Unfitness to Govern

Sanity is a useful tool in governing, so consider these two items:

• Obama Sees John Boehner As Possible Partner
• Obama Plans to Freeze Pay for Most Federal Workers

I believe a classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Now, let me think, suppose I was president, should conciliate  people who have said their goal is only to destroy my policies by removing me from office?

How should I deal with traitors who try to kill necessary treaties, so I can't have a victory -- therefore letting someone run against me as in effective?

Is it as good idea to try to reach an agreement with people who do not  negotiate in good faith -- anyone remember the strung out talks of the Gang of Six?


Should I propose a meaningless cut ($2Billion a year), when I could go after pet overspending that my enemies use as pork -- such as agriculture, mining subsidies an unaudited and unauditable defense department, and inducements to off shore jobs?

If I want to seem weak -- and yes that matters -- then sure. But the first job of government is to govern.

There is contention that there were ideological reasons for the reactionary's* victories.  An ideological choice clearly motivated reactionary base, but I submit that perhaps the gormlessness of the party in power -- its leader in particular -- may have led to voting against the part in power.

Let me see if I get the idea, instead of standing firm for something, and getting credit for having principles, consistency and passion, we can show we don't have principles and still not get help from our enemies.

The first obligation of any political party and its leaders is to acquire effective control of events. Since being 'nice' doesn't work, a sane course might include not being nice....

"A prince must imitate the fox and the lion... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves....If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but ... they are bad"
--The Prince

This gave James Macgregor Burns the title of his biography of FDR, The Lion and The Fox.  We appear to have neither.
_____________
_{*Reactionary is seeking radical change to restore a perceived past 'good'.
 Conservatism, seeks to conserve virtues of the present and  "make 
 [only] necessary  changes [forward or back] without getting swept away 
 by  abstractions" (Edmund Burke)}
 

Violence Works

The most missed object lesson about the Shirley Sherrod business is that in this country, at this time, violence works.

Or more specifically, reactionary violence.

We have seen how the Oklahoma bombing and the suicide attack on a Texas IRS building have, in the end, been adopted as "regrettable but needed," by the reactionaries in Congress. They have been effective rallying points.

The use of borderline armed propaganda last summer during town halls, coupled with implicit and explicit threats of violence, enabled the formation of the reactionary block known as the Tea Party.

The use of, what my father used to call, verbal violence has been established, defined, and implemented as policy of elected political the right (see Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC Memo ), and by the main reactionary media (Fox, Limbaugh, etc).

And it works.  There is no countervailing force from the other side.  There are no armed progressives protesting outside of reactionary political events -- "we reject violence" is the riff you are more likely to here, no militias of our own,  there is no coordinated use of language to counter attack -- hammering home the point, and the reaction to verbal or threatened violence is to 1) wring hands, and 2) duck and cover.

In general, the violence has worked to cow any official progressive leadership.  And behavior that is rewarded is reinforce, that which is not is extinguished.

This time, with Shirley Sherrod, the truth got lucky.

As luck is the residue of design, the rest of us may not be so lucky in the future.  And that being the case, a logic of deterrence and the needs of the republic may require -- at the very least politically -- that both sides are armed.

They're at it again

`I'll whisper it,' said the Messenger, putting his hands to his mouth in the shape of a trumpet, and stooping so as to get close to the King's ear. Alice was sorry for this, as she wanted to hear the news too. However, instead of whispering, he simply shouted at the top of his voice `They're at it again!' 
Chapter VII, Alice through the looking glass.

It is cheap, but it does look list a Lewis Carol world out there.

Below are just a few of the articles on the latest attempts by BP to inhibit news coverage.

• The BP/Government police state
• Louisiana official blasts restrictions on media
• BP Media Clampdown: Journalists Now Face Possibility of Fines, Prison Time

What boggles my poor little mind is: "Why does the Obama Administration let this happen?"

It looks as if Obama has completely gone to sleep about the political implications of this.  (I have a moral certainty that they have decided to ignore the ecological and economic issues.)

This would prove an opportunity for Obama to put on his Superman cape, to appear forceful and truthful and overruling these new restrictions, admonishing the various parties, and perhaps sicing the FBI on them.

This sort of thing almost make you wonder if the conspiracy loons are right, and the multinationals do actually run the world through a dark cabal, dictating the elected leaders. 

I don't really believe that, as those who run multinationals are probably too dim to actually do this.  And given the choices in  politics -- corporate Democrats and flat earth Republicans -- they don't need to.

My low opinion of Obama continues to descend, as he attempts to get along with everyone (in this case BP), seems set on reinforcing the "Democrats can't govern" impression, and laying us open to reactionaries running the government again.

Protection

My despair has been twigged by two recent items in the media: first, the expulsion of reporters from the "trials" at Guantanamo (Veteran Reporter Barred From Guantanamo) ; the second Charles Krauthammer's slightly triumphalist column A consensus on Miranda?

There are several way I can relate these two issues, but the gloomiest connection is that in both cases, the current administration is surrendering on the national security front.

Although one shouldn't rule out incompetent management of the issues, the motivation seems to be to avoid being challenged as "soft on terror,"  and a related unwillingness to challenge the military.

This also appears to have been the reason in the surrender on the issue of civilian trials (see White House drops plan for New York City terror trials), and Obama's vote on FISA in 2008 (see Obama's FISA Shift ).

The long-term goals of the neo-cons like Krauthammer and Liz Cheney,   in trying to avoid using the criminal justice system are not clear to me -- I will avoid a paranoid ranting -- though the short-term undermining the administration is undeniable.

You have to admire their effectiveness.

The long-term results are potentially disastrous, both for liberty and for security.

Considering liberty, I have to ask don't the people among the neo-cons and in the administration  remember why criminal rights were developed? (The same could be said about Tony Blair and the abridgment  of the right to silence.)

They were not really created to protect criminal defendants, but to prevent political manipulation of the criminal process.

This is why the Hutaree terrorists (see Militia Charged With Plotting to Murder Officers) were not denied Miranda warnings and  termed illegal enemy combatants. For that matter, why  Randy Weaver was not denied those rights.

The possibility of  using these techniques for harassing those speak out are obvious and not hypothetical (see Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project).

The arguments that we are at war (which I would suggest we are not, as Congress has never declared a state of war, merely authorized force), and that Muslim terrorist were caught in the act are not germane.

If we were really to be at war, then we would be taking prisoners of war.  This does not preclude  trials for war crimes for some, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This would answer the question of prolonged detention -- you keep prisoners until the war is over -- and remove the absurdity of trying someone for throwing a grenade at solider.

Of course,  being prisoner of war is a privilege.  Criminals aren't treated as gently.

To paraphrase a story MacArthur told, when, not if, a member of our armed forces is captured and tortured, without recourse to their rights as a combatant, I am glad that they can curse Obama, Bush, Krauthammer and Cheney; but not the citizens who wanted the law followed.