I have to express my outrage at the FDA's denial of license to market the morning-after contraceptive called "Plan B" in this country and the way the organization did it.
The scientific merits and safety of the drug did not seem to have been the paramount concern. The drug has been opposed on political arguments connected with preventing abortion--this is a lot like the implied connections between Osama and Saddam--a deliberate deception allowed (encouraged) to proceed. Plan B is not even close to abortion; the fact is, it acts before conception actually occurs. To argue otherwise is getting close to Pythonesque "every sperm is sacred" self-parody.
We need to take this political logic further. I will give this much integrity to this presumed right-to-life position (for pre-conception eggs and sperm) and those who make the argument, and I will not accuse them of seeking more unwanted pregnancies. Preventing the distribution of Plan B would seem certain to increase the number of subsequent abortions, and I'm sure that's not what they want. Is it possibly some desire for an increased supply of babies for adoptive purposes, in order to meet unfulfilled demand? Seems farfetched.
Instead, I will give the argument "credit" of a negative variety--what it seeks to do is to prolong the debate over abortion. It's part of the "pick a fight--any fight--over the Supreme Court nominations" strategy. Its aim is to distract the American people from issues that, frankly, are more pressing, and more harmful to Bushite administration.
The incidence of legal abortion in the U.S. has been dropping sharply; we should applaud that fact, but note that Plan B would have brought another sharp drop and, perhaps, started to take the issue off the table.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
An Iraq Policy with Some Guts
In honor of Jack Murtha's effort, but trying to bring in some reason.
Back to the Elephant
I was working on a scathing condemnation of Cheneyan hypocrisy on Iraq, but I found it all in the Times by Sunday. The first of two pieces was the simple and direct challenge through letter to editor from Thomas Czarnowski last Wednesday asking Cheney "who's the Revisionist?":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/opinion/l23cheney.html,
and the second Sunday's Frank Rich broadside branding them as liars (footnoted below for the Times Select-less).*
So let's move on to the real topic: what is the best timing for the withdrawal of the coalition forces, and why?
Let's go over a few pieces of relevant data:
1) the U.N. has authorized continued occupation for one more year, roughly. For that period of time, at least, the occupation is not illegal by international standards (though the invasion was).
2) readiness levels of the Iraq forces to defend the federalist, democratically-elected government which could emerge from the elections are terrible.
3) some individuals are kidnapping, torturing, and killing Sunnis, apparently taking advantage of being able now to settle scores from Saddam's times. The connection with Iraq's "government" and "military" will not be publicly forthcoming on these, but it seems their readiness to take over is pretty advanced in this particular dimension. Once again, the parallels with the Vietnamization experience seem to be surprising us.
4) Thus, the Bushite claim to have prioritized rebuilding the Iraqi self-defense capability (which is not new by any means) is seen to be hollow, further proof of ineptitude, and/or terribly cynical.
5) The Bushites choose not to discuss the question of permanent or ongoing basing of American forces but hide behind the lack of readiness of the Iraqi forces.
Political Calculations
I have to own up to the fact that, in the key moments leading up to the invasion, I was more interested in moving my family back to the country than the arguments for or against some immediate military action: I was concerned the invasion would disrupt our move. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
I was aware of the games that were being played with the weapons inspectors by Bushites and Saddamites and the fact the inspections were not allowed to run their course. I was aware the forces were in place. I was aware the Turks had denied us permission to use their country to stage attacks on central and northern Iraq. I was aware that the key Congressional votes to back up Bushite threats to invade Iraq were conveniently scheduled for October, 2002, so that those who dared vote against could be bashed for the anti-patriotism evident in any vote against aggressive military action, for whatever reason. What I missed was, "What's the frickin' hurry?"
My answer to that question was, and is, that political timetables were the one thing that was thoroughly planned in the invasion. The vote had to be at X date, the invasion had to be when it was, so it could be over by Y date, so that Bush could gain any benefit for "doing something" about 9/11 in 2004. Cheney's most hypocritical charge (OK, I couldn't lay off) is the accusation that his critics have politicized these issues of national security.
My point being, those who advocate a timetable for withdrawal have every right to bring political calculations into this argument. Nobody being hypocritical here: domestically, the Iraq Issue is more a political football than a serious debate about our foreign and security policy, and there's no rule in the game that says you can only punt on fourth down.
Bottom-line requirements for a bipartisan Iraq policy (even now):
1) Cease to offensive maneuvers beginning now.
2) Active policing actions by coalition forces end after the elections.
3) Six months to put up or shut up on training Iraqi forces, if and only if the atrocities against captured Iraqis cease. We are much in the position of the PLO being told to be responsible for stopping terrorism in the West Bank on this one, but we must insist upon it.
4) July 1, 2006, a balanced panel of pro-and anti-Bushite Congressmen will receive report from the military on the training progress (executive session OK). The choices are whether to give them 0, 3, or 6 more months to train.
5) Regardless, coalition forces should be drawn down to 25,000 by end of September, 2006. Whether that goes to 0 by end of year depends on continued U.N. authorization.
6) The U.S. publicly disavows any intention to have permanent bases in Iraq. Now, before the Iraqi elections. No "squirm now, sleaze later" approach this time.
If any of these are not agreeable, we stick with Plan B--we hammer the Enemy on these points:
1) We would not have invaded the way they did;
2) We would not have occupied the way they did; and
3) When we get control of the government we will move promptly to withdraw the forces.
http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com
* The operative phrase in Frank Rich's editorial: "The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie?" Rich recalls a Dick Cavett story, dishing Lillian Hellman: "'Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'". Can't top that for breadth, though it could be a bit more direct. A calling-out, nevertheless. Amen, Frank.
Back to the Elephant
I was working on a scathing condemnation of Cheneyan hypocrisy on Iraq, but I found it all in the Times by Sunday. The first of two pieces was the simple and direct challenge through letter to editor from Thomas Czarnowski last Wednesday asking Cheney "who's the Revisionist?":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/opinion/l23cheney.html,
and the second Sunday's Frank Rich broadside branding them as liars (footnoted below for the Times Select-less).*
So let's move on to the real topic: what is the best timing for the withdrawal of the coalition forces, and why?
Let's go over a few pieces of relevant data:
1) the U.N. has authorized continued occupation for one more year, roughly. For that period of time, at least, the occupation is not illegal by international standards (though the invasion was).
2) readiness levels of the Iraq forces to defend the federalist, democratically-elected government which could emerge from the elections are terrible.
3) some individuals are kidnapping, torturing, and killing Sunnis, apparently taking advantage of being able now to settle scores from Saddam's times. The connection with Iraq's "government" and "military" will not be publicly forthcoming on these, but it seems their readiness to take over is pretty advanced in this particular dimension. Once again, the parallels with the Vietnamization experience seem to be surprising us.
4) Thus, the Bushite claim to have prioritized rebuilding the Iraqi self-defense capability (which is not new by any means) is seen to be hollow, further proof of ineptitude, and/or terribly cynical.
5) The Bushites choose not to discuss the question of permanent or ongoing basing of American forces but hide behind the lack of readiness of the Iraqi forces.
Political Calculations
I have to own up to the fact that, in the key moments leading up to the invasion, I was more interested in moving my family back to the country than the arguments for or against some immediate military action: I was concerned the invasion would disrupt our move. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
I was aware of the games that were being played with the weapons inspectors by Bushites and Saddamites and the fact the inspections were not allowed to run their course. I was aware the forces were in place. I was aware the Turks had denied us permission to use their country to stage attacks on central and northern Iraq. I was aware that the key Congressional votes to back up Bushite threats to invade Iraq were conveniently scheduled for October, 2002, so that those who dared vote against could be bashed for the anti-patriotism evident in any vote against aggressive military action, for whatever reason. What I missed was, "What's the frickin' hurry?"
My answer to that question was, and is, that political timetables were the one thing that was thoroughly planned in the invasion. The vote had to be at X date, the invasion had to be when it was, so it could be over by Y date, so that Bush could gain any benefit for "doing something" about 9/11 in 2004. Cheney's most hypocritical charge (OK, I couldn't lay off) is the accusation that his critics have politicized these issues of national security.
My point being, those who advocate a timetable for withdrawal have every right to bring political calculations into this argument. Nobody being hypocritical here: domestically, the Iraq Issue is more a political football than a serious debate about our foreign and security policy, and there's no rule in the game that says you can only punt on fourth down.
Bottom-line requirements for a bipartisan Iraq policy (even now):
1) Cease to offensive maneuvers beginning now.
2) Active policing actions by coalition forces end after the elections.
3) Six months to put up or shut up on training Iraqi forces, if and only if the atrocities against captured Iraqis cease. We are much in the position of the PLO being told to be responsible for stopping terrorism in the West Bank on this one, but we must insist upon it.
4) July 1, 2006, a balanced panel of pro-and anti-Bushite Congressmen will receive report from the military on the training progress (executive session OK). The choices are whether to give them 0, 3, or 6 more months to train.
5) Regardless, coalition forces should be drawn down to 25,000 by end of September, 2006. Whether that goes to 0 by end of year depends on continued U.N. authorization.
6) The U.S. publicly disavows any intention to have permanent bases in Iraq. Now, before the Iraqi elections. No "squirm now, sleaze later" approach this time.
If any of these are not agreeable, we stick with Plan B--we hammer the Enemy on these points:
1) We would not have invaded the way they did;
2) We would not have occupied the way they did; and
3) When we get control of the government we will move promptly to withdraw the forces.
http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com
* The operative phrase in Frank Rich's editorial: "The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie?" Rich recalls a Dick Cavett story, dishing Lillian Hellman: "'Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'". Can't top that for breadth, though it could be a bit more direct. A calling-out, nevertheless. Amen, Frank.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
When does Plamegate become just Scootergate?
If that happens, these will be my last words on the subject. The fate of Libby's indictment is not the point here.
I think it's pretty clear what happened--I like to speculate, but there's probably not that much need. Scooter has been ID'd as the fall guy for a long time--perhaps he was actually the one who spilled the beans, certainly the guy who failed to do the cross-check for the VP between the "Smear List" and the "Do Not Smear List". Don't you hate when that happens, when somebody turns out to be on both lists, and you don't realize it?
There I am, speculating again. It might've actually been somebody else's job--like Stephen Hadley, or Mary Hughes, who has been conspicuously absent for most of the scandal investigation. Anyway, Scooter's the one who couldn't be protected, just like Mary Astor in the Maltese Falcon. Somebody's got to take the fall for Rove and Veep.
I checked some of my notes from April, 2004. At that time, aware of the specific allegation that Libby was the source for Novak (apparently only half-right, that one)I was wondering whether the scandal might touch Cheney before (or even more deliciously, after) the Republican convention. I was off by about 18 months: if the indictment had hit before November, 2004, Bush & Co. would be out on the street. Which is, of course, why it didn't happen. In retrospect, the months the thing was with Ashcroft, the legal protections and email folders being reviewed, were key in the successful postponement of the case exploding in the collective Bushite face.
I do give Fitzgerald credit for doing the right thing. Even now, he's putting the legal thumbscrews to Liddy (excuse me, Libby) to get him to rat out the truth. But it's been slow, too slow. The media knew that Libby was the probable principal by the end of 2003; there was a real lack of interest when they should've been on it (instead all the nonsense about the National Guard in the '70's....)
As usual, the timing was great for Rove, as was his ability to avoid direct fire and to script properly his comments to the press. That guy's got to go! Also, cover up-related kudos to Robert Novak, who was the guy who put 2+2 together. You sleaze for publishing it; a rare combination of brilliance and consistent lack of integrity.
That'll be it, unless I get answers to my two principal unanswered questions:
1) What context exactly was the one in (presumed CIA agent) Miller's notebook in which she mentions "Valerie Flame"?
2) Who was the 8th Person in WHIG?
I've just got one more question: Can we get a do-over on 2004?
I think it's pretty clear what happened--I like to speculate, but there's probably not that much need. Scooter has been ID'd as the fall guy for a long time--perhaps he was actually the one who spilled the beans, certainly the guy who failed to do the cross-check for the VP between the "Smear List" and the "Do Not Smear List". Don't you hate when that happens, when somebody turns out to be on both lists, and you don't realize it?
There I am, speculating again. It might've actually been somebody else's job--like Stephen Hadley, or Mary Hughes, who has been conspicuously absent for most of the scandal investigation. Anyway, Scooter's the one who couldn't be protected, just like Mary Astor in the Maltese Falcon. Somebody's got to take the fall for Rove and Veep.
I checked some of my notes from April, 2004. At that time, aware of the specific allegation that Libby was the source for Novak (apparently only half-right, that one)I was wondering whether the scandal might touch Cheney before (or even more deliciously, after) the Republican convention. I was off by about 18 months: if the indictment had hit before November, 2004, Bush & Co. would be out on the street. Which is, of course, why it didn't happen. In retrospect, the months the thing was with Ashcroft, the legal protections and email folders being reviewed, were key in the successful postponement of the case exploding in the collective Bushite face.
I do give Fitzgerald credit for doing the right thing. Even now, he's putting the legal thumbscrews to Liddy (excuse me, Libby) to get him to rat out the truth. But it's been slow, too slow. The media knew that Libby was the probable principal by the end of 2003; there was a real lack of interest when they should've been on it (instead all the nonsense about the National Guard in the '70's....)
As usual, the timing was great for Rove, as was his ability to avoid direct fire and to script properly his comments to the press. That guy's got to go! Also, cover up-related kudos to Robert Novak, who was the guy who put 2+2 together. You sleaze for publishing it; a rare combination of brilliance and consistent lack of integrity.
That'll be it, unless I get answers to my two principal unanswered questions:
1) What context exactly was the one in (presumed CIA agent) Miller's notebook in which she mentions "Valerie Flame"?
2) Who was the 8th Person in WHIG?
I've just got one more question: Can we get a do-over on 2004?
Alito Filibuster Question
Is it to be Bad Breath, or just a Waste of Breath?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation (by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants.
A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not. Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930). So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee. Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation (by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants.
A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not. Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930). So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee. Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Testing the Winds
1) Ambassador Wilson's Lament?
Someone’s got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press.
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick; when they will I can only guess.
…People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act.
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images, and distorted facts.
From “Idiot Wind”, Bob Dylan (1974)
On the face of it, "Idiot Wind" was about Dylan's difficulties in dealing with the public and the media, and with some particular individual (ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, perhaps). I think there's something more, though: the man who coined "blowin' in the wind" and said "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing" was testing the winds at the time, and he found something stultifying out there. Mind you, this was the time when America was stirred by the corruption of the Nixon-Agnew administration and was about to move to decisively oust the Nixonites and go for a breath of fresh air, which was what Jimmy Carter promised. I think Dylan saw beyond it all to the stink of the political climate that was to follow. It would be nice to know what his finger in the air tells him now, but my sense is that he's not interested anymore in that scene.
2) The Scent of Alito-sis
That's the flavor of the stagnant air in Bushite Washington these days. Old thinking, old ideas, but very practical tactics. Let's be sure we lock in these gains now, because this doesn't look like it will last.
That's what the Establishment decided, rejecting Bush's adventurous nomination of Miers. Last month's aroma was unsettling, improvised: frankly, the smell of the uncertainty of the future, rather than the familiar stench of the past.
Although the Miers fiasco presented the Democrats with a great pretext for filibuster: I thought you guys were the ones who insisted on a "fair up-or-down-vote of the full Senate"! I don't see this fight as one they will take up seriously. For one thing, it's the one their opponents wish for, so it's letting them pick the terrain. The credentialists are totally cowed, so it's down to those with the political freedom to fight the right-wing agenda. As with the Roberts nomination, only 30 or so.
I'm only slightly worried. The fulcrum of "what 5 Supreme Court justices say the law is" will move from O'Connor to Justice Kennedy, who is a vain weakling and may cave to pressures from the Right. Perhaps in some ways Alito would be better than Miers, in the sense that a principled conservative may hold back federal prerogatives more consistently than a political cronyism-based one, who'd give the Bushite GWOT anything it asked for. We shall see (and smell). If any institution was made to be conservative, it's the Supreme Court.
3) A Shift in the Jetstream?
Certainly the weather is playing a larger role than usual in the affairs of our country. On the one hand, a timely reminder of the limitations of our power; even more, of policy failures (in disaster planning, in infrastructure); most tellingly, though, the exposure of our governing elite's negligent attitude toward those who are not the winners in American society. This winter the weather promises more political embarrassment due to supply/demand imbalances for gas and oil products in the colder regions.
Or is it the climate, not just the weather? I'm one who finds it very plausible that the storms of 2005 are more than just an accident, even more than just a cyclical variation. Instead, consider them a means of the terrestrial system self-regulating: the greater energy in the seas and lower atmosphere being expended through storms of greater intensity.
Will these be reflected in the political climate? Well, I don't believe that the political storms will be more intense, but I do find that the "idiot wind" has shifted. The Bushites are on the defensive, their party colleagues are rushing to separate themselves, the discipline of the zealots is loose. Democrats seem to be making more of the right moves, and I believe some policy consensus has emerged around some key issues for them. It is way too much to expect a reversal in power in Congress in 2006--the system is gamed against any dramatic changes--but the winds are blowing over the warm waters in a new direction: they may pick up speed.
Someone’s got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press.
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick; when they will I can only guess.
…People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act.
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images, and distorted facts.
From “Idiot Wind”, Bob Dylan (1974)
On the face of it, "Idiot Wind" was about Dylan's difficulties in dealing with the public and the media, and with some particular individual (ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, perhaps). I think there's something more, though: the man who coined "blowin' in the wind" and said "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing" was testing the winds at the time, and he found something stultifying out there. Mind you, this was the time when America was stirred by the corruption of the Nixon-Agnew administration and was about to move to decisively oust the Nixonites and go for a breath of fresh air, which was what Jimmy Carter promised. I think Dylan saw beyond it all to the stink of the political climate that was to follow. It would be nice to know what his finger in the air tells him now, but my sense is that he's not interested anymore in that scene.
2) The Scent of Alito-sis
That's the flavor of the stagnant air in Bushite Washington these days. Old thinking, old ideas, but very practical tactics. Let's be sure we lock in these gains now, because this doesn't look like it will last.
That's what the Establishment decided, rejecting Bush's adventurous nomination of Miers. Last month's aroma was unsettling, improvised: frankly, the smell of the uncertainty of the future, rather than the familiar stench of the past.
Although the Miers fiasco presented the Democrats with a great pretext for filibuster: I thought you guys were the ones who insisted on a "fair up-or-down-vote of the full Senate"! I don't see this fight as one they will take up seriously. For one thing, it's the one their opponents wish for, so it's letting them pick the terrain. The credentialists are totally cowed, so it's down to those with the political freedom to fight the right-wing agenda. As with the Roberts nomination, only 30 or so.
I'm only slightly worried. The fulcrum of "what 5 Supreme Court justices say the law is" will move from O'Connor to Justice Kennedy, who is a vain weakling and may cave to pressures from the Right. Perhaps in some ways Alito would be better than Miers, in the sense that a principled conservative may hold back federal prerogatives more consistently than a political cronyism-based one, who'd give the Bushite GWOT anything it asked for. We shall see (and smell). If any institution was made to be conservative, it's the Supreme Court.
3) A Shift in the Jetstream?
Certainly the weather is playing a larger role than usual in the affairs of our country. On the one hand, a timely reminder of the limitations of our power; even more, of policy failures (in disaster planning, in infrastructure); most tellingly, though, the exposure of our governing elite's negligent attitude toward those who are not the winners in American society. This winter the weather promises more political embarrassment due to supply/demand imbalances for gas and oil products in the colder regions.
Or is it the climate, not just the weather? I'm one who finds it very plausible that the storms of 2005 are more than just an accident, even more than just a cyclical variation. Instead, consider them a means of the terrestrial system self-regulating: the greater energy in the seas and lower atmosphere being expended through storms of greater intensity.
Will these be reflected in the political climate? Well, I don't believe that the political storms will be more intense, but I do find that the "idiot wind" has shifted. The Bushites are on the defensive, their party colleagues are rushing to separate themselves, the discipline of the zealots is loose. Democrats seem to be making more of the right moves, and I believe some policy consensus has emerged around some key issues for them. It is way too much to expect a reversal in power in Congress in 2006--the system is gamed against any dramatic changes--but the winds are blowing over the warm waters in a new direction: they may pick up speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
