HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

When Glenn Greewald is on, he is really, REALLY on.

Today's effort is an extended discussion of the competing goals of securing liberty and establishing security, and it is an absolute must read.

For Bush and his supporters, protecting the nation from terrorism is quite literally the only thing that matters. In the face of our current threat, Bush believes concerns over civili liberties aren't just misguided, they are dangerous. Here's Bush's explanation at the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

Over the past few months the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Every member of Congress who voted for this bill has helped our nation rise to the task that history has given us.

Greenwald provides an absolutely spot on response:

That is the essence of virtually every argument made by Bush supporters on virtually every terrorism-related issue. No matter what objection is raised to the never-ending expansions of government power, no matter what competing values are touted (due process, the rule of law, the principles our country embodies, how we are perceived around the world), the response will always be that The Terrorists are waging War against us and we must protect ourselves. That is the only recognized value, the only objective that matters. By definition, there can never be any good reason to oppose vesting powers in the government to protect us from The Terrorists because that goal outweighs all others.

This form of thinking is also what explains the fact that anyone who opposes their policies is seen by them as allies of The Terrorists (rather than advocates of competing values). As the President said, the only real question will be: did "Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?" Given that this is the sole objective that is recognized, this means that every person can essentially be categorized as either (a) someone who does take the threat seriously and wants to do what is necessary to defeat it, or (b) someone who does not.

But our entire system of government, from its inception, has been based upon the precise opposite calculus -- that many things matter besides merely protecting ourselves against threats which might kill us, and beyond that, we are willing to accept an increased risk of death in order to pursue those other values. That worldview -- that maximizing physical safety to the exclusion of all else leads to a poor and empty way of life, and that limiting government power is so necessary that we do it even if it means accepting an increased risk of death when doing so -- is what lies at the very core of what America is.

The Bill of Rights contains all sorts of limitations on government power which make us more vulnerable to threats that can kill us. If there is a serial killer on the loose in a community, the police would be able to find and apprehend him much more easily if they could simply invade and search everyone's homes at will and without warning. But the Fourth Amendment expressly prohibits the police from doing that -- it requires both probable cause and a judicial warrant before they can do so -- even though that restriction makes it more likely that we will be victimized, even fatally, by criminals.

Or, as he says a few paragraphs later:

Our country is centrally based upon the principle that we are willing to risk death in order to limit government power.

This is a conversation as old as the republic itself. What's striking, however, is that it is a conversation we've yet to have in the aftermath of 9/11. Liberty and security aren't precisely opposite ends of the same continuum, but at the extremes they are undoubtedly mutually exclusive. You simply cannot have perfect security while preserving liberty, nor can you guarantee liberty without sacrificing some security. There is fundamentally an inverse relationship between the two.

As Greenwald points out, a common theme among conservatives in recent years has been the need to establish something resembling "perfect security." On a number of different levels, I find it deeply ironic that a movement predicated on distrust of government and distrust of human action would aim itself towards such a goal. Conservatives are supposed to abhor government authority, not work to establish it. They are supposed to stand against increasing the power of the state, because they believe both those in power today and those yet to come will inevitably abuse whatever authority is granted to them. They are supposed to stand against government efforts to rework and redirect society towards a common goal, because they believe such efforts injure both the individual and the society as a whole. And yet...

Finally, be sure to pay particular attention to Greenwald's short analysis of Joseph Ellis' interpretation of the history of US overreaction to foreign threats. Overreaction, rather that complacency, is the most serious dangerous to our both our system of government and our way of life. We have been down this road before, and in every instance, history has judged our actions poorly.

I've often heard Bush supporters - even those here at BU - say that although Bush may get some of the little things wrong, on the big things he has always been right. There is no issue bigger than this. Unless you are willing to argue that both the Founders and the the premise on which they based this nation have been wrong, you cannot argue that on this issue the current administration has been right.

On this issue, I'll stand with Benjamin Franklin until the end:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.