Welcome to Reality

Is reality finally seeping into the offices of the New York Times editorial board? The titles alone of their recent editorials on Okinawa tell a story:

April 5, 2013:     Progress on Okinawa
January 5, 2014:   Another Step Forward on Okinawa
January 27, 2014:  Okinawa Solution, Elusive as Ever

The Times has been cheerleading as the government of Prime Minister Abe pressed on with plans to build a new airbase for U.S. Marines in the Henoko district of Nago City. But with the re-election of Mayor Inamine, a fervent base opponent, the board seems to have finally awakened to the depth of Okinawan resistance. While early in January, they fretted that “local politics could still thwart the project”, the dismissive tone is now gone. True, as if made from a cookie cutter, all three editorials make feeble, virtually identical pleas that the U.S. and Japan “must be responsive to Okinawan concerns.” But this time, they acknowledge that “Okinawan resistance goes far deeper than everyday not-in-my-backyard complaints.” And for once, Okinawan priorities get the last word: “A base-relocation plan that protects American and Japanese strategic concerns cannot be allowed to unfairly burden Okinawa’s citizens.”

In the past, the Times placed its hopes on Tokyo’s efforts to pay off Okinawans in exchange for acquiescing to the base. That worked on the now widely-despised Governor Nakaima. But with such efforts backfiring in the Nago election, the Times is forced to question the validity of its insulting assumption that Okinawans can be bought.

Another possible reason for the shift is disillusionment with Abe. Last April, The Times was full of praise: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan showed political leadership by agreeing with the United States on a timetable for reducing the size of the American force and returning some land used as a military base.” (This was an extremely deceptive characterization of the agreement.) The only question was whether Abe could “deliver” on efforts to get Okinawa to knuckle under. More recently, though, the Times has parted company with the Abe administration on such matters as the state secrets law, textbooks, visiting Yasukuni, arms exports, and squabbling with China over islets. Having seen what Abe’s been “delivering”, perhaps the Times has a case of buyer’s remorse, and is starting to question other aspects of his agenda as well.

For the first time, the Times mentions the threat the base poses to the endangered dugong, a kind of manatee. And for once, they allude to the possibility of transferring Futenma operations not to Henoko, but to Kadena Air Force base. But let’s not exaggerate the extent of the Times’s enlightenment. They haven’t completely abandoned their faith in the efficacy of bribery: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has tried to sway Nago residents with promises of a half-billion dollars in public-works spending, may yet find a way to entice Okinawans into acceptance.” At least, I hope they’re talking about money. The alternatives include, as Gavan McCormack reports, the kind of intimidation with which the central government attempted to interfere in a local election, and the potential involvement of the National Police Agency and Coast Guard. One would hope, though, that the Times dimly perceives that attempts to force the base on an unwilling Okinawa will result in civil disobedience and perhaps violence that could threaten their cherished Japan-U.S. alliance itself.

Of course, the Times persists in its devotion to Pentagon priorities. Last April, they wrote of “growing concerns about North Korea and China.” Then it was “Pentagon officials now say the relocation is also needed to meet security requirements as the United States rebalances its focus toward Asia.” Now they stress “the importance of America’s military presence to regional stability.” Apparently, they still believe that if Futenma were closed today, we’d all be speaking Mandarin tomorrow. They thus seem oblivious to the argument, made by Peter Ennis and others, that Futenma “has no strategic function” and that only inter-service rivalries bar the Kadena option. Signs of growing recognition of Okinawans’ right to self-determination should be welcomed as progress. But as the Times itself has discovered, “progress” can be fleeting.

---

As they stand up to two governments, the Okinawan people need our help. So I hope you’ll consider signing this petition. If you need any more convincing, please watch this moving documentary.

