California, here I come
Right back where I started from [Link]
John Yoo, professor of law at my alma mater, UC Berkeley, became infamous last year for writing a memo justifying torture by the CIA.
As Abhi posted, the NYT just reported that Yoo also wrote a legal opinion claiming Dubya could break U.S. law and let the NSA, a Defense Department agency which intercepts and decrypts overseas sigint, spy domestically on U.S. citizens.
The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president… That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture. That opinion, which was signed by another Justice official, was formally disavowed after it was disclosed by the Washington Post. [Link]
<
p>On one hand we’ve got Manmohan Singh’s daughter Amrit Singh fighting CIA torture and open-ended detentions in Guantánamo Bay. On the other, we’ve got Professor Yoo on the side of virtually unlimited police powers and Ass’t Attorney General Viet Dinh co-authoring large portions of the Fascist Act.
<
p>At first glance, Yoo might seem a political soldier willing to write whatever tissue-thin legal justifications his superiors order. But what if he’s sincere in his belief that torture, locking people up without charge and domestic spying by the NSA is legitimate rather than prima facia illegal and unconstitutional?
 |
|
Mario Savio |
<
p>I get the sense that first-gen Asian Americans tend to be socially conservative and more pro-law and order (vs. civil rights and privacy) than the mainstream. It’s the whole idea put forth by GOP recruiters that many first-gen Asian-Americans, including desis, ought to be ‘natural conservatives’ because they tend to hold traditional social views, value family and own small businesses:
Grover Norquist, a Republican anti-tax campaigner with influential friends in the White House, claims that “Indian-Americans are natural Republicans and natural conservatives.” They are on the whole well-educated and well-to-do; they respect family values, and like working for themselves. [Link]
<
p>In this case, however, it doesn’t really apply. Yoo was born in Seoul, but he grew up and went to undergrad in the U.S. What’s perhaps most symbolically striking is how involved Asian-Americans are in this administration in crafting key antiterror laws which disproportionately affect minorities. We’ve truly arrived.
Even more ironic, UC Berkeley is best known for its role in the Free Speech Movement. Now one of its most highly-placed professors is working hard to undermine those very same ideals. Mario Savio, meet John Yoo.
Update: The NYT reports Yoo’s conservatism was in fact influenced by his parents’ generation, specifically their revulsion towards North Korea’s communism. It parallels the Reagan conservatism of Cuban-Americans:
By then, Mr. Yoo already thought of himself as solidly conservative. He had grown up with anticommunist parents who left their native South Korea for Philadelphia shortly after Mr. Yoo was born in 1967, and had honed his political views while an undergraduate at Harvard. [Link]
Update 2: (thanks, Siddharth):
Yoo traces his convictions in no small part to his parents, and Ronald Reagan. His father and mother are psychiatrists who grew up in Korea during the Japanese occupation and the Korean War. They emigrated in 1967, when Yoo was 3 months old… Coming of age in an anti-communist household, Yoo said, he associated strong opposition to communist rule with the Republican Party and was himself “attracted to Reagan’s message.” [Link]
Update 3: A review of Yoo’s book in the NY Review of Books.
He was merely a mid-level attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel with little supervisory authority and no power to enforce laws. Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in virtually every major legal decision involving the US response to the attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice was virtually always the same– the president can do whatever the president wants…<
p>In short, the flexibility Yoo advocates allows the administration to lock up human beings indefinitely without charges or hearings, to subject them to brutally coercive interrogation tactics, to send them to other countries with a record of doing worse, to assassinate persons it describes as the enemy without trial, and to keep the courts from interfering with all such actions. Has such flexibility actually aided the US in dealing with terrorism? In all likelihood, the policies and attitudes Yoo has advanced have made the country less secure. [Link]
Maybe he has some beef with North Koreans…just a drunken musing…ok I’m going to sleep now.
Manish, do you mean that Asian-Americans in general are more conservative or just East-Asian Americans? I consider myself to be more libertarian (sp?) than anything. But I have noticed that older Asian-Americans- Indians are more conservative, the younger ones are usually liberal. In my congressional district most of the East Asians consistently vote for David Wu, who happens to be a Chinese American and a Democrat.
Immigrants tend to be a little more conservative on law and order issues when compared to their American born/raised children.
This is just another of Dubya’s tactics. Pick a subordinate to become the scapegoat, reward him richly, leaving the Great Leader spotless and pure of heart. – When the economy was doing badly thanks to his irresponsible fiscal policy, the treasury secretary took the rap. – When the Iraq lies were exposed, George Tenet took the rap (and got some medal or some crap). – When the CIA outing was exposed, Scoter Libby took the rap. – When Abu ghraib was exposed, Donald Rumsfeld took the rap (and was in turn generously pardoned). It is always someone else’s fault.
