Technocratic Liberalism Gets the Scalps, But Doesn't Change Policy

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:29


Here is a partial list of prominent Bush administration resignations since the 2006 midterm elections, all of which occurred in conjunction with some sort of major scandal in their relevant field:

With this obvious exceptions of Bush and Cheney themselves, since the midterms virtually every major Bush administration figure involved in a major scandal has been forced out. All of these changes were the result of public and congressional pressure on the administration, in the form of elections, congressional investigations, media scandals, and repeatedly low approval ratings.

My first reaction to this list is note that Democratic electoral success and subsequent investigations have led to a significant amount of resignations, but has not resulted in a significant change in Bush administration policy. I think this is connected to how the progressive campaigns against the Bush administration are focusing on individuals committing criminal, incompetent, and unethical acts, rather than on a core set of values as to how government should be run. To put it one way, the progressive campaigns against Bush administration scandals have largely been waged from a practical, technocratic liberal perspective, where the central values of government are not debated and only competence and pragmatic problem solving are foregrounded as values. In other words, progressives seem to be targeting individuals who have engaged in criminal, incompetent and unethical acts, rather than engaging in a attack on the ideological bent of the Bush administration itself. This is displayed with how often Democrats and progressive make ideology itself the focus of their accusations on the Bush administration, ie, that the Bush administration is abusing government by using it to achieve ideological ends. As a result, we end up with an enormous laundry list of Bush administration resignations, not to mention large grassroots campaigns to impeach Bush and Cheney, but without a sustained, effective campaign to change the ideological focus of the administration itself. Individual cogs are removed from the ideological machine, but the machine itself continues operating without a hitch.

Back in July, Matt suggested that one of the reasons the campaigns to impeach Bush and Cheney have not been very effective to date is because they were targeting individuals engaged in criminal acts, rather than being based in a set of oft-expressed values on how government should function. Considering the exceptional progressive tack record of being able to force individual resignations, but our utter failure to change administration policy itself, I think this critique is more relevant today than ever. We get the scalps from the criminals, the incompetent, and the unethical, but we are not changing the policies. I think this is a demonstration of the weakness of the anti-ideological argument many have pushed on the Democratic side for these past few years, not to mention serves as another example of the general ineffectiveness of technocratic liberalism when faced with the ideological, conservative movement. It isn't just about Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld or Gonzales. It is about a different vision for the way government should function, and the values that are at the core of those visions. We are not doing a very good job of articulating our values in these disputes, and so we end up with a lot of scalps, but also with very little change in the operation of the federal government itself. 

Chris Bowers :: Technocratic Liberalism Gets the Scalps, But Doesn't Change Policy

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Technocratic Liberalism Gets the Scalps, But Doesn't Change Policy | 35 comments
The Ideology (4.00 / 1)
The irony is that technocratical liberalism, too, is an ideology.  And it's just as much threatened by the Bush ideology--which I would characterize as a form of neo-feudalism--as any more progressive ideology is.  But it is inhibited from its own self-protection by its narrow formulations.

The high-water mark of its open self-expression may well have been Michael Dukakis, in 1988, with the Iran-Contra investigations still under way, campaigning with the slogan, "It's about competence, not ideology."

Ironically, if ever there was an open self-proclamation of incompetence, surely this was it.

And while no one today might utter Dukakis's words aloud, they are all working from the same failed playbook.  It's as if no one in the NFL had picked up on the West Coast Offense after the 49ers dominated the 1980s under Bill Walsh.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Our Values (4.00 / 1)
The ugly truth is that a large majority of the population approves of the general policy direction of the US. What the current dissatisfaction is about is corruption and incompetence, not goals.

The two biggest ideas that the public supports are a powerful military sector and affordable consumerism. These go hand-in-hand.

We want cheap foreign resources and finished goods and we don't mind using soft or hard power to obtain these items. Of course saying this explicitly is acknowledging our more selfish motives so we substitute a variety of cover stories. The most common ones are:

a) preventing the "enemy" from taking over more of the planet. This has included, at one time or another, the domino theory, the red menace, and, most recently, "islamo-fascism".

b) bringing the virtues of our ideology to the savages. This has included the "white man's burden",  missionary movements, installing democracy, and promoting western-style capitalist economic models.

Once the situation in Iraq becomes less volatile people will go back to complacency. Notice that neither party has any proposals to scale back the military/police sector. In fact both try to outdo each other in making claims for being "strong" on defense.

