Murphy's Law

The Nobel Peace Prize –and the general sense of optimism and expectation– is not only about Obama. This was true before the election and it’s true now.

In addition to an overdue but thorough repudiation of Republican incompetence, Obama’s landslide was more about the majority than the man. This belabors the obvious, today, but it’s instructive to recall the folks (and there were lots of them) who were convinced of two things back in ‘08: one, that Hillary Clinton represented the best chance for Democratic victory; and two, Obama had no chance to win. That he did was not only historic on multiple fronts, but tempted many in the country to reach the optimistic, if premature conclusion that race relations had turned the corner. While it’s obvious that a fair chunk of the population would diametrically oppose Obama no matter what, it only takes a cursory examination of the tactics and tenor of their resistance to understand the bile simmering centimeters beneath the surface. Nevertheless, what some people ascertained early in the Obama/Clinton face-off was that Hillary had the unenviable prospects of having about half the country hate her, before she even took office. At least it’s taken Obama a few months of not miraculously resuscitating the economy he inherited (even Superman, for all his unparalleled powers, was not able to create jobs) to earn some skepticism. But his ability to appeal to the moderates and middle-of-the-roaders was the key ingredient of his electoral success. And that possibility, beyond the charisma and the eloquence, was what propelled the audacity to hope.

Naturally, news of Obama’s Nobel Prize is going to explode the empty heads of the haters, but it will also give the mouth-breathers a new outrage to rally around. Let’s stop and pause at the irony: for the better part of eight years Dems worked themselves into a lather with every new Bush embarrassment; for the past eight months each Obama accolade is treated like an act of treason. Actually, there is not much irony there at all –the same idiots who held their breath like infants during the Clinton years (years that look better and better in hindsight) and marched lockstep with every Bush decision that set the country back, now throwing tea-party tantrums while Obama tries to clean up the playpen he inherited.

To be fair, whoever was willing (much less able) to tackle the myriad obstacles Bush & Co. left in the way is worthy of an award. But let there be no mistake: Obama’s honor is very much a repudiation of Bush’s hideous legacy. And if this is seen by the howling twits on the Right as a big “F You” from the rest of the world, it’s small recompense for the eight year “F You” the previous administration offered the world, to everyone’s detriment. (Speaking of those twits, enough can’t be said about how eagerly they seek to place our foreign and domestic disasters at Obama’s feet even though they vocally endorsed the decisions that led to this state of affairs.)

And that is the most disgraceful development: I’ve yet to hear many condemnations of the demonstrably failed policies of the Bush years. That is because there have been very few of them. Most of the post-mortems have appraised the political failures. And therein lies the rub: Bush stopped being popular and more importantly, Bush stopped winning, therefore his legacy is tarnished in the fickle, always opportunistic eyes of those who once ardently endorsed him. The actual recklessness and depravity of the policies have not been reevaluated or disowned; indeed, their supporters have doubled down on them (see last year’s election).

To be certain, the hardcore right-wing offered tepid support for McCain not only because he was such a woefully inadequate candidate (that is the sane view; the insider GOP view was that he had no chance to win, therefore his embrace by the powers-that-be was never more than lukewarm) but also that he wasn’t a real Republican. He sought compromise and he was viewed as too often too willing to work with the other party to get things accomplished. This shows you the diminishing returns of bipartisanship, circa Y2K: McCain’s scarcely heroic public stance against torture or his reluctance to offer full-throated support to the cretinous scaremongering that passes for Republican discourse on immigration hardly made him a moderate. But in today’s GOP, it does. And that is why Obama was elected, and why –despite the predictable and appalling fecklessness of so many elected Democrats — the Republican brand is at a nadir of sorts (don’t mistake the millions of citizens disgusted by the Wall Street shenanigans or the unemployment numbers –directly brought about by Bush’s domestic policies — as any sort of endorsement of a return to Republican rule).

It is imperative to recognize, and point out as often as necessary, that the same sadists pulling the strings in the not-so-big GOP tent are mostly angry and embarrassed because they got beaten last November. There has been nothing approximating a concerned or sober investigation of what went so dreadfully wrong as a result of bellicose foreign policy, the reckless (and expensive) launch of an unnecessary war, or the thoroughly debunked and shameful worship of free-market, voodoo economics. In this regard what passes for the Republican intelligentsia is quite identical to the flat-earth imbeciles who insist, even as the evidence otherwise piles up all around them, that Jesus was white and dinosaurs ambled about the Garden of Eden and the world is only a few thousand years old.

Even now, as unemployment numbers rise alongside escalating health care costs, you have right-wing scribes advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest half-percent and an intolerance for reform that undercuts the very principle of free market economics (Is it not a self-defeating argument that the same party who clamors for the inviolable advantages of competition suddenly opposes it in this one instance? Is it not more than a little revealing that the same big government they ridicule suddenly poses such a menacing threat to the insurance industry?) This is the one argument that reveals the hollow core of the Republican machinery: if any of these folks actually believed in the economic principles they espouse, they would reluctantly have no choice but to acknowledge that the public option epitomizes the theory of market competition in practice. But, naturally, the ideology can be adjusted as necessary (just like the anti-deficit hawks made no noise when the Iraq debacle and the immoral tax cut policy put the entire country deep into the red), and this brazen hypocrisy makes it impossible to ever take these people seriously, if anyone ever did.

In regards to foreign policy –and it is in this capacity that Obama is inspiring the world community, and the impetus behind his Nobel Prize– it is tempting to simply propose that any developments that rankle the rogues gallery below is inherently worthwhile.

Look at those faces again, and remember what they wrought. Just getting these sociopaths out of positions of power and influence is a substantial accomplishment.

On the other hand:

Those images are a sobering reminder of where we’ve been, and where we still are.

The most patient (and/or gullible) Obama endorsers keep reminding us that the president has a lot on his plate, and this much-vaunted change will take time. Okay, so how much time does he need? This is the same man who vowed to shut down Guantanamo on Day One, and end the farce known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. The fierce urgency of now quickly became the urgent ferocity of political ass-covering. And it would be one thing if the people Obama was inclined to infuriate (and they will be infuriated) represented anything approximating a majority, or anything more than a small minority. As it is, he’s avoiding making easy, sane and moral decisions to…appease the same lunatics who are already calling him a traitor and a socialist? It makes about as much sense as Michelle Bachmann.

And it is because of his extreme caution, and his infuriating equivocations on such no-brainers as gay marriage that the concern about Obama’s Nobel Prize is warranted. Not the superficial and trumped up consternation from the Right; but rather, the creeping skepticism on those from the Left (those who just today were dismissed by a typically anonymous chickenshit inside the administration as the “fringe left”). Talk about biting the hands that pulled the lever for you! I understand –somewhat– Obama’s foot-dragging on Guantanamo (perhaps once the health care debate is mostly sorted out it will be time to fight that battle, albeit way too late), but his cowardice on equal rights for all citizens is unconscionable and indefensible. It would be lame enough if this was a demographically polarizing issue (as it was during Clinton’s first term) but the fact that a majority of the people are behind this long overdue action makes Obama’s sluggishness a disgrace.

And there are some of us who are mortified by the prospect that Obama is now standing on the shoulders of his most loyal supporters to fortify his bulwark of prudent calculation. That is not what he was elected for, and it will be an unacceptable turn of events if, not a year into his first term, he is already more worried about his second term than the promises he made to get him in office. It’s almost enough to make one wish for the tooth and nail trench warfare we might have expected from a Hillary Clinton one-and-done term in office (because don’t kid yourself, Hillary would never have a chance at re-election, in part because she would exhaust all of her political capital just staying afloat, yet that 24/7 offensive might provide the required ferocity to affect some meaningful change). Put another way, I’d much rather have a bruising and contentious four year term that actually yielded some change we can believe in than eight years of triangulated calculation, unfulfilled promise and sweet but ultimately empty rhetoric.

Perhaps a wake-up call is necessary: Obama, by all evidence, is a moderate, and he has said and done little to convince anyone otherwise. And if this is the best we can expect, it’s unfortunate but far from the end of the world (again, always keep in mind the alternatives the other party had on offer, and by all accounts is still offering). I’m still mostly content to hang back and reserve judgment and consider both the man and his presidency a work in progress. Concern is, to my mind, entirely warranted and a good measure of healthy skepticism is required. And yet. Considering, once again, the almost inconceivable cataclysm he walked into, and the fact that we are –by any mature measure– much better off than we could (or would) have been, there’s no need for the Dems to eat their own, as usual. Not yet. We have the luxury of keeping Obama accountable in part because he didn’t let us fall off the cliff this year. And that is quite worth keeping front and center in the year(s) ahead. Also, for all we know, events that are underway and  far from fruition could turn out to be both historic and heroic, in hindsight. We’ll see. My bet is that the president will more than earn this premature encomium in the hard years ahead.

Nonetheless, if Obama is half the man History is setting him up to be, he is right to be humbled and he would do well to dedicate all of his energy and eloquence toward making good on the promises he already made. We can hope for more, but we should expect no less.

Listening to the disingenuous whining of the G.O.P. regarding the outrageous and irresponsible debt Obama is creating provokes various reactions. Here are ten of them.

(But first, the image it conjures is that of Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) taking the controls of his yacht and wreaking havoc in the bay: his rampage ends as, unable to figure out a way to stop the boat, he slams into Judge Smails’ (Ted Knight) wonderfully named Flying Wasp. Czervik’s initial reaction seems to be one of embarrassed culpability; he runs over to inspect the damage and then, as only the most clueless and pampered multi-millionaire ever could, he looks down and exclaims to Smails, “Hey, you scratched my anchor!” And just in case there is any confusion, Czervik represents George W. Bush–an analogy that is apt on myriad levels.)

The first is: You assholes just spent eight years incinerating the American Dream; now you have the temerity to come out of your crawl space and complain that the guy with the big firehose (Obama) is getting everything wet? I guess it wasn’t so bad when it was a different guy with a different hose; in fact, it was oddly warm when the last guy was splashing all over your face…admit it, you kind of liked it, didn’t you? Different water sports for different folks, as the saying goes.

Second, as this piece by David Leonhardt reminds anyone with eyes, the debt did not exactly hit unsuspecting Americans like a tidal wave on January 20, 2009. Indeed, the bulk of this deficit took the entirety of the Bush administration to metastasize. And don’t kid yourself: it was a very calculated process, with malice aforethought. Nobody could have predicted how insane the real estate bubble truly was (though Paul Krugman was more like Paul Revere for many years while few people in positions of power listened; indeed he was regularly mocked and marginalized), but one need not have actually experienced the Great Depression to see what was coming. Indeed, one only needed to live through the late ’80s S&L crisis or the dot.com boom & bust to understand that monopoly money only works when one is playing the board game.

"Don't worry...it's good luck!"

Third: Funny how nobody can quite bring themselves to consider the actual costs involved with that little foreign clusterfuck also known as Iraq. To put it in simple terms: it has not been an inexpensive adventure.

Fourth: How come the people who benefit least from tax cuts for the wealthy understand least how rotten a deal it is? (That is a rhetorical question, mostly.) The G.O.P. can always count on its base to take a bite out of the Baby Ruth bar.

"It's no big deal!"

Fifth: Seriously, how the fuck is it possible for people that work for a living (and pay taxes) to still be hoodwinked by this scam?

