WRITTEN BY Thomas Nephew, of Newsrack, NOT BY Gary Farber
Until recently, Peter Benjamin was the chairman of the Washington, D.C. area Metro transit system's Board of Directors. A former mayor of Garrett Park, he brought an avuncular personality and long experience with Metro affairs to the table. While in correspondence with us about the bag search issue I've written about before, he dismissed some of our assertions about the program's drawbacks -- for example, he didn't believe it would cause much decline in ridership. But he seemed to take seriously the civil liberties issues involved.
Still, sometimes I think if I had a dollar for every time I've heard or read "I'm a supporter of the ACLU, but..." I could afford the richer, more refined lifestyle I truly deserve.
And sure enough, when push came to shove at a February 10 discussion of the bag search issue, Mr. Benjamin delivered what may be the new low standard in that genre. Beginning with the heart-sinking words "I am a long term member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Many of my friends consider me a civil liberties nut," Benjamin was giving the lie to those words within roughly twenty seconds. Even though asserting that the rights we have as citizens are "why we are the great country that we are" and personally believing that "bag checks are a violation of those rights, and ...the beginning of a process that moves towards us having fewer and fewer and fewer of those rights," Mr. Benjamin continued:
And if this decision were only for me, and only about me, I would say I personally am willing to take the risk of potentially having somebody get into the system and blow something up and I would be one of the victims, and I would balance that against my rights and say my rights are much more important. [...]
However, I'm also a member of this board, and I was sworn to protect the safety and the security of the people who ride our system. And I don't know how I as an individual with good conscience could allow somebody to get into our system and cause an explosion and know that somehow or another I contributed to that by overruling the best judgments of our chief executive officer and the professionals who understand this process. [...]
But I don't know that I can be in a position of saying that I have got the ability, given the responsibility that is given to me as an individual and as a member of this board to protect our riders, to say that they should take the same risk that perhaps I would be willing to take. And as long as I have to carry out that responsibility, I think I need to defer to those who believe that they understand better this issue. It's one that I do very reluctantly, but it's one that I do after very, very careful thought. And I think that's the balance that each of needs to make as we consider this issue."
Anatomy of a betrayal
Now in point of fact, Mr. Benjamin was much more specifically sworn (even as a mere WMATA director) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights he holds so cheaply, than to protecting the "safety and security of the people who ride our system." Moreover, there's no real tension between the two in this case: Metro's bag search program is a deeply stupid one, much more clearly designed to pretend security than provide it -- to serve as a "see we tried something" excuse if or when an attack happens someday.
But rather than dwell on the bag search issue any longer, I mean to consider Mr. Benjamin's remarks and attitudes more closely as an object lesson in hypocrisy revealed and ostensible values betrayed. Fundamentally, the point is already made: Benjamin locates his duties completely in "safety" (however spurious), rather than in the values he professes personally, and that he is specifically sworn to uphold. Complete deference to the alleged professional expertise of others in defining "safety" plays a role as well; Benjamin's conclusions follow inexorably from those errors. Note also, though, that the values professed are considered a kind of personal luxury ("if it were only about me") rather than rights of significance and value to others as well -- rights that Mr. Benjamin was in a unique position to defend. Finally, for now, note again the talismanic invocation of being a "long time supporter of the ACLU." All those donations have finally served their purpose -- a bona fide supposedly making the betrayal (or, if you agree with Benjamin, the contrarian epiphany) more remarkable and powerful.
Examples abound
Having seen this little set piece -- Decorative Values Shed the Moment They Become Inconvenient -- I started to notice similar episodes everywhere. An Exhibit B was provided (not surprisingly, perhaps) by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen in a mid-February column about the public employee union problem newly identified by Republican governors. Spake Cohen:
I pause now to assert my bona fides. I got my first union card while still in college and remained a member of the Newspaper Guild throughout my career, paying dues even when I no longer had to. I can whistle union ditties and I swell with pride at the ancient picture of my grandfather, posed with his good friend, the union organizer. I know, too, what happens when unions are weak or nonexistent. Capitalism is cruel. Do not look for charity.
But enough is enough.
...before decrying duly negotiated pension plans for police and firefighters that, yes, appear to offset the low pay these public servants receive and the often incredibly dangerous duties they perform.
Exhibit C followed soon thereafter; one Sam Arora, elected to Maryland's House of Delegates from Maryland's 19th District, suddenly announced he was "praying hard" about how he would vote in committee on the gay marriage bill considered recently in Annapolis -- after having accepted beaucoup donations from GLBT and other activists attracted to his pro-gay marriage stance during the 2010 election season.
