Barring some horrible attack, terrorism will not compete with the economy, energy, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as top-tier issues in this year's Presidential election. Limited public and media attention translates into less attention by the candidates. But some policy differences are beginning to emerge.
In his acceptance speech Barack Obama said, "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."
One week later John McCain said, "We have dealt a serious blow to al-Qaida in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power... We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't."
Remarkably similar targets and tools. The differences in approach are subtle, but potentially important.
The party platforms are regularly dismissed as having no practical impact. But they tend to reflect the priorities and prejudices of the next President's political base. Both party platforms give attention to a similar line-up of threats: nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, bio-terrorism and cyber-terrorism. Each of the party platforms urge greater investment in and productivity from intelligence gathering and sharing. Both bow in appreciation to first responders.
The Republican Party platform (pdf) includes a preface to its section on Defending Our Nation, "The waging of war — and the achieving of peace — should never be micromanaged in a party platform, or on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives for that matter. In dealing with present conflicts and future crises, our next president must preserve all options. It would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security."
The Democratic Party platform includes a section entitled, Reclaiming our Constitution and our Liberties. It says in part, "As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect. In recent years, we’ve seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty under law... (several critiques of recent executive branch action are then listed.) We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power... We believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work."
The Founders' clearly intended to give the Executive significant war-time powers. They did not, however, anticipate the extended wars of the 20th and, apparently, 21st Centuries. One party suggests that the Executive should be able to deploy "any action deemed necessary for our security." The other party argues that even (especially?) in waging war the Executive's power must be constrained.
This Thursday, September 11, Senators Obama and McCain will stand together where evil had its way. They agree on the profound challenge of terrorism. Both claim they aim to protect our hard-won liberties. To a remarkable degree they agree on how the current struggle should be concluded. But the two men and their parties reflect different attitudes regarding the means to be used.
It will be the voters who determine which means are best suited to preserve for ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty. The choice is not clear and easy. If anyone of either party thinks it is, they should think again. But if the people choose badly the loss of liberty - more likely through slow erosion than sudden flood - will be difficult to redeem. As with so many of the risks considered here in prior weeks, the calculus of threat, vulnerability, and consquence is difficult.
Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer who prosecuted America's most awful conflict, knew something of evil and waging war. He made tough decisions that some have argued were beyond his Constitutional authority. But with the exception of James Madison no other President has left us so many love letters to the Constitution. President Lincoln predicted, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
In his acceptance speech Barack Obama said, "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."
One week later John McCain said, "We have dealt a serious blow to al-Qaida in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power... We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't."
Remarkably similar targets and tools. The differences in approach are subtle, but potentially important.
The party platforms are regularly dismissed as having no practical impact. But they tend to reflect the priorities and prejudices of the next President's political base. Both party platforms give attention to a similar line-up of threats: nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, bio-terrorism and cyber-terrorism. Each of the party platforms urge greater investment in and productivity from intelligence gathering and sharing. Both bow in appreciation to first responders.
The Republican Party platform (pdf) includes a preface to its section on Defending Our Nation, "The waging of war — and the achieving of peace — should never be micromanaged in a party platform, or on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives for that matter. In dealing with present conflicts and future crises, our next president must preserve all options. It would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security."
The Democratic Party platform includes a section entitled, Reclaiming our Constitution and our Liberties. It says in part, "As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect. In recent years, we’ve seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty under law... (several critiques of recent executive branch action are then listed.) We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power... We believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work."
The Founders' clearly intended to give the Executive significant war-time powers. They did not, however, anticipate the extended wars of the 20th and, apparently, 21st Centuries. One party suggests that the Executive should be able to deploy "any action deemed necessary for our security." The other party argues that even (especially?) in waging war the Executive's power must be constrained.
This Thursday, September 11, Senators Obama and McCain will stand together where evil had its way. They agree on the profound challenge of terrorism. Both claim they aim to protect our hard-won liberties. To a remarkable degree they agree on how the current struggle should be concluded. But the two men and their parties reflect different attitudes regarding the means to be used.
It will be the voters who determine which means are best suited to preserve for ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty. The choice is not clear and easy. If anyone of either party thinks it is, they should think again. But if the people choose badly the loss of liberty - more likely through slow erosion than sudden flood - will be difficult to redeem. As with so many of the risks considered here in prior weeks, the calculus of threat, vulnerability, and consquence is difficult.
Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer who prosecuted America's most awful conflict, knew something of evil and waging war. He made tough decisions that some have argued were beyond his Constitutional authority. But with the exception of James Madison no other President has left us so many love letters to the Constitution. President Lincoln predicted, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment