"Well, sure, unconstitutional power grabs are tolerable when someone I like is in power, but this new guy is bad!" Yes, that's how it always works. That's explicitly the reason our government was designed the way it was. Why do educated people forget this every time "their guy" gets into power?
When people campaign against the expansion of government powers, it's not because we're afraid that the Good Guys are going to abuse them, it's because we know that eventually the Bad Guys will.
You can have a police state and limited government (a government that does little for its citizens) at the same time. And you can have an expansive welfare state with clear separation of powers (think Sweden).
So in addition to those 44, there are all the people who have had the titles "Representative," "Senator," and "Justice." Not a popular view today, I realize.
There is a sickness in this country, and it is called partisanship. Its destructive power is more frightening than anything Trump could hope to do.
Many of us tried to stop the growth of Neo consrvatism on the Right and now Identity politics on the Left because they are both reactionary civilizrtional poison.
But the hemlock was to sweet not to drink and everyone drunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
America is unfortunately now immersed in tribalism. Those who should be trying to reverse the trend such as the media and Intellectuals have embraced tribalism as much as the rest. There is no civilisation that can withstand the forces of tribalism.
The breakup of Yugoslavia is an informative example of how a state collapses when ethos is replaced with tribalism.
So why not join the game of identity politics now?
It's not a game. It's a serious problem of centuries of oppression, the worst things the United States has done.
Issues of discrimination against minorities are not about a zero-sum competition between teams identified by their skin color, but about reducing centuries-long oppression and physical brutality, from society to the job market to law enforcement, against certain groups.
The majority has the institutions of government to protect it: They can call the police, sue, and vote out politicians they don't like. They can get into colleges, get jobs in SV or in the Senate.
The experiences aren't perfect, but to conceive of it as a competition between races is deceitful and inflammatory of our most dangerous instincts -- instincts that have a clear track record of slavery, lynching, and very widespread oppression. Frankly, it is encouraging evil.
So the NY Times went after it under Bush, maybe this country just needs Republican Administrations just so the press will do their damn job. They certainly got silent for most of eight years.
The evidence does not bear this out. The NY Times also 'went after it' under Obama, publishing Snowden's and Manning's leaks for example. They also broke the story on Clinton's email server, which probably cost her the election eventually.
I'm not so naive as to think anyone is free of bias. Best we can do is be aware of them and build processes that guard against our biases from negatively influencing our desired goals. This might be one tool in that tool box.
Many people have been making the point that for this reason, for the foreseeable future the Presidency must be limited to white male Republicans ^_^.
Seriously, for more than a generation pretty much all capital and lower case 'c' constitutional checks and balances utterly fail if that's not the case.
Please show where this activist writes in support of the NSA programs in the past.
Even if there were such a thing as homogenous left: I believe the number of people from the left defending these programs has been pretty short for as long as I can remember.
Please show where I said anything about the "left".
This is a problem that both democrats and republicans suffer from. Remember when the PATRIOT Act was proposed and enacted? Most democrats thought it was an unbelievably unconstitutional overreach that would be the end of the world, and republicans mostly saw it as a necessary tool that didn't even really have any constitutional concerns worth mentioning. Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. This happens every single time.
*I would also note that journalists' "tolerance" for the NSA programs over the last 8 years is essentially tacit support. Nearly all of the network media's coverage of the NSA issues over the last few years has been centered on whether the effectiveness of the programs justify their existence. There has been virtually no network condemnation of these programs based on their illegality and unconstitutionality, whereas that was a major focus from 2001 to 2007.
If you perform an internet search for "Pardon Snowden", the vast majority of these articles arise from publications traditionally associated with Democratic Party support.
I remember some milquetoast grumbling about the USA-PATRIOT Act from various publications on both the right and the left, but the quantity of outrage was far greater after the Snowden leaks.
In case you need any convincing: https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&q=unconstitutional+nsa
In the top 10 results, you'll see various "MSM" news sources. The sole defender of the NSA programs comes from The National Review, a (high-quality) conservative newspaper.
