I M P R E S S I O N S

Settling Scores
Those still battling Bush v. Gore need to move on

by Steven C. Day

12.12.01 | Let me start off by confessing to a guilty pleasure: I love hate mail.

Now, I love “love mail” more, but given the choice between hate mail and no mail, I’ll take the hate mail every time. As a political columnist, I view all mail as a gift — proof that someone out there is actually reading what I write.

That said, I do have a bone to pick with a few people who wrote to complain about my last column. In that piece, I suggested that the war on terrorism has given the five Supreme Court justices who made up the majority in the Bush v. Gore decision a chance for redemption — a chance to rescue their historical reputations from the dustbin. All they have to do to achieve this, I reasoned, is staunchly defend civil liberties during the current war. Several readers blasted me for daring to suggest that Bush v. Gore could ever be forgiven and completely ignored the civil liberties issues raised by the piece.

God knows, I understand their anger. Only three months ago I strongly castigated the Supreme Court for Bush v. Gore and proclaimed my unwillingness to “get over it.” In many ways, what I am writing here is a reflection of a debate I have been having with myself: I still don’t want to let go of my anger over the election, but I have reached what to me seems the unavoidable conclusion that it is now time to move on. 

We simply have more important business to attend to right now than nursing an old grudge. As I argued before, our basic freedoms are under attack. And it troubles me that some of the people who would normally be manning the barricades in their defense, appear, instead, to be stuck in neutral, overwhelmed by anger over things now past.

Perhaps I am just one of those alarmists the administration has been complaining about, but the truth is that I am scared sick over what has been happening to civil liberties in this country. And my state of mind was hardly improved by John Ashcroft’s recent statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee, alleging that those of us who question the Bush Administration’s actions are traitors who are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Here are his exact words:

“[T]o those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid the terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”

It’s good to see that Ashcroft hasn’t allowed his few months as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to dull his legendary skills as a demagogue.

The really scary thing isn’t so much what has already happened to civil liberties in the United States (although that is bad enough, with secret tribunals and the rest), but what is likely to happen in the future. No form of folly has a greater tendency toward self-proliferation than misguided “get tough” policies — they breed like rabbits on Viagra. It’s human nature: If hitting the bad guys hard once doesn’t do the trick, try hitting ‘em even harder the next time, and so on and so on.

We see this pattern at work today in the Middle East. After gaining power by promising to get tough with the Palestinians, Ariel Sharon instituted a brutal crack down, which included a series of assassinations of suspected terrorist leaders. These policies have, of course, failed miserably. The cycle of violence has only intensified, claiming more and more victims on both sides. The harder Israel clamps down, the more its opponents strike back. Hate triumphs everywhere.

There is a real danger that something similar may soon play out in the war against terrorism. No one claims that the actions taken so far, or any other steps that may be taken, will prevent all future terrorist attacks. If people are willing to die in order to kill others, there is only so much that can be done to stop them. Israel, for example, has adopted security measures so stringent that it has become a virtual police state. But that didn’t prevent the recent suicide bombings that claimed 25 Israeli lives. We will almost certainly have security failures here as well.

And with each new terrorist incident, or alleged near miss, Bush & Co. can be expected to return to the well, drawing out just a little bit more of our freedom in the name of security. In each instance, the sacrifice of liberty will seem minor, allowing those who object to be easily dismissed as alarmists. But bit by bit, they will add up.

When personal liberties are lost in this country, it happens by inches at a time. Yet these inches can eventually add up to miles. But because the process occurs gradually, it’s easy to miss, and what once would have seemed unthinkable can then appear quite normal. (Just consider how the war on drugs has betrayed American principles — from the expansion of police powers to the number of people imprisoned — and to what end?) 

So to defend civil liberties, you have to fight for every inch. But the odds don’t look particularly good in that battle right now. According to polls, most Americans support the president and are prepared to sacrifice some of their freedom in exchange for the promise (dubious as it may be) of greater security. Largely because of these polls, Congress has shown little stomach for challenging the administration on civil liberties issues. Public fear and political cowardice seem poised to carry the day.

For a shot at overcoming these odds, we will need all the political weapons and all the allies we can get. So if Bob Barr continues to come down on the right side on these questions, then as much as I detest virtually everything else he stands for, I’m with him on this one for the duration. And sure, if one or two members of the Supreme Court Five will — surprise — stand tall for liberty, then I’ll be more than happy to cut them some slack for Bush v. Gore. In a heartbeat.

And to my friends who just can’t get past their anger over the way our democracy was highjacked last year, my message is a simple one: Get over it. I am not asking you to forgive and forget, and I am not arguing that we should stop pointing out that the wrong man is sitting in the White House, as will occur frequently this week in “honor” of the one year anniversary of the Bush v. Gore decision. What I am asking is that you get your heads back in the game.

The abuse of our democracy last year was an awful thing, but it’s also a done deal. We have no time for licking our wounds or for settling old scores. There is too much on the line. It’s time to get focused and get to work.

Discuss. Debate.
Enter the Pop Forum

Steven C. Day is an attorney practicing in Wichita, Kansas. His previous columns can be found here.

Related Sites
Writing in Slate, Jacob Weisberg deconstructs Ashcroft’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
From the American Prospect, "In Bed with Bob Barr: How conservatives became the ACLU’s best friends," by Nicholas Confessore.