Sorry, National Interest, Yasukuni Has More in Common with Arlington Than You Think

The National Interest ran a piece yesterday by Mindy Kotler entitled “Sorry, Japan: Yasukuni Is Not Arlington”. Kotler sets out to refute Prime Minister Abe’s claim that his visit to Yasukuni Shrine was analogous to a president’s appearance at Arlington National Cemetery, but her approach is to portray the latter as uniformly beautiful and honorable while the former is irredeemably ugly and despicable. I submitted a comment, but as the magazine has not seen fit to run it, I offer it here. (I have altered one word, the ninth; the original used the more delicate “it”.)

Of course Prime Minister Abe is full of shit, but isn’t it funny how one’s own country’s jingoism always smells sweeter than that of others?

To suggest that Arlington has no political significance is absurd. Nor, by any objective standard, is it untainted by war criminals. Henry “Hap” Arnold was commander of the Army Air Force and therefore shared in the responsibility for cruel incendiary attacks that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese noncombatants, many of them children. To state this fact is no disrespect to others interred at Arlington. What it does suggest is that Japan is not the only country where memorials serve to obscure memory and avoid contrition.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are odious things about Yasukuni, and millions of Japanese oppose Abe’s visit. But this simplistic, unreflective piece does nothing to aid their cause.

Some additional comments:

1. The headline is really unfortunate, blaming as it does an entire country for the sins of Abe, or at most, of his political party and supporters. An anti-Japanese tone creeps in as well with remarks like “Many Japanese still believe that Imperial Japan should not be subject to the rules or values created by the West.” Such East vs. West thinking is no more enlightened coming from Americans than from Japanese.
2. Kotler asserts that “American politicians do not come to Arlington to make statements about current foreign policy. Indeed, any effort to go beyond recognition of the sacrifices made by American would backfire internally as well as externally.” Oh, really? What, I wonder, does she make of these remarks by George W. Bush at Arlington in 2005?: “Because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, two terror regimes are gone forever, freedom is on the march, and America is more secure…. And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world.”
3. According to Kotler, “Yasukuni is about rejecting the judgments of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal…. The Tribunal is deemed ‘victor’s justice.’” In fact, there are genuine questions about the conduct and decisions of the Tribunal. But if anyone sought to hand Japanese rightists support for their claims of hypocritical “victor’s justice”, they could do no better than to harp on Japan’s war crimes, while turning a blind eye to those of their own country. Congratulations.

Japan’s LDP Drops No-war Pledge It Never Meant to Keep

My Japanese politics professor once said of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) that it is “not liberal, not democratic, and not really a party.” So even it’s name is deceptive.

Like the Republicans in the United States, the LDP has transitioned from conservatism to something like proto-fascism. But what to make of the party suddenly dropping a pledge from its manifesto never to wage war? Perhaps we should give them a little credit: when they do go to war, no one can say they broke their word.

Actually, the LDP has been keeping and breaking promises lately. When Prime Minister Abe provoked a firestorm of controversy last month by worshipping at Yasukuni shrine, he was supposedly just fulfilling a campaign pledge.

But just six weeks ago, party heavyweights forced legislators to recant a campaign promise (to oppose construction of a new Marine base in Okinawa) by threatening them with expulsion from the party. So the LDP’s devotion to keeping promises seems to shift with the wind. Maybe that’s how Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga can get away with claiming, after expunging the no-war pledge: “The content (of the platform) hasn’t changed at all.” The only way that makes any sense is that there was no content to begin with.

Update: An Asahi Shimbun report clarifies the context of the change to the LDP’s action plan. The deleted pledge stated: “visits to Yasukuni Shrine will be carried on with the resolve to pledge never again to wage war and to be true to the principles of a pacifist nation.” Apparently LDP politicians intend to make Yasukuni a regular part of their itinerary, and don’t want to mouth loathsome platitudes about peace every time they go. But they have no problem forcing platitudes on others: they want to add the following to the Japanese Constitution: “The Japanese people must respect the national flag and the national anthem.” Already, teachers in Osaka can be fired for failing to sing the anthem.

New York Times: Jekyll and Hyde on Japan

In recent weeks, the New York Times editorial board has been giving Japan’s government a hard time. First, they bemoaned passage of a draconian state secrets act. Then they took Prime Minister Abe to task for worshipping at a shrine honoring Japan’s war dead, including class A war criminals. But finally, the editors have found something to praise: giving the go-ahead for reclamation to build a new U.S. Marine base in Okinawa. (The Times has offered similar praise before, and I wrote about it here.)

One motivation for building a new base in Henoko was that the current one in Futenma became politically fraught after a twelve-year-old girl was gang raped by American soldiers in 1995. Okinawans, however, have resisted efforts to address this by simply moving the Marines to a less densely-populated area. They are sick and tired of being exploited as pawns in the name of American and Japanese military objectives. Up to one fourth of the civilian population perished in the Battle of Okinawa. Though Japan regained its sovereignty in 1952, Okinawa remained under U.S. military occupation for twenty years more. Even after reversion to Japan, Okinawa hosts three fourths of all U.S. bases in Japan. In the past, those bases held stockpiles of nuclear weapons and quite possibly Agent Orange without the knowledge of the local populace. Okinawans in large numbers have had enough, and insist that any new base be sited elsewhere.

The Times tell us that Abe “worked to make the deal happen by pressing Okinawan officials to approve the permit and offering financial support for the island.” By “pressing”, the Times apparently means Liberal Democratic Party Secretary-General Ishiba Shigeru threatening Okinawa legislators with expulsion from the party unless they broke campaign promises to resist the Henoko plan. Yes, the same Ishiba whose likening of secrets bill opponents to terrorists had so recently perturbed the Times. In that editorial the Times declared: “The government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe this month rammed through Parliament a state secrecy law that signals a fundamental alteration of the Japanese understanding of democracy.” But on the reclamation approval, the Times is suddenly sanguine about strong-arm tactics to defy Okinawan popular will. They fret that “local politics could still thwart the project.” Maybe it’s not just the Japanese understanding of democracy that is suspect here.

If members of the Times editorial board are so committed to their vision of security, perhaps they would like to host new military bases in the vicinity of their homes and have Osprey aircraft of questionable safety hovering over their children’s schools. Then they might recognize how inadequate are vague statements that the two governments “must be responsive to Okinawans’ concerns about jet crashes, crime, environmental degradation and noise.” Those governments have been making such pro forma commitments for nearly two decades, and there is little prospect of anything substantial being done. For Okinawans, the only acceptable response is to remove the source of the problems from their communities.

The New York Times is important not only because of its wide readership, but also because it is seen as “liberal”. Unfortunately, this leads many to takes its editorial positions as delimiting the leftmost edge of responsible opinion, and fail to recognize how truly illiberal some of them are. On issues involving press freedoms, it is relatively progressive – it is, after all, a newspaper. But on “national security”, it takes its lead all too often from the Obama administration.

I criticized the first of these editorials for neglecting to note that the secrets act was a response to U.S. demands that Japan tighten its secrecy regimen. With the latest editorial, we can see the reason for this omission: U.S. priorities are not to be challenged.

After praising Abe, the Times returns to the theme of the second editorial, and attacks his excessive nationalism: “Mr. Abe’s wrongheaded version of history has a poisonous effect on regional security, and the United States has warned him about this. Perhaps President Obama will have to make this point more firmly.” The hubris here is astonishing: would the Times, I wonder, countenance a foreign leader who “warned” a U.S. president, and if the president failed to comply, then “made the point more firmly”? This is how a Mafia don makes someone an offer he can’t refuse, or how an empire addresses a client state.

That the Times sees Japan as a U.S. satrap is entirely consistent with its contempt for popular will in Okinawa. Japanese progressives may be tempted to welcome U.S. efforts to restrain Abe’s jingoism, but such efforts target symbolism and rhetoric alone. Essentially the U.S. is telling Abe: go ahead and destroy your Peace Constitution; just don’t visit Yasukuni and remind people why Article 9 was needed in the first place. Furthermore, relying on external pressure substitutes for the hard work of domestic politics, and comes at a huge price in terms of Japanese sovereignty. And as long as Japan remains subservient to the U.S., the worst of that exploitation will be offloaded to Okinawa.

