Rachel Maddow, in this video of her show, condemns Obama’s “prolonged detention” (of “terrorists”) for crimes not yet committed, as the most radical attack on the Constitution ever proposed to the American people by a president. I believe this represents a break from Maddow’s support of Obama, but I’m not sure since I don’t watch her very often.
She is certainly right that Obama has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, and that he is acting with arguably more contempt for it than past presidents would ever have dared to do, for fear of losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public. What enables Obama to do this is, of course, his assertion that the safety of the American people in an era of global anti-American terrorism requires locking people up merely because it is believed they intend to attack Americans in the future.
But Rachel Maddow does not challenge this crucial premise–that Americans are surrounded by a world of anti-American irrational hateful bigoted anti-semitic Muslims who want to kill us all because they “hate our freedom” and “hate Jews.” Instead, Maddow accepts this premise and merely disputes the legality (i.e. constitutionality) of what follows, at least plausibly, from the premise–the need, in order to protect Americans, for prolonged detention for not-yet-committed terrorist crimes.
Among those who accept the truth of the “terrorism” premise, many will accept the need for prolonged detention. Obama knows this, or else he would not dare to call for prolonged detention so openly, never mind in a speech given in the same room containing the original American Constitution.
The beauty of the Big Lie of the terrorist bogeyman is that it can justify just about anything, from torture to flagrant contempt for the Constitution. If one is genuinely opposed to torture and prolonged detention for crimes not yet committed, then one must refute the Big Lie that makes these things acceptable to many people.
So why does Rachel Maddow refuse to refute the Big Lie underpinning the War on Terror? Why does she not host Americans on her show who can make a persuasive case that 9/11 was an inside job? Why does she not make sure her audience knows that the organization that orchestrates terrorist plots inside the United States is the FBI? Why does she not explain that the War on Terror is an Orwellian war of social control that requires an enemy, and that, to produce that enemy, the United States government supports anti-democratic regimes everywhere and supports the Israeli government’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and kills innocent Muslims around the world with drones?
The answer is that if Rachel Maddow refuted the Big Lie, she would not be a famous celebrity with a muti-million dollar corporation (MSNBC) giving her a perch at the pinnacle of American corporate journalism. She would be merely Ms. Rachel Maddow, whom nobody ever heard of. That’s why. The price for admission to the Big Time in corporate America is that one promises never to refute key strategic Big Lies of social control. Once one makes that promise, one can gabble on all one wants, because it will only keep the people arguing about how best to fight the bogeyman enemy–exactly what the plutocracy that rules America want us to fight about. If Rachel Maddow said anything that, instead, directed American anger against the plutocracy, she would be fired.