I think this is going to be one of those holidays that I grumble about in an unappealing Scroogish manner, rather than embracing with a childlike innocence. Fitzmas, for those who have been hiding from the Inter Net these past few weeks, is the day when cherubic investigator Peter Fitzgerald hands down his indictments in the Plamegate scandal, sticking a pointy dagger of righteousness into the icy heart of the Bush administration. The day itself was yesterday, as Fitzgerald fingered Scooter Libby for perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice; more indictments may be on the way, perhaps including the Prince of Darkness himself Karl Rove. (Although deserving of the moniker, I don’t think many people really call Rove the Prince of Darkness — the label has been appropriate for so many GOP operatives, it’s kind of lost its punch.)
The liberal blogosphere has been gleefully awaiting this day, when they finally get to see some justice brought to the pack of medacious scheming liars currently running the country. Atrios, to pick on him unfairly, has been hoarding bottles of champagne in anticipation.
Personally, I’m not in the holiday spirit. The recent troubles for the White House are not a “positive good” so much as a “minor slowing-down of a tremendous amount of positive bad.” For one thing, indicting a few administration aides, even quite influential ones, on perjury charges is just not that big a deal. For another, putting a crimp in the White House’s style just doesn’t seem like a cause for celebration; it perhaps generates some mild satisfaction, but mostly a melancholy appreciation of the depths to which the country has sunk.
A lot of people, in perfectly good faith, believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, for various reasons. That’s fine, we can disagree. But does any reasonable person deny that the Bush administration engaged in a systematic campaign of lies and distortions to get us there? Does anyone in their right mind think that these folks made a careful and conscientious effort to ascertain whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, and then presented the case to the world honestly as they best understood it? And are there sensible people out there who aren’t deeply bothered by this?
It’s sobering to understand that we are ruled by a group of people who (1) have only a tenuous connection to reality themselves, and (2) have absolutely no hesitation in using lies and intimidation to put into action the policies they want. It’s a dangerous combination, one that should be off-putting to conservatives just as much as liberals. When the current leadership of the Republican party wants something to be true, sincere arguments for or against that thing are completely beside the point. Saddam had WMD’s. Saddam was involved in September 11th. Human-produced emissions have no affect on our climate. Tax cuts reduce the deficit. Life is intelligently designed. The world supported us in Iraq. There’s nothing else we could have done after Katrina. Evidence for or against these propositions has no weight in their calculations.
Yesterday a friend of mine told me a story that she was told by a friend of hers, well-known explorer Sylvia Earle. Apparently Earle found herself at a fancy White House dinner, seated next to Trent Lott of all people. Innocent that she is, Earle thought this would be a great opportunity to explain to him the various ways in which our activities are wreaking havoc with the environment, in the oceans as well as in the atmosphere. After listening patiently to her over the course of dinner, at the end Lott nodded his head and said, But you have to understand that the long-term fate of the Earth doesn’t really matter to us, since everything will be re-arranged when the Lord returns on Judgment Day.
These are not the opinions of some fringe kook — these are the people who are ruling the country.
So I’m not in much of a celebratory mood. (To be fair, neither is Atrios.) We’ve been beaten senseless in a back alley by a group of a dozen thugs, and Fitzgerald’s indictments are like catching one or two of them for jay-walking violations. Even if by some miracle we could see the entire adminstration thrown out tomorrow, my mood would simply be one of relief, not of joy. Since that’s not about to happen, it’s all we can do just to minimize the damage.
Philip,
“[The left wanting to take all my guns is] simply not true”.
Perhaps. But I think it’s more likely than not that the Left’s current position in favor of merely strenghtening gun control is a tactic for achieving the ultimate goal of total confiscation. Pose as a Leftist (if you’re not one) and have a few friendly conversations with gun control advocates. They’ll freely admit this.
“…your right “to speak freely” will be jeopardized. What gives you that idea?”
The Left controls universities. Universities currently tolerate less freedom of speech than any place in America. Did you see what happened to Larry Summers? Did you see how he had to grovel, debase himself, and do pennace in order to keep his job, after merely suggesting that a politically incorrect idea be considered?
“While it’s true that your political views might cause some “social rankor” [sic] at the university where you work, they will NOT cost you your job…”
My life would just be a living Hell. I’ve known Christians and Leftists. There is no question that Leftists are less civil. Christian strictures promote personal decency, unlike those of the Left, which effectively define decency as advocating the “correct” political positions.
“…[Christians being more polite than Leftists] doesn’t fit what I’ve seen going on outside Planned Parenthood clinics…”
We need empirical data. I would bet that Christian zealots are more civil than Leftist zealots. Christianity, unlike Leftism, is fundamentally otherworld. So they’re not as upset if they don’t get their way in “this life”.
“…it was no lefty who said that AIDS was God’s punishment for being gay.”
No, they say that global warming is Nature’s punishment for being capitalist, and that terrorism is a natural punishment for being pro-Israel or pro-American.
“…your decent salary, your fringe benefits, and your retirement come not from the good faith and Christian generosity of the Board of Trustees at the university where you work, but from years of organizing and hard work at the negotiating table on the part of the union that represents you.”
I’m not anti-union. I’m anti-Leftist. Leftist domination of unions did not occur until the last half of the 20th century. A time during which, perhaps not coincidentally, unions went into decline.
You all are articulate at illustrating your political views but are naive to think either party represents those views in government. Today, the government is run by centrists–Bill Clinton was a centrist, and George W, believe it or not, is a centrist.
