Who Wins in November Matters Greatly.

A year ago, I was admonishing any and all who would listen that the then-extant plan to wait out the clock on the Bush Administration is an utterly dangerous thing to do, not because Bush is dangerous, but because a future President with at least twice his current approval ratings.

And all of Bush's acquired powers and asserted (without effective contest) precedents.

And were that soon-to-be president tempted to do anything of a similar sort, they would do it to the sound of madly cheering crowds.

I said that it would never be easier to remedy the Praetorian Presidency than while it was in the hands of a 28% approval rating president.

No one seemed to mind very much. After all, the presidency was going to be "theirs", that is, in the possession of some faction that won it. And once they had it, they would have all of Bush's powers and a fresh set of ambitions to exercise with them.

And that is why the primary season has proceeded as it has.

The prize of the Oval Office is not so rich that anyone can risk anything to achieve it, but for a very few, with significant organization and backing, fighting to the very end is very much worth their while.

The nightmare as it sometimes seems

Here is my perspective on the current landscape of constitutional mayhem in Washington DC -- it looks terrifying.

The complicity of Democratic leaders for most of the past two years has actually been far more dangerous, not for refusing to stand up to Bush but for legitimizing his ill--gotten gains, locking them into the Oval Office, making the Presidency that much richer a political and personal prize for those who come along, weigh their chances, and decide to turn envy into ambition.

But let's look in more detail at how bad things are...

The courts, the bureaucracy, the media and the upper level officer cadre of the armed forces -- the ones that have been allowed to remain -- are completely with Bush, which now means McCain There is no longer a sense of the armed forces entertaining any support whatsoever for a coup of any sort; they are exhausted. Nor is there much credibility to the idea of private armies -- so-called defense contractors -- being able to cause much more than a little trouble, were they of a mind to do so. In other words, were there money in it for them. At least not now; we are in the midst of an election year, and that is where the political contest of wills is being fought for the time being.

The sense in Washington is that something very, very bad could happen at any moment. A year ago, I noted that people were hurriedly adhering to the forms of legitimate competitive governance, to give both themselves and their constituents confidence that, the system of checks and balances continues to work. After all, there are hearings, investigations, subpoenas. Ah, yes, but all such efforts are being blown off now. After all, it's an election year. Who is going to start a civil war over frog-marching a recalcitrant Bush official down to a committee hearing? Or if the sergeant at arms is sent to Gitmo if he does so? And now no one even pretends that things are normal, and so long as the Democratic primary burns on, nothing is.

There is also an awareness that everything terrible that was whispered about among close confidantes was not just real, but far, far worse than expected. Today we learned that there are prison ships, scattered across the planet, part of a global gulag archipelago that has processed as many as 81,000 prisoners since its implementation. Many are hidden in the best place of all to keep a secret - a hot war zone. Iraq, suggesting that Abu Ghraib was not an aberration at all. Rather, it was only incompetently run, and therefore found out. The other sites being well run and therefore relatively invisible. The implication of what a well-run gulag is should bother you: a secret, exitless prison. There is another word for such a place: a grave.

That we now live in a world where anything bad can happen, and all confidence is lost in government, not for ideological hostility to government, but rather hostility to our current form of it. The meta message coming from the Republicans seemed to have been - less government but less of this current type of it. And now we see in terms of Democratic Party governance a comparable contempt for rule of by-law and due process.

I said a year ago that making Americans feel and actually be unsafe, uncertain, untrusting and unsure of their ability to compel positive change has been the game plan all along. The goal is the creation of an electorate that is only unreceptive to a message of positive change, but positively allergic to it. You have seen the effectiveness of this messaging in this primary season -- an otherwise inexplicable answering of the Obama campaign, from within Democratic ranks, with a level of personal and political rancor that has not been seen since not the 1960s but the 1860s. Only the fact that the television is politics-wise far, far deadlier than the gun has forestalled bloodshed on the streets.

To enable this evisceration of our Republic, under the pretense of protecting it, we have seen a Republican Congress hand the President everything he has asked for including silent assent to his ability to not only line-item veto but rewrite legislation. Then to have advocates in Congress and the media cheer such usurpations and abuses. That was a year ago; we have now seen leading Democrats carry the same battle standard forward on behalf of President Bush. Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller, call on line one. It's your telecommunications provider. It is not enough to have the precedent that a President, in time of war, is above both the laws and the courts. The likes of Steny and Jay want to hand that privilege over to corporations, on the grounds of...patriotism. At that juncture it's situational secessionism; being patriotic when it suits, not bound by the oath of allegiance and all the laws underneath it when that suits..on the grounds of loyalty. Yeah... right...

