authoritarianism

[Allan Ides]

Since I'm new to this list (though obviously quite willing to jump in
the fray), I may not be sufficiently steeped in the list etiquette, but
my sense is that Jack's comments were well within reasonable bounds.
John got the ball rolling with his submission on the judicial
appointment process and the discussion has veered in several directions,
some constitutional, some policy, some politics.  All to the good, I
think.  Indeed, I think John's proposal was based on a combination of
all three factors, beginning with the last.  I also agree with Jack that
the issues he raises pertaining to authoritarianism go to the heart of
our constitutional system of government, and that remains so even if
what he says is unfair or insulting to the Republican party.  He was
also "insulting" toward Clinton.  The critical question for me, however,
is not whether Jack used harsh rhetoric, but whether there is any
validity in his assertions, which quite clearly pertain to the stability
of our constitutuional system of government.  The assessment of this
question may involve a political discussion, but it is politics of a
fundamental (hence constitutional) sort.  I, therefore, join Lynn in
thinking Jack's points present a legitimate subject for constitutional
law profs to explore.

On the merits, I am sad to say that Jack may well be correct.  This
administration does have a very strong authoritarian streak, the most
obvious example being in the practices and pronouncements of AG
Ashcroft, a man I consider to be a dangerous extremist and a threat to
civil liberties.  I'm beginning to feel that one the key strategies of
his office is to keep the nation in constant fear, bolstering the claim
that our government, operating in secret, needs the widest range of
power to confront an enemy of constantly changing shapes and sizes.
Having just recently reread several essays by George Orwell as well as
his novel 1984, I also think that Jack's use of the word "orwellian" is
quite appropriately applied to some of the practices of Mr. Ashcroft and
Mr. Bush.  In short, there is, in my estimation, at least reason for
"constitutional" alarm, and moreso than at any other time during my life
(born in 1949).

Allan Ides