Bush: America, you don't know me! I do what I want!
President Bush's press conference this morning was interesting for several reasons. For one, Bush unwittingly got into a funny conversation with a blind man about his sunglasses. Bush also addressed the Guantanamo Bay suicides, saying that the detention center "provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to." Provides an excuse, rather than provides factual evidence that we are engaged in such hypocrisy. I don't really expect Bush to say it, but no one on the conservative side--no one in the administration, at least--seems to be willing to say that we should close Guantanamo because it is cruel and runs counter to international notions of justice and fairness. It should be closed because it is a tactical blunder, poorly executed, that lends aid to our critics. Bush also said that the Guantanamo inmates were "picked up off the battlefield," which is an exaggeration bordering on a lie.
But the real zinger of this press conference was Bush's proclamation "don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen. I'm going to make decisions not based upon politics, but based upon what's best for the United States of America."
Now, "politics" can have a negative connotation, and Presidents often wisely give the appearance that they are "rising above" mere politics in order to do what's best. Americans have a sort of skepticism of politics, after all. But "politics" here usually means "partisan bickering," as in politicians on Capitol Hill who won't give way on pragmatic issues because of ideological differences, personal gain, pleasing constituencies, etc. "Politics" in this sense obscures what's best for the people and what reflects the "general will," in the loosest sense of that term.
Is that what Bush means by "politics" here? Heavens, no! What he actually says is "But my voice, what you hear from me, no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it's worth it, it is necessary, and we will succeed." He is answering a question, after all, about public opinion polls which say that the majority of Americans think the Iraq War was a mistake. In other words, "politics" here means the will of the people, the common good, whatever you want to call it. Bush is placing himself in the position of one who knows exactly what's best for the United States, even if the majority of Americans do not agree.
What's pathetic is that Bush pays lip service to democratic processes and political debates before dismissing them. "And I know there's going to be different voices, and there should be different voices out of America. That's where we're great. That's what makes us interesting and great; people can say whatever they want to say, as they try to attract votes." Sure, you're free to say whatever you want, but if you think your voice will translate into actions taken by this government, you're sadly mistaken. Because, yeah, I hate to say it, but he's the decider.
What's doubly ironic is that earlier, when describing the great steps taken towards democracy in Iraq, Bush said "That's the great thing about being elected; you get a sense if people don't kind of like what you're doing, or not. And democracy causes you to respond to the people's needs. Tyrants don't have to. They don't have -- sometimes they may have to, but they always have got kind of an interesting way of helping suppress dissent. This elected government is going to have to respond to the people, and that's a big change. If what Bush said here in any way reflected American political reality, he might have a point. But it doesn't. This administration has acted, at every turn, not in accordance with any notion of "accountability" or "response to the public," but in terms of blanket "mandates," of "political capital" that can be spent however they see fit. Thus the NSA stonewalling and other such instances of executive privilege and secrecy. From what Bush says, then, we might have reason to envy the people of Iraq (if we manage to leave them in one piece), because according to him, they will enjoy a government that reflects the people's desires and interests in a manner that is completely lacking in America.
But the real zinger of this press conference was Bush's proclamation "don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen. I'm going to make decisions not based upon politics, but based upon what's best for the United States of America."
Now, "politics" can have a negative connotation, and Presidents often wisely give the appearance that they are "rising above" mere politics in order to do what's best. Americans have a sort of skepticism of politics, after all. But "politics" here usually means "partisan bickering," as in politicians on Capitol Hill who won't give way on pragmatic issues because of ideological differences, personal gain, pleasing constituencies, etc. "Politics" in this sense obscures what's best for the people and what reflects the "general will," in the loosest sense of that term.
Is that what Bush means by "politics" here? Heavens, no! What he actually says is "But my voice, what you hear from me, no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it's worth it, it is necessary, and we will succeed." He is answering a question, after all, about public opinion polls which say that the majority of Americans think the Iraq War was a mistake. In other words, "politics" here means the will of the people, the common good, whatever you want to call it. Bush is placing himself in the position of one who knows exactly what's best for the United States, even if the majority of Americans do not agree.
What's pathetic is that Bush pays lip service to democratic processes and political debates before dismissing them. "And I know there's going to be different voices, and there should be different voices out of America. That's where we're great. That's what makes us interesting and great; people can say whatever they want to say, as they try to attract votes." Sure, you're free to say whatever you want, but if you think your voice will translate into actions taken by this government, you're sadly mistaken. Because, yeah, I hate to say it, but he's the decider.
What's doubly ironic is that earlier, when describing the great steps taken towards democracy in Iraq, Bush said "That's the great thing about being elected; you get a sense if people don't kind of like what you're doing, or not. And democracy causes you to respond to the people's needs. Tyrants don't have to. They don't have -- sometimes they may have to, but they always have got kind of an interesting way of helping suppress dissent. This elected government is going to have to respond to the people, and that's a big change. If what Bush said here in any way reflected American political reality, he might have a point. But it doesn't. This administration has acted, at every turn, not in accordance with any notion of "accountability" or "response to the public," but in terms of blanket "mandates," of "political capital" that can be spent however they see fit. Thus the NSA stonewalling and other such instances of executive privilege and secrecy. From what Bush says, then, we might have reason to envy the people of Iraq (if we manage to leave them in one piece), because according to him, they will enjoy a government that reflects the people's desires and interests in a manner that is completely lacking in America.
posted by to scranton at 1:32 PM
10 Comments:
Scantron-
I think you're getting too worked up about this. First of all, there's a centuries-old debate about the correct role of representatives. Are they there to use their own judgment, or to express the will of the people? The debate can go either way but the greater point is that the American political system clearly comes down on the side of the former. We don't have recall votes for the president, nor should we want them. Bush is the Decider. Whether it is politically expedient for him to say so is another question.
Now, as to the greater question about accountability, I think it is correct to say that Bush has succesfully defeated many of the mechanisms that aim to hold him accountable. And that is clearly not a good thing. But that is as much Congress' and the courts' fault as it is Bush's. If the American people wanted to hold Bushie accountable, they could. And they may do so in the fall--I hope they do.
You don't have to school me in the fundamentals of republicanism, because I understand them. I know that no one's going to hold a referendum tomorrow on the Iraq War that will have direct results. What I was pointing to was a tone of Presidential rhetoric that makes no attempt to connect to what might be called "the will of the people," and to the irony of a President lauding that sort of good faith between leaders and people that is supposedly developing in Iraq.
And yeah, people are going to take him to task (eventually). The House kicked off that process, sort of, with its contentious war debate yesterday. I would say, though, that it is a curious line of argument to say that the American people could hold Bush accountable, if they wanted, *through the courts,* since those courts are full of conservative appointees that are picked with the explicit end result in mind of strengthening the executive. Do you mean the congresspeople elected by the people could have shown more opposition to the court appointees?
I agree with much you've said, Scantron. I'm particularly interested in the quotation you cite, concerning his desire to circumvent "politics." Whatever this means (I'm not entirely sure, either), I think at the very least it reflects the fact that the average American has very little faith in American politicians at the moment. The House is a complete partisan joke (and corrupt to high hell), while the senate is the senate and senators are still, as Henry Adams once wrote, an unchanging "species." Bush knows that the only branch capable of outdoing him in pathetic behavior is the legislative, and he's perfectly willing to summon their image in order to boost his own.
What laughable about the House's partisanship? Just towing the party line or what?
The debate in the house and senate over support for the war is to me as silly as the gay marriage debate of last week. Rather than hear more of "you want to cut and run and we want to stay and win" along with what I believe to be the Democrats' non-position of "staying the course is not an option" (and never answering if leaving is one as well), there ought to be more of a debate about what should be done in Iraq to change direction. By partisanship, I just mean these debates that congress has recently become enamored with that are largely symbolic, and whose intentions are more to rouse support for the party line rather than actually support the troops, or solve Iraq, or solve marriage.
Scantron-There's no contradiction. If you are going to take Bush's rhetoric seriously, then take it seriously all the way through. Iraq's parliamentary system is, I imagine, much more responsive than our own. Since the leadership there has a chance to stay in power, they have to respond to the people's wishes.
The American people will be the ultimate judges of Bush's work, as has been shown by the huge amount of dissent that Bush has not been able to suppress. And Bush has had to respond to the people's wishes: that's the whole point of the recent business with the FMA and estate tax. But Bush doesn't really have to bow to the people on every issue, nor should he have to.
Think about it this way: either the last election was a mandate for the war, or an indication that the war is not the overriding concern of the entire electorate. Either way, Bush can continue the war (and I think he should) without being considered anti-democratic. It would be a horrible move to back out right now.
But seriously: when have we looked for consistency in Bush's comments? Why this search for contradictions?
As for your question about judges, you are overstating the importance of Bush's appointments. The latest data I can find on this is at Wikipedia under "federal judge appointment history"--do a search on google. About a year ago, only 21% of appellate court judges had been appointed by Bush. That's consistent with the Supreme Court's 2 out of 9--which only occured this year. Granted, that fraction can make a huge difference, but still.
You seem hostile, especially your last two sentences--I said the courts could hold Bush accountable, as in "protecting the constitution of the United States," which judges swear to do. I was not saying that the people could hold him accountable through the courts--that's ridiculous. If you look at polls about the bill of rights, you'll see that most americans would rather get rid of all our pesky freedoms.
No hostility on my part, honestly.
Once again, I'll reiterate that the main point of my post, despite its "excitable" tone, was an examination of presidential rhetoric, rather than concrete policy. You are probably right to note that in this respect we have never looked for consistency on the President's part nor ought we in the future, but I still thought it was an interesting development.
