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

The Intersectional Swiftboat Waltz

This past week the Working Families Parties endorsed Elizabeth Warren in the democratic primary. It's a somewhat obscure thing, in terms of national politics. WFP is a nominally left party started in New York state. In New York rather than run their own candidates they endorse Democrats. The choice of the centrist Warren over Sanders isn't without precedent. They endorsed Joe Crowley over Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Andrew Cuomo over Zephyr Teachout. The entire affair is only relevant for what it suggests that we can expect from the rest of the primary.

When the endorsement was announced, members asked leadership to release the breakdown of votes, as they did in 2015 when the party endorsed Sanders. Leadership refused, saying something about preserving the integrity of the vote. What was obvious, where the 56 person leadership/advisory board had a vote equal to that of the 10,000+ membership, is that the leaders had heavily favored Warren while the members went to Sanders. I…

If You Love Your People, Set It Free (or How an Identitarian Came To Prefer Universal Policy Over Identity Politics)

This post is late because I was in LA last week, where I made a point of walking as much as possible to enjoy my audiobook. Although I still have 20/20 vision I have been slow to accept that aging has made it more difficult to read, making it feel increasingly like a chore. In fully embracing this I've finally started looking for audiobooks I might find engaging enough to not be constantly distracted. For my trip I chose Mehrsa Baradaran's The Color of Money, which looks at the persistence of the racial wealth gap in the US.  It was incredibly striking and depressing listening to The Color of Money while accidentally walking through encampments of the unhoused, watching new encampments sprout up in the short time that I was there. This is who we've always been. If you have any doubt, the history recounted in The Color of Money makes it clear that capitalism has always been about extracting wealth from Black people and keeping poor people poor. On checking into Twitter I wa…

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 usually…