The concept of accountability has gone missing in Washington DC.
Donald Trump was never going to be held accountable. He's probably never been held accountable in his entire life. Certainly not since being sworn in as president. The day after Robert Mueller testified in Congress about his involvement with the Russian government in the 2016 election (in which he only escaped being indicted due to DoJ guidelines), Trump was putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to uncover (or fabricate) "dirt" on the man who he assumed would be his opponent in the 2020 election. Where a normal person might choose to lay low after such a close call, Trump decided to double down on his corrupt behavior. He never made a secret of it. Hell, he openly talked about it in televised interviews. None of Trump's aides, advisors, or cabinet officials have been able to restrain his worst impulses except around the edges.
And Congress? The co-equal branch of government specifically designed in many ways to act as a check on the Executive branch? The House of Representatives took its responsibility seriously and impeached the president. But the Senate is refusing to do its job. It ignored the evidence, refused to hear witness testimony, and will very likely acquit Trump in a speedy sham trial a few days from now. The Senate didn't just fail to hold Trump accountable, it - specifically Senate Republicans - flat-out refused to do so.
So Trump will face zero punishment for attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. Sure, he's been impeached, and that will be a stain on his legacy forever. But as far as him suffering any immediate consequences that will prevent him from trying to rig it in his favor?
Zip. Zero. Nada.
Of course, there's the 2020 election itself. Vote him out of office, right? That is, vote him out of office through the election he's actively trying to cheat in? Sure, piece of cake.
Now, I'm not telling anyone to give up in despair and not vote. For god's sake, VOTE. Because this election is probably the most important one in your lifetime. But don't expect it the Trump campaign to play fair. Don't be surprised by the traditional Republican tactics like voter suppression, selective voter ID measures, and limited polling sites in Dem-leaning districts. Don't be surprised if Trump pulls out all the stops - like, say, deploying ICE to polling sites for the purpose of intimidating voters to stay home. Or worse.
Additionally, Trump will probably do a whole bunch of idiotic, amoral,
and illegal stuff between now and November. And if the past has taught us
anything, it's that Trump's antics will push his previous fiasco out of
the public consciousness. It's a well-established pattern at this
point: Trump generates a controversy, it dominates the news cycle for a
couple days, and is promptly forgotten once Trump makes another bonehead
mistake.
Here's an example: have you heard anyone
mention Trump's drone assassination of the Iranian general in the last
2-3 days? Trump nearly blundered the United States into a war, and
hardly anyone is talking about it now.
Acquitting Trump will be giving him a green light to do whatever he wants, without consequences. And given some of the things Trump has shown himself to be okay with doing (roughing up protestors, declaring martial law, curtailing the First Amendment, jailing his political opponents) make me extremely nervous.
I'm not saying it's certain that any of these things will happen. But the chances that they do are a lot further away from zero than they should be.
So. . .thanks, Senate Republicans.
Speaking of that pack of worthless, unprincipled weasels - guess who else won't be held accountable?
Yeah, yeah, I know there's a lot of pent-up anger at the Senate over the impeachment trial's likely outcome. There sure was after the Senate voted to not allow witnesses, therefore paving the way for the acquittal. But will that translate to meaningful results at the ballot box? I'm not so sure. First, there was a lot of anger in the 2018 midterms, too; but despite Democrats making significant gains (the much-hyped "blue wave"), Republicans managed to pick up two seats in the Senate. They're probably counting on maintaining, if not increasing, their lead in the Senate.
Because despite all the angry phone calls and emails, and the op-eds rightly calling them cowards and worse, they have pollsters who have gauged the public's sentiment and know how their constituents feel. They've known for a while, which is why they voted the way they did. So aside from a few vulnerable Senators, they're not sweating reelection. And if they do unexpectedly lose, they're not worried. They can find a pundit gig, or a position on a consulting firm, or even just retire. And in eight or twelve years, "Republican" won't be a dirty word anymore and they can reemerge from the political wilderness. And Republicans have some experience being the minority party. If Democrats do retake the Senate, they'll just go into opposition mode and make it incredibly difficult for the Senate (and the White House, if a Democrat gets elected) to do its job.
No, the only thing they're worried about is being excluded from the Big Club, and that only happens if they defy Trump. Mitt Romney and John Bolton are quickly becoming cautionary tales.
So, to sum up, we've got a president who's unaccountable because his subordinates can't keep him in check, and the Senate simply won't; and fifty-three Senators who are unaccountable because they know the worst outcome for them is the unlikely chance that they don't get reelected.
Where does that leave the country going forward? Well, if Trump loses in 2020 (and that's a big "if" for multiple reasons), expect Republicans to "suddenly" rediscover all the principles and ideals they've been uniformly ignoring since January 2017. And that creates a dilemma.
