On Sunday I was listening to AM radio during the long drive back from Joshua Tree to Los Angeles. A talk show guested former House Speaker Tom DeLay for a 10-15 minute interview. The topic was the upcoming election for the Legislative Branch. DeLay's vital point was that the country is incredibly polarized. He predicted that whoever ended up with the majority in both the House and Senate, it would be a knife edge margin. The result will be gridlock and there is little reason to expect much in the way of progress or achievement in any direction. I found myself nodding agreement. The polarization is a true reflection of divided public opinion; it represents in large part a fundamental split over fundamental US policy regarding the so-called war on terror. DeLays' forecast if the Democrats gain power is an immediate move to pull troops out of Iraq, which would embolden North Korea, Iran, and would severely undermine the war on terror. In contrast, he describes the Republican administration as a bulwark against terrorism and threats to US security. DeLay and supporters of the current administration are missing an essential piece of the political puzzle. The only apparent logical reason for this is partisanism over patriotism.
What an accusation! Calling a conservative unpatriotic? One of the essential features of American democracy is that political leaders are tested and either removed or retained via election. The issue before the voting public is not about what should be done to improve the situation in Iraq, its about holding political leaders accountable for their incompetence and removing them from office. The current administration desperately and tirelessly bulldozes the idea that elections are a choice between "cutting and running" (Democrats) and "finishing the job" (incumbent Republicans). In truth, the elections should be a choice between retaining or removing those who designed and executed a failed policy. Democrats are not spared from this choice - the primary in Connecticut showed that the distinguised past of Joe Lieberman was not enough to forgive supporting the invasion. What is so maddening about the Republican attempt to narrowly characterize the current Iraq situation is the unapolygetic notion that the current administration is the only source of good ideas on how to solve it. HELLO! Short term memory loss? Why is there even a problem to solve in the first place? That was rhetorical. It's like a doctor that makes a spurting awful mess of a promised simple surgery and is then indignant when the patient demands a new doctor ASAP instead of believing the original doctor is the best qualified to fix things.
I could launch into a detailed argument as to how current leaders have failed the US regarding Iraq policy, but it really isn't necessary (actually, perhaps I'll do this later). By virtually any metric, Iraq is worse off, the region is worse off, and the world is worse off than before the invasion. The existence or not of liberal media reporting negative news disproportionately does nothing to change the facts of the current misery. But I digress despite intentions not to. The question at hand is, why is anyone defending those responsible for incompetent US policy? Humans are creatures of habit. Pure partisan loyalty is the only reason I can see to support someone for continued office tenure, when they have been tested and found inadequate. Real patriotism is not flag waving, attempted associations between supporting the troops and supporting policy, rhetoric about building democracy overseas, prosecuting a "war" on terror, and so on. Patriotism is honoring the institution the Founding Fathers built by exercising personal integrity via honest evaluations of political leaders based on performance rather than party. Lieberman is still in the running as an independent candidate, but I'm not voting for him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Mom says "Good job, Jeff. A+".
I think Tom DeLay is right. The country is polarized. Take, for example, our Mom. Mom wishes that the voting machines still had the lever to vote straight party tickets. She cross-questioned me about whether I had voted for Leiberman, who she would like to lynch one dark night if she could. Mom doesn't like Republicans, period. Lots of other Americans show the same sort of partiality and vote Republican to show support for our President. Elections seem to be about Us beating Them, not a review of an incumbent's record or a candidate's innovative ideas.
Well the results are in and the Republican Party has been administered it's spanking, as it should be. And if it were not for the deeply entrenched gerrymandering of the House, the Democrats would control three fourths of that chamber (assuming the non-gerrymandered Senate races are a reasonable indicator). Heck, even Lincoln Chafee got a spanking who is to the left of Lieberman, the difference being 'R' lurking behind the former's name.
That a slim majority leads to gridlock is a reasonable assumption. But there are other factors such as the rise of moderates who may be more likely to work across the aisle and also the increasingly desperate state of our foreign policy. These forces will be matched against the temptation of partisan Committee Chairs to extend the spanking to the executive branch. Brazil's system of government is equally if not more prone to gridlock than our own, but that didn't stop President Lula from doing with a minority what Cardoso coudn't do with a majority - namely to pass economic reforms through Congress. There are a lot of important issues facing Congress including immigration, energy and foreign policy. At this point I would have to describe my feelings as cautiously pessimistic about the next Congress - but predicting politics is a bit like predicting the weather or the economy as Milton Friedman put it.
The most interesting thought that I had while reading Uncia's post is of a more philosophical rather than technical nature. It goes to the nature of democracy. What is the role of the people in a democracy? If you are a supporter of direct democracy as in California or Switzerland, you would say that it is up to the people to decide on policy. I would argue that that is too great a burden on the people who have not the time, education or experience to create policy - or even evaluate it to any great extent. Of course the latter may depend on the people in question, but it empirically holds for the American people (myself included) and the vast majority of existing democracies. "Nay!" says Pytho, the role of the people is to "throw the bums out!".
They're all bums these days. Where are the starry-eyed patriots who carried the action in the first act?
-Lou
Italics work like this: < i>This is italics< /i>
As an empirical matter I don't think there is any country whose citizens can make policy. Imagine you are the boss at a software company but you don't have a programming background. Basically your role is then to choose people who seem to have the right kind of personality and throw out the non-performers.
I watched a year-old investigative report by Bill Moyers last night called "Capitol Crimes". It was about the way Tom Delay, Grover Norquist, Jack Abrahamoff and Ralph Reed (late of the Religious Right) bilked Indian Tribes of millions of dollars, promising them casino advantanges and using the money to promote Republican causes and mostly line their own pockets. Why aren't these people in jail instead of pontificating? ...dad
Post a Comment