Washington Post: The White House endorsed CIA waterboarding policy in classified memos in 2003-2004

Condoleezza Rice:
Authorize torture?

No problem! Where do I sign?

Richard "Dick" Cheney: The Constitution
exists solely to make it easier for me to
lie. Disagree? Let's see if you disagree
under torture, muthafucka!

According to the Washington Post, the George W. Bush White House gave the explicit thumbs-up to the secret CIA torture of terrorism suspects:

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.

The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."

The rest of the article documenting this charming matter can be found here.

Our United States President: Never seen a torture I didn't approve of -- in writing!

Stop the creeping fascism of the GOP! Seriously. Let's stop these cynical, racist, authoritarian, totalitarian motherfuckers before it's too late. Who else is going to stop them? Antonin Scalia?

Talkin' Dirty Secrets Keepin', Executive Branch Authoritarianism Pushin', Disaster Capitalism Evincin', Patriot Act Recallin', Bailout Blues!

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
("Hank" to his friends. So let's stick with Henry).

Q. Should Congress pass into law the $700 billion Wall Street bailout -- otherwise known as The Bailout, otherwise known as the Temporary Asset Relief Plan -- proposed by Secretary of State Henry Paulson (and supported, obviously, by all of the Bushies and the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke), in its current form?

A. No, if estimates by Daniel Bruno Sanz, and numerous other experts, predict correctly what fate will befall the value of the not-so-Almighty US dollar. (i.e.: free fall) (Huffington Post).

A. No, because it's "an enormously expensive plan that doesn’t seem to address the real problem," according to Paul Krugman, in whose view Senator Chris Dodd's counterproposal is vastly superior, and which "has a real chance" of edging out Paulson's, due to the paternalism, arrogance and pushiness of Paulson's demand for full Executive Branch control, with zero oversight (more on this in a moment). (New York Times Web site)

You want full immunity from any & all future prosecution??
Say it ain't so, Henry. We thought you were different.

A. No, because, first and foremost, Paulson's proposal gives the Executive Branch FULL CONTROL over the allocation of the $700 billion, with ZERO OVERSIGHT and FULL IMMUNITY FROM OVERSIGHT AND EVEN PROSECUTION. Patriot Act, anyone? Just fucking read this sentence, for which some sneaky little fuck in the Bush Administration wins the Totalitarian Fascist of the Year Award (actually, let's just award it to Paulson; oh, and the boldface is mine):

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Yes. That day has really come, America, where your Executive Branch is actually saying: "Just hand over to us all of the control over everything, and just trust us, we'll fix everything behind closed doors. All we need is this $700 billion! Please just sign on the dotted line immediately."

If you're not angry, America, you should be. You respond: "But, I'm too busy to pay attention to this. I've got a job and a wife and a car and mouths to feed, and...." All the more reason you should be angry, America. All the more reason you should be angry....

Here's a taste of what Yves Smith, contributing to Naked Capitalism, which is a fantastic blog for those of us who are looking for straightforward explanations of the Bush Administration's economic shenanigans, has to say about it this sneaky little provision, in a post titled "Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal":

This puts the Treasury's actions beyond the rule of law. This is a financial coup d'etat, with the only limitation the $700 billion balance sheet figure. The measure already gives the Treasury the authority not simply to buy dud mortgage paper but other assets as it deems fit. There is no accountability beyond a report (contents undefined) to Congress three months into the program and semiannually thereafter. The Treasury could via incompetence or venality grossly overpay for assets and advisory services, and fail to exclude consultants with conflicts of interest, and there would be no recourse. Given the truly appalling track record of this Administration in its outsourcing, this is not an idle worry.

But far worse is the precedent it sets. This Administration has worked hard to escape any constraints on its actions, not to pursue noble causes, but to curtail civil liberties: Guantanamo, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretaps. It has used the threat of unseen terrorists and a seemingly perpetual war on radical Muslim to justify gutting the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has been supine on many fronts, has finally started to push back, but would it challenge a bill that sweeps aside judicial review? Informed readers are encouraged to speak up.

Nouriel Roubini does not think it passes the smell test:

`He's asking for a huge amount of power,'' said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. ``He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy.''

A. No, because the proposal is fundamentally dishonest, and furthermore, would not work. Smith goes on to articulate a significant (and in a couple of respects, shocking) substantive (again, the boldface is mine) problem:

...The Treasury has been using the formula that it will buy assets at "fair market prices". As we have noted, there is simply huge amounts of cash ready to bottom fish in housing-related assets (we saw an estimate of $400 billion a couple of months ago). The issue is not lack of willing buyers; it's that the prospective sellers are not willing to accept prices that reflect the weak and deteriorating prospects for housing.....

...[T]he plan makes no sense unless the Orwellian "fair market prices" means "above market prices.".....Confirmation of our view came from a reader by e-mail:

I worked at [Wall Street firm you've heard of], but now I handle financial services for [a Congressman], and I was on the conference call that Paulson, Bernanke and the House Democratic Leadership held for all the members yesterday afternoon. It's supposed to be members only, but there's no way to enforce that if it's a conference call, and you may have already heard from other staff who were listening in.

Anyway, I wanted to let you know that, behind closed doors, Paulson describes the plan differently. He explicitly says that it will buy assets at above market prices (although he still claims that they are undervalued) because the holders won't sell at market prices. Anna Eshoo pressed him on how the government can compel the holders to sell, and he basically dodged the question. I think that's because he didn't want to admit that the government would just keep offering more and more.

I don't think that our leadership has been very good during this negotiation (or really, during any showdowns with this administration) at forcing the administration to own their position. If Paulson wants this plan, then he needs to sell it to the public, and if he sells a different plan to the public (the nonsense buying-at-market-price plan) then we should pass that. I'd rather see the government act as a market maker for the assets to get them transferred over to private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds and other willing holders. And if we need to recapitalize these companies, it seems like the cheapest way for the taxpayer is to go in and buy up the distressed debt and then convert that to equity.

So unlike the Resolution Trust Corporation, which took on dodgy assets which had fallen into the FDIC's lap due to the failure of thrifts, and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, which was established in 1934 after the housing market had bottomed, this program is going to swing into action with the clear but not honestly disclosed intent of buying assets at above market prices when future markets and the analysts with the best track records on forecasting this decline (you can add Robert Shiller, CR at Calculated Risk, and Nouriel Roubini to the list) believe it has considerably further to fall.

A. No. But also, Naomi Klein warns us to be equally wary of alternative far-Right proposals, particularly those of Newt Gingrich, that seek to use this moment's crisis as an opportunity to shotgun through legislation that would push agendas of privatization, reverse what few social justice safeguards we may still recognize in this country, and -- of course -- to deregulate the private sector even further, including the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This is serious and twisted shit. Excerpt of Klein's piece, which draws upon her convincing theory of 'disaster capitalism' (Huffington Post):

I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).

The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.

Drill, Baby Drill! God damn, am I sick of the Grand Old Party. I mean, although I have always found his politics to be barbaric, its underlying principles deeply racist in character, in a weird way I have always found Newt Gingrich to be essentially a principled and intellectually honest man. (Keep in mind, this is in comparison to the majority of the bullshit artists of the Far Right.) Having said that, this is one of those moments in which I'd like nothing more than to punch him right smack dab in the middle of that fat, smug, pink, greasy cracker face of his.*

Newt Gingrich: "What about the plantation-owners??"

_______________
* What's gotten into me today?

Jon Stewart / George Orwell expose eery similarity between totalitarian 'doublethink' and Republican 'talking points'.

Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, September 3, 2008 (thanks are due to Jennifer Anne for bringing the existence of this video to my attention):





Passages from George Orwell's 1984, describing 'doublethink':

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

His [Winston's] mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved using doublethink.

I think that the GOP has thrown in the towel: Palin is a nightmare who appeals only to a narrow base of inbred racist mean people.

Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican Convention was (and is) an obnoxious, mean-spirited, hollow, divisive self-parody. Her voice is unbearable: it's screechy and self-congratulatory. Her opinions are repugnant and also stupid. Not to mention that she's a thinly veiled racist. "But small-town America will love her!!" some idiot on Charlie Rose says. No they won't, I respond. The only ones who will love her are the ones who already are inclined to love her. She does nothing to increase the number of votes that McCain will get, and in fact, one of the myriad ways in which she hurts McCain is that she makes him appear even more irrelevant that he already is.

Let's face it, people: the Republicans are sitting this one out. Just as when George H.W. failed to get his second turn, the GOP knows that it's not going to win this election, and so instead, it's concentrating on galvanizing the solidarity of its base. It's leaving a huge deficit that will be sure to cripple Obama's ability to push through his domestic agenda, and the Sarah Palinites will remain true to the cause, and they're have abortion, guns and "the liberal media" on their mind.

By the way: WHO ACTUALLY STILL USES THE PHRASE "THE LIBERAL MEDIA??" Answer: nobody. Not anybody who knows what they're talking about. But the GOP is playing the game it's played in one way or another since Nixon. It's going to feed on the weepy, self-centered "victimization" and "marginalization" of white, unsophisticated, lower- and lower-middle-class white people. Particularly born-again Christians. That is the only group of people in the world who think the media are "liberal" after the Iraq War. And that's because they're basically fascists: uneducated and confused about the world. And they are precisely the people for whom the low-rent spectacle of this year's Republican Convention has been staged.

They're not trying to win this thing. They're setting their sights on future elections.

Further bric-a-brac upon which I rest my thesis:

Sarah Palin has chosen to exploit her own daughter's pregnancy: and when "family values" types do this kind of thing, we have the right, my friends, to point and to laugh our little Left-liberal-blogosphere-asses off. So take that, Rudy "Looks, Sounds and Thinks Like A Dumber and Meaner Benito Mussolini" Giuliani. But beyond that, whatever bullshit sympathy accrues to the Stupid Alaskan Bitch from an understanding, partner-in-white-born-again-Christian-victimization Christian Right, it's simply not going to be durable enough to carry her and much less to carry McCain to a general election victory. I mean, could you actually picture this freak show in the White House/VP mansion? I just don't fucking think so.

Also, thanks to Gypsy Sun & Rainbows for first bringing my attention to this tasty little morsel, which I think gives us a pretty good idea of what Republicans across the country are saying behind closed doors, even as they churn out bullshit lies in their columns about how very earthy Sarah "I BURN BOOKS, WHICH IS ALSO WHAT ADOLF HITLER (A NAZI) DID" Palin is.

This really is a new low for politics in my lifetime. I mean like, for real. It's just so cynical and full of hate. And we have the Republicans to thank for wasting our time with it.

I grew up during the Reagan Administration.That's not the reason to elect Barack Obama, but we should elect him anyway.

...And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's take-off. I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program. And what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute.

We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue...

-- Ronald Reagan, 'The Space Shuttle "Challenger" Tragedy Address',
televised on 28 January 1986.

I grew up during the Reagan Administration, followed by four years of George H.W. Bush, passing into my adolescence during the Bill Clinton years. For now, I want to ramble about the twelve years of Reagan/Bush, both the things about those years that I remember from having lived through them and the things I remember about them from having lived subsequent to them. We can talk about the Clinton years at another time (or maybe we just shouldn't talk about them ever!).

I. The world was flat.

It was a time, Dear Reader, of a mass-cultural FLATTENING, during which the consciousness (and conscience) each and every American was slowly but surely DUMBED-DOWN until he became a castaway on his own self-involved, lazy-brained isle of ostensible plenty. The expanding use of plastics in the creation and packaging of cheap consumer junk ushered in a new and more profitable era in planned obsolescence. It was the time during which the Cold War reached the apotheosis of its self-sustaining outlandishness: I'm referring, of course, to the 'Star Wars' missile defense initiative. (Which only ever existed on paper, in tax dollars, and in the meticulously-TelePrompted, content-bereft cadences of Reagan's slow-motion national addresses... Of course, Bush, Cheney, Condi and Co. are clamoring for Star Wars 2.0: 'DA RETURN!!'.)

It was a time of unthinking acquiescence to received wisdom; of consensus formed through every man, woman and child's desire to count himself among the espousers of the consensus-view, of bloated, diet-trend-chasing conventionally and of political and economic group-think. A time that found us aiming our frustrations, criticisms, guilt complexes, and intellectual energies inward; publicly, we adopted the hard-driving but collegial manner of an Atomized Individual Economic Actor after Milton Friedman's own heart. Foot-soldiers in the Reagan Revolution. Power suits. Gay Republicans. The ascendancy of identity politics in academe. Myopia, hypocrisy. Bedazzlement with the shiny gadgetry of Empire. The Magic of Spielberg™, and his big-budget authoritarian morality plays. Disney, and such cinematic achievements as Flight of the Navigator.

II. Politics of Bush/Cheney condones openly the undermining of the moral authority (and coherence) of the USA's democratic project.

But I'll allow that the era of Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine-free Coke, Caffeine-free Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, New Coke and Coke Classic had something going for it that eight years of George W. Bush lacks. It pertains to W.'s style of governance (if we can call it either style or governance...), or rather, what it lacks. The Reagan years had as one of its pillars a public face that sought to be seen as serving the interests of the rule of law rather than setting the rule of law aside as bothersome or even naive. A set of communications-directives that took pains not simply to lie to the American people, but to tell all of the right lies. That took as a given the necessity of being seen not only to respect the United States Constitution, but to be seen as actively upholding it.

I know this might seem like a minor point -- after all, I'm talking only about rhetoric and propaganda -- but for me it's one of the most distressing things about our current situation. Sure, back in the 80's there was Iran Contra and a billion sketchy/criminal military adventures, but at least the bastards bothered to lie in such a way as to offer most credulous or self-preoccupied people in this country the psychological bulwark of plausible deniability. Joe Briefcase could go on believing sincerely that the values of the United States -- you know, as inscribed in the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights? -- set the parameters of Executive Branch activity in -- at the very least -- its objective, tone and spirit.

That really does make a difference, because at least in those days, the racists and xenophobes from -- I don't mean to generalize, 'cause there are plenty of exceptions to this regional truism -- the South couldn't openly rally around the cause of preserving measures and policies that are essentially fascistic, both in their intent and in their means of execution. For instance, when it is revealed that the has CIA waterboarded a couple of people under the cloak of secrecy, that pisses me off now, and it would surely have pissed me off during the 80's and 90's. The sudden revelation that actual torture is being conducted by the United States would have caused much bigger shock waves among the ocean of citizens of the United States than this exact revelation -- except on a much greater scale -- has caused today. (Or, there'd have been at least a shock wave!)

3. Moral revulsion vs. despotic authoritarianism.

However, Reagan-era GOP politicians had a way of turning this very shock to their advantage by mircomanaging the nature and focus of the cognitive dissonance experienced by the public. When a credulous population becomes privy to knowledge that doesn't quite seem to be at home among the other things its government has said it has done or would do; when, the vast majority of broadcast- and written-news sources are hopelessly compliant, anodyne, condescending and middlebrow (everything from The CBS Evening News to Larry King to David Brooks), well, Sir, Joe America just goes ahead and brushes it off as an anomaly! Supposing that there had been some kind of exposé published in Harper's Magazine in, like 1985; most of us could -- and therefore, would -- surely convince ourselves -- subconsciously if not consciously -- that the sordid practice that had been unearthed represented a contemptible yet isolated practice, and that all of the requisite channels would surely be pursued in bringing its gang of perpetrators to justice (!).

To be sure, it of course wouldn't have been true that the practice was isolated, and I don't deny for a moment that there are unnerving harms that accrue from the kind of false consciousness that plausible deniability taps into. But, I have to say that by contrast, it is far more disturbing to witness, as we do today, rednecks -- both unreconstructed and in their exurban, Jesus-loving, middle-management-type Joe America incarnation -- rallying around the cause of actually justifying depraved, wicked, and -- I would honestly (and perhaps naively) have assumed throughout my entire life, heretofore -- Un-American practices.

What's shocking to witness is that in the current era of Bush/Cheney, when the veil is lifted from such an onslaught of depravity, cynicism and hypocrisy, the effect is (1) an upsurge in masochistic/patriotic fervor for despotism among lots of (although surely not all) uneducated people, and (2) one of little more than a widespread gross-out and disdain from onlookers who feel totally helpless to change the political and moral tide in the United States. Of course, I identify myself, for better or worse, as one of this second group of onlookers. I was raised, after all, in a nominally middle class (by which I mean upper-middle class) home during the Disneyland 80's. My sense of anguish and doom at the state of things in this country often reaches extremes of hopelessness, nausea and existential confusion.

So I and others who are disgusted by the things that are being revealed about our government, and about the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch in particular, are at this point just trying to cope with all of this evil and madness -- and I'm quite sure that our reaction is shared by the vast majority of people, which is not always the same thing as the vast majority of voters. And anyway, this group is fractured in so many ways, and politicians and advertisers are doing their best to keep our conception of our self-interest fractured (of which, more commentary soon [hint: a significant ray of hope that we can consolidate our power lies in the candidacy of Barack Obama]).

Meanwhile, we watch the first group -- a contingent of uneducated poor people from Alabama or wherever -- whose identification with militarism comes from its lack of access to life options other than either joining the military or working at Quickie-Mart, whose blood lust comes partly from ignorance (which could have been spared them if there were decent schools for them to attend), partly from sexual repression (which is deepened by the stranglehold of extreme, hyperconservative, evangelical quasi-Christianity), and partly from a deep class resentment, the true, economics-based nature of which US culture has taught it not to be able to identify, in favor of cultural resentment, liberation-consumerism, xenophobia and the taking of pride in one's own backwardness.

It's gross...

IV. Let's consolidate our political power to put an end to the USA's dalliances with despotism under Bush & Cheney.

I guess my thought is this: is there a way for people who feel as disgusted as I do to create political solidarity among the widest group of voters that I possibly can? I mean, I know anecdotally that there are plenty of people in the country, both my age, older and younger, who are equally upset about this stuff on an equally visceral, existential level. In other words, all of us who feel this way -- irrespective of what other political views of cultural values we hold in common, irrespective of whether we prefer going to cocktail parties or bible-study meetings -- feel it with passion and don't know exactly how to stop the unchecked, onward march of the immorality and self-destructiveness of the present political course of the United States.

V. Barack Obama's 8/28/08 speech begins successfully to consolidate support for rebuilding the USA's moral authority.

Well; as it happens, most of the preceding rant was written a few days before this post. But I think that we have a figure around whom we can rally support for rebuilding American moral authority, and saving the idea of democracy so that it can live to see another day. That figure is, of course, Barack Obama. And contrary to the unthinking and flippant commentary of rightwing hired goons like David Brooks (who used the term "underwhelmed" in his characteristically simple-minded reaction on PBS -- screw you, you fake moderate liar; you're nothing but Rush Limbaugh in a three piece suit...), Barack's speech last night was amazing.

What many commentators (Brooks included) seemed to miss was this: the point of having upwards of 80,000 people assembled at the speech was not because of the impact it would have on Obama's rhetoric; it's because of the reaction shots! Anybody who paid any attention could see that witnessing that many people -- a group that was genuinely and unmistabably diverse -- being moved to tears by their shared purpose, values, goals and sense of urgency sends a very powerful set of signals indeed to a very broad cross-section of the United States population.

I thought it was breathtaking. Here it is:

A dialogue and two aphorisms:Cable 'news' = MTV for senior citizens.

I. *
John Cage: Human beings need to dream, and to dream always.

Thrasymachus: But it's against company policy to dream.

JC: [momentary silence]... Human beings need to dream, and to dream always.

T: But my employer would have me fired were I to engage in this activity. And yet, you say that human beings need to dream always.

JC: As to the statement about your employer, I can only take your word for it. As to the matter of human beings dreaming, yes. Human beings need to dream always.

T: Would you have me fired from my job?

JC: I would no more have you fired from your job than I would have you receive a promotion and a raise in pay. I would no more have you receive a promotion and raise in pay than I would have you drink your coffee with two lumps of sugar, rather than your usual one lump, during your morning coffee break: the coffee break that you take in the large foyer outside your office, in which you sit facing the same direction as the Rauschenberg painting that hangs in the foyer of the adjoining house .


