Patriotic Gore
Radical non-leftist antiwarriors from Paul Craig Roberts to Justin Raimondo are doing headstands with joy over an MLK Day speech by Al Gore in which he seems to recognize the connection between a dangerously unlimited domestic executive power and unbridled warmaking. Here's Reuters' take on the speech, delivered in Washington to a meeting of The American Constitution Society and The Liberty Coalition.
Some excerpts from the born again defender of limited constitutional government, spun off his discussion of the Bush surveillance controversy:
We have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a globe where there are nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter- intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. But, as Justice Frankfurter wrote in that famous Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."
…….
This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential power is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary, cannot be checked by Congress. And President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, both domestic and foreign. And when added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
Gore is, as near as I can tell, still a Dead Man Walking as far as the rest of his party is concerned, but it was still refreshing to hear such words out of even a formerly significant American politician.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So...
"Gore would have been better" ?
Gore is, as near as I can tell, still a Dead Man Walking as far as the rest of his party is concerned...
Which is the only reason he can get away with the truth. Kinda like Ike warning us about the Military Industrial Complex...right before he blew town for the last time...
How could he have been worse?
I get chills thinking about worse...
Oh please. Gore has absolutely no credibility to slag this president, none, nada, especially given that the administration _he_ served in as co-conspirator ran an undeclared war in Kosovo, conducted warrantless _physical_ searches, tried to foist the Clipper Chip on us, defended the Communications Decency Act in the Supreme Court -- what am I leaving out, oh right, presided over Echelon, which was not about intercepting calls from AQ operatives abroad to possible AQ operatives in the US, but outsourcing to the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis the interception of _all_ communications by _every_ American. Oh, and let's not forget it was the incompetence of his administration's State Department, CIA, and FBI which enabled 9/11 to occur in the first place. Gore "refreshing?" As refreshing as a heaping pile of hypocritical bullshit.
Levi,
Funny. I actually could vote for Gore, if his positions have evolved enough to realize the errors of his old beliefs. I suspect, however, that Gore actually believes that it's ok for the president to have the powers and disrespect for the limits of those powers that Bush does, as long as it's "the right president". Like him.
Hey, I like the Edmund Wilson allusion. He was a great writer, even if he was a leftie.
Well, he did state, and I note it in the quote above, that presidential power has been increasing for decades. I believe that would cover his term as Vice President under Clinton. So, he's a Johnny Come lately to the realization? Some Republicans are in the same sitch when it comes to King George. His words still ring true.
Oh, and I'm really tired of hearing apologists blame Clinton for 9/11. If memory serves, Bush was in office by then and it was AQ who caused 9/11. No one "enabled" it or "just let it happen" (my re-wording). Such talk is hindsight which, if it were aimed at trying to improve processes rather than trying to score political points and toss blame, then it would be useful.
Who cares what you're tired of hearing, BD. Clinton was a wanker of a president & deserves to be slagged for kicking the can down the road as far as dealing with the increasingly bold terrorist attacks that went on during his presidency.
You're right. The only person who cares is probably me.
In any case, I was not defending Clinton, but attacking those who would try to use him as cover for an administration that is at least as equally incompetent and possibly more harmful to the freedoms this nation loves to tout. Now, if you can add something constructive..?
Douglas-So, when does the statute of limitations run out on slagging Clinton? When the camps open up for "terrorists?"
Oh, yeah, they already did.
I dislike the man as much as you do, but admit it, you're fiddling while Rome burns here.
The only Supreme decision in recent years that I can think of that was worse than Bush v Gore was Kelo. Total disrespect for Federalism and the words and spirit of the Constitution. I get the Posner argument that we needed a President in place by Jan 20th to avoid a crisis, but frankly that's bullshit. How come in Ukraine when they redo a tainted election it's a triumph for democracy, but here it's something that would lead to a crisis. Total bullshit.
I fall in the camp that says Clinton failed to adequately address the nature of the Al-Qaeda threat. Clearly, rounding up a couple of suspects and getting guilty verdicts for the first World Trade Center bombing, which, if effective, would have killed tens of thousands, was, as Condi Rice said, akin to swatting flies instead of squashing the shit that attracts them.
Herrick - Gore lost, get over it. The rules in the book are that whoever gets the most electoral votes -- not most votes -- wins. Bush played to those rules -- if the rules were different he would have played to maximize votes -- and he won. He not only won on election day, he won in front of the Supreme Court, and then he won again when the MSM ran their own recount.
