Increasingly, “populism” is coming to mean anti-Clintonism. [On “clintonism,” see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27.] Populists oppose “free trade” agreements that harm workers, tax policies that benefit the rich at everyone else’s expense, and other government policies that benefit big corporations and agribusinesses at the expense of organized labor, small businesses, and family farmers. It is much less clear what populists are for.
This is one reason why the term is unfortunate. A more important reason is that it conflates ways of opposing Clintonism that are not of a piece. “Populism” groups together left wing advocates of alternatives to capitalism and advocates of left alternatives within capitalism. As the neo-liberal consensus of the past two and a half decades becomes unhinged, this is potentially a source of confusion inasmuch as anti-corporate and anti-capitalist positions can diverge considerably, and there are many varieties of each. A potentially graver problem is the fact that there are right-wing political orientations with as much right to the name as the left wing positions that the term is now used to designate; for instance, nativist opposition to immigration could be called “populist,” as could other expressions of racism. There is therefore a risk of tarnishing the Left with the sins of the Right. In short, the current usage is analytically unsound and ahistorical. [For elaboration of the concept of “populism,” and also of “capitalism” and “left/right/and center” see the entries in my Political Keywords (Blackwell’s, 2007).] When influential progressives like Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader use the term to identify their own views, it only adds to the confusion.
Nevertheless, it is all to the good that “populism” (anti-Clintonism) is on the rise. According to an article by Robin Toner in this morning’s (July 16) New York Times, Democrats are finally responding to the “populism” of their base. Toner writes that Congressional Democrats and Democratic candidates for President are “increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.” They “are talking more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities”; they are also talking more about growing inequalities and about the difficulties newly redundant workers confront. Among the main contenders for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards led the way. But now, according to Toner, they’re all doing it – even Hillary Clinton. She, of course, has a delicate task: simultaneously upholding Clintonism and its opposite. Fortunately for her, “populism” is a vague enough term that she might be able to pull it off.
Here is another case where the leaders cannot help but follow the base. It happened with the Iraq war; now it is happening with neo-liberal economic policies. This is all to the good. But there are two important caveats to bear in mind:
-first, the base is responding to the obvious – that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq is an abject failure, that the economic policies in place do more harm than good, except for the very rich (who keep getting richer). For many reasons – among them the fact that ours is essentially a one-party system with two competing wings, the fact that our media works to reinforce the economic and political power structure, the fact that so many “intellectuals” are servile to those elites – an alternative consciousness, one that would put the basic contours of foreign and domestic policy in question, is still mostly lacking. Therefore the danger of being taken in again by Pelosiites is great. [On the concept of “pelosiism,” see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism, May 28.]
-second, Toner’s expression “full-throated…critique” is (perhaps inadvertently) on point. Whenever Democrats appeal to their base, their rhetoric takes a “populist” turn. This is not a new phenomenon. Recall the verbal populism of the not yet reborn Al Gore in 2000 when his handlers decided that he had to crush Ralph Nader’s electoral support. This year, thanks to the manifest failure of the Bush government, “populist” talk may resonate not just with the Democratic base but also with “independent” voters and even with disillusioned Republicans. We should therefore expect to hear more of it in the coming months. Should the Republicans nominate any of their now most likely candidates, the Democrats will have little reason to change the tone. What a field of losers the Democrats will have to run against – a failed mayor with fascisant inclinations and a record of incompetence, racism and sleaze [see Kevin Baker’s “A Fate Worse than Bush: Rudolph Giuliani and the Politics of Personality,” Harpers, Aug. 2007], a god-fearing family, family, family plutocrat whose religion many godly Republicans cannot abide [see “Snake Oil: Old and New,” June 3], an unrepentant war criminal turned war monger whose relatively decent stand on immigration has left his campaign impoverished; and a lazy, TV district attorney who, though reactionary and ill-informed as Reagan at his best, is uglier and a worse actor. Against competition like this, the lesser evil party’s candidate may well feel safe talking the talk long past the time (when the nomination becomes secure) that one would expect her or him to stop. But this is not to say that Clintonism is about to expire. Perhaps Al Gore was “born again” as a public citizen, but he’s the exception: Clintonites, especially if they are Clintons, are nothing if not slick opportunists. Once the mini “insurgency” welling up around them subsides, as it likely will after a Democrat is installed in the White House, there will no longer be any percentage in striking populist poses; they will govern again as Clintonites. This is why we must be especially vigilant in the coming primary season. It is likely to become more, not less, difficult to tell the candidates apart from what they say. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich and perhaps Mike Gravel, neither of whom has a chance to win, there may be very little space between them in fact; not because they really are “populists,” but because they are all Clintonites under the skin. It is possible, though, that Obama or, more likely, Edwards really does have a “populist” core. In any case, we will have to work hard to get the best we can out of the available field, and then to keep him (it won’t be her) on a “populist” track as best we can. This will not be easy; it may not even be possible. But the alternative – a more competently administered, “kinder, gentler” continuation of the present course – is a fate neither the country nor the world can abide.
NOTE: There are now fourteen co-sponsors of the Cheney impeachment resolution, H. Res. 333, introduced by Dennis Kucinich. Here is the honor-role (in alphabetical order): Yvette Clarke (New York/11), William Lacy Clay, Jr. (Missouri), Keith Ellison (Minnesota/5), Sam Farr (California/17), Bob Filner (California/51), Hank Johnson (Georgia.4), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio/10), Barbara Lee (California/9), Jim McDermott (Washington/7), James Moran (Virginia/8), Jan Schakowsky (Illinois/9), Maxine Waters (California/35), Lynn Woolsey (California/6), Albert Wynn (Maryland/4). Ellison, Johnson and Waters are members of the House Judiciary Committee.
The Chairman of that committee, John Conyers, has yet to act. Neither have the overwhelming majority of the members of the so-called Progressive Caucus. Shame on them all!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Bush Was Right
A broken clock is right twice a day. George Bush got something right too in his July 12 news conference. He said that Congress has the right to fund wars (he forgot to add that they also have a right not to fund them) but that Congress has no business trying to manage wars. Lets not quibble over whether requiring troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days counts as managing or defunding or managing by threatening to defund eventually. The relevant point is that if most Democrats and increasingly many Republicans really want to end the war – or, what is not necessarily the same thing, if they truly want to represent their constituents’ desires to end the war (and, in so doing, not just to end the murder and mayhem but also to shut down what has turned into an incubator for future generations of “terrorists”) -- Congress should take the obvious, the honest, the constitutionally mandated step of defunding the war immediately if not sooner. Otherwise, as the Decider pointed out, they’re only playing “political games.”
Were Bush cleverer, he might have added that the prevaricators in Congress, and especially the Democratic leadership, play political games poorly. Recent polls indicate that they’re not positioning themselves well for the coming electoral cycle. What they’re doing instead is bringing contempt upon Congress – not in the technical sense so much recently in the news -- but in a more literal and disabling way [see “Contests in Cowardice,” July 9].
Every move the Democratic leadership makes is a misstep, not just morally, but in the crass strategic terms that motivate Pelosiites [see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.]. The Pelosiites are against the war, but they won’t end it, not really; and neither will they impeach the perpetrators – that’s still “off the table.” Then what use are they! In the 2000 election, a Clintonized party [on the concept of “clintonism,” see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27] strained the lesser evilism on which Democrats depend for votes. Back then, it was reasonable for those of us who believe in the “like father, like son” principle to wonder which one of Gush v. Bore really was the lesser evil; not out of any fondness for Papa Doc Bush, but because the Clinton administration was so god awful (and because Al Gore hadn’t yet been “reborn,” as Ralph Nader put it on Democracy Now, as a “public citizen”). Most people sided with the Democrats even so, even in Florida. Bush became President anyway. We must not let today’s Democrats make us susceptible again to a similar fate! Yes, it’s fine that they investigate. After six years of George Bush, there is more investigating for them to do than there is time to do it. It is indispensable work. Still, to paraphrase the Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, the point, in the end, is not to investigate this lawless, clueless and contemptible administration, but to change it.
Note: John Edwards’ positions on some domestic issues have been pretty good [see “After the Poverty of Clintonism,” July 10; “Edwards’ Challenge,” May 22; and “Bravo for Edwards (Sort of),” May 3]; better than Hillary Clinton’s certainly, and Barack Obama’s too. But only Dennis Kucinich has, so far, boldly and unequivocally broken away from the Clintonite fold. He has come out for single-payer national health insurance, for defunding the war now, for renegotiating NAFTA and other harmful “free trade” agreements, and for a host of other domestic and foreign policy positions that the country urgently needs, that the Democratic “base” wants, and that the mainstream Democratic Party stands against. Mike Gravel has taken good positions too especially on the Iraq War and other foreign policy issues. Even if they’re sure losers in a political culture where money matters [see “Money Matters,” July 2], these two candidates, along with Chris Dodd, have added a great deal to the otherwise dismal political “conversation” of our time. Kucinich’s positions alone are worth more than those of all the other candidates put together. That’s why it is distressing that at the most recent joint appearance (I hesitate to call it a “debate”) of the Democratic candidates, at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Edwards and Clinton were heard discussing ways to restrict future debates to “serious” candidates only. We must not let this happen! Without Kucinich and Gravel, Edwards and perhaps Obama too are more likely than they are with them around to drift back into comfortable Clintonite positions. That may be inevitable in any case, especially after it becomes clear who the Democratic candidate will be, but Democratic voters should do everything they can to delay and then impede this process. For now, that means keeping Kucinich and Gravel and the others in, not kicking them out. Shame on Edwards for even contemplating otherwise! Clinton, of course, has no shame, so it would be a futile exercise to try to shame her.
Were Bush cleverer, he might have added that the prevaricators in Congress, and especially the Democratic leadership, play political games poorly. Recent polls indicate that they’re not positioning themselves well for the coming electoral cycle. What they’re doing instead is bringing contempt upon Congress – not in the technical sense so much recently in the news -- but in a more literal and disabling way [see “Contests in Cowardice,” July 9].
Every move the Democratic leadership makes is a misstep, not just morally, but in the crass strategic terms that motivate Pelosiites [see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.]. The Pelosiites are against the war, but they won’t end it, not really; and neither will they impeach the perpetrators – that’s still “off the table.” Then what use are they! In the 2000 election, a Clintonized party [on the concept of “clintonism,” see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27] strained the lesser evilism on which Democrats depend for votes. Back then, it was reasonable for those of us who believe in the “like father, like son” principle to wonder which one of Gush v. Bore really was the lesser evil; not out of any fondness for Papa Doc Bush, but because the Clinton administration was so god awful (and because Al Gore hadn’t yet been “reborn,” as Ralph Nader put it on Democracy Now, as a “public citizen”). Most people sided with the Democrats even so, even in Florida. Bush became President anyway. We must not let today’s Democrats make us susceptible again to a similar fate! Yes, it’s fine that they investigate. After six years of George Bush, there is more investigating for them to do than there is time to do it. It is indispensable work. Still, to paraphrase the Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, the point, in the end, is not to investigate this lawless, clueless and contemptible administration, but to change it.
