The Perennially "Unusual" Yet Somehow Ubiquitous Left-Right Alliance: Towards Acknowledging an Anti-Establishment Center

The AP reports: "The House narrowly rejected a challenge to the National Security Agency's secret collection of hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records Wednesday night after a fierce debate ... The vote was 217-205 on an issue that created unusual political coalitions in Washington, with libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats pressing for the change against the Obama administration [and] the Republican establishment..." The New York Times writes "disagreements over the program led to some unusual coalitions." Similarly, NBC opined the "amendment earned fierce opposition from an unusual set of allies, ranging from the Obama administration to the conservative Heritage Foundation." [Emphasis added throughout.]

And, when the NSA story broke, the Washington Post Express headline [June 11, 2013] read: "Recent revelations have given even the most ardent political foes a common target: government overreach." AP wrote of the "odd-couple political alliance of the far left and right" [June 12, 2013] with the Edward Snowden revelations making "strange bedfellows." [New York Daily News, June 11, 2013] 

Every time you have this convergence of progressives and conservatives against the establishment, it's regarded as "unusual" "odd" or "bizarre"  -- even though it keeps coming up on issue after issue: war, military spending, trade, corporate power, Wall Street, fossil fuel subsidies, as well as -- in the case of the NSA spying on the citizenry -- the central issue of Constitutional rights and civil liberties. 

As documented below, the meme in the media and elsewhere is a permanent note of surprise, when it should be an established aspect of U.S. politics: There are in fact two "centers" -- one that is pro-war and Wall Street (the establishment center) -- and another that is pro-peace and populist (the anti-establishment center). 

The establishment keeps the left and right populist factions at bay by demonizing them to each other -- "let's you and him fight" is the mindset -- which is why MSNBC so often feeds hate of conservatives and Fox feeds hate of progressives. If they were to pay more attention to issues, they might break them down and it might become clear that there's quite a bit the principled left and right agree on. Meanwhile, establishment Democrats and Republicans collude on war, Wall Street and much else, effectively reducing principled progressives and conscientious conservatives into pawns of the Democratic and Republican party establishments.

A left-right alliance is extremely threatening to the establishment. Rep. King recently bemoaned about the NSA scandal: "too many Republicans and conservatives have become Michael Moores." Similarly, former Iraq war military spokesperson Dan Senor triumphantly declared: "I think this further strengthens the center on national security. I think there was a real risk over the last couple weeks that there would be this left/right coalition that would backlash against the United States government..." Sen. Lindsey Graham commented back in 2010: "You know what I worry most about: an unholy alliance between the right and the left." Dan Quayle in 1990 as George H. W. Bush, who Obama recently honored, was driving the nation to war attacked the "McGovern-Buchanan axis."

A major way the establishment keeps principled progressives and conscientious conservatives hating instead of dialoguing is by not acknowledging all they have in common -- and when it is acknowledged, treat is as a freak instance.

Certainly, there are disagreements, but the agreements should not be dismissed or minimized. And both should be talked out by the parties in a real fashion. Each shouldn't be caricatured by an establishment hell-bent on preventing a meaningful dialogue from taking place. 

The major media tends to stress the differences between the establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans, sometimes this results in inflating minor issues or marginalizing major issues, or taking serious schisms and tossing them down the memory hole. 

During the last presidential election, both President Obama and Gov. Romney talk constantly about "jobs" -- but both backed the secret TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] deal that threatens jobs, and is opposed by much of their electoral base. And, critically, the issue got minimal coverage. The convergence of progressives and conservatives that initially voted down the Wall Street bailout of 2008 has been largely forgotten. 

A real dialogue between the the left and right may lead to a sort of political re-alignment. As I suggest at VotePact.org it could become the basis for a voting strategy, with disenchanted Democrats and disenchanted Republicans pairing up and voting for the anti-establishment candidates they most want in twos rather than being separated and eternally trapped voting for their "lesser evil". At minimum, experimenting with such approaches would likely lead to a healthier political culture and grant the bases of each establishment political party a way to assert themselves against the elites. 

Perhaps the formation of an organization is overdue: The Center for a New Center. That might cure the political culture and media from its insistence that there's something perennially unusual that keeps happening: 

War and Military Spending:

"House Republican leaders on Wednesday abruptly canceled a vote on a resolution forcing U.S. withdrawal from Libya amid signs an unusual alliance of liberals and conservatives could approve the measure, indicating Congress's growing dissatisfaction with the extent of U.S. military operations overseas.

"The House had been scheduled to vote on a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) requiring President Barack Obama to withdraw from Libya within 15 days. The measure cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says the president must get approval from Congress if a military operation lasts 60 days or more.

"But at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans Wednesday, GOP leaders were surprised by members' strong concerns about the Libya operation. Some conservatives were prepared to support Mr. Kucinich's resolution, Republican aides said." [Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2011]

AP Head Alarmed by Obama Administration Targeting, But Doesn't See it as Growing out of Whistleblower Targeting

Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP spoke at the National Press Club this week; Angela Greiling Keane, the Press Club president, moderated the event. I submitted the question "Do you think major media outlets had sufficiently scrutinized the Obama administrations targeting of whistleblowers including Thomas Drake and Bradley Manning? Didn't that -- along with the attacks on Wikileaks -- pave the way for targeting mainstream media outlets like the AP?" A version of this was asked along with a related question toward the end of the event: See more at washingtonstakeout.com. 

