There’s not much I’d disagree with generally here, but I don’t understand the point about rebuilding the manufacturing base via investment in alternative energy sources. My problem is that the policy aim can become confused if stated like this. What’s the real aim? Rebuilding manufacturing in the US or reducing carbon emissions? If it’s the former, then does it matter where the expertise comes from. If it’s the latter then, well, that’s just a poor policy.
Also in the article, a point often overlooked by those who claim we need extraordinary powers in these times:
[George Bush] claims the power to wiretap Americans’ conversations without warrants, in direct violation of congressional commands. These usurpations presage what are likely to be even more drastic measures if another attack takes place on American soil
Yes it’s a slippery slope argument but my problem with such measures is that their efficacy has never been addressed. How do we know when we can do without them? What does happen if there is another attack? Do we go on detaining criminals for even longer periods without trial?
The problem for liberals when arguing against The President’s anti-terrorism policy, is that the counterfactual can never be understood; it is impossible to know what would really happen in the absence of such measures. And when the policies are introduced in a climate of fear, arguing the counterfactual can come across to the ordinary public like endorsing further civilian deaths on US soil whilst holding onto some abstract notions of freedom.
no comments