Note: John Edwards’ positions on some domestic issues have been pretty good [see “After the Poverty of Clintonism,” July 10; “Edwards’ Challenge,” May 22; and “Bravo for Edwards (Sort of),” May 3]; better than Hillary Clinton’s certainly, and Barack Obama’s too. But only Dennis Kucinich has, so far, boldly and unequivocally broken away from the Clintonite fold. He has come out for single-payer national health insurance, for defunding the war now, for renegotiating NAFTA and other harmful “free trade” agreements, and for a host of other domestic and foreign policy positions that the country urgently needs, that the Democratic “base” wants, and that the mainstream Democratic Party stands against. Mike Gravel has taken good positions too especially on the Iraq War and other foreign policy issues. Even if they’re sure losers in a political culture where money matters [see “Money Matters,” July 2], these two candidates, along with Chris Dodd, have added a great deal to the otherwise dismal political “conversation” of our time. Kucinich’s positions alone are worth more than those of all the other candidates put together. That’s why it is distressing that at the most recent joint appearance (I hesitate to call it a “debate”) of the Democratic candidates, at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Edwards and Clinton were heard discussing ways to restrict future debates to “serious” candidates only. We must not let this happen! Without Kucinich and Gravel, Edwards and perhaps Obama too are more likely than they are with them around to drift back into comfortable Clintonite positions. That may be inevitable in any case, especially after it becomes clear who the Democratic candidate will be, but Democratic voters should do everything they can to delay and then impede this process. For now, that means keeping Kucinich and Gravel and the others in, not kicking them out. Shame on Edwards for even contemplating otherwise! Clinton, of course, has no shame, so it would be a futile exercise to try to shame her.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
After the Poverty of Clintonism
From the time LBJ’s “War on Poverty” fizzled out soon after it began, thanks largely to his war in Vietnam, eradicating poverty has been off the political agenda. In this urgent matter, as in so many others, Democrats have been only slightly less evil than Republicans. Republican malign neglect peaked during the Reagan administration and has remained more or less constant ever since. If “compassionate conservatism” was ever more than a campaign slogan for George W. Bush, it too long ago fizzled out, also thanks to a fateful war; one the compassionate conservative himself started four years ago for no defensible reason, and is still unwilling to end. The Democrats continued Reagan’s de facto war on the poor during the Clinton administration, fulfilling the Gipper’s dream of “ending welfare as we know it.” The difference is that Bill Clinton “felt the pain” of his victims, while Ronald Reagan was oblivious to everything. From as early as the Clinton administration’s Golden Age – the period between his election in November 1992 and his inauguration in January 1993, when Clinton dedicated himself to “putting people first” – the Clintons effectively melded the poor -- the idea, not the reality – into “the great forgotten middle class.” Thus, even before they completed “the Reagan revolution,” they hammered another nail into the coffin of the War on Poverty – by helping to make the poor invisible again.
It is because Clinton was so successful in obscuring the reality of “the other America” that John Edwards’ “two Americas” rhetoric is important. It raises the prospect that the pendulum will swing back. Of course, it could just be talk. So far, Edwards has not had much to say about programs directed specifically at lifting the poor out of poverty, though his (far too timid) health care plan would help. But he has broached the problem from the other side: proposing fiscal policies conducive to more just, or at least less inegalitarian, development strategies. This too is something Democrats have shied away from, especially since the Clintonites took over the party. Eager not to appear to want to “tax, tax, spend, spend,” they effectively ceded their taxing and spending policies to the Reaganites. The result is that the tax system under which we live exacerbates inequality to a degree that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. It is therefore to his credit that Edwards was out front among leading Democrats in proposing that most of the latest round of tax breaks for the very rich -- the ones George Bush installed, with substantial Democratic assistance, in his first summer in office -- be rescinded. Other leading Democrats have followed suit. But proposing a return to the status quo ante in these matters is a relatively safe position to take inasmuch as it is hard to give a populist tinge to lowering tax rates for the very rich. That’s just what Republican ideologues and publicists did in rounding up opposition to inheritance (“death”) taxes that only affect the very rich. But that was then. With the Bush presidency tanking in every respect, poor and middle class people just aren’t that gullible anymore, and neither are Cheney’s and Bush’s operatives that clever.
The harder issue is to move against the reckless malefactors of high finance who, in addition to exacerbating inequality to the detriment of the poor and for the benefit of the rich, also control electoral outcomes thanks to our very undemocratic system of campaign finance. [See “Money Matters,” July 2]. Needless to say, Edwards feeds at that trough too. Nevertheless, he seems on the verge of taking on the captains of high finance, Bush’s but also Clintonism’s “base.” Campaigning in New Hampshire, he took a timid first step. He proposed increasing taxes on private equity and hedge-fund managers by supporting the so-called Blackstone bill that would levy corporate taxes on publicly traded private-equity partnerships. He said he would also tax hedge-fund managers’ “carried interest” as ordinary income rather than at lower capita-gains rates. And he endorsed measures to end the ability of those managers to defer taxation by shifting their money to offshore entities. These are not major structural reforms; only simple applications of elementary and uncontroversial notions of justice. But they do threaten the interests of the Democratic Party’s paymasters. Should Edwards emerge as a serious threat to a Clintonite Restoration, or should Barack Obama follow his lead, one can therefore expect that sparks will fly. It has been many years, after all, since any major player from within the depths of the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, has even contemplated doing anything to keep the rich from getting richer at everyone else’s expense. Can Edwards’ not so bold but nevertheless significant departure from the norm lead the party down the road to more serious reform? The short answer is Yes: but only if the electorate forces him to stay on track and only if the need to defeat Clintonism is kept steadfastly in mind. [See “Combat Clintonism!” April 27.] Otherwise, we’ll just end up with a Democratic candidate – and President, most likely – who will continue putting people first – the kind, that is, who go into private equity partnerships, invest in financial derivatives, and, deliberately or not, insure that “the poor will always be with us.”
It is because Clinton was so successful in obscuring the reality of “the other America” that John Edwards’ “two Americas” rhetoric is important. It raises the prospect that the pendulum will swing back. Of course, it could just be talk. So far, Edwards has not had much to say about programs directed specifically at lifting the poor out of poverty, though his (far too timid) health care plan would help. But he has broached the problem from the other side: proposing fiscal policies conducive to more just, or at least less inegalitarian, development strategies. This too is something Democrats have shied away from, especially since the Clintonites took over the party. Eager not to appear to want to “tax, tax, spend, spend,” they effectively ceded their taxing and spending policies to the Reaganites. The result is that the tax system under which we live exacerbates inequality to a degree that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. It is therefore to his credit that Edwards was out front among leading Democrats in proposing that most of the latest round of tax breaks for the very rich -- the ones George Bush installed, with substantial Democratic assistance, in his first summer in office -- be rescinded. Other leading Democrats have followed suit. But proposing a return to the status quo ante in these matters is a relatively safe position to take inasmuch as it is hard to give a populist tinge to lowering tax rates for the very rich. That’s just what Republican ideologues and publicists did in rounding up opposition to inheritance (“death”) taxes that only affect the very rich. But that was then. With the Bush presidency tanking in every respect, poor and middle class people just aren’t that gullible anymore, and neither are Cheney’s and Bush’s operatives that clever.