Shem -- the statute of limitations on slaggin Clinton will never run out because AQ bombed the Trade Center on his watch, bombed the embassies in Africa on his watch, took over Afghanistan and cranked out tens of thousands of Islamofascist nutters on his watch, bombed Khobar Towers on his watch, and bombed the Cole on his watch. And he sat around with his thumb up his ass and ran a disfunctional FBI and a criminally incompetent CIA. Maybe 9/11 happened eight _months_ into Bush's presidency, but the plot was hatched and developed during the _eight years_ of the Clinton presidency.
B.D. - Bush is "incompetent" because? Because you say so? Because Gore says so? Because the Copperheads say so? Because MSM say so? Lincoln took shit from assholes during his presidency too, but he turned out to be America's greatest president. The fact that partisan shit is flying doesn't mean that any of it will stick when the history is written.
JF - You'd vote for Gore because "his positions have evolved"? That's like saying Tookie Williams evolved. Tookie Williams couldn't claim redemption until he recognized his crime and begged forgiveness. He never did. Same for Gore. Until Gore admits that he was what he now claims Bush is -- a war criminal who deserves impeachment -- then he's just fucking with your mind. And succeeding apparently. I can't figure out which is more pathetic -- him trying to fuck with your mind, or you letting him.
Gore has absolutely no credibility to slag this president
Sure he does. Bush is just that much of a big spending, war mongering, liberal. He's the neocon's faithful servant. Bush is so bad infact, he lends credence to almost anyone's attacks.
Yea, I'm sure Gore would be a model of restraint if he had won. This speech reminds me of when Bush's condemnation of "nation-building" when he was posturing for the presidency.
Levi, most people who think Bush didn't really win the election also believe that Bush didn't really win Florida. In fact, I venture to say those beliefs are nearly identical. Pretending that Bush v. Gore boiled down to "Popular vote or electoral vote, which is more important" is a nice sleight of hand though. Kudos.
Gore's thoughts were excellent. That they came from him is a major surprise. But we should be happy. Perhaps this is will move the debate in a libertarian direction.
I remember in one of the election 2000 debates, Bush called for a "more modest foreign policy" (Gosh that sounds good now) and Gore would have none of it.
Barbar - The people who think that Bush didn't win Florida are the same people who think that it's important to count every vote in Dade County but not from Florida service members abroad. In other words, hypocrites. Doesn't change the fact that Bush won Florida.
Barton - Right, Gore is going to move "the debate in a libertarian direction." What are you smoking? This is only about electoral politics, not liberty. Taking Gore at face value is like taking the Iranians at face value, that they only want to develop nuclear energy -- in other words, equally delusional.
Jezis marja! I agree with Rick Barton. That's probably because we're both right.
Levi, just because Gore is Gore doesn't mean that what he says is therfore wrong. That's like arguing that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is crap because Jefferson was a slaveholder.
Re: Florida 2000. Uh people. The vote was within the margin of error for all methods of counting the vote. It was a tie by any method we can come up with to count that many million votes. There are, by the way, mechanisms for what to do in case of a tie. They were not used in 2000. Instead we got a reach around from the Supreme Court.
If you claim to know who got more votes in Florida in 2000, you're a ninny. It's relevance to any argument now?
Levi- I feel sad for you. You have no access to current events and haven't been able to use your own eyes to evaluate Bush's performance. Is it lonely in your hut?
Levi Rizetnikof just demonstrated the fallacy of ad Hominem.
Hey, AJ. Good to see you. But are you saying that you rarely agree with me?
Soudruh Barton,
I don't think we exactly see eye to eye on Zionism, but I'm admittedly a fanatical Zionist.
Apostate Jew,
Gotcha. I thought it might be about that. But let me say that there are lotsa things that I like and appreciate about Israel. Not the Israeli government or its brutal occupation of Palestinian land. But still, lotsa things, especially for a non-believing Gentile.
The following is from a speech Gore delivered in December 2002
"Far more damaging, however, is the Administration's attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale."
The speech was largely a critique of the President's policies towards Iraq but it was followed by at least one major speech at Columbia U in 2004 which attcked the Patriot Act.
Whether Gore would have acted differently had he been in power, I do not know, but I share the general mistrust of all people who aspire to the presidency so often expressed herein.