Sixth: Other than total ignorance or reflective racism, I can think of exactly zero reasons these same tax-paying American workers fail to see why universal health care is not a fantastic thing. You know, something that would actually help, not hurt them. Fox News and the people that watch it are, of course, beyond assistance. But for the rest of the folks? Obama is simply going to have to damn the torpedoes and do a much more effective job conveying what a no-brainer this actually is. Hopefully tonight is the first significant step in the right direction. Stay tuned.

Seventh: If you find yourself discussing these matters with a Republican friend who claims to be appalled with the way Obama the Socialist is saddling future generations with mountains of debt, feel free to refer to this (taken from the Leonhardt article, above):

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

Eighth: If Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich, those arbiters of equality, are stridently opposed to legislation, how could that legislation possibly be a bad thing? That is just shorthand logic at work: look at who is fighting universal healthcare: the most insufferable conservatives and the insurance industry. Those guys have your best interest in mind as much as this guy does:

Ninth: Anyone who thinks invoking Cheney is either a cliche or a cheap shot, just remember, this is the motherfucker who said Deficits don’t matter!

Tenth: Read this.

The Al Czervik analogy works on many levels, but it’s difficult to promote the notion of poor, unsuspecting America being represented by the bilious buffoon Elihu Smails; that old codger deserved his comeuppance, and Czervik, clown that he is, still is the one we root for because it’s not our money, it’s not our country club. It’s a country club cage match, and the only spoils the winners get is the privilege of being kings of a…country club.

Perhaps the better analogy, from the same movie, is the less metaphorically sticky moment when Carl (Bill Murray) watches lightning strike the priest and quickly, without a second thought, sneaks off into the night. All jokes aside, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better single image signifying the accountability of the ones who brazenly drove us off the cliff.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly: did I just actually utilize scenes from Caddyshack to discuss Republican intransigence on Obama’s initiatives? Well what do you want, nuanced, reasoned insight and exhaustive historical analysis over what boils down to the G.O.P. being scared shitless that successful health care policy will further entrench them in the wilderness? You’ll get nothing and like it!

They should have yelled "Two"

Good riddance to that cynical putz, Judd Gregg. And frankly, thank you very little Tim Geithner for your impenetrable, marble-mouthed “strategy”, which wasn’t exactly Viagra for concerned Americans’ confidence levels.

Let’s make a bold move that would really matter: nominate Paul Krugman. Not that he’d take it (why would he want to do this job?)

Today’s column in the NYT, here, illustrates, yet again, that the Krug has been right, about everything, for the last eight years. And here’s the thing: it’s not simply that his advice wasn’t heeded; that he didn’t get the attention of the appropriate people, it was that he was ridiculed and derided for being a naysayer, a party-pooper, a dud (Kind of reminds me of Al Gore and how his thoughts about the environment used to be received). Krugman’s overdue Nobel for Economics was poetic justice, but in practical terms, it was esentially posthumous; not for his death, but the death of our economy. And he was harping about it, all along. Indeed, Krug and Gore’s Nobel prizes are like bookends signalling the semi-return to rational thought that all but dissipated during the Bush era.

A few words about the whole Bush era thing. Lest anyone think this is an attempt to lay all the blame at one man’s feet, it most certainly is not. The catastrophic mismanagement of the last eight years could never conceivably be attributed to one individual. Rather, it required a large, dedicated cadre of misguided goons to pull off such epic suck. Seriously. Now that the economy is off the rails, it’s become easier to overlook how much dough we’ve spent in Iraq. And I’m as glad as any other American-hating Defeatocrat that conditions seem to have stabilized over there, but let’s not kid ourselves: by the time the accounting is completed, we’re likely to have spent more than $3 Trillion (here’s a sobering refresher course). For what? Here is what we’ve been reduced to hoping for (and what its architects and defenders are now crowing about): that it’s not an unequivocal fiasco. If it’s merely stable enough so we can quietly extract ourselves, it will be a wash (and, in the opinions of the aforementioned war-monkeys, a total success, vindicating the entire endeavor). Think about that. And so, naturally, it’s tough to stomach the austere hand-wringing by the Repubs over the current (ever-shrinking!) stimulus package. Now, after the bride has been vengeance-fucked by a gang of drunken bikers, they are considering the more dignified option of chastity (in this instance, the bride is our financial future). As is always the case with “conservative” Doppelgängers , once the Prom is over they are eager to embrace virtue, albeit with a hangover and guilty conscience.

What’s not to love about the Krug? It’s not just that he has been prescient on seemingly every issue (economic as well as foreign and domestic policy), it’s that he drives die-hard Republicans insane. Don’t make the mistake of equating the effect he has on Repubs to the effect, say, Newt Gingrich has on Dems. There is similar animosity, certainly, in both camps, but there is one crucial difference: in addition to being smarmy, smug and insufferable, Newt is also consistently, incredibly, reliably wrong on virtually every topic he pops off on. And boy does he pop off.  Still, what makes this very small man such a large nuisance (and so easy to see through) is that practically everything he espouses is inexorably designed to augment his own agenda. He is irrevocably dedicated to creating more space, for himself. It is all about him, more so than it is for the average political blowhard. Where most politicians, to quote James Brown, are too often talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothing; he talks loud and says many things. They just happen to all be wrong. In fact, Newt is the anti-Krug. On every issue Krug gets in front of (and is able to articulate in ways that are reasonable, effective and most importantly, subsequently proven right), Newt gets wrong. Iraq? Check. The mid-term elections in ‘06? Check. Anything having to do with the economy? Check. In fact, Newt is wrong on things Krug doesn’t even go near, like political handicapping. Think I’m joking? As anyone paying attention these last two decades could have predicted, he was a vocal cheerleader for the current Republican intransigence on the stimulus plan (let’s return to the video tape: Not a single Republican vote! That, in and of itself, is abundantly revealing, but what the Repubs, among other things, have just done is unanimously vote against what amounts to the largest middle class tax cuts in history. That might not play out, shall we say, to their satisfaction in 2010). His allergy to bi-partisanship under any circumstances is not what makes him unique, it is the way he combines being incorrect with the craven (and consistent) willingness to distance himself from his own pronouncements once they lay in ruins all around him. He, like many of his opportunistic ilk, could not have run away from Bush quickly enough once it was clear any association with him was toxic. He is, in short, his own unique and special entity, and I certainly hope he waddles front and center for the GOP in the years ahead, as it can only help us.

