Posted on 09/30/2004 12:54:57 AM PDT by kattracks
The Patriot Act of 2001 was democratic action par excellence. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House (357–66) and Senate (98-1), it was a textbook case of American legislators, led by the President, acting in swift response to the clear needs, and manifest will, of the citizens of the Republic.Since its inception in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has made a name for itself by blocking the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government, especially at the state and local levels.
Most of the ACLU’s wrath has been directed against statutes, i.e., laws that were democratically enacted but (for one reason or another) were deemed unacceptable by the ACLU. Browse through the 100 Greatest Hits slideshow on the ACLU website and you can get a feel for how successful the organization has been in frustrating democratic choices. While some of these laws certainly deserved to be thrown out (one thinks of Jim Crow as the clearest example), most were reasonable democratic decisions made by citizens grappling with the perennial political question — How shall we order our lives together?
Nobody disputes this record, including the ACLU itself. Explaining it, however, is another matter. The ACLU’s own rationale — i.e., that majority rule must be limited to ensure individual rights — is too bland to be of much help. Yet this is a phenomenon we need to explain and understand, especially today when many of the laws and procedures the ACLU is targeting (the Patriot Act, border control, and others) are ones upon which our very survival may depend.
The key to understanding the ACLU lies in a single word — ideology.
Ideology is the attempt to account for the vast complexity of politics and society by using only a few rarified concepts. The ideologue seizes on a handful of abstractions and then claims everything else must somehow conform to them.
The ideology of the ACLU is civil libertarianism. Some of its more famous abstractions are free speech, secularism, and individual privacy. Of course, none of these ideas are intrinsically bad. In fact, each has an honored place in American tradition. Problems arise only when they are seized upon by ideologues and held up as unalloyed goods that automatically trump all other considerations.
Free speech, for instance. Free speech is a value that goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, and is very much a part of the great Western tradition cherished by all Americans. But unlike the ACLU, most of us do not instinctively equate ‘free speech’ with holy writ. We do not elevate it to the point where it takes unquestioned precedence over everything else. Community prerogatives are also part of our tradition, and most people have no trouble acknowledging that sometimes such prerogatives will win out over free speech, as when local town councils impose standards respecting taste and public decency. Or, more relevant to today’s headlines, when the Federal government forbids the publication of sensitive hydroelectric infrastructure diagrams on the Internet — few Americans have any qualms about abridging this particular instance of free speech.
With some exceptions, American voters also tend to be nonideological. Whatever their party affiliations, whether they consider themselves liberal, conservative, or middle-of-the-road, most voters see a far more complicated world than simple ideological categories can describe. When they go to the polling place to decide on a ballot measure or elect a representative, Americans carry with them a vast array of family traditions, moral and political beliefs, social prejudices, economic interests, civic norms, religious convictions, aesthetic preferences, and — perhaps most importantly — knowledge of the concrete circumstances facing their city, state, and nation. Thus prepared, they draw distinctions and recognize differences that the bare, abstract worldview of the ideologue cannot tolerate.
And it is here that the ACLU’s trouble with democracy becomes apparent.
Take censorship. Members of Congress, acting on behalf of the voters who elected them, passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2002. The act required libraries receiving certain forms of federal aid to install web-blocking programs to filter material that could harm children. The act also provided that librarians disable the software for “bona fide research or other lawful purpose.” The ACLU challenged the law, and was successful in getting the Supreme Court to water it down. Needless to say, the ACLU expressed disappointment that it didn’t get CIPA struck down entirely.
For the legislators who wrote CIPA, and the voters to whose concerns they were responding, the issue was clear. There is a difference between children accessing pornography or instructions for making bombs, and adults doing whatever web-surfing they choose. The former should be restricted and the latter left alone, said the voters through their representatives.
But the ACLU didn’t see it that way. All these real-world, factual circumstances were irrelevant. The ideologues at the ACLU ignored the gaping historical, social, and practical differences between a 13-year-old loner downloading a scanned version of The Anarchist Cookbook and an adult reading the latest edition of The Village Voice online. Those concrete particulars didn’t matter, and they all were stripped away. What mattered instead was the thinnest, most abstract thread of high-level conceptual commonality that one can imagine — i.e., both involved ‘speech,’ and therefore both deserved absolute protection.
If America is to win the war against militant Islam, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must have effective legislation at their disposal. But like all products of democratic action, such legislation is in constant danger of being sacrificed on the ACLU’s alter of ideological purity.
Ultimately, the best defense against this ongoing assault on democratic sovereignty is democracy itself. The next President will most probably make at least one appointment to the Supreme Court. Depending on who that President is, the Court will either be tipped in favor of those who respect the legislative branch and the democratic traditions it represents, or its old ACLU-friendly habits will be reinforced for another generation.
Vote wisely.
Mr. Carroll is a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA and a regular columnist for FrontPageMag.com. Email: carroll@meib.org
RICO meet ACLU...
ACLU only meddles when it fits their agenda. They say their for free speech but if you're pro-life they'll shut you up faster than you can shake a stick. They're a big part of what has gone wrong in America today.
