Anne-Marie,  I clicked on your post and the link to Kinsley just as I was preparing to send in a little note on Benjamin Franklin.  It amazing how often lately the Founding Fathers intrude upon our thoughts!

Patrick Henry is a major figure in our common memory of the early part of the struggle (jihad?) for American independence.  "Give me liberty or give me death!"  It just doesn't quite match the current main stream cry of "give me a little to a lot less liberty so you can preserve my life" does it?

But its actually more interesting than that.  We pick and choose our heroes carefully, and only when they are on message.  Asked to be part of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Henry declined contemptuously with what I think is just as good a quote as the one above: 

"I smell a rat!"
Patrick Henry opposed the movement for a new constitution on several grounds, but one of them was that he feared it would invest the national government with too much power over the states and the people.  Only a decade later, in 1798, his worst fears seemed confirmed in the Alien and Sedition Acts.

So what do you think Patrick Henry would think of the present King George?

Great point to bring up, Plowman.

Yes, by most standards, Patrick Henry would make a much better red state and Federalist society hero than a liberal one.

That's also why I found it strange to see so many blue state type liberals and "progressives" quoting him when the NSA story broke. Blue state cosmpolitanism requires a willingness for a give and take with your neighbor about many kinds of liberties that Henry would yell about in order to advance common good. You know, stuff like not thinking of having your bag checked going into a skyscraper or on public transit as the same outrage into privacy as a strip search, not considering a car a man's castle in which he should be able to drive at any speed and pollute at will with unfiltered major horsepower, and not seeing a whole lot of necessity for everyone to be packin', that indeed, guns are not something they are willing to die over.

Also there's the little issue of heavy taxation by a faraway central government that you feel doesn't represent or understand your needs (Boston tea party anyone?)

I haven't seen a lot of hypocrisy from libertarian conservatives on this, either, they seem to be with Patrick Henry, though like almost everyone else, seem to also want a better idea of what's going on with this before offering to give up their lives over it.

BTW, I don't think the majority of Americans see Bush as "King George," as many liberals do, they see him as straddling between both some Federal governmnet control of things local (as in: No Child Left Behind) and states right's freedom (his judicial nominations) and individual freedom (Social Security reform; religious charities rather than Federally mandated social workers trying to "help" people with personal struggles.) They just now are starting to see that they don't happen to like his picks as to balance, think they have been a bit clueless and inept and thinking maybe therefore so is he, but they do like the idea of balancing, that's

The dangerous thing in all of this for the Democratic party is that Bush so far, before we understand more about this NSA program, seems to be positioned by all of this once again at a point of moderation where the majority is, somewhere between hard core libertarianism and a protective and secure socialist nanny state. That's why questioners sorely need to know more before being able to frame properly, mho.

I did not like that piece at all. I thought Kinsley was falling into the trap set by the republicans by focusing on the policy question of whether to surveil rather than on the constitutional issue of the president claiming that laws don't apply to him. The issue is not the surveillance itself--it's the fact that the president self-consciously and methodically broke the law, and intends to continue to do so.