MikeB
05-24-2004, 10:52 AM
Time to MoveOn to John Kerry--or at least MoveAway from George W. Bush
by Danilo Q. Lawhorn
Who's fighting for your civil liberties? Some of the biggest names in American politics have supported the suppression of your right to speak out, to think what you want, and to what you want. President George W. Bush and his Authoritarian General, John Ashcroft, concocted the USA Patriot Act in 2001, in the wake of 9-11. And Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, voted for it, too. In fact, the vote in the US Senate for the bill was 98:1. Only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) voted against it. And in the House, the vote was almost as lopsided: 375:66.
Don't get me wrong: I'm for fighting terrorism as much as anyone. We all are. But the problem with the Patriot Act is that it empowers Uncle Sam to go far beyond attacking al-Qaeda. Indeed, the always brave American Civil Liberties Union calls the legislation "flagrantly unconstitutional." As the ACLU puts it:
Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records . . . and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
Medical records? Library records? Student records? Are those the paper trails that al-Qaeda terrorists leave behind? The point is that the bill overreaches. In fact, the US House has acknowledged that it went too far; in July 2003, the House voted by a 3:1 margin to roll back a key provision, which allows the government to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches of private property. Indeed, last year the Department of Justice admitted that it had executed 47 "sneak and peek" searches and had sought to delay notification of search warrants in a total of 250 cases, said Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich. "I would suggest to you that just one would constitute a threat to our Bill of Rights," he said. And he's darn right. But unfortunately, the Senate did nothing, and so the law remains.
So what to do now? Happily, the Patriot Act expires in 2005. Unless, of course, the feds renew it. Which is entirely possible, especially if George W. Bush is re-elected.
So how should a freedom-loving citizen look at the stakes in the 2004 election? To be sure, there are many issues that a voter might consider in 2004, but for those voters for whom civil liberties are the central concern, there can be no argument: Bush must go. Yes, Kerry embarrassed himself by voting for Patriot Act three years ago, but since then, he has seen the light, and promises to transform the government's security powers, to concentrate on catching foreign terrorists, not hounding freethinkers and freespeechers here at home.
In other words, vitally important issues about the future of freedom are at stake in the '04 election.
But is it really worth it for the individual to get him or herself to the polls? After all, more than 100 million Americans voted in 2000--how much difference can one vote make? To that question, Al Gore has something important to say. The former vice president is unpopular in many circles, but lots of people are unpopular--and yet they all have a right to say their piece. So let's take a look at Gore's actual words, not just his superficial image:
Woody Allen has famously said that 90 percent of success is showing up. That 's true of democracy too. I'd argue that the other 10 is making sure you're registered beforehand.
It's easy to be cynical about politics and to believe that one vote barely matters. But consider these facts: John F. Kennedy's 1960 victory over Richard Nixon-a victory that ultimately led to sweeping changes in civil rights laws, the first great wave of space exploration, and the creation of Medicare-was decided by just 100,000 votes nationwide. In 1994, the year Republicans won both houses of Congress, the redistribution of about 10,000 votes nationally would have kept Congress in Democratic hands. One of my former House colleagues, Connecticut Democrat Sam Gejdenson, won reelection by twenty-one votes that year.
The democratic political process isn't perfect. Winston Churchill once said it's the worst system for governance "except for every other system that has ever been tried." Often, you may find no candidate who completely reflects your views. But as voter participation has declined-from nearly two-thirds of eligible voters in 1960 to less than half in many national elections today-strong and decidedly undemocratic forces have stepped in to fill the void.
In a democracy, the future isn't something that just happens; it's something we shape for ourselves, together. Special-interest lobbyists get the government they pay for only when we stay home from the polls-only when we abdicate the electoral power that is mightier than any soft-money check, more decisive than any million-dollar ad blitz or corporate misinformation campaign.
These words are taken from the introduction to a new book, called, called MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change. You know MoveOn.org, of course. They're the web-folks who got going in 1998; they made their name--and fame--by defending Bill Clinton against the Republican Sex Police in the Monica Lewinsky witch-hunt. Clinton wasn't perfect, of course. We might, for example, consider, as a matter of history, how well he did in the battle against Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s. But no what matter what one might think of Clinton's public role, surely all thinking people can agree that the Arkansan's private life should have been off limits. And that was the Moveon.org position. So for that reason alone, MoveOn deserves our respect. And of course, today, Clinton is a private citizen, lingering "issues" about him are completely irrelevant to politics.
Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington calls 50 Ways "political Viagra." In addition to Gore's, other introductions have been written by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the best-selling author Gail Sheehy. But the heart of the book was put together by the MoveOn-ers; the book focuses on 50 personal stories submitted by MoveOn members. Their assembled tales demonstrate the power of the individual, with tips and resources to turn inspiration into action. They're about ordinary citizens changing laws, getting out the vote, hosting meet ups, and much more.
To be sure, Moveon.org leans distinctly to the Left. And so many folks who hang around Ivote2004.com might be tempted to vote Libertarian, not Democratic. In normal years, that's a good choice, because the Libertarians offer a principled defense of liberty--all kinds, economic as well as civil. To be sure, the Libertarians never win, except maybe a stray election for the Alaska legislature, but whenever the Libertarians do well, they send a message to the two parties--especially the Republican party--to ease up on the social authoritarianism.
So for those who just can't stomach John Kerry and his left-liberalism, it's OK to vote for the Libertarian candidate. But for those whose first priority is civil liberties--the right to live and let live--then the top priority must be the removal of Bush from office, and that means there's no choice but to vote for Kerry. Give money to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, as well as the ACLU, but don't waste your vote.
Do what Gore and Woody Allen say: show up at the polls on Tuesday, November 2. Your freedom depends on it.
###
by Danilo Q. Lawhorn
Who's fighting for your civil liberties? Some of the biggest names in American politics have supported the suppression of your right to speak out, to think what you want, and to what you want. President George W. Bush and his Authoritarian General, John Ashcroft, concocted the USA Patriot Act in 2001, in the wake of 9-11. And Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, voted for it, too. In fact, the vote in the US Senate for the bill was 98:1. Only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) voted against it. And in the House, the vote was almost as lopsided: 375:66.
Don't get me wrong: I'm for fighting terrorism as much as anyone. We all are. But the problem with the Patriot Act is that it empowers Uncle Sam to go far beyond attacking al-Qaeda. Indeed, the always brave American Civil Liberties Union calls the legislation "flagrantly unconstitutional." As the ACLU puts it:
Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records . . . and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
Medical records? Library records? Student records? Are those the paper trails that al-Qaeda terrorists leave behind? The point is that the bill overreaches. In fact, the US House has acknowledged that it went too far; in July 2003, the House voted by a 3:1 margin to roll back a key provision, which allows the government to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches of private property. Indeed, last year the Department of Justice admitted that it had executed 47 "sneak and peek" searches and had sought to delay notification of search warrants in a total of 250 cases, said Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich. "I would suggest to you that just one would constitute a threat to our Bill of Rights," he said. And he's darn right. But unfortunately, the Senate did nothing, and so the law remains.
So what to do now? Happily, the Patriot Act expires in 2005. Unless, of course, the feds renew it. Which is entirely possible, especially if George W. Bush is re-elected.
So how should a freedom-loving citizen look at the stakes in the 2004 election? To be sure, there are many issues that a voter might consider in 2004, but for those voters for whom civil liberties are the central concern, there can be no argument: Bush must go. Yes, Kerry embarrassed himself by voting for Patriot Act three years ago, but since then, he has seen the light, and promises to transform the government's security powers, to concentrate on catching foreign terrorists, not hounding freethinkers and freespeechers here at home.
In other words, vitally important issues about the future of freedom are at stake in the '04 election.
But is it really worth it for the individual to get him or herself to the polls? After all, more than 100 million Americans voted in 2000--how much difference can one vote make? To that question, Al Gore has something important to say. The former vice president is unpopular in many circles, but lots of people are unpopular--and yet they all have a right to say their piece. So let's take a look at Gore's actual words, not just his superficial image:
Woody Allen has famously said that 90 percent of success is showing up. That 's true of democracy too. I'd argue that the other 10 is making sure you're registered beforehand.
It's easy to be cynical about politics and to believe that one vote barely matters. But consider these facts: John F. Kennedy's 1960 victory over Richard Nixon-a victory that ultimately led to sweeping changes in civil rights laws, the first great wave of space exploration, and the creation of Medicare-was decided by just 100,000 votes nationwide. In 1994, the year Republicans won both houses of Congress, the redistribution of about 10,000 votes nationally would have kept Congress in Democratic hands. One of my former House colleagues, Connecticut Democrat Sam Gejdenson, won reelection by twenty-one votes that year.
The democratic political process isn't perfect. Winston Churchill once said it's the worst system for governance "except for every other system that has ever been tried." Often, you may find no candidate who completely reflects your views. But as voter participation has declined-from nearly two-thirds of eligible voters in 1960 to less than half in many national elections today-strong and decidedly undemocratic forces have stepped in to fill the void.
In a democracy, the future isn't something that just happens; it's something we shape for ourselves, together. Special-interest lobbyists get the government they pay for only when we stay home from the polls-only when we abdicate the electoral power that is mightier than any soft-money check, more decisive than any million-dollar ad blitz or corporate misinformation campaign.
These words are taken from the introduction to a new book, called, called MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change. You know MoveOn.org, of course. They're the web-folks who got going in 1998; they made their name--and fame--by defending Bill Clinton against the Republican Sex Police in the Monica Lewinsky witch-hunt. Clinton wasn't perfect, of course. We might, for example, consider, as a matter of history, how well he did in the battle against Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s. But no what matter what one might think of Clinton's public role, surely all thinking people can agree that the Arkansan's private life should have been off limits. And that was the Moveon.org position. So for that reason alone, MoveOn deserves our respect. And of course, today, Clinton is a private citizen, lingering "issues" about him are completely irrelevant to politics.
Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington calls 50 Ways "political Viagra." In addition to Gore's, other introductions have been written by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the best-selling author Gail Sheehy. But the heart of the book was put together by the MoveOn-ers; the book focuses on 50 personal stories submitted by MoveOn members. Their assembled tales demonstrate the power of the individual, with tips and resources to turn inspiration into action. They're about ordinary citizens changing laws, getting out the vote, hosting meet ups, and much more.
To be sure, Moveon.org leans distinctly to the Left. And so many folks who hang around Ivote2004.com might be tempted to vote Libertarian, not Democratic. In normal years, that's a good choice, because the Libertarians offer a principled defense of liberty--all kinds, economic as well as civil. To be sure, the Libertarians never win, except maybe a stray election for the Alaska legislature, but whenever the Libertarians do well, they send a message to the two parties--especially the Republican party--to ease up on the social authoritarianism.
So for those who just can't stomach John Kerry and his left-liberalism, it's OK to vote for the Libertarian candidate. But for those whose first priority is civil liberties--the right to live and let live--then the top priority must be the removal of Bush from office, and that means there's no choice but to vote for Kerry. Give money to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, as well as the ACLU, but don't waste your vote.
Do what Gore and Woody Allen say: show up at the polls on Tuesday, November 2. Your freedom depends on it.
###