EXCERPT:
The Politic: Next, I’d like to ask you about your upcoming book. In it, you argue that American justice has become a two-tiered system, with no mercy for the little guy, yet granting total immunity to the ruling class. What do you think are at the roots of that inequality?
Greenwald: Well, it’s always been the case that if you are rich and powerful, you have an advantage in the legal system. But it used to be the case that we embraced the principle of equality under the law. It was imbued throughout the writings of the Founders. Granted, the Founders believed in pretty vast inequality—some people were talented and others were pretty ordinary, and some would be rich and others would be poor—and they were fine with that, as long as there were a common set of rules that bound everybody. And so even as we failed to live up to the principle of equality before the law, we were at least appealing to it as an aspiration, and that’s what historically enabled us to move forward, leaving behind the vast inequality of our past and moving toward equality. But I think beginning with Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon—if you look back and read contemporary accounts, most Americans were against the pardon, and most elites were in favor of it. The rationale used by elites as to why the pardon was necessary became the standard rationale as to why elites generally should be immunized from the rule of law: “it’s too disruptive to hold people like this accountable, they have already been punished enough by being criticized and scorned. We need them, and if we bring the kind of political disruption that prosecutions bring, it’s harmful to the common good.” The difference is that we now explicitly repudiate the idea of the rule of law for political elites. And we have actually a whole series of platitudes and clichés—
The Politic: “Look forward, not backward.”
Greenwald: Exactly. And that was what was said about Watergate, what was said about Iran-Contra, what was said about other George Bush 41 controversies like Iraqgate. But the problem isn’t leniency in general. The real problem is the contrast between the extreme leniency granted to elites, and the fact that America for the rest of us has become the largest prison state in the world. It’s because both parties became the party of law and order and tried to prove their bona fides through things like minimum sentencing guidelines and harsh prison terms for things that no other western country imprisons people for at all. It’s a complete departure from the way the law was supposed to be the anchor to legitimize everything else.
The Politic: So what do you think can be done to limit or end this practice?
Greenwald: The problem is that it’s in the interests of both parties to perpetuate it; when one of them is in power, they know they can break the law without consequences, as long as they protect the other party from consequences. As the New York Times referred to Obama’s opposition to investigating torture in late 2008, it’s an ongoing gentlemen’s agreement. It’s obviously in the interests of elites to sustain elite immunity, so obviously the only way that it can ever stop is if the massive numbers of people who aren’t vested with that immunity demand that it cease. They have to look at the treatment to which they’re being subjected, contrast it with the treatment to which elites are being subjected, and decide that such treatment is really unjust and intolerable.
The Politic: In the past, you’ve remarked that the mainstream media has failed to play the adversarial role against the government it is intended to play. But where do you think the line is drawn between being adversarial and being a shill for one side?
Greenwald: Obviously, there are people who are adversarial to the government only when one party is in power. Those are not watchdogs. Those are blatant partisans. They don’t care about checking political power. They only care about harming the other party. So you saw huge numbers of Democrats pretending to care about civil liberties when Bush was in power because it was an opportunity to undermine him, who suddenly have decided that they don’t mind at all now that they’re in power. You saw the same thing if you go back and look at the debates of the nineties and you have Republicans who were freaking out about black helicopters spying on them on behalf of the UN—
The Politic: [laughs] That was before my era.
Greenwald: Yeah, and the idea of the FISA court? They thought it was horrifying that there was a secret court that could issue warrants to eavesdrop in secret. But of course, as soon as they took over, they were not only fine with the government eavesdropping in secret, they were fine with the government eavesdropping with no warrants at all! These partisans aren’t the people I’m talking about. People who are genuinely adversarial to government—which is what the ethos of journalism is supposed to be—are people who are skeptical of what people in power are doing regardless of the political party to which they belong. As Adams said, “let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The American model is designed to have all these institutions that are skeptical of the others and check them. The media was supposed to be the watchdog of the government, and it’s just become its servant.
No comments:
Post a Comment