Lord Acton's Revenge: Brutality in Brooklyn

It’s a truism in my field of psychotherapy that in order to improve, it’s not enough to simply know something intellectually; you need to know it emotionally, to feel it, before that knowledge becomes truly useful. The implication of this idea is that some things have to be learned and re-experienced over time before they are taken to heart, and become usable knowledge. What is true on the personal level also applies on the societal level. There are many platitudes that we know by rote, without really truly embracing them. As a result we make misstep after misstep before we finally get it right. So it is, with Lord Acton’s famous dictum in 1887, “Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” At its core, this maxim tells us that individuals who feel that there are no checks or restrictions on their behavior will tend to overstep and exploit their position. With this in mind, we all benefit from the network of checks and balances on authority, whether in the form of statutes, ethics codes, Miranda rules, or constitutional limits on state power.

During a time of perceived national threat, however, this network of civil protections gets strained: In particular, we tend to loosen the checks and balances that serve to protect the less powerful in society: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the requirement that an individual by properly charged with a crime before he can be indefinitely detained; in 1944, the Supreme Court held 6-3, that the government could evict Japanese-American citizens from their homes on the West Coast and incarcerate them, based on the notion that they were an espionage risk. Today, under the threat of international terrorism, we are once again experiencing an erosion of civil liberties. It is important to shine a light on the examples of this trend.

In the eleven months following 9/11, the government rounded up over 762 men, mostly of Arab or Asian nationality, on the possibility that they may have had some role in the 9/11. There was no evidence to suggest any participation in terrorism, other than the men’s ethnicity, so the pretext for the detentions was that of immigration violations. Not only was the round-up excessively broad and of dubious merit, once detained, the civil rights of these men were largely ignored. Eighty-four of them wound up in a federal facility in Brooklyn, a facility that deserves a special badge of shame. The Associated Press reports that a recent Justice Department Investigation of the Brooklyn prison “found that guards slammed detainees against walls, twisted their arms, performed unneeded strip searches, and taped conversations between some detainees and their lawyers. In addition, hundreds of videotapes that might have documented the abuse were destroyed or erased,” or in some cases, hidden from investigators. Not only were the unfortunate detainees caught up in a dragnet of ethnic profiling, based on the report issued by Justice Department inspector Glenn A. Fine, they were abused and degraded by as many as 20 guards at the Brooklyn facility. Virtually all were eventually released, but not before being subjected to systematic brutality that included, according to the Justice Department’s own report, “slamming detainees against walls; bending or twisting detainees’ arms, hands, wrists, and fingers; lifting restrained detainees off the ground by their arms, and pulling their arms and handcuffs; stepping on detainees’ leg restraint chains; using restraints improperly; and handling detainees in an otherwise rough and inappropriate manner.” Equally alarming were the allegations of verbal abuse: “Whatever you did at the World Trade Center, we will do to you,” “You’re never going to leave here,” “Don’t ask any questions, otherwise you will be dead,” “Put your nose against the wall or we will break your neck.” When detainees prayed, officers said, “Shut the fuck up! Don’t pray, Fucking Muslim. You’re praying bullshit.”

There are three things that outrage me about this episode. First, I’m outraged that it could happen at all. Such practices can only flourish when guards know that they have tacit approval from superiors to engage in systematic abuse. Second, I’m outraged that there is no national concern about it. Rather, it’s something of a middle-of the-newspaper story, which seems to fall under the heading, “life isn’t fair.” Finally, I’m outraged that the consequences for the abusers are so minimal. Inspector Fine reports that “reasonable and appropriate steps” will be taken, and recommends such measures as counseling, and administrative action. It is striking, however, that federal prosecutors have declined to press criminal charges in the case. Fine also urges that better training be given to guards. Training? It is hardly a matter of inadequate training when guards strip search detainees simply to demean them, call them names, or smash their heads into walls. And it adds insult to injury that much of the evidence, in the form of videotapes, was either destroyed or hidden from Justice Department officials—an apparent obstruction of justice.

In a recent editorial, the Washington Post was cautiously optimistic about the steps taken by the Justice Department: “The Justice Department's apparently serious attention to Mr. Fine's recommendations is encouraging….. The policies adopted now will go a long way to determining how many detainees swept up after a future terrorist attack -- most of whom will prove innocent of any involvement -- have their loss of liberty compounded by abuse.” To the contrary, I find little to cheer about in the Justice Department’s approach. Despite clear evidence of wholesale brutality and obstruction of justice, prosecutors have decided to treat the abusers with kid gloves. Apparently, Attorney General Ashcroft believes in tough penalties for everyone but his own employees. It is an extraordinarily shortsighted policy, because however little attention these stories get in US newspapers, they are inevitably major news in the Arab world and serve to undermine our mission and our credibility. It should be noted that not one of the 762 detainees was ever charged with a terrorism related crime.

Compare the quality of justice in the Brooklyn case with that meted out to James J. Yee, the former Muslim Chaplain at Guantanamo Bay. Yee was arrested in Jacksonville Florida on September 10, 2003, after customs officials found documents in his backpack that looked suspicious, and were thought to contain classified information. Military officials originally alleged that he was part of a plot to infiltrate Guantanamo Base, and indicated that it might be a capital crime. As it turned out, there was no evidence to support this sensational claim, and the original charge of espionage was downgraded to that of transporting classified information without the required secure container. While the Army investigated this lesser charge, Yee was detained in the military brig in Charleston, SC. for 67 days in virtual solitary confinement. During this time, questions arose as to whether any of the documents were classified at all. Eventually, even the lesser charges could not be sustained, and Yee was released. Before releasing Yee, however, the Army filed additional charges, including adultery, and storing pornography on a government computer. As of today, after all the early sensationalism of this case, all criminal charges have been dropped. Where prosecutors were once talking about capital punishment, now they cannot find evidence to sustain any of the charges. In an ideal world, military prosecutors would apologize to Yee and move on. In the real world, however, they have recommended that Yee face a military administrative hearing on charges of adultery and pornography. How bizarre is that? This case, which once dominated headlines, now consists of Mickey Mouse allegations of adultery and pornography! The military’s view apparently is, if you can’t convict a man, you can at least ruin his reputation. I suspect that if everyone who had porn on a government computer were discovered, half the government's computers would be confiscated.

On a more serious note, however, this case bears eerie similarities to that of scientist Wen Ho Lee, the Taiwanese-born scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was arrested, charged with espionage, and harshly confined for 10 months. During that time, the government realized it had no case against Lee. The authorities not only failed to support any charges against Lee, they had diverted important investigative resources away from others who may have been at fault. The government, however, did succeed spectacularly in ruining Lee’s career.

Cases like these don’t happen simply because the government is foolish, hysterical, or corrupt; they happen because we, the citizenry, allow the government to perform in this manner. Lord Acton would be turning over in his grave.

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 5:02 AM

 
Political Potpourri: Kerry, Clarke, Rice, and Scalia

“Go West Young Man.” When John and Teresa Kerry left to spend a week at their winter home in Ketchum, Idaho, a shudder went through the Democratic ranks. Many felt that Kerry’s timing was off, that he was making a mistake in ceding the playing field to George Bush, who would use the week to tar Kerry with saturation campaign ads. As it turned out, the worries of Democratic operatives were misplaced. Kerry’s week off was a help, not a hindrance; it served to bolster his campaign rather than weaken it. The electorate was becoming increasingly uneasy with a presidential race whose raggedness was beginning to resemble a game of pick-up basketball: more turnovers than points, more noise than news. Kerry, to his credit, was able to sense this. The vacation gave Kerry the look of a man who recognized that this was a marathon not a sprint, a man comfortable in his own skin, a man who wanted to spend some time with his wife, and a man who would overrule his handlers if he had to. These are all good things. But the biggest benefit to the Kerry campaign was accidental; Kerry was off stage when former terrorism czar Richard Clarke made his appearance. Comments by Kerry this past week could have only have stepped on Richard Clarke’s message that the Bush administration was at turns both oblivious and incompetent with respect to Al Qaeda.

“Dick Clarke’s Hit Parade.” This has been an extraordinary week. Just two weeks ago we were discussing whether the Bush 9/11 campaign ad-- trumpeting his leadership role after 9/11--was in poor taste. Today, we are debating whether Bush actually contributed to the spread of Al Qaeda by inattention before 9/11, and obsession with Iraq after 9/11. This is a profound and damaging issue for the Administration, for several reasons: 1) The theme of Clarke’s book is so strikingly similar to that of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s book, as to bolster both men’s credibility. Both books portray Bush as a man unable to think creatively about new problems, but rather still fighting the battles of the Cold War (Iraq, Star Wars, etc.). 2) While it was fairly easy to brush aside O’Neill, who did not inspire confidence as a cabinet official, Clarke is tough, media savvy, and has an unassailable resume, spanning four administrations. 3) George Bush’s record on truth-telling is so compromised at this point that it deprives him of the benefit of the doubt. Recall that this administration sold their tax cut using budget figures that were based on the idea that the tax cut would “sunset” after several years. The problem is, they never believed in the concept of “sunsetting;” they always planned for the tax cut to be permanent. They misled Congress about the cost of the Medicare bill. They low-balled the country on the number of troops that would be needed to pacify Iraq, and then vilified General Shinseki when he told the truth. To put it bluntly, there is some serious bad Karma at play for this administration. Apart from George W. Bush, the greatest casualty of Dick Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies,” may be National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

“Conde Nast-y.” There is currently a critical mass developing about the failings of Conde Rice, who has been a major player in virtually all of the administration’s blunders. It was Rice who spoke ominously about mushroom clouds emanating from Iraq’s WMD. It was Rice who became the lead apologist for Bush’s claim in the State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. Recall the tortured explanation from Rice: “"The statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British Government did say that.” This is akin to the Washington Post printing a false story and then saying, “We didn’t say it was true; we just said that the New York Times said it was true.” Rice has further damaged herself by refusing to testify publicly before the 9/11 Commssion, and then trying to justify it on constitutional grounds. This prompted the chairman of the Commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, to comment, “I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.” As reported by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank in today’s Washington Post, Rice’s statements on Clarke are a hodgepodge of contradictions: She can’t decide whether Clarke was in the loop or out of the loop, whether he had limited influence and is now disgruntled, or whether his counsel was keenly appreciated. Here is Rice attempting to trash Clarke: “He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when Al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up September 11 were being hatched." Here she is trying to prop up Bush’s anti-terrorism credentials: “I wanted somebody [Clarke] experienced in that area precisely to carry on the Clinton administration policy.” Rice will survive this sorry episode with her job intact, but not her reputation.

“Scalia ducks his responsibility .” Few of us knew, prior to Justice Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from the pending Supreme Court case concerning Dick Cheney’s energy task force, that there was no way to compel a Supreme Court justice to step aside in a particular case, however clear his obligation. This is a frightening thought. Can you imaging being a litigant at the state court level, and discovering that the judge is a pal of the opposing party in the case, and goes duck hunting with him? You would obviously feel disadvantaged in the case; any reasonable litigant would feel that the playing field was not level. In such a case, the appearance of bias would be obvious, and the state ethics board would swoop down on the misguided judge. Scalia, by contrast, sticks a thumb in our collective eye by presuming to pronounce upon his own impartiality. The whole basis for ethics guidelines is that the individual whose bias is questioned, is not in a position to guarantee his own impartiality. And nothing could be more specious than Scalia's claim in his twenty-one page statement that the pending case is about the office of the vice-president generically, not about Dick Cheney, and therefore does not significantly impact Dick Cheney the person. Is he kidding? The Supreme Court ruling will be a referendum on Cheney's judgment, it will affect him politically, it will affect the way he is seen by history, and the fallout from any disclosure about the makeup of the energy task force could be highly negative for the Cheney-Bush campaign. Based on Scalia's logic, he and Dick Cheney could be twin brothers and Scalia's objectivity would still not be compromised, since the case is apparently not about Dick Cheney! Finally, it is not completely accurate to say that there is no check on Scalia’s judgment: If, in fact, we find his reasoning and subsequent role to be sufficiently flawed as to undermine the institution of the Supreme Court, the option of a Senate impeachment is always available.
- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 7:00 PM

 
Ted Kennedy and Tim Russert, Mano a Mano

One of the more memorable interviews of the political season took place on Sunday, as Ted Kennedy sat down with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. I hope every past and future Democratic candidate watched it. More importantly, I hope that they took a few lessons from Kennedy, who came out swinging as a good, old-fashioned, unapologetic liberal, the kind that disappeared at some point in time behind a phalanx of focus groups and consultants.

Kennedy, at age 72, has achieved a special status as a politician. He is a man so beloved and politically secure in his own state of Massachusetts, and so comfortable in his own skin, that he has the same kind of freedom that Barry Goldwater earned with the Republicans: the freedom to tell the truth, to talk turkey to his audience, regardless of how jarring that truth might be. To watch Kennedy in action was also to be reminded of why Howard Dean failed: Both men have the same blunt way of addressing issues, but while Dean’s manner often seems cold and clinical, Kennedy’s style brims with passion and warmth. And in contrast to John Kerry, Kennedy is every bit as clear and straightforward about his views as Kerry is maddeningly equivocal about his. Kennedy has two attributes that are essential for a good politician: a love of political combat, and a love of his constituents, who Kennedy sees as all the citizens of the US.

Asked to comment on the one year anniversary of the Iraq War, Kennedy reminded Russert of the universal support that the US experienced immediately after 9/11, the many offers of assistance--financial, military, and intelligence sharing. At that moment, there was an extraordinary feeling of solidarity between the US and the rest of the world, particularly with Western Europe. The senator pointed to our needlessly high-handed manner of dealing with Europe, and our eagerness to forget Afghanistan, while making a headlong rush into Iraq, that shattered that very promising world coalition. Kennedy illustrated the decline in American esteem and credibility with an anecdote about his brother John: “One of the proudest moments that President Kennedy had is at the time of the Cuban missile crisis when Dean Acheson went to France and told Charles de Gaulle that we were going to face the Cuban missile crisis, and told him that President Kennedy needed his help and assistance. And then after he told him that he said to Charles de Gaulle, ‘Let me show you the charts.’ And the president of France says, ‘the word of the United States is all that I need.’ That kind of credibility in terms of the world community has been fractured…”

Russert had his share of prepared zingers for Kennedy, but they bounced off the senator like spitballs hitting a battleship. Russert’s first failed “gotcha” moment came when he asked Kennedy whether vice-president Cheney was right in saying that John Kerry had an obligation to tell the American public which foreign leaders were supporting Kerry. Kennedy didn’t even address how silly and inappropriate it would be for Kerry to identify some foreign leader who had spoken to him in confidence. Instead, Kennedy had bigger fish to fry: “You know, I watched the vice president make that statement. And you know what--all I could think of is, when is the vice president going to give us the names of those people on his task force in energy that jacked up the price for consumers and provided windfall profits for the energy industry? When is he going to do that? When is the White House going to give us the name of the person that leaked the name to the newspapers endangering the life of Valerie Plame, who was a CIA agent? When are they going to do that? Come on, Tim. All we have to do is go down the list of members of the United Nations and find out where the support [for Kerry] is. The CIA knows it. They work for the president. They can give them the names of all of those countries.” Kennedy was absolutely right. While calling for a full (and inappropriate) disclosure from Kerry, Bush runs his own administration with all the openness of the Skull and Bones Society.

Russert had more ammo in his gun, confronting Kennedy with his statement to the Associated Press that “money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops [to Iraq]." When asked for his evidence for this charge, Kennedy chuckled, “You can talk about incentivizing, providing resources for those [countries]. You take the choice of words. What do you think the $8 billion was in terms of economic aid that we are providing for Turkey in order to get Turkish troops? You put whatever label on that.” Russert continued, “Do you still stand by the term “bribe?” Kennedy responded, “… I don’t retreat from the word bribe.”

Kennedy didn’t miss a beat on the topic of gay marriage. In contrast to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean, Kennedy doesn’t waver on the issue of gay marriage. He supports it without hesitation: “….the Massachusetts decision has no requirement about sacramental marriage. I think that's the key. There's no requirement that the Catholic Church, Protestant Church, synagogue, mosque, have to have a sacramental marriage. So I am for... civil [gay] marriage.”

By the end of the interview, as Kennedy had run through the litany of Bush credibility problems, from the phony figures on the Medicare bill, to the inflated estimates of job growth, to the purported link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, to the nonexistent WMD, to the notion that oil revenues would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, it was Russert who was in strategic retreat.

Russert, however, had one last trap for Kennedy, asking, “President Bush says he's a proud conservative. Are you a proud liberal?” When Kennedy answered yes, Russert triumphantly moved in for the kill: “Is John Kerry?” Kennedy, always more comfortable characterizing his own political persona than that of John Kerry, hesitated, then continued, “This president says he's a proud conservative. He has taken a budget, a budget that had the greatest surpluses in the history of this country [230 billion dollars in 2000], and now we have the greatest deficits in the history of this country [projected 500 billion], and he calls himself a proud conservative. I call that irresponsible. Now, is that liberal or conservative?” Kennedy wasn’t through, “I'm just asking you, when you have that kind of surplus and you go to this deficit--is that liberal or conservative? If you answer that question, I'll tell you where John [Kerry] is.” At that point both men, recognizing that it was a stand-off, dissolved into laughter.

It was a great comfort to me that John Kerry was almost certainly watching Kennedy’s performance from his vacation home in Ketchum, Idaho. Kerry could learn a lot from the strength, clarity, and passion of Kennedy’s presentation. In fact, I couldn’t help but say to myself at the end of the interview, “Damn, the Democrats nominated the wrong guy from Massachusetts.”
- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 3:24 PM

 
“American Idol”: The Rainbow Competition

Pardon this excursion into the nether world of the FOX network, but I couldn’t resist offering a few words—1,940 if you must know—about the guiltiest of my guilty pleasures, “American Idol.” The topic, while not political on its face, still has much to say about who we are as a culture, and what it is that claims our attention.

I am here to confess my love-hate relationship with “American Idol,” a show that I only discovered last year, at midseason. Despite my many misgivings about the show, I will admit that I never miss it. And I suspect that I am not alone in my ambivalence about this show. So let’s talk about the good, the bad, the sublime, and the utterly ridiculous about AI:

One of my biggest problems with "American Idol" is its very premise: The idea that the next great musical star can be found by determining who does the best Billy Joel/Aretha Franklin/Whitney Houston/Celine Dion cover version, is to completely miss the essence of rock n’ soul. Rock is about breaking the mold, about catching the listener off guard; it’s about the continual search for a new sound and a new paradigm. “American Idol” does not strive for the new; it merely strives for the safe and marketable.

Now, this is certainly not a crime, unless you start imagining how some of the legendary figures of rock would have fared auditioning for AI. Bob Dylan, having hitchhiked in from Hibbing, Minnesota, wouldn’t have made it past the “Chicago auditions,” bounced for “poor vocal quality.” James Brown, likewise, would have been sent packing at the “Atlanta auditions,” for his “limited vocal range.” Joni Mitchell, the greatest female singer-songwriter of her era, would have been seen as lacking stage presence; and can you imagine the reception that the introspective Van Morrison would have gotten? Simon Cowell would have demoted him for lacking the “it” factor. Diana Ross’ voice would have been deemed “too thin,” and I can just hear Cowell saying to Paul Simon, “you just don’t look like an American Idol.” And Jimi Hendrix? Forget it!

But okay, okay, I’ll accept AI on its own terms as the search for the most suitable person to be tossed into the Fox marketing machine, in order to make a pile of money for all concerned. That point granted, what does the mega-competition tell us about the music industry and about ourselves?

First, it highlights something that we already know, that the craving for fame in this country is boundless and all-consuming. Indeed, one has to give kudos to the judges for traveling all over the continental and non-continental US in their search for talent. Of course, one thing that eased the judges’ burden during the exhausting series of tryouts, was the fortuitous discovery they made about the contestants: Not only are the good contestants great for ratings, the bad ones are excellent for the ratings as well! The most shocking thing for me about the early auditions was not how bad most of the contestants were; rather, it was how utterly self-deluded they were. The look of complete disbelief and outrage that most displayed when told how bad they were, was either priceless, or terrifying, depending on your point of view. For me it was the latter. (No, I did not watch the show that featured the worst of the worst. I don’t enjoy car crashes). But eventually, amid the sea of mediocrity, a diverse range of talent did emerge. And an interesting ethnic stew it was!

American Idol leaves no doubt that we live in a vast global village. Take a look at the twelve finalists. To observe them is to see an extraordinary ethnic cross-fertilization. How else do you explain why, if you close your eyes mid-song, you would mistake the two Hawaiian singers for sistahs from the ‘hood? Or that a 16 year white girl from Snellville, Georgia (Diana Degarmo), who likes to catch catfish as a hobby, could do a version of “Think” that would make Aretha Franklin proud. Or that Leah LaBelle (Vladowski), a Bulgarian defector, now sings in a black choir in Seattle, and attends the same school (Garfield High School) that produced Jimi Hendrix, Quincy Jones, and Bruce Lee?

That’s the good news. The bad news is that this week, Labelle gave another in a series of off-key performances, should never have made the final 12 in the first place, and was the first to be booted from the finals. If Abdul had not made Labelle her personal choice for the final 12, Labelle would have been sent packing a week earlier, which would have opened the door for the far more deserving Susie Valaca, a first-rate r&b singer from Fiji.

Which leads us to the judges. This judging panel represents the triumph of chemistry over quality. The separate niches filled by each the three are one of the great calling cards of the show, even if the judges often fail at their primary task, which is to evaluate talent. Abdul and Simon have honed their good cop/bad cop routine to perfection, while Randy’s role as the lovable middle-aged hipster is well-polished. The problem with this panel is that only one member has an ear—Randy. Paula’s soothing bromides are so similar from one singer to the next as to be all but meaningless. When Abdul's personal pick, Leah Labelle, flopped with her version of the Supremes’ “You Keep Me Hanging On,” Abdul covered her own derriere by pronouncing it “an off night.” Actually, it was a typical night for the justly departed Labelle.

In an ideal world, AI would make an offseason trade, sending Abdul to Star Search, and bringing in Naomi Judd, who is bright, warm, opinionated, and has an ear that is tack-sharp. By contrast, Simon Cowell has no musical ear whatsoever. His MO is to make a quirky, generalized reading of each contestant’s “star quality,” which may or may not correlate with whether they can sing. I was shocked to hear him suggest that Jon Peter Lewis—whose spastic karaoke-level performances have only served as comic relief—is a “dark horse” to win it all. Likewise, the fact that he thinks that John Stevens--a guy who mimics the tonal quality of Dean Martin, but can’t consistently sing on key--is original, shows that Cowell is, to put it mildly, musically challenged.

This raises an interesting question. What are Jon Peter Lewis and John Stevens doing in the final 12 in the first place? Well, one of the little secrets of AI is that it has its own built-in “affirmative action” program. White male singers get a special boost on the show, because the white female teenyboppers who populate the audience, are the only ones willing to go to the length of making hundreds of calls on behalf of their favorite heartthrob. Without this significant edge, the two aforementioned white males would be long gone, and the far superior Susie Valaca and Lisa Leuschner would still be around. In fact, the whole voting system is terrible. Why should it come down to a battle between phone banks from, say, Georgia, and phone banks from Hawaii? No single phone number should get more than one vote. (But of course that would deprive AT&T of all those text messaging fees.) Also, AI should reverse the voting process and have viewers vote against the person they believe should leave the show.

The mention of contestant Lisa Leuschner brings up another flaw of the show: It engages in subtle racial stereotyping. It was clear from day one that Leuschner, who is white, earned demerits because she was overweight. Simon told her that openly. He would never, however, tell an African-American contestant to lose weight. Why? Because he would look very foolish; there is a long tradition of great, overweight, African-American divas, from Aretha, to Patti Labelle, to Jennifer Holliday, to Roberta Flack, to Mahalia Jackson, to Shirley Caesar, to Patti Austin, etc. The truth is, it wasn’t Leuschner’s chops that got her booted, it was her waistline, which is a disservice to everyone involved.

I can hear you saying, “Hey, if you have so many gripes with the show, why do you bother to watch it?” Well, that, after all, is the nature of a guilty pleasure; it pleases and disappoints at the same time. The show has competitiveness, it has fun, it has some intense drama, and it also features some fine performances. Allow me to handicap the final 11:

The Top Tier:

1. Jasmine Trias. She’s cute, she’s humble, she’s soulful, her voice is almost pitch-perfect, and she has a powerful set of chops. She may grab the gold.

2. Diana DeGarmo. She has a great voice, one that is far more mature than her 16 years. In a competition where 50% of one’s impact depends on picking a song that both grabs the audience, and showcases one’s skills, DeGarmo has shown herself to be more than equal to the task (“Think,” “I’ve Got the Music in Me”). After hearing her sing, does anyone even remember Simon’s early complaint that she might be too “cutesy?” I don’t think so.

3. LaToya London. She has shown that she can take both a ballad and a rocker and knock them out of the park. Her confidence and poise will hold her in good stead. Heck, I even liked the tape of her wedding band!

The Middle Tier

4. Camille Velasco. Camille is a fine singer, but has made some disastrous song choices (“Son of a Preacher Man”). If she has the moxie (doubtful) to do some funky, hot-buttered soul numbers, she could make a move on the pack.

5. Fantasia Barrino. Yes, Fantasia can sing, but her quirky phrasing and delivery knock her down a peg for me. And while initially, sex appeal doesn't matter, in the last weeks of the competition when you’re up against people of equal talent, it does. At that point, she will be outclassed.

6. Jennifer Hudson. Yes, Jennifer can also sing, but there is something too generically “gospel” about her sound. I thought that Simon got it right when he suggested that she was good, but was not distinctive.

7. George Huff. While I wouldn’t have put him in the final 12, this guy has grown on me a bit. That raspy voice is a bit limited, but he uses his body onstage more naturally than any of the contestants, and he believes in himself. That being said, no, he cannot win.

The Bottom Tier.

8. Amy Adams. Amy, nice as she is, is lucky to still be around. The song choices have been forgettable, the voice lacks power, and when she goes into her upper register, her voice becomes reed thin. Because she’s not a white male, she will not get the benefit of ballot-stuffing. She’s probably the next to go.

9. Matthew Rogers. I like this guy. I like his vulnerability, I like his earnestness, and I thought his choice of Otis Redding’s “Hard to Handle” (a b-side single, released only after Redding’s death), was inspired. But alas, he doesn’t have the talent to win.

10. John Stevens. This guy is a one-trick pony, who someone convinced at an early age that he was Harry Connick, Jr. While I welcome a contestant who undersings rather than oversings his songs, you still have to hit the notes! Stevens’ durability in the competition can be explained by a remark I saw on a message board: “That redheaded gringo is way cute!” He will last far longer than he should.

11. Jon Peter Lewis. This guy has no more business winning the competition than his father does. I don’t blame him though for continuing the awful dancing; that’s how he got voted in.

If anyone in my bottom tier wins the competition, I will swear off the show forever; or at least until next season starts up…..


- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 4:07 PM

 
Bush, Kerry, Arafat, and 14 Year Old Voters

It’s not news that the run-up to the war was marked by a series of empty claims about Iraq’s military capability by the Bush administration. We heard variously about mobile germ labs, unmanned aerial attack vehicles, decontamination trucks, and biological weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes--all of which turned out to be fictional. Moreover, Dick Cheney told us that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, and all but predicted that Baghdad would receive us in the manner of Paris in 1945. Not!

Of all the pre-war claims of the Bush administration, however, the most witless was the idea that toppling Saddam would lay the foundation for a settlement in the Middle East. I never could make any sense of this connection. Was the premise that the players on the West Bank and in Israel would be so impressed by our military might that their collective awe would cause them to make mutual concessions? The idea was preposterous on its face, but that didn’t stop the Bush Administration from making it part of its Pollyannish script. Currently, with the Israeli Fence going up, the peace process in a shambles, the “road map” largely forgotten, and Bush having retreated to his pre-election policy of benign neglect for the Middle East, the Saddam-Middle East link now seems more foolish than ever.

