Our Ms. Brooks: The New Litmus Test
It's Thursday, which means there's a new Rosa Brooks column up in the Los Angeles Times. This time, however, Ms. Brooks withholds the snark, primarily because her subject deserves some serious consideration.
Not too long ago, judicial nominees and political candidates could expect to be grilled on abortion. As the Republican leadership became dominated by right-wing evangelicals, staunch opposition to abortion became a precondition for those seeking support from GOP insiders. Soon, abortion was a litmus test for both parties. Just as Republicans would oppose any candidate or nominee who supported abortion rights, Democrats would oppose anyone who wanted Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Of course, the abortion debate was never just about abortion. It was also about the role of the judiciary, the role of individual freedom, the role of women and the role of religion. As a result, debates about abortion sparked pitched battles between the political parties.
Today, though, the GOP's interest in abortion appears greatly diminished. When President Bush nominated Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, no one seemed clear about Mukasey's views on abortion -- and no one in the GOP seemed to care very much either.
These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about "values," "human dignity" and the "culture of life." Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?
In his Senate testimony, Mukasey made it clear that he shared this agenda. He was conciliatory on a wide range of issues, but even when it looked as though his confirmation was at risk, he refused to give an opinion on whether waterboarding constitutes torture or is legally prohibited. That was his line in the sand.
As Ms. Brooks points out, the use of torture as acceptable in US interrogations of terrorism suspects is high on the list of talking points among the GOP presidential hopefuls, with each trying to out-macho the rest. It is presumably on the basis of his strong comments on the issue that the thrice-married, pro-gay rights, pro-gun-control Rudolph Guiliani received the blessing of Religious Reich leader Pat Robertson.
Fortunately, the Democratic candidates are also taking a stand on the issue, as Ms. Brooks notes:
But if the waterboarding debate has become a symbolic rallying point for Republicans -- emblematic of a broader insistence on aggressive unilateralism in foreign affairs and on executive power unchecked by Congress or the judiciary here at home -- it increasingly seems to be turning into a symbolic litmus test for Democrats too.
Significantly, every Democrat running for president opposed Mukasey's confirmation, specifically citing his refusal to call waterboarding torture. New York's Charles Schumer and California's Dianne Feinstein became the only Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for Mukasey, and both found themselves on the defensive.
They shouldn't have been so surprised by the rapid blowback. Far more than the abortion debate ever did, the debate about torture goes to the very heart of what (if anything) this country stands for. Do we want to be the nation imagined by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a nation with "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," committed to a vision of human dignity and unalienable rights, limited government and the rule of law?
Or would we rather bring back the methods of the Spanish Inquisition?
As litmus tests go, that's not such a bad one.
Once again, Ms. Brooks, well said.
Not too long ago, judicial nominees and political candidates could expect to be grilled on abortion. As the Republican leadership became dominated by right-wing evangelicals, staunch opposition to abortion became a precondition for those seeking support from GOP insiders. Soon, abortion was a litmus test for both parties. Just as Republicans would oppose any candidate or nominee who supported abortion rights, Democrats would oppose anyone who wanted Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Of course, the abortion debate was never just about abortion. It was also about the role of the judiciary, the role of individual freedom, the role of women and the role of religion. As a result, debates about abortion sparked pitched battles between the political parties.
Today, though, the GOP's interest in abortion appears greatly diminished. When President Bush nominated Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, no one seemed clear about Mukasey's views on abortion -- and no one in the GOP seemed to care very much either.
These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about "values," "human dignity" and the "culture of life." Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?
In his Senate testimony, Mukasey made it clear that he shared this agenda. He was conciliatory on a wide range of issues, but even when it looked as though his confirmation was at risk, he refused to give an opinion on whether waterboarding constitutes torture or is legally prohibited. That was his line in the sand.
As Ms. Brooks points out, the use of torture as acceptable in US interrogations of terrorism suspects is high on the list of talking points among the GOP presidential hopefuls, with each trying to out-macho the rest. It is presumably on the basis of his strong comments on the issue that the thrice-married, pro-gay rights, pro-gun-control Rudolph Guiliani received the blessing of Religious Reich leader Pat Robertson.
Fortunately, the Democratic candidates are also taking a stand on the issue, as Ms. Brooks notes:
But if the waterboarding debate has become a symbolic rallying point for Republicans -- emblematic of a broader insistence on aggressive unilateralism in foreign affairs and on executive power unchecked by Congress or the judiciary here at home -- it increasingly seems to be turning into a symbolic litmus test for Democrats too.
Significantly, every Democrat running for president opposed Mukasey's confirmation, specifically citing his refusal to call waterboarding torture. New York's Charles Schumer and California's Dianne Feinstein became the only Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for Mukasey, and both found themselves on the defensive.
They shouldn't have been so surprised by the rapid blowback. Far more than the abortion debate ever did, the debate about torture goes to the very heart of what (if anything) this country stands for. Do we want to be the nation imagined by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a nation with "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," committed to a vision of human dignity and unalienable rights, limited government and the rule of law?
Or would we rather bring back the methods of the Spanish Inquisition?
As litmus tests go, that's not such a bad one.
Once again, Ms. Brooks, well said.
Labels: Torture
posted by Diane at 9:32 AM
2 Comments:
tears
The really sad thing is that the abortion argument was about something that was based on a Constitutional right that had been clarified within the recent past (1973 is recent enough).
The question of torture is something that we never had a Supreme Court case about (in those terms) because for all of our previous history we just took it for granted that such behavior was not only unconstitutional but beyond the pale.
We are not just going backward; we are plumbing new depths that we have never experienced in this country before.
Post a Comment
<< Home