Rand Paul’s Filibuster Divides the Left and Right
By Anthony Gregory • Thursday March 7, 2013 11:31 AM PDT • 36 Comments
Senator Rand Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster of Obama’s appointee for CIA chief, John Brennan, was the ninth longest filibuster in U.S. history, and unlike most such spectacles in U.S. history, it concerned fundamental, core issues of American liberty. It will go down in the history books as one of the very few great moments in the struggle of freedom vs. power manifesting itself on Capitol Hill.
Brennan was a major architect of Bush’s monstrous extraordinary renditioning program, and is a poster boy for drone warfare and unlimited presidential power. His appointment served as the perfect moment for Paul to unload on the imperial presidency.
Just this week, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter to Rand Paul in which he answered in the affirmative Paul’s question as to whether the president, on his say-so alone, can use drones to execute an American citizen on U.S. soil. Holder’s admission that this is the president’s understanding of U.S. policy should frighten us all, not because there is anything more immoral about murdering American citizens than murdering anyone else, but because it demonstrates a cultural devolution whereby one last barrier to infinite executive power has been knocked down.
The technological aspect of drone killing carries special relevance today, as drones appear to be cropping up in every direction—in domestic law enforcement, foreign wars, and everywhere in between. The government has surveillance drones the size of golf balls. We are heading toward a horrifying future. Quickly. Before long, we could easily imagine drones used to fight the war on drugs, to help enforce gun control, to spy on what we read, and maybe even execute domestic criminals, first in the name of national security, and later in the name of public law and order.
These core questions should be on the front page every week, if not every day: (1) the presidential power to act as judge jury, and executioner, (2) the militarization and technological expansion of the police-surveillance state, (3) the role of U.S. foreign policy in promoting terrorism against America and totalitarianism at home. Paul focused on (1) but touched on the others as well.
Paul’s filibuster cited the political theory of Lysander Spooner and had plenty of quotable zingers aimed at the president. He asked where Senator Obama from 2007—back when Obama gave stirring speeches on behalf of the rule of law—had gone. But more important than what he said was that he did it. Now these issues have been propelled to the forefront of American policy discussions where they belong.
Most interesting to me has been the reaction. This might finally be the issue and the incident that causes major splits on both the left and right and forces Americans to recognize that the true divide in this country should be over power vs. liberty, not Team Red vs. Team Blue.
Conservatives are finally waking up to the police state arising in America, and not a moment too soon. Radio show host Mark Levin was going on and on about domestic drones just this week, whereas a couple weeks ago he energetically defended Obama’s assassination of American citizens abroad. Glenn Beck has been against the kill list since 2009 and continues to cover the issue intently. Charles Krauthammer, who under Bush argued for strict reductions of civil liberties protections, made waves last May when he said “that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country.” And for a year or so now, I’ve seen increasing realization on the right that these developments represent at least as dangerous an encroachment into civil society as anything Obama has pushed in the realm of economic policy.
Meanwhile, Republican Senators McCain and Graham, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, firmly defend the president’s most awesome power grab in all his years in office. This is one thing they have on the anti-drone conservatives: consistency. As many of us warned eleven years ago, you cannot have war abroad and liberty at home. War is the health of the state. Obama’s domestic drones are simply the logical, almost inevitable consequence of the type of empire-building that almost all conservatives defended a decade ago. But a bad consistency is worse than a half-good inconsistency, and I can only hope more conservatives adopt Rand Paul’s position and indeed go beyond it to a more principled critique of state power.
Fifteen Senators eventually engaged in the filibuster, all but one or two a Republican. The Democrats shamelessly stood by their emperor rather than take a stand for civil liberties. John Cusack, perhaps speaking for many liberals, asked in desperation where the Democrats were on this historic day. They were there, siding with their president’s unbound authority to commit murder.
Meanwhile, the progressive blogosphere went nuts yesterday, as lefties had to take sides. Were they going to join Code Pink, the ACLU, Glenn Greenwald, and others on the left who praised Rand Paul for his stand? Or were they going to side with their president out of loyalty to their electoral politics and culture war commitments? By my unscientific estimate, half of the vocal bloggers and commentators sided with the president, attacking the Republican filibuster as partisan grandstanding or even a waste of tax dollars, obstructionism that should be replaced with unshakable fidelity to King Obama. They forget that under Bush, it was Republicans leading the charge to discredit and destroy the filibuster, and progressives and Democrats opposing this.
According to one poll, 41% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) favor the president’s power to kill Americans on U.S. soil on his unilateral prerogative. I’m unsure of the exact breakdown, but it becomes clear that important issues like this transcend traditional party or even ideological lines. A lot of conservatives believe in literally dictatorial powers for the president, even one they hate, and about half the progressives seem to go along with this. Meanwhile, there are people on both sides alarmed by what can only be described as the most significant and frightening presidential power grab in a lifetime.
For liberty to prevail, the left-right spectrum and the two-party grip the establishment has on the American people, dividing them against one another in furtherance of its own power at home and abroad, must be rejected. The McCain-Obama consensus on everything from presidential assassination programs to massive corporate welfare for Wall Street and the centralization of nearly everything in Washington, DC, has to be challenged, and it can only be effectively combated if people ditch party loyalty and embrace core principles. I don’t ever expect anything good to happen in the Senate, but about a dozen times or so in U.S. history, something truly good has happened there. Yesterday marked one such occasion, and not so much for what it means for the Brennan nomination, but rather what it exposes about American political discourse. The Obama war machine and its establishment liberal media, the old guard Republican warmongers and the neocon editorial writers all deserve each other. The truly freedom-oriented folks on the left and on the right should spend more time talking with one another rather than being divided against one another by fascist leaders on both sides. Perhaps with the drone issue, we are one step closer to a more sane political discourse, one that puts power and liberty in their rightful places, at opposite ends.
UPDATE: The White House has apparently reversed itself, and now says the president has no authority to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. So perhaps Paul’s stunt actually worked in changing or at least clarifying official U.S. policy. Yet the point still remains that these fundamental issues divide Americans on both sides of the aisle, as it seems that 41% of Democrats now take a position that allows for wider presidential authority than even the president claims.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Criminal Justice, Defense, Military, Police, Presidential Power, The State, War 
Excellent Article. Best I have read today which explains the great divide –and it’s not party!
Gigi Bowman | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
Regarding your update: Holder’s letter of today only begs the question, what does “not engaged in combat” mean? As we learned from the awful white paper quoted from again and again during the filibuster, our overseas drone policy now defines imminent as meaning maybe, sometime in the future, possibly or any variation on that theme. Do they define a guy in Houston asleep in his house but planning a terrorist attack in his waking hours to be “engaged in combat,” and therefore target him in his bed? I hate to sound conspiratorial, but these imperialists have shown no willingness to respect any sort of boundaries before, and I don’t see why they would start to now.
Elizabeth Higgs | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
Great point, Elizabeth. Would Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi have been fair game had he stayed in Denver?
Anthony Gregory | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
Well said, Elizabeth. The President still believes he has the power and authority to murder U.S. citizens almost at will. Obviously anyone who feels otherwise is at war with the country. But Senator Paul has made an excellent stand, and I admire his courage and conviction.
Milo Fabian | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
The most reasonable and life-affirming editorial I’ve read in a long time. Thank you for writing this.
Curtis Clark | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
As war is the health of the state and every major war since the Spanish American War has begun with an “incident.” That the continuing “War on Terror” has had many “false flag” events. Could it be possible that the Powers That Be could set up a “false flag incident” to goad the American population into giving up more of their rights in exchange for security? With that said,between Rand Paul”s filibuster and the push back against 2nd Amendment incursions maybe the tide is turning against the fascists and statists. We shall have to wait and see.
libertarian jerry | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
Oh my, those evil drones.
What’s bothering me is that the discussion, including the Rand Paul filibuster, is all about killing Americans with drones on U.S. soil without due process as if killing Americans on U.S. soil without due process using daggers, guns or poison may be acceptable.
Perhaps the drone thing is all about nostalgia for the good old days when secret agents wearing Ray-Bans and a London Fog trench coat would terminate enemies of the state using a snub-nose .38 with a silencer, or maybe a hypodermic needle to the neck, or simply running someone down with a big black Buick.
I find the parsed drone language regarding the unaccountable assassinations of citizens based on unarticulated suspicions to be discomforting.
If I am to be assassinated by the state for my various thought crimes, I really don’t care if I am shot down by a clandestine government agent or if I am killed by some progressive hipster a thousand miles away playing with his cool drone toy.
So, whats the big deal about drones? The real issue is assassinations of citizens – even if there is some secret meeting that a government lawyer defines as being due process.
Tom Blanton | Mar 7, 2013 | Reply
Tom, The real issue is using hellfire missles to assassinate people from a remote location. I oppose the use of drones against all people. It is evil and immoral. It should be fought by all means necessary. If somebody uses a gun at least the death is confined to one person and the assailant has to travel and plan it appropriately. This makes it very dangerous for the assailant and difficult. He could get caught. If an assailant can control a drone from thousands of miles away and just bomb and kill at will it makes it a bit too easy. It becomes easier to use and there is no chance of getting caught or killed yourself. So who cares if you get the right person or not or kill a ton of innocent bystanders. It doesn’t matter. You can kill 16 year old boys and blame him for having bad parents.
goldhoarder | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
There are several disturbing facts about the President’s new powers. The unauthorized authority to act as judge, jury, & executioner plus the operation of “secret council” whereby citizens are supposedly tried & convicted in absetntia. What we have is a secret police organization. What is known as a Gestapo. Make no mistake, the US government now has a Gestapo and is using it against it’s citizens with impunity. Perhaps we should start referring to ourselves as citizens of the Nazi States of America.
disaster | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
I too noticed that the carefully parsed language used by the administration excluded disavowing secret domestic assassinations by means other than Predator drone, which ought to have been an easy call for those with a clean conscience.
That this was so carefully crafted makes it likely, just as we have had subsequently revealed when other euphemisms have been similarly substituted to obscure intent, that secret abuses have already occurred or are indeed planned.
Fran Macadam | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
I agree with all of the above statements.
Also, some brought out other important points about which I have been concerned. I was not so easily consoled by the terse response from Eric Holder of “agreement”.
The crux of the drones issue goes directly to the 5th Amendment and Tom Blanton and goldhoarder made poignant remarks that certainly give additional cause for the 5th and that drones are a dangerous new technology to be feared. Like tasers, they are used indiscriminately in their own particular ways of death and destruction, let alone the rights that they both violate!
“Collateral damage” is an awful phrase that is tossed around like a rag doll and has quickly becoming too familiar to which the public now has no sensitivity to the death in great numbers that it means to innocent people –most are women and children!
MAC | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
Additionally, the article’s title “Rand Paul’s Filibuster Divides the Left and Right” is a bit of misnomer. The Left and Right is already divided and has been since the Constitution was written! The title would be more appropriate to read “Rand Paul’s Filibuster Divides the Left and Right in the GOP”. Rand Paul and those on the right of the GOP Establishment won the day with the GOP Est. by Senator Paul’s filibuster! Hopefully, the right in the GOP will continue to win the day and move the GOP Est. completely out the door! :)
MAC | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
“... 41% of democrats now take a position that allows for wider presidential authority than even the president claims.”
^ The self-centeredness of people really gets under my skin. I’m willing to bet big money that if a Republican were in office then the 41% number would be much smaller.
Remember the “Not MY President” shirts everyone had for Bush (myself included)? Why is that now since a Democrat is in control that we are supposed to be respectful to our President “because he’s like our dad, and you just do what your dad says”?
Your team being in control is no reason to quit advocating civil liberties. Obama is committing WORSE violations to civil liberties than Bush, yet the same people who denounced Bush for his acts are defending Obama for the same acts!
Wouldn’t it make more sense to advocate civil liberties regardless of whi’s in charge? I mean, one day- your team is not going to be calling the shots. What then?
Derek | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
goldhoarder, I agree with you on the big picture regarding droning.
But, in the context of the Rand Paul filibuster, his issue is killing Americans on U.S. soil without due process using drones. He apparently thinks using drones to kill anyone in any place besides America merely based on suspicion of evil-doing is fine and dandy. He has said as much.
That’s one of my big problems with Rand Paul. I also find it disturbing that he frames the debate using qualifiers such as “due process” and “drones” regarding the assassination of Americans in America. As if there were due process, it would be OK, or if there is no due process, it would be OK to assassinate them using some method other than drones.
Perhaps what I find most disturbing is that many libertarians are having some sort of orgasmic Mr. Smith Goes To Washington experience as they pretend Rand Paul is speaking truth to power.
If he was doing that, he would have brought up this issue long ago. The drone assassination issue is hardly new. Dr. Paul Junior is more than a dollar short, he’s quite a few days late, and when Holder gives him some smart ass answer, using Randy’s own qualifiers, Randy acts as if he has won some grand political battle.
Boiled down, the issue isn’t about drones so much as it is about the willingness of our dear leaders to murder and plunder using any number of tools to do so. Does it really matter whether the bomb that destroys your home and kills your family was dropped by a drone or by a fighter jet?
Sure, drones may make it easier to kill, but not so much for the people who order the deaths. Is a traditional shock and awe bombing campaign more acceptable because the pilots have more trouble sleeping at night? Is murdering people all over the world more acceptable because the combatants can’t be killed in their remote locations?
Tom Blanton | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
This was the most non-partisan attempt to wake up America and I for one am shocked at how few Senators get it. They took an oath of office to defend the constitution, not the man in the WH. Many junior congressman showed their support by watching in the gallery.
When he ended the filibuster, I was surprised to hear that applause and dissent are not allowed in the chamber. How can anything possibly get done if you have to be polite to traitors and crooks who hold the reigns.
