Democratic Values in Domestic vs. International Policy

These last few weeks I found myself struggling over how to approach some of the recent issues in US domestic governance.  From uncomfortably authoritarian reactions to left-leaning protestors, to authoritarian flavored ideas on internet freedom and detention of citizens, I’ve floundered for weeks somewhere between Chicken Little style ranting and my -tragically common- defeated indifference.  Finally looking to a thoughtful recent post from Liza on US Foreign Policy on issues of Rule of Law and Human Rights in Russia, I decided that the best approach to writing on these subjects would just be to ride the coattails of my sharper witted peers .

Even as a student of politics things look pretty bad to me at the moment, in light of our ongoing economic woes I can’t help but wonder what on earth those who govern us are thinking about in continuing their same old tricks under the apparent assumption that no one is paying attention.  On issues of foreign policy I regularly find myself genuinely proud of my government these days, sure there are mistakes, many of them quite grievous, but it appears at times as if we’re genuinely trying to do something positive in several regions of the world.  At the same time our blatantly repressive handling of domestic issues has left me truly and sincerely baffled on what our governors see in America’s future.

I’ve written before on my opinions on the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and its negative influence on the relatively free space that is the internet.  Over recent weeks voices against SOPA have become increasingly outspoken while legislators have fumbled time and again over why this legislation is necessary, good and important.  Certainly I am not without my biases on issues of internet freedom and piracy, but assuming legislators as public servants or representatives of the populace it becomes increasingly difficult to envision who is being served or represented.  The push to allow business to more strictly regulate the internet while hailing the virtues of internet freedom abroad strikes as a central example of our representatives blatantly being for sale.

As discussed by Secretary Clinton all too often in speeches abroad, the development of the internet has been an amazing advancement in the field of free speech.  Whether merely facilitating easy communication between people or offering a medium for the sharing of typically repressed or less represented ideas, no matter how you slice it the development of the internet as a vaguely ungoverned space has been a marked positive in promoting free speech around the world.  Attempting to limit that through the same sort of repression we regularly assail China over is a strike against one of those freedoms we as a nation hold dear.  If anything, I suppose we should be proud that it’s largely corporate greed rather than the specter of security concerns that has triggered this recent legislative crackdown on internet freedom.

I have not written on the “National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA) as it has been difficult for me to reasonably express my problems with this legislation or my sorrow in having reached a point where this is considered acceptable.  I have highly mixed feelings about the president I helped elect at times, it’s unfortunate to imagine Barak Obama as the President who signed provisions for indefinite detention without a trial into US law.  It is difficult to envision a surer way to end up on “the wrong side of history”, the reality of indefinite military detention has been understood in the US for some time but scripting it into our legal code is the type of policy decision I am used to reading in texts on transitions into authoritarianism.

This is actually one of those rare examples of an actual constitutional issue, unlike most of what we focus on in day to day politics. Limitations of individual legal rights are often eroded in times of conflict, and the current state of indefinite detention, however wrong, shouldn’t be surprising.  It is however, quite different to enshrine these negative changes in the law.  There is a reason we value rule of law, separation of powers and a respectable judicial system in the promotion of democracy abroad.  The military is good at several things, and given the realities of US funding, it excels at some activities historically outside its scope. However, there is seldom, if ever, a time when military efficiency should replace due process.

Hyperbole is a constant danger when writing from the prospective of a student of politics, the issues of the present always seem so much more relevant and vivid than those of the past.  In part my previous hesitance to discuss these acts or the trends they display in US politics is out of concern for my own biases and worry that I am blowing issues out of proportion.  Liberals are regularly squealing in terror over some perceived apocalyptic bit of reactionary legislation or another after all, but after some careful thought my reactions to these acts seem justified.  More even than my outrage at what is being done to the nation however, I am amazed at the time our legislators have chosen to take these actions.  In a time of economic hardship and global political turmoil, pursuit of repressive legislation reeks of an honestly incomprehensible disconnect between legislators and those they are meant to represent.