Not exactly the set of choices one would normally like to faced with--especially when the question is: how did we get where we are? None of the choices leave us with a warm, fuzzy feeling about our place in the chain of events that has brought us to this place–a place where fundamental freedoms long taken for granted are increasingly threatened. To characterize the situation, little could do it more starkly than a couple of quotes. From a senator, whose identity I have forgotten, we heard something like, “Civil liberties are not of much value if you are dead.” (Another commented that he preferred to have security first, and then we could worry about our freedoms.) Now, sit that notion over against that well-known statement by Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Why have we forgotten what he so readily took for granted–that to trade freedom for security is to lose both?
(To keep this post short, I have omitted a section expanding on these points. For the longer version, go here.)
While forgetfulness, fear, and the like may account for one side of the equation. It takes “two to tango,” so to speak, so we need also to inquire what would lead a president to think it acceptable to lead us down this path with such abandon. Without going into great detail, I think at least a good portion of the answer lies in the underlying moral commitments of this president and so many of his supporters–a position George Lakoff calls “strict father morality.” This way of seeing things is rooted in a hierarchical view of the world, with men at the top of the created order, accountable only to God. These men are the “strict fathers” who manage their worlds through “tough love,” which is the only way to teach hedonistic humans to live morally. Spokespersons for this administration have used language suggesting the president sees himself in this role for the American people. Since strict father is the ultimate human authority, all the rest of the “family” is subject to him and may not question his judgment. One of the primary purposes of the strict father is to protect the family against the manifold threats embodied variously in the evils of the world. Since strict father knows best and is charged with protecting the family, his means of protecting the family are not to be challenged. The rest of the family really do not understand these threats, and better that they not worry about them, simply leave strict father alone to do his job and everyone will be safe and secure. If strict father has to crack a few eggs along the way, so what? Since strict father knows best, all other avenues lead to worse places. Does this way of seeing things explain all that we face today? Of course not, but it seems to fit well what is an increasingly evident pattern of behavior for this president.
So, what has us near what some are seeing as a “constitutional crisis”? Both sides have to take some blame. For too long, too many have kept quiet. Many have been forgetful of the lessons history teaches us about creeping tyranny. Others of us have allowed our fears to keep us silent–we have allowed the illusion of safety to trump our concerns for our freedoms. Yet others have simply become too comfortable–resisting the popular flow of events is not easy. On the other side of the equation has been an administration, and a president in particular, too eager to be a “war president” and too eager to grasp all the control that moniker will allow. It is time for us to rouse ourselves from our slumbers and to resist the slide of civil liberties, while also insisting on accountability from an administration all too willing to make up its own rules. The question, and the answer is not entirely clear, is: will we? Or, will we, in the not so distant future, live out Niemoller’s lament?