Impeachment Worries
by Malloga Malooga (lifted from a comment)
Yeah, it seems they are gearing up for impeachment again. But I'm extremely worried about a sinister turn of events. Let me explain.
When Clinton was impeached, it was a huge media circus. The impeachment would not and could not have happened without the complicity of the media to create an issue out of a non-issue ("from whole cloth") and reinflate the deceitful shroud every day. The right wingnuts were also behind it. Some might say to stymie any progressive agenda Clinton might care to enact; others may argue to cover up the right wing agenda he was actually enacting.
In the end, impeachment was shown to be a fatuous exercise, and it failed. The demdems, and the indies, and even the non-caring cynics, all breathed a vast collective sigh of relief that the country had not gone crazy. As an aside, that was the first time I realized the true NPR agenda, with their breathless he said, she said coverage.
O.K. Now we have the Bush impeachment. All the demdems will wet their pants with excitement. We will be treated to the very same circus: Hillary blowdry Clinton, John live shot Kerry, Joe sanctimony is me Lieberman, Joe hairpiece Biden, Nancy eyejob Pelosi, and worse, if there is worse, speechifying endlessly and vacuously. The repugs will stand John keating 5 McCain and Linsay born again Graham against the wall to bleat like sacrificial lambs. If Sen. Byrd actually says anything of substance, everyone will assiduously ignore it or pronounce him too senile to hold office. We will have NPR creating one of their trademark pseudo-intellectual events, replete with resident scholars, house whores, Larry Tribe and Doug Kmiec pointing out trivialities (whoopie v. bungie 1887). And the networks will have a field day. People will be jumping out of windows after OD'ing on Cokie.
But lets look beyond the circus and see how this may play out. At best, the country will be convinced that it was wrong to spy on Americans and we go back to the status quo: Americans spy on Brits, and Brits spy on Amurkans, then they get together and cut bait. Have no fear that that could ever be discussed and debated. At worst, the elite are actually able, through the machinations of the circus and maybe a helpful terrah attack or two, to convince the sheeeeeple that they need to be spied on for their own good. Spying becomes institutionalized law. That would be a fine turn of events. Indeed, it is probably the plan. Dems may get lucky and win some seats, but who cares. They are running to the right of Bush anyway. When they get into power we can look forward to expanding our military and fighting the "War on Terror™" the right way, that is with democratic sub-contractors.
While all this is going on the administration (who can fall off a Segway and chew gum at the same time) will be interpreting and enacting some of the most heinous legislation imaginable, while the whoreporate press (who cannot think and sharpen a pencil at the same time) will be assiduously ignoring it all.
And, of course, in the end Bush, having been impeached, will not be indicted. He will get off, and in doing so will claim another fictitious mandate, and the press will depict this as a triumph of a man who cared about America's security when 'others' didn't.
And the whole circus, the whole simulacram world, only serves to legitimate itself. The media will be a non-stop orgy chorus of "THE SYSTEM WORKS." If there was a more corrupt, more ecologically unsustainable system anywhere in the world, I know not of it. But that will be the meme: the reification and deification of the fucking system. Bush is not the Emperor without clothes, the whole system of capitalist endless industrialized growth is. And god forbid the sheeeeeeple should ever grok that. Humanity is the ram that Abraham, now capitalism or the system or whatever you want to call it, is about to slay because god commands it so. Issac is our conscience. Will we awake from the spell before it is too late?
So, I can only see this as a lose-lose proposition for progressives, but probably one that must be fought anyway. Perhaps there is a better strategy that I don't see. Anyway, sorry to be my usual sunshiney self. Maybe I could find a position as a Hebrew prophet and short order cook?
Posted by b on January 25, 2006 at 22:55 UTC | Permalink
That was a very thought provoking post. I sympathize with your frustration at the lack of consideration of the real issue.
I suppose it is always possible to devalue something that is not a total solution. People do it all the time. But change doesn't happen with one magic event very often. It's really really slow. I wholeheartedly agree that NPR, and the immmpeeechment of BBuuush will be footnotes in history. But I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
Posted by: correlator | Jan 26 2006 0:24 utc | 2
And, of course, in the end Bush, having been impeached, will not be indicted [convicted]. He will get off, and in doing so will claim another fictitious mandate, and the press will depict this as a triumph of a man who cared about America's security when 'others' didn't.
If the Repugs were smart, they introduce a bill of impeachment now, hold some tightly controlled hearings, and either fail to report the bill out of committe or fail to impeach in the House. If the Dems get control of the House this fall, they will have been preempted. "Impeachment, we tried that. Nothing to see here. Move along."
Posted by: Iowan | Jan 26 2006 0:42 utc | 3
@Iowan - that is my line of thinking. The repubs will now do hearings and probably even start an impeachment that fails and makes the process a useless tool.
Malloga, (Mr. Bad Idea)
You are an amazing defeatist and it is only appropriate that you hang out in this forum.
Let's look at the reverse of your proposition. Team Bush/Cheney remains unchallenged, and grabs more direct powers such as thier own personal Army/Police force as added to the still on the table Patriot Act. Team Bush/Cheney's Justice and intelligence appointees seeing that America is still asleep finish filling out their parallel government which is directly responsible only to the executive while continuing to destroy every other branch and agency from the inside.
OBL delivers on his latest message. We watch what's left of the Constitution go up in full flames of a modern Reichstaag.
What you are failing to see Malloga is that these guys really are playing for keeps. Without removal from office there is no check on their power and misjudgement. Even big establishment players have had enough of the unreality at this point. While the yes-men that run the MSM are more than willing to keep making pitch, you need to watch how quickly things turn ugly later this year for Team Bush/Cheney when its time to get off stage.
Corporatism is an argument for another day, and is fundamentally not addressable in a climate in which the survival of the country as a functional institution is at stake. Corporatism also is fundamentally hurting from the undelivered promises and underperformance of this administration, and is currently part of the establishment that is working on the coming change of horse.
Do something useful and get behind the Hardball boycott and prove to the world that you are more than digital bits howling into the nothingness of the information sphere.
Posted by: patience | Jan 26 2006 2:46 utc | 5
@patience
I didn't see where Malooga was proposing that we do anything; he seemed to be suggesting some ways that the neocons in the GOP could spin this in their favour. The reverse of his idea would be not to implement impeachment hearings against Bush until such time as neocon cronies do not have a stranglehold upon the Congress (guaranteeing that no impeachment vote would pass). Of course, they currently have our election apparati in thrall (via Diebold), there probably never will be such a time in the ordinary course of events that neocon cronies do not have a stranglehold on Congress.
Maybe we'll get lucky and get a charismatic knight on a white horse like Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the rigged impeachment proceedings so that we all get our hopes up again. At least then it would be entertaining puppet theatre.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jan 26 2006 3:09 utc | 6
Malooga--
Right now progressives should not take themselves too seriously. Yes, we want to speak to those who have ears to hear, and minds to think, but that means we are irrelevant to the surface issues of politics. We can hope it will change, and we can try to lay the groundwork for change, but that is the way things are right now.
Meanwhile, Impeachment: The issue here is that Bushco really is incompetent and dangerous--not to us; nobody cares about that--but to the Powers that Be who are, yes, very happy that Bush is abolishing the US Constitution but less happy that the invasion of Iraq took all of that oil off line, instead of bringing it under US control like it was supposed to, and besides Bush has burned through his effectiveness--look: he did not even get Social Security privatived (looted) and that gaff (which cost the investment banking industry untold potential earnings) was NOT in the plan. In short, while Bush accomplished much for the Powers that Be, his basic psychopathology is interfering with results and his usefulness may be coming to an end. Why not hang him out to dry on the rope of his own crimes? Of which there are plenty. Once the PTB have made up their mind, the rest is easy.
Of course we are for impeachment, but with our eyes open: Impeachment only sets up the next phase of the game. Yes, indeed, last time it was "The System Worked," and if last time we had our doubts, this time we have no doubts: We know exactly what the con is. A new set of players is to be installed to run the next leg of the scam, including a new and improved War On Terror (TM) to run cover for the [War for Oil]. Since oil is the heart and life of the US political economy, the [War for Oil] is the only war, indeed the only policy that matters.
Ever wonder why progressive issues don't get traction? It is because Americans acquiesced long ago in this matter of oil--in 1980 in fact. In 1980 we decided that gassing up our cars was the most important thing in the world--or at least, in America, and that civil liberties, freedom, justice, privacy, rule of law, whatever, were all just secondary. We never looked back, and everybody understands this implicitly. Though we all like to hear the old, familiar, bullshit phrases, their value now is not that they mean something, but precisely that they don't. Because the whole thing is about driving around in your car, forever, while telling yourself that you are free, just, and good.
Only now oil is getting tight, and we are going to have to kill a lot of people to keep it flowing into our SUVs. And that means a lot of suckers are going to have to join (get drafted, get sucked, or conned or snookered into) the military to go off and BE killed to keep that oil flowing. Until it runs out, which will happen, anyway.
So what is the progressive message, anyway? That the good life has never been about oil, that this is a worse, stupider, and more costly addiction than a coke habit, and it is time to get clean and sober.
If we were clean and sober, things like justice and civil liberty would make more sense.
--Gaianne
P.S. Revenge? Yes! My the rethugs burn in flames! They deserve nothing less.
But watch out for the McCain Repubs and the Hillary DLC! We are about to exchange incompetent tyranny for competent tyranny. All Bush can accomplish with his Homeland Security is to put a few Green Party members on the no-fly list. The tyranny to come will have to put down real rebellion, and they will be chosen for the ability to do it.
Posted by: Gaianne | Jan 26 2006 5:13 utc | 7
At worst, the elite are actually able, through the machinations of the circus and maybe a helpful terrah attack or two, to convince the sheeeeeple that they need to be spied on for their own good. Spying becomes institutionalized law. That would be a fine turn of events.
Malooga, I agree (although you were tonguing your cheek), but for different reasons.
Now that we're in digital world, there are only two possibilities: the governemtn spies on everyone, or everyone maintains personally controlled encryption systems not subject to backdoor entiries provided to the government. My sense is that our politics have not caught up. There is no sense in working for an impossible world in which the government does not spy on our digital information trails. Instead, we need a politics that assumes we are all spied on, and based on this enforces a way for citizens (and aliens) to force the government to "clothe" our naked information streams.
the details I do not understand well enough to suggest workable ways to turn the initiative over to small democratic bits of the populace. Perhaps it means using multiple local elections (districts of 150 people even) to choose a stream of people randomly called upon to adjudicate any government use of information which has generated citizen complaint. Such democracy-to-the-root approaches could only be supported once everyone starts to assume that the government is always capable of watching, or that it can come back to the information stream again - because this river is always the same twice. Only when we empower the information stream-ers (us) can we get a new structure that also puts an entire branch of government into the business of enforcing people's rights.
Seriously, we've moved too far technologically not to rethink some of the separation of powers that have brought us to this pass. Alito Lieberman and Bush are all the anecdotal evidence one needs to see that the separation of powers has been well overwhelmed by the parties. And the "fourth estate" is more owned than the courts, so don't look there. we the people, need our own estate.
So yes, let's just accept the spying. Because although objecting to spying in principle will probably distract us from finding workable counter-strategies, but it will not create the privacy we no longer have, nor expect.
Posted by: citizen | Jan 26 2006 5:26 utc | 8
The main benefit of an impeachment investigation would be the ability to cut through the executive privilege argument that has created a black hole of information.
It would force the Cheneyites to show their hand, can they deny information to an impeachment investigation? Resist supeanas? Logic says no, but logic is in short thrift in the present climate.
An impeachment inquiry should force a constitutional crisis. That is all to the good, at least philosophically.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Jan 26 2006 6:11 utc | 9
apologies, but I'm too distressed to read all the posts, but had to share this. Halliburton was just award a $400m contract to build "Domestic Detention Facilities". That said, I think they've got to be tossed now. But, then, if they put scalito on the court I'm not sure it matters anyway.
KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M (HAL) By Katherine Hunt
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. (HAL) , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.
link
Posted by: jj | Jan 26 2006 8:12 utc | 10
Instead of having the government spy on US ciizens, why not get the British to do it, and then have them leak it, or hand it back over to the appropriate US agencies as one of those many "exchanges" we hear countries together in the War on Terror are supposed to be doing?
Posted by: The Key | Jan 26 2006 9:44 utc | 11
Thank you all for your comments--it is funny how you feel responsible for them, like a parent, when it is your post.
First off, it is Malooga, not Malloga. You can google the etymology, but I have to warn you, there are several of us out there, and I'm not the one with all the sexy pictures posted. It was an affectionate nickname given to me during my union activist days by people who taught me a lot; that's why I use it.
And, its funny that this was the first piece of mine given its own thread, since it was a quick one-offer, not something that I put a lot of thought into (viz. indicted/convicted, which Iowan picked up).
@jdp-
It will be very interesting to see how many dems are not bought exclusively by the corporate machine. Yes, I've comments on the willful de-industrialization too.
@correlator-
You are right that change doesn't have to happen in one event. I guess the question is will this event change the direction of change? There, I'm not so hopeful.
@Iowan-
Impeachment now? Before the elections and concurrent with the 'New Iran™'? The media must be wetting its diapers!
@patience-
I do see that these guys are playing for keeps, that's why I'm scared. I agree it was a defeatist piece, but it was only one possible view of reality. I'm calling out for alternative views here. I'm not attached to mine.
@Gaianne-
Lovely piece. I agree with your thinking that this only sets up the next phase of the game. The controversial but original thinker, Israel Shamir, argues that the western social state was only set up by the elite as an attractive alternative to Soviet communism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, it became unnecesary, and that's why it's being dismantled. Immanuel Wallerstein might well agree. We certainly do need progressive, sustainable alternatives.
@citizen-
I am far more worried about the consequences of spying than the spying itself. Namely, the harrassment, jailing, and possible disappearance and murder of activists and dissenters. With the criminalization of protest we do have a police state indeed. Recall how swiftly and ruthlessly the Feds put an end to Black Power in the '60's with their extrajudicial killings.
@Dick Durata-
A constitutional crisis would be good. That is what the elite most fear. Remember all the talk about how "we were lucky we didn't have one" during Nixon and Clinton's impeachment? Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years.
@The Key-
I think that's what is happening.
@Iowan-
Impeachment now? Before the elections and concurrent with the 'New Iran™'? The media must be wetting its diapers!
NO. The reason Impeachment talk has gotten this far is that Brent Scowcroft - I'll try to dig out speech in which he announced this around time of Iraq invasion - said that he would move for impeachment if they moved on Iran. So, look for shifting probabilities on that. Military speaking out - saying it's impossible, etc.
Posted by: jj | Jan 26 2006 20:59 utc | 13
Malooga,
I too am worried primarily about protestors or any opposition being harassed, falsely imprisoned, otherwise intimidated or killed. And all of that is made possible by spying, by president's henchmen and other 'security services' that falsify our records, and all the other tools of a government of secrets and unsecrets.
This is exactly the bailiwick that needs to be covered by a new arm of government, one not even remotely under the thumb of the executive. One not privileged and elitist like the courts, but more in the spirit of juries - empowered regardless of resumes. One not so vast as the Congresses districts are, and thus not beholden to media prices and mass manipulations.
We have a world of tenuous connections, and this web is easily torn by bent men of power. We need this web of tenuous connections to live our lives, earn our bread. And so we need to consider what might be regularized and systematic ways to guarantee our reputations and the networks of information that sustain them. And all this we need to do despite a security state that has offered "the police" (almost impossibly biased toward the executive) near exclusive control over what counts as true information about us. This is what cannot work anymore. We need a fourth estate whose bailiwick is the protection of reputations and information.
