Making the Most of His Time Carter's post-presidential legacy

The AP is reporting that the Carter Presidential Museum is set to reopen on the former president's 85 birthday. The museum, says the article, devotes "more space than any other presidential library to a commander-in-chief's time spent after the White House."

It's fitting. The story of most American Presidents seem to end when they leave office. Two of the three greatest American Presidents, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, never left office at all. And while Harry S. Truman certainly stands as one of the outstanding Presidents of American History, he leaves the stage of history in 1952-- it almost comes as a shock to learn that he lived until 1972.

Other former Presidents seem to fade into obscurity after their time in office. Two who did not, Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, spent the remainder of their lives burnishing (or in the case of Nixon, rehabilitating) their reputations.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, has devoted his life after the White House to the service of others- building houses with Habitat for Humanity, and, of course, searching and working for peace.

The Carter presidency may have proved conclusively that a good man does not make the best President (most of our best leaders have had a touch of the scoundrel about them)-- but his EX-presidency is an outstanding tribute to the value of a life well lived.

Reagan's Farewell

Everyday that goes by brings us closer to the end of eight LONG years of the George W. Bush Presidency. Rip-and-Read couldn't be happier as we look forward to Mr. Bush's farewell address.

Today, I happened to stumble across another Presidential farewell on You-Tube. Ronald Reagan is definitely NOT one of Rip-and-Read's favorite Presidents. In my opinion, Mr. Reagan is the DIRECT political ancestor of George W. Bush, and their family tree stretches back to include the lassiez-faire capitalism which contributed to the great depression.

Following both the Reagan and G.W.Bush administrations, the nation has been left more deeply in debt, and struggling under a financial crisis and a massive burden on back of the middle class taxpayer to bailout those at the top of the economic heap. {For Reagan, it was the $105 billion dollar cost to fix the Savings & Loan Industry- while, for the source of America's current economic woes, visit any paper of your choice.)

Also, both men encouraged a spirit of jingoism in this country- often playing to the darker devils of our spirits than to the better angels of our nature.

Still, no one can deny that Reagan had style and a real mastery of communication. The fact that the spirit of his deeds did not always match the spirit of his words does not obscure the fact that the words were often pretty good.

And so, I found myself listening to Reagan's farewell speech. My vision of what capitalism is, and how it should be managed by the American people is different that his - but with his most basic, bedrock vision of what America should be, I couldn't agree more...and in his exhortation to teach our children not only what is wrong with America, but, more importantly, what is RIGHT in America- I wholeheartedly concur.

Because, in the end, if you don't firmly believe that your nation is, at it's best, a shining city on a hill, then you have no reason to keep fighting to make her all she should be.

Here's Mr. Reagan's address:

The Cousins' War & Nixonland

A Fourth Cousins’ War?

According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama enjoys a two to one lead over John McCain among low wage workers. But that level of support, especially among white members of the group, is not deep. In battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Florida if McCain can pry these votes away from the Democrats, he has a chance of winning another four years in the White House for the Republican party.

Many, if not most Americans, are expressing thoughts that would lead one to believe that they would not support this. My dad recently emailed me from Central Florida:

“We have a Bush Countdown Calendar in the shop” (my family runs a bait and tackle shop- just a few years ago, a calendar like this, openly displayed, would have brought about the death of the business among the hyper-patriotic working white males who also make up the majority of the fishing population- if he’s lost this group, then Bush’s halcyon days are truly over.) “Most people think it’s really funny,” my dad wrote, “but I still think McCain is going to win here. People just can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama.” My father went on to mention how people where in debt, how businesses were folding and how bad things were.

As always, I scratched my head and thought: So WHY THE HELL WOULD THESE PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR A MAN WHO SUPPORTS THE POLICY OF THE MAN WHO THEY ACKNOWELGE HAS BROUGHT HARD TIMES AND A GREATER GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR?

We Democrats pride ourselves on being the party who fights the cause of the common man…and yet time and time again in recent years, that man has turned against our party at the polls and voted (as we see it) in diametric opposition to his best self-interest…both long term and short term.

In fact, if Rip-and-Read could chose only one question to focus on, this paradox would be that question. Why does it happen, and, how can it be reversed without selling out everything we, as Democrats, believe in? (Meaning, not to put too fine a point on it, how can Democrats regain the trust and votes of the white working and middle class while not throwing blacks, Hispanics, women and other minorities under the bus.)

I’ve always believed that the answers to most questions about the present lay in careful study of history, and over the last few years, I’ve found myself looking to history for the answer to my question.

In particular, I’ve found myself drawn to two books, each very different from the other. The authors’, too, are very different from one another. And yet I found myself wondering if they weren’t telling different aspects of the same story.

The first book, The Cousins’ Wars, by Kevin Phillips, postulates that three separate conflicts, The English Civil War, the American War of Independence, and the U.S. Civil War are actually three chapters in one long story of conflict between two opposing camps and their allies about what the words freedom and progress meant to the English speaking people of both Great Brittan and North America.

The second book, Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein, tells the story of how Richard Nixon managed to find a great silent majority of ordinary Americans who felt alienated by the Revolution of the 1960s. Nixon used this resentment to capture the solid South (which remained solid even as it shifted loyalties) and middle America and white working class voters for the Republican party. Although Nixon himself fell from power in disgrace, his political heirs, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have picked up his mantle and managed to retain control of the White House for the better part of half a century.

The Cousins Wars tells the story of how one camp, based first in East Anglia (England) and later in New England, and then later in what Phillips refers to as Greater New England, battled against the other camp, based first in the North and West of England, and later in the states of the Old Confederacy, and finally (perhaps) in what has been called “The Sun Belt”.

Each side (both with deepest roots in the old English factions of Cavalier and Roundhead) needed to confront the existence of other peoples within the sphere of the conflict (Scots, Welsh and Irish in the case of the English Civil War; Irish, Scots, African American, and German in the case of the two American Wars.) In each war, the importance of these other, non-English, groups grew.

As I began to look at the maps of the conflicts and loyalties in Kevin Phillips’ book, I began to wonder if there weren’t parallels to what was happening in today’s politics. The Confederate States and the Union States look very much like today’s Red and Blue States…the political battle lines in the undecided states (Pensylvania and Ohio, for example) not very far from the old border line between North and South.

This is certainly not a new idea, and it’s obvious the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s reopened the wounds of the Civil War of the 1860s. But I’d always assumed that the make up of the sides (or at least of the Northern side) had changed too radically for the parallel to be taken much further. After reading Phillips’ book, comparing the charges made by Cavaliers against Puritans, Loyalists against Patriots, and Rebel against Yankee (and vise versa) I’m not so sure- the comparison may have been even more apt than I first thought.

In each of the Cousins' Wars one side embraced new economic realities, the other clung to the past. In each of the Cousins' Wars, one side tended to romanticize the state while the other saw it as a means to a more individualistic end. And each side deeply held that the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

If a case needs to be made that the 1960s represented something very close to a Civil War in the United States, complete with violent killings, inability to compromise, or even discuss, and deep divisions within families, and communities, let alone between regions of the country, Perlstein’s opening chapter of Nixonland puts that case very well- his narrative crackles with the sounds of angry words and angrier gunshots.

As I read the Perlstein’s description of the rhetoric flung by “conservatives” against “liberals” (and vise versa), I found that, again, each side felt the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

Kevin Phillips labels the U.S. Civil War “the final Cousins’ War”, but after I started Perlstein’s book, I’m not so sure any more. I already believed that America has been in something very like a Civil War since the mid-sixties, but I am now starting to wonder if we are not still fighting the same old fight, between the same two camps that we’ve been fighting since 1642. The great divide in American Politics which is presently costing us so much may not be entering its fourth decade, but rather may be entering its fourth century.

---

The Future Was Then

Has America lost it's future? Sunday's Washington Post ran a great story on Disney's Tomorrowland. Originally inspired by Walt's fascination with the pristine corporate art deco view of the future seen at the 1939 World's Fair, Tommorrowland has changed with the times...

In the 50s and 60s, when the parks were planned and built, Americans seemed to have unbounded confidence in the Future and looked forward to living there. Danny Hills, a computer guru, and former Disney Imagineer, is quoted in the article:

"Basically there was a time in the 1950s and '60s that were very future-oriented. Everybody wanted to be an astronaut. 'The Jetsons,' 'Star Trek,' stuff like that. Everybody was imagining that future we were all going to live in. That's how I grew up as a kid."

But now, says Hills- you have to go to India or China to find widespread belief that the future will be better than the past.

Here in America, the articles from NPR on the economy (referenced in yesterday's post) paint a picture of an American people despairing for the future of their children.

It' makes you wonder....what is the future of a nation that has lost it's faith in the future? Must it be so?

1957

Do you remember the year 1957? Neither do I. I've never really thought about 1957 as a year of it's own. If I think of it at all, I think of it as a part of the Fifties, or perhaps as a chunk of the second term of the Eisenhower Administration...but, in most cases, 1957 doesn't really stand out in my head for any reason whatsoever....it's simply part of a blur of history.

Although it was the year of Sputnik, and the '57 Chevy; it is not a seminal year, like, say 1776, 1492, 1789, 1929, or 1968. 1957 is simply a transitional year- a step on a journey from one place to another- and yet, it's almost because of this sense of ordinariness that I found the following Pathe Newsreel so interesting to watch. Because it reminds me that, no year, indeed, no moment in time is truly "ordinary"- each moment is unique and perhaps worthy of note from time to time.

I stumbled across it completely at random- and found myself caught up in the details of a year that was lived, just as all others have been: A Dog in space, A prince in school, rebellions, riots, ticker tape parades, races, games, bomb tests...little of which the world has noted, nor long remembered, and yet each event is an integral piece of the edifice of history.

Living History- World War Two in London

Poor Blog-
It's been a very busy month and a half. I found myself in the United States for most of May- work was fun, but non-stop. Now my friend John is visiting the UK.

"It's funny," he said, "At home, World War 2 seems like history, I guess I never realized what a deep effect it had on London. Everywhere you go, there's a monument to the war."

His words were truer than he knew, because Yesterday, our travel through the city was punctuated by announcements that the District Line would be closed from 9:30 pm on as the Metropolitan Police dealt with yet another reminder of World War 2....

...an unexploded Nazi bomb.

which started ticking again when it was uncovered.


That's the kind of living history exhibit I could do without.


The Full Story is here.

Eloquence is leadership

I wrote this post in response to something on Green Mountain Daily, but it occurred to me that I could post it here as well, since I'm pressed for time today.

There are those who would argue that eloquence, by itself, is mere noise. I do not agree.

There are actually few other acts that a leader in a democratic society can perform that are more important than eloquence.

Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, are all remembered, first and foremost, for their eloquence.

It is eloquence which is used to engage the people in a dialog and, ultimately, to exhort those same people to action, to inspire hope within them, or to help them change the way they see themselves and the world.

This power can be used for good, or ill. Leaving aside the examples of history's demagogues, like Hitler, who used their eloquence for great evil; we can find other, much less dramatic examples, right here at home, to show the damage that eloquence can do.

Ronald Reagan used eloquence to begin pulling down the social safety nets, government regulation of capital, and to destroy the health of the middle class, that FDR's eloquence had helped to shape.

Even more recently, George W. Bush has used what some have called "plain speaking" to propel this country into a needless war.

His words may have been false, but they were, in their own odd way, eloquent. Eloquent enough to move America to support a massive level of action in Iraq. It is hard to make the argument that Bush's words lacked substance...in fact the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians testify to just how brutally substantive they were.

I would suppose that test of true eloquence is the affect it has on those who hear it.

I can speak only for myself, but Barack Obama's speech Tuesday made me feel proud. It reminded me that we have mountainous problems in the United States...but it also reminded me that we have been working to solve those problems from the moment we banded together as a nation. It also reminded me that we have come far, very far, from where we started...and, for the first time in a long time, it made me look forward to the task of going further, of building upon what we have inherited, rather than feeling despair at what we are loosing.

Reviewing Recent History: Frontline Onliine

We don't have a TV in England (it's expensive, about $300 US just to by the government license that allows you to have a TV for a year). Fortunately the web has gotten to the point where it can provide information and entertainment on almost the same level.

Lately, I've been catching up on years of "Frontline", the PBS documentary show. One of beauties of "Frontline" springs simply from it's depth of focus. Unlike other news magazine shows, which spend a hour on four or five stories (not to mention the commercial breaks), "Frontline" devotes a full hour to one story.

This myopic focus allows them to trace a complex story thread, step by step, in a way that the viewer can follow and understand.

