“Even the Cato Institute”

On the one hand, I appreciate the link from Crooks and Liars to my recent C@L blogging on the FISA issue. But on the other hand, the implications of the “even the CATO Institute” comment stings a little. The implication, I guess, is that it’s surprising that Cato scholars would be in favor of civil liberties. Which is a little strange. Here is my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch attacking the president’s civil liberties record in 2006. Here is Cato’s 1999 books attacking Pres. Clinton for his poor civil liberties record. Here is Cato’s 2006 amicus brief opposing the president’s stance in the Hamdan case. Here is Cato’s brief in the Padilla case. Here are the dozens of pro-civil-liberties op-eds Cato scholars have written since 1991. Here are the op-eds of my former colleague Radley Balko, who wrote extensively about police misconduct and the futility of the drug war and gambling bans.

And yes, we occasionally have Cato scholars take what I would regard as the anti-civil-liberties position. Cato’s doesn’t tell its scholars what to think, and as a result they sometimes reach what most of us regard as the wrong conclusion. But the overwhelming majority of Cato’s work in this area has been on the side of civil liberties and the rule of law. And so the idea that we should be surprise that “even the CATO Institute” (and please note that “Cato” is not an acronym”) is opposed to the president’s agenda on this issue is a little silly.

Unfortunately, partisanship seems to have so poisoned our political culture that people have trouble wrapping their brains around the idea that not everyone falls neatly onto the left-right spectrum. Because Cato scholars take “right-wing” positions on taxes, spending, and regulations, it becomes disconcerting when we take “left-wing” positions on civil liberties, war, immigration, or other social issues. I suppose this is helpful to the extent that it makes right-wingers more likely to take our views on civil liberties seriously (and hopefully left-wingers will take a second look at what we have to say about economic policy). But it’s also frustrating.

Update: The Carpetbagger Report seems to be equally confused:

Keep in mind, the Washington Times and the Cato Institute are not exactly partisans out to make the White House look bad — they’re usually partisans out to make the White House look good.

I’d be curious to have them go over here and show me some examples of Cato scholars being “partisans out to make the White House look good.” Nothing? How about here? No? Maybe here? Here? Here? Here? It would obviously be silly to say that Cato scholars never agree with the president. Cato scholars and the White House were on the same page on immigration and Social Security reform, for example. But the charge of partisanship is absurd.

SHARE: 10 comments