Obama: A disaster for civil liberties. Are policies secondary to his persona?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties
He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.

By Jonathan Turley
September 29, 2011

<edit>

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

<edit>

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

more...

[bighart]

1. Hmm

:popcorn:

[Poll_Blind]

2. "But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself."

So true. Have to skim the piece now but I'm bookmarking for a fuller read this evening.

PB

[leftstreet]

3. 'A Republican would be worse' How exactly?

:shrug:

[Myrina]

4. yes

n/t

[ixion]

5. Yes we can (destroy more of your civil liberties).

:argh:

[FiveGoodMen]

6. As he was meant to be!

And yes, if you look at all the folks around here who opposed Bush's wars but not the very same ones under Obama, it's pretty clear that policies are secondary to his persona.

Shame on DU for that!!!

[ixion]

7. exactly.

[MissDeeds]

15. Agree 1000%

:thumbsup:

[Karmadillo]

23. +3

nt

[City Lights]

27. !

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

30. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "his symbolic importance as the first black president"

what the hell

The article pretends to criticize personality over policy but falls back on race.

I have criticized Obama on a number of occassions. For me his continuing of Bush's wars and starting his own war of luxury, keeping Gitmo, assassinating people, etc are deal breakers for me but never once did race factor into any of that. Even when people felt obliged to defend him race did not factor. I disagree with those who have disagreed with me, I do not buy the "If we don't vote for Obama the GOP will continue of Bush's wars and starting their own wars of luxury, keep Gitmo, assassinate people, etc" argument but never once have any of those I disagreed with said, "but he's black and that's symbolic!"

It's amazing how a 1,200 word commentary can be so self-discrediting in only 8 words.

[leftstreet]

11. You don't think it's significant? The first black Prez in US history?

It IS his legacy!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. It's not why people defend him, which is supposedly the substance of the article

Plenty of people think he's done lots of good things. Others think he's simply better than the GOP field.

OK, I get it. I may disagree but I get what they are saying and why. But in all the rhetorical tangles I've encountered here on DU by those folks defending Obama not one of them ever expressed the need to vote for him over his race.

It's weird but I find myself defending my detractors -- and some of them have said some pretty bitter things to me.

[leftstreet]

17. I read it as the opposite

That his detractors, not defenders, were hesitant to criticize based on the significance of his win

[Luminous Animal]

16. It is symbolic. It was symbolic when Thurgood Marshall became the 1st black SC justice.

It was symbolic when Sandra Day O'Connor became the 1st female SC justice.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. And please don't misunderstand. I'm not taking away from any of those accomplishments

I just don't think that's why Obama supporters defend him. If the question is posed, "Why do you defend Obama?" I doubt you'll gain the answer, "his race."

[Luminous Animal]

25. Turley never makes the claim that race is a stated reason for defense. He says that some

people are muted in their criticism.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. It was symbolic when Colin Powell and Condi Rice rose to their positions as well.

But it wasn't good.

Never choose leaders just to break glass ceilings.

[Vincardog]

9. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona. I call BULLSHIT. Some of us have been been

pushing for BO to adopt real Democratic POLICIEs including Civil Liberties for ever.
We are called "Obama haters" when ever we don't bow to his greatness.

[RZM]

10. I think this was already widely known

How else can you explain the enthusiasm for Obama during the primaries and then the general (but especially the primaries). He wasn't that different from Hillary Clinton on policy. It was persona that put him over the top.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I didn't like either H. Clinton or Obama

I voted "unaffiliated" in the Minnesota DFL caucus.

[hifiguy]

13. Professor Turley speaks the truth

and it is true whether people want to accept it or not.

[ProSense]

19. Disaster?

Turley:

<...>

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

<...>

WTF? Does Turley actually read what they writes? He can criticize the President for not doing more, but before calling the President a "disaster" and trying to imply that the President has done more damage than good, and using is race to bolster the claim, which is preposterous and disgusting, he needs to take heed of the facts.

The ACLU praised the Obama administration for ending Bush's torture policies

President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

[MisterP]

20. this shows very well the genius of the Veal Pen

not only are all the diverse goals gleichgeschaltet and turned to reelecting the President, not only do they remain quiet for fear of "President Palin" (remember that scare?), they will go out of their way to defend, legitimate, LIE so it doesn't look like they're giving the GOP ammo. Had McCain kicked out Single Payer and struck a deal with Big Insurance to force everyone to become their customer, we would've gone Athens. But if The One does it, "he's giving everyone healthcare" is suddenly in their mouths.