II.
There's no sense in despair. This isn't to say that there's no sense in your having been led to despair. Quite the opposite! It remains, however, that there's no sense in despair.


III.
Cable news -- all of it: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Whatever Else -- is not news. But don't hate it for what it's not. Hate it instead for what it is: MTV for Senior Citizens.



* These do not represent the words or ideas -- real or imagined -- of the late John Cage. They are instead wholly the creation of our blogger. Same = true as regards the portrayal of Thrasymachus.

Ramblings about the near-future possibility of an American Left.

A thought that pops into my head from time to time: it seems to me that many attempts by journalists and scholars to identify why there's little to no real Left in American political life have approached the question historically, as when Eric Foner asked "Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?"; culturally, in the Frankfurt School's and other traditions; economically, as in Herbert Marcuse's discussions of the post-World War II "affluent society" and recent analyses of the character of global capital offered by David Harvey, etc. And I could continue, but I won't, because I'm just setting up my -- open-ended, exploratory and probably naive -- question.

Consider that in this moment, the moral imperative facing all Americans -- sincere people of all political persuasions -- is the condemnation of and counteraction against eight years of radical Right-wing activity. A radical movement that has brought the country (and her citizens) to its knees, and that has made the world a more dangerous place for everyone. Bizarrely, any ethical and responsible political counteraction must begin with a premise that is fundamentally conservative. Not ideologically conservative, but procedurally conservative. Scaling back an out-of-control militarism, restoring the rule of law and the separation of powers, putting responsible people in charge of the public infrastructure, rather than staffing agencies with hired goons who are opposed ideologically to the very policies that these agencies were set up to pursue.

In other words, how does the Left respond in a coherent and progressive way to a Republican regime of national and global politics that has been at once unquestionably Rightist and unquestionably radical? When the Left is faced with an ethical imperative to restore the rule of law, to rebuild the system to the extent that people can have at least some patchy faith that their government is not totally corrupt, how does the Left retain its Leftness through this process of rebuilding? How does it avoid the trap of venerating a nostalgia-induced conception of the way things were before the Bushies fucked everything up? How does the Left stay in touch with its longer term commitments to a more robust democratization, a greater transparency in government, the redress of systemic and structural causes of social injustice? I've never been quite able to figure out how to think about this issue, and by all appearances the commentariat is stumbling in much the same way.

We know that our government is pursuing immoral policies; that these policies threaten to screw over any possibility of a future in which human beings can be happy, free and treated with dignity. We know that the Geneva Conventions must be respected; that the Executive branch must not overstep its authority; that wiretapping without a warrant is and should be illegal and considered unconstitutional; that the FCC should be preventing media consolidation rather than mandating it, against the will of the American people; that torture is wrong, and the fact that the United States admittedly conducts it is hemorrhaging the last of the United States's credibility and moral authority; that governing by instilling fear into the population is to violate any chance of substantive individual rights.

But what can be the Left's response to all this, other than disgust and an impassioned call to action to restore human rights, dignity and due process, to clamor for the conditions of the year 2000? Surely its response must go beyond this? I don't mean just in terms of political platforms, but in the realm of ideas and dreams, of aspiring to replace the status quo with new strategies that will prevent reiterations of the Bush administration's conduct of the past eight years? Mustn't it go beyond the critique of particular personalities and policies?

Don't misunderstand: I believe that the Left is correct to be disgusted by particular personalities, their cynical policies, their lies. And I think that it is indispensable that the Left form coalitions on the basis of the nation's widespread disgust with Bush and with the Republicans. That's why I'm a fervent supporter of Barack Obama. Among his many talents is that of consensus-building. Obama's abilities as a rhetorician alone represent our chance to wipe the slate clean of phony, professional-wrestling-style politics upon which Karl Rove's strategy capitalizes, and which secured for Bush his second term in office.

Although an attractive and charismatic personality himself, Obama's gifts paradoxically pull us away from the politics of personalities. That's because his ability to speak a language that seems to rise above the fray is structurally suited to emphasize commonalities among ostensibly disparate groups of voters. This has the effect of (1) drawing attention to the common ground upon which compromises can best be forged, and (2) therefore also -- although perhaps secondarily -- focusing political discourse upon substantive matters relating to this common ground, rather than upon himself, or, for instance, the role that his relationship with God plays in determining his foreign policy.