The Republicans tell the right that if you elect Democrats they will disband the military, abort any fetus they can get their hands on, promote homosexuality, end property rights in the United States, and raise taxes.
In Reality, virtually all Presidents have participated in military conflicts. Clinton passively bombed Iraq throughout his presidency and dumped our Uranium waste on Kosovo in the form of Uranium enriched warheads which have devastated the ecosystem in the Baltics.
In Reality, Bush has many pro-choice people in his administration including Dr. Rice, and the top three prospects for the republican nomination in 2008 are all pro-choice.
In Reality, early on in the Bush Administration he invited Elton John and his boyfriend over for a White House dinner and let them sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.
In Reality, neither party tried to pass legislation to combat the recent Supreme Court ruling against property rights until there was an outcry from both parties’ constituents causing the current bilateral congressional consensus that something does need to be done.
In Reality, the Bush Administration is probably going to reform the tax code by eliminating deductions for things like mortgages over $200,000–The Rich.
The Democrats tell the left that if you elect Republicans to office they will start wars, promote corporate scandals, stop taxing the rich, ban abortion, ban homosexuality, and destroy the environment.
In Reality, with regards to war, refer to Clinton example above. Also consider that Kerry ORIGINALY ran on a platform of supporting the war in Iraq.
In Reality, Ken Lay still sits on the board of directors for one of Teressa Heinz Kerry’s organizations and one of the key accountants in the Enron scandal was her escort to the Democratic National Convention. Air America was funded by the founder diverting $900,000 in funds from a charitable organization in which he sat on the board of directors. The funds were supposed to go to Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs as well as Alzheimer’s research. The rest of the board on this foundation is furious, but the founder of Air America has skipped the country. Also, Michael Moore made a small fortune by trading Halliburton stock and other defense contracts.
In Reality, with regards to taxation, refer to mortgage example above.
In Reality, with regards to abortion, refer to above.
In Reality, with regards to homosexuality, refer to above.
In Reality, with regards to the environment, refer to Kosovo conflict above. Also, consider that while campaigning for the Presidency, Kerry said we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Well, how do you do this–INCREASE PRODUCTION AT HOME! I would also bet that Kerry voted yes on the Anwar Bill that got passed today which permits drilling.
The Left will say I’m wrong about the Democrats and see the hypocrisy of the Republicans; the Right will say I’m wrong about the Republicans and see the hypocrisy of the Democrats. In Reality, they are all political hacks who just want power–Right and Left. Many more examples could be given but even more answers made.
The only thing that changes in Washington when the balance of power shifts between the aisles is who starts WHINING.
You want to ban abortion–Vote third party.
You want to save the environment–Vote third party.
The worst thing we can do in this country is to keep nominating the Buffoons who ride on elephants and donkeys.
PS-I apologize for all the spelling and grammar errors as I am sure they are numerous.
Belizean:
I think we must live on different planets.
While you say that gun control laws are merely a “tactic,” the thin edge of the wedge, leading to “the ultimate goal of total confiscation,” that’s simply your opinion. You’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t mean that it has any basis in fact. How many right-wing military dictatorships have banned the posession of firearms?
“Universities currently tolerate less freedom of speech than any place in America.” ANY place? C’mon, that’s just hyperbole. How much freedom of speech do you think a worker at Wal-Mart would enjoy if she were discussing the benefits of unionization? How much freedom of speech would a Southern Baptist enjoy if he were to argue the scientific basis of Darwinism? And how “civil” do you think the ensuing discussions would be?
Your claim that expressing your political views would make your life “a living Hell” at the university where you work is probably just a rhetorical flourish, but real democracy and real freedom of expression is not and never has been men in powered wigs exchanging polite notes on sterling silver trays. Democracy is contentious, adversarial, often impolite, and sometimes downright nasty–just like homo sapiens. Expressing your opinion at the university where you work would certainly cause some controversy, but just as certainly, you’d keep your job.
Your statement that you’re not anti-union, but anti-leftist is absolutely inconsistent. You can’t maintain that trade unionism came from the right wing the political spectrum, can you? And finally (although I could go on and on), your contention that “leftist domination” of trade unions began in the last half of the 20th century is simply wrong. General Motors was unionized in the 1930’s when workers seized the factories and fought off the police, the Natonal Guard, and Pinkerton thugs. It wasn’t too long after that that Henry Ford, a pro-Nazi anti-Semite, recognized the rights of his employees to organize. The militants who led this struggle, some of whom were avowed communists, were expelled from the CIO during the McCarthy era. One could argue that THAT’s when the decline of the power trade unions began.
Italo:
I agree that there’s not much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. In fact, I think there’s only one political party in the US–the party of multinational corporate capitalism. The Republicans are the right wing of that party; the Democrats, the left.
Phillip,
You are right about the MNCs.
Both you and Belizean are correct, I believe, in your discussion of union roots as well as the current causes of union corruption.
Unions certainley started as a social, workers’ rights initiative; however, to repeat a bad adage, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power has no political affiliations or boundries–it feeds off itself and devours the weak.
I will not write another long passage but will close with the opening lines of Tennessee Eddie Ford’s song “Sixteen Tons”:
“Some people say a man is made out of mud,
A poor man[s] made out of muscle and blood.
Muscle and blood and skin and bones,
A mind that’s weak and a back that’s strong.”
This is what the Unions feed off of.
Correction:
Tennessee Ernie Ford