Not asian, though my wife is, but I would hope this issue would be approached by all as Americans only. Of course I realize one’s originating culture will influence one’s views, but your originating culture isn’t going to stop you being blown up with everyone else.
A number of very real plots, including targetting of a New York bridge and the Wackovia bank building in charlotte, NC, have been foiled with these “Excessive” police powers.
Remember also we are talking about the rights not just of non-citizens, but non-military (Geneva convention does not apply). I would fully expect that an America who plots the mass murder of French citizens would be treated by French authorities as having less rights than French citizens, and if torturing that American can save French lives, I think the least we Americans can do is let the French do what is necessary.
The Japanese Americans who were mistreated in WWII were Americans, or at least residents withint the US and therefore subject to constitutional rights, and they were non-combatants (in almost all cases – there may have beena few spies, but no effort was made to determine which Japanese were). Gitmo differs from this on all counts. We have learned and progressed morally. Otherwise every Arab American would be in an internment camp.
Sorry if war is too indelicate. Blame Al Quaida.
I’m not sure if being East Asian has anything to do with Yoo’s views. The conservative establishmens has its share of Asians in it, e.g., Dinesh D’Souza and Ramesh Ponnuru. If you take a hard look, at the folks who are appointees at the Justice Department, I bet you will find a lot of East and South Asians.
While it is stirking to see an East Asian be a shill for the Administration, I believe it is more a reflection of the type of individual Yoo is, as opposed to East Asians in general. For example, the Japanese-American community in the US has a long memory of what happened to them during WWII. If they were aware that an Asian wrote the memo, I am sure they would be dumbfounded.
I doubt most Asians are aware that an Asian wrote the memo justifying the Government spying on its own citizens.
Look, you may have strongly held opinions on the topic, but quotes like:
“At first glance, Yoo might seem an unthinking political soldier willing to write whatever tissue-thin legal justifications his superiors order. But what if heÂ’s sincere in his belief that torture, locking people up without charge and domestic spying by the NSA is legitimate rather than prima facia illegal and unconstitutional? “
don’t do you any credit. Less ad hominem and more analysis, please. One thing I took away from law school was that bald assertions that something is “prima facie” are almost always just the opposite.
the entire tone of this post makes me just go “ugh”. You wanna know why conservatives & liberals have such a hard time talking to each other? It’s because of stuff that’s utterly devoid of nuance like this –
I only thinly parody –
Manish might seem an unthinking political soldier willing to write whatever tissue thin legal justification his superiors order to bring down the Bush administration. But what if he’s sincere in his belief that capitalism, individual rights at the expense of group ones, and that all white people are ultimately racist whose victims can only be solved by a messianic government?
Now I don’t really believe that “liberals” like manish or most democrats really think that way (although lately the Nancy Pelosi / Michael Moore / Cindy Sheehan wing make me think otherwise)… but do you see my point about how useless those kinds of overgeneralized arguments are?
impressive, how you divined the motives/beliefs of millions of asian’s from one persons opinion…..you should seriously consider setting up a psychic/soothsayer shop outside your alma mater….
oh boy. lots here. no time to write right now, but here‘s an east-asian-american law professor who might make you think completely differently.
more later. peace
I think the only reason that this 1) may be true (which I dont think it is) or 2) may be perceived to be the case, is because it is only conservative Asian Americans that are embraced and propped up by institutions like the government and the media. If you are a progressive person of color, you are considered to be a dime a dozen or dismissed as biting the hand that feeds you.
That being said, I think of a lot of progressive Asian American legal scholars, including Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, Neil Gotanda, a forerunner in the critical race scholarship, Robert Chang, professor of Asian American law at Loyola (LA).
I also think this is a problematic dichotomy: “pro-law and order (vs. civil rights and privacy)“
If anything, it is having greater respect for civil rights and privacy that makes one be “pro-law and order.” Bush’s secret wiretapping, for example, is a direct contravention of law and order, i.e. the Constitution and Separation of Powers doctrine.
All right, folks, Vinod-at-large can vouch for the state I was in after 2 am in a Lower East Side bar. Kids, don’t drink and post.
I’ve revised the post in the clear light of day after finding Yoo’s bio– it turns out he’s 1.5-gen and so the social conservatism argument doesn’t particularly apply. Infelicitously phrased though it was, the argument is still interesting: I’ve often heard Republican recruiters assert that 1st gen desis are fertile ground for recruiting as ‘natural conservatives.’
As for the politics, folks, this is the most un-American, anti-freedom set of laws we’ve had since Japanese internment, which is why the Senate has finally grown a pair and rejected both torture and the Fascist Act extension this week. Politicians are not known for being particularly politically or morally courageous, so for y’all to lag your own senator on this is pretty sad. I’ve posted on this many, many times (see related posts), so this should come as no surprise to anybody.
