Unqualified Offerings

Sort of Like the Carville-Matalin Marriage

22 Responses to “Sort of Like the Carville-Matalin Marriage”

1. Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
   May 22, 2009 @ 12:12 am

   I’m not sure how “torture is awful and wrong, an we’re not doing it ever again” and “torture is happy funtimes for all, and every minute not torturing is a wasted minute” end up as indistinguishable positions.

2. Comment by Thoreau —
   May 22, 2009 @ 12:44 am

   I just don’t see how Obama and Cheney could be secret lovers. Everybody knows that Obama is a secret Muslim, and homosexuality is a sin in Islam.

3. Comment by mds —
   May 22, 2009 @ 10:40 am

   As stated, Mr. Kozlowski, the positions aren’t indistinguishable. Though the first sentiment is a closer match to George “We Don’t Torture” Bush. Mr. Healy is making the point that the large rhetorical difference actually helps obscure the much smaller substantive policy difference.

   Add the appropriate qualifications, and the gap narrows somewhat:

   “Torture is awful and wrong, and we’re not doing it ever again. However, no one will be ever be held accountable for it, either, which doesn’t particularly strengthen any moral or legal barriers against its future use.”

   or

   “Torture is awful and wrong, and we’re not doing it ever again. Then again, I used to be opposed to illegal warrantless wiretapping, too.”

4. Comment by bbartlog —
   May 22, 2009 @ 10:56 am

   Exactly the same thought occurred to me when I saw the newspaper headline this morning (’Obama, Cheney clash on ‘). Except that, being more paranoid than Healy, I assumed that the show was deliberately orchestrated by both of them and ot simply a natural outgrowth of the political dynamics.

5. Comment by dhex —
   May 22, 2009 @ 11:07 am

   cheney was so completely over the top that it makes obama seem quite reasonable in comparison.

   chalk one up for paranoia!

6. Comment by mds —
   May 22, 2009 @ 11:11 am

   cheney was so completely over the top that it makes obama seem quite reasonable in comparison.

   Yeah, but given Cheney’s history, I think it could just as easily be Obama taking advantage of the contrast, as opposed to actual collusion. See also: christening Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party.

7. Comment by dhex —
   May 22, 2009 @ 11:43 am

   disclaimer: i don’t actually think they’re colluding, though some of my best friends are paranoids.

8. Comment by mds —
   May 22, 2009 @ 11:50 am

   If you want paranoia, try the timing of “See? American prisons totally turn Episcopalians into radical Muslims!”

9. Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
   May 22, 2009 @ 11:52 am

   MDS: But it is a substantive policy difference. It’s the difference between torturing people and not torturing people. And yes, Obama’s position may be rhetorically similar to Bush’s, but that’s because Bush was lying.

10. Comment by Thoreau —
    May 22, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

    If you want paranoia, try the timing of “See? American prisons totally turn Episcopalians into radical Muslims!”

    But what if they also turn radical Muslims into Episcopalians? Sort of a “detailed balance” thing in statistical mechanics.

11. Comment by mds —
    May 22, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

    And yes, Obama’s position may be rhetorically similar to Bush’s, but that’s because Bush was lying.

    Um, do I really need to point out the potential weak point in this? Probably not. Instead, an unrelated historical one-act play:

    ROMAN REPUBLIC VS. ROMAN DEMO

    CONSUL 1: Unlike last year’s consuls, we’re not doing anything illegal.

    TRIBUNE OF THE PLEBIANS: Well, can I check?

    CONSUL 2: No, ’cause we’re invoking even more sweeping “state secrets” powers than our predecessors.

    [CONSUL 1 & 2 HIGH-FIVE ONE ANOTHER]

    [EXEUNT]

12. Comment by Seward —
    May 22, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

    mds,

    Very clever. I laughed my ass off.

    Of course, being the pedantic jerk that I am, I would note that at that point, the plebians get to kill Consul 2.

13. Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
    May 22, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

    You know, I’m extremely sympathetic to civil libertarian concerns. But as soon as you go around saying that Obama’s policies are the same as Cheney’s, and that he’s probably torturing people in the background even as he steps up and denounces it strongly… well, how seriously am I supposed to take that? Yes, in THEORY it might be true. But in reality, it’s not, and we all know it, so how seriously should I take the rest of the alarmism I hear?

14. Comment by mds —
    May 22, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

    You know, I’m extremely sympathetic to civil libertarian concerns.

    Yeah, we hear that a lot, especially from people dismissing them out of hand.

    Look, go back and read comment #3 more carefully. Look into the new administration’s invocation of the state secrets doctrine. Check out the full Gene Healy article, which nowhere asserts that Obama is currently torturing people. “Indistinguishable” is not the same as “closer than they should be.” And what with talk of “preventive detention” of those dangerous terrorists whom we lack the evidence to convict in a court of law, the policies are a hell of a lot closer than they should be. “Marginally better” isn’t good enough. “Toned down until the next sociopathic administration” isn’t good enough. So excuse us if we find the fact that the policies aren’t indistinguishable to be setting the goddamn bar below sea level.

15. Comment by dhex —
    May 22, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

    “But in reality, it’s not, and we all know it”

    you are far more trusting than i, and that’s about that.

16. Comment by Seward —
    May 22, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

    Mike,

    But in reality, it’s not, and we all know it…

    Caveat: My comments are sort of general in nature…

    Why is it not? Because the Obama administration is full of superior human beings than what was found in the Bush administration? The whole point of calls for transparency in government, for multiple layers of competing government entities, etc. is largely because we know that people in power and their friends suck deep and hard, no matter how much they may seem admirable. Indeed, the whole point of public choice economics is to drop the romantic notion of government actors that government actors are always trying to sell us.

17. Comment by mds —
    May 22, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

    Of course, being the pedantic jerk that I am, I would note that at that point, the plebians get to kill Consul 2.

    And being if anything more pedantic, I would note that they would be far more likely to either (1) go on strike to force changes in the political system, or (2) be co-opted into the ruling class, to the point where at least one consul had to be plebian (367 BC onward). Remember, “patrician” and “plebian” gradually mattered less and less compared to purely economic class, bearing out the prophetic warnings of Karlius Marxus Barbus.

    Who knows, maybe someday the US will try (1) instead of (2). I’m not holding my breath.

18. Comment by Seward —
    May 22, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

    mds,

    …(1) go on strike to force changes in the political system…

    That is one of my favorite Roman history stories. Let’s just decamp from the city and move to yonder hill over there.

19. Comment by strasmangelo jones —
    May 22, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

    But it is a substantive policy difference. It’s the difference between torturing people and not torturing people.

    No, it’s the difference between torturing people yourself and having your friendly neighborhood dictator do the torturing for you. For the umpteenth time: Obama has preserved extraordinary rendition, Bagram air base, and extrajudicial killings. Meet the new boss, same as the last five decades’ worth of bosses.

20. Comment by Timothy —
    May 22, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

    Five decades? More like 22.

21. Comment by Barry —
    May 23, 2009 @ 10:27 am

    Comment by mds —
    ” See also: christening Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party.”

    Let’s see – Rush has made one Congressman and the titular GOP leader his b*tches, and was star at the last CPAC.

    That puts him well up on anybody else in the GOP, even Cheney.

22. Comment by Nell —
    May 23, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

    mds: Obama taking advantage of the contrast

    Izzockly.

    It’s Obama’s unwillingness to say that the law already forbids us to torture ever again, and acting as if his executive order was the last word on the subject, that so irritates civil libertarians.

    His reasons for refusing to make that point are clear: because then he’d be acknowledging that he’s under a legal compulsion to investigate for prosecution those who authorized and set in motion the torture that happened under the last administration.

(Comments automatically closed after 21 days.)