|
|
|
On Behalf of the People From time to time, this page has made comments about the nature of the Presidency, policy of the White house, and on various other subjects. This is the text of those comments: End of Political Era Lyndon Johnson devastated Senator Barry Goldwater across the country in the 1964 Presidential campaign. In Missouri, where I was Campaign Chair for the Governor candidate - Goldwater lost by a three-quarters of a million votes - in part because of the impact of the Kennedy assassination in November, 1963. In 1965, the Civil Rights acts kicked in, and Johnson said Democrats would struggle for 40 years - he was close. The Dixiecrats - fierce segregationists in the South who hated blacks, Catholics, Jews, and women, moved to Alabama Governor George Wallace 1968 - letting Nixon win, and then to Nixon in 1972 - joining the Republican Party and bringing the southern vote to the GOP. When joined with the already budding Conservative movement - the 40 years following were largely dominated politically by Republicans. During that time the GOP was largely controlled by powerful business interests - but now that cycle is over - leaving the party in the hands of doctrinaire, far right leaders who are dumping John McCain - they prefer to own the party rather than a Presidency with a moderate man in charge. These half century long cycles are typical of this democracy - 2 to 3 generations long. A new cycle is starting in this election and will dominate the first half of the 21st Century. That it should be led by an African American is at the very least fascinating to all of us who love politics - astonishing is probably a better word - but this happens when a party gets old and dies out, and has to be reborn and start over again. The Reagan Revolution in 1980 was the culmination of a similar movement of power to another generation. This one is more like the Roosevelt revolution in 1932 - driven by a outrageously difficult economic time - but without a new war to save the economy, as World War II saved the US economy then. This cycle starts with a damaged but strong society ready for a different sort of approach to government. Taxes for the wealthy will increase dramatically, wealth will be redistributed, medical care for about everybody will develop, wars will come and go as they always do, and private business will prosper dramatically, as it always does in a society designed to be On Behalf of the People. Standards of Excellence Patronage of the Executive - jobs by the grace of some ruler - has produced some of the great leaders of history - millions of daily servants of the Executive, and sometimes the people, and a huge number of rascals - crooks, manipulators and thieves. Along the way - there has been a collateral effort to search for the best people for the jobs and demand the best of their skills and services. Certainly there are times with leaders demand genuine service for the people, and many patronage appointees get to that high quality on their own. Even so, the primary loyalty is usually to the ruler - the executive - and to the people second. Trying to shift that balance more to the benefit of the people is a valuable effort for all of us. Every Presidential administration has its villains - North for Reagan - dozens for Clinton - somebody who betrayed a CIA official for Bush the Second - most of the Nixon White House staff - and others in every administration of every political party - all patronage appointees - all working for efforts which did not serve the people - but worked against the people. The problem is to prevent these acts of disservice to the people before the happen, rather than punishing the ones who happen to get caught in the act. This is an act of education - a problem of education - because we can certainly not expect the rulers to set standards against themselves. Appointees can be and have been enormously valuable through the centuries - often giving their lives for the people against the rulers interests. This is one of those efforts which are nurtured by education - at all levels - including in the adult community. The task is clearly defined - however difficult it may be to install - it is teaching service in government On Behalf of the People. The Fruit of Appointment Once again immersed in the horror of war, the politicians try to access blame onto others, and take solutions for themselves. In the isolation of massive public buildings on either side of the Potomac and at opposite ends of the District, appointees lay in behind those who seem to be powerful. Whether Iraq is right or wrong, we are again strangling in a war we cannot win at a price of cruelty and pain paid by people who had nothing to do with the decision to commit force. Sadam lives in a palace, in custody, but better than his people, and the power in the US is bathed in wealth and excessive comfort. Men exert the territorial imperative with no more finesse in the ultimate decision to fight than the ancient caveman choosing which club to take on the hunt. Now we move into the period of retreat - by either a re-elected President - who, communing with the same God that is the God of Islam and the Iraqi - has shifted the responsibility to kill God's people on both sides to that God. Or, we will be in the hands of a new President who must spend a term merely wiping up the blood of war and trying to repair the imperialism of our terrific power and isolation from the experience of history. A part of the responsibility for where we are is in the decisions, the push and manipulation of hidden appointees who are in fact the power behind the Presidency - tough to find when the condemnation of the heirs of the dead and the judgment of history determine whether the new coating of blood in Iraq is On Behalf of the People. . A NEW TWIST IN POLITICS Historically Kings, Queens, and Presidents have a devil of a time keeping their "royal courts" - their appointments - in control. Once people start exercising a certain amount of executive prerogative in their jobs they represent a large part of their own agendas first. The Bush Administration has done a better job of keeping appointees working for the boss instead of themselves. One reason is that doctrinaire politics such as Bush advocates - times when dogma is paramount - requires strong discipline of appointees to keep the party line in control of things. Another may be that Bush operates a "corporate" sort of White House which lends itself to the sort of vertical personnel discipline we see in Executive Office operations at this time. This sort of strategy is critical if the White House is going to install policy outside the immediate influence of the President and his staff. The EPA is an example of such a well disciplined agency where the Bush White House has gutted several generations of environmental policy - right or wrong by tight control from headquarters. The Defense Department is just the opposite where de facto the President is not really much in charge - Rummy and Gingrich and that crowd in the back room really runs things in Iraq and contract policy, for example. Everybody in the Bush Administration dislikes the State Department, and it continues on its own agenda in its own world - it is also out of the mainline policy stream. In the long history of the State Department - this has been a common situation - but its stability and focus has outlasted temporary powers at the White House up the street. The longer term test is always whether the conduct of appointees serves the particular - and obviously short term agendas of Presidents and White House functionaries, or do they operate On Behalf of the People. (10-17-04) PATRONAGE v POWER
Politicians always berate the civil service system, saying they much prefer the
patronage structure where they have real control and real power over the people
who work for them. Cheap whisky and
bad cigars are a necessary part of that atmosphere which is always filled with
frustration when those words are said.
Everyone who supervises another person instinctively demands fealty and
obedience, and rarely gets it. In
the days when a leader could order the head of an underling on a stake, that
control was enforceable. Not so
now.
Patronage has a place in modern government for several reasons – all
related to expediting new ideas by providing loyal leadership at sensitive
points in the government. For all
the values of the civil service, and there are many, the Presidential appointee
comes to office knowing it is for only a few years, and knowing that if he does
less than very good work, he can be instantly be replaced at the will, at the
“pleasure” of the President, as the law provides.
The pay is good and the tenure non-existent.
The bite in the patronage game comes in the complex process required to
be appointed. Even the highest jobs
require endless manipulations and Machiavellian maneuvers – often requiring
the very best in long term positioning. If
a third of the people finally appointed by the White House are the most
qualified of those seeking the jobs that would be astonishing.
The difficulty in getting the jobs is one problem; the short and unstable
tenure is another. Ultimately, it
is the itch for power near the President that drives most candidates.
That is hardly a good motivation from the perspective of the citizen.
Why then is it worth maintaining the patronage system into the 21st
Century in a high-tech modern society?
Surely the first reason is to satisfy the ego requirement of powerful
people in high places. It has to do
with the instinctive requirement to at least control the people a powerful
person can see from his desk, window, or dinner table.
In an extension of that idea, a leader seeks to control those he cannot
see by the application of his policy, charm, and just shear authoritative
presence. At this stage he is
dealing with policy, or carrying his ideas into success, outside his ability to
reach or see. The human sworn to
his service makes that extension of power work, although the power of his
loyalty gets to be less as the distance from his leader increases. Beyond the actual extension of a Presidential policy, the intangible power of leadership, the spiritual or emotional energy of the President is carried into the population by those bound by faithfulness to their leader. More often than not, the ultimate leadership at the Presidential level is in this intangible, but definable power. It is dispersed at an emotional level by those sworn to serve him. Only through the “pressing of the flesh” by live humans dealing with other live humans and by the proximity of heart and soul, can that exertion of power work. In this situation, the Power of the President is extended On Behalf of the People. LIBERALS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL
The Conservative movement has been dramatic and popular for decades because it
can reduce a complex matter to a simplistic overstatement.
Its following regularly listens to radio and television drivel that does
not interfere with anything that requires thinking.
Fiction based on fiction becomes conservative fare for more of the
population than may be healthy for a vibrant democracy.
The grounding in fiction is intentional by its exponents.
The central issues for at least a generation have been the distribution of
wealth and the nature of government’s treatment of the citizens that create
it. Those being complex and largely
uncomfortable matters to the rich and powerful, the conservative community has
ignored, even fought their consideration. It
does, after all, take a lot of time and trouble to figure out ways to take care
of your buddies and those you think ought to be your buddies and to hell with
everybody else. The Congress and
other conservative strongholds, however, have managed to maintain their focus on
managing other people’s bodies, lives, and futures into their doctrine.
The Liberal movement has preoccupied itself with specific issues, including
challenging conservatives just to be baiting them. They have forgotten the traditional and historical effort of
the liberal community to establish equality in the broad society by changing
attitudes, and hopefully, working for the redistribution of accumulated wealth
back into productive use.
Young people often see the imbalances among people clearer than their elders
who consider money matters first, and discriminations against others later.
They struggle with ways to make changes, often suppressed in their good
intentions by the difficulty of making change.
The good advice is, of course, that change is always difficult to apply,
and only an occasional vacation from the effort is allowed.
However, there is that occasional ripe opportunity when the right cause
at the right time arises and a solid push makes real change.
Usually, the liberal mind is able to discern that moment and act, but not
in recent years. Liberals are
asleep at the wheel.
The United Nations grew out of a felt need.
The great Wars of the 20th Century illustrated the need.
The liberal community could see and understand a world where
communications became easier, and more and more tyrannical leaders could cause
great mischief impacting a lot of people. The
civil rights movement and the Viet Nam war wore out their energies so they took
a vacation from leadership. Now
they are surprised that important international organizations like the UN and
the international justice have fallen into dangerous territory – as targets of
the self-centered American conservative movement. This all comes together in preparation for a war that seems to have limited grounding in immediacy and with many good peaceful methods of resolution. This a conservative’s delight – the opportunity to take on a small country with assets they want – a chance to fight on somebody else’s property – with oil as the winner’s prize. The liberal community, worldwide, has exerted itself with a powerful demonstration of distrust of the conservative oil agenda. The President has to genuinely overcome fact and reality, not to speak of a number of sensible alternatives to war to suggest that he is acting On Behalf of the People. PRESIDENTIAL DISDAIN
The President disdains the right of allies to
challenge his policy, and his men challenge the honor of Americans who dissent.
These are two of the primary ingredients of the Imperialist mind.
Dissent is called cowardice and even treason in this hour.
Disagreement by our allies suggests they are spoiled brat countries
exerting an obstructive and frustrating pressure on all presiding Presidential
wisdom. We really ought to work to
elect mature people not sand lot type minds to the White House!
The script is clear, and it is simply a matinee rerun of the same play that has
been running through all recorded history – dominate – promise – overrun
– overspend – and apologize afterward when it does not work.
We will be burdened with governing a country with a totally different
government and social ethic, and Washington will be surprised that they don’t
want our culture.
The real sport is more cynical. Their
public stance is contrived and phony, not believed or thought creditable by the
leadership – it is just for popular consumption. The real story is an straight up, fully dressed out intent to
show Iraq who is boss – a groin driven, Texas cowboy sort of thing - nothing
new, and not exclusive to Texas, but some sort of primitive male tribal thing.
The convenience of a quarter of the world’s oil supply brought under
their thumb is not coincidental.
With leaders who have never been to war themselves beyond thumb and finger
action on a video game, and who are never nearer than a body count to this war,
the Iraq confrontation is like a bridge game played by poker players.
The White House does not have the least idea what hand the opposition
holds, they don’t understand their partners, and they don’t ever have to
cover their bets with their own money - or with their own blood.
This war is a game of men whose voices do not carry a perception of
destruction and death of innocents on either side, or the death of sons of a
Nation on our side.
What to do about it? Know that
tyranny is common in America and is fought in the Courts everyday and on the
streets some days. Only through the
power of the People is tyranny kept in even partial check.
The press is often a strong ally of the People, but it too rests, and
worse, gets caught up in the thrill of power, bombs, and the story of War.
That story sells books and papers, and boosts ratings for the cable
giants. On those occasions when the
press joins the fray with and for the People, peace and freedom prosper.
When they do not, only the bottom line of corporate master prospers. If you love this war – be prepared to be proud of its consequences on your tax bill, your daily life, and may the fates forbid, on your child at War. If you understand the phenomenon of power we are observing, stand the line of your objection, hate the loss of blood and the waste of resources. Do not forgive those who you see perpetrate the war when other devices to solve the problem still exist. Do not forgive those who justify the thrill of war and lie to you about what they feel. Tolerate war and fighting when there is really no other choice. Think and act On Behalf of the People. REGROUPING THE COLLECTIVE PSYCHE The national intelligencia are moving beyond Iraq into postwar reconstruction of the collective psyche of the people. Now that the war, though neither started nor won, is established in the international politic as a conceded fact, the dollar economy takes center place. The economy is due to move on into a postwar opportunity for profit and stability, both necessary to the money changers who can see beyond principle to personal advantage. The cynical observers of the moment see this change in attitude as selfish, narrow minded, even destructive. In the wisdom historical perspective can bring, the economists of any period of instability evolve as temporary architects of a society’s future. Whether their purposes are personal or acts of statesmanship bringing forward long term plans for a better future, the impact is the same – the future of the economy is planned and executed while the present is suffering through the disruptions of war. Stock markets flutter when war seems imminent. Economic gauges are not simple to interpret and understand. Even though markets reflect the economic judgment of small numbers of investors at any given moment, they appear simple and specific. That simplicity makes for apparently easy judgments when in fact they often reflect only the current state of political indigestion caused by war and rumors of war. In this atmosphere, the more subtle schemes of economic interests really reflect the true future of any economy. In a synergistic society, these more subtle acts of economic forces forecast the economy in an exceptionally accurate way. The collective perception of planetary economic health is outrageously accurate. With instantaneous communications through the internet and other electronic media right down on the desk of citizens, small economic changes are translated to indications of current financial safety or danger. In this atmosphere the economy is planned well into the future by slight changes of attitude in a broad base of international citizenry. So we anticipate the personal sorrows and fears of a 21st Century war which is on one hand virtual and deadly, and on the other graphic and horrifying. While we deal with the immediacy, even fears of those experiences, our future is being shaped by post war planning by manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. Any instability in that planning relates to when the consumer will return to the store, not whether they will return. We are not genuinely at risk in this country. Only the most extreme failures in Iraq could bring war to America. Terrorist threats are deadly real, and we all know it. By the nature of that threat which is non-specific, we can do little to protective ourselves at any given moment. The lack of specific threat carries over into business and economic planning, bringing a backhanded sort of stability to money matters, only because we don’t know when and where to feel unstable. By absence of any specific threat close at home, we become economically safe and begin to grow again. This complex mix of war, long term economic planning, and personal safety at any given moment shapes the collective psyche into a uniquely stable forward movement. While most leadership is defined by particular leaders, this perception of current risk or safety is absolutely non-specific, and works for mental comfort and optimism On Behalf of the People.SHARING THE PRESIDENT'S POWER Politicians always berate the civil service system, saying they much prefer the patronage structure where they have real control and real power over the people who work for them. Cheap whisky and bad cigars are a necessary part of that atmosphere which is always filled with frustration when those words are said. Everyone who supervises another person instinctively demands fealty and obedience but rarely gets it. When a leader could order the head of an underling on a stake, that control was enforceable. Not so now. Patronage has a place in modern government for several reasons – all related to expediting new ideas by providing loyal leadership at sensitive points in the government. For all the values of the civil service, and there are many, the Presidential appointee comes to office knowing it is for only a few years, and knowing that if he does less than very good work, he can be instantly be replaced at the will, at the “pleasure” of the President, as the law provides. The pay is good and the tenure non-existent. The bite in the patronage game comes in the complex process required to be appointed. Even the highest jobs require endless manipulations and Machiavellian maneuvers – often requiring the very best in long term positioning. If a third of the people finally appointed by the White House are the most qualified of those seeking the jobs that would be astonishing. The difficulty in getting the jobs is one problem; the short and unstable tenure is another. Ultimately, it is the itch for power near the President that drives most candidates. That is hardly a good motivation from the perspective of the citizen. Why then is it worth maintaining the patronage system into the 21st Century in a high-tech modern society? Surely the first reason is to satisfy the ego requirement of powerful people in high places. It has to do with the instinctive requirement to at least control the people a powerful person can see from his desk, window, or dinner table. In an extension of that idea, a leader seeks to control those he cannot see by the application of his policy, charm, and just shear authoritative presence. At this stage he is dealing with policy, or carrying his ideas into success, outside his ability to reach or see. The human sworn to his service makes that extension of power work, although inversely to the distance from his source of authority. Beyond the actual extension of Presidential policy, the intangible power of leadership, the spiritual or emotional energy of the President is carried into the population by those bound by faithfulness to their leader. More often than not, the ultimate leadership at the Presidential level is in this intangible, but definable power. It is dispersed at an emotional level by those sworn to serve him. Only through the “pressing of the flesh” by live humans dealing with other live humans and by the proximity of heart and soul, can that exertion of power work. In this situation, the Power of the President is extended On Behalf of the People. IRAQI OIL EQUALS WORLD POWER The political balance between Russia, Europe, and the United States demands that the President go to war in Iraq. Only through civilian control of Iraq can Russia’s influence in the Arab oil region be managed. Russia, if you are an arrogant oil baron, must be blocked. Russia under President Putin is becoming clever, even expert, in the management of free market economics. Russia is now playing our game of managing power through competitive business – an art lost on the Soviet Union, but learned quickly by the new Russia. When those new economics are applied to Iraq, Russia, on Iraq’s northern edge, is in a strategic position to achieve major control over those oil reserves. The United States, for matters of pride and oil control, will not let this happen under George W. Bush. The only way to stop Russia’s power infringement on our sense of territory is absolute civil control of a conquered Iraq so that Iraqis make no decisions on oil. The game is tricky for Russia. Putin, himself an expert at deception, knows exactly what Bush is up to, but cannot possibly offer even the slightest sense of physical threat to us. He can slow the plan by either applying pressure for long delays in the war, or try to insist on a joint control of Iraq after the war, a la post WWII Berlin. France is a willing player in this economic sport, for the same reasons as Russia, on behalf of 21st Century Europe. China is being moderate, almost obscure to stay out Russia’s game plan. Both China and Russia manage North Korea into a contentious relationship with the United States with the purpose of making a total win in Iraq difficult. The three great geo-political entities on the planet are the Russian bloc, Europe, and the United States and its associates. They struggle for power balance or substantial control – driven partly by pride and partly by money to at least lessen the power of America, if not stop it. From this perspective, every move by Bush, Putin, Chirrac and every other player in the Iraqi game make common sense. Not only is this logic internally consistent, but consistent with the distribution of power and economic influence between empires and potential empires through all of time. As with them, the satisfaction of political egos and economic avarice will be found in the redeeming power of soldier’s blood given to satisfy both. In this scenario public disaffirmation by pickets and uprising are irrelevant to all the powerful – the protest is for the wrong agenda, and thereby ineffective. In all of history, this class of war is driven by the protection of resources - and not fought On Behalf of the People.IN THE WRINGER No American President has gotten himself, and the country with him, in a situation where he has intentionally alienated all but one powerful ally and a few small friends – and faces a dangerous war. How leaders of the most powerful nation in all of history could so totally misunderstand the nature of the current world setting is unfathomable.
Arrogance is the tone, but
inexperience is the core of it. The
Bushies – as the White House crowd is being called in the national
press – are in a dangerous world they have fantasized for themselves – and
they are enjoying a trip that only they can enjoy. The Presidency has suffered from time to time with inexperienced White House staff that has gotten the President in public trouble. The Presidency has also suffered many times from the private agendas of appointees, agendas put together both outside the law and outside the public interest of the Nation.
President Bush is at the
conjunction of these two White House forces occurring at the same time in
history – the militaristic oil drive end of the administration in Cheney and
Rumsfeld, and the international immaturity of the National Security Council and
the Oval Office itself. An additional goal, one genuinely peculiar in all of United States history – the purpose of changing an administration – a regime – not defeating a threat to the United States observed interests. Without question, we have fooled around inside other governments trying to change policy or leadership, but we have never openly made it a policy to change the government of somebody we do not happen to like. The goal has moved from disarmament of a rogue country to some sort of personal vengeance for a particular government. What sort of example does this give to countries that genuinely want to capture a neighbor for a political or territorial purpose? We have fought that sort of thing with millions of American lives at stake for 200 years, and a Texas cowboy in the White House just doesn’t get it – he didn’t read the instruction manual on being President of the United States. Our neighboring oceans have given us a well-founded sense of security. Surely that is sufficient in any Iraqi War – but have we already forgotten 9-11, and why it happened. Totally unjustified by any civilized standard, 9-11 was vengeance by angry people taking on a Goliath. How many more terrorists are we unnecessarily creating? Certainly very, very many new threats are being created in the hearts of people who consider themselves injured by the American giant. Is there a way out of this? Probably not! Is there a way to repair it? Probably! Idiot moves in the United States government tend to get fixed over the years by more mature leadership that can follow fools into office. Good and decent approaches are difficult to sell to a society. Bar room rabblerousing always gets out of hand – there is always blood on the floor – and the recovery is slow and leaves scars. Rarely has the President of the United States gotten so far from the highly defined and powerful standards of civilization which genuinely serve On Behalf of the People. SEC ASLEEP The choice is between intrigue or really bad management by Chairman Harvey Pitt at the Securities and Exchange Commission when he staffed the new commission to prevent corporate accounting fraud. The first Chairman of the anti-fraud committee, William Webster, resigned within a few days of his appointment by Pitt when faced with conflict-of-interest challenges. There are few men in the last century with a "straight arrow" reputation any stronger than Bill Webster. I have known him personally for forty years from the time he was a United States Attorney in St. Louis. He is one of those guys who just does it square with the world. But he resigned because he headed the audit board in a corporation that went bad. That is an obvious conflict of interest for a guy who is going to head the clean up committee for American corporations. Well, Bill should have known better himself, but Chairman Pitt, really should have checked him out. He didn't even ask, or if he knew about the problem, he didn't share the information with other SEC members. It is not clear in the General Services Administration audit who did what, who asked what, or who withheld what information. Obviously this is not high end appointment management - but worse - it reflects a complete disregard for the importance of conflict of interest standards in the law. The White House was making exactly the same mistake twice more with the appointments of Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell to the 9-11 Commission. Both were appointed, announced, and then both bailed, or were forced to bail out - not by the White House - but by public opinion. Clearly, the President and the White House staff didn't even open the book on good ethics in government. If anybody was paying attention to lawful conduct by public officials in the President's House, they didn't come to work in the fall of 2002.
Three major resignations in a couple of months? What can possibly be
happening with the Bush appointments which draw less attention? Well,
nothing, probably! Nobody can be
asking about conflicts if those first three major problem appointments were
approved. The people we hear from around the White House say that in the Bush Administration, the problem is the starting point on appointments, not incompetence in the people checking out appointments. The President, much like the courting jackal, wants what he wants when he wants it – no matter that a new found public servant is also serving at least one other master besides the People.
The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Administration shows a disregard for the ethics
of the law in some sort of ultimate arrogance.
It is as if the honest application of conflict law in principle and in
fact does not apply if it challenges the ultimate wisdom of Texas politics – a
swampy world any day.
The people almost never trust the government, much to their credit. Keeping politicians on the straight and narrow is a rough task, but there is change afoot – the people have had it with those who spin the truth. Whether bad management or a studied application of political expediency, the people are not going to stand for it. The White House needs to start acting on Behalf of the People. HAVING IT BOTH WAYS
Conservative politicians have been consistent for 250 years in America that
isolation from the rest of the world is a grand idea.
They have never minded trading profitably with foreigners, but that has
been the end of it for them. Since
the First World War, that is one of the positions which consistently defines the
Republican Party. GOP candidates and Presidents have talked a good game on isolation, or in another form, defending the National Integrity of the United States, but none of them really ever took it seriously. In practice international leaders have to live in the realities of an international world – well, at least, until George the Junior came along. Isolationists have had great influence when it comes to war. This one in Iraq, though, oiled, or greased, as it is, has backed up on them. They love to have lots of people – other people – go to war when we go to war. That makes some practical sense because we use some of other people’s resources and other countries kids to win. They particularly like those wars they can fight on other people’s turf. President Bush got creative on the conservatives this time, or again. He understood the routine of talking about balancing the budget and then writes 400 billion dollars worth of hot deficit checks. He is an expert at talking about equal rights for everybody, then blocking methods of making everybody equal. He actually believed the isolationist talk, and has gotten us out there almost alone in a dangerous war in Iraq. That is about as isolated as a great country can get, and it is the first time we have gotten there in a century.
Much of the political world has
considered the United States an upstart country for most of its history.
European politicians sometimes feel longevity of a country gives them
some superior position. But our
exceptional resources have made us powerful and we really didn’t care what
others thought – we have done what we needed, and wanted to do.
Fortunately, the knowledge of that power has made most Presidents careful
because they knew they could do what they wanted, and it was easier with
friends. With war a certainly now, repairing our relationships with countries which have taken offense to our President’s conduct will be early on the new agenda. Having kicked around the State Department over the years, I know the pros are already apologizing – pointing out that he can’t last more than five years more, even under the best circumstances. Cleaning up behind messy and careless politicians who do not respect the long-term consequences of their mouthy conduct in international affairs has long been the job of the backstage diplomats. Certainly one of the victims of the President’s diplomatic style is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Never has there been a time when a diplomatically damaged politician wasn’t prey for the back bench aspirants to his power. This Prime Minister has to be frustrated with the President, and, to his credit, is able to back away from the Iraqi War. How far back is a serious question, one that might leave the United States on its own. This administration has certainly become a classic lesson for both the people and the historians who will observe the impact of a President unable to focus the power of his office On Behalf of the People. Bush Checkmate to Putin The political balance between Russia, Europe, and the United States demands that the President go to war in Iraq. Only through civilian control of Iraq can Russia’s influence in the Arab oil region be managed. Russia, if you are an arrogant oil baron, must be blocked.
Russia under President Putin is becoming clever, even expert, in the management
of free market economics. Russia is
now playing our game of managing power through competitive business – an art
lost on the Soviet Union, but learned quickly by the new Russia.
When those new economics are applied to Iraq, Russia, on Iraq’s northern edge,
is in a strategic position to achieve major control over those oil reserves.
The United States, for matters of pride and oil control, is will not let
this happen under George W. Bush. The
only way to stop Russia’s power infringement on our sense of territory is
absolute civil control of a conquered Iraq so that Iraqis make no decisions on
oil. The
game is tricky for Russia. Putin,
himself an expert at deception, knows
exactly what Bush is up to, but cannot possibly offer even the slightest sense
of physical threat to us. He can
slow the plan by either applying pressure for long delays in the war, or try to
insist on a joint control of Iraq after the war, a la post WWII Berlin. France
is a willing player in this economic sport, for the same reasons as Russia, on
behalf of 21st Century Europe. China
is being moderate, almost obscure to stay out Russia’s game plan.
Both China and Russia manage North Korea into a contentious relationship
with the United States with the purpose of making a total win in Iraq difficult. The
three great geo-political entities on the planet are the Russian bloc, Europe,
and the United States and its associates. They
struggle for power balance or substantial control – driven partly by pride and
partly by money to at least lessen the power of America, if not stop it. From
this perspective, every move by Bush, Putin, Chirrac and every other player in
the Iraqi game make common sense. Not
only is this logic internally consistent, but consistent with the distribution
of power and economic influence between empires and potential empires through
all of time. As with them, the
satisfaction of political egos and economic avarice will be found in the
redeeming power of soldier’s blood given to satisfy both. In
this scenario public disaffirmation by pickets and uprising are irrelevant to
all the powerful – the protest is for the wrong agenda, and thereby
ineffective. In all of history,
this class of war is drive by the protection of resources - and not On Behalf of
the People BUSH FAILS HISTORY TEST 1998 brought an era of freedom to American Presidents – freedom without opposition from friend or foe. Our old foes, Russia and its coalition allies simply collapsed. Our friends in Europe had been restless and irritated with the powerful role the United States had in their lives. Suddenly they were faced with extracting all of Eastern Europe from total disaster when their Soviet Masters and trading partners vanished from their lives. Europe did not have time for arrogance or independence from America. They were busy dumping billions of their resources into rebuilding their neighbor. They still needed us to look after the world for a few more years. We had free run to put together a coalition against Iraq in the 90’s because the Soviet leash was gone – Russia was busy saving itself from its prior politics. Iraq was a clear predator, actually invading a neighbor. Bush the Elder put it together without much trouble, and without the will to drive the political knife into the Iraqi Dictator – he flinched, and left Iraqi damaged, but unchanged. He also left a mess for his own son, although perhaps unintentionally. Still, Bill Clinton had little opposition on any subject from Europe or Russia – they were still busy. They were, however, growing strong, and independent, as they moved into the 21st Century. Also, we had the advantage of a President fascinating the world with his sort of common sex life, the sort most people are able to keep discrete, as had his predecessors in their own peccadilloes. When he did have to move in old Yugoslavia, he was still free to act largely alone with some help from quiet and willing friends. Bush the Younger was busy drinking and snorting and watching a losing baseball team through all this. He missed the historic political changes in internal power distribution. Europe had recovered from the economic drains of jump-starting Eastern Europe, and Russia was stabilizing. Neither needed a savior in North America, just a good international partner – not a pushy know-it-all country spoiled by lack of serious international opponents for fifteen years. A new war against Iraq looked like a slam-dunk. For Rumsfeld, it was payback time for slights when he was our ambassador to NATO. He was just as mouthy back then, and Europe didn’t like it then, either. He was ready, driven by his wounded pride, to show them just what was what and who was in charge. Europe was ready when Rumseld became the primary spokesman for the Bush foreign policy – ready to square up his personality, again! This time around, Russia and France both have deep economic interests in Iraq and intend to protect them. One other enormous difference, Iraq did not invade another country and has not been closely tied to the 9-11 disaster in America. The President has gotten caught with his history down around his ankles. He does not understand why America, enormously powerful as we are, is suddenly confronted with powerful countries unwilling to bow down. Now, we are seeing the depth of our power on one hand slowed and constrained and on the other, directed away from the will of a few to a responsibility to serve On Behalf of the People. BUSH CONSERVATIVE? Doubtful! The Bush men were not made to be conservative Presidents, and both suffer from being gentleman. If a man was to be a Republican President of the United States since the days of John Kennedy, he had to be a conservative, or enough of an intellectual whore to represent conservative policy. It worked for Richard Nixon and the Bush Presidents. A companion trait to that sort of intellectual flexibility is the inability to put the knife in the heart of an enemy when necessary, something George the Elder regrets to this day. Conservatives cannot elect genuine conservatives - they are just too miserable a crowd to represent the broad spectrum of views that are the American electoral mentality. Conservatives see policy from a male, white, and largely Christian right wing association with the God they create for themselves alone. Being largely without principle, they do not hesitate to use men who have the infinite itch to be President and the mental flexibility to be President for someone other than the broad electorate. Certainly this is not only a trait of Republicans, but a trait of politicians who have the drive to be Head-of-State and are compelled by the enormous requirement for public affection it brings with it. The bite comes when such a man begins to feel the nagging premonition that they have stepped in a pile of horse manure, and retreat is necessary. That is the Bush problem with Iraq. The same background men who loved the fun of Iraq the first time are still hanging around - unfortunately neither maturing judgment or happy funerals removed them from the fray. For them, another round with Iraq is a chance to get an encore performance. They are the producers, and the Bushes are the actors, again. This President, and probably his Mommy and Daddy, are catching on and attempting to organize a sensible, if partial retreat. On one hand they cannot drive the knife to the heart, and on the other, they can only make a partial retreat if George the Present is to win in 2004. But there is a change in policy, and it is not going to include all out war with Iraq as planned a few weeks ago. As a Texas Governor once said, George the Elder was born with a silver foot in his mouth. George the Younger has a Mother that got that point, and has changed him - but only within the nature of the man - which includes a limited genetic mentality. That is a problem, but one that will save us from war, because he cannot execute it because the Family, from its ethical position, cannot tolerate a strategy that again credits the Bush family with enormous innocent death again. Power, and the use of Power are odd birds. The President is mouthing the policy of the conservative movement in most things. His heritage, background, family, and his resulting political instinct rebels. We end up with a reasonably nice guy who has limits on how far he is willing to be used. This is one of the settings where his Texas cowboy style kicks in. That banty rooster aspect of the man is rebelling. The result is a real blow to the conservative movement, a lesser war in Iraq, and another generally innocuous Presidency, On Behalf of the People. Bush Betrays Conservatives The Conservative movement was young and mean in the sixties and seventies, driven by Republicans who were still mad at Franklin Roosevelt and firm in their beliefs. They argued for oddities such as balanced budgets and a smaller federal government. They were driven by a well-founded fear of the Soviet Union and Communists of all types, with a clear God given knowledge that white males were superior to all other beings. They were worthy opponents to those of us who were liberal Republicans. Those tough characters were old in Reagan’s days, and they generally have disappeared. Those conservatives would have hung George the Younger to dry on the nearest strong limb. They would regurgitate on the spot at a 750 billion dollar deficit and an impending war estimated to cost two hundred billion plus on top of it. They would read this George as a flaming Democrat in elephant disguise. They would have dumped him for a real conservative in a quick minute. They would consider his fiscal policy deadly to every belief they had. Those men, with all their popular defects, loved guns and hated Communists, but they also knew that economies have to be balanced at some point. They would also see the Baby Boomers coming to the Social Security trough soon, and inflation just around the corner. That meant not only a catastrophe for their own money but for the whole world economy, Communist or not. The ultimate insult would be using taxpayer’s money to set up a government to install democracy to gain control of oil in Iraq. They could always buy the oil and a new government of Arabs to whoop Saddam into shape. They knew that in part because their friends had died in World War II and Korea. Many of them carried scars from those battles. They knew about war. From their graves or the heavens and hells they conceived, they see a Texas bumpkin President learning about war by sending their grandchildren to Iraq and writing hot checks on a bankrupt Treasury to get them there. They see a liberal, a budget buster pandering to the novo riche with outrageous tax cuts and betraying the concepts of government they suffered to build. Those conservatives, for all their preoccupations with other people’s babies and bodies, did understand the point at which government must be fiscally responsible. They loved Reagan, but not tax cuts in the face of a war. They liked balanced budget talk but irrationally supported any deficit to beat the Evil Empire of communism. Bush has combined a knee jerk tax cut with an expensive war – at the same time. The new conservatives do not know the old conservative’s fiscal dogma – “you can screw the economy to beat Communists – and take care of tax cuts when there are extra bucks” – but not both at the same time. Nor can you weaken the Nation by emptying the Treasury if you expect to be able to get elected again to serve On Behalf of the People. Blistering Arrogance
Every reasonable official and citizen listening to the Bush White House on
the Iraqi War has been blistered by the arrogance of that entire team.
Bush has presented a banty-rooster image of the American Presidency,
backed up by a Svengali Vice President and the class clown in the form of a
Secretary of Defense. If there was
a single sensitivity left in world politics, they have thoroughly trounced it.
Now it is payback time! Turkey
– a rough and tough country with an enormous history of power and political
sophistication is telling the President where to put his plans for using its
territory to stage war into Iraq. In
the process, American troops – live Americans on the ground – are faced with
a second war front in the North of Iraq where they cannot get heavy equipment or
themselves except on the end of a parachute.
All of a sudden, there is an escape hatch for Saddam and his rascals when
things get tough in Baghdad. Turkey
has been a strong and loyal compatriot for the United States through all of
recent history.
Your average French politician is a terrific model for comic leadership.
There is no doubt France has peddled its weapons of war and other
valuable stuff in an active commerce throughout the last decade of controls over
Iraqi commerce. Shame on them!
We ignored their nearly congenital need to be coddled in putting the
coalition in place. In the process,
we have empowered their politics by seeming haughty, uninformed about the valor
and sacrifice of the French people in the last century, not to speak of their
acts that saved our Revolution. If
anybody is going to be haughty and arrogant in the world, the French reserve
that style for themselves, and we have laughed at them for centuries for their
powdered hair and prissy Kings. We
don’t have much powdered hair in Washington at this time in history, but have
an overabundance of prissy politicians willing to insult our long time friends.
Shame on Us!
Intrigue is not a Russian word, but Russian Czars and dictators have polished
the concept for a millennium. They
have been quick to learn every western art when they needed to learn.
They are becoming open market experts, and doing it at our expense in
Iraqi oil. Bush made them powerful
by placing them in a position to veto our war resolutions, and to top it off,
they are the peacemakers in the eyes of the world, and Bush is the warmonger.
Not smart, Mr. President.
The President does not represent the style of the People of the United States
in putting together this Iraqi War. Today
the decision is to actually attack in outright contempt of our Allies, our
People, and International Opinion. Our
Defense Department is ordering new body bags for American dead and losing on the
diplomatic side. The White House
contempt for reason, and the abuse of respect of Friend and F WHITE HOUSE MAKING SLICK OIL DEAL
Country dirt and western air gave some perspective to the oil cartel when I was
around the White House power brokers – they are in office for their own cause.
The guts of the problem with the fight on terrorism is the oil slick –
or slick oil deals in conjunction with the War in Iraq.
That adventure may include protection for people, but it liberates a
quarter of the world’s available supply of oil – the oil that is captive
under Iraqi soil.
Now this old country boy sees profit and convenience for the big boys –
the ones who head huge oil companies and cash the golden paychecks that oil will
bring to them. How many soldiers
– American – British – the others – and how many Iraqi innocents are
going to be blasted apart? Many,
many, very many!!
Iraq and Iraqi oil is one thing. But
what about the impact on the War on Terrorism?
Enormous resources are being moved into the Middle East.
Are these the sort of energies that protect us at home, too?
Of course! However this kind
of energy is absolutely essential inside the United States as well to
catch up with the terrorist forces we know are here, hiding, planning, and
waiting. We have a core problem in
the White House and in the Presidency about total priorities.
Here, the Bush Administration is
not putting the people first. An
example of the diversion of assets to Iraq is the use of the total intelligence
resource we have. About 80% of all
the federal money spent on intelligence is spent within the Department of
Defense. Without question, some of
that material is available to the civilian side of the government. Remember that it is the National Security Agency that
translates the electronic intelligence which would have alerted everyone to 9-11
– after the 9-11 attacks in New York and Washington – and then, not until it
went back and looked through old intelligence collection data. That should warn us about what concerns exist in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense – and the priorities are not to first protect the
people in the streets of America from terrorist assault.
Most of us in American are common folks who go to work on a steady
schedule, most earn far less than we really need, and are totally – absolutely
dependent on the government of the United States for protection from terrorist
hits. We are also dependent on
American industry for oil products, and use them in massive amounts. But life for our families and ourselves far outweighs the
value of oil for our cars. If it were not for a powerful suspicion among the people that the real basis for a War in Iraq is profit for the heads of oil companies, we would be more tolerant, even more willing to risk our young people. But there is nothing in the history of the oil industry that is first purpose is to find oil On Behalf of the People. GORE OPENS DOOR TO TERRORGATE When 9-11 news flashed across the world in September, 2000, Al Gore was in Austria. His first reaction: "Osama Bin Laden!" Gore told the world that was his first and instantaneous opinion speaking on the Larry King Show. Further, he said he talked to former President Clinton, who had the same opinion. Clearly, both men knew of the depth of the terrorist threat before leaving office almost two years ago. If they knew it, it had to be pervasive throughout the secret policy and intelligence community of the government. What are the odds, do you suppose, that such important information, in that depth was not communicated to the new Bush Administration during the transition, and by the remaining government when Clinton and Gore left office? Absolutely Zero! So, it is a hundred percent guarantee that the incoming Bush Administration knew about the terrorist threat, about its seriousness, and somehow, failed to act, did not evaluate the information, or simply evaluated the threat as unimportant. The real failure of government - the new White House - was that the process itself failed early in the game. The problem for the People is to be certain that failure cannot happen again. If the same staff is collecting and evaluating intelligence, and the same people are evaluating the terrorist threat, what hope do the people - what assurance do the people have - that a new 9-11 will not be overlooked? None! Worse, the President is clearly trying to avoid any substantial investigation by the 9-11 Commission to find out who screwed up. There is now objective evidence to suggest serious judgment errors, and intentional efforts at cover-up of what lies in behind White House policy on terrorism prior to 9-11. The problem is no longer a matter of mistakes made and errors of judgment by policy. Now people are protecting their jobs, their futures, and possibly the risks of criminal cover up. The stakes are high. The starting point of any investigation has to be how much the Clinton Administration knew about al Qaeda plans and what evidence of a potential 9-11 attack existed, whether in detail, or in pieces of intelligence. The starting time frame is November, 2000, when the transition between administrations began. The end point occurs when genuine studies are completed by the 9-11 Commission, when there is a new round of Congressional investigations, and when the press finds and prints the truth. Watergate was about the worst sort of political corruption, and Iran Contra was about misuse of the government by adventurers in an administration which thought itself above the law. Terrorgate is about the lives of innocent American People on American soil. If the cover-up encumbers the effort to stop the next terrorist hit, and the one behind that, and those already cooking, then the moral crime becomes more like murder than a civil cover-up. The President needs to lead this investigation. He needs to learn from the mistakes of Richard Nixon. He needs to stand behind the 9-11 Commission, broaden its agenda, and be certain that it has every asset, including money to recover every fact. He needs to suspend every employee involved and direct every person in government with knowledge to come forward to tell the whole truth. Nixon destroyed himself. President Bush presumes to have wisdom. The wisdom here is to tell it all, square and complete as a President exercising his duties On Behalf of the People. A New Dawn in Politics
Verdun and Metz were watchwords of the Great
War as Paris and Normandy were the French markers of the Second War.
Yep – we Americans, as Bush and Rumsfeld have repeatedly pointed out
– saved their bacon both times, and those Gauls, they are an ungrateful lot!
All we want to do is invade a country in a pre-emptive strike that
probably has at least a dozen other somewhat more peaceful solutions. Not
that there is anything in Rumsfeld’s or Bush’s personality to suggest they
would have learned or remembered studying it, but the French saved our bacon,
and our new Nation against the English in the Revolutionary War.
So instead of racking up “You owe me” points, we ought to recognize
an old friend in France, one admittedly frustrating in the current struggle
against Iraq, but a very solid friend in the long run.
We might remember the French tears at 9-11, and the greatest possible
compliment, Frenchmen standing for the playing of the American National Anthem,
in Paris, no less, recognizing their support for our loss.
What we are seeing at the core of the struggle between the Anglo-American
coalition on one side, and the French led rebellion on the other is a
realignment of competitive political power in the world.
In reality, we are seeing the formation of a “two party system”
developing in world politics. It is
in that difference of view that the sharp edges of unchallenged power exhibited
by the Bush Administration are being shaped into responsible world leadership.
Just as checks and balances work in the United States and most democratic
nations to structure power, the conflicts between legitimate interests in the
open press and in sight of the world constituency also shape policy.
Russia has openly defined economic interests in Iraq, and France is a player in
several Arab economies. We don’t
want to forget that we were providing arms to Iraq at one point not long ago,
not to speak of the deep interest of American oil firms in Iraqi refineries.
International politics is a complex and fascinating arena.
Knowing who is sleeping with whom among the power interests of the world
is critical. Telling people whom to
sleep with never really works, although a seduction of reason and style might
just make it work better. What we are seeing as a world is the beginning of a new era political management. There is rarely a time when the world will not join to stop a local political disaster turned to war – at least if it impacts the economic interests of the great powers. Now, when any of us try to go it alone, there is trouble. Complex coalitions, forged in public, defined in the light of information distributed by a free press, work best when considering actions of power and government On Behalf of the People. . .Copyright John Isaacson 2003-2009 |
