As the American public's eyes were transfixed on their televisions waiting to see who would win the 2012 presidential election, inhabitants of the world's badlands were looking to the sky waiting for death to rain down, - compliments of a drone. Political analysts have thus far been unable to understand what "mandate" was delivered by the American people, who came out in droves to vote. While Americans were divided along progressive-conservative lines for domestic issues, the underlying consensus shared by all was in favor of allowing the president the right to secretly conduct a drone war against perceived enemies.

This is to be expected from hawkish conservatives who disregard legal norms in favor of pragmatic security goals, but alarming when the idea of "just killing" starts gaining traction amongst progressives, who are supposed to be the guardians of peace and diplomacy. This oxymoronic liberal militancy is epitomized by President Obama, and the lack of open critique of his policy amongst the left demonstrates that progressive minds in the country have lost their moral anchor, which they need now more than ever.

There is no doubt that when it comes to some domestic issues, President Obama has delivered victories for America's liberals, like introducing universal health care. However, when it comes to the constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency, the former constitutional law professor's record is no better than his predecessor and, in some instances, is markedly worse.

The "imperial presidency" has slowly crept through American governance for decades, but it was hastened by George W Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Presidential orders and Congressional legislation was passed to give the executive branch unheard of powers, including the ability to classify information beyond the purview of the Congress and the Courts and conduct military excursions without any supervision or transparency.

While progressives fell silent under the aura of fear that spread after 9/11, they eventually rose up to challenge the degradation of civil liberties (both home and abroad). During this time, Bush became the poster-child for an unacceptable form of American military oppression. They named and shamed him for his Bush Doctrine, which became synonymous with preemptive militancy in foreign affairs, and limitations placed on basic civil liberties domestically, long thought to be non-derogable.

In part, Obama's victory in 2008 could be seen as a mandate from the American people that they no longer accepted the Bush Doctrine. And yet, over the past four years, these same liberals have failed to critique the Obama Doctrine, which is just as militaristic as Bush's.

Rather than overturn the Patriot Act, which gave the president imperial powers, Obama has expanded its scope. Domestically, Obama has expanded the suspension of fundamental civil liberties, especially the right to privacy. The newly-approved NDAA provisions now allow for US citizens to be secretively detained and monitored based solely on the suspicions of the executive branch and CIA. The ALCU report found that more people have been subject to surveillance during the last two years under Obama than during the entire previous decade combined.

All this was done inside the US in the name of security, and more brutal strategies were enacted outside the country for the same end. While Obama prohibited the infamous use of torture which discredited the Bush administration, a far more nefarious, brutal, and opaque strategy has taken its place. Rather than torture terrorist suspects and eventually bring them to trial, the president and CIA now engage in targeted killings, sending drones to bomb suspects and anyone around them. With a joystick-controlled drone operated by an intelligence officer sitting hundreds of miles away, the president can choose who and when to kill without any checks by Congress, judges, or the international community. Obama's constructed cloak of secrecy surrounding drone warfare allows his administration to make mistakes, killing the wrong people, without scrutiny or public outcry.

If there is collateral damage from these strikes, most American liberals seem to be of the opinion that a dead Pakistani is better than a dead American. This is accompanied by justifications of killing terrorists, whose actions make them animals that must be hunted rather than criminals who must be prosecuted. This was epitomized by President Obama who said in his second debate with Mitt Romney, that he would "hunt down" any individual suspected of hurting Americans.

If this occurred during the Bush years, progressives would be decrying this policy with a substantive challenge in the media and academia. But with Obama in power, most media-personalities and academics have fallen silent in response to his violations of essential American principles, or alternatively use pragmatic arguments concerning security to defend his policy, just as conservatives have done for years.

These same liberals would argue that Obama does not have a doctrine, but rather reacts to each situation independently, which is a convenient lie. In fact, American exceptionalism and militancy define Obama's security and foreign policies, and few liberals are willing to self-examine their paradoxical support of this liberal militancy.

This phenomenon inspires several questions: Have liberals bought into the idea that American lives are worth more than other human lives? Can we recognize the amorality & stagnancy that plagues the Left? And most importantly, have we stooped so close to a militant ideology as a means to battle terrorists, that we have started resembling our enemies, increasingly unconcerned with equality, justice, and diplomacy?

So perhaps it is worthwhile to remind liberals that they have historically possessed a moral anchor which allowed them to uphold their principles even in times of great tumult. First, the liberal moral anchor is based on the presumption that killing people should always be the last option; diplomacy and criminal punishment should be preferred unless their use is truly impossible.

Second, all people, including terrorists, are human beings, and even the most evil amongst our species should be given basic civil rights, not because they deserve them, but because these rights distinguish America from it enemies. In some ways, civil liberties are much like the grace of a higher power for believers; regardless of the merit of its beneficiaries, it continues to exist because it defines the giver, not the taker.

Third, defeating the spread of militancy across the world cannot be done by adopting the militaristic policies of our enemies through the secretive use of drones. Therefore, American progressives must reaffirm the value for human life and the importance of criminal prosecutions if they wish to retain moral supremacy over their enemies.

Fourth, the yolk of monarchy was lifted in the US over two hundred years ago through a bloody revolutionary war, and yet it seems that Americans have once again embraced an imperial presidency in pursuit of security. However, the value of democratic institutions like Congress or the courts should be important to progressives as a safeguard from totalitarian rule by the president, even in dangerous times like the ones we live in.

Gandhi said that "a leader is useless when he acts against the prompting of his own conscience, surrounded as he must be by people holding all kinds of views. He will drift like an anchorless ship, if he has not the inner voice to hold him firm and guide him." His words are true for American progressives, who seem to have lost their way in the tumultuous seas of the post-9/11 world, where the pursuit of "security" trumps all other objectives.

Obama's second term should be a time when the progressives reengage with their moral anchor and demand more from a president who is capable of better.

Comments (2 comments)

The fact that the Pakistani government isn't shooting down these drone proves their tacit complicity with the program. They are allowing a foreign military power to slaughter its citizens. Maybe someone should work on stopping this insanity?

Posted: Thursday, November 29, 2012 by pathman from USA

Pakistan has F-16's. Maybe they should, you know, use them.

Posted: Thursday, November 29, 2012 by pathman from Third Rock From the Sun