SCOTT BROWN WINS! EXCITED BUT CONFLICTED; LIBERTARIANS MUST UNITE!
I am listening with excitement at a video of Scott Brown’s victory speech. I was excited to see him win in one sense; Attorney General Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate with the usual liberal Democrat message. It is a great story; one lone citizen successfully taking on a huge political machine. Almost a bit of Jimmy Stewart. Now perhaps we can get rid of the health care bill and start over with market-based changes such as crossing state lines to buy health insurance as well as this one government program – something similar to the EEOC for people to complain about the decisions of health insurance providers or HMOs with power to force them to treat if it is within the terms of the contract. I am opposed to “tort reform”, it is not a federal issue and it will hurt patients/victims of medical malpractice.
I also find Scott Brown to be clever, humorous, witty and engaging. He either has a great speechmaker or has a natural talent. He talks about his truck and used it as a moving symbol of ordinariness – much like the log cabin in the 1800s. Try this out:
“I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, and I drive a truck.”
and this:
“Would you like me to drive the truck down to Washington so you can see it?”
Absolutely brilliant. Brown was respectful and gracious to his opponents, the Kennedy family and others including President Obama. Brown’s smart and may not be a classic conservative voice. But he may be different. He will be heard from again. I wish Senator-elect Scott Brown all the best. BUT…
BUT, there was a report on Morning Joe that by a 3 to 1 margin Americans reject rights for terrorism suspects. This concerns me greatly. Brown said in his acceptance speech:
“I believe and I know all of you believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect THIS nation. * * * They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. * * * Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them.”
Let me make myself clear, will all due respect Senator elect Brown, this is a terrible issue to raise. He is an attorney, he ought to know better. Brown continues:
“Giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country.”
They are not new rights; they are centuries old. They protect all of us. This issue will surely be used by other Republicans since it worked in one of the bluest states – Massachusetts – and they will probably do well. But it’s wrong. Let’s step back and ask what are we doing. I am reminded of the quote Robert Bolt attributed to Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons (thanks to that rare conservative who is not involved in this demagogy – Judge Andrew Napolitano):
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-do you think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s safe.”
If we can give the Devil due process, we can do it for terror suspects. I reject the idea of a “war on terror” because there is no end to the conflict. This then by the reasoning of most of my fellow conservatives means there must always be military tribunals in continuous session. Suppose the next terrorist attack is accomplished by a conspiracy of both domestic radicals and foreign terrorists? Or criminal gangs paid by Al-Qaeda? Do we try both in military tribunals? Then US citizens would then be deprived of their constitutional rights. Do we want that? American jails may one day be filled with conservatives or libertarians or evangelical Christians. To paraphrase our newest Senator, we can do better! We libertarians must find opportunities to explain that this rights issue is a necessary one to do. Liberty and rights for all!
January 20th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I disagree completely – Terrorists should be triad in a military tribunal… This is not shoplifting or even a case of assault with a deadly weapon. It is an act of war and as such should be tried. And yes, I am a libertarian, but in this specific issue I do draw a line.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
First, thank you Maria for coming by and taking the time to comment. Alas, I must disagree. It is not the nature of the crime that should determine who goes to a miiltary tribunal. Terrorism is a political crime but not a war. War is still between nations. Otherwise, we invite perpetual wars with subsequent loss of liberty.
But please come back and see my other columns and comment freely!
Sandy