But getting back to Krugman: he irritates Republicans not simply because he tells the truth, but he tells it without allegiance to ideology or agenda. Unless you want to start calling “the truth” an agenda (and, now that I think about it, that is kind of what many Republicans did these last eight years, and as Stephen Colbert brilliantly pointed out, the truth has a discernible liberal bias). He is that increasingly rare entity: an economist who actually takes the time to taste the tea instead of just reading tea leaves. This requires intellectual rigor, hard work, and courage–something most economists (and just about all Republicans, and, frankly, more than a few Democrats on the scene right now) lack.

Krugman doesn’t need the honor, or aggravation, of being formally involved in any administration. His words will be listened to for the simple reason that they should be listened to. They demand attention. But it is in our collective best interest that we pay more attention, and do our part (in whatever way it’s possible–mostly by hoping Obama and his somewhat underwhelming front line of defense on economic matters pay close attention). There never seems to be a short supply of insider-types who monitor crises with one hand on their balls and one hand holding their own wallet (see: Paulson, Henry and Geithner, Timothy). Regrettably, despite the considerable promise the Obama administration presents, and the significant accomplishments already attained (how do you think that “stimulus” package would look if McCain was counting on Phil Gramm to help craft it? And that’s assuming there was even an interest in stimulating anything, other than more of the same egregious tax cuts that made this mess metastasize), there are some serious lightweights and old-school crusaders whose chief ambition is to maintain the status quo. Which would be: to maintain that expanding space between the have-nots and the have-mores. This is the one thing all of the old guard find intolerable. Let’s hope some better angels (we could settle for some mediocre angels) are able to step up and make the words meaningful and difference work simultaneously. It would be change, and not change everyone can believe in. Which is progress: the people who don’t believe in that type of change are the very people we can no longer afford to have obstructing the way forward.

From Truthdig, courtesy of RJ Matson (The St. Louis Post Dispatch).

Not much to add here, but something does occur to me. The tax cut maniacs are single issue obsessives for the simplest of reasons: tax cuts don’t work. Lest that sound too cute by half, or like I’m invoking some Orwellian doublespeak, it’s much less complicated (and more insidious) than that. This mantra (that tax cuts spread wealth, create jobs, and stimulate er…the economy) has proven to be patently false, often, in spectacular fashion. First during the Reagan years, and now during the Bush catastrophe. Indeed, even now it is screaming out its impotence right before our foreclosed eyes. But here’s the rub (literally): the folks who propagate this myth and define this debate (the ones with actual power, not the millions of beguiled True Believers who continue to blame the government instead of the scheming autopilots who intentionally debase it) have little to lose and quite a bit to gain. Put simply: these folks are not merely shameless and without souls, they are also remarkably shrewd. It’s not that they actually believe increased and unceasing tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest percentile, are viable in any demonstrable way; it’s precisely the ways they fail as a strategy that makes for such a win/win proposition.

Check it out: in the short-term, tax cuts put more money in your pocket. Well, at least if you’re wealthy. And the wealthier you are, the more money you get. See? The other folks, not so much. Sure, it seems swell to get that extra few hundred bucks, but those Benjamins are not going too far when, at the same time, your health care premiums have doubled. Or additional benefits are cut at work. Or your credit card interest rate is jacked up. Get the piture? But here’s the ugly beauty: these cretins know it will cause the economy to bloat, then implode. And that’s usually the time a Democrat gets called in to clean up the mess (see: Carter, Jimmy; Clinton, Bill and Obama, Barack). The more indebted the U.S. is, the more government programs get cut, and the less efficient government is as a result. So that Republicans can point and say “See? We keep trying to explain that the big, bad government isn’t going to help you; and do you want these inefficient programs taking hard-earned money out of your pockets?” And the cycle continues again.

The spin always outperforms the true story. We’ve seen it before (there were people, then, and there are actually people, now, blaming FDR for making government too intrusive; there are people, discussed here recently, who point to the “Reagan Revolution” as a time when the free market prevailed and prosperity abounded, despite all annoying evidence to the contrary), and we’ll see it again. In fact, we are already getting a taste: listen to the blowhards bitching about the Big G (Government); nevermind that the size of government increased the last 8 years.

Look: politicians of either party will always be politicians, and to a certain extent, people are people, no matter who they vote for or what they believe (because the bottom line is, the overwhelming majority of us have to work and pay bills and our taxes are non-negotiable). Or to put it less kindly, we are all of us sheep, hoping the grass in our pen doesn’t stop growing. And that’s the way it’s always been, so there’s nothing really to begrudge: it takes people to make a democracy, after all (like, literally: no matter how mendacious or benevolent the party in power at a particular time, without the citizens, and our taxes, our labor and our consensus, we glide right past aristocracy and into oblivion). The only folks we can, and should, reserve our contempt for are the relative handful actually in power, often scheming behind the scenes: the ones who can make or break lives with the policies or decisions they implement; the ones fully aware how much their temporal and short-sighed intentions affect innocent lives. Those are the ones for whom we should break out the tar and the feathers.

MVP! MVP! MVP!

If, like me, you were unable to get through a day this past fall without visiting at least a half dozen (often more) blogs, sites and newspapers (Glenn Greenwald @ Salon? Check! Andrew Sullivan @ Daily Dish? Check! The usually accurate analysis at The Nation and Mother Jones? Check. AlterNet and truthout? Yup. The fantastic critical mash-up of all-things progressive at topplebush.com? Hells yeah. Always keeping an eye out for The Hitch because, even when he’s off his liquid meds, he’s always good reading: he writes better on his worst day than 99.9% of humans can accomplish on their best. And, of course, when he’s on, he’s on. And even as a site like The Huffington Post becomes fonder of itself–and its ankle-deep celebrity commentaries–than good writing, it, like its cousin Daily Kos does more good than ill, it just requires some screening to separate the insight from the onanism). You get the picture.

But if I were to single out the one writer whose work, week in and week out, is not only invaluable but imperative, I would without the slightest hesitation give the nod to NYT’s Frank Rich. Rich has been around for a while, and written brilliantly about the arts, culture and politics. It’s for the latter that he has been my go-to guy for the last several years. I am confident I could revisit any single piece (he is featured each Sunday in NYT’s Op-Ed section) from this time period and pull out several quotes to illustrate his trenchant take on the mess America has been making. It’s not a simple matter of  exemplary intellect and writing (though these things offer their own manifold rewards), it’s that his inerrant eye holds up, months and years later. Rich warrants repeated reading, period. In this regard, his oeuvre is very like art, and that is just about the highest praise I could offer. Here’s a taste, from today’s column (check it, here):

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam—the four food groups of the apocalypse.

Also from today, he eschews the shooting fish in a barrel target practice that was, let’s face it, so simple (if maddeningly obligatory) during the clown-prince Bush’s recent reign, and hones in on the bigger, messier picture:

The crisis is at least as grave as the one that confronted us — and, for a time, united us — after 9/11. Which is why the antics among Republicans on Capitol Hill seem so surreal. These are the same politicians who only yesterday smeared the patriotism of any dissenters from Bush’s “war on terror.” Where is their own patriotism now that economic terror is inflicting far more harm on their constituents than Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent W.M.D.?

Here’s the thing: Rich ties in seemingly all the threads (speaking of today’s effort and his work in general); he does not take just one topic–no matter how large or pressing–and put that in his sights, though that would be entirely suitable and satisfactory. Rather, he really does summarize the lay of the land, moving from mark to mark, seamlessly weaving a tapestry of analysis. This, of course, is much harder than it looks. Hence, this explains why his contributions are so crucial.

I hope we get to a place (sooner and not later) where his input is not so welcome, and necessary. But I don’t expect that to happen, so long may he run.

This guy makes plenty of sense...just ask him!

Cohen strikes again. What an asshole. See for yourself, here.

Back then, a WP poll gave George W. Bush an approval rating of 92 percent, which meant that almost no one thought he was on the wrong course. At the same time, questions about the viability of torture were very much in the air.

Really, Richard? 92 percent? You mean, perhaps, that more than 9 out of 10 Americans wanted our commander in chief to figure out who attacked us, and strike back? The people who wanted to ensure that we protected our own people? I remember them, I was there. I was one of them. Still am, actually. Here’s the thing, smart guy: your intelligence-insulting proposition is that more than 90 percent of the country gave Bush a blank check to do anything and everything, in the name of protecting us. That ain’t what happened. And your risible attempt to revise history (so blatantly, so lazily) would not be nearly as repugnant if you didn’t know how full of shit you are. But you do. You know you were one of the hysterical insider Beltway sissies who lost all their marbles when it looked like America was not safe. Like a child clinging to a parent’s pants, you just wanted to close your eyes and make all the bad guys go away. That is why you were loud and proud when you helped trumpet Bush and Company’s bullshit about WMDs in Iraq. Even you, the craven dupe that you are, saw through the cracks and holes in that manufactured plot-line, but hey, we have to pin this on someone. Wouldn’t it be good to kick some ass, kind of restore our dignity and sense of purpose? (All the better if we have someone else do the ass-kicking for us.) You were pretty sure you were wrong, but you went ahead anyway. And that is why you are so transparently desperate, now, to not only revise the storyline (one that is recent enough that any sentient reader can–and will–call you on it), but implicate as many other Americans as possible. Guilt by association is always specious, but it’s particularly repellant when a cocksure columnist takes it open himself to throw the net as wide as he can to bring other folks down to his level. It’s beyond pathetic.

At the same time, we have to be respectful of those who were in that Sept. 11 frame of mind, who thought they were saving lives — and maybe were — and who, in any case, were doing what the nation and its leaders wanted. It is imperative that our intelligence agents not have to fear that a sincere effort will result in their being hauled before some congressional committee or a grand jury. We want the finest people in these jobs — not time-stampers who take no chances.

One more day.

Yes we did, yes we will, et cetera. It happened, and it’s happening (Obama is in, Bush is out), so I’ve felt less compelled to absorb every piece deconstructing the Bush debacle. Who needs to read several dozen of the same stories, especially for anyone who has watched the story unfold, in real time? Of course, it’s enlightening, and infuriating (and above all, amusing), to read the tepid apologies and especially the face-saving salvos reminding us of all the good things that happened on The Decider’s watch.

Needless to say, most of the opportunistic armchair commentators denouncing Dubya happen to be the same ones who endorsed him in 2000. Accordingly, something struck me–not for the first time–while reading The Economist’s farewell to the man-child they dub the “frat boy president” (here). Not that they are assessing him as a frat boy, now, which is correct, if somewhat innocuous considering the damage he’s done (it is sort of like calling an arsonist responsible for burning down a city block a man who “liked to play with matches”); it is that they called him that, then, and still felt it was acceptable (preferable?) to have this admittedly dimwitted, unspectacular in every aspect, incurious ne’er- do-well from a patrician political dynasty (yeah, giving the family black sheep with daddy issues the key to the kingdom was never a powder-puff keg waiting to implode) in charge.

Here is the quote that brings me back to 2000 (literally and figuratively): “He came across as an affable chap, particularly when compared with his uptight rival.” Yup, that was the type of intellectual refuse that passed for political analysis at the time. Perhaps not the prevailing view (Gore did, after all, win that ultimately unpersuasive popular vote), but resonant enough that it gained significant traction. And while not nearly enough time has been spent rehashing the collective apathy and willful ignorance (one might call it the complacency from the Clinton years–a time of peace and prosperity not only taken for granted, but one that seems increasingly conspicuous in hindsight), even less time has been devoted to grappling with the perverse perspective that allowed the Gore/Bush contest to be close in the first place: we all know the tired and unfortunate balderdash about Americans having a preference for the guy they’d rather have a beer (or, in Bush’s case, a near-beer) with.

This is the same type of sentiment that informs the creation (and success) of reality TV and spectacles like the red carpet walk before the Academy awards, or the Academy awards period. As Americans, we’ll always have our lamentable lack of intellectual integrity working against us, but 2000 was a low-water mark for presumption mating with unwarranted optimism to create the imperfect beast that has been Bush. Optimism in the sense that, despite all of Clinton’s (mostly self-inflicted) flaws, the man oversaw a period of time that put the vast majority of Americans in a better place than they’d been during the papa Bush (not to mention patron saint of rose-colored conservatism Ronald Reagan) era. Americans made the mistake of assuming we were on cruise control, and heading into the 21st century, it didn’t particularly matter who was behind the wheel, our car was never running out of gas or off the tracks. And this is the crux of the dilemma: how many Americans would allow (much less prefer) a non-credentialed, but good-natured stranger to fix their car? Or do their taxes? Or sell their house? Or manage their funds? (Oops). But somehow, when it came to choosing the person who would run the affairs of the most powerful nation in the world, enough (and entirely too many) of us said “Hey, what’s the worst thing that can happen?”

The answer: 2001-2008.

The point being, it’s woefully inadequate for all of the typically, predictably unaccountable journalists to castigate, in hindsight—and now that the country is burning—all of the ways Bush’s cronyism and incompetence set us back. He remains, and always was, the same man we beheld during the 2000 campaign (did anyone actually watch the debates vs. Gore? Did anyone come away from a single debate reassured that Bush was up to the task?) Again, this is not to let Gore off the hook for his myriad shortcomings and tactical blunders: against all probability, Kerry (and even McCain) tried to make it close, but Gore’s 2000 campaign must ultimately rank as the single-most self destructive and useless of all time: to invoke a lame, but unavoidable cliché, he truly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. From his sighs to his naïve reliance on obtuse consultants to his tone-deaf insistence on keeping Clinton (who, despite the Lewinsky debacle, was still by far the most popular person in the country) away from his operation, he became a cat that, in a bewildering mix of confidence and confusion, declawed itself only to watch the mockingbird chirp at him with relative impunity. It was unbearable to behold, one can only imagine how insufferable Gore finds those memories–even now–when he hits his pillow at night.

And so, none of this is to excuse Gore, or to lose focus on how much responsibility master of muppets Cheney actually bears, but the most culpable individual for the Bush disaster is the American voter who (with no help from a typically supine media) pulled the lever for a man who should only have inspired  bad fiction instead of engineering implausible reality.

Of course, many of these individuals are the same ones who, chastened or inspired, pulled the lever for Obama. And that, in the end, might be the truly enduring legacy of George W. Bush: he failed so spectacularly, his incompetence was so colossal, his influence so poisonous, that he—more than anyone or anything—set the stage for the previously unthinkable: a relatively untested, young African American (Democrat!) winning the presidency. In a landslide. Turning states that had voted reliably red for 40 years blue. With all due respect to Obama’s considerable skills, charisma, and promise, the cult of personality he has inspired might owe as much to a Bush backlash as any sudden shift in the American sensibility. Things have been so bad for so long that the thought of “more of the same” (sorry McCain) was simply repugnant and inconceivable for way too many Americans. So, while wars, failure abroad and at home, the economy, torture and inadequacy will all be part of the sordid Bush story, he might have exceeded even his most virulent detractors’  predictions and done the impossible, after all: he made it possible to imagine a new, better era dominated by Democrats, and democracy.

Only in America.

Bush gets "the boot" in Dupont Circle, 1-19-2009

It’s Not (Only) About Obama
by Sean G. Murphy
topplebush.com
February 22, 2008

It is curious, yet oddly illuminating, that so many media blowhards (the predictable conservative and especially the liberal) who seem most surprised—and increasingly nonplussed—by Barack Obama’s success are the ones with the most to lose. Not their notions of safety and security or their concerns for country and community; but rather, the one thing that matters above all: their relevance. Their credibility, of course, has already taken a beating, at least what shreds of it still cling to them, having been beaten about by the proverbial winds of change—change now being the dreaded C word for those scribes allergic to introspection and unwilling, or possibly unable, to consider their culpability for the sorry state of our union.
To be clear, these are the same pundits who sniff with haughty exasperation at the so-called “cultish” elements of the Obama phenomenon. It seems quite safe to predict that there will be much more of these holier-than-thou admonishments in the weeks ahead, and it is a certainty that more ink will be spilled over Obama’s ascendancy than tears shed for the current war—that one without an end in sight, which they did much more than they’d care to admit in helping to facilitate. It will be instructive to keep in mind that most of these inside-the-beltway intellectuals were not exactly thinking outside the box during most of the Bush years. At least until it was way too little, way too late. Effectively herded into the bullpen that Bush, Inc. built, their collective wisdom was nowhere on display during the unfolding of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To recap, this pusillanimous posse displayed exactly what makes them so often insufferable, and predictable: a pack mentality without the will to confront, much less question, the obvious spin, spoon-fed from a crusading pack of Neocon hyenas who, with the zeal of true believers and the arrogance of true imbeciles, dedicated all of their energies toward conning a country—still susceptible from 9/11—into what (shock and awe!) is already considered one of the foremost, and costliest, blunders in American history.
But everyone already knows that, right? Herein lies the rub: some people predicted it all. Tons and tons of them. Alas, not many of them had access to their own bylines and MSM readership. And yet, the prevailing myth these myopic enablers now desperately hope to propagate revolves around a malevolent administration that hoodwinked us all into war. Shucks, if only we knew then what we know now…Nice try. The (literally) silent majority of news-actors, columnists and Sunday talk show circuiteers couldn’t be bothered to do anything as radical as actually examining what was painfully apparent to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about anything relating to the Middle East (a PhD in Iraqi relations was not a prerequisite here). Or, anyone who might have taken the time to revisit the rationale provided for the U.S. exodus from Iraq—a carefully considered diplomatic decision that, not quite ironically, was widely reviled by the armchair architects of the current fiasco. And yet these are the same folks who wish to be taken seriously, now, when commenting on current events involving everything from the surge to the (suddenly) suspicious ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In short and in sum, no one should be surprised if any (or all) of these self-appointed legislators of what comprises (and compromises) the status quo protest a tad too much, as they collectively represent the antithesis of change.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton—she of the steely resolve, years of experience and judgment to lead on Day One. The same Clinton who, with one and a half eyes already on ’08, calculated, then, that the only way to bolster her credentials as a would-be Commander in Chief for an eventual (and inevitable) White House run was to out-hawk the more bellicose self-preservationists in her party (Hello, Mr. Lieberman!). In short, she sold out principle, common sense, and a distressing slab of her soul (or, at the very least, anything approximating genuine concern for innocent lives—American and Iraqi) when she, along with many others who should have known better (Hello, Mr. Edwards!), rubber-stamped Pee Wee’s big adventure. And, importantly, she has since steadfastly avoided articulating anything other than an unconvincing, and often incoherent, string of cop-outs and equivocations. This, to listen to her stump speech, is the type of leader America desperately needs following the same Bush years she did more to help than to hinder.
(A quick and semi-painless side note about the punch-drunk driver of the stray-talk express, the man who has—with astonishingly little ROI—pandered his blackening heart out to the lunatic hardliners who, apparently, still can commission the GOP’s seal of approval. The former prisoner of war was—famously of infamously, depending on how far to the right you can tilt without falling over—against torture before he was…for it? By his own admission he has recently come to refine his views, all of course in a timorous attempt to assuage the party Poobahs, begging the question: where does that leave this prototypical one trick pony, now? Big Mac without the moral authority—or at least moral indignation—on whether the U.S. can tolerate torture is like Rudy G. without the opportunity to pimp the deaths of several thousand New York citizens. Put simply, the real McCain has assumed control, and no further discussion of his otherwise nonexistent platform is necessary.)
But getting back to Billary. To their credit, the worst couple have outdone themselves, surpassing even the most skeptical critics’ depiction of her as a callous, divide-and-conquer Queen Bee. The Clintons, clearly, won’t do half-measures. The earth cannot be too scorched after their machinery has made its way through town. It is, to be fair, a remarkable achievement: to alienate some of the most devoted advocates of Bubba’s eight-year tour of duty (which, in any reasonable analysis, was more than half-hindered by the best efforts of those monomaniacal GOP goons who, in Slick Willy, found their once-in-a-lifetime white whale; just like in the book, the final confrontation was brutal and bloody, but the behemoth, coasting on the goodwill of forgiving, and/or appropriately indifferent citizens, remained mostly unscathed and lived to dive again into safer, and more lucrative waters).
For anyone who, understandably, is exhausted from that “us vs. the world” mixture of triangulated antipathy and distasteful entitlement, it is understandable why one would not exactly look forward to four-to-eight years of an all-in, Winner-Take-Little war of attrition, played with (White) House money. Everyone knew Hillary’s wrecking crew would resort to any available tactic from the dirty tricks arsenal, and invent new ones on the fly. But who could have imagined her husband, the so-called “first black president”, pulling a thinly veiled Strom Thurmond after Obama’s South Carolina victory? Again, this was not politics as usual so much as the most sickeningly cynical of appeals to the worst angels of a historically red state. Not to mention an electorate that would otherwise be justifiably celebrating authentic progress (for the party, for the country).
And yet, it has been the awkward attempts to explain how she was on board with respecting the agreement to officially ignore the Florida and Michigan delegates before she came to her senses, (of course, in a fashion that could only be described as Clintonian, she had ensured that her name was on those ballots, just in case), that seemed to serve as the final straw for many fence-sitters. Who, in the end, could stomach an administration that, at best, is going to be loathed by 49% of the population? We’ve had eight years of animosity, and that commenced with a candidate who—as opposed to Hillary—had an ostensibly clean slate coming in. (This, of course, is not meant to insult the many millions of voters who saw through the prepackaged snake oil that substance-free clown prince was hawking in 1999; if anything, it should serve as a rude reminder for the voters who, overcome with apathy—or naiveté—endorsed Ralph Nader or, worse, sat it out in 2000 altogether.)
None of the above, incidentally, is to suggest that a Hillary Clinton presidency would not be incalculably more genuine, productive and rewarding than George W. Bush’s imbroglio. It would. Nevertheless, to see the imperfect couple perfectly content to engineer a campaign that believes a divided—if not partially destroyed—party is preferable to the unimaginable notion of actually losing, it remains refreshing, and quite fortunate, that we have other, better options.
Obama, as all but his more intractable foot soldiers would concede, has some work to do. And frankly, even that is in many ways a relief. Playtime is over and we can’t afford another cocksure child who knows that he has no qualms with not knowing shit. Besides, as we learned from Gore and Kerry, (among other things) policy wonkishness is overrated in campaign season, particularly when the competition is John “100 More Years” McCain. Also, anyone who actually suspects that Obama is, thus far, a triumph of stylish rhetoric over substance is advised to pick up a copy of Dreams from My Father, or take a closer look at his achievements in Illinois or, tellingly, the unassailable success of the campaign he has overseen.
The smart money says he is up for the challenge and, crucially, will most certainly surround himself, as intelligent and secure adults tend to do, with intelligent and secure associates. Still not convinced? Try this: the names Wolfowitz, Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Gonzales—or any of their ludicrous ilk—will be invited to influence or infest an Obama administration. And, unless she wakes up soon and accepts that an inevitable force of history (not her story) has passed her by, neither will Hillary Clinton.

Posted: March 3, 2008

Friday, May 05, 2006
While We’re on the Subject of the So-Called Liberal Media…
(sigh). This Colbert and Cohen stuff makes one realize, once again, that there is nothing new under the sun (plus c’est change, plus c’est la meme chose). I had actually written a piece for webdelsol.com at the editor’s request, leading up to the 04 election (remember how good it felt when we just *knew* Bush was about to lose?), and in a decision that was equal parts ironic and prescient, the piece was considered a “tad harsh” and possibly alienating (heaven forbid political commentary ruffles some feathers, particularly when it involves the media…especially in the wake of the Iraq war which at that point was still mostly well-received in the general american consciousness).
It’s fun, or at least enlightening, to revisit old predictions or opinions when they’ve been proven true; except when it’s depressing. Either way, it’s amusing and distressing to look at this, written in December of 2003 (!!) and not only stand by it, but find it somewhat quaint; if anything, it wasn’t harsh enough (and I’m glad I was rockin the freedom fry material even then). So, with the help of Al Gore’s Back-To-The-Future Machine, here it is:
Politics and the Hoi Polloi, Volume One : The American Media

Since we made it to the new millennium without imploding, it seems necessary, even imperative, for us to find ways to amuse and astonish ourselves.
Even by our seemingly increasing need for polarity in all-things-political, this past year has successfully drawn the sides even further apart, ensuring that the twain between left and right shall not meet anytime soon in this new century.
Only in America, it seems, could the (popular) media be accused, over the course of less than six months, of cravenly kowtowing to the GOP powers-that-be, and then scavenging off the suddenly off limits events inIraq. Who knew the honeymoon of embedded reporting would end as soon as the situation slipped out of control of the armchair nation builders back home? The same cynics that predicted this, and were castigated as traitors who arent patriotic enough to super-size their freedom fries, thats who.
It would behoove the finger pointers to face the fact that the only bias the media has is toward blood (as in the life blood of death and destruction, which equates to ratings); the only party they are beholden to is winning, and they love the smell of napalm in the morning news. Perhaps even more so than mealy-mouthed politicos, who we at least expect to be craven and self-serving, these media maggots are the real opportunists currently plying their trade. It was hard to discern a hard-core liberal slant with all the flags waving on the screens during the round-the-clock, jingo-onanism masquerading as reporting last March. It seems disingenuous to describe the Washington Post as a bastion of left-leaning agitprop when George Will and Charles The Hammer Krauthammer are given space every other day to fly their geek flags: they dont even need to browbeat liberals, they are too preoccupied with attacking fellow conservatives for not obsequiously goose-stepping to the party line. Now, of course, we are hearing how hard it is to get a fair shake when all these pinko-commie rags are concerned with is focusing solely on the bad stuff like more people dying each month since the Commander in Chief ill-advised bring em on bravado. Youd think the GOP brain trust would be grateful that somethinganythingwas deflecting attention away from the pesky fact that Bin Laden is still in charge. Or living large. Or just living.
Despite the typically less than honest antics of the neo-con apologists of late, its been anything but a banner year for the media. This, after all, is the fellowship that allowed con artists like Glass and Blair to thrive in their ranks. And like the CEOs who, in the wake of Enron, et cetera, its suddenly fashionable to despise, as if these commandoes of capitalism havent been behind us (with their pants down) ever since the Robber Barons first goosed the money-grubbing masses, it was only when the facts became too uncomfortably obvious that they finally get censured, sent away to the country club exiles and the talk-show trail of tears.
And speaking of tears, what are the opportunists on the Left making of this panoply of potential knockout punches? Not much. The only people more inept than the posers in power are the pretenders hoping to replace them. Kerry, the default go-to guy early on, seems determined to outdo Al Gore in operating the most lame and lifeless campaign in recent memory, and he doesnt have the luxury of blaming Ralph Nader. As for the pugnacious Howard Dean, whatever else can (and will) be said about him, he has galvanized a party that has seemingly forgotten how to make a decision without first consulting high-priced PR hacks and hastily appointed pulse-takers of the ephemeral national temperament. When Al Gore perfects his Back to the Future machine (he did, after all, invent the Internet) and wins again, again, in 2000, he could learn a lot from Deans refreshing intensity.
If Democrats are counting on the oleaginous Al Franken or the insufferably self-satisfied Michael Moore to provide sane commentary currently overlooked on the unfair and unbalanced network news, something is indeed rotten in D.C. Since OReilly, Limbaugh and the seemingly lobotomized Dennis Miller have been living punch lines lately, the Left has an opportunity to focus on the Man behind the curtain, and not waste time on the sidelines with his well-paid, well-positioned ministers of doom and gloom. Its time to get busy. And as painful as much of this is to behold as it languidly unfolds in real time, it is sobering to consider the inevitability of when these made-for-TV moments are made into made-for-TV movies.
12/6/03