Stimson and Liberals: A Sort of "Grand Synthesis"

David Luban at Balkinization comes through on Stimson's attack on the Gitmo lawyers, and does a bang-up job: he relates it to the ongoing right-wing efforts to do away with Legal Aid and any other program that will insure that those who can't afford high-priced legal counsel actually do get represenation before the law.

One remark of Luban's is worth noting especially:

. . . the Defense Department disavowed his remarks in strong terms, and made all the right noises about how important it is for the legal process to have excellent counsel for detainees.

How’s that again? For five years, the government (not least Defense) has fought in every way possible to avoid access to legal process for the detainees, a campaign that culminated in the habeas-stripping provisions in the Military Commissions Act. Why would they want excellent representation for the detainees, given that they don’t want the detainees ever to find a forum to be represented in? The hypocrisy boggles the mind. I assume that what bothered Defense about Stimson’s remarks is not their content but their candor.

I suggest that it's not their candor but the reaction those remarks generated. "Plausible deniability" (even when it's not in the least plausible) is the staple of any administration, but this one takes it to extremes. As Luban points out, DoD doesn't want these people to have any representation at all, but then they turn around and condemn someone who, in essence, says so. Bullshit. The mode for the Bush administration has been, from the beginning, lie through your teeth. And if it doesn't work, lie some more. Beat us over the head with the lies until we're numb.

As Luban goes on to delineate, it's not an isolated incident, but part of an ongoing effort by the right to cut off liberty to those who don't agree with them. It's still, of course, a reflection of the Bush administration's contempt for our basic institutions and the Rovian tactic of damnation by insinuation -- any bets on how heavily Stimson was programmed for those remarks? It's already obvious that he had a handy list of the law firms in question. No, Virginia, this was not off-the-cuff. It was a set-up.

By extension, and it's not such a long stretch, I take this as emblematic of contemporary "conservatism" as reflected by such as Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Marilyn Musgrave, and The Dobson Gang. I should point out, vis-a-vis my previous post on "Liberals," that, while I think contemporary liberalism has maintained a strong connection to its origins in the Enlightenment, contemporary conservatism has lost that connection and become heavily tainted by religious dogmatism. (And I mean "religious" both in kind and in structure. I refer you back, at this point, to David Neiwert's series on Fascism (there's a link at Orcinus -- just scroll down the sidebar), with particular note that an important component of Fascism as it manifested itself in Germany, Italy and Spain in the twentieth century was the willing partnership of the Church, as an explanation of the "kind." The "structure" is simply the reliance on authority, the cult of personality -- in its bare essentials, Christianity grows from the cult of Jesus, and who can forget the billboards in certain Red states dedicated to "Our Leader"? -- and its intolerance of other points of view.) If you want a nice simple example, look at the attitude of liberals toward science as against that of conservatives. I think even at the extreme, liberals are more willing to entertain open inquiry; conservatives demand creationism, and try to call it "freedom of speech." (OK -- you already know what I think of their methods: they are, without exception, snake-oil salesmen.)

The Sullivan camp of "traditional" conservatives have become what the rest of us would call "moderates." It's part and parcel of that large common ground in the middle that both classical liberals and conservatives share. (I've often thought that there is little distinction in the foundations of the philosophies; mostly it's a matter of priorities and the role of government in implementing those priorities.)

Back to Stimson. When you take a corrupted political philosophy and give it to a gang of thugs, you get stuff like this. This was a trial balloon. A lead balloon, as anyone who has any sense would have realized, but the thing to remember about this administration and the base from which it springs is that they won't stop. They are right -- God told them so -- and so it's just a matter of finding ways to pervert the system until they can have their way. I am reminded of Peter LaBarbera, Illinois' foremost anti-gay activist (and one of the most comically inept in the history of demonization), who tried to get a referendum on the ballot instructing the legislature to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment; when it failed, he went to the activist courts looking for a little judicial tyranny -- he wanted Illinois' election laws overturned because it was too hard for him to get his referendum. This is what we're dealing with. Even after the Dover intelligent design case (Kitzenmiller), it's just a matter of time until the creationists come back for another try. It's a broad-range effort, because they have a broad agenda. Stimson is just the latest wrinkle.