George and Dick - Who Knew?

David Brooks and Thomas Friedman came to the same view within the past couple days in their columns on the New York Times editorial page, although neither was so bold as to state the ultimate conclusion in black and white:

George W. Bush is a screaming liberal.

So, therefore, is Dick Cheney, I say. And I use "liberal" in the same vitriolic way that Republicans do when discussing "tax and spend" Democratic candidates. David and Tom describe a pretty highly appealing version of conservatism. A conservatism that is learned in the ways of individuals and societies. That is pragmatic about how far societal goals pragmatically ought to be set outside of range of what has already has developed. Conservatives observe that which is proven over the course of a given history. Steeped in the failure of revolutions, but the abiding success of evolution(ary change - apologies to those on the religious right), thinking conservatives choose their objectives and their means carefully. They may have lofty objectives, and they may desire big change. But they choose to get there incrementally, as they recognize that is the way most likely to succeed, statistically at least.

Liberals, on the other hand, first have grand ideas. They observe injustices in the world, and they then go about evaluating what could be done to address those injustices. Romantic about revolution(ary change - apologies to those who would not want to associate their thinking with Chavez' or Castro's), liberals seek "to think outside the box" in designing solutions that others are not considering. Solutions that may have unforeseen costs and unpredictable consequences, given their new or non-traditional nature. Liberal ideas occasionally succeed in a very big way, and the afterglow drives another generation of big thinkers.

Using essentially this framework, both David and Tom describe how George and Dick have let down a good segment of traditional Republican support. Rather than assembling a considered set of goals and means, based on critical examination of societies and cultures, George and Dick have opted to let their administration be dominated by a war which was poorly planned in the extreme and which has always had nothing but idealistic goals, untempered by obvious realities. I could see 60's hippy personalities being quite proud of the Bushies' grand aspirations and desire to spread democracy (if not US petrochemical profits) all around the world, all at a revolutionary stroke.

Perhaps those drug-infested days at Yale in the 1960s remain powerful influences in Bush's mind after all?

John, You're Killing Me

It was a very warm feeling, at least at first. I was watching John Stewart on the Daily Show the other day, and he was doing the entire pre-guest show by himself. No bit from any of the other usuals. And the subjects he chose to examine (ridicule) were two subjects that I had just noticed and pondered a great deal as well, in the previous days.

He first focused on the piece in The Economist last week reporting on Dick Cheney's initial observation of the small silver box that had sworn to secrecy, on pain of death, the interpreter who was aiding Dick's exchange with Morocco's King Hassan. According to The Economist and John Stewart, Dick's thought was "damn, I need one of those". John's message here was, as is often the case, "You don't know Dick".

John second focused on the recent exchange between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton in which Obama, somewhat refreshingly, pointed out that the US's not speaking to foreign leaders was not much by way of punishment for them. Accordingly, Obama would undertake, in the first year of his presidency, to speak with folks like Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmadinejad. Hillary, based on the depth of her alleged foreign policy experience, said she would not commit to meet these folks in the first year of her presidency. The ever sharp US media has blown this difference into a huge and fundamental policy divide between the two candidates, which seems odd when one considers what each candidate apparently said. Both would seriously consider talking; one thought the first year was the right time and the other was not so sure. John's message here was, as is often the case, in what orifice is the US media's head?

Although many of you may also have seen and thought about these stories as well, I felt as if I had written the script for John that evening (OK, not the humorous approach that only John can deliver). But is that a good or a bad feeling? At first, I felt like I was "in touch" in some sense; close to things that this thinking media powerhouse also finds important. On longer reflection, I felt somewhat redundant. Who needs a poorly followed blog when John is broadcasting well enough to young folks? Even this post, how redundant can you get?

In search of a new train.....

Four score and seven years, the Cheney version

"There's a lot going on. This is a very important time. There's a lot to talk about."

Stirring words indeed from VP Cheney during his surprise visit to Iraq today, as quoted on Yahoo! News at least. I need help, as I have a terrible middle-aged memory. So for those of you with more retained perspective: is it me, or has the quality of folks who are attracted to the leadership of the United States of America (the most powerful sovereign nation on the planet) fallen off the cliff somewhere?

I have this fanciful notion that the nation once attracted people worthy of deep respect, in many dimensions. People who could incite a revolution, including by drafting an amazing declaration of independence - read it again some time when you have a few minutes. People who could lead resolution of a huge civil war. People who spoke with dignity and sincere emotion about times of world wars. People who had a clear plan for dragging a country out of deep economic depression. People who called upon citizens' innate desire to serve. People who were eloquent about the equal rights of all humans.

Then I think about people like Mr. Cheney, Messrs Bush, the Bush cabinet, Mr. Kerry, and the gaggle of candidates now campaigning for the Presidency. In the estimation of thinkers, who among these is even in the same universe as those who went before? Can we just stop and be candid for a minute - would you want any of these people teaching your children, or managing your business, or serving your legal needs? Would you trust their instincts and effectiveness?

I am hoping here that at least some of you are answering "yes, we would". But I am not. I have such (silly?) hopes for my kids and their future, that these people can't even make it to the testing table, much less pass. On the other hand, I meet people regularly in my daily life and affairs who I would gladly trust in this way. Elementary school teachers, economists, hedge fund managers, lawyers, heck even diplomats and bureaucrats. People who are passionate about their goals, who are persuasively articulate, and who exude competence. People whom you would want by your side if you were starting a business or lost in the desert.

What do we make of all this? Could it be that the rewards of leading the USA are so diminished that quality people just do other things? Could it be that the post-Nixon White House is so sullied that we should generally expect buffoons "to lead" us? Am I perhaps just unable to preserve perspective in the shadow of the current administration's shocking incompetence and lunacy? I really need some help. Because Cheney's dolt-like remarks remind me that I once thought the US Government could be a force for powerful benefits in this world. I suppose I still want to believe that, notwithstanding the general tone of this weblog. But thankfully Dick is constantly there to prod me to my senses.

Oh Dick

So Dick Cheney remains a dog with a bone. Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda, no really. Really, he was.

This latest pronunciation comes on the heels of yet more DoD evidence that Saddam was in fact not cooperating with Al-Qaeda. Dick, that's your own DoD. If you ain't got them, who have you got? And what is the limit on your perception of the stupidity of the US voters?

That Dick could engage in this 1984-speak, without material consequence - other than appearing utterly out of touch to anybody who is thinking (a trivial loss) - is just amazing. That he would choose to pursue the subject some three-four years after the idea was discredited wholesale is also pretty amazing. There must be something for Dick to gain from the step. Who among us knows what it is?