The harder issue is to move against the reckless malefactors of high finance who, in addition to exacerbating inequality to the detriment of the poor and for the benefit of the rich, also control electoral outcomes thanks to our very undemocratic system of campaign finance. [See “Money Matters,” July 2]. Needless to say, Edwards feeds at that trough too. Nevertheless, he seems on the verge of taking on the captains of high finance, Bush’s but also Clintonism’s “base.” Campaigning in New Hampshire, he took a timid first step. He proposed increasing taxes on private equity and hedge-fund managers by supporting the so-called Blackstone bill that would levy corporate taxes on publicly traded private-equity partnerships. He said he would also tax hedge-fund managers’ “carried interest” as ordinary income rather than at lower capita-gains rates. And he endorsed measures to end the ability of those managers to defer taxation by shifting their money to offshore entities. These are not major structural reforms; only simple applications of elementary and uncontroversial notions of justice. But they do threaten the interests of the Democratic Party’s paymasters. Should Edwards emerge as a serious threat to a Clintonite Restoration, or should Barack Obama follow his lead, one can therefore expect that sparks will fly. It has been many years, after all, since any major player from within the depths of the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, has even contemplated doing anything to keep the rich from getting richer at everyone else’s expense. Can Edwards’ not so bold but nevertheless significant departure from the norm lead the party down the road to more serious reform? The short answer is Yes: but only if the electorate forces him to stay on track and only if the need to defeat Clintonism is kept steadfastly in mind. [See “Combat Clintonism!” April 27.] Otherwise, we’ll just end up with a Democratic candidate – and President, most likely – who will continue putting people first – the kind, that is, who go into private equity partnerships, invest in financial derivatives, and, deliberately or not, insure that “the poor will always be with us.”
Monday, July 9, 2007
Contests in Cowardice
Finally, now that even some influential Republican Senators up for reelection are beginning to defect from the War Party, The New York Times (July 8) published a full page editorial that began with the words: “it is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
Note, though, because this is likely to become a major fault line in the months ahead: what the Times proposes is not exactly a withdrawal but a redeployment to secure bases outside areas of major turbulence. This is what Hillary Clinton wants too, and she’s not the only Democratic candidate to hold this view. In other words, there is a consensus emerging among former Bush aiders and abettors that the best and perhaps the only way to secure strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to promote the image of overwhelming American military power is to follow the example of Ariel Sharon and his successor, Ehud Olmert, in Gaza when it became clear to them that an overt occupation couldn’t be indefinitely sustained. To maintain Gaza as an outdoor prison for Palestinians, they decided to change tactics by continuing the occupation in less incendiary ways -- retaining control from outside the territory itself. Needless to say, the result has been catastrophic. Would it be better in Iraq? It isn’t likely. There, the only way out, for both Iraquis and Americans, is for the U.S. military to leave outright. But that doesn’t stop the Clintonites [on the concept of clintonism, see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27] or their co-thinkers at The New York Times. It is as if it is not enough just to do the bidding of the Israeli government; the down (but not out) War Party wants to follow their debased moral and intellectual example as well.
.
Still, it is a hopeful sign that the Times and the War Democrats have gone as far as they have. It is hopeful too that on NPR’s “Morning Report” (July 9), the doyenne of conventional wisdom, Cokie Roberts, saw fit to emphasize how the Democratic Congress now has an approval rating of 23% -- lower even than Cheney and Bush. Congressional Republicans are liked even less, so arguably the Democrats have nothing to fear on this count – yet. But they certainly have ample political cover for inching closer to positions – on the war and on a host of domestic policies, including health care – that the vast majority of Americans plainly want.
Also in the July 8 Times, Frank Rich wrote a wonderful column (“A Profile in Cowardice”) the gist of which is that George Bush’s presidency – and life – are defined not just by rank incompetence, as nearly everyone nowadays understands, but also by a profoundly inerrant cowardice. It is a point that those who dwell only on his government’s incompetence should take to heart. But they should realize too that no one in the GOP, not even Bush, holds a candle to the leadership of the Party of Pusillanimity, the POP – refusing, even now with the whole world behind them, to put Constitutional processes in motion for removing Cheney and Bush from office before their scheduled departure eighteen long months from now.
Note: On Monday, July 23, Cindy Sheehan, evidently back from the “retirement” that she announced on Memorial Day, will lead a march from the Arlington National Cemetery to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’ office on Capitol Hill to try to pressure him, finally, to move forward with impeachment hearings. She also plans to announce that, unless Nancy Pelosi changes her mind on the impeachment question by then, unless she agrees that it is no longer “off the table,” that she will run against her in the 8th Congressional district of California. These are efforts worthy of wholehearted support. So too are all attempts by genuine war opponents to unseat the current crop of Pelosiites [on pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28] who profess to side with their constituents while doing exactly the opposite.
Note, though, because this is likely to become a major fault line in the months ahead: what the Times proposes is not exactly a withdrawal but a redeployment to secure bases outside areas of major turbulence. This is what Hillary Clinton wants too, and she’s not the only Democratic candidate to hold this view. In other words, there is a consensus emerging among former Bush aiders and abettors that the best and perhaps the only way to secure strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to promote the image of overwhelming American military power is to follow the example of Ariel Sharon and his successor, Ehud Olmert, in Gaza when it became clear to them that an overt occupation couldn’t be indefinitely sustained. To maintain Gaza as an outdoor prison for Palestinians, they decided to change tactics by continuing the occupation in less incendiary ways -- retaining control from outside the territory itself. Needless to say, the result has been catastrophic. Would it be better in Iraq? It isn’t likely. There, the only way out, for both Iraquis and Americans, is for the U.S. military to leave outright. But that doesn’t stop the Clintonites [on the concept of clintonism, see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27] or their co-thinkers at The New York Times. It is as if it is not enough just to do the bidding of the Israeli government; the down (but not out) War Party wants to follow their debased moral and intellectual example as well.
.
Still, it is a hopeful sign that the Times and the War Democrats have gone as far as they have. It is hopeful too that on NPR’s “Morning Report” (July 9), the doyenne of conventional wisdom, Cokie Roberts, saw fit to emphasize how the Democratic Congress now has an approval rating of 23% -- lower even than Cheney and Bush. Congressional Republicans are liked even less, so arguably the Democrats have nothing to fear on this count – yet. But they certainly have ample political cover for inching closer to positions – on the war and on a host of domestic policies, including health care – that the vast majority of Americans plainly want.
Also in the July 8 Times, Frank Rich wrote a wonderful column (“A Profile in Cowardice”) the gist of which is that George Bush’s presidency – and life – are defined not just by rank incompetence, as nearly everyone nowadays understands, but also by a profoundly inerrant cowardice. It is a point that those who dwell only on his government’s incompetence should take to heart. But they should realize too that no one in the GOP, not even Bush, holds a candle to the leadership of the Party of Pusillanimity, the POP – refusing, even now with the whole world behind them, to put Constitutional processes in motion for removing Cheney and Bush from office before their scheduled departure eighteen long months from now.
Note: On Monday, July 23, Cindy Sheehan, evidently back from the “retirement” that she announced on Memorial Day, will lead a march from the Arlington National Cemetery to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’ office on Capitol Hill to try to pressure him, finally, to move forward with impeachment hearings. She also plans to announce that, unless Nancy Pelosi changes her mind on the impeachment question by then, unless she agrees that it is no longer “off the table,” that she will run against her in the 8th Congressional district of California. These are efforts worthy of wholehearted support. So too are all attempts by genuine war opponents to unseat the current crop of Pelosiites [on pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28] who profess to side with their constituents while doing exactly the opposite.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Backing Out or Backing In?
George Bush’s commutation of Louie “the Scooter” Libby’s perjury conviction is sufficiently egregious that the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings about it next week. Whether it was Bush himself or his evil demon Cheney who is to blame, the move epitomizes the administration’s style of governance. It is brazen and arrogant and, in spirit, if not in a strictly technical sense, lawless. It is also incompetent. First, commuting Libby’s sentence on the grounds that forcing him to serve time in prison would be “excessive” punishment -- given the nature of his crime, his career in “government service,” and the effects on the well-being of his family -- is in plain contradiction with the policy of the Bush-Gonzales Justice Department to insist on mandatory sentencing, regardless of mitigating, or allegedly mitigating, circumstances. Second, it is a transparently bogus effort on Bush’s part to insist that someone whom he concedes did wrong will be punished. Bush claimed that Libby would be punished enough by paying a $250,000 fine and by spending two years on probation. The fine is already paid; at this point, it is unclear where the money came from. Either it came from his wealthy right-wing supporters or, if he paid it himself, given how easily and swiftly he produced the check, the fine was only a slap on the wrist. Worse still for Bush, it seems that it is legally impossible to be on probation without having served prison time. Had the Scooter gone to jail for even a day, Bush could have kept him on probation without any problem. Then perhaps he could have still made a case that a fair punishment was meted out, though only the willingly gullible would have believed it. Now, for the Scooter to go on probation, the only hope Bush has is to get his lawyers to convince the judge, Reggie Walton, that probation is indeed possible. It’s unlikely he will succeed; though a Reagan appointee, Walton does seem be a person of integrity who respects the law. Should it become clear to everyone that Libby is not being punished, then his supporters, like Fred Thompon, will have a point: why keep the taint of a conviction hanging over him? Why not just pardon him outright? Of course, that will mean that, should Democrats in Congress have the will, the Scooter could be subpoened and compelled to testify (inasmuch as he could no longer incriminate himself and therefore no longer take the Fifth). Since there is good reason to think that he can incriminate Cheney and Bush, there is every reason to conjecture that this is just what Cheney and Bush hoped to avoid.
Thus there is much the Judiciary Committee can probe, and it is almost inconceivable, should they do their work, that they will not effectively document impeachable offenses. As we know too well, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is “off the table,” and the pelosiites in her party have so far backed her up. [On the concept of pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.] However, so far, three Judiciary Committee members – Waters, Ellison and Johnson – have refused to go along; they’ve agreed to co-sponsor House Resolution 333, calling for the impeachment [first] of Dick Cheney. [See “Cheney to the Rescue?” July 1.] So far, Committee chairman John Conyers and the rest of the Democrats on the Committee, some of whom claim to be “progressives,” have stayed within the Pelosian fold. Will they be able to remain there as their committee, a legally competent body, develops overwhelming evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Thanks to Cheney and Bush, there is a glimmer of hope now that they will not. However much they may want to back out of their Constitutional duties, maybe, just maybe, they’ll find themselves unable not to back in.
One thing at least is clear. Should the Democrats find it within themselves to do the right thing despite themselves, they will have more than ample political cover. It has gotten to the point that Keith Olbermann can call for Bush’s and Cheney’s resignation on his July 3 MSNBC “Countdown” program; that Hedrick Herzberg can castigate Cheney and Bush in the July 9 New Yorker in terms that, even months ago, no left-wing critic would have dared; and that Comedy Central on the Fourth of July could play three consecutive episodes of “L’il Bush.” Come on Nancy! This isn’t like hinting, even obliquely, that maybe the U.S. shouldn’t hand the Israeli government a blank check and shouldn’t place itself at its service. This is no “profile in courage.” The vast majority of Americans would be behind you if you were to allow impeachment back on the table. Remember too: it’s not a moot issue. The inauguration is still a year and a half away. Cheney and Bush have made themselves toast, morally and politically, but think what harm those dreadful wounded miscreants can still do!
Thus there is much the Judiciary Committee can probe, and it is almost inconceivable, should they do their work, that they will not effectively document impeachable offenses. As we know too well, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is “off the table,” and the pelosiites in her party have so far backed her up. [On the concept of pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.] However, so far, three Judiciary Committee members – Waters, Ellison and Johnson – have refused to go along; they’ve agreed to co-sponsor House Resolution 333, calling for the impeachment [first] of Dick Cheney. [See “Cheney to the Rescue?” July 1.] So far, Committee chairman John Conyers and the rest of the Democrats on the Committee, some of whom claim to be “progressives,” have stayed within the Pelosian fold. Will they be able to remain there as their committee, a legally competent body, develops overwhelming evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Thanks to Cheney and Bush, there is a glimmer of hope now that they will not. However much they may want to back out of their Constitutional duties, maybe, just maybe, they’ll find themselves unable not to back in.
