« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Pragmatic compromise versus disreputable compromise
English is a wonderful language. It can be precise when appropriate and it can be -- as Bill Clinton demonstrated repeatedly -- just as vague as its user desires.
For an example, and to stop maundering around my topic, let's examine Merriam-Webster's online definitions of the intransitive verb <i>to compomise</i>:
<blockquote>1 a: to come to agreement by mutual concession b: to find or follow a way between extremes
2: to make a shameful or disreputable concession <wouldn't compromise with their principles></blockquote>
When Sen. Obama's supporters say they approve of his penchant for compromising, of course they are referring to definition one. When his critics say they disapprove of his willingness to compromise, they tend to use the word in the sense of definition two.
So our challenge as thoughtful voters is to decide under which definition the Senator is operating.
Some of Sen. Obama's supporters seem to have the view that even if he is acting shamefully (without conceding that he is doing so), he earns our support simply by being Not John McCain or Not A Republican. One suspects that most of these folks are effectively "Yellow Dog" Democrats, willing to vote for a yellow dog provided it carries the "(D)" designation in its name. There is nothing ignominious or immoral about that. My point is simply that the voting philosophy of these folks boils down to a "must-have" mindset. Again, perfectly righteous whether or not others would view them as entirely rational.
There are many kinds of "must-have" voters and they fall on all points of the left/right spectrum. Some of these will vote for the candidate that rejects reproductive choice and gay rights even though they might despise other positions the candidate takes. Others will vote for the person they see as the pro-labor candidate come rain or come shine. You can undoubtedly come up with many more examples.
I am a "must-have" voter as well. My set of sine qua non issues has eleven elements. These elements are the Constitution of the United States and particularly its first ten amendments. I am constitutionally (pun intended) incapable of supporting any candidate who fails a constitutional test.
One would hope that everyone is a "must-have" voter over certain issues. Most of us would not support a candidate who advocated the reinstatement of slavery, regardless of the perfection of his or her other positions. The same with legalizing treason. Requiring female circumcision. Converting to monarchy. Requiring the execution of the mentally-ill. The fact that none of your "must-have" issues is in debate at the moment does not excuse you from the set of "must-have" voters.
Now each individual can choose whether a given compromise falls under Merriam-Webster's definition one (pragmatic) or definition two (disreputable). If the compromise under consideration contradicts one of one's "must-have" issues, the compromise is unacceptable. Otherwise, it is pragmatic, even though one may strongly dislike its consequences.
Comments (90)
This post wins the prize for "best use of paralipsis in a reader blog."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
Thanks for the kind words. It's good to know I've earned a place among the righteous! ;-)
July 18, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to thank my fans and all the little people who made it possible for me to stand here and accept this award. I am particularly honored to have had the award handed to me by my good friend Alex, whom I hereby nominate for the "Today's Best Misuse of a Really, Really Obscure Word Without Addressing the Point in Any Way."
July 18, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
[snif] Thank you. First, I want to thank the academy, with a small a, which taught me how to use obscure words -- or at least look them up on Google when I need them. And of course, all my fellow posters on TPM, who taught me to evade the point with snark and sarcasm when I'm too tired to do anything else. [blows kiss] This is for all of you guys!!!
July 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're just trying to lay the groundwork for the Lifetime Achievement Award. I think you've got a shot.
July 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a Democrat no longer supports Obama, she cannot in mid-flight responsibly demand to get off the plane especially after having played a role in choosing the captain. There are some pretty ugly words in our language for that sort of behavior. Punishment of politicians within the party over must-have issues must take place constructively during the primary, in this case, it must wait until 2012.
I am with you on the Constitution and on the Bill of Rights, and I have taken heat for it on this forum. However, I will not lose the entire Constitution because of a setback with one part of it, which is what will happen if in my anger over this Fourth Ammendment battle, I forget about the rest of the war, the nomination of judges, the investigation versus the perpetuation of abuses, and other battles we will surely and irreversibly lose if we hand victory over to the Republicans.
July 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, what are those ugly words you had in mind? Something like "traitor?" Uglier than that?
July 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pray no, treason better describes Miller, Lieberman and Richard Cohen. At this stage, though, abandoning our side in this war would be desertion, even if it is principled.
July 18, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha. Then what words would you use to describe the abandonment of liberal politics?