Yoo keeps turning up as the lead legal flunky. I find that noteworthy.
I’ve often heard it asserted by Republicans that all Asian Americans ‘ought to be,’ and am wondering whether others have heard the same.
and
Thank you. These are the points I tried to make, and made poorly.
Yoo was raised here (I knew he was born overseas but found out this morning he went to undergrad here), so his parents’ culture isn’t relevant, and I’ve corrected the post.
Were there direct causal links between the expanded powers and the successful operations, or were they just the result of increased vigilance after 9/11?
Jose Padilla is a citizen. The Geneva Convention may not apply, but common sense tells you you don’t hold people indefinitely without charge and claim to be a civilized nation, especially when most turn out to be innocent.
Setting a high bar, I see.
This isn’t substantive antiterror, it’s an un-American grab of police powers that affects primarily the innocent.
Fair enough, you may not like my style. I don’t like bloodless essays, I enjoy a good call to action.
You mean like Vinod’s blog: “America, f*ck yeah! And Reagan too.”? 😉
The arg is about 1st gen political tendencies in aggregate, it was poorly put in the first draft, and it doesn’t actually apply here so the post has been corrected.
Yes, you would think so, but small government conservatives seem to be totally bereft of power in D.C.
You wanna know why conservatives & liberals have such a hard time talking to each other? It’s because of stuff that’s utterly devoid of nuance like this…
Well said, as we all know the conservatives have a keen eye for spotting the subtleties in life and their love for appreciating the grey area around every problem, their willingness to live with uncertainty and relativism. Nuance indeed is a Republican invention and practice.
Some first generation immigrants sadly lack an understanding and appreciation of individual rights and privacy. As most immigrants come from violence prone 3rd world countries, they treasure security over everything else. Also as most of them are just happy to be in the US, they are way more deferential to the government than their american born/raised kids. I also get the impression that a lot of the immigrants compare things with back home and so the bar they set is so low, that almost any draconian law would be better than the corrupt enforcement of laws back home if not the law itself back home. When you constantly compare things with back home, you tend to focus on the additional rights that you do have and not what you could have.
This whole dichotomy of ‘privacy versus security’ is false to begin with because privacy and security are not mutually exclusive. This is a very good marketing slogan and a good way to frame the debate in a manner which makes the other side look irresponsible for taking a different position.
I am yet to see any evidence of contentious provisions of Patriot Act helping in the capture or incarceration of terrorists who would have otherwise got away if not for the contested provisions of the Patriot Act. All we have are multiple assertions by the Bush Administrations that multiple plots have been foiled because of the Patriot Act. I am yet to see any evidence of an actual case and how the Patriot Act helped. The evidence however suggests that the contested provisions of the Patriot Act have almost exclusively been used against people who had nothing to do with terrorism. Its also important to note that not everything in the Patriot Act is draconian. It has a lot of commonsense provisions which no one is objecting to or bitching about. There are however a few provisions which are draconian in nature and are being contested by civil libertarians. From the public evidence that we do have, its clear that the contest provisions are yet to foil any attack.
al mujahid: your utterly haughty contention below, surely cannot apply to th emajority of indians who immigrate here….maybe you meant the pakis and banglas…right?
“Some first generation immigrants sadly lack an understanding and appreciation of individual rights and privacy. As most immigrants come from violence prone 3rd world countries, they treasure security over everything else.”
I seriously doubt that Asians are natural born conservatives. Here, a radical conservative and immigration reductionistculls the data.
I have noticed that the desi public intellectuals and politicians who are conservative are Christians by birth (Dinesh D’Souza) or Christian converts (Bobby Jindal, Romesh Ponnuru).
The most prominent desi GOP fundraiser is also a Christian (Zach Zachariah).
That’s not the question at all. The question is, are first-gen Asian American immigrants, those who were dissatisfied with the home country and were educated or entrepreneurial enough to get through the immigration filter, more likely to be socially and fiscally conservative?
here
Interesting link, Eddie. I hate to quote Vdare but:
Another interesting take:
Yeah me too, but he’s got good data. Fuck their conclusions, I’ll draw my own…
I thought most often newly naturalized citizens tend to associate with the party under the administration they were naturalized. If one became a citizen in Democrat administration, you will tend to vote for Democrats most of the time at least for next few elections……..not always. Therefore, during election year, USCIS is cajoled (allocate more time) to do citizenship paperwork more compared to other type of visa, etc.
This is not my theory….I read in NYT or Economist or something like that.
5 Jeremy
11 Kumar
YESSSSS!!!! All sides have a healthy respect for law and order, it’s just the view of law and order & whether or not it should be abrogated that differs.
Personally I disagree w/ Yoo’s conclusions. Running away from our principles when under threat is the whole point…killing folks is incidental. “They” want us to feel the insecurity and fear they experience. “They” want to prove that our principles are a crock (to wit, Padilla). HOWEVER, Yoo was asked to come up with a legal argument & that’s what lawyers do – so I’m willing to cut him some slack.
At any rate… Since the Republican party (as evolved from the Dems, So. Dems/Dixiecrats) is a party predicated on racial fear & exclusion, it will need some minority faces to prove that racism is just a fantasy. Tokens come in many shades. Whether or not someone believes in their spiel is immaterial. One can wholeheartedly & rationally believe that denying an American citizen a right to a speedy trial or holding him incommunicado is A-OK & still be a token. It’s Yoo’s turn.
Now this would get interesting as the war drums beat for N. Korea & Yoo’s Berkeley degree & S. Korean-AMERICAN heritage doesn’t keep him from being detained….
When other guys get drunk, they dial up the long lost loves and snot out on how they want them back. When Manish gets drunk he blogs about American security policy and sniffles about how he wants back the country he thought he grew with. I guess he never messed up with any girls–and must really love his country! 😉
I saw the original post blinking at me from my new Google Deskbar at the ungodly hour that Manish posted it, and even on left coast time I was too tired to leave a comment, but I did think that it wasn’t quite up to the usual high standard. The revision–much better.
At first glance, Yoo might seem a political soldier willing to write whatever tissue-thin legal justifications his superiors order.
My quibble with this is–change political to legal, and it makes a lot more sense. That’s what lawyers do. They very often take on views they don’t actually agree on. It’s a perfectly valid first glance to have, and not particularly presumptive or insulting. Sometimes, however, they have their passionate ideas they do like to push, even when those ideas are even more retrogade than their superiors’. It’s a valid question to wonder which is which, especially when the lawyer isn’t just a skilled lawyer but a professor
Vinod thinks Manish is being over the top, and I did think Manish’s orignal post was a bit tone deaf, but not this. Vinod claims this comparison is only the weakest parody:
torture, locking people up without charge and domestic spying by the NSA
which are actually happening and actually being championed by many Republicans in power
with these things:
his belief that capitalism, individual rights at the expense of group ones, and that all white people are ultimately racist whose victims can only be solved by a messianic government?
despite the fact that no Democrat with national power has ever questioned capitalism, no Democrat has been quoted to champion group rights over individual rights (and what do you think the Patriot Act is all about?!), and no Democrat has called all white people racist. To then lump together Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi is exactly the conflation we would seek to avoid.
Even more ironic, UC Berkeley is best known for its role in the Free Speech Movement. Now one of its most highly-placed professors is working hard to undermine those very same ideals. Mario Savio, meet John Yoo.
Well, to be fair, I think I want to clarify that the very fact of John Yoo’s general conservative leanings are perfectly consistent with Berkeley’s tradition of free speech–remember, the hoopla of Mario Savio was originally started b/c students wanted to be able to campaign for Goldwater on campus. The Dean of the Business school was one of the last Bay Area Republican Congressmen to lose an election(maybe your old District, Manish? Cambell?), and if memory serves one of the preeminent Poli Sci Profs of my day, Sandy Muir, ran for Congress as a Republican. I recall hearing from same ancient professor/alum that when he was picking colleges in the early 60s, his father made him go to Berkeley over Chicago (!) b/c his father thought Chicago was too liberal and would corrupt him. And I have certainly had plenty of Republican and Libertarian classmates. Many of the faculty were very prominent on campus in various leadership capacities.
But almost all of them are old-school Republicans, in the John McCain/Barry Goldwater/Sandra Day O’Connor mode–fiscal conservatives, social conservatives regarding abortion and divorce laws but not so much on other matters, hawks but not interventionists or blowback-engineers, insistent on the separation of church and state and on civil liberties, guardians of private proerty rights, but often great environmentalists. Old school Republicans who remember Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. The kind whose kids I grew up with in San Ramon Valley and Pasadena, cutting my teeth on very friendly but very sharp, honest debate, but with utmost respect for each other’s cultures and rights. The real conservative/liberal debate in this country–before the Social Conservatives and the Neocons took over, before the racist elements of the Democratic party realized they were better off aligning with Big Business and Christian conservatives to take over the Republican party–was not about “values” or insane foreign policy or military-industrial contracts or fascist policing techniques. It was about the nature and terms of the American contract. It basically boiled down to rich people not wanting to pay taxes, even if they were often quite willing to give money away in charity, and to the principle of extreme optimism vs. the principle of trying to get everyone at least the barest possible fair shake. The conservatives thought that everyone could and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and the liberals thought that society would be better off and fairer if everyone had at least some basic starting point in common. They had similar interests in the fate of the country, just different views on how to get there and constant debate about the parameters.