Though he eventually voted for the bill, he also voted for an amendment weakening it; meanwhile, his wavering encouraged the same in others, and compelled actual grownups to spend time on him that could and should have been spent elsewhere. Arora "explained" eventually that "[w]hile I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say" -- after trying to flush a tweet for same-sex marriage (not just civil unions) down the memory hole.
Exhibit O
But the main example -- Exhibit O, as it were -- is of course Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's Disappointer in Chief. It's hard to keep track of all of Obama's promises and stances that have proven false or hollow, though I try in the video below and with an ongoing set of links in my delicious.com feed. Someone someone who ran as a skeptic of stupid wars and/or wars undeclared by Congress may have now mired us in a third one; someone who ran promising at least a public health insurance option delivered its near opposite, a mandate to buy private insurance without a competing public choice; someone who decried the Bush tax cuts as the budget- and nation-busting shortsightedness they are signed off on extending them; someone who who ran as an avowed skeptic of executive power has proven anything but once the Ring of Power was his to hold.
I liked Obama, voted for him, and even worked for him as I wondered about him -- his FISA Amendment Act vote in 2007 was a warning I took seriously, but hoped (in vain) was not the shape of things to come.
I've tried to understand Obama the man and Obama the politician. After reading David Remnick's "The Bridge," I've concluded his "improbable rise" was never all that improbable to him -- and I continue to like him for that.
I think he's supremely confident of his ability to weigh and balance competing interests -- but to the detriment of recognizing when it's time to draw bright lines, to take a side. One source of the urge to betray is a contrarian's delight in considering oneself the smartest guy and the deepest thinker in the room; this might be Obama's problem too.
But like Arora, there's no stopping the waffling once it gets going. Like Cohen, there's no reluctance to style himself as "in the corner" of or a "fierce advocate" of position X as needed, then do little or nothing to help when the chips are down. Like Benjamin, when push comes to shove liberties lose, while secrecy and security win. Every time.
...and Exhibit You
Luckily, there may be some apps for that. One is called a "primary"; another, a "third party." But that brings me to Exhibit You, and Exhibit Me. If we, too, shrug our shoulders at betrayals, make excuses for broken promises, settle for the lesser of two evils, or simply give up and go fishing or watch TV, we're as guilty as those we've rejected. Yes, Obama is just a politician. But he also promised to restore hope and bring change. Those words don't mean what he seems to think they mean -- he seems more a continuation of the forces I thought I was voting against than a victor over them. He should fear and reap the consequences of that, or democracy has no meaning.
The urge to betray values and principles for safety, expediency, or the false pride of joining an elite isn't just an affliction of the powerful; it's a siren call for all of us. We give up on ourselves and democracy by doing so. In the months and years ahead, let's try to do better; let's look for champions who hold the powerful accountable, who keep their promises, and who earn not just our votes but our lasting support.
WRITTEN BY Thomas Nephew, of Newsrack, NOT BY Gary Farber
"Luckily, there may be some apps for that. One is called a "primary"; another, a "third party." But that brings me to Exhibit You, and Exhibit Me."
A stirring call for the election of Sarah Palin in 2012.
Posted by: rea | March 24, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Ever hear the one about the difference between stand up comics and politicians? They both say things that the crowd loves to hear. But at the end, the crowd laughs at the comic, while the politician laughs at the crowd.
Posted by: Sanity Inspector | March 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM
@rea - I don't think Sarah Palin is so strong that a primary challenge to Obama risks her election. I actually think that a (1) good, principled challenge that either (2) succeeds or (3) falls short but is met halfway (however unlikely any of those are) could strengthen a Democratic run in the fall of 2012. For a similar view, see Tikkun editor Michael Lerner's op-ed in the Post late last year: "Save Obama’s presidency by challenging him on the left."
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 24, 2011 at 01:35 PM
Yes, Obama has disappointed in many respects, but let's not overlook either his political constraints or his accomplishments. Besides, Lerner is nuts.
His idea is that the way for Obama to counter a conservative challenge is to move sharply (and in some ways stupidly) to the left. How does that make sense? It doesn't.
The way to affect policy, IMO, is not to waste energy running Susan Sarandon in a presidential primary. It's to work to elect local, state, and congressional candidates who can start to move things, by pressuring Obama meaningfully, by demonstrating that progressive ideas have popular support, and by getting them enacted.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 24, 2011 at 02:37 PM
the way for Obama to counter a conservative challenge is to move sharply (and in some ways stupidly) to the left. How does that make sense? It doesn't.
I am of course unalterably opposed to any stupid moves to the left. :) But let's have the courage of our convictions, if we have any: if the ideas and programs that result are significantly better than those that result from, say, muddling around looking for a compromise with Neanderthals, then it makes sense to push them. In today's real world, that happens by finding a reasonably knowledgeable, credible national candidate to push them. (Probably not Susan Sarandon, I agree, though I'd give her a listen before deciding.) I'm all for party- and/or faction-building along the way. But having a standard-bearer helps a lot.
All that said, I'm not averse to any of what you suggest ("elect local, state...getting them enacted.") I just think we tried it, and it didn't work -- things have remained far too much the same. Despite having 60 Senators, a substantial majority in the House, and the Oval Office, we have rather little to show for it, IMO. So I blame the Democratic leadership -- all of them, and a primary challenge seems like a reasonable, even constructive way of acting on that belief.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 24, 2011 at 03:14 PM
First I thought this was a post about the Metro's luggage search policy. (It's security theater, with all of the stupidities of the genre.) Then it turned into a post about how Obama has failed to take an (appropriate) stand on various issues.
I guess the overall theme is just that some (more likely most) politicians do not end up delivering, when in office, quite what their principles would have led one to expect. But I'm not sure how much of this is for good reasons (reality-check when actually trying to govern) and how much for bad (principles being abandon when no longer convenient).
Posted by: wj | March 24, 2011 at 05:11 PM
"I guess the overall theme is just that some (more likely most) politicians do not end up delivering, when in office, quite what their principles would have led one to expect."
I see why one might think that, so next time I'll try to write more clearly. It's not that they don't deliver what their principles would have led one to expect. It's that they trade on the appearance of professing principles they did not in fact have. That's the charge; you may find them innocent of it.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 24, 2011 at 06:30 PM
It's not that they don't deliver what their principles would have led one to expect. It's that they trade on the appearance of professing principles they did not in fact have.
I'll have to go with the Scotch verdict on that one: not proven.
Unless you happen to know the politician in question personally, it is generally extremely hard IMHO to know what is a real principle and what is principle which is being professed only for convenience.
I admit that there are exceptions: it is hard to believe that, for example, Romney** is professing principles he really believe -- given how contrary they are to what he both said and did in the past. If he were to come out and say "This is what I have learned which has caused me to revise my views on X," that might be a matter of learning from experience -- always a good thing. But merely reversing ground and coming up (by chance?) with a position which looks likely to do better in an election?
Still, if someone has consistently espoused one set of principles, the default assumption would seem to be that he really did believe them. He may have been wrong. He may have since learned better. But there isn't any obvious reason to believe that he took a position on something at age 25 in the foreknowledge that at 50 it would be important.
** for those with long memories (or just a knowledge of obscure bits of history), another example would be George Wallace. Who first ran for office as a moderate on racial issues. And, when he lost, said "They out niggered me. I'll never be out-niggered again!" And went from there to become a icon of the die-hard segregationist South.
Posted by: wj | March 24, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Nephew: "I see why one might think that, so next time I'll try to write more clearly."
Right, and also less generally. Maybe you should focus on one issue, that's possible to discuss, rather than:
"It's that they trade on the appearance of professing principles they did not in fact have."
The second statement requires us to read Obama's mind or heart - not something I'm particularly willing to do. I'd rather focus on whether what he's done is reasonable under the circumstances, even if he hasn't been a "purist" with regard to some of the values he's endorsed. That makes for a more meaningful discussion.
As it is, the post is very weak, IMO. As should be obvious from my other arguments here, I agree with rea, that it's a cri de coeur for the Collaborators - those who would be just as happy electing someone from the right wing to prove how pure they are. If you have some evidence or supportable theory that splitting the Democratic party would result in electing a more progressive Democrat, please explain how. The last several times something like that was tried, it resulted in the election of a Republican. I don't see how any Democrat of any stripe would want any Republican elected in 2012 under any circumstances.
Posted by: sapient | March 24, 2011 at 07:53 PM
sapient: " I don't see how any Democrat of any stripe would want any Republican elected in 2012 under any circumstances."
Sorry, I meant any "unaffiliated, progressive leftie, or any other designation who doesn't want a fascist in government" ...
Did not mean to accuse anyone of being Democrat. Which I am, unabashedly.
Posted by: sapient | March 24, 2011 at 08:28 PM
I feel whip-lashed. Your first example is pretty clear. Mr. Benjamin doesn't seem to have taken the lessons one would normally expect one to have learned being associated with the ACLU to heart. His balance of freedom against 'security' makes it appear as if the freedom side of the equation isn't very important to him.