In addition, Frontline posts volumes of additional information and interviews on line...making it possible to delve deeply into the story- or sometimes beyond the narrative being focused on and into a separate but parallel lines of inquiry.

After broadcast, the shows are posted on line, where they can continue to be watched and used, rather than fading into the ether that is "yesterday's news".

This is probably the most important service the PBS program provides. Because it is often by going back and reading "yesterday's news" that we are able to get a clear grip on what is happening in our world today.

It is important to read "today's news" of course, but when we go back two, three, four years- we are often able to see in disparate events, which seem somewhat random at the time, a pattern which we did not fully recognize as it was unfolding.

I've been spending my last few evenings watching Frontline's reports about the War in Iraq- and I highly recommend them to anyone who can carve out a little time over the next few weeks
- instead of turning on "American Idol" or whatever is on tonight, pull up a chair next to your computer and spend an hour- the picture will be a lot smaller, but the sound is good, and you'll find yourself rivited by TV that feeds you mind rather than sucks it dry.

The shows that I've seen so far are here:

• Cheney's Law
• End Game
• The Dark Side

If you get a chance, to watch them, or watch them again, I'd love a discussion....come back and comment.

God Save the Queen- Now on You Tube

These days, she reigns in a world facing the threat of terrorism and environmental ruin, a world on edge.

Yet just like her hair - still much the same style as when she first assumed the throne - the Queen has never wavered.

As historian John Grigg said, she has been "a bastion of stability in an age of social and moral flux".

From "God Save Our Aging Queen" in Australia's Herald Sun.

Queen Elizabeth recently, and quietly, became Britain's oldest living monarch a few days ago. (She will have to wait until 2016 to become the longest reigning monarch, that title is still held by Queen Victoria.)

And, keeping up with the spirit of the times, the AP reports that she has launched her own "You-Tube" page. This holiday will mark the first time that her Annual Christmas Message will be delivered via You-Tube, as well as by radio and Television.

The first televised Christmas Message is posted on You-Tube now...and, for those who value tradition, is a staid but enjoyable treat.

It is a deep seeded need in most of humanity to look to a sovereign in times of trouble- and I've often wondered if we, in America, may have made a mistake by doing away with such a position. The British model seems all but perfect- if we had had a solid head of state, would we have need to turn to a Reagan or set up a Bush in times of trouble? Would their roots have been able to scour such deep rents in the American Body Politic? We will never know, but it seems the British can thank their monarch for a great deal.

London Journey: Part Fourteen

The British Museum of Natural History


Bobbi and I also took in the British Museum of Natural History. This museum opened in 1881 and while it looks like a cathedral or castle, this temple was built to the glory of Science and Progress (although it's prime founder, Richard Owen did not see the two as mutually exclusive...having engaged in a running battle with Charles Darwin over the theory of Evolution). As such, it is a virtual hymn to the Victoria faith in the ever upwards march of Progress.

Upon entering, you are overwhelmed by the high vaulting ceilings, which, like the churches from which it took it's inspiration, inspire feelings of humility and contemplation.

(That's me up there on the Balcony.)

Each area of the museum is a work of art in and of itself. In the main hall, these stone monkeys climb up the walls to the sky...each one intricately detailed. Every room is adorned with it's own sculptures and decorations.

The museum is a repository for specimens from around the globe, and the collection has its origins in the private holdings of Sir Hans Sloan, physician to the Governor of Jamaica in 1687. Famous explorers, including Captain Cook have sent scientific samples here, and the museum holds them all...millions and millions of them...only a fraction of which are on display. It is an amazing storehouse, and a testament to man's struggle to know his world.

As befits the brainchild of Owen, who was the first to guess that the giant bones being found in England actually belonged to a vanished race of reptiles called: Dinosaurs... these terrible lizards hold pride of place at the museum....


But there is more here to enjoy than a giant anamatronic T-Rex - although they do have quite a nice one... in the galleries around the main hall, the skeletons of monkey gambol in the rafters, displayed so that they show their grace and dexterity...




There is, of course, the Dodo- a long extinct member of .... the pigeon family...I did not know that....did you know that....I sure didn't...a pigeon...go figure...
There is also a large collection of mammals...including a life size model of a blue whale....the museum is careful to note that these are historical specimens...there are now acknowledged to be better ways of studying an animal than stuffing it...



The fishes are also well represented...including a fascinating representation of how an angler fish from the dark depths of the ocean can swallow prey that is actually larger than itself...



We had lunch with Charles Darwin....




After which Bobbi did her little known, but always well received "Shark Impression".....

In addition to the fascinating items in the collection, was the fascinating nature of the collection itself...to amass so much information about the world, and to enshrine in a truly magnificent building... there is something awe inspiring about this...and we wondered if the will could be found to do as much today....surely, we haven't stopped learning...but there is something about this building itself which is, well, transcendent...and shows a belief in the possibilities and sacred nature of knowledge....something that I fear our age treats far too cavalierly...


At any rate, although Bobbi and I agreed that it might, perhaps, be possible to learn much more about nature from a well produced documentary on Television....we still managed to loose ourselves in the museum for an entire day....emerging tired, but moved...feeling as if, by joining in the stream of humanity who have poured through these doors for well over a century, that we had taken part in a pilgrimage to a shrine to knowledge.

Signs of Peace on the Market Place

For many years to come, September 12th will be a day dedicated to reviewing what happened the day before. It will be strewn with artifacts from September 11th far into the foreseeable future.

Today, the Church Street Market Place is strewn with leftovers from yesterday's demonstrations marking 9-11.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, given the political climate in Burlington, the most prominent leftovers are peace signs, hurriedly scribbled on the brick street.

While I don't disagree with the underlying symbolism, I was very sad to see that people found it necessary to deface public property in order to make their point about George W. Bush's war.

I was sitting near the top of Church Street this morning, drinking my coffee, and I watched a Marketplace employee pull up his cleaning cart, pour some water over one of the poorly executed peace symbols and scrub hard with a bristle brush for a few moments. It quickly became clear that this piece of graffiti would not wipe away easily.

As he was driving away, presumably to collect a heavier arsenal of cleaning products, I asked him what he was going to have to do to remove the peace sign. "Well, probably, I'm going to have to use acid," he said. "The chalk ain't so bad, but when they use crayons or paints, it just soaks right into these old bricks."

Acid! I thought. And then I imagined the barefoot toddlers who would be running in and out of the fountain and across those acid covered bricks once the sun had climbed higher in the sky.

And how long, I asked, will it take to clean these up? "Oh, let's see, I've been at it since around seven this morning...it's almost 10 now, and I still haven't got too far...so, well, at least longer than three hours."

I suppose someone could look at these peace signs and think: "Cool. No matter how hard THE MAN scrubs, the truth won't rub out."

But I can't see it that way. All I could think of was the money we as a city were paying for this labor...we could have put it toward a band, or housing subsidies, or urban renovation.

But why not let the message stand? Of course the answer to that seems easy to me- but I'll be obvious...if you have the right to scribble peace signs, what would prevent someone else from scribbling swastikas?

"With great power comes great responsibility." Sure, it's a line from a Spiderman movie, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Being right is pretty powerful stuff...but with that, of course, comes responsibility. Attempting to spread a message of truth by putting graffiti on public property doesn't add to that power...it only detracts.

To put it another way...Adults take a stand and do something...very little children write on walls.

What If?Could we have broken our Oil Habit?

It is a sad truth that I buy books much faster than I can read them. Thus, the late John Kenneth Galbraith's 1994 work, A Journey through Economic Time has been sitting on my shelf since I purchased it, used, a few years ago.

This summer, however, it has finally made the the journey from bookshelf to nightstand...the book is full of nuggets, but here is one I just couldn't pass up.

In Chapter 20, "The Dim Years", Galbraith is describing the "stagflation" that gripped the economy of the 1970s: unemployment levels are rising along with prices, while the country is reeling from Vietnam, Watergate, and massive social upheaval. This is the environment which breeds Archie Bunker.

In the middle of all of this, Arab nations flexed their political muscles for the first time, sending gas prices flying and tempers soaring. It is not hard to make the argument that the mistakes we made then, and the policy we set (or failed to set) has helped push us into the current Iraq debacle with which we struggle.

Galbraith describes a meeting of Carter's advisers as they determine how to wrestle with the economic shocks of the 1970s...

Proposals for rationing the supply and the controlling the domestic price of petroleum products, the natural answer to embargo and an external control of supply, were dismissed out of hand. Urging a simple gasoline rationing program at a meeting of economists at Camp David in the summer of 1979 at the peak of the oil-price crisis, I managed only to establish myself as mildly eccentric.

If we had taken that advice then, if we'd broken our oil addiction, and thus the power that the Middle East wields over us...just imagine how different today might have been.

Something New Under The Sun.

[Note: Because I was out celebrating the Glorious Fourth with Friends and Family, I didn't get to post this on my Blog on July 4th. I've always loved the optimism expressed in the following letter. It must be remembered that Jefferson lived through times when the - then young- American Democracy seemed unstable, too. The fact that he could take hope is a suggestion to us: drop cynicism once or twice a year...it will give you courage to face what you need to!

Happy-belated- 4th!]

THOMAS JEFFERSON To Dr. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY Washington, March, 21, 1801

[quoted from: http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl137.htm ]

As the storm is now subsiding, and the horizon becoming serene, it is pleasant to consider the phenomenon with attention. We can no longer say there is nothing new under the sun. For this whole chapter in the history of man is new. The great extent of our Republic is new. ...The mighty wave of public opinion which has rolled over it is new. But the most pleasing novelty is, it's so quickly subsiding over such an extent of surface to it's true level again. The order & good sense displayed in this recovery from delusion, and in the momentous crisis which lately arose, really bespeak a strength of character in our nation which augurs well for the duration of our Republic; & I am much better satisfied now of it's stability than I was before it was tried.

A Long and Winding Road (through the newspaper): further

After I left the manta ray article, I fully intended to start searching for the Cheney article- but I was snagged again by this headline; "Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W"

Wow.

Anyone who knows me knows that my fondness for cigars and spotted bow ties stems from a deep fascination with Winston S. Churchill.

Winston finds most of his admires these days among Republicans, notable recent admires have been Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the P.M. - I realize.

But this is odd, because, in his lifetime, Winston left the Conservative Party as a young man, crossing the aisle to join the Liberals. He returned to the Tories only after the role of opposition was co-opted by the Labor Party (then highly socialist). Churchill made his deepest common cause with American Democrats, and especially Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's been hard, therefore, for an old fan of Churchill to watch him become co-opted by the Right-Wing (for which I think he would have had very little use- after all, he was Hitler's mightiest opponent.)

And so when I saw http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902304.html, I had to read it....

And I was especially gratified to find that the author, Lynne Olson, of the book Troublesome Young Men, had drawn the comparison, not between George W. and Churchill, but between George W. and Chamberlain!

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive
authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the
office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside
government...
Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by
Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill
considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of
Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to
oversee the executive...
Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of
citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones
were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Now, that was a detour worth taking!

My Reading List: Kevin Phillips, Theodore H. White

Poor Rip and Read. I have been neglecting it of late. I’ve not really been able to clear off a lot of time to write in my blog, nor read the blogs of others. Work has been busy, and there are many other changes swelling in my life as well.

What little free time I have been able to find, I’ve spent reading. And wishing I could find just a little more time in the day to write about what I’ve been reading.

One amazing read has been Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. The dust jacket sums up Phillips’ argument:

From Ancient Rome to the British Empire, Phillips demonstrates that every world-dominating power has been brought down by an overlapping set of problems: a foolish combination of global overreach, militant religion, diminishing resources, and ballooning debt. [This is] exactly the nexus of ills that has come to define America’s political and economic identity at the start of this century.”

It was a fascinating and frightening read. But it helped me begin to understand much that has happened in the last few years that seemed otherwise inexplicable to me.

This morning, I read the preface of Theodore H. White’s America In Search of Itself: The Making of the President: 1956-1980.

I came across a couple of quotes which I just had to share:

• “American [academia]contributed so largely to the victory [in World War 2]…and such thinkers would go on to achieve in American life the status of a mandarinate until, like the Chinese mandarins, they lost touch with reality”


• “Nowhere was a warning [to liberals, overstepping themselves in the 1960s] more clearly voiced than by one of the dominant liberals of the time, John Gardner, then Secretary of Health-Education-Welfare: “ ‘There are some people who have…a vending machine concept of social change. You put a coin in and out comes a piece of candy. If you have a social problem you pass a law and out comes the solution.’ ”


• “The trouble with the liberal idea was that liberals, looking back, could not distinguish between their genuine triumphs and their failures. Their peril in the eighties would be that the good they had done might be washed away with their blunders.”

and lastly:

• “Reagan would probably be the last United States President to have worn a uniform in World War 2—unless his Vice-President, George [H.W.] Bush, succeed him, in which case, Bush, a genuine war hero, might very well be remembered as the last national leader ever to have served in actual combat.”

Now, as Bush’s son and his cronies, men who escaped combat when they did their service, lead us through a disastrous war, I can’t but help be amazed at the accuracy of White’s prediction…after all….the book was penned in 1982!

Impeachment Would be a Mistake

There has been a loud cry from the Vermont “netroots” for the impeachment of George W. Bush. I completely sympathize. Bush has led this country into one of the worst military blunders of our history. He has done damage to a century of goodwill built-up by his predecessors: from Wilson to Clinton. His administration has continued to add to the Federal deficit; ultimately, this will place programs the American people need, cherish, and depend upon, programs such as Social Security, in grave danger. His reliance on creating a climate of fear has brought our ancient civil liberties into question. Finally, his policies have led to great loss of life. American Solders and Iraqi Civilians have paid the ultimate price in a dubious cause of questionable worth.

George W. Bush’s administration has been both a failure and a disaster for this country.
Impeachment, however, would be a mistake, and would play right into the hands of Karl Rove and company.

Crazy F*#!king Hippies

Recently, on Green Mountain Daily, an entry appeared entitled “Crazy F*#!king Hippies”. A cartoon shows a Donkey and an Elephant watching a crowd of protesters.

The protesters bring up the fact that the war is based on a lie; there are no weapons of mass destruction. The Donkey Cheers them on. The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters note that the government is spying on us. The Donkey Cheers them on. The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters scream that Katrina relief was a disaster. The Donkey Cheers them on. The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters cry: Impeachment. The Donkey and the Elephant looked shocked.

And then the Donkey growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.


These people are incensed. And they want action. They want to see George W. Bush placed on a pillory of disgrace and made to feel some small token of shame for what he has done to this country.

I agree, I sympathize, and I think impeachment would be a HUGE MISTAKE.

My gut feeling is, in fact, that a serious move to impeach Bush would play right into the hands of both this president, and those who are trying to find a worthy successor for him: one who will continue Bush’s agenda.

The Impeachment Process: What’s the Charge?

Before going into my argument, it is probably worth reviewing the Impeachment process.

The House of Representatives functions somewhat like a grand jury. It decides if there is enough evidence that the President (or other public official) should be brought to trial, or impeached. The trial then moves to the United States Senate The Senate hears the case, and decides if the official deserves to be removed from office.

That is the extent of the Senate’s power: removal from office. However, after the convicted official is removed, he is then liable to a criminal prosecution resulting from his actions.

The charges that can lead to Impeachment are very, very specific: Article Two, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of [emphasis mine] treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The question then becomes: what could President Bush be charged with, that he would also be convicted of?

Treason?

Given the damage that President Bush has done, both to this country’s traditions of liberty and to its strategic and diplomatic position in the world, it certainly sounds as if we could charge him with treason.

But no…the Constitution is quite specific about the definition of Treason. In Article 3, Section 3, treason is defined very narrowly: Treason against the United States shall consist onlyin levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.. Note the “only”.

In the eighteenth century, memories of Tudor England’s Star Chamber were not far distant; and, of course, the examples of aristocratic Europe were plain to see. The founders did not intend for “treason” to be a catch-all crime, used to “disappear” anyone who dissented from the government of the day.

Given the fact that Rovists have endeavored to tar anyone from the center to the left who dare disagree with their polices with the stigma of treason, and given their obvious lack of respect for civil liberties, I cannot say that I think the founders were wrong to keep the lid so firmly on the crime of treason.

Bribery?

This would be appropriate, to be sure. Many of us believe that there would be no sweeter vision of justice than to see George W. Bush convicted of inviting his Halliburton and Big Oil cohorts to the public table to gouge themselves on taxpayer money braised with the blood of our solders.

But we have no real evidence of this, nothing hard and fast, nothing that would hold up in a court of law.

