brainrow

Books, books, books!

From the very beginning of Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine comes this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience quotes Professor Robert G. Vaughn summarizing Alan Westin:

Authoritarian governments are identified by ready government access to information about the activities of citizens and by extensive limitations on the ability of citizens to obtain information about the government.

See, if the people aren’t well-informed, they can’t be trusted with their own government, and that means full employment for those who keep tabs on the citizens.

Finally, a long passage from Paul Krugman’s 2003 book The Great Unraveling:

Back in 1957, Henry Kissinger … published his doctoral dissertation, A World Restored. One wouldn’t think that a book about the diplomatic efforts of Metternich and Castlereagh is relevant to U.S. politics in the twenty-first century. But the first three pages of Kissinger’s book sent chills down my spine, because they seem all too relevant to current events.

In those first few pages, Kissinger describes the problems confronting a heretofore stable diplomatic system when it is faced with a “revolutionary power” — a power that does not accept that system’s legitimacy…. It seems clear to me that one should regard America’s right-wing movement — which now in effect controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary, and a good slice of the media — as a revolutionary power in Kissinger’s sense. That is, it is a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system.

Am I overstating the case? In fact, there’s ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist — and do not accept the rules that the rest of us have taken for granted.

… If you read the literature emanating from the Heritage Foundation, which drives the Bush administration’s economic ideology, you discover a very radical agenda: Heritage doesn’t just want to scale back New Deal and Great Society programs, it regards the very existence of those programs as a violation of basic principles.

Or consider foreign policy. Since World War II the United States has built its foreign policy around international institutions, and has tried to make it clear that it is not an old-fashioned imperialist power, which used military force as it sees fit. But if you follow the foreign policy views of the neo-conservative intellectuals who fomented the war with Iraq, you learn they have contempt for all that — Richard Perle, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory board, dismissed the “liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.” They aren’t hesitant about the use of force; one prominent thinker close to the administration, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, declared that “we are a warlike people and we love war.” …

… The separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution. But Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, has told constituents that he is in office to promote a “biblical worldview” … (DeLay has also denounced the teaching of evolution in schools, going so far as to blame that teaching for the Columbine school shootings.)

There’s even some question about whether the people running the country accept the idea that legitimacy flows from the democratic process. Paul Gigot of The Wall Street Journal famously praised the “bourgeois riot” in which violent protesters shut down a vote recount in Miami. (The rioters, it was later revealed, weren’t angry citizens; they were paid political operatives.) Meanwhile, according to his close friend Don Evans, now the secretary of commerce, George W. Bush believes that he was called by God to lead the nation. Perhaps this explains why the disputed election of 2000 didn’t seem to inspire any caution or humility in the part of the victors. Consider Justice Antonin Scalia’s response to a student who asked how he felt making the Supreme Court decision that threw the election to Bush. Was it agonizing? Did Scalia worry about the consequences? No: “It was a wonderful feeling,” he declared.

Suppose, for a moment, that you took the picture I have just painted seriously. You would conclude that the people now in charge really don’t like America as it is. If you combine their apparent agendas, the goal would seem to be something like this: a country that basically has no social safety net at home, which relies mainly on military force to enforce its will abroad, in which schools don’t teach evolution but do teach religion and — possibly — in which elections are only a formality.

Yet those who take the hard-line rightists now in power at their word, and suggest that they may really attempt to realize such a radical goal, are usually accused of being “shrill,” of going over the top. Surely, says the conventional wisdom, we should discount the rhetoric: the goals of the right are more limited than this picture suggests. Or are they?

Back to Kissinger: his description of a baffled response of established powers in the face of revolutionary challenge works equally well as an account of how the American political and media establishment has responded to the radicalism of the Bush administration over the past two years:

Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. the defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy by overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane…. But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.

As I said, this passage sent chills down my spine, because it explains so well the otherwise baffling process by which the administration has been able to push radical policies through, with remarkably little scrutiny or effective opposition.

In recent months, some Republicans have tried to back away from Bush and some of the policies Congress has been rubber-stamping for years. Mustn’t lose control of the House or the Senate in November’s elections. If they manage to hold their majorities by even a single vote, rest assured their radical agenda will be right back on the front burner.

I think the single most important U.S. battle of World War II was not D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge, but the Battle of the Kasserine Pass in North Africa in February 1943. It was the war’s first major encounter between U.S. and German forces, and it was a shocker. The U.S. forces held out, through superior numbers (and British reinforcements), but the battle showed that the Germans were more disciplined, more experienced, tougher, better-equipped, better-trained, and better-led than the Americans.

Virtually nothing had gone according to plan. It seemed suicidal to send this U.S. army to face the German army in Europe. We weren’t good enough.

The thing that made the Battle of the Kasserine Pass so important was what happened next. U.S. leadership acknowledged the problems and went back to the drawing board. Ineffective officers were replaced. Coordination of forces was improved. Tactics changed. Battlefield commanders were given greater authority to deal with rapidly-changing situations on the ground. Soldiers griped as they were drilled, and drilled, and drilled and drilled, but the U.S. Army that landed in Europe on D-Day was a far more formidable force than the one that faced the Germans at the Kasserine Pass. Without that early setback, and the corrective measures taken as a result, we might not have been good enough to win the war.

Imagine, if you will, that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had been in charge then. Would they have made the necessary changes, or would they have insisted on the policy they follow in Iraq: repeat the things that fail until they succeed?

The Washington Post says we’ve forgotten the lessons of Vietnam:

[T]here is … strong evidence, based on a review of thousands of military documents and hundreds of interviews with military personnel, that the U.S. approach to pacifying Iraq in the months after the collapse of Hussein helped spur the insurgency and made it bigger and stronger than it might have been.

…

On May 16, 2003, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-run occupation agency, had issued his first order, “De-Baathification of Iraq Society.” The CIA station chief in Baghdad had argued vehemently against the radical move, contending: “By nightfall, you’ll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you’ll really regret this.”

He was proved correct, as Bremer’s order, along with a second that dissolved the Iraqi military and national police, created a new class of disenfranchised, threatened leaders.

…

“When you’re facing a counterinsurgency war, if you get the strategy right, you can get the tactics wrong, and eventually you’ll get the tactics right,” said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a veteran of Special Forces in the Vietnam War. “If you get the strategy wrong and the tactics right at the start, you can refine the tactics forever, but you still lose the war. That’s basically what we did in Vietnam.”

…

[R]etired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, an expert in small wars, was sent to Baghdad by the Pentagon to advise on how to better put down the emerging insurgency. He met with Bremer in early July. “Mr. Ambassador, here are some programs that worked in Vietnam,” Anderson said.

It was the wrong word to put in front of Bremer. “Vietnam?” Bremer exploded, according to Anderson. “Vietnam! I don’t want to talk about Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. This is Iraq!”

Bremer got a medal from George W. Bush.

George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Is there a special circle in Hell — some special kind of condemnation — for those who remember the past, but deliberately choose to ignore it?

This pathetic little blog doesn’t get many visitors, most of the time. Today has been a little different. I notice a number of people coming here today via searches for “Michael Burton” combined with words like “kills wife” and “murder.” You’d be surprised how that makes a fella feel.

Tip: If you’re searching for a recent news story, you might want to try Google’s news search. I just did, and I’m relieved to say it’s not me.

This isn’t the first time I’ve been mistaken for someone else with the same name. Some years ago, there was a male model here in Columbus named Mike Burton, and from time to time a local newspaper or magazine would run a feature story on him and his booming career, complete with photos. I could tell when these stories had appeared, because my phone would start ringing. Suddenly there were lots of people in town who wanted to meet me — male and female in about equal numbers — and it could be tough to convince some callers they’d reached the wrong guy.

One of my friends said I should take some of the ladies up on their offer to meet me, but I never did. I couldn’t have handled the look of disappointment in their eyes.

Poking around on the internet, I see there are lots and lots of Michael Burtons out there — some very admirable ones, and others not very admirable at all. It’s probably inevitable that there will sometimes be some confusion over this — hey, in 2004 I got a White House Christmas card and a letter of thanks from George W. Bush.

Folks, if you must confuse me with another person of the same name — no crimes worse than supporting Bush in 2004, please.

Via Backup Brain: The Huffington Post has a list of 50 Easy Questions to Ask Any Republican. The idea is to carry the list and pull it out “next time someone begins quoting from a Republican talking points memo.”

Anyone can ask tough, intricate, confrontational questions. But all that ever does is start an argument, and it gets people nowhere. On the other hand, these are…well, easy. These are friendly questions. These are questions that allow another person to actually explain their thoughts, and explain fully. And to do so in as comfortable, as simple a way as possible.

Personally, I don’t think I’m going to work my way through the list with anyone:

16. Do you like the government collecting personal data on you without a warrant?

17. How much money do you have in your bank account, stocks and investments?

18. What’s your partner’s favorite sex position?

19. If you have nothing to hide, why aren’t you answering?

Is that more likely to open the other person’s eyes, or to get me a sock in the eye?

I’m tempted to say “this list is for entertainment purposes only,” but there are some worthy questions in the list — tough, non-confrontational questions that might make people think. Questions to keep in mind for when the occasion presents itself.

I’d like to see a list of non-confrontational, thoughtful questions for Republican congressional candidates — questions to ask when the candidate appears before a community group, for example. Confrontational questions tend to turn off listeners who don’t share the questioner’s burning passion to nail a devious politico.

The ideal question would force the candidate to think, and not just lean on some pre-programmed sound bite. It would give him a real chance to shed light on the subject, and it would clearly delineate the area we want illuminated, in such a way that everyone will know if the answer doesn’t shed any light at all.

I like this question from the Huffington Post list:

3. After three years thus far, when do you think Iraq might be able to “stand up” so that America can “stand down”?

This is how I might put that question to a congressional candidate:

We’re all hoping for the Iraqi government to “stand up” so that America can “stand down.” Is there any objective way to measure progress toward that goal? Is there any way to set milestones so we can tell whether things are going well or poorly? Or is this just one of those “I’ll know it when I see it” situations?

Yes, it’s three questions. Yes, the candidate can answer “Yes, yes and no.” No, I don’t think he would score any points with undecided listeners by answering in that way. A good candidate might knock that question out of the park, ideally by shedding actual light on the subject. That’s good, isn’t it?

Can we come up with a list of tough but fair questions for congressional candidates of both parties?