Maybe THAT Is Where It Began

I guess it has been obvious in the things I have written this year that I get frustrated with Democrats who point the finger at George W. Bush when I ask them what is being done about job creation.

Now, I know only too well that some people exist in a world — nay, a universe — all their own, and they might not have realized that America and the world endured a horrifying economic collapse in the fall of 2008.

But, in my experience, most voters are more engaged than that so I have believed that, acting as individuals, the voters made a group decision to give Democrats both the White House and greater advantages in both houses of Congress. They were saying that the majority trusted the Democrats more than the Republicans to repair the economy.

Consequently, I have been frustrated when Democrats have seemed to feel compelled to remind us of one of the primary reasons many of them now hold the offices they sought last year.

But now I have to wonder: Is it possible that it isn't their fault that their initial response always seems to be about who is to blame for the economic meltdown?

I'm not indulging in denial here. And I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook, either. I do not believe the Democrats have done nearly enough to encourage job creation.

And a big part of the reason for that is, as I say, every time I have asked what is being done about job creation, I get the same response — about how the bad economy is Bush's fault.

I have tended to brush that off as not answering the question. I guess I still do.

But today I saw an interesting item in the Los Angeles Times' "Top of the Ticket" blog. The Times' bloggers, Andrew Malcolm and Johanna Neuman, inform readers that they are re–publishing their favorite and/or most popular items from 2009 as they wind down the year. And today's item, apparently from mid–March, is about former Vice President Dick Cheney's insistence that Bush was not to blame, that it was "a global financial problem."

Now, perhaps I wasn't paying attention as closely as I should have, but, when Cheney made those remarks (more than a month after the passage of the stimulus package, by the way — which was touted by Democrats as being not the pork–laden package it is but a panacea for joblessness), was that the first time a Republican felt obliged to protest that Bush was blameless?

If it was, that seems to render the Democrats' constant assertion little more than self–serving grumbling — a smokescreen intended to divert attention from their failure to adequately address the most critical issue on their agenda.

But if it wasn't the first time — if the Republicans have been muttering that the economy wasn't Bush's fault ever since John McCain's concession speech — then perhaps the Democrats have been justified in reminding us why they are where they are.

But only as a prelude to answering the real question — and, in case they need to be reminded, that question is "What is being done to encourage job creation?"

Perhaps the subject of responsibility is one of those what–came–first–the–chicken–or–the–egg kind of questions.

Yes, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995-2007, but even their greatest majorities paled in comparison to the ones the Democrats have enjoyed in both the House and Senate this year.

And that 60–seat filibuster–proof majority the Democrats coveted last year — and finally pieced together — is something Republicans never came close to achieving. You have to go back a century, to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, to find the last time the GOP held that many Senate seats.

So, if we're going to talk about blame, it seems to me the Democrats should be required to answer why they abdicated their responsibility when they were in the minority. Why did they permit costly measures to be voted on instead of filibustering them? Why did they allow an ill–conceived war plan to get the green light instead of filibustering it? They could have slammed the door on legislative debate on anything whenever they wanted. Why didn't they?

At the height of the Republicans' power right after Bush was re–elected, the GOP held only 55 seats in the Senate. Most of the time during the Bush years, the GOP held about half of the Senate seats. What prevented the Democrats from blocking anything that worried them when it reached the Senate floor?

It's too easy, too convenient to blame someone else for your own shortcomings.

And, as much as I loathe Cheney, I have to give him credit for hitting the nail on the head with an answer he gave CNN in the interview that was cited by the Times blog last March:

"So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration, that's interesting rhetoric but I don't think anybody really cares a lot about that. What they care about is what is going to work and how we are going to get out of these difficulties."

Blaming Bush

I think the first time I was exposed to the word "scapegoat" was during the Watergate scandal. Former White House lawyer John Dean claimed he was being made the scapegoat for Richard Nixon's woes.

I didn't know what the word meant. The Random House Dictionary sheds some light on that, telling us that the word "scapegoat" means "a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place."