A Democrat president (and/or Senate) acting the way Trump has done will further erode the concept of presidential accountability and co-equal branches of government, so the right thing to do would be to heed those calls for accountability. However, to anyone who remembers Republican behavior throughout the Obama administration knows that Republicans aren't making good faith arguments. They only care about accountability to the extent they can use it to weaken Democrats and get themselves back into power. Consequently, there's a strong, justifiable argument for telling Republicans to sit down and shut up. Additionally, if Republicans obstruct simply for the sole purpose of denying Democrats a legislative victory (it was Mitch McConnell's entire strategy from 2010 - 2016), a Democratic president may have to act unilaterally just to keep the government functioning. It's happened before.
Thus, the Democrats' (and America's) predicament.
Of course, this all depends on the election's outcome. If Trump gets reelected, it could very well mean the end of Constitutional democracy in America. And that's not a dramatic exaggeration. He's already been sent a message that he won't be held accountable no matter what he does.
How far do you think he'll run with that if he gets another four years?
Choose wisely this November. Because a president that's not accountable to anyone is a king.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Russian Roulette
Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click!
Imagine you're living in a major European city in the summer of 1914. Paris, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia - it doesn't really matter which one. How would you react to news about the Archduke's assassination? Would you immediately start preparing for the coming war, or would you keep going about your daily life as usual? It seems counter-intuitive now, based on how inevitable World War I looks in hindsight, but at the time, a lot of people weren't concerned about the assassination setting in motion the events it did - partially because there had already been a handful of crises already, and they ultimately ended civilly, without a larger war breaking out.
* In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed part of Bosnia, Russia then menaced Austria-Hungary, and Germany menaced Russia in response.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1912, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia teamed up to acquire territory from the Ottoman Empire.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1913, Serbia and Greece turned on their former ally Bulgaria, in a dispute over the spoils of their victory from the previous year.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* Then, in 1914. . .tick-tick-tick--BANG!
Treating the Archduke's assassination as an unimportant event seems more understandable now, doesn't it? That's the tricky thing about historically significant events: you usually don't know which ones will end up being minor tremors and which ones will blow up into unmanageable crises until later. Maybe much later. And even when times are uneventful and dull, there are always multiple parts of the system at risk of careening out of control. Think of it like driving an old, high-mileage car. It's been through a lot of wear-and-tear, so because of its advanced age, there are multiple potential points of failure. A belt at risk of snapping, a frayed wire, a leaky gasket. Every time you drive it somewhere, you're adding stress to an already strained system.
Nations are like that. There are countless moving pieces, and at any given time, one of them could break down with catastrophic consequences. A crop failure. A terrorist attack. A natural disaster. A financial collapse. There's a constant undercurrent of chaos flowing through a seemingly calm and orderly facade. So it's natural for people to ignore or downplay the potential for chaos constantly unfolding around them. The people who can't or won't exhaust themselves, mentally and emotionally. (They also irritate everyone around them with their constant "The end is nigh" pronouncements - or so I'm told.) There's a danger in that complacency, though. It leads people to assume that because they survived a past crisis, they will also survive the current one.
We're living in one of those uncertain moments right now. Right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise multiple areas throughout the world. Brazil just elected a far-right politician as president. In Germany, a far-right movement is gaining popularity, and Angela Merkel's retirement signals an uncertain future. There's also a far-right resurgence in other parts of Europe. And America, which has long held the title of "Leader of the Free World," is seeing its democratic institutions being eroded from within. Will this be a temporary uptick, or will it lead to a long-term erosion of democracy? Will the international order that has been responsible for over seventy years of relative peace endure, or will we call these "the inter-war years" someday? We can't know for sure, because we're in the middle of these events. But there's no doubt that the storm clouds are gathering.
Tick-tick-tick. . .
Imagine you're living in a major European city in the summer of 1914. Paris, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia - it doesn't really matter which one. How would you react to news about the Archduke's assassination? Would you immediately start preparing for the coming war, or would you keep going about your daily life as usual? It seems counter-intuitive now, based on how inevitable World War I looks in hindsight, but at the time, a lot of people weren't concerned about the assassination setting in motion the events it did - partially because there had already been a handful of crises already, and they ultimately ended civilly, without a larger war breaking out.
* In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed part of Bosnia, Russia then menaced Austria-Hungary, and Germany menaced Russia in response.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1912, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia teamed up to acquire territory from the Ottoman Empire.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1913, Serbia and Greece turned on their former ally Bulgaria, in a dispute over the spoils of their victory from the previous year.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* Then, in 1914. . .tick-tick-tick--BANG!
Treating the Archduke's assassination as an unimportant event seems more understandable now, doesn't it? That's the tricky thing about historically significant events: you usually don't know which ones will end up being minor tremors and which ones will blow up into unmanageable crises until later. Maybe much later. And even when times are uneventful and dull, there are always multiple parts of the system at risk of careening out of control. Think of it like driving an old, high-mileage car. It's been through a lot of wear-and-tear, so because of its advanced age, there are multiple potential points of failure. A belt at risk of snapping, a frayed wire, a leaky gasket. Every time you drive it somewhere, you're adding stress to an already strained system.
Nations are like that. There are countless moving pieces, and at any given time, one of them could break down with catastrophic consequences. A crop failure. A terrorist attack. A natural disaster. A financial collapse. There's a constant undercurrent of chaos flowing through a seemingly calm and orderly facade. So it's natural for people to ignore or downplay the potential for chaos constantly unfolding around them. The people who can't or won't exhaust themselves, mentally and emotionally. (They also irritate everyone around them with their constant "The end is nigh" pronouncements - or so I'm told.) There's a danger in that complacency, though. It leads people to assume that because they survived a past crisis, they will also survive the current one.
We're living in one of those uncertain moments right now. Right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise multiple areas throughout the world. Brazil just elected a far-right politician as president. In Germany, a far-right movement is gaining popularity, and Angela Merkel's retirement signals an uncertain future. There's also a far-right resurgence in other parts of Europe. And America, which has long held the title of "Leader of the Free World," is seeing its democratic institutions being eroded from within. Will this be a temporary uptick, or will it lead to a long-term erosion of democracy? Will the international order that has been responsible for over seventy years of relative peace endure, or will we call these "the inter-war years" someday? We can't know for sure, because we're in the middle of these events. But there's no doubt that the storm clouds are gathering.
Tick-tick-tick. . .
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The Blogger Who Cried "Wolf"
What if I'm wrong? That question has crossed my mind more than once. Suppose all my fears about Trump's authoritarianism turn out to be unfounded, and it turns out to be part of his shtick all this time - to "own the libs," or whatever. Man, won't I look foolish, what with all the squawking I've done about how he's a wanna-be autocrat, how he's a threat to democracy, and so on.
It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources. The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal. Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.
And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people. We still have a free press. We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media. We can still vote. (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)
So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded. If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic. If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.
But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens. I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare. Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions. It will take time and effort to repair them. And that's the best-case scenario. What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.
I guess we'll find out in a few years. In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.
It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources. The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal. Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.
And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people. We still have a free press. We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media. We can still vote. (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)
So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded. If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic. If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.
But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens. I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare. Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions. It will take time and effort to repair them. And that's the best-case scenario. What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.
I guess we'll find out in a few years. In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Trump's Ongoing War on the Freedom of the Press
So it's been a while since my last post. I never meant to let it lapse for this long, but sometimes things come up and you know how life goes. Anyway. . .
There's a video circulating around showing how the news anchors for many Sinclair Broadcast Group outlets regurgitating a nearly-identical news piece. Somebody took the time to splice a bunch of clips together, and that's the video that's been making the internet rounds. (Or one of many videos. I think there could be a few different ones.) Go watch this video here - it's disturbing as hell.
Imagine if you could only get your news from one source. Even if you agreed with that source, it still presents a lot of problems. For one, you're getting all your information filtered through the outlet's preferences: the stories it deems important, the ideological slant it wants to put on it, the bits of data it chooses to emphasize or downplay, and so on. Information is vital to a democracy: people need it to make informed decisions at the ballot box, among other things. If one company, or a handful of companies, control a huge number of news agencies, how do you think those news sites will cover a political candidate that the company favors? Do you think voters will get a complete picture of that candidate, or will they only hear about the good stuff?
Which brings us to Donald Trump. The Sinclair Group's "newscast" I linked to centered on the problem of "biased and false news" being shared on social media. Now, that was a newsworthy story, so what's the big deal, right? Well, it's a big deal because this is the full script, courtesy of CNN:
Obviously, the Sinclair Group executives are doing this to get on Trump's good side. Unfortunately, this is taking place at the same time while a steady flow of damning information is coming out about Trump's obstruction of justice, his ties to the Russian government, and his cabinet's unethical and possibly illegal actions. What would happen if a number of local news stations began undercutting the Mueller investigation, peddling the "deep state" conspiracy nonsense, or distracting their viewers with whataboutism? Fox News and the right-wing media still get a lot of traction among their viewers with their fawning, pro-Trump coverage; if these outlets started parroting that message, it adds fuel to the fire. On top of that, Trump's position to influence the Sinclair deals gives him a measure of control over the company. We're already seeing that influence how the company operates, and the deals are still in progress. If the Trump Administration decides in Sinclair's favor, it will be beholden to him and his cronies for as long as they serve in office.
This would effectively mean that Trump's attacks on the press are moving beyond his "brain vomit" Tweets, and could potentially be disseminated by news agencies with actual credibility, not just a BS-spewing network like Fox. Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" were never in jest. He means it when he says he wants to make them register, or censor them. He wants to control the media and its message, and thanks to the Sinclair Group's ass-kissing, Trump could soon have an effective tool to help him with that. That should terrify you. It terrifies me.
There's a video circulating around showing how the news anchors for many Sinclair Broadcast Group outlets regurgitating a nearly-identical news piece. Somebody took the time to splice a bunch of clips together, and that's the video that's been making the internet rounds. (Or one of many videos. I think there could be a few different ones.) Go watch this video here - it's disturbing as hell.
Imagine if you could only get your news from one source. Even if you agreed with that source, it still presents a lot of problems. For one, you're getting all your information filtered through the outlet's preferences: the stories it deems important, the ideological slant it wants to put on it, the bits of data it chooses to emphasize or downplay, and so on. Information is vital to a democracy: people need it to make informed decisions at the ballot box, among other things. If one company, or a handful of companies, control a huge number of news agencies, how do you think those news sites will cover a political candidate that the company favors? Do you think voters will get a complete picture of that candidate, or will they only hear about the good stuff?
Which brings us to Donald Trump. The Sinclair Group's "newscast" I linked to centered on the problem of "biased and false news" being shared on social media. Now, that was a newsworthy story, so what's the big deal, right? Well, it's a big deal because this is the full script, courtesy of CNN:
Do you see how the news anchors try to convince you that their news affiliate is the only trustworthy source of news? Like how Fox News uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is anything but that. Also, the script's wording, specifically its use of the term "biased and false news", reminds you of a certain President's catch phrase, doesn't it? I doubt that's a coincidence, since the Sinclair Group is in the middle of some business dealings that Trump Administration officials are overseeing."I'm [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [name of local station] produces. But I'm [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I [we] understand truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
Obviously, the Sinclair Group executives are doing this to get on Trump's good side. Unfortunately, this is taking place at the same time while a steady flow of damning information is coming out about Trump's obstruction of justice, his ties to the Russian government, and his cabinet's unethical and possibly illegal actions. What would happen if a number of local news stations began undercutting the Mueller investigation, peddling the "deep state" conspiracy nonsense, or distracting their viewers with whataboutism? Fox News and the right-wing media still get a lot of traction among their viewers with their fawning, pro-Trump coverage; if these outlets started parroting that message, it adds fuel to the fire. On top of that, Trump's position to influence the Sinclair deals gives him a measure of control over the company. We're already seeing that influence how the company operates, and the deals are still in progress. If the Trump Administration decides in Sinclair's favor, it will be beholden to him and his cronies for as long as they serve in office.
This would effectively mean that Trump's attacks on the press are moving beyond his "brain vomit" Tweets, and could potentially be disseminated by news agencies with actual credibility, not just a BS-spewing network like Fox. Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" were never in jest. He means it when he says he wants to make them register, or censor them. He wants to control the media and its message, and thanks to the Sinclair Group's ass-kissing, Trump could soon have an effective tool to help him with that. That should terrify you. It terrifies me.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Cold War 2.0?
So a lot of Americans are pissed off at the Russian government right now. It's now clear that Putin and his cronies played a non-insignificant part in shaping the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Which means that Russia is at least partly responsible for saddling us with an indisputably terrible president. What's worse, they took away Americans' trust in the electoral process. Not only is the 2016 election tainted with perceptions of illegitimacy, but there will be a cloud of suspicion hanging over future elections - especially since the government doesn't appear to be doing enough to safeguard the integrity of the voting process. On top of all that, Russia did more than interfere in the electoral process. It also stirred up a lot of ill will and worsened the country's polarization. Look around, listen to what people are saying and read the comments they're leaving on social media: Americans are deeply divided, usually over Trump's policies and conduct. The fact is, Russia hit us pretty hard, and Americans are right to be furious.
However, there are a few things to keep in mind.
First, the US Government has done its own share of meddling in other countries' elections. I don't say that to defend what the Russian government did, but instead to point out the hypocrisy involved. Our government doesn't have the moral high ground here, not even by claiming it was done for "very good reasons." It's also hard to promote democracy in other countries while helping to undermine it in those same places. Now that we're getting a taste of our own medicine, we're realizing how much it sucks.
Second, whether unintentionally or deliberately, our government has antagonized Russia several times since the end of the Cold War. Military alliances and campaigns such as the bombing campaign against Serbia (a staunch Russian ally) and the ongoing military presence in the Balkans, the NATO expansion, and attacks against Russia's former allies, including Iraq, have all been perceived as insults at best and provocations at worse. To get some perspective, imagine how we would feel if the Russian military had done the following: formed a military alliance with Canada, Mexico, and several Latin American nations; bombed and occupied Great Britain; and attacked Israel twice in thirteen years. I think we'd feel more than a little threatened.
Third, and probably most important, Russia didn't create this mess out of thin air. It recognized that America was already pretty divided on many issues, and it poured gasoline on a low-grade fire. There were still healthy feelings of Islamophobia, homophobia, and racial tensions; media outlets willing to publish divisive "news" for ratings and revenue; a decades-long feeling of economic anxiety due to stagnant salaries or poverty wages, growing economic inequality, outsourcing, rising expenses, and ballooning government deficits; civil liberties being chipped away; and the perception of an indifferent political class. 2016 was the "anti-establishment" election; and Hillary Clinton was perceived by some parts of the country as being a significant part of the problem. Russia simply observed the American political and cultural landscape, and saw its opening.
Russia isn't the only one who sees an opening, though. The Russian electoral meddling has given a lot of anti-Russian hawks the pretext they've been waiting for to resume the Cold War, people like John "I never met a war I didn't like" Bolton. You remember him, right? He was George W. Bush's Ambassador to the UN, he was super-hawkish, and he helped sell the flimsy Iraqi WMD intelligence. Why anyone still listens to him at all is a mystery, yet The Hill recently allowed him to write an op-ed, in which he wrote, "The White House can and should now pivot to the real task ahead, which is dealing strategically and comprehensively with Russia's global efforts to enhance its influence." There are other semi-influential people like Bolton in the Beltway, and they're drooling over the possibility of a confrontation with Russia. Judging by her policy ideas, Hillary Clinton was one of them - which was one reason I didn't vote for her. Readopting a belligerent posture toward Russia also gives the anti-Russian crowd to downplay or distract people from domestic problems, and considering how many problems this country has, a useful distraction would probably be welcomed by some people.
America has already been through one Cold War, and it wasn't very fun for most people: the threat of nuclear annihilation, anti-Communist witch hunts and infringements on civil liberties, an multi-decade arms race, money diverted away from schools/hospitals/infrastructure/etc, and so on. Plus, America has a lot of problems at home to solve, and the last thing we need is to focus our attention and resources on an adversary thousands of miles away. So, let's not do that again, okay?
However, there are a few things to keep in mind.
First, the US Government has done its own share of meddling in other countries' elections. I don't say that to defend what the Russian government did, but instead to point out the hypocrisy involved. Our government doesn't have the moral high ground here, not even by claiming it was done for "very good reasons." It's also hard to promote democracy in other countries while helping to undermine it in those same places. Now that we're getting a taste of our own medicine, we're realizing how much it sucks.
Second, whether unintentionally or deliberately, our government has antagonized Russia several times since the end of the Cold War. Military alliances and campaigns such as the bombing campaign against Serbia (a staunch Russian ally) and the ongoing military presence in the Balkans, the NATO expansion, and attacks against Russia's former allies, including Iraq, have all been perceived as insults at best and provocations at worse. To get some perspective, imagine how we would feel if the Russian military had done the following: formed a military alliance with Canada, Mexico, and several Latin American nations; bombed and occupied Great Britain; and attacked Israel twice in thirteen years. I think we'd feel more than a little threatened.
Third, and probably most important, Russia didn't create this mess out of thin air. It recognized that America was already pretty divided on many issues, and it poured gasoline on a low-grade fire. There were still healthy feelings of Islamophobia, homophobia, and racial tensions; media outlets willing to publish divisive "news" for ratings and revenue; a decades-long feeling of economic anxiety due to stagnant salaries or poverty wages, growing economic inequality, outsourcing, rising expenses, and ballooning government deficits; civil liberties being chipped away; and the perception of an indifferent political class. 2016 was the "anti-establishment" election; and Hillary Clinton was perceived by some parts of the country as being a significant part of the problem. Russia simply observed the American political and cultural landscape, and saw its opening.
Russia isn't the only one who sees an opening, though. The Russian electoral meddling has given a lot of anti-Russian hawks the pretext they've been waiting for to resume the Cold War, people like John "I never met a war I didn't like" Bolton. You remember him, right? He was George W. Bush's Ambassador to the UN, he was super-hawkish, and he helped sell the flimsy Iraqi WMD intelligence. Why anyone still listens to him at all is a mystery, yet The Hill recently allowed him to write an op-ed, in which he wrote, "The White House can and should now pivot to the real task ahead, which is dealing strategically and comprehensively with Russia's global efforts to enhance its influence." There are other semi-influential people like Bolton in the Beltway, and they're drooling over the possibility of a confrontation with Russia. Judging by her policy ideas, Hillary Clinton was one of them - which was one reason I didn't vote for her. Readopting a belligerent posture toward Russia also gives the anti-Russian crowd to downplay or distract people from domestic problems, and considering how many problems this country has, a useful distraction would probably be welcomed by some people.
America has already been through one Cold War, and it wasn't very fun for most people: the threat of nuclear annihilation, anti-Communist witch hunts and infringements on civil liberties, an multi-decade arms race, money diverted away from schools/hospitals/infrastructure/etc, and so on. Plus, America has a lot of problems at home to solve, and the last thing we need is to focus our attention and resources on an adversary thousands of miles away. So, let's not do that again, okay?
Friday, December 29, 2017
What Goes Around. . .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently stated he anticipates more bipartisan cooperation in 2018. That's right, Mitch McConnell said that. The same Mitch McConnell who bragged about stonewalling former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in Obama's final year in office. The same McConnell who was an integral part of the opposition party's obstructionist strategy. It doesn't take an expert pundit to figure out what's going on here: McConnell knows the GOP will get crushed in next year's midterms, so he's suddenly realized the value of cooperation so he can extract some favorable legislation before his political capital expires. So now he wants to play nice - how convenient. There are probably countless members of the Democratic Party, both voters and elected officials, who don't feel McConnell and the GOP deserve any quarter whatsoever, and who have no intention of cutting them even a millimeter of slack; and given Republicans' conduct during the last eight years, who could blame them?
Here's the thing, though: as gratifying as telling the GOP to get stuffed sounds, it's a bad idea - for a combination of obvious and not-so-obvious reasons. (Quick note: I'm referring almost entirely to the obscure Congressional rules in this post, not any policy positions; as far as I'm concerned, the GOP is on the wrong side of history on many contemporary social issues - civil rights, environmental protections, education, the church/state separation, among others - and they don't deserve any consideration on these points. History and sociological research have already rendered verdicts, and it's time for the GOP's policy stances to be thrown onto the pile of failed ideas. Okay - tangent over.) For one thing, neither party manages to hold a majority forever, so any procedural changes a party makes to the will eventually get passed along to the other party; and when that happens, you're giving the opposition better tools to push its agenda and undo your accomplishments. It's foolishly shortsighted to behave as if you'll be the party in power for more than a few years, and that the changes you make won't come back to haunt you. For another, some politicians have long memories and vindictive attitudes; so any Democratic politicians' pettiness or slights will get filed away in the "what goes around, comes around" cabinet.
Something needs to be done, though, because the GOP went beyond an opposition party to sabotaging the government with their obstructionist tactics. Here's a baseball analogy: have you ever watched a game where the batter steps out of the box over and over, to frustrate the pitcher and get him to do something dumb? It's technically within the rules, but it's an unsportsmanlike exploitation of a loophole. That's exactly what the GOP did with Merrick Garland: the Constitution says the Senate gives "advice and consent" over SCOTUS nominees, so the Senate had no obligation to give Garland a nomination hearing.
Someone might ask why Congress doesn't just rewrite the rules so there aren't loopholes for any party to exploit. It's a pretty obvious solution, after all; but saying it would be difficult is like saying the sun is kind of warm. Let's take a look at the possible ways of going about it, and all the obstacles in the way.
Bottom line: I think we're stuck with what we have now. The likely outcome is that nothing changes, and the best case scenario is a very modest improvement. That's not very rose-colored, but it is what it is.
Here's the thing, though: as gratifying as telling the GOP to get stuffed sounds, it's a bad idea - for a combination of obvious and not-so-obvious reasons. (Quick note: I'm referring almost entirely to the obscure Congressional rules in this post, not any policy positions; as far as I'm concerned, the GOP is on the wrong side of history on many contemporary social issues - civil rights, environmental protections, education, the church/state separation, among others - and they don't deserve any consideration on these points. History and sociological research have already rendered verdicts, and it's time for the GOP's policy stances to be thrown onto the pile of failed ideas. Okay - tangent over.) For one thing, neither party manages to hold a majority forever, so any procedural changes a party makes to the will eventually get passed along to the other party; and when that happens, you're giving the opposition better tools to push its agenda and undo your accomplishments. It's foolishly shortsighted to behave as if you'll be the party in power for more than a few years, and that the changes you make won't come back to haunt you. For another, some politicians have long memories and vindictive attitudes; so any Democratic politicians' pettiness or slights will get filed away in the "what goes around, comes around" cabinet.
Something needs to be done, though, because the GOP went beyond an opposition party to sabotaging the government with their obstructionist tactics. Here's a baseball analogy: have you ever watched a game where the batter steps out of the box over and over, to frustrate the pitcher and get him to do something dumb? It's technically within the rules, but it's an unsportsmanlike exploitation of a loophole. That's exactly what the GOP did with Merrick Garland: the Constitution says the Senate gives "advice and consent" over SCOTUS nominees, so the Senate had no obligation to give Garland a nomination hearing.
Someone might ask why Congress doesn't just rewrite the rules so there aren't loopholes for any party to exploit. It's a pretty obvious solution, after all; but saying it would be difficult is like saying the sun is kind of warm. Let's take a look at the possible ways of going about it, and all the obstacles in the way.
- The White House/Supreme Court intervenes. Nope, awful idea. Congress is, in many ways, a self-policing organization, and that's by design according to the principles of separation of powers and checks & balances. Letting it write its own procedural rules leads to some disastrous results, as anyone who pays attention to government knows; but designating the Executive or Judicial Branch to manage it means Congress ceases to exist as a coequal branch of government. Additionally, reforming Congress is outside the scope of either of the other two governmental branches. This might solve the problem of Congressional mismanagement, but creates a far bigger one.
- Congress reforms itself. Good luck making this happen. Neither of the two parties truly wants to close any of those procedural loopholes. As I already explained, the majority party likes having those little "cheat codes" while they're in power, and the minority party knows it will have its own turn sooner or later. (For example, the Garland nomination fiasco: Mitch McConnell rightly accused the Democratic Party of hypocrisy, noting that it had done nearly the same thing during the Bush II Administration.) Those little political machinations also provide good material for reelection ads: "The other party did X, Y, and Z. Send me back to Washington and I'll clean up its mess." Which they might, but not in a way that solves the underlying issue or that can't be reversed within a few election cycles. Senators and Representatives like those procedural tricks, and the only way to put a stop to it would be to "reboot" Congress: send every single member packing (What, you think they all came in knowing how to manipulate the processes? Someone more experienced taught them.), and strip away all those arcane rules that accumulated over the decades.
- An outside oversight agency. There are risks involved, such as the agency being co-opted or supplanted by political insiders, and its mission distorted and turned into a partisan weapon. Case in point: between 1976 and 1988, the League of Women Voters organized and hosted presidential debates; unfortunately, the League relinquished the task to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization established by the two major parties that has drawn criticism for allegedly working to exclude 3rd-party candidates. Even if the agency was not co-opted, it would still add another layer of bureaucracy to the federal government.
- Grassroots efforts (ballot initiatives, etc.). It has potential, especially as people have gotten more politically active during Trump's administration; but there's no guarantee that the momentum will sustain itself. Some Americans also possess more zeal than knowledge, and that's a moderate problem with this approach.
Bottom line: I think we're stuck with what we have now. The likely outcome is that nothing changes, and the best case scenario is a very modest improvement. That's not very rose-colored, but it is what it is.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Question of Equality
There was this short story Kurt Vonnegut published in 1961 called Harrison Bergeron. I first read when I was a freshman at Gonzaga University, back in 1998, and it kind of stuck with me since then. It's short enough that you can read the whole thing in about five minutes (here's a link to the whole story), but a core element of the story is that it's set in a society where everybody has been made equal. Intelligent people wear earphones that broadcast distracting noises at regular intervals, attractive people wear ugly masks, strong people must constantly wear extra weights, and so on. The reason for this was to discourage competition and make sure nobody had an advantage over anybody else.
So why am I talking about some fifty-year-old Vonnegut novella that I read about a long time ago? Well, because it's core theme of universal equality ties in to a bunch of centuries-old writings by some very smart and observant people. First, there was this French citizen named Alexis De Tocqueville. Tocqueville spent some time in the United States a few decades after the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Constitution. At the time of his journey, democracy was something of a new concept in the Western world, and France was one country still figuring out what it meant. Tocqueville found many things to praise about American democracy, but he also found some potential flaws.
One such problem was what Tocqueville called the "equality of conditions", a phenomenon which he felt could eventually lead to a lack of freedom. His thinking was that the seeds of the problem were planted because democracies tend to grant significant authority to the citizens, giving them the impression that their opinions mattered just as much as anyone else's. Tocqueville believed this could lead to the tyranny of the majority pretty quickly, as well as setting the stage for further problems. First, he speculated that the fear of tyranny of the majority would cause some people to grow reluctant to voice their opinions, so they didn't land on the wrong side of the issue as the majority. If you don't think that could happen, go read up on the Asch Experiments.
