DOUBLE-EDGED EXECUTIVE.

DOUBLE-EDGED EXECUTIVE. John Quiggan makes a point that should be obvious to conservative supporters of enhanced executive power, especially as regards combatting terrorism:

So, for those who support the bill, it might be useful to consider the standard thought experiment recommended to all who support dictatorial powers for a leader on their own side. Think about what the other side might do with these powers.For concreteness, suppose Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 with a Democratic majority in Congress, and appoints someone like Janet Reno as her Attorney-General, and that some rightwing extremist takes a potshot at her. Suppose that the unsuccessful terrorist turns out to have drifted widely through the organisations that Clinton famously called the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, ranging from organisations with a track record of association with terrorism, like Operation Rescue and the militia movement, to those of the mainstream right, not engaged in violence, but prone to the violent rhetoric of people like Ann Coulter.

It's not as if we have to strain too hard to come up with such a scenario. Recall that NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre referred to ATF officials as "jackbooted government thugs" shortly following the Oklahoma City bombing (LaPierre's statement was not in direct reference to the attack). An administration willing and able to vigorously use its new executive powers against domestic terrorists could make life extremely uncomfortable for the NRA and similar organizations in the wake of an attack like that of April 1995. This possibility should be glaringly obvious to conservatives and especially to the libertarians who so often find common cause with conservatives in support of the Bush administration. Increasing the power of the executive has the unsurprising consequence of creating a more powerful executive, and given that there is occasional rotation in the office of the president, supporting such an increase carries clear dangers. Moreover, the myopia of conservatives on this question is particularly stunning when we recall that right-wing rhetoric in the 1990s often painted the Clintons as power-mad tyrants, bent on using the power of government to defeat their political enemies. Like John, I don't know why this doesn't occur to Republicans. Perhaps they intend no principled defense of executive power and, like John Yoo, will be willing to use the language of tyranny to attack Democrats when they regain the executive. Maybe they don't expect that Democrats will win elections in the near future. Finally, it's possible that they just haven't thought very hard about the question. My guess is a little from columns A, B, and C.

--Robert Farley