If you thought 2005 was a nasty year with growing polarization, festering political rage on both sides, politicians going after politicans, parties going after parties and bloggers going after bloggers….well, then, you better brace yourself:
Newsweek‘s Howard Fineman makes the case that the worst is yet to come:
As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.
Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.
We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.
We’re already there. When yours truly travels by car (which he does a LOT — like 7 hours driving yesterday) he listens to conservative and liberal talk radio. Partisans of both parties now see the others as out to destroy the country. But, when the history of this period is written, we predict two big factors cited will be Cheney’s role in advocating what he calls a revival of a strong executive branch weakened by Watergate and Vietnam and the administration’s tendency to reject compromise and to instead throw down the gauntlet (others then pick it up and THEY throw it down..then the administration picks up THAT gauntlet and throws it down, then…etc. etc.).
Fineman cites a host of reasons why 2006 will be a divisive year — and his analysis makes sense. He looks at factors such as Bush’s oath to defend the constitution; the Patriot Act’s renewal…and then writes this:
If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.
Meanwhile, his advice is: watch the libertarian Republicans. And, indeed, much of what’s going on now is the continuing evolution of mainstream Republicanism. Is mainstream Republicanism the White House’s line on most issues? Or are these pockets of GOP resistance, of GOPers who don’t want bigger government with expanded powers indicative of a force bigger than it appears at first glance? 2006, as Fineman notes, could provide the answers.
He notes that he has gotten emails about impeachment for a long time and writes:
Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word� is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.
But, no matter who advocates it, at THIS point, impeachment seems a stretch.
The reasons are multifold. First, the legality of Bush’s action still isn’t totally proven or disproven but remains under fierce debate. People also forget that Richard Nixon didn’t face the hearings until there was a smoking gun, until top GOP bigwigs began breaking from the White House — and until the controversy itself reached critical mass clearly reflected in media coverage, Congressional opinion and opinion polls. The warrant-less wiretaps controversy has not reached that stage. It is a huge controversy — but not yet on that level.
PREDICTION: New media revelations (particularly if there are any reports about warrant-less wiretaps being used for political reasons) could change that. How much, though, is debatable: the GOP controls Congress and there would have to be anti-Bush sentiment there. There are few signs at this point that it’s at that stage or is about to get there. On the other hand, if 2006 is a polarizing year anything could happen on election day in November…
UPDATE: Be sure to read political scientist Steven Taylor’s detailed comments here on our comments on impeachment. Bottom line:”I concur. While I expect that there will be increased discussion in some quarters of impeachment, I just don’t see it as actually happening (not by a long shot).Here’s why:” (To find out the detailed “Here’s why” you’ve got to read it yasself…)
UPDATE II: Dean Esmay weighs in with an extensive post that also must be read IN FULL but here’s a small piece:
Now historical forces would seem to suggest 2006 will be good for Democrats. After all, Bush’s approval ratings are below 50%. But what are Democrats doing? Apparently, doing their best to look weak and untrustworthy on national security.
They’re holding up renewal of the Patriot Act–yes, with the help of a few Republicans, but it’s mostly their issue and everybody knows it. Furthermore, they’re trying to make major hay out of the NSA monitoring overseas phone calls. This is unbelievably dumb. I’ll go on record right now and make a prediction: the vast majority of Americans will turn out to be glad the NSA is monitoring international calls for terrorist activity, and will vote against anyone who wants to require a judge’s warrant for each and every target being monitored.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.