Something we left behind

I have been thinking about lack of eloquence of the people we elect to represent us, or, in the case of G.W. Bush, the people we almost elect, but not quite. When I listen to the news on the radio, I wince when one figure or another reels out a prepared statement so obviously crafted and repeated that I can visualize the wear marks on the diphthongs. These people pile euphemism on cliché and dip it in pabulum before daring to present it to the public. There is nothing a politician’s handlers fear more than the opportunity or necessity for spontaneous speech.

I should note that there are a number of clever high school students in debate teams who could embarrass our congressional leaders in a true academic confrontation. By debate I mean the establishment of a proposition, the presentation of arguments for and against it, and the rebuttal of opposing points. The alternating recitation of stump speech fragments is not a debate, even if the networks call it so.

This is not just a matter of my taste for true debate. The lack of substantive debate in the public eye allows sloppy thinkers with sloppy ideas to ascend to high office. They never have to deeply understand what they are talking about. They know that their opponents will be delivering entirely predictable statements in predictable venues, and that they will have time to prepare their carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying, entirely irrelevant responses.

Something we left behind when we parted company with the British Crown 230 years ago was the custom of Question Time. At first only written questions were submitted to the government, but by the late 19th century, the Prime Minister and the ministers in charge of his departments had to face direct verbal questioning.

From a fact sheet published by the British Parliament:

“Procedure at Question Time
Question Time currently takes place in the House of Commons at about 2.35pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 11.35am on Wednesdays and 10.35am on Thursdays, after Prayers. In practice, the question period lasts about an hour on each of these days. Oral questions are not taken on Fridays.
The Speaker sets the process in motion by calling the Member whose question is first on the printed Order of Business. The Member stands up and says, "Number one, Mister Speaker". As the text of the question is set out on the Order of Business it is not necessary for the Member to read it out. To follow the proceedings clearly it is necessary to have a copy to hand. The Minister then answers the question. When the larger Departments, such as the Home Office or Trade and Industry, answer questions, the Secretary of State will be accompanied by several junior Ministers who will share the task of responding to Members.
Supplementaries
From that point further exchanges are unscripted. The Member who asked the original question is normally the first to be called to ask a follow-up question, or supplementary, on the same subject. When that supplementary has been answered by the Minister, the Speaker may call other Members to put supplementaries, usually alternating between the Government and Opposition sides of the House. Quite often, Members will rise from their seats in order to attract the Speaker’s attention. This is known as “catching the Speaker’s eye”.”

Watch the following video clip and try to visualize George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or any senior U.S. politician avoiding utter humiliation in this exchange:

David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, questioning Prime Minister Tony Blair on the National Health Service

GW standing in for Tony Blair? It is beyond the power of my imagination.

This kind of debate, repeated four times a week, would filter out the human tape recorders that dominate our government. It would also make CSPAN a contender with Comedy Central. In order to survive an exchange like this a politician has to actually have an understanding of the issue at hand. Agree or disagree with Blair as you like, but you have to admit that he has significant mental firepower compared to our own leaders. With this kind of performance as a job requirement, low wattage bulbs like George wouldn’t even be considered as candidates, much less elected. Think of Question Time as a form of intellectual, if not ideological, quality control. Perhaps it isn’t too late to import the custom.

Cheney Under Oath?

My worst call of last year was allowing hope to cloud my reason and believe that Karl Rove was about to do the perp walk over the exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. A satisfying thought, but, alas, only Lewis “Scooter” Libby is on the hook, for perjury and obstruction of justice.

But wait, it seems that there is no honor among thieves. Libby’s lawyer has testified that Libby was concerned about being a scapegoat.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected." I just have to quote that again: "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected." Doesn’t it give you a thrill? Rove hasn’t been indicted, but nevertheless, this resembles what is called a “cutthroat defense,” with two defendants accusing each other and claiming innocence. Wells also mentioned a note from Dick Cheney about the setup: "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder."

The list of probable witnesses includes an array of reporters, White House staffers, present and former CIA officials, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and even Dick Cheney. The concept of our Vice President, under oath, being questioned by Patrick Fitzgerald is enough to give me a warm, cozy feeling. I have discussed the prosecutor with a former NSA legal staffer who informed me that Fitzgerald takes perjury very personally and pursues perjurers with precision and intensity. Deadeye Dick will have to walk a very straight line with Mr. Fitzgerald. His testimony could expose a number of highly placed people to some unwanted public and prosecutorial attention.

Perhaps I was right all along, but just had bad timing? I can imagine Patrick Fitzgerald realizing that he didn’t have enough on Rove, but that getting Cheney and others on the stand under oath in the Libby case would give him enough material for another indictment. Right now this is only wishful thinking.

No matter. The Libby case will open a window on the internal workings of the White House in general and the Vice President’s office in particular. This won’t increase anyone’s respect for the morally challenged individuals therein. If this could stiffen the spines of congressional Democrats and distract the White House from attacking Iran or escalating in Iraq, I’m all for it.

Team of Rivals

I just finished reading “Team of Rivals,” subtitled, “The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” written by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I highly recommend it. While reading it I kept thinking of our present politics.

The title refers to the fact that Lincoln appointed to his cabinet a number of the men who opposed him, and each other, in the race for the Republican nomination. Many people at the time considered it an act of folly. Lincoln’s political genius had not publicly manifested itself at the beginning and most observers though he would be overshadowed. Also, these were men who had schemed against him in the backroom politics of the day. Lincoln held no grudges. He recognized both the talents of his rivals and his need for the support of their constituencies. His political shrewdness in this was multifaceted. He had the services of the most intelligent and hardworking men that the political system could offer. He could satisfy the factions in his party by letting them spout off without committing himself. His cabinet members got blamed by opposing factions for Lincoln’s policies. They were all ambitious and suspicious of each other, so they each tended to ally with him against the others. In the end, he gained their respect and loyalty.

Contrast this to the monolithic gang of yes-men (and women) that surround modern presidents.

The Republican party of the 1850’s sprang mostly from the disintegrating Whig party. There were radical abolitionist Whigs, moderate “Free Soil” Whigs, and conservative anti-immigrant Whigs. Some present-day commentators have noted that a political party is in trouble when people have to ask, “Ok, but what kind of (insert name of party) are you?” This fragmentation and lack of definition afflicts both parties.

Both the Free Soil and anti-immigrant movements of the mid-19th century remind me of the immigration debate today. The Free Soilers looked at the economy of the south and realized that a free man could not earn a living in a state where others could be forced to do the same work for inadequate food and shelter, plus beatings. They opposed the extension of slavery to the new western territories. The so-called “Know Nothing” nativists were motivated by a mixture of xenophobia, religious intolerance, and an aversion to the competition from an immigrant labor force. The wealthy southern Democrats relied on slave labor and used the myth of racial superiority to enlist poor southern whites in supporting the slavery that kept them poor. Sound familiar? Today we have wealthy corporate interests enlisting blue-collar conservatives in opposing “amnesty” for undocumented Mexican workers. This amnesty would place the Mexicans under the protection of minimum wage and workplace safety laws, thus improving conditions for American blue-collar workers.

The globalization debate covers the same issues, with Americans buried under a hail of propaganda. Apparently, competing with 30-cent-an-hour workers in China is somehow inescapable, necessary and beneficial to our economy. Note to the historically impaired: The abolitionists and Free Soil movement eventually won.

Another striking thing that Goodwin points out about the years preceding the Civil War is the deterioration of public regard for the institutions of government and the commonalties that bound the nation, as well as the growing violence and incivility of the debate. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857 denied the possibility of citizenship to blacks and extended the possibility of slave ownership to the new western territories. It was widely regarded as a partisan political decision favoring the southern Democrats. People in northern states were enraged and debated whether they should obey the ruling. The reputation of the court didn’t recover for a generation. It brings to mind Bush v. Gore in 2000. Then as now, a highly partisan, conflicted Supreme Court abandoned its traditions and its adherence to precedent to deliver a desired political result.

The electoral process was widely seen as corrupt, with plenty of backroom deals and unelected power brokers throwing cash around. The extreme ends of the political spectrum utterly distrusted the government.

The attack bloggers and shock jocks spraying spittle across the electronic media are disappointingly reminiscent of the ultra-partisan slander sheets of that era. The goal of objective journalism was not in wide circulation in the mid-19th century, and vilifying one’s political opposites as lunatics, mental defectives, traitors, perverts, and criminals was ordinary press coverage. Congress was no more civil. The conflict occasionally spilled over into physical violence. At least our vice-president limited himself to an isolated obscenity.

Slavery was the wedge issue of the day, in the same way that abortion, gun control, or the Iraq war would be today. Just as today, many politicians sacrificed principle in favor of party unity, and watched their party fracture anyway. The country eventually split along this seam. As with many emotionally charged issues today, the opposing sides could find no common ground on which to debate, merely exchanging ritualized insults. Will there be a new fault line?

After reading Team of Rivals I wonder what kind of earthquake we will experience in 21st century American politics. The Republicans are fragmented between neocons, religious fundamentalists, old-line fiscal conservatives, and moderates, with splits on abortion, immigration, and the Iraq war. The Democrats are lined up for a split between economic populists and the big money DLC wing. Much of our press coverage has devolved into either stenography or character assassination. We have what is essentially a mixed slave/free economy in the U.S., the slaves being a combination of undocumented immigrant labor, overseas sweat labor (actual slave labor in some places), and fossil fuel energy. This last element may be a surprising thought to many people, but consider that most human energy inputs into our economy have been replaced by this uncomplaining, never tiring, underpaid black servant. (Every kilowatt-hour you buy for a few pennies is equivalent to a day of hard human labor.) As with the exploited human labor, there are serious moral issues bound up with the use of oil, coal and natural gas, as well as uranium.

We could use a Lincoln.

Democrats: Plan a way out of Iraq

It’s not surprising.

Not the action, not the response. G.W. Bush has ignored all the smarter people around him and has done the bidding of the war profiteers and our friends in Saudi Arabia. 21,000 American soldiers will be sent to reinforce failure in Iraq. The obvious thing for the congress to do is to use the power of the budget and deny Bush funds for continuing the war or increasing troop levels. The Democratic response is to deny that they will “cut off funding for the troops,” thus throwing away their only tool for influencing the situation and framing the issue just the way Mr. Bush likes it. (Cue sound of hands slapping onto foreheads all across America.) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been busy painting herself into a corner, with Joe Biden right beside her. However, they will subject his plans to “harsh scrutiny,” according to Pelosi. That translates as watching closely as people die and money drains away.

Sigh.

Ok, Nance, Joe, listen up for a minute. It’s time to be active, not reactive. It’s called “planning.” (Yes, this will be snarky. Snarky is what they deserve.) Here’s a way out of the painted corner.

What do we want? Troops home, ASAP. Maybe we can leave a few in Kurdish territory and Kuwait to keep an eye on things, but we want them out of Six Flags over Babylon. Who would have an actual plan for doing this? (play Jeopardy theme music) That’s right, the Pentagon. They probably have twelve withdrawal plans, each covering a different scenario. I am sure they even have budgets attached to them. Get your hands on them. I know you have security clearances. Ask the generals which plan they prefer. Take the plan, the schedule, and the budget, and make it into a spending bill.

Week One: $11.2 million (or however much) authorized to move the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division (or some other deserving Brigade) from Camp Anaconda near Baghdad to Camp Ohthankgodfinally near Kuwait City.

Week Two: $4.3 million authorized to shred and burn mountains of classified documents in the Green Zone. $2 million supplementary funding to Halliburton for 8 cases of marshmallows to roast at bonfire.

Week Three: $17.9 million to move the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division back to Wiesbaden Germany.

And so on. Millions for withdrawal, not one penny for sticking around and getting blown up. All the money will be released on a fixed schedule, all restricted to the purpose. The troops will not be “abandoned,” just moved out.

When GW asks for supplementary money for the occupation, hand him Plan #12 for withdrawal.

Reality-based Republicans can back the bill without angering the folks back home. The Democrats, with a real plan in their hands, could conceivably round up enough votes from Republicans to override a veto. The Iraqis would have a deadline for negotiating some kind of inter-sectarian compromise.

I grant you, there is much imperfection in this idea. However, the chance of getting anything even close to good out of the chaos of Iraq is microscopic. It’s a way to get past the Denier-in-Chief. It’s a way out. The Sunnis, the Shiites, the ordinary soldiers, and the American public can at least agree on that.

Postscript: If you think this idea has merit, please consider forwarding it to your favorite representative or senator.

It could happen to you

Now that Sadaam Hussein has received hasty frontier justice, I have a few thoughts on the functionality of barbarity and its relation to Iraq.

In days of old, judicial punishment was always public. Whether it was the pillory, whipping, dunking, branding, hanging, or beheading, it was a spectacle. There was no cable TV or NFL, but your average Theodoric or Guillaume could always count on an entertaining “dance on the air.” Entertainment wasn’t the real purpose, of course. It was a demonstration of state power over the bodies of its citizens. Even when hidden away in a dungeon, brutality became public knowledge as stories and damaged bodies eventually made their way out. It was the use of violence to create fear in order to achieve a political outcome. In other words, terrorism.

The leaky state security apparatus that divulged the cruelties of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib did not defeat the purpose of those activities. In fact, the sometimes clear, sometimes hazy knowledge of what goes on in our off-the-books international prison system enhances its power. Those that the U.S. government wishes to terrify have both a clear understanding of what could happen to them and a springboard for even more nightmarish imaginings.

The CIA believes that less than 10% of the inmates at Guantanamo are “high value,” and that most of them are either foot soldiers or random victims of tribal feuds and bounty hunters. This abuse of the innocent is no handicap. In fact, it is an asset. If the innocents are as at-risk as the guilty, then everyone is looking over their shoulders and toeing the line. The United States Government has been quite successful at demonstrating its power over bodies both foreign and domestic.

The abrupt vertical demise of Saddam Hussein had a second purpose – closing the book on U.S. government support for him and his evil doings. In fact, our government led Saddam along the path to power starting in 1959. From his beginnings as a would-be assassin through his stint as a torturer to his glory days as a despot, the CIA and State Department were there for him.

Here’s my favorite Iraq-related quote, spoken as Saddam’s armored columns lined up at the Kuwait border:

“We [The United States] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, July 25th, 1990, one week before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in a meeting with Sadaam Hussein.

You’d think that we were looking for a new enemy to justify military Keynesianism after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But that would be really cynical. The fact that Ambassador Glaspie’s boss, James Baker, was brought in to clean up the mess with the Iraq Study Group just adds an appropriately twisted bookend to the whole disaster.

We found him, helped to raise him up, supported him, suckered him, deposed him, and through our puppet administration, we killed him. The message to the world: It could happen to you.