Where Does Obama Stand on Civil Liberties?

Everyone should probably read The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.  It’s a great political blog that seems to be made up of progressives, liberals and libertarians.  I don’t agree with everything that is written there (far from it), but it is generally well written, well reasoned and, well, good.  Liberals and libertarians won’t always agree, but they tend to come together when they start talking about civil liberties.  On that note, Mark Thompson has a great post on the worries that we should have about the Obama administration.

What has frustrated me far more about the Obama Administration, however, has been its performance on civil liberties issues that are less important to the liberal base of the Democratic Party.  This performance suggests that the Obama Administration’s interest in Constitutional liberties goes little further than is needed to keep the liberal base happy.What are these small incidents?  In no particular order:

1.  The NEA political art hubub.  The Right’s reaction to this largely seemed to me to be making a mountain out of a molehill – we’re talking after all about a conference call orchestrated by a very minor government agency primarily dedicated to soliciting artwork for a National Day of Service.  Still, there is something at least unseemly about the government telling artists to make more art similar to the “Hope” campaign poster.

…

8.  Perhaps most significantly – the co-sponsoring of a UN Commission on Human Rights resolution (via Radley Balko) with Egypt.  On this, Professor Turley writes:

The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.

His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.

This put me in mind of a post I wrote a few months back.  Like Mark, I’m not too worried about a Barack Pinochet suddenly executing dissidents, but the president seems to have priorities that trump basic freedoms.

I mean, it’s not like they’ve ever set up an online propaganda tool to try to avoid political debate… oh wait.

Okay, I know, everyone propagandizes a bit, but it’s not like they’ve ever sent out talking points and marching orders to try to get people to bully and silence political opponents… oh wait.

Well, astroturfing isn’t great, but it’s not like they’d ever try to get the Department of Justice to silence political opponents… oh wait.

Granted, that one’s bad, but it’s not like they actually got law enforcement officers to form truth squads in order to ‘dispel’ misinformation… oh wait.

Basic civil liberties should never be ignored.  We shouldn’t assume that our leaders would never do anything that would really be an affront to freedom.  Liberty and personal autonomy are the backbone of western democracy, and we should never allow our governments to trample them just because it doesn’t seem like a big deal.

Fox News v. The White House: Richard Albert for the Win

Over at Politico, our friend Richard Albert takes it to the Obama administration and their, ahem, illegitimate war on Fox News.  Here’s the money line:

Legitimacy is a broad concept that folds within itself dimensions of morality, legality and divinity.

And here’s the clincher:

That Fox News enjoys popular support of such immense breadth and depth suggests that it also enjoys sociological legitimacy- something that the White House risks losing if it retains its antagonistic posture toward Fox News.

I could try to make a supporting argument, but really, y’all should just listen to Richard.

Read the whole thing.

What a Joke – President Obama Receives Nobel Peace Prize

Further proof that international support for the Obama administration (and Obama himself) is based on image, not substance – which would fit this administrations agenda just fine, as Obama has done little more than spout rhetoric and look good as opposed to actually accomplishing anything substantial.

The deadline for nominations for the prize was Feb. 1 — two weeks after Mr. Obama was inaugurated.

At this point, even Obama has to be a bit embarrassed at the ridiculous kid-glove treatment he is getting in the world press and apparently the ivory towers of the world.

Congratulations, Barack…. again!

Wow. What an accomplishment! I can just feel all of the world peace oozing out of the U.S. of A. presidency. Talk about being in the right place at the right time once again.

What a joke:

The Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Although, I must say, Al Gore’s award is much more pathetic.

Why Barack Obama is Better than Stephen Harper

He is head of state.

A trivial controversy makes Canada look like a trivial nation, as the Prime Minister schools the Governor General on her role:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada’s head of state.”Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. “The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada.”

The extraordinary reminder from the country’s head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean’s use of the phrase “head of state” when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.

Stephen Harper is, of course, correct, but I don’t really care.  The nation of Canada is over 100 years old; it’s about time that we move away from an archaic form of governance that is a mere relic from our colonial era.  Canadians deserve the ability to select their own head of state rather than accepting a hereditary monarchy and an appointed representative.  We’re not children.

It is bad enough that we must endure an appointed senate and a head of government that only a handful of citizens get to choose.  Why must we suffer the indignity of being royal subjects as well?

Jim Flaherty, Free Trade and the Power of Me

Over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and at my own blog, I comment that Canada should re-dedicate itself to free trade.  Apparently, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative government take my opinion quite seriously:

The Harper government is set to eliminate all import tariffs on machinery and equipment, reinforcing its commitment to freer trade even as other members of the Group of 20 nations slip on their pledge to maintain open markets.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty today will announce consultations on his plan to expand a previous tariff reduction initiative to all the gear that automotive parts makers, sawmills, printers and other companies might seek to become more productive as the economy recovers.

For good measure, the Prime Minister was in New York, stumping for free trade:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada “got it right” and will emerge from the recession in a strong position, crediting the country’s commitment to open markets, its solid financial sector and the stimulus measures it has put in place to deal with the economic downturn.In a speech Thursday to the Canadian-American Business Council and Canadian Association of New York, Harper reiterated the anti-protectionist message that has been a focus of his trip to the U.S. this week.

It shouldn’t be news when governments act so prudently; sadly, it is.  We know that trade is beneficial.  We know that a policy of free trade will benefit us as well as other countries.  Even if every other country wishes to be protectionists, there is no good reason, economically speaking, for us to follow suit.  There have been a number of reasons to be disappointed in Stephen Harper’s reign, but as long as he continues to carry the flag of free trade, he’s someone worthy of support.

Mr. Obama, I understand that you were once a professor, but now it’s time to learn from someone else.  Trade is good.  Please change your ways, and follow Mr. Harper’s lead.

Obama: Petty Political Payoffs Good, Trade… Not So

Well, it appears that Barack Obama cares more about playing politics than helping the American people. In the middle of a recession, he has decided to reward unions at the expense of those who cannot afford expensive U.S.-made tires. Come September 26, a 35% duty will be imposed on Chinese-made tires. The duty will last for a year.

I guess we can be happy that he didn’t totally cave to union pressure; they had recommended a duty of 55%. Thank goodness for small miracles, huh?

As I mentioned a couple of months ago when the union recommendation came out, this was a test of Obama. I doubt anyone was under any sort of illusion when it came to Obama and trade. He didn’t have a particularly solid record, but there was a glimmer or two of hope that he might see the light. Granted, maybe this decision is nothing more than a sop to the unions who make up such a significant part of the Democratic base. Maybe he still believes in free trade… as long as it doesn’t ever threaten a union job. If so, this isn’t just a message to international trading partners, it’s a message to Americans: the president cares more about union workers than he does other citizens.

Make no mistake about it, this carries no benefit to the American public at large. What Mr. Obama has done is preclude people from purchasing inexpensive tires. American tire makers do not make tires at the same price point as the affected tires. Consequently, this will result in people not being able to afford tires. Individuals and families that cannot afford these higher priced tires will have to forgo replacing the old tires on their cars. Not only has Mr. Obama enacted duties that will harm the United States economically, it will actually risk people’s lives.

Bravo, Mr. President.

Don’t Tread on Me

The United States International Trade Commission has recommended that President Barack Obama impose a 55% tariff on car tires imported from China. Obama must make a decision by September 17, and this issue might show the direction in which his administration will be heading regarding international trade.  Consequently, this is an issue that is important not just to the U.S. and China, but to Canada and the rest of the world.

As a senator and as president, Mr. Obama’s stance on trade has been erratic, at best.  Further, as his meddling in the U.S. auto industry shows, he has a propensity to put politics ahead of sound economic principles.  If Mr. Obama decides to side again with unions, all other trading partners will have been put on notice.  This administration sees free trade (and its associated wealth creation) as a secondary concern.  And you know, there’s nothing better than protectionism to lift you out of a recession.

Putting aside how worrying this should be for the rest of the world, this should be worrying for Americans, as well.  As The Wall Street Journal notes:

Rutgers University economist Thomas J. Prusa, who testified before the ITC on behalf of importers, said it is unrealistic to think tariffs lasting three years would spur domestic investment in tire manufacturing. More likely, more tires would be imported from other low-cost producers, he said.

Mr. Prusa said tariffs could cost 25,000 U.S. jobs and force consumers to spend $600 million to $700 million more a year on tires. The ITC doesn’t calculate tariffs’ economic impact when studying complaints — something the administration is sure to do.

Forcing Americans to pay more for tires will do nothing to alleviate suffering.  In fact, it will have a net negative effect on the prosperity of the U.S. populace.  Mr. Obama should know this.  I guess we’ll see if he does (or if he cares) in a few weeks.

President Obama, Machiavelli, and Health Care Reform

In my latest op-ed, published today in the Boston Herald, I argue that President Obama should be more Machiavellian in the American health care debate. Thoughts, criticisms, praise–all welcome, both in the comments below and offline by email.

Obama Cuts Deal with US PhRMA – Supportive Ads and 80 Billion Taxpayer Dollars

John, at Powerline, points out an interesting exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass

BLITZER: Did the White House make a secret deal with PhRMA, the pharmaceutical lobby here in Washington, that would limit how much cost reductions they would have going forward over the next 10 years?

DOUGLASS: Here is what — what happened. The White House, the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed that the pharmaceutical industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years — a very, very substantial sum of money that would lower the high cost of prescription drugs for seniors, who are paying exorbitant costs for prescription drugs. That was a crucial piece of this deal, as well as other steps that they would take to lower costs.

It’s an $80 billion agreement. That’s what the White House, the Senate Finance Committee and PhRMA have agreed to. And the final details are being worked out with the — with the Senate Finance Committee.

BLITZER: Did PhRMA, in exchange, make a promise of $150 million to pay for advertising to help the president’s plan go forward?

DOUGLASS: What — what you have, Wolf, is this deal that is $80 billion. And we are very pleased, obviously, that — that the pharmaceutical industry agrees with us, that there’s an urgent need for comprehensive health insurance reform that’s going to protect Americans from unfair rules, from rising costs. They agree with that. They’ve agreed with it from the beginning. That’s why they came to us and we worked out this agreement with the pharmaceutical industry. And they’re supporting health reform legislation. And that is good for the country.

BLITZER: So is part of the deal that they would support this legislation, go forward with $150 million in advertising?

DOUGLASS: You know, Wolf, part of the agreement here is that we’re all going to work together to bring comprehensive health reform. I mean, clearly, the pharmaceutical industry said we are going to support comprehensive health reform. And that’s what they’re doing.

« Previous Page — Next Page »