On Japan’s Secrets Act, New York Times Misses the Elephant in the Room

The New York Times editorialized on Monday against Japan’s new state secrets law, and I wholeheartedly second their condemnation. But given the American fingerprints on the law, I find it odd that their only reference to the United States involved events “seven decades ago”. This was of a piece with the Times’ reporting on the law, which never saw fit to ask U.S. officials how they could urge on Japan such an antidemocratic measure. For an American audience, isn’t this the most relevant part of the story? If Russia pressed for changes in Ukrainian law, I doubt that the Times would relegate that to the margins of their coverage.

I sent a letter to the Times, but as the odds of them printing it are infinitesimal, here is a revised and expanded version.

The Times is right to raise alarms over Japan’s draconian state secrets act (Editorial, Dec. 16), but your failure to even mention the role of the United States in this is mystifying. The Abe administration repeatedly cited U.S. admonitions that without a tighter secrecy regimen, intelligence would not be readily shared with Japan – a crucial selling point in a country where many look for security to the U.S. And Abe was not making this up: the State Department immediately welcomed the law’s passage.

When Abe came to power a year ago, the Obama administration was delighted to find someone they could count on to carry forth U.S. priorities like restarting nuclear power plants, a new Marine base in Okinawa, and eventually, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Only someone undeterred by fervent domestic opposition would do, and on the secrets act, Abe has just proven himself.

The administration’s position here is consistent with its aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, currently serving a sentence three and a half times the maximum under the Japanese law. LDP Secretary General Ishiba’s ranking of protesters with terrorists was indeed odious, but what of American Ishibas like Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Biden, both of whom called Julian Assange a “high-tech terrorist”? Instead of bemoaning the machinations of authoritarians in Tokyo, you might direct some of your fire at those in Washington who seem to find them useful.

Japanese Activists Battle State Secrets Bill

Through the stories of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and others, we are familiar with the ongoing struggle between whistleblowers and journalists on the one hand and governments on the other. One side seeks to reveal government misdeeds while the other works to keep its activities in the dark. What American progressives may not realize is that this same struggle is taking place in Japan, where Prime Minister Abe is trying to ram through a state secrets bill that would vastly restrict public access to information.

Under the bill, government workers who leak “designated secrets” could be jailed for ten years. That may sound light compared to Manning’s 35-year sentence, but the language of the bill is extremely vague and broad. For example, journalists who receive information “inappropriately” or “wrongfully” could face five years in prison. As “Prevention of terrorism” is one category of “designated secret”, the bill’s definition of terrorism is key: “an activity based on specific political or other principles and opinions and carried out to kill and wound people or destroy important or other facilities for the purpose of coercing the state or other people to accept the political or other principles and opinions or of causing anxiety or terror within society.” What with all the “or other”s and “causing anxiety” as a terrorist motive, this seems expressly designed to apply to as wide a range of activities as possible. But rest assured, the bill assigns a “third-party” to oversee the designation of secrets: the prime minister himself.

Abe and his lieutenants are quick to explain that the bill is needed to convince the United States to share intelligence with Japan. Indeed, the U.S. Charge d’Affairs says the bill would make Japan a “more effective alliance partner.” In a Japan where many look for security to the United States, that is supposed to end the argument. But in fact, a former top Japanese defense official knows of not one case when Japan failed to receive necessary information due to lack of a U.S.-approved secrets law. When Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) cites American gaiatsu (external pressure) as its reason for doing something, it usually has its own motives as well – in this case, the ability to do what it wants without public scrutiny.

As problems with the bill come to light, the public has grown increasingly skeptical, with one poll indicating only 14% support for passage by the end of the Diet session on December 6, and 63% saying they don’t trust the government to designate secrets properly. In spite of this opposition, the LDP seemed well-positioned to force the bill through, but thousands of anti-bill demonstrators got under the skin of LDP Secretary-General Ishiba, who compared them to terrorists, thus confirming the worst fears of many as to where loose definitions of terrorism would lead. Ishiba has since retracted the statement, but his real views are clear enough. He is a strong proponent of amending the Constitution, including Article 21, which guarantees freedom of assembly and association. This is unacceptable to the LDP, which wants to neuter it by adding: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, engaging in activities with the purpose of damaging the public interest or public order, or associating with others for such purposes, shall not be recognized.” At any rate, Ishiba’s indiscretion has caused an uproar that provides the faintest of hopes that the bill can be stopped.

Japanese history provides powerful instruction of the dangers of letting government secrecy run rampant. In the years leading up to war with the United States, the military had such firm control over information that critical facts were even kept from civilian members of the cabinet. This had grave consequences, for it meant that no one could challenge military leaders’ strident claims that victory was assured. Lest we think this is irrelevant to the present, the New York Times notes that the bill makes “no clear provision for sharing classified information with elected representatives.”

Activists worry that the law could seriously impede their work or even expose them to arrest. After two and a half years of Fukushima evasions, anti-nuclear activists suggest that in the name of protecting nuclear plants against terrorism, authorities could withhold even more information. In Okinawa, Abe is pressing forward on another U.S. priority – the construction of a new Marine Corp. air station in Henoko. Even if he is able to buy off enough local politicians, grassroots resistance will be undaunted. Should the administration respond with force, will it invoke the “prevention of terrorism” provision and bar journalists from reporting on that response?

Americans engaged in similar struggles might show some solidarity with these activists and their fight for access to information. Furthermore, much of what right-wing governments in Japan are likely to declare as “designated secrets” will involve the United States. Indeed, when the U.S. presses for such a law, it is clearly U.S. secrets that it wants protected. If Japanese citizens are prevented from knowing critical facts, so will we.

Another Foray Into Satire

(In case it isn’t obvious, this is not about cancer.  Nor is it about nuclear power. It was prompted by some of the comments to articles about the NSA’s gross violations of privacy in the name of “fighting terror.”)

Responding to a new study showing a sharp spike in cases of cancer, citizens across the country said, “So what? Cancer’s been around forever. Get used to it!” Another frequent response was “There’s nothing we can do about it anyway.” It was unclear why people who think there’s nothing new under the sun – and even if there is, we’re powerless to change it – would spend their free time reading and commenting on blogs about health issues.

In contrast to the “nothing new” reaction, another common thread was “The world has changed. We have to adapt – to more cancer.”

Some were outraged about the risks to the lives of their families, but others insisted that the complaining must stop: “I saw you eating french fries, so you have no right to complain if you get cancer.” This was despite the study’s finding linking the rise in cancer rates to nuclear accidents.

Consumers acknowledged the role of industrial pollutants in causing the dramatic increase, but said this was just one of those trade-offs we have to make: “What’s a little leukemia in exchange for air conditioning and flat-screen TVs?” Others wrung their hands about difficult choices and quoted their leader as saying: “You can’t have 100% power generation and still have 100% health,” apparently in full agreement with his decision to opt for a 100% / 0% split.

“It’s not like they’re coming to your house and injecting your children with plutonium. This is a limited program of accelerated nuclear plant approvals” was the view of one man on the street. (Under the plan, 95% of Americans will soon be within 20 miles of a hastily-built reactor.)

The leader’s many defenders assert that no one had any problem with malignant tumors until his policies started to cause them. It is unknown if supporters recall cheering as he himself railed as a candidate against the pro-cancer stand of his predecessor.

Few citizens chose to remark on the fact that nuclear accidents themselves lead to power outages. Fewer still wondered if there might be ways to obtain electricity that do not lead to suffering on a massive scale.

————

On a serious note, it’s quite true that we are nearly powerless as individuals to influence government policy. That’s why it is so important to join together with like-minded others. It’s time to join the ACLU.

Officials Defend Secret Government Program

(It should go without saying, but the following is parody. Sadly, it is only a slight exaggeration of recent events.)

The Guardian newspaper reported today that it has obtained a top secret document describing a government program to harvest the organs of ordinary Americans for use in transplants to the family members of corporate CEOs, military leaders, and ex-presidents.

Under the program, when a medical professional certifies that an eligible patient needs a new organ, an American is selected at random from a pool of potential donors, limited to healthy individuals with an annual income below $150,000. A special forces team with advanced medical training is dispatched to harvest the organ, using sophisticated methods to ensure that the donor is completely unaware that a procedure has been performed.

Critics assert that the program is an abuse of government power. However, as the Washington Post reports, President Obama has defended the program, “saying that it was a modest encroachment on privacy and one he thinks is both lawful and justified” in order to ensure the unfettered access of essential leaders to lifesaving procedures. The organs subject to harvesting are strictly limited to kidneys, livers, and bone marrow. Hearts and lungs are now harvested only under “extraordinary circumstances.”

The New York Times provides further details of the president’s views. “The programs, he said, were authorized by Congress and regularly reviewed by federal courts….Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had hesitations when he inherited the program from George W. Bush, but told reporters that he soon became convinced of its necessity.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid weighed in as well: “Right now I think everyone should just calm down and understand that this isn’t brand new. It’s been going on for some seven years.”

An official at the Department of Health and Human Services, granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject, pointed to numerous successes: “Thanks to this program, the wife of a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is alive today. Think of the harm to national security if the work of the Joint Chiefs had been needlessly distracted at this critical time by a prolonged terminal illness. And do you realize how many of our Job Creators have children with defective organs?”

The president declares “I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy.” That is why the person who leaked the existence of the program, when found, will be placed on the program’s “preemptive harvesting” list.

Bombs and Bases over People

That the New York Times prioritizes US military objectives over the lives of people in other countries is on full display this weekend. Here we have exhibit A:

An American military airstrike in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistan border was reported to have killed 18 people, including at least one senior Taliban commander but also women and children, raising the thorny issue of civilian casualties for the third time in roughly a week.

I am quite certain that if 10 American children were killed in a Taliban attack on a US commander, the Times would not lead with how this raised “the thorny issue of civilian casualties.” To the Times, it’s not a tragedy when Afghan children are slaughtered – merely a “thorny issue” that might get in the way of more American airstrikes.

Civilian casualties have long been a sticking point between President Hamid Karzai and his Western allies. Harsh criticism by Mr. Karzai led to stronger rules on the use of airstrikes by American forces last year…

It seems that adjectives like “harsh” can never apply to US airstrikes – only to criticism of them.

Then, in an editorial, the Times declares: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan showed political leadership by agreeing with the United States on a timetable for reducing the size of the American force and returning some land used as a military base.” Apparently it is “leadership” to do what the United States wants.

Three paragraphs later, we learn that the agreement is premised on moving the base from one part of Okinawa to another. The editorial is entitled “Progress on Okinawa,” but few Okinawans are likely to see this as progress. By a large majority, they insist that the base be moved out of the prefecture entirely.

It’s nice that the Times recognizes Okinawans’ “legitimate concerns about living among American bases — jet crashes, crime, environmental degradation and noise….” But at the end, this is revealed as nothing but lip service:

Mr. Abe’s government has tried to address the opposition with offers of generous financial aid and other efforts to court Okinawa’s governor, Hirokazu Nakaima, a member of Mr. Abe’s conservative governing party. Now the pressure is on Mr. Abe to deliver.

In other words, the editorial board urges Abe to show more “leadership” – by attempting to pay off the government of Okinawa. The insulting expectation that the people of Okinawa can be bought is likely to be disappointed.

False choices, and real ones

I have no strong opinions yet on Sally Jewell, the president’s nominee for Interior Secretary, but alarms went off when I heard how he praised her:

She knows that there’s no contradiction between being good stewards of the land and our economic progress; that in fact, those two things need to go hand in hand.

We’ve heard this kind of language before. When he released the Bush-era memos providing legal cover for torture, Obama said:

A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

In Obama’s rhetorical world, you can always have your cake and eat it too. Nevertheless, both statements contain a kernel of truth. Ignoring climate change will eventually wreck the economy, along with everything else. And unless we live up to our ideals in fighting terrorism, we only inspire more of it. Viewed from an appropriately broad perspective, the priorities don’t conflict.

But is that the lens through which Obama views the world? In the day-to-day conduct of government, choices must be made. The Keystone XL pipeline would undoubtedly benefit those who’ve invested in it. Obtaining energy from sources outside the Middle East may promote security. Those who stand to gain work on the pipeline may have a hard time seeing a downside. But for their children and grandchildren, burning all that tar sands oil would be catastrophic. Asserting that addressing global warming is compatible with untrammelled growth amounts to declaring an unwillingness to bear any costs for it.

On climate change, the president’s record is decidedly mixed. On national security, however, he and his officials have made the choice again and again, and nearly every time civil liberties, the rule of law, and basic humanity have come up short. What devotion to “our ideals” is demonstrated by the following?

• demanding that lawsuits by torture victims be summarily dismissed on state secret grounds
• attempting to subvert the global ban on cluster bombs
• exempting CIA torturers from prosecution while imprisoning the employee who confirmed the agency’s use of waterboarding
• targeting American Muslims with harassment, throwing the book at them for minor infractions and generally subjecting Muslims to a lower standard of due process

To be charitable, this may suggest that when Obama avers that you can have it both ways, he conceives of one way so hazily that adhering to it can be satisfied with rhetorical flourishes and half-measures. To a self-avowed pragmatist like Obama, “ideals” are ethereal things, impossible to measure and therefore not something that Serious people spend time on. And even as we have begun to suffer the effects of climate change, the worst is decades away – easily ignored in the face of supposedly more pressing matters.

More darkly, the insistence on not having to make a choice may really mean that the choice has already been made, and made casually. Obama seems to have infected others in the administration with this linguistic virus.  The day after he introduced Jewell, his nominee for CIA Director was spouting the following balderdash at his confirmation hearing:

What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. I don’t think that it’s one or the other. It’s trying to optimize both of them.

John Brennan demonstrated his devotion to transparency in full later on:

SEN. RON WYDEN: In my letter to you three weeks ago, I noted that I’ve been asking for over a year to receive the names of any and all countries where the intelligence community has used its lethal authorities. If confirmed, would you provide the full list of countries to the members of this committee and our current staff?

JOHN BRENNAN: I know that this is an outstanding request on your part. During our courtesy call, we discussed it. If I were to be confirmed as director of CIA, I would get back to you, and it would be my intention to do everything possible to meet this committee’s legitimate interests and requests.

In other words, Senator Wyden, you’re not going to get anything.

This assertion of false choices masks another truth: officials rarely make a decision based only on just two competing priorities. When the president sends drones against “militants” in Pakistan, inevitably causing civilian casualties, he’s not thinking exclusively about security. He’s also thinking about the military contractors that build the drones, members of congress in districts where they’re built, and his own public persona as a president who stops at nothing to kill terrorists. Similarly, the dichotomy between a healthy economy and a healthy environment is genuinely false, because Obama’s also considering healthy profits for fossil fuel corporations, no matter how harmful they are to the long-term national interest. Jonathan Schell, discussing a new book about the Vietnam War, notes that LBJ made a momentous choice based on such outside concerns:

Domestic political considerations trumped the substantive reasoning that, once the futility and horror of the enterprise had been revealed, might have brought an end to the war. More and more, the war was seen to be a murderous farce, but politics dictated that it must continue. As long as this remained the case, no news from Vietnam could lead to a reversal of policy. This was the top floor of the skyscraper of lies that was the Vietnam War. The primacy of domestic politics was the largest and most fact-proof of the atrocity-producing situations. Do we imagine that this has changed?

Of course not. Only by acting through domestic politics can we alter politicians’ decision-making calculus. In order to do that, we must not be swayed by their happy-talk, choice-free rhetoric.