Rogers Falsely Claims NSA Only Targets Non-Americans; He and Feinstein Walk Away from Fourth Amendment Question

[This was posted on WashingtonStakeout on Sunday]

This morning I questioned Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers — the chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees — as they walked out of ABC studios: “Many Americans are concerned about the revelations of this week and how they square with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Let’s start there. What does the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution say?”

Feinstein said it was “protection against search and seizure,” which is true but very limited. I tried to interject, “the measure is probable cause” — but she went on at some length about the alleged legality of the programs that became public this week, while avoiding the question of their Constitutionality. [transcript below]

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That would seem to totally contradict the programs exposed this week. It’s as though the government photocopies all of your papers.

The attitude of defending unconstitutional programs that in effect have been made legal gives new meaning to the old Kissinger quote: “Illegal we do immediately; unconstitutional takes a little longer.” See: Bush-Era Spying ‘Made Legal’ Under Obama.

In the course of my trying to get them to address the Fourth Amendment, I attempted to read it, which didn’t seem as though it was to their liking and they walked away.

But first, Rep. Rogers claimed that the programs reported on this week are “not targeted on Americans. It has to be a non-U.S. person that is believed to be on foreign soil. That is a huge difference from what is being portrayed in the media.” I noted that this was clearly false, certainly for the phone metadata story. This seemed to upset him.

I then read most of the Fourth Amendment, Rogers appeared extremely uncomfortable, said he didn’t want a “debate” — I said it wasn’t a debate, I wanted them to square the programs with the Fourth Amendment. Feinstein said they would do this “another time.”

Update:

Marcy Wheeler who has written extensively about this notes: “Just about every time Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers talk about these programs, they confuse the dragnet of American’s contacts with PRISM, which isn’t supposed to involve Americans. That says something about how closely they understand them.”

Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee states: “There’s a reason that Senator Feinsten and Rep. Rogers keep dodging questions about secret government spying: it simply can’t be squared with the Fourth Amendment. Neither has acknowledged the full extent of the government’s surveillance operations, which extend well beyond last week’s disclosures. And while those programs have gained legal cover, it’s only because the congressional committees they lead have utterly failed their responsibility to check & balance executive abuses.”

Note: Then-head of NSA Michael Hayden claimed the Fourth Amendment didn’t contain the phrase “probable cause” when questioned by Jonathan Landay in 2006. Video; Report by FAIR.

– Sam Husseini

Transcript:

Sam Husseini: Good morning.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Good morning.

SH: Senator, many Americans are concerned about the revelations this week and how they square with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Let’s start there. What does the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution say?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Well, it’s protection against search and seizure. The program here –

SH: — and the measure is probable cause –

DF: The program here is legal. It has been passed by the Department of Justice as a legal program. It is carefully audited. You have inspectors generals independently looking at it. It is reviewed by the court every three months. And the court — when they pass out one document which was the document that was revealed — which said it could continue for another three months, the court also passes another statement which puts strictures on the program for the remaining three months.

SH: — The Fourth –

Rep. Mike Rogers: Can I interject there: the important part of that as well–as all of this is right — is that is not targeted on Americans. It has to be a non-U.S. person believed to be on foreign soil. That is a huge difference from what is being portrayed in the media.

SH: That is not the case with the program pertaining to phone data. The Fourth Amendment stipulates that people’s papers shall not be violated but upon probable cause.

MR: I’m not sure who you are with. I am not sure, we’re getting into a debate here.

SH: I am quoting the Fourth Amendment here.

MR: — I understand. But case law also –

SH: — supported by oath or affirmation –

DF: I think there’s no sense –

MR: If you want a debate we can do that later.

SH: I don’t want a debate –

DF: We’ll do that another time.

SH: I’m just quoting the Fourth Amendment. I want you to square this program with the Fourth Amendment.

Snowden and the Work Place

The whole thing with Snowden has me thinking some of when I was just out of school. For freaky reasons, I stayed in NYC and took a job with Moody's Investors Service as a programmer and assistant database administrator. I was 22. I was amazed that I could get a good paycheck (though certainly modest by Wall St standards) for very little actual work. Then it hit me: They were not paying me for what I was doing, they were in effect paying me for what I wasn't doing: Using my time and energy to change the world. 

When I quit, after about a year there, my boss immediately frantically checked all the passwords on the major administrator accounts, I had access all of them (this was on the News and Manual side of the company, not the more glamorous rating division, which was part of a general hiring freeze in the wake of the '87 crash) and I could have wrecked havoc with their systems in ways brazen or subtle if I wanted to. (The password for one of the root administrator accounts was "mandarin" and a sequence of numbers, as in American Power and the New Mandarins by Noam Chomsky -- my boss had set the password, not me, and he hilariously had misspelled "mandarin".)

After I left Moody's I came across a book, which I can't find any reference to now, that documented how various people had worked to undermine the companies they worked for after growing frustrated with the lack of ethics or corruption by the bosses. It's a perennial problem with too few ways for people to respond.