Dems and Privacy Politics

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.