Heroes and the Rule of Law

Glenn Greenwald continues to do a bang-up job on The political establishment and telecom immunity -- why it matters. My comments:

---

As wbgonne said, a real respect for Rule of Law is simply not a prominent trait in the American character. Look at the drug arrests in Gerald, MO:

the agent, a man some had come to know as “Sergeant Bill,” boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.

Bill Jakob apparently conned the whole town into believing he was a federal officer -- but they also were willing to believe that federal officer don't need no stinkin' badges or warrants. The article asks:

And why would anyone — receiving no pay and with no known connection to little Gerald, 70 miles from St. Louis and not even a county seat — want to carry off such a time-consuming ruse in the first place?

The answer seems obvious to me: Bill Jakob wanted to be a hero, and this is how heroes act, in our mythology. Macho Sue is a man who knows What Needs to Be Done to Clean Up the Town, and details like "Rule of Law" don't stop him.

If the stories Americans tell ourselves are about individualistic heroes who refuse to be tied down by law, then we will not, on a gut level, respect the rule of law. This is why we need better stories, not just better politicians.

FISA and Capitulation

Last week was really bad, politically speaking. Hunter at DailyKos kind of sums it up for me:

We are against the torture of innocents, and that is enough to disqualify us from being serious about the fate of our nation. We believe illegal acts should be investigated and punished, and that makes us too naive to be proper guardians of discourse. We once thought even a president was required to follow the law; we have been disabused of that notion not only by the President, but by Congress as well.

Glenn Greenwald righteously sums up my wrath and disappointment with Obama:

Whatever the motives -- and I don't know (or much care) what they are -- Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse, has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights."

Hilzoy's post was succinctly titled Bleccchh.

At Unfogged, Apostropher asked What do you call an opposition party that refuses to oppose?. Very good discussion ensued. My comment:

---

I'm starting to think it's actually Liberal vs Authoritarian vs gutless Authoritarian.

I think there are two intersecting problems:

1. the voters are statistically less authoritarian & sheeplike than Congress, as seen e.g. in the public's opposition to the war or telcom immunity, which are much stronger than anything Congress has been able to express.

A lot of this IMHO is economic: wealth leads to complacency leads to the Dark Side, and Congresspeeps are *much* wealthier and more economically secure than the people as a whole.

2. We need better stories. Republicans are using a Macho Sue template for leadership (and masculinity), which comes with a complete set of inspiring cultural icons and exciting movies. I think the gutless division of the Democratic Party is saying "mythic figures are unnecessary and tacky" -- but human beings don't work that way, so emotionally they're still in thrall to Macho Sue and will lick his boots reflexively.

The spine-enabled Democratic Congresspeeps (including my own, you wish you had one) *do* have cultural icons and role models -- Atticus Finch, for instance -- but not as many, and frankly they don't come with as many shiny accessories (whether Glocks or Manolos, a distinction without a difference) and explosions, which are apparently necessary if we're going to switch the allegiance of the gutless.

Dear Obama supporters; also, Dear Clinton supporters

-- especially any of you who might be actually working on the campaign, or whose donation pockets are deeper than mine (please imagine a wallet with a moth flying out).

Glenn Greenwald has been documenting the yearning of some Congressional Democrats to pass a FISA bill giving telecoms amnesty for lawbreaking they did at the Administration's request -- amnesty that would, by an *amazing coincidence*, remove the evidence for this lawbreaking from public view. This battle is also being documented over at Daily Kos.

A lot of us feel that it's time for Senator Obama step up to the plate and *lead* on this issue. He's said that he's opposed to telcom amnesty -- encourage him make a serious speech about it. Encourage him to "encourage" other Congressional Dems to "encourage" Hoyer & the other Telecom Congresspeeps to reconsider. Make "Rule of Law" and "Respect for the Constitution" serious rallying points. Please, if any of you have any good offices to use, *use them*.

And to those of you who supported Senator Clinton's campaign: she has a great Leadership-with-a-capital-L opportunity here, as well. Encourage her to prove that she can be just as great a Majority Leader as she was a campaigner. The opportunity is here, begging to be used.