The Democrats and its supporters are now a tribe (or a confederation of tribes, to be more exact), and in their value system, the interests of the tribe trump all other concerns. Yes, there are liberals now standing up and saying "Hey, wait a minute", but most of them are the same peoplw who helped to shield Obama from intellectual examination in 2008 and again in 2012. And it's not like they really subjected Bush to intellectual scrunity either; most of their attacks were ad homineum, lacking substance, and they drowned out the legitimate criticism and made it easy for the undecided to tune the whole thing out.

It's too late for the Democrats; they drank the kool-aid and they now have many mechanisms in place to make their party reform-proof. None of the planks of doctrinaire leftism are really debatable within the Democratic Party, and anyone who tries to will simply be shouted down. None of the party's intellectual leaders disagree on any of its goals; they only occasionally disagree on how fast to move towards those goals. On the other hand, while there are a lot of things you can accuse the Republicans of being, intellectually monolithic isn't one of them. That's why I think that if America has a future, it's within the Republican Party. Look at all the different intellectual factions: the libertarians, the crunchy-cons, the foreign policy neos, the isolationists, the free traders, the protectionists, the social conservatives. That's where the debate is.

Professor Turley, you voted for Emperor TehWon how many times?

The deuce you say? and nothing in his first term rang warning bells in your head? much like the 20-somethings who voted twice and now are griping about having to buy health insurance, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

You voted for the crap sandwich, so eat up.

"...many Democrat-oriented intellectuals assure the public that their objection is not to government intrusiveness itself but only to such techniques being in the hands of the wrong political party..."

Democrats/liberals/progressives/leftists don't have any internalized sense of right and wrong, but only of "us versus them". In their mind, whether or not an action is right or wrong, good or evil, depends not on the nature of the action itself, but on who does it.

As Cousin Dave said, "...in their value system, the interests of the tribe trump all other concerns."

I dunno, I'm finding the same people who cared about Bush care about Obama, and the same people who didn't care still don't care. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I find it is the libertarians, far right, and far left who give a shit, and the middle-of-the roaders (both parties) who don't.

Let's be perfectly clear. The day civil liberties died was March 4th, 1789. Since the US Constitution went into effect, there hasn't been a day that has gone by without someone's rights being taken away for some arbitrary reason. Civil liberties? We never really had them. We only have an illusion. It's the illusion that is gradually disappearing and many are finally realizing the truth.

Historically, I'm not sure this is even really a great change.

Back in WW2, for instance, my understanding is that it was simply understood that international cable traffic could and would be read by the State.

The liberties of the First Amendment are if anything vaster and better protected now than during the Founding era.

Those of the Second, arguably equally so; certainly they're stronger than they have been since Reconstruction, when modern "gun control" was more or less invented to keep black people disarmed.

The lines move and change over time, protecting more or less, and different things.

The current state of privacy liberties is worrisome - but that's not the same as the Death Of The Golden Era Of Liberty From The Founding.

It wasn't one (see the Alien and Sedition Act, as the most obvious example everyone in context should know), and the story ain't that simple, never was.

The most fundamental freedom in this country, is not the first amendment, It is the right to keep what you earn and own and defend it from those who would steal it from you, whether those thieves, be individuals, corporations or the government itself.

Too many libertarians spend too much of their time worrying about enforcing obscure twisted interpretations of the constitution. protecting "privacy" and "abortion",

They ignore the fact, that a 90 percent income tax rate in this country, was, and is entirely constitutional.

The only thing standing between you, and total confiscation of your income, for government "needs" is the Second Amendment which is why the Progressives have been working so hard to demonize gun ownership.

Too many libertarians spend too much of their time worrying about enforcing obscure twisted interpretations of the constitution. protecting "privacy" and "abortion"

Leftists would do a spit-take at that statement. As they see it, all libertarians care about is property rights, which makes them (libertarians) "apathetic monsters" and "empathy-challenged assholes", to quote a couple of Pharyngula commenters.

