Like many others on the left, I have been watching and reading with interest for possible signs of a sea change in democratic politics (will it ever mirror the blogs). I look for reporting that reflects my own distrust of the Bush administration and its cynical handling of...well, everything. One thing that occurs to me as I follow this administration's failings is that I am sensing that all of it is connected (and not just casually to Republican corruption). The Goss resignation, NSA wiretapping, MZM and "Duke" Cunningham, Jack Abramoff and the K Street Project, the outing of Valerie Plame, the governments response to Katrina, the criminal run-up to the war in Iraq and its subsequent execution, contract abuse in Iraq and the Gulf Coast, corporate friendly legislation to energy, pharmaceutical and the credit industry, and finally (because I could go on) the inattention before, inaction during, and the complete politicization of 911.
The dishonesty that has prevailed in the face of all these events seems tied directly to the consolidation and maintenance of power, which for Bush (an underachiever) has only been used to block any scrutiny of his actions. Okay, bear with me here, I know I have shimmied out on a rather flimsy limb. Despite the Administration's best efforts (with the media's help), I still remember how fundamentally (and transparently) weak Bush and his administration was before 911. He was a laughing stock, but nationally the stakes seemed low. Popular entertainment was filled with scathing jokes, parodies and send-ups of George W. Bush. No one took him or his policies seriously. It had to be clear to the Republican establishment that Bush was, like his father (but for different reasons), a one term president. This was clear to the liberals and the left; after giving up on the stolen election battle in 2000, we were just going to wait him out. The economy was strong, the nation had a record surplus, nuclear proliferation and a serious, but distant, terrorist threat clouded a somewhat uncomplicated foreign policy landscape. How much harm could he really do? Well...
Corrupt Systems
Bush was a sham until 8:45 AM September 11, 2001 and everyone knew it. The Republicans, while uneasy with Bush's lack of substance, saw an opporunity and would support him in order to achieve what became an unprecedented majority in the House, Senate and Executive. For the Republicans and some Democrats, the lies and the shame of supporting him would fade with the power gained. But people (even Republicans) are adversely effected by their participation and perpetuation of a hoax. They unconsciously grow to resent their involvement, bad faith subsumes their actions. They cut corners, tell more lies, and game the system. In effect they believe that the system they work for is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting. There is no path backward. Each attempt only reminds them of their moral drift and dishonesty. Pure and simple, they have acquired a systemic pathology that has no cure. Their baggage is too cumbersome (and obvious). The system can only be rehabilitated through the wholesale replacement of these politicians (Lieberman for instance). Republicans and corrupted Democrats can learn to use rhetoric or adopt a reform narrative, but it cannot be reconciled with their past actions. In politics, there will always exist the potential (certainty) that an opponent will remind them of their cynicism and complicity. Like Bush, the subtext of corruption, incompetence and deception is so pervasive that those currently in positions of power can only continue to subvert the law, democracy and the truth.
