Just to be very explicit about the matter, here are some of the things that I believe:
- The United States should not use military force against any other country without a declaration of war by the Congress OR the Constitution should be amended and we should withdraw from the United Nations.
- We should not enter into any treaty without a committed intention of adhering to it. No “wink and a nod” treaties. I think that strongly suggests we should be much more reluctant to enter into treaties than we are at present.
- Engaging in covert military actions or diplomatic negotiations is not only inconsistent both with the letter and spirit of the Constitution it is inconsistent with being a liberal democracy.
- Being a liberal democracy places us at a disadvantage with more authoritarian countries. I still think we should be a liberal democracy.
- I think the president is obligated to enforce the law to the best of his ability. Even if he disagrees with it. Even if most of his caucus disagrees with it.
- I do not think the U. S. should be a “loose cannon”. I think our responses should be very predictable and constrained as above.
- I think that influence peddling schemes on the part of current or former elected officials should be taken extremely seriously especially when they involve other countries.
- I think that public employees unions should not be able to make political contributions either in money or in kind.
- I think the most pressing need at the federal level is major civil service reform.
I agree with your points, Dave. Why then do you soft-pedal criticism of the Biden Administration, when they are at cross-currents over most of those pinpointed beliefs? Their Afghanistan departure was a miserable folly; their escalation tactics in Ukraine encourages war: their engagement with Iran with Russia’s help to secure a questionable agreement (?); Biden’s hushed-up influence peddling involving Ukraine and China, are but a few examples rebuking your beliefs.
Furthermore, the latest Hersh investigation is getting legs despite the Biden Administration disavowing it. Discrediting Hersh, however, is disingenuous considering his earlier investigative contributions exposing the My Lai massacre, watergate/CIA involvement, and torture at Abu Ghraib.
The more I read about details of the Nord Stream sabotage, the Norwegian Navy’s assistance in planning and surveillance, the more plausible, though, it seems the Biden Administration is carelessly creating unnecessary fodder for war with Russia. Why then is there not a louder outcry from the democrat side of the aisle?
I’m going to re-ask an earlier question. If this were the previous administration engaging in all these covert and overt actions would there be so much reluctance to criticize the president, calling such actions “an act of war?†I remember when there was a provocative call to Zelensky, suggesting he look into his own country’s corruption associated with Biden, with the call’s text immediately provided for public scrutiny, people here were dismayed by it, and an impeachment of the presiding president ensued.
Neither party shares most of those beliefs.
I can’t recall where I read it today but someone remarked that the “anti-war left” is suddenly hawkish WRT Ukraine. I doubt that most are hawkish; I think they’re silent because they’re opportunistic. I’ve been saying that for 30 years.
That’s why I said that the administration needs to produce a plausible alternative explanation. Just denying it isn’t enough.
I can’t recall where I read it today but someone remarked that the “anti-war left†is suddenly hawkish WRT Ukraine.
I’ve already reflected on how core liberal and conservative beliefs have changed over the years. It was usually the more liberal factions who marched and were against war engagements. They also disassociated themselves from multinational corporations, chambers of commerce, any sign of free speech infringements, censorship of any kind. That’s probably why I thought of myself as a “moderate†democrat for so long vs a Republican. Now I’m registered as “no party affiliation.â€
But, all that has changed. For instance, the last R administration stayed away from entering a new war, while the current one seems to almost be begging for one. Multinational corporations are obliging Dems by entering into ESG commitments, along with many corporations becoming active dem donors. More Dems engage in EST education, while the right dissents and supports less ideological indoctrination. The conservative right relies more on grass roots monies and participation. Social media’s exposure by the Twitter files, augmented by the thousands being canceled for differentiating themselves from the government’s politically correct narrative, is the new way for the left to govern and hold onto power. The conservative right has railed against such leftist constraints of free speech and the rise of censorship, becoming a populist movement more concerned about what’s going on within its own borders rather than starting wars over someone else’s border dispute. The new Congress has even refused to meet with their age-old allie, the chamber of Congress, because of how their actions have alienated themselves from conservative ones.
It’s basically become a reversal of positions and posturing.
A pretty good list although I could quibble or nitpick with a few of them.
One I don’t agree with is this:
“Engaging in covert military actions or diplomatic negotiations is not only inconsistent both with the letter and spirit of the Constitution it is inconsistent with being a liberal democracy.”
That is an unreasonably high bar. Every nation-state that’s existed has engaged in covert actions and/or diplomacy. The latter is particularly important and the first example that pops into my head is our covert diplomacy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there needs to be democratic accountability, but often that must come after the fact and not before. And the reality is that undemocratic institutions and authorities are required for democracy to actually function in practice.
I suspected you would find that a sticking point.
I see no way for Congress to hold the Executive accountable for things of which it is unaware. I don’t believe this is true:
What I think is true is that undemocratic institutions and authorities are required for undemocratic governments and institutions. We’re supposed to be a liberal democracy with a federal government of limited powers and checks and balances. Not an unaccountable empire. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that those who defend covert diplomacy and actions most vehemently (present company excepted of course) also tend to want an unaccountable empire.
I guess it depends on how you define “undemocratic.”
But fundamentally, we know that pure democracy doesn’t work and becomes self-destructive mob rule. So successful democracies put undemocratic institutions in place to ameliorate that to make democracy work. For example in the US we have:
The Bill Of Rights
Separation of powers
And independent (and unelected) judiciary
A bicameral legislature where one considers states to be equal
Limited/difficult means to remove elected representatives – typically the public has to wait until the next election.
Secondly, confidential discussions (including covert diplomacy) are necessary at all levels from the government down to the individual. We don’t want a situation where government officials cannot have private, candid discussions with counterparts from other countries.
For covert actions, accountability, as is the case with most anything else in a representative democracy, happens after the fact when that person has to face reelection.
I think it can work in very small countries. It’s been working in Switzerland since before the U. S. was a country.
I still don’t see how you hold someone accountable for something of which you’re unaware.
“I still don’t see how you hold someone accountable for something of which you’re unaware.”
Few things stay secret forever.
And the critical factor of representative democracy is a certain level of trust that the elected representative acts in the people’s interest. Presidents do a lot of things that aren’t necessarily deliberately covert, yet the public isn’t aware of them happening, or only becomes aware after the fact.
So, you hold the Chief Executive responsible forty years later? That’s not accountability.