Leftists would do a spit-take at that statement. As they see it, all libertarians care about is property rights, which makes them (libertarians) "apathetic monsters" and "empathy-challenged assholes", to quote a couple of Pharyngula commenters.
Posted by: Rex Little at March 25, 2014 1:48 PM

Yet, I still remember Matt Welch and company telling us in 2008, that Obama would be a better president than McCain because he would respect our "civil liberties".

Libertarians were so focused on getting out of Iraq, and ending the war on terror, that they were sure Obama and the dems would be better than McCain, who would, of course, be "even worse" than Bush.

"Libertarians were so focused on getting out of Iraq, and ending the war on terror, that they were sure Obama and the dems would be better than McCain, who would, of course, be "even worse" than Bush."

I have been a Libertarian since 1973. In that time I have never seen the Libertarians, as a whole, being totally focused and agreeing on one thing. In my circle, no one was for Obama.

I have been a Libertarian since 1973. In that time I have never seen the Libertarians, as a whole, being totally focused and agreeing on one thing. In my circle, no one was for Obama.

Posted by: Dave B at March 25, 2014 3:55 PM

It doesn't matter what they were "for". By failing to vote for the only viable alternative, they directing contributed to us "getting" Obama.

One of my worst criticism of libertarians. Read Reason for a while, and you will discover that most of them are naive isolationists.

By failing to vote for the only viable alternative, they directly contributed to us "getting" Obama.

Isab, if everyone who voted for Barr in 2008, or Johnson in 2012, had voted Republican, we'd have gotten. . . Obama both times.

Isab, if everyone who voted for Barr in 2008, or Johnson in 2012, had voted Republican, we'd have gotten. . . Obama both times.
Posted by: Rex Little at March 25, 2014 5:07 PM

It is not just Barr or Johnson. It is failing to vote at all, when you are unenthused by the candidate, especially when you are in a battleground state.

Winning a few more Senate races in 2008 would have stopped Obamacare in its tracks. (Bet there are more than a few demcratic senators wishing they could unring that bell.)

There were some very close races in a few states, that could have easily gone the other way. President is not a national election. It is one state, and in some cases one congressional district at a time.

So the choice was More Wiretapping Bush Republicans or God I Hope He Stops The Wiretapping Obama Democrats.

And people say the two party system is dead. Pfft.

You know who we should totally trust with warrantless eavesdropping?

The local police department, that's who.

Most striking is the normalisation of domestic surveillance under Obama. The federal government now employs 30,000 people to monitor phone conversations in the US; the Department of Homeland Security, formed only in 2002, is now the third-largest federal bureaucracy, surpassed only by the Pentagon and the Department of Veteran Affairs.

The Department of Homeland Security was an assemblage of already existing agencies. They were just corralled in one place. The only additions were the Transportation Security Administration and an intelligence clearinghouse. The functions of the TSA have been performed at airports in this country since 1973. It was the Democratic congressional caucus which insisted they had to be performed by unionized federal employees, because the Democratic Party has no purpose other than to feed its clientele.

I think the FBI in toto employs about 40,000 people. The notion that 30,000 people are monitoring telephone calls should be taken with a hunk of rock salt.

"I'm finding the same people who cared about Bush care about Obama, and the same people who didn't care still don't care. "

Maybe it's different where you are. I've observed a definite tribal response in some quarters: "Obama has the ability to spy on those evil Rethuglicans! Ha ha!" And it's provoking a desire for an equal and opposite response if and when the GOP wins the Presidency again. The seeds for a civil war are being sown.

Obviously you people do not have a clue.

All of these measures were put in place by George W. Bush, and our current administration has no duty whatsoever to rescind them. Just ask any Democrat. Or Patrick.

Everything wrong with American government is the fault of George W. Bush, simultaneously the dumbest and most effective president there ever has been.

/sarc