Democrats have many problems. Among them, they’re losing the framing battle over the NSA spying issue. While the media has been giving substantial attention to the issue of legality, the President has aggressively framed the argument in terms of the program’s impact on national security.
Emphasizing that he is acting within the law without specifying exactly how so, he has narrowly focused his argument: individual liberties should come second to collective security. In a brilliant move to reinforce this frame, the Dept. of Justice has launched an investigation to see who leaked information about the program to the New York Times. The message is clear: we’re not even questioning the legality of the program, so we’re turning our attention to the effectiveness of the program. The program can’t be effective if its classified, secretive nature is disturbed, and someone is going to pay for compromising the program. (This message, by the way, serves as a convenient message to current government officials that the leaking—I call it whistle-blowing—must stop or they’ll be sorry.) Missing from this frame is the virtue of separation of powers.
What are the democrats to do? Should they press hard and step up the rhetoric on the issue of legality—a position that the press seems eager to discuss? I would try to reframe the issue in terms of the constitutional and legislative questions it raises, as opposed to the usefulness of the program. But in doing so, would they be left vulnerable to loud attacks of being soft on terror? Don’t forget that they have to make this argument while the Patriot Act is being debated in an election year.
The Democrats are already lost on this issue. Some Democrats agree the program is essential, some think it is solely an issue of separation of powers, and some think that the President committed an impeachable offense. Here’s my take on this. The Democrats can’t win when it comes to the War on Terror. The public sees the President as being stronger. We learned this in the last election. We also learned that there is a perception that the Democrats lack conviction, and my guess is most people feel that Democrats in their hearts are against the NSA program. So Democrats need to uniformly redirect the frame of this argument to issues of legality. This must not be blended with the issue of the Patriot Act and fighting a war on terror. A blending of this sort indicates that the Republicans have successfully framed the argument.
When the Democrats speak out for congressional or judicial action against the executive branch, the response from Republicans will be swift and severe, claiming that democrats are helping the terrorists. They must find a way to limit the debate to the issue of legality. In doing so, the Democrats will be able to limit criticisms of being soft on terror while demonstrating to their constituents (e.g. me) that they’re not pussies.
4 Comments:
I'm scared. I've been reading a history of the Civil War and was shocked to learn that Lincoln flexed his executive muscles much as Bush is doing. Lincoln had people spied on, jailed people for unnamed reasons, etc. I'm just waiting for the "If Lincoln did it, why can't Dubya" argument from the Bush people.
Or maybe it all means that Bush still has a chance of going down in history as one of this country's best presidents ever!
Here's where someone should post a list of the "dissimilarities" between the two.
Thanks.
I’ve been hearing comparison’s to Lincoln lately in the media, usually along the lines Andy mentioned (in regards to political opposition). One report is that he tried to have a newspaper shut down and its reporters arrested after reporting on something unfavorable, but I can’t remember what the paper did. It’s interesting how some have tried to prematurely put Bush into historical perspective. The logic goes that polarizing behavior, while controversial and appalling to many, can be forgivable or even favorable in a historical context. Presumably we’re supposed to make allowances for Lincoln’s behavior because he was responsible for more good than bad. This wasn’t the case for others like Nixon. Ultimately, historical judgment will depend on Bush’s action’s in the context of his entire presidency.
On Julia’s concern, check out this webpage on Bush vs. Lincoln. The most striking difference, to me, is this one: “Bush is the only President in American history who has attempted to prosecute a war and lower taxes.” Not only did he lower taxes, but the cuts were record highs during record deficits.
http://www.presidentlincoln.com/
poparticle-Lincoln-Bush.html
First and foremost democrats must articulate a coherent plan to prevent/combat terrorist acts against the U.S. Until they do so they will always be subject to the soft on terrorism question. In the absence of no plan, most Americans will accept a bad one, particularly if they feel only the civil liberties of suspected terrorists are at risk, and not their own.
Next they should subpoena the NSA and the Condoleeza Rice (as the NSA for Bush when these decision were taken) and include in the subpoena records of all memos on national security and compare those memos to the nature of the surveillance.
Now if Democrats aren't prepared to do this in closed door session, then you would have to question their motives. If they are, and the Bush administration refuses, they would be left with no choice but to sue them (maybe not as a body, but as individual citizens) to force a declassification.
As long as they have their own plan to combat terrorism, and they are willing to do this behind closed doors, the Bush Administration would be put in the position of being obstructionist. The program has already been revealed, but the details can remain sealed, so why stall? Perhaps because the nature of the surveillance does not conform to the authority that they've cited to perform it.
Post a Comment
<< Home