As I was researching a previous post, I came across a number of interesting blog posts and interviews I found quite interesting. In particular, I wanted to bring your attention to a great interview with my favorite liberal feminist, Naomi Wolf, author of the infamous “a room of ones own” (and the subject of possibly the best television prank in the last year). She is promoting her new book “The End of America” –a book that lays out the ‘Ten Steps to Closing Down an Open Society’ and “exposes” the ways in which America is mirroring the closed societies of history.
Allow me to begin this discussion by first complimenting Ms. Wolf. First, she just looked great during that interview. I was all about that red thing she was wearing (but I digress!). In all seriousness, I think this book is a valuable addition to the discussion and brings an important (albeit selective) historical context to modern politics. At the risk of cliche, I would remind you that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. By reminding us of the evils of history Ms Wolf is, shockingly enough, being helpful… and I wish to encourage this kind of behavior.
This being said, I think it is fair to say that Ms Wolf’s conclusions are lacking… in any number of ways. It isn’t that she is always wrong, but that her foundational history is in many cases only loosely connected with modern practice. She begins with an assumption of guilt (primarily with the Bush administration… many times implying he is a ‘wannabe’ despot), finds similar parallels to dictators with completely different motivations and purposes, and then imputes those motives to Bush because factual circumstances were the same. Although a stretch, in some cases I found myself thinking that if two people washed their laundry, that would be enough for her to draw a comparison. I am, of course, exaggerating; but I do so to point out that to end one’s analysis at factual similarities without further analysis can lead to very irrational conclusions.
I wish to address some of these loose associations and provide a greater historical context for many of the points she makes. First, let us examine this list of steps:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a prison system outside the rule of law
3. Develop an unregulated paramilitary
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. “Dissent = Treason”
10. Suspend the Rule of Law
As an initial matter, this is a great list. Nazi Germany during World War II is easily implicated in all of these steps… as was the Soviet Union (and even modern-day Russia). Naomi references a few more examples I am not quite as familiar with… but I wouldn’t doubt her history is accurate.
She discusses in great length in the youtube clip the first 4 elements, beginning with the first–where a would-be despot invokes a terrifying threat. This first argument immediately raises the problems I have already mentioned. The fact that any ruler/despot/president invokes a threat does not itself, without any other context, mean that that particular country is on the verge of loosing freedoms. In fact, it would seem to me that leaders ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge such threats would be equally at risk for loosing the very freedoms they supposedly champion by non-invocation. Would anyone claim that Churchill or Roosevelt was a would-be-despot by calling a spade (i.e. Nazi Germany) a spade? In fact, Neville Chamberlin’s refusal to invoke Germany as the threat it was… is what caused the German threat to be even stronger then it would otherwise have been–almost resulting in Britain’s defeat. This “judging solely on the facts” causes Naomi to conclude that Bush is a despot when such facts can go both ways.
For example, when Bush invokes radical islamists or the threat of a nuclear Iran, he is warning the free world about very real threats… not some made-up boogyman. Radical islamists REALLY attacked us on 9/11 and crippled the United States economy for a couple of years. They had similar plans to blow up the freedom tower in Los Angeles and have been attacking US troops in Iraq for the past 5 years. We can ignore these threats… avoid dealing with them, or we can address them in public, in the arena of political debate (which is what the Bush administration has done)–or worse: adopt a covert policy of assassination and secret deals). Any leader (i.e. Obama) who does not take these real dangers seriously risks the very freedoms supposedly at stake when their danger is “invoked”. While I understand her concern… I believe that her concern over the Bush administration’s “invoking problem” is misplaced.
Secondly, she discusses the existence of a prison system “outside the rule of law”. Obviously, Guantanamo is the example of this kind of system that can be so dangerous. Furthermore, in many occasions, she references the founding fathers and how this very deprival of due process is exactly what the founding fathers meant to avoid with the bill of rights. This is all well and good-no doubt my readers have read the 5th amendment – but this statement is an incomplete analysis of the bill of rights AND the desires of the founding fathers.
As an initial matter, George Washington used military tribunals in the Revolutionary War. “How can this be!”, you ask? Well, that’s exactly the point; in fact, military tribunals have been used in almost every military conflict the United States has ever engaged in. To say that this was somehow against the wishes of the founding fathers is… well… factually unsound. Additionally, it is not entirely proper to say that war prisoners have no due process rights. While they do not have the same rights of process we enjoy as non-combatants, they do have process… it is just a different process tailored to the needs of the military. In fact, even U.S. military personnel do not have “due process” under the common sense of the term… they are subject to military courts’ jurisdiction under the UCMJ. Now, it is one thing to argue why military combatants should enjoy the same rights as you and I… it is an entirely different thing to say that they have no due process rights… or that they should have MORE than even US military personnel.
Now, this isn’t to say that there is not some danger should these tribunals… and that they could be used for ill purposes. I agree with her in the sense that these must subject to strict scrutiny should they overstep their bounds. However, to view Bush’s military tribunals as some sign of impending catastrophe–tribunals that have been subject to congressional oversight and supreme court review–is simply irrational given our country’s history. For crying out loud, we interned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WWII! Get a sense of perspective! Freedom’s scope fluctuates with the circumstances… and America has always emerges from troubled times with their sense of freedom intact–often expanding it when it no longer feels threatened. To end one’s analysis at “we match a bullet on a checklist” without examining how America reacts and self-corrects it’s own arguably authoritarian policies of history is to create a sense of irrational fear.
During the discussion of due process rights I believe she went a little off track discussing the suppression of free speech. Don’t take me wrong, I’m as big an advocate of free political speech as anybody… Although I can’t recall ever writing as much on this blog, I find the McCain-Feingold legislation an untenable impingement on freedom of speech–precisely because it desires to stifle political speech. I share her concern; but if the best example she can cite is the “don’t taze me bro!” guy… then it is safe to say we have nothing to fear (wasn’t he speaking at a Kerry rally?). In fact, I would argue that the modern media has never been so open and critical as it is today. In fact, papers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have leaked national security secrets–in violation of the espionage acts…(i.e. they broke the law)–without as much as a finger lifted by the justice department. That’s right; even “free speech” that is illegal (not all free speech is “free”, after all)… is still allowed by a president she so fears. (One wonders if she uses this fact to criticize the president for undermining the “rule of law”. Snap!)
Next, she discusses Backwater and the implications of a para-military force. Allow me to loosely quote some excerpts from the interview…
Tomorrow we could wake up and see backwater guarding the state house… backwater menacing congress-people. there is nothing we can do to prevent this… The founders knew how intimidating it is… to have a standing army that is not accountable to the people… That’s why we have the second amendment that says you can’t have a standing army that’s not accountable to the people. We could find ourselves waking up looking at mercenary forces outside our door… we could wake up and find out our kids stuff has been gone through by agents of the state.
I must say, I tend to agree with her as a general matter. I’m not sure what Blackwater does that cannot also be accomplished by U.S. military personnel. Their existence and employment is probably a point of valid concern. If there are indeed powers given the president to use para-military forces in the united states, it should certainly be something to debate within a free society. However, in examining her point, I found, yet again, a lack of desperately-needed context. For example, the bill of rights, particularly the 4th amendment, does not guarantee our houses will never be searched. It is ONLY a right (with an associated remedy), NOT a guarantee of state inaction. Rights exist so that there is something to claim should they be violated. We are at just as much risk of a local law enforcement agency, the FBI, or any other government agent violating our privacy rights than a para-military force… but yet Ms Wolf isn’t concerned at all about the threat a misinformed police officer poses–even though such action is a much more direct, immediate likelihood (I use likelihood in the loosest sense of the term). When the state (or an agent thereof) acts contrary to the constitution, we can challenge this in court and win! A para-military force is not alone a danger… it is only when such force cannot be challenged in court that such a force becomes a danger.
Perhaps I’ve been too harsh… I cannot emphasize enough the fact that I enjoyed listening to the interview and thought she had some excellent points… but when my analytical mind gets going… sometimes it goes overboard. Let me know what YOU think.