©2005 UrbisMedia
What is it with Americans? A few years ago they let their Congress file articles of impeachment on a president who engaged in private , consensual, adulterous sex and then lied about it. The “high crime” that prompted the impeachment would put hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of men in the dock every day. Perhaps that is why the impeachment failed; my “statistic” probably included a few congressmen as well.
But this is not to revisit the stupidity that would have added a clause to the Constitution that “no blue dress shall be stained with semen,” but to address the issue of the italicized word above— privacy.
One would think, with even a cursory appreciation of the principles of the main contending political ideologies of our dear country, that it would be the “conservatives” who see themselves as the defenders of personal privacy. Never mind for a moment that, in case you haven’t noticed, conservatives also used to be the champions of “small government” “frugal government,” not meddling in the affairs of other nations, and a few other characteristics that that seem to buried under the rubble of Iraq and tax breaks for the rich and corporate donors. But the individual, the family , and home and respect for their privacy have putatively been institutions that the right side of the political spectrum always respected and revered.
Well, things change, especially when political expedience trumps principle. Perhaps the most egregious single example of the Republican tendency to set aside their principles for political gain was their insinuation into the Terry Shiavo affair. To assuage their meddlesome Religious Right constituents the Bush brothers, Tom DeLay and the doctor who makes diagnoses by television, Senate Majority Leader Frist, among other political prostitutes, dragged poor Mrs. Shiavo out into the merciless glare of the national media. That was only an extension of the Bush administration’s crusade to overturn the “right to die” legislation adopted by some states. What privacy does one have if not to have Big Brother Federal government (this actually sounds like language one would expect conservatives using) sticking its officious nose into the most significant and personal decisions one can have. Does the Bush administration want to arrogate to itself, and itself alone, all termination of life. Indeed, we must admit they are good at it.
Then there is the privacy of women, and the right to control their own bodies without the interference of their government. Here again, the conservatives have turned into raging hypocrites. They would deny women the right to terminate pregnancies, for whatever reason, by hanging out at women’s clinics and hurling epithets and threats; they would require that young women obtain permission from their parents, even if they have been raped.
These snoopy, insinuating and meddlesome “conservatives” turn into carping legalists when pressed. Their most recent nominee to the Supreme Court is on record in insisting that there is not even an implicit constitutional protection for personal privacy. Big Brother or Big Reverend can pretty much get into your underwear if they want to with that sort of interpretation.
But turnabout is not fair play with the Bush administration. It is very aggressive in asserting its own privacy, or should we call it secrecy. This is an administration that has resisted nearly every attempt by others to gain access to information about its activities and policies. Try to get something out of them about Dick Cheney’s holding in Halliburton; try to get the full documents on Chicken George’s so-called military service; try to find out who in the White House rolled over on Valerie Plame, and all sorts of “privacy” “secrecy” “classified” barriers are raised. Secret prisons, renditions, torture, are all justified as “homeland security” or concerns of “national defense.” There is also the so-called “Patriot Act,” designed to look into even your lending library records.
And now, the Orwellian tendencies of Mr. Bush have come to full flower with his un-authorized permission for the National Security Agency to become the national Ministry of Snoop, literally illegally spying on Americans and on United Nations representatives. Was this going on when Mr. Bush stated in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004, that “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order”? Is this worse than “I did not have sex with that woman?” Do you want a leader of your country with a bit too much libido, or one with way too little integrity?
Still don’t think that maybe Mr. Bush should be served with some articles of impeachment? Well, how would you like those NSA guys showing you some embarrassingly explicit 8 x 10 glossies, copies of incriminating emails and tapes of smoochy phone conversations documenting some private affairs that you would like to have remained ah “top secret”? It’s enough to make you dump some stuff from your email program, change you cell phone number, and start wearing a fake beard. And, oh, don’t forget to get any blue dresses drycleaned.
___________________________________
©2005, James A. Clapp (UrbisMedia Ltd. Pub. 12.29.2005)