In 1992, Bill Clinton made headlines by denouncing racially charged comments made by hip-hop artist Sister Souljah. As time has passed, Clinton’s denunciation has become more myth than fact, both with regard to the amount of political courage it required and its effect on voters. Nevertheless, a "Sister Souljah Moment" has become shorthand for criticizing someone on your side of the political aisle. In the 2008 Democratic primary, unfortunately, the term was abused to the point that one thoughtful commentator called for its retirement.
Not so fast. It’s time for the GOP to have its own "Sister Souljah Moment."
The Obama Administration’s recent release of several Department of Justice legal memoranda written to justify the CIA’s use of torture has sparked a long-overdue public debate. This debate has tied Republican apparatchiks in knots as they have bounced between the Orwellian declaration that if the United States does it, it’s not torture and the amoral rationalization that if good intelligence is produced, any means of interrogation is justified.
The argument against torture is simple: It’s wrong. It is against the law, against common sense, and against common decency. There are persuasive utilitarian arguments as well, stemming from torture’s proven ineffectiveness and tendency to induce false confessions, but those arguments concede too much. Even if torture produces helpful information, it is impossible to know if that information could have been obtained by different means, and it is never the case that the end justifies the means. Torture also makes us less safe, as it costs us allies, cooperation and standing in the world.
There is an opportunity for an enterprising Republican to both do the right thing and score political points by standing up against torture. All this person must do is declare that (1) the acts identified in the DOJ memos are torture and; (2) the U.S. should never torture again. This hypothetical Republican could even oppose prosecution of the actual interrogators, though they would have to support, at a minimum, some sort of Truth Commission or bipartisan investigation. (Sorry, Sen. McCain, not good enough.) Any Republican who came out against torture would become an instant media celebrity, would see their approval ratings among independents go through the roof, and could use their perch as the Republican co-chair of a Torture Truth Commission to great electoral and substantial success.
Yes, the criticism from the Club Gitmo Caucus would be fierce. Our fictional GOP’er would be subject to the full Limbaugh and would likely be kicked off the National Review cruise. He or she could not be facing a closed primary in 2010 (sorry, Sen. Specter) because the dittoheads would make it their mission to run him or her out of town on a rail (which, according to them, is not torture, but merely an "enhanced personal removal method"). How about Rep. Aaron Schock, all of 27 and representing Peoria in Congress? Or Rep. Joseph Cao, born in Vietnam and now representing New Orleans?
Why am I begging for a conservative politician to step forward? The future of America’s character depends on it. Humane treatment of prisoners has been a cornerstone of western civilization for centuries. We have inscribed it in the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution. Due process of law goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215, Clause 29 of which reads:
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
We will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. In the other corner, we have the GOP, proudly shredding eight centuries of humanity, decency and progress.
Even though I’m a Democrat and think denouncing torture would improve Republican electoral chances, I am still hoping beyond hope that someone will do it. Not torturing is supposed to be one of those things we agree on regardless of political predilection, regardless of who is in power at the moment, and regardless of the inhumanity of our enemies. It is supposed to be part of what makes America America. Yet conservatives’ fear and zeal have, for now, overpowered their fidelity to the founding principles of our country. Their shame should be obvious, but the deleterious effect on our national security is, sadly, only going to be felt over time. Unless we acknowledge and right our wrongs, not as two parties but as one country, we will be inviting greater harm. This Democrat would be willing to lose an election or two to maximize America’s security and restore America’s identity.