Ironically, there is an important connection between the Middle East and Iraq; however it is precisely the reverse of what Bush had in mind: It is clear by now that the turmoil in the Middle East is the world’s single largest incubator of international terrorism, the most urgent grievance within the Arab community. The plight of the Palestinians is a metaphor, a galvanizing symbol for the Islamic community everywhere. To not address it is to recklessly leave the pot boiling on the stove, unattended.

The implication of this is simple: If, rather than invading Iraq, we had used the time, effort, and financial resources (including a portion of the $160 billion we have so far spent on the war) on an earnest, unrelenting, hardnosed diplomatic effort in the Middle East, we would be well ahead of the game in the fight against international terrorism. One of the central flaws of the Bush world-view is the idea that there are a finite number of terrorists in the world, and if we simply identify and capture our "rogues' gallery" of terrorists, we can cripple Al Qaeda. To the contrary, Al Qaeda is a multi-headed dragon that feeds on a diet of rage, despair, and alienation. These elements are in such great supply that it is capable of regularly reconstituting itself.

Instead, if the US had chosen to engage both Israel and the Palestinians, had held their feet to the fire, and had used every ounce of its leverage to force both sides to negotiate, we would have made far more progress against terrorism than any incursion into Iraq could accomplish. This however, would have required the unthinkable, grabbing both parties by the scruff of the neck, and forcing them to talk. Does either Bush or Kerry have the necessary resolve to do this? That is doubtful.

Why am I so skeptical about progress in the Middle East? Just this past week, Kerry engaged in one of his signature gestures; he changed his mind about a critical issue. On March 8, Kerry slammed Yasser Arafat as “an outlaw to the peace process,” adding that Arafat had rightly been pushed aside in any peace negotiations. This position stood in stark contrast to Kerry’s discussion of Arafat in his 1997 book, “The New War,” where he spoke with approval of “Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." Is it not the height of irrationality to say that we can negotiate with the likes of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong il, but that somehow Yasser Arafat, the chosen representative of the Palestinian people, is an unacceptable negotiating partner?

This is not just another typical Kerry flip-flop; it reflects a problem that afflicts all Democratic presidential candidates, what I call the “Progressive Paradox.” The Progressive Paradox goes as follows: The closer a Democratic candidate gets to achieving electoral success, the harder it is to maintain the principles that got him there in the first place. The closer he gets to the finish line, the harder it is to stay on message. Take the case of Howard Dean. The moment that Dean became a front-runner--and as a result, had something to lose--he suffered a loss of nerve from the candor that had propelled him to success in the first place. When Dean spoke of the need for the U.S. to be an “evenhanded” broker in the Middle East, he was saying something that was both true, and highly unsettling to establishment politicians. When the predictable criticism arose, rather than hold his ground, Dean went into retreat mode: “I've since learned that that [evenhanded] is a very sensitive word to use in certain communities, so perhaps I could have used a different euphemism…” Imagine that! The word “evenhanded” is too sensitive a word to use! When Dean suggested that Osama Bin Laden deserved a fair trial, he was pilloried, this time for upholding the all-important principle of due process. Dean was again forced to tuck his tail between his legs, and do an about-face: "I share the outrage of all Americans….. This is exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.” Likewise, when it came to light that Dean several years ago had derided the Iowa Caucuses as undemocratic, and controlled by special interests, he was absolutely right. Again though, he was forced to go into damage control mode. Indeed virtually all of Dean’s “gaffes” were unpalatable but important truths that Dean subsequently had to run away from. Now that Dean has nothing at stake, we’re beginning to see his straight-talking persona again. That is refreshing. I hope that Kerry can learn from this, and accept the idea that one of the great challenges of a nominee is to tell the electorate—persuasively, to be sure--difficult truths that it may not want to hear.

Speaking of difficult truths, there is an interesting constitutional amendment currently brewing in California. State Senator John Vasconcellos has proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would lower the voting age in California local elections to fourteen. Yes, fourteen! The proposed amendment, entitled “Training Wheels for Citizenship,” which would require two-thirds approval by the state Legislature in order to make it onto this November’s ballot, would give 16 year olds a half vote, and 14 year olds a quarter vote in California elections. Before you dismiss this idea out of hand, bear with me. Even my most progressive instincts were momentarily rattled by this startling proposal. That is, until I gave some thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by Vasconcellos: “When we gave the vote to those who didn't own property, then to women, then to persons of all colors, we added to the richness of our democratic dialogue and our own nation's integrity and its model for the world.” Vasconcellos is right. Every expansion of voting rights has been painful and hard fought. Seventy-two years passed between the seminal women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls and the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted the vote to women. The original requirement of property ownership as a prerequisite for voting, which existed in 10 of the 13 colonies at the time of the Constitution, wasn’t fully abolished until the “poll tax” was ruled unconstitutional in Virginia in 1966. It’s been 33 years since our national voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Currently, both Germany and Austria allow 16 year olds to vote in local elections.

I support Senator Vasconcellos’ amendment for several reasons. First, anything that promotes civic responsibility and impresses on young men and women that they have a stake in the political process is a good thing. Second, the creation of good citizenship is a self-fulfilling process. Young people respond to the expectations that we hold for them; the more that we credit them with decision-making capability, the more they will take their own decision-making seriously. (I might add that this argument applies to convicted felons as well.) As a 15 year old, I worked for presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, and recall traveling 10 hours on the campaign bus from Washington, DC to Albany, NY so that I could canvass the cities of Albany and Troy prior to the 1968 New York primary. I would have rejoiced at having a vote both in my local primary, and in the general election that year, even if it only counted as a quarter vote. Today, when voter turn-out is consistently low, and when disaffection from the political process is the norm, I believe that the California proposal, which would promote civic involvement, deserves serious and favorable consideration. I predict that like most radical ideas, it will fail in the present day, but become the accepted law somewhere down the road.

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 6:26 AM

 
Lynching: America’s Forgotten Legacy of Terrorism (archived from 3/8/04)

When George Bush’s advertising campaign recently ripped the scab off of the events of 9/11, it reminded us that the 2004 election will be a sustained and heated debate about the meaning of 9/11 and its aftermath. The tragedy has already generated much national soul-searching about concepts such as freedom, terrorism, and our collective security. This public dialogue, while important and necessary, has also unwittingly given rise to a new set of myths about America’s relationship with terrorism—myths that need to be addressed.

Much has been made in the national media about 9/11 as America’s worst, and some have even said “first” experience of major terrorism. While it was certainly the worst act of terrorism sponsored by a foreign enemy, the events of 9/11 should not blind us to the magnitude of the terrorism we’ve experienced before in our national history. Domestic terrorism, albeit flourishing under different names, has long been a part of American culture. Unfortunately, however, this terrorism has largely gone unrecognized as such, for one simple and striking reason: In contrast to 9/11, the victims of previous domestic terrorism have overwhelmingly been poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.

I will not dwell on the most obvious expressions of terrorism in our national history, namely slavery and the conquest of Native Americans--these forms of state terrorism, appalling as they were, seem too historically remote to many Americans to inform the events of 9/11. Instead, let us address two largely 20th century variations on this theme, the intertwined evils of lynching and Jim Crow.

It is clear that lynching qualifies as a prototypical act of terrorism: An individual is abducted and murdered by a vigilante group, often in the middle of the night, sometimes accompanied by a church- or house-burning. The intent of the mob is to terrorize, subdue, and even depopulate a segment of the community. Statistics compiled by the Tuskegee Institute show that between 1889 and 1920 alone, more than 4000 individuals were lynched, with virtually no legal accountability. All told, these lynchings represent the most extensive collection of unsolved murders in American history, and well exceed the number of those killed in the World Trade Center.

To be sure, if our measure of evil is the number of people killed in (or amount of economic impact caused by) a single act of terrorism, then the attacks of 9/11 surpass anything that we’ve seen in our history. However, there are other, perhaps more morally revealing ways to evaluate evil. Let us suppose that our measure of evil is not the number of people killed by terrorists, but rather the number of people who actually participated in the terrorist act itself, even if they were only killing one person. Or, alternatively, let us suppose that our means of assessing evil is to first look at the brutality of a terrorist act, and then ask, “did the relevant government institutions offer an appropriate response to the brutality, or were they indifferent, or even complicit in the terrorism?”

By either of these measurements, the tradition of lynching, which continued well into the 1960’s and encompassed 26 states, staggers the conscience far beyond the attacks of 9/11. As the horrific photographs of laughing and celebrating lynch-mobs attest, such killings were either carried out or observed by thousands of individuals, for “offenses” that could be as frivolous and illusory as arguing with a white person, not showing proper deference to a white female, or of all things, trying to cast a vote in an election. Historian Robert L. Zangrando writes of the “festive atmosphere among the killers and onlookers. White families brought small children to watch, newspapers sometimes carried advance notices, railroad agents sold excursion tickets to announced lynching sites, and mobs cut off black victims' fingers, toes, ears, or genitalia as souvenirs.”

Indeed, historians generally agree that well over 100,000 people either watched or actively participated in lynchings. Of that number, only a scant few were ever brought to trial, and even fewer convicted. Did any of these horrific acts ever give rise to a “war on terrorism?” Hardly--for much of the history of lynching, the attitude of the government was one of malignant neglect, as the victims of this terrorism went largely unprotected and unaided by the courts. Indeed, one of the central platforms of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party in 1948—a party which won 39 electoral votes in the presidential election—was staunch opposition to a federal anti-lynching law. The anxiety of an individual today who feels too anxious to fly to Cancun for vacation, pales in comparison with that of a black family who merely lived in Mississippi in the 20th century, well into the 1960’s.

Moreover, if we look closely at the Jim Crow south we find an interesting commonality with the Taliban--religious extremism. The history of American racial oppression is consistently commingled with Biblical rationales for that oppression. Indeed, it is telling that cross burning became a primary means of instilling terror. If we want to better understand the intolerance of radical, fundamentalist Islam, all we have to do is look back at the fundamentalist Christianity, which for many years served as the philosophical handmaiden of racial oppression. Those who criticize Islam for the terrorist acts committed in its name are missing the important point that the history of Christianity teaches us: Religions are dynamic entities that mirror the cultural contexts in which they exist; if the citizens of a community have relinquished their sense of decency, their religion will also mirror that moral vacuum. There is no better evidence of this point than the following opinion from a Virginia trial judge in 1959, which affirmed the “Virginia Racial Integrity Act,” the state’s then-extant law (lasting until 1967) which made it a crime for members of different races to marry:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Unfortunately, terrorism is a significant part of American history. What was unique about the attack of 9/11 is that for the first time, most of the victims were among the powerful and the privileged, rather than the poor and the vulnerable. That made the victims powerful objects of empathy and identification. We as a nation responded forcefully and appropriately to protect our citizens and to secure justice. Let us learn from this experience, so that in the future we are equally quick to recognize when terrorism is visited upon a non-privileged segment of the community. And when we do recognize it, let us hope that our response is equally robust.

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 6:25 AM

 
Short takes: The Democratic Primaries and Beyond (archived from 3/6/04)

“Kerrying on.” John Kerry’s britzkrieg through the Democratic primaries was impressive. However, the most striking thing about Kerry’s virtual sweep of Super Tuesday was not that he won, but the margins of his victories over John Edwards. Take a quick look at the head-to-head between the two: California: 62-20, New York: 61-20, Maryland: 60-26, Connecticut: 58-24. I confess that given Edwards’ charm and rhetorical skills, and the ideological similarities between the two, I’m shocked by these numbers. Perhaps one reason Edwards’ campaign faltered toward the end was that the candidate fell in love with his rather limited stump speech. Edwards overplayed his “two Americas” speech to the point where by the end, it was drained of much of its impact.. At the opening of the New York debate, when Dan Rather cheesily asked the candidates to complete the sentence “I believe…”, the best Edwards could do was “I believe that there are two Americas.” Kerry, to his credit, realized that he had to continually update and retool his message. For example when his “band of brothers” slogan caught on, Kerry only used it selectively, rather than beating it into the ground. In the end, conventional wisdom aside, Kerry offered a richer, more varied diet than did Edwards.

“Kerry vs. Kerry” The good news for Kerry is that he is the nominee and the “comeback kid” of 2004. The bad news is that the Republicans have already found a fruitful line of attack, addressing Kerry’s tendency to embrace all sides of an issue. In an earlier blog (“After Wisconsin: ‘Objects in Your Mirror May Be Closer than They Appear’”) I wrote about Kerry’s straddles on the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, and “No Child Left Behind,” and concluded, “To be sure, his positions are nuanced, and he can explain the various transitions. However, the American electorate has a relatively low tolerance for nuance….” Just today, David M. Halbfinger, expands on this idea in his article in the NY Times, “Kerry’s Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?” Halbfinger adds to the list of Kerry straddles, which include: 1. Gay marriage. On February 5, Kerry criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Court: “I personally believe the court is dead wrong.” Later, when asked about his strong opposition, Kerry denied ever making the earlier statement. 2) The Israeli Wall. In October, Kerry told an Arab-American audience that such a barrier was “provocative and counterproductive.” More recently, in speaking to Jewish leaders he referred to it as a legitimate act of self-defense. Kerry will not survive as a candidate if he continues on a path of ideological hair-splitting. It is not enough to merely answer right-wing attacks; Kerry needs to take affirmative positions that he can stick with—in front of all audiences!

Calling off McAuliffe? I’m frankly bewildered by the guerilla movement among Kerryites to either oust or demote Democratic Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Chief among their concerns was McAuliffe’s blast that Bush was AWOL during his Alabama National Guard service. Kerry feels that he was blindsided by McAuliffe’s charge, and that the chairman is something of a loose cannon. So what if Kerry didn’t know it was coming? The charge put the Bush camp on the defensive, and to this day still has legs. In fact, Billy Crystal referenced the issue in front a billion people during the Oscars, with his quip about thanking the Academy for letting him “come and go as I please. It’s kind of like being in the Texas National Guard.” If McAuliffe is a bit of a loose cannon, so what? Every campaign needs a hit man, a Lee Atwater, a guy ready to do the dirty work, while letting the candidate maintain some distance. I think McAuliffe should be praised, not pilloried.

“Do the Florida votes count?” I’ve offered this complaint before, but it bears repeating. The frontloaded Democratic Primary schedule was a disgrace. A political party trying to increase voter participation has to be out of its mind when it manages to prevent states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and (for all intents and purposes) California from making a meaningful contribution to the choice of the nominee. The party needs to serious rethink its primary season. The stranglehold that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the selection process should be summarily terminated, perhaps in favor of rotating regional primaries.

“We don’t care what you think.” Perhaps the most refreshing thing about the Democratic primary season was the utter independence of the electorate from would-be kingmakers. How much did Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean count? Zilch. How about Tom Harkin’s endorsement in Iowa? Zilch. What about the parade of pundits who pronounced Kerry dead and buried? Had no impact whatsoever. Virtually every notable pundit wound up with egg all over his or her face, as pack journalism reigned. The pundits told us repeatedly that Kerry “couldn’t connect with average people.” All he did was run through the primaries like a Sherman tank. I guess this messy, unruly, unpredictable process of democracy works after all!

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 6:24 AM

 
“Machismo Theory”: A Key to Predicting Presidential Elections (archived from 2/29/04)

Nothing in life, love, or politics is simple, so it is with understandable trepidation that I offer a simple means of determining the outcome of any presidential election in advance. To be sure, what I’m offering is an art, not a science; however, it is a technique so simple that it can be used without polls, focus groups, or for that matter, data. My predictive model, “machismo theory” reads as follows: “For the past 50 years, and for the foreseeable future, the winner of any presidential election is the individual (from one of the two major parties) perceived by the electorate to be the more macho of the two candidates.” That’s it, that’s all there is to it, my unified field theory of politics. The theory posits that the American electorate sizes up the two major candidates, examines the multiplicity of factors that make up a campaign and subsequently makes a decision as to which individual is the tougher, more macho candidate—that candidate invariably wins. Since I can already see you squinching up your face with skepticism, let’s take a tour through 56 years of American electoral history, shall we?

In 1948, the Republicans had put together a “dream ticket,” the Governor of New York, Thomas Dewey, paired with the Governor of California, Earl Warren, as his running mate. With both coasts covered and two of the most populous states accounted for, the Republicans were perceived as a sure bet to capture the White House. The Democratic candidate, Harry Truman, had other ideas however, and showed a feisty, never-say-die attitude on a whistle-stop campaign across the country. By contrast, the Dewey campaign was far more passive, and Dewey began to be perceived and stuffy and prim. Earl Warren was so frustrated with the mild tone of the Republican campaign that he commented to the media, “I wish just once I could call somebody an SOB.” Richard Rovere of the NewYorker said of Dewey’s campaigning style that he “comes out like a man who has been mounted on casters and given a tremendous shove from behind.” Another analyst wrote that “Dewey is the only man I know who can strut sitting down.” Once Truman had earned from the public the affectionate moniker of “Give ‘em Hell Harry,” the prediction of machismo theory is crystal clear. Not only did Truman shock the nation by winning the election, Dewey did not even carry California, the state of his vice presidential running mate. The Electoral tally was 303 to 189.

The 1952 contest between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson offered a more pronounced machismo mismatch, featuring a General and war hero against a man who was seen as vacillating and tentative even by his friends. Humorist Mort Sahl encapsulated the public’s view of Stevenson with his joke that in Stevenson’s hands, the Ten Commandments would become “The Ten Suggestions.” Columnist Joe Alsop referred to up-and-coming Senator John Kennedy as “Stevenson with balls.” Machismo theory would predict a landslide, and indeed it was, with Eisenhower taking the electoral vote 442 to 89 in 1952, and 457 to 73 in 1956.

The Kennedy vs. Nixon contest of 1960 however, presents a tougher challenge for machismo theory. As a man of brilliant political instincts, John Kennedy knew that he could not defeat Richard Nixon without exhibiting toughness and maturity. Not only had Kennedy spent his entire career constructing—we now know at great pain--an image of virility and athleticism, Kennedy now saw that it was essential that he demonstrate that he was on a par with Nixon as an anti-communist. Kennedy’s image of strength was buttressed both by his heroic efforts on PT-109, a torpedo boat in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, for which he won a Purple Heart, and by his Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Profiles in Courage,” which celebrated political leadership and courage. No one, however, could underestimate Nixon’s credentials as a tough guy and a political street fighter. In the end, the machismo battle between Kennedy and Nixon was a draw. The margin of victory was razor thin: out of 68 million votes cast, Kennedy won by 113,000 votes, less than one tenth of one per cent. The final electoral tally was 303 to 219, and some Republicans to this day claim that voter fraud tipped the election in Kennedy’s favor.

In 1964, the contest between Johnson and Goldwater also featured two men with prominent tough-guy images. Johnson, however, managed to neutralize Goldwater’s toughness with a campaign that questioned Goldwater’s emotional soundness, as a man who could not be trusted with the nuclear button. By the time of the election, Goldwater had come to be seen by many Americans as the proverbial loopy uncle that one hides away in the attic when company comes. Following some clever Democratic television ads, the forcefulness and crustiness that we now associate with Goldwater was dwarfed by the view that this man was frankly a bit addled, with judgment unfit for the nuclear era. Goldwater was not seen as a strong or reliable leader. The machismo battle was a rout in Johnson’s favor, and the electoral count was 486-52.

The 1968 election pitted Hubert Humphrey, the “happy warrior,” against Richard Nixon. The very phrase “happy warrior” is somewhat oxymoronic, and conveys the public’s ambivalence about Humphrey’s toughness. Humphrey was perceived by most Americans to be extraordinarily decent man, who stood for many good things, but not necessarily as a tough man. Moreover, it is thematic in American politics that former vice presidents have great difficulty in shedding their “second banana” label, and in convincing the electorate of their full leadership qualities. Machismo theory would give the tough-guy advantage to Richard Nixon, who was to politics what a bouncer is to a barroom. Nixon won the election, with the electoral vote, 301 to 191.

In 1972, George McGovern, smart, enormously decent, and a decorated combat veteran, ran against Nixon. McGovern, however, did not play up his military background, ran as a peace candidate, and presented himself exactly as he is, a smart, soft-spoken, intellectual, and compassionate guy. While all these features are quite laudable, machismo theory predicts that the American people would find this persona lacking. The Viet Nam War was front and center during the campaign, and at one point McGovern, striving for a bit of alliteration, stated that he would rather “beg Hanoi, than bomb Hanoi.” Machismo theory is unequivocal about this: However rational the statement may have been, no candidate can win a presidential election in America by suggesting, however facetiously or hypothetically, that we “beg” an adversary. To be sure, the statement itself didn’t sink McGovern’s campaign; rather, it was emblematic of his campaign. He lost in a landslide, losing the electoral vote 520 to 17. In 1976, Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter. By the time of the election Ford had an entrenched reputation as a bumbling man, one who continually stumbled, tripped, and hit unfortunate bystanders with golf balls. Even his reputation as a football player at the University of Michigan didn’t help him: The joke was that Ford had suffered the mistfortune of playing without a helmet. He had become the butt of Saturday Night Live skits, a sure sign of perceived weakness. Carter in 1976, was smart, self-assured, and boasted a resume of having served in the Navy on a nuclear submarine. The machismo match clearly went to Carter here, with Carter carrying the electoral vote 297 to 240. By 1980, however, Carter’s aura of leadership had been shattered, both by the Iranian hostage crisis, which shamed and embarrassed the nation, and by economic woes. A major address in 1979, intended to galvanize the country, failed miserably when Carter pointed out wanly that there was a “malaise” throughout the land. The speech was a major disappointment, and cemented Carter’s image as a weak, ineffectual president. Carter lost to Ronald Reagan, who radiated strength, and promised a “new dawn in America,” by an electoral count of 489 to 49.

In 1984, Reagan’s themes of national strength, optimism, and anti-communism were in full force, and he soundly defeated Walter Mondale, who was seen as bright and decent, but decidedly soft of character compared to Reagan. Reagan won the election by an electoral margin of 525 to 13, with Mondale carrying only his home state of Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. In 1988, the race between Michael Dukakis and George Bush represented one of the purest embodiments of machismo theory. At the outset of the campaign, Dukakis was seen as a strong and effective governor, who had created an economic “Massachusetts miracle.” As the campaign progressed, however, Dukakis proved to be a less than forceful campaigner, whose bland performance on the stump allowed Bush to exploit the concern of the electorate that Dukakis was yet another ineffectual liberal, who was soft on crime, and soft on national defense. There were two distinct moments in the campaign that highlighted Dukakis’ perceived weakness: In a nationally televised debate, CNN anchorman Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis, “Governor, if [wife] Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Instead of reacting with anger to the grossly inappropriate framing of the question, Dukakis impassively responded as if it were an academic exercise at a college debating society. Dukakis made no attempt to call Shaw on the outrageousness of the question, and scarcely showed any emotion. The exchange between the two struck the millions watching as so bizarre that it had the effect of tarnishing the reputations of both Shaw and Dukakis. A second important incident occurred when Dukakis, anxious to show that he was not soft on defense, went to the General Dynamics plant in Michigan. Dukakis put on a helmet, and mounted an Abrams M1A1 tank. Dukakis looked so foolish and out of place sitting on the tank, he quickly became a laughing stock. It was a defining moment in the campaign. As machismo theory would predict, Bush won 426 to 111 in the electoral count.

In 1992, however, Bill Clinton offered a far more formidable challenge to Bush, whose aura of leadership had decreased markedly in the intervening four years. Despite his decisive win over the lifeless Dukakis, Bush, a scion of wealth and the product of New England prep schools, had always had his own image problems. In 1987, Newsweek had carried a cover story on Bush, entitled, “Fighting the Wimp Factor.” This damning label haunted Bush throughout his presidency. The “wimp” label was retired briefly in 1991, during the success of the Gulf War. However, as the war receded in memory, and an economic recession took hold, the wimp label re-emerged. When Bush reneged on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, his conservative base was outraged. They decried his new tax position as a spineless capitulation to liberals. Simply put, they felt that he had wimped out on them. By contrast, Clinton was called many things by his detractors, but “wimp” was not one of them. To the contrary, in 1992 he was the “Comeback Kid,” a dynamic speaker who was easily able to galvanize his base. When early evidence of his womanizing surfaced, it alienated many, and affected his image as a moral exemplar, but it left his image of machismo intact. Clinton won the election with an electoral count of 370 to 168. In 1996, Clinton ran against Bob Dole. Dole had been known during his Senate career as a “hatchet man.” Don’t be confused by this label; it does not imply machismo. Rather, it was more of a put-down, describing a man who was better with a sarcastic or even nasty quip, than with visionary leadership. The term “hatchet man” was more intended to conjure up the image of a political hack, than a president. Dole’s rhetorical skills were so poor compared to Clinton’s that it had the effect of shrinking Dole’s stature further as a candidate. Simply put, when Dole and Clinton were on stage together, Clinton sucked all the oxygen from the room. Clinton was clearly the stronger figure, and won by an electoral margin of 379 to159.

Finally, we have the fascinating case of Al Gore vs. George W. Bush. Gore was perhaps the first candidate to openly hire consultants to help him polish his image as an “alpha male,” a strong, macho leader. At times, such as during the first debate with Bush, Gore was even criticized for being excessively aggressive, snorting and sighing derisively while Bush spoke; in the next debate, Gore overcompensated by coming across as muted and over controlled. Gore also undercut the power of his message during the campaign by appearing overly packaged, by running away from Bill Clinton, and by not sufficiently playing up the successes of his own administration. That being said, in my view—this is where the subjectivity of machismo theory comes in—Gore still significantly exceeded Bush in machismo. Week in and week out, Gore exuded more strength, more knowledge, and more leadership than his counterpart. Machismo theory would predict that he would win the election. So why didn’t he win? The answer is that he probably did win. There is no doubt that he beat Bush nationally in the popular vote by 544,000 votes. Moreover, if Florida election officials in Palm Beach County had not created the infamous “butterfly ballot,” the course of American history would be different. The “butterfly ballot” was so confusing that it caused many Gore followers to inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan rather than for Gore. But for that fact—utterly beyond his control--Gore would be the president today.

I can hear you, my faithful reader, saying, “Yeah, yeah, it’s easy to shoehorn a theory into data after the fact, but can you actually predict the upcoming election?” The answer is yes. The question of machismo will be no less important in this race than any of the previous ones. Both campaigns intuitively recognize this. That is why an issue such as Bush’s fulfillment of his National Guard duty does have some importance. While on the surface it may not seem of great import, it is one of the many pieces of the broad mosaic that will make up Bush’s macho quotient. My prediction, and a confident one, is that based on machismo theory, John Kerry will win the 2004 election. He is not only a certified war hero, his campaign really hit its stride when he brought together his “band of brothers,” his Viet Nam comrades, during the Iowa Primary. Kerry has a genuine resume of heroism. He has also "gone to school" on the failings of Michael Dukakis—Kerry knows how to punch and counterpunch, and in this election, he will need to do both. By contrast, Bush is saddled with three serious policy failures, each of which undermines his image of leadership: the run-up to the war, the aftermath of the war, and the loss of American jobs. Moreover, Bush lacks the rhetorical skills to finesse these failures. I am not predicting a rout; to the contrary it will be a tight, suspenseful race. Nor am I suggesting that Kerry is somehow foreordained to win the race. The more macho candidate does not win by magic, but rather by galvanizing supporters to put forth a tremendous collective effort. But it all starts with the candidate him or herself.

Let me conclude by noting two important things: 1) Machismo theory in no way rules out the possibility of a female president. The theory looks at personality, not biology. 2) Machismo theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. There are many losers on the list for whom I voted (McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, and Carter). I offer no endorsement of America’s preoccupation with virility; I only highlight it.

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 6:22 AM

 
A Fond Farewell to “Sex and the City” (archived from 2/24/04)

Several months ago, a graduate student in journalism called me, seeking a “male therapist’s point of view” on the show “Sex and the City.” I told her I’d be happy to chat with her, and we arranged a telephone interview. She had gotten my name through some vague referral process, didn’t know me from Adam, and simply saw me as a generic male therapist whose opinion would help flesh out the story she was writing for school. I didn’t realize it initially, but she was expecting that I would be hostile to the show, offering predictable rants about negative role models, harmful influences on teens, and provocative attire. Boy was she in for a shock!

Her first surprise came when she asked me somewhat hesitantly whether I had seen much of the show. “I’ve seen every episode,” I responded. In fact, I had missed the first season, but had long since bought the DVD of the first year, and had savored every episode of the new show that was the linchpin of HBO’s famous boast, “It’s not TV, it’s HBO!” Asked if I saw the four protagonists as “negative role models,” I went on to tell her that I did not. In fact, I saw them as excellent role models: consistently, Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha were tremendous communicators. They had emotional depth, they committed to relationships (sometimes too much), and when things didn’t work out, they always struggled and strived to understand their own feelings. The morning coffee klatches were very entertaining, sometimes hilarious, usually obscene, and always reflective.

It was important to the success of the show that each woman was different: Charlotte, the most traditional in her values; Miranda, the prototypical modern woman who worked excessive hours in her law firm, but still worried about body image, wanted intimacy in her life, and was a single mom; Samantha, with her sporting attitude toward sex that she often used to push away feelings, but who would surprise us at times with the depth of her emotions; and Carrie, often balanced and reflective, but still hopelessly stuck on a noncommittal man who consistently let her down.

Another thing I liked about the show was that it was self-aware enough to know when to call it quits. I was glad the SATC was ending this year. When it began six years ago, it had real shock value. It showed us the range and the variety of woman’s sexuality, the way that women, just as much as men, can be open, up front, and even in-your-face about their sexuality. In its hey-day it embodied television heaven for me: watch football during the day, and then cap it off with SATC and the Sopranos.

My interviewer went on to point out an interesting fact about SATC: by and large, men didn’t watch it, a fact that I’ve never quite understood. Why wouldn’t guys be interested in a show that featured four attractive, interesting women, who weren’t shy about strutting their stuff, and then talking about it afterward? One possible answer came from a male client of mine, a bright, sophisticated graduate student who hoped to be a screenwriter himself. He complained that the writers of the show must be men, because he knew of no women who talked or behaved the way those women did. I pointed out to him that Candace Bushnell, a female, wrote the original book, that another woman, Jenny Bicks, received many of the writing credits for the episodes, and that Jane Raab and Sarah Jessica Parker were both producers of the show. And indeed I do know women who act as they do.

The real issue though isn’t whether the girl-next-door acts like the women of SATC. The point is that the show tapped into the way that women think, and explored the ways in which women view the world from the inside, but often don’t have the moxie to express publicly. The Joy of SATC was that these four women wore their inner lives on their sleeves; as such, it offered us a delicious view of what lay under the surface. Simply put, guys who didn’t watch the show, missed out!

I also appreciated the fact that no topic was off-limits for the show. It addressed virtually every variation of sexuality that one could think of. It also treated the gay community with dignity, without watering down some of the hilarious excesses of gay male culture. And let’s not forget Samantha’s fling with Sonia Braga! Favorite episodes of mine? 1) Well, just when I had begun to think that the show inhabited the same lily-white universe as Seinfeld, Samantha was paired with an attractive black hip-hop producer, only to have the relationship sabotaged by his resentful, “racially-correct” sister. The results were both hilarious and thought-producing. 2) The episode where Miranda got caught up in a game of mutual peek-a-boo flashing with the guy in the window across the street, only to discover later that he was gay and had been flashing someone else! 3) Or maybe it was the episode where Miranda met a man who was a great lover, but could only perform sexually in places that were semi-public; in a bedroom he was hopeless!

Much has been written about the final episode and whether it was too pat and rosy, whether the finale had gone “Hollywood.” To the contrary, from my vantage point, it was an excellent ending, and was not nearly as idealized as many reviewers have suggested. Rather, it was all about growing up and making one’s peace with the limitations of reality. Miranda, once so protective of her personal space, has found contentment, but she has found it in Brooklyn, and will be helping to take care of her mother-in-law, who may have suffered a stroke, or may be developing Alzheimer’s; Charlotte and Harry have found their child, but only after many false starts and depression, and now have to deal with the grotesque bureaucracy and difficulties of international adoption; Samantha has found a soul-mate in Smith, but still is dealing with the prospect of cancer and chemotherapy; and Carrie, in reuniting with Big, er, John, has to confront the eternal question, how much do people really change? The warmest and most sentimental feature about the finale was that the women still have, and love, each other. Even though their lives have gone in different directions, their mutual support is completely intact. In the context of TV history, they will stand as one of television’s great portrayals of sisterhood.

There is talk now of a movie and of a pg version of the show that would air on network TV. I hope none of this comes to pass. The show has already delighted, entertained, and provoked us; it has made its statement. May it rest in peace after having left a very large footprint….

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 6:19 AM

 
In Praise of Incivility (archived from 2/21/04)


As the presidential campaign heats up and the two parties start hurling brickbats at each other, you can be sure that soon, one side will claim that the other has “crossed the line” or gone “out of bounds” with negative campaigning. In doing so, it’s likely that the complaining party will indignantly invoke one of my least favorite words: civility. The term makes me cringe in the manner of chalk against a blackboard.

Why should the notion of civility bother me so much? Because every generation has its myths and truisms that are repeated over and over. We hear these clichés so often that they become part of the air that we breathe. One of the great, uncontradicted myths of our time is that society has become increasingly coarse, and less “civil.” There is widespread nostalgia for the “good old days,” when “comity”—a sense of fellowship and community--prevailed in the Senate, when we could easily distinguish between tabloids and “good” newspapers, and when politeness was the norm. People have bundled these qualities under the term “civility,” and now wax nostalgic about the time when civility reigned. The problem with this view is, those days never existed. While previous eras may have superficially been more polite than ours, there isn’t the slightest evidence that they were any more humane or ethical. Indeed, to the contrary, concern for politeness, manners, and decency has more often than not served as a fig leaf to cover up the ugly realities of society. Let’s take a look at some of those “good old days.”

In the golden age of civility, during the 1950’s and early 60’s, there was no drug problem to fret over, no drive-by shootings, and no hip-hop culture. Nobody used the “f” word in public, Ward and June Cleaver slept in separate beds, and we defended decency in the media so zealously that on The Tonight Show, Jack Paar could not use the phrase “WC”—the British term for a bathroom—without it being censored. Elvis Presley’s gyrating pelvis could not be shown on Ed Sullivan, and the word breast could not be uttered, let alone viewed on television. It was a time fit for a king, or at least a Puritan. Underneath this epidemic of niceness and decency, however, society was a mess:

1) Today we associate the 101st Airborne Division of the Army with the fight against insurgents in Iraq. In 1957, these soldiers were called to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect nine black high school high school students who had been sent to integrate all-white Central High School. The military was needed to protect the kids from the wrath of the white citizens of Little Rock, a microcosm of the massive resistance to integration.

2) Today we debate the educational merits of the “No Child Left Behind Act,” often in heated tones. Compare that, however to the 50’s, when such states as Florida and North Carolina required that all textbooks for blacks and whites be stored separately, to avoid any possible contamination of the white students.

3) Today there is much disagreement about who should be included in the institution of marriage, some of it again quite heated and unruly. During the tranquil 50’s, however, Mississippi made it a crime to circulate material advocating social equality or intermarriage between the races, punishable by 6 months in jail.

4) Today many lament the absence of discipline in society, and fervently argue that faith-based intuitions can solve this problem. If we look back at the 50’s however, we find that Ku Klux Klan were among the most devout, church-going individuals in the land. Unfortunately, the banner of patriotism and decency that they waved, camouflaged the brutality and intolerance that we deplore today.

To put it simply, the much advertised “gentility” of the 50’s, went hand in hand with conditions of inhumanity that shock us today. Even worse, to call attention to society’s ills then was regarded as “uncivil.” One of the interesting things about “civility” is that while the current society invariably embraces it, history tends to value those who were “uncivil.” When Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued for women’s right to vote in 1848, men and women alike were scandalized. One outraged anti-suffrage group in Illinois declared, “the propaganda of woman’s suffrage is part and parcel of the world-wide movement for the overthrow of the present order of civilized society.” How strange such statements sound today!

While Eisenhower embodied the gentility of the 50’s, ironically, we also experienced during that decade our most lovably “uncivil” president, Harry Truman. Who but Harry Truman after reading a negative review in the Washington Post of a singing performance by his daughter Margaret, would write the reviewer a note that said, “Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!" But it was that same scrappy, uncivil spirit that caused Truman to overrule many of his advisors in recognizing the state of Israel. In 1948, Truman also signed the executive order which integrated the military and required that servicemen of all races be treated equally. This was during a time when many of his top officers believed that the “good order and discipline” of the military would be greatly compromised by such an action. Lightly regarded when he left office, Truman’s stock has risen tremendously since then.

History shows us that one man’s incivility is another man’s heroism. So I say, let the current politically campaign be blunt and bare-knuckled. If Teddy Kennedy wants to call the Iraq War, “a fraud, hatched in Texas,” that’s fine with me. If George Bush wants to try to morph John Kerry into Jane Fonda, let him try. Heck, some things are worth arguing about. Let us not make the mistake of confusing social graces with social good. Let the candidates take their best shots. Bring it on!


- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 10:14 AM

 
Short Takes
(archived from 2/13/04)

1) “Kerry Conquers the South?” What's with this notion that Kerry's primary wins in Virginia and Tennessee show that he can "win in the South?" Kerry should be saluted for his resilient, tough, successful campaign, but winning a Democratic primary says very little about whether Kerry could attract significant numbers of conservative Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in a general election. To the contrary, the primaries in South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee still suggest that Edwards is the favorite of the NASCAR demographic in the South. In a general election Edwards would almost certainly garner the same liberal and African-American votes that Kerry would, but Kerry would not necessarily appeal to the same white southern males that Edwards attracts. It is possible that Kerry’s appeal as a military man will transcend regionalism, but against a Republican advertising onslaught, I wouldn’t bet on that. Nonetheless, Kerry is the man of the hour, which leads to my next take:

2) “Who is going to be the Veep?” Pundits seem to take for granted that the vice presidential selection will come from the ranks of current presidential candidates. There is no reason, however, to assume this. The Veep will almost certainly not be Wesley Clark, not because he insulted Kerry with his “lieutenant” comment, but simply because Clark does not have the look of a guy ready to assume the presidency in a crisis. Clark would be a risky choice, and could in fact become a liability. The smart money may also be wrong about John Edwards, because Edwards seems to like being his own man, and might chafe under the constraints of the vice presidency. Further, picking a Veep with Edwards’ star quality could actually hurt the chemistry of the ticket, sort of like a sports team with too many All Stars. My personal choice for vice president would be a southerner, a bright guy, highly regarded, with abundant foreign policy experience, known as a fiscal conservative, who is a solid role player: Bob Graham of Florida. What he lacks in pizzazz, he makes up for with depth and solidity. Could Bush mount a strong offense against that team? That leads to my next take:

3) “The Perfect Storm.” George W. Bush’s campaign could be in a world of hurt shortly, as he may soon experience the “perfect storm” of negative news: He has already tripped over the WMD; soon, voters may conclude that a man who cannot find one comrade to vouch for his service in the Alabama Air National Guard, probably didn’t fulfill his service. The final squall that Bush must survive will occur when the grand jury indicts someone from his administration for outing Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, a covert agent in the CIA. Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary, and Mary Matalin, former advisor to Vice President Cheney have already been called before a grand jury. This case may soon explode on several levels: An exquisite poetic justice will occur if and when Robert Novak is called into the grand jury to give evidence. Whether he buckles and sings like a canary or balks and risks a contempt of court citation, it will be front page news, and will be a mighty headache for Bush. Prosecutors have reportedly asked White House officials to sign forms releasing members of the press from exerting claims of “privilege” in the case. Reportedly, most White House officials have refused to sign such forms. What happened to the complete cooperation that Bush pledged? The eternal dance between media and press leads to my next take:

4) “The Wisdom of Peter Jennings.” Terry McAuliffe keeps getting credit for shining the spotlight on Bush's military service with his description of Bush as "AWOL" during the latter stages of Bush’s Air National Guard Service. However, the person who really brought this issue to national attention, somewhat unwittingly, was ABC anchor Peter Jennings, who in the New Hampshire debate asked Wesley Clark whether Clark should disavow the statement by film director (and Clark supporter) Michael Moore that Bush was a "deserter." Jennings' tone of indignation implied at the time that this was a settled matter. Now ironically, Jennings is forced to run stories on the nightly news that show that Bush’s fulfillment of his service contract was dubious at best. I have a theory as to why Bush waited so long to produce records that show that he was paid during the disputed time period: If he cannot demonstrate that he actually served during that time, he will face the double whammy of having taken money for military service he never carried out! Perhaps down the road we will see Jennings apologizing to Wesley Clark….

5) “Colin Powell Redux” In a recent offering, I discussed Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations, which I believe can accurately be characterized as fraudulent. Let me add one clarifying note to this issue: I do believe that the administration truly thought that there were WMD in Iraq. Administration assertions of WMD were not insincere; Bush and company were quite convinced of their existence. Rather, the fraud consisted of their repeated statements that they had proof of WMD in Iraq. Despite Rumsfeld’s insistence that they knew exactly where the WMD were, and that they had “bulletproof “evidence, the claims turned out to be fictional. My guess is that the Administration was so sure of the reality of WMD, they were impatient and dismissive with us party-poopers who wanted some verification of this notion. As a result, they engaged in a strategic gamble: They fudged the intel, under the assumption that once they were in Iraq and had the run of the country, they would find what they were looking for, and could triumphantly put egg all over the faces of their critics. In other words, they not only duped the international community, they duped themselves, and have now sown a rather bitter harvest.

6) “The end of the General” Wesley Clark is now out of the race, and not a minute too soon. Clark turned out to be one of the worst candidates seen in recent years. No number of stars on his lapel could make up for the fact that Clark had neither campaigning skills nor debate skills. The conventional wisdom about Clark is that he was a "rookie," and that only a professional politician could be competitive on such a large stage. I disagree. Greater political experience would have only marginally improved Clark's performance. He was slow on his feet, had a tin ear for how many of his remarks came across, and radiated neither warmth, nor authority on the stump. That is why, by the end of his campaign, he had almost completed ceded to Kerry the title of the "military candidate." That may also partly account for his "I'm a general, he's a lieutenant" outburst. Nor does one have to be a career politician to perform adequately on the stump—Ralph Nader, Steve Forbes, and Jess Jackson, to name a few, were each more than adequate as campaigners. Clark was not.

7) “Where’s the Draft?” The brouhaha over President Bush’s uncertain military service and the memory of Bill Clinton’s dance step around the draft, serve to remind us of that truism that wars are started by the rich and powerful and are typically fought by the poor. At last count, of the 535 members of Congress, only two members had offspring who were participants in the Iraq conflict. While George Bush solemnly told us on Meet the Press that “all life is precious,” when it comes to spilling blood in anything short of a world war, some blood is clearly more precious than others. Is there any doubt that if the Iraq war was being fought with conscripted soldiers drawn from all strata of the society, this war would never have happened? The volunteer Army has begun to resemble the boxing profession: If you have no more comfortable career path, it exists as an option; if you have other options however, the military drops sharply in appeal. This is of course a set-up for the poorest, least influential individuals to fight out wars. That is wrong.


- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 11:59 PM

 
The Bush War and Impeachment—What Would Linda Tripp Say? (archived from 02/06/04)

After the bruising experience of Bill Clinton, few Americans are eager to use the word “impeachment” any time soon. During the Clinton years, the impeachment process was used as a political bludgeon, to the great detriment of Clinton, the Congress, and the nation. The partisan nature of the process, the inability of congressional Republicans to convict Clinton, and the fact that public support for Clinton never wavered, has defined anew the standard for impeachment, and has established a higher threshold for its consideration.

It is therefore with no glee that I raise the “I” word in relation to George W. Bush. Let me also hasten to add that given the nearness of the presidential election, I am not advocating any impeachment of the president, but instead am academically exploring the impeachability of the president’s conduct prior to the Iraq War. Despite the many pending investigations, despite for chief weapons inspector David Kay’s attempt to put the onus for the intelligence debacle on the CIA, and without even a single investigation having been completed, there is crystal clear evidence that the Bush administration intentionally concocted a sham case for the war. The crown jewel of this sham was the Powell presentation to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, made with such certainty and authority, that it caused a bandwagon effect among the punditocracy.

The Powell presentation, we now know, was not only false, it was falsified. Greg Thielmann, Foreign Service officer of 25 years, and the director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs for the State Department, oversaw the analysis of the Iraqi weapons threat. Thielmann’s department, reported directly to Secretary Powell, and he and his staff saw all of the intelligence, both that of the CIA and that of the Defense Department. Thilemann resigned shortly before the onset of the war, but was a central player during the run-up. Here is what Thielmann, with his unique vantage point, had to say about Powell’s address to the UN on the CBS program “60 Minutes 2:” “I think my conclusion now is that it’s one probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation.”

Why would Thielmann make such a damning statement about his former boss, a man whom he otherwise respects? Because Powell’s presentation was not supported by evidence that passed through Thielmann. Powell told the United Nations, “The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.”
Comments Thielmann, “I think it [Iraq] didn’t even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.” Continued Powell, “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.” Among those who had informed Powell prior to his UN address that these aluminum tubes were not designed for uranium enrichment were Thielmann, and Houston Wood, an expert at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They told Powell that these tubes were not capable of enriching uranium. A year after the experts had weighed in on this matter, the administration was still leaking to the NY Times the suggestion that the tubes were part of a burgeoning nuclear program. Says Wood, “I thought when I read that, there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges.” In his speech, Powell went on to make this extraordinary claim, “There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.” Scoffs Wood, “Most experts are located at Oak Ridge, and that was not the position there….I don’t know a single one [expert] anywhere.” For Thielmann, Powell’s contention that the Iraqis still had several dozen Scud missiles took things into the Twilight Zone: “I wondered what he was talking about. We did not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure and simple.”

But why would someone with Powell’s seasoning and experience take the information that Thielmann’s staff had provided, and distort it? “I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force.” Powell seems to have fallen prey to the kind of dynamic one sees in street gangs: He had a “rep” of being not as tough, as macho, as some of his peers. As happens in a gang, the individual whose machismo is in question is asked to go out and prove himself, commit an act so brazen that no one in the group could doubt his bona fides. Secretary Powell, to the lasting detriment of his legacy, complied.

Unlike former inspector David Kay’s crude assessment that the failure could be placed at the feet of the CIA, Thielmann has a more nuanced view: “There’s plenty of blame to go around. The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials.”

Simply put, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and company cooked the facts and conned the entire world. That’s enough to make even Linda Tripp sit up and take notice!

- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 11:50 PM