BTTT
Back in 1973, when I was a young upstart wet behind the ears idealist, I got the bright idea to challenge the Constitutionality of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 wherein FDR called in all the gold coinage then in circulation and which made it illegal for Americans to own gold in coin or bullion form or even to possess US Gold Certificate currency. Naturally being the young upstart wet behind the ears idealist that I was, I contacted the local chapeter of the ACLU here in Houston and told them eagerly of my desire to have them help me file a class action suit in local Federal District Court. Waaaaallll how foolish did I feel when I was told that this item 'isn't on our agenda' and they had no interest at all in helping me to regain the right to do something that everybody else on Earth had the legal right to do? Let's just say that it opened my eyes to the true nature of this group of slithering socialist shysters (sorry, but I just can't resist a good alliteration) and ever since then I have preached the 'gospel' about them to all who are willing to listen
What I can't understand is how they are able toremain an active entity. How are they funded?
Is there any watchdog on them? Are they accountable to any organization?
IMO its an evil organization and (part of) society that tries to remove all references and symbols of God. Not only is it evil, it is the number one goal of Communists.
Forgive my ignorance, but is there Communist party of America backing for the ACLU?
If America is to win the war against militant Islam, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must have effective legislation at their disposal. But like all products of democratic action, such legislation is in constant danger of being sacrificed on the ACLU’s alter of ideological purity.When a few lawyers and a few judges can over-rule the survival of the nation, it's time for all of us to rise up and take some serious action.
Forgive my ignorance, but is there Communist party of America backing for the ACLU?
Ignorance ? no ignorance here ! your eyes are Wide open just to bad alot more arent !
Pings
I remember reading, a couple of years ago, that one or two founding members of the ACLU were active members of the CPUSA.
Their day has passed. They were real good when they believed in the US Constitution - all of it. As written!
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0701aclu.htm
Communist background of the American Civil Liberties Union
By Charles A. Morse
web posted July 9, 2001
The latest outrage involving the ACLU, covered by columnist Gregory J. Hand in Enter Stage Right (7/2), is the rescinding of an invitation to Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas to debate ACLU President Nadine Strossen at the Davis-Levin First Amendment Conference in Hawaii this summer. Not by any means an isolated incident, this is the latest in a long tradition of outrages going back to the founding of the organization and should be viewed in that context. A brief examination of the Communist background of the ACLU sheds light on an agenda that seems to champion isolated portions of the Constitution for self-serving purposes. They often take the Constitution out of context so as to champion strange cases that seem to favor an outcome that reinforces authoritarian government control. They more often than not favor the dictatorial concept of appointed Judges creating legislation from the bench.
Daphne Barbee-Wooten, wrote to her fellow directors on the Hawaii ACLU board the following regarding Thomas;
"Faye Kennedy, Eric Ferrer and I are the only African-Americans in the Hawaii ACLU chapter...We strongly object to ACLU bringing and sponsoring Clarence Thomas to Hawaii... Bringing Clarence Thomas sends a message that the Hawaii ACLU promotes and honors black Uncle Toms who turn their back on civil rights."
"Uncle Tom," was an old Communist term to describe any African-American who either opposed the Communist agenda or who had become "bourgeois," or, heaven forbid, economically successful. This is exactly what Barbee-Wooten meant by calling the Supreme Court Justice an Uncle Tom. This unctuous hypocrite has, no doubt, benefited more than amply from the economic system she seeks to tear down for others, particularly for members of her own race. How ironic that Barbee-Wooten would be making decisions over a first amendment conference, presumably, dealing with free speech issues. Ironic for the rest of us, no problem for the dialectical left.
Fellow board member Eric Ferrer, while discussing the Thomas invitation, called Thomas "an anti-Christ, a Hitler." As an American, and as a Jew, I am offended by a comparison of Clarence Thomas to Hitler. Such idiocy requires no further comment. What's interesting, however, is the hysterical hate this man expresses for what Thomas represents which are American ideals of achievement and success. Like his ACLU colleague, he must be consumed with an unbending hatred for this Republic of ours, a Republic that has afforded him a standard of living that, no doubt, most of the rest of us could only dream of achieving.
Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley. In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the Red Dean of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity. Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America," Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey. The 1930's membership would include such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan. The 1940's roll would include George S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda Kirchwey. Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are, members of the ACLU.
On January 17, 1931, the Special House (of Representatives) Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United States issued a report which stated the following:
"The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag with a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution...Roger N. Baldwin, its guiding spirit, makes no attempt to hide his friendship for the communists and their principles"
In 1935, Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:
"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities...and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment...Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself...I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Space won't allow further examination of the mountains of fascinating material regarding the ACLU, so a follow-up article would be in the offing at a future date. Suffice it to say that there is no reason to assume that the principles and goals of the ACLU, set in place by its founders, have changed much over the years. They have simply become much more polished and cagey in their presentation. This most recent insult to our Supreme Court Justice, and, clearly, to our form of government, is a clear example of the mask temporarily slipping off to reveal a glimpse of the true face of the ACLU.
Chuck Morse is the author of "Why I'm a Right-Wing Extremist" to be released in September.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
Actually the ACLU is the enemy of this Republic and an AID to democracy..
because the United States is NO democracy...
and any DEMOCRACY SUCKS...
Thanks for the ping!
Round them up, duly charge, try, sentence and execute all of the subhuman, liberal-demokkkRAT, ACLU garbage.
Any questions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.