Zack Exley

Message for ‘08 Dems: Only cowards think we’re at war 22 May, 2006

Ever since 9/11, whenever Dems try to stand up for the Constitution, protect our civil liberties, or dissent in any way, what do Republicans say? “We’re at war!”

And fearing some won’t understand the stakes of war, people like Senator Pat Roberts spell it out: “You don’t have civil liberties when you’re dead.”

Democratic instincts tend to generate the following automatic response: “Even in wartime, we have to protect our civil liberties!” Very bad instincts. Because, if America really were at war, then it would of course make sense to temporarily sacrifice some liberties — as well as other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy and good relations with Saudi monarchies.

Our soldiers are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our intelligence forces are at war against terrorist groups around the world, in battles we only hear about when CIA spouses criticize the White House. And it’s impossible to overstate the sacrifice they and their families are making.

But America is not under attack by an enemy force of any significance. We got sucker punched by 19 maniacs with box cutters. Republicans want us to run scared because of that for the rest of our lives. But the thing about a sucker punch is that you can’t protect yourself against it. Any idiot can take the breath out of you, no matter how tough you are. But only cowards — actually I think “scaredy cat” is more appropriate here — live their lives worrying about such things. Of course you’ve got to do your best to stay alert — in this context that means port, air and many other types of security. But freaking out and becoming paranoid leaves you more vulnerable, not more protected.

The American people are not cowards. They are not the ones behind this prolonged state of panic. Americans are prepared to walk tall and fearlessly even with the possibility of another attack, even though we know it could kill thousands — because we know that America is not in danger. We live happily with many extremely-unlikely dangers in our lives, and we reject the idea that America should degrade its democracy just because some tiny extremist groups have added themselves to the list. (They are so far down that list, in fact, that you are 390 times less likely to die in a terrorist attack than in an auto accident.)

Add up all the little bands of anti-American terrorists. They can’t invade America. Or any of our allies for that matter. Or anyone. They can’t hurt our economy — unless cowards in government let them. The only thing they can do is try to get in another suck punch sometime. And yeah, it will hurt. But our country, our traditions, our future have nothing to fear.

In the face of our natural American courage, some Republicans will try anything to make individuals focus on the chance of becoming victims. RNC direct mail in 2004 used pictures of children in the Breslan massacre and other scenes of terrorism. The “threat level” program tried to make the infinitesimal chance of being harmed by a terrorist feel inevitable. And many Republicans use fear in their words and speeches everyday: “The terrorists want to kill you! The terrorists want to kill you! The terrorists want to kill you!” (So do a lot of people. But they can’t. So stop obsessing!)

Thinking about yourself as the potential victim of an attack is scary. “What if it’s the skyscraper I work in next time?” Some of my friends who work in New York towers were fearful for a moment after 9/11. But they sucked it up and forced themselves to think rationally about how tiny the risk actually was.

In other words, they were brave. They didn’t quit their skyscraper jobs. They got on with their lives. Anything less would have given those insignificant terrorists who sucker punched us way more power than they deserved — it would have been cowardly, though it doesn’t sound nice to say that. What would have happened to them if they had never pulled themselves together? Maybe they would’ve been sent off to therapy by their bosses, and coached to think about the risks realistically.

So should we send hysterical, terror-obsessed Republican leaders into therapy? If their fear were sincere, then: yes. But they’re only pretending. If they were really scared of the next terrorist attack, then they’d try to do something to reduce the risk of one: improve port and air security and stop giving the airline and freight lobbies whatever they want. If they really thought we were “at war with the terrorists,” they’d stop with the tax cuts, hold civilian contractors accountable for failures to rebuild Iraq, and get tough with governments who actually do allow terrorism to flourish within their borders, like Saudi Arabia.

Democrats can’t be faulted for staying silent in the moments immediately after 9/11, when Bush established the wartime paradigm. We count on Presidents to refrain from exploiting moments of national crisis for personal and political benefit — Bush let us down. There was simply nothing Democrats could have done to stop Bush from savaging our Democracy while the Twin Towers were still burning and America was reeling emotionally.

But now it is the duty of all patriots to put America back how it’s supposed to be, and this time that job falls to Democrats. The 2008 presidential race is the only forum in which this can happen, because it is the only time an individual leader will be able to take a stand on this, personally take the Republicans to task, and explain his or her position fully to the people.

Every Democrat taking part in the ’07-’08 primary spectacle will have a choice to make: accept the Republican war paradigm, pretend it’s not there, or challenge it head on. Only by challenging it head on will a Democrat be able to win both the primary and the general election.

