Are America’s Political Elites Becoming Dangerously Complacent? (UPDATED)
Bull Moose warns that America’s political elites have put their mind-set back to pre-911 and are ignoring the perils to the United States homeland and ominous rumblings from Iran.
However, there is increasing sentiment that we are no longer at war. Well, not exactly – clearly we are at war in Iraq. And according to some, the Bush Administration is conducting a relenting attack on our liberties. One Senate Democratic leader even crowed that the party had “killed” the Patriot Act.But, what seems lost is the reality that Jihadists seek to attack within the borders of the United States. We are becoming a complacent nation – at least that is true of part of our opinion and political leaders. There is increasing talk that the threat from al-Qaeda was overblown and exaggerated. A large portion of the fault lies with the Bush Administration which decided that after 9/11 it would be business as usual at home. There would be no call to sacrifice except from our brave and heroic troops and their families. There was no serious effort to address the problem of energy independence or expansion of the military. Tax cuts were the supreme domestic imperative.
And of course, there was no effort at national unity. And so today, we are a polarized nation with Democrats assuming that Bush is a modern day Nixon and Republicans believing that Democrats are “stab in the back” traitors.
Read the entire post. People may (and will) differ with him on some of his key points. But a couple of things he raises are worth underscoring:
- Accurate comparisons to Nixon so far fail because there is no sign yet that warantless wiretapping was conducted against the opposing political party to garner campaign political intelligence. Pul-leaze don’t throw the FBI’s surveillance of PETA back at us (we did a post on that ourselves by the way). We’re talking about tapping of top Democrats’ phones during the 2004 campaign. If it ever turned out that happened then it would be Watergate all over again — and a major constitutional crisis would unfold. BUT: the administration’s aggressive just-do-it expansion of executive branch powers plus reports that even John Ashcroft wouldn’t sign on to the wiretaps means this is not your typical admininistration — and there are troubling red flags that Congress needs to examine. Why wouldn’t John “Let’s-Pull-Out-All-Stops” Ashcroft agree to it?
- There is indeed a perilous business-as-usual attitude in both parties. Many GOPers act as if the United States doesn’t need people’s ideas who don’t belong to their party, that the entire system is set up to let the President run the show, and that cultivating NATIONAL UNITY…which will take “hard work”…is a distraction rather than a NECESSITY in a time of the external war (Iraq) and our defensive war (shoring up the U.S. homeland and preventing attacks). Many Democrats seem to forget that although they have a perfect right to be concerned about and freely discuss the Bush administration’s excesses and genuine credibility gap — and remain patriots in doing so — it is still a reality that there is indeed a threat out there. This doesn’t EVER mean Democrats can’t say what they believe to oppose and pull-out-all stops to replace the current administration. But there truly are people out there who want to kill Americans en masse — and that is not an exaggeration.
- Indeed, as Moose writes, “politics should not be the animating concern of the moment.” But that is precisely what has happened in 2005 with polarization soaring to heights (or plunging to depths) even greater than in 2004. Iran is potentially the Hurricane Katrina of international crises: it’s a gathering storm and everyone does lip service to the storm but it seems to be moving faster than anyone expects. Will Western Democracies, as in the case of New Orleans, be unprepared and overtaken by events if it hits? Where is the serious, sustained, intelligent, high profile discussion of Iran in both parties?
Moose also writes:
The Moose has faith that, at the end of the day, the clear majority of the American people will not view the continuing danger through a partisan prism. They will recognize that the President made a close call on the surveillance issue, but it was not made out of venality. They will also believe that there was a great intelligence failure concerning Saddam’s weapons and there was incompetence in the occupation, but that premature withdrawal would be disastrous.
That assertion will likely earn him some denunciations in some quarters but he’s probably on the mark: unless some new scandal emerges indicating that the Bush administration used warrantless searches to spy on Democrats during the last presidential campaign the “I-word,” realistically speaking, is likely going to remain just that. And so far, at least, it does not appear as if the American people back an immediate withdrawal — which not even all Democrats back.
