Glenn Greenwald on (Lack of) Equality Under the Law

Helen Shibut

This past week I read Glenn Greenwald’s book “With Liberty and Justice for Some,” a scathing attack on the devolution of basic rule of law in the United States, which has accelerated enormously under the Bush 43 and Obama administrations. Greenwald pointed to former President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon as the watershed moment for elite immunity to prosecution in America. Things only got worse from there as elites in both government and the private sector were granted retroactive immunity for “violating the privacy rights of their customers and committing clear felonies during George W. Bush’s administration (64). Not only are most cases of complaints about warrantless wiretapping and other kinds of government spying on its own citizens totally ignored, those that go to court are almost always doomed. The plaintiffs in such cases are ordinary Americans without access to millions of dollars to pay for top lawyers. The defendants, the telecom companies that assist the government in its illegal acts, have access not only to expensive lawyers, but also to the law itself. Elites in the banking industry can expect the same preferential treatment, because many of them were once in government, and will probably continue to move back and forth between the private and public sectors. Though Greenwald sees deregulation of the financial sector as the ultimate evil created by this too-cozy relationship, I see a more clear connection between “the political class’s loyalty and subservience to Wall Street” and the bailouts of big banks we’ve seen in the past few years.

But even Wall Street and the big telecoms aren’t as removed from basic justice under the law as members of the past two administrations. The Bush 43 administration authorized torture for suspected terrorists despite the fact that the methods they used were clear violations of both federal and international law. President Obama has shamelessly shielded Bush and his advisors from any kind of prosecution by saying that the torture perpetrated by the Bush regime is a state secret, and therefore too sensitive for the courts to hear. And both Bush and Obama have blatantly ignored the Bill of Rights by demanding the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens and anyone else suspected of terrorism, without charging them with a crime.

Greenwald’s book presents a frightening picture of how those in our government and their well-connected friends manage to stay out of legal hot water by rewriting the law for themselves. This situation is dangerous for the average American, who has no such privilege. In fact, the United States now imprisons a higher percentage of its people than any other country (that includes Russia, China, Rwanda, Cuba…). When the average person in America risks jail time for possession of small quantities of marijuana while the rich and powerful enjoy total immunity for felonies like torture, it’s time to reexamine our national identity and remind ourselves of the importance of equality under the law. 

Why the Republicans Lost, and Why They Deserved It

Helen Shibut

            To state the obvious, the Republicans lost because they didn’t get enough votes (specifically, electoral votes based on states’ popular votes). For the most part, this wasn’t because people were particularly fond of President Obama’s positions on the economy, foreign policy and social issues. The Republican Party systematically worked to alienate many of its own natural supporters and focused on trying to make everyone believe it wasn’t the worst of the two major parties.

            Many young people were first attracted to the Republican Party because they believed the party offered fiscal common sense that the Democrats lacked. Growing up in a devout Republican household, I was told that “the Republicans are the party of responsibility, and the Democrats are the party of irresponsibility.” But increasingly, when Republicans say “responsibility,” they mean spending government dollars on wars and Medicare, and when they say “irresponsibility,” they mean welfare and the Affordable Care Act. “Responsibility” is the drug war and foreign aid, and “irresponsibility” is Planned Parenthood and green energy.

            As a candidate, Ron Paul defined these terms very differently. He said that responsibility means not spending money you don’t have. He pointed out that our entitlements and wars are financially unsustainable, and that the federal government has a terrible track record of keeping costs in check. He questioned US involvement in other countries, and whether it’s really in our best interest to have a military eight times larger than any other country’s. He called on the Republican Party to focus on real spending cuts instead of on how people conduct their personal lives.

            Many people thought these ideas made a lot of sense, but the GOP went beyond ignoring them, actively pushing Paul and his supporters out of their party. Some Paulites held out and voted for Romney, in the hope that his business savvy would translate into a marginally more balanced budget. Others, feeling frustrated and defeated, voted for Obama, because at least he told them the truth: he wanted to keep spending and borrowing. Many looked to the Libertarian Party as a way to send a message that the two major parties are so corrupt that another group needs to come in and clean up after them. But I think that many of Paul’s supporters ultimately chose not to vote at all, feeling like the system is rigged against them and in favor of people who promise not to cut anything, and instead project rosy budgets for the future, when growth is higher than ever and taxes produce more than enough revenue to pay for everyone’s everything.

            As America’s debt problem becomes progressively more impossible to ignore, it seems obvious that one of the current major parties will recognize the need to embrace common sense budget solutions. But since that seems unlikely, I hope that the Libertarian Party, which has often been plagued by infighting, will pull together to incorporate a broad range of ideas about how to allow free people and free markets to solve the country’s problems. 

Interview with Roger Baker

Helen Shibut

Last week I interviewed Roger Baker, a Harrisonburg City Council candidate. Baker does not have a campaign website, so it was difficult to find his positions outside of candidate forums. Fortunately, he was willing to sit down with me to inform the JMU community about his views.

I agreed with Baker's belief that raising the meals tax was not the right decision for how to deal with unfunded mandates coming from Richmond, but I thought he was incorrect when he said that the private sector could not provide a golf course better than the city government. In our interview, Baker said that a private golf course in the area is close to going out of business, while the Harrisonburg one is doing well. In fact, if a private golf course ran the same kind of deficit that the public one does, it would have gone out of business years ago.

Madison Liberty does not endorse political candidates at any level.