The Bill passed by congress on the detainee and interrogation issue is one of the more frustrating examples of Democratic cowardice and political expedience. It does not substantively change anything. Personally, I feel the only utility in having a law in the first place is to use as a cudgel in case certain parties get caught doing something nasty. It won’t prevent the nastiness, because the concerned parties will just get cagier in how they go about doing what they want. But now we have a law that is vague where it needs to be clear and clear where it doesn’t matter and once again everyone just fell into line with the Administration.
Why?
Mid-term elections.
The Democrats could have filibustered. But they don’t want to risk the chance that Bush’s approval ratings don’t really mean what they suggest. They don’t want to risk blowing what may be a popular referendum on Bush that could conceivably return a Democratic majority to congress by doing something they know the public can’t stand.
Besides–and here’s the scary thought–what if their take on the president’s ratings is wrong.
Not that the numbers are wrong. No, I think they’re pretty accurate. But what they mean…do they mean the public is fed up with Bush or with his ideas? Both? Neither?
See, this is an issue of some concern, because while the approval ratings suggest that Bush is unpopular that does not mean the people who put him there in the first place have changed their minds about why they put him there. And if the Democratics go all left wing on this issue, it might backfire, because maybe, just maybe, those approval numbers are about Bush’s implementation and management of his policies–not the policies themselves. People may see him as lousy manager, one who has botched oversite on ideas and policies his former supporters actually like.
See, people now seem to think Iraq is our biggest problem. Do they want to pull out? Look at how members of congress behave, one gets the impression no. They want Iraq handled better and they no longer think Bush can do it.
On a whole list of other policies, the public seems to contradict itself. Roll back the tax cuts? No, that doesn’t seem to be popular either. Running up the debt is also not popular. Immigration? Talking tough is popular, but the worker pass idea is not. Minimum wage? Well…
Homeland Security? Talk of rolling back the Patriot Act seems unpopular, but we have a schizo reaction to how it is implimented–don’t spy of Me, use it on Them. Bush’s wire tapping is unpopular, but the Guantanamo situation is less clear.
So the Democrats didn’t challenge this piece of drivel, because they don’t really know what part of Bush people don’t like, and they’re too spineless to challenge him where he’s weakest–policy morality.
Bush is so typical of a kind of Cold War mentality that it’s sickening. He talks about how great America is, but he has virtually no faith in the strength of our ideas, of our principles, of our potential. The simple expedient of applying the moral and ethical–and legal–standards we reserve for our own citizens to anyone who comes under our sphere of influence would be the best way to combat the rabid anti-Americanism driving global disaffection with us, but he doesn’t believe it would work. He doesn’t have faith in the idea of equality, of justice. Doesn’t believe it and, from what we’ve seen vis-a-vis his domestic spying policies, doesn’t believe in it for Americans, either. That alone should mark him as at least worse than Nixon, possibly the most unsuited occupant of the office of president we’ve ever had.
Challenging him on that, though, would be risky, because maybe–just maybe–that’s the way his original constituents feel, too. The only mistake they made was putting Bush in office rather than someone who could “manage” things better.
Print this post [1]
[2]