alternative hippopotamus

In comments Jimmie D asks a very interesting question:

Why do you “AltHippo” think the president authorized the NSA spying program?
What do you think President Bush’s goal was?

George Lakoff’s answer would be that Konservatives* tend to look favorably towards strong authority figures. If someone wanted to unfairly paraphrase Lakoff, you might say that Konservatives have a Daddy Fetish. The tendency towards authority has resulted in the current situation where Bush, Rove, Cheney et al have been trying to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Does the Legislative branch have the ability to make laws that regulate the Executive branch? The Unitary Executive theory says no. Instead, this theory says that each branch of the government has the right and obligation to interpret the law. Since the Executive branch isn’t going to interpret its own actions as violations of the law, the effect is that Congress does not have the power to regulate the Executive.

The answer to Why? therefore has two components: 1.) domestic espionage gives more power to the Executive which on its own is a good thing. 2.) Why not? Meaning, since Congress and the courts have no check on the President, why shouldn’t he do damned well as he pleases?

This LA Times story brings up an additional element. We learn that the FBI has been spying on violent terrorist groups. Like the Quakers:

Denver-area activists said that since the surveillance documents became public, there had been a subtle chill, with some people avoiding protests for fear of ending up in an FBI file. Some activists think the FBI has been watching their groups to intimidate them.

“We’ve kind of gathered up our skirts and pulled in,” said Sarah Bardwell, who works for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group. Along with some activist roommates, she has also volunteered for Food Not Bombs.

Why would the DOJ authorize domestic groups to be spied on? For a number of reasons, among which I would include control by fear and intimidation. If the consequences of attending a protest or meeting (for instance, not being able to get a job for the rest of your life) far outweigh any potential benefits (for instance, higher wages), then people are going to stay home and try as hard as possible not to be seen.

I’ll also note that this question came up recently on a WaPo chat with Noam Chomsky. Here’s what he had to say: (WaPo)

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a “police state” where the Executive acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning’s press it was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a “signing statement” that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its actions. The justification is the “war on terror,” but that can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

* annoying spelling due to a lack of the right word. Use of the word “conservative” in this context is inexact. I don’t really believe that the folks that are running the country right now can be defined as conservative in its historical sense.