On picking your battles
by digby
Glenn's commentary on the Brennan nomination for CIA is predictably sharp and he notes all the good reasons why Brennan is as poor a choice today as he was in 2008. He also makes special note of the fact that while liberals were adamantly opposed back then, as with so many national security issues, they are largely silent now. But I think he hits on one of the main reason for that with his own admission, here:
Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies.
This is the same feeling a lot of liberals have about fighting Obama's policies, particularly on National Security where there is such a strong bipartisan consensus. You just feel as if it's pointless and so you pick another battle where you think you might have a slight chance of mitigating whatever horror show is on the horizon. It's shocking that we feel we have to fight to keep a Democratic White House from cutting Social Security and Medicare, but at least there's a big constituency out there that could possibly be mobilized in our favor. (And the Republicans have their own reasons for wanting the Democrats to do the dirty work, which gives liberals more leverage.) On national security and civil liberties it is a very heavy lift when you have the president, at least half the Democratic party, all the Republicans (except for Rand Paul) and the entire Village on the same page. So, you fight when you think you have a chance, as we all did at the beginning of Obama's first term, and once you see the lay of the land you marshal your energy for the fights you might be able to win.
This is the perennial problem, as one sees quite clearly in Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. In fact, it's the story of the American Empire since WWII --- no matter what happens, we always seem to revert to the mean. This bipartisan foreign policy consensus had led us down the garden path over and over again and the best we can do most of the time is mitigate the very worst excesses (if we're lucky.) I don't have an answer, but I do know that it's vitally important that we be smart enough to see when we might have an opening and fight like hell. Like Glenn, I think the Brennan appointment isn't one of them.
Update: I agree with Greg Sargent on this. It's the very least we can expect:
The hearings may be able to establish whether we see a real accounting into the legacy of Bush era torture programs. He’ll likely be pressed on how forthcoming he believes the agency should be when it comes to a massive report Senate Democrats have prepared examining those programs. The CIA needs to approve that report for release, with redactions; Brennan will be asked to detail how he’d handle it. “Will he assure us that he’s not going to stand in the way of the American people understanding what the U.S. government did when it engaged in torture, rendition, and secret prisons?” asks Laura Murphy, a senior official at the American Civil Liberties Union, in an interview with me.
.