Apparently, the word has biblical origins. Leviticus, in the Old Testament, describes the ritual. As a part of Yom Kippur ceremonies, a goat was driven into the wilderness to die, symbolically carrying the sins of the people on its back.

Christian theology sees the story of the scapegoat as the foreshadowing of the story of Jesus and his sacrifice for humanity.

I don't know about that. In my life, most of the scapegoats I've known of were athletes who, fairly or unfairly, were blamed for their teams' failures — Bill Buckner, whose error was said to cost the Boston Red Sox the 1986 World Series against the New York Mets, or Scott Norwood, whose missed field goal led to the first of four consecutive Super Bowl defeats for the Buffalo Bills.

A far more serious example of scapegoating occurred before I was born — when Nazi propaganda blamed the Jews for Germany's problems after World War I.

I guess it is a tendency of human nature to look for someone to blame when things go wrong. Perhaps that is why Barack Obama has insisted that Americans should look to the future and not look back as they seek to deal with the many problems facing the nation and the world. It is a sentiment I agree with, to a certain extent, although I still believe, as I have written on this blog before, that Congress should investigate the decisions that were made that led to the invasion of Iraq and the use of torture techniques in affiliated interrogations.

I have advocated such an investigation not because I want to punish anyone (notably the former president and vice president) but because there are lessons to be learned from how those decisions were made, and I believe we can benefit from that knowledge.

But, lately, I've been sensing a real bloodlust on the part of the public, and the previous administration is at the heart of it. As I have pointed out on many occasions, I am a Democrat, and I was never a Bush–Cheney supporter. But, as I have also stated in this blog, economies are massive, complex things. Presidents can give direction from the bully pulpit, but it is unfair and inappropriate to give them excessive credit or blame for the millions of decisions that business owners must make.

And the same thing applies to the people in their administrations.

But some people are adamant about finding someone to blame.

For example, I was looking at the New York Times' website today. For the third straight time, Maureen Dowd wrote a column about former Vice President Dick Cheney. Granted, Cheney's activities recently have been unseemly, to say the least, for a former vice president, but Dowd's columns seem to be particularly vitriolic.

Dowd made no secret of her support for Obama during the campaign, even before Obama's bid for the nomination took hold with the rank and file. Well, Dowd's candidate won, and Cheney's out of office now. Cheney may be in the spotlight by his own choice, but he has no authority to speak of. It seems, to me, that it would be a good idea for Dowd to ease up now.

Dowd isn't the only one, though. On Facebook lately, members have had the option of joining a group that constantly urges people to revel in "not having George Bush as president." Recently, this group has been encouraging people to celebrate the six–month anniversary of the end of the Bush presidency on July 20. From this group's perspective, I suppose it would be expected that parties on that date — which also happens to be the 40th anniversary of the first walk on the moon — would include piñatas in the shape of Bush and Cheney's heads.

More recently, this group has been polling people, asking them whether they would prefer to have Bush back as president ... or be impaled. The latest "results" I saw indicated that 225,000 people would rather be impaled while about 1,000 would opt to have Bush back in the White House.

Talk about a push poll.

Actually, I suspect the results would be different if the choices were real rather than hypothetical.

I understand the temptation to hold Bush and Cheney responsible for all the problems America must deal with now. And, even with all the things that are on the current administration's plate, I still believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from how the previous administration made decisions that determined how foreign policy was conducted, especially regarding how a war was launched.

But some of these other things seem counterproductive to me. They may be psychologically satisfying, but they do little, if anything, to help us find our way out of this wilderness.

Duty, Honor, Country

---

---

It seems appropriate — to me — that a discussion about American use of torture in the "war on terrorism" appears to be reaching its crescendo right now.

Because today is the 47th anniversary of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's valedictory address at West Point — and, in that address, he chose to emphasize those three words — "duty, honor, country."

I studied journalism in college and graduate school. I worked, for many years, in the publishing business — as a writer and a copy editor. Words are more than symbols to me. They have literal meanings.

And, as I see it, the first two words of MacArthur's phrase relate to the third. Whether you wear the uniform or not — but especially if you do — your duty is to bring honor to your country through your actions.

If you torture people, do you bring honor to your country? Based on a long–standing American principle, I think not. Quite the opposite.

In the past, this country has punished other countries for engaging in torture. We have stood against torture much as we have stood against sneak attacks, citing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as the prime example.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney insists that the new administration is "dismantling" the national security policies that kept the nation safe. I think the administration is restoring policies that existed long before George W. Bush and Cheney seized power but were abandoned in the name of national security.

No one wants to see America prevent another terrorist attack more than I do.

But as John McCain so wisely said, this isn't about "them." It's about us.

Americans like to see themselves as being better than the people who wish to do them harm. But when we stoop to the level of the enemy, we blur the line that separates us.

Even if it is true — and I don't believe it is — that waterboarding and similar techniques prevented more terrorist attacks, does that justify changing who we are and what we stand for?

Who "wins" when we do that?

What exactly did we learn from September 11? Based on American behavior during the Bush–Cheney administration, what we learned — and how we implemented it — eliminated the difference between us and that which we sought to destroy.

Put it another way — is such behavior an example of the Golden Rule?

You remember the Golden Rule, don't you? Cheney and others in the Bush administration seem to need a reminder, which seems rather odd in the faith–based America that Bush desired.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The Campaign That Might Have Been

Last year, many Republicans made no secret of their dissatisfaction with their party's nominee. Never mind the fact that John McCain was the winner of 31 Republican primaries, including several head–to–head contests with his leading rivals (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney).

Right–wing Republicans may have yearned for a candidate whose views more closely mirrored their own, but there was one problem — nobody who met their standards sought the nomination. Some may argue that there were those — Romney, Huckabee, Ron Paul — who came close but fell short in one way or another.

They might have been better representatives of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in many ways, but their main problem was that conservatives never united behind them.

That's how it works in American politics. The concept of "drafting" a reluctant candidate for the presidency is an antiquated notion. To be nominated by a major party, one must actively campaign for the nomination. It is not an endeavor for wallflowers.

That doesn't prevent pundits from fantasizing about what might have been — even if what might have been was never very likely to begin with.

Such is the case with conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who rhapsodizes about what might have been if Dick Cheney had been the nominee instead of McCain.

Cheney is one of two vice presidents in my lifetime who never ran for president — the other was Spiro Agnew.

Agnew may have fantasized about seeking the nomination — before his crimes caught up with him — but he and Cheney are the only veeps who never ran for the top job. And it's extremely unlikely that Cheney will do so. He will turn 70 in 2011.

Most of the time, someone who serves as vice president seeks the presidency after completing his tenure — but not always. Some, like Al Gore and George H.W. Bush, run as sitting vice presidents. Others, like Walter Mondale, run later.

And some — like Lyndon Johnson — ran for president before they became vice president.

Some point out, for example, that Gerald Ford's vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, did not seek the presidency after Ford left the White House in 1977, which is true, but Rockefeller did seek the GOP nomination (unsuccessfully) in the 1960s. And, even if he does not seek the presidency after his time as vice president ends, Joe Biden will not join Cheney and Agnew because he made two abbreviated attempts to win the nomination (in 1988 and 2008) before he was chosen to be Barack Obama's running mate.

Even Dan Quayle, who is arguably the gold standard for poorly regarded vice presidents, sought the nomination — briefly — in 2000.

In the last years of his vice presidency, Cheney's disapproval numbers rivaled Quayle's. By the time that he left office, Cheney's performance got a thumbs–down by a 2–to–1 ratio in a Washington Post poll.

He was not a popular guy, even when he accidentally shot a lawyer on a hunting trip three years ago. And, given his health problems over the years (most notably, four heart attacks), one can legitimately wonder if he could have stood up to the rigors of a presidential campaign.

But Douthat seems to have few doubts about what would have been his suitability to seek the presidency.

"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration's interrogation policies," writes Douthat, "it's been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008."

Douthat doesn't suggest that Cheney might have beaten Obama, which is wise. Once the economic meltdown occurred last fall, I felt the election was a done deal. Republicans might even have fared worse with an actual member of the Bush administration at the top of the ticket than they did with McCain, who had the virtue (in the public's eyes) of having opposed some of Bush's policies.

