"A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away."
in an exceptionally insightful post by kagro x at daily kos (i have cited his insightful posts on numerous occasions) on the extraordinary claim of the bush administration position that, in order to safeguard the citizens of the united states from the horrors of their manufactured, endless war, the constitution and other annoyances like the rule of law, simply do not apply... he quotes harvard professor and claremont institute fellow, harvey mansfield, who, back in january 2006, offered this jaw-dropping statement...
naturally, glenn greenwald weighs in...
to provide a bit of context on professor mansfield, glenn offers this...
well, mansfield's at it again in today's wsj, and greenwald responds...
this is the kind of thing that gives me cold chills and restless nights, but it's precisely the path that the bush administration is on and has been on since the coup d'etat was blessed by the 12 december 2000 scotus decision... one of the reasons i like greenwald is that he, unlike so many others, recognizes just how critical is the constitutional crisis we are facing in this country...
and, like me, he agonizes over the fact that it's not seen by our media who should be screaming it from the rooftops...
unless and until bush, cheney and their minions are removed, we will continue down this same path until 20 january 2009... equally discomfiting is the fact that, if nothing is done between now and then, the next president will be sworn in with all of this crap still in place...
Tweet
Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply.
naturally, glenn greenwald weighs in...
[Mansfield's] article bears this headline: The Case for the Strong Executive -- Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy. And it is the most explicit argument I have seen yet for vesting in the President the power to override and ignore the rule of law in order to receive the glories of what Mansfield calls "one-man rule."
to provide a bit of context on professor mansfield, glenn offers this...
He has a career-long obsession with the glories of tyrannical power as embodied by Machiavelli's Prince, which is his model for how America ought to be governed. And last year, he wrote a book called Manliness in which "he urges men, and especially women, to understand and accept manliness" -- which means that "women are the weaker sex," "women's bodies are made to attract and to please men" and "now that women are equal, they should be able to accept being told that they aren't, quite." Publisher's Weekly called it a "juvenile screed."
well, mansfield's at it again in today's wsj, and greenwald responds...
I didn't think it was possible, but Mansfield, with today's article in The Wall St. Journal, actually goes even further in advocating pure lawlessness and tyranny than he did in that remarkable Weekly Standard screed. He begins by describing "the debate between the strong executive and its adversary, the rule of law." He then says: "In some circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law," but "the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule."
The rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. That is what is on the Op-Ed page of The Wall St. Journal this morning. The article is then filled with one paragraph after the next paying homage to the need for a Great Leader who stomps on the rule of law when he chooses -- literally:The best source of energy turns out to be the same as the best source of reason--one man. One man, or, to use Machiavelli's expression, uno solo, will be the greatest source of energy if he regards it as necessary to maintaining his own rule. Such a person will have the greatest incentive to be watchful, and to be both cruel and merciful in correct contrast and proportion. We are talking about Machiavelli's prince, the man whom in apparently unguarded moments he called a tyrant. . .
The president takes an oath "to execute the Office of President" of which only one function is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." In addition, he is commander-in-chief of the military, makes treaties (with the Senate), and receives ambassadors. He has the power of pardon, a power with more than a whiff of prerogative for the sake of a public good that cannot be achieved, indeed that is endangered, by executing the laws. . . .
In quiet times the rule of law will come to the fore, and the executive can be weak. In stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong.
In the course of explaining how the rule of law applies only in "quiet times," Mansfield also argues that "civil liberties are subject to circumstances," not inalienable, and that "in time of war the greater dangers may be to the majority from a minority." Thus, he explains -- in what might be my favorite sentence -- "A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away."
this is the kind of thing that gives me cold chills and restless nights, but it's precisely the path that the bush administration is on and has been on since the coup d'etat was blessed by the 12 december 2000 scotus decision... one of the reasons i like greenwald is that he, unlike so many others, recognizes just how critical is the constitutional crisis we are facing in this country...
The real point is that Mansfield's mindset is the mindset of the Bush movement, of the right-wing extremists who have taken over the Republican Party and governed our country completely outside of the rule of law for the last six years. Mansfield makes these arguments more honestly and more explicitly, but there is nothing unusual or uncommon about him. He is simply expounding the belief in tyrannical lawlessness on which the Bush movement (soon to be led by someone else, but otherwise unchanged) is fundamentally based.
and, like me, he agonizes over the fact that it's not seen by our media who should be screaming it from the rooftops...
Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.
unless and until bush, cheney and their minions are removed, we will continue down this same path until 20 january 2009... equally discomfiting is the fact that, if nothing is done between now and then, the next president will be sworn in with all of this crap still in place...
Labels: Bush Administration, constitutional crisis, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Glenn Greenwald, Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli, rule of law, U.S. Constitution, war on terror
Submit To PropellerTweet