Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Dems and Privacy Politics

By Cliff Schecter, AlterNet. Posted January 6, 2006.


Americans will vote Democrat to protect their privacy -- by huge margins, even in red Republican states.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Cliff Schecter

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Do you want Karl Rove rummaging through your personal files? The NSA perusing printed copies of debates with friends abroad over who is most likely to emerge victorious in this summer's World Cup in Germany? As the enormous scope of the National Security Agency's wiretapping scandal and the ongoing saga of Karl Rove's double supersecret background conversation with reporter Matt Cooper keep the pundits merrily pontificating about the future of this republic, the Democratic Party, often accused of not forging a coherent message stating its core principles, has been presented with a historic opportunity.

Rove and the indicted Scooter Libby's blunder, which was worthy of "Animal House" hero Bluto Blutarsky, George Bush's burgeoning Republican police state and growing corporate abuse of private records provides Democrats with an opportunity to define themselves. They should support a thematic concept that, ironically, has been a central philosophy Democrats have embraced for years to protect the rights of women: a Constitutional right to privacy. Only now, Democrats should not only support this idea in the abstract but push for it to be codified as an amendment to the Constitution.

Why privacy? Because Rove's loose lips aside, a combination of the big government conservatism and corporate cronyism displayed by Washington Republicans has rightfully made the public, including those on the right and left of the spectrum, wary of a group of ideologues and grafters who seek to stick their collective noses into every aspect of their lives. This, in turn, has given Democrats the chance to not only define themselves but also tap into the growing populist indignation of moderates, independents, libertarians and even many traditional conservatives for the current GOP matrix.

Election results over the past year, and both elite and public reaction to GOP policy and rhetoric, provide ample evidence that privacy is a burgeoning concern across ideological lines. The special election that almost saw the election of Iraqi Freedom veteran Paul Hackett in a cherry-red Republican part of Ohio was nothing short of staggering. Hackett's compelling biography and deficient opponent were certainly a large part of his winning 48.3 percent of the vote in a district President Bush won with a 63 percent average in 2000 and 2004, and former Rep. Rob Portman won in 2004 by 44 percent. Yet, equally as important was Hackett's message, summed up neatly in one of his campaign advertisements:

I'm for limited government. I don't need Washington to tell me how to live my personal life, or how to pray to my God. And I don't need Washington to dictate to my wife the decisions that she makes with her doctor, any more than I need Washington to tell me which guns I can keep in my gun safe.
Hackett is not alone in speaking the language of privacy, however. A newly minted Democratic celebrity, Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, won the governorship in that blood-red state in 2004 by stressing that people should be protected from the vagaries of government and business. In speaking about abortion as early as his 2000 U.S. Senate race against Republican incumbent Conrad Burns, Schweitzer said, "The government should not intervene in a woman's right to make health care decisions. Those decisions should be left up to the woman and her doctor." According to David Sirota, a Schweitzer campaign strategist who wrote a piece on the governor for Washington Monthly magazine, this theme extended to personal land rights:
Schweitzer drafted a nine-point plan to protect cherished hunting and fishing access rights on public and private lands. Among other things, Schweitzer called for keeping public lands in the state's hands, for spending more money to maintain them for hunters and anglers, and for using fees from hunting licenses to buy easements from private property owners to give sportsmen easier access to fields and streams.
The right of hunters, anglers and fishermen to land usage without the interference of government or corporations looking to buy public lands from cash-strapped local governments goes to the heart of the issue of privacy. In fact, property rights landed on the front burner after the Kelo v. New London, Connecticut court decision, with many reasonable Americans resenting the possibility of being forced off their land for mall rats searching for that perfect slushy. With 89 percent of Connecticut residents opposing the use of eminent domain to confiscate their land, you could say we have a bipartisan issue here.

The public reaction against invasive legislation and maneuvering by the GOP has been equally as enthusiastic. The hastily passed post-9/11 Patriot Act is a useful example. The president and a Republican Congress moved quickly to thwart early attempts by U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to permit the sun to set on Patriot Act provisions currently allowing the Justice Department to browse through your Amazon preferred list, sans judicial warrant. Yet, the public clearly finds these extrajudicial searches troubling. An ABC News poll on June 9, 2005, showed that, by a 68 percent to 31 percent margin, Americans oppose the FBI's right to demand records without prior judicial approval. Only 42 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of independents not opposed.

This may have something to do with the fact that a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold on the left and NRA board member and Republican Sen. Larry Craig on the right, recently blocked the permanent reauthorization of most Patriot Act provisions. They also blocked temporary permission (2009) to continue two more controversial measures, roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and libraries. The news that the FBI had been spying on such known Al Qaeda front groups as the Quakers and PETA may not have strengthened the administration's position.

Public wariness over the Bush administration's intentions should only increase with the recent revelations by New York Times reporter James Risen that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been running a covert program of spying on Americans who choose to be so bold as to speak with someone not living in this country. While the president has trotted out the usual sycophant defenders, the uproar over this abuse of power has been quite bipartisan. The administration has been admonished by Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe. Sen. Arlen Specter has called for hearings when Congress reconvenes.

Add ardent conservatives such as former House impeachment manager Bob Barr, Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein and former Nixon speechwriter and New York Times columnist William Safire to those who have called the program "dangerous" and/or "illegal." An institution on the right, the libertarian CATO Institute has used similarly critical language, and now it has become clear that the deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft, James Comey, refused to endorse its continuation in 2004 because of questions about its "legality." The people have spoken about this issue in the past as well, as shown in a September 2003 Gallup Poll, where 67 percent of Americans opposed having their basic civil liberties violated, even to prevent terrorism.

While it almost seems to have occurred a life ago when surrounded by the current firestorm over the NSA spying on Americans, the decision of the fire and brimstone crowd to insert themselves into the personal tragedy of Terry Schiavo's family was less menacing to many Americans. From the ominous threats of Tom DeLay to the pronouncements of telesurgeon Bill Frist that Mrs. Shiavo was essentially in perfect health to sit up, eat cookies and play scrabble with James Dobson, if her husband would only let her, the public saw this episode for what it was: government intrusion into the personal decisions of a grieving family. According to an ABC News Poll taken at the time, 70 percent of respondents opposed Congressional involvement in this issue, including 67 percent of moderates, 61 percent of independents and 57 percent of conservatives.

Last fall, with Democrat Tim Kaine's stunning 6-point defeat of Republican Jerry Kilgore to become the next governor of Virginia, I know of efforts by at least one unaffiliated group, through the use of direct mail, to directly link Kilgore to the Shiavo affair by reminding voters of his support for Congress's decision to intervene. These efforts were concentrated on the Washington, D.C., suburbs, and while other issues came into play, most notably public education and transportation, it is worth noting that this particular group determined that the Schiavo case merited top-three issue attention. On election day, furthermore, Tim Kaine won one of the fastest-growing suburbs in the country, Loudoun County, by 51 percent to 46 percent, a feat the outgoing and very popular Gov. Mark Warner failed to achieve. He also ran up a huge margin of 60,000 votes in Fairfax County, far outpacing either Mark Warner or John Kerry.

Finally, no invasion of privacy party would be complete if big business didn't show up with a Bordeaux. So not surprisingly, when it comes to gleaning personal information for magisterial profits, big business has acted like a rapacious tiger on the Serengeti plain, yet once obtaining these records, has often resembled nothing so much as Inspector Clouseau. According to a June 18, 2005, account by the New York Times, more than 40 million credit card accounts were exposed to potential identity theft because of a computer security breach at a payment processing company. Bank of America also got into the act, losing data tapes containing the personal information of 1.2 million federal employees. The public is clearly anxious about this issue, with constant reports on major news outlets and Newsweek deeming it worthy of a cover story. Yet, when Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fla., sponsored a bill to protect consumers whose financial woes were caused by identity theft, he was voted down largely along party lines by Republicans protecting the interests of you guessed it -- big business.

There are numerous additional concerns that can fit neatly under the rubric of privacy. In fact, if Democrats would only remind them, many voters would also be none too pleased about the effort of Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., to use hidden legislation to access their IRS records or House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's use of the Homeland Security Department as his own personal police force.

In his great work "American Populism: A Social History 1877-1898," historian Robert C. McMath, Jr., discussed how populist reformers "understood that old rules and values were crumbling, and that powerful new economic institutions buttressed by the state threatened their independence." There could be no more apt description of the way many Americans feel today about big government, big business and its new co-equal partner, big faith.

The ability to build a new coalition of the more-than-willing-to-be-left-alone may not be a panacea, but for Democrats it certainly would be one step towards defining themselves and appealing to swaths of the electorate already disgusted with the heavy hand and corruption of the GOP and waiting for a reason to abandon them. Recent elections and public opinion have provided a shining path to success for Democrats.

It is time to take out the issue of privacy as a constitutional guarantee for a spin, as the perfect storm has created an atmosphere ripe for protecting the rights of a diverse group of Americans from a group of authoritarian and profits-at-any-cost-minded Republicans. They might even want to get Samuel Alito on the record as to what he thinks about codifying privacy rights. Should they pursue this issue, they will most likely find themselves emulating the success of the aforementioned "Animal House" hero Bluto Blutarsky, who as you may remember, reached the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate once his days at Faber College were over.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Clifford D. Schecter is Graduate Honors Fellow at American University, receiving his doctorate in American History. He writes a periodic political debate column for Knight-Ridder News Service, blogs for The Gadflyer and writes a satirical weekly roundup of political events for Americablog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fear will prevail
Posted by: Drubinson on Jan 6, 2006 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is wishful thinking. Cheney just officially launched the new fear campaign and you have seen what We The P do when we get feared. Their campaign is obvious, and has worked every time throughout history.
"...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country..."
Hermann Goering

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fear will prevail Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Fear will prevail Posted by: mountainrider
Hey!
Posted by: tuff_bird on Jan 6, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leave Bluto out of it. No matter how stewed he got, he never conceived of anything like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey! Posted by: Tom Holum
"Historic opportunities"
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Jan 6, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asking a prowar, procorporate party like the Dems to stand up for privacy rights is like making outmoded pop-cultural references. Futile and kind of embarrassing.

(BTW, Bluto's dead. He OD'ed speedballing coke in a crummy hotel.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bipartisan House Cleaning
Posted by: Riverside on Jan 6, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether or not the Democratic Party does anything to take advantage of the ongoing series of assaults on WE The PEOPLE, they know they have a lot of loose skeletons in their own closets to clear out. Meanwhile...????

I am looking more for a rising conservative rebellion as they more and more realize that they have been duped just a bad as the rest of us. I do not agree with all conservative issues and I respect their disagreement with some of mine, but until these times we have been able to thrash out these differences through our elected representatives. Alas, they are not OUR representatives any more. They belong to a whole league of influence peddlers made up of shady lobbyists, powerful corporations, and intense special interest groups. The rest of us are way, way out in the cold.

If we do not change this set up it won't matter what ethics changes occur, etc. We must get back to this being a government of the people or be prepared to eat a lot of cake!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't seen the Democrats address the privacy issues in any bold manner
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 6, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't expect voters to simply switch parties just like that. Besides, if Democrats really believe in privacy rights, the first thing they'd do is push for real tort reform against the music and video industries who nowadays break into people's computers and slap frivolous lawsuits based on file sharing and all this just to maximize their bottom-line even as more consumers are outsmarting their "fixed" pricing and price gouging on their CD/DVD sales.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

coherent policy from the Democrats?
Posted by: JoeBackward on Jan 6, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing. The repubs have positioned the dems as the party of fiscal irresponsibility, party-hearty corruption, and intrusive government.

But the repubs are all those things on a vast scale. (Not even Bluto could have imagined all this!)

Wouldn't it be great if the dems could form a shadow cabinet and present UNIFIED and COHERENT policies on these things:
-- responsible budgeting
-- regulation of lobbyists and campaign finance
-- ensuring the executive branch supports "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 6, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I would like to see the GOP lose big in the fall elections, it won't happen the way the author states.
His contention that GOP voters care about freedom is invalid.
Here is the law on foreign electronic surveillance:

Title 50 of the United States Code, Chapter 36, states:

§ 1802


(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this chapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers ... or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party ....


§ 1809. Criminal sanctions


(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute ...

(b) Defense -- It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties -- An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction -- There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed

Clearly, an offense was comitted. The President, the Attorney General and every GOP official are denying it and saying they should be allowed to continue to break the law.
The sheep will keep baaaing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe Posted by: eringhorm
If Alito gets appointed, a constitutional amendment is the only way.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 6, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have told my senators that I want them to oppose Alito, tooth and nail. He's the kiss of death for the Bill of Rights.

Neither he nor the new chief justice are fond of the right to privacy. Even if we got an appointee who is in favor of the right to privacy, it might take a constitutional amendment to get it.

