The foiling, so far, of what appears to have been a serious threat to blow up a bunch of U.S. airplanes suggests that the debate over Iraq (or, if you prefer, our presence in Iraq) has distracted us from the fundamental divide in American politics today. I believe that fundamental divide is the tension between national security and civil liberties. From this point of view, Iraq is important, and revealing of attitudes about what I see as the more fundamental issue, but it is not the whole ball of wax.
Assume with me for a moment the following hypothetical: assume all candidates for national office from both parties are seriously determined to defend us against terrorism and attack terrorists wherever they can be found, and also assume that all candidates are also determined to protect our civil liberties in the process. (I know that’s a stretch, but I did say this is a hypothetical.)
But all candidates are not equally committed to both propositions (despite the virtually universal candidate claims to the contrary). For some, the highest priority is fighting terrorism; for others, protecting civil liberties. And for better or worse (I tend to think for worse), the Bell Curves of the two parties do not coincide. Indeed, their distribution looks more like a barbell, with the Republicans clustered at the fighting terrorism end and the Democrats (now minus Lieberman) clustered at the protecting civil liberties end.
Although insofar as this is true (and insofar as voters recognize that it is true) this will help Republicans in national elections (and local elections that are nationalized), I believe it is unfortunate for the country that this very real and difficult tension has become simply another arena for intense partisanship.
what democrats can’t face is that civil liberties like all in life are conditional and not absolute. civil liberties are dependent on civility. we have to trust that our fellow citizens no matter how unhappy will not blow up things. terrorism destroys civil liberties by destroying the contract that undergirds the liberties. liberals believe that civil liberties are bestowed on people like gifts. the truth is they issue from the bottom up. somehow the cultures arrives at a consensus that people will act in some ways and not in other ways. if enough people are terrorists or even criminals, civil liberties can’t exist. the other liberal mistake is that for people to come to the consensus, all must be happy and rich. but if civil liberties depended on perfection, democracy and civil rights could never exist. the agreement is that I will not do certain things for any reason, not I will not do them because I have what i want. that is the harsh reality.
“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”
–Thomas Jefferson
For once, John, I think that I have to disagree with you.
The war that we face is so serious and poses such dire consequences that I think that we need a strong internal opposition. I’m not sure that the Democrats are doing a good job of that. Especially in the hard leftist Democratic party, the Vietnam syndrome continues to prevent the Democrats from developing any kind of coherent opposition to the war. And the knee jerk hatred of President Bush often reduces the Dems to blithering idiocy.
Here’s where I disagree. I think that partisan politics is what we need. We are facing a struggle that could easily result in a nuclear exchange. With the potential for death on such a massive level, I say let the partisan squabbling begin. We need to vent every possible alternative.
I often wonder what sort of opposition the Democrats could offer that would be serious and useful. The anti-Americanism of the left is certainly not helpful. The race hustling and identity politics do not constitute serious and useful opposition either. All the “isms” that are really derivatives of Marxism are laughable.
The fall of the Soviet Union demolished the cherished ideals of the left, but the left will not admit that its Utopian idealism went down in flames. Until it does, we will have no serious opposition party.