They really didn’t need to do this poll on whether Clinton outperformed Bush. It’s obvious to anyone who lived through the era. What the story fails to mention is that Clinton outperformed Bush while fighting off the rabid, slavering GOP congress of Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott that was determined not only to thwart his program but used every institutional lever of power they had to destroy him personally. He wasn’t perfect, but the guy had the most amazing grace under pressure I’ve ever seen. He even showed good humor about it most of the time:
“I’m a lot like Baby Huey. I’m fat. I’m ugly. But if you push me down, I keep coming back.”
Bush by contrast has had a free hand. He had an historical moment that could have brought the country and the entire world together — which he decided instead to use as an opportunity to aggressively assert arrogant partisan and American power. Rather than being a “uniter not a divider” as he promised in the campaign, he roared into office with his one vote majority and treated the Democrats like lackeys, behaving as if he had a mandate to enact the most extreme items on the GOP agenda. He used patriotism as a bludgeon to intimidate all dissent against his inexplicable war with Iraq. At every turn he behaved with insolence and hubris and his failure has been manifest. Now he lives in a bubble, wandering around dazed and confused about what is happening to him — which is not the result of Democratic partisanship, I might add, but rather the assessment of the American people. (The Democrats were paralyzed during most of his term.) Perhaps that’s why his fall has been so steady — the slow realization among the people that being a leader takes more than a manly swagger and a down home accent.
Bill Clinton may have been an imperfect human being but he was a president. This guy is, and always was, just a brand name in a suit.
Here’s an interesting post at Thought Theatre about something called Terror Management Theory, which is a fascinating study of how people react to the knowledge of their own mortality. It’s particularly relevant to this ongoing sense among some Americans that terrorism is an existensial threat even if they live in Topeka (or especially because they live in Topeka.)
When looking at the fact that nearly two thirds of Americans polled seemingly accept a program of widespread domestic surveillance, the theory offers a plausible explanation. Essentially, anything that helps assuage the fear of death can potentially be seen as an acceptable situation whether it be rational, real, or imagined. To offer an analogy, one might look at those who refuse to fly in an airplane…despite statistics demonstrating that flying is safer than driving, the fear of what is perceived to be a more certain death can overcome the logical data. I suspect this same thinking is, to a degree, at play in these otherwise confounding numbers.
In fact, after the 2004 election, a number of psychologists speculated that fear of death may have actually given President Bush the needed edge.
Michael Tomasky over at TAPPED also attributes the public’s evident acceptance of the NSA spying on citizens to a fear of terrorism. Perhaps that’s true. I would certainly agree that it was true in the first years after 9/11. (Ezra says the public hasn’t thought it through and Greg Sargent says the Washington post poll is flawed.)
I suspect, however, that we are dealing with something completely different: people are just not shocked at having their personal information in a data base. After all, it seems like any Tom, Dick or Ravi has access to your financial information, your shopping habits and your online surfing habits. Perfect strangers can google your name and find the term paper you wrote in the 8th grade, along with your last four addresses and your current phone number. You can call up that satellite mapping thing and zoom in right on your house — and find out how much it and all your neighbors’ houses are worth. It just doesn’t seem like a big deal in America anymore to have strangers know your habits.
What Americans are not used to, however, is a government invading their privacy and using the long arm of the law against them for its own purposes. Corporate Big Brother is mostly just an opportunity to sell you things or to deny you the ability to buy things — a pain in the neck, but rarely ruinous. Government Big Brother is a whole different animal. You get caught in that maw and you might just not come out. I don’t think they understand the difference.
The key way to talk about this, I think, is to focus on the fact that they’ve been lying about it for no good reason. For instance, it’s quite strange that they keep making the bizarre argument that terrorists didn’t know their phones were being tapped. Is there anybody above the age of six who believes that? (And anyway, if they’re that stupid, they’ll reveal themselves in some other way and the FBI can just get a court order like they would with any other stupid criminal.) If this program is legal then there’s really no logical reason why they didn’t make it public. They must be hiding something.
That’s something the public can understand. They don’t trust this administration but they just haven’t been shown a good reason why allowing the government to handle the same private information that Verizon and Bell South has is more dangerous to their health than the terrorist boogeyman coming to Topeka to kill them in their beds. You’ve got to raise their suspicions, not rely on principle. In this age of no privacy, they don’t see why it’s a big deal.
This premature poll in the Wapo this morning has predictably led the little kewl kidz to conclude that the nation is so afraid of terrorism that they will go along with any number of invasions of their civil liberties. That may be true (although I have my doubts.)
But I wonder what the nation would think if they knew that the very same people who initiated this program in the name of the war on terror tried this long before there was any war on terror: more than 30 years ago. From Jason Vest at POGO blog:
None too pleased about AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth doing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bidding, Arlen Specter says he’s going to haul the three telecom companies before the Judiciary Committee for some pointed questions. Deja vu; in 1976, the now-deceased Rep. Bella Abzug did the same thing with three telegraph companies for their similar handmaiden-to-NSA roles. Looking back to those events, we can’t help but wonder if there’s more history that will repeat itself–will the Bush Administration try, as the Ford Administration did, to extend executive privilege to private industry.
After the Church Committee revealed the existence of NSA’s Project SHAMROCK, Abzug, the chair of the House Committee on Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, wanted to go deeper. Abzug promptly subpoenaed not just current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and NSA officials involved in SHAMROCK, but also the CEOs of Western Union, ITT and RCA Global.
The Ford White House responded by ordering, on the grounds of executive privilege, the FBI and NSA employees to remain silent before Abzug. But Ford also went one amazing step further: “For the first time in history,” James Bamford wrote in The Puzzle Palace, “the concept of executive privilege was extended to a private corporation.” Attorney General Edward Levi actually asked Western Union’s president not to comply with Abzug’s subpeona as a means of “honor[ing] this invocation of executive privilege.” He later making a similar request of RCA.
While the FBI and NSA officials did as ordered by Levi and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Western Union and RCA didn’t, with both companies’s executives testifying and furnishing the Abzug Subcommittee with documents. (Apparently acknowledging their failure, Ford officials refrained from trying to muzzle ITT, which also cooperated with the committee.)
When the history of this period is written, one of its most important characteristics will be this zombie conservatism. Their leader, Richard Nixon, was destroyed by hubris at the very zenith of his power but it didn’t stop them. They just keep coming back with the same imperial presidency theory whenever they get the chance.
Vest quotes an old intelligence hand who recalls meetings at the time:
There were some meetings, he said, that were particularly memorable because of the vehement opposition voiced by two men who were intractably hostile to the notion that executive privilege did not allow for things like surveillance without oversight and gagging civil servants and CEOs before Congress.
“Their great fear was that oversight and procedures and legislation would fatally undermine the presidency by neutering executive privilege,” he recalled. “I don’t know where all of this will ultimately go, but I don’t think this Administration would be at all unhappy for hearings that have NSA and telecom [company] guys subpeoaned, which they’d regard as an opportunity for a showdown over executive privilege.”
Those two men? Guess who…
In light of this history, I think Specter’s plan to haul the telcos before the committee is the best approach, just as Abzug did in the 70’s. Many people may not think there’s anything wrong with the government collecting their phone records, but I seriously doubt that they will be happy to see the government claiming executive privilege to keep a telco corporation from having to testify before congress.
I’ll bet money they are going to do just that. These zombies just keep doing the same stuff over and over and over again. Who on earth ever said they were the ones with the new ideas?
This diary over at DKOS illustrates why we should be worried about the administration asserting they are only targeting “the bad guys.”
We stood with about 50 others on rte 674 and when the motorcade came by there was assault rifle OUT the window pointing at ALL of us and the cars all looked like I remember seeing in the Hitler motorcades in the movies when I was a child, all boxy and black and one had the Pres seal and American flag on the sides. It was absolutely chilling!
[…]
Mary, Nic, and I were there as well; and yes, it went down exactly as Barbara and John have said below. I don’t think I’ve ever felt such a sense of foreboding in my life as when I saw that automatic rifle pointed at us, peaceful protesters.
At the time September 11th happened, I worked at a military base near where I used to live before we moved to FL. Immediately after 9/11, our base was at Threatcon D, meaning that the military personnel guarding our base had to be armed. Yeah, I saw sharp-shooters and automatic rifles; but I took some kind of comfort in the notion that these measures were meant for the “bad guys.”
On Tuesday, the message that the sniper hanging out the window with his automatic weapon had for us was that we peacefully-protesting Americans were the “bad guys.” And that thought alone gave me the chills.
Which is exactly what they want us to feel. This isn’t about security, national or otherwise. It’s about intimidation.
The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith. They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness.
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less…
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.
The Salon piece is an excerpt of Michelle Goldberg’s new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism which looks to be a very useful introduction to the less well-known ultra-radical christianists whose ideas, a la Orcinus, get “mainstreamed” by more well-known political operatives like Falwell and Robertson.
Last night, I went to the annual dinner of a liberal group, and sat next to a very smart, very successful, and very well travelled man in his mid 60’s. I found him likable, talkative and in many ways, quite an interesting fellow.
He told us he supported the Bush/Iraq war because 9/11 was a wake-up call and it was inconceivable to him that the Bush administration would lie the United States into an invasion. Another reason: he had been in Cambodia and seen firsthand the capacity of human beings to do evil. Also, he said that during his lifetime, there was the Holocaust. If there was a chance to prevent that kind of horror from re-occurring, then he felt it was important to take that chance.
My mind started to reel from the effort of discerning what the connection was between Pol Pot’s atrocities and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Yes, they were both horrible and both were inflicted on innocents. But how did that lead one to conclude: “Invade Iraq?” And as catastrophic as the Holocaust was, I couldn’t figure out how the desire to prevent another such tragedy factored into his willingness to support the pre-emptive invasion and conquest of a country which, while brutal, had apparently given up gassing its citizens right around the time Donald Rumsfeld no longer was in a position to shake Saddam’s bloody hand.
There’s something about such reasoning that strikes me as profoundly illogical, as if history literally repeats itself and therefore we’re now getting a second chance to “get it right.” Time The Revelator (in Gillian Welch’s brilliant phrase) has other tricks up Her sleeve and never repeats, only cycles.
I tried to interrupt – as I said, he was talkative. But when he claimed that the Middle East had been “deadlocked for years,” I saw my chance, “What’s so bad about a deadlock? It certainly beats sheer chao…” and then he repeated everything in the first paragraph again. He seemed calm to me as he went through his reasons, but I noticed he spilled some wine on what looked to be a rather pricey shirt. He dropped his fork just a mite too loudly on his plate.
My friend on the other side managed to slip in, “Y’know, Tristero got it right from the start. He knew Bush was lying. He was right. And he was worried about the aftermath from the start.”
“So, you were right,” he said, a little bit of anger now creeping into his voice.
“Yes, I was right, and I knew I had to be right from the beginning, in 2002 and 2003,” I said, with not a trace of false modesty – or any other kind.
“Okay,” he rapidly wiped his lips with a napkin. “You know, a stopped watch is right twice a day.”
“True,” I said, “but I wasn’t a stopped watch about Iraq.”
Eyes blinked, but he didn’t skip a beat.
“Okay, you were right. I ‘ll grant you that. You were right when the rest of us were wrong…”
“Well, actually…” I was trying to tell him that in fact the majority of the world opposed the invasion and I was simply in the majority, but I couldn’t. He was angry and unstoppable.
“No, no, let me ask you a question. How come you, a musician, maybe a good one, maybe a well-read one, but a musician with no training in affairs of state – how come you of all people were right about Iraq but the most respected, most experienced, most intelligent, most serious thinkers in the United States got it wrong?”
“That is a question I ask myself every day, because it scares the daylights out of me,” I replied.
My eyes started to tear up and the winter of 02/03 raced through my head. That awful sense of dissociation watching every American media outlet try to outdo its rivals by printing lies, the unspeakable dread as I watched my country willingly go over the abyss. The shock of realizing that nearly everyone I knew had bought the myth of the Good War and that nothing I could say or do, nothing anyone could say or do could change their mind. It was too late.
I tried to say more, but I couldn’t, and then the subject changed and the dinner went on.
[Update: Link added to the great Gillian Welch’s album, Time (The Revelator), and my shameful misspelling of her name corrected. ]
In short, dear friends, it is not only a patriotic duty – nay, honor – for phone companies to turn over the records of these damned souls for data mining. It is a solemn spiritual obligation, a tithe, as it were. What mortal Verizon employee would dare risk damnation -ie, working for a bloody phone company for all eternity – by objectively defying the Will of the Lord?
One senior government official, who was granted anonymity to speak publicly about the classified program, confirmed that the N.S.A. had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States. But the official said the call records were used for the limited purpose of tracing regular contacts of “known bad guys.”
Well, that’s good. I feel so relieved. But it sure would be nice to know what the criteria for “known bad guys” are. There are, after all, people who work for some security agencies who have some funny ideas:
“You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act.”
And you just never know when somebody’s going to take it into their heads that it’s a threat to national security to dissent, do you? Why, it’s already happening:
The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation’s supposed “war profiteering.” The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. “It was tongue-in-street political theater,” Parkin says.
But that’s not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. Created three years ago by the Defense Department, CIFA’s role is “force protection”—tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy Defense secretary, authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON—short for Threat and Local Observation Notice—that would collect “raw information” about “suspicious incidents.” The data would be fed to CIFA to help the Pentagon’s “terrorism threat warning process,” according to an internal Pentagon memo.
The fact this administration continues to say “trust us, we’re only going after Al Qaeda” even though we already know they are tracking political dissenters is galling in the extreme. There is every reason to believe that the government that has instituted surveillance on protesters, that revealed the identity of a CIA agent for political purposes and that continues to characterize each revelation of their unconstitutional acts as a threat to national security will use this illegal NSA program to invade the privacy of Americans for political reasons. It’s insulting to the nation’s collective intelligence to suggest otherwise.
To this administration it’s “L’etat c’est moi.” If you are against the administration, you are against the country. Which means that 71% of Americans are unamerican.
With primary election dates fast approaching in many states, officials in Pennsylvania and California issued urgent directives in recent days about a potential security risk in their Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting machines, while other states with similar equipment hurried to assess the seriousness of the problem.
“It’s the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system,” said Michael I. Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University who is an examiner of electronic voting systems for Pennsylvania, where the primary is to take place on Tuesday.
[…]
David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, said the potential risk existed because the company’s technicians had intentionally built the machines in such a way that election officials would be able to update their systems in years ahead.
“For there to be a problem here, you’re basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software,” he said. “I don’t believe these evil elections people exist.”