That having been said, Gore's opposition to the diminution of civil liberties by the Patriot act, whatever its motivation, was clear and early.
Again, Gore has no credibility, because the administration he was second-in-command of did at least as bad, probably worse (and especially worse if you consider it was responsible for the intelligence and policy failures that killed 3000 fellow citizens in New York). That he is now calling the kettle black is pure politics. That he was early in his hyperbolic condemnations only proves that he's been consistently attacking this president on any grounds he could come up with, no matter how hypocritical. That libertarians are celebrating this asshole is testimony to how far libertarians have sunk in understanding the real threats to liberty in the 21st century. Which is why I -- and I gather a lot of other people -- are ex-libertarians today.
Levi-So, what you're saying is we have to put up with hearing about Clinton as long as life endures on the planet then? Gotcha. But, if there's another terror attack, then will you be cursing the name of Bush for eternity as well? Seems only fair.
The credibility of the speaker is often an important point in considering an argument, but it is not the only point to consider. Unfortunately, some folks don't seem to realize this.
It's not a slippery slope. The President can do it under his powers so long as there's voter support for it, and not longer.
What the President can do and not do, versus the Legislature and the Courts, is unsettled and is properly left that way.
That leaves the only way to game the system as public debate, which is where you want it.
The system doesn't protect liberty. We do. There's no particular urgency to stopping this President doing this. It's not like he's gathering FBI files on political enemies, or setting the IRS on them. He's wondering instead, properly, about men of middle-eastern appearance and what they're up to.
The threat to us is the low quality of public debate, say that soap opera news drives out everything else owing to its easy-to-get demographics, 40% of women.
Can we MoveOn from election2000? Why don't we all just finally admit that the better thief won?
So far as Bush being competant or not, one of the scariest things I can think of is a competant tyrant (Stalin, Mao). Another scary thing is an incompetant tyrant (Kim Jong-il, Hitler(in the end)).
We do not have Bush to worry about for much longer. So competant or not, unless Bush fulfills the paranoid ravings of right-wingers back during Clinton, who feared that Billy-Jeff would cancel elections and refuse to leave office, we do not have a tyrant on our hands.
I only wish the congress had the balls to impeach him, as it did during Johnson(1), Nixon and Clinton. (HaHaHeeHeeSnortSnicker, I'm so funny!)
So far as Gore. I will accept talk of limiting presidential power from Dems or Reps. At worst it gets the idea out to a larger audience, insincerly stated or not.
It could be Gore has learned from mistakes and evolved his opinions, it could also be that this is a cynical attempt to bash Bush and postion himself for another presidential challenge, or at least some sort of power position in the party.
We will find out over the next 2 years what Gore intends. In the meantime, we can hope that any damage Bush attempts is reeled in by congress.
Levi Rizetnikof:
That libertarians are celebrating this asshole..
You still don't get it. We aren't celebrating Gore, we're celebrating what the asshole said. If we have to cover this with you once more, it's back to blogging 101 for you.
... I'm an ex-libertarian today.
This will go along the remedial course in political thought that you appear yo be in need of.
...make that:
"...the remedial course in political thought that you appear *to* be in need of."
All that blathering about how bad it is for Al Gore to give the speech, and Levi can't find a single word of the speech itself to criticize?
Pretty much par for the course for how Gore's speeches on this president's excesses have been treated - look at him, he's crazy! And angry! And was Clinton's Vice President! No, no, don't worry about what he was saying - that guy's crazy!
Sadly, for Bushbots like Levi, the media and public aren't playing that game anymore.
Levi, is there anything you disagree with the former Vice President about, that he mentioned in his speech?
Now, if you can add something constructive..?
Um, what is this, kindergarten?
Joe - is there anything I disagree with that Gore said in his speech? Yes. That the NSA issue is a big deal, that it is illegal, much less unconstitutional, that Bush's behavior is somehow exceptional compared to the behavior of prior war presidents, indeed, that it is anywhere _near_ as bad as _any_ prior presidents, and that we have to do anything about this supposed Bush threat or else our democracy will collapse. Am I missing anything?
Oh, and if I called you a Sheehanbot, or a Gorebot, or a MoveOnbot, or a Murthabot, or a Deanbot, or a Pelosibot -- would that add anything to our discussion?
Hey! Cool it with that "bot" stuff. I take it personally cuz I'm just an AI construct. Ya know, blogging with droid mind.
OK, that was really me but an AI punker does sound kinda cool, huh?