I suggest a librarian branch to counterbalance the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each of these other three branches seems to respect facts too little to be entrusted with the facts with which we stitch together and maintain our places in communities.
Because we each have a right to live.
We each have a right not to be enchained or otherwise enslaved.
And we each have a right to seek happiness after our own fashions.
Federal Librarian
District Librarian
With the smallest districts as big as an elementary schools area.
And these would be the people who determined what counts as a fact for our public schools, and for our the other three branches of government - and no secrets may be used to determine what shall count as "government true." Any classified information would not be allowable when a librarian determines fact. Somehow, we need a branch that wants and keeps solid information in the light.
Perhaps this is a bit airy, but the weight of the falsehoods we are actually forced to bear by this government has me convinced that even this is more realistic than to continue as we are now.
Posted by: Malooga | Jan 27 2006 6:52 utc | 15
citizen, thank you for this clear new idea. Locally organized indeed.
Posted by: jonku | Jan 27 2006 9:11 utc | 17
There is something in that pesky Constitution of ours about the right to petition for the redress of grievances. And that is my problem with government spying, no matter whether it is for our own good and safety: mistakes and even abuses will occur at some point, and when citizens are not allowed to find out what has been done to them, they are unable to petition for redress of grievances they remain unaware of.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 27 2006 16:23 utc | 18
I have a friend who is Asst Dist Principal in charge of a large school district in PA. He talks of constant battles in his district between different groups over what "facts" will be taught in school. There are Christian facts, atheist facts, scientific facts, several varieties of economic facts, several varieties of historical facts (white, black, native American, his and hers, etc), and on and on. Some of these facts contradict each other but all of them have adherents who are certain of there truth. Librarians, local or national, would be caught up in this battle as facts were promoted or discredited based on POV and different groups vied for control of the libraries just as they do for the courts today. The problem is not institutional; it's human. And there is no societal system people can devise that cannot be defeated by human ignorance or ingenuity.
Facts are funny things, much more malleable than is commonly supposed. They can be arranged in sets to produce Meaning, then rearranged - new ones added, old ones deleted, some emphasized or de-emphasized - to produce a Brand New Meaning. Then rinse and repeat. Stand them alone and they might appear as dots with no particular significance. Group them with others and a pattern may emerge like an impressionist painting. And then there is the eye of the beholder - the blue and red I see might not be the same shade you see. Should we fight over any of this? I'd rather not, but there are those who will. The fact is - as I see it - that these struggles will continue until we can all see that the beholders are more important than the facts.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jan 27 2006 16:46 utc | 19
the first task would be to separate facts - objective pieces of information that can be proven to be true - from inference & perception. from there, thought processes would trend toward greater awareness & broader expectations. and that is a positive (& necessary) step if human societies are ever to address the problems we create for ourselves.
Posted by: b real | Jan 27 2006 17:58 utc | 20
@b real , which brings us full circle
But that will be the meme: the reification and deification of the fucking system
Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2006 18:32 utc | 21
humorous video:
youtube.com/w/State-of-the-Union-2006----Bush-Impression
Posted by: correlator | Jan 27 2006 21:21 utc | 22
The comments to this entry are closed.
I'll take a shot at your comment Malooga. First, I believe if the dems take congress in 2006 mid term elections, the dems will not be able to control eliments of the party. The black caucus, rural dems, mid-west or central US dems, new dems, and the likes of the kossack community will "demand" revenge and outright retribution on the rethugs. It will be the basest of revengeful politics. I will be looking forward to it.
Second, someone has to stop the corporatist current government or the US will never recover. You speak of industrialized world. The US is not industrialized as it used to be. And as I point out in another thread, it looks like policy in elite levels is to de-industrialize the US. This is another reason for a more radical dem or party, maybe not a so called out of the mainstream dem, but a dem or party that exact revenge on elites that have sold the working man down the river.
So, will the impeachment of Bush be a farce?, I don't believe so because any sane legislator will want to send them into political oblivion.
Posted by: jdp | Jan 26 2006 0:20 utc | 1