But, lingering in the back of Bull Moose’s take on events, there is this:
911 happened due to various failures on the part of several American administrations of both parties, interagency bureaucratic bungling, and the U.S. being set up to look for mid to mid-late 20th century security threats versus the mega-terrroist threats of the late 20th century. Osma bin Laden waited and planned a long time before hitting the “GO!” button.
Most terrorism experts in and out of government think there will come a time when the “GO!” button is pushed again. This can’t be used as an excuse to stifle democratic debate, political opposition or campaigns to replace the existing government. But it’s a reality BOTH parties must keep in mind: this still is not Sept. 10, 2001.
The tragedy is that the terrorism issue has become so politicized that if another major attack took place recriminations on both sides could make national unity as elusive as the effort to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
UPDATE. The Los Angeles’ Times Ronald Brownstein, in a piece on the importance of Presidents building consensus, compares no-compromise President James K. Polk with Bush and draws some lessons. Read the whole post but here’s the quote that’s relevant to what we said above:
Polk’s unwavering, impermeable conviction defines one approach for organizing a presidency in such circumstances. But Polk’s early critic — Lincoln — offers Bush a better model for leadership during a difficult war. In the Civil War, Lincoln was nothing if not resolute. But as Goodwin notes, he also calibrated his decisions — from key personnel appointments to the timing of emancipation — to hold together all shades of opinion committed to the Union.Bush lately has met more with Democrats and acknowledged mistakes on Iraq. But substantively, he has not conceded much, either about Iraq or his tactics in the broader war on terrorism (except his belated capitulation to Senate demands for a ban on torture in the interrogation of prisoners). The divisions over Iraq are so deep that nothing Bush could do would bridge them entirely, and his inclination to ignore his most implacable opponents is understandable. But Bush would place the nation’s security on a more stable foundation if he worked harder to find a consensus agenda with those critics whose assessment of the threat in Iraq and at home was closer to his own.
Part of Lincoln’s genius, as one close advisor wrote, was his understanding that in the pursuit of national unity, it was the task of the president “to mollify and moderate” the country’s fractious interests and diverse viewpoints. That’s one reason Lincoln is revered and Polk, for all his ferocious accomplishments, is barely remembered.
A lack of consensus won’t make Bush’s — or the nation’s — task any easier. Or his legacy any better.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Are America’s Political Elites Becoming Dangerously Complacent? (UPDATED)”
Bull Moose is completely wrong on the severity of the wiretapping issue. First of all, nobody knows if the NSA was spying on domestic political foes of the White House because no court has been allowed to check. As Joe points out numerous times, why should we “just trust” the Administration on these matters. We cannot assume that an Administration – any Administration – is using its authority properly. That’s why we have checks and balances. Second, as for whether the war demands particular executive deference in this instance, Bull Moose has not made the case. There is simply no reason why the Administration couldn’t have conducted wiretaps without obtaining warrants – even up to 72 hours after the fact. He says the NSA may have needed to mine hundreds (or millions, likely) of calls at once. Well, there’s a big difference between mining millions of calls and wiretapping a particular line. Massive data mining might identify patterns out there but it won’t pinpoint a particular user. There is no problem with data mining. But there is a problem with wiretapping somebody without explaining to a third party (secretly) why you are doing it. If it’s because of some call from AQ in Afghanistan do you think the FISA court would stand in the way? Is there any evidence that the FISA courts have prevented even remotely necessary wiretaps? They’ve approved 15,000 wiretaps and denied 4. There is simply no national security reason why the Administration needs to ignore FISA. And thus, there is no political case that Bush is exercising his proper national security authority. Third, his comments about Democratic failure to complain about the warrantless searches is downright puerile. What would the likes of Bull Moose think of Senator Rockefeller violated his security clearance and went public with this matter back in 2002? Does Moose not realize that Rockefeller was told that he couldn’t tell ANYONE about it, not even the staff?
Moose can make a claim for sticking it out in Iraq. And he can make a case for expansive Executive authority in war. But he can’t make a case for cavalierly violating the FISA law. If the Executive wants more authority, then the Administration should seek to change the law.
These blogs are written by political activist. We all know “the Moose’s” ties to McCain. I don’t hold that against him. My point is that all these guys (bloggers and reporters, commendators, all of them) already got their own political agenda. They bounce from being active political player to commentator the same way we normal folk transition from our life at work to our life at home.
If the Moose got something to say or a point to make then he should just make it. Frankly, I’m sick of the navel gazing of the opinion industry and i’m sick of being told by the various fractions of it what the other faction of “the media” thinks. I can reach my own conclusion about the media…thank you very much. I’m not interested in what Rush things about “the media and I’m not interested in what “the Moose” things about the media and I resent the assumption that I need to have it explained to me.
Here’s a more extensive response to the Moose’s post.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/2/13932/23698#readmore
Sorry, here’s a better link.
That link’s diary item links to the post above but discusses a different Bull Moose post than the one I linked to. Although that’s also interesting, I’m dealing here with specifically some of the points he raised in today’s post on his blog. I do believe it’e easy to feel we’re somehow not really in that post 911 world as both parties go after eacn other and even with Iraq the focus (in politics and in our news media) is mostly on domestic politics. All of what we see in elections, campaigns, jockying for position, Congressional battles over specific bills and policies, is done within the framework of a country that not only needs to shore up its internal defenses, but have a semblance of national unity. I personally think both parties are failing. Also, Charles Jordon notes the way activists, bloggers and news media personalities can move back and forth. That has gone on for some time. Some bloggers I know aspire to be media personalities. Chris Matthews was a GREAT columnist/writer but he had worked for Tip O’Neil and later made the move totally to TV. But I think, reading Bull Moose regularly (as well as a zillion other blogs), that he isn’t posturing but writing how he sees it. People could (and will) argue some of the points in the specific post I linked to but I do believe his overall theme is a valid one. Except for an occassional news story suggesting that the US is readying for an attack on Iran, for instance, do we see much discussion among the two parties about the huge threat Iran could pose with its significant military infrastructure? We’re all (including me) bogged down in the easier-to-report-on political horse races. I’m going to find Bronstein’s piece from the LA Times today and consensus and link it as an update. It fits in with some of what I said in the post.
Also, on the wiretapping: right now the administration says: “Trust us. It’s legal.” But the problem is that they’ve said “trust us” before and proven to be wrong. Due to this credibility gap Congressional hearings are important to find out if this was in fact legal. As Elrod notes, that is a very serious and separate issue. (My point is that its easy for people including me to try to lump it all in with Richard Nixon but there are some vital differences…and if the differences disappear and it ever turns out there was warrantless spying on Democrats during the campaign then we’re really in a big crisis…)If the FISA law was in fact violated then it needs to be documented by Congress. Then what will Congress do? Because it’s a GOP dominated Congress will the attitude be: “Never mind! We don’t care. Our guy says he violated the law to protect us and he can do what he wants.” Or will the GOP’s libertarian branch demand, at the very least, that the law is followed in the future?
What a 180 degree turnaround! From elsewhere on the Web, more evidence that the Bush administration is in complete disarray on Iraq:
National Strategy For Victory In Iraq, Derailed
The Washington Post revealed this morning that “the Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction.� While the article does a nice job of summarizing the continuing reconstruction challenges and the unmet promises made by President Bush, it fails to ask one key question: What does this new information mean for our strategy in Iraq?
The Post story neglected to mention Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory In Iraq,� which was released just one month ago. Recall, in that document, the White House stated that our “strategy for victory is clear.� It involved a three-track strategy: the political track, the security track, and the economic track. Here’s what the document said about the “economic track�:
• The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
– Restore Iraq’s infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
– Reform Iraq’s economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
– Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
The Bush administration has seemingly decided to drop the economic track of its strategy all together, particularly if foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government do not pick up the tab for the “tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq’s 26 million people.� If the Bush administration is abandoning its own strategy, it appears to be embracing that of Rep. John Murtha.
Here’s the argument Murtha made for redeployment in Iraq: “Electricity and oil production are below pre-war levels… Despite the addition of MORE troops, MORE equipment and MORE money, Iraq and the region have become LESS stable over time… My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people.� Isn’t this exactly what the Bush team is now claiming to do? And if so, isn’t this an acknowledgment that their strategy for Iraq is failing, not succeeding?
There is consensus. Americans want security. Americans want traditional values. Howard Dean can scream all he wants to — most American reject his militant secularism and capitulation to terros.
The Moose has come down on the side of the wiretapping. Without knowing the degree. And claiming that eight congress critters told about a program that they are *forbidden* by law from telling *anyone* about are capable of checking it.
He is going into the Republican line, Dems are traitors.
In fact Democrats have been more consistent than Republicans for calling for increased security in container shipping, chemical plants etc.
The extent of the Jihadist terrorist organization is unknown. We do know in the winter of 2001/2002 when Bin Ladin called for massive attacks on the US we had a possibly related shooting up of an Isreali airline counter, possibly the Beltway sniper and possibly the anthrax.
This doesn’t seem to indicate a huge organization with hundreds of cells.
Which doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous, but accusing it of being a big monster with tendrils everywhere poses other damgers.
And it is not treason to think so.
The Bush administration is now entering into deals with N Korea it could have made years ago. In that time N Korea had probably made bombs. It is incredibly corrupt and insane, it has an excellant criminal smuggling systems and could probably get a coule ton bomb into an Asia port and onto a ship bound for the USA. Moden transports go like clockwork.
Does Moose care? No. He wants to justify this moniroring without knowing it’s extent and anyone who questions it is a traitor.
Both (or many) sides are probably too slack on security. Look at Brownie. This was the man who was going to take care of things when the bomb hit. It’s all about rhetoric and the Moose doesn’t care because he’s joined in the game. His critique is the same old, same old and has nothing to do with pragmatic and clearly constitutonal steps.
Using this NSA activity as the litmus test shows he is just another big mouth.
to RLegro: The most important thing about the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is the document itself. A few weeks ago there was a need for the President and his supporters to prove they had a plan–so BAM!–here’s that plan and it even has a name.
We are winning battles in Iraq but loosing the war. We are loosing because we don’t understand what motivated middle class, second generation Muslims living in London to become terrorist: strap on bombs and destroy a bus and kill innocent people. We don’ understand what caused second generation Muslim living in France to riot for what seemed like weeks. We are so clueless. We rather debate the merits of the Moose’s perception of the media and his explaination for wiretaps. AS I see it, these terrorist figured out while planning 9/11 that they should communitcate using methods that protectrd them from wiretaps…such as handcarrying messages; or speaking in coded langauge; or segregating so very few people knew the entire plan.
Moderates are so important to shaping the debate in this country because the extremes on the right and left are a lost.
Freedom isn’t free. Until the left admits that, they’ll be rightly marginalized.
Is DougJ a real person or a data-mined soundbite?
Anyway, good point about the “Strategy for Victory” and the Reconstruction story. One point that Juan Cole makes is that if this story is true, it means the US has essentially given up on making Iraq a vital oil power in the region. Whether that means the US will give up making Iraq a pro-US military power as well is hard to say at this point.
DougJ says:
> Freedom isn’t free.
I agree with you. Too bad, however, that Mr. Bush doesn’t. He is, after all, the oh-so fiscally responsible dude who is busy kiting the costs of freedom onto our national credit card to the tune of another half a trillion every succeeding year.
Abetted by a corrupt, GOP-run Congress, Bush is also the dude whose spending is often lavishly wasted and misdirected, e.g., towards gluttonous outfits like Halliburton or Bechtel, and towards senseless initiatives such as a missile defense system that simply doesn’t work but which keeps GOP congressporkers in multiple states really, really happy.
On another of your points, it’s not at all hard to agree there’s a consensus in America that we want to be secure. (Surprise! Democrats really don’t like the idea of getting blown up or infected with anthrax any more than you do, pal). So while Americans agree on the need to be secure, what’s more important is that there’s no consensus, even at this point in the White House, on how to achieve it.
More than half the voting age population now believes attacking Iraq was a serious mistake and, indeed, a similar proportion now believe voting for Bush was a serious mistake. His policies dismay much of the world and an increasingly majority of Americans. He made this mess, and now he seeks to blame Democrats for suggesting ways out of it that he increasingly seems to adapt as soon as he’s done criticizing them.
There is, in short, a growing lack of domestic consensus concerning Bush’s competence and policies. Unfortunately, his professed faith in his own ability to make the right call, every time just isn’t good enough, especially in light of the results so far.
And while we’re on the subject, check out this rather dismaying summary from AmericaBlog:
Monday, January 02, 2006
Exactly how has Bush made America any safer in the past 4 years?
by John in DC – 1/02/2006 11:55:00 AM
It’s one thing to give up our civil liberties in exchange for the safety of our children. It’s quite another to give them up and get little in return. Let’s examine just how much safer George Bush has made America since September 11.
1. Osama is still free, and Bush never even talks about him anymore.
2. Our military is bogged down in a war that had nothing to do with Osama or Al Qaeda UNTIL WE INVADED AND MADE IRAQ AL QAEDA’S NEW HOME.
3. We’ve turned Iraq into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world:
“Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of ‘professionalized’ terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank….
“President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council’s report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war….
“Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.”
4. Far too many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations to make us safer, have still not been implemented.
5. The Homeland Security budget is being spent on frivolous pork:
“The District of Columbia used part of its grant to buy leather jackets and to send sanitation workers to self-improvement seminars. Newark bought air-conditioned garbage trucks. Columbus, Ohio, bought body armor for fire department dogs. These are not the priorities of a nation under threat.”
6. The 9/11 Commission gives Bush a grade of “D” under the category: “Maximum effort to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD” – i.e., he gets a D for his efforts to stop terrorists from getting nuclear bombs. Here’s what the 9/11 Commissioners had to say about Bush’s efforts to stop Osama from getting a nuclear bomb and dropping it on an American city:
“Countering the greatest threat to America’s security is still not the top national security priority of the President and the Congress.”
7. Most of the world now hates us.
“Iraq has joined the list of conflicts — including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand — that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.”
8. And let me leave you with the words of the head of Republican head of the 9/11 commission, just a few weeks ago:
“Four years after 9/11 it is scandalous that police and firefighters in large cities still cannot communicate reliably in a major crisis,” said Thomas Kean, the Republican who was chairman of the commission.
“It is scandalous that airline passengers are still not screened against all names on a terrorist watch list.
“It is scandalous that we still allocate scarce homeland security dollars on the basis of pork barrel spending, not risk….”
“While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl.”
Tell me again how Bush has made us safer?
C’mon RLegro, don’t you get it? DougJ BELIEVES that we are stronger with President Bush and belief is the key to American strength. Because if we didn’t believe we were strong, we would be secularists who have no faith. And you know who the biggest secularist is, right? Osama Bin Laden! See?
To DougJ: NO freedom isn’t free, but it isn’t cheap either. Which means we shouldn’t promise things to the Iraqi people if we can’t deliver on the promise (example: the promise to rebuild their country as presented in the so-called Victory document.) Why don’t you discuss the specifics instead of spouting slogans? It’s a fact that this administration (i.e. the PResident) has recanted on a promise they made to the Iraqi people. Why? To save money. I call that cheap. What do you call it?
NO it isn’t free. We here at moderatevoice don’t need to be reminded of that. However, the Commander and Chief DOES! It’s clear to me your interest in liberating the Iraqi people begins and ends with your concern for President Bush and his legacy and his political well being. Your concerns don’t have a damn thing to do with the well-being of the Iraqi people.
By the way breaking promises is something the president does to his most avid supporters on a regular basis: Campaign Finance REform, tarrifs on iron and lumber, the promise for a smaller government; and the promise for “humble” foreign policy to name a few. The fact is he’s been playing people like you like a cheap fiddle for over 5 years. You’re just so used to it you don’t see it. There’s nothing remotetly conservative about this president. NO-THING, NO POLICY, nada, zip nothing.
Thanks RLegro for laying it out to DougJ.
RLegro, you want proof we’re safer. Here’s three
1. We haven’t been attacked.
2. We haven’t been attacked.
3. We haven’t been attacked.
Doug, IF we were to get attacked again, who would you hold responsible? Dems.. Repubs… the Pres? Remember, he is in control, as are the repubs. What specifically has been done to make us safer today and in the future. Nuclear weapons in Russia secured? Chemical and nuclear plants in the US secured? Shipments into the US secured and checked vigorously? Oh wait, I know, a bigass bridge in Alaska..nice. Maybe if we get the terrorists to see it, we divert their attention from everything else!!
DougJ says we’re safer because “we haven’t been attacked” since 9/11. Ridiculous. That’s like saying you’re safer picking up a live electric wire because no one’s touched one up in your home lately. And through his misguided and careless administration, Bush is busy creating more live wires around the country.
Railroads and mass transit systems are less safe against terrorists than four years ago; ports likewise; air travel is only slightly safer. Toxic and explosive chemical shipments still travel unprotected through our biggest cities. Nuclear plants are no better protected. Our ability to respond to biowarfare has gone backwards, not forwards. Our national anti-terrorism security apparatus has seen funding cuts and a transition away from management by experienced civil service professionals to political ideologues. And the NSA is busy spying on everyone while the feds take away one civil liberty after another.
In short, the people who are less free in this country today are non-terrorist citizens who have done no wrong. But you don’t have to take some lefty’s word for that; you can take the word of the 9/11 commission. Or, Ben Franklin: “Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither.”
We’re arguably less safe than we were before BushCo started dismantling our national security apparatus, creating the Homeland Security debacle of a bureaucracy and redeploying urgently needed funds to his cronies. You and Bush alike have not learned that the terrorists are extremely patient and will wait their chance.
But equating that to proof that we’re safer because they haven’t tried another domestic assault is to dismiss logic and causality. Furthermore, the terrorists are busy killing our men and women in Iraq — about 2,200 dead so far with tens of thousands maimed. I guess that’s better than a twin towers death toll, maybe, at least if you’re not serving in the military.
But even if you’re comfy with that tradeoff, you ignore the bigger picture, which is that we’re less secure because more people around the world hate us.
Furthermore, and ultimately more important, we’re a lot less secure economically. One day China will decide to call in its chits. The Chinese own a few hundred billion dollars worth of US bonds and are fast buying up more BushCo debt.
Get that? Bush is borrowing from the evil Chinese in order to defeat the evil terrorists.
It was your crowd, DougJ, who were all a’twitter when Clinton and the elder Bush sought to improve relations with the terrible, evil Chinese. Yet now, the US depends on Bush-el baskets of Chinese cash to conduct dubya’s misguided foreign military adventures.
PING:
TITLE: Things are different after 911?
BLOG NAME: Middle Earth Journal
Marshall Wittmann takes up the everything changed after 911 meme today. I’m sure that he made the Bushites very happy.
Increasingly, the political and opinion class has a pre-9/11 feel to it.
My question is, is that a bad thing? Did anything but t…
PING:
TITLE: Complacency
BLOG NAME: Centerfield
The Moderate Voice has a great post on our having settled into complacency about terrorism. Given that a follow-up attack hasn’t happened in four years (Bush gets some credit for that) many people are acting as if the threat is…