Pragmatism, no doubt. Utility. Compromise, perhaps?
July 18, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer TPMs usage of the term "cave." It calls it what it is without presuming to understand the event behind the curtain.
July 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might suggest that there is a curtain that lies beyond the curtain.
July 18, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might suggest that there is a curtain that lies beyond the curtain.
That's very intriguing, Tankard. What do you mean?
July 18, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no intention to be intriguing or mystical. If I wasn't clear, blame it on my lack of artfulness.
AdAb seemed to me to opine that I was arguing from ignorance. My reply was to meant to imply that I might not be the one who was not in view of all the facts.
July 18, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a Democrat no longer supports Obama, she cannot in mid-flight responsibly demand to get off the plane especially after having played a role in choosing the captain.
Cannot responsibly "leave the flight" under any circumstances? Is that your position?
July 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My role as a supporter in making Obama the nominee is now my responsibility. I owe the party my allegiance now that I have burdened them with my candidate. I owe it to Hillary's supporters. As with any other commitment in life, if I were now to bolt, I would be a deadbeat. I have no choice now than to see him through to victory.
July 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh, how did we come to this soviet style view of representative democracy? We owe the party? You'd dispense with some of the most basic of civil rights to the greater power of the party? I don't believe that's what Franklin, Jefferson Madison, etc. had in mind.
July 19, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nor I. At the very least, it's a sign of how low our entire system has sunk -- and both major parties are responsible.
July 20, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't agree about "under any circumstances," though I broadly agree with AdAb.
Here's why we see the issue differently. In your post, you make it sound as though people who think about party do so because the letter (D) is one of our "must haves." You care about the Constitution; we care about (D).
But I would say that we think about party because we believe that, in this system, a durable coalition is the best way to achieve a long list of "must haves" that includes the Constitution, the rule of law, the environment, economic justice, a woman's right to choose, and so on. Here I agree with AdAb.
Now, obviously you and I tend to disagree about the value of that coalition strategy. But I feel the reasons for disagreement have been pretty well hashed out on this forum in recent weeks. I believe you tend to think there's a problem in the Dem. Party; I tend to think the main problem lies in the broader electorate. And so on.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree on this; to me, it still seems that we're pulling in the same direction.
July 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, just a final point of clarification -- I can imagine circumstances where I'd leave the flight. But only with a real collective parachute, not because I trust in my individual power to make it to the ground okay! I.e., they'd have to be pretty darn serious circumstances, because they'd have to make (D) worse than (R). And these days that takes some doing.
Basically, I try to use my primary vote (and money) to make the party better.
I try to use my GE vote (and money) to make the nation better.
July 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I cannot honorably or ethically bolt on my own at this point. The parachute would indeed need to be collective.
July 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the two of you consider me irresponsible, dishonorable, and unethical if I now find Sen. Obama unacceptable. OK, that's a clear-enough jumping-off place.
This would seem to imply that if he takes a position that you find completely reprehensible, you would still feel compelled to vote for him unless it made him worse than Sen. McCain. Let's suppose that Sen. Obama comes back from his road trip and announces that Gen. Petraeus has convinced him that it will be necessary to keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years, and that the security situation is such that we need to reconsider suspension of habeas corpus despite the recent Supreme Court decision, which he can now see was one of the worst in the history of the Court.
Neither of these positions would render Sen. Obama worse than McCain, because these ARE McCain positions.
You would still feel morally compelled to vote for Sen. Obama?
July 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do find FISA reprehensible, but I am to blame in part for the nomination of the candidate who embraced this position. Therefore, I swallow the bitter medicine for the party.
Rather than name-calling or insulting, my point is that we who were Obama supporters during the primary cannot just turn away from the party now that it is stuck with our candidate.
July 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't agree. It's not possible to know everything about a candidate, his thinking, and his character.
I don't think of it as turning away from my candidate or my party. I think of it as them turning away from me.
July 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When socialist prime-minister Lionel Jospin lost on the first round of the 2002 French presidential elections to right-wing extremist Jean-Marie LePen, the left found themselves holding their nose and voting for moderate right incumbent, Jacques Chirac, just to defeat the racist, xenophobic extremist. These people, in spite of how viscerally distasteful they found Chirac and his politics, came out in droves to assure the defeat of LePen because of the stakes involved. Even many people who were apathetic to the system came out to save their country from this dangerous turn.
To what extent are we going to ignore the implications of this election and throw the baby out with the bathwater because of FISA?
July 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I feel that John McCain is not quite in the same category as Jean-Marie Le Pen, and of course I do not know whether Chiraq was supporting programs that damaged French civil liberties.
To what extent are we going to ignore the implications of this election and throw the baby out with the bathwater because of FISA?
There you go again, pretending that this is all about FISA. This will be the 7,438,995 time I have mentioned that FISA is only the most egregious of several evidences concerning Sen. Obama's attitude about the Constitution and human rights issues, so I hope you will forgive me for not describing the others for the 7,438,996 time.
And to my way of thinking, assisting the conversion of the Democratic Party into America's second conservative party is every bit as much a case of discarding the baby as is voting for Russ Feingold.
July 18, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
a. McCain is evil. End of discussion.
b. I took this blogpost to be about the Fourth being your "must-have" issue. My bad.
July 18, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
a) And if I think Sen. Obama is evil?
b) See a)
July 18, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe there will be no difference between McCain and Obama's appointees to cabinet positions, nominees to the supreme court, foreign policy, energy and environmental policy, economic policies? Are you fucking with me? Until now I was trying to have a serious discussion here with you.
July 18, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe there will be no difference between McCain and Obama's appointees to cabinet positions, nominees to the supreme court, foreign policy, energy and environmental policy, economic policies?
I don't believe anything, as I like to remind folks around here. But if I did, I wouldn't believe any of those things.
If Curley and Larry were running against each other, I would have a problem voting for Larry, disregarding the fact that he's the smarter of the two Stooges. And if two men are running against each other, I similarly will have a problem voting for the one who will take the Constitution apart more slowly. I don't get what you don't get about that.
If you're looking for an argument about who's fucking with whom, look elsewhere. But while you're here please don't accuse me -- one of few around here trying to solicit your ideas rather thatn trying to organize a game of The Dozens -- of failure to debate in good faith. You're the one who named yourself "to absurdity." I've been trying to discuss something with the person, not the name.
July 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do not share premises. All the best.
July 18, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
AdAb:
b. I took this blogpost to be about the Fourth being your "must-have" issue. My bad.
Tankard in OP:
I am a "must-have" voter as well. My set of sine qua non issues has eleven elements. These elements are the Constitution of the United States and particularly its first ten amendments.
Was there a part of "Constitution of the United States and particularly its first ten amendments" that was difficult to understand?
July 20, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't figured out that McCain is going to be worse for the country (and the world) than Obama, I think you haven't been reading enough real news. Obama has made some mistakes, but he's nowhere near McCain territory.
July 21, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, it would appear that, without exactly saying so, AdAb has answered your hypothetical....
...in the affirmative.
July 20, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the way I read it. In fact, I think that's the way he intended it to be read.
July 20, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about the collective part, but otherwise I'm in agreement. If, in fact, I thought Obama were worse than McCain, I'd get off the plane. I'd use my own parachute, but I'd also try to convince others that they should get off. (After all, being worse than McCain would be pretty damn serious.)
That said, as I have tried to point out sarcastically before, there are at least a dozen ways that Obama is drastically better than McCain. Are you concerned about the Constitution? Which candidate is worse:
A) The candidate who supports habeas corpus, who voted in favor of the amendment to strip telecom immunity from the latest FISA bill, but who did ultimately support that FISA bill
--OR--
B) The candidate who thinks habeas corpus can be selectively applied, who voted against the amendment to strip telecom immunity, and who ALSO supported that FISA bill?
I don't see that it's a difficult choice to make here, if the Constitution is what has you concerned about candidate A.
July 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must respectfully ask you to read the original post once again. I think you will find that it does not encourage anyone to vote for an even less acceptable candidate. Rather, it suggests that if a voter is convinced that Candidate X holds a position that is abhorrent -- one that contradicts his or her basic principles -- it is immoral to be a part of the mechanism that installs that candidate in a position where he or she is likely to turn that position into policy.
July 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an understandable position, but one that I do not hold. First of all, I don't find Obama's position abhorrent, so it makes it easier for me to be objective (although I understand you might not see it that way). It's like when someone asks me (I'm very anti-death penalty, and, yes, I know) if I would still be against the death penalty if someone killed my mother/wife/etc. (They never seem to bring up my father/brother/etc., but that's a topic for a whole other thread.) I don't think bringing subjectivity into it improves one's judgment abilities. But, I've digressed.
You can choose between A, B, and C (where C is a whole range of options including staying home, voting 3rd party, etc.). We know, as much as we know anything, that ultimately the person who wins will be either A (Obama) or B (McCain). So, I'll take the liberty of combining B and C into (not A). That doesn't mean that B=C, but that they're both (not A). As such, I've now reorganized your choices (without eliminating them) into two groups: you're either helping Obama win, or you're not. Looking at it from the abhorrent angle: you're either helping the more abhorrent person lose, or you're not. This is not the same as you're either with us or against us. This is the same as you're either with us, or you're not. Barring quantum entanglements, that's simply a truism. I hope that gives you a different perspective and helps you understand what people mean when they say you're helping McCain win if you don't vote for Obama. Those people are wrong, but they're not wrong when they say that you're not helping to make sure he loses.
July 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is unassailable but based on an unstated premise that I find deeply flawed.
It is obviously true that I'm not helping McCain lose, but I feel my duty as a citizen and voter is not to vote against people whose positions I despise. Self-government implies that it is my duty as a voter rather to vote FOR people who I think will do good in office -- even if I know those people are not going to be elected.
I can justify that position in more detail, but I think that's for another essay. (See, I like to keep my threads pure, too!)
July 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do what you feel you have to do. I've been in that position once before, where my sense of ethics got in the way of doing what was probably the right thing. Rather than bring up subjectivity vs. objectivity again, which is a tricky beast, I'll just bring up one bias vs. another. That said, I imagine you can, in theory, understand that one's sense of ethics can, indeed, get in the way of doing the right thing, even if you don't think that's what's going on here. You'll probably also agree that there are far too many commas in that previous sentence. Whatever. Get off my back! This ain't no grammar class!
July 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very similar to the question about whether it is ethical for the courts to consider the consequences of their decisions, or whether they must make rulings based on the law without regard to consequences.
I think that the question is unsettled. For example, I'm very happy that Roe v. Wade happened, but I'm not sure the Framers would approve.
In general, though, it seems clear to me that the court needs to make its decisions based on law and precident, if only so that the averse consequences lead to the repeal of a bad law. Similarly, following one's own ethical standards -- that is, one's internal law based on experience -- is the right way to go in the vast majority of cases.
As an example, I violated my own ethics about two years ago by submitting to a suspicionless drug test at work. I did so because the financial consequences of not submitting would have a lot caused on-going discomfort. I still beat myself up about that incident.
July 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are similarities.
I think this is perhaps the best argument, in general. I say "in general", because I don't find that the differences between Obama's positions and mine rise to the level of needing to make an example out of him. Also, if we look at previous precedent we're left with the case of Nader v. Gore, where Nader made similar arguments about Gore. What is the precedent that was set by that case, which Nader effectively "won"? (I don't blame him alone for Gore's loss, as I could create a laundry list of reasons Gore "lost", each one of which are in the same situation as Nader: without that issue he almost definitely would've been President.)
A choice that I would have made myself, so I won't criticize you for it, or rather take the following criticism with that in mind: it wasn't your ethics getting in the way of doing the "right thing" (or vice-versa) there, but your own self-interests getting in the way of your ethics and doing the right thing. I'd argue that here the situation is quite different. It's not just your self-interests that are served by getting Obama elected (or, more to the point for you, preventing McCain from being elected), but the interests of the United States, as well as the interests of the world.
July 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is perhaps the best argument, in general. I say "in general", because I don't find that the differences between Obama's positions and mine rise to the level of needing to make an example out of him.
Oh, I completely agree with this. It's not a matter of making an example. Never was. His positions may be ones you disagree with, but not ones that make him unacceptable. YOU should vote for him, no question. I'm still struggling with this.
WRT my example about myself, I understand your point, and I didn't make myself clear.
What I was trying unsuccessfully to say is that I might have created a better result by following my ethics in the first place. My financial gain did not necessarily offset my psychic loss and loss of self-esteem.
