Last week or the week before, I responded to yet another plea for funds from the Obama camp with a curt note to the effect that I was looking for some commitments before I sent any more money–actually, over a period of time, I think we’ve donated something like three-hundred dollars, not big bucks, but pretty big for a small fry such as yours truly. But I’m looking for a commitment to reverse the fascist state we had become over the last fifty years or so, I said, and if the Obama campaign did not know what I was talking about, it would be best if they took me off their subscribers list as no more funds will be forthcoming from me.
Today–surprising to me–I got the following, apparently in response to my comments, although it was not a straightforward reply.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me in support of core constitutional principles,such as support for basic civil liberties and opposition to torture and indefinite imprisonment. I strongly agree with these views and you can see that in my record. As a constitutional lawyer, law professor and public servant, I have been clear, consistent and outspoken in defense of these core principles. And I will work hard to restore our constitutional traditions as president.
This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
My Administration will once again show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. I will also reject indefinite imprisonment without trial and close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. I applaud the work you have done to restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government. And I will continue to fight against the assault on our nation’s most treasured document.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
——————–
Paid for by Obama for America
It’s obviously boilerplate, but the question is, does it do the job? It addresses the accretions of the Bush administration, but not previous administrations or the growing-at-not-so-creeping-a-pace power of corporations through the period.
Recently, I read a piece in the Brownsville Herald from our Dear Senator Lucio in praise of private security firms. It was “Private Security Month or Day or Week or Hour,” what-the-fuckin’-ever, and here was Brother Eddie telling us how good it was that rich folks in their gated communities have every right to feel more secure than the rest of society. We’ve given up on the idea that criminals are human beings, I think, and might eventually be brought into the civil fold. They can only be controlled.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but when I see folks dressed up as though they were officers of the law, I cringe. What have we come to, my inner dialogue mutters. We seem to have given up on the idea that we can have a civil civil society in favor of the idea that civility will be enforced on some of us. Of course, the robber baron types among us can surround themselves with thugs in uniform to insure the tranquility of their lives. Not that they shouldn’t have tranquil lives, but what makes them so special, huh? The money?
Well, of course, Deep Throat did say, “Follow the money.”
2 responses so far ↓
1 admin // Feb 10, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Annie writes in
Stan!!! I didn’t know that you and Kathy were Obama fans….. I have never donated and this is such a coincidence that I donated for the first time in my life to Obama. I just took a break from studying and sent $25. So, I just read where you got a response from the campaign and I tried to send my thoughts but again some hassle (with my PASSWORD that I couldn’t log in again) and since I don’t want to be frustrated with the passwords etc. I am responding here. I just have this to say and I gotta go back to studying….. I can see you are frustrated by the campaign’s response for its failure to address other U. S. Presidents that have violated constitutional protections. The person who wrote back only talked about the Bush Administration. But, I liked that he discussed the invasions of privacy by the government and seeking approval from FISA courts as a constitutional and proper procedure. He discussed respecting the Geneva convention, Habeas Corpus and the abuses at Guantanamo. I think if he would have gone further back in history it just might have been too long an email………… I don’t want to write a long email either. . I just wanted to say it was so cool that you shared that with us and my contribution today so coincidental. Also, about the role that corporations play in all of this. I think he was just keeping his response to how the government has been offending our constitutional protections. I just liked that you got the response. .. and you are right he could have talked about moving corporate objectives toward social responsibility…. for what its worth I know there is some movement through statutes on that ….. I don’t know that much about it just that there are some “other constituencies statutes” etc. that are designed to (or desiring to) allow corporate decision makers to consider ethical duties to non shareholders or to the community at large without breaching their corporate duties of loyalty even when doing so may not enhance corporate profit or shareholder gain. I guess that kind of legislation moves really really slow through the democratic process but the idea is to allow Corporate directors to have social responsibility since typically they are bound to a duty of care and of loyalty toward their shareholders only which means to profits you know what I mean. I gotta go and whatever if they go beyond that loyalty they can be in breach of duty and incur liability etc. etc… I gotta go ……… I just loved that you and Kathy support Obama. me too and they boys as well.
(And we’ve fixed the password problem, I think —Mr. Admin)
2 sraines902 // Feb 10, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Annie,
I’ve made three donations to Obama so far, and it’s beginning to look like I may do more. I must say that I’ve also given money to Dennis Kosinech, this time around, and Bernie Saunders, a genuine, declared socialist from Vermont, a couple of years ago.
It’s good to hear from you. I’m sorry you’re having difficulty with the log in. I’ve reset your password (wearing my admin hat) and posted your comment. I hope this fixes you for now. Those sales guys swore that WordPress would be easy to use, and I believed them, in part because I liked the price so much: free. I do hope it’s fixed.
The Obama letter, boilerplate though it likely is, ought to represent his thinking. He might have reviewed the paragraphs at some point. Who knows? Who cares? He has signed over it and we can take it as his word.
I’m pleased with what is said. It addresses the current situation. Addressing the historical situation is a longer term deal. The country’s in a state of denial, I think, about what our actual history is. We keep re-writing it to make pleasing myth.
How is Obama is going to address cleaning up history? I’m not sure that’s a presidential function, although perhaps it should be. Certainly presidents ought to lead the way in telling the truth, shouldn’t they? I’m mean, didn’t we all read Parson Weem’s biography of Washington?
On corporations, we should all recall that corporations are creatures of the state–they depend on state charters to exist. And a few national charters. And corporations have played state against state in races to many bottoms. Who’s going to have the banking laws easiest to break with the least consequence? South Dakota and Delaware have led the way. Who’s going to permit the greatest usury? Texas is doing it’s part there, allowing up to nearly 30% annual rates for some poor risks, but I think there are others in advance of us. But still, that’s an interest rate of nearly a third. Of course, the corporations are seductive to state officials and legislators. We’ll bring jobs, they’ll say, and do some major construction right in the middle of your cities. All we want is no taxes for, say, fifteen or fifty years, and a couple changes in your banking laws. What’s a poor legislator to do? Be ethical?
I’ll tell you what: we could set ethical behavior up as an important voters’ expectation for legislators, but then that would require actually paying attention to what they are up to–what t’s they cross or i’s they dot and who’s back they happen to be scratching in exchange for a good rubbing up our politicians are getting.
Do tell more about “other constituencies statutes.” This is a new term for me, although I can see the lexical logic, the “other constituencies” being approximately the same groups known as “stakeholders” in modern social process modeling. If that means that we should write laws that demand that corporations should be good citizens, I’m all for it.
I have some more questions to ask Obama–about free trade and whats free for whom in these agreements and why we don’t consider labor and environmental standards, for instance–so there’s going to be more opportunities for response. I’m not quite sure if he’s my man in this yet, but I want to encourage him to be clear about what we citizens are buying in that poke.
You must log in to post a comment.