The Cohen example isn't nearly as clear. The thrust of his article seems to be about pension gaming, which strikes me as a legitimate gripe.
The Obama segue really loses me though. Yes he didn't do everything you could have wanted, but given the hand he's been dealt (horrific economy, spineless Democrats in Congress and nutso Republicans in Congress) I'd say he's done an overall good job. It certainly isn't as clear a case as the Benjamin example you start with.
Posted by: Sebastian | March 24, 2011 at 08:54 PM
I'm not averse to any of what you suggest ("elect local, state...getting them enacted.") I just think we tried it, and it didn't work --
We tried it for a brief moment, barely two years, and Dr. Dean's 50-state strategy got us the first black American President and a 60-Democrat Senate (albeit one stuffed with Blue Dogs)
Whereupon the national Democratic Party, (finding that true grassroots involvement threatened their from-the-top control and was far too likely to support actual liberals over Blue Dogs) dismantled the very structure that provided the 2008 victories, only to lose ground in the next election because the Democratic grassroots had become disaffected and disconnected.
So we tried it for a couple years, and just as it began to work the national Party decided that victory at the price of rocking boats was too expensive, and cancelled the grassroots organizing.
Posted by: joel hanes | March 24, 2011 at 09:30 PM
Please don't overlook the "local, state," part of what I said.
As we've sadly learned recently, a lot can be accomplished in state legislatures. And of course strong state parties make strong national parties.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 24, 2011 at 09:52 PM
@sapient, @wj: I'm interested in this notion that I'm mind reading. Proposition: if candidate X addresses the National Chocolate Fans Convention (NCFC) to say that "it is my principle is that given a choice, I will eat chocolate ice cream before vanilla. You can take that to the bank," but subsequently chooses vanilla over chocolate time after time, then -- I cautiously assert -- X has perhaps disproven s/he operates by a chocolate-over-vanilla *principle*, though s/he may still have a *weak preference for chocolate when convenient*.
Are we agreed so far? Can we further agree that the NCFC may be justified in feeling hoodwinked; bamboozled; conned; deceived; betrayed; even practiced upon? Might NCFC be rightly impatient with those accusing it of "mind reading" when it claims candidate X in fact does not have a principled allegiance to chocolate?
@joel hanes: and who leads the National Democratic Party?
Not to ignore the other responses, but I've whittled around on this one for a while and I'm tired. Good night, all.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 25, 2011 at 01:11 AM
There have been lots of thoughtful posts and comments about real issues involving Obama's decisions. Making up hypotheticals isn't constructive.
Posted by: sapient | March 25, 2011 at 08:27 AM
I think Mr. Nephew's post is right on the money.
If you have a "principle" but then you always (always always) negotiate it away (like Obama), or ignore it in favor of 'security' (like Peter Benjamin), or toss it aside in an effort to seem hip or contrarian (Richard Cohen), then you did not have a principle at all. You had, as Mr. Nephew so aptly puts it, a "decorative value." You do not have to look deep into a person's heart to see this; you only have to watch his/her actions.
Posted by: kent | March 26, 2011 at 08:41 PM
kent: then you did not have a principle at all
So what's your point? That Obama is a bad person? I notice that even though he "always always always" (according to you) negotiates his "principle" away, neither you or Nephew is willing to discuss a particular case of his doing so.
The common law of our country is based on certain legal principles. Each case comes before a judge with thousands of cases having been decided in the past, with these principles being tested as they're applied to facts. As every judge and lawyer knows, every set of facts is different, so principles, as applied to new facts, don't change, but sometimes don't quite fit. Either new principles are created, or a more nuanced understanding of old principles occurs. It's not compromise; it's a reasoned application of old principles to new circumstances.
There's a word for a set of principles that don't yield to circumstances: "dogma."
Posted by: sapient | March 26, 2011 at 09:33 PM
There comes a point when the lesser of two evils is still too evil to choose. Has Obama, with his embrace of the Bush-Cheney security state, gotten to that point? Has the Democratic party, with its indifference to the erosion of our civil liberties and its eagerness to do the bidding of the very wealthy, also reached that point?
Each of us will decide for ourselves, but I find it very dismaying to have to actually consider the question. Our political culture has truly gone awry.
Defend Obama and the Democrats if you wish, but don't make the argument that we must choose between evils. At some point, the real choice is not between two poor choices, but between embracing one of the two evil choices, or working to replace both evil choices with at least one good one.
I believe we've reached that state.
Posted by: Daulnay | March 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM
NICE POST FOR US, WE CAN LEARN IT MANY MUCH!!!
Posted by: cheap nike shox | May 17, 2011 at 03:43 AM