Where is the line?

Someone, blow the whistle on Bush's excessive secrecy

By Pat M. Holt

WASHINGTON – It is time for Congress or the courts to blow the whistle on the Bush administration's excessive secrecy. The secrecy is especially pernicious when set in the context of the administration's proclivity to spin. "Spin" is the fashionable word. "Twist," "distort," "deceive," or "cover up" would be more forthright.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0206/p09s02-coop.html

au

good reminder...let's add 'Tendency to Secretiveness' to our list.

This helps me figure out where I am coming from. I've been in lots of situations, in seems, where people are kind of going along with the flow, I have a problem, I see everyone going along with the flow, I wonder if there's something amiss with my perspective, I start asking questions, I find out that everyone is privately concerned but going along with the flow, and as everyone realizes that everyone else is concerned, something happens. This has ranged from a professor getting an official reprimand for inethical and unprofessional behavior to a co-worker being fired for sexual harrassment.

All of these things have had a paradigm shift moment, when what I thought was the truth ("oh, he's a nice guy who just has a kinda warped sense of humor") changed drastically ("he did WHAT to you???"). I just started wondering what would make that happen for me with Bush, and what I would do. Because when that happened with the co-worker, I made sure his ass got fired. What would I do about Bush?

While I don't share the fears of the author of this thread and others that George Bush has or may "cross the line", I do find the sentiment interesting, particularly the apparent likelihood that it may be more common among Canadians, Europeans and others than it is here in the U.S. (Mamajuana and other like yellow dog Democrats excepted).

Do those of you who have this fear recall similar feelings about President Reagan or, reaching back, Nixon?

Could it be that what is really going on here is that the U.S. is no longer checked by a deadly rival? (i.e. perhaps it is the situation, and not the U.S. that has changed)

Shall I assume you didn't have those fears about Clinton? If so what were the qualities in him that made the difference for you?

I found Clinton to be feckless, glib, and superficial. He was quick on his feet and very adept in using the words and symbols of the liberal elites of the era, but otherwise merely floated on a high tide and wasted many opportunities to deal with serious, but not yet critical issues. Apart from being the 'non George Bush' what did you find appealing in his administration?

George

Oh, I think you are being a little bit overconfident about others sharing your views down there.

The US has changed, most relevantly to this discussion, the Republican party has changed as the religious right component has gained increasing power (lots of republicans not pleased about this), and US policy is changing partially as a consequence of new power and as a consequence of the individuals presently in the administration. Some of these changes are a matter of degree (a furtherance of doctrines under Reagan in some cases), but that's the way things usually change, bit by bit.

You disparage Clinton's intellect and depth of character, but that's not uncommon, intellect being a dangerous and unseemly thing to many americans - not just americans - but there's a history in your culture of it, and 'character' being pretty notably a matter of personal taste.

And 'liberal elites'? What might be the converse of that term? Conservative Commonman? What would be your categorical term for say, Bush himself? Or Dick Cheney? Do you figure Dick goes out to the pub with local school janitors very often? Invites the household staff to his dinner parties?

Unfortunately, there are people that did not realize changes that took place in the ways of making war: the regimes that realize that they are unable to win a conventional war on the battlefield, changed tactics: they attack the stronger enemy by means of terror, and techniques of terror are various and sophisticated, and recently the non-conventional attack option became quite probable. The fact that thousands of Iraqi nuclear warheads are not aimed at the USA and EU (they merely do not exist), makes people think that Iraq is not so dangerous as President Bush depicts it, if compared to the Soviet nuclear threat that was real during the Cold War. I am afraid, this is a serious blunder, and it will be very uneasy to fix the situation in case the war against Iraq is avoided or postponed, and Saddam is generously given a chance to improve his terror assault techniques and facilities.
If the war occurs and Saddam is forced to leave (or to die), this will be a serious warning to the North Korean and Iranian regimes regarding possible ramifications of their rogue behavior.

Blatham,

I asked a serious question. A pity you didn't choose to answer it. Your response was a bit acid: inaccurate and inconsistent as well.

George Bush fares somewhat better in the various polls down here than did Clinton at the same phase of his presidency. Moreover, Clinton suffered a major reversal in his party's strength in the Congress in the first mid term election, while Bush got a small - but decisive - gain. While Bush's opponents may well share the views implied in this thread, the best available evidence confirms they are less numerous than were Clinton's.

The so-called Christian Coalition has lost most of its capable political leaders and most of its clout as well. Its high water point in our politics occurred about six years ago. I'm not sure what evidence leads you to suggest "... the religious right has gained increasing power...". It is an observable fact that some elements of its agenda have gained support among the not-particularly-religious right , but that is a very different thing.

Do you really believe that I and other Americans are somehow afraid of "intellect"? Gosh, isn't that just a bit condescending? Actually I fancy myself as a fairly intelligent fellow, and I do engage in pursuits that are often termed "intellectual". Please look again at my post - I did not suggest Clinton wasn't intelligent, but I did address elements in his behavior (not character). My reservations about him have nothing to do with the fact that he is intelligent, but everything to do with his behavior and the choices he made.

"Liberal elites' is a common enough term and it shouldn't cause you such grief. Its converse would be conservative elites. That's not too hard is it?

steissd says Good point. Let's be even more clear in our message-sending though. Let's nuke the place and THAT will make China reflect on her part in all of this. And, while we are at it, let's airlift the smelly Palestinians into Jordan, giving Israel some peace and room to flourish, with the added bonus of more messages (we're big on message-sending in the modern world) to all the dark-skinned uppity types.

If I am afraid of anything its the impact of self-proclaimed intellectuals who wish to drive the direction of our society based on how they feel rather than on rational thought. I find it interesting that so many who claim the intellectual high ground refuse to defend that ground intellectually, preferring to offering insults and tangential observations rather than address facts offered as evidence that their position just might lack merit.

As always, I am referring to no person specifically, but am identifying a pattern of behavior I have encountered many, many times.

Just quickly, in response to Tres' quote of george's rhetorical question...boys, you really must read Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life"...he's one of your own most well respected historians and the book did receive one of two (or three) deserved Pultizer's. There is a history here, particular (though obviously not unique) to America and it js extremely relevant right now.

"If I am afraid of anything its the impact of self-proclaimed intellectuals who wish to drive the direction of our society based on how they feel rather than on rational thought."

um kinda brings to mind William F. Buckley Jr

blatham - I'll add it to my reading list. Might I suggest you and others take a look at The Vision of the Annointed, by Thomas Sowell; a very good book, and also very much on point.

george

Your question was serious, as was my answer. As to acidic, guilty, but there's a bit in yours too.

Arguing polls is too foggy to bother much with - x compared to y at month three, at month 12, and year 2, etc.

Re the christian right's power...it is entrenched and critical...and Rove clearly understands how that is so now in ways it never was before. Number of appearances by Pat Roberts on day-time tv isn't the proper measure. What are the chances, today, of a pro-choice Republican presidential candidate or supreme court nominee?

I responded to the 'anti-intellect' thing previously. I brought it up because of this What gets rather missed here is that Clinton was clearly one of the most intellectually talented - and widely/deeply educated - Presidents you've ever had. Your present President is the converse. The descriptors you use in your sentence are dismissive, and typically so. But, like I advised earlier, it's a book you ought to read.

As to my singling out of 'liberal elites'...it's a buzz term and a straw man cliche that carries rather more baggage than you admit to. For example, it would be clarifying if you were to list some typical 'liberal elites' on one side of a page, and some typical 'conservative elites' on the other.

But....we may be taking sozobe's thread in some direction not intended....so, I'll disappear for a twince.

The Hofstadter book is eye opening -- I see a presupposition in these forums that someone know how to recognize an "intellectual." I don't know anyone who is intelligent who is self-proclaimed (which I gather means they have stated in public that they are an "intellectual" so, listen up!) If one is reading or listening to material by these "self-proclaimed intellectuals," who "feel" instead of employing rational thought, maybe they have no idea who is and isn't intelligent. I know Republicans who are intelligent and Democrats who are intelligent and it doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with their political bent. I would never presume that anyone on these boards is not intelligent by their political choices but I will read what they have to say and make a judgement on that particular statement. I've read a lot of emotionally charged entries from both sides and because of the subject of a war or a leader of the country, I think that is understandable. Maybe we should discuss who is an isn't emotionally vacant.

Clinton had flaws in his social intelligence which manifested itself in his getting a charge out of being daring when, in fact, he was being irresponsible. I think he has had to learn his lesson and in spades. Intelligent people often have a blind spot when trying to deal with other people. And then, Cee students often believe they can deal with people because they are seen as an affable good Joe and not intellectually a threat.

Haven't read this as thoroughly as it deserves, but a quick reply before I leave for a bit:

I definitely feared Nixon (well, retroactively -- I was a toddler when that went down.) I feared aspects of Clinton's presidency, especially things like whether the entire Democratic party would be damaged by his dumb infidelities. I TOTALLY feared Reagan.

When I say "fear" I don't mean the fear of someone coming and getting my husband in the middle of the night and locking him away. (Though with Bush, I probably come closer to this fear than with the others mentioned.) Or fear of being gunned down in the street. I am referring more to a fear that the Bush administration will take actions that are completely unconscionable -- as Setanta, mamajuana, blatham and others have articulated.

One of my closest friends had been high up in the Nixon administration. There was more to fear from him than what's even been revealed.

The legacy of Nixon is bad enough -- it undermined the strength of the Presidency and the voters still haven't regained trust in the office but feel resigned to the inevitable. Karl Rove is on a campaign to pull more power over to the Executive branch -- whether one thinks this is bad or good is not as important as the method of reaching that goal. I'm always suspicious of anyone who want to bolster up their own position and image by using dubious sales techniques. It's said in sales that one must sell themselves before they can sell the product. This is true in the good salesperson's mind but in the real world, people are by-and-large gullible and nieve and will actually buy almost anything.

LW - Perhaps "self-proclaimed" is a poor choice of words. In fact, I'm sure it is. I guess it's kind of like trying to describe the color blue; I recognize it when presented with a sample, but describing it to you in terms other than, "Well, you know..." might be a daunting task purely due to my own limitations. Add to that your likely reluctance to acknowledge the validity of any example I might offer, and the task becomes one unlikely to bear any palatable fruit.

I suppose the simplest way I can describe those to whom I refer is thusly: there are those who tend to respond to any or most conservative positions--no matter how well supported and referenced to fact--with an offhanded dismissal that seems based purely on the premise that any fact which supports a conservative point of view can not by definition by true. The fact is therefor ignored, belittled, or denied, and the position it supported is summarily dismissed. The primary trait these people share seems to be a conviction of the rectitude of their position which is proof against logic, reason, or fact.

But again, I do not describe this well and would again refer people to Sowell's excellent book, The Vision of the Anointed.

I just stumbled across a blogger's review of and comments on the book. It might offer a shortcut for those who don't want to invest time in reading the book, but might be interested in a decent overview of the book's premise.
Vinod's Blog - Book Review; The Vision of the Anointed
(I offer this link not because it represents a positive review of the book, but because it contains a decent encapsulation of the ideas put forth by the book.)

And just in case, here's a link to purchase the book from Amazon.

Haven't read Sowell's book but because of his background, I can understand his etched-in-stone position. These authors all end up having a personal axe to grind -- they are also categorizing people in charts and analysis as if they've met and know each person intimately. You don't know someone unless you've lived with them. Only Laura really knows George, for instance. The rest of us are, for the most part, in the dark. Only Hillary knows Bill and that means it's their own personal business what kind of marriage they've constructed.

A position cannot actaully be accessed as true or untrue as their is always subjectivity surrounding that position. I know objectivism tried to address this and that philosophy is irretrivably tied up in libertarianism among other polticial positions. I find in discussions about politics that people are rarely objective on either side and only try to diguise their emotions (until they burst out in the form of anger -- the most self-destructive of all emotions).