Politics-BDS

Back during the dark days of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration, righteous liberals were very concerned about the separation of powers problems posed by unilateral executive action against terrorists and suspected terrorists. Such concerned constitutionalists went to court again and again to contest such executive usurpation over military commissions, detention of unlawful enemy combatants, and warrantless wiretapping for intelligence gathering to detect incipient terrorist plots. Such national security concerns were quite beyond the President’s power, judicial precedents to the contrary notwithstanding. The courts did uphold a few of these critics’ constitutional claims, having to discard common sense and to overrule decades-old precedents in the process and injecting themselves into an area (national security and military needs) in which the courts institutionally and the judges personally are woefully incompetent to decide.

Such liberal ultra-strict sticklers for collaborative action between the President and Congress also killed many trees publishing articles editorials, law review pieces, and other pronouncements that purported to demonstrate the nefariousness of the executive’s unilateral actions in any field, but especially in the national security matters at hand. Of course, they were no more pleased when Congress approved the President’s handiwork in some of these areas. In a couple of cases, the Supreme Court, apparently insulted that the Congress and President had done what the learned jurists had prescribed in the earlier adjudications, now found the combined collaborative effort unconstitutional, as well.

This battle on the executive power front has fallen eerily quiet since the election of Barack Obama. Indeed, Mr. Obama has made unprecedented use of unilateral executive power through the appointment of policy-making “czars” that bypass the constitutionally-prescribed Senatorial confirmation process for officers of the United States. Rather, these independent commissars report directly to the White House as Presidential functionaries though their range of discretion may supplant or even replace authority normally given to officers (such as Cabinet secretaries) subject to the traditional constitutional processes.

One would think that, based on traditional understanding and Supreme Court precedent (Youngstown Sheet & Tube, Dames & Moore, Curtiss-Wright Export), the President’s power to act unilaterally under his own constitutional authority would be greater in foreign affairs, military command, and national security matters than in the ordinary domestic policy tussles for which these “czars” are responsible. But the liberals act exactly opposite. To the extent that there is any grumbling, it remains over the executive branch’s treatment of foreign terrorists (detention, interrogation) and Americans or foreigners suspected of collaborating with such foreign terrorists. But there is no similar concern about ordinary Americans’ lives being affected by the actions of such an imperial presidency. I suppose it is hard for those critics to get worked up over uncontrolled executive action against an unwieldy mass of common Americans trying to live their lives when there is so much more romance in feeling compassion for the exotic foreign terror dealers. The frisson of danger in talking to someone sworn to kill you and as many of your kind must meet some greater psychological need than worrying about your boring gun and Bible-clinging compatriots.

One of these “czars” is a typical example of the person liberals would consider it ridiculous and rather laughable to worry about. He is Van Jones, the President’s “green jobs” czar. According to sources cited by Gateway Pundit, Jones is a founder of the radical group Color of Change and a self-avowed “rowdy black nationalist.” According to cited sources in Wikipedia, Jones described himself as a communist in 1992.

Now it appears that Mr. Green Jobs is a 9-11 Truther. I have previously posted about the devoid-of-fact conspiracy mongering of the Obama birth certificate sleuths. Their antics and theorizing was a staple of cable news shows (well, CNN) and cable talk shows (well, CNN and MSNBC) for weeks. The White House took the opportunity to bemoan their kookiness.

But this group of Truthers, led by structural engineer Rosie O’Donnell and materials physicist Jeannine Garofalo, rejects the notion that plain old jets hijacked by Islamic terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. They claim that steel cannot be brought down by jet fuel explosions, and that the planes had their passengers removed (who remain hidden by the government) and were filled with explosives. The alternative theory is that the real jets were shot down by North Dakota Air National fighter planes, and other explosives-laden planes were crashed into the buildings. Most significant, the government planned or (under the version that this was the Mossad’s doing) at least knew about it. They’re a bit hazy about whether the mastermind was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the usual neocon cabal, i.e., the worldwide Zionist conspiracy. (I’d pick Cheney for sheer audacity and scope of the project.)

There has not as of yet been the same media feeding-frenzy about the lunacy of these Truthers, some of whom also populate the Birther ranks. Keith Olbermann has not yet leveled his keen analytic and dispassionate reason at them for the elegant fisking they deserve. Actually, there are crickets chirping all around, with the media hoping that this guy is gone within the next couple of days so they won’t be forced to defend him and Obama. Mark Steyn recalls Bill Clinton’s succinct assessment of the Truthers, “You’re nuts.”

Oh, and he’s also a supporter of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal.

And then there’s his part in the God’less America “peace rally.”

Allahpundit thinks that this is a practical joke by Obama on the media: “Hey Rahm — bet you 20 bucks I can get a Truther communist appointed to an environmental oversight position.” I disagree. That would require too much introspection and self-analysis by Obama and his minions to see who and what they are. And Obama doesn’t do humor. Messiahs are not known for funny gags.

Can one even contemplate what the Congressional, Democratic, and media response would have been if Bush had appointed someone of Jones’s temperament, background, and degree of ideological radicalism (on the other side, of course)? Rowdy White supremacist, Aryan Nation follower? BTW, I am not convinced that this guy really believes all this stuff. I think that it is not beyond contemplation that these speeches, groups, petitions, etc., are just ways for him to talk the talk and pretend to walk the walk of the left-wing academic and social groups with which he associated. I think he was just trying to find a way to money and influence, and this seemed to him the most plausible in light of his academic background and his race (plus, I agree, some core leftist beliefs).

Leaving aside his general past looniness, he believes his current job description to be to transform society by getting rid of capitalism. That would indeed be an expensive proposition, if this Spanish study is correct. At a cost of more than $100,000 per year per job, and a destruction of 2.2 other jobs per green job created, the greening of the world would seem to be due more to the reduction of the standard of living of the large numbers of people who would be out of work.

UPDATE: The czar has been deposed, er, abdicated. It was not unexpected that this would occur in the middle of the night during the end-of-summer Labor Day weekend in this “most transparent of all administrations.”

Victor Davis Hanson comments on the odd righteousness of liberals who complain about over-the-top rhetoric of certain anti-Obamacare protesters, some of whom are followers of former(?) Democrat Lyndon LaRouche. He singles out Jonathan Chait writing in The New Republic and Rick Perlstein, whom Chait references. These are writers whose anti-Bush rhetoric far surpasses in vitriol and frothing anything coming from the town hall protesters. I agree that some of these protesters are pushing beyond the bounds of calm and decorous debate, but they are hardly like the Left’s often hate-spewing nihilistic collections of anti-war, anti-business, anti-American, anti-civilization freaks who remind one of the bar scene from the planet Tatooine in Star Wars. Nor are they the typical violent protesters at WTO meetings or Republican conventions. They aren’t even like the SEIU thugs who beat people who protest Obamacare.

More important, neither Chait nor Perlstein has standing to complain about these protesters. Anyone who, like Chait, pens a piece titled, “The Case For Bush Hatred: Mad About You,” whose lead sentence is, “I hate President George W. Bush,” lacks a certain credibility to complain about hateful and incendiary rhetoric.

I mentioned this during the campaign. Odd how in 2004 Bush and Cheney’s military records became a central focus of Democrats who thought that, for once, they had a “war hero” on their ticket. Bush’s “mere” Air National Guard service and Cheney’s draft deferments became for the Democrats the single-best measure of character. Until Kerry was exposed by the Swifties for the blow-hard opportunist that he is. Edwards’ lack of military service was conveniently buried. Of course, when Bill Clinton, who had avoided even National Guard service by prevarications to the draft board (what, Bill Clinton prevaricate?), was running against two decorated war heroes in 1992 (George H.W. Bush) and 1996 (Robert Dole), even to mention military service was regarded by Democrats as the depth of perfidy and lack of character. Democrats “explained” the difference by claiming that, in ‘92 and ‘96, there was no war (Bosnia notwithstanding). Once a war starts, the candidates’ military records become crucial (even for the incumbent who had been guiding the war effort already).

In 2008, with another Republican decorated war hero running for Commander-in-Chief against Democrats with non-existent military background, the Democrats and the media reverted to 1990s form. Odd, that, since the same war conditions on which they had relied in 2004 to trumpet Kerry’s allegedly superior military brilliance was still ongoing. Any mention of Obama’s (and Hillary’s, Edwards’s, and, later, Biden’s) lack of military experience was unfair and probably racist. Indeed, Leftie Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa (whose own attacks on the military record of W had come to naught in 2004 when it was discovered he had vastly exaggerated his Vietnam “war” experiences), opined that it was better to have someone like Obama than McCain, who would be too set in a military way of thinking. The media’s obsession in 2004 with Cheney’s five draft deferments gave way to utter silence about foreign relations and national security “specialist” Joe Biden’s—five draft deferments. Hillary was ridiculed by the press for her explanation that she visited a recruitment office once in her 30s and thought of joining, but was dissuaded by the recruiter. Right. But the reason the press pilloried her was because by then they had all gone in the tank for The One.

Now it turns out that the Community organizer-in-Chief has no use for people with a military background (except as Defense Secretary and as head of veteran’s affairs). Obama’s high level appointees come predominantly from law schools, not the military. Given the administration’s approach to fighting “lawfare,” as the transnational legal elites nesting in our law schools favor, this is not a surprise. But it is not good news for Americans; of course, our enemies may feel relief, which will raise America’s standing abroad. After all, isn’t the President’s job under the Constitution is to make sure that the world feel good about the U.S., even if that may reduce the quality of life—or life itself—for Americans? That’s got to be somewhere in the penumbras of Article II and discoverable by a judge with the proper empathy for those who have long suffered from American power and over-consumption.

As late as November, I saw the followers of the mysterious, once-Democrat Lyndon LaRouche seeking signatures on petitions to impeach Cheney and Bush. With a new administration in office, that effort seems to have lost steam. Last week, I was surprised to see the LaRouchies out again, this time with petitions to have various individuals tried for financial and other crimes. But the individuals were mainly—Democrats. Sure, there was Hank Paulson. But the others were Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank! One odd difference is that when the LaRouchies were going after Cheney, they were gathering signatures in front of Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods; going after Pelosi, they’re standing in front of Von’s. I wonder why.

Unlike the political adaptability shown by the LaRouchies in their deranged efforts, other liberals are less open-minded in theirs. As shown by the protest signs during the inauguration, there are still quite a few Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers who want to have Bush and others tried in U.S. or international courts for assorted “crimes.” At the very least, they want extensive Congressional witch hunts. Based on my personal conversations with them, I am sad to report that the malady also afflicts members of the faculty at my school. When I explain to them the lack of wisdom, not to mention lack of a legal or factual basis, of such a course, they are simply unable to comprehend their errors.

Leaving aside legal and historical reasons why such a course, if undertaken, likely would prove fruitless, liberals should be very careful what they wish for. The reason changes in American administrations have been generally successful (leaving out the Civil War), is that the defeated side has not been subject to the problems often associated with old democracies and modern banana republics, namely, that the victors would come after the persons and property of the losers. Made a part of our political tradition under the watchful gaze of the world after the pivotal election of 1800, there is an implicit social bargain that the victors will not exact retribution and that the losers will accept the results, go home peacefully, and not foment revolution and civil war. Rather, the losers will have another chance in the next election. That tradition has served us remarkably well. Criminalizing policy differences is a sure-fire way to shatter that bargain.

This was the danger I saw with the “Ethics in Government” Acts in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, with their “special prosecutors” appointed to conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions over essentially political disputes. The prosecution of “Scooter” Libby is a slightly less disreputable instance of this problem. These statutes and prosecutions simply brought tit-for-tat partisan responses that distracted from the business of government and brought needless friction and division to the body politic. Democrats liked those statutes as long as they controlled the Congress and Republicans were in the White House. When the tables turned, and Republicans went after Clinton and his officials, the shine was off the rose for Democrats. The Ethics in Government Act was allowed to expire, as the Democrats by then had the same lack of enthusiasm as the Republicans for such investigations.

It was also the danger from the corrosive challenges to the constitutional legitimacy of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Liberals did not content themselves with challenging the policies of the new administration on pragmatic or ideological grounds. Rather, they focused their frenzied efforts on promoting rejection of the very legitimacy of the democratic process that had occurred.