Much needs to be changed in DC and this put a spotlight on one small fight for we the people. I hope it encourages more.
Mieke | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
It is not just about drones. Americans are starting to wake up on other issues as well. Most encouraging is the fact that people are starting to listen to the 9/11 Truth movement. We have had close to a decade of solid scientific evidence that the official US Government version of 9/11 is false. Until recently Americans were in denial, but not so much anymore.
Chris Condon | Mar 9, 2013 | Reply
Very nice.
However, whta’s this:
“The government has surveillance drones the size of golf balls.”
“Citation needed”, as they say. Even today, computers, mechatronics and power plants are still some time away from putting useful devices of that size out there. It will come, but not yet. I haven’t heard of anything useful along those lines.
Now, when the Joshua Holland from the leftist alternet complains that Mr Paul didn’t address the real problem, which is that the drone “war” abroad exists at all. Of course it is actually cheap-and-nasty terrorism from the skies in countries we are not at war with and that can be passed off as “background noise” to hoi polloi and to the political entrepreneuriat of the “representatives”. However, belaboring THAT point would probably have been too controversial with the party members and might even be going against Paul’s convictions themselves.
Hear Hear! | Mar 10, 2013 | Reply
Let us just say drone Killing an American is like a poll tax on voting; watch the Libs fly out of the wood work.
abe gold | Mar 10, 2013 | Reply
Tom said: ” the issue isn’t about drones so much as it is about the willingness of our dear leaders to murder and plunder using any number of tools to do so”
I fully agree with you. The issue is truly more a murder and willingness to murder than tools used or citizenship of murder victim.
I am worried that whole thing would be stopped only in case of targeting also Israeli terrorists (there must be some as in any other nation). I remember some US Jewish editor in chief of “The Atlanta Jewish Times” Andrew Adler calling in his editorial for killing of president Obama. That qualifies as terrorism in my opinion and he should have been droned out.
On the other hand Paul’s filibuster was important even if the details of it were wrong. The apathy of US citizenry is enormous and anything what could wake at least few from lethargy is fantastic. Just look at the news today: NATO armies in Afghanistan killed well known Afghani movie star. I did not hear a beep from Hollywwod stars on this killing. How they would feel if let us say Iran killed one of them having lunch in his/her favorite restaurant.
CanuckBC | Mar 10, 2013 | Reply
Rand Paul voted for Brennan’s confirmation.
Rand’s filibuster is nothing but political theater, designed to begin his presidential run in 2016. It is exactly analogous to Obama’s anti-war speech at the 2004 DNC. Obama didn’t mean it then, and Rand doesn’t mean it now. Rand is not his father; he’s a political insider, a Neo Con plant. Politics is a power game, Rand is a player, and those that believe him are getting played.
If you stand with Rand, he does NOT stand with you.
Warrington Carter | Mar 10, 2013 | Reply
“Rand Paul voted for Brennan’s confirmation.”
No he didn’t.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00032
Anthony Gregory | Mar 11, 2013 | Reply
True, Rand Paul did not vote for Brennan and there were only 2 Democrats that voted against Brennan.
Randal is not my cup of tea party tea, he’s certainly not even a softcore Gary Johnson type of libertarian, but he’s no neocon plant. He’s merely an approval-seeking politician, a political hack, and a political opportunist that is fairly successful. He did get elected to Senate.
The sadist thing is that, despite his shameless endorsement of Mitt Romney, Randal is among the better Senators in recent history. Not that the bar is extremely high.
I favor a 50-state secession, so all of the imperial senators are as much use to me a butcher is to a vegetarian.
Tom Blanton | Mar 11, 2013 | Reply
“What’s bothering me is that the discussion, including the Rand Paul filibuster, is all about killing Americans with drones on U.S. soil without due process as if killing Americans on U.S. soil without due process using daggers, guns or poison may be acceptable.”
Let’s just be pragmatic for a moment: the argument is about assassinating citizens with drones because the news has been about assassinating citizens with drones. If the feds are also assassinating citizens with daggers, guns, or poison, it hasn’t been well-publicized. (Frankly, the feds’ choice of weapon actually seems to be fire, and the old-guard press seems to yawn at it whenever it happens again.)
Henry Bowman | Mar 12, 2013 | Reply
Glenn Beck is saying that the filibuster is the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. We can only hope. These hypocrites have been either openly or covertly expanding government power for 150 years, beginning with their first (and our worst) President.
Messianic Theonomist | Mar 12, 2013 | Reply
Tom Blanton seems more interested in not allowing any credit to Senator Rand Paul than stopping out-of-control Presidential action.
James Harry Schaeffer | Mar 13, 2013 | Reply