Libya, too, is precisely like Iraq--down to the start date--but there are Dems cheering it on. Of course, the Dems were essential to passing the IWR, and the Kerry Klub said he was the peace candidate, and that the IWR was either a good thing or not relevant, so this is nothing new. It's a sickness, a psychosis even, of the party and of US politics since at least Reagan 1980.

What we must acknowledge, what we must see and be aware of, is that there are conervatives in the Democratic party: rather than "vote for Democrats to defeat the Republicans" we have to start thinking "vote for liberals/leftists to defeat the conservatives"--or else we'll just keep getting conservative majorities. If all indications show that a politico fights for the 1% to further defeat the 99%, puts Wall Street over Main Street, goes out of their way to pass harmful conservative laws, they're not "on our side," they're not "fighting for us": they're fighting for the wealthy their actions serve.

[zalinda]

36. Unfortunately, the DNC has a say in who gets elected

Rahm made sure in 2006 that no anti-war candidate even got on the ticket. Where you stand whether liberal or conservative, the DNC decides who they will support and give money to. It was not a coincidence that our most liberal and outspoken candidates did not win their districts. Many candidates have felt the sting of the DNC, all you have to do is remember the Lamont, Lieberman debacle and you'll understand. Of course, loyal dems do not let on that the DNC didn't support them, but locally, the dems know.

zalinda

[TreasonousBastard]

22. This is one of the biggest, stinkiest turds I've seen yet trashing O without ONE...

single bit of evidence.

What does not pushing to indict a past President and his cronies for torture have to do with OUR civil liberties? BTW, does the esteemed Turley know of any time in our past history when an incoming Administration tried to send a previous one to prison? Can he guess why this has never been seen as a good idea?

Is Turley as ignorant as some undereducated posters around here about Guantanamo or just conveniently forgot that closing it was one of Obama's first orders, but Congress ganged up on him and refused to authorize a replacement site for the prisoners?

So that's it? Gitmo and someone else's torture memos? Makes him the worst? Worse than MaCarthy even? Although Tailgunner Joe wasn't a President, he did do some damage-- more so than Obama, I'd wager.

Completely ignoring Reagan and Nixon (and every President who served under the watchful eye of J. Edgar)while implying that while Bush's crimes (of which the Patriot Act was just one) required indictment, they were somehow nowhere near as bad as Obama's, he then makes the claim that

(get this)

Obama is SYMBOLICALLY a bad guy, apparently because his race has something to do with it all.

Oh, shit. Now I have to clean up the puke.

[Ikonoklast]

24. Things must be slow under the tree.

Unreccing a steaming turd.

[SidDithers]

31. +1...nt

Sid

[xiamiam]

26. k and r.. .i think its the smile..its a good smile,,but you know the song

smiling faces, smiling faces, sometimes
they dont tell the truth...

still, the smile intimates peacefulness in obamas case

i agree with turley

[Hart2008]

28. K & R! Cult of pesonality indeed!

:kick:

[ellisonz]

29. I think Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor Disagree with Turley.

Not one mention of DADT. Health-care reform will prohibit insurance companies from rejecting applicants for pre-existing conditions (huge).

"National Bar Association Applauds President Obama’s Diversification of the Judicial Bench

National Bar Association

September 14, 2011

— JUDICIAL DIVERSITY—

President Barack Obama is making history in his efforts to diversify the federal judiciary. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that nearly three out of every four confirmed judicial nominees have been women or minorities. This means more than 70 percent of Obama’s nominations were either women or minorities. Furthermore, of the 98 judicial nominees confirmed, 21 percent were African-American. By comparison, of the 322 judges confirmed during George W. Bush’s presidency 7 percent were African-American. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, remarked “all of us can be proud of President Obama for taking this critical step to break down another barrier and increase diversity in the federal judiciary.”

http://gsba.tumblr.com/post/10213232079/national-bar-association-applauds-president-obamas

[SidDithers]

32. Unrec...nt

Sid

[xchrom]

33. Recommend

[DirkGently]

34. Turley's a Constitutional scholar, not a partisan pundit. His disappointment is genuine & meaningful

[G_j]

35. K&R