Many construe the laws allowing warrantless wiretapping, sneak and peek searches, and the like as "temporary measures" to win the "War on Terror" -- hence the need to renew and renew the laws.
Regardless of whether the laws are appropriate, they can't be temporary measures to win a war on terror. Such a war is by definition unwinnable. How can you defeat "terror"? There's always going to be terror.
The phrase "War on Terror" reminds me of "The Book" from 1984. In the novel the protagonist Winston reads a secret book, "The Book." It details the Inner Party's administration's conviction that the war they wage must never be won in order for them to maintain control over society.
/
In 2006 Obama gave a keynote address addressing the role of faith in politics -- specifically, the role of his faith in making decisions as a government official. He said his faith underpins his morals, and morals necessarily underpin law; therefore, he considers his faith when making decisions. This appeals to (many) conservatives. At the same time, he says any morals underpinning laws need to suit everyone's values, from atheist to believer. In other words, it doesn't matter that he brings his faith to his position. That appeals to (many) progressives.
Clever way to appease both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting post. I'm trying to see the connection between the two, but maybe that's what the slash sign / was meant to signify: I'm just starting over.
Do you find Obama's claims of faith-based decision making convincing? The way politics are now, candidates feel like they have to toe the line--lots of different lines--in order to be elected. Voters want their ideal condidate (maybe like we want our ideal car, computer, etc.) instead of choosing the person who has the most qualities, even if not every every quality we want.
Post a Comment