By ADMIN
A Question for John Yoo, and American Prospect Censorship?
The recent appearance of Bush DOJ attorney John Yoo on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” sparked some rather lively and interesting discussion, including on the American Prospect’s “group blog, “Tapped.” Some of that discussion, along with Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s success, and how it contrasts with much of the popular media today, was briefly reviewed here.
But one comment that readers of the American Prospect’s blog post on John Yoo won’t see, is the following, reproduced below in full, and completely unedited, form. Why American Prospect readers won’t see it on the AP blog comment discussion thread, perhaps only the Magazine itself can answer, as the comment was blocked from publication.
This seems to raise legitimate questions of Left-Wing discussion censorship. The comment was not vulgar. It provided a question for both Yoo, and for the media to ask Yoo, that goes to the heart of Yoo’s theory on what is in some ways unbridled Executive Power.
The second thing that the comment did, was suggest that the Left had done a particularly poor job of framing the discussion, and directing and managing the debate regarding the very legitimate, if not extremely troubling issues that the institutionalization of some of Yoo’s more radical theories during the Bush Administration in fact raised. And again, the comment with this suggestion was blocked, by a leading magazine of the “Left.” The American Prospect blog post chastised Stewart for doing a poor job challenging or out debating Yoo, but this random comment to that blog raising a similar point about the “Left’s” general response to the institutionalization and promulgation of Yoo’s theories during the Bush presidency, was apparently not acceptable.
Since the point of the AP blog post was to criticize comedian Jon Stewart for failing to do a “better job” against, as two commenters put it, a “powerful and brilliant lawyer,” “over a topic on which Yoo wrote the definitive brief,” the comment also provided a segue-way into a very brief reference to another guest whom Stewart actually (and very uncharacteristically) did a rather poor job with, which did not involve the sometimes tricky and abstract world of Constitutional law. It referenced an economics debate challenge to that same guest — whose conventional theories and facts on the economic presumption of cost, along with his unconventional theories that addressing climate change by changing over from the processes contributing to it is a bad solution — went both unchallenged, and even unquestioned by Stewart.
Thus, third, and lastly, and similar to the idea that Yoo really has not been fundamentally questioned on the very heart of his assertion of Executive power (see comment below), this somewhat recent Jon Stewart guest, Steven Levitt, has also not been fundamentally questioned. Thus, the comment also referenced the parallel lack of effective questioning, and indirectly and briefly, the public question posed for Levitt. The parallels are rather stark, if not striking. And they were both instances were Stewart, again somewhat uncharacteristically, either did a subpar job (in the case of Levitt) or was thought by many to have done so (as in the case of this popular American Prospect blog post, and at least some of the commenters therein).
But for the obvious parallel to the open heart of the matter question to both Levitt, and John Yoo — both interviewees on the Daily Show where Stewart was uncharacteristically soft or less well informed — the rest of the comment below was directly about Yoo. That is, it was directly about the focal point of the American Prospect blog column and discussion. And it focused on the heart of what is ultimately the most important Yoo theory for our constitutional form of government, and one that only mirrors if not builds upon the underlying concern of both the American Prospect blog post and comment threadregarding the influence of Yoo’s theories. Yet it was still blocked:
My question for Yoo still remains: I asked those who knew Yoo, and some media sources, to either ask Yoo, or come up with one person who could articulate a cohesive theory as to how Yoo’s theory of unilateral presidential discretion even in the face of existing congressional statute and the Bill of Rights in the name of national security would not equally apply to anything else that the president decided to do, no matter how outrageous, in the name of national security — thereby essentially undermining perhaps the most basic purpose of the Constitution in the first place.
No one answered. And I still have not seen an answer. But perhaps if I had some backing on that, instead of all the normal Democratic presumptuousness about what people know and how the media doesn’t matter or can’t be changed, or how Republicans are “evil,” it could have turned it into a public issue instead of the inanities and falsities that the media [has] kind of turned it into when it [has] covered this and related Constitution topics — and we might have better laws and a stronger, freer and more constitutionally sound democracy today.
One big mistake that is made is to simply presume as if Democrats always know that the far right has to be driven by evil motivations, the Yoo is not acting in Good faith.
This last sentence was even more relevant, not just to the general polarizing nature of online discussion, but to the short American Prospect blog post itself, which asserted “Stewart allowed Yoo to maintain the illusion that he was a good faith actor simply doing his job” (not to mention that one of the comments directly linked to above that otherwise made a very good point about Yoo, also openly called him “evil”), as if the possibility that Yoo simply believes his position can not even be reasonably entertained.
This latter thought — that it is not reasonable to think that Yoo might believe in what he is saying — is exactly what many on the Left may say, and is perhaps a big part of the reason why the Left rarely reaches outside of its own choir in connecting with America, other than on issues where the public is otherwise already set in their direction. In other words, “everybody already sees it” like the Left does. And if they don’t, there must be something wrong with those people, or they must be innately evil or bad faith actors. But raise that point — a point to which many on the moderate right, middle in America today say “halelujah” to — and the “thoughtful” American Prospect might block your comment.
The comment continues, all emphasis here added:
Perhaps (well, definitely), Yoo has different beliefs than our Founding Fathers, and since no one has yet even publicly put the above question to him, instead just calling him all sorts of names, it is likely that this is the way that he sees the world. But whether he does or he doesn’t, wouldn’t it be better to stop assuming that Yoo is evil or a knowing liar, which does nothing to convince or show those that otherwise don’t already fully think Yoo is nuts, and instead address and constantly SHOW in a non presumptive way why Yoo (or anybody else) is in fact profoundly wrong, or, if you like, worse?
In Yoo’s case, it is particularly important, because many of the things that he has seemingly rationally advocated (hey, he almost convinced Stewart) in fact are apt (if early) illustrations of exactly what our Founding Fathers set up the Constitution to prevent in terms of unchecked power.
Yoo is an authoritarian. Ultra. Yoo is radical. Yoo is completely at odds with our country’s founding principles. Yoo is a believer in true “big government.” Yoo believes that the purpose of government is to keep us safe above liberty and all else, when our country is founded upon the opposite — whereas repressive, cowardly and weaker countries are based upon this (or putting food on tables over all else) initially — and Yoo is a big believer in the “trust us” form of goverment, when ours was designed and created to quite specifically NOT BE a “trust us” form of government, and to prevent it from ever becoming one.
Show this stuff. These are not just liberal principles. They are moderate principles, and they are, to some extent also traditional conservative principles as well. (Particularly the idea that unchecked power corrupts: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”)
Stewart should not be expected to handle Yoo. On the other hand, someone whom he could have done a better job with howeover, could have been Steven Levitt. On that note,slight aside: My challenge to Levitt, incidentally. The more attention drawn to it, the more likely for Levitt to have to respond, and for us to open up a debate that this country must simply have, and that by having, we as a country can only gain.
Yes, certainly the type of thing that the American Prospect should protect its readers from having to see. And notice how the last very minor reference to Levitt — the only thing not directly on point — mirrors exactly what a big part of the problem with Yoo’s influence might be — that this issue was not publicly, and properly framed; so that now, instead, the American Prospect blog takes to expecting comedian Jon Stewart to correct it all and school one of the nation’s more brilliant (if radically right and pro government power) legal scholars.
The Left are no doubt their own worst enemies. Remember, we are not talking about an op ed submission to the NY times here; but a random comment, on a random blog. An open forum discussion. And for whatever arbitrary reason (“we don’t like two links,” “we don’t like comments that are too thoughtful or too provocative” or too this or too that or too whatever) it was blocked. All I can say is: Thank God for the Left Wing American Prospect censors, doing what they do best, keeping the discussion “pure,” and venturing all the way into the throes of outright censorship in order to protect its readers from the annoyance or consideration of the quite obviously inconsequential points raised above.
And the beat goes on.
