http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/391682-the-final-nail-in-the-aclus-coffin The final nail in the ACLU's coffin By Alan M. Dershowitz, opinion contributor — 06/11/18 04:00 PM EDT 1,240 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties. It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that, for the first time in its history, the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals. The headline in the June 8 edition of the New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections — and reinventing itself for the Trump era.” The article continues: “In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye presidential runs, the ACLU, itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the ACLU is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.” Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of the New Yorker, “fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980s and 90s, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression.” I know, because I served on its national board in the early days of my own career. In those days, the board consisted of individuals who were deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach and political equality. Its board members included Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call “the shoe on the other foot” test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched? Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue. The only dispute is whether it supports the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or its more centrist wing. There is little doubt that most board members today support the progressive wing, though some think that even that wing is not sufficiently left. There is no longer any room in the ACLU for true conservatives who are deeply committed to neutral civil liberties. The litmus test is support for hard-left policies. To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, just follow the money. ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process). Anthony Romero, the current radical leftist who directs the ACLU, refers to those of us who favor the ACLU traditional mission as “the old guard.” The leading critic of the ACLU’s newfound partisan mission is Romero’s predecessor, Ira Glasser, who was the executive director of the ACLU from 1978 until 2001. Glasser believes that this transformation in the way the ACLU has operated since 1920 “has the capacity to destroy the organization as it has always existed.” Glasser points out that some of the greatest violations of civil liberties throughout history have come from “progressive politicians, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt who interned 110,000 Japanese-American citizens.” He worries, and I worry, that when the ACLU supports parties and partisan agendas, it will become less willing to criticize those it has supported when they violate civil liberties. The presidency of Donald Trump has introduced a new dynamic. Trump himself has denied fundamental civil liberties by his immigration policies, his attitude and actions regarding the press, and his calls for criminal investigations of his political enemies. The ACLU will criticize those actions, as it should. But the president has also pushed the ACLU further to the left and into partisan politics. Trump is so despised by ACLU contributors that they have increased their contributions, but also demand the ACLU be on the forefront of ending his presidency, either through impeachment, criminal prosecution or electoral defeat. The move of the ACLU to the far left reflects an even more dangerous and more general trend in the United States: The right is moving further right, the left is moving further left, and the center is shrinking. The center-left is losing its influence in organizations like the ACLU, and the center-right is losing its influence in conservative organizations. America has always thrived at the center and has always suffered when extremes gain power. The ACLU’s move from neutral protector of civil liberties to partisan advocate of liberal politics is both a symptom and consequence of this change. If America is to remain strong, its major institutions must move closer to the center and reject the extremes of both sides. If the ACLU does not return to its core values, a new organization must be created to champion those values. Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. He is the author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy” and “The Case Against BDS: Why Singling Out Israel for Boycott is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.
Don't know how true the above is. If the ACLU was partisan (to the left), would they defend Milo, white nationalists, Anne Coulter?
You'd think not, but liberals are crafty. They defend those wingers b/c ... 3D chess. Dershowitz didn't have a ton of credibility for me, but his most recent book supporting Two Scoops is itself criminal, if you ask me. The danger to American politics is criminal politicians, not investigating criminal behavior.
Dershowitz in his old age is really mainly a one issue guy who supports Israel's inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.
I don’t have a problem with the ACLU, or any organization, supporting political candidates that best support the principles they uphold. It may be a Democrat in some districts, a Republican in others. It need not be partisan.
This is dumb. The ACLU is in place for a reason. Some people just have a hard time accepting how corrupt this administration/republican party has become, so they will blame the ALCU for doing its job instead of thinking critically.
I dont even know what this sentence means? what corruption do you refer to? The ACLU, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, at one point in time did some good things but has been totally lost for over a decade.
You can't be serious. If you had bothered to read the article you would see that even this clown isn't denying it. Those allegations are just a drop in the bucket but you can choose to believe whatever you want.
You disagreeing with his immigration policy is not corruption. Nor is insulting reporters. You think a criminal investigation of your political enemies is corruption? o'rly? So in your mind Obama must be the grand master of corruption. Also, what political enemies has Trump investigated? The McCabe charges come from an investigation initiated by Democrats.
You do understand those are quotes by the writer of the article..... not me. You seem to be confused. Color me surprised.
I asked you to give me examples of Trump's corruption and you linked that. you. it was your answer to my question.
Couldn't be because the issues they're fighting are all caused by those on the right? It's not them fighting the right or conservatism in general. It's that those that are doing the most harm to civil rights happen to be from the right.
You made a reading comprehension error. Just own up to it. You've now proven to everyone that you didn't accurately read the article or my response where I clearly say that I'm pulling a quote from the article. Absolutely mystifying response that shouldn't even warrant an answer. No one really falls for this nauseating back and forth where you grasp at anything you can to avoid humiliating yourself further. You want an example? Check the thread where Trumps campaign manager and personal lawyer are about to be put away for a long time?
Just to be clear, since you are not taking ownership of your posted answer to the question , you still have not given any examples of Trump curroption. This makes you on par with Mueller. Why did you bother posting the articles examples of 'corruption' if you don't agree with them? if i found one you would just claim they are not your examples even though its you pointing to them as examples. Also, are you claiming Manafort's decade old tax evasion is an example of Trump corruption? or are you not taking ownership for that claim either? You could of avoided all this if you had just said 'you are right, those examples i posted really aren't corruption. let me think about it.' Instead you pull this ****.
If you bothered to read I never used the word Trump. You used the word Trump repeatedly. See? Even I can use "the inbred man's exercise in semantics." Its an amazing tactic. If you didn't think my answer sufficed you could have told me not to quote the article this thread is based on. Instead you nonsensically responded to the author of the article as if it were me. You have no one to blame but yourself for that.
I keep reading all these threads about the end of this and the final that. There is like one or two every week, it seems. I half expect to read a thread declaring a thousand year conservative Reich. Politics is like the tides. Opinion comes in, opinion goes out. Standing on the shore and running around like a chicken with your head cut off at high tide screaming about the coming flood makes you look silly. In fact, those oscillations are a necessary part of the process. Totaliarian states where they try to clamp down and limit the natural order of things end up exploding under their own unreleased pressure. if any of these "the end of..." threads come to pass, that is the point that you should begin to worry about the future of this country.
I am really not sure that the ACLU should be involved in partisan elections, but, of course in this day when you have the judiciary packed with anti-civil rights activist judges for the next 30 years or so, it must be frustrating. I think they should maybe devote their resources to lobbying for a reform of the S. Ct. or packing it. Constitutional Reform to incorporate some of the improvements over the good for its time, but flawed 18th Century Constitution would be a good goal, too.
Dabbling in politics is always messy. I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU splintered if that picked up. They've been pretty consistent protecting their ideal of the Constitution and have put their money where their mouth is
