Mukasey Confirmed by an Apparently-Now-Unitary Form of Government

The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General perpetuates the pervasive, nation-destroying lack of leadership we find ourselves in thrall to. That 40 senators voted against the confirmation, resulting in the lowest level of support among senators since 1952, is not the story. The story is that 53 voted to confirm him. Among these was Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) who said Mukasey was the "best nominee we are going to get from this administration," as if Congress must, like a beggar before a rich man, basely accept with thanks the scraps thrown at him.
Even worse, if that's possible, were the comments of Sen. Schumer who, citing his support for Mukasey (the man Schumer suggested to the Administration to begin with), referred to the Bush Administration as "so contemptuous of the rule of law." Is that right? Well, how about doing the obvious? How about beginning impeachment proceedings? What will it take, for God's sake, for this disintegrating nation's "leadership" to--here's a thought--LEAD?
Let us remember that, less than two years ago, we had yet more evidence of this administration's respect for the law. Then, it was a widely reported, ballyhooed, photo-op-for-everybody moment, when President Bush signed a bill outlawing the torture of detainees. And what followed? The signing statement. Yes, the legal "tool" designed to render meaningless congressional legislation since, let us remind ourselves, George Bush's understanding of executive power is that it is without limits. As this administration sees it, our form of government is actually a unitary form--the legislative and judicial branches, to the degree they matter at all, are intended to serve only as collective yes-men for this absolutist president.
And so here we are. We have a senate where 53 members who, to the degree they care about the novel idea that the United States is "a nation of laws," hope for the best from the man they confirm. Our fingers are crossed, they seem to say, that Mukasey will do the right thing, uphold the law, reign in the one who reigns.
A wing and a prayer, indeed.

Poverty of the Soul

It's up to Pat Robertson to decide who he wants to endorse but, really, why do the rest of us have to put up with the rightwing's moralizing if guys like Robertson jettison it when they see fit?
Two things are evident about his endorsement of Giuliani:
1) When push comes to shove, better a not-anti-gay, not-pro-life candidate who knows how to flex his militant rhetorical muscles and thereby increases the chance of a Republican victory, and
2) Anything--anything--is better than a Democrat, particularly if her name is Hillary.
Of course, this isn't the first time Robertson has appeared before the court of Moral Bankruptcy; in 2001 he defended his support for close ties with China despite its one child policy, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I don't agree with it, but at the same time they've got 1.2 billion people and they don't know what to do."
So how does this square--okay, it doesn't, but anyway--with comments like this: "One of the things we must protect from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death is the life of people"?
What's disturbing, really, isn't the hypocrisy--such things are par for the course; it's that this fellow has followers who are willing to go along with him and take upon themselves (by acquiesence, at least) the moral responsibility for these words.

Eyes Wide Shut

The problem of the American public's self-censorship is a devilish, serious one. Commentator Michael Massing's essay addresses it from the perspective of American soldiers who served in Iraq. They graphically vent their frustration at the absence of realistic coverage of war by American media outlets.
But this refusal by media who take their cues from public attitudes to depict the ugly truth of war, is but a piece of a larger, essential problem--the public's unwillingness to demand that their political elite hold certain positions, foreign and domestic, that are truly reflective of our democratic ideals and traditions.
In Pakistan, for example, George Bush's refusal to link reform with aid, evidenced here, has allowed Pervez Musharraf to suspend that country's constitution. The President prefers authoritarianism over reform, so great is his distrust in the people of Pakistan.
It's unlikely there will be much of an outcry from Republicans. Why? A recent analysis by the Daily Telegraph ranked the most popular conservatives and liberals in America. Reader responses to the rankings complained that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were ranked too low. When citizens refuse to leave their carefully constructed idealogical worlds and refuse entry to other, contrary viewpoints, all of us are the poorer for it.
So what to do? Is there a candidate on the horizon who would actually state--in policy rather than rhetorical terms alone--a platform constructed on democratic ideals? Unfortunately, the current non-stop debates have revealed little difference among candidates; much of their time is spent working up a mighty sweat to show themselves tougher than the other on matters such as Iran.
As long as this remains the case we cannot expect the political elite to articulate democratic policy positions. The public must--must--demand during this campaign season that candidates advocate fundamentally democratic policies, at home and abroad.

Slow-motion Coup

Much has been written regarding the nearly seven-year effort by the Administration to usurp congressional powers and truncate judicial authority. This, by definition, is nothing more than a slow-motion coup d'etat. Surprisingly, some have apparently not comprehended what is happening. The late Gerald R. Ford was one of these. Now, the former president was never considered a constitutional scholar but one needn't be to see the obvious. Of "warantless wiretapping" (or better, illegal), Mr. Ford said "it surprises me they [Bush Administration] worry that they think they have to do it."
But of course they don't think they have to do it; they intentionally have done it to further their effort, as laid out in the infamous minority report, a detailed argument on unlimited presidential authority couched in the terminology of "foreign" or "international" policy.
And in this context all manner of things have come under the purview of foreign/international policy and--of some importance don't you think?--as it relates to American citizens. A "top" legal aide to Secretary of State Rice, John Bellinger, refused "to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens."
We have an administration chock full of people who routinely, arbitrarily, and by intention violate the Constitution as well as international agreements/treaties. And what does our Congress do, the body explicitly tasked with the responsibility of acting as a check on rampant executive power? They comply with a berserker executive branch, whether it's sending Michael Mukasey's nomination to the Senate for a full vote (despite his refusal to call torture torture) or, until a public outcry, including telecommunication immunity in FISA legislation.
And all the while, it should noted, citing "state secrets" as their reason for refusing to release to Congress or the courts documentation supporting their positions.
Then again, when you've decided you need not answer to anyone, you don't. That strategy works in many countries with the form of government we call tyrannical or dictatorial.

A Polling Wasteland

A new, but not too meaningful WaPo-ABC News poll has determined--surprise!--a general public dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Here are a few astonishing insights from citizenry: "the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country," and, "there's got to be a change," and, "we're in a terrible mess."
Oh.
As for the economy, the general tenor is one of fear of a recession but respondents apparently don't why they fear this. But we do find a 911 dispatcher, who twice voted for Geo. Bush, express the sentiment that, regardless of the party that proposes a good idea--whatever that might be--"Congress should go for what works for this country. We have gotten away from that."
And nowhere in these observations do we encounter an awareness of the oppression by this nation's political and economic elite on the economic middle/lower classes.
You and me, in short.
It is no wonder we find ourselves "led" by a bunch of jingoists who splutter on about gay marriage, abortion, Islamofascism, and secularism/evolution, to cite but four examples of utter idiocy.
Nowhere in the poll and nowhere in the national debate are matters raised regarding sky-high levels of personal debt (attributable to wage inequality/stagnation and obscene and uncontrolled healthcare costs, to name but two reasons), the determined and steady erasure of our civil rights (illegal wiretapping as one example) and a worthwhile discussion on foreign policy.
We know the source of these obscenitites--an entrenched elite manipulating a malleable public. Would that citizens shake off the shackles of political radio and political television masquerading as the Voice of the People. The crime here, one of many, is the government we've imposed upon ourselves. A government that lets lobbyists set the terms of legislation, from financial groups who are freed from oversight in order to set usurious levels of credit card interest, to a government that explicitly refuses to represent the economic interests of its constituents.
So how can any of us flex our atrophied political muscles? It's really not that hard. The Senate Intelligence Committee was set to give the telecoms blanket immunity for the complicity with the Administration in side-stepping FISA law. Yet senatorial objections began to mount after the outcry from an aware and informed public. And the nomination of Michael Mukasey wasn't threatened until an aware and informed public shouted their disapproval. These victories might still turn to ash but they do reveal a truth: stay silent and you guarantee your loss of rights, your slow descent into poverty and a shortened lifespan courtesy of a healthcare lobby determined to maximize profit even unto the bankrupting of its patients.