In that sense, I think there might be something to the notion that East Asian societies are, on the whole, slightly more conservative, than, say, Latin American of European society–or even, quite possibly, South Asian society. There is a lot of value put on the importance of hardwork and inherited status, there was never a Dickensian revolution of literary worldview (as opposed to a Maoist revolution of the sword) about what society owes poor people and especially poor children,and there is are several long traditions of extremely autocratic states punctuated by severe disorder. Religious revivals/innovation can have the effect of making societies review their social order in a postive manner (say, Quakers here) and I don’t think East Asia had much such since after Buddhism arrived. Maybe I’m wrong.
BUT I do think that the variation in who comes here and how and when is way, way more influential than any slight shifts in averages by generic region. East Asia is a big place and has had a tumultuos history. Was your family escaping the shogunate? The Manchurian empire? Or was your family Samurai escaping the Meiji? Or were you just poor escaping Hirohito? Or a refugee of WWII? Or just a kid who wanted to go to school here and do great science. Or a refugee of the time of troubles. .. or WWII . . .or Mao’s revolution. . .or the cultural revolution. . .or pollution. ..or again, just a kid who wants to do science. Were you fleeing Vietnam b/c you were a broke peasant who didn’t stand a chance under the South Vietnamese aristocracy, or because you were South Vietnamese aristocracy terrified after the north won? Are you a Korean whose family has been tortured by the North, or who feels that you would have seen your family more often if it wasn’t for the meddling Americans? Every time and country and generation and age makes a new set of variable that can influence people in new ways, and then Free Will and individuality jumps in and mucks it up even more. Trying to analyze the causality of whatever stochastic sample we ended up with leads to overly strong conclusions too often.
I do think the administration makes a concerted effort to put its minority members front and center so it doesn’t look like White America building an empire. I personally would not like it if I felt that’s what I was being used for. Maybe I wouldn’t feel that if I agreed strongly enough, and maybe I don’t have politics that align me with any causes traditionally seen as ones championed by and helping the old White establishment. But other that that,I think we’re safer off assuming Yoo authored these opinions b/c he’s drunk the kool aid like everyone else, not because of some hidden skeleton in his ethnic closet.
The kool aid is a whole different brew, and how we immigrants and we children of immigrants fare with it is a much more fraught issue than the old issue of deciding your preferences about the parameters of the American Contract. The kool aid is increasingly not about liberal vs. republican (I know soooooooooo many smart, smart people who voted for Dole in 96 and even Bush in 2000 who would not dream of voting Republican now) but about how you feel the Republic should be run. Transparently? Accountably? With Restraint? With Principles? With Responsibility to the Citizens, regardless of their income or their origin? Or as a filled with secrets, as a security state, always erring away from liberty and towards suppression, with nebulously defined and unaccounted for safety held above morals, and without any consdieration for checks and balances, for the views of the minority, or for the oversight of the press or even the legislature?
I have a lot of respect for Republican ideals, even if I don’t subscribe to them. I have much less respect for the Republican party as it stands, at least in the House. I hope the last great Republican senators can rescue their party.
Uh, sorry that was so long. Obscure rant and not funny. But I guess I haven’t had as much opportunity to get my Sepia on lately.
BTW, this is a bit funnier. When is this all going to end? When we get to party abored the HMS Desired Endstate
But almost all of them are old-school Republicans, in the John McCain/Barry Goldwater/Sandra Day O’Connor mode–fiscal conservatives, social conservatives regarding abortion and divorce laws but not so much on other matters, hawks but not interventionists or blowback-engineers, insistent on the separation of church and state and on civil liberties, guardians of private proerty rights, but often great environmentalists. Old school Republicans who remember Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
saheli, we have to distinguish between substance and style. mccain certainly talks the “straight moderate talk,” but mccain is a reliable, if not extreme, conservative.
as for goldwater and o’connor, both are/were pro-choice. goldwater was once quoted as saying that he favored gays in the military. and yet in 1964 he was the new wave anti-country club republican, who said …extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! he was certainly viewed as a bomb-throwing back then, the famous daisy commercial was based on the perception of goldwater’s bellicosity.
