Obie examines Kerry’s record

To the Editors:

In the Commentary section of the Review from Sept. 24, there were a number of letters that, in one way or another, decried the Bush administration for its failures on civil liberties. All of these letters went on to deliver the same platitude to young voters: support John Kerry.

There is no doubt that the Bush administration has a terrible record on civil liberties. But where has everyone gotten the idea that Senator Kerry, who voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, is much better? Let’s try to clear this up (I should also first give credit to a recent article in Reason magazine, from which I lifted much of the information below):

1. In the mid to late 1990s, there were a series of fierce debates in Congress about the individual’s right to use electronic encryption to protect the privacy of personal messages. Senator Kerry, who had recently written his now largely unnoticed book The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens America’s Security, aligned himself with the FBI, the NSA and the DOJ and fought in favor of creating a “clipper chip” for the government that would allow these agencies to “unlock” encryption codes used by individuals for privacy. Groups like the ACLU recognized the unsettling implications of this, but Senator Kerry stood by his position, justifying the need for government oversight by invoking the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Sounds a bit like the logic behind the PATRIOT Act after 9/11, no?

2. In the 1980s war on drugs, asset forfeiture laws got really out of control. Any property used for criminal purposes could be seized by law enforcement agencies, even if the owner was innocent and had no knowledge of such use. A number of congressional representatives in the mid 1990s—conservative Republicans like Henry Hyde and Bob Barr, and liberal Democrats like John Conyers and Barney Frank—realized the problems with this law, as it infringed on civil liberties and was abused by all levels of law enforcement. Senator Kerry took a strong stance in favor of these laws. He wrote in his book, “We absolutely must push for asset forfeiture laws all over the planet.” Hmm...

3. Senator Kerry, after discovering that some really terrible criminals sometimes stash their money at international financial institutions like the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, decided that something had to be done about this. Not an invalid notion, but his solution is rather perturbing. Kerry essentially argued (and still does) for legislation that would force banks to spy on their customers. The so-called “Know Your Customer” regulations would have required banks to monitor every customer’s “normal and expected transactions.” The proposed legislation was eventually withdrawn after the ACLU and similar groups raised hell. Senator Kerry, though, doesn’t seem to think that privacy comes into play. “The technology is already available to monitor all electronic money transfers,” he wrote in his book. “We need the will to make sure it is put in place.” John Kerry, civil libertarian? Give me a break!

There is certainly some truth to the argument put forth in last week’s letters that a third-party vote in this year’s presidential election is essentially a waste, a misguided approach to building some new progressive movement. That’s not what I’m advocating here. All I’m saying is, let’s not allow the “anyone but Bush” attitude to stop us from seriously considering Senator Kerry’s policy positions before making our decisions at the voting booth on Nov. 2.
–Jonathan Bruno, College sophomore

Electoral College not as bad as popular opinion

To the Editors:

I agree with the 13 alumni who support Kerry. In this election, a vote for Nader is a vote wasted. However, I would like to correct two errors in their remarks about the Electoral College. Since the 2000 election, the Electoral College has come in for a lot of criticism, much of it undeserved.

First, the framers of our Constitution did not create a winner-take-all system with the Electoral College. The “winner-take-all” rule, whereby the winner of a plurality of popular votes in a state gets all its electoral votes, is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Article II leaves the choice of the electors up to the individual state legislatures. Today, 48 of our 50 states have chosen the winner-take-all rule, which was probably not what the framers envisioned and certainly not Constitutionally required. Don’t blame the framers for this one.

Second, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that in most other democracies it is impossible for a leader to be elected with a minority of the vote. Many, like Canada and the United Kingdom, have parliamentary systems, in which the leader is not chosen directly by the voters, but by the members of parliament who (in addition to their legislative duties) select the prime minister, just as the electors in our Electoral College select the president.

In 1997, the British Labour Party won 63 percent of the seats in Parliament with only 43 percent of the popular vote. Although they were helped by the votes cast for minor party candidates, it’s still possible, even without minor parties, to win with a minority of the popular vote. All you have to do is carry several districts by small margins while the opposition carries fewer districts by larger margins.

None of these facts undercuts the authors’ main point, with which I heartily concur. Our next president will be one of two men. If you care which (and you should), don’t throw your vote away.–George HannauerOC ’58
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Older issues