![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdI've been trying to walk away, but I saw this, and, well, here I am again. Hey, what's one more drink?
One of the few constraints that the chief executive Mr. Bush and his supporters have acknowledged over the last several years - even as they claimed the right to arrest and indefinitely hold citizens without charge or court review, authorised torture, and so on - has been the right of Congress to control the budget, and, as such, spending. Indeed, they have all but dared Congress to cut funding for the Iraq war, something Congress has been too cowardly to pursue.
However, this control of spending is apparently no longer being recognised by the Bush administration, as per this recent signing statement. Specifically, Mr. Bush asserts the ability to spend money not just not authorised, but specifically forbidden by law - specifically, in the building of permanent military installations in Iraq, or exerting control over Iraqi oil resources. Mr. Bush is now claiming the right to spend money without Congressional approval, and in direct violation of Federal law, on his decision alone.
As Glenn Greenwald notes here, the most likely action of Congress will be to say "okay" and either ignore it, or pass some form of retroactive law so they can feel good about themselves. This is what they've done to date, and what they've continued to do in the face of open contempt for even the idea of an informed legislature. (See also those still unenforced subpoenas that the Bush administration ignored, now remaining unenforced courtesy the Democratic leadership.) As these acts continue to go unpunished - or, even, significantly opposed - by the powers that should be opposing them, they become normalised, precedent, and durable. The opportunity to reclaim a presidency under the law, rather than above and immune to it, disappears.
What we're seeing formed here is fundamentally worse than Soviet legal theory, and quite akin to actual, real fascist political theory as practiced. (And remember, by actively discussing Nazi actions and politics favourably, the GOP has ended the right to invoke Godwin's Law - as they have, really, waved the right to appeal to any law whatsoever.) The Soviet system involved a legislature that would delegate power to a smaller legislature that would delegate its power to the cabinet and Premier, who was typically also the General Secretary of the Communist Party. They would take whatever actions they saw fit, and then the legislative bodies could override them as they felt appropriate. This override ability was, theoretically, unlimited. Needless to say, this failed in practice, of course - but even here, the political theory allowed for greater legislative power over the executive than the Bush administration accepts.
Fascist political theory dismissed the idea of a legislature - but the absolute leader would face re-election upon occasion, or at very least referendum, to insure that he always followed the racial will of the populace. (One might call these "accountability moments.") I'm not that certain we have something all that different right now. And in actual practice, even in Nazi Germany, there was still a parliament - advisory, and mostly a propaganda platform, but with theoretical powers to act. Officially, Mr. Hitler was operating under the auspices of this legislature; under the Enabling Act of 1933, the legislature retained the ability to create new law, and could not (again, in theory) be affected by the laws decreed by Mr. Hitler. The Act even included an expiration, and was indeed renewed twice, on schedule, in 1937, and again in 1941. The act could, still in theory, be revoked by the legislature, allowing their resumption of these powers.
Even this is more of a theoretical check than Mr. Bush's administration admits to Congress today.
On the theory side of things, there is genuinely no place left to go. (On the practical side, there is obviously quite a bit further to fall. But this is a discussion of political theory.) In terms of the idea of rights as rights, of checks and balances, of limited and lawful government, of a president constrained by the law, there is no place left to go. There is no Constitution, there is no President, there is no law, and none of us are citizens. Instead, there are show trials, there is a surveillance society, there is a torture regime, there is an executive untouchable by law. There is also some shred of democracy, but with a Congressional incumbency re-election rate running around 95% despite terribly low approval ratings year in and year out, you have to question how much this shred matters. Alternatively, you decide it matters quite a lot - but then you have to accept the idea that most Americans are just fine with things this way, bitching to pollsters left aside, and want a Decider, not a President; they want torture and arbitrary arrest, not 900-plus years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition; they want rule by person and personality, rather than rule by law.
And I just don't see how you back away from here. Not with the cast currently on stage. Honestly, I really don't - which, I suppose, is why I keep trying to walk away.
One of the few constraints that the chief executive Mr. Bush and his supporters have acknowledged over the last several years - even as they claimed the right to arrest and indefinitely hold citizens without charge or court review, authorised torture, and so on - has been the right of Congress to control the budget, and, as such, spending. Indeed, they have all but dared Congress to cut funding for the Iraq war, something Congress has been too cowardly to pursue.
However, this control of spending is apparently no longer being recognised by the Bush administration, as per this recent signing statement. Specifically, Mr. Bush asserts the ability to spend money not just not authorised, but specifically forbidden by law - specifically, in the building of permanent military installations in Iraq, or exerting control over Iraqi oil resources. Mr. Bush is now claiming the right to spend money without Congressional approval, and in direct violation of Federal law, on his decision alone.
As Glenn Greenwald notes here, the most likely action of Congress will be to say "okay" and either ignore it, or pass some form of retroactive law so they can feel good about themselves. This is what they've done to date, and what they've continued to do in the face of open contempt for even the idea of an informed legislature. (See also those still unenforced subpoenas that the Bush administration ignored, now remaining unenforced courtesy the Democratic leadership.) As these acts continue to go unpunished - or, even, significantly opposed - by the powers that should be opposing them, they become normalised, precedent, and durable. The opportunity to reclaim a presidency under the law, rather than above and immune to it, disappears.
What we're seeing formed here is fundamentally worse than Soviet legal theory, and quite akin to actual, real fascist political theory as practiced. (And remember, by actively discussing Nazi actions and politics favourably, the GOP has ended the right to invoke Godwin's Law - as they have, really, waved the right to appeal to any law whatsoever.) The Soviet system involved a legislature that would delegate power to a smaller legislature that would delegate its power to the cabinet and Premier, who was typically also the General Secretary of the Communist Party. They would take whatever actions they saw fit, and then the legislative bodies could override them as they felt appropriate. This override ability was, theoretically, unlimited. Needless to say, this failed in practice, of course - but even here, the political theory allowed for greater legislative power over the executive than the Bush administration accepts.
Fascist political theory dismissed the idea of a legislature - but the absolute leader would face re-election upon occasion, or at very least referendum, to insure that he always followed the racial will of the populace. (One might call these "accountability moments.") I'm not that certain we have something all that different right now. And in actual practice, even in Nazi Germany, there was still a parliament - advisory, and mostly a propaganda platform, but with theoretical powers to act. Officially, Mr. Hitler was operating under the auspices of this legislature; under the Enabling Act of 1933, the legislature retained the ability to create new law, and could not (again, in theory) be affected by the laws decreed by Mr. Hitler. The Act even included an expiration, and was indeed renewed twice, on schedule, in 1937, and again in 1941. The act could, still in theory, be revoked by the legislature, allowing their resumption of these powers.
Even this is more of a theoretical check than Mr. Bush's administration admits to Congress today.
On the theory side of things, there is genuinely no place left to go. (On the practical side, there is obviously quite a bit further to fall. But this is a discussion of political theory.) In terms of the idea of rights as rights, of checks and balances, of limited and lawful government, of a president constrained by the law, there is no place left to go. There is no Constitution, there is no President, there is no law, and none of us are citizens. Instead, there are show trials, there is a surveillance society, there is a torture regime, there is an executive untouchable by law. There is also some shred of democracy, but with a Congressional incumbency re-election rate running around 95% despite terribly low approval ratings year in and year out, you have to question how much this shred matters. Alternatively, you decide it matters quite a lot - but then you have to accept the idea that most Americans are just fine with things this way, bitching to pollsters left aside, and want a Decider, not a President; they want torture and arbitrary arrest, not 900-plus years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition; they want rule by person and personality, rather than rule by law.
And I just don't see how you back away from here. Not with the cast currently on stage. Honestly, I really don't - which, I suppose, is why I keep trying to walk away.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 05:23 pm (UTC)I think the real reason Democrats in Congress aren't putting up more of a fuss is because they have concluded that it is politically impossible to win in the current climate so long as Bush is president--on anything but very popular and bipartisan stands (SCHIP--and even there they lost, and economic stimulus plans, and not much else.) So they're in a holding pattern until the November elections. If Obama or Clinton is the next president, the unitary executive bullshit goes out the window, as does the telecom immunity and the politicization of the Justice Department, and every other arm of the criminal conspiracy that is the Bush White House.
I think they're not entirely wrong to look at things this way, though they're underestimating the value of looking strong in opposition and standing up for things even if those things (like basic Constitutional principles, human rights, and the rule of law) aren't majority electoral issues. And of course these things should be more important than winning the next election; on the other hand, losing the next election means these things are pretty much dead anyway, so maybe they're making the right choice after all.
That's not to say that I think everything will be peaches and cream if Democrats are elected. Certainly, even if FISA with immunity is blocked, the bill is pretty bad even without immunity, and Democrats would pass it and sign it into law even if it was only up to them. The "war on terrorism" will continue to be used to justify bad foreign policy and incursions against our liberties at home, though Obama has made some statements that suggest he'd shift away from that view a bit. I'm not sure military tribunals will be rolled back, or that Bush administration officials will be held accountable for torture and other war crimes. But the scenario you've sketched out above? That's out the window if the Democrats win.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 07:10 pm (UTC)But more importantly:
No assumption of power "goes out the window" on its own. It has to be thrown out the window via repudiation. It may not be invoked by a particular officeholder, but until repudiated, it stays right there, waiting. And as long as powers so clearly and blatantly unconstitutional are not repudiated, there is no Constitution, or law, because Constitution and law unenforced are neither Constitution nor law. They may be convention, custom, or even mere politeness, and those may have social standing - but they are not law. If Senator Obama decides not to use these powers, that doesn't mean they go away.
