Cogitive Dissonance In The Age Of Obama
Prior to the election in November, I caused my wife to lose precious sleep as I held forth on the power of the presidency. The gist of my political science lecture was that regardless of who becomes the next president, most of the new powers claimed by the executive branch under George W. Bush would be preserved. The subject at hand was related to the denial of information regarding surveillance activities and treatment of detainees, which was being discussed on CNN. The basis upon which the denials were issued was Bush's exaggerated interpretation of the state secrets privilege, a provision that excludes information from being used in a court of law, if that information is declared "sensitive" and would thus pose a risk to national security. My guess was that not only would this practice be defended, but that it would continue.
It appeared that many Obama supporters assumed that all of the problems with surveillance, interrogation, treatment of detainees, and requests for information would be remedied if Obama won. There were many signs that this would not be the case, but Obama supporters mostly focused on his criticisms of how Bush handled these issues. The problem as I saw it was that historically, the executive branch has not willingly given up power. I doubted this would change if Barack Obama won, regardless of what he said on the campaign trail or truly believed.
Earlier this week it was reported that President Obama has not only defended Bush's precedent, but went further by requiring those who wish to sue the government to display that information attained through surveillance (legal or otherwise) was used improperly. So, while the government may have been listening to your cell phone calls from the grocery store, as long it can't be proven that the government actually did something with those important conversations, then the request for information will be denied. Of course, if it can't be shown that your call was recorded (and it can't), then it can't be shown that the recording was used. Pretty sneaky.
This hasn't been a big news story, but among the civil libertarians, it has raised serious concerns. In fact, rather than reflexively defending Obama, the left wing of the Democratic Party has been very critical whenever Obama has deviated from campaign promises. Voicing criticism is probably the right thing to do, although I can't believe how naive some of these people must be. I wasn't hoping that I'd be proven correct in my assertion about the preservation of presidential power. That's really basic political science stuff. Nonetheless, while my political science nerd knowledge should have taken the edge off of my enthusiasm for President Obama, I have found myself occasionally taken aback by several decisions he has made.
This brings me to the main point of this post. As something of a student of the political process, I don't expect presidents to do all of the things they say in order to win. I even expect them to reverse themselves once in office. On the other hand, I can't defend Obama's interpretation of state secrets. I find myself attempting to rationalize that those things were bad under Bush because Bush was bad, but good as practiced by Obama because Obama is good. This is clearly senseless.
I didn't fully comprehend the amount of cognitive dissonance to which I would be exposed if Obama won the election. How and why Bush expanded the powers of the president is a topic better pursued elsewhere. Suffice it to say, Bush changed what it means to be the president. The presidency is simply different. Barack Obama pursued the office and now he holds that office. That means there will always be a little bit (maybe even a lot) of George Bush in President Obama. Thus, many of us will frequently find ourselves attempting to reconcile our values with the reality that President Obama will do a lot of things I didn't like when Bush did them.
In conclusion, it simply wouldn't be honest, nor even logically possible, to defend Obama because he's "Obama" while criticizing Bush because he's "Bush", because many of their decisions will be the same. Let the inner struggle begin.
3 Comments:
David (I think)
I'm pretty sure it's you. Remember me? Glad to see you are still alive and thinking. Would love to hear from you. kwebe881@kutztown.edu
-unrequited crush
I'm drawing a blank.
Sorry to barge in on your life, as such. Strangely, I came across a post of yours from, uh, 6 years ago, that referenced me (of all people...). At the time I didn't know it was you. Upon further investigation, I found ant-in-a-hailstorm and recognized your photo. I have to say, I wonder about you from time to time, and I am glad to have happened upon your thoughtful and extensive commentary. I hope you are doing well, and as I said, I would love to hear from you.
-Karen (Paldan) Weber
Post a Comment
<< Home