No Kumbaya For You!

Via Matt, I find that I've been linked at IowaPolitics.com. It's been a while since I've done anything all that political, so for the benefit of anyone who may have found me from there, I give you the following.

There's a problem with making statements like "Republicans do this" and "Democrats do that" because, quite obviously, in the real world neither party is a monolithic entity. Oh, they try to appear that way, and I think it's a fair observation that the Republican party pulls it off much better than the Democratic party, but at the end of the day as soon as you say something like that someone will come along and point to something that contradicts it. Writing in those terms only courts trouble, and, in a fair and just and honest world, should be avoided.

But we don't live in a fair and just and honest world, do we? No, we don't, and so sometimes we have to make general statements in order to try to make our points. We can add caveats, say that when we say "x" we mean the "x" leadership in the White House, the "x" leadership in the Senate, the "x' leadership in the House of Representatives, and the "x" national party leadership, but eventually those caveats become cumbersome and we need to go on. An appearance of a caveat once or twice should be sufficient to drive your point home, but even if you do that, someone will still seize upon a general statement and try to throw it back at you. These are the risks. With them in mind, on with the show.

You see a lot of the following everywhere:

I'd like to see the executive branch and Congress get down to serious legislative work to resolve some urgent global and national problems now, rather than continuously engage in games of partisan rhetoric. We elected them and pay them their salaries to work constructively on critically important national issues. (NOTE: Actual comments from an actual human being on an actual Internet message board.)

The press parrots this sort of thing a lot as well. The problem is, one side is not interested in working constructively on critically important national issues. One side is not interested in putting aside games of partisan rhetoric. Those things, putting aside partisan games in order to work constructively together, are part of a process called "governing" that one side has no interest in taking part in. And, unfortunately for all of us, that side currently controls the legislative branch and the executive branch. That side is also bound and determined to completely control the judicial branch.

There. I've said it. Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, has no interest in governing. The Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, is only interested in ruling.

Now you might say to yourself, "Self, I don't see a difference between ruling and governing." If your self is smart, it will respond with "Well, there's a huge difference. Governing involves compromise, it involves engaging different viewpoints and opinions and attempting to use all of these in formulating the most effective and efficient responses to problems. Ruling, on the other hand, involves none of that. Ruling involves telling people what you want and having them do it."

We are a nation founded on a strong belief in governing. We are a nation founded on the notion that rulers are not desirable. We are nation founded on the notion of compromise, of all participants having input. We are a nation founded on the notion of working together constructively and ignoring partisan games.

The problem is, that only works if all participants do it. In the structure of a two-
party system, that only works if both parties do it.

And both parties don't do it.

Oh they once did. It was once the case that the leadership in both parties strived to find solutions, not to score political points. Yes, there was partisan sniping. There has always been partisan sniping. But clearly it has never been as bad as it is now. Clearly it has never been the case that one party was so hell-bent on single party rule as one party is now.

As with most things, I blame Reagan.

Reagan is famous for saying "Government is part of the problem, not part of the solution." Can you imagine a more horrible statement for a man running for President to make? Can you imagine a stupider one? Why would anyone who says something like that want to be President? Why would anyone elect someone who says something like that? I mean, if you are conducting interviews for Hy-Vee, and a candidate for a position says "Grocery stores are part of the problem, not part of the solution", are you going to hire that guy? No, no, a thousand times no. You'll send him on his way with a "We'll be in touch" or a "I don't think we have anything appropriate for you at this time."

See, government is neither problem nor solution. Government is what the people in government make it. If the people in government try to make it a force for good, if the interest is acheiving answers that take into account everyone, government can be an effective part of the solution. If the people in government have no interest in doing good works, if the interest is in getting your way and ignoring everyone else, government can be an impediment to success. If you want to rule instead of govern, government is by definition a bad thing. And as I said, Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, want to rule. And so, they disregard anyone who disagrees with them.

Don't believe me? You need look no further than the discussion about judicial appointments. After eight years of using every trick in the book to block Clinton's appointments, after years of saying that Democratic presidents need to consult Republicans on judicial appointments, the mantra became "Everyone of the President's choices should get an up or down vote. The Constitution doesn't give the Senate a role in who becomes an appointment." This despite the fact that the Constitution has long been interpreted as giving the Senate such a role. Rush Limbaugh, one of the leading spokesmen of the right (and really folks, when Rush Limbaugh is one of your leading spokespeople, shouldn't you be indulging in a little soul searching?) has sent frequently in the past few months "You want input on judges? Win elections." As if the President won re-election (or, to be more factually correct, election) by more than 51%. As if the President weren't President of all Americans. As if a Senator from Iowa isn't Senator for all Iowans. As if only the people who vote for you count.

And let's be honest, shall we? Let's cast aside the caveat. This attitude, this "You aren't one of us so you don't exist" attitude has filtered down to all levels of society. The folks behind Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday 2: Eclectic Boogaloo, folks with strong ties to this administration, have basically said that you can't be a Christian if you are a Democrat. And no one in the administration could be bothered to say "Anyone can be a Christian." And it goes beyond that, as we found out this week when it became a national news story that a so-called Christian adoption agency in the south, an agency that received state tax proceeds, refused to provide services to Catholics because they don't believe the right things. Hmmm. Refusing to deal with someone because they don't believe the right things. Sound familiar?

Or take the right-wing blogs. Except for a couple of very notable exceptions, all the major right-wing blogs parrot everything the Bush Administration says. When they aren't parroting, they are carrying water by trying to discredit anyone who dares to question the wisdom and statements of the administration. What makes this remarkable is the extent to which it carries down to even the smallest right-wing blogs. All the Powerline and Instapundit wannabes fall in line repeating everything their mentors say, and the end result is that the entire right-wing blogosphere generally speaks not just with the same voice, but with the same thoughts. There are exceptions, true, but those exceptions end up getting attacked and smeared just as relentlessly as the right-wing blogosphere attacks and smears anyone who dares criticize Bush.

(There is no similar phenomenon on the left-side of the blogosphere or in Democratic politics in general. Indeed, this is a difficult thing for Democrats to do. For one thing, as Will Rogers said years ago, "I don't belong to an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." For another, Democrats have traditionally enjoyed attacking other Democrats as much, if not more than attacking Republicans.)

But it's not just people who disagree with this administration who are not wanted. It's information as well. Here's this from a June 15th, 2003 piece in the Washington Post. Keep in mind that this was written BEFORE Joe Wilson's New York Times op-ed piece.

A key component of President Bush's claim that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said. The CIA's failure to share what it knew was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

Leaving aside what that bit implies about Plamegate, think about that last sentence again.

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

Can there be a greater damning statement about this, or any, Presidential administration?

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

Isn't information that is not consistent with the administration's agenda the information to which the administration should be paying most attention? Isn't information consistent with the viewpoint the information that should be most seriously scrutinized? I mean, we aren't talking about whether or not to have spaghetti or pizza for supper. We aren't talking what movie to see. We are talking about the decision to go to war, to send troops to their death. We are talking the most important decision a President can ever make. And in making that decision, this administration ignored anything that didn't support their agenda and didn't question anything that did support it. Post-war planning? Prepare for an occupation? Put sufficient troops on the ground to hold down an insurrection? No need. The people of Iraq will welcome us with open arms. Given this statement

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

is it any wonder that we are now bogged down in a situation where there are no good options?

So I ask again? Can there be a greater damning statement about this, or any Presidential administration?

Why yes there can, thanks for asking. And it's this: the highest ranking members of this administration were willing to out an undercover CIA operative to discredit someone who dared to have the temerity to question the administration's lies about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

And that's why we can't just hold hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya and all just get along right now. Because if one side is willing to out undercover CIA operatives and their operations in the name of attacking enemies, if one side is willing to do that, there is nothing that side is not going to be willing to do.

Which is why now, more than ever, it is important for the Democrats to fight back. Because one of the two or three most fundamental rules of life is that the bully will not quit punching you until you start punching the bully back. Howard Dean understands this, and as a result has come out of the gate swinging. This scares a lot of the establishment Dems, who are fearful of losing power within the party. But it delights the party faithful, it fires them up, and it shows in the increased volunteerism and the record fund-raising the Democratic party is experiencing.

More importantly, it scares the Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership). The last thing they want are Democrats who fight back. They want Democrats who let themselves get walked all over (see Kerry, John). They want Democrats who believe their extensive resume is the reason they should be President (see Kerry, John). They want Democrats who want to be elected on that resume, not be forced to actually run a decent campaign (see Kerry, John). The more the Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership) squawk about bipartisanship and needing the play nice and blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, the more it shows how scared they are of Democrats fighting back.

Because they have reason to be scared. All signs point to a historic blow-up on the Republican side of things, a blow-up that could result in a total revamping of the Republican party as we know it. And Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership) are starting to realize it. They have pressed down on all opposition for so long, both within and without of the party, and they can't hold it down much longer. And the more Democrats are willing to fight back, to no longer take it, the harder it will be for the Republicans to hold the opposition down. But that won't stop them from trying, and the harder they push down, the more explosive the eventual blow-up will be.

Considering the amount of time, money, and energy the Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, are spending to keep a lid on things right now in the face of all the dissent and scandals, it will probably happen during the 2006 mid-terms. After all, mid-term elections are traditionally the time when steam gets vented from the boiler of American politics. But if it doesn't happen then, if by some chance they can keep it together and not have it blow up in their faces in 2006, it will happen in 2008.

And afterwards we can hold hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya and all just get along.