“They who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin had those fearful of the British in mind, but I imagine he’d apply the same statement to today’s tea partying Palinites. I’ll let Reason explain…

[..] judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement’s suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.

[..] When it comes to economic affairs, the tea partiers agree that—as Palin put it—”the government that governs least, governs best.” When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government.

The conventioneers applauded when Palin denounced Obama for his approach to the war on terrorists. Why? Because he lets himself be too confined by the annoying limits imposed by the Constitution. “To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law,” she declares.

[..] facts have never been Palin’s strong suit. Nor do they matter, because what infuriates her is the mere idea that constitutional protections would apply to “a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution.”

This is not some bizarre paradox. Lots of people who despise our Constitution—Nazis, communists, Klansmen, Alaska secessionists—enjoy its protections. Does she think the Bill of Rights should apply only to people who share her views?

That would not leave much of the document she and the tea partiers claim to revere.

Besides, Obama didn’t invent the heretical notion of accepting limits on the government’s latitude with jihadists. The Bush administration turned hundreds of terrorism cases over to the federal courts, without audible complaint from the right. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution extends even to accused foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo.

The advantage of having a former law professor in the Oval Office is that he doesn’t have to be tutored in such elementary realities. But Palin evinces a bitter resentment of any information that contradicts her blind faith in a benevolent, all-powerful security regime. She’s more than willing to trade liberty for safety.

That went over conspicuously well [at the convention], where tea partiers cheered a leader who places excessive trust in government, disdains constitutional freedoms, and promotes a cult of personality. So remind me: What is it they don’t like about Barack Obama?

Gherald filed this under: , ,  
  1. Chunzilla says:

    Great posts this month, Metavirus and GhD. Sorry I've not commented lately; only time to read. Thanks for keeping this great site kicking. Whatever happened to the Barlett interview???

  2. Metavirus says:

    gosh, Reason sure does have a schizoid relationship with the tea partiers. half the time they're just good patriots, who are terribly concerned about government interference. then stuff like this comes along. well, credit where its due. that's an excellent article.

    • Gherald says:

      I would argue that both the left and the right are schizoid, caring about one type of freedom from government but not another.

      The right like these tea partiers adopts the mantle of economic freedom and "the Constitution!" to create some balance and cover for their desire to impose a security regime and their socio-cultural views.

      Similarly the left adopts the mantle of personal freedom to create some balance and cover for illiberal economic redistribution via government spending and trade restrictions.

      In both cases, it's easier to push for illiberal policies in your preferred area if you can adopt the mantle of "Freedom!" elsewhere.

      Classical liberals or libertarians like me and Reason, while by no means perfect, are much more consistent in our desire for freedom in all areas. We'll make alliances with groups like the Tea Partiers when they seem to be acting in a way conducive to freedom, but we'll rightly call them out when they regress to Palinesque conservative populism and paranoia.

      • Metavirus says:

        i don't think your construct works to the 50/50 equivalency you suggest.

        the left/libertarian side of the equation wants due process, drug law reform and fair justice. they want less war, less police abuse, and MORE fundamental constitutional protections for our people.

        what you refer to as "illiberal economic redistribution via government spending" is just the way that every modern democratic/capitalist system WORKS. there will always be a progressive tax system, in every major democracy/capitalist system in the world. always — it's never going to change. "redistribution" is just an inflammatory word to describe the services that government provides to keep us safe, provide for a common infrastructure and provide various social safety nets to cushion the productivity of our citizenry. yes, it is true that "the poor" use much more of the latter and "the rich" pay out more to support it. but that is just the way a modern democracy works.

        besides which, the vast majority of left/right and center have no interest in doing away with the "redistributivist" progressive tax system, so its a misnomer to peg this at the feet of "the left".

        so, at the end of it, you're left with a "left" that sees government being able to do good things (and, by the way, is the only game in town right now that is actually proposing to PAY for programs they want to implement) and a "right" that sees most any government system as worthless and will spend their last breath to tear down as much of it as they can.

        Remember the Bush years? Not just the big stuff, but the small stuff. The "strangle the government baby in its crib" mentality was apotheosized. Nearly every agency of government was stripped of funds and talent and, as a result, we got an FDA and USDA that drastically cut back on food inspections and drug safety. We got an interior department that squandered billions of dollars in managed oil contracts due to cronyism and zero oversight.

        so yes. one side believes that government can do some good and another side that recoils instinctively to most everything that is or would be done by government (with a complete and unyielding faith that the Oracles of Free Markets with bless us with their bounty)

        and, no, i don't discount some of the anti-freedom, intrusive stuff that "the left" sometimes likes, like seatbelt laws, cycle helmet laws and the like. but really, again, that kind of relatively minor stuff is supported by the people who for vote them, who, again, run across the political spectrum.

        the simple fact is that the republican party is the pinnacle of statist power and corporatist corruption. the dems have their bad traits too but when we're talking about who's really on the side of "freedom" and constitutional values like due process and the rule of law (including with respect to torture), there really is no contest.

        • Gherald says:

          I'm not proposing a 50/50 equivalency, at least not in any given snapshot of time. Don't compare the Bush years to the left now; compare the right now to the left in 1979.

          And if you wanted to set up a naive equation these days, it would be closer to 66/33, as post-Soviet and especially post-9/11 the right has gone batshit on two legs of the stool, national security in addition to their socio-cultural authoritarianism.

          Back in the eighties it was more like 33/66, and so we had fusionism (libertarians more closely aligned with conservatives)

  3. Metavirus says:

    i think matt yglesias said it best when describing the modern conservative approach to government power (which is pretty much as anathema to libertarianism as you can get): http://www.librarygrape.com/2010/02/conservative-…

    "Conservatives didn’t like the Miranda ruling or any of the Warren Court’s other famous criminal procedure rulings. And since the Supreme Court became more conservative, right-wing justices have consistently sought to narrow the exclusionary rule, make it more difficult for convicted felons to get hearings for new evidence, etc.

    For all the “tea party” talk of freedom, and the right’s general blather about “limited government,” unrestricted violence by the agents of the state is a core priority for the right-wing. The view is that ideally you just detain people indefinitely. If forced, they get a military commission. If you have to have a civilian court, the accused shouldn’t have any rights. People should be tortured as a routine investigative technique. Wars should be routinely against foreign countries that haven’t attacked us. It’s a worldview soaked in violence and authoritarianism, and the relatively narrow question of what venue you try terrorism suspects in is just a small part of it."

  4. schu says:

    To my mind the greatest danger from the tea baggers is their built in racism and their willingness to use the government to enforce there view. And that their main points seem to be you are with us or you are our mortal enemy.

    • Gherald says:

      How is this the greatest danger? All this same racism existed on the right years ago, they just didn't have a big target like Obama to rally against. Far from being a danger, something getting them so riled up is a sign of progress.

  5. Metavirus says:

    Oh jeez, we have to go back to the 70s now? Face it, the dems havebecome more conservative than a lot of conservatives these days.Paying for programs, balancing budgets under clinton etc. They tookthe right's best ideas and left the rest

    • Gherald says:

      Go back to the turn of the 80s for the left's counterpart to how lost conservatives became at the end of the Bush years, sure. Times change.

      And as for "facing it", the rest is not so simple--in part the right became a victim of its own successes in the 80s and 90s. It accomplished fine things (like the collapse of the Soviet Union and welfare reform) but supply side economics turned into a caricature of itself (as Bruce Bartlett puts it) and as you know everyone went batshit on the security front after 9/11.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors