The President’s false conflict between security and the Constitution – identify it, fight it

The President lied again about Democrats, saying that they “don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.” A White House spokesperson, acknowledging it is not really accurate, nevertheless defends it as “a reasonable extrapolation” of what Democrats have said.

That is false, too, of course. What the Republicans are deliberately trying to do is undermine respect for the Constitution, presenting a false dichotomy to the American people: if you follow the Constitution, you will not be able to fight terrorists. By doing so, and doing it aggressively – and controlling the Presidency and Congress virtually guarantees they will be able to do that --they have chosen the ground where they want to fight the battle. We would prefer to fight the battle on respect for basic principles, but we must engage the enemy where they are. This means that Democrats must be ready to fight on the battleground chosen by the President, the battle of efficacy in defending us against terrorism.

We can win that battle, too. We can always defend the Constitution on what works and what doesn’t, because defying it never does – whether it’s circumventing expedited judicial review by a FISA court of the purpose for electronic eavesdropping on someone, endorsing or even appearing to endorse torture in defiance of international (and U.S.) law, or not allowing someone to challenge being designated by the President as an “enemy combatant.” We do not need analytical treatises, either. We can use simple words to do it:

“The President recently made the disgusting claim that Democrats don’t think we should be listening in on terrorists -- because we think he should honor the Constitution just as much as we did through wars and conflicts that have threatened our existence for over 200 years. It’s a flat-out lie, and the President must know it’s a lie, because no Democrat has ever – ever – said that or anything remotely close to it. For political advantage, the President is trying to undermine respect for the Constitution by setting up a false conflict – trying to make it seem like respecting the Constitution weakens us. But that’s totally false, too. Not only do we strengthen ourselves as a nation when we stand for our principles, but in fact, in the most practical terms, we do a better job of fighting terrorists if we follow the law. We avoid dividing the American people, and the whole point of a warrant requirement is to help make Government focus on listening in on actual terrorists – to make sure there are actually reasons for believing a terrorist is involved -- and not either wasting precious resources on innocent people or abusing the system by targeting political enemies."

It’s good to be the good guys wearing the white hats of decency, but there is a pervasive belief or suspicion that decency will get chewed up and spit out by determined bad guys. Nice guys finish last, and all that. Tough love. Growing up to “be a man” who can defend himself against bullies. Having balls, or gonads for a gender-equal environment. Fight fire with fire. Eye for an eye. Those are the feelings the Bush administration has exploited so skillfully.

These deeply ingrained instincts are not disappearing anytime soon. Some would prefer simply to refuse to make arguments of efficacy, as an act that in itself undermines the principles by opening them up to challenge on that basis. But it seems like a losing strategy to concede defeat on the battleground they choose – without, for now, having the bully pulpit that would allow us to shift to the battleground we prefer. We must first, of course, believe that following principles established by the Founders does work to strengthen us in any conflict, and we have 200 years of evidence for that. The Founders, after all, and all the Presidents, Justices and Congresses interpreting the Constitution since, besides maintaining a free society, were keenly interested in making sure government could be effective, too, and especially that the country could defend itself. From belief flows language. Very simply, respecting the Constitution works better, and 200 years of success demonstrates that it works better. That 200 years also demonstrates that it works better in the here and now,in real time when actions must be taken, not just in some utopian long run when, as noted by J.M. Keynes, we are all dead.