I'm not trying to use "gotcha!" commenting, but I think it is grossly misstates the position of most left-wing folks to push this flip-flop theory.
I will readily admit that flip-flopping happens all the time about other matters but I have not witnessed it at all with this one.
On the matter of NSA surveillance being abused by President-elect Trump, I consider it extremely unlikely. I consider the left's fear to be based off of a failure by the government to communicate the programs effectively to the press.
Frankly, given how news is now consumed, it's very possible we're living in alternate realities. The PATRIOT outrage I was referring to was circa 2002. Where I lived, the media reported vociferous outrage from democrats and nonchalance from republicans. Since "Obama" has wielded--and greatly expanded--the state's surveillance powers, I have not heard anywhere near the same objection from democrats. (Note that I say "Obama" because I have no idea whether and to what extent he has actually overseen the NSA's actions; its entirely possible much of these programs have been hidden from the executive branch for decades, which is frankly much more worrisome).
The few polls i just looked at seem to back up this flip-flop:
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/12/news/la-pn-republica... ["With President Obama in the White House, Democrats stand in support of the NSA’s methods, 49% to 40% in the Gallup survey. Republicans were opposed 63% to 32%. When President George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were supportive of government surveillance efforts and Democrats opposed."]
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/poll-... ["Interestingly, the most intense opposition to the programs comes from the political right. Republicans disapprove of the program by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Independents disapprove, 56 to 34 percent. But 49 percent of Democrats approve of the program, compared with 40 percent who disapprove."]
I don't share your believe that Trump won't seek to use surveillance for his own purposes. Not because I think he's a horrible person, but simply because people use the tools at their disposal, especially in times of stress or emergency. Of course, the president of the U.S. deals with nothing but stress and emergencies.
Finally, I don't think anyone's fear is based off a failure to communicate the programs effectively. If the programs were wildly successful, those successes would be publicized by now. The NSA needs some good publicity. By the way, negative publicity the NSA can't avoid is largely its own fault. It's current slogan is "Your Data: If You Have Nothing to Hide, You Have Nothing to Fear" https://nsa.gov1.info/data/ I'm not sure you could come up with a more Orwellian slogan if you tried.
Can you provide evidence of this? I know a lot of Democrats, and I don't remember any of them ever saying a positive word about the PATRIOT Act. Certainly, those actually in power are always reluctant to give it up. But I haven't seen that applying to their supporters in the particular example you cite.
Senator Dianne Feinstein Urges Senate Support for USA-Patriot Act Reauthorization http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-relea...
And it won't change until the tune changes from "we need to keep all-powerful government from the hands of people who disagree with us" to "we need to have less of all-powerful government, no matter who runs it".
It seems they have published thoughts about surveillance previously though.
http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/what-happened-to-obamas-ns...
The EFF and EPIC, which have been around longer, has worked against NSA spying under the Obama, Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I organizations; the ACLU, all of the above and more.
What about you?
Compare to the implicit scopes of the 4th Amendment, which I'll quote in full:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Many have argued that these pervasive dragnet surveillance systems axiomatically violate the 4th Amendment by their scope alone ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"), which akin to the much, much greater scope of WMDs vs. the arms of infantrymen.
Although this domain is a lot more nuanced, e.g. metadata is pretty universally held not to be protected like data, but what about mass collection of metadata?
What makes the US Government so special that it should be armed with world-ending nuclear weapons? How is a large bureaucracy somehow better than say a private corporation or even an individual in that regard? There is no answer...
It's certainly a serious argument for a strong, in this domain, serious central government. I don't think anything in federalism besides the usual political stuff applies.
And that "usual political stuff" is where this government gets it moral legitimacy, which partly addresses your point, especially when we strip away ludicrous hyperbole like "world-ending" (maybe your world would end, but things would remain largely unchanged for perhaps half the world's population, and not severely changed for a very large fraction of the rest; the world is big, and we are small).
And while "might makes right" might not settle well with your moral tastes, operationally, might rules. Otherwise, you might be counting yourself lucky to be speaking Russian. But not needing to speak Punic.