January 7, 2009

Wednesday news

Lot going on, and unfortunately, not much of it is good. I am still wondering where the endgame for Israel is in Gaza. It seems to me that they have made the Bush error in assuming that what they can do militarily is what they should do, and that that military action will solve their problem. What is more, as Sullivan notes in this thoughtful post, there are serious questions about the justness of this war. I am wondering if the idea of the Just War Doctrine has gone the way of the Geneva Accords. I hope not.

*****

We have just spent a year debating the state of our race relations. Not sure what conclusion we came to, except that we had made some progress--enough to allow the country to push past historic prejudice and elect Barack Obama. Oddly enough, following his historic election, we saw a return to old-school racial politics when Rep Bobby Rush of Illinois claimed that the Senate's hesitation to seat Ronald Burris was a replay of George Wallace's segregationist tactics. No, when Sarah Palin was urging her fans to exhibit racial hatred, that was racist. Rejecting Burris was stupid on legal and political grounds. Blogojavech is an idiot and a criminal, but he is still Governor and this appointment, absent any evidence to the contrary, is legal. Change the law for the future. Run an African American candidate. Whatever. But this appointment controversy is not about George Wallace. It is about a corrupt Governor and a weak and ham-handed Senate Majority leader.

But racism is not over, and we all know that. One of the facts of racism in this country is the racial profiling and disproportionate response to people of color by some in our law enforcement community. In a very disturbing story from the Bay Area, a BART cop evidently pulled a gun and shot a black suspect in the back--even as the man lay on his stomach on the ground beneath him.

Perhaps this is not about race. Perhaps this is a continuation of what seems to be an encouragement of more brutal police tactics. Just recall both political conventions and the blanket arrests of anyone even appearing to protest, or even cover the protests. Or what seemed like a trend of cops tasering suspects needlessly. Perhaps this is about that. Over-reaction in the post-9-11 world. I don't know. But the story makes me a little ill.

*****

I saw a bumper sticker at yoga yesterday with a W on it, and the phrase "still the president" underneath. Not completely sure what side, but I think it is about Bush fatigue, not an endorsement. I thought of that this morning when I read this story about Obama and the Blair house. I had heard about it for a month or so, but had dismissed it as probably not what it appeared. Still not earth shattering, but it appears that the Bush people just denied the Obama family the Blair house out of spite. They told the Obama people back in December that the guest quarters were already booked with foreign dignitaries. But no dignitaries were actually booked, and after that, the Bush people evidently asked former Australia PM John Howard to stay at the Blair House (for one night, mind you) so they had a plausible example. Nevermind that the Obama's are staying in a very nice hotel, but that also requires extensive, and expensive security at that hotel--security that was already available at Blair.

*****

Part of me will miss the man Garrison Keillor called the "cheerful idiot," but most of me will just be glad he is gone. Greenwald notes the very important change in policy Obama signaled with the appointment to the OLC of Dawn Johnson. Not only is she well qualified, but she is, as some have noted, the "un-John Yoo."

In other words, we are seeing evidence that Obama's people will actually reverse the horror of Bush's torture regime. As Keillor suggested, that won't sway Bush. One thing we learned of this man over 8 years is that he is incapable of self-inquiry or question. What he does is right, and is what God wants him to do, and naysayers are simply proof he is right.

****

But just as we are seeing the end of this disaster, we are seeing conservatives suddenly recover their fear of a powerful President. Unbelievable. They defended every excess of Bush either under the idea that he was inherently good and trustworthy, or because the conditions of wartime meant that he had to have more power and only traitorous gay terrorist flag burning abortionists would disagree. For a better example of this insanity, witness the unbelievable specter of the aforementioned torture enabler John Yoo and the man who still wants us to invade, well, everyone, John Bolton writing in the NYT that we need to be wary of a strong President Obama and that Congress should assert oversight. Kos diarist Hunter attempts to explain just how funny this is:
Let me attempt to describe this. Suppose a dozen clowns die in a circus fire. Not funny. Now, if a dozen clowns burst into flames while attempting in unison to program their VCR: funnier. Now suppose a dozen clowns beat each other to death with whole, unfrozen bluefin tuna: goddamn hilarious. (Let it be said, for the record, that I am indifferent to clowns, except that I have it on good authority that circus clowns have no souls.) Watching the legal wranglers of torture, "preemptive" military action and Unitary Executive-ism pen an ode to the proper encumbrance of executive power? It is at least clown-and-tuna funny.


