GITMO NIMBYs

It goes without saying that the Republicans’ problem is not, as the punditocracy claims, a “lack of ideas”; it is a surfeit of stupid, base and servile ideas. But who can fail to be impressed by the sheer obstinacy of the Party of No, and by their adeptness in leveraging their power, notwithstanding their unpopularity! Stupidity and shrewdness are starkly evident in the so far successful campaign of Republican legislators to keep GITMO “terrorists” away from anywhere near where their constituents reside; indeed, off American soil altogether. Their rationale is not that American prisons cannot contain GITMO inmates; such a contention would be too reasonable for the stalwarts of the Greater Evil Party, not to mention too difficult to defend inasmuch as the claim is transparently false. That’s why the Republicans have gone NIMBY – attacking Obama, and rousing their “base,” by exploiting the well-known Not In My Back Yard sensibilities we denizens of the Home of the Brave so often evince.

Thus the Republicans demonstrate, yet again, how fiendishly clever they are – almost to the point of sublimity. If only the “democratic wing” of the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, had been half as obstinate, how many Cheney-Bush era evils might the world have been spared! If only they would learn from their GOP counterparts even now, we might now be spared having to live in a country where real terrorists -- the Cheneys and Rumsfelds and, of course, the George W Bushes of the world – are free to live the high life and to amble freely about in between appearances on Fox News.

But that’s not the way of our Democrats; they’re too forgiving, too “bipartisan,” too (stupidly) “nice” for anything like that. Thus yesterday’s spectacle -- where the Democrats joined the Republicans in denying the Obama administration the funds to shut Guantanamo down until Obama comes up with a plan for resettling GITMO inmates that NIMBYs can live with. Yet again, “bipartisanship” translates into POP capitulation and GOP rule -- as Democrats, in true Pelosiite fashion, take everything that might actually implement genuine lesser-evilism “off the table.”

Specter

With Arlen Specter’s defection from the Greater Evil Party, the Democrats will have a filibuster proof Senate -- once the buffoonish Norm Coleman ceases and desists from obstructionist litigation, or the judicial system runs its course, and the comedian Al Franken assumes the Senate seat he seems to have won. Or, more precisely, they’ll have a filibuster proof Senate if everyone who caucuses with the Lesser Evil Party stays on board. That’s not at all a sure thing, even in Specter’s case. The only thing that is sure is that he could honestly run on the slogan: “better than Lieberman.”

Arlen Specter has made a career of being a tiresome windbag, just “liberal” enough to do well among Pennsylvania’s less benighted voters and just bellicose enough not to be too much on the outs with the GOP leadership. Acting on principle has never been his forte. Even in comparison with other Senators, the man is a rank opportunist. But that character flaw is not such a bad thing when it comes to switching parties – as Specter has now done twice. After all, what principled reason could there be for being a Democrat or a Republican when neither wing of our semi-official duopoly has any principles at all.

Not long ago, when he still thought he could keep his Senate seat and his Republican affiliation too, Specter flip-flopped on EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act – betraying his misguided supporters in the labor movement. If he doesn’t flip flop back in short order, organized labor should do everything in its power to make his life miserable, and along with it the lives of the Democrats – Joe Biden, Ed Rendell, and even our “bipartisan” President – who engineered his defection and who have warmly welcomed him into the Democratic fold. Labor has given its all to getting Obama elected and to supporting his agenda, foolishly demanding nothing in return. Now is the time to start demanding. If Specter doesn’t come back on board, they should run a pro-labor candidate against him in the primaries or, better yet, in the general election.

With the Obama administration in Wall Street’s pocket, it could be a risky move. But it also just might unleash events, as unpredictable as was Specter’s defection, from which all would benefit. Ours is a political culture where the duopoly’s disabling hold over the state has proven all but unshakeable. But then, the strategy that has worked well elsewhere – where organized labor fields its own candidates and, in the right circumstances, launches its own political party – has never been tried, at least not in recent decades. If not now, when? And if not in Pennsylvania, where? – should the old fool miscalculate (perhaps by calculating that he should not seem as unprincipled as he is) and remain stubbornly on the bosses’ side.

"Bipartisanship" versus Governance

One can never be quite certain that Obama isn’t “faking right” so that he can be in position to do the right thing. But with each passing day, it seems more likely that he isn’t faking: that he’s a go-with-the-flow “centrist” to his core. That’s why he backed down, sort of, on his bipartisan determination to “look to the future” by not prosecuting Bush administration war criminals. But, of course, in this matter, nothing is yet settled -- he could still backslide. For justice to be done, pressure from believers in the rule of law must be relentless. Otherwise, it is sure as can be that Obama will again veer off course.

Sadly, this change of heart is the only inkling of victory to date. In all other matters of consequence, Obama’s reckless bipartisanship is leading to disaster. The title of William Grieder’s latest, “Testicular Politics: Obama is Getting Punked By the Big Dogs of Banking, Does He Have the Balls to Do What’s Right?” gets it right. The same thing is happening in foreign policy. To cite just the most egregious recent example, it is reported that the new extreme right-racist government of Israel wants to take the two state solution off the table unless the U.S. comes around to its view on Iran. This is chutzpah on steroids; in a better possible world, it would embarrass even the likes of Alan Dershowitz. Well, maybe not him, but anyone a shade more decent and less ethno-centric. But Israel could get away with it – if Obama doesn’t have the balls. In this case, in addition to everything else, Obama would have to stand up to his own party in Congress – as recent events concerning Jane Harman, doyenne of the Lesser Evil Party’s right wing, and the ostensibly liberal Nancy Pelosi, aka the Whore of AIPAC, illustrate.

Then, there’s health care. If Republican obstinacy doesn’t derail Obama’s efforts to go bipartisan, he’ll have succeeded not only in marginalizing the single-payer alternative, but in sacrificing universal coverage too. The “partisan” Democratic plan, if true to its word, would at least make public coverage (the same available to federal employees and members of Congress) available to anyone who chooses it. That should put the kaybosh on private insurance in short order. [To keep the Democrats relatively honest on this score, proponents of the Obama plan should be asked at every opportunity just what they think private for-profit insurers contribute to health care. Let Max Baucus and Company wriggle out of that one!] The Clintons set the cause back a generation by not having the balls to take on the private insurers and Big Pharma from the getgo. If Obama is permitted to go bipartisan on this one, that unhappy outcome could happen again.

It all comes down to this: “bipartisanship” or governance. It’s not too late for an enraged citizenry to push Obama and his “team” away from the snare and delusion they are inclined to favor. Obama’s (possible) change of course on prosecuting Bush era criminality proves that. But it won’t be easy – particularly with Congressional Democrats, a few brave souls excepted, dragging everything within their grasp to the right.

Criminal Obama

Obama has not disappointed me; I never expected much from him. It was clear from the outset that he would govern from the center-right, just as Bill Clinton did and as Hillary Clinton would have had she become President. I didn’t even vote for him; living in a “safe” state and in a country with grotesquely undemocratic electoral institutions, it seemed infinitesimally more expressive to vote, yet again, for Ralph Nader. That’s why, unlike so many others, I’m not disappointed; but I am surprised.