To not only selectively obey and enforce existing law but declare it inapplicable to himself by fiat at any time. This, too, has been, first by silence, then by capitulation, surrendered to the President.  Then to have advocates in Congress and the media cheer such usurpations and abuses. And like i just said, extend that right to the entire cabal, establishing that we have a Leona Helmsley Constitution - only its onerous parts are meant for the little people.

To not only apologize for, then proselytize suspension of centuries of moral progress in regards to the treatment of persons held as witnesses, suspects or prisoners of war, to not only actively subvert existing law but to openly declare that such moves are not only righteous but a duty.  Then to have advocates in Congress and the media cheer such usurpations and abuses...oh, and virtually entire contingent of Republican presidential contenders, as well. And, let's not overlook, the lone dissenter virtually assured his elimination as the 2008 nominee by doing so...that was a year ago. McCain resurrected his fortunes by returning to the fold, throwing his exile in the Hanoi Hilton down the memory hole, and remembering afresh that, wow, torture is righteous when it's not my shoulders and ribs being broken.

And this sad, forgetful man might be the one with the powers of Caesar even yet. A man, once tortured for years, who now... can't recall his moral compass. It's on the bottom of a lake in North Vietnam. One supposes we could ask the government there to return it; would be nice to have all of the possible presidents have theirs in hand.

To encourage the rise of a national consciousness based on partisan affiliation, to subsidize by selective regulation, legislation and executive decree the makings of a Republican nation-within-a-nation, and to do so in broad daylight, with an official and media coterie leading the cheers for every defeat handed to Americans...if they aren't clearly Republicans.  And now, a year later, we have a similar mirror-image nation rising on the Democratic side. The Hillary faction. Message being, if you are not with her... you are a traitor. Twice, because the Republicans are still calling you a traitor for not being for sweet Baby Jesus's war on Iraq.

I offer as my first exhibit the effective death of New Orleans by conspicuous neglect and forced relocation. So long as New Orleans is in critical care, so is the United States of America. I remain convinced this is a purposeful condition that the Bush cabal not only require for their plans but savor on a personal level, likewise their base. There is, a year later still, no other issue worth discussing above the plight of New Orleans and the shameful treatment of that city by this country's leaders. But we can't have that conversation. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman is chair of the committee that covers that topic. He is not interested in discussing it, period. Covering mass graves with silence. Nice moves, Joe.

I offer as the second the single most flagrant violation of the Constitution yet -- the bill of attainder against Michael Schiavo written in the middle of the night by the GOP Congress and signed by the President which, had it held would have ended the Republic right there and then.

The bad news is we no longer have a Supreme Court that would stop the Republicans, should they retake Congress again, and it sometimes seems that the Democratic Congress we have now is not quite doing the job they were sent to DC to do. So, now a McCain presidency is a nonzero probability, and per some polls the more likely one at present.

And that is a darn scary movie to be watching from the front row seats.

So what has saving us from open declaration of the New Order

Twenty-eight percent, that is what. Not all the king's pundits, not all the king's men, can put the New Order together again...because Bush is beyond unpopular.

But he is about to be out of office.

The appropriate response is: Eep!

Just for giggles:

Were Bush to make any sort of bold move, he would immediately be in an untenable position. The country would swiftly become ungovernable, the economy paralyzed, incidences of mass demonstration, partisan violence (assassinations and disappearances, for starters), absenteeism at work, runs on staples, arms and fuel -- oh, it would be bad. And it would be heavy-handed and obvious for a short while. Then it would fail.

It would be attempted, maybe, yet it would fail.

And not because these guys do not know how to govern. That is comforting, but it is also ridiculous; these are creatures of power and just because they willfully generate bad outcomes does not mean that they do not know what they are doing. They most certainly do so.

It would fail because the Bush regime is already very unpopular, and would only become more so should it step too far out of line.

