Essentially Contested America

Should we be concerned what an aging, communist dictator thinks about the role the U.S. plays in the world today? After all, his track record as a Soviet leader caused the disintegration of the nation he was leading? Not a good resume item for establishing your credibility about leadership. Nevertheless, in the remote chance that his perspective might illuminate problems the United States faces today, one might want to consult the reports in the Washington Post here, here, here, and here.

Indeed, arguably it is a requirement of rationality to take seriously and in good faith the judgments of one’s opponents. George W. Bush simply cannot understand this requirement. Accordingly, if America is ever to resurrect this requirement in government. A president, of course, must have his advisers. But if these advisers are true to their calling, they should provide rigorous criticism of the presidents opinions. Perhaps, even more important, the president must not be insulated from unsympathetic criticism. Rather he or she should be compelled to rebut such criticism. And if the present cannot do so, but persists in folly nevertheless, then the people should act to counter his or her indefensible policies, especially when it comes to war and the Unnited States’ standing in the international community. recover from Bush-Cheney assaults on republican democracy, is to

Why isn’t JFK’s remark–”Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate”–the principle to follow in the Clinton-Obama controversy. JFK’s slogan surely implies that the rule should be to negotiate and that this rule should generally trump any reservations about negotiating in any given case. Accordingly, while some pre-conditions to negotiating may be appropriate, they must be minimal. Maximal pre-conditions giving one party a virtual victory prior to the negotiations are inappropriate. Requiring some expression of good faith is appropriate with the Iranians, for instance, but not their commitment to shutting down their nuclear research in advance. The latter is not a pre-condition, but an end-game. No member of the international community is likely to agree to that sort of pre-condition because it means giving up what might be the subject of negotiations before the negotiations even begin. Sure, JFK’s imperative doesn’t resolve every controversy over when to negotiate. But it surely sets up a pragmatic framework that provides guidance. For instance, Mr. Bush’s intransigence about talking to Iran until Iran gives up its nuclear research as a pre-condition of negotiation is clearly unreasonable. It seems to clearly violate the rule to negotiate. Indeed, it seems clear that Mr. Bush does not intend to negotiate because negotiation means compromise, and compromise is something Mr. Bush does not understand.

Check out The American Mind, not to be confused with the Daily Kos, on whether Gonzales should go: “Why does Gonzales stick around continuing to embarrass himself, theJustice Department, and President Bush? Ed Morrissey mentions that maybe the White House fears confirmation hearings for a new Attorney General over continued rhetorical circling and stonewalling. Or maybe Bush’s loyalty is getting the better of him. Either way, “Gonzales is a mistake he can rectify, and Bush should do so immediately.” . . . . Alberto, please go away. Take what little respect you have left and “spend more time with your family.” That an Attorney General could function as a shill for a lawless president, suggests our system of checks and balances is in need of emergency repair.

Check out Joe Conason’s take on the Clinton-Obama clash over at Salon.com.

The debate over foreign policy posture and effectiveness between Senators Clinton and Obama is definitely heating up the quest for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. Senator Clinton refuses to allow herself to be used by brutal dictators for propaganda purposes, while Senator Obama will talk to anyone anywhere. The Senator from Illinois in effect challenges the reluctance to talk to tyrants as part of the old way of conducting foreign policy in Washington. By contrast, Senator Clinton condemns Obama’s policy as naive. Both are right and both are wrong. One doesn’t just run from inaugural parties to dine with Castro or Chavez. A savvy president needs to work his or her way up to a useful diplomatic exchange. Nevertheless, a ponderous set of pre-conditions on the grounds that no president should be used for propaganda purposes by brutal dictators is foolish. Diplomatic conversation should be occurring on some level at all times. And in critical cases, they should begin at the highest levels. Should it become apparent that one of the party’s is intransigent or not conversing in good faith, then conversations can be curtailed. The problem with the Clinton-Bush approach is that is presupposes an out-of-date diplomatic imperative, namely, never appear to be weak and the willingness to talk makes you look weak. Obama is right to condemn this imperative. There’s always time to break off diplomatic relations. Rather, than presume talking must be a benefit bestowed only tn hose willing to tow the American line, change the presumption. Instead, let’s presume that talking should be always be occurring with the prerogative to stop talking when significant agreement is impossible rather than a presumption that says don’t talk until the bad guys behave a little better. That’s what diplomatic negotiations are all about. Behaving better is the purpose of such talks not their pre-conditions.

People seem perennially inclined to come up with all sorts of new activities. Sometimes the results are devastatingly bad. Sometimes they are good. Moreover often, they are simply curious. Horse-surfing surely falls into the third category. Why would anyone want to combine two exhilarating activities which, when combined, seems silly? I suppose one could argue that a commitment to Rortyan pragmatism suggests developing an entrenched attitude toward valorizing change. Maybe. But shouldn’t there be commonsense limits on such an attitude? Enjoy the video by clicking on “Horse-surfing” above.

The last person to be believed about the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq is George W. Bush. Whatever he says, even if true, should be immediately suspect for two reasons, or two aspects of the same reason. First, Mr. Bush has willfully lied about the reasons for going to war in the first place, the nature of the conflict, and plans for resolving it. Second, Mr. Bush’s “lies” cannot, in the end be distinguished from the assertions of a seriously delusional–even solipsistic–personality. Nothing Mr. Bush has forcefully insisted upon about Iraq has turned out to be true. Not mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, being greeted as liberators, bringing democracy to Iraq as well as the region, and so forth.

Now, Mr. Bush, in his delusional-lying grandeur insists that “an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq is linked tightly to the central Al Qaeda leadership, and that for American forces to leave Iraq without defeating the terror group would be “dangerous for the world and disastrous for America.” No, Mr. Bush’s regime has been dangerous for the world, the region, and most of all for the United States. It has been documented beyond question that Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Now Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a threat, but a threat that should be attacked directly without participating in the civil war which is being fueled by the United States presence. After the U.S. invasion when Abu Musab-al-Zarqawi created the terrorist group that became Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the connection between Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Indeed, Al-Qaeda despaired at not being able to influence, let alone, control Zarqawi. Since Zarqawi’s death, these two groups of brutal murders are cooperating more, but they are still far from being linked tightly. More importantly, it is Mr. Bush’s incredible incompetence that fuels recruitment of Jihadists to Iraq to fight under the banner of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. When will enough Bush distortions be enough?

Almost seventy-percent of Americans disapprove of Mr. Bush’s Iraqi policy. A clear majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq. Only Mr. Bush’s scare tactics–we’ll be fighting them here if we leave Iraq now–prevent his disapproval ratings from skyrocketing into the ninety percent range. His scare tactics have been used again and again and still his ratings slide. If Congress and the American people fail to take immediate action, history’s judgment on our complicity with evil doers will be justifiably harsh. We must act now.

The Democrats in Congress are simply disgraceful. They welcomed the support of Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists in order to retake control of the House and Senate, but now when asked to put their money where their mouths are, they arrest these same protesters. Most disappointing is Representative John Conyers’s role in joining speaker’s Pelosi’s moral cowardice in taking impeachment off the table. Even without the votes to succeed, history requires everyone accurately diagnosing the perfidy that rules our country to speak out in any context where it can make a difference, even if only a symbolic difference. There is nothing pointless or futile about taking a stand even when one knows one will not prevail. Only cowards think differently.

Posted by RJL at 6:15 PM

Are there specific reasons for impeaching Bush-Cheney? Not according to a post on Right Wing News (RWN). Instead, talk of impeachment is merely “impeachment mania” generated only by “hatred of Bush and Cheney, not
really about any particular thing that they’re supposed to have done wrong.” Is RWN serious? Impeachment talk is “not really about any particular thing” they’ve done wrong? This reveals either deliberate duplicity or a willful incompetence at political and constitutional analysis. Does the RWN seriously contend there are no reasons to impeach Bush-Cheney? Does lying about the reasons for war count as an impeachable defense? Is there any proof of this? Impeachment hearings would provide or fail to provide proof. How about violating international laws concerning torture? Is there any proof of this? Again impeachment hearings would provide answers. How about an abuse of presidential authority to issue signing statements? Or conducting unconstitutional searches? Impeachment hearings are necessary to determine the truth of these allegations also. By ignoring the abundant evidence of these crimes, RWN continues the modus operandi of Bush-Cheney supporters, namely, to lie, distort, or minimize the most egregious executive crimes in the nation’s history.

If Congress does not impeach, censure, or reprimand Mr. Bush for his incompetent, reckless, and malevolent disservice to the nation, it will deal a blow to the idea of American government as a system of checks and balances comparable to anything Mr. Bush himself has done to eviscerate such a system of government. While Senator Feingold stands courageously alone in trying to prick the conscience of Congress, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have turned deaf ears to Mr. Feingold’s plea for congressional honor and the resurrection of Congress’ indispensable role in checking a lawless president. Their cowardice is palpable and will stain the honor and successful operations of representative government for generations.