The Atlantic: President Trump's Impeachable Offense
The commander in chief’s calls to abridge freedoms of speech and the press represent attacks on the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.
By Conor Friedersdorf

Our president holds contempt for the Constitution.

It’s clear that he cares nothing for the First Amendment. For all of the fear that college students are trying to tear down free speech, the biggest threat comes from the man with the most power in America: Donald Trump. He has tweeted, most recently, that he believes that it should be examined whether NBC should be able to broadcast. That kind of disrespect for a free press should shock everybody, and should deem him unfit for office.

If you care anything for our Constitution, you should be appalled.

The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for – someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots.


Nobody is setting up a program in unemployed studies, homeless studies, or trailer-park studies, because the unemployed, the homeless, and residents of trailer parks are not the ‘other’ in the relative sense. To be other in this sense you must bear an ineradicable stigma, one which makes you a victim of socially accepted sadism rather than merely of economic selfishness.


| Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country, cited by Conor Friedersdorf in Where the Left Went Wrong—and How It Can Win Again

Rorty was anticipating, I think, the political shift from left-versus-right to up-versus-down.
The Atlantic: Trump Deletes Tweets That Show His Impotence
The aftermath of the president backing a loser in the Alabama Senate primary
By Conor Friedersdorf

I wouldn’t usually focus on something that’s kind of pointless, but it’s telling that Trump can’t bear to be a “loser” to the point that he would actually delete his tweets backing Luther Strange (who lost the Alabama primary to Roy Moore). It’s absolute lunacy, not only because of how ridiculous it is, but also because everybody can still easily find his deleted tweets.

The algorithm is very good at using what you’ve just bought to recommend things that you’ll want to buy, he observed, but it can be hard to tell why. Perhaps you’ll be attracted to the content of the recommendation–or perhaps it’s the fact that the cover is also green, or that the print is in Helvetica font. In contrast, a skilled librarian is usually going to recommend a book solely because of its intellectual value, without any lurking, contentless variables. The librarian is therefore likelier to send a person in a direction they wouldn’t otherwise have gone in a way that will advance their thinking, education, or aesthetic taste, because they’re not just meeting needs that have already been expressed.
Rand Paul Got the Better of Chris Christie on the 4th Amendment

Chris Christie tried to attack Rand Paul on the NSA and national security, but Rand Paul won the day by defending the Fourth Amendment & the Bill of Rights.

Written by Conor Friedersdorf for The Atlantic:

One of the biggest clashes in the Republican debate Thursday night came after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was asked about his past attacks on Senator Rand Paul. The two men disagree about an NSA program that spied on tens of millions of innocent Americans by logging all phone calls they dialed and received. Paul, a leading critic of the phone dragnet, has argued that it flagrantly violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Christie has said that if America is hit by another terrorist attack, Paul should be called before Congress to answer for his efforts to constrain the NSA’s domestic spying.

“Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing the bulk collection of people’s phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?” a moderator asked Thursday. The ensuing exchange highlighted stark differences in how the rival candidates would govern and their respective understandings of the Constitution.

Christie stood by his attack.

“Yes, I do,” he said. …

Paul responded to Thursday’s attack by expressing his preference for targeted surveillance rather than an expansive dragnet that sweeps up everyone’s metadata. “I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans,” he said. “The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over! John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence. I’m proud of standing for the Bill of Rights. I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.”

Christie was ready with a retort.

“You know, that’s a completely ridiculous answer: ‘I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from other people.’ How are you supposed to know?” Like Keith Alexander, Christie seemed to be arguing that the government needs to intrude on everyone’s private communications to identify terrorists. It’s the logic of general warrants. How can the police know who is keeping an illegal gun in their home without searching the contents of everyone’s home? Republicans uncomfortable with that logic should avoid voting for phone dragnet supporters.

“Get a warrant!” Paul said. “Get a judge to sign the warrant!” …

In fact, “get a judge to sign a warrant” is a rather succinct description of how “the system” is “supposed to work,” if we define “the system” as the Constitution rather than national-security officials following their gut instincts. It’s hardly “blowing hot air” for a senator to call on the executive branch to follow the law.

“Here’s the problem, governor,” Paul said.  “You fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights. Every time you did a case, you got a warrant from a judge. I’m talking about searches without warrants, indiscriminately, of all Americans’ records, and that’s what I fought to end. I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Rather than articulate why he believes individualized warrants are neither lawfully required nor prudent, Christie chose to address the “hugging Obama” part of the argument. …

I cannot comment on the style preferences of a GOP voter base that presently prefers Donald Trump to all other candidates. But on substance, Paul easily bested Christie in this exchange. …

Christie seems oblivious to the basic logic of the Bill of Rights. The constraints it places on government are not suspended in the aftermath of a terrorist attack––they are, in fact, most important precisely when a polity is panicked and officials are unusually able to seize excessive power without criticism. His praise for leaders unapologetically jettisoning such constraints in the name of protecting us is more dangerous than any terrorist plot in U.S. history.

Officials are the most biased judges when it comes to these decisions because, often times, the truth reveals their own incompetence or illegal behavior, and suppressing the truth always inflates their relative power and importance. There is no more biased decider than government officials.
I don’t see how anyone who confronts Obama’s record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. … How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you’re a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes. … Keen on Obama’s civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama.
—  Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic.
Reuters interviewed 25 African American male officers on the NYPD, 15 of whom are retired and 10 of whom are still serving,” the news organization reported in a recent article. “All but one said that, when off duty and out of uniform, they had been victims of racial profiling, which refers to using race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed a crime,” the small survey found. “Officers said this included being pulled over for no reason, having their heads slammed against their cars, getting guns brandished in their faces, being thrown into prison vans and experiencing stop and frisks while shopping.” These weren’t one-off events. “The majority of the officers said they had been pulled over multiple times while driving. Five had had guns pulled on them.
—   The NYPD Officers Who See Racial Bias in the NYPD - Conor Friedersdorf , The Atlantic.

The return of the torture debate is striking because its apologists no longer feel the need to advocate for a narrow exception to prevent an American city from being nuked or a busload of children from dying. In the jubilation over getting bin Laden, they’re instead employing this frightening standard: torture of multiple detainees is justified if it might produce a single useful nugget that, combined with lots of other intelligence, helps lead us to the secret location of the highest value terrorist leader many years later. It’s suddenly the new baseline in our renewed national argument.

That’s torture creep.

—  The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf on the renewed torture debate taking hold of American politics
We’re often told how precise drone strikes are. Obama Administration officials have called them surgical. If a surgery were happening in the building next door I wouldn’t be worried about getting nicked by the scalpel. Would you be worried for your safety if you were 100 yards away from drone strike? Say you’re laying in bed one night, and in the house next door, a terrorist is laying in his bed.

Would you want a drone strike to take him out?

If next door is too close for comfort, do you think the U.S. military or the CIA should be allowed to carry out drone strikes on terrorists with innocent people next door?
Right-leaning populists regard the nexus of big finance and big government as irredeemably corrupt; left-leaning populists agree! Alone, neither group can muster a sizable enough coalition to challenge the status quo. How convenient for the establishment that they’re so easily pitted against one another.
[L]ook for allies, not heretics. Someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an ally, not an enemy to denounce for not being a true libertarian. Someone who agrees with you 1 percent of the time, on just a single issue, is someone you can work with in good faith on that issue. And if you do, odds are they’ll listen more closely to your other ideas.

Conor Friedersdorf, “How to Safeguard Liberty through Discourse

This should be printed out in 70 pt. font and pasted on every libertarian’s bathroom mirror. No, make that everyone interested in politics at all. Seriously, this is so key.

What does “better than the Republicans” get you if it means that executive privilege keeps expanding, the drones keep killing innocents and inflaming radicals and destabilizing regions, the Pentagon budget keeps growing, civil liberties keep being eroded, wars are waged without Congressional permission, and every future president knows he or she can do the same because at this point it doesn’t even provoke a significant backlash from the left? Is the dysfunction of the Republican Party license to oppose those policies less vociferously than they were opposed during the Bush Administration?
Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama
Maybe he is the “lesser of the two evils,” as I don’t think Romney has any redeeming qualities, but as a matter of conscience, I can never endorse someone with this kind of record on human rights, civil liberties, or the economy.
  1. Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn’t “precise” or “surgical” as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. 
  2. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama’s kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.  
  3. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Holed up in a redwood forest on the Northern California coast, the nearest McDonald’s two hours away, I clicked through to some photos of Occupy Wall Street protestors in New York City, and saw that one of their signs displayed in big block letters 46 words that I wrote! They’re being held aloft by an attractive 20-something blond woman I’ve never met before.

This is the story of how they got there – or at least the small part of it I know, which is all that’s required to see why it could only happen now, and how political engagement in America is changing.

Winners and Losers of the GOP Showdown. Conor Friedersdorf breaks down last night’s discussion:

The winners in last night’s GOP debate?

The Fox News Channel was the biggest. The cable network’s moderators asked questions that were reasonably tough, well-researched, and less flawed than is typical. America could always do a lot better when it comes to what is asked of its presidential candidates. Relatively speaking, however, kudos are owed, even if former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson got a silly question about what reality TV show he would host if given the chance. (He flubbed it too – the answer is clearly “The Amazing Race.”)

Libertarians had a great night too: they accounted for two-fifths of the people on stage for the only time in memory, and were allowed to make their points without being attacked because none of the other candidates saw them as a threat.

Read the rest of the story and learn about the night’s losers at The Atlantic.