The Socialism Conference was held in Chicago, IL, over the weekend. On Saturday, July 3, Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald delivered a speech on civil liberties in the age of President Obama.
I attended the conference and recorded Greenwald’s speech. Throughout the next couple of days, I will be posting video of his speech and, eventually, a full transcript of it will be made available.
In this first part, Greenwald discusses how it has become conventional wisdom that Obama has continued many of the Bush Administration policies, which were once regarded as policies that shredded the Constitution, but now in Democratic circles it is considered to be “Democratic consensus.”
He describes how one year ago it was “controversial” and “provocative” to utter observations that President Obama had virtually continued “the entirety of the Bush/Cheney approach to the war on civil liberties and terrorism.” It was something people found “repellent.” But, now, it has become “so obvious” and “self-evidently true.”
That it has become so blatantly obvious means one no longer has to spend time proving the existence of continuity between the two administrations, Greenwald argues.
One of Greenwald’s most salient points is made as he highlights how the Bush-following American right has had to acknowledge Bush policies have continued under Obama and thus admit he has been strong and courageous on national security.
“The reason why I find it interesting that even the right wing is willing to acknowledge these policies have continued under the Obama presidency is for decades the Republicans have gained really potently on a political level from accusing Democrats of being weak on national security or soft on terrorism in the age of terror,” Greenwald suggests.
He adds:
Now, weak on national security in American political parlance doesn’t mean that somebody shies away from acts of strength and courage. And similarly, strength and national courage doesn’t mean that one acts strongly or engages in acts of courage. It means the opposite. What strength and national security means is a willingness to send other people’s children off to war to risk their lives to kill large numbers of civilians in foreign countries.
Greenwald cites Jack Goldsmith, former National Security Agency head under former President George W. Bush, Michael Hayden, and former Vice President Dick Cheney as proof that one of Obama’s greatest achievements among the political and ruling elite in America is that he has made what was once controversial, and seen as right wing radicalism, part of a bipartisan political consensus. And, by making this part of a consensus, Greenwald argues, debate is effectively ended; the policies are no longer objectionable to the political class in Washington.
Finally, Greenwald notes liberal professors and leaders of liberal groups like the ACLU have noted the continuity and expressed their disgust and outrage at the fact that the assault on civil liberties has continued and in some cases escalated under President Obama.
Discussion of civil liberties and the Obama administration’s assault has been largely absent from conversations. At liberal conferences, discussion has been pushed to the margins.
Netroots Nation had one panel, “What the Government Wants to Know About You,” that looked at some of the policies expanding under Obama. There was little talk about Guantanamo and lack of accountability for torture. Liberal organizers focused on the right wing attack on the middle class, avoiding outright condemnation of the bipartisan support that President Obama has created on national security (although Kaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos did ask White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer why Guantanamo hasn’t been closed).
In October, the liberal Campaign for America’s Future that holds a “Take Back America” conference each year is rebranding their conference, “Take Back the American Dream.” Led by Van Jones, there will likely be minimal conversation on civil liberties or national security policy, as the focus will involve a much more politically safe discussion on jobs and unemployment.
A key difference between those who attend Netroots and “Take Back America” conferences and those who attend Socialism conferences is the fact that those in attendance seldom consist of people with radical views, which in American history have been openly condemned and in many cases left people with those views open to government smearing and prosecution. Those with socialist views understand what many liberals take for granted, why civil liberties must be protected.
How can one fight a right wing assault on what Democratic Party operatives term the middle class if one’s civil liberties or rights under the constitution have been entirely stripped away or rendered meaningless, especially in cases when one is challenging power?
There’s a Twitter town hall tomorrow at 2 pm ET. This is an opportunity to undermine liberal organization leaderships’ efforts to make nice with the Obama Administration and overlook the Administration’s ever-expanding assault on civil liberties by doubling down on Bush Administration “war on terror” policies.
Purify the Tweet stream for #AskObama with lots of questions and remarks on the continuity between the Bush and Obama Administrations.
*Go here for Part 2 of Glenn Greenwald’s speech.



14 Comments

Nice work, Kevin…
Word, son.
OK, now, how many of you people who read this are going to nod your heads in agreement, but still vote Obama in 2012 rather than Green or Socialist? Be honest.
Above all, the FDL proprietors.
Kevin, you have quickly become one of the best contributors at FDL. I’m sure that I am not alone in that assessment. Thanks.
seconded
Barack Obama has been a huge disappointment in so many ways, but heading the list is his wretched record on civil liberties. It was one thing for George W. Bush, a man with open contempt for the rule of law, to expand executive power and erode the Bill of Rights in the name of “9/11 changed everything,” but for a former editor of the Harvard Law Review who taught Constitutional Law at a leading law school to entrench and expand the Bush policies is quite another.
I truly regret being taken in by Obama and his snake-oil nostrums.
And another second. There are some seriously good writers on FDL, and the quality of writing here is still improving.
The Obushma administration is a two-headed serpent that will devour anything green and breathing. After 3 terms it is only getting more powerful. But I will vote for the little froggy party.
Good question. I see all kinds of people saying definitive things about who the FDL staff are going to vote for in 2012, and I’m not aware of them.
It would be helpful if someone put a collection of links in one place so we could refer to them, then we’d all be able to discuss it.
Since you seem to be familiar with this could you do it?
There is no contradiction between those of us who are correctly fighting to defend civil liberties, and challenging President Obama on this issue, and those of us who are focusing our energies on cleaning up the economic devastation caused by conservatives. In fact, I would argue that a nation of people under severe economic stress will be more willing to overlook human rights abuses, especially against people who can be labeled as scapegoats or can be used as diversions from the real causes (and beneficiaries) of economic decline.
Declaring that our number-one economic priority should be the employment of 25 million unemployed and underemployed people — not making economically struggling families more economically insecure by shredding safety nets and economic supports, or using the tax code to make rich people even richer — is far from a “politically safe” position, as anyone who is following the debt ceiling debate knows. People who take this stand are in opposition to an administration and a Democratic establishment that has ruled out of bounds such essentials as a WPA-style public works program, aid to states to protect public services and the workers who provide them, and major investments in a green economy beyond the tokens that are currently being doled out.
Bottom line, this is not an either-or fight. I’m working on the “Take Back The American Dream” conference in the hopes that we can build a grassroots movement that can transform the deadly economic policy debate in Washington into one that focuses on getting Americans back to work at good jobs that pay decent wages. I consider the people who are challenging President Obama on human rights and calling for a higher standard as brethren fighting the same fight for progressive values and a better America on a different front. It is essential that we both win.
Thanks for your comment. Appreciate it and you make some good points on why economic issues shouldn’t be compartmentalized and separated from civil liberties or human rights issues.
However, one thing: It is “politically safe” if Obama does little to actually challenge the corporate power that has consolidated in America and rendered American politicians impotent when they are most needed. It is “politically safe” if he can chide Wall Street and the wealthy and not risk campaign donations by assuring them behind closed doors that he will not actually follow through on his pledges or promises.
Good luck.
Ever hear the old saying about assume? It makes an ass out of you and me. I’m getting more than a little sick of people pulling this same old tired Miss Cleo routine.
Absolutely! If anything, it will mean that O’ will have to give away even more to get those fat juicy campaign $$.
“Awww, you said a bad word! You hurt my feelings. You’re gonna have to give me something special if you want me to be your friend.”
I’m having trouble coming up with it, but I think it was Robert Kuttner at the American Prospect who once brought to light a quote from FDR who once said in effect that he was proud to have earned the scorn of business. Imagine if President Obama sought to turn the animosity between him and Wall Street into a political asset rather than a liability.
I did find this statement from FDR that’s pertinent to this issue and echoes what I said earlier: “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”