11–20 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bush started after 9/11.
Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatism has never been about any of the things its supposed to be about. See: federal debt.
One can argue that those representatives who claim to be fiscally conservative but vote for unfunded liabilities are not, in fact, fiscally conservative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.
Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.
Obama started, Trump continued. Not good for anyone.
Bush started after 9/11.
Here's more context from Risen's article, which was written in December, 2016:
> Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
> Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.
> I experienced this pressure firsthand when the administration tried to compel me to testify to reveal my confidential sources in a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department finally relented — even though it had already won a seven-year court battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court to force me to testify — most likely because they feared the negative publicity that would come from sending a New York Times reporter to jail.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of Herbert Hoover if you'd call him (or any of the republicans like him) authoritarian.
There are two versions of the United States.
1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked.
2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's another example of enemies of #2 but not #1).
As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2" above.
Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of Herbert Hoover if you'd call him (or any of the republicans like him) authoritarian.
COINTELPRO?
I actually don't mean to single him out in particular, but more to point to the overall trend.