I was uneasy about the Clinton impeachment (and the Nixon impeachment effort) for the same reasons. The allegations of “criminality” were minor and had the appearance of being a figleaf for political differences and personal animus.

The  danger is at least as acute once the topic becomes criminal trials after an administration leaves office. Why should the losing party leave if they are likely to be subjected to criminal prosecutions? Why, once in power, should they even risk such a fate by holding elections? Why should their supporters go peacefully into the night?

At the very least, then, instigating such investigations or trials would trigger retaliation in kind. I fully believe that the Clinton impeachment was partly caused by Republican memories of what the Democrats had done to Nixon over a “third-rate burglary” and what the Democrats tried to do to Reagan in the “Iran-Contra” dispute as soon as they regained full control of Congress in 1986. In both cases, the Democrats foolishly blandished the threat of impeachment in revenge for the political drubbing they had taken in the preceding presidential elections, the Republican landslides of 1972 and 1984. If Bush, Cheney, or others integral to their political program are put on trial or hounded in hearings, well, Republicans have long memories, and Obama or members of his or a later Democratic administration will pay a similar personal price in the future.

And that’s the good result, because the alternative described above, that is, the end of peaceful transitions of power, is worse. I have said that liberals were playing with fire when they tried their best to de-legitimize Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004. I am glad that conservatives have not done so in 2008, just as they did not do before, not even in the close losses in 1960 and 1976 and in the election of 1992, when Clinton received barely 40% of the vote. But if liberals keep seeking to destroy the system, at some point they will take steps that conservatives will be forced to acknowledge with serious push-back. Criminal trials and kangaroo-court like Congressional hearings seriously raise the ante.

I believe that Obama, fortunately, understands this, as do the Clintonistas surrounding him. Certainly he has a greater appreciation of this than the less intellectually and politically adept Joe Biden, the mean-spirited Harry Reid, the clueless Nancy Pelosi, and the ideologically-blinded John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich. If Obama envisions himself as Lincoln, he knows about Lincoln’s policy of reconciliation even towards the political and military leaders who had engaged in a war of rebellion that had left over 600,000 Americans dead on both sides. “With malice towards none; with charity for all.” Moreover, Obama is a political animal and recognizes that the social division that would come from such trials and investigations would doom his political program.

Here is an article that raises similar points.

I was pleased to see Bill Clinton’s White House counsel, Lanny Davis, make the same arguments against such political stupidity when he appeared on Mike Wallace’s show Sunday morning. Davis used some of the same terminology I used in this article and even brought up the past mistake of enacting the Ethics in Government Act. But then, Davis is part of the former Clinton team and not part of the ecstatic O-bot following or the left-wing Congressional leadership.

Earlier today, Ann Coulter was on The View to talk about her new book. I don’t know why. It seems that neither the studio audience nor the viewing audience would be Ann’s target demographic. For one thing, reading Ann’s book requires a minimal level of intelligence. Predictably, the menopausal harridans from The View shrieked like witches from a parody of Macbeth. Ann handled them with aplomb, even though they were determined not to let her make her points. The robotic audience was cued by producers to applaud and laugh at certain moments designed to make the liberal intellectual husks that are the co-hosts look good. Ann gave better than she got, but, then, it was a fair fight. There were only four of them against her, with the “conservative” co-host only occasionally entering the fray—against Ann.

The point here is to ask why Ann Coulter did not do to the audience and the panel what Christopher Hitchens did to the moonbat audience on the Bill Maher program. Surely, she must have been tempted. Hitchens is reacting to one of the most tiresome of anti-Bush tropes in the liberal arsenal of insults, the alleged stupidity of George W. Bush. As I and others have made the point, this is too often uttered by liberals who are insecure about their intellectual irrelevance. They sport as their mental prowess the sixteen units they took at the local community college before dropping out from its theater arts program. The one I saw with such a bumper sticker at my school had a license plate rim proudly announcing her status as an alumna from, wait for it, California State University, Los Angeles, a lower-tier-type institution not to be confused with UCLA.

Hitchens finally reacts in the only manner that such people understand. [Warning: Language alert.]