The final nail in the ACLU's coffin (Op/Ed)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The final nail in the ACLU's coffin (Op/Ed)
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, The Hill, 06/11/18
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
© Getty Images
The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties. It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that, for the first time in its history, the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.
The headline in the June 8 edition of the New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections — and reinventing itself for the Trump era.” The article continues: “In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye presidential runs, the ACLU, itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the ACLU is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.”
Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of the New Yorker, “fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980s and 90s, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression.” I know, because I served on its national board in the early days of my own career.
In those days, the board consisted of individuals who were deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach and political equality. Its board members included Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call “the shoe on the other foot” test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched?
Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue. The only dispute is whether it supports the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or its more centrist wing. There is little doubt that most board members today support the progressive wing, though some think that even that wing is not sufficiently left. There is no longer any room in the ACLU for true conservatives who are deeply committed to neutral civil liberties. The litmus test is support for hard-left policies.
To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, just follow the money. ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process).
Anthony Romero, the current radical leftist who directs the ACLU, refers to those of us who favor the ACLU traditional mission as “the old guard.” The leading critic of the ACLU’s newfound partisan mission is Romero’s predecessor, Ira Glasser, who was the executive director of the ACLU from 1978 until 2001. Glasser believes that this transformation in the way the ACLU has operated since 1920 “has the capacity to destroy the organization as it has always existed.”
Glasser points out that some of the greatest violations of civil liberties throughout history have come from “progressive politicians, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt who interned 110,000 Japanese-American citizens.” He worries, and I worry, that when the ACLU supports parties and partisan agendas, it will become less willing to criticize those it has supported when they violate civil liberties.
The presidency of Donald Trump has introduced a new dynamic. Trump himself has denied fundamental civil liberties by his immigration policies, his attitude and actions regarding the press, and his calls for criminal investigations of his political enemies. The ACLU will criticize those actions, as it should. But the president has also pushed the ACLU further to the left and into partisan politics. Trump is so despised by ACLU contributors that they have increased their contributions, but also demand the ACLU be on the forefront of ending his presidency, either through impeachment, criminal prosecution or electoral defeat.
The move of the ACLU to the far left reflects an even more dangerous and more general trend in the United States: The right is moving further right, the left is moving further left, and the center is shrinking. The center-left is losing its influence in organizations like the ACLU, and the center-right is losing its influence in conservative organizations.
America has always thrived at the center and has always suffered when extremes gain power. The ACLU’s move from neutral protector of civil liberties to partisan advocate of liberal politics is both a symptom and consequence of this change. If America is to remain strong, its major institutions must move closer to the center and reject the extremes of both sides. If the ACLU does not return to its core values, a new organization must be created to champion those values.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School . He is the author of “ Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy ” and “ The Case Against BDS: Why Singling Out Israel for Boycott is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace .”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
445 visitors
That organization no longer qualifies to use that name - it should never have adopted a political stance. It may as well merge with the SPLC.
Excellent expose. BTW it's been obvious for more than a few years.
Somebody has to counter this organization and make them pay.
What amuses me is to see our left-wingers here discredit Dershowitz, when he is a long-time Democrat and avowed left-winger. I guess the difference is in the fact that Dershowitz will not slavishly adhere to the party line like a poodle if he sees flaws that need correction, and this situation is an example of that.
That is the difference. Ideology always comes first even if they have to eat their own and to them the ends always justify the means!
Lol! Trump supporters are the epitome of ideology always coming first. After putting a piece of fucking shit like that in the White House, righties have NO right to ever say one fucking word about partisanship, ideology, or lying.
Trump is not the topic, the ACLU is - ideology and party politics, perhaps, but not Trump. Off topic.
I disagree. The ridiculous attack on the ACLU has EVERYTHING to do with Trump.
Read the article, then comment.
Piss on Alan Dershowitz. The ACLU has no adopted a political stance, except for the support of the US Constitution.
To claim that the ACLU has given FDR a pass is intellectually dishonest in the extreme,
So you are calling Dershowitz a liar. You certainly are a fast reader as I just posted the seed. Did you bother to read the whole article or just want to piss on whatever Dershowitz has to say? I'm sure others have different opinions.
Yes, I am calling Alan Dershowitz a liar.
Is the ACLU expected to ignore all of the times that Trump has threatened the US Constiution just to appear non-partisan?
The ACLU is getting involved in elections to protect the voting rights of people, but they have never supported/endorsed a candidate.
They have contributed money to several candidates - usually Democrats .
The ACLU does not endorse candidates for elected office.
This is the mission of the ACLU and they are now discussing the constitutional issues that are involved in the races. Don't support candidates whose support ideas that are contrary to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
I don't have a problem with that idea.