I’m surprised that the Clintonite Restoration he promised was implemented without even cosmetic changes. I’m surprised, even so, that he would turn economic recovery efforts over to the perpetrators of the present crisis, and that he would stay the course as they line the pockets of Wall Street bankers at the taxpayer’s expense. I’m surprised that, having beaten his eponymous Clintonite rival by running against the Iraq War, that he would backtrack so blatantly. I’m even surprised that he’s so determined to escalate the Afghanistan War into a genuine quagmire and breeding ground for terrorists – notwithstanding all he said about the “importance” of that doomed effort during the campaign. I’m not surprised that his health care plan would continue to subsidize private insurance companies and the pharmacy industry – after all, he campaigned on that plan – but I am a little surprised at how zealously he has tried to marginalize the not-for-profit, single payer alternative, the one real solution to America’s healthcare woes. I’m not surprised that he would continue to pander to the military and the intelligence community (most recently, the CIA) or to the Israel lobby (even to the dismay of African Americans in Congress, who wanted the United States to participate in the second “Durban Conference” on racism). I must say, though, that letting the Chas Freeman appointment go because neo-con bloggers and Charles Schumer wanted it that way was over the top. I’m not surprised either that he refuses to take on the NRA at this point; that may even be a shrewd move. But I am surprised that it fell to Hillary Clinton, not Obama, to state the obvious: that the lack of an assault rifle ban in the United States is a major factor contributing to the drug wars in Mexico and to their overflow back into the United States. The list goes on. On style, Obama gets an A+; on substance, he’s just what one would have expected – only worse.

BUT if he makes good on his declared intention not to prosecute CIA torturers and the war criminals who advised them, not to mention the higher ups who gave the orders the torturers followed, then under both American and international law, he too is a criminal – an obvious point confirmed just yesterday by Manfred Nowak, the UN rapporteur on torture. “Looking forward” (only), as Obama calls it, is worse than implementing center-right policies with more than the usual zeal. It’s an affront to justice. It crosses the line from dreadful politics to outright criminality.

This is so obvious that even right-wing Democrats, like Diane Feinstein, can’t help but see it, and speak out about it. How ironic that the agent of “change” is turning out to be worse than Diane Feinstein. But that’s what’s happening. It is still possible, though, to parse Obama’s words – and Rahm Emanuel’s – Clinton style, with a view to finding wiggle room for the administration to appoint a special prosecutor. That’s precisely what should happen. Now is the time for everyone committed to the rule of law to force Obama to do this; to force him to back away from the threshold of criminality – saving him from his forgiving, “bipartisan,” centrist self. Will we be up to the task?

Viva España

Praise is due Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, led to his arrest in Britain in 1998. Garzón has begun proceedings in Spain against six senior Bush administration officials for the use of torture against (Spanish) detainees in Guantánamo Bay: Alberto Gonzales (formerly White House counsel, then Attorney General), David Addington (formerly Dick Cheney’s chief of staff), Douglas Feith (formerly Under Secretary of Defense) , William Heyne (formerly the Pentagon’s general counsel), and John Yoo and James Bybee (formerly senior Justice Department legal advisors). Unbelievable as it may be in a country officially dedicated to the rule of law, Yoo is presently a Law Professor at U.C.-Berkeley and Bybee is a federal appellate judge in California. The case must now be referred to a prosecutor, who, according to informed sources, would have little choice under Spanish law but to approve the prosecution.

The officials in question are just a rung below the very top – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et. al. Typically, this is how prosecutions of this sort work: prosecutors go first for lower lying fruit.

Coming on the eve of Obama’s first trip to Europe as President, this is a fortuitous turn of events. Thanks to Garzón, the only legal way out for Spain now not to pursue the case against the Gang of Six would be for the U.S. itself finally to press charges against them – and, since one thing is bound to lead to another, against their “superiors.”

Obama so far has shown no sign that he will let this happen, much less make it happen. Instead, as Cheney brags repeated about the torture regime he concocted, Obama has allowed the matter to turn into a debate about “security” policy. That is emphatically not what it is: torture is illegal under international and domestic law, and both Cheney and Bush have publicly admitted their culpability in the on-going commission of this crime.

If the Forgiver-in-Chief continues to protect his predecessors for the sake of “looking forward,” then he too will become an accomplice in war crimes. Intentionally or not, Garzón has put Obama in a position where he must do the right thing or else forfeit the claim to be better (less morally and legally retrograde) than Cheney and Bush. Obama must now, at the very least appoint, a Special Prosecutor, who would take the prosecution out of Spanish hands and put it where it belongs – in the American legal system.

But, of course, “must” is one thing, “will” is another. To bring Bush and Cheney and the rest of them to justice, we need public outrage directed towards Obama’s “bipartisan” pusillanimity. And, for that, we need to break through the wall of silence that the media are already beginning to erect around the good news from Spain. There is plenty of outrage already in the Land of the Free about bailouts and subsidies for obscenely wealthy Wall Street malefactors (and, not incidentally, campaign contributors). But there is always room for more. Now is the time to make it as clear as can be to Obama and the Clintonites he has chosen to surround himself with that he cannot afford not to bring to justice the leaders of the criminal administration that preceded his.

Hoping Obama Succeeds

Ever since Rush Limbaugh, the GOP’s driveller-in-chief, said he hoped Obama’s presidency would fail, liberal critics of Obama’s banker-friendly “bail out” plans have felt obliged to repeat ad nauseum how much they hope Obama succeeds. To date, liberals have been less vocally opposed to Obama’s plans to fight on in the endless wars Bush started. But, from that quarter too, expressions of hope that Obama will succeed abound.

Not wanting to take on a popular President directly, obstreperous Limbaughites in Congress – the ludicrous Eric Cantor, for example – have lately been more nuanced in what they say about their hopes. Needless to say, they express ambivalence for all the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, they are right to be ambivalent.

There is a sense, of course, in which ambivalence is unwarranted. Obama is, as it were, the Jackie Robinson of presidential politics. As such, it is his burden to be better than his rivals, and better too than his successors. One can therefore only hope that he be, or seem to be, among the “great” American presidents – one of the few that leads the country in a sound direction through extraordinary and difficult times. Since judgments of presidents are always comparative, that should not be too difficult a challenge to meet – especially in the circumstances Obama inherited. After Cheney and Bush, “greatness” in the sense in question has become indispensable even for minimally satisfactory job performance – for the first time since the Roosevelt era. As a highly intelligent, well informed, articulate and even eloquent leader, Obama should be up to the task – of besting all presidents since FDR. One must hope that he is.

But hoping that he “succeeds” in Afghanistan and Iraq is another matter. Inasmuch as both profoundly ill-conceived wars are already lost, succeeding in them amounts just to saving face. Elite opinion in the United States is unanimous on the necessity for that. But just the opposite is what the people, in contrast to their rulers, need. For the United States to make a successful soft landing in the turbulent times ahead, what is required, above all, is an Iraq-Afghanistan Syndrome that dwarfs the salutary but short-lived Vietnam Syndrome of the 1970s. We will survive and flourish only to the extent that our leaders are forced to relinquish their imperial ambitions. To that end, defeat is not enough. There must also be the appearance of defeat. But this is precisely what Obama proposes to spill yet more blood to avoid. One can only hope that he fails.

With regard to his economic policies, the situation is more ambiguous. On the one hand, whatever staunches the misery is unequivocally welcome. If only for this reason, one must hope Obama’s efforts succeed. But inasmuch as those efforts are, for now, more about saving bankers than saving banks, inasmuch as they aim to restore the old regime, not to replace it, “success” will likely mean more – even greater – trouble ahead. Obama’s liberal critics have done fine work explaining why. Why, then, do they also claim to hope these plans succeed? Is this not yet another example of liberals not taking their own side in an argument!

Had liberals been more obstreperous in the days when Bush and Cheney were doing so much harm some of that harm might have been averted. Instead, they were intent on being “reasonable” --cooperative, “bipartisan,” cowardly. They still are. In this regard, there is actually something to learn from their morally and intellectually “challenged” rivals in Rush Limbaugh’s and Eric Cantor’s Greater Evil Party.

The Humpty Dumpty President

It was clear from the outset, to anyone not overcome with Obamamania, that the “change” Obama promised would be largely cosmetic. Then, in the days before the inauguration, it became clear that, at least in economic and foreign policy matters, it would not even be that – as Robert Rubin protégés, along with other Clintonites, including Hillary herself, were given all the top slots. The fruit from that poison tree is now beginning to emerge.

What we’re getting is Bush Redux, minus Bush incompetence. Under Obama, the old adage that finance capital knows best, the conventional wisdom since the Days of Reagan, still guides economic policy. The difference is that the former deregulators, supposedly chastened by events, are determined to do the same old same old better – and, at the same time, to make the world safer for hedge fund managers and concoctors of inscrutable financial “instruments” by regulating away their untrammeled greed. Thus Treasure Secretary Geithner proposes to get credit flowing by recapitalizing banks and other financial institutions in a way that assures that tax payers bear the risks of their future machinations, in return for greater transparency and a few other milquetoast concessions. It’s even worse than under Bush: now the free marketeers can gamble with other peoples’ money, knowing that they can keep their winnings and that their losses will be forgiven. The Geithner plan will likely blow up in his and Obama’s face -- sooner than later. Then maybe the powers that be will have no choice but to do the kinds of Rooseveltian things they ought to have done in the first place. In the meantime, unemployment will rise and misery will increase.

Of course, in the long run, the “depression economics” à la Paul Krugman that will be their last resort is likely unworkable too, inasmuch as today’s capitalism, unlike the capitalism of the Great Depression and World War II era, is so rife with overcapacity that investments in the “real economy” are not able any more to keep the system going; for that, we now need bubbles and other shenanigans. But depression economics can address the immediate crisis better than any politically feasible alternative. It can buy time for popular movements to grow and develop – and to figure out how, in light of the failures of the past, capitalism can be not just ameliorated, but replaced by something qualitatively better.

But instead Team Obama is hell bent on resurrecting the old regime on a sounder basis. It will be our misfortune that they will find that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, cannot put the Humpty Dumpty of contemporary late capitalism back together again.

Then there are those pesky Bush Wars. Sensible imperialists (they exist, Obama is one of them) never had any time for the war in Iraq. But once it got going, no imperialist, no matter how sensible, could walk away in defeat. That would be bad for the empire. So the issue there is saving face. Peace candidate Obama has decided that the best way to do that is to wind the war down at a snail’s pace, but never really to end it by withdrawing all troops and contractors (mercenaries). Would John McCain have done it differently? Would the Cheney-Bush torture team if they were still in control? All we can say for sure is that they would have wound the war down less competently. Where so many lives and fortunes are at stake, competence is not to be despised. But neither is it to be confused with change.

Meanwhile, the peace candidate will, as promised, escalate the war in Afghanistan. This is ostensibly a war against the Taliban. But, according to informed observers, there are hardly any genuine Taliban left, especially in Afghanistan. What there are, in the so-called Tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, are various Pashtun factions that identify in one way or another with the Taliban or, more vaguely, with the kind of theocracy the Taliban favored. There are also “international brigades” of islamist fanatics. Apparently there are enough “insurgents” to wage guerilla war against no matter how many U.S. and other countries’ troops Obama can muster. But here too what matters, above all, is saving face. Since that’s hardly a saleable position, Obama and Company insist, just as Cheney and Bush did, that more war will somehow make “the homeland” more secure. Of course, it will have the opposite effect. Change indeed!

Continuing the Afghanistan War could well turn that theatre of the old “War on Terror” into Obama’s Vietnam. It could force the Obama administration to scuttle its feeble efforts at progressive reform, much as Vietnam forced LBJ to give up on the Great Society. But saving face for the empire’s sake trumps all else.

Now there is something to the idea that having broken it, it’s up to the U.S. to fix it. But the way to fix Afghanistan is not to break it more. All the king’s men should know at least that much. But, according to press reports, the only one of Obama’s top advisors to express anything like this eminently obvious view was, of all people, Joe Biden. Given all the Clintonites in the upper echelons of the administration, it’s not too surprising that the one with the most sense is someone who hasn’t the sense he was born with. But, still, how pathetic is that!