Bush in Fantasy Land

SOB is sitting in an uncomfortable hotel room in Princeton, NJ watching CNN while reviewing paperwork for his nine to five (more like seven to eight) day job. Shrub is saying that the current middle east conflict represents the effort of 'terrorists' who oppose 'the march of peace.' What happened to the 'march of democracy'? Lot's of marching in the Bush scenarios. The truth is that abstractions on the march are totally irrelivant to the situations in question. 'Terrorists' are people who have very specific political objectives that have nothing to do with opposing the 'march' of anything. The singular fact that the Bush administration has NEVER honestly addressed the reason for terrorits activity is a good indication of how dishonest their own position is. We cannot address a situation while pretending that it is something other than it is. Anyone who believes that 'the terrorists' are doing what they are doing because 'they hate our freedoms' are living in a world that is pretty much a fantasyland. Wake up before we all die. There is very little latitude for this kind of nonsense. Those who engage in terrorist activities do so because they have policy objectives they don't think can be met through other paths, but they are not engaged in attacking 'our freedom' (nor, as Bush said today 'the march of peace'????).

We do, indeed, live in a kind of political twilight zone.

Bush As Bad Influence

The most recent Israeli attack on Gaza is an excellent example of the pathology of contemporary civic responsibility. The Israelis claim to be attacking Gaza in an effort to save a kidnapped IDF soldier, but the method they are employing seems rather strange for such an effort - they are bombing a very broad range of targets - none of which has any particular relationship to the missing soldier. Indeed, the most striking target bombed on the very first day was the main power plant that supports the civilian population of Gaza. This means that a population of over a million will be without power for months (one estimate was six months to restore power). Does anyone really believe that Israel bombed this power plan in order to recover one missing soldier? Subject over a million civilians to darkness, no refrigeration, no air conditioning, and - most important - no fresh water (since the water treatment plants are dependent on electricity to operate)?

This is a case of cowboys and Indians, just like the American West. The Israelis want the Palestinians gone. And they have only two methods to achieve that goal - force them all to leave or kill them - and for decades they have been doing some of both. Just as we did with the native population of this land, so the Israelis have been doing with the Palestinians. They have been herded into ghetto settlements - refugee camps and confined areas surrounded by IDF roadblocks and patrols - and periodically subjected to targeted assassinations, Ariel bombardment, sniper attacks, artillery shelling, and imprisonment without charge or judicial due process. They have been deprived of the ability to make a living, to visit family living in other parts of the county, and to participation in the civic, political, or cultural life of the country. Their land and homes have been stolen, their orchards uprooted, their livelihoods blocked. Sources of water, electrical power, food, and financial aid have been blocked or diverted. Their very mobility has been severely restricted - to the point that simply going to work or visit the hospital can present an impossibly difficult set of hurdles.

Yet in the Western press the image presented is almost constantly of the "terrorist" attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, as if suicide bombings and rocket attacks occurred only because the perpetrators were evil and in thrall to 'Islamofacism' or some such nonsense. The reality is quite different. If one looks at the number of casualties and deaths on both sides, the proportion is almost ten to one - ten dead Palestinians to one Israeli. That something is going on here that is not reported - not acknowledged in the western press - if pretty evident. The major part of the suffering is in the world of the Palestinians, not the Israelis. For example, doesn't it strike people as a bit unfair that a country with the most highly sophisticated war planes and bombs is attacking a people who not only don't have an air force or an ariel defense system - they don't even have an army! Israel is essentially attacking a civilian population with weapons designed to be used against comparable military targets. It is so far beyond shooting fish in a barrel that it should be humiliating in the extreme. And, one would think, generate a great public outcry because of the unfair and barbarous assault on the poor and weak. But it seems the world at large doesn't believe that dropping high explosives on densely populated and defenseless urban environments is anything to be ashamed of. All in a day's work for history's favorites. After all, it's the same pathological blindness that allowed America to inflict "Shock and Awe" on a country with no ability to fight back.

Both Israel and the US will some day pay a heavy price for this arrogant, bullying behavior. And I fear that day is nearer than any of us thinks.

Why Bush is a Terrible President

In a truly brilliant piece in the current Washington Monthly magazine, Alan Wolfe explains with precise and persuasive logic Why Conservatives Can't Govern:

The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.

But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.

"Ideas," a distinguished conservative named Richard Weaver once wrote, "have consequences." Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.

Saddly, this seems like an inescapable conclusion. We are not guaranteed a better government with Democrats in office, but at least many of them believe that government has a legitimate role to play and that competence and honest efforts at wise policy can have positive consequences. I am a pessimist and have often noted that our best policy intentions have bad and unforeseen consequences. But if one doesn't believe in the enterprise from the outset the negative results are a foregone conclusion.