Would Democrats have supported extrajudicial killings under Ashcroft?

Essentially yes because the Iraqi's were not in a position to enforce their justice system on US troops and were dependent upon the US to maintain security. The Status of Forces agreement was nice diplomatically but there was a reason why even many nationalistic Iraqis hated it. The Bush Admin. negotiated it because it gave them diplomatic cover to carry out a surge while shifting the problems of the withdrawl to the next Admin.

That is why Gates, who was secretary of Defense under GW Bush himself didn't believe that the withdrawl would actually take place. I don't know if he knew then that he was also going to be the Secretary of Defense under that next Admin.

Keep in mind that John McCain campaigned on staying in Iraq indefinitely and many others in Congress criticized the Obama Admin for the withdrawl. Do you think that John McCain wasn't aware that the Status of Forces agreement would tie his hands?

The fact remains that Obama brought US troops home and that was what he campaigned on.

Edit: I see False has very ably addressed these points already but just to add the US has kept troops in countries where technically they don't have immunity. In Japan US troops technically have limited immunity in regard to crimes committed in Japan but only until relatively recently have US troops been tried in Japan. For that matter the government of Cuba maintains that GITMO is illegal and the base and everyone there is subject to Cuban law but that doesn't stop the US from staying.

 

Weren't you one of the guys celebrating the killing of Zarqawi in a missile strike? Are you now saying that we shouldn't be killing high value targets in missile strikes?

 

I am just curious but do you think that if GW Bush had been able to have a third term the TSA body scanning and pat down program wouldn't have been implemented? Or if McCain had been president?

Besides Ron Paul do you see any of the Republican candidates revoking the program?

 

im sure it would have and that is kind of my point...when it comes to civil liberties issues obama is just continuing the agenda set out by his predecessor.

nope.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of the article for the following reasons:

Firstly, you personally may not support extrajudicial killings, but there's lots of evidence to suggest that the majority of self-identified democrats do; empirically, there are few liberal commentators that take Obama to task on these issues (in fact, many parade these 'accomplishments') and polling has shown a dramatic change in Democratic foreign policy views since Obama came into office. Take Guanatanamo Bay and Drone Strikes, for example- a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that the majority of Democrats support both of those policies, with 53% of self identified liberal Democrats supporting keeping Gitmo open and 67% of self identified moderate or conservative Democrats supporting it remaining open. 77% of liberal Democrats support the use of drones, and an overall 83% of Americans support the policy overall.

Numbers such as these would have been unconscionable in the Bush era, and there's little debate on that.

Secondly, and certainly more importantly, is what these trends tell us about electoral politics.

It is extremely convenient to assume sensible rationalizations as to why self identified Democrats shift positions while castigating the other side for its tendancy to act in similar, unprincipled ways. I personally believe that there are many liberals/Democrats who have resigned themselves to your worldview- that, although Obama's foreign policy may not be ideal, he's better than the Republican alternative. But there are many, and if polling is any suggestion of attitudes, a majority, that are not merely silent in the face of these acts, but active proponents of these policies.

It is for this reason that I find the following contention untenable:

There are few policies Obama could actually enact that would result in him alienating his base. Since Klien's primary focus area was foreign policy/civil rights, look no farther than the NDAA. So extreme is the NDAA that even hawkish GOP commentators like Rush Limbaugh have spoken out against its infringements on civil rights. Many progressive/liberal commentators voiced objections to the bill, but the overall passage was met with little resistance politically and is unlikely to be amended/repealed in the near future.

Lastly, something that I absolutely hate is the republican-democrat nature of these discussions. Any criticism of Obama has to be qualified with a disclaimer of how much worse his Republican counterpart would have been, as if a discussion can not exist outside the bipartisan consensus. I dont dispute Obama being better than McCain/Romney in his shoes; I just hate the fact that this seems to be the most common (and sometimes only) retort to substantive criticisms of problematic policies that Obama has championed.

 

How is it convenient? It’s extremely inconvenient for me and others who believe as I do who are forced to take what we consider to be bad policy, so that we can get good policy passed. I don’t think the reality of democratic politics in this country is convenient; it just is. I believe that it is important for both sides to call each other out for flipping on issues to remind voters what sacrifices they are making for the sake of their policy goals. Criticism coming from outside the party is probably less important and effective than from within.

While the polling numbers paint a bleak picture, I’m not sure they attack the idea that voters are acting with a mind to electoral politics and coalition building. I think there are 3 ways of looking at this.

1) Presuming that voters do indeed weigh upsides and downsides of supporting policies, they do not necessarily agree with other policies that they might support for the sake of electoral politics when those policies. This holds for as long as the negatives don’t outweigh the positives, or till their party is out of office, then they flip back to their default. If this is true, then the polling numbers here would make perfect sense, but wouldn’t say much about the actual beliefs of the democratic base.

2) Another option is that people simply don’t think about it these individual policies one by one. They just don’t care enough to learn about them so they entrust their leaders to make the decisions about specific policy proposals given what they know of their leader’s policy platform on a whole. I think this is the more likely answer for most people. I do not think this differs much from my original view. It also means the poll doesn’t say much about what the Democratic base actually believes in. They will support policies that they do not agree with as long as they on a whole agree with the Democratic platform.

3) The other option is not believing that people engage in any weighing of policy. I don’t think this make sense intuitively. Let’s say it did, then where would that leave us. People just support a R or a D based on nothing and that’s that? I don’t think that is born out by the polls. If that were the case, then the number of professed democratic supporters would be much higher than the average population, it’s not.

I think what Democrat support for Obama’s national security policies tells us less about what democrats think about the actual policies in question and more about what they think of his platform as a whole. If they were the party outside of power, their support of these specific policies would mean more if they acted as per 1), less but some under 2), and nothing under 3).

I agree that I overreached in saying that Obama would be better able to manage the alternatives than a Republican. The dampening effect of the base on Obama’s national security platform is probably not as strong as I would like it to be. It might be true that there are few policies that Obama could actually enact because the other option is currently viewed as so much worse for the Democratic base. While the effect might not be very strong, a party’s base does exercise some effect to reign in their party when their party drifts too far away. If Democrats drift too far from their base, it would give a place for the rise of a 3rd party. However, before this could happen, the Democratic party would likely pivot back toward the base. I believe that the Democrat base values personal liberty slightly more than the Republican base when it comes to national security issues. I think this is borne out by the poll you cited given the larger support from non-Democrats, so many I still stand by my earlier assertion, but with slightly less fervor.

Rush disagreeing with Obama doesn’t really say much to me. I believe that Rush speaking out on anything has more to do with oppositional politics mixed with entertainment than anything else. He knows that there is a growing Libertarian presence in his own identified party, so he appeals to those groups. His show wouldn’t be very interesting if he said, “Obama’s doing a good job.”

It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party system. Until the time that we don’t, I think for the ease of discussion you are forced into talking about politics within the two-party framework. In posts like this one where the title is “Would Democrats have supported extrajudicial killings under Ashcroft?” you pretty much are forced to responding using the Republican-Democrat distinction.

It’s the only retort you can have when you do not agree with a policy. You can’t really hope for someone to give a substantive defense in that instance. It serves as a signal to other people that you have weighed other policy proposals on the table and are not thinking of this specific piece in a vacuum. It also serves to explain your general support for a candidate who you do not completely agree with.

 

The convenience comes not in forceful acquiescence, but in rationalizing that acquiescence sensibly and assuming other position shifts to be the result of unprincipled and less sensible rationalizing. I'm certain that there are conservatives who would articulate their own acquiescence on issues in much the same way.

Agree that intra-party criticism is more impactful than external criticism, but internal party critiques are far more rare. Due to the rarity of such introspection, parties tend to operate more broadly as social identities than they do intelligent decisions. The presence of scandals, corruption, and parlous economic conditions (recessions, unemployment rates, etc) have little impact on party identification.

I tend to believe its (for the most part) a combination of 2 and 3. Party identification is stable and enduring, and more often produces policy beliefs, than being the net result of pre-existing beliefs. Empirically, I cant tell you how many people I know personally who literally walk into a voting booth, search for a candidate with an R or a D, and cast their ballot.

As for what polls such as the one I cited earlier tell us about the Democratic base, I think it tells us that they are not all that different from the Republican base in observing party loyalty.

The danger in this dynamic is one that Greenwald has railed against for some time- the tendency for a politician to create bipartisan consensus where one previously did not exist. In the case of Obama and Bush, it was assumed that Bush was acting in unprincipled ways and willing to undermine the rule of law to accomplish his national security objectives. As a result, the Democratic base and Democratic congress became hypercritical of Bush's policy decisions, and in all likelihood prevented his administration from pursuing more aggressive measures.

Once Obama was elected, it was assumed that some, if not most, of these measures would be scaled back if not downright eliminated (that assumption being the direct result of Obama's campaign promises). After being elected, he not only extended many Bush-era positions, but built on them in ways that would never have been acceptable to the Democratic base previously, such as extrajudicial killings. Had Bush instituted a comparable program, one can only imagine the outrage that would have ensued from major political commentators, newspaper outlets, and the media. Even on this forum, its painful to see self identified Democrats go out of their way to justify these positions.

