February 14, 2012
When people typically complain about the lack of bipartisanship in
American politics, their outrage is grossly misplaced. While it is
certainly true that our political discourse is home to contentious
debates, this, in itself, is not the major problem. Rather, it is a
distraction from the most potent toxin in American politics, which is
our widespread bipartisan disregard for the preservation of civil
liberties. When it comes to this issue, the distinction between
Democrats and Republicans blurs to the point of non-existence. While
right-wing politicians have a well-established history of ignoring civil
liberties, Democrats have recently become much worse. The well-deserved
condemnation that the Bush administration received from Democrats
regarding civil-liberties violations has proven to be simply flowery
political rhetoric based on their recent actions. The left’s outrage at
Bush’s policies coupled with their acceptance of Obama’s reveals
undeniable hypocrisy.
For the confused Democrat, let us revisit the outrage present during the
Bush years. During his era, Guantanamo was the primary symbol of
right-wing radicalism. Most left-wing Democrats saw it as not only
counterproductive, but also as a step away from democracy and towards
dictatorial governance. Democrats righteously, and correctly, pointed
out that it was absurd that the Bush/Cheney duo could imprison
individuals who were accused of being a terrorist without a trial. Back
then, Democrats laughed at Bush defenders who argued that dangerous
terrorists had given up all of their rights, even the right to a trial.
Even if you were to subscribe to this cowardly notion that we have to
fight terror with terror, it must still be pointed out that the guilt of
an individual cannot, and should not, be determined by the whims of the
President. The Constitution has made it so that the burden of proving
guilt rests with the courts and America’s legal system.
Despite Obama’s defense of civil liberties while a Presidential
candidate, he has not only retained many of Bush’s policies, but has
also invented new ones. He has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping
or indefinite detentions that the Patriot Act grants. His
administration has given themselves the power to kill citizens, American
or otherwise, without a fair hearing. In fact, this was the case with
drone strikes that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Beyond that,
the Obama administration has approved the use of drone strikes in
military operations, which kill innocent men, women and children by the
hundreds, if not thousands.
A drone strike is the use of remotely piloted planes to drop bombs on
enemy forces or territories. According to British and Pakistani
journalists quoted in the New York Times, these air raids have even
repeatedly targeted rescuers who come to help at the scene of a strike,
as well as mourners at subsequent funerals. The CIA privately insists
that civilian casualties are rare, but even conservative estimates
suggest otherwise.
Noor Behram, a campaigner documenting these strikes, says, "The youth in
the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside
those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans think it is working,
but the damage they’re doing is far greater." As unfortunate as it is to
say, much of Obama’s legacy has boiled down to this: he has transformed
failed and power-hungry right-wing policies into bipartisan consensus.
Under Bush, Democrats and most on the left used to be against these
abuses on both moral and practical grounds. Under their beloved leader
Obama, they are conveniently more receptive to the same civil liberty
abuses and less willing to speak out. A recent Washington Post/ABC News
poll showed that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67
percent of moderate or conservative Democrats support keeping Guantanamo
Bay open. The same poll reports that 77 percent of liberal Democrats
approve of the use of drones, dropping only somewhat when asked about
targeting American citizens. It is virtually impossible to imagine that
liberals and Democrats would embrace such efforts to undermine our
liberties under a Republican president.
The problem stems from the fact that both the right wing and left wing
have become two different factions of the same pseudo-dictatorial cult.
The members of these two factions have no fixed political beliefs, but
are rather bound by their unconditional loyalty to their leader. In
effect, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been drained of
their political values. They serve not as an indicator of loyalty to
ideas, but rather to individuals. During the Bush era, conservatism was
analogous to loyalty to the man himself, despite any careful analysis as
to whether the administration’s views were truly conservative in
nature. Similarly, Obama has capitalized on this blind loyalty and
hypocrisy in order to pass legislation that would be appalling to much
of the idealistic political left.
One could even argue that the point of having a Democratic president is
invalidated by these statistics. When a Republican president slashes our
civil liberties, those of us on the left vehemently oppose it. When a
Democrat uses and expands such policies, a much smaller percentage of
liberals and Democrats voice their dissenting opinion. Of course,
virtually no non-libertarian Republicans, despite their rhetoric,
challenge Obama on this issue because this is one area where they both
agree. A complete bipartisanship support in Washington usually signals a
systematic destruction of our civil liberties or some other policy that
expands their power-grabbing tendencies and confines our sphere of
freedom.
Obama and the Democrats have done the Republicans a great favor. In the
past, these policies were seen as fringe products of right-wing
politics. Nowadays, since both Democrats and Republicans have adopted
them, the framing of the issue has drastically changed. The radical has
become the mainstream, and those of us who have remained consistent
throughout this devolving transition are now ironically labeled as
radical. It is about time that people abandon blind party affiliations
and adopt critical thinking. Vehemently opposing policy X under Bush,
while tolerating or supporting the same policy X under Obama flies in
the face of rational thinking.
By utilizing and expanding on Bush’s policies, Obama has given them a
sense of universal legitimacy that would otherwise not exist, and this
is something that no right-wing president could ever have dreamed of
achieving.
Assistant Editorials Editor Shahdabul Faraz is a College sophomore from Toronto, Canada.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment