The Principled Conservative

NYT profiles former DOJ White House legal adviser

I found the principled conservative with whom Bush could replace Gonzales. The problem, according to the Times, in its profile of Jack Goldsmith, is that there is no way Bush could hire him.

Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard, is the former head of the office of Legal Counsel, which advises the White House on, inter alia, the extent of executive powers. As Jeffrey Rosen, the author of the Times piece and friend of Goldsmith, writes:

"[T]he office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, [Goldsmith] writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws."

So essentially, Goldsmith's opinions were the behind-the-scenes supports for some of the Bush gang's most nefarious and notorious policies, including the torture of detainees in the "war on terror."

Goldsmith, according to the profile, wasn't entirely all thumbs when it came to a rational analysis of a proposed exercise of executive power. Rosen describes in the article one instance in which Goldsmith didn't give his blessing to a proposed policy:

"Several hours after Goldsmith was sworn in, on Oct. 6, 2003, he recalls that he received a phone call from Gonzales: the White House needed to know as soon as possible whether the Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes protections that explicitly cover civilians in war zones like Iraq, also covered insurgents and terrorists. After several days of study, Goldsmith agreed with lawyers in several other federal agencies, who had concluded that the convention applied to all Iraqi civilians, including terrorists and insurgents. In a meeting with Ashcroft, Goldsmith explained his analysis, which Ashcroft accepted. Later, Goldsmith drove from the Justice Department to the White House for a meeting with Gonzales and Addington [then Cheney's chief legal adviser]. Goldsmith remembers his deputy Patrick Philbin turning to him in the car and saying: 'They’re going to be really mad. They’re not going to understand our decision. They’ve never been told no.'"

"They've never been told no." A more succinct indictment of the Bush administration's excesses has yet to be written. That sentence captures the arrogance with which Bush and his cronies have squandered American prestige and the good will of the immediate post-Sept. 11 environment by eschewing entirely the rule of law. The Bushies counted on Americans to trade a essential liberties for a little temporary safety. Maddeningly, that's exactly what we did, every time the issue came up. And Bush's team knew it.

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004."

The "unitary executive" theory of presidential authority espoused by the Bush gang has effectively squandered America's reputation with the rest of the world. The go-it-alone approach with which they approached their Iraq boondoggle has mirrored in their approach to domestic politics:

“The Bush administration has operated on an entirely different concept of power that relies on minimal deliberation, unilateral action and legalistic defense,” Goldsmith concludes in his book.

Ironic, since for seven years, Bush had an extremely acquiescent legislative branch, ready to roll over at the very threat of being made to appear "soft on terror."

The results of Bush's attempt to solidify the power of the executive branch have in all likelihood backfired with staggering brilliance. Rosen notes that future presidents, as opposed to enjoying more expansive executive authority, will find themselves hemmed in by ever more skeptical legislative and judicial branches:

“I don’t think any president in the near future can have the same attitude toward executive power, because the other institutions of government won’t allow it,” he said softly. “The Bush administration has borrowed its power against future presidents.”

It will be interesting to see, in only a couple of short years, what a federalist government premised on separation of powers looks like. Thanks to Bush, we're virtually assured that's what's coming.

Implosion of the Right

The Economist has an article about the decline of the Conservative movement in America. It cites a shift in American attitudes about certain bellwether issues, summed up in poll questions like "I believe government should help the needy even if it means greater debt," "I believe the best way to ensure peace is through military strength," and "I never doubt the existence of God."

The magazine notes that answers to those three questions, among others, have shifted leftward since the ascent of the Conservatives starting in the 1980s, according to the Pew Research center. It's about time.

It's probably worth looking at the implications of each of those statements.

"I believe the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt."

For years, the conservatives have managed to pervert and distort what should be an easy question for a human of average empathetic capacity. The Horatio Alger plot formula simply does not apply in every situation. With a few very notable e exceptions, there are no "welfare queens." When JFK toured Appalachia in 1960, the country was shocked to see the abject poverty in which Americans were living. RFK repeated the trip, with much the same results. The media, and, by extension, the American people, were forced to pay attention.

Fast forward 40 years. The Republicans have managed to propagate the "morning in America" myth. Reagan's "trickle-down" theory has had its intended (though not its stated) effect: the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. The Clinton presidency managed to do some good, though not enough. Then, of course, Bush fiddled while the world (Darfur, New Orleans, Afghanistan, Iraq) burned.

Leave aside the (hopefully) obvious moral considerations. They're more than sufficient to prove the case, but the electorate needs some more tangible arguments. When will we learn that we ignore poverty and suffering at our extreme peril? If gang members had legitimate opportunities, does anyone seriously believe they would choose a life of extreme danger and crime over the safety, security, and comfort of middle-class existence? If the majority of the Sunni extremists had jobs, homes, and full bellies, would they follow the radical imams? Of course not. Without discontent, there would be no hatred to direct against America.

Increasing the debt will be the least of our concerns if we don't "help the needy." There is no possible way to prevent another 9/11, or reduce domestic crime, if we don't address their root causes. No, it's not sexy. Yes, it's easier to blame people for their circumstances. Yes, it's hard to give up some of our wealth for the benefit of others. But that's the only way to enjoy any measure of security. Oh, and it's the right thing to do.

"I believe the best way to ensure peace is through military strength."

I started to address this in the previous section. Of course we need military strength. Of course we need the most powerful, most invincible military in the world. No one seriously questions this. But it's quite obvious that this isn't enough. We had the most fearsome military in September of 2001, and that tragically was insufficient to protect us from 19 hijackers and some evil plotters in Afghanistan.

The best way to ensure peace is through a combination of direct aid, engagement with other world powers (including those with whom we disagree), thoughtful, considered and considerate foreign policy, and yes, unstoppable military might. Relying on any one of these to the exclusion of the others is a recipe for disaster. Just look at Iraq.

"I never doubt the existence of God."

It's not clear why this should be a measure of political bent. Undoubtedly, in American politics, it is. This is a measure of the Republican party's complete subservience to James Dobson, et. al. Republicans, especially in the last 15 years or so, have made a Faustian bargain with the religious right. They were so desperate for power that they relied on the get-out-the-vote prowess of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobsen and their ilk. Evangelical leaders have an undeniable ability to brainwash their congregants, telling them whom to vote for and what to think, or rather, what to regurgitate. The Republicans grew drunk on this power, and found themselves bound to follow their instructions. Thus, right-wingers fought hard to keep Terri Shiavo alive. They positioned themselves firmly behind the movement to dismantle Roe v. Wade. They floated a federal marriage amendment.

This put them at odds with the majority of the electorate. And it's starting to catch up with them.

The Economist reported that 150 Bush administration staffers went to Regent University. Yeah - Pat Robertson's Regent University. That one. Yeah. Tangent: isn't the point of an institution of higher learning supposed to foster independent thought? Schools whose stated purpose is to inculcate one particular worldview don't deserve the name 'school.'

OK, sorry about that. Bush has 150 staffers who were "educated" in Pat Robertson's mind mold. Who can feel good about that?

So now there are more people who disagree with the statement that "I never doubt the existence of God." Good or bad, it may indicate that people are realizing what our Founding Fathers knew - that it's probably not a good idea to let religious leaders have anything to do with governing a country.

The Economist article closes with the observation that the Democrats haven't really done anything to deserve their uptick in power. The approval rating of the Democratic-controlled Congress is lower than Bush's. Most people think that the Democrats will will the White House in 2008. Hopefully so. History has shown that the Democrats, more than any other group, simply excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Please, please don't fuck this up. The world can't handle another right-wing presidency.

Delusions of Churchillian Grandeur

Bush loves to compare himself, outwardly and not, to Churchill. He reputedly keeps a bust of Churchill in his office. He equates the Iraq war to a slog through hell, and knows his idol would advise him to "keep going."
But just as Bush half-assed his way through Yale and the Texas Air National Guard, he apparently neglected to read deeper than the Bartlett's Familiar Quotations version of Churchill. Hell, he didn't even read all of that. If he had, he would know that the second part of the familiar "never give up" quotation was a qualifier: "except to convictions of honor and good sense."
The Australian has some interesting analysis of comparisons between Bush and Churchill. The web news magazine notes that

The report [on progress in Iraq] will give more political cover to those calling for the US to quit Iraq or, to use a more inconvenient and ominous historical analogy, more calls for the US to stop wasting its blood and treasure in the "thankless deserts" of Iraq. That phrase was first used by Churchill in 1919 as British war secretary when he consistently advised Britain's withdrawal from Mesopotamia, as Iraq was then known.

"I hate Iraq. I wish we had never gone to the place," Churchill would say later.

Whether one day Bush will feel that way remains to be seen. For now he's in no mood to give any comfort to Republicans who want a change in strategy and to bring combat troops home.

"When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics," Bush said. Iraq, he said, can, and must be, won.

Now, it's certainly no secret that Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He'll be lucky to get a "gentleman's C+" from historians when he finally bows out. But you don't have to be a genius to read the writing on the wall. When the level-headed leaders of the party are questioning your judgment, you might want to listen. You're better off with backing from Richard Lugar than you are with backing from John Boehner. It's not about polls, it's about common sense. Stop attacking those in your party who finally have the courage to call a spade a spade. Get a clue, and get us the hell out of Iraq.