Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Democrats' 'Katrina'

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Alito Hearings: Democrats Katrina By
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      Alito Hearings: Democrats' 'Katrina'
      By Robert Parry
      January 14, 2006
      ConsortiumNews.com

      For a constitutional confrontation at least five years in the
      making, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked as
      prepared to confront Samuel Alito as FEMA chief Michael Brown did in
      responding to Hurricane Katrina.

      As with the hurricane that zeroed in on New Orleans days before
      coming ashore, there should have been no surprise about Judge Alito.
      He was exactly what the Republican base had long wanted in a Supreme
      Court nominee, a hard-line judicial ideologue with a pleasant
      demeanor and a soft-spoken style.

      Indeed, Alito has been such an unapologetic supporter of the Right's
      beloved Imperial Presidency that Alito's one noteworthy assurance –
      that George W. Bush was not "above the law" – was essentially
      meaningless because in Alito's view Bush is the law.

      Yet the Democrats were incapable of making an issue out of Alito's
      embrace of the "unitary executive," a concept so radical that it
      effectively eliminates the checks and balances that the Founding
      Fathers devised to protect against an out-of-control President.

      Bush even gave the Democrats a news hook to make the peculiar
      phrase "unitary executive" a household word. Bush cited
      his "unitary" powers just days earlier in signaling that he would
      use his commander-in-chief authority to override the provisions of
      Sen. John McCain's anti-torture amendment passed in December 2005.

      Though the McCain amendment had been big news – and Bush's
      announcement of his personal loophole on torture had been reported
      in the press – the Democrats still failed to force this troubling
      concept of an all-powerful President into the mainstream debate.

      "Unitary executive" may have been the buzz of the blogs, but it was
      barely mentioned on the evening news. The notion that Bush and Alito
      believe the President has the power to abrogate the Bill of Rights,
      authorize torture and seize control of independent regulatory
      agencies got much less attention than a few tears shed by Alito's
      wife.

      No Surprise

      But very little that happened during Alito's three days of testimony
      should have come as a surprise to the Democrats.

      The senators knew Alito was going to dodge direct answers to
      questions about Roe v. Wade and other hot-button issues. They knew
      the Right would rally its extensive media and grassroots operations,
      even lining up people to cheer Alito when he arrived on Capitol Hill
      (much as they did for Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings
      almost two decades ago).

      The Democrats must have realized that the mainstream media would
      focus on the most trivial aspects of the hearings – as well as on
      the windiness of the senators' long-prefaced questions. The only
      hope to change those dynamics would have been to present a strong
      alternative narrative.

      That alternative narrative could have been how the Right has spent
      three decades steadily building its infrastructure and clout to
      consolidate ideological control around an Imperial Presidency held
      tightly in Republican hands and endorsed by a restructured Supreme
      Court. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

      The Democrats could have built the drama by spotlighting the stakes
      involved in Alito's nomination, that the final check and balance in
      the U.S. political system – the courts – would be locked down by
      ideologues who have long boasted of their determination to gain one-
      party dominance in Washington.

      By undergoing rhetorical liposuction, the Democrats also might have
      trimmed down their flabby speechifying and instead posed pointed
      question after pointed question to Alito, eventually making his
      refusal to answer questions the central issue of the hearings, not
      their own bloviating.

      Does the President have the right to override the McCain amendment
      and order the torture of detainees? What point is there in Congress
      passing laws if Bush as the "unitary executive" can simply declare
      them meaningless? What would Alito do if Bush announced that he
      would begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings?

      Since the "unitary" theory holds that independent regulatory
      agencies must cease to exist, should the President have total
      control over a revamped Securities and Exchange Commission? If one
      of his contributors is caught up in an accounting scandal, should
      the President have the power to order the SEC to look the other way?

      If a media outlet criticizes the President, should he have the power
      to order the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the
      station's broadcast license? Would it be okay for Bush to give the
      license to a political ally or a campaign contributor?

      Since you, Judge Alito, have long promoted the theory of
      the "unitary executive," where are the boundaries of the President's
      powers? For the duration of the War on Terror, are there any
      meaningful limits on the President's right to do whatever he deems
      necessary? Judge Alito, how do you differentiate between a system
      run by a "unitary executive" and a dictatorship?

      Clearly, Alito would not have answered these questions. He would
      fallen back on his ritual response of declining to comment about
      issues that might eventually come before the Supreme Court.

      But many Americans would have been shocked by Alito's refusal to
      stand decisively on the side of a traditional democratic Republic
      and against an autocratic regime. It also might have dawned on
      millions of Americans what's at stake in this debate.

      Another advantage would have been that some Republicans might have
      been put on the spot.

      Instead of letting Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., set the Democrats up
      for the melodramatic moment of Mrs. Alito leaving the hearing room
      in tears, the Democrats could have demanded to know why Graham, who
      supposedly objects to torturing U.S. detainees, was coddling a right-
      wing jurist who helped craft the legal arguments for the President's
      right to torture.

      Instead, the Democrats made their own ineptitude the issue, both by
      preening before the cameras and pandering to their interest groups.
      With few exceptions, when the Democratic senators weren't looking
      silly, they were sounding craven. They failed to elevate the
      importance of the hearing beyond whether Alito was an active member
      of some creepy Princeton alumni group.

      The Left's Media Mistake

      In a larger sense, however, the hapless Judiciary Committee
      Democrats reflect some of the damaging strategies that liberals and
      progressives have followed for 30 years.

      Rather than building a media infrastructure to match up with the
      imposing right-wing message machine, the American Left has
      concentrated on supporting interest groups in Washington and
      doing "grassroots organizing" supposedly across the country.

      The harsh reality, however, is that liberal interest groups in
      Washington often are more concerned about churning their supporters
      for money than getting results. The "grassroots organizing" –
      without any significant media to get out a consistent message – has
      become patchy and stunted, a political brownout.

      The few bright media spots for the Democrats and the liberals have
      come almost in defiance of the major funders on the Left.

      Cash-strapped Internet blogs have had the courage to take on the
      Bush administration and the major media but have limited influence
      with the broad American public; progressive talk radio barely got
      started because it was shunned by wealthy liberal funders; and
      Comedy Central programming, such as "The Daily Show with Jon
      Stewart," popped up as a cultural, not a political, phenomenon. [See
      Consortiumnews.com's "The Left's Media Miscalculation."]

      The lack of any significant media on the Left – at least that
      compares with the Right's media juggernaut – has left Democratic
      politicians feeling isolated, trying to triangulate the best deal
      they can for themselves. Many leading Democrats seem to suffer a
      kind of Stockholm Syndrome, in which they become passive or even
      helpful in the face of their tormentors

      At a time when many rank-and-file Americans are alarmed that the
      Constitution and the continued existence of a democratic Republic
      are in jeopardy, they see congressional Democrats more concerned
      about avoiding unpleasant confrontation than leading the fight
      against encroaching authoritarianism.

      Some Democrats, like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, seem to think their
      chief purpose in Washington is to be on as many network talk shows
      as possible, a goal that requires them not to be seen as too extreme
      or strident in their criticism of Bush or his administration.

      All of these factors came together in the three days of hearings on
      Alito. The Democrats looked disorganized, clueless, unprepared.

      Though they knew this political disaster was bearing down on them
      for months if not years, they looked as surprised and befuddled by
      the predictable devastation as Federal Emergency Management Agency
      director Michael Brown did when Hurricane Katrina flooded New
      Orleans.

      Perhaps someone needs to go up to Capitol Hill with the
      message, "Heck of a job, minority members of the Senate Judiciary
      Committee."
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for
      the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy &
      Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be
      ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
      Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the
      Press & 'Project Truth.'
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.