Skip to main content

Trying to Bother

I have started a number of postings in the last few weeks without publishing anything. I get through half my thoughts and eventually find myself asking, "why bother?" Admittedly, I have been somewhat melancholy lately, thinking a lot about events in my life and my mother's passing birthday. Still, the source of my ennui and dissatisfaction lies elsewhere. Simply, I'm sick of talking about politics. I'm tired of feeling like I'm basically saying the same thing over and over. Although I write on different subjects, when it comes down to this administration, all I ever have to say on the matter is that all that they do is illegal or morally reprehensible; they are either very stupid, or very evil, or both; and they are breaking our nation and don't seem to notice or care. Pick a subject and essentially I could write the same statements and acurrately describe their conduct, whether it's the military, health care, tax cuts, or national security. So seriously, why bother?

I had an epiphany this weekend: it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, there are several important dialogues occuring. Without commenting on the tone or quality of the discussions I would say it's an important time in the sense that large numbers of Americans are engaged in discussing the principles of this nation and in essense what it means to be an American. It doesn't matter because unfortunately, they simply don't care. We are playing by the rules, waiting for the mid-term election, hoping the Dems will wake up and support censure, that the Republicans will begin to show some oversight and independence, educating and informing, waiting for impeachment. But they have no rules, no boundaries. This should be apparent with every revelation that we are somehow fortunate enough to receive. If there's a law they haven't broken, it's only because it hasn't gotten in their way yet. Donald Rumsfeld alone should be enough to show the country at-large that our collective opinions and desires mean nothing, our power is moot in the face of this administration.

To a great degree they have to ignore us, ignore everyone outside the administration. At this point all they seem to be able to do is defend their past bad and questionable actions, which means it's difficult to screw up anything new. However, the facade is cracking too quickly. They are defending themselves on so many fronts that something must break. They have clamped down on so much information, been able to testify without being under oath, been given a pass by the media for so long. But their own lies are starting to be used against them, and it's only a matter of time before someone in the administration has to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. The saber rattling with Iran is a desperate defensive measure. It plays to his perceived strengths as the war president. Trouble on the homefront, low approval numbers, talk of impeachment, threaten to blow somebody up, fireworks take everyone's minds off our troubles.

We know by every expert estimate that Iran is at least ten years away from producing weapons grade uranium. We can't take their oil. There is no talk of committing ground forces, not that we have the forces to commit. We have no workable plans for containing the country after we bomb their research and military sites. Considering that Iran supposedly has 40,000 suicide bombers on call, that seems at least as important a consideration as the plans for post-war Iraq, which we also failed to consider. So beyond stirring up the proverbial hornets nest what purpose would bombing Iran serve? I'm no expert. Right now I'm not even particularly well read on the subject, but of course I have an opinion.

As we approach the mid-term elections, if Bush and the Republicans' political fortunes continue to fall it increases the likelihood that we will attack Iran, especially if it seems they might lose their majority in the house or senate. I think that they are gambling that we wouldn't impeach a president in the middle of a war. And an attack on Iran would be played as an extension of our never-ending war on terror. This might seem like a conspiracy theory but they have done unconscionable things in the past to protect themselves politically and the stakes have only grown. Is it so inconceivable that they might be so myopic as to focus on saving themselves in the short term despite the long term consequences to our security and international prestige? This is obviously a rhetorical question, because with this administration all that they do is illegal or morally reprehensible; they are either very stupid, or very evil, or both; and they are breaking our nation and don't seem to notice or care.

So when I say it doesn't matter, it doesn't unless we are willing to make this administration finally care about the will of the people.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is