How Would a Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald

It’s curious how this book came up in my reading rotation right after The Imperial Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. That was not planned, but the two works are kind of companion pieces to one another -- Schlesinger writing about the increasing imperial powers of the presidency throughout U.S. history and up to the Nixon administration, and Greenwald picking up the same theme relative to the George W. Bush administration.

There are really just two points that I find worth commenting on relative to Greenwald’s work -- and neither of them have to do with George W. Bush specifically. The first has to do with the question of patriotism -- and about how no one political party has any particular claim to its mantle.

The extremist theories that have taken hold in the executive branch for the last five years have nothing to do with liberal or conservative political ideology, nor do they have anything to do with being a Democrat or Republican. Rather, they are an outright betrayal of American values regarding government.

We are a nation of laws, where the people make the law. Our elected officials do not rule over us; they are our public servants. We cannot be imprisoned without charges and we have a right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Thus, when we enact legal restrictions through our Congress on what our government can do to us as citizens (as we did with FISA, or the ban on torture), those laws bind all citizens, including our elected officials.

Those are the values to which any American patriot, by definition, subscribes. Contrary to the central deceit manufactured by Bush defenders over the last five years, patriotism is not defined by loyalty to a particular elected official or political party. Indeed, excess loyalty to a single individual or party is the very antithesis of patriotism, as it places fealty to that individual or party over allegiance to the country, its interests, and its values. True patriotism is measured by the extent to which one believes in, and is willing to fight for and defend, the defining values and core principles of our country.

Seems kind of important to remember in these troubled times.

Second, with regard to the oft-maligned slow pace of the political process and government action, Greenwald would call our attention to this quote by Justice Brandeis:

The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, [343 U.S. 579, 614] by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.

Efficiency often means autocracy -- or at least the exercise of arbitrary power -- a warning that those who call obsessively for it should certainly heed.

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.