But allowing for the importance of these short-term coalitions and compromises -- and the indispensable role that Barack Obama can and should play in creating them -- I hope that the Left is also thinking about the future, because without a vision of the future, the Left will be reduced to a "law and order" movement. In other words: preoccupied with correcting the excesses of radical Republican policies; a Left whose ideological calling cards have to do with administrative expertise. "Law and order" aren't dirty words, mind you. Especially in wake of the Bush administration, they are meaningful and even urgent. It's the John Ashcrofts of the world who -- in the tradition of Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, etc. -- have taken those words and applied them to erosion of human liberty and the sanctioning of hate, torture and fear.

As important as it is, administrative expertise will not provide an ideological basis upon which to build a long-term strategy for the Left. And as urgent as it is that the Left criticize the hypocrisy, excess, and moral bankruptcy of the Right, at some point the Left must begin articulating a coherent set of alternatives. In practice, initially these alternatives needn't and perhaps shouldn't be earth-shattering. There's so much rebuilding to be done in the wake of eight years of incompetence and destruction.

However, in order even to start small, coherence demands that Left begin to think big. We need to think about the kind of world that we aspire to create. So, alongside the important task of restoring the rule of law, maybe we need to start thinking about how best to articulate what it is about the Bush regime that we so oppose, and what is at stake? What is it that hinges upon rectifying matters? Not just identifying Bush's crimes, but describing their destructive effect upon our country, upon the world and upon the fight for human liberty and happiness.

During Bush's eight years in office, we haven't just witnessed the Rightist regime break the letter of innumerable Constitutional mandates, laws, codes, treaties, conventions, doctrines, etc. What's even worse is that the Bush regime has done violence to the spirit of these laws. This is even more elemental, and cognizance of Bush's and Cheney's disregard and disdain for the spirit of the law is every bit as strong a basis upon which to build broad-ranging and effective political coalitions. For example: the Left should really be explaining why disregarding the US Constitution is to, in effect, spit upon the values represented in life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. I'll wager that an ethic of human neighborliness, decency and honesty in some basic form is shared among human beings everywhere. (There's your political coalition....)

There's nothing new in the failure of United States policymakers to achieve these goals. Neither is there anything novel in the government cynically pursuing unsavory and immoral goals by cloaking its actions in the rhetoric of freedom and democracy. What's new is the rapidly escalating extent to which the Right, with overwhelming Executive branch power in its employ, does not even concern itself to pretend that its actions are consistent with American constitutional values or universal values of human freedom and dignity. What's novel -- and what's the most frightening of all -- is that the Bush administration at times welcomes actively the disdain, moral opprobrium and accusations of criminality of enormous sections of the citizenry of its own nation. The administration courts this opprobrium; it wears our outrage like a merit badge. For my money, this tendency, more than any other, has submerged the United States deeper and deeper into a creeping authoritarianism.

As radical as the Right's methods have been, what it's fighting for is still the same old shit: protecting the status quo for wealthy investors; providing an unregulated worldwide climate suited to the unchecked power of huge corporations; repression of autonomy, freedom of movement, thought, and expression; the use of bullying tactics to erode the freedom of the press; the de-funding of public education; the de-skilling of teachers; interference with the ability of public officials -- especially scientists -- to communicate the conclusions to which their expertise leads them; nationalism; militarism; theocracy; secrecy; opacity; the destruction of public infrastructure generally; an active disdain for the existence of public infrastructure; interference in the affairs of formally (if not substantively) sovereign nations; disrespect for anyone/anything it doesn't understand.....

Slavoj Žižek on authoritarian capitalism, other horrors.

In an interview, broadcast on Icelandic television (the date is unknown to me), Slavoj Žižek argues that the Left needs to take notice of the decoupling of capitalism and democracy, and--in the example of China, whose lead smaller states have begun to follow--the disturbing advance of authoritarian capitalism. Also discussed is biotechnology, the implications of which, he argues, traditional and current ethical discourses are ill-equipped to handle.