Baldwin was not supporting Russia or China. Russia and China were not communist, any more than North Korea is a democratic republic. Baldwin said that he favored removing the state, which obviously didn't happen in Russia and China. Baldwin was closer to a lefty anarachist. The poli-sci term is libertarian-socialism.
Ther ACLU is educating voters on the issues, just like the League Of Women Voters traditionally does. They feel that the more p that people know about the issues then they will make better choices at the polls.
I'd also call him delusional. He's become a real nutcase in his dotage.
Which are you - a psychiatrist or a psychologist?
And please point out the lies he has told that would affirm your opinion of his being a liar. Sorry, but I would like to see evidence before being convinced of that, or else I'll just assume that accusation to be libelous.
I am obviously neither. I have 3 psych' courses (101, human sexuality and industrial psychology). I have read extensively on the subject because of my PTSD and because psychology gives me a way to understand how other people act.
Oops. My bad. Sorry. I thought I directed my comment to Skrekk, not you. I'm having a problem with my computer, in that the window image jumps just as I click a link, in this case "reply" so it jumped to your comment and showed up as addressing you instead of Skrekk. I'll leave it so your comment remains contextual (it was civil and respectful - a good reply), and readdress my question to Skrekk.
Which are you - a psychiatrist or a psychologist?
And please point out the lies he has told that would affirm your opinion of his being a liar. Sorry, but I would like to see evidence before being convinced of that, or else I'll just assume that accusation to be libelous.
Mine has been doing the same thing. I assume it is the forum software as a way to get us to click on adverts instead of the articles because those errant ad' clicks make money. I stopped using another site because it consistently moved every time that you tried to open a story. It's the new version of pop-ups.
This software is horrific. I miss vBulletin forum software.
I mentioned the problem to Perrie a little while ago (it's only ONE of the problems I'm having, such as how slow the loading is, or often not permitting me to thumb-up or update or even post sometimes).
That would depend on if the voters support or oppose the constitutional issue in question.
Sorry, but they have. Here is a link to the article in The New Yorker that Professor Dershowitz is referencing. I didn't realize it, but actually, they have been donating modest amounts of money to candidates for several years - 97% of recipients have been Democrats .
I don't know if you're utilizing a straw man, or if you just missed the point. I'll assume the latter to your benefit.
Dershowitz does not accuse the ACLU of giving FDR a pass. The Japanese internment is offered only as an example of a progressive leader (FDR) depriving citizens of civil rights on a dramatic scale. The point being that the ACLU should be focused on civil rights and not just blindly supporting a certain political party.
Such political bias will put the ACLU in the position of ignoring the civil liberties of conservatives or anyone else they don't agree with. That is not a position that supports the US Constitution.
and the website that lists those modest donations to the DNC, a handful of candidates and some PACs clearly notes on each page
that the ACLU did not donate the money.
from the 3rd "page" which you originally linked...
The first 2 pages have similar disclosures and much more clearly indicate a bias toward the Democrats, but again, not from the ACLU itself.
So they're in the business of (legally) laundering money (or facilitating donations, if you like) from contributors to Democratic candidates. In what way does that change the observation that the ACLU is a partisan political player instead of a neutral defender of everyone's rights?
Then support repealing Citizens United that opened the unlimited PAC loophole.
The ACLU does not and will never have a PAC.
I think this is the saddest thing I've read all week. The ACLU, like the NAACP, did some really wonderful and important work in the 20th century in defense of individual liberty and civil rights.
" Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of the New Yorker, “fastidiously nonpartisan,"
Maybe 100 years ago.
Well, I am still proud Democratic card carrying member of the ACLU, the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League no matter what some demented olde lawyer says. Still proud to be a liberal which does not, BTW, translate into supporting terrorists, being antisemitic or any other such ridiculous vitriolic nonsense no matter how vainly some may insist upon twisting any personal disagreements with themselves into meaning. Dershowitz is just an olde contrarian. His opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's regarding Russiagate. Freedom of speech is alive and well in the USofA. Dershowitz must be suffering dementia or else he just wants that final bit a attention. Plainly it is past time he should have been put out to pasture. So, I guess he is willing ot do anything and say anything just to get his dumb mug in front of the TV cameras again. That is pretty much the only thing he is infamous for other than that was helping to exonerate that no good lying piece of trash society murderer Claus Von Bulow for killing his wife Sonny. It is accepted as fact now Von Bulow was guilty sa hell so there is that.. I guess if Dershowitz is now defending Trump then that would indicate to me that Trump is guilty as hell too but then I already knew that. The only ones left denying the reality of Trump's guilt are those way for out there on the far far right who must strain their own credibility beyond the breaking point to remain unaware the facts anymore. When all is said and done it won't be the ACLU that loses all credibility No, that will will be Trump, his lame brained supporters like Derschowitz and the damn gop...
And as the article points out "The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.” which pretty much refutes his assertion that the ACLU is dead. They are more alive and active now than every before because never before in American history have we faced such blatant fascism and an attack on our civil liberties.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoller
Of course the ACLU is going to stand up against Trump and his disgusting perversions of justice and power grabs, they know if they don't there will be no one to stand up for our civil rights left.
When Dershowitz sees injustice, he doesn't put duct tape on his mouth as others do, even if such injustice is perpetrated by the political side he supports. That's one of the reasons I have so much respect for him. He will both walk the talk and talk the walk, and maybe that's because he is so much more brilliant than a lot of members whose comments I've seen here. It's certainly why I think he should be appointed to the SCOTUS - he doesn't let party politics interfere with justice. In my opinion he's a lawyer's lawyer, but a person who isn't a lawyer (or prejudiced by party politics or other bigotry) would not be able to understand that.
Perhaps you mightn't know this, but every accused person is entitled to representation, and the lawyer who represents the accused is oath-bound to do the the best he can to win for his client, or he should not be practising law. Von Bulow got the best representation available to him, as did OJ - whether or not they were established to be guilty afterwards. The world of justice isn't as depicted in the movie "And Justice for All" where Al Pacino screamed at the jury that his client was as guilty as hell, because a real lawyer would be disbarred for having done that. I can't believe that you blame a lawyer for doing the job he is bound to do. I suppose you think that doctors should piss on the hippocratic oath, and priests should publish a newspaper with everyone's confession as well.
I did not read such a intellectually dishonest statement in the opinion piece seeded, I did however read this:
I have long been a supporter of the ACLU .. thought I always would be a supporter .. given the backlash after having defended the White Nationalist venue choice in Charlottesville - as if a change of venue would have prevented the violence that erupted that day(?) - Individuals in masks, carrying baseball bats exercised their right to protest people exercising their right to assemble / march and carry firearms while doing so... I knew that the ACLU had chosen to no longer defend 'hate groups' that protested with firearms (Which I fail to see the significance of said action in regards to the events in Charlottesville - there was only one shot fired .. however I supported the decision)
Now the decision to support political causes and candidates as an organization .. does not really matter whether R or D … to me it taints the mission of what was once the ACLU - to protect civil liberties for all... perhaps the ACLU will get back on track after the 'era of Trump' (?) as of now the mission is to do anything that is considered anti-Trump (?)
I have found other sources to read on the subject and am off to read ……………. but it is / will be a sad day for Americans to lose the ACLU to partisan politics -
Alan Dershowitz is nothing more than a crusty old dingleberry on President Trump's ass.
Eww. Hi PJ.
Sorry, but he's a disgrace. He's so far up Trump's ass that he's lost all credibility.
US government
Image caption
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted his lover that they could "stop" Mr Trump becoming president
But the report also touched on text messages between two FBI officials who later worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the US election.
Peter Strzok, who was Mr Mueller's lead agent in Russian inquiry, was having an affair with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation.
When Ms Page asked if Mr Trump would become president, Mr Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
The report called this "not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects".
Colour and Bold added by E.A
Which they did NOT find. There were no actions taken by either one of them to impact the election. So that would be a fail of that conspiracy theory.
Just in case anyone misunderstand what and why I posted the above .
I am apolitical, But ANY and all investigation need to be conducted with no Bigotry OR Prejudice, in this case they have failed on BOTH!
No, they didn't. It's slightly funny that the same people who could not get enough political theater during Benghazi are now hyperventilating over a fair and balanced report after this investigation. Don't think republicans know what real investigations are all about, they only know their partisan ones. (more projection)
E.A Yes LOL at a Democracy of ALL places :-)
I would ask Alan Dershowitz if he ever lived or defended Natives in a sundown town. Or if he risked his life to defend wrongly arrested and tried natives in kangaroo courts. Perhaps he did but I don't remember seeing him in Mankato, Bemidji, Rapid City or Minneapolis...Funny how it goes when those that have never needed the help of the ACLU can pass judgement.
I don't need to read about cases that the ACLU defended some are real life for me.
It was the lawyers of the ACLU that would take down and dirty cases in towns that Dershowitz didn't know existed. None of the case were the OJ case. They were for people that couldn't afford a good defense. Good people working out of small offices in towns that they were not welcomed in.
So Mr. Dershowitz tell me when you'll be in SD/ND/MN defending Natives that are being screwed by the system. When you do that I'll meet you there. I know that the ACLU will be there.
Nothing more to add. I'm done with the article.
,
Did the Indians hire Dershowitz to defend those cases? If not, then you are being unfair.
So am I. I'm locking it now because there are certain NT members who would rather attack and insult other members than address the issues.
At least what I've learned by posting this article is that left-wingers don't reserve their pissing efforts on just right-wingers, but they're very democratic and will piss on anyone. Because this article has turned from addressing issues to attacking other members I'm locking the article - for good.