July 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I see your point about the possible damage to your psyche (I'm extrapolating here) that might be caused by voting for Obama. Allow me to give you 3 possible scenarios for the future:
(1) You vote for a third party, and McCain wins. I would hazard a guess that there's some risk to your psyche in this situation.
(2) You vote for Obama and Obama wins. However, Obama then goes on to make some decisions that appall you. There's some risk to your psyche there.
(3) You vote for a third party and Obama wins. Obama then goes on to be the best damn President you could imagine. I doubt that'd do much harm to your psyche, but it might do a little.
So, in making your choice as to who to vote for, perhaps a factor is also the odds of McCain winning. Of course, the other big factor that's being left out is the actual relative good or bad (as opposed to just absolute good or bad) of the candidates' actions on the country and world.
July 18, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course option 1 is right out.
If Obama wins without my vote and becomes the nation's greatest president, my delight will be endless.
This, in combination with option 2, is why I am relieved that it looks as though he will win without my vote.
July 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My "must-have" in American politics is a candidate whose ideals look as similar to mine as is possible. For all of my adult life that has been the Democrat. I suspect it always will.
That said, I never agree with someone 100% of the time on every sinlge issue. It's just not possible. Some are more important issues than others, there certainly is a priority list. But I have--I guess luckily--not yet come up against a Democratic candidate that has made me think twice about actually voting for them. I've not yet thought to stay home on election day or, worse, vote Republican. I hope this continues for the rest of my life.
It would truly suck to have to choose between a Zell Miller and a Mike Huckabee! ;^}
July 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, this is a very interesting topic with some interesting comments. It is far more interesting than a number of the posts that are already on the recommended list. Yet this one has just one rec (mine!).
Once again, praise Obama to high heaven and it's almost a guarantee. Start a thoughtful post and watch a thoughtful discussion take place...and nuthin'! Weird.
July 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the compliment. That's exactly what I try to do.
July 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Threads of this sort were making the rec list just a few days ago.
So it's not a personal dis, or an attempt to suppress dissent. It's just that we've been over this ground pretty well.
You've heard most of my arguments, and I've heard most of yours. Both of our opinions may have adjusted in the last few weeks, but I feel as though we're hitting a point of diminishing returns. Further adjustment doesn't seem very likely until we have either more evidence, or more time.
July 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel the tiniest bit dissed, but I don't agree that threads "of this sort" were even extant a few days ago.
What I'm trying to do here is explore thoughts and feelings about what sorts of compromises are appropriate, referring to the original arguments but moving the question away from those raised by Sen. Obama's votes into a more generic setting.
I appreciate your injecting the question of my ethics into the conversation. I am constantly reviewing my ethical positions in an attempt to prevent them from becoming calcified. I'm sure most of us here do that, but it's a difficult thing to do internally absent input from other points of view.
July 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sincerity of your motives is appreciated; I've seen that you're willing to adjust your ideas in response to the ideas of others.
And in fact, this post may well end up on the rec list! It's rising as we speak.
In any case, I take back anything I just said that may have seemed to speak for others. Speaking for myself, the ethical issues you're exploring here are ones that end up being moot for me.
My ethics are, frankly, utilitarian: for me, political debate boils down to the question "what works? what course of action, in practice, best fosters our collective well-being?" So the questions that concern me are practical questions about the shape of our coalition, the priorities we ought to set, our strategies, and so on. Other people may be more interested in the kinds of personal ethical questions you're exploring, so I'll get out of the way and let them discuss.
July 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My ethics are, frankly, utilitarian
I hope that you will not take it personally when I question this combination. Although it might be the right thing to do, it is not an ethical act to do the thing that supports one's desires. Ethics only comes into play when one has to sacrifice oneself or one's benefit to do the right thing.
As for "collective well-being," I agree. Where you and I disagree concerns the source of well-being. You think well-being comes from a Democratic winner. I think it comes from a liberal Democratic Party, and I think nuturing right-of-center policies is no way to contribute to my goal.
July 18, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The discussion is getting old, that's all. The subject may have been interesting at one point. Now it's just a rehash.
July 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not being forced either to read it or to comment upon it.
July 20, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Previous discussions criticised the candidate or defended the right to criticism. This thread is about actually not voting for him. There is a clear distinction in my view. I defended the former but not the latter.
July 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
tankard, I wish you had defined "pragmatic," which to me is a much-abused word.
Obama's "compromise" on FISA is not "pragmatic" by any definition. There is nothing "pragmatic" about instituting imbalance between the 3 branches of government, there is nothing "pragmatic" about passing laws that violate the Bill of Rights, there is nothing "pragmatic" about dismissing the will of the majority of the people, there is nothing "pragmatic" about losing sure-thing votes in favor of maybe/maybe-not votes. On a practical level, all of these actions will create profound problems that someone someday will have to fix (not to mention there is no guarantee Obama will be the next president).
What is pragmatic, however, is when politicians pander to corporate interests like the telecoms. We have already seen that the members of congress who changed their FISA vote from N to Y received a financial boost from the telecoms. Now that's pragmatic!
July 18, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I agree with you about the FISA "compromise" (and I'm not the least bit sure what the Dems got as their share in the compromise) and its pragmatism, but that's because I'm seeing this, as you are, from the point of view of our own prejudices and priorities. To you and I, any significant incursion into the Bill of Rights is not to be condoned, let alone countenanced.
To those who disagree with us, the argument might be that this is just another nibble at the Fourth Amendment, barely noticeable in comparison to all the large bites that the Court has already upheld.
But I MUST reiterate: IT AIN'T JUST fisa!!!!!!!!
July 18, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know you mean it ain't just FISA. I'm right there with you in trying to sort out how I feel about all of it too, tankard, and I think you are doing a much better job than I am in defining your personal absolutes, defining your terms. I feel adrift at the moment; I'm just watching and waiting, taking it all in, assessing. For the first time in my life I'm an undecided voter going into the general election.
But Obama was not my choice to begin with, so imagine how I feel now that he's making himself an extremely unattractive Democrat. Talk about moving goal posts! It's not about a leftover loyalty to Hillary, it's about the hard right turn I feared Obama would take all along if he were the nominee. I've always considered him too conservative, by my definition of "conservative." So now my gut is telling me I don't want to reward his post-primary positions by voting for him. My gut tells me I shouldn't reward his positioning because that's what got us into this terrible place of compromise in the first place. My brain is telling me I have to fully weigh the consequences of voting 3rd party or sitting out.
It sucks!
If Obama picks an ultraconservative VP or becomes spineless about torture, the deal is off for me.
July 18, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I have bloviated at length elsewhere, I don't think he has shifted drastically. I think he's sincere in his postitions, and I we probably could have predicted these moves, although maybe not their extent.
Of course, you and I strongly disagree about Sen. Clinton's suitability (although not her pants-suitability) for the Dem nomination. You won't like my saying this, but I'm afraid that if she were the candidate pushing toward the election, she would make Sen. Obama look like Sen. McGovern's radical socialist mentor.
July 19, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Hillary Clinton is not the candidate, making your theory unprovable one way or the other and therefore a complete waste of my time. I'm not interested in discussing Clinton with you. You've proven yourself to be a stubbornly unreliable judge of character in your buyer's remorse over Obama. Am I pissed off at your sudden change of heart? You better fucking believe it! I hold you accountable, tankard. You have zero credibility with me. But that's due to your faulty judgment, not mine. AdAbsurdum has the right attitude, balancing realism and repentance. I can respect that. You don't. You're going to bail on the candidate you not only helped stick us with, but you went out of your way to insult me in the past over making a different choice.
So let's make a deal going forward, tankard: You don't assume you know what I think, and I won't assume I know what you think. Okay? Thanks. I'm not your friend. In my generosity, I've let you off the hook until now.
To be clear about my take on Obama (since you've given me yours on Clinton): During the primaries I always heard him articulate a conservative ideology. For example, I've called him a hawk many times on this site and have been ridiculed for it. I've supported my interpretation with his own speech excerpts, namely from The War We Need to Won speech. The day after the primaries, he gets a stick-up-his-ass hardline hawk attitude toward the Palestinians, an issue he did in fact flip-flop on. It's a documentable and drastic change to pander to AIPAC. All of his positions now are panders.
Obama was never specific about the issues during the primaries, he was vague and broad-brush and full of platitudes. Clinton was specific. That's why I liked her. So obviously I think you're wrong in your assessment of her positioning if she were the candidate instead. But what do YOU know? Not much, apparently.
July 19, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my generosity, I've let you off the hook until now.
That's very kind of you, and you may be right that Sen. Obama hornswoggled stupid people like me. Perhaps you recall that I was never that enthusiastic about him. I supported him primarily because he was the only alternative to Sen. Clinton who was, and still is, completely and totally inappropriate as a Democratic presidential nominee.
July 19, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think I'd remember your each and every position, tankard? How vain are you, anyway? I don't read everything you write! Why would I?
The only thing I remember about you is what a flaming asshole you were to me in one particular thread, insulting not just me but my mother, for god's sake! But that's probably the one thing you don't remember.
But to me, it's the thing that matters about you as a person. I really don't give a shit if you vote or not or what your opinion is about any given subject. That's merely an intellectual exercise. What you say about someone's mother is not intellectual.
July 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for having been an asshole.
July 20, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accepted.
July 20, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. So once again it turns out that those who are furious over the "FISA cave" are virtuous, and without fault,and fully justified in anything they do, while those who are not furious are morally weak, complicit in moral corruption and possibly even a scoche authoritarian.
I seem to recall seeing you taking issue with that kind of thinking recently.
Whatever. But if your "must have" is the Bill of Rights, I guess you're okay with his position on the 2d Amendment, right? Or are you saying you'll only support a candidate who agrees with you on your own personal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, even it its not the same as the Supreme Court's?
I hope not, because it doesn't work that way. The Constitution isn't an ala carte' plan. If you want to be a Constitutional loyalist, you have to accept that that means the Supreme Court is the final authority on what the Constitution means. Marbury v. Madison, rule of law, yada, yada.
My point is that, as some here have tried to point out, many of the truly FISA-furious seem to have their very own personal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that is considerably at variance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Personally, having actually finally read the new FISA statute, I failed to find anything in it that I thought was unconstitutional--or at least any more constituionally suspect than the original FISA statute.
I didn't necessarily like it, but, then, I don't necessarily like our insane drug laws. In my work, I am constantly discovering laws that I don't entirely agree with. That doesn't make 'em unconstitutional.
I keep asking people to tell me which specific provisions of the actual law they think violates the Fourth Amendment, and all they ever say is "ooohh, the ACLU says its bad, so it must be because they know more than you," or "oooooh, Gleen Greenwald says its bad and he's a constitutional lawyer so it must be true" or "ooooo, the EIA says its bad and they're lawyers so . . . "
My point here is that I take exception, umbrage and offense at the intractable insistance of many that Obama "compromised," in the bad sense, on the Constitution as part of some nefarious act of unprincipled triangulation.
You might consider that, just possibly, all he did was pick the side that he thought, on balance, was best, on an issue upon which reasonable people who actually know something about Fourth Amendment jurisprudence can differ. You might also consider the possibility that he was doing what he thought was right and that there is abundent evidence from the way he's behaved in this campaign, and during his public life, that that was exactly what he was doing.
If you accept that, then can question his judgment and you can even question whether this means he's a secret fascist, but you should at least consider that a willingness to stand up to his base if he thinks they're wrong is not necessarily a bad trait in a president.
And note here, I am NOT talking about the telecom immunity part of the bill. That sucked and it still sucks. But he did vote against it and the margin against him was greater than 60. No filibuster was possible. What I am talking about is the fact that when you actually have to vote for a bill, it's never as black and white as the netroots or the wingnuts or the bumper stickers would have one believe. Here's how one Senator you may have heard of put it in his own book:
Sorry about mucking up the fine, pure air up there in Purityland with messy smoggy reality.
July 18, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, TCFKaNCS, dimitry has responded to you. In detail.
Having read the legislation yourself, you are now obligated to respond with your analysis of why, exactly, the issues Dimitry pointed out are not really so bad.
We'll wait.
July 20, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. So once again it turns out that those who are furious over the "FISA cave" are virtuous, and without fault,and fully justified in anything they do, while those who are not furious are morally weak, complicit in moral corruption and possibly even a scoche authoritarian.
I suggest you adjust your browser. You seem to have posted this comment in response to some other article.
July 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are reading this, you are a straggler. This essay has fallen off the edge of the world, never again to see the Portugese shore.
As Ferris might ask, "Don't you have anything better to do?"
July 18, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really.
July 18, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
==keep asking people to tell me which specific provisions of the actual law they think violates the Fourth Amendment, and all they ever say is "ooohh,==
Here ya go:
From my previous post on another thread:
---------------------------------------------------
==Please quote the page number and section number of the relevant portions of the statute. You can't because they don't exist. In fact, this legislation restores what little balance remained after all the other anti-terror bullshit Bush crammed through Congress. It restores essential checks on an Executive branch still bent on misusing the law.==
Ask and you shall receive.
Looking at the recently inacted FISA statute itself, the glaring flaws are easily seen. Here is the section that is an obvious problem (702) - a 1 year (!) warantless surveilance "grant" due to "exigent circumstances" with an "authorization" by the AG, limited to a "reasonable" statement that the target is a person is "reasonably believed" to be outside the US and the program is structured to prevent "intentional acquisition" of domestic communications. And, by the way, this "certification", is specifically not required to identify specific facilities, places, premises and property that it targeted. This very vague wording appears specifically structured to allow wide, unsupervised collection of wide swaths of communications, with no warrants, and the role of the FISA court reduced to a procedureal as opposed to specific oversight.
-------------------------------------------------
SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
`(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
`(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--
`(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
`(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
`(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
`(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
`(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(c) Conduct of Acquisition-
`(1) IN GENERAL- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with--
`(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and
`(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.
`(2) DETERMINATION- A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.
`(3) TIMING OF DETERMINATION- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may make the determination under paragraph (2)--
`(A) before the submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g); or
`(B) by amending a certification pursuant to subsection (i)(1)(C) at any time during which judicial review under subsection (i) of such certification is pending.
`(4) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
`(d) Targeting Procedures-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to--
`(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.
`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(e) Minimization Procedures-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).
`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(f) Guidelines for Compliance With Limitations-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt guidelines to ensure--
`(A) compliance with the limitations in subsection (b); and
`(B) that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act.
`(2) SUBMISSION OF GUIDELINES- The Attorney General shall provide the guidelines adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) to--
`(A) the congressional intelligence committees;
`(B) the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and
`(C) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
`(g) Certification-
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.
`(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS- A certification made under this subsection shall--
`(A) attest that--
`(i) there are procedures in place that have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that are reasonably designed to--
`(I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(II) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
`(ii) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition--
`(I) meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and
`(II) have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court;
`(iii) guidelines have been adopted in accordance with subsection (f) to ensure compliance with the limitations in subsection (b) and to ensure that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act;
`(iv) the procedures and guidelines referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
`(v) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
`(vi) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of an electronic communication service provider; and
`(vii) the acquisition complies with the limitations in subsection (b);
`(B) include the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e);
`(C) be supported, as appropriate, by the affidavit of any appropriate official in the area of national security who is--
`(i) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; or
`(ii) the head of an element of the intelligence community;
`(D) include--
`(i) an effective date for the authorization that is at least 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court; or
`(ii) if the acquisition has begun or the effective date is less than 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court, the date the acquisition began or the effective date for the acquisition; and
`(E) if the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2), include a statement that such determination has been made.
`(3) CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may advance or delay the effective date referred to in paragraph (2)(D) by submitting an amended certification in accordance with subsection (i)(1)(C) to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(4) LIMITATION- A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.
`(5) MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall maintain a copy of a certification made under this subsection.
`(6) REVIEW- A certification submitted in accordance with this subsection shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
...
--------------------------------------------------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110l675ph:e1138:
--------------------------------------------------
The other clear problem is that while section 703 describes targetting US persons outside the US and controls internal collection in that instance, section 702, which targets non-US persons outside the US is purposefully very vague on the internal collection. It seemed to me initially that there was a section missing, that should be titled "CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS" that should fit between sections 702 and 703. Alas, only procedural safeguards are specified in this case, worded in the most vague way possible. Very bad.
It is also not very clear to me at all if the NSA warantless domestic spying program is really brought under any form of FISA control by this legislation. There is no very clear references to this, looking quickly.
-------------------------------------------------
Section 702 is impermissible vague, allowing year long "exigent" spying on foreign targets which are only vaguely identified, and whose communications with Americans require no warrants and essentially no judicial oversight beyond methodological review.
This section is unconstitutional and will be struck down in due time.
July 19, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting these repeatedly, Dimitry. They are unlikely to have the desired impact, but as deep thinkers tell us, we can be responsible only for own behavior, not our outcomes, right?