Originally, the plan was to spend this entry praising the United States for its' wise decision to resume aid, after an 18 month moratorium, to the embattled Palestinian people, trapped in an internecine civil war in their own territory. This decision is deserving of praise, both for humanitarian and strategic reasons. More over, it's the first indication that the Bush Administration has fundamentally altered it's strategy towards intervention in the Middle East. Instead of bombing them into oblivion and inflaming long simmering sectarian tensions (see Iraq, War In", as has been the hallmark of this administration heretofore, this move indicates they may truly be ready to win the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world. Because of those aforementioned reasons, this decision deserves a lengthy analysis.
However, today is not that particular day, as news concerning the gradually approaching 2008 Presidential Elections (/sarcasm) stormed to the front of the headlines. For those of you unaware, Michael Bloomberg, the immensely popular mayor of New York City, and namesake to the gargantuan media empire, has dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party, and decided to become classified as an independent. This act, in and of itself, is hardly significant. In fact, Bloomberg himself switched from Democrat to Republican in advance of his 2001 mayoral candidacy in the Big Apple. That said, the implications of his decision, particularly vis a vis the upcoming election for the 2008 presidential election are enormous.
First of all, by de-affiliating himself with the Republican Party, and in the process, not reverting back to his ties with the Democratic party, Bloomberg has therefore allowed himself to bypass the grueling primary process a mere 7 months away. This decision thus affords him the luxury of abstaining from participation in the grueling Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, where often times a campaign's fate can be determined simply by their showing in those two polls. Furthermore, while all of the candidates from each party systematically attack and discredit each other, Bloomberg remains smugly above the fray.
Lastly, and most importantly, by remaining independent of the rigid national party structures, which obviously possess authority over the entire electoral process for their respective candidates, the mayor can now select the most opportune moment to enter the race. As only the candidates with unlimited wealth can afford to do, Bloomberg can throw his name into the race, after he has given ample thought to who the nominees from each party will be, and how he will size up against them. Because of his incalculable personal wealth and connections, he is unencumbered by the constraints of entering the race so late.
I suppose there is one "caveat" to all of this hullabaloo I'm making about the ramifications of Bloomberg's de-affiliation from any of the two main parties: the public remarks of Mr. Bloomberg himself. Not more than a matter of minutes, during his press conference today, after announcing his plan to relinquish membership in the Republican party, did the mayor reiterate his desire as the head man in NYC for the next 952 some odd days. Despite the words, Mr. Bloomberg's actions (becoming independent) and his facial expression while offering the aforementioned statement about his nascent desire to stay in NYC (a shit eating grin worthy of Charlie Sheen after a night on Sunset with a few friends of Heidi Fleiss), offer prescient insight into his future goals. As a man succeeded in managing both a worldwide media conglomerate and the world's largest, most idiosyncratic and difficult city, his aspirations are so high that they are only satisfied by the apex of political power: the U.S. Presidency.
Despite this evidence, there will likely still be a formidable contingent who really take the mayor's statements at face value. Clearly, the people who adhere to the mayor's pledge to remain holed up in his Manhattan office through 2009, are the type who believe that Lindsey Lohan's 21st birthday party will consist merely of a scavenger hunt and glasses brimming with Shirley Temples. Rest assured though, Bloomberg, being the calculating, deliberative man that he has proven to be. would not take the risks of de-affiliation (loss of support from Party bosses in each state, denied access to the second to none GOP grassroots efforts) without eventually embracing the foremost benefits (freedom from the stringent primary schedule, the ability to enter the race whenever he damn well pleases.)
In essence, Bloomberg, even if he enters the race at the eleventh hour (which in this case would refer to a period after the respective nominees have been chosen), non withstanding retains two distinct advantages over his opponent, no matter their chosen political party:
1. Money, even copious, unfathomable amounts of cash to the lay person, is truly no deterrent to the mayor's hypothetical candidacy. Sure, the nominees from each of the two major parties' will possess a daunting war chest, but Bloomberg's portfolio renders that almost a pittance. Bloomberg's campaign will be furnished financially entirely from his own personal bankroll.
This is advantageous for two reasons: First of all, his candidacy will be entirely bereft of influence from powerful, though potentially politically damaging constituencies like big-business and influential lobbyists. Just ask Hillary Clinton; just this week, she disclosed a sale of her stocks in Pharmaceutical behemoths like Pfizer and GSK, at a substantial loss in profit, in hopes of pacifying any questions about conflict of interest. With disgust for corruption weighing heavily on voters decisions, funding a presidential campaign entirely with monies out of his own pocket is a decided advantage over potential general-election opponents like Obama or Giuliani.
Secondly, with unprecedented, astounding amounts of cash likely to be spent by each major candidate in 2008, the financial security solely possessed by Bloomberg looms large. As John McCain has ruefully learned, anemic fund-raising can have a disastrous effect on a campaign, even more than a year before the primary.
For one, when relying upon a litany of individual donors to buttress your war chest, valuable time is lost when one is pleading for another $2,100 instead of out delivering a stump speech to an enthusiastic crowd in Concord or Des Moines. Bloomberg, given his willingness to spend $500 million of his own cash on the campaign, will run the most efficient operation, the one devoid of the distractions a thin wallet will inevitably present to the other candidates.
In addition, a paucity of available funds often sends distress signals out to supporters, the press and undecided voters. In 2004, John Kerry's disclosure that he was forced to mortgage his Beacon Hill residence in order to inject ample funds into his run certainly did not insinuate positives about the vitality of his campaign. More recently, Sen. McCain was absolutely blasted in the media for his anemic showing during the first quarter 2007 fundraising period. $500 million, as Bloomberg brings to the table, gives a candidate immunity from the perceptions that the "support" e.g. the money, an essential for 2008, is anything but robust.
2. Bloomberg's decision to extract himself from the hectic, exhausting and potentially debilitating party primary process is a strategic coup. The complexion of the body politic has become increasingly divergent, and therefore, hazardous, from primary to general election in recent years. Particularly for Republicans, as Bloomberg was a mere 48 hours ago, maintaining a consistent position from the primaries to the general election is highly problematic. Because those who tend to vote in Republican primaries are social conservatives, and therefore far to the right from the average person, who often cast their ballot solely on single issues like abortion rights or same-sex marriage, candidates are habitually forced to alter their platforms to accommodate voters. More often than not, candidates came across as obsequious, artificial charlatans. The 2008 election has already brought plenty of insidious pandering, courtesy of the Republican front-runners.
From Mitt Romney masquerading as Yosemite Sam in an attempt to obfuscate his previous support for gun control, to John McCain attempting to portray himself as a Bush lackey, Republicans seem to have little shame in shifting as far to the right as conceivable, no matter how centrist the entire electorate may be. Although, an impartial observer can't really blame them. One can only preach those who will cast ballots for the next approaching election. Therein lies the Catch 22 of the American electoral process: candidates, by nature of essentially needing to win two separate elections, which are often times decided on fundamentally contradictory issues, are pushed into situations where they must accentuate long forgotten aspects of their political ideology, ignore their views prior to running for president, or even offer downright falsehoods as a means to garnering ample votes in both the primary and general elections. Luckily for Bloomberg, whose liberalism on social issues like gay marriage and abortion make Rudy Giuliani look like Jerry Falwell, is impervious to the contrived, politically dangerous nature of the primary election cycle.
Rather, Bloomberg can simply run on the platform that he utilized in previous successful campaigns. His appeal, as a manager, who conforms to the majority of Americans on both social issues and economic policy, will never be questioned in a hypothetical general election press conference by a skeptical reporter who heard him offer an entirely different contention during the primaries.
Certainly, Bloomberg's dramatic announcement will inject some life, at least temporarily, into this relatively moribund stage in the 2008 election cycle. You know journalists are clamoring for substantive news when the main stories circulating about the 2008 campaign center around Rudy Guiliani hiring Pablo Escobar to run his South Carolina campaign, and Hillary Clinton's Stanislivsky-inspire performance as Tony Soprano in her campaign spoof. At least for the next few days, Bloomberg provides fodder for those pundits. However, his announcement likely will engender long standing changes in the presidential election. Unless his very public decision to shun his Republican ties, accompanied by a excoriation of the culture pervading D.C. politics today, is merely a symbolic gesture designed to garner publicity, his decision has long-standing implications for the future.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Yep, the Constitution is Grand. But There are Amendments for a Reason. Here's a Proposal. Part 1.
So, in analyzing the debacle in Iraq, where does the list of the mistakes begin? Let's try to hash out a rough index:
First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.
The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.
Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.
In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.
In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.
Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.
Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.
However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)
What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.
The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.
As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.
Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.
The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.
In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."
As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.
More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.
The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.
Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument
Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:
“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”
Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.
It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?
Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.
Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint
First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.
The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.
Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.
In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.
In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.
Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.
Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.
However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)
What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.
The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.
As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.
Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.
The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.
In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."
As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.
More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.
The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.
Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument
Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:
“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”
Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.
It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?
Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.
Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)