Andrew Lohse's column ("Instruments of Tyranny," Jan. 9) harshly criticizing President Barack Obama's decision to sign the National Defense Authorization Act at the end of last year highlights a disturbing trend in American politics: the restriction of civil liberties in the name of national security. Lohse correctly points to the hypocrisy of a "liberal" president retreating from his original promises by adopting illiberal measures and accurately describes the problems associated with Obama's decision.
Lohse's use of the words "authoritarianism" and "dictator," however, hardly seem appropriate in reference to the president's actions. These terms apply to individuals who implement repressive measures to cement their own authority and pursue their personal objectives. Yet Lohse uses them to describe the president's consolidation of executive authority. These exaggerations, compounded with impudent phrases describing Dick Cheney fantasies "in moments of somber reflection while playing violent Xbox games in the Situation Room" have a discomforting effect. Lohse's lambasting reflects an anti-American sentiment that undermines the integrity of his own liberal critique.
Coming from the extreme left, Lohse focuses on the ways in which the NDAA is emblematic of supposedly "authoritarian" aspects of Washington itself. He does so at the expense of focusing on the greater issue at hand: the value of our democratic liberties in the War on Terror. Obama's expansion of executive power is problematic because it represents a surrendering of the liberal values that we have been fighting for the last 10 years to preserve. Personal privacy, personal freedoms and a strict balance of power represent the "self-evident" democratic values embodied by our Constitution. We have been fighting an enemy that despises these ideas and is dedicated to destroying them. Obama's "reluctant" signing of a bill that ensures that Guantanamo Bay cannot be closed in the near future is, therefore, nothing more than a moral surrender to the ideological forces we have been fighting.
The moral retreat signaled by a continuation of Guantanamo-like policies may even represent a practical defeat. Many scholars and military experts argue that due to the principle of reciprocity, the inflammatory effects that Guantanamo has had on anti-American sentiments in the Islamic world, and the fact that the knowledge that comes from torture is often unreliable, Guantanamo cannot be justified. In December, two four-star marine generals wrote a column in The New York Times arguing that Obama's signing of the NDAA would reflect mishandling of the "false choice between our safety and ideals." Generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar indicated that it is imperative that politicians of both parties "remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities"
In a characteristically elegant but overstated conclusion, Lohse suggests, "the only people who should be detained are our leaders, who have betrayed their constituents by betraying their oath to our Constitution." Lohse flagrantly ignores that the relevance of NDAA-like policies exists within the context of the wars we are fighting. We must remain liberal because winning the War on Terror requires it. Lohse's exaggerations create an anti-American position that contradicts the nationalism that his liberal critique has the potential to promote. Setting aside other examples of his passion overriding basic truths (the war in Afghanistan was not "manufactured by falsehood" and the Bill of Rights was never intended to directly apply to non-Americans), Lohse subverts his own intention of ensuring a national commitment to our democratic ideals by unnecessarily and disrespectfully admonishing our leadership. Thus, while Obama's decision is disturbing, the attitude reflected by Lohse's sardonic solution of detaining our leaders and his accusation of tyranny are simply unproductive.
In an era of debilitating party politics, what we need is a shared commitment to the very institutions that bind us together as a democracy. Statements such as "despotism has now bridged the political divide" are not conducive to this aim. Our leaders should certainly be held accountable, and in fact, it is our civic duty to challenge them in order that they remain so. Our challenges, however, must also reflect loyalty to our own democracy because commitment to American liberalism is necessary to succeed both in the War on Terror and as a people. Andrew Lohse's unpatriotic way of articulating a quintessentially American argument misses the larger picture.