There is a lot of value put on the importance of hardwork and inherited status, there was never a Dickensian revolution of literary worldview (as opposed to a Maoist revolution of the sword) about what society owes poor people and especially poor children,and there is are several long traditions of extremely autocratic states punctuated by severe disorder. Religious revivals/innovation can have the effect of making societies review their social order in a postive manner (say, Quakers here) and I don’t think East Asia had much such since after Buddhism arrived. Maybe I’m wrong.
this is complex. if we focus on china, korea and japan, one must distinguish the last from the first two. while china and korea were confucian societies, japan was influenced by confucianism, but was characterized by very particular cultural forms and values. in fact, china has (over the long term) been the most meritocratic of the great societies. the literary exams were theoretically open to all, and instituted from the han dynasty onward. there was an old chinese saying, ‘3 generations up, 3 down,’ to illustrate the rise and fall of status of patrilineages. though familial wealth and status were very important, the ideal of the meritocratic literary scholar mandarin institutionalized the rise through the bureacracy of hard-working individuals. additionally, contrary to the perception of china as a legalistic autocracy, the confucian philosophy was in many ways very humanistic. for example, one could not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a father who was a fugitive from the law because it was understand that filial piety was the highest value, above and beyond loyalty to the state. many of the ‘hundred school’ philosophers actually mocked the confucianists for their relative meekness and aversion to war, and emphasis on virtue, righteousness and good conduct. the ‘mandate of heaven’ was explicitly confered upon righteous rulers who brought peace and security to the people (note that traditionally chinese viewed soldiers as low status, and elevated the farmer and bureaucrat above the merchant). in contrast japan as crystalized during the tokugawa period was a hierarchical society where caste status was inherited and loyalty to your lord in a neo-feudal system was paramount. unlike the confucians the japanese obeyed superiors even in contravention of familial interests.
as for republicans today, as acton sort of said, power corrupts, absolutely….
Obscure rant and not funny
the better to respond to my dear….
Sahelis,
I think you meant in the broadest sense, the Rockefeller Republicans or South Park Republican in your discussion, I think then I maybe off.
If resistance to big government intrusion is now “liberal,” “conservatives” are without rudder.
Takes one to know one 😉
There’s still time, Shabana…
Yup, but not the laws he’s actually working on.
Aggregate first-gen Asian American political tendencies is more an interesting sidebar here than causal proof of an individual’s views.
But almost all of them are old-school Republicans, in the John McCain/Barry Goldwater/Sandra Day O’Connor mode–fiscal conservatives, social conservatives regarding abortion and divorce laws but not so much on other matters, hawks but not interventionists or blowback-engineers, insistent on the separation of church and state and on civil liberties
Barry Goldwater, Sandra O Connor and John McCain were not in unison on social issues. Goldwater was against Civil Rights, voted against the Seminal Act on Civil Rights i.e. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and famously said ” Republicans should go hunting where the ducks are” (on why he didnt support the civil rights act and targeting the white vote) McCain and Connon have a much better record on Civil Rights. Also O Connor/Goldwater were pro choice while McCain is pro-life.
I guess I didn’t realize that a post (humorously) praising the US for winning the cold war was considered nuance-free a partisan jab. I guess you learn something (about liberals) all the time…
That’s because it doesn’t cross your consciousness that Reagan was not universally considered a competent or ethical president.
yep.. I probably give too much weight to ending the risk of global nuclear holocaust 😉
Apparently it doesn’t cross the consciousness of some that Reagan wasn’t universally condemned as the anti-christ either…..oh, wait. He was.
I lived the 80s in a college town. Let’s see. We were going to have global freezing and a new ice age. The Japanese were going to kick our butts economically in the nineties. The Soviets would never fall and we would just have to learn to live with them and within our means. I bet if you go back and take a bunch of random NYT op-eds and compare them to 1970s era Reagan predictions about the Soviets, you’d find he was more correct than they were about subsequent events.
What’s going on in this thread? Is there some, uh, non-virtual tension manifesting itself in virtual-space? 🙂
And the whole president spying on US citizens: apparently the particulars are not so hyperbolic and nothing compared to the internment of the Japanese, that great stain on American history! This area is murky and those who would like to discuss this rationally know it. I’m not sure I like it, but for heaven’s sake, it’s nothing like the US government randomly reading e-mails between abhi and the local ACLU chieftan while they both sit tight in the US, or whatever. Come on, now. It’s a complicated and difficult area, particularly in the era of modern communications. Approving emergency monitoring of incoming phone calls by Al Qaeda members is not the same as the example I provided above. Now, maybe that is not all that is happening and I don’t blame people for not believing the government and being skeptical. Maybe it *is something more egregious, and now that this classified information has been leaked, I think people should be cautious. And, by cautious, I mean for once can we try and understand something instead of doing the usual blog-dance which includes getting infuriated about things and then, later, maybe providing a fact or two?