Tocqueville also worried that the fear of majority rule could lead to a backlash, where citizens developed a skewed version of individualism, one marked by increased materialism. I don't fully understand Tocqueville's points here, but he seems to be saying that the materialism becomes a way for someone to reaffirm their individual significance: "Look at all the stuff I have! I matter!" This individualism would also lead to a breakdown in communal bonds (something Tocqueville considered important). As people became more isolated, they turned to the government to provide goods and services which their communities once did. Tocqueville called this condition of being overly reliant on the government "democratic despotism", which created a massive bureaucratic government that could easily enforce real despotism. The Founders were really worried about that, remember?
(By the way, it's probably not a coincidence that Tocqueville is a fan of conservatives and libertarians, because of his remarks about "democratic despotism"; one site I visited while researching this piece tried to connect social safety programs to Tocqueville's despotism and socialism/communism. Quite the slippery slope argument.)
Tocqueville understood that there was an inverse relationship between equality and liberty, and so did the Founders. This is pointed out in Federalist 10, one of the most well known Federalist writings, in a slightly roundabout way:
So am I against legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the social safety net, a progressive income tax, and all the other programs that help make the playing field a little less uneven? Of course not. I'm just pointing out the potential dangers of taking it too far. There is also another type of equality I think is preferable: equality of opportunity. I didn't get a chance to really look into it in-depth, but an easy analogy is a running race, where everybody takes off from the same starting line. This picture sums up what I think is an optimal solution to work toward.
So, that is kind of a long one. I guess I was making up for taking such a long break. Anyway, enjoy.
So why am I talking about some fifty-year-old Vonnegut novella that I read about a long time ago? Well, because it's core theme of universal equality ties in to a bunch of centuries-old writings by some very smart and observant people. First, there was this French citizen named Alexis De Tocqueville. Tocqueville spent some time in the United States a few decades after the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Constitution. At the time of his journey, democracy was something of a new concept in the Western world, and France was one country still figuring out what it meant. Tocqueville found many things to praise about American democracy, but he also found some potential flaws.
One such problem was what Tocqueville called the "equality of conditions", a phenomenon which he felt could eventually lead to a lack of freedom. His thinking was that the seeds of the problem were planted because democracies tend to grant significant authority to the citizens, giving them the impression that their opinions mattered just as much as anyone else's. Tocqueville believed this could lead to the tyranny of the majority pretty quickly, as well as setting the stage for further problems. First, he speculated that the fear of tyranny of the majority would cause some people to grow reluctant to voice their opinions, so they didn't land on the wrong side of the issue as the majority. If you don't think that could happen, go read up on the Asch Experiments.
Tocqueville also worried that the fear of majority rule could lead to a backlash, where citizens developed a skewed version of individualism, one marked by increased materialism. I don't fully understand Tocqueville's points here, but he seems to be saying that the materialism becomes a way for someone to reaffirm their individual significance: "Look at all the stuff I have! I matter!" This individualism would also lead to a breakdown in communal bonds (something Tocqueville considered important). As people became more isolated, they turned to the government to provide goods and services which their communities once did. Tocqueville called this condition of being overly reliant on the government "democratic despotism", which created a massive bureaucratic government that could easily enforce real despotism. The Founders were really worried about that, remember?
(By the way, it's probably not a coincidence that Tocqueville is a fan of conservatives and libertarians, because of his remarks about "democratic despotism"; one site I visited while researching this piece tried to connect social safety programs to Tocqueville's despotism and socialism/communism. Quite the slippery slope argument.)
Tocqueville understood that there was an inverse relationship between equality and liberty, and so did the Founders. This is pointed out in Federalist 10, one of the most well known Federalist writings, in a slightly roundabout way:
I've been making a roundabout argument myself, but I'm referencing Vonnegut and Tocqueville to point out the parallels between Vonnegut's story and Tocqueville's observations. Vonnegut was being somewhat satirical by taking the concept of equality to an absurd conclusion, but the dangers Tocqueville foresaw are real. And to some degree, they have already happened: I think the 2016 election is a good example of what happens when a large number of people decide that their uninformed opinions are just as valid as the opinions of people who have done their research. Tocqueville understood what Socrates taught several hundred years ago, regarding the dangers of democracy; and I think he'd also agree wholeheartedly with this awesome quote.By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
So am I against legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the social safety net, a progressive income tax, and all the other programs that help make the playing field a little less uneven? Of course not. I'm just pointing out the potential dangers of taking it too far. There is also another type of equality I think is preferable: equality of opportunity. I didn't get a chance to really look into it in-depth, but an easy analogy is a running race, where everybody takes off from the same starting line. This picture sums up what I think is an optimal solution to work toward.
So, that is kind of a long one. I guess I was making up for taking such a long break. Anyway, enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)