The question that ended my post was a legitimate one, and I think many people would have liked to have seen more Democratic opposition to Bush's appointees. I have another question now, equally non-hostile: is the idea of "acting through the courts" "ridiculous" in itself, or because, as you directly go on to say, the American people have no interest in protecting their liberties? Because it seems that if Americans thought that Bush appointees would not challenge him on constitutional rights--which many people said about Alito and Roberts--they could demand that their congresspeople oppose those appointments. This would constitute, in an oblique way, an instance of "fighting through the courts" that does not seem that far-fetched.
I'll also say, about the courts, that my comments do not pertain to Bush alone. We now see that the Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees--7 out of 9--and the recent Hudson vs. Michigan decision revealed that (possibly) thanks to this new dominance, judges like Scalia, not appointed by Bush, feel free to strengthen the power of the police against civil liberties.
(I should mention here, that anyone who was previously wedded to the notion that Scalia honestly abided by constitutional originalism as an inflexible, bias-free method should be sufficiently disabused of that idea by now, since Scalia did not hesitate to cite developments in law enforcement techniques as reasons to why we should alter our conception of the Fourth Amendment.)
Also, just to be precise, the people did not check Bush on the estate tax debate because a majority wants to abolish it. I suppose this fact, coupled with your comment about Americans polled who don't care about protecting civil liberties, should make me hesitant to clamor for more direct democratic measures anyway. Sigh...
A side rant, Scantron, to respond to your lament. 'Direct democracy', when still suboordinated to a system of government, is no escape from the problems that plague us now. On the one hand, governemnt is still representative, i.e. it produces a representation of a singular decision from a multitude (to use a hot button word) of heteronymous wills and desires. In this sense it constitutes a fiction of a singular, transcendental will determined by the majority over the totality. Then of course, the police is still in force to produce the uniformity imposed by the singular decision. Your lament only holds if we suboordinate democracy prima facie to a state structure. The two are tied up in this way--'democracy' here is a means to an end (producing a particular social order and naturalizing it through appeal to the [naturalized] legitimacy of the state) and thus begins to look a great deal like police action, which serves to produce its ends irrespective of the democratic principles which gave rise to the decision. We are bootstrapping ourselves to slavery in this sense. Direct democracy properly concieved is simply the practice of politics and the subtraction or dismemberment of these sorts of representational structures. I'm sorry if this comes out confusing, I'm rather tired...On that note.
PS. Austin- what do you mean when you say that bush shouldn't have to bow down to the will of the people? This is not a passive agressive question- is it a problem like frantically following poll numbers, or a defense of executive power, or what?
Interesting points, Sheriff, but even at my most theoretical I can't abandon the idea of a state, as in a central government, that protects rights and collects taxes for redistribution (plus the million or so other things the federal government does). I would tentatively suggest you step back and try to determine what exactly differentiates what you're talking about from extreme libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalism/capitalism. Some of the ideas are no doubt worth considering and come from reliable and intellectually interesting sources, but is the government really the 'police'? Is that so sinister, in its normal functioning sense? Rather, aren't the (normal, everyday) police the police, and a police state would look very different from what we have now?
I may have demonized a particular rendition of the "State" there, but this doesn't force one to abandon organizational systems that would provide collection and redistribution of wealth, goods and services. The reason I see myself differentiating from the two things you mentioned is that I think that the dissolution of the state and its replacement with horizontal forms of organization can only occur simultaneously with the dissolution of capitalism's social/productive relations. With regard to the state as guarantror of rights, I don't even see this as an ultimate necessity; I'm thinking in some way of the (I might be a romantic or engaging in a bit of nostalgia here) Lenin that I'm reading, where he says as far as powers delegated to the police and military are concerned, such powers should be distributed amongst the entire population. Also, within the scheme of transformative change, I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea of maintaining property rights and such similar extensions thereof. I'm at the level of distant futures right now, and it's quite spotty, but I think that maintainence of a representative state system goes hand in hand with the ills of "politics" and police action (note I'm referring to police in a disciplinary/ideological sense and not simply repressive apparatus) Government is not sinister, it is not immoral. There is no puppeteer bent on abusing people. Nonetheless, I think that the structural drives of the state apparatus is the consolodation/growth of its own power. The efficient means towards this will always be on the one hand the production of docile subjects (in both senses) and on the other the repression of insurgency.
As far as arguing for the progressive capacities for this type of system, I think that what we really see is a dialectic-sans-final-synthesis where the system hybridizes oppositions (thus neutralizing them) the resulting 'cooptation' or what have you may realize marginal gains, but can never effect the full force of altering the basic social relationships enjoined by the state.
The anarchists also improperly motivate their critique (as I have seen) through moral arguments, and from what I can see the libertarians do something similar with regard to rights/property rights; in this regard I think that they generally maintain much of the same 'baggage' that limits any critical or positive project from effecting the change they would see fit.
I'm not all sure on this, but that's my 2cents
Post a Comment
<< Home