Like Some Cash with Your Sanctimoniousness?

That seems to be the ACLU's goal as leaks of its latest internal dispute turned into a front-page story in today's New York Times. At issue is a federal program that allows federal employees to contribute to certain charities under the condition that the recipients promise not to knowingly hire what the papers calls "people whose names appear on watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism."

This wouldn't be a problem for an organization for whom common sense might be employed for the common defense. But the ACLU long ago abandoned any pretense to working for the common good and has become one of America's most vehement -- and effective -- enemies of civil society.

Part of the internal conflict stems from an April suit it filed to block use of the "no fly list" that contained names of suspected terrorists or sympathizers. Putting anarchic politics before public safety, the ACLU claimed that the lists were inaccurate and violated some people's constitutional rights. Of course, this is from an organization whose readings of such rights includes the "right" not to be offended by public displays of faith and other horrendous efforts at cultural hegemony and oppression that our reactionary majority foists onto helpless victims.

But it gets better because, as is often the case among the most pious amongst us, the trail of this conflict leads to money. Not that the $470,000 the ACLU receives each year via the federal donation program in question makes up a large percentage of its annual $102 million budget. But a half million is a half million, even to packs of rich lawyers, and there's tremendous potential in the program. With clever marketing playing off of what ACLUers see as the ubiquitous McCarthyism in American society, especially now that John Ashcroft wants to lock up everyone who isn't a born-again white Republican, the ACLU might greatly expand the rolls of donors from among federal employees. There's gold in them thar payrolls.

That might explain why Anthony D. Romero, the executive director, split hairs in his attempt to comply with the law's letter while thumbing his nose at its spirit. In a case of willful ignorance, he says that while he can't knowingly employ someone named on the list of possible terrorists, that's not a problem because he hasn't read the list. That means he does't know who's on it, so he isn't a McCarhyite. It's a nice trick -- getting your money, pretending to comply with the law, and remaining virtuous in the eyes of your compatriots. Perhaps honor enters into such an equation only when one's disengenuousness is directed at common-sense efforts to protect America from attack.

Not that the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the program (called the Combined Federal Campaign), is buying such sophistry. The director of the charity program says that they "expect that the charities will take affirmative action to make sure they are not supporting terrorist activities. That would specifically include inspecting the lists." Self-willed stupidity is no defense.

The Times also cites an old case in which the organization really did act out of principle in the face of domestic danger, only to regret and recant its actions later:

"In 1940, the group dropped Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from its board because she was a member of the Communist Party. (Ms. Flynn was posthumously reinstated.) At the same time, it passed a resolution calling it inappropriate for anyone to serve on the group's governing committees or staff who was 'a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country or by his public declarations indicates the support of such a principle.' 'It was a colossal error,' Samuel Walker, who wrote a history of the A.C.L.U., said of the 1940 decisions. 'It has since been almost universally viewed as a reprehensible mistake.'"

Just how civil liberties in America are strengthened and protected by either totalitarians or anarchists isn't clear, but I guess that's why I'm not a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

But let's give kudos for chutzpah where they're deserved. The Times also reports that Mr. Romero, the executive director, submitted an op-ed to both the Times and the Wall Street Journal that criticized the government's demands for participation in the Combined Federal Campaign as "an insidious chill on speech." Somehow, though, he forgot to add that he'd signed the certification forms and was therefore a willing participant in what was, at least according to his own words, censorship. His would-be editorial (neither paper published it) says:

"'The A.C.L.U. is currently challenging a version of these lists in its "no fly" litigation,' he wrote. 'Our concerns are that ambiguous definitions of "terrorism" and potentially inaccurate "terrorism watch lists" can also serve to shut down legitimate forms of advocacy and debate. Relying on employers to enforce "terrorist" lists also evokes eerie echoes of our McCarthy-era past.'"

Judging by the ACLU's actions, there's no substitute for standing on principle except being paid for compromising your principles while maintaining a fascade of sanctimony. Hey, a fella's got to make a living, right?