That would be a 'worth it' fight. And the cynics on this site, while justified by what has happened so far, better open OUR eyes. This column's argument sounds good to me. Let's not rescue defeat from the jaws of victory one more time. Let's get over that 'losers' mindset.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Slouching Toward Fascism
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 6, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The police state mentality that grips our country started long before GWB took the oath. There has been a steady rise in the power of the law enforcement establishment coupled with a steady decline in personal privacy and respect for individual rights. What is most amazing is that members of both political parties have had a hand in the destruction of our freedoms.

From Reagan's War on Drugs to Clinton's 100,000 Cops (only to be used for drugs) to the cat & mouse games played at the behest of MADD to the Nazi-like intentions of the NeoCons, your civil liberties have been under assault for a long time. Whatever happened to the concept that the government that intruded the least governed best?

Save us from repressive types and the go-along, finger-to-the-wind types who will sell you out for another term. Local police use entrapment techniques, worried that a 19 year old jut back from Iraq might buy a Coors Light at the local 7-11, & illegal seizure roadblocks just to satisfy MADD and other do-gooders. While people are being robbed, beaten and raped our police are out looking for pot and illegal lap-dances at the local strip joint.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), tuning up for a possible Presidential run recently issued a campus ban on all tobacco use at all healthcare facilities in his state and has said that he is thinking of extending it to all workplaces. If someone is smoking a cigarette 100 feet from any public pathway or door how is it hurting anyone else? This use of the power of the state to force private citizens to conform to someone else's idea of proper behavior is bullshit regardless which side of the political aisle is pleases.

The Patriot Act is just the latest step in a long path toward PC Fascism from whomever is in power-- Democrats and Republicans using the power of the state to force citizens to conform to someone's personal agenda. The only difference is the target of their agenda.

If the dems will speak up to the nonsense all of this is they have my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't put all your eggs in one basket
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 6, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems are'nt any better when it comes to domestic spying and liberty infringment that the Repubs,they're a little better at keeping it quiet. Your rights are a prime target to get votes and the Dems are priming the pump. Forget about the fact that during Clinton your 4th amendment rights were watered down so the police could walk in for little of nothing.
This is just a vote getting ploy. Nothing else. No change in direction or shift in policy. Just the appearance of change.
Both Parties have taken America to the brink and no longer deserve your support. The good folks,if any, are calling themselves 'progressive' but keeping their ears and trunks.
That just means they want to 'progress their agenda'. If they had any real balls they'd leave their parties. Why won't they?
Money,money,money. They have their 'fat cats' they'd loose.
They have sold out. The only way out of this is to scrap the parties and start over. They had their turn,they screwed it up pretty well,and now it's time to change the way we do things.
If you think the dems are alright then when they call on you for money,and they will, just tell them all you can do is give them your vote,See how much access you get then. Then tell them you want to make a $100,000 contribution and see who you talk too. Don't forget to say 'April Fools' our the bastards will actually expect the cash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sure, the Republicans have.....
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 6, 2006 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....presented the Democrats with a historic opportunity, but we all know that the Democrats are so politically inept that they will blow the chance. Fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more things change,the more they stay the same
Posted by: kww355 on Jan 6, 2006 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't belong to any organized poliyical party.
I'm a Democrat.
- Will Rogers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No way out
Posted by: wrogal on Jan 7, 2006 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read on the internet this morning that, because of a poll conducted by the AP, its projected that the Democrats will regain Congress in the 2006 elections because everyone is fed up with the tricks that "Big Brother" George Bush and the far right have been pulling the past 5 years. People want a change and are fed up with hearing how wonderful things are when they know they are not, and how the government "of, for, and by the people" can do anything it damn well wants and not have to be accountable to anyone. Its a mistake, though, to think that one whole party will cure the ills that "Big Brother" George and the far right have given us. I read one comment that the Democrats were a pro-war party, but how many wars have Democratic presidents gotten us into since Vietnam, and how many countries did the US invade under Republican presidents? My point is that both political parties are guilty of bending the law to fit their own agenda, but not many actually listen to the people who put them in office. Lets put people in office who will listen to th people instead of lobbyists like Abramson, or big business like Microsoft and Wal-Mart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

excellent article!
Posted by: Eric Forat on Jun 16, 2006 8:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the record, there are no tigers in the Serengeti, otherwise hear, hear!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement