July 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.
Spying a Difference Among Democrats in ‘Silicon Beach’ Congressional Race
Posted on May 31, 2014
Behind the increasing heat of California’s Gold Coast-Silicon Beach congressional election is a struggle for the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.
Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
Another candidate with a chance to win—although a small one in the face of so many Democratic voters—is Republican Deputy Dist. Atty. Elan Carr. And then there’s the independent, Marianne Williamson, who is the farthest left in the field and who is running against the political establishment.
Nobody knows how this will come out in Tuesday’s primary election and the expected November runoff. One possibility is that with so many Democrats competing, Republican Carr will sneak into the runoff. Another is that the charismatic Williamson catches a wave of voter discontent and makes the November final. Or it could come down to a fall contest between two of the three traditional Democrats, Greuel, Miller and Lieu.
There’s much at stake in the election, not the least of which is the wealth found in the 33rd Congressional District. It reaches from the prosperous San Fernando Valley suburbs through the mansion-heavy portions of the Santa Monica Mountains to the famously rich Malibu beach area and south along the coast through Santa Monica and Venice.
Square, Site wide, Desktop
Square, Site wide, Mobile
The election is important to the national Democratic Party as it heads toward the 2016 presidential elections. Which way will the rich point their wealth if Hillary Clinton seeks the party’s presidential nomination, and if a challenge from the left—possibly by Sen. Elizabeth Warren—emerges against her?
None of the three Democrats are flaming liberals. That position goes to Williamson, a favorite on the inspirational speaking circuit and a powerful critic of political incumbents. Although she never mentions Miller, Lieu or Greuel by name, she is unsparing in her criticism of politicians like them.
Democrats in the district, like those around the country, will try to find differences among traditional Democrats such as Miller, Lieu and Greuel who broadly believe in the same things. To try to figure out this puzzle, I looked at an issue that is central to American life today, the federal government’s domestic spying, revealed so powerfully by Edward Snowden. All three are critical of Snowden, but there are differences between Miller and Lieu on spying.
Miller is the candidate of the Clinton wing, the party’s Washington-oriented center. He worked in the Clinton White House’s Office of Management and Budget under the Democratic economic power Alice Rivlin, drafting policy papers. That, Miller told me, gives him “a national reputation on policy that leaves me ahead of the others.”
Miller has made his views on national security clear in his Washington Post columns, books and other writings, and from his position as the center on “Left, Right & Center.” (Truthdig Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer occupies the left.)
It was on that show a year ago that Miller enunciated his philosophy on the national security apparatus and domestic spying.
He said: “I understand the outrage over this, but I also wonder if it’s a function of the fact that, by and large, thanks to great work by our national security apparatus and defense, etc., we haven’t had major attacks since 9/11. If we had … I wonder if the whole conversation would be different.”
And in a Washington Post column attacking Snowden, he wrote, “What Snowden exposed was not some rogue government-inside-the-government conspiracy. It’s a program that’s legal, reviewed by Congress and subject to court oversight.”
That’s a contrast to the strong pro-privacy stand taken by Lieu. Although he is critical of Snowden, an aide said, Lieu is the author of state legislation that would require the federal government to get a judicial warrant if it wants cooperation from state law enforcement to search Californians’ cellphones and computer records. He also introduced a resolution condemning the National Security Agency searches as unconstitutional.
“Let’s not forget that the last time our federal government engaged in a mass violation of constitutional rights for ‘security reasons,’ over a hundred thousand Americans were forced into internment camps,” he wrote on the Down With Tyranny website, referring to the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans at the beginning of World War II. In another comment he noted, “All 317 million Americans cannot reasonably be considered to be suspicious simply for making or receiving phone calls. The NSA’s blanket seizure of the telephone records of all Americans is therefore an ‘unreasonable seizure’ by any definition of the term under the Fourth Amendment.”
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:
New and Improved Comments
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide