An Inconvenient Ideology

When I began this blog, I recall making some kind of silent pact with myself that I would never blog about anything too overtly personal. This blog would remain a political blog; it would remain in the abstract.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that politics is inherently personal -- if done correctly, in my opinion. Perhaps it's different if you are running for office - one must retain a certain sense of dispassionate engagement to succeed, I believe - but with researching and commenting from afar as I do, I can't help but to Make It Personal. Despite my attempts (with a modicum of success), I doubt I have the capacity to disconnect myself entirely from my beliefs for the sake of debate. For this reason, I would make a terrible politician.

But does this also make me a terrible son/brother/uncle?

This is Thanksgiving weekend, and that means family-time. I'm thankful for my family and I love them dearly. They have been an enormous influence on who I am and what I believe...and I say that with no hint of irony, despite that we could not be further apart on the political spectrum.

But this weekend was a test of my loyalties, I must admit. Through the years, we have learned to minimize political discussion, since it usually devolves into politely ambiguous, poignancy-free (and therefore unsatisfying) discussion at best, or uncomfortable silence at worst.

This weekend was no exception, and I offer only one, simple anecdote as it's all I can muster to replay. All you need to know for this example are three factors: (a) Everyone knows I am a liberal; (b) We are all equally aware that politics is a lightning rod; (c) As a consequence of (a) and (b), we usually connect on neutral topics - e.g., work, travel, house remodeling, movies.

Me: I recently purchased a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth"...not sure if you've seen it. I meant to bring it up this weekend so we could watch it.

Mom's Husband: Ah. I haven't seen it. It's not something that would normally interest me.

Me: Really? I thought you might like it. It's a well-made documentary.

Mom's Husband: Uh...no.

[Cue topic change]

OK. Loaded topic. Loaded suggestion. Perhaps I should have avoided it. But I felt we may have had some common ground here, since I've heard comments from him in support of environmental stewardship, and we commonly rent/watch quality documentaries. In fact, when I purchased my copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 years ago, I specifically did not make a similar suggestion because I knew how Michael Moore is perceived by those on the right.

But what could be their problem with the former Vice President and Senator from Tennessee? My family is from Oklahoma; I figured there might be at least a sense of southern kinship or something.

Alas, no. Nothing.

What could be their problem with this documentary, then? This is not a propaganda film, as some on their side would have us believe; climatologists have universally praised it for its accuracy. In an effort to understand the resistance, I have compiled a list of possible explanations:

1. They believe climate change is not an issue; this is not a crisis.
2. Al Gore is a Democrat.
3. Al Gore is an educated progressive, and as such acts like a know-it-all.
4. Al Gore is using this issue as a wedge, to frighten voters into believing there is a crisis so they will vote Democrats back into power, who will then use this issue an an excuse to further regulate industry.

My operating assumption is that the science of climate change is not in question by members of my family, so explanation #1 is off the table. If my assumption is wrong, then I'm worse off than I thought. If the case, then I fear that there is no hope of familial reconciliation: We might as well resign ourselves to talking about the weather at all future family functions. No amount of discussion will bridge that political and intellectual chasm.

So, I assume that they do not agree with their fellow Oklahoman, Senator James Inhofe, and that they do agree that man-made pollution is causing a global crisis. If this is the case, perhaps they simply don't need to hear Al Gore, the Democrat, lecturing them about global warming. Maybe they feel they understand the issue well enough without his didacticism, since some of their own (such as John McCain) also believe this is a crisis that our federal government needs to address. If so, I understand. Items #2 and #3 are therefore explained. Let's move on.

If #4 is correct, this might also make sense, since a common conservative trait is to project, and employing wedge issues to achieve political gain is certainly a well-tested tactic used by their side (never mind that Republican wedge issues are typically red-herrings (see: gay marriage, abortion), and climate change is no red-herring). They would be right to reject this tactic.

But even if Al is using this issue for crass political gain (despite his credible insistence to the contrary), what does this imply about my family? Does this mean that if they understand that our climate is in crisis, that Republicans will take care of it (and Democrats should be ignored)? If so, on what evidence do they rely to believe that Republicans will indeed do something about it? John McCain's word? What about Congressional and Executive inaction on this issue since Republicans have been in power?

Or is it that they truly believe that support for Al Gore equates to support for further government regulation? While opposing this certainly aligns with their political ideology as I understand it, what do they then propose to do to address this crisis? If not further regulation, then what?

