Essentially Contested America

ECA has a new home in Word Press. Apologies for not alerting readers of the change before it happened. The switch almost literally took on a life of its own. Please have patience; it will take me a few days to get up to speed. Thanks for visiting ECA.

Is it possible for Obama’s vision of a “new politics” to take root when men like Karl Rove operate freely and without punishment in the halls of political power?

Rovian politics, like Brooklyn Street Fighting, is heartbreakingly ruthless. One could, however, almost always opt out of Brooklyn street fights; just never join a gang. Remain a civilian. But not even “civilians” are beyond Rove’s poisonous tentacles. Or to put it differently, not one is beyond Rove’s nefarious clutches.

Bush-Rove politics must be ranked with the most notorious and devastating brand of character assassination, dirty tricks, and downright viciousness in the history of the republic. It’s not at all clear how Mr. Bush, a born-again Christian, can sanction such conduct. But he does. Wherein lies the morality–”love thy neighbor”–in such a strategy? Of course, Bush and Rove, in all probability, have developed enormous capacities to rationalize and compartmentalize their decisions to the detriment of the nation. Here lies another reason for punishing the Republican Party this fall. This is not retributive punishment–revenge is not involved–rather it is for the sake of deterrence. Hopefully, if we punish the Republicans for bringing us the past eight years, the Party will think twice about ever again inflicting such grievous injuries on the Constitution, the nation’s traditions, and on the American people. Although, it will not happen, Karl Rove certainly deserves to go to prison if the crimes his been accused of can be proven in court. But such punishment is clearly insufficient. The real culprit here is the Republican Party and Republicans who are so blinded by partisanship that they have no ability to discern the good of the nation.

Now that the catastrophic Bush-Cheney administration is slowly drawing to an end, talk of investigating this administration criminal abuse of power are beginning to echo throughout the nation. “The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s.” To continue reading click here.

There’s little doubt that scores of books and articles will be written on the topic of he Bush’s administration’s abuse of power, but actual accountability requires more than accountability by historians. In fact, this criminal administration is the paradigmatic example of the reason the Framers included the impeachment provision in the Constitution. (That this provision was never invoked reveals a radical defect in our constitutional design.) The next best approach, and the approach that is necessary if accountability is to mean anything at all, is for Congress to formally investigate and delineate the charges that should have been brought against this administration.

Under the Bush-Cheney administration, American constitutional government has moved closer to a constitutional dictatorship. Whether constitutional demeocracy is retrievable is an open question. But without congressional investigations that open question virtually closes.

Consider this stunning observation: “ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s “nuclear sites in the next four to seven months–and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war–either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.” To continue reading click here.

If this report is credible, and I have no reason to believe it is not, what pressure will the international community bring to bear on Israel, the United States, and Iran. The insidious apathy exhibited by the European Union, Russia, China, and Japan is reckless and dangerous. If Mr. Morris’s prediction proves correct, a holocaust in the entire region will make the catastrophe in Iraq pale by comparison. What controlling undercurrents prevent the world community from saying no? Is the international community content to allow Israel to do its dirty work while at the same time railing against Israel for engaging in a preventive strike? This certainly does not excuse Israel’s conduct, but it surely condemns the failure of the international community to prevent a devastated Middle East.

An astounding political event occurred pitting Iraq’s Prime Minister against President George W. Bush. “Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq ‘as soon as possible,’ according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama’s suggestion of 16 months ‘the right timeframe for a withdrawal.’ . . . In Baghdad, however, the chief spokesman for al-Maliki issued a statement Sunday saying the prime minister’s comments were ‘not conveyed accurately’ by Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine. . . . Spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said al-Maliki did not endorse a specific timetable but instead discussed a ‘an Iraqi vision’ of U.S. troop withdrawals based on negotiations with Washington and ‘and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground.’ . . . The Der Spiegel article, released Saturday, quoted al-Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Obama – the Illinois senator and likely Democratic nominee has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected.” To continue reading click here.

What does the average American–whoever that is–think when he or she hears that the Prime Minister whose country our men and woman are dying for wants us to leave, but the administration refuses to do so? There is so much wrong with this picture. But one thing is for certain; the administration never intended to leave Iraq even when asked by a duly elected government. Anything to the contrary was unadulterated hype. What pressure can be brought to bear against such a lawless administration? Impeachment and removal from office was designed especially with this sort of lawlessness in mind. But that will never happen because pusillanimous Pelosi refuses to permit the House even to discuss it. One thing we can do is punish the Republican Party by voting against Republicans in every race from president to dog catcher. The goal is to strike a blow against those Republican faithful who supported Bush simply to follow the party. They must be brought to realize that there are some occasions when lawlessness by the president (even when, or especially when, it’s your party) must be stopped or punished. That occasion is now.

How do those naysayers regarding Senator Obama’s credibility as commander-in-chief spin this one?

Bad news for optimists. “The United States of America is becoming less united by the day. A 30-year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England. Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to a report published yesterday. . . . The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being–more familiar to observers of the Third World–with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners.” To continue reading click here.

This problem–inequality in life expectancy–will never be resolved until the fear of single payer health insurance can be quieted. In turn, this fear will not be quieted until the vast right- (and middle-wing) propaganda machine exorcises the word “socialist” from their vocabulary. Canada has a single payer system. Is it a socialist nation because of its fabulously successful health care system? Not likely. Rather than deal in ideologies, why don’t we just evaluate policy by the criterion of whether it works or not? If that was our standard, Canada’s health care system would be seen by everyone to shine.

The usually savvy New Yorker Magazine has made a bonehead mistake. The cover of its latest issue designed as satire has turned out to be misunderstood and egregiously offensive, especially to Muslims. Consider a report from Media Matters for America: “In a July 13 online poll, the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com asked readers to ‘[s]ound off on the New Yorker’s cover with turban-wearing [Sen. Barack] Obama, gun toting wife [Michelle Obama] by choosing one of 12 options, including factually baseless options: ‘Funny, because there’s some truth in it’ and ‘The image isn’t too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family.’ While the New Yorker said in a press release that its cover ’satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign,’ for a majority of respondents to WND’s poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama’s religion and patriotism: As of 10:07 a.m. ET on July 14, the most popular option in the poll — selected by 60 percent of WND respondents — was ‘The image isn’t too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family.’ The second-most popular option was ‘Funny, because there’s some truth in it,’ which was selected by 11 percent of respondents. Below is the conservative poll of the cartoon’s meaning. WND’s online, non-scientific poll received the following results as of 10:07 a.m. on July 14: As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has frequently been the target of false attacks about his religion. Other attacks have targeted Obama’s patriotism and suggested Michelle Obama may be a ‘black militant.’ As Media Matters also noted, Fox News host E.D. Hill suggested the Obamas’ June 3 on-stage “fist bump” could be interpreted as a ‘terrorist fist jab.’”

This cartoon is clearly satire. But satire works only with an audience that gets it. It’s difficult to apprehend the mentality that would regard the cartoon as containing some truth. Is the poll itself satiric? How is it possible to view the Obamas in this light? I refuse to believe that this in anyway reflects the considered views of decent, principled conservatives. The better explanation is that the folks at WND have the same faithful audience that watches Fox-News daily. That said, the depth of the racial pathology in this country that lies at the core of the “satire’ was simply underestimated by the New Yorker’s editors. Don’t kid about the absurdity that over 12% of the population believes that Mr. Obama is a practicing Muslim and 19% or more believes he was sworn in with his hand of the Koran. In such circumstances, satire may be inappropriate; indeed, it may be downright dangerous. Here is an example. The felon of Watergate, G. Gordon Liddy, referring to the New Yorker cover, remarked that the magazine “finally got it right.” Was he kidding? Who knows? But I don’t think we’re ready yet, as a society, to satirize situations that are subliminally connected to the American pathology of racism.

Words of war are heating up between Israel and Iran. “The sabre-rattling over Iran’s nuclear progamme has grown louder as a defiant Tehran claimed to have conducted missile tests for a second day running, the US warned that it would defend its interests and its allies in the region, and Israel hinted it was ready to stage a preventive attack to destroy Iranian nuclear installations. . . . With the latest tests–and the wide front-page coverage given to them by the national media–Tehran is signalling it will not be cowed by international pressure to end a programme which the West suspects is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, and that any attack by the US or Israel will be answered in kind. . . . The tests, including launching the 1,250-mile range Shahab-3 missile that can hit Israel, should be ‘a lesson to our enemies’, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was quoted as saying. But some of the talk may be bravado. Pentagon officials told CNN that surveillance suggested only a single missile was fired yesterday, apparently one that failed to launch on Wednesday. . . . Even so, the show of strength drew an unprecedentedly blunt response from Washington and Israel. No one should doubt US resolve, said Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, on a visit to Georgia. ‘We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies.’ . . . More ominously, Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, noted pointedly that while diplomatic pressure remained the preferred way of persuading Iran to halt uranium enrichment, Israel ‘has proved in the past it is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake’.” To continue reading click here.

One needs to be careful here. Are both sides ratcheting up words of war just to satisfy domestic constituencies or to generate their machismo in the region. Or is this just the preface of a last ditch effort on the part of the Bush administration to either directly or by proxy take out Iran’s nuclear threat? Whatever the dynamics are here, it is quite clear that Iran is stronger and far more menacing now, since the invasion of Iraq, than it was pre-2003. The blowback from the invasion will haunt the U.S. and the region for years. Unless there is some reasonable means of negotiating with Iran regarding its interest in acquiring nuclear arms, March 19, 2003 will serve as the beginning of an Iranian supremacy in the region, or the reason the region was plunged into war. One final point. Is it possible that George W. Bush is so bereft of principles that he would invade Iran to tie the hands of the next president, especially if it becomes clear that the next president will be Barack Obama?

Progressive democrats supporting Barack Obama must be extremely disappointed regarding the senator’s support of a quintessential (George W.) Bushian statute. Consider: “The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill–approved last week by the House–to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.” For the entire article click this.

It is difficult to understand just what Senator Obama is doing and why he’s doing it. Does his gallop to the center represent his true beliefs or is it just politics as usual? In October 2007, he vowed to vote against any bill immunizing telecom companies; now, he votes for it on the ground that it’s a “compromise.” “Compromise” of what? Policy or principle? Just what’s going on? Here’s one possible explanation.

Senator Obama must not take for granted those inspired by, what seems now, to be empty rhetoric. The Obama phenomena promised to be the most significant change in American politics and society for at least the past five decades. What is the Obama phenomena now? More important, where is Senator Obama going?

Read about the latest injustice to Maher Arar, a Syrian born, Canadian citizen: “A United States appeals court decision upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit from Canadian Maher Arar essentially enables the U.S. government to send foreigners to be tortured, a lawyer with a human rights group representing Arar said Monday. . . . ‘It means that the U.S. can do to anyone what they did to Maher,’ said Maria LaHood, a senior attorney with the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights. . . . ‘They can do it to anyone, to any foreign citizen, and use the immigration process as a guise, basically, to send someone to be tortured.’ . . . Mr. Arar was labelled a member of al-Qaeda when he switched planes at New York’s Kennedy Airport in 2002 as he returned to Canada from vacation.” To continue reading click here. ECA has posted on Mr. Arar’s tragic story before here, here, and here.