Our Past Refuses to Leave

The ghosts of American failures, mistakes, and blatant abuses of our political theory continue to haunt us through to this day. The nature of a society reliant upon the forced servitude of African laborers defines social relations across America despite a 150 year respite from slavery, and rightfully so. The protectionist nature espoused by President George Washington became dicta in the realm of foreign policy. A fledgling nation, incapable of self-defense (do remember, our capital was burned to the ground in the War of 1812), needed to keep free from the complicated ties brought on by international relations. Treaties, as I have recently learned, trump all other law, effectively granting foreign nation a hand in the legislation of our laws.

The failures of the 3/5 compromise, and the genius underlying President Washington's declaration of foreign policy are the history we embrace; one as a constant reminder of the potential abuses a majority may impose upon a "discrete and insular minority" (For those law students reading, the quoted phrase will become a mandate from God himself in ConLaw II.) and the other as proof positive of the astoundingly impressive nature of our founding fathers.

Surveying recent history, however, provides a tale we American's wish were less salient to the modern context. President Obama, the "Champion of Change," has developed a revolutionary platform. . . except that his ideas aren't revolutionary: they are derived from a contrary nature. President Obama, while intelligent, capable, and the leader of the American Spirit, received the final push (though, please note, he deserved his position more than any other person in the nation) into the seat of power from his stance as the opposite of our past.

And what an ugly past we have. Former Vice-President Chaney, speaking of President Obama, stated on CNN that "(President Obama) is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack." Put aside questions as to what choices these are for a moment (though just a moment). The policies of the present administration operate to make us safe; the policies of the former breach basic tenents of rights guaranteed to t the citizens. Both, however, revolve around the same issues: should we torture?

So, then, raging liberal though I am, I cannot help but wonder where the distinction lies between these two. I love President Obama, but since his platform rests, of essence, upon rescinding the practices and policies of President Bush's administration, how do I justify his actions as "different" from the politics of yesterday?

Simply: He has created a conversation. Vice-President Chaney stated, " 'I think that’s a great success story,' he said. 'It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.' " Well, first, it was done legally. As is later mentioned, the "interrogations" were done by the military. This excuses any necessity of fair or unharsh treatment under the Bill of Rights. But the astounding part of this statement is the history behind it: the legality was never a question. The repricutions that might arise as a result of American blindness to the human suffering they were causing never crossed the desk of the President and Vice-President. They justified it: American's are safer.

As much as I appreciate the security blanket provided, I would have rather been consulted. The American conversation occurred as a reaction to the revelations that torture was being committed in the name of American Security. The closure of Gitmo has come as the result of that debate. Having a reasoned response to the facts as they have occurred, to this whining liberal, seems to be more in line with the dream of our founders.

So please, past (Vice-President Chaney), either make a reasoned argument (rather than an incendiary justification), or stop. 66,000,000 American's pressed for change. The least you can do, as a public servant, is respond.