Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Stiftung???
As usual I have to link the Stiftung Leo Strauss because he’s the most important commentator on American politics today. He’s explaining the facts of life to Harold Meyerson. Meyerson has noticed:
The truly astonishing thing about the latest scandals besetting the Bush administration is that they stem from actions the administration took after the November elections, when Democratic control of Congress was a fait accompli.
The Stiftung Leo Strauss explains that, “a change of party in Congress itself means little to a Movement that holds both separate branches of government and the distinctive and separate identity of the Republican party in barely restrained contempt.” His close sounds a familiar theme:
To change regime behavior concrete and specific actions that fundamentally alter the practical political power available to the regime’s disposal is necessary. This is another reason to consider issuing the subpoenas against Rove et al. Granted one can simply wait the regime out. One can pray a successor reverts back to liberal democracy and the Enlightenment.
We urge Democrats to reject the safe and easy way. Not only must the regime’s radical agenda be defeated. It must be seen to be defeated. We can not afford leaving a statutory and precedential foundation for a second try.
Yeah. The stakes are very high right now. Change of party control of the White House and Congress is a necessary but not sufficient corrective to the last six years. Somehow there needs to be an explicit and formal repudiation of Practical Bushism: “preemptive” war, the “unitary executive” and the counterterror torture-state. This is a very big job for two reasons.
First, because all that power is alluring, especially if it looks like your side might finally get to enjoy it. (Viz unpleasant discussion downblog.) We’re hoping a critical mass of the political class - people who have made pursuing and wielding power the center of their lives - will reduce the legitimate scope of the power they can hope to attain.
Second, because it means keeping the Republican Party out of power for a good long time. British Tories claim that Margaret Thatcher told associates in the 1980s that the Conservatives couldn’t hold power forever but needed to hang onto it until “Labor stopped being insane” - until Labor jettisoned what we might call “Scargillism.” Similarly, the US Republican Party has become a deeply corrupt institution top to bottom. It’s not just George Bush and his retinue. It’s not just the human shields of the Congressional GOP. It goes beyond the think-tank eunuchs and “conservative” media cheerleaders to the most pathetic marchers in what’s left of the right-wing blogosphere, down to the poorest spellers in their comment sections: the Republican Party has spent a half-dozen years distilling itself down to an apparatus for justifying massive executive power wielded by and for a self-designated elect of “real Americans,” and declaring everyone outside the elect to be fair game. We can disagree on how the Republican Party reduced itself to nothing but cheerleaders for the prerogatives of its own leaders against the rest of us - I have my theories like anyone else - but the rot goes all the way down.
It will take a whole new cadre of Republicans to turn the party into something that deserves to be trusted with a meaningful share of American power. Those people don’t really exist yet. Put it this way: to the extent that they exist now, the “real Republicans” vituperate them and drive them off. You can see the dynamic whenever a formerly “reliable” blogger like John Cole or Der Commissar sets the Kool-Aid cup down and begins describing the jungle compound as it actually looks. You see it in the loathing for Chuck Hagel, who was all talk and no kissing until just this week. Behind George Bush is Alberto Gonzales. Behind Alberto Gonzales is John Yoo. Behind John Yoo are a dozen functionaries who think like him but whose names we don’t even know. In front of them all is a clown show of jesters and justifiers.
It’s a rotten bunch, and it’s a rotten bunch that has found every soft spot in the structure of American Constitutionalism and poked it out. It is pleased to have done so and, as the Stiftung explains, does not to this day question its rightness. What has to happen is thoroughly repudiating them and their works. A notoriously fickle electorate has to keep them at bay. An obviously venal opposition has to rebuild the cage of laws around itself rather than running joyously rampant. I don’t like our chances, honestly. If you want to maximize them, it means turning to Eve Tushnet’s maxim: “Politicians mostly do what they think they have to do.” We have to make them think they have to shore up what passed for delimited power if they want to keep their phony-baloney jobs.
Comment by Mona —
March 28, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Outstanding, Jim. And also, I really believe someone like Hillary would waltz into a Yoo-prepared Executive and behave like a Queen with all the prerogatives of royalty. Something has to be done to smash all the accumulated anti-American heresy that has built up lo these past 6 years, so that it is no longer a threat to the Republic.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
March 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
I think this is a “pick your culture” moment. I don’t think it’s the Republicans, per se. I wouldn’t put the GHWB Republicans in anything like the same class as the recent group. It’s the Southern Republicans. And, insofar as that’s the group that the DLC wants to form an important part of the Democratic coalition, a Dem win by the DLC candidate (HRC) won’t result in a rollback of the things that worry you (and me). At best, it will slow the speed of the changes.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 28, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Yeah, there’s definitely a tribal element to this.
I sometimes wonder if this administration would have been less dangerous if they had won the 2000 election in a less…problematic manner. Say what you will about which method of counting which chad was inappropriate and which court disregarded which law, there’s no denying that the manner of the decision left something to be desired. And while I realize that the electoral vote is the only thing that matters by law, winning the popular vote certainly has certain political implications.
Winning in a less than desirable process perhaps taught some lessons and reinforced certain mindsets. And losing the popular vote certainly contributed to the “red vs. blue” and “real Americans” rhetoric. The rhetoric served the purpose of conjuring a political mandate out of thin air. “Well, we may not be the popular choice of the decadent coasts, but we have the real Americans.” Yes, the rhetoric was there before, but it seemed to take on a new character and get greater exposure in the mainstream media.
I realize that all of the dark tendencies and desires of this administration and the movement driving it were in place before 2000. But the extent to which a potential is realized can depend on circumstances. I wonder what the outcome might have been if they had come to power under different circumstances.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
March 28, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
One might well - but do you wonder if the outcome would have been different enough to make a difference? I surely can’t.
Comment by Frank —
March 29, 2007 @ 2:37 am
Great piece Jim. I agree with everything you’ve said and what Mona said about it. And yet… I disagree at the same time. I would be glad to vote for Hillary, precisely because she would govern like a queen. She is also the only candidate who I think may possibly hate Republicans as much as they need to be hated.
.
.
I used to hope that civil war and genocide in America could be avoided. Now I think the best “hope” that America has left is that the war will start while the Democrats are in charge.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 29, 2007 @ 7:29 am
I would be glad to vote for Hillary, precisely because she would govern like a queen. She is also the only candidate who I think may possibly hate Republicans as much as they need to be hated.
That’s the sort of thinking that turns a city into Baghdad.
Comment by Frank —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Thoreau- I’ll take Baghdad over Rwanda any day.
Comment by Eric Martin —
March 29, 2007 @ 9:21 am
And losing the popular vote certainly contributed to the “red vs. blue” and “real Americans” rhetoric. The rhetoric served the purpose of conjuring a political mandate out of thin air.
I don’t know Thoreau, this was classic Rovism that, as you say, predated 2000. Now you would argue that if Bush won by a larger margin, he would be less inclined to heed the counsel of Rove?
Highly unlikely in my opinion.
Otherwise, Jim this is fine, fine work.
Comment by Barry —
March 29, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Comment by Thoreau —
“I sometimes wonder if this administration would have been less dangerous if they had won the 2000 election in a less…problematic manner. ”
Why? Their policy from the start has been that a win by any means is as good as an overwhelming win by indisputably fair means. DeLay (?) even put it explicitly, that a win by more than ‘just barely’ meant that unnecessary compromises had been made.
Comment by Highlander —
March 29, 2007 @ 9:35 am
I think we have to start to understand, as our ancestors did, that our elected representatives are no longer merely human. They are, in fact, GODS, and must be treated as such — held in reverent awe, worshipped, allowed to rampage across the face of this Earth taking their debauched pleasures from us mere mortals as they will, untrammelled by puny human notions of morality and/or legality.
Of course, it goes without saying that I speak of REPUBLICAN elected representatives when I counsel thusly. This is because Republicans are all deeply devout, spiritual, Christian men and women whose traditional American values are deeply instilled and irrefutable. These are decent, proper, humble people, and we can trust them implicitly. Of course, of course.
Fucking liberals and Democrats, on the other hand… well, if THOSE feckless atheist troop-haters somehow manage to win an election, it’s simply a signal that an entire polling district needs to be razed to the ground as an object lesson to the public.
Deep in your hearts, you all know it’s true, too.
Comment by Hakffasthero —
March 29, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Excellent post. I was directed to you by Der Commissar. As to the issue of “Republican vs. Democrat”, that is the biggest illusion of all. It has become a winner take all philosophy in Washington DC that has been designed to divide people strictly for the purposes of distraction. “Wag the Dog” was written as a result of how DC operates, it did not create the idea. For all the fuss about subpoenas and election fraud and who is the latest crook, what is silently happening is too obvious for words. The money is basically calling the shots on the laws being enacted and your local representative doesn’t ultimately care what you think.
A perfect example (not the only one) was the Bankruptcy Law. Who wanted it? Not anyone I knew either Republican or Democrat. Did you see how many people in the blogs bitched about it? You could go on eiher wing and you would see the same words coming out of either sides mouth and suddenly wonder if you were on the right web page.
Yet it sailed through without even a hitch or the least bit of concern for repercussions from the electorate. This law was bought before any vote was cast.
No, I don’t wear a tin-foil hat. I do know how to add two plus two.
In the end, don’t expect better from the Dem’s until you get the money out of the election process. They are owned lock, stock and barrel as well, in my opinion.
This is my first post on this blog - hope it meets your standard.
Comment by jlw —
March 29, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Not to pile on Thoreau, but is there anything in the GOP’s actions or rhetoric during the 1990s that would support your hope that an outright victory in 2000 would have led to wielding power less maximally? I mean, the Republicans win a small-to-medium size majority in the House, and suddenly Gingrich not only talks in the language of revolution, but also acts as if he believes it.
But on the larger point–anything less than a full repudiation of the entire Bush Administration project will be a failure of historic proportions. It would be like chasing the rattlesnake into the baby’s closet and then going back to watching the big game on TV. If Bushism isn’t demonstrated to be a dead-end strategy–career death to anyone who is involved in trying it–we will see it pop up again and again until there is no other way of governing.
Whether it’s ultimately called Giulianism or Hillarism or Jebbism is of no consequence.
Comment by SomeOtherDude —
March 29, 2007 @ 11:37 am
9-11 woke up their inner fascist.
Comment by Barry —
March 29, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
I’d say ‘enabled’, not woken up. They’ve illustrated it for a while. As somebody said, Bush/Cheney didn’t *carry out* 9/11, but they’ve seized it as their Reichstag fire.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 29, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Well, Clinton pushed the idea he had a “mandate” after winning a plurality - but a minority - of popular votes in 1992, which makes me think you have a point about the tactic. However, I’m not sure that translates into any difference in governance in either case.
Comment by Barry —
March 29, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
jlw, I fear both that you are right, and that we won’t purge as needed. It’s important for people to remember that Cheney and Rumsfield got their start in the Ford administration, looking at the ashes of Watergate, and thinking ‘We need to get away with it next time.’.
The people from Iran-Contra pretty much got away with it.
I fear that we’ll be seeing the 30-somethings from this administration for the next 30 years (except, of course, for those who might turn State’s evidence, like that Monica in the DoJ who stated that she wants to plead the Fifth).
Comment by sglover —
March 29, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I have to go along with what appears to be the majority on this. All the strands of contemporary Republicanism were well in place before the 2000 election. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, Bush is in every way the intellectual and moral heir to Ronald Reagan. Hell, practically his entire regime did their apprenticeship in scumbaggery under the Sainted Actor.
Nope, the day that truly metamorphosed this regime into its current form was September 11, 2001. That was the event that gave all their loopiest schemes (#1 being the Iraq adventure) a chance at actual implementation. Prior to that, Bush was far along the path of a completely forgettable one-term wonder.
I can’t quite believe that I’m playing the role of optimist, but I’m beginning to think that in the long run we may be grateful for the powerful emetic effect of the Cheney regime. I think they’ve discredited an entire toxic spectrum of belief more than anyone since Herbert Hoover. I realize that powerful and dangerous constituencies remain out there. (With perhaps the worst being the National Security State Within A State that the Stiftung has described so eloquently.) But lancing the fever boil of the modern Republican Party is an essential prerequisite to coping with those other shadowy groups.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 29, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
But has the boil of the GOP really been lanced?
Here’s why I want to ponder the possibility that their dubious election made them more dangerous:
First, whatever might be said about the conceptual problems with representative government (usually the critiques involve majority tyranny), popularity is at least its own justification. A candidate who wins a popular plurality is therefore justified by his popularity. As bad as that can be, a candidate who doesn’t even get a plurality needs to justify his lack of a plurality somehow. So he’ll have to argue that his supporters are more virtuous than the rest of society. This is conducive to dividing a country.
Also, it is interesting to note that the greatest justification for Bush’s victory was simply that the electoral vote was mandated by law, and the law is the law. As we’ve seen over the past several years, “the law is the law” is anathema to this bunch.
Finally, it’s bad enough for some bastards who style themselves royalty to get power. It’s even worse when they come into power by methods of dubious legality. It sends them a message: “Yep, we’ll be able to get away with shit.”
An indisputably lawful victory doesn’t impart the same lesson.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 29, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Oh, and if you operate on the theory that any votes over 51% are wasted, winning with 48% against 49% only amplifies the message.
Basically, I’d say that the dubious election of 2000 emboldened them.
Comment by Matt Weiner —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
That was the event that gave all their loopiest schemes (#1 being the Iraq adventure) a chance at actual implementation. Prior to that, Bush was far along the path of a completely forgettable one-term wonder.
I don’t think we can know what Bush would’ve been able to do without 9/11. Before 9/11 he already rammed through an insanely large tax cut—and if you remember, the justifications for that were about as crazy as for the war; first it was because we couldn’t afford a surplus, then it was because of the recession, and then retrospectively it was that it was OK to run deficits in case of recession or war even though in the runup to the tax cut he denied that it would lead to deficits—and you’d also had the dynamiting of Kyoto (undercutting moderate element Christie Todd Whitman) and the ABM treaty.
So the maximalist ambitions and the marginalization of non-team players were already on full display. I think they still would’ve wanted war on Iraq, and gotten it.
Comment by Matt Weiner —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
make that might have gotten it.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
sglover: I think that you’re right about the change in the intellectual climate. However, I also get a hint of[*] “the worse, the better” from your post — it’s almost always actually the case that the worse, the worse. I think the climate of ideas has a positive feedback cycle in it; when good ideas are the norm, bad ideas stand out as conspicuously stupid, but when bad ideas are the norm, even terrible things become thinkable.
[*] That is, you didn’t actually say this, but you made me think of it.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
It sure may have, in the sense that nobody* - not even the Democrats - called them on it.
*Well, nobody who counts.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
March 29, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
I just realized that my post seems to contradict itself. I think that is because my thinking does contradict itself — different rules of thumb are telling me opposite things.
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 29, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
I’ll absolutely give you the ABM treaty. But man, Kyoto?? Under Clinton, the Senate passed an anti-protocol “sense of” by, IIRC, 95-0.
What we can say about the Bush Administration is that it didn’t think to propose any expansions of the domestic security state until September 12th of its first year. Its enthusiasm for kicking foreign ass and transliterating unspellable names was limited to the sorts of “safe” disputes that would justify shoveling money toward the defense contractor constituency - e.g. the spy plane “crisis” with China. NATO expansion, si. Rub the NoKos’ faces in the dirt, si! (The better to justify missile shield spending, if the damn thing actually worked.) Expand NATO ever eastward, taking advantage of Russia’s continuing weakness? Si si si! Continue the Daddy-Bubba policy of bear-baiting Saddam Hussein? Oh indeed.
None of this is stuff I favored then or later. But none of it evinces the millenial vainglory of the GWOT/GSAVE/Eponymous Doctrine Bushism that post-dated the atrocities of September 2001. To be sure the PNAC/AEI crowd was in the background wishing for that kind of thing, and the permanent security drones had their standard wish list of invasive procedures ready to pull out whenever the next massacre happened - it comprised the stuff they didn’t get after submitting their post-OKC-bombing wish list.
But it wasn’t, as they say, “under active consideration.” 9/11 had a massive impact. I’d call it pure contingency if so much of US policy in the dozen years prior to that day hadn’t seemingly existed to hasten a day just like it.
I think the thing that happened is obvious: despite all the quips about the “Cheney Administration,” George W. Bush is the President, and 9/11 convinced George W. Bush that God had chosen him for a great mission. The vanity of it is so stupefying that the mind rebels. The sheer bad luck of it makes us feel like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the beginning of Stoppard’s play watching the coin come up heads after heads after heads. There must be more to it! And there kind of is: a whole structure of institutions and actors and a theory of government, mostly unvoiced, that thrives on an atmosphere of crisis. The fire was laid, but the spark was 9/11 and the tinder was in the fallow twiggery of the President’s drafty brain.
Trackback by apostropher —
March 29, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Quick hits….
Dong Resin wants fat kids next to him on planes. The Tattooine double sunset is actually pretty common. Who wants to sex Hansbrough? “A statutory rape case against a 42-year-old charged as a man took on a different look after……
Comment by Matt Weiner —
March 29, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Jim, I give you the rest of the comment, but I’m right about Kyoto. “[Whitman] was undermined by the administration when it refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement on environmental standards that she endorsed.” “Or the moment when the president pulled out of Kyoto without agreeing to pursue a compromise, making her a laughingstock among environmental ministers worldwide.” These are the top two non-loony relevant hits for “Christie Todd Whitman” + “Kyoto.” Senate or no Senate, Bush withdrew from Kyoto on his own accord, and made Whitman carry his water on it a month after she’d come out in support of it.
Comment by Matt Weiner —
March 30, 2007 @ 12:01 am
Actually I don’t give you Iraq. He didn’t expand the domestic security state till 9/12, no, but going to war against Iraq isn’t expanding the domestic security state.