So today the paper runs a national story from The Washington Post — "Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying" — along with a local reax story, "Some in Del. oppose spying on citizens."
The latter headline is accurate, some oppose the president asserting the unchecked power to spy on U.S. citizens — but some don't.
The White House's claim, essentially, is this: The president may do whatever he sees fit in order to keep the country safe. For some, those last seven words justify and legitimize the unlimited powergrab of the first eight. But many of us cannot accept the beginning of that sentence — "the president may do whatever he sees fit" — regardless of what follows. Those of us who reject that claim call ourselves "democrats" or "republicans" — words that refer to forms of government in which the leaders are accountable to the people and to the rule of law, and therefore may not simply do whatever they see fit.
"This is a different era, a different war," President Bush said in defending his right to be free of all checks and balances. What he means, clearly, is that this new war and new era also requires a new form of government. Democracy and republicanism, he is arguing, are luxuries we can no longer afford in this new era.
The astonishing thing to me is that only "some" oppose this claim.
"He's acting like a king!" I say, only to realize that not all of my fellow citizens view that as a bad thing. They don't disagree. They don't try to argue that this assertion of unfettered executive power is in any way compatible with the idea of democracy or our democratic Constitution.
Instead, they simply try to reassure me that George W. Bush is a good king who can be trusted to wield unlimited power benevolently. Loyal subjects, they insist, have nothing to fear.
And, of course, if only the disloyal and dangerous have reason to fear the unchecked power of the president, then any apprehension about such unchecked power must be perceived as a sign of a dangerous disloyalty.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In