ain’t LIncoln. So if you don’t work hard at being simple, you’ll more likely end up a fool. Or, at the very least, talk like one.

——–
*The present government has done a spectacularly bad job of making us safe. My city suffered a horrible attack. Many of my friends had co-workers and neighbors who died a horrible death. In part because Bush in the nine months prior to 9/11 had shifted focus from al Qaeda to his obession with Saddam. And I needn’t mention Katrina or Bush’s dismissal of global warming. Or Iraq.

When The Playing Field Is Skewed To The Right.

by tristero.

Folks, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a zillion times. Never argue on the right’s playing field. Ever. It’s a setup and you will lose. That’s ’cause the questions as they pose them are defined so narrowly and foolishly, they preclude anything resembling what a liberal means by rational discourse. In the post linked above, Jonah Goldberg emits:

If Democrats want terrorists to fall under the Geneva Convention let them say so. My guess is most won’t, if they’re smart.

And Kevin falls for it:

Well, I’m a Democrat, and I’ll say it: anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions. That includes terrorists.

Wrong, wrong wrong!

Like, “So, would you rather Saddam stay in power?” this is a framing of the issue that provides for not even the hint of an intellectually coherent response, let alone a “dialogue.” It is designed to elicit the narrowest range of acceptable responses, responses that reduce disagreement with Bushism to a quibble.

And if, without thinking, you take the bait and respond as Kevin has, you’re instantly battling uphill:

– – – – – – –

What is all this preposterous liberal hand-wringing about rights for terrorists? They’re beheading our soldiers! They are evil! And there you are, worried sick about their rights. And look, the world thinks we’re barbarians anyway, anti-Americanism predates anti-Bushism, duh. And let’s not forget the big picture here: The important issue is not to demonstrate we’re not barbarians but to defeat the terrorists before they kill us. The rest is detail.

– – – – – – –

So, should you ignore Goldberg? Compared to falling through the rabbit hole into Wingnutland, that would be a very wise idea. But you don’t have to ignore OR play along with Goldberg’s bizarro rhetorical gotcha. Here’s how I think liberals could respond to the latest rightwing version of “how long have you been beating your wife:”

– – – – – –

Jonah Goldberg is indulging in political games when he knows full well that the lives of millions of Americans working abroad, including soldiers who are fighting a war he supports but refuses to fight, are being endangered by the arrogant refusal of the Bush administration to set an example of principled action in the world. By embracing an official policy that embraces torture and murder, Bush (and enablers like Goldberg) are ensuring that what happened to Daniel Pearl will happen to more and more Americans. But the effect of this egregious flouting of bedrock principles going back thousands of years will transcend even the numerous terrible personal tragedies that are sure to come. As it becomes more dangerous for Americans to travel, trade will suffer and the security of our country will suffer precipitous declines.

Instead helping to create an atmosphere for genuine inquiry and dialogue, with recourse to facts and intelligent give and take, all Goldberg offers is one more opportunity to toss around the same old vacuous smears the right has been peddling for 30 plus years against the rest of America’s politicians, including those who are quite willing to fight wars Goldberg and company don’t have the guts to fight themselves. If Goldberg were prepared to discuss these very serious issues with any seriousness, he never would have proposed doing with such constricted, partisan language. And until he is prepared to be serious, I see no reason to enter his farcical rhetorical world.

– – – – – – – –

Is what I’m suggesting here clear qua style of approach?

I’m suggesting a majorly aggressive effort to ensure the issues are discussed properly – on mutual terms, or our terms, but never solely theirs. By contrast, Kevin, without apparently realizing it, addressed with due seriousness a ludicrously false dichotomy stemming from a worthless – no, a totally non-existent correlation. By doing so, the true issues were obscured, hopelessly obscured. And why? For one purpose only: Partisan gain on the part of Republican operatives, to get Kevin to admit he “cares more about the human rights of killers than keeping America safe.” And Goldberg’s not alone; Dems being nice-nice to terrorist is is the rightwing meme du jour. Even on the surface, it’s really a pretty pathetic one, nevertheless it’s important to understand what their rhetorical strategy is hiding. A few observations:

Goldberg’s framed the issue so that “permitting” so-called terrorists to “fall under the Geneva Conventions” becomes an either/or dichotomy, conflicting with America’s desire to do what it takes to be safe. Does the US government have any responsiblity to place human rights above the safety of the country? THAT is the question Goldberg is posing.