Douthat argues that Cheney would have been "as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless," and he presumes that he would have been as "cuttingly effective" in the presidential debates as he was in his vice presidential debates in 2000 and 2004.

But the real benefit, Douthat seems to think, would have been that "when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might — might! — have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that's necessary if it hopes to regain power."

Beyond that, Douthat says a Cheney candidacy could have had a cleansing effect on the country that the McCain candidacy did not have.

"The former vice president's post–election attacks on Obama are bad form," he acknowledges. "But they're part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn't — because McCain wasn't a supporter of the Bush–era approach, and Obama didn't see a percentage in harping on the topic."

I don't know if that is true. A lot of things should have been discussed in recent presidential campaigns but never got discussed in spite of the presence in the campaign of the people who made the important policy choices. The war in Iraq, for example, should have been talked about at length during the 2004 campaign — but the public was easily distracted by stories from Vietnam and whether gay people should be allowed to marry. In previous campaigns, serious issues took a back seat while there were heated debates about things like flag burning.

Nevertheless, Douthat makes a valid point when he says, "where the Bush administration's interrogation programs are concerned, we've heard too much to just 'look forward,' as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute ... but so that we can learn and pass judgment and struggle toward consensus."

Could that have been achieved through a Cheney candidacy? I don't know. I have my doubts. But Douthat doesn't appear to be skeptical.

"Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play," Douthat writes. "He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.

"But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."

That may be so. But I still doubt that the desire for disclosure would have been satisfied if the sitting vice president, with his penchant for secrecy, had been the Republican standard bearer.

Perhaps he feels freer now, as the former vice president, to speak openly about his role. And perhaps that would be a good thing for the country.

But I am dubious — at best — that having Cheney at the top of the ticket instead of McCain would have helped the Republicans see more clearly what they must do to get back in the voters' good graces.

Mission Accomplished?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN's John King today that the Bush administration achieved "nearly everything we set out to do" in Iraq.

I'm tempted to let the statement speak for itself.

But I have to wonder a few things — well, actually, more than a few things, but I'll try to contain myself:

• Does "nearly everything" mean a war that continues, almost six years after it began, and has cost American taxpayers more than $600 billion?


• "We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq," Cheney said, "and it is in fact what we set out to do."
  
  I think Seth Meyers should devote one of his "Really!?!" segments on "Saturday Night Live" to that statement.
  
  Whatever happened to the "weapons of mass destruction," which, as you may recall, was the original — indeed, the only — justification given for invading Iraq?


• Did the Bush administration really plan to lose nearly 5,000 American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives?
  
  And that doesn't include the thousands of lives that were permanently changed when bodies were maimed by roadside bombs.

If Dick Cheney made any sacrifice for the war effort, I am unaware of it.

Let's poll the families of the Americans who have died in Iraq — or the Americans who came back to this country without a limb or two — and see if they feel the mission was accomplished.

And then let's ask the Americans who continue to foot the bill for the war if they feel the investment was worth it.

Or could we have found better uses for more than $600 billion here at home?

More Hurricane News

It is about mid-day on Sunday, August 31. The Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin on Monday.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Gustav is churning through the Gulf of Mexico (if you want to see what it looks like from space, see the photograph at right).

According to CNN, President Bush and Vice President Cheney will skip the convention because of the hurricane.

Both men were scheduled to speak to the delegates on Monday night.

CNN reported Saturday night that Republican officials are "considering turning the convention into a service event, a massive telethon to raise money for the Red Cross and other agencies to help with the hurricane."

On the surface, that seems like a generous gesture — although, if it isn't handled correctly, it could be interpreted as a very self-serving move.

CNN also reported last night that four governors whose states are in Gustav's projected path — Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Haley Barbour (Mississippi), Charlie Crist (Florida) and Rick Perry (Texas) — will skip the convention because of the storm.

Perry had been scheduled to speak on Monday night. Jindal had been scheduled to speak on Wednesday night. Crist was scheduled to speak on Thursday night.