Liberals continue to abandon the Constitution on behalf of Obama

posted at 4:36 pm on August 1, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Since the end of the Bush Administration, mainstream liberal opposition to expansions of Executive power has almost completely disappeared. It didn’t take long, either; as noted by Ed in February 2010, only 97 House Democrats opposed renewal of the Patriot Act. And as Adam Serwer pointed in Mother Jones back in May:

Liberals have been largely content to use Obama’s body count to defend his foreign policy record without confronting the moral implications of our vastly expanded covert battle against Al Qaeda and its affiliates…That’s a tragic abdication of responsibility that will have profound implications for national security in the future.

Serwer is correct, though admittedly both Democrats and Republicans have been hypocrites when it comes to changing political viewpoints – many Republicans in Washington were fine with deficits and the individual mandate until 2009, after all. However, this version of political partisanship is getting ridiculous, as two recent examples show.

First, just yesterday Serwer reported that some in Congress are beginning to remember the institution is a co-equal branch of the federal government. Serwer cites two measures making their way through Congress, and a little digging through the links he provides shows that while one Democratic Senator, Pat Leahy, joined with Republican Senators Grassley and Cornyn to put pressure on the President, all other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were satisfied to continue allowing Obama near-absolute freedom to kill American citizens.

The other was brought to my attention by my good friend Nick R. Brown. Nick has put together a video, seen below, outlining how a number of Bush-era Executive Orders on Iraq have recently been extended by President Obama. From Nick’s post:

If liberals are truly the party of peace, the party that stems from the generation of the ’60′s era mantra, “Question Authority,” and the party that protested in mass against the Bush-era wars, then why are we still not seeing the same outcry in regards to Obama’s continuation of Iraqi and Afghani policy and his new CIA led “secret” war in Pakistan using drones?

Again, hypocrisy is always a problem in Washington, but by and large the nation’s non-conservative media has decided to ignore this particular hypocrisy. One liberal has kept the pressure up on Obama, however, and was kind enough to e-mail a quote for this post. From Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (emphasis not added):

Many partisans seem to believe that Constitutional constraints are necessary only when a bad person — meaning someone from the other party — is in power.

Conservatives spent the Clinton years protesting secret wiretapping courts and government encryption powers, only to turn under during the Bush years and cheer for the implementation of every radical expansion of executive power and surveillance programs.

Meanwhile, liberals who spent the Bush years screeching about the evils of eavesdropping and detention without judicial review or transparency are now perfectly fine with Obama’s seizure of the far more extreme power of assassinating people without judicial review.

Everyone can learn from the admonition of Thomas Jefferson (“In questions of power…let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”) and John Adams (“”There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty“).

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Chrissy says that like “freedom” is a bad thing.

GWB on April 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

That just reminded me, I saw a bumper sticker or t-shirt in Manitou Springs last weekend that said “You call me witch like it’s a bad thing”. Pretty typical stuff for that area.

dentarthurdent on April 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Well… most the original neo-conservatives were disillusioned Trotskyites, so Mathews has that correct. However, they are those who rejected Trotsky Communism, and became adamant anti-communists.

Sackett on April 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Chrissy,

it does not matter if YOU are well read or not, (my bet is on ‘not), nobody is going to donate money to build a Chris Matthews library.

Sir Napsalot on April 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Yes, Irving Kristol, who is considered sort of the father of neoconservatism was, as a young man in the 20s and 30s, a Trotskyite communist. That was because he believed it was the only answer to the fascist threat that was threatening the west. Norman Podhoretz, another influential neoconservative, had a similar experience.

But they broke with communism, Trotsky-version (they were always anti-Stalinist) in the 1940s and 50s, and became anti-communist and pro-American/pro-Western advocates.

But what does this have to do with the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration? None were Trotskyites as young men and none were Straussians. Irving Kristol had a friendship with Strauss but what does that have to do with the Bush Administration?

Matthews read an article somewhere – my guess is that it was one written by Hitchens – and extrapolates from events 80 years ago to today.

It’s sophomoric, historically illiterate, and intellectually simplistic.

But those are Matthews’ best qualities.

SteveMG on April 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2