One thing at least is clear. Should the Democrats find it within themselves to do the right thing despite themselves, they will have more than ample political cover. It has gotten to the point that Keith Olbermann can call for Bush’s and Cheney’s resignation on his July 3 MSNBC “Countdown” program; that Hedrick Herzberg can castigate Cheney and Bush in the July 9 New Yorker in terms that, even months ago, no left-wing critic would have dared; and that Comedy Central on the Fourth of July could play three consecutive episodes of “L’il Bush.” Come on Nancy! This isn’t like hinting, even obliquely, that maybe the U.S. shouldn’t hand the Israeli government a blank check and shouldn’t place itself at its service. This is no “profile in courage.” The vast majority of Americans would be behind you if you were to allow impeachment back on the table. Remember too: it’s not a moot issue. The inauguration is still a year and a half away. Cheney and Bush have made themselves toast, morally and politically, but think what harm those dreadful wounded miscreants can still do!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Obstructing Justice: Decider Style
You have to admire The Decider. He’s brazen. Nixon would never have dared commute the sentence of any of his mafiosi the way the Decider did for Cheney’s capo, Louie “the Scooter” Libby. With approval ratings at Watergate levels, he didn’t hesitate for a minute. Still in Kennebunkport, it was his first order of business after making nice to his estranged pal Vladimir under Poppy’s watchful eye.
Americans are inundated with self-congratulatory civics lessons about how in the Home of the Brave we live under the rule of law, not of men (sic). But the fact is that our Constitution places Presidents largely above the law. Therefore what Bush did was strictly legal. But it is absolutely plain that it is also obstruction of justice, just as Joseph Wilson said upon hearing the news. [Libby was to go to prison soon for having lied about his role in exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. Wilson, Plame’s husband, was the real target of Cheney and Bush and Karl Rove; it was to punish him that they “outed” his wife.]
Why did Bush do it? Perhaps brazenness is the whole explanation. But maybe he and Cheney were also afraid that the Scooter’s loyalty would disappear during thirty months of incarceration. Libby has much to tell about what Cheney and Bush knew – and did -- and when they knew and did it. It may be significant that, by having his sentence commuted, he can still plead the Fifth, should Democrats find enough courage to call hearings. If he had been outright pardoned, he could no longer incriminate himself and therefore no longer refuse to testify on those grounds.
Nixon did nothing comparably brazen during the Watergate period because he knew that doing so would make his impeachment even more likely. There was an opposition party then. For his Iran-Contra crimes, Ronald Reagan could have been charged with far graver offenses. But, being more popular at his nadir than Nixon or Bush at theirs, and facing a Democratic Party that was already somewhat Clintonized (on Clintonism, see “Combat Clintonism!”, April 27) he rode out the storm. However even the Gipper would never have dared do anything quite so brazen as Bush just did. Instead, he followed Nixon’s lead, leaving the pardoning and commuting to his successors.
[Ford took care of Nixon and Papa Doc Bush took care of the felonious Reaganites, some of whom – Elliott Abrams most conspicuously – afflict us to this day. One could say that W is just following a family tradition. After all, his father did some mighty swift pardoning -- most notably of Casper “Cap” Weinberger -- just as Bush’s own role in Iran-Contra was coming into view. It should be noted, though, that Iran-Contra wasn’t finally put to rest until Bill Clinton quashed the last investigation. Remarkably, the Clintons, like many other Democrats, are de facto Reagan boosters. But for Bill, one could still fly to Washington’s National, not Reagan National, airport. And who can forget the nauseating funeral oration he delivered when the Gipper’s body finally caught up with his mind.]
To be sure, the Scooter was about to be sent up for a crime that pales in comparison to his real crimes and those of his boss and his boss’s nominal boss. This has been the American way ever since the feds got Al Capone for taxes. But even a Reaganite judge agreed that what Libby did warranted 30 months in prison. Whatever his other reasons may be, by commuting Libby’s sentence, Bush is saying to the world and to the courts and especially to the Democrats what he said to the Iraqi people after it became clear that “the mission” wasn’t exactly “accomplished” – “bring it on.” Hundreds, of thousands of people have died or suffered grievously for the bravado those words denote. But with Democrats in charge of Congress, he may get away with it this time. The one thing Karl Rove and the rest of Bush’s handlers understand is the mettle and timbre of the lesser evil party. They know that they’re only up against pusillanimous Pelosiites. [On “pelosiism,” see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.]
Thanks to the Decider’s in your face antics, Democrats who are too cowardly to use the word “impeachment” (until, say, 90% of the public calls out for it!) can now at least broach the topic (even with only the support of a substantial majority of Americans) by investigating Bush – and Cheney, who must be impeached first -- for obstruction of justice. Will they do it? They will if we make them -- and Bush, like Cheney, makes our work easier with almost every egregious thing they do. But Democrats are not easily moved. Remember, so far only ten of them have agreed to co-sponsor Dennis Kucinich’s House Resolution 333, calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. [See “Cheney to the Rescue?” July 1.] Three of the good guys – Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison and Hank Johnson – are on the House Judiciary Committee. Were the committee’s chairman, John Conyers, to follow his heart, not Nancy Pelosi’s, he could initiate an investigation right away. Now is therefore the time to apply maximum pressure. Now too is the time to give the other members of the so-called Progressive Caucus who also sit on the Judiciary Committee – Mel Watt, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerrold Nadler, Danny Davis and Tammy Baldwin – no peace until they do the right thing. They have more than enough political cover. They don’t need to be brazen as a Bush boy. They don’t even need a backbone. Simple common decency should suffice.
The “outraged” arch-Clintonite Joe Biden issued a call this morning to flood the White House switchboard voicing opposition to Bush’s brazenness. Far better to follow the advice of the improbably named www.democrats.com. This is one of the groups in the forefront of the impeachment struggle. Here is a portion of an email they sent out this morning:
Americans are inundated with self-congratulatory civics lessons about how in the Home of the Brave we live under the rule of law, not of men (sic). But the fact is that our Constitution places Presidents largely above the law. Therefore what Bush did was strictly legal. But it is absolutely plain that it is also obstruction of justice, just as Joseph Wilson said upon hearing the news. [Libby was to go to prison soon for having lied about his role in exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. Wilson, Plame’s husband, was the real target of Cheney and Bush and Karl Rove; it was to punish him that they “outed” his wife.]
Why did Bush do it? Perhaps brazenness is the whole explanation. But maybe he and Cheney were also afraid that the Scooter’s loyalty would disappear during thirty months of incarceration. Libby has much to tell about what Cheney and Bush knew – and did -- and when they knew and did it. It may be significant that, by having his sentence commuted, he can still plead the Fifth, should Democrats find enough courage to call hearings. If he had been outright pardoned, he could no longer incriminate himself and therefore no longer refuse to testify on those grounds.
Nixon did nothing comparably brazen during the Watergate period because he knew that doing so would make his impeachment even more likely. There was an opposition party then. For his Iran-Contra crimes, Ronald Reagan could have been charged with far graver offenses. But, being more popular at his nadir than Nixon or Bush at theirs, and facing a Democratic Party that was already somewhat Clintonized (on Clintonism, see “Combat Clintonism!”, April 27) he rode out the storm. However even the Gipper would never have dared do anything quite so brazen as Bush just did. Instead, he followed Nixon’s lead, leaving the pardoning and commuting to his successors.
[Ford took care of Nixon and Papa Doc Bush took care of the felonious Reaganites, some of whom – Elliott Abrams most conspicuously – afflict us to this day. One could say that W is just following a family tradition. After all, his father did some mighty swift pardoning -- most notably of Casper “Cap” Weinberger -- just as Bush’s own role in Iran-Contra was coming into view. It should be noted, though, that Iran-Contra wasn’t finally put to rest until Bill Clinton quashed the last investigation. Remarkably, the Clintons, like many other Democrats, are de facto Reagan boosters. But for Bill, one could still fly to Washington’s National, not Reagan National, airport. And who can forget the nauseating funeral oration he delivered when the Gipper’s body finally caught up with his mind.]
To be sure, the Scooter was about to be sent up for a crime that pales in comparison to his real crimes and those of his boss and his boss’s nominal boss. This has been the American way ever since the feds got Al Capone for taxes. But even a Reaganite judge agreed that what Libby did warranted 30 months in prison. Whatever his other reasons may be, by commuting Libby’s sentence, Bush is saying to the world and to the courts and especially to the Democrats what he said to the Iraqi people after it became clear that “the mission” wasn’t exactly “accomplished” – “bring it on.” Hundreds, of thousands of people have died or suffered grievously for the bravado those words denote. But with Democrats in charge of Congress, he may get away with it this time. The one thing Karl Rove and the rest of Bush’s handlers understand is the mettle and timbre of the lesser evil party. They know that they’re only up against pusillanimous Pelosiites. [On “pelosiism,” see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.]
Thanks to the Decider’s in your face antics, Democrats who are too cowardly to use the word “impeachment” (until, say, 90% of the public calls out for it!) can now at least broach the topic (even with only the support of a substantial majority of Americans) by investigating Bush – and Cheney, who must be impeached first -- for obstruction of justice. Will they do it? They will if we make them -- and Bush, like Cheney, makes our work easier with almost every egregious thing they do. But Democrats are not easily moved. Remember, so far only ten of them have agreed to co-sponsor Dennis Kucinich’s House Resolution 333, calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. [See “Cheney to the Rescue?” July 1.] Three of the good guys – Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison and Hank Johnson – are on the House Judiciary Committee. Were the committee’s chairman, John Conyers, to follow his heart, not Nancy Pelosi’s, he could initiate an investigation right away. Now is therefore the time to apply maximum pressure. Now too is the time to give the other members of the so-called Progressive Caucus who also sit on the Judiciary Committee – Mel Watt, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerrold Nadler, Danny Davis and Tammy Baldwin – no peace until they do the right thing. They have more than enough political cover. They don’t need to be brazen as a Bush boy. They don’t even need a backbone. Simple common decency should suffice.
The “outraged” arch-Clintonite Joe Biden issued a call this morning to flood the White House switchboard voicing opposition to Bush’s brazenness. Far better to follow the advice of the improbably named www.democrats.com. This is one of the groups in the forefront of the impeachment struggle. Here is a portion of an email they sent out this morning:
-There's only one reason why Bush kept Libby out of jail: to keep him from ratting on Cheney and Bush about their direct involvement in the felonious outing of Valerie Plame.
-In mob circles, it's called silencing a witness. In a courthouse, it's called obstruction of justice. And in Congress, it's called grounds for impeachment. Just ask Richard Nixon.
-On TV, the Busheviks are telling even more lies to drown out talk of impeachment. Via email, Democratic "leaders" are feigning outrage to avoid calling for impeachment.
-That means it's time for us to demand impeachment. Let's make this "Impeachment Summer!"
-Don't waste your time calling the White House (the switchboard is closed anyway). Call your Representative to impeach Cheney and Bush: 1 (800) 828 - 0498 1 (800) 459 - 1887 1 (800) 614 - 2803 1 (866) 340 - 9281 1 (866) 338 - 1015 1 (877) 851 – 6437
Email your Representatives to Impeach Cheney: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73
Email your Representatives to Impeach Bush: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88
Email theHouse Judiciary Committee to Start Hearings on H.Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney http://www.democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary
Monday, July 2, 2007
Money Matters
The second quarter reports are now mostly in: Barack Obama raised about $32.5 million between April and June, and has gotten contributions from more than 250,000 contributors since entering the race. He added more than 154,000 donors between April and June alone! Hillary Clinton didn’t even come close: she raised just $21 million for the primaries and about $27 million overall. This is the second quarter in which Obama bested Clinton, and his lead is growing. Meanwhile, poor John Edwards reached his goal of $9 million from some 100,000 contributors. This sum, which would have seemed astronomical eight years ago, especially so early in the electoral cycle, has caused media pundits to wonder now if Edwards should any longer be considered in the “top tier.” After all, he did not do that much better than Bill Richardson, who raised $7 million. Christopher Dodd raised $3.25 million. The others, including Dennis Kucinich, did worse; in some cases, much worse.
For the pundits, the contest now is essentially about money. They are probably right, though it isn’t entirely clear why. One would think that the kind of indirect vote buying our most undemocratic system encourages is bound to encounter diminishing marginal returns beyond a certain point, and that Edwards and probably Richardson and even Dodd have exceeded that point. After all, there are only so many ways to spend campaign money constructively. But this remains to be seen. In any case, there plainly is more than a grain of truth in the conventional wisdom: because the more money, the more ads and, other things equal, the more ads, the more votes. This speaks volumes about our political culture. What is even more troubling is the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of the conventional view. In our “democracy,” corporate media play a major role in delineating the political landscape – legitimating some candidates and positions, marginalizing others. If they say money talks, then it does – whether or not it would without their saying it.
As we enter the summer duldrums, it’s likely that the situation – with Clinton still the “front runner” (not in money, but in likely voters) and with Obama rapidly closing in -- will remain fixed for a while. Of course, developments within the campaigns or events outside their control could still change the situation. But, for those who follow the money, the situation seems more like a two-way race than it formerly did. For reasons explained in almost every preceding posting, Hillary Clinton is bad news. It would therefore be all to the good if Obama blew her out of the water. But how much better is he? It’s hard to say. So far, he has played the coming election like Gary Hart in 1984 (and, until he undid himself with some “Monkey Business,” in 1988) -- all talk and no program. He’s not a Clinton, but, like almost all Democrats, he could nevertheless be a Clintonite. [On the concept of “Clintonism,” see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27.] In that department, both Edwards and Dodd seem better; Kucinich and Gravel seem much better. The corporate media treat the latter two as comic relief. That’s why, sad to say, they are non-starters; so too probably is Dodd. Edwards may still have a chance; let’s hope so. Lets hope too that the other candidates, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson – Clintonites to the core, and right-wing ones at that -- remain where they now are; i.e. nowhere.
Media pundits could actually do some good if, instead of obsessing about the money race, they’d at least discuss measures that would make money less important, and ideas and policies more important. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans have always been eager to sell themselves to at least some extent. But campaign reform is not impossible even so. It has become more difficult, however, thanks to our vaunted judiciary. At least since Buckley v.Valeo in 1976, a philosophically confused and increasingly ideologically driven Supreme Court has been an obstacle in the way of democratic reform, applying a warped conception of free speech, according to which buying “access” to politicians is a form of free expression, to impede public deliberation and to enhance the power of economic elites. As recent rulings about the feckless McCain-Feingold electoral finance reforms make clear, the problem is now worse than ever with Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. But there is still much that could be done – for example, Congress could require that publicly licensed media outlets give ample free time to all significant candidates; it could raise the amount of money available through public financing; and it could require embarrassing disclosure statements and the like for candidates who opt out of public financing. The Pelosiites are clearly not up to the task. [On the concept of pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.] As with so much else, the initiative will have to come from “below,” from us.
For now, though, with state primaries bunched together just after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and with so many anti-Bush voters still, as in 2004, strategizing like pundit wannabes -- all the while taking cues from the corporate media’s framing of the contest -- exposure and therefore money just might be decisive. It is becoming clear that “debates” that are anything but debates will not clear the air; certainly none of the three already held have come close. In the last one, the June 28 “forum” at Howard University, it was all but impossible to discern an iota of difference, at the level of policies and programs, between most of the candidates. Were it not for Kucinich and Gravel, there’d not even be much point in watching – except in the hope that someone named Hillary would make a gaffe. Too bad she is so clever. If the decisive issue ultimately is money -- as it need not be, should not be, but could well be -- it may also be too bad that Obama is so clever too.
For the pundits, the contest now is essentially about money. They are probably right, though it isn’t entirely clear why. One would think that the kind of indirect vote buying our most undemocratic system encourages is bound to encounter diminishing marginal returns beyond a certain point, and that Edwards and probably Richardson and even Dodd have exceeded that point. After all, there are only so many ways to spend campaign money constructively. But this remains to be seen. In any case, there plainly is more than a grain of truth in the conventional wisdom: because the more money, the more ads and, other things equal, the more ads, the more votes. This speaks volumes about our political culture. What is even more troubling is the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of the conventional view. In our “democracy,” corporate media play a major role in delineating the political landscape – legitimating some candidates and positions, marginalizing others. If they say money talks, then it does – whether or not it would without their saying it.
As we enter the summer duldrums, it’s likely that the situation – with Clinton still the “front runner” (not in money, but in likely voters) and with Obama rapidly closing in -- will remain fixed for a while. Of course, developments within the campaigns or events outside their control could still change the situation. But, for those who follow the money, the situation seems more like a two-way race than it formerly did. For reasons explained in almost every preceding posting, Hillary Clinton is bad news. It would therefore be all to the good if Obama blew her out of the water. But how much better is he? It’s hard to say. So far, he has played the coming election like Gary Hart in 1984 (and, until he undid himself with some “Monkey Business,” in 1988) -- all talk and no program. He’s not a Clinton, but, like almost all Democrats, he could nevertheless be a Clintonite. [On the concept of “Clintonism,” see “Combat Clintonism!” April 27.] In that department, both Edwards and Dodd seem better; Kucinich and Gravel seem much better. The corporate media treat the latter two as comic relief. That’s why, sad to say, they are non-starters; so too probably is Dodd. Edwards may still have a chance; let’s hope so. Lets hope too that the other candidates, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson – Clintonites to the core, and right-wing ones at that -- remain where they now are; i.e. nowhere.
Media pundits could actually do some good if, instead of obsessing about the money race, they’d at least discuss measures that would make money less important, and ideas and policies more important. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans have always been eager to sell themselves to at least some extent. But campaign reform is not impossible even so. It has become more difficult, however, thanks to our vaunted judiciary. At least since Buckley v.Valeo in 1976, a philosophically confused and increasingly ideologically driven Supreme Court has been an obstacle in the way of democratic reform, applying a warped conception of free speech, according to which buying “access” to politicians is a form of free expression, to impede public deliberation and to enhance the power of economic elites. As recent rulings about the feckless McCain-Feingold electoral finance reforms make clear, the problem is now worse than ever with Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. But there is still much that could be done – for example, Congress could require that publicly licensed media outlets give ample free time to all significant candidates; it could raise the amount of money available through public financing; and it could require embarrassing disclosure statements and the like for candidates who opt out of public financing. The Pelosiites are clearly not up to the task. [On the concept of pelosiism, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” May 28.] As with so much else, the initiative will have to come from “below,” from us.
For now, though, with state primaries bunched together just after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and with so many anti-Bush voters still, as in 2004, strategizing like pundit wannabes -- all the while taking cues from the corporate media’s framing of the contest -- exposure and therefore money just might be decisive. It is becoming clear that “debates” that are anything but debates will not clear the air; certainly none of the three already held have come close. In the last one, the June 28 “forum” at Howard University, it was all but impossible to discern an iota of difference, at the level of policies and programs, between most of the candidates. Were it not for Kucinich and Gravel, there’d not even be much point in watching – except in the hope that someone named Hillary would make a gaffe. Too bad she is so clever. If the decisive issue ultimately is money -- as it need not be, should not be, but could well be -- it may also be too bad that Obama is so clever too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)