(And I find the idea idea of post-Bush-administration investigations and prosecutions frankly laughable. They'll "move on" in a "spirit of bipartisanship" after Mr. Bush issues blanket pardons at the end of his term, no matter who wins, and all these lawless powers remain.)
I would find the rest of your argument very slightly more assuaging were the Democrats as a whole merely doing nothing, as opposed to the reality of doing whatever they can to make the problem worse. (And even your argument describes, really, a post-election scenario wherein the Democrats will make things worse more slowly, rather than make things better, so I'm not even sure we're in disagreement.) C.f. today's PAA (FISA amendments) agreement in the Senate, which virtually guarantees that the GOP and Mr. Bush get everything they want from the Senate. Procedurally, the GOP gets silent filibustering while Democratic Senate Majority Leader Reid lies about it, saying they don't, while the only "silent filibustering" blocked is that of the actual rump opposition led by Senator Dodd. They also get retroactive telecom immunity, and the massive expansion of warrantless, unchecked, unsupervised domestic spying by the executive branch.
As you say - correctly - the Democrats would pass the PAA without immunity just as quickly as they're busily passing the PAA with immunity in the Senate. The PAA without immunity is a disastrous expansion of domestic, warrantless spying on the citizenry - even the House version, which at least includes some oversight.
So I think, if only they were merely doing nothing, then perhaps I could look forward to a Democratic takeover. But they're not. They're actively working to quash investigation. They're actively working to grant more unchecked and unconstitutional spying powers. They're actively working to insure that these acts are not repudiated, which is to say, they're actively working to make them assumable again. They're actively blocking attempts to enforce their own powers of subpoena, thus establishing the precedent that they can be ignored without injury.
I can, of course, only assume they want these powers in the Executive, so leaders of their own party can use them as well. This brings me no great joy. But I'm sure they'll promise to use them better than the Bush administration did - which brings me no great joy, either.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 08:35 pm (UTC)But yeah, Democrats would accept the PAA without telecom immunity, just as Bill Clinton pushed for many of the USA PATRIOT powers during his presidency (with Al Gore's assent, I should add, for any pro-Gore people who might be reading this). However, I don't see them pushing for any further expansions beyond what's already on the table, and I take the long view that we have to stop the train before we can turn it around. One big part of stopping the train in the long term is going to be a better judiciary. You'll get that with any Democratic president.
So this is the choice I see:
Democrats:
Bill Clinton's foreign policy (bad, but not insane)
Bill Clinton's civil liberties policy (getting worse slowly, but with enough institutional resistance that the worst-case scenarios are held off)
Good domestic policy on everything but civil liberties, much better than during Bill Clinton, and probably better than at any time since FDR
Judges who will oppose the radical right agenda.
Republicans:
GWB's foreign policy, or worse (insane and getting insaner)
GWB's civil liberties policy, or worse (insane, and neo-fascist)
Domestic policy ranging between that of GHWB (bad but bearable) and GWB (insane)
Judges in the mold of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts (insane, ruining our legal system's checks on executive power)
It's an easy decision.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 06:29 am (UTC)That may be a little ambitious, but you know where they get these ideas from? Vox Day of WorldNetDaily, May 14th, 2006.
Day has since removed the glowing review of Nazi handiwork, apparently out of embarrassment, but there are copies of it all over the 'net. Come to think of it, not only did I blog about it (http://elfs.livejournal.com/468844.html), but you responded. (http://elfs.livejournal.com/468844.html#t2226796)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 02:37 pm (UTC)Cathy
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:17 am (UTC)I do wish they would spend less time giving Bush many of the things he wants, but as Bush has shown, He is Above the Law and I think they are just trying to make sure he hangs the whole Republican Party along with himself.
Unfortunately for us, the Fear Mongers have been busily at work for 12 years or more (yes, they started during the Clinton years. This was a long ramp up to this point). And People do Stoopid Things when they are afraid. Just ask the Germans.
We are repeating History right now. Let's hope more people see what is happening and Change Things.
Me? I give my money to the ACLU who is still fighting the Just War. And I was for Edwards, Will give Obama the chance. If the Fear Mongers don't get to him, he'll make a decent president. Bummer he'll have to deal with the mess Bush is leaving him. I bet he's a 1 term president who no one will appreciate until years later.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:27 am (UTC)Yes, they fucking do. I am so sick of this excuse that I just want to smack anybody who brings it up. The GOP didn't have 2/3rds in either house through 2006; somehow, that didn't stop them.
Many things need a 2/3rds vote and the Dems Don't Have It.
Very few things do. And the Democratic leadership is actively, and I stress actively, working to make things worse, not better. They're actively blocking investigations. They're actively working to stop the few private recourse routes that exist. They're actively working to increase Executive power.
If they were doing nothing, that would be one thing. But they're not. They're making things worse.