Regardless Bush can, with all the legislated and tacitly-surrendered powers at his disposal, do a great deal of harm to the Republic. Yet at the end of the day he is limited despite all these powers, because...

Bush is in a very secure box of his own making: He might well be the single most hated man on the planet, and the single most hated man in his own country. That is not a good place for an aspiring emperor to be.

So why am I still angry...and more than a little worried?

I learned as a teenager that the best way to avoid punishment for a serious crime is to flagrantly commit then confess to another (usually lesser) affront. To do so for no other purpose than to be caught, to attract attention, to eat up attention to run down the clock, to then get away with the affront or transgression that I really, really did not want noticed.

I see in the Bushies the same gambit being played, only on a far larger scale, with far superior organization and resources brought to bear.

The hearings and disclosures only seem to expose; they in fact help the covering of up of transgressions that might bring down the government, and if that threat happens, then it might trigger a true constitutional crisis.

In your heart of hearts, you have been wondering the same thing, many of you. It's in all the live blog threads from the hearings:

What else is going on?
Why are we not seeing people arrested yet?
Why aren't the Committee members asking the questions that matter?
How many more hearings do we need to get an impeachment going?

I would say not because of complicity with the Bushies, but rather fear.

Fear of forcing the contest now, when all the Dems have to do is wait until November 2008 to have it all. And we have waited, and now we have five months to go.

Was it worth it, keeping that powder dry?

Not forcing the contest might have seemed like a good idea, once

Last year my view was that the votes to keep on the path of conspicuous dismemberment of the Constitution and of American status as a civilized society are no longer there. In my opinion, it was not just the Iraq War but the Murder of New Orleans that sealed Bush's fate, and if they are not wise, that of the Republican Party as a major force in American politics.

In my opinion, once the Bush administration started killing American civilians by neglect and actively blocked of rescue and aid efforts, they crossed the line. That was entirely unacceptable. And I will never understand how anyone could lend aid and comfort, and political cover to such an outrage as that. (And, yes, you have been recognized, Joseph I. Lieberman.)

Now I wonder if the votes might be there after all, the votes to stay the horrible course...because the price of accepting positive change is just too high for too many people. That too many people have not just despaired of hope; they are violently allergic to the condition.

The question is what separates us from our better angels, from our reason? What does it so efficiently and cleanly?

What marks us as savior and sinner to our respective camps?

Easy.

Iraq.

Iraq as the Polarizing Factor in 2008

Same difference. It's a national issue; the very definition of American is now a question of support or opposition to the war,. No issue since slavery is as divisive, and the issue strongly favors opponents of the war in elections for the foreseeable future. And the rhetoric of the age is that if the Iraq non-war is 'lost' -- or if it is not made to get lost -- then very, very bad things will happen, and that cannot be abided.

At the heart of the matter is the nature of the international order to be, the choice between America as the sole hegemon and not only by might but an elaborate body of self-reinforcing, often-repeated legends the only appropriate superpower the world should ever seek to follow -- and people who don't like that idea are evil by definition. I might be flip in that delivery but the essence is deadly serious -- that any questioning of the continued enhancement of American control over world affairs is morally equivalent to flying a hijacked passenger plane into a skyscraper. And this message, once internalized, is difficult to reverse by suasion -- after all, talking against the war or questioning the patriotic course of the Bush administration is disloyal and therefore terrorism.

This arrogance extends to all venues of public and international, even scientific policy; any position that advocates a change away from that which has been in place for the past three generations, which moves away from How Things Are Right Now -- any change -- is treated as a potential threat to America-as-Hegemon.

I used to think it was just Republicans that felt this way, but that is just not so. This is something that transcends partisanship and ideology; it is a fear of transformation, and a combination of perceived strength and the urgency to use it, now, without restraint to stop that change from happening.

Then there is the rest of the country, the part that feels that America is presently very powerful, that other regions and powers are developing, that rather than fear change America's greatest strength has been embracing progress even as so much of its constituency remained appalled by what it needed to tolerate in order to be enriched by it...and yet, if slowly, eventually embraced as well.

And much of the world sees a need for change as well, not at America's expense, but for America's profit as well, yet only expect those who name themselves world leaders to in deeds not just words actually led the world where it needs to go, not where it insists that it must remain.

