Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Lawrence O'Donnell is Wrong

Look, I like Lawrence O'Donnell. Sure, he's a slow talker and occasionally a bit repetitive, hammering home on issues whose relevance seems dubious at best, but I like him. He reminds me of a grandfather—a grandfather who tells me about the issues of the day and beats up (in very grandfatherly way) on people who generally deserve it. I think I even like him more than Keith Olbermann, with whom I had a very complicated relationship (call me, Keith, you handsome devil).

But last night (or this morning, when I watched the video online), he made the curious pronouncement that Rand Paul's position on Libya was incoherent. In general, when I hear that Republican X's position on issue Y is incoherent, I say something to the effect of, no shit. (Deficits are bad; let's cut taxes! Freedom is good, unless you're a woman, or gay, or me! The middle class is in trouble; let's shovel money into the mouths of corporations and the really, really, really rich! I could do this all day.)

Rand Paul is confused about a lot of things, but his position on Libya—roughly, we should have intervened, but President Obama's action was unconstitutional as it didn't get a declaration or war or authorization of military force from congress—is not only understandable, but true.

(Before I continue, I should probably tell you that Rand Paul is something of an ass, and please God let this be the only time I find myself defending him.)



If you've been reading my blog (hi, mom!), then you know that I've had my doubts about Libya. But despite the thorny issues involved, our intervention there was morally necessary. If you're a deontologist, then to you I say good for you. Also, I say that the principle that the United States should try to prevent massacre is applicable in Libya. If you're a consequentialist, then to you I say good luck with that. Also, I say that the moral mathematics worked out for intervention in Libya.

I say this, and I also say that Congress abdicated its duty, and President Obama abdicated his, when we went to war—and this is a war—limited (relatively) though it may be—in Libya.

Now, Lawrence O'Donnell brought up SR 85, a resolution condemning Gadhfi, advocating regime change, and expressing the hope that someone would intervene, specifically in the form of a No-Fly Zone. And O'Donnell mentioned that Senator Paul voted for SR 85, saying,

He voted for everything—everything—President Obama has said he is in favor of doing, and everything President Obama decided to do. And he voted for it weeks before President Obama decided to do it.

This is the basis for O'Donnell's belief that Paul—and, I'm assuming folks like me—are holding being incoherent. At first blush, that seems like a reasonable critique. We support an objective and a means, but when someone takes those means to achieve that objective, we cry foul.

But, alas, things are not that simple. One of those means, one of the ways in which we would achieve the very noble objective of preventing a massacre in Libya, is that we would do it within the strict confines of the law. Meaning that before the Executive branch takes acts to achieve a good objective, it gets the go-ahead from Congress.

President Obama didn't. Even if you think he didn't have time—if you believe that the weeks he spent getting international support (a good—perhaps even necessary—thing, by the by) didn't afford enough time to get congressional approval—nothing has precluded him from getting approval for continued operations in Libya now.

And by the President's own lights, he didn't even try or think it necessary to do that. He talks about consultation, not approval, as if Congress is a friend you go to when you need advice and not a check on Executive power.

So Senator Paul and I are not being incoherent; our position is clear: Intervene in Libya, and do it the right way.



Perhaps I'm being to hard on the President, though. He did, for the most part, do it the right way. He was prudent and careful; he's got the support of the international community—including the Libyan people. He didn't lie to the public (man, Bush really set that bar low). He's keeping our footprint small. He is, in short, allowing this to by Libya's revolution, not America's occupation.

What's more, it's not as if Congress has been doing its job, either. They haven't been serious about their constitutional obligations regarding military force in decades. Members of congress are too concerned, if I can assign a motive, with keeping their political options open, being able to weasel out of a vote if things go bad, to acutely do their jobs. They fear, I imagine, falling victim to the trap set by Republicans during the 2004 election. Senator Kerry, you'll remember voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, and then, when Bush bungled the job, Kerry attacked the war. And what did Republicans do? They called him a flip-flopper.

(Of course, Iraq is very different then Libya, and though I disagree with Kerry's vote, I don't think he's "flip-flopping" for saying that he supported the objective, but disagreed with the means.)

So, where does this leave us? We have a congress that is afraid the American people are too stupid to tell the difference between means and ends, a President that—like all Presidents—wants to preserve Executive power, and people like Rand Paul and me (did I really just write that?) who aren't all that pleased with the idea that presidents can pretty much do what they want when it comes to war.



So, can we blame Lawrence O'Donnell for being mistaking Rand Paul's nuance for hypocrisy? I think yes, with an important caveat. The modern GOP—pretty much since Nixon, have claimed the mantle of libertarianism while behaving like statists. They've been such hypocrites for so long that when one of them might be principled, it's hard to take it at face value. Further, the "principled" positions of conservative libertarians (all five of them) are so abhorrent that it's easy want to hit them with everything you can.

And, I'm not going to say—as one big-eared Congressman did—that this is an impeachable offense. It's not. It would be if Congress had said no and then the President did it anyway. He didn't. Congress has done such a thorough job of not doing its job that it's almost necessary for Presidents to take that power for themselves—almost.

But as for the critiques of nuance, let's not forget, Mr. O'Donnell, that liberals champion nuance. Let's not forget that, more often then not, complicated and tough problems require complicated and tough thinking, and we considering the utter lack of thought in what passes for today's bawdy politic, we could now use a little nuance more then ever.