Because Republicans have already identified with hawkish foreign policy objectives and infringements on civil rights, they are left without much to critique in this arena. In fact, the GOP nominees (with Ron Paul as the lone exception) tend to trumpet how much 'stronger' they would be than Obama in all of the aforementioned areas.

As I noted before, I dont think its a matter of people consciously evaluating his entire platform, but rather a realignment with Team Democrat.

Agree that a party's base has some ability to reign in their party when the party drifts too far away. That said, party identification and modern electoral politics have resulted in this happening far less often than it should.

I agree that him speaking out has more to do with oppositional politics than anything else. I guess my point was how rare it is for someone in Rush's capacity to feel comfortable enough to speak out against an issue of civil rights. He tends to support almost every piece of legislation that provides even a marginal increase in national security (or is perceived to), and the very fact that he felt justified in criticizing its excess should say something.

Perhaps, but in my opinion it would be much more honest to simply acknowledge said candidates shortcomings.

If there were ever an argument against the ‘free market’ and Libertarian philosophy, an under regulated political establishment/environment is certainly a case in point.

 

False has responded well on most of these points but just to follow up.

Why the numbers might have changed from what I recall many Democrats supported those policies already under GW Bush and the poll you link to doesn't measure changes in views since Obama has been president but where support is now. I don't think that opposition to these policies were monolithic amongst Democrats and opinions have suddenly swung 180 now that a Democrat occupies the Whitehouse. I will agree the rhetoric from Democrats is a lot less vocal but its possible that there is strong support for such policies actually among all Americans whether R or D.

 

I'm sure there are, too. That's why I do not think there is anything wrong with a party changing a position on an issue and why I don't find the argument that one side changed its position to be of any use as an persuasive attack. The only use is as a description for the consumption of the base to possibly encourage it to reevaluate what it is giving up for the sake of compromise.

This seems to militate more towards 3) than 2). Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by social identities rather than intelligent decisions, but, going by your last sentence, you seem to be suggesting that parties operating as a social identities would mean that policy has little to no impact. If policy goals played such a small part in continued support, why would parties ever realign as they have?

Sure, party identification can produce policy beliefs. That's because people don't have time or willingness to sit down and think about all policy. This is a feature of our system of a representative democracy. I don't think your anecdote fuels the move from 2) to 3) because this is a micro-level decision whether to check a box. The decision has come at some point in time before.

I agree the Democrat base is likely no more loyal or disloyal to the party, but I think that the poll does show us that given their support for such national security policies is significantly lower on a whole than that of the overall American public. This tells us that the Democrat base has policy orientations that are different.

Once again, I think this is a feature of the our system. It seems highly unlikely that this is going to change. The problem with Greenwald's argument is, while it is a valid point, what result would he direct us to? It seems like an argument for no-compromise or minimal compromise when in power, one that can be used for both sides. As it stands now, when you are in power you have to compromise. The problem for me with his view is that given that you have to compromise when in power, wouldn't in his view it be better for Democrats to always to be out of power when it came to national security issues if they would otherwise use it as a compromise piece? Maybe so, but it is less good for protecting other interests of their base, like the administrative state.

Given what I have read about and seen from the government enacting executive branch policy, I believe that these programs were already in place under Bush. It is still unclear to me whether Obama added on things that didn't exist or were already rumbling to life, no matter how various pundits choose to frame it. For example, from an area I am more familiar with, Obama has deported more people than Bush under the Secured Communities Program. I believe this is a result of institutional inertia created under the previous administration more than a specific plan to deport more people hatched by Obama once he came to office. While I think criticism is warranted in that he has not acted as fast as he could to stop the negative results of the program that already existed, I think it is unfair to him to say that he himself has expanded the program. The similarities in discourse coming from the administration surrounding these policies are substantively different, though. So maybe the example doesn't hold.

While the statement "well the other options would have been worse" is an adequate justification for continued support of Obama when he chooses a certain policy path, I have to disagree with you that it should be seen as a justification for the program itself. Does that distinction make sense? Reading it over I am not sure if I've explained myself clearly. If it were to be used as simply a justification for the specific program, then you are right, it is a very poor justification.

I don't think it's a matter of people consciously evaluating the sum total of his entire platform each time he changes the perceived course either. I think it is more like 2, then 1. And while that might be less than ideal, it is a feature of the representative democracy we have been left with. I agree that it would possibly be more honest depending on context, but when the question is framed as, "Would Democrats have Supported Extrajudicial Killings under Ashcroft," it is important to also recognize what the question is getting at, which is why do you support Obama in this if you wouldn't have supported these specific policies under the Bush Administration. Part of my answer and part of the answer for many Democrats who do not support the program as it stands is the other options were indeed worse.