It isn't real news to my readers that Karl Rove and the rest of BushCo has had a policy to politicize the Agencies of the Federal Government, some of this is fairly ordinary political paybacks in positions that are ordinarily patronage positions and most Agency heads and their deputies. It becomes more worrisome when career positions begin to be politicized, very worrisome when Prosecutors become political tools, and it is horrifying to find the government itself turned into a political arm. In 1939 the Hatch Act was passed in the face of corruption to limit the political activities of the federal government employees and in some cases state and municipal employees. The following activities are prohibited to federal employees in general (there are special cases with more stringent regulations):
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty
Enter Lurita Alexis Doan, GSA head, who has had a rather tumultuous 10 month tenure. She began to stir the pot by reducing the budget of the Office of the Inspector General, GSA is the lead procurement agency at $56 billion worth of federal contracts, she handed out a no-bid contract to a former business associate and friend, and finally put on a tele-conference from Rove's office with J Scott Jennings presiding. He is the White House Deputy Director of Political Affairs and the 28 page presentation included 2006 election results and listed the names of Democratic candidates considered beatable and Republican lawmakers thought to need help. This was made to up to 40 Regional Administrators with Doan in attendance, after the presentation Doan asked, "how they could help our candidates in the next elections." Some of the suggested methods involved targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country.
You might wonder who Jennings is and you'd be interested to find that besides working for Karl Rove he was a long time Kentucky political operative including being Sen Mitch McConnel's (R-KY) Political Director. His name has shown up in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys when he used the RNC's email account to urge the appointment of former Rove aide Tim Griffin, an RNC political opposition researcher, to the DOJ for the Arkansas position.
Regarding the Powerpoint presentation to the GSA Scott Stanzel said, "There is regular communication from the White House to political appointees throughout the administration." On the other hand Doan stated to Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 10 times that she does not recall asking employees to help the GOP or does not recall details about the presentation. She did, however, remember that nothing improper happened. Apparently this is so ordinary in BushCo that it's just slipped her mind, along with the Hatch Act and her use of GSA facilities for a blatantly political activity including asking federal employees to help a political party (um, Republican Party).
This stuff continues to dribble out, like drool from a senile geezer's mouth, disgusting drip after drip. I've stated before that Karl Rove is similar to a criminal thug in his inability to see beyond immediate advantage and short term gains, here it is in all its brilliant stupidity. Rather than pursue the electoral advantage of having policies that benefit the country at large and publicizing them they secretly advance the privileged few and use narrowly effective propaganda tools and administrative tools to gain little. As the President sinks into the approval mire and is considered by a majority to be simply incompetent and by many as nearly criminal, we have his "Brain" on display. I sincerely hope this is an education for political operatives for a long time to come.
Showing posts with label Over Sight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Over Sight. Show all posts
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Machiavellian Politics
Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is "Machiavellian."
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Covering Up Is Stupid
I suppose that anyone paying attention to the US Attorneys mess has heard multiple times, "the cover-up is worse than the crime," and is probably sick of it. There is a real truth in that bromide, and it bears some thinking about it. Most of the things that get attempted covered-ups are the result of over-reaching over-zealous subordinates. Something gets a "I wish" and turns into "I want." Some idiots burgled a Watergate office because somebody said "I wish I knew what they're up to," regarding a campaign that was a walk-over. There was nothing to actually be gained, a tremendous risk, and the act was carried out by entirely disposable subordinates. Covering up a piece of massive stupidity led to the downfall of one of the most politically astute Presidents.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Impeach??
I'd like to see a jail cell in this kinglet's future, so, now that's out of the way.
It is political suicide to bring impeachment and not sustain it, the voters won't stand for it. That makes the first question on the issue, are there the votes to sustain an impeachment? I am not sufficiently a Constitutional scholar to say with any certainty that GWB didn't give himself enough legal cover and deniability to avoid a sustainment. Could an impeachement at six years have enough time to dig through all the garbage? The Clinton impeachment proved that the public doesn't support such action without being convinced that the issues are serious. Yes, I'm convinced that the issues are real serious, but I'm not the public. People who take time to cruise political blogs aren't the public. Politicians had better understand the public (uh 11/7/06).
Is impeachment in the public interest? I'd certainly agree that dissuading future kinglets is in the public interest and that persuading the governors and governed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not optional would be a public service but I'm also positive that we now face a very real socio-economic and diplomatic mess that has got to be cleaned up very quickly. The resulting impacts of dealing with this mess will take time to be felt and they need to be having effect as soon as possible. An impeachment will freeze Congress in place and energize the White House and its Congressional syncophants in opposition to any actions.
Before we take a run off a very high place let's remember that the Republicans got fired, not that the Democrats were hired and the margins were razor thin in a lot of places. I know the actual numbers are encouraging over-all, but quite simply, the election process is what we have to work with. It is easy enough to see how putting a legislative agenda into action might be more politically rewarding than impeaching if the goal is to make a change to the landscape of American life. The crap legislation that the Bushites have put in place can be changed, it might require a new President, a Democrat or (if such a thing exists) a reasonable Republican or it might be possible with George II with the proper ballbat in hand.
Oversight hearings and some snooping in general might bring to light compelling uncovered actions by Bush and Cheney, in which case impeachment might be the absolutely neccesary action. These secretive furtive weasles will have gotten as good advice as possible for coverage and will have hidden, as much as they could, the dirty laundry, so make no big bets on it.
I have three priorities regarding government: 1) The Constitution, 2) the well being of the public, 3) Democratic politics and in that order. I'd argue that 2&3 are inclusive but that requires vigilence. The Constitution is consistently at risk; every power group has hobby-horses to ride and finds Constitutional obstructions to be "archaic" or "irrelevant." If impeachment serves these priorities in their order, I'm all for it, otherwise it's thin ice.
It is political suicide to bring impeachment and not sustain it, the voters won't stand for it. That makes the first question on the issue, are there the votes to sustain an impeachment? I am not sufficiently a Constitutional scholar to say with any certainty that GWB didn't give himself enough legal cover and deniability to avoid a sustainment. Could an impeachement at six years have enough time to dig through all the garbage? The Clinton impeachment proved that the public doesn't support such action without being convinced that the issues are serious. Yes, I'm convinced that the issues are real serious, but I'm not the public. People who take time to cruise political blogs aren't the public. Politicians had better understand the public (uh 11/7/06).
Is impeachment in the public interest? I'd certainly agree that dissuading future kinglets is in the public interest and that persuading the governors and governed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not optional would be a public service but I'm also positive that we now face a very real socio-economic and diplomatic mess that has got to be cleaned up very quickly. The resulting impacts of dealing with this mess will take time to be felt and they need to be having effect as soon as possible. An impeachment will freeze Congress in place and energize the White House and its Congressional syncophants in opposition to any actions.
Before we take a run off a very high place let's remember that the Republicans got fired, not that the Democrats were hired and the margins were razor thin in a lot of places. I know the actual numbers are encouraging over-all, but quite simply, the election process is what we have to work with. It is easy enough to see how putting a legislative agenda into action might be more politically rewarding than impeaching if the goal is to make a change to the landscape of American life. The crap legislation that the Bushites have put in place can be changed, it might require a new President, a Democrat or (if such a thing exists) a reasonable Republican or it might be possible with George II with the proper ballbat in hand.
Oversight hearings and some snooping in general might bring to light compelling uncovered actions by Bush and Cheney, in which case impeachment might be the absolutely neccesary action. These secretive furtive weasles will have gotten as good advice as possible for coverage and will have hidden, as much as they could, the dirty laundry, so make no big bets on it.
I have three priorities regarding government: 1) The Constitution, 2) the well being of the public, 3) Democratic politics and in that order. I'd argue that 2&3 are inclusive but that requires vigilence. The Constitution is consistently at risk; every power group has hobby-horses to ride and finds Constitutional obstructions to be "archaic" or "irrelevant." If impeachment serves these priorities in their order, I'm all for it, otherwise it's thin ice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)