We need a Democrat in ’08 to say: “If you want to live in fear, then vote for one of them. If you want to stand tall, and show the terrorists that we don’t give a damn about them, then come with me.”

Until that happens, we’re going to loose every argument about the Constitution, civil liberties and anything else — because you just can’t win arguments against the logic of, “You don’t want to DIE DO YOU?”

(Cross posted from HuffPo.)

Dems: Get the Spying Issue Right This Time! 11 May, 2006

Domestic spying is once again front and center, with the Hayden confirmation and now the fresh revelation that the NSA has been trolling Americans’ phone records.

Democrats totally failed to make anything of domestic spying the first time around. And there are indications that this will be an issue that actually hurts Democrats in the 2006 elections if they continue to bungle it. Smart Republicans will use it as a way to keep Dems sounding like people who would rather second guess bold action and obsess over technicalities than stop terrorist attacks.

Now Dems have a second chance. And here’s how they need to approach domestic spying this time. There are two simple points that need to be made aggressively and stubbornly every time any Democrat speaks on this.

1) “Bush ALREADY HAD the freedom to spy on anyone he wanted – he just had to tell a secret intelligence judge AFTERWARDS, a judge who was sworn to secrecy. So what was he trying to hide from that judge?”

Say that over and over. Whenever the interviewer or Republican who you’re up against goes back to “our intelligence gatherers have to be able to act fast,” don’t let that stand. Stop them. Stop them and make them take it back. Ask them, “Is there something you don’t understand about this? Bush already had the freedom to spy on anyone at anytime – with no delays, no delays at all. All he had to do was AFTERWARDS tell a special, secret, terrorist-fighting judge who he spied on.”

I know from the last time, you feel like you did say that. But you didn’t really. You’d throw it out there with some confusing words about a FISA Court, and 72 hours. And when they ignored you on that point, you let it stand and moved on to the next point of argument: usually something about “civil liberties” and how we need to defend them even if means everyone getting blown up by terrorists.

This time around, keep it simple, and make them acknowledge the simple fact that Bush could always spy on anyone with no delays at all.

2) “WHO WERE THEY SPYING ON? We need to see a list.”

Democrats in Congress must demand to see a list (and keep it secret of course), of every person and organization who the Republican administration eavesdropped on, and every person and organization whose phone records they checked.

Was Karl Rove making up lists of political opponents to listen in on? Did this have something to do with the 2004 elections? Were they listening in on the people who were investigating the White House? Were they spying on Churches? On corporate competitors of Halliburton and other favorites? The reason the president has to tell a secret intelligence judge who he spied on is to prevent those kinds of abuses.

Hang on a second. If you’re an esteemed Senator or Congressperson, then you don’t want to go into that kind of detail, do you? Others need to raise those specifics. Bloggers. Pundits. James Carville. And who knows, maybe DNC Chair Howard Dean will get in trouble one Sunday morning for saying exactly those things.

But imagine if Dean did hit one out of the park like that. What would you do? Run in the opposite direction from him like you usually do? Or take a nice gentle jog across home plate by saying, “Well, there are serious questions – just who could they have been spying on that they would want to hide it from a special intelligence judge who is sworn to secrecy? I do think it’s important to make sure that no patriotic American organizations were spied on for political purposes.”

And that’s it! That’s all you have to do! It’s just that simple. Just stick to those two easy points. Say them over and over. Keep demanding the list of everyone who was spied upon – the press can’t keep it going if they don’t have a question in the air needing to be resolved: Will Bush hand over the list or won’t he?

Don’t use complicated names of things people have never heard of before like FISA (it sounds like a tax for crying out loud). Don’t talk about breaking the law. Don’t talk about civil liberties. Don’t talk about personal privacy. Don’t talk about the Patriot Act. Don’t talk about investigations or hearings or special task forces. And for goodness sakes, don’t talk about “warrantless wiretaps.” Warrants and the bureaucracy that goes with them are what prevent Eddie Murphy from getting the villain in Beverly Hills Cop, or Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, or – should I go on? Do you really want to run in 2006 as that old, depressed, coughing Sergeant who stands in the way of justice for the sake of rules and regulations?

Just keep asking those two questions above over and over – and never stop demanding that list. Fight with reporters to make them accept the legitimacy of your questions and acknowledge the points that you’re making. You’ll have to fight just to be heard.

Fight, Democrats, Fight!