Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Observations on the politics of security and privacy in war
Among the thousands of voices who have and will discuss this controversy in the years to come -- and it will undoubtedly take years to sort out in light of the President's stark refusal to alter the policy -- it is worth reading Dick Morris this morning.
Morris considers the politics of the argument, and thinks it's a big, stinky loser for the Democrats.
Politically, the left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists — about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties — will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties. By raising this issue — and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal — the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Iraq is a winner for the left. Homeland security is a loser.
I'm not sure I agree that Iraq will be a "winner" for the Democrats a year from now, but I have been a frustrated optimist on that project for some time and could well be wrong. Morris nails it, though, when he says that NSA "scandal" is a huge loser for the left: if we tap the phone of some guy in Paterson, New Jersey whose number is dialed from a cell phone in Mosul or Karachi or Jakarta or Riyadh, will any American other than the die-hard libertarians and the reflexively anti-Bush object? Indeed, most voters would be appalled if we weren't dropping eaves on that guy. In a world of borderless war, what is the NSA supposed to do with its hundred billion dollar infrastructure if it isn't to intercept these calls?
Of course, one might ask why the administration did not go to Congress in the weeks after September 11 and ask for a change in the law to clarify the legality of all of this. The stakes are high. If this activity turns out to be clearly illegal -- and it may (read Orin Kerr's excellent post on the legal issues, which at the moment looks like the definitive blogospheric rendering of the subject) -- we can expect a bill of impeachment. But as the Republicans learned in the '90s, that does not mean that this issue will be a winner for the opposition.
6 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Dec 20, 09:40:00 AM:
Yeah...
Americans just can't be made to care that their President broke the law he swore to uphold.
You Republicans are swell.
By 
, at
Tue Dec 20, 09:54:00 AM:
You don't need to worry about the Democrats. You need to worry about Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Hagel, George Will, John Sununu, etc etc etc. There are a lot of thoughtful Republicans who aren't going to give W a pass on this one.
- Levi
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Dec 20, 10:06:00 AM:
"40 percent of the nation...." "....will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties"
Where is he getting this 40% figure? I take this as an opinion and a weak one at that. I think most people want an effective homeland security, but want balance and a limit to this invasion of our privacy. Once again this administration is using fear/9-11/security as an excuse for questionable behavior.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Dec 20, 10:53:00 AM:
I love reading Dick Morris. He is always so certain, always entertaining, and usually so wrong.
Watch out for your glass house, Screwie. If I recall, the last president had his own issues with the law he swore to uphold.
By Cassandra, at
Tue Dec 20, 11:01:00 AM:
Heh... exactly Charlottesvillian.
Down the memory hole. How soon we forget.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Dec 20, 11:41:00 AM:
Screwy, Levi, Catchy -- I'm not taking a moral stand on this issue. I was just making a point about its likely political impact. There are laws that most people don't sweat the breakage of. Perjury is fairly clearly one of them, at least when applied to presidents and sex. It is not clear whether the tapping of international telephone conversations are going to get the average person who does not talk on the phone to Pakistan all worked up.
In any case, the remedy for unlawful searches remains -- as it should -- the exclusionary rule.