This is the choice for, however you want to label it or constrain it, for internationalism...for a community of nations as well as states, for a path toward if not a world state but a world federation that, if not universally free, at least capable of restraining the worst impulses and occasional insanities of its membership.

In other words, the UN as it was chartered, as the victors of World War II intended. As if beating swords into plowshares and learning war no more were a good thing, not a call for contempt and conspicuous spitting on the ground.

And even if inarticulate, even if impolitic to notice too obviously, this is the world that is developing. It is a question of whether America wants a leadership that embraces it or fights it. For eight years we have had the latter. Do we want four, eight, eighty, four hundred years more of it?

The Republican leadership and its friends in money and media fear it, fear internationalism violently in some instances, have no position other than some variation on the theme that America deserves dominance, just because it's America and if that's not good enough, we can still make you sorry you don't like us....but we're really great guys so long as you don't disagree with us. Iraq is the litmus test; if we abandon Iraq, then that calls all of American foreign policy and national security values -- and value to the world--into question. Never mind Iraq; what happens should some ruckus start in Venezuela? What if Brazil starts to that that the time for new Western Hemisphere leadership is now (not likely for a century, but we're exploring paranoia here)? And Chavez wants the bomb! I just know it (heh heh, there's Cheney for you).

The Democratic elites appear to be of two minds in this at the moment, much as Republicans were in the 1860s about slavery, half uncomfortable with abandoning the Exceptional Superpower legend, the other well and truly fed up that, post Vietnam, we ever had to have this conversation, ever again. However, we are, and Iraq far more so than Vietnam is now doing America more harm than going across the spectrum of public policy interests, everyone sees this, both at home and abroad...except for approximately (as late May 2007) 28% of the American population.

Yes, of two minds. One Clinton's, the other Obama's. Which do you want...you know comparisons. You know the campaign ads.

It is not the Caesar you have that you need fear

The danger is not George W. Bush, rightful and stolen powers included, his military misadventures and his low contempt for civility and due process notwithstanding. Like Julius long before, he rose swiftly to fame, seemingly charmed, and while the Ides of March are not likely to be his fate, it is as likely that Bush will, in his time be an infamous figure, with no talented, determined nephew to refurbish his image later on, no romantic plays written to immortalize a vain, silly man who asked for powers and honors and yet never used them fully, and always used them badly and for venal ends.

Or maybe I have that wrong, and that nephew or relation will surface in future. There do seem to be no end of Bushes with political ambitions.

However, at 28% approval, there is not much that 'Caesar' can do, even with the vast arsenal of powers and precedents that he has had handed to him, free of charge, most with no strings attached, and where conditions and limits were set they were dishonored and ignored.

What I do fear is, in deferring a contest with such a despised President, in setting aside a duty to rebalance the branches of government, that Congress is setting itself up for its extinction as an effective participant in government no matter who wins the election in 2008.

Why? Oh, this one's really brief:

Consider what a 28% President with a six-year track record of outrage can still get away with.

Now replace Bush with a newly-elected President of either party, one with at least twice that approval rating right off the bat, and quite possibly higher.

Ask that newly-minted President to hand back powers or sign legislation to that effect.

Ask a Democratic congress to pass such legislation if a Democratic president is disinterested to do so.

Ask the Democrats in general why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander or the goose, either...and that devolving the powers back to Congress ...or the People..is a very, very good idea.

Or let's not pick on Democrats...what if a newly elected Republican president, with twice Bush's current popularity, asserts the same set of powers --- and vigorously?

Oops. Sounds like John McCain. Sounds like something that just might happen thanks to schism in the Democratic ranks.

Okey doke, let's calm down a notch.

Say no one , Dem or Pub, in the field does so, but the possibility of doing so at any time is still on the table because Congress never, ever gets around to reasserting its powers, save in a collegial fashion, vis a vis the White House, because it did not do so when the Presidency was at its weakest...

...and once that opportunity passes, it will be gone for keeps.

And sooner or later, someone as vain and contemptuous of law and due process as George W. Bush, only far more ambitious, far more industrious, far more imaginative and far more popular, will appear.

And he or she will have their way with the Republic, and refashion it in their own image, and if all the tools Bush has been given or has stolen are not returned to Congress and remain in the kit of that President, it will not be George W. Bush that history reviles.

It will be the people who made the ascendancy of such a person possible, because they could not see past their short term expediency.