Cat got your tongue?
Posted by Scott BannonI hope it’s the cat…
In a moment of clarity–or perhaps it was confusion–I made a couple of long-winded postings to one of my favorite online political discussion forums yesterday which better reflect my positions on recent events in Washington D.C., as well as my despisal for the extreme polarization in America today than anything I think I could have accomplished had I actually sat down and planned to write. I’m going to use the points of those postings for this writing, and expand to provide more context and commentary.
The first topic of debate was regarding Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, and his refusal to consider resigning in light of numerous allegations of incompetence being made–many due to revelations from Bob Woodward’s new book, State of Denial.
Right away several members of the forum jumped to Rumsfeld’s defense and without facts or evidence to give cause for their support of Rumsfeld–nor to refute any of the allegations from Woodward’s book–they simply championed him and attacked those who have questions or concerns about his ability to perform the duties of his position.
It was a classic example of straight partisan siding. Something I despise and fear greatly. When We The People become so divided along partisan lines that we refuse to respect and value the words and ideas of half the country simply because they’re of a different party affiliation or have differing ideologies, then we have become the problem. As we sit back and question, cheer or criticize our government it is actually us that have allowed the out-of-control to become out of control. And the worst thing about it–the reason I fear today’s polarized atmosphere so–is that while we are in this polarized state our great nation is paralyzed.
Elections can be won or lost by such polarization, there’s no doubt about it. It’s a simple divide and conquerer strategy. But when it becomes sustained beyond election day as it has in recent years; our government isn’t designed to function under such polarized conditions and fails to work.
Partisan politicking and unchecked powers never lead to progress in our system. They only lead to greed, scandal and all of the ugliest things imaginable exploding from the realms of secret desires into reality in motion. Since it may seem I’m taking a pot-shot at Republicans with that statement given the timing, let me clearly state that I would no more want to see Democrats hold such unchallenged and unchecked power than I do Republicans. America works best when both major parties are forced to work together. When one party, and I don’t care which one it is, holds too much power and authority the nation ultimately begins to drift off course.
George Washington recognized this over two hundred years ago and spoke against partisan politicking in his farewell address. I’ve quoted this speech before and will again. He said, “They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community”.
Our founding fathers all recognized the dangers of such partisan polarization and went to great lengths to avoid even mentioning political parties while creating the Constitution.
Still here we are today. So much smarter, so much more advanced and yet more ideologically divided a people as I’ve seen anywhere ever in my lifetime. We’re so divided that our news mediums and television channels have taken sides. News networks are not only becoming more and more partisan, they’re going so far as to point out the partisanship of their rivals on a daily basis as well. Think about it, the talking heads of news networks are bickering with their peers from rival networks… on news channels. Ditto the writers of news publications on each other in newspapers. Talk about out of control.
And with cable and the three major networks? Believe me, when the Entertainment world splits along party lines this nation is in trouble. The shame is it was just the inevitable, natural outcome of the polarized atmosphere we have today in America, and we–that’s you and me–allowed it to come to this.
But, back to Rumsfeld. Somewhere between all the bickering is the truth about his competence, and for the sake of our brave men and women in uniform a rational examination should be made without the partisan and divisive sniping.
It’s documented that during the prewar planning there were warnings made to Rumsfeld and then NSA Rice, along with the President and Vice President that we couldn’t go in and just tear down the Iraqi institutional infrastructure. This includes disbanding the Iraqi military completely; or it could lead to the exact post-war insurgency and sectarian violence problems we face today.
Rep. Darrell Issa[R-CA] was one of many–all veterans themselves–from both parties who made these warnings to the administration prior to our invading Iraq. The warnings were ignored.
And in failing to accept council from those who knew the region and its people in order to best prepare for the post-war reconstruction and re-stabilization of the country in a practical manner, including leaving as much of the infrastructure and organization in place as possible to prevent the country from falling into chaos; a grave mistake that has cost many American soldiers their lives and fostered a larger quagmire than we needed to face was made. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some accountability somewhere for that.
Whether it was Rumsfeld’s sole decision to ignore the input or an administration wide choice doesn’t matter, as Secretary of Defense the buck stops with Rumsfeld on strategic military failures. So, just as it’s reasonable to want accountability for failures, it’s reasonable to say that accountability lies with the Secretary of Defense. He simply holds the position that’s supposed to fall on the sword when this sort of strategic failure occurs. It’s not partisan, it’s about what’s best for our troops and our nation today.
The Iraq war has been so politicized on both sides that the partisan politics are now just obstructing any possible policy or strategy changes; which is costing us the highest price among our men and women in uniform. The administration needs to reach out to the leadership of both parties and get the politicking out of the war, then establish a strategy together–with together being the key word–which will have some success at working to regain support for the fight among the American people, stabilize Iraq and start bringing our troops home. Accepting a Rumsfeld resignation would likely go a long way in beginning that process.
Let’s face it, we can’t abandon Iraq to chaos now. It’s not only bad for us in the bigger picture of diplomatic relations all over the Middle East and in executing the war on terror, but we have created an obligation for ourselves to the people of Iraq to clean up the mess. Until we separate the war from the politicking that doesn’t seem likely to happen. If Rumsfeld falling on the proverbial sword would help get us moving in that direction it’s a far better act than anything else he could ever do by staying.
(To give credit where credit is due: the previous idea regarding the politicking of the war is not my own. It’s something I heard Bob Woodward mention in an interview, and the first thing anybody–on either side of the aisle–has said about the Iraq war in three years that made any sense to me. The notion of a Rumsfeld resignation helping to foster such a bipartisan effort to develop a new strategy for victory is my addition.)
The second topic of discussion centered around the Mark Foley fallout, and specifically whether or not House Speaker Hastert should resign. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a partisan issue either. It’s about the safety of young children entrusted to our federal government’s protection. Still, there are party based public-relations issues for Hastert now, given the timing of this story to the elections and several statements made by fellow Republicans.
There are numerous questions and allegations being made by fellow Republicans that Hastert was more aware of this situation back in the spring of 2006 than he’s admitting to. That’s led to questions of whether there’s been a cover-up because it’s an election year and Republicans already need a miracle (by most predictions) to retain control of the House.
Whether or not Hastert is being absolutely honest now doesn’t seem politically significant. It may and should be if a criminal investigation proves he knew more than he’s admitting to. But for now in the politics of it all the public perception of any possible engaging in some cover-up of Foley’s pedophiliac actions, or at the least ignoring them early on may act as muck in the gears for both his party and the House, causing harm to both.
For that reason, unfair as it may seem, I think he should resign his leadership role. Not his Congressional office (unless he was found to know much more than he claims), but certainly his position as House Speaker–for the good of the House and by proxy the country; and even for the good of his party.
buxtohispano.com 
2 Responses to “Cat got your tongue?”
By Mike Bridge | Reply to article
Quote: Still here we are today. So much smarter, so much more advanced and yet more ideologically divided a people as I’ve seen anywhere ever in my lifetime.
I don’t think we are any “Smarter” than people were 200 years ago. If we are, why quote people from 200 years ago and what they intended for this country as though it is remotely relevant? We are more advanced, but that is a result of human intelligence always seeking to further its accomplishments. But in terms of sheer intellect, the founding fathers are some of the most brilliant men to bless this country in its more than 200 year history.
To go even farther back in time, Greek philosophy is still the dominant form of philosophy studied and taught in universities, and much of it is 2500 years old. Plato is taught and studied today more than any contemporary philosopher.
I know this may seem like a response to a menial detail of the original post. But that quote just stood out to me and struck me wrong. I think I know what Scott actually meant by it, but I think we should distinguish our technological advancement from our intellect. After all, we couldn’t have personal computers if it weren’t for the discovery of electricity hundreds of years ago. And since there wasn’t electricity available for use, there would be no possibility for someone to invent a personal computer. The point being, man hasn’t been limited by his intellect, but by what he has been fortunate enough to discover throughout the ages. But none of that has any bearing on sheer thinking capacity.
Reply to this specific comment
By Scott Bannon | Reply to article
Mike, as always thank you for taking time to comment on my writing. I understand what you’re saying and I’m with you… but I’m not. I think in many ways our founding fathers did great things, but they were also human and suffered of human faults as well. To call them “some of the most brilliant men to bless this country in its more than 200 year history” is a bit of a stretch to me.
Remember, these were men who wore knickers and wigs; founded a nation on the belief that all men are created equal and in the same breath devised a “fuzzy math” formula to declare that Indians didn’t count as humans at all and other people of color counted as just 3/5’s of a whole person.
They did some great things–prompted by the desire to not pay taxes on the wealth they were accumulating in the Colonies (funny how the more things change the more they stay the same)–and they had some great ideas, but still they were just people who historians have often been overly kind to.
Sure I quote the founding fathers often and credit their better ideas and deeds, but I’m honest and realistic enough to also acknowledge their moments of ‘Dolt!’ as well. Similar to how I treat the politicians of today.
You’re absolutely correct that technically there’s no evidence to support that our intellect today is superior to theirs, but given what I’ve just written and having 230 years of experience with the American Democracy under our belts I think my use of the word “smarter” in the context I framed it was justified, though I’ll admit that ‘wiser’ may have been equally or more appropriate.
On another note, I’d love to hear opinions from you and anyone else regarding the issue of polarization in American politics. I really believe it to be among the top dangers our country faces today for a variety of reasons, which is why this article was the second of three consecutive pieces I’ve published on that general theme. Yet, the majority of feedback I’ve received from them has been unrelated to the polarization topic–with most coming from Minnesotans upset that I mentioned Patty Wetterling [Democrat running for Congress in Minnesota] as an example of bad politicking for her campaign ad that includes as yet unfounded accusations against the entire Republican leadership for covering up the Foley scandal.
Reply to this specific comment