I understand that all of this may simply be conjecture. Maybe this simply means I need to force myself to have these discussions openly with family members, rather than debate my assumptions on a public blog. But in my defense, I believe I have tried, and I believe that it's a difficult conversation to have when one side simply wishes to compartmentalize and over-simplify complex issues, rather than wade through an informed debate that may bring up some inconvenient truths - truths that might rattle an otherwise untested belief system.

If I seem strident, it's mostly because I consider my family's thinking to be a microcosm of the thinking that gets us into situations like the one facing us today in Iraq. Best intentions do not necessarily lead to best policy practices; blind trust in authority and your ideology is not infallible. Careful consideration of policy and an understanding of consequences are required.

I realize the inconvenience, but, please, let's put blind ideology aside for all of our sakes. If faced with a similar situation, I believe I would.

In short, let's just watch the damn movie...you might just learn something.

Pass the Buck

Whether it's cutting taxes for the rich and giving future generations the tab, or starting unnecessary wars that future presidents will need to decide how to end, today's Republicans are truly amazing:

Driving the decision to quit and go home rather than finish the remaining budget work is a determined effort by a group of conservative Republicans to prevent putting a GOP stamp on spending bills covering 13 Cabinet Departments — and loaded with thousands of homestate projects derided as "pork" by critics.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill would rather complete this year's budget work and have the GOP's imprint rather than a Democratic one on how federal agencies will be spending their money through next September. However, conservatives such as Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., fear doing that would leave as the GOP's legacy a foot-tall bill containing thousands of parochial projects. Last week they seized the upper hand by employing delaying tactics to drag the budget process to a halt in the Senate.

"The last thing Republicans need is an end-of-Congress spending spree as our last parting shot as we walk out the door," said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.

Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.

"Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."

Let's get them Dems! Ha ha! Forget that a strong majority of U.S. citizens support the first 100 hours of the Democratic agenda!

Screw responsibility! Screw accountability!

Screw the people!

...Add to this the campaign tactics used in the last several elections, and the true character of the current G.O.P. has never been clearer.

Bush Hires Latest Sacha Baron Cohen Character

...according to tristero at Hullabaloo:

Y'gotta hand it to Sacha Baron Cohen. He really is as brilliant and daring a comic as everyone says he is. Fresh off the spectacular success of "Borat," Cohen posed as an utterly deranged abstinence-only rightwinger and managed, apparently, to get himself hired by the Bush administration to oversee the only federal program that oversees family planning!

[snip]

It seems according to "Dr. Eric Keroack," that when women have sex with too many men, they deplete their oxytocin:

People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual.

[Insert favorite Borat exclamation/affirmation here]

Plot Summary for Highlander II: The Quickening

...or is it? This is the latest strategy to cool the earth, if Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) gets his way on global warming:

If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet.

Compare to a plot summary of Highlander II*:

The ozone has finally been destroyed by billions of deodorized armpits, and people are dying like flies, until a corporation headed by ["Connor MacLeod", aka Christopher] Lambert devises a shield to save the planet. This shield, known as the Shield, involves using all of the energy on the planet, concentrated into a laser beam which is shot up to a satellite, whereupon the Earth is saved from excess solar radiation...

--Only a slight, barely perceptible embellishment on the theme of the consequences of global warming. The parallels to this latest proposed 'solution' to global warming clearly outweigh the creative license employed by The Quickening's screenwriters.

The "shade" is the New Shield.

But don't worry, the climatologist who came up with this idea is "not enthusiastic about it" as it causes acid rain. Besides, we do have one other option if we continue to do nothing:

Climate change could devastate the global economy on a scale of the two world wars and the depression of the 1930s if left unchecked....

...Which is why I continue to be encouraged when I read things like this:

Three Democratic senators poised to head committees grappling with global warming pressed President Bush on Wednesday for mandatory U.S. limits on greenhouse gases.

In short, we now - at the very least - have hope.





 = our new democratic Congress


(*Thanks, Roger!)

...the other big loser

For all of his hyped genius, little-to-no return in this election cycle - once we called bullshit on using fear and 'dirty tricks' to sell policies that would otherwise never be bought. Karl Rove's tactic of placing highly partisan politics over ethical or sound policy appears to have finally lost its effectiveness. (For now.)

Let's review where George Bush's agenda now stands:

1. As noted previously, neoconservatism (and with it, unprovoked wars of 'pre-emption') is dead
2. Social Security will not be privatized under George W Bush
3. The worst provisions of the 'Patriot Act' now stand a chance of receiving close scrutiny
4. Tax cuts for the rich will likely not be extended
5. Energy Policy written directly by the industry is much less likely to pass
6. Assuming Webb wins in Virginia (and Tester's win stands in Montana), the Senate will not confirm another nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito
7. The religious right's 'wedge issues' (e.g., abortion, gay marriage) will likely fade in influence over future election narratives
8. ...and, we can perhaps now begin a real debate about what to do with the greatest strategic disaster in America's history: Iraq

Of course, I do not believe these Democratic gains necessarily mean that all of these issues will now magically get resolved, or that we will never see campaign dirty tricks in future elections, again.

But at the very least, democracy in America now once again has a pulse after many electoral defibulator failures in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - largely due to Rove's anti-democratic tactics.

For that, I believe I will now be able to sleep a little easier...

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald nails it, yet again:

Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; today, he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody).

All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious -- a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games -- can all be overcome. They just were.

Bush opponents haven't been losing because the deck is hopelessly stacked against them. They were losing because they hadn't figured out a way to convey to their fellow citizens just how radical and dangerous this political movement has become. Now they did, and as a result, Americans see this movement for what it is and have begun the process of smashing it.

Thanks for articulating my thoughts exactly, Glenn, as you so often do. Both this excerpted comment as well as the rest of your post are right on....

YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED!

Your asses have been officially repudiated:


...and add to the list:


OK. Gloating over. Let's now concentrate on securing the Senate with a Jim Webb win in Virginia and a Jon Tester win in Montana!

UPDATE: Check Ivo Daalder for his take on the impact this election will have on Bush's foreign policy.

It's all about you two dudes

November 7 is indeed a referendum on your policies and your style of governance:



...And as results are starting to come in, voters ain't happy with either.

Let's keep going and close this out!

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

I have been asked in the past if I give President George W Bush credit for something - anything - he has done that has had a positive impact on the country and/or humanity. Sure, you can argue that the U.S. government gives more money to fight AIDS and like causes than any other nation, for example, but this policy is not unique to the Bush Administration: Both Democratic and Republican Administrations prior to Bush II had these policies, and Bush II simply inherited them.

In all seriousness, I could think of only 2 policies or actions that were unique to Bush that were for the Common Good that I could actively cheer. They are (in no particular order):

1. The National Do Not Call Registry
2. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument

Now, #1 almost did not make the list, since my first several attempts at signing up for the Do Not Call registry failed for some still unknown reason (absolutely not user error), and I continued to receive unwanted telemarketing calls. I still blame Bush personally for that to this day. Item #2 is, however, actually pretty impressive, as it's the "single-largest act of ocean conservation in history." Nice job, George.

I think I may be able to add a third item to this list, if Kenneth Adelman, lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, is correct:

Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself - what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world" - is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell."

I have long been advocating that one of the most enduring wins for humanity after 8 years of Bush in office is the full discrediting of the neoconservative "tough foreign policy" vision; in particular, the policy of "pre-emptive war."

Don't get me wrong: I don't fault neoconservatives for thinking big. All explanations I've seen from neoconservatives about their foreign policy seem lofty and perhaps even noble. Think about it: "using power for moral good in the world." Shit, even I have made similar statements: my Blogger.com profile states upfront that "government can and should be a force for good in the world" for crying out loud. The problem is not with their lofty rhetoric.

Rather, I believe the problem with their "tough foreign policy" vision is that they weren't thinking big enough: They weren't thinking about the practical implications that waging unprovoked war(!) would have. They concerned themselves only with the utopian view of pax americana and how to achieve and/or regain an American-hegemonic peace. They seemed unconcerned with the inherent moral paradox of waging unprovoked wars as the means to achieve that end - or what that would do to America's perceived "moral authority" after the first wave of pax americana, post WWII. As I noted in a previous post, their approach has a major fatal flaw:

They all fail to take into account the possibility for unintended consequences that major undertakings (for example...let's see, ah: war) inevitably bring. They ignored the warnings from experts and the (likely) possibility that things could go wrong, and worse, they failed to plan for contingencies.

Indeed:

Adelman...wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

In fact, as a result of the Bush Team's dysfunction, Adelman appears to be finally breaking out of his neocon-induced bubble, and waking up to reality. If allowed a "do-over" of that 2002 WaPo op-ed:

I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked CAN'T DO.

Exactly. Lofty goals are not justified by exploiting manipulated intelligence and voter-fears in a rush to an ill-conceived and unnecessary war. Rhetoric does not equal reality. Ends do not justify means. DON'T DO IT.

Though, that is not to say that we can't accept the 'Ends' from unjustified means or unjust actions: That Bush may have inadvertently discredited neoconservatism with one gloriously incompetent disaster is a result I'll gladly take.

But I would have preferred avoiding this absurd experiment, continuing to track Al Qaeda followers in Afghanistan with determined focus, and keeping our policy of containment intact for a militarily castrated pre-war Iraq. [Which, incidentally, was not an imminent threat to our national security -- unlike the destabilized failed state Bush has put in its place.]

So, thanks, I guess, for adding a third item to my list; it's to your credit...

Vote 4 Change on Tuesday

...because even this dude would be better than the current leadership we have in Congress:

Failed Foreign-Policy Feeding Frenzy

The final wounds in the flesh of the 'debate' about whether Bush's foreign policy is an abject failure appear to be fatal.


Progressives have long argued that the invasion of Iraq was a risky and unnecessary diversion from real threats facing us globally, but even 'leaked' documents showing how the Iraq War has hurt us in the fight against ideological extremism did not seem to quiet Bush loyalists. Cries of treason and labels of "cut and run" filled the airwaves in response to even the most sensible calls for accountability, but now even the president's own have turned on him like sharks in blood-filled waters.

The original advocates of the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' - the neoconservative cabal of Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, Michael Rubin and others - have now in unison publicly decried the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the failures of its foreign policy:

[Vanity Fair Contributing Editor David Rose] spen[t] the better part of two weeks in conversations with some of the most respected voices among the neoconservative elite. What [he] discover[ed] is that none of them is optimistic. All of them have regrets, not only about what has happened but also, in many cases, about the roles they played. Their dismay extends beyond the tactical issues of whether America did right or wrong, to the underlying question of whether exporting democracy is something America knows how to do.

Perle himself now questions the wisdom of the Iraq invasion due to Bush's incompetence (however does not acknowledge that prior warnings of dire consequences from then-ignored Middle East experts came to pass with alarming accuracy):

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'

Sigh.


Perle's close friend and Iraq War catalyst, Ahmad Chalabi has also turned on the Administration that championed him as a hero of the Iraq War cause:

Chalabi thinks the U.S. should have exited quickly and turned things over to Iraqis, such as himself and Moktada al-Sadr. "It was a puppet show!" he says referring to the occupation. "The worst of all worlds. We were in charge, and we had no power."

He adds: "America betrays its friends. It sets them up and betrays them. I'd rather be America's enemy."

The interesting side note to these betrayals is that all of their original recipes for success in Iraq - oddly similar to many of the assumptions made by the Bush Administration - have in common one major fatal flaw: They all fail to take into account the possibility for unintended consequences that major undertakings (for example...let's see, ah: war) inevitably bring. They ignored the warnings from experts and the (likely) possibility that things could go wrong, and worse, they failed to plan for contingencies. At least we know which flaw attracted them to each other in the first place; ironic that this same flaw would doom their relationship. Not unlike how blood in the water attracts sharks, only to result in ripping into each others' flesh as the chum is consumed and the frenzy escalates.

Finally - as if eating your mate wasn't bad enough - the rest of the school have joined the fray, and the frenzy has reached critical mass:

An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women.

[snip]

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion...it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Was all of this avoidable? Sure. Evolving past a prehistoric, self-defeating attack-response helps.

Step 1 is this 'chorus of criticism' resonating all the way to the polls on Tuesday.


UPDATE: Add to the list of repudiations an op-ed from The American Conservative - founded by Pat Buchanan - titled, "The GOP Must Go." I kid you not. Pat Buchanan is from the isolationist wing of the conservative movement, and for those reasons has long criticized Bush for invading Iraq, so none of this is a real surprise. The larger point is that this clearly shows the widening fissures within the Republican Party, as isolationists battle neoconservatives battle the religious right battles the fiscal conservatives, and (what's left of) the moderates battles them all. The Party has clearly gotten to big for its britches:

...America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this country—which once symbolized hope and justice—to be humbled....

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. [emphasis mine]

Anyone other conservatives who would like to join in the frenzy? All are invited!

(Thanks to John in DC for originally posting this.)

Return to Zell

...Ever wonder what happened to Zell Miller, after he stabbed Democrats in the back in 2004 by supporting Bush's return to the White House, and bizarrely attacking John Kerry with that ridiculous (and inaccurate) "spitball" metaphor?

He's now leading a 'coalition of Democrats' in support of Rick Santorum:

"I am not involved in any other race in the country," Miller said during a radio interview Monday, according to a news release from Santorum's campaign. "I am only doing this for Rick Santorum. I believe in Rick Santorum's leadership that much."

Whatever. At least he's consistent(ly insane).

Let's all hope he simply fades further into obscurity and irrelevance after Santorum's defeat next week.