Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Gore, Democrats, Unilateralism, and the Opposition
So, obviously, Al Gore gave an awesome speech the other day, one which I've just now gotten around to reading. He is solid, as you no doubt know by now, in opposing the president's policy on torture, warrantless wiretapping, imprisonment of citizens without due process, and in general on executive power unilaterally exercised. But I have some questions to ask myself.
First, what would Gore think of these acts of the executive if they were upheld by the other branches of government; would he still rail against the tyranny? The example given of the attempted steel mill (is that what they're called?) seizure by Truman, and the subsequent rebuff by the Supreme Court, might serve to bolster the case that Gore's objection is to unilateral exercise of state power, rather than to state power itself. I would compare this to Gore's stance on the Iraq War, with reference to the weight he placed on multilateral approval of the war as against the justice and wisdom of the war itself; judging too quickly from just the text of one speech (September 2002), it seems that Gore has had the sense to speak to both the unwisdom of invasion as well as to the unwisdom of the unilateral method. My hunch, without evidence, is that Gore is willing to vitiate his moral objections on the basis of the opinion of authorities he respects (this may be a tautology?).
In any case, though, I feel like noting that it is definitely preferable to have an agent of the executive, or the executive himself, of the government, be constrained by the opinion of his peers, than not.
Second question is: what does this indicate for the future of the Democratic opposition? A shift against statism in at least a few areas, or, a temporary reorientation to be expected from a party out of power? I don't know. Raimondo (link above) thinks that it bodes well, since Gore hereby goes on record with a rather distinct viewpoint from when he supported some infringements on civil liberties while vice-president, and because Gore has the courage to admit to the failure of his own party, with respect to its own complicity. Maybe.
Anyway, let me note that I'm pleased to learn--of what may not be by any means new--of the Liberty Coalition, fighting against government intrusions on privacy, civil liberties, and more.
First, what would Gore think of these acts of the executive if they were upheld by the other branches of government; would he still rail against the tyranny? The example given of the attempted steel mill (is that what they're called?) seizure by Truman, and the subsequent rebuff by the Supreme Court, might serve to bolster the case that Gore's objection is to unilateral exercise of state power, rather than to state power itself. I would compare this to Gore's stance on the Iraq War, with reference to the weight he placed on multilateral approval of the war as against the justice and wisdom of the war itself; judging too quickly from just the text of one speech (September 2002), it seems that Gore has had the sense to speak to both the unwisdom of invasion as well as to the unwisdom of the unilateral method. My hunch, without evidence, is that Gore is willing to vitiate his moral objections on the basis of the opinion of authorities he respects (this may be a tautology?).
In any case, though, I feel like noting that it is definitely preferable to have an agent of the executive, or the executive himself, of the government, be constrained by the opinion of his peers, than not.
Second question is: what does this indicate for the future of the Democratic opposition? A shift against statism in at least a few areas, or, a temporary reorientation to be expected from a party out of power? I don't know. Raimondo (link above) thinks that it bodes well, since Gore hereby goes on record with a rather distinct viewpoint from when he supported some infringements on civil liberties while vice-president, and because Gore has the courage to admit to the failure of his own party, with respect to its own complicity. Maybe.
Anyway, let me note that I'm pleased to learn--of what may not be by any means new--of the Liberty Coalition, fighting against government intrusions on privacy, civil liberties, and more.
Comments:
Post a Comment