There are no proposals to scale back on consumerism to a sustainable level either. All we hear are alternative proposals to improve growth. Each side thinks their formulation is the right one. People want their SUV's and their McMansions and no politician is about to suggest that it should be otherwise.

What's interesting about this administration is that most of the corruption in the executive branch has been over the use of political power to determine programs and vice versa. Actual economic corruption has been restricted to the congress for the most part. In periods where the Dems have been in power for long periods of time the graft is usually economic. Things like kickbacks, bid rigging and accepting bribes in exchange for votes. That is, corrupt Dems are in it for the money, while this gang is in it to change the political landscape.

To quote my favorite philosopher again:

Pogo - "We have met the enemy and he is us."

There is no progressive movement in this country. There is dissatisfaction with military failure and there is some discontent over the deteriorating safety net, but people are not taking to the streets over this and don't seem likely to in the near future either.

The small increase in resentment of the super wealthy may lead to some tweaking of the tax codes, but everybody still thinks they can become Bill Gates one day and don't want to limit wealth too much. That fact that they are deluded means nothing. This week's lottery was jackpot was $314 million. That means something like $750 million was spent on (worthless) tickets. If people can believe they have a chance of winning the lottery then they can believe anything.

Policies not Politics

I disagree. (4.00 / 1)
The Democracy Corps poll showed that young people are rejecting the main tenets of conservatism. 

But Chris is right that there is no progressive movement articulating a counter-philosophy, at least not one that is getting much publicity.  The core values of progressivism, as I see it, are increasing opportunity, rebuilding the safety net, conserving resources and taking care of the environment, and making everyone pay their fair share to advance the common good.  Ironically, Arnold Schwarzenegger is, on some of these issues, the leading voice in articulating this vision. 

People need leaders to give voice and validity to their aspirations, and those are in short supply just now.  But it doesn't mean that people won't respond if asked.  Here in California people do respond to appeals for conservation when we have shortages of water or energy, and much more could be done along those lines.  I really think that it is a lack of leaders more than people willing to do what's right if it is a shared campaign.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I think he is quite right on! (0.00 / 0)
There may be a group of strong progressive/socialists in the vein you talk about, but the vast majority of Americans fit the ugly American mode, IMO.  They believe  blesses America and has destined them to control the resources of this planet for their personal greed.  They may not even admit this to themselves, but how else can you explain the foreign policy of the US since WWII, especially the oil/energy policy of the last 20 years!
[ Parent ]
Lack of leadership (4.00 / 2)
During the 1970's, when we had an oil embargo and prices shot up from the then-common 29 cents a gallon here in CA, people did conseerve, and they did buy smaller cars.  They conserved water during the droughts we had.  They conserved in the energy crisis 2001-2, and are still conserving because there are PSAs on all the time about it.

But what has been lacking is strong leadership to continue those moves.  Ronald Reagan took Jimmy Carter's solar panels off the roof of the White House and told everyone greed was good again.  Bush/Cheney said global warming was a hoax and conservation was a "private virtue."  People are slowly waking up, but I think many people think that if global climate change were really serious, the government would be doing something about it and urging more conservation.  People would buy smaller cars if they were mandated, and the whole fleet were scaled down.  Then they wouldn't feel they had to have a family assault vehicle to feel safe.  But most people won't do it alone, partly out of a desire for comfort, partly out of a desire to conform, and partly because they are unsure how serious things are.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I hope you are correct! (0.00 / 0)
I guess it is ultimately a perception thing, and of course one does what one has to to survive!  However, I still believe that the overly and uniquely American phrase "God Bless America" hides a lot of greed behind a fascade of religious privilege which is hard to see in any other light!
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say there are not plans (4.00 / 1)
The rejection of consumerism, for example, is implied through the carbon tax proposal that is gaining steam.

As for your main worry, more work needs to be done. At some point, we need to convince the American population that we would be better off as a Republic, instead of as an Empire that is fighting the "ememy" and "spreading our values." Considering that one in every twelve dollars in American income is currently spent either in Iraq or on other forms of "defense," one would think the case would be easier to make. With money like that, people could have free health care and college. But the pull towards empire is strong...
[ Parent ]
Ain't *that* the truth! (0.00 / 0)
Trouble is, we've had 100 years and more of the idea that you can have such a thing as a progressive empire. (Nothing like those ghastly European empires, no sir!)

Is there one viable Dem prez candidate today who has a single senior foreign affairs adviser who opposes any kind of imperial policy for the US?

I suspect that even the most progressive of consultants would warn their candidates to toe the imperialist line, for fear of opening up the weak on national security thing.

[ Parent ]
Chris, yes yes yes (0.00 / 0)
But where do we go from here?  I am assuming you will have the backing of the OpenLeft regulars, just as people have followed with the Blue Dog campaign.

It's in part for questions like this that I wrote my Diary on "movements not busy being born," etc.  Are we addressing a movement in general?  Are we a movement?  Is OpenLeft sufficiently an organization that it can "adopt" some principles?  Adopt a vision?  Are we turning into a campaign support group?  FISA was an obvious outrage and we moved effectively, I think.  But are we to depend on spontaneous outrage, or do we need something more coherent.

On the other hand, OpenLeft is an open forum, and I wouldn't want to get into fighting over points of unity that would only have the effect of dividing and alienating.

I think it hinges on yours and Matt's leadership.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Wait for it (0.00 / 0)
we should have something up soon taking the next step...

[ Parent ]
You underestimate something! (0.00 / 0)

Back in July, Matt suggested that one of the reasons the campaigns to impeach Bush and Cheney have not been very effective to date is because they were targeting individuals engaged in criminal acts, rather than being based in a set of oft-expressed values on how government should function.

While this statement is definitely true, it underestimates the stressbreaker planning that goes into any modern executive political administration.  The "head guy" makes the decisions, but the word is carried to the public by political appointment underlings.  When the political/judicial atmosphere gets hot in an area, the political spokeman for the "head guy" takes the responsibility for the actual decision and resigns.  This is suppose to take the heat of the "head guy" who made the actual decision behind the scenes. 

This techniques has worked surprisingly well over the last 20 years, but why the obvious isn't obvious to the public escapes me.  Do the American public really believe all this incompetence and illegal activity is ordered by underlings of the "decision maker".  That possibility is an oxymoron because the "head guy" is the "decision maker"!  I just think the American public is either numb or dumb!  Take your pick!

Are you sure they are the heads? (4.00 / 1)
Maybe I'm even more cynical, but I don't think Bush and Cheney are the clear decision makers, here. I'm thinking more like the philanthropy roundtable, the Wednesday meetings of Grover Norquist, and conservative media. they are the real decision makers of the conservative movement, which I believe largely controls Bush and Cheney.
[ Parent ]
Go after what you see! (0.00 / 0)
Your thought is likely true, but it is like blaming someone for their thoughts.  It is tough to prove, and I don't want to penalize thought!

The executive administration on paper is made up of real people, and the top of the list is the legal decision maker.  That is as good as you can get at, but in reality, it may be enough!  You cannot penalize think-tank resourses and maybe even money people, but you can make future top of the list administration "decision-makers" think a bit more about what they are doing if they are held responsible for administration illegal acts period no matter why they happened!!

[ Parent ]
Cheney is the man (4.00 / 2)
I don't think anyone controls Cheney so much as Cheney reflects the values and views of the very wealthy, particularly extractive-based industries.  People like Norquist are clever, but Cheney is an absolutely ruthless guy who very well understands how government works because he was a part of it for so long in different capacities.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I don't see the problem being with Technocratic Liberalism (4.00 / 1)
so much as the fast that the Republican/conservative ideology is attacking the very fundamental values of government.  It would not be too hard a job for a technocrat to become more ideological, and start saying: "I want government to work for you, thbey do not.  I can do my job effectively and competently for you, they don't even believe that there is a job to be done.  I will surrond myself with ethical, competent individuals, they will surround themselves with cronies." 

It's really just a matter of how much the person is willing to attack the other side's incompetence, criminality and arrogance.  And to stay on target.

It wouldn't be hard (4.00 / 1)
And I wish that more progressives would use that line--make government work for you. It is far, far superior to the frequently stated attack against ideology.
[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
I don't think the problem is technocratic liberals per se.  The technocrats are not the people you developing your message but they are necessary to make govt work well.  Just compare a James Lee Witt, a technocrat, with an political ideological crony like Brownie. 

The Bush Admin shows what happens when you push the technocrats to the side.  We need the technocratic liberals of the world working alongside people with ideas/ideological vision if we are going to have a govt that works well and works for us.

[ Parent ]
Technocrats and Messaging (0.00 / 0)
Look at Katrina.  Conservative ideology demanded that the government not respond effectively so that the public would no longer place the responsibility for responding to such disasters in the government's hands.

But it backfired.  Turns out the public actually wants to government to take responsibility in those circumstances, and expects them to do it well.

So ideologically the Republicans lost there.  To add insult to injury, even if they did try to respond and prepare to Katrina and Rita, they could not have since all the technocrats had been run out of town. 

So we need liberal technocrats to run a policy that has the government working for people.  We can message competency and philosophy.  And yes, we have to do both.

www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

[ Parent ]
Look At Glenn Greenwald (4.00 / 3)
I posted a comment over at Glenn's blog on Salon referencing this diary.  In it, I noted that Glenn's particular strength is that he combines the detailing of particular crimes with a grounding in the principles of the constitutional order they violate.

This is what we need to be doing, but it is what Democrats have been shying away from ever since Watergate, when they backed away from a thoroughgoing investigation, housecleanining and comprehensive charges.  The Dems began with the assumption they were "healing the nation" by not excising the cancer, and that upside-down logic has spawned innumerable monsters in its wake.

The fundamental mistake lay in believing that the other side was interested in the same general framework of constitutional law and order, when in fact the exact opposite was true: the Nixonite Republicans were dedicated to totally overturning the existing order.  The degree of Nixon's hostility to the American system can best be grasped by reading Richard Reeves' President Nixon: Alone in the White House.

Reeves reveals that Nixon hated the GOP establishment only slightly less than he hated the Democrats.  He seriously wanted to launch a third party in order to be free of the GOP party apparutus, which he couldn't sufficiently (i.e. totally and absolutely) control. He also wanted to totally restructure the Executive Branch based on the same maniacal need for total control. (Can you say, "Unitary Executive"?  Sure you can!)

Nixon isn't the only influence, of course.  Not by a long shot.  But he was a clear indicator of the resurgence of the hardline pre-Ike, anti-Wilkie strain of the GOP, which really came into full dominance only in the 1990s with "Gingrich Revolution" and the Clinton impeachment.  And the Democratic Party as a whole has yet to understand what these folks are about, as if repealing haveas corpus wasn't enough of a hint for them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

This is an exciting and extremely important story (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if I get more angry or more excited reading this story. I do know the author is "on to something" here, and that something is a great weakness in our culture/form of government.  Understanding this weakness and cashing in on it is very important to setting this country straight in the future. 

Remember the old verse about Harry Truman that the "buck stops here"? Well that mentality has been turned 180 degrees around in the last 40 years to read that the buck never goes to the obvious decision maker, but goes to the underling in the alloted stressbreraker position. How stupid and how dangerous!! If we reinstituted the "buck stops here' philosophy that the head guys takes all responsibility for both good and bad, then this story/subject would be unnecessary, and the American public would not need a bain-enlightenment primer on the obvious

Too bad, and how did we fall so fare into mindlessness of the self-obvious??

One way (0.00 / 0)
is that we were treated like children, not citizens.  We were told to shut up and shop, seduced with entertainment galore and stuff beyond belief.  Being a citizen is hard work.  We need to inspire people back to that ideal.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It's not our fault, it's the "rapport de forces" (4.00 / 1)
All in all, we progressives, whether you call us "technocratic liberals" or ideologues, are doing just fine with the levers we have.

Our inability to immediately have charges brought in the proper venues against the members of the Bush-Cheney cabal, who are punishable and will be punished (IMO) for violating the U.S. Constitution, acts of Congress and international laws prohibiting war crimes and crimes against humanity, is not our fault but an accurate reflection of the "rapport de forces" (roughly translated as "power relationships") that prevail at this moment in time.

The cabal and its Republican Party backers are running the executive branch, and with the aid of the slow motion Republican coup d'etat that came to fruition under Rove and the Blue Dog Dems, they also have de facto control of the legislative branch.

Twice in the past 7 years they have stolen the presidency, the first time with the help of the third branch of government, the Supreme Court, which the conservatives also control for the most part, and the second time because the Democrats let them steal the election in Ohio by rigging the elections and failing to insist on a valid recount.

I am confident that the members of the cabal will eventually be tried and convicted and that over the next generation or two progressive lawmakers will roll back the de jure and the de facto violations of our Constitution and laws of Congress for which we will hold Bush and his fellow traveling lawmakers legally accountable.

What IS interesting about the current resignations from Bush's sinking ship is that they are coming AT ALL. If it were left to Bush, Cheney and Gonzales, they would not budge an inch until after the '08 election.

That Rove and Gonzales have left AT ALL signals the re-assertion of the core economic and political interests that control the Republican Party - the powers behind the scenes that really call the shots for the "fronts" who run for office and provide them a mouthpiece once they are elected.

Presumably, these include the still active "non-crazies" from the administration of Bush's father, like Brent Scowcroft, who had successfully pushed aside the "crazies" and extremist neo-cons who had tried to set up shop inside his administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and the whole Project for a New American Century crew that wrote the blueprint for the invasion of Iraq in the late 90's and continues to be its cheerleaders even today.

My guess is that the "non-crazies" are closing in on George W. Bush pretty quickly now that the blood is in the water. I suspect that after Bush's cavalier rejection of the plan put forward by the Iraq Study Group, they realized that they had to put together a low profile "push back" operation to keep W from wrecking the Republican Party in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, but my reading of these political tea leaves is that the push-back plan started to take shape as early as placing Gates in DOD to replace Rumsfeld, bolstering Condi Rice's diplomatic initiatives to oppose Cheney's plan to attack Iran militarily, and putting Fred Fielding in as White House Counsel to replace Harriet Myers to run legal interference for the barrage of pre-impeachment legal assaults against the Bush presidency from Congress that are gathering momentum. The push-back initiative also includes the military brass, retired and active, who are stepping forward more frequently and in increasing numbers to reiterate what we have been told again and again which is that there is no military solution for Iraq.

What is driving the non-crazies' push-back operation besides logic and reality-testing is that they recognize the Republican Party and its candidates may well be doomed for the foreseeable future as a major force in American society if they do not immediately get rid of the miscreants in the Bush administration whom polls show the American public has clearly identified and wants removed.

This is the macro dynamic at work here, not the form or content of progressives' interjections. The "rapport de forces" is shifting to our advantage because the Republican power brokers have recognized via the polls the seismic shifts taking place inside the American electorate that are propelling a majority of voters to vote against anyone and any major public policy initiative contaminated by the Bush presidency.

All of our progressive rants have played a major role in bringing about these shifts by getting the American public riled up and ready to vote Republicans out of office. That's what is moving the powers-that-be inside the Republican Party to turn the screws on W and make him get rid of his brain trust of people like Rove and Gonzales who have literally turned the stomachs of the American electorate.

If we keep it up, who knows, maybe the next resignation will be that of Dick Cheney! I find it extraordinary that the new French president Sarkhozy came out today with a major foreign policy statement advocating the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq and offered to help afterwards. I don't know what he is all about but I do know that it is a major new development to have a key European government tell the U.S. to get out of Iraq altogether, leaving no troops behind. This bold move is going to have a tsunami effect on what happens from here on in on the diplomatic front, once long-time Bush Iraq war critics like Putin start piling on.

Sarkhozy forcefully reiterated what has been stated time and time again, namely that U.S. troops will not be needed in the country to prevent further bloodshed because after the "retreat of foreign troops", "the international community, starting with the countries in the region, will be able to act most usefully. France, for its part, will be prepared to help."

So there is literally no excuse or pretext that Bush and Cheney can use to justify keeping our troops in harms way in that country and wasting more taxpayers' money on war funding when it is badly needed here in this country to rebuild our infrastructure and homeland defenses.

Basically, Bush, Cheney & Company are now out of business, having squandered their political capital in starting a colonial war against Iraq that is now universally declared irretrievably lost, in order to shift control of its oil reserves to the oil interests with which they have been in bed for decades. They are encircled by sharks from their own party and have virtually no one left in their corner to defend them.

Hopefully the non-crazies will force Cheney to resign in order to protect the Republican Party and Bush from the fallout of the impeachment drive against both Bush and Cheney that will continue to gather steam as long as they keep the Iraq war going. Politically, every day that Cheney remains in office and continues to rattle his sabres damages the Republican Party.  My fervent hope is that he resigns before Labor Day.

Why is all decision power in Repub hands (0.00 / 0)
You wrote a great post in describing what may be going on and why, but as a Democract, your post makes me feel tiny and mostly useless.  All decision power seems to be in repub hands, even to the point of when to change administrations or not. 

Why is America so susceptible to this Repub form of power control leaving the Dems only as an alternative rudder to maybe effect some small change when the Repub juggernaut goes off the deep end a bit.  Why and will it stay this way???

[ Parent ]
Not All the Power (0.00 / 0)
I agree, the posts by Chris and Nancy are great.

Note that Nancy doesn't say we have no power. She points out that we have forced the "non-crazy" power elite to force important resignations from the Bush administration. Our successful efforts to get Democrats elected and likely get even more elected in 2008 is forcing changes.

But she is right that we are a long ways away from being able to actually do what needs to be done. For example, Libby, Gonzales, Rove, and Meiers should have been testifying and/or in jail long ago.

Right now, progressive Democrats have relatively little power -- for 30 years very conservative Republicans (along with some conservative Democrats) have controlled most of the federal government. They have the power that comes from large, conservative corporations, while we have faltering labor unions and a handful of small companies. They control Fox New, Clear Channel, and hundreds of religious TV and radio stations while we control Pacifica Radio and a handful of college radio stations. They have the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute and we control a handful of much smaller think tanks: Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies. They have $600 billion in military funds to buy soldiers and pay off corporations -- we have nothing comparable.

So we have a lot of work to do to get to the point where progressives control major mainstream media and think tanks and a majority of the federal governent. We need a revitalized labor movement and we need joint action between environementalists, women, labor, gay/lesbian, etc. We need strong grassroots efforts and good progressive leadership. We can do it, but it will take a lot of effort over a period of time. The 2006 elections were just the beginning of this process.

Our blogs are better and more powerful than theirs. Our grassroots movements are stronger and more grounded in reality than theirs. And we can now turn out the electorate in great numbers. But we still have work to do.

[ Parent ]
The driving force for changing is coming from below (4.00 / 1)
You should feel strong and powerful because you and the progressive movement that you are a part of are a strong and powerful part of a seismic shift from below that is being driven by the voters whose views you have helped to shape.

The economic and political interests in the Republican Party who are forcing these resignations are only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of their sinking political ship.

But the waters that are enveloping their sinking ship and will send it to the bottom of the sea are the voters who have now turned against them in numbers that are large enough to throw their partisans out of office at every level of government.

We did in fact lose control of government to the Republicans, their corporate backers and their fellow-traveling Democrats for a while, namely about a decade and a half. But they went far too far and have now so antagonized American voters that even their electoral machine and once mesmerized electoral base cannot save them.

It may be tempting to feel "tiny and mostly useless" when we realize that political activists and operatives are not calling the shots from above today like in the old days when political force was applied from the top down.

But we do not need this kind of force because we now have more powerful tools, like this website, that we can use to help inform the American people, provide them alternative candidates for office and empower them to call the shots from below.

Thanks to people like you, the Bush cabal has been defang-ed by the wrath of the American people who can no longer be manipulated into giving the Republican Party the votes it needs to get into office so that its corporate backers can rule the country.

All of us are now tiny but indispensable parts of a huge popular tidal wave of voters who are going to restore popular sovereignty in America. 

[ Parent ]
Cheney... (0.00 / 0)
is the last one holding down the fort.  Without him the whole ballast of the Bush Admin is gone.  Bush is utterly lost without him.  No way he is going.  Any attempt to right the Republican ship will have to be done with Cheney driving the political strategy for the rest of the term.  Only he can make the Republicans on Capitol Hill dance.

Most excellent post however.

www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

[ Parent ]
Cheney too much a part of the problem to be part of the solution (0.00 / 0)
Actually, reports I have read indicate the "non-crazies" who are behind the push-back may well consider Cheney to be not only one of the "crazies" but the "crazy-in-chief".

As VP, he reversed his widely publicized views at the time of the Gulf war, per recent video's circulating on the web, which laid out clearly all the reasons that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would NOT work. This reversal has put him squarely at odds with the "non-crazies" whom I infer rightly see him as the primary architect of Bush's failed foreign policies.

To your point about Cheney's role in salvaging the political fortunes of the Republican Party, I respectfully disagree. Cheney's recent efforts to turn the screws on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill have all pretty much backfired, and those up for re-election are avoiding him and Bush like the plague, at least publicly. So Cheney gets no ballast on this front either.

Moreover, Cheney has shown zero capability to re-design any of his failed policies but plugs on like an automaton repeating blatantly fallacious, long disproved assertions.

So with all due respect, I think Cheney is going to be come under tremendous pressure from Republican power centers to resign for the sake of the Republican Party. Bush will be no more lost without him than he is with him.

As to whether W can actually carry out the deed, I remember reading the story of how W was sent to fire John Sunnunu during his father's presidency, which he apparently did with dispatch.

My take is that the recent articles that have appeared stating that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are not so estranged and that they do talk politics have been planted to wallpaper over their differences. These stories may be intended to set the stage for a PR play that portrays them as being reconciled and working together to save the Republican Party from the damage that Cheney has caused by his conduct of the administration's strategy in Iraq and the Middle East.

If W can throw Rumsfeld, Rove and Gonzales overboard, why would he shrink from doing the same to Cheney now that Cheney and his failed policies are a liability to him?

W is neither stupid nor inept nor incapable of making hard political decisions, and this is one where he can show himself to be the ultimate and final Decider. 

[ Parent ]
I want to see a bridge to close gaps (4.00 / 1)

I remember your post about partisan or ideological response and I wrote that if you wanted to win more republicans than ideological response was simpler.

http://www.openleft....

But, I fully agree an arc of ideas is required to frame the concept of government back into being a servant of the people, a tool as Clinton described it, to help society optimize it's resources and labor and help individuals reach their fullest potential. 
Bush and the GOP have thoroughly corrupted the concept into being a taxpayer ATM where corporations make withdrawals from the government and the taxpayer is led to believe that these are the lowest fees possible due to "market conditions"

Schlozman (0.00 / 0)
A minor point, perhaps, but Bradley Schlozman belongs on the list between Rove and Gonzales.
Hey, and what about Scooter Libby? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The solution would be to do nothing? (0.00 / 0)
Part of this is the fact that Democrats cannot stand mute at the historic lawbreaking being waged by this Administration.  When you see unethical and criminal acts, you know, anyone who is reasonably seen to be upholding the Constitution must act, and this spiral of criminality and retribution does obscure the war of ideas.  So it's tough to say what the solution should be.

Democrats should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, to put forward a progressive vision while punishing those who break the law.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

Yes, accountability and philosophy (0.00 / 0)
People want effective government, and clean government.  They are always complaining about how government, at all levels, does nothing.

And fighting corruption and malfeasance sends a message that you uphold the law and demand accountability.  That speaks volumes to those who respond best to 'law and order' frames and 'responsibility' frames, two groups sorely lacking in Democratic quarters.

I love your 'walk and chew gum' analogy.  The Gonzales scandal, along with all the others, creates an opening to talk about government that works for the masses while respecting its limitations, two key progressive values.

Chris is right, you have to talk about the philosophic underpinnings of progressive policies if we want to permanently change hearts and minds. But accountability and abiding by the law are absolutely key to government that works for the people, something progressives all want.

www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
What was Portman's scandal?  I don't think I heard about that one.
The Actual Impeachment Movement Does Target Values (0.00 / 0)
I'm very happy that Chris wrote this post, because it suggests that OpenLeft may soon become an everyday part of the impeachment movement.  That would be wonderful!
But as I pointed out when Matt wrote his post, there already is an impeachment movement, which has been going on for quite a while now.  (If you have not checked out afterdowningstreet.org yet, it is a leading impeachment site, formed after the release of the Downing Street Minutes back in May of 2005.)
It is focused on an individual--Dick Cheney at the moment--but precisely because he represents those nasty right-wing values of wars of aggression, executive secrecy, lying to the voters, torture, and destroying the Constitution.
Perhaps OpenLeft can join us in putting pressure on Dems to sign up for H. Res. 333, which Rep. Kucinich put forward to impeach Dick Cheney.  The Gonzales resignation suggests strongly that impeachment does have an effect on the process--we should try it with Cheney.
PDA has a working group on impeachment (0.00 / 0)
Oh, and I meant to include this in my previous comment--the Progressive Democrats of America have a working group on impeachment, which meets regularly by phone, and which has been pressing individual House Dems to live up to their values and support the Constitution/impeachment.
Technocratic Liberalism Gets the Scalps, But Doesn't Change Policy | 35 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox