I cannot for the life of me understand why any Democrat would vote for warrantless wiretapping.
I can easily understand why every Republican would. Republicans fully support the Bush Dictatorship in every way, including imperialism, torture, corruption, and warrantless wiretapping. If George Bush took the completely opposite positions (as he did before the 2000 election), they would support him too. They don't think and have no principles, they blindly follow their Fuhrer Leader.
But why would any Democrat - including our party leaders?
At the Presidential polling blog FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver analyzed 31 vulnerable House Democrats in conservative-leaning seats, and found 23 voted for warrantless wiretapping, while 8 voted against. Nate observes,
Did these Democrats vote for the FISA bill because they think it will help them to get re-elected? Or were they elected in 2006 because they were conservative enough Democrats to vote for this legislation in the first place?
But wait a minute!
Until George Bush stole the White House in 2000, "conservatives" stood for "freedom," the Constitution, smaller government and strict law enforcement.
Doesn't anyone remember Ronald Reagan, let alone Barry Goldwater? Is anyone familiar with Milton Friedman or the NRA or Ron Paul? (For the record, Ron Paul didn't vote. He has real principles, no?)
By each of these standards, opposing warrantless wiretapping is the "conservative" stance. And any Democrat running in a "conservative" district who wants "conservative" votes should oppose warrantlesss wiretapping, not support it!
The only possible arguments for supporting warrantless wiretapping are
- absolute trust in and support for Republican dictatorship,
- the belief that corporations should be completely unaccountable, and/or
- the desire to give up all freedoms because there are terrorists who hate us.
Obviously the Republican Party now believes this. But do "conservatives"? Has George Bush not only redefined the meaning of "Republican," but also the meaning of "conservative"?
I'm sure if you went to an NRA meeting and asked members if they believe the government should have the power to listen to your phone calls and read your emails without a warrant issued by a judge, they would grab their biggest gun and point it at your Big Government head. (Interestingly, there is no mention of wiretapping - or even Big Government - on the NRA issues page, which proves that the NRA is simply a Republican front group, just like Ron Paul is a Republican hack.)
Surely Democrats in "conservative" districts understand the NRA mentality, whether they personally share it or not.
The bottom line is: we cannot begin to understand why "conservative" Democrats voted for warrantless wiretapping until we reject the idea that it was a "conservative" vote.
So if it wasn't a "conservative" vote, what was it? Here are the possibilities:
- Stupidity
- Corruption for telecom and corporate cash
- Fear of attack ads by Republicans and/or their 527 allies
- "Sistah Soulah" triangulation
- Blind obedience to Steny Hoyer
- Stupidity
Anyone familiar with the NRA mentality would realize that "conservatives" oppose warrantless wiretapping. But it's possible that "conservative" Democrats aren't familiar with the NRA mentality. In that case, the only word to describe them is stupid.
It's also possible that the Democrats who voted for the warrantless wiretapping bill think it is a good bill and don't understand they voted for warrantless wiretapping - that even if they wrote the strictest possible language, George Bush will simply ignore it and continue to wiretap anyone he pleases without a warrant. Again, if they believe that, the only word to describe them is stupid.
Finally, it's possible that Democrats support it because it's a "bi-partisan compromise," which is the Ultimate Good according to "High Broderism," the philosophy of Washington Press Corpse Dean David Broder. Any Member who listened to the passionate floor debate by Democratic opponents - or tallied their phone calls and emails - knows this was no compromise, just a Democratic sellout. So if they really believe this is a compromise, the only word to describe them is stupid.
- Corruption for telecom and corporate cash
It takes a lot of money to win in a competitive district, and the telecom giants are rich and powerful companies that give away a lot of money. So it's easy to understand the desire of Democrats in these districts to try to get a chunk of telecom money. And there's a simple word for it: corruption.
- Fear of attack ads by Republicans and/or their 527 allies
We know Republicans and their 527 allies will use any issue to attack Democrats, whether or not it bears any relationship to reality or truth. So it's easy to understand the desire of Democrats in these districts to avoid giving Republicans an issue to attack them with. Of course, Republicans tried to use this very issue in 2006, most notably in the CT05 race between incumbent Nancy Johnson (R) and challenger Chris Murphy (D). And who won? Murphy. Based on that experience, a rational politician would conclude that warrantless wiretapping ads don't work. But we all know that primitive emotions trump rational analysis every time. And there is no more primitive emotion than fear.
- "Sister Soulah" triangulation
During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton proved he was not a "knee-jerk liberal" by going before Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to attack hip hop MC Sister Soulah, who was quoted in the Washington Post saying "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" This was the quintessential act of "triangulation" - winning votes in the center by attacking the "far left."
Digby thinks Obama may be following this Clinton strategy, substituting Dirty F**ing Hippies (DFH's, a.k.a. progressive blog readers) for black radicals.
I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's, despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.
But while Digby floats this idea as a possibility, she doesn't buy it.
But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him.
In other words, see stupidity and fear above.
- Blind obedience to Steny Hoyer
While Nancy Pelosi is nominally the top Democrat in the House, "conservative" Democrats view Pelosi as too liberal for their taste, and line up behind Steny Hoyer instead.
Hoyer isn't actually a conservative on social issues; he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, pro-estate tax. But he is "conservative" on what Beltway insiders falsely call "national security" issues, which include Iraq, the Patriot Act, and wiretapping.
And he is also "conservative" on business issues, which allows him to raise large amounts of cash from business lobbyists on K Street. And he eagerly directs that cash to Democrats who will take it and vote for their interests, creating a positive feedback loop that draws "conservative" Democrats ever closer to Big Business.
On Capitol Hill, where campaign cash is God, this is considered "smart" politics. Outside the Beltway, this is considered bribery.
Oddly, we have just started a general election campaign where campaign finance is an important and interesting issue. The battle against corrupting campaign contributions, and for cleaner campaign finance, is central to the political identities of both McCain and Obama.
Moreover, Obama has revolutionized campaign funding through his brilliant Internet campaign, which has enlisted 1.5 million donors, 90% of whom have contributed small amounts under $200. Because he has been so successful at small-donor fundraising, Obama opted-out of public funding so he wouldn't be limited to $85 million, and instead could spend $300 million or more - without selling his political soul to big donors.
And that huge sum of money won't simply elect Obama as President - it will also allow him to run a 50-state campaign that sweeps Democrats into office at all levels. And where there are close races, he can target some of his cash to individual Democrats who need it.
Given this enormous Democratic cash advantage, why would Hoyer sell Democratic souls for corporate cash?
And why would Obama let him - even encourage him, as most bloggers believe he did?
At the end of this long blog, I remain as puzzled as when I began. None of this makes sense - either ideologically or politically.
Something is very wrong inside the Democratic Party. We need to figure out what it is, and we need to change it - before our "leaders" join with hard-core rightwing Republicans to create a neo-Fascist state.