Skip to main content

Probably criminal, not to be hyperbolic.

When you consider the breadth of the taint and degrading effect of the Bush administration on all aspects of the government, the kindest thing you can say is that they were blinded by ideology. I don't think it's too out of bounds to ask if the results of their governance is their ideology; to essentially wonder if they are following the Grover Norquist handbook to weaken the government, leave it powerless to regulate any market or industry effectively. As was asked after Katrina, you could ask about their manipulations of every aspect of the government, "Was it deliberate malevolence or just criminal incompetence?"

The War on Terror has become the war to create terrorists.
No Child Left Behind has left most children behind.
The cakewalk war that would never become another Vietnam, has the potential to be worse than Vietnam, especially in terms of its effect on the stability of the region.
Rumsfeld's plan to create a fast moving sleek military has left it broken.
The VA is overwhelmed and underfunded and sweeping PTSD cases under the carpet.
The economy is in shambles.
Oil company profits are higher than they've ever been.
The rich are much richer, the poor and middle class are poorer.
People who have made their careers working for the government have resigned or been fired in droves; from generals, to lawyers, to accountants it almost seems like a purge.

My head starts to swim, the list goes on and on. So I need to take a moment to step back and take a look at the larger picture. Six+ years after 9/11 we have a President who has taken on king-like power in the name of making us safer, better, and there's nothing left to show for it except the king-like power to declare an individual an "enemy", a massive domestic surveillance apparatus, 2 wars going badly, terrorists bombings across the world increasing yearly, agreements between the Pakistan government and al Qaeda providing safe haven, and Hezbollah receiving the right to veto decisions of the Lebanese government. In other words, all that power gathered in the hands of one person and we're less safe. So if they're not making us safer, what are they using that power for?

The next president faces a tremendous challenge beyond Iraq. This administration has changed rules within agencies, functions of agencies, replaced professional bureaucrats with political hacks, all while obscuring their trail by not recording their actions, altering the record, or destroying the record. If the next president is smart he will take office with the perspective that the Bush administration was deliberately malevolent and will work to undue every rule change, re-fund every agency, and find every political hack, otherwise the government will never function effectively again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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