Republican Strategy Explained

Have you noticed that the only consistent theme in Republican position statements appears to be opposition to whatever it is that President Obama proposes? Time and time again, whether the topic is healthcare, foreign policy, budget deficits, or unemployment, we see Republicans in Congress make their proposals, after which President Obama endorses some elements of those proposals (to the chagrin of many Democrats), only to see the Republicans reverse their positions and back away from their own proposals, for no apparent reason other than to distance themselves from the President.

This scene from the 1932 Marx Brothers movie "Horsefeathers" pretty well sums up this sophisticated Republican strategy, and may well have been its original inspiration:

Troy Davis, Rest In Peace

Troy Davis (October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011)

The state of Georgia proceeded with the execution of Troy Davis tonight; official time of death was declared to be 11:08 p.m. Eastern time. Death was by lethal injection.

The execution had been scheduled for 7:00, but was postponed while the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a request for a stay of execution. At 10:43, according to Richard Kim's live blogging at The Nation, the Supreme Court issued a one-line statement denying the request to stop the execution. It was also reported that there were no dissents - not a single one of our nine Supreme Court justices chose to intervene in this case.

Joining the Supreme Court in its unwillingness to stop the execution of a potentially innocent person was President Barack Obama; his Press Secretary Jay Carney said "it is not appropriate" for the President to "weigh in on specific cases like this one", according to ABC.

I watched online as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! reported live from outside the prison in Jackson, Georgia, interviewing NAACP President Benjamin Jealous as they both received news of the execution and of Davis' death.

Many people, in this country and around the world, tried to stop this madness. There are many compelling reasons to believe that Troy Davis was innocent of the crime for which he was just executed, which would mean not only that we just killed an innocent person but also that the real killer of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail is still at large. Beyond the question of guilt or innocence, though, is the barbarity of this state-sponsored killing. Killing a murderer does not bring the murder victim back, and certainly does not demonstrate to the rest of us that killing people is wrong; it only increases the number of people being killed.

Sadly, there appear to be many people in this country who are immune to these arguments against the death penalty. Last year, when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ran unsuccessfully against Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary, her campaign considered making Perry's zeal for executions an issue to use against him. However, as reported by Salon, when her campaign asked a focus group of likely Republican primary voters about the possibility that Perry had ordered the execution of innocent people who were wrongfully convicted, they found that it didn't bother them at all. "It takes balls to execute an innocent man", said one registered Republican.

If that's our new national slogan, forgive me if I don't join people like that in chants of "USA!" tonight.

Ten Years of Living in a "Homeland"

"Videogames of the tower's fall

Homeland Security could kill us all"

- Green Day, "21st Century Breakdown"

For the last ten years, we've been told by government officials and the media that we're living in a "homeland". We're constantly reminded that the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings on September 11, 2001 were attacks on our "homeland", and that our Homeland Security officials are working vigilantly to protect us from further attacks.

Before 2001, however, "homeland" was a term that was rarely, if ever, used to describe the US. We spoke of living in a country, nation, or republic, not a homeland. The US Constitution states that our goals are to "form a more perfect Union", "insure domestic Tranquility", and "provide for the common defense"; there's nothing in there about "securing the homeland". In fact, for many of us, the term "homeland" sounds uncomfortably similar to "fatherland" ("Vaterland" in German), a term that stirs up images of violent militaristic nationalism and fascism from the first and second World Wars.

So how did the United States of America become a Homeland?

One of the first official uses of the term, which received little public notice at the time, appeared in a series of reports by a bipartisan governmental commission. The US Commission on National Security/21st Century was created in 1998 under Democratic President Bill Clinton to perform a review of national security policies and strategies as we entered the 21st century. The commission was co-chaired by former Democratic Senator Gary Hart and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, and included former Republican House Speaker (and 2012 Presidential candidate) Newt Gingrich, former CEO of Lockheed Martin (and its predecessor Martin Marietta) Norm Augustine, and Leslie Gelb, head of the Defense Department study group on the history of US involvement in Vietnam whose report became known as the "Pentagon Papers" after being leaked to newspapers by Daniel Ellsberg. The Hart-Rudman Commission's final report, released in February 2001 (seven months before the 9/11 attacks) was full of references to our "homeland"; the first major section was titled "Securing the National Homeland", there were warnings that attacks upon our homeland were becoming increasingly likely, and its recommendations called for several changes in governmental organization, including creation of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security as well as a National Homeland Security Agency.

The report seemed to languish under the just-inaugurated Republican administration of President George W. Bush, until the 9/11 attacks seemed to make the report more relevant. Within days, President Bush announced the creation of a new Office of Homeland Security, and use of this new term spread rapidly in the media. A little over a year later, in November 2002, Congress created a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, transferring existing organizations such as the Coast Guard, INS, Secret Service, TSA, and FEMA from other Executive Branch departments.

All of this begs the question: if the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security was necessary for the defense of the United States against attacks, then what is the purpose of the Department of Defense? Shouldn't an organization called "Department of Defense" be responsible for the defense of the homeland?

Unfortunately, that department's activities are probably better described by its former name, the War Department, as it was known from 1789 through 1947. After the end of World War II in 1945, the US public was weary of being at war, and so eliminating our Department of War and replacing it with a benign-sounding Department of Defense probably seemed like a popular move. The new name was also in line with the developing Cold War mindset, in which the Soviet Union was cast in the role of a belligerent warmonger while the United States was portrayed as only using its military for defense. In reality, the history of US military actions since World War II seem to have more to do with a projection of power, and protection of US business interests, beyond our borders than with an actual defense of those borders. Our "Defense" department invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965, Cambodia in 1970, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, in addition to sending ground troops, bombers, or both to Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Libya, among other places.

Given the Defense Department's preoccupation with military adventurism abroad, perhaps there was a need for a new department to focus on defending the United States, but please, let's use a different name. "Homeland" seems to have been deliberately picked to stoke the public's feelings of nationalism, hatred of foreigners, and willingness to do almost anything in order to defend our "home". Use of the term "Homeland" has probably made it easier for the government to chip away at our civil liberties, increasing the scope of activities such as wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping (signals intelligence, or SIGINT), intrusive body searches and other invasions of privacy, and indefinite detainment without being charged. In short, the more we talk about securing a homeland, the more we move towards living in a national security state rather than a free and open democracy. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

After ten years of talking about securing a "homeland", let's drop the hyperbolic language and get back to just providing "for the common defense", as it says in the Constitution. While we're at it, why not set up a new Department of Domestic Tranquility?