Why Democrats fear the Patriot Act
By Paul A. Ibbetson (01/07/06)
Some may wonder why Democrats in the Senate filibustered the Patriot Act renewal
The mantra being forwarded by Senators like Russ Feingold is that the Patriot Act lacks the proper civil liberties safeguards and that his newly created “coalition of opposition” in the Senate serves to protect Americans from the tyrannical desires of the Bush administration. Several facts challenge the civil liberties thesis forwarded by Senators such as Feingold. The most obvious is the fact that the Patriot Act in one way or another has already been endorsed by most Democrats. Here are but a few examples. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s Attorney General has publicly endorsed the USAPA. Bill Clinton himself used the now highly contentious section 215 of the USAPA as a centerpiece in his response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. John Kerry is one of the contributing authors of the USAPA. The 9-11 commission stated that the Patriot Act was a valuable tool in the war on terror. Of course, it should be mentioned that there was an actual 98-1 vote in 2001 in the Senate on the USAPA in favor of the legislation. When you take these facts and add them to the plethora of other instances when Democrats have supported USAPA when it is convenient, the civil liberties reasoning for opposition starts getting very weak.
I believe that the true reason why Democrats fear (notice I did not say hate or dislike) the true reason they fear the USAPA is twofold. I subscribe to the long standing theory forwarded by many conservatives that through lack of inspiration and creativity, Democrats have failed to devise alternative strategies to the Bush administration’s war on terror. This mental idleness on the part of democrats has forced them to oppose all aspects of the Bush agenda just to have some course of action to take. This thesis has been found to be viable as the actions of democrats have been so repetitious and in some cases almost mindless in opposition to anything the president forwards.
However, when analyzing the actions of democrats in the Senate on the issue of the Patriot Act, this theory alone is not satisfactory. I suggest that the reason that democrats were willing to kill the Patriot Act, the countries most substantial tool in the war on terror to date, goes to the heart of the Democratic psyche. Yes, that inner core of self that is one component that makes the red states red and the blue states blue. The Patriot Act with all its safeguards in the forms of congressional oversight and sun setting provisions represents a symbol that strikes fear into the majority of Democrats. That symbol is action.
The Patriot Act in its aggressive stance against terrorism forces Democrats out of the realm of theory, and into the more challenging realm of reality. This reality was brought to bear by President Bush in the form of the Patriot Act. The creation of the Patriot Act alone is a testament to the reality that the previous tactics in fighting terrorism were not working. The Patriot Act, as a symbol, can be seen as one of America’s tools to “stand” against terrorism. Of course, with any true action, it could fail. It also has ramifications in the fact that it will actually do something. It is this side effect of the Patriot Act that does not set well with Democrats.
Supporting the Patriot Act does not come with an escape hatch or exit strategy for accountability. In addition, the Patriot Act is not a vague threat to terrorists shrouded in nuances. It’s not another resolution. It’s the big dog in the yard that bites. The fact that the Patriot Act has borne fruit and continues to have the majority support of U.S. citizens is simply additional salt in the wound of an already dejected Democratic Party. Unfortunately, a one month reprieve for the Patriot Act will do nothing to change the psychological makeup for Democrats and I fear for the future of the law. It will take a groundswell of support for the USAPA from citizens across this country to re-channel Democrat’s fear of action back to where it should be, on keeping their jobs.
Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Author of the book “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” coming out in early 2006, Paul welcomes questions or comments on this, or any other of his Patriot Act related articles at: http://patriotactresearch.com/
(Printer friendly version) 