Is it legal to monitor phone calls between suspects (if one or the other is a US citizen) outside the United States without a warrant? What if one person is in the US and one outside it? Does it matter where the call is initiated? **Does the government do searches or monitoring in some instances without a warrant, and what are those cases? Aren’t there some instances when a warrant is not needed? What about Presidential authority in relation to needing a warrant? **Dear lawyers who sometimes read these comments: isn’t there one out there who could look at this calmly and rationally and explain the particulars for us lay people? Because the usual blogging hot air is getting in the way of really understanding what is happening and why this is such a legally contentious area?
Oh, and the reason I mentioned the internment of the Japanese is because someone else mentioned it on this thread (I think) but to confirm who it was I’d have to go back and re-read the thread and I’d rather not……
MD, I missed my chance to write 55 words pretending to be you on Anna’s “Why can’t I be you” edition last Friday. I regret it now 🙂 I’m sure you feel the same.
weird thread. i guess that’s what happens when the original post is made at a time and place where the blogger should have been getting his relax on, preferably in the company of some charming young ladies (or whatever genders/ages manish fancies).
re: the original question, which i think can be reduced to “what does john yoo mean to you, semiotically or politically?” — i certainly agree there is no point trying to deduce overall political proclivities by ethnic group, especially with the u.s. as mixed up as it is by this point. for every asian right-winger (john yoo, viet dinh [principal author of the so-called “patriot” act], dinesh d’souza) there are left-wingers of those same and other asian ethnicities. so what? so nothing, really.
having said that, i have been quite intrigued whenever i’ve seen yoo on tv, which is quite often (he seems to be a pbs newshour regular), i guess what’s intrigued me is the purity of the party line as he speaks it — which makes sense, since he is no mere mouthpiece but actually one of the concocters of the whole unpleasant brew. and the fact that he’s asian is noteworthy to me, but only — i think — insofar as it is yet another, or just another, manifestation of the republican party’s propensity for putting forward people of color that it finds who can do the concocting, or at least the speaking.
but that’s nothing new. been going on a long time. nor is it surprising.
arguments about the inherent conservatism or otherwise of different groups — ehh. too much mixing by this time. and the whole confucian argument, for instance, is extremely tired: it’s been used to explain everything and its opposite in the political study of east asia. of course culture matters, but culture can’t be reduced to some unchanging platonic ideal to deploy in argument whenever convenient.
there’s certainly a racial/ethnic analysis to make about the role of right-wing people of color in the propounding and disseminating of republican party ideology, but that analysis can only be made in the overall context of a society still mainly shaped by the black/white dichotomy, altered by the insertion of latino identities, and only secondarily by that of our south- and east-asian peeps.
in other words: to talk about south- and east-asian people in america, you gotta talk about black and white people too.
on another point: MD, it’s not about WHAT exactly the government is doing surveillance-wise. your questions about the details of what is legal or not miss the point. it’s about the concealment. if the government had announced up front, hey, we’re going to use the NSA to do this and that, congress and public opinion could have talked about it and either challenged it or not.
but the concealment adds to a general pattern of obfuscation and deceit on the part of this administration, and THAT’s what’s likely to bring it down (in the 2006 midterms and 2008 pres) much more than specific arguments about iraq, the economy, etc.
moreover, these revelations are nastily reminiscent of COINTELPRO and other domestic security covert operations of the j. edgar hoover era. it might not be the same thing, but that’s what it smells like. and the use of the NSA (as opposed to the FBI) to do this stuff is highly disagreeable, because it means there is far, far less accountability.
those are the real issues. lawyers and politicians can debate what kind of surveillance is legal, and chances are they will find it is a level less than what the government is doing, but more than what its critics advance. but what that complex entity known as “the american people” historically reacts to has to do with overall honesty, and the perception thereof.
peace
Here’s my rough understanding:
Traditionally, under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), the president must obtain a warrant from a special court (the “FISA” court) to obtain a domestic wiretap.
The President (and John Yoo) have concluded that he no longer needs to seek such a warrant. They argue that when Congress gave the president authority to wage war against al Qaeda, it implicitly gave him broad authority to conduct some “domestic spying” related to the war on terror, without seeking a warrant.
Critics of the president say that such an interpretation violates the Constitution as well as FISA. They argue that the president’s authority to wage the “war on terror” does not allow him to ignore federal law at his own discretion, and to do so secretly and without any judicial oversight.
Clarification: The president himself probably wouldn’t seek a warrant, under FISA. The relevant agency would. In this case, the pres. is arguing that he has authority to direct NSA to conduct wiretaps without a warrant.
hmm interesting !!!
If writing a whole book on how the Founders thought a wartime president should have king-like powers is an indication, “he’s sincere in his belief.”
But if you’re willing to note Yoo’s South Korean background, keep in mind that South Koreans were overwhelmingly in favor of torturing terror suspects. As the first commentor to this post said, maybe it’s living by N. Korea that makes them a bit nervous.
Here’s what Monday’s NYT has to say:
Right, it wasn’t the flawed Soviet economic model or Soviet leadership, it was all Reagan. This is the same correlation vs. causality fallacy people fall into when they credit the British for all economic development in India over 300 years. It’s the opposite of the argument conservatives make when Clinton is credited with the robust economy during his watch. It even contradicts core conservative principles about the flawed economics and inevitable decline of socialist systems.
Then there’s Iran-contra, El Salvador death squads, lying at hearings (‘I don’t know, I can’t remember’), senility, naps during meetings… Oh, and that B-movie slickster tear-gassed my campus. Nice one.
In their total disregard for the Constitutional system, they’re reminiscent of Iran-contra. There’s your Reagan analogy.
Siddharth, both you and Saheli have focused on the homeland, and you’ve also focused on nth gen. But first-gen immigrants, the subject of this post, are a much more homogeneous group because of the stringent immigration filter. If Yoo were 1st gen, it would be interesting background material to either consider or reject as you get more data, though obviously not causal proof of anything.
Manish, I think you and I are now in basic agreement that this is mostly an interesting sidebar. As for 1 vs. nth or 0th generation immigrants–there are strong filters, but even then there are very disparate circumstances, even in our lifetime. The most cohesive, coherent group was the post-1965 sputnik recruits—our parents, basically–and while that’s a remarkable demographic shift, it’s not the only one, and even with that there’s plenty of room for variety. That’ what all this was about:
Was your family escaping the shogunate? The Manchurian empire? Or was your family Samurai escaping the Meiji? Or were you just poor escaping Hirohito? Or a refugee of WWII? Or just a kid who wanted to go to school here and do great science. Or a refugee of the time of troubles. .. or WWII . . .or Mao’s revolution. . .or the cultural revolution. . .or pollution. ..or again, just a kid who wants to do science. Were you fleeing Vietnam b/c you were a broke peasant who didn’t stand a chance under the South Vietnamese aristocracy, or because you were South Vietnamese aristocracy terrified after the north won? Are you a Korean whose family has been tortured by the North, or who feels that you would have seen your family more often if it wasn’t for the meddling Americans?
But yes, interesting background material.
Razib—yeah, I actually deleted a graf about the Chinese meritocracy. That goes with the hardworking bit more and the family-status bit less. Speaking in very broad terms, you can only make very shallow statements. Hence my shrug over the basic premise anyway.
Razib, AMD and Kush: I was, obviously, making a very wide swathe of these Rockefeller/Goldwaterian Republicans, and generalizing. They’re definitely conservative. There’s a lot of variety within their ranks. And some of they may have even morphed into modern Republicans over the years. (See Bush Sr. from the 1980 primary to the 1980 election, even.) In aggregate though, there has been a shift over what the party stands for, and a corresponding shift in what people object to. I used to object to the Republican party’s platform as such. I now object to it’s method and modes of implementation much more strongly. And many former Republicans have joined me in that.
MD: the best, most levelheaded commentary I’ve found about this is on TalkingPointsMemo and Intel-Dump, but it will take a while for it to all come out of the wash.
there’s certainly a racial/ethnic analysis to make about the role of right-wing people of color in the propounding and disseminating of republican party ideology, but that analysis can only be made in the overall context of a society still mainly shaped by the black/white dichotomy, altered by the insertion of latino identities, and only secondarily by that of our south- and east-asian peeps.
This is all eminently true, but still, Brown and Asian voting proclivities do make for an interesting discussion, especially on a Brown blog 🙂
I am intrigued by the seemingly overwhelming support for the Democratic party among Browns. At first blush, your typical Brown would probably not assent to readily available abortion, to gay rights, to affirmative action, and to several other “liberal” ideological postions on social issues. Nor would she assent to more taxation (given that, on average, she is in a higher tax bracket than whites and other Asians).
So what gives? My feeling is that the Republican ascendancy is inextricably linked with the Christian revival in the United States, and most of us are not Christians.
There is also some feeling of solidarity with other minorities, and at the current moment, the Democrats are thought to represent the interests of minorities.
Some also associate Bush’s “civilizing” foray into Iraq as colonialism rehashed.
In the long term, the Republican support for neoliberalism may actually benefit India more (remember Bangalore cheered when Bush was reelected!). Bush has also done much to deepen the Indo-US relationship, though his gestures have fallen on depply skeptical ears in Delhi.
Professor Yoo has this op-ed in the LA Times, in which he argues:
The NYT reports YooÂ’s conservatism was in fact influenced by his parentsÂ’ generation, specifically their revulsion towards North KoreaÂ’s communism. It parallels the Reagan conservatism of Cuban-Americans: