We are a nation of liars. I'm not sure when this happened. Perhaps we always have been, but its truly glaring now. This idea came to me this morning as i awoke to another day of the campaign for President and yet another collapse on Wall Street. So many of the crises in the last ten years can be traced to lying and accepting those lies. Did we always lie so baldly and did we always just look the other way? I don't know but I really hope not. I hope that this last decade has been an anomaly in terms of lying and that at some point we will say enough. But I'm not confident. I look at the current circumstances that have been created and wonder if the price we are paying will finally tell us that lying is not a foundation for a stable country, economy, or career or family life.
Wall Street Lies
When the dot.com bubble burst we professed to be stunned that people like Henry Blodgett, a securities analyst were lying about stocks - hyping them in public while trashing them in private. His and others aim was to make money, damn the consequences for those lied to. There was a brief revulsion about these revelations, but soon we were back to accepting, if not perpetrating lies. Enron and similar stories were a web of lies to make money. Somehow this surprised us, but it shouldn't have. Plenty of people absolutely knew these folks were lying and they said nothing. They accepted their lies without calling them out, otherwise the fraud would not have gone on as long. Now we are in another Wall Street scandal built on lies about the value of securities. It's representative of a culture that accepts lying as a way of getting what you want. Only when the circumstances spread outward like a pool, overwhelming the very systems that are being lied about does the condemnation seem to occur.
Lying is good is quietly promoted throughout the culture, from Survivor reality shows on TV to the spin-meisters of the Presidential campaign. Everyone seems to accept that its okay to lie if it gets you what you want. We continue not to call them out. Yes, there are few individuals who may complain or express contempt or offense at the lies, but the overwhelming acceptance comes from so many quarters, that everyone seems an appropriate description. The following are examples of how far we have run off the honesty track in the last decade. Is this ok? Are we willing to accept this as business as usual as long as we get what we want? Perhaps.
President Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton looked the American public in the eye and lied. Yes, it was a personal matter, but he made it a public one by lying. However, the issue quickly became a partisan fight over his Presidency, rather than a universal condemnation of his lying. Had the Congress passed a bi-partisan resolution condemning his conduct instead of starting a witch hunt to drive him out of office, the issue of lying would have been far better denounced and the culture would have had the idea that lying is wrong and has appropriate consequences more fully enshrined. Instead the message is don't get caught or just gut it out.
Iraq War
President George Bush & Vice President Dick Cheney have been shown to have lied over and over about the Iraq war, yet whether you accept or reject this is not based on the issue of lying, its based largely on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. No one has been called to account for these lies. The Democrats in Congress are afraid of alienating the public if they say enough with your lies, you will be accountable; the Republicans are afraid of losing the White House for a generation if they acknowledge the lies. This is not a lie about a personal flaw and therefore has great consequences for the nation and yet no one is held accountable for the lies. If Representative Kucinich goes after the lying, we make fun of his ardor and his looks and we push him in the basement so he will not be noticed, because he has little support in Congress. Fear of the judgment of the electorate rattles the leaders of the political parties. The Republicans claim even this small effort is a witch hunt designed as revenge for the impeachment effort on Clinton, even though in private they know they have been lied to. Dick Cheney calls a friend, Dick Armey, into his office and lies to him about Iraq, sufficient to get his support. We find out about this six years later because Mr. Armey is finally angry enough about being lied to that he confides the truth in a writer. We are never told by most leaders what they really believe because they are wedded to talking points that will, they hope get them re-elected. Where you stand is where you sit. There is absolutely no sense of honesty or open outrage, however terrible the consequences from these lies, from most people.
This lack of honesty permeates the culture on television news as well as the entertainment divisions in shows such as Survivor and Big Brother. We find out that supposedly respected and honorable retired military men, sworn to uphold the constitution, have been spewing the talking points provided by the Pentagon and White House, through a program of deliberate manipulation, in their "analysis" of the war and its aftermath. When this comes out, is there a hew and cry, is there a consequence; no, it is defended and then just accepted as spin.
In the Valerie Plame affair, the news media was complicit in the lies surrounding her exposure. Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Bob Novak, individual employees of the New York Times and Time magazine and others all knew at least part of truth, but they came on television and acted as though they were neutral, uninterested parties just exposing the facts. They paid no penalty for their complicity. Leaders in the White House knew the truth, since they were participants, but allowed the issue to be dragged out over months by playing ignorant or uninformed to ensure their hold on power. And when just one person was held accountable for his lies, the President basically pardoned him and refused to fire the others found to be lying even though he had said they would be fired. Lying is apparently not the crime, getting caught is.
These weren't inconsequential lies, they were lies of life and death and yet there is no outrage by the public at large, no recoiling about the total absence of fundamental honesty in our leaders. It is generally accepted as the way to get what you want. Little wonder dishonesty is permeating all of society.
2008 Presidential Election
And now we come to the election of 2008, arguably one of the most significant elections ever. Lies permeate the campaign discussions. Even after being called out by a usually acquiescent media for his bald-faced lies, John McCain and his running mate continue to repeat those lies. The pro McCain public believes the media is at fault and refuses to accept that their lying is wrong. No one doubts the reasons why Ms. Palin was selected by Mr. McCain, and the decision might be tactically and strategically brilliant, who knows, but to pretend that she among all other Republicans is the most qualified to be President is a lie. What happened to conservative outrage about affirmative action when it results in the less qualified candidate getting the job? It is lost in the desire to win.
Analysts for each side repeat the talking points of the campaign trying to stay on message, but they don't just stay on message with the ideas they agree with, they lie about their own views solely to further their candidates campaign. When analysts such as Peggy Noonan & Mike Murphy basically say one thing to the audience and then get caught saying what they really think from an open mike, there is little outrage at being lied to. In fact, they immediately write a mea culpa to explain what they really meant when they thought no one was listening and what they really meant was the opposite of what they actually did say. And the news corporations continue to air them as though they have some insight. When Jessie Jackson says one thing on the air and then is heard on an open mike saying something totally opposite, there is overall smirking about what he said, but no outrage that this "Reverend" was lying about his support. When Carly Fiorina accidentally told the truth as she believed it to be about the skills of the candidates, she was whisked away to oblivion likely for the remainder of the campaign; along with Phil Gramm who clearly believed what he said about whiners, he just wished he hadn't said it aloud. Only truth is punished in this election. And there is no penalty for lying. Lying is accepted if it gets you what you want. Even I don't expect campaigns in this day and age to be squeaky clean when it comes to their campaign records or those of their opponents, but surely there should be a difference between emphasis and exaggeration for effect, being simplistic, being less than artful in order to get your point across and outright lying, but apparently we acquiesce in the lying.
Barack Obama and John McCain promised a high minded campaign on the issues. McCain abandoned that promise when he realized that as he agrees with the Republican Reagan orthodoxy on most of the issues and the public has moved away from that orthodoxy, he would probably lose on the issues. I truly believe that Obama tried to run such a campaign until it became clear that the election would not be run on issues but on the cultural divide that afflicts this country and that is promoted as a substitute for reason. He then decided that attacks were the only way to win. History probably supports that decision, even if we say we reject it. But attacks breed lies about the issues and avoid truly talking about what we as a country believe and what want from our government and are willing to pay for. Any truths about policies involving taxes, health care, unemployment, war and terrorism, immigration, environment and energy are lost in attacks which, by their nature distort the truth. Whomever wins, we will likely not have any consensus about the issues that will have to be addressed by the winner, thereby making governing doubly difficult.
Please, someone, tell me we are not really a nation of liars. Tell me that we really do believe honesty is the best policy and that lying undermines our democracy as well as our economy and our society. Tell me that we have had enough and that from now on we will call people out when they lie, that we will set an example for our children that lying is wrong, that we will try and support a different ethic in ourselves, our leaders, our media and our commerce. If we can't be truthful, we could be silent.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Monday, October 01, 2007
General Strike, November 6, 2007, Stop the War
If people outraged by the injustice against the Jena 6 could put a protest together with 60,000 traveling to a god-forsaken part of Louisiana in just 3 weeks, then everone outraged by this war should be able to get the word out about the strike in over a month -- whoever has access to sources that don't require people to log in to read about whatever is written should link to the Harper's article. I usually refuse to log in so it needs to be an open forum to reach the most people.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720
http://whystrike.blogspot.com/2007/09/keizer-and-striking-on-blogs.html
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720
http://whystrike.blogspot.com/2007/09/keizer-and-striking-on-blogs.html
Not my idea but a good one!
In honor of these fine soldiers, and their brothers and sisters in arms of whom I am honored to serve with daily, I present the following – to you and to our “leaders.” The latter has forgotten the sacrifice and courage their position and title demands. God let them learn from these brave heroes and finally do their duty.
HOW A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS CAN END THE IRAQ WAR
Dear Democratic Senators and Representatives:
American voter energy, turnout, and choice in 2006 placed you in a position to preside over a rare moment at which you have both the great privilege to make history and the unfathomable responsibility to choose a better path for our endangered future. The greatest factor leading to your party’s congressional leadership takeover was the public’s overwhelming discontent over the Iraq War; that discontent has grown, but to no end. The defensive position of the President and his congressional supporters in continuing this war is well-established and unmoving; the recent “change in strategy” little more than a street hustler’s shell game. While your efforts to end the war have the backing of the overwhelming majority of Americans, an inflexible and unified congressional minority combined with the President’s veto has prevented your caucus’s efforts to end the war. Since January, your tepid attempts have all been successfully blocked to the dismay and disapproval of your political base, while your opponents have paid little, if any, meaningful political price. As the critical defense appropriations bill enters final debate, these circumstances beg two fundamental questions, “Can Congress end this war? And is such an effort worth pursuing?”
The unequivocal answers to both of these questions respectively are yes you can, and you must. A politically tenable means to that end follows, but first you must first realize that what is at stake is nothing less than the US Constitution itself; the laws which form this nation and place its government at the behest of its great citizens. It would be unabashed negligence for Congressional leaders to withhold bold action and meekly allow this President and a minority group in Congress to defy the undeniable will of the people. Neither voters nor history will judge well those who talked tough, but threw up their hands in submission after floating half-measures or engaging in meaningless panderings. Follow not the temptation to sink to the level of Karl Rove either, putting your partisan future ahead of our nation’s needs; to do so means unconscionably prioritizing your party and personal political fortunes ahead of this country’s national security and the thousands more young soldiers and Marines you’ll leave to be maimed or killed in Iraq over the next 12 months. To win this contest of political wills now and live up to the grand ideal of our nation’s founders, you must willfully assume significant political risk. But even the worst-case realization of that risk pales in comparison to the damage this war continually does to our nation or to the sacrifices deployed military members and their families have endured and continue to relentlessly confront.
In developing the means to win this contest, you must first, ala Sun Tzu, study your opponent carefully. Outnumbered and low on resources, they are on the defensive. Given their minority position in Congress and sparse public support, they have no choice left. Their fundamental disadvantage in a defense is that they have ceded the initiative to you, entrenchment and reaction their only options; you control the agenda. Their defense remains deep and formidable; together they can filibuster, veto, and maintain a veto. Unity then is their strategic center of gravity. Also important is their operational center of gravity: their individual and party self-preserving motives. The President persists in Iraq, against all hope for “victory,” to preserve a dignified place in history. With no more elections in his future, he has no reason to follow voters’ wishes and works now only to hand the inevitable chaos of the Iraq withdrawal to his successor. As such, he is largely invulnerable and immoveable. Your congressional opponents are, however, concerned with their own reelections, especially given the losses suffered in 2006. Their vulnerability is limited, however, since most of the Republicans still voting with the President come from solidly “red” states or securely conservative districts. As a Republican caucus, they are also very concerned about preserving a meaningful minority in Congress, which limits the seat losses they will endure in order to maintain unity with the President on Iraq. This makes the tactical center of gravity all the more important: your opponents’ congressional constituency. Understanding and targeting this constituency, which includes your opponents’ power base is the key to achieving victory. These constituents directly affect their congressman’s self-preserving motives, which in turn, can affect your opponents’ willingness to maintain unity with the President.
In planning a successful attack, you must carefully consider these constituents’ political motives. Putting some overgeneralization aside, you’ll find their constituency includes five key groups. The first is made up of “fat cats,” the independently very rich and wealthy businessmen who are solidly within your opponents’ base. Their most important motive so far as Iraq or anything else is concerned is simple: first and always preserve wealth. For most among this group the Iraq war has been transparent, with no sacrifice being asked of them; they’re happy their representatives have managed to preserve the huge Bush tax cuts of 2001 whilst waging a very costly war. For others in this group the war has been a boon, particularly for defense contractors and those in the energy business; these in particular write large pro-war election campaign checks. A second similar group also shoring up your opponents’ base is made up of “Goldwater Republicans,” mostly retirees with many veterans from WWII through the Cold War. While they are also interested in preserving their wealth in retirement, they firmly believe in a strong defense and are fervently patriotic, ready to nuke anyone who threatens the homeland. The third group supporting the base consists of “blue-collar Republicans” from the rural South, Midwest and Western Mountain states. These conservatives are religious, pro-gun, non-union and moderately to lowly-educated farmers, ranchers, craftsmen, small businessmen, and other semi-skilled laborers. Their political leanings are not typically developed through self-discovery, but rather from how they were “brought up” (many raised by Goldwater Republicans). A disproportionate number of the men and women enlisting in the military originate from these families and their communities. Even in the face of mounting war casualties within their small towns, these constituents provide unquestioning support for the Iraq war out of a myopic sense of duty, accepting fully that the Iraq war is “the central front in the war on terror” as knavishly purported by their representatives and locally-popular conservative media.
Outside their base of support are two key groups that are within your opponent’s constituency but now oppose continuing the Iraq War and are ready to vote and even resource opposition campaigns against their sitting congressmen. The first of these groups include well-educated, professional, upper middleclass and semi-independent conservatives. These “moderate independents” voted in large part for both Bush Presidents, helped reelect President Bill Clinton, and were a decisive ballot-casting factor in your 2006 victories. While they voted to end the war in 2006, they have otherwise been content as politically inactive bystanders, disgusted by the inept failure and waste of the Iraq war but personally unaffected and unmoved by it. This group also includes a large number of mature families with children ranging in age from middle school through college; security and opportunity for these kids forms their primary political motives. The final group comprises disenfranchised constituents, educated middle class and anti-war Democrats trapped in “red” Republican states and gerrymandered districts. These “angry orphans” run the gamut from “Generation Y” students to “Generation X” professionals with young children to liberal baby-boomers and Truman seniors. Though vehemently anti-war, their discontented voices are mostly restrained when amongst their pro-war neighbors and coworkers. However, the release of their pent-up frustration provided the critical grass-roots energy in 2006 that changed some long-standing “red” congressional seats to “blue.”
With a general understanding of these key constituent groups, you can now identify some key actions that exploit their vulnerabilities. For the “fat cats” to be turned against the war, all you need do is make them help directly pay for it. A five percent increase in the capital gains and corporate tax rates specifically designated to pay for the war will do exactly that. Given the 500 plus billion dollar war costs thus far borrowed from China and others to be paid back with interest by our children, a special tax is certainly justified and long overdue. Such a tax has solid historical precedence as well; with the Iraq war the only large long-term US conflict in the last 150 years not to be supported with some tax increase.
To filibuster or veto such a measure would not sit well with the “Goldwater Republicans” who are already feeling ill about the exorbitant costs and spendthrift financing of this war. This patriotic group also rightly fears that the war is breaking the US Army and Marines. This group would be truly aghast if you can show them the truly sad state of these services, the clear and present vulnerabilities our national interests face in light of their worst-in-modern-times readiness, the unsustainable number of experienced but burned-out non-commissioned and company grade officers that are leaving the ranks, the all-time-ebb to which recruiting standards have dropped, and the total costs associated with $20,000-$100,000 bonuses being doled out to meet recruiting and retention goals. For this group’s support, you need only expose this horror story and then take action that assures them that continuing the Iraq war will no longer come at the expense of our national defense. A conditional draft will meet this need with clarity. The conditions are these: if total US forces deployed in Iraq are not reduced to 70,000 or less by 30 Apr 2008, a military draft begins 1 June 2008 with 50,000 additional men to be enlisted for not less than 3 years into the Army and Marines by 1 June 2009, the draft continued thereafter as needed to maintain congressionally-mandated end-strengths. This action too has great precedence and no Army or Marine General Officer worth their stars will tell you that this would not be both a great relief and a critical readiness safety net for this country. Once better, the political onus for bringing back the draft will sit with the President; it’s the commander-in-chief alone who chooses to stay in Iraq, not Congress who’s action here only responsibly fulfills its duty in raising and maintaining the Army (and Marines) to meet the nation’s defense. The President may obstinately continue the war, but Congress won’t allow him to irresponsibly break the force in doing so.
With the sacrifices their peer and family member servicemen are making, and given both Bush and Cheney’s well-documented efforts to personally avoid the last draft, the patriotic “blue-collar Republicans” would feel ashamed and be furious should their President or congressman block or refuse such measures under grounds of fairness or lack of necessity. Similar to many lower and middle-class Americans now living paycheck to paycheck, these rural Republicans will also have little tolerance for their congressmen’s echoing of “fat cats” or their lobbyists whining over sacrificing a small tax increase to pay for the war, particularly given recent record corporate profits and record wealth growth for the very rich. This frustration will be enhanced when you enact an addition 5 cent per gallon federal fuel tax. As with the capital gains and corporate tax, this funding will be set aside only to fund the Iraq War and last only until the war ends. Further, such a tax eliminates the perception that Democrats are out only to get the rich. The President fully justified this tax himself recently when he identified protecting Mideast oil supplies as a key rationale for staying in Iraq. Most of this heartland group will accept the additional sacrifice for the war, but won’t be happy about it. Outside of some in Texas and Alaska, members of this group are already angry with the massive rise in fuel prices and openly blame the greed of big US oil companies and OPEC countries; this tax too will be blamed on them. That both Bush and Cheney practically bleed oil will not be lost on anyone either as they are forced to pay more at the pump to protect “big oil.”
Collectively these actions will anger the “moderate independents” but the anger will not be directed at you, it will be aimed at President Bush and his congressional lackeys. Both the capital gains and gas tax will likely hit their pocketbook but will be fully understood and respected; especially given that the sum of all these new taxes will only raise revenues to cover half of the annual Iraq war cost. But more importantly, anger over the possibility of a hypocritical draft-dodging administration drafting their son, grandson, or nephew will overcome their passivity. They will take action to end the war they already disagree with. They will be vocal locally, and will provide the human and monetary resources needed to either unseat their pro-war congressmen or forcefully change his/her mind.
By contrast, the “angry orphans” will not initially understand or agree with the need for a draft; even if conditional, this action will be seen by this group and many other anti-war groups as very controversial. Though intended as an asymmetrical and temporary approach to end the war, some will see the draft issue as counter-productive, a non-starter, and a pure escalation. As such, it will face some opposition in “Blue” states. However, the “orphans” will be heartened by the tax increases and will be quick to put out the welcome mat for the “moderate independents” visibly joining their ranks. Finally, when the dilemma these actions place on their local Congressmen becomes evident and breaks the unity that keeps the war going, support will be wholesale. You will be cheered and revered by them.
Taken together, these actions form an offensive maneuver to defeat your opponents’ defenses and end the war. They are a synchronized whole and will not work individually. To defeat your opponents, you must divide and undermine their base of support, placing each war-defending congressman in a “Catch-22.” Okaying the corporate tax angers their “fat cats,” opposition angers “Goldwater’s” but less so the “blue-collars” unless there’s also a gas tax. Fight the draft and again anger the “Goldwater’s;” okay it and mobilize anti-war “independents.” Collectively these actions are also irrefutably prudent and responsible, with sound basis and precedent; together these actions paint your opponents’ into a corner. Alone they are but obstacles to be outmaneuvered and dismissed as partisan play.
You must leave them no more room to maneuver. Thus far, the President has had both his foolish war and the irresponsibly acquired means to fight it. You, the Democratic Congress must be the responsible adults acting fully within your constitutional roles to hold this spoiled President accountable for his reckless intractability. You must force an all or nothing choice for your opponents. They can have their tantrum and keep their war but they must at least be forced to pay the political price of putting their constituents’ money and lives where their loose, hawkish, and fear-mongering mouths are. If this is not suitable, then they can approve an immediate redeployment from Iraq, two brigades per month until completely out. These must be the only choices you offer them; not a single dollar for the Pentagon until and unless your opponents’ agree to one or the other. It is unthinkable that they could endure the ensuing political pressure through April and keep troops in Iraq such that the conditional draft would commence. If they do manage such folly, at least the war would finally be responsibly funded and not fought at the expense of our greater national defense. Regardless, you will have won an historic victory for the American people in defense of and within the vision set forth for you in our beloved Constitution; now there’s a battle you mustn’t “cut and run” from.
Posted by: Dan, Yongsan Garrison, Korea | September 29, 2007 09:31 AM
HOW A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS CAN END THE IRAQ WAR
Dear Democratic Senators and Representatives:
American voter energy, turnout, and choice in 2006 placed you in a position to preside over a rare moment at which you have both the great privilege to make history and the unfathomable responsibility to choose a better path for our endangered future. The greatest factor leading to your party’s congressional leadership takeover was the public’s overwhelming discontent over the Iraq War; that discontent has grown, but to no end. The defensive position of the President and his congressional supporters in continuing this war is well-established and unmoving; the recent “change in strategy” little more than a street hustler’s shell game. While your efforts to end the war have the backing of the overwhelming majority of Americans, an inflexible and unified congressional minority combined with the President’s veto has prevented your caucus’s efforts to end the war. Since January, your tepid attempts have all been successfully blocked to the dismay and disapproval of your political base, while your opponents have paid little, if any, meaningful political price. As the critical defense appropriations bill enters final debate, these circumstances beg two fundamental questions, “Can Congress end this war? And is such an effort worth pursuing?”
The unequivocal answers to both of these questions respectively are yes you can, and you must. A politically tenable means to that end follows, but first you must first realize that what is at stake is nothing less than the US Constitution itself; the laws which form this nation and place its government at the behest of its great citizens. It would be unabashed negligence for Congressional leaders to withhold bold action and meekly allow this President and a minority group in Congress to defy the undeniable will of the people. Neither voters nor history will judge well those who talked tough, but threw up their hands in submission after floating half-measures or engaging in meaningless panderings. Follow not the temptation to sink to the level of Karl Rove either, putting your partisan future ahead of our nation’s needs; to do so means unconscionably prioritizing your party and personal political fortunes ahead of this country’s national security and the thousands more young soldiers and Marines you’ll leave to be maimed or killed in Iraq over the next 12 months. To win this contest of political wills now and live up to the grand ideal of our nation’s founders, you must willfully assume significant political risk. But even the worst-case realization of that risk pales in comparison to the damage this war continually does to our nation or to the sacrifices deployed military members and their families have endured and continue to relentlessly confront.
In developing the means to win this contest, you must first, ala Sun Tzu, study your opponent carefully. Outnumbered and low on resources, they are on the defensive. Given their minority position in Congress and sparse public support, they have no choice left. Their fundamental disadvantage in a defense is that they have ceded the initiative to you, entrenchment and reaction their only options; you control the agenda. Their defense remains deep and formidable; together they can filibuster, veto, and maintain a veto. Unity then is their strategic center of gravity. Also important is their operational center of gravity: their individual and party self-preserving motives. The President persists in Iraq, against all hope for “victory,” to preserve a dignified place in history. With no more elections in his future, he has no reason to follow voters’ wishes and works now only to hand the inevitable chaos of the Iraq withdrawal to his successor. As such, he is largely invulnerable and immoveable. Your congressional opponents are, however, concerned with their own reelections, especially given the losses suffered in 2006. Their vulnerability is limited, however, since most of the Republicans still voting with the President come from solidly “red” states or securely conservative districts. As a Republican caucus, they are also very concerned about preserving a meaningful minority in Congress, which limits the seat losses they will endure in order to maintain unity with the President on Iraq. This makes the tactical center of gravity all the more important: your opponents’ congressional constituency. Understanding and targeting this constituency, which includes your opponents’ power base is the key to achieving victory. These constituents directly affect their congressman’s self-preserving motives, which in turn, can affect your opponents’ willingness to maintain unity with the President.
In planning a successful attack, you must carefully consider these constituents’ political motives. Putting some overgeneralization aside, you’ll find their constituency includes five key groups. The first is made up of “fat cats,” the independently very rich and wealthy businessmen who are solidly within your opponents’ base. Their most important motive so far as Iraq or anything else is concerned is simple: first and always preserve wealth. For most among this group the Iraq war has been transparent, with no sacrifice being asked of them; they’re happy their representatives have managed to preserve the huge Bush tax cuts of 2001 whilst waging a very costly war. For others in this group the war has been a boon, particularly for defense contractors and those in the energy business; these in particular write large pro-war election campaign checks. A second similar group also shoring up your opponents’ base is made up of “Goldwater Republicans,” mostly retirees with many veterans from WWII through the Cold War. While they are also interested in preserving their wealth in retirement, they firmly believe in a strong defense and are fervently patriotic, ready to nuke anyone who threatens the homeland. The third group supporting the base consists of “blue-collar Republicans” from the rural South, Midwest and Western Mountain states. These conservatives are religious, pro-gun, non-union and moderately to lowly-educated farmers, ranchers, craftsmen, small businessmen, and other semi-skilled laborers. Their political leanings are not typically developed through self-discovery, but rather from how they were “brought up” (many raised by Goldwater Republicans). A disproportionate number of the men and women enlisting in the military originate from these families and their communities. Even in the face of mounting war casualties within their small towns, these constituents provide unquestioning support for the Iraq war out of a myopic sense of duty, accepting fully that the Iraq war is “the central front in the war on terror” as knavishly purported by their representatives and locally-popular conservative media.
Outside their base of support are two key groups that are within your opponent’s constituency but now oppose continuing the Iraq War and are ready to vote and even resource opposition campaigns against their sitting congressmen. The first of these groups include well-educated, professional, upper middleclass and semi-independent conservatives. These “moderate independents” voted in large part for both Bush Presidents, helped reelect President Bill Clinton, and were a decisive ballot-casting factor in your 2006 victories. While they voted to end the war in 2006, they have otherwise been content as politically inactive bystanders, disgusted by the inept failure and waste of the Iraq war but personally unaffected and unmoved by it. This group also includes a large number of mature families with children ranging in age from middle school through college; security and opportunity for these kids forms their primary political motives. The final group comprises disenfranchised constituents, educated middle class and anti-war Democrats trapped in “red” Republican states and gerrymandered districts. These “angry orphans” run the gamut from “Generation Y” students to “Generation X” professionals with young children to liberal baby-boomers and Truman seniors. Though vehemently anti-war, their discontented voices are mostly restrained when amongst their pro-war neighbors and coworkers. However, the release of their pent-up frustration provided the critical grass-roots energy in 2006 that changed some long-standing “red” congressional seats to “blue.”
With a general understanding of these key constituent groups, you can now identify some key actions that exploit their vulnerabilities. For the “fat cats” to be turned against the war, all you need do is make them help directly pay for it. A five percent increase in the capital gains and corporate tax rates specifically designated to pay for the war will do exactly that. Given the 500 plus billion dollar war costs thus far borrowed from China and others to be paid back with interest by our children, a special tax is certainly justified and long overdue. Such a tax has solid historical precedence as well; with the Iraq war the only large long-term US conflict in the last 150 years not to be supported with some tax increase.
To filibuster or veto such a measure would not sit well with the “Goldwater Republicans” who are already feeling ill about the exorbitant costs and spendthrift financing of this war. This patriotic group also rightly fears that the war is breaking the US Army and Marines. This group would be truly aghast if you can show them the truly sad state of these services, the clear and present vulnerabilities our national interests face in light of their worst-in-modern-times readiness, the unsustainable number of experienced but burned-out non-commissioned and company grade officers that are leaving the ranks, the all-time-ebb to which recruiting standards have dropped, and the total costs associated with $20,000-$100,000 bonuses being doled out to meet recruiting and retention goals. For this group’s support, you need only expose this horror story and then take action that assures them that continuing the Iraq war will no longer come at the expense of our national defense. A conditional draft will meet this need with clarity. The conditions are these: if total US forces deployed in Iraq are not reduced to 70,000 or less by 30 Apr 2008, a military draft begins 1 June 2008 with 50,000 additional men to be enlisted for not less than 3 years into the Army and Marines by 1 June 2009, the draft continued thereafter as needed to maintain congressionally-mandated end-strengths. This action too has great precedence and no Army or Marine General Officer worth their stars will tell you that this would not be both a great relief and a critical readiness safety net for this country. Once better, the political onus for bringing back the draft will sit with the President; it’s the commander-in-chief alone who chooses to stay in Iraq, not Congress who’s action here only responsibly fulfills its duty in raising and maintaining the Army (and Marines) to meet the nation’s defense. The President may obstinately continue the war, but Congress won’t allow him to irresponsibly break the force in doing so.
With the sacrifices their peer and family member servicemen are making, and given both Bush and Cheney’s well-documented efforts to personally avoid the last draft, the patriotic “blue-collar Republicans” would feel ashamed and be furious should their President or congressman block or refuse such measures under grounds of fairness or lack of necessity. Similar to many lower and middle-class Americans now living paycheck to paycheck, these rural Republicans will also have little tolerance for their congressmen’s echoing of “fat cats” or their lobbyists whining over sacrificing a small tax increase to pay for the war, particularly given recent record corporate profits and record wealth growth for the very rich. This frustration will be enhanced when you enact an addition 5 cent per gallon federal fuel tax. As with the capital gains and corporate tax, this funding will be set aside only to fund the Iraq War and last only until the war ends. Further, such a tax eliminates the perception that Democrats are out only to get the rich. The President fully justified this tax himself recently when he identified protecting Mideast oil supplies as a key rationale for staying in Iraq. Most of this heartland group will accept the additional sacrifice for the war, but won’t be happy about it. Outside of some in Texas and Alaska, members of this group are already angry with the massive rise in fuel prices and openly blame the greed of big US oil companies and OPEC countries; this tax too will be blamed on them. That both Bush and Cheney practically bleed oil will not be lost on anyone either as they are forced to pay more at the pump to protect “big oil.”
Collectively these actions will anger the “moderate independents” but the anger will not be directed at you, it will be aimed at President Bush and his congressional lackeys. Both the capital gains and gas tax will likely hit their pocketbook but will be fully understood and respected; especially given that the sum of all these new taxes will only raise revenues to cover half of the annual Iraq war cost. But more importantly, anger over the possibility of a hypocritical draft-dodging administration drafting their son, grandson, or nephew will overcome their passivity. They will take action to end the war they already disagree with. They will be vocal locally, and will provide the human and monetary resources needed to either unseat their pro-war congressmen or forcefully change his/her mind.
By contrast, the “angry orphans” will not initially understand or agree with the need for a draft; even if conditional, this action will be seen by this group and many other anti-war groups as very controversial. Though intended as an asymmetrical and temporary approach to end the war, some will see the draft issue as counter-productive, a non-starter, and a pure escalation. As such, it will face some opposition in “Blue” states. However, the “orphans” will be heartened by the tax increases and will be quick to put out the welcome mat for the “moderate independents” visibly joining their ranks. Finally, when the dilemma these actions place on their local Congressmen becomes evident and breaks the unity that keeps the war going, support will be wholesale. You will be cheered and revered by them.
Taken together, these actions form an offensive maneuver to defeat your opponents’ defenses and end the war. They are a synchronized whole and will not work individually. To defeat your opponents, you must divide and undermine their base of support, placing each war-defending congressman in a “Catch-22.” Okaying the corporate tax angers their “fat cats,” opposition angers “Goldwater’s” but less so the “blue-collars” unless there’s also a gas tax. Fight the draft and again anger the “Goldwater’s;” okay it and mobilize anti-war “independents.” Collectively these actions are also irrefutably prudent and responsible, with sound basis and precedent; together these actions paint your opponents’ into a corner. Alone they are but obstacles to be outmaneuvered and dismissed as partisan play.
You must leave them no more room to maneuver. Thus far, the President has had both his foolish war and the irresponsibly acquired means to fight it. You, the Democratic Congress must be the responsible adults acting fully within your constitutional roles to hold this spoiled President accountable for his reckless intractability. You must force an all or nothing choice for your opponents. They can have their tantrum and keep their war but they must at least be forced to pay the political price of putting their constituents’ money and lives where their loose, hawkish, and fear-mongering mouths are. If this is not suitable, then they can approve an immediate redeployment from Iraq, two brigades per month until completely out. These must be the only choices you offer them; not a single dollar for the Pentagon until and unless your opponents’ agree to one or the other. It is unthinkable that they could endure the ensuing political pressure through April and keep troops in Iraq such that the conditional draft would commence. If they do manage such folly, at least the war would finally be responsibly funded and not fought at the expense of our greater national defense. Regardless, you will have won an historic victory for the American people in defense of and within the vision set forth for you in our beloved Constitution; now there’s a battle you mustn’t “cut and run” from.
Posted by: Dan, Yongsan Garrison, Korea | September 29, 2007 09:31 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)