Sigh.


Of course, we won't be rid of the wingnut idiots even after that. I fully expect Republicans to suddenly rediscover all sorts of conservative adages about the "rule of law" and "problems of unchecked executive power." They will rediscover their love of oversight and even the quaint "checks and balances."

Sigh.

5 comments:

steves said...

Excellent piece by Sullivan. I don't always care for him, nor do I agree with all of his conclusions, but I think he is asking the right questions. While the military solution has only offerend more conflict and a short term peace, I don't see any other workable solutions as long as you have one side that is more than willing to use overwhleming force and another side that has said one of it's goals is the elimination of Israel.

We have just spent a year debating the state of our race relations. Not sure what conclusion we came to, except that we had made some progress

I agree, and I will offer some anecdotal evidence. Over the past week I have read several books on MLK to elementary students. These books all do a great job of explaining the segregationist policies the King fought against. These kids, almost every one, are shocked that such policies existed not all that long ago. I know this is no guarantee that some will not ever be racists, but I do believe we are becoming a less racist society.

Rejecting Burris was stupid on legal and political grounds.

I would tend to agree. My former Con Law prof makes the same argument here.

Perhaps this is not about race. Perhaps this is a continuation of what seems to be an encouragement of more brutal police tactics.

I think it is a little bit of both. I know some cops that work in the inner city. Some are great, but some are just plain scary. I think the militarization of the police is something that we should all be worried about.

Greenwald notes the very important change in policy Obama signaled with the appointment to the OLC of Dawn Johnson. Not only is she well qualified, but she is, as some have noted, the "un-John Yoo."

I have been hearing some good stuff about Johnson, and after reading a law review article she wrote, Faithfully Executing the Laws: Internal Legal Constraints on Executive Power, I am ever more impressed. I should not that I would be impressed with anyone but Yoo, so my expectations were low, but she seems pretty sharp.

But just as we are seeing the end of this disaster, we are seeing conservatives suddenly recover their fear of a powerful President.

I wouldn't say that I am scared, but I am concerned enough to want oversight, though I said the same thing about Bush. I warned other conservatives to not be so compfortable with a strong Executive because they would eventually be out of power. I think people should be wary of too much power in any single branch of government.

Streak said...

Steve, I don't think you are the conservative I was talking about. :) After all, you actually had concerns about Bush's expansion of power. I am really talking about those who justified everything Bush did (except for the nomination of Miers) but now will rediscover their "conservative" bona fides.

steves said...

Streak, I know you didn't mean me. I was just wanting to point out that there are some people that are cautiously optimistic about Obama. He may not be good, but I don't think it is reasonable to get too worked up until he actually does something that is bad.

I will have to say, I am mostly impressed with the people he has picked. I was sad that Richardson had to back out, but I understand the reasons.

Bootleg Blogger said...

12 days- Thanks for the reminder, Streak. I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of Bush being removed from power, especially from the position of commander in chief. Who knows how we'll recover from his military legacy, but no longer having him and his neocon base in power has to be one of the pivotal moments of my lifetime.
Later-BB

leighton said...

These kids, almost every one, are shocked that [segregationist] policies existed not all that long ago.

One of my college roommates didn't believe that public institutions had "whites-only" sections in his mother's lifetime. It's good to catch kids early with stuff this counterintuitive.

I think people should be wary of too much power in any single branch of government.

A thousand times yes. Having three centers of power rather than one is a central pillar of the U.S. government's durability, since it forces ambitious control freaks (who I think are overrepresented in politics) to compete against each other, rather than just oppressing the people they happen to have control over.