Parting Shots

This article marks the end of my year as MSJ Opinions Editor. I've enjoyed the experience - hearing from many of you, discussing issues larger than UMBS, irritating legions of you, etc. I've spent the last year soliciting the opinions of the UMBS student body. Now, it's my turn. My big book of grievances focuses on the little deceptions, the sacred cows, and the general foolishness that underlies American political life. Feel free to email me with complaints at pdb@umich.edu.

Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror

Remember when GW Bush told us all that America's respect for civil liberties would not be cowed by terrorists? Apparently, John Ashcroft and much of Congress missed that memo. John Ashcroft asks that all of us accept that we're in a war right now, and that means we have to make some compromises. Fair enough. Except that many of the compromises he's asking us to make won't end when the "War against Terror" ends (if ever). The nauseatingly-titled anti-terrorism bill passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is hardly a patriotic act. Seems like a classic example of doublethink. Emergency or not, have we ever been asked to sacrifice our constitutional rights to this extent before? It's almost as if John Ashcroft has created an FBI lock box for our rights as citizens. Think I'm kidding? I'd rant on, but Nat Hentoff has done the job for me in the Village Voice - check out his article at http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0146/hentoff.php, (trust me, it's worth your time). I've excerpted some of his piece here:

"Congress has overwhelmingly passed, and the president has enthusiastically signed, an anti-terrorism bill that, as the ACLU says, gives "enormous, unwarranted power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review." Moreover, "most of the new powers could be used against American citizens in counterterrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations completely unrelated to terrorism." (Emphasis added.) Also likely to be subject to this law: "those whose First Amendment activities are deemed to be threats to national security by the attorney general."

Think only terrorists have something to worry about? Think again. It was Ben Franklin who said, "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

The new national anthem?

Call me crazy, but I really don't like the fact that God Bless America seems to be supplanting The Star Spangled Banner as America's national anthem. As someone who worships no god, I can't help but feel a wee bit excluded. Separation of church and state, anyone? The last time the church made such inroads into American governance was during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, when "In God We Trust" was added to our coins, as we went to (cold) war against godless communists.

It seems to me the last thing we want to do is paint the current conflict as a religious war. Even if the "God" in "God Bless America" isn't specifically a Christian god, there's little doubt amongst many of the world's Muslims that it is, and we don't need to revisit the Crusades. America's strength is its secular roots, and it's a mistake to religify [sic] our government. We don't think much of the Taliban's religious nation, let's not make our own. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

"American democracy"

We've heard a lot about threats to "American democracy" over the last year, from the 2000 election debacle (threats from within) and the 9/11 attacks (threats from abroad). This leaves me very confused.

America is not a "democracy" - it's a constitutional republic. And for very good reasons. Pure "democracy" works like this: if there are three of us, you and I can vote to enslave that other guy and take all his stuff. It's democratic, after all, therefore it must be right, just, equitable, etc. It is, quite literally, "might makes right" in the aggregate - governance by brute force of numbers, not by the rule of law. Freedom and equality are the first casualties of such a system. Pure "democracy" - the tyranny of the majority - is as fundamentally antithetical to liberty and human freedom, particularly that of minorities, as is communism or socialism. Remember the dictatorship of the proletariat? Neither do most of its victims.

Those dead white guys who led the revolt against the British recognized that citizens, like kings, queens and emperors, could be tyrannical, intolerant, and bloodthirsty. Those of you who have seen Gladiator know what I'm talking about when I say bloodthirsty. The mob is no more just than the monarch. Over the past 150 years, many Americans (perhaps even a majority), have supported such friendly policies as slavery and segregation, mass discrimination against German-Americans during WW I, and internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II.

The Founders created checks and balances on so-called democracy for good reasons. These checks and balances make it more difficult to aggregate and abuse power. One main obstacle to abuse of power by the President (more like emperor, judging from the actions of GW Bush) and the mob (or their duly designated representatives, whom we call, collectively, Congress) is the judicial branch.

The judicial branch in general, and the US Supreme Court in particular, mistake-prone though it may be, occasionally do the right thing. By design, it is a counter-majoritarian institution, designed to protect minorities and preserve the rule of law, deliberately not subject to the whims of the masses, the polls, or the pols. Its job is to decide legal controversies on the basis of the law of the land (the Constitution - I'm sure you've heard of it). It's a key part of a society built upon the rule of law, and, every once in a while, teaches the rest of us that something is wrong - that might does not make right.