This is not an original thought, but perhaps the contrastive terms--Republicans/Democrats, conservative/liberal, right/left--have lost their usefulness. Perhaps a better distinction in politics would be to classify those who would tend to see the state as the best tool for accomplishing good ends versus those who don't. One word used to describe the former is "statist." For the latter, one could use "libertarian," although this carries too much baggage. Maybe "nonstatist" would be better.
I was thinking of this when I read this article by Nina Totenberg, in which she discusses Missouri v. McNeely. McNeely was stopped under suspicion of drunk driving. He refused a breathalyzer test. The police drew a blood sample without a warrant. The Missouri State Supreme Court argued that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against search/seizure without a warrant. Missouri argues that the state can do this in these kinds of circumstances. The Obama's administration supports Missouri, the "statist" position I would argue.
The Obama administration has supported the use of state power in many decisions where the nonstatist would draw back. The use of drones would be another example. Perhaps its a function of the presidency to always support the statist position. The previous president was not known for his reluctance to use state power. The Pyrhhonian in me worries about this, if only that the consequences of embuing the state with so much power are hard to determine and potentially mortally dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment