I just finished Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side.  I’ve blogged a bit on it already, and if I have the time, will try to offer some additional observations later this week.  In the meantime, Alan Jacobs over at The American Scene wonders why conservative media outlets have chosen to ignore the book:

[I]f you. . .see the book only as an anthology of information in the public record — newspaper articles, interviews with named figures, books by former Bush administration officials, government documents, and so on — it’s still a convincing demonstration of how certain high-ranking leaders ignored international law and overturned decades (even centuries) of American practices towards enemy combatants.

Yet I have seen almost no response to this book in the conservative press. What’s up with that? The Dark Side has been reviewed in most major newspapers and magazines, but not from any of the conservative organs I’ve seen. Have I missed something? And if not, what are we to make of this silence?

Do conservatives think Mayer’s book is so bad that it’s unworthy of response? (If so, they’re wrong.) Are they just trying to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths, and would prefer not to think about what the Bush administration has done in prosecuting its war on terror? Or — perhaps the most interesting possibility — do they agree that Mayer has accurately described the administration’s actions but simply judge those actions very differently, as necessary and even commendable responses to the Islamist threat?

Keep in mind that Jacobs himself is a conservative, so he is not looking for an excuse attack his movement colleagues. If his last thesis is the correct one, then conventional conservativism no longer regards civil liberties and the rule of law as important as national security.

I do find it interesting that many of the conservative voices now arguing that the Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan as an unconscionable expansion of government power didn’t seem to have a problem with government overreach when it involved torture, rendition, and other abuses.  Their acquiesence then helped lay the groundwork for a similar expansion today.

To put it another way, conservatives had no problem with the Administration’s application of the theory of a unitary executive when it involved war powers.  So why are they suddenly surprised that the Administration now wants to take a similar approach toward the economy?

What conservatives have consistently failed to understand is that this is one of the least conservative Presidencies on record.  It has overseen the single greatest expansion of government authority in history — not merely in terms of war powers, but also with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the expansion of wiretapping and other forms of intrusion into the lives of average Americans, and the unchecked growth of government spending.  No previous Administration — Republican or Democrat — comes close.

In fact, the only field where government authority retreated was regulation.  From the environment to the economy, this Administration has loosened existing controls over big business.  The end result, of course, is the Great Crash we’re facing today.  And the Bush Administration’s solution?  Extend executive authority in order to bail out its friends.  It is consistent with their past policies of imperial overreach.

The Administration’s actions are both disgraceful and fundamentally unconservative.

Since it’s going to take us decades to clean up this mess, it might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure that the decisions our leaders make over the next week don’t end up doing more harm than good.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Henry Paulson Is As Big A Liar as John McCain
• Where’s Colin Powell When You Need Him?
• Today’s Political Haikus