I could say that the infamous "Mission Accomplished" press staging is the media tidbit that most aptly encapsulates the eight years of "passionate conservative" lunacy that's dominated American (and world) politics for the past eight years. After all, four of the defining traits of George W. Bush's presidency are front-and-center: Glorification of the military-industrial complex, a keen taste of self and mass delusion, an obfuscated presentation of the truth to the public, and an unabashed tendency to over-simplify foreign policy.
Alternatively, I could think back to my first impression of Bush, way back in 2000 when I was 15—which is that he looked like a way goofier version of my father. (Sorry, Dad, you are very good looking. And I love you.)
Instead, the truth of the matter is that the image that most immediately comes to mind when I think of our soon-to-be dearly departed W. is from a series of photographs taken last summer during the Summer Olympics in Beijing—
And then these, of course, also from Beijing—
The man waving his country's flag in those pictures? He is so, so happy. He is so damned proud to be an American and watch his fellow citizens kick ass at sports on the world stage. U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
The reason these images are so ingrained in my mind's eye is because this happy-go-lucky volleyball enthusiast is the President of the United States—the "Leader of the Free World." These pictures, at the time, screamed to me: "Let me out! I'm finished. Done! Can I go home now? Can I just not have to worry about being President anymore?"
And now, a week before he actually gets his wish? Well, the pictures say the same thing, but I admit that last summer when these pictures were published and re-published everywhere, I was already starting to breathe a sigh of relief: It's nearly over, it's nearly over. Of course, I should have known that Bush & Co. were not about to vacate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue without a final coup de grâce emblematic of the prior seven and a half years, no matter how little time was left.
The havoc his administration has wreaked on the nation in the months since last summer—piled upon that unfurled in the years preceding, of course—are so gargantuan, so unwieldy, that, well... I'm struggling to figure out who might be the only person unhappy Bush is soon to be out of the White House, if even he's grasping to be let out the door.* And it makes me sad that our government doesn't allow for early retirement of an entire administration.
And so, when I think of George W. Bush, former president of the United States of America, I'll forever think of a sports fan who was promoted beyond not only his capability but also his interest. And I'll hope we've learned some sort of lesson.
*(Oh, right—Dick.)
-- Daniela Perdomo
A Gchat conversation I just had with a fellow Whyrooter regarding Obama's choice of Rick Warren to bless his inauguration—
Nathan: i guess our prompt was pretty timely :) what with the rick warren invocation announcement me: yeah no kidding seriously. :) ughh why why why why an anti choice anti gay preacher Nathan: i don't know10:44 AM rick warren encapsulates some of the deepest contradictions of evangelicals involved in some progressive movement progressive causes* because he's really on board with international development and economic justice but he's also virulently anti-gay and anti-choice10:45 AM me: exactly could he not find a single preacher whos progressive both socially and politically?? Nathan: oh i'm sure he could have he's trying to send some sort of message by picking this guy me: what message is that10:46 AM Nathan: no clue i don't know that he can reach across the aisle and pick allies strategically most likely me: he could strategically pick an ally who doesn't offend women and gays how about that?10:47 AM Nathan: i don't know he's really pushing things me: "pushing things" what the hell does that mean?10:48 AM Nathan: he's pushing the comfort level of lefties me: he has strategically pushed me away! Nathan: exactly haha i think he's trying to confound expectations me: and this is good? to embrace backwards thinking people and push progressives away? Nathan: increase comfort levels on the right when you're about to shove through the most liberal agenda in America's history? probably10:49 AM me: hm. that's an interesting theory. Nathan: i mean, if he's doing all this shit and doesn't: get the troops out of Iraq quickly institute a cap and trade program10:50 AM universal healthcare and a huge economic stimulus then he's just shitting on the left to no apparent purpose me: well that remains to be seen i suppose Nathan: he's actually raising the stakes for the left as if they could get higher me: no kidding Nathan: i mean, these are already things everyone wants10:51 AM but now it's like, you better deliver or you're a traitor i dunno it will be interesting to compare his first term to jimmy carter's who was seen as ideological at the expense of being effectual or effective anyway i have to go board a plane10:52 AM ttyl me: listen to this though http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/12/18/spaulding/index.html10:53 AM bye bye fly safe.
-- Daniela Perdomo
 Caroline Kennedy wants Hillary's Senate seat. Perfect. How is it that all powerful women in U.S. politics can't get ahead without resorting to riding their male relatives' political coattails?
To wit: Hillary = Bill. Pelosi = Daddy & brother. Caroline = An entire familial dynasty.
"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."
— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.
What struck me most as I read Franc's piece on the National Review's website, was how much of his prose could be turned around and used to make arguments that nullify his own.
For example, he writes: "All policy battles on Capitol Hill require an adult to temper the animal spirits and childishness that so often induce lawmakers to enact irrational and damaging laws." According to Franc, this "childishness" applies to people who believe in income taxes and providing temporary sustenance to those who can't find work. I can earnestly say the exact same thing about somebody who believes that single parenthood corrupts society and spreading wealth and opportunity destroys it. Further, I can't hesitate to call laws that tax the poorest people at the same rate as the richest or that make inheritances immune to taxation "irrational and damaging."
In a way, I could even write something like this, though in a less pompous tone: "We must demonstrate that, so long as our alternatives are grounded in a proper appreciation and understanding of human nature and demand the best from our citizens, Americans will rise to the challenges ahead." The difference, of course, would be that my understanding of human nature is completely different from his, because I don't frame my view of my fellow citizens in a binary, hard-coded moral spectrum.
Therein lies the problem with an argument like Franc's: It frames every policy discussion—including this economic debate over taxes and subsidies—in terms of moral inequalities, instead of in terms of structural inequalities. The fact of the matter is that issues like poverty, crime, and unemployment are the result of structural differences, not moral differences. One cannot vilify the poor, simultaneously lionize the rich, and expect the less fortunate to believe and fight for that old American Dream. Forgive me the Marxist tone, but this type of inequality in power and reward, quite obviously, leads to more of the same, more of the same.
The way I see it, Mr. Franc, the most "destructive behavior that ultimately will drag us down" is continuing to define our structural problems as moral problems. To continue to do so seems, frankly, immoral.
-- Daniela Perdomo
 I took a late, long lunch today and started catching up on my reading, which I've neglected recently due to the holiday weekend and other time-consuming events in my life. Surprisingly, among all the articles I read today, the most interesting quote I came across was from a front-of-the-magazine profile of Mike Huckabee in the Dec. 1 edition of the New Yorker.
The article made me, er, understand Mike Huckabee a little more. (I add the very doubtful "er" because I don't think I can ever really understand someone who literally interprets the Bible.) Anyway, I have to give credit to the formerly-obese Baptist minister for two things: One, he called the unfurling economic crisis before nearly any presidential hopeful—on either side—did; two, he's put into words something I fear may very well be true—
"My guess is that Barack Obama will more disappoint his supporters on the far left than he will enrage his critics on the far right."
I don't want this to be true, but with the Cabinet forming along establishment lines, I fear Obama won't take the progressive mandate he was granted on Nov. 4 as far he viably could. That being said, I still harbor—yes—hope for two reasons:
(1) The Cabinet is not yet fully formed, and a few truly progressive names are still being floated around for open positions, such as Labor. (For example, Mary Beth Maxwell is the epitome of progressivism, what with her lesbian union activist credentials.)
(2) I think there's a real important and possibly unanswerable question here as to how progressive Obama really is and to what extent he can influence people who have in the past been cautiously centrist (See: all the Clintonian incrementalists he's hiring) to be bravely focused on moving our policies from the center firmly to the left side of the political spectrum.
My hope, then lies in the appointment of more high-level progressives in Obama's administration (i.e. not just lower-level appointments, such as Gaspard's), and the possibility that Obama may surprise us with the leadership needed to steer his band of establishment pols into progressive territory.
I am hopeful, then, but not really convinced that this will happen. Only time will tell.
-- Daniela Perdomo
I admit that when faced with this hypothetical scenario, I am at a real loss. It's actually much more entertaining to think about what the last eight years of neo-conservatism have insanely over-funded, rather than think about what needs the money. Here are a few of my favorites: the War on Terror, the War on Stoners, the War on Undocumented Immigrants, the War on Pre-Marital Sex, the War on People Who Carry Liquids Onto a Plane, and, of course: the Crusade for Bridges to Nowhere.
The under-funded issues camp gets rather unwieldy: Public schools, sex education, all manner of medical and scientific research, market regulation, green technology, and essentially everything else.
I have to pick one issue that is deserving of an additional $5 billion in funding? The task is, regrettably, impossible. And frankly, just weeks after we handed a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street, the task is dwarfed to the point of being unimportant, which is unfair because $5 billion is more money than I'll ever really comprehend.
I know, I know, I should just play nice with the game here. I should remind myself that $5 billion is just a hypothetical number in a hypothetical scenario. I should forget the fact that it's obvious that this lame-duck administration has raped every important issue in the country all the while as it served champagne to causes that haven't brought any tangible long-term benefit to society at large. The task at hand, after all, is to simply pinpoint an important issue that is deserving of more funding and attention.
Well, if I'm going to put aside the impracticality of the hypothetical situation, then let me add onto the impossibility of the scenario by suggesting that the $5 billion be spent on something that would never, unfortunately, happen in the United States of America. Let's throw that money at a tribunal that would actually try the Bush Administration for its crimes against humanity, its violations of the U.S. Constitution, and its general swindling of the electorate.
In my hypothetical scenario, the tribunal would try Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and all the rest of the W. minions—and George himself, of course—and they would be convicted of the crimes they committed in the name of all Americans. If this impossible tribunal actually wasn't impossible, these convictions would result in no sentences. But the crimes would be acknowledged in the public arena, and the convicted would acknowledge their crimes publicly.
You may wonder what the value of this amnesty-granting tribunal would be. In college I was particularly focused on and fascinated with the concept of nation-building in a divided society where human rights and the rule of law have been violated on a grand-scale. My argument then and now is that the first step in the nation-building process in such a place is to develop that absent appreciation for the rule of law so that the ensuing democratization process (whether it's a renewal or birth thereof) can take place. Particularized amnesty, which is what I described above, is the linchpin in establishing a strong human rights culture and respect for the rule of law. This kind of amnesty does not forsake justice because the justice to be gained from it is of a restorative kind; retributive justice does not work in a post-conflict, divided society setting—particularly given the language of hope that, with the election of Obama, has re-framed the White House. This scenario would forgive (and yes, that would be hard) but not forget, providing for the happiest medium between general amnesty and Nuremberg-style justice. And it's certainly better than what's definitely going to happen: Doing nothing, holding no one accountable, sweeping everything under the rug.
Too bad it will never happen, just as I'll never have $5 billion to spend on any one issue.
-- Daniela Perdomo
Every now and then, newspaper copywriters get their time in the spotlight. Evidence—
I'm especially fond of the play on "Yes We Can" in the section heading, "If They Can." The other captions and headlines are a little more obvious. I wish the article was as hard-hitting as the copywriting would suggest. That being said, though, it's the first article the Gray Lady has published that takes a look at just how many establishment wonks are set to populate Obama's Cabinet. It's got me thinking about how glad I am that I get my political analysis from other sources, because this is about two weeks behind.
On that note, I recommend you read OpenLeft's post on how three progressives will have a voice in the Obama White House. One of them is Gaspard, the labor operative I posted about on Friday. Unfortunately, as Chris Bowers points out, none of them are Cabinet-level. You know, because that's for people like HRC and acolytes of Larry Bummers.
-- Daniela Perdomo
Ladies and gentlemen, if media speculation is correct, there's a very good chance labor will finally have a place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a labor organizer hasn't ever served in the White House, unless you count, um, Reagan, who was president of the Screen Actors Guild—but I hardly count Ron as a labor operative.
 So who am I speaking of? Patrick Gaspard. Media reports indicate that the political director (left) of Obama's presidential campaign, is set to be tapped for the same position in the White House.
Before joining the Obama campaign, Gaspard was the lead political operative for the 1199 branch of the SEIU, an influential branch of the union that represents health care workers in New York.
Even as other expected appointments don't exactly smell like "change we can believe in"—keeping Gates in Defense, for one—the Gaspard pick, if true, is great news.
But how's this for a (sadly) novel idea: What about a labor person for the Secretary of Labor job? Yeah, chew on that.
-- Daniela Perdomo
I swear this is possibly the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. Here you see George W. Bush at last weekend's G20 Economic Summit, among all the other world leaders. Everyone is shaking hands and being amiable, but the President of the United States gets zero handshakes, zero smiles, and walks dejectedly across the stage, looking down at the floor. Eight years' worth of losing the rest of the world's respect, in one single shot—
-- Daniela Perdomo
 OK, I just want to put this on the record before any announcement is made, as it seems that if it's the one the media is expecting, it's bound to be made very, very soon.
Those of you who read my old blog know that throughout the Democratic primaries, I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton's campaign. That being said, ever since Obama clinched the nomination, I've warmed to her a little more. Let bygones be bygones, as they say. After all, despite the fact that she let Mark Penn drive her presidential bid into the gutter, I would rather have her on our side than on the GOP's. She is driven, smart, and I genuinely believe she wants the best for the country, even if I don't agree with her on a number of issues.
That being said, then, I have no problem with her playing a role in the Obama Administration—be it as a senior adviser, or even a member of the Cabinet. But there's one position I was always so sure she would never really be a serious contender for, it's the spot as Obama's top diplomat—the Secretary of State—given how antiquated her stance on speaking to Iran (and others) with no preconditions was. And, of course, how she ridiculed Obama for saying he would be open to that kind of diplomatic conversation.
If speculation is right and Obama is considering her over other candidates, there is hardly a doubt in my mind that she'll say no to the offer. Hillary is nothing if not incredibly sure of power in her own hands. If she is offered and accepts the position, she has some serious public explaining to do. For one: Does she now see the value of speaking to Iran without preconditions? Does she see the diplomatic value of speaking to "rogue" leaders like Ahmadinejad even if she doesn't get to set the exact, stringent terms?
You know, now that I think of it, Obama himself would need to very deliberately explain the decision because it seems to me that despite the fact that HRC and Obama are very similar on most policy issues and approaches to governance, diplomatic relations was the one where the ideological difference between them was most stark.
(Oh, and before you ask: Who if not Hillary? Because I still believe that Hillary has been self-aggrandizing regarding her foreign policy experience (as if First Lady visits count), I figure someone who actually has genuine diplomatic and foreign policy experience should get the nod. Among viable, establishment candidates, I am a fan of Bill Richardson, who in addition to being Secretary of Energy under Bubba, was also the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., where he negotiated meetings between Israel and the PLO.)
-- Daniela Perdomo
|
RSS Feed