And that question is not in any real sense a useful question in the world of real people, as opposed to television action shows. First of all, there simply is no positive correlation – there is not even a logical association – between an increase in human rights violations and an increase in genuine national security. Yet that is what Goldberg is inviting us to discuss as if it were a serious topic.

At the very least, we’re arguing at the level of 12 grade high school moral dilemmas. At the worst, we are majorly wasting time. That’s because this completely false correlation makes it next to impossible to discuss in a rational way the important matter at the center of it all: What will it take, both in the long and the short-run, to protect American citizens and interests abroad and at home?

When it’s put that way, all sorts of important sub-topics are raised which Goldberg’s formulation dangerously sweeps aside as the subject veers off to Geneva, Gitmo, and gulags in Georgia. How do we increase the number of native Arabic speakers in CIA and FBI? How can the US muster the moral will to undertake a long-overdue and comprehensive examination of the efficacy both of military force against radical Islamist terrorism and of numerous long-held assumptions of American foreign policy?

That’s just a few, of course. As for the Geneva Convention in the 21st century, that, too is a vitally important issue. But it is a completely separate one. And the only way to discuss Geneva is by addressing it as carefully as one addresses all the other issues one confronts and not by frivolous linkages.

Only an incompetent, willfully dishonest fool would characterize the world as some kind of hydryaulic system where the more you torture, the safer you are. But that is the worldview that Goldberg’s eagerly proposes that Democrats respond to. There is no purchase to be had by a response on Goldberg’s terms as they are skewed and unserious.

Repeat: It’s a real mistake to give Goldberg the status of one who ought to be engaged. That’s how Perle and Wolfowitz sold the idiocy of preventive invasion and conquest of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and was no more involved in terrorism against Americans than Canada was. Let’s not again make the mistake of giving foolishness a status it simply doesn’t deserve.

Fourth Of July Firecracker

by digby

I’ve been trying to think of an inspirational Fourth of July post and I’m coming up blank. I have written on previous holidays that it’s always been my favorite — partially because I like summer and it’s a holiday with its own music and fireworks and peach pie. And in my experience it was always pretty uncontroversially happy. I don’t feel that way this year, for many reasons, not the least of which is the weighty knowledge that my fellow Americans are still dying and being grievously wounded in Iraq — and nobody can adequately explain to anyone why they or many thousands of Iraqis had to make that sacrifice.

I spent some time recently in the naval hospital in San Diego. It’s not easy. What used to be a hospital full of old men, veterans of wars long past, is now a hospital full of young men and women, horribly wounded. Most of them will tell you that they gladly made the sacrifice and you cannot blame them. It is a terrible psychological burden to believe that your country would ask you to do such a thing without good reason.

I find it a little more difficult to understand why politicians are so stubbornly cavalier about it. Not all, of course. You have that tough old ex-marine John Murtha, who looks at the sacrifice and it makes him sick with regret. And there are others, but too few, who can see that the red haze of post 9/11 fear and bloodlust (if not their own craven political ambitions) led them astray. But most are like president Bush. They simply cannot admit they made a mistake. (When did our leadership become so weak?)

Perhaps you have already seen this video of still shots wounded soldiers of the Iraq war. It’s painful to watch, but maybe this July we need a little pain with our pie to remind us of the stakes in all this. Maybe Joe Lieberman could take a look at it and finally explain to us in simple straightforward terms why these men and women have had to pay the awful price they’ve had to pay.

“I am the living death, a Memorial Day on wheels. I am your Yankee Doodle Dandy, your John Wayne come home, your Fourth of July firecracker exploding in the grave.” – Ron Kovic

.

Who Your Friends Are

by digby

I have not been able to post much about this latest rightwing fatwah against the news media, but I can’t help but wonder how those who have been so agitated by the angry leftist blog readers who write nasty emails calling for reporters to be fired for incompetence feel now that they are being subject to public accusations of treason and calls for their executions? I don’t think that even in the depths of the Judith Miller WMD scandal that anyone on the left suggested that the press were literally traitors to America — we directed our fire at the White House that consciously lied to the media and strong-armed it into supporting the Iraq war despite obvious holes in its arguments. At worst, I believe that most lefties saw the press as being passive purveyors of government propaganda — not exactly a profile in courage, but hardly the stuff of treason.

Neither do I recall such hysteria in all the years the media pummeled the Clintons mercilessly with the vilest innuendo and gossip. It never occurred to me, or anyone else I can think of, to suggest that the press should be held criminally liable. Even the Plame affair, which was also a national security issue, did not engender a wholesale attack on the freedom of the press. The criticism generally was focused on the cozy relationship between extremely powerful government actors and certain reporters. I don’t recall any calls to try the Chicago Sun-Times for treason because they allowed Robert Novak to print Valerie Plame’s name. (There may have been some on blogs or among some blog commenters — but certainly there was no calls among nationally known liberal voices for such a thing.)

Atrios linked to this great Tom Tomorrow strip that perfectly illustrates my confusion about the media’s ongoing passivity toward these rightwing attacks even as they screech madly about the emerging “angry left.” Just last week there was a huge hue and cry among the New Republic crew about “blogofascism” —- directed at leftwing bloggers who angrily criticize media coverage and correspond with one another on an email list. Meanwhile, you had rightwing bloggers, talk show hosts, mainstream pundits and powerful elected leaders in coordinated fashion openly calling for the editors of major newspapers to be tried for treason — and in some cases calling for their execution.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of the mainstreaming of rightwing eliminationist rhetoric. And yet, oddly, we see lefty bloggers being called fascists and used as the poster boys and girls for rhetorical violence by mainstream media — not because we are calling the press treasonous, but because we are criticizing their professionalism. How can this be?

It seems like only yesterday that the right was having a full on bill-of-rights moment when those Danish cartoons were published. No matter how many riots they might incite or how many people died because of them, the right of the press to publish was inviolable. As Michelle Malkin, staunch defender of the First Amendment so pithily put it:

First, they came for the cartoonists. Then, they came for the filmmakers and talk show hosts and namers of evil. Next, who knows?

Next, the New York Times, obviously.

As a civil libertarian and free speech absolutist, I was sympathetic to the argument that the press had every right to publish those cartoons, although I wondered why printing them was considered important for any reason other than the principle which allowed the media to do it. Unlike the recent stories revealing that the US government has been operating secret programs that fail to comply with the constitution and which represent an unprecedented executive power grab, the cartoons seemed a rather peurile test of freedom of the press. But even if I believed that it was terribly irresponsible and wrong on every level, I would never argue that because the cartoons inflamed the Muslim population that those who printed them should be tried for treason, despite the fact that a decent argument can be made that such inflammatory provocation was far more detrimental to our side in the alleged War On Terror than the recent revelations that the American government was doing illegally what everyone already assumed it was doing legally.

Freedom of the press is freedom of the press and with the exception of certain narrow categories, it is not illegal to publish classified information. The reason is that history shows that prior constraint leads to tyranny. Period.

When the framers were hashing out all this stuff during the conventions, it’s important to note that the arguments that existed about the necessity for a free press centered around whether the constitution needed to explicitly provide for it (which it eventually did) or whether it was so self-evident that the government had no power to regulate it, that it shouldn’t even be addressed. Nobody ever argued that the government could constrain the press’s right to publish (although President John Adams certainly gave it a good old fashioned try not long after.) In fact, it was considered the single most important check on the awesome power of government — which is why civil libertarians like me have been so critical of the press’s behavior in recent years.

It is worth remembering that this nation’s security was a lot more fragile in those early days than it is now. How much braver the defenders of liberty were then when these principles were so important and so meaningful that they were actually willing to die rather than allow themselves to live under tyranny. Today, those who style themselves as uber-patriots cavalierly throw these principles aside in favor of cheap, short term partisan politics.

Considering what has been happening I think it might be important for the media to evaluate who their friends really are — the liberal “blogofascists” who complain bitterly when the press reflexively accepts the conservative narratives that portray us as knaves ands fools, or the well financed rightwing operatives and powerful government officials who call for their imprisonment and deaths? It pays to remember that while this assault on the press is clearly a ginned up base rattling psuedo-issue, it is deadly serious in other ways. It’s designed to intimidate and the political press has a very dicey recent history in that regard. Aren’t they getting tired of being strong-armed?

If they behave as they did this week-end when dealing with that hypocritical blowhard William Bennet, then they will have a supporter in me, and I suspect most of the left, no matter who is running the government. We supported Daniel Elsberg, after all, when the Pentagon Papers indicted the Democrats. I have never seen a similar example on the right. We actually believe in the liberal values that undergird the press’s rights and responsibilities. If anyone is slouching toward fascism it’s those who betray those liberal values in favor of Republican authoritarianism.

.