In Congress, Henry Waxman is holding hearings in the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Among other questions, Congressman Waxman is asking: What happened to the 363 TONS (yes, TONS) of money we shipped to Iraq? The committee is also looking into the administration’s slipshod dealings with our government contractors, and evaluating the Administration’s request for more money.

Vermont’s own Peter Welch is a member of that committee, and it should be interesting to see if they come up with material that results in criminal charges.

But there is no firm evidence yet; at least, not firm enough to convict the President of the United States. Personally, I doubt there will be. There is no need for Bush to personally get his hands dirty. To help his friends, all he need do is turn a blind eye toward them. It is very hard to prove intentional malfeasance over shear stupidity and blindness.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

And here we come to the most famous phrase in the impeachment language: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

When you can’t convict for Treason, or for Bribery, there is always this catch-all.

But if you look into our history, you will find that, although the House has, in moments of passion, adhered to Congressman Gerald Ford’s assertion that: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history", the Senate has not followed suit.

In fact, given that a two-thirds majority is needed to obtain a conviction by the Senate, it is, and always has been, highly unlikely that the Senate will respond to the passion of the moment.

Because the Right-Wing seems so much better at using passion to remove opponents from power (think: Schwarzenegger in California) I, for one, am very glad that our founders thought to balance passion against sober judgment. In my opinion, both forces are vital to the successful running of any community. Especially one as large and varied as the United States of America.

The American People: Deeply Conservative

But I realize that many others of Liberal persuasion would disagree with me. They would prefer that the voice of the people be heard loud and clear- and that there be no disconnected elite in a position to growl such phrases as: Stupid F*#!king Hippies.

It’s a good argument (and also one not to delve too deeply into here: this essay has already grown too long). But my short answer it this: The American people are, by nature, conservative. In each new addition of his masterful, radical work, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn includes a final chapter entitled: “The Coming Revolt of the Guards.” It was there when the book was issued to me as a college text back in 1987. Last time I looked, twenty years later, the book has been extensively updated, but the chapter is still there. Zinn’s chapter is a “not a prediction, but a hope”…and yet it has not come to pass.

I believe that this lack of dynamic, radical change is due to the basic conservatism of the American people. Change does come- witness civil rights, child labor, environmental protection, enfranchisement…but it comes for the most part slowly: three steps forward, one step back.

The arguments of the right are short term arguments. They, much more than liberal arguments, appeal to the passions most deeply held by the American people. Because of our conservatism, if we allow ourselves to be subjected to fast revolution, it will be a Revolution to the Right, not the left.

The arguments of the center-left take time to resonate. The American people often do not want to admit the truth of them. They long for the Bush/Reagan “dead or alive” cowboy approach.

That is why the center-left coalition lost in 2002, and again in 2004.

But Americans are not completely stupid, and they are realizing now that this approach does not work. At least, not in the case of Iraq.

Our arguments ARE resonating now. And the truth of them is being admitted. This is a slow process; it has to be, given the nature of an American public which is highly resistant to it.

This process MUST be given time to continue…we must NOT give the Right wing a rallying point which they can use to obfuscate the process and cloud the question of Bush’s responsibility.

Two Thirds? No Way

Let’s look at an important point once more: It requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the President. Unlike the Watergate case, there is no smoking gun. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that, in a Senate all but split down the middle, there would EVER be the two-thirds majority needed to convict Bush on any but the most blatant charge.

But perhaps it is not necessary to convict Bush. Perhaps it is only necessary to make him appear before the bar of history, and thus stain his reputation. Perhaps there is a tactical advantage to this?

It’s a legitimate argument, but I believe that a look into the history books will show that it would backfire on the center-left.

When Impeachment Fails: Johnson

We have impeached two presidents in our national history. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

The most famous Presidential Criminal of all, and the only President to be forced to resign his office, was Richard M. Nixon. It is worth noting that Nixon was notimpeached by the U.S. House of representatives.

As everyone remembers, Nixon resigned in disgrace before the House could impeach him. While some sources reported that he was momentarily tempted to fight, it quickly became apparent that, not only did the House of Representatives have the “Smoking Gun” tape, which recorded Nixon personally authorizing hush money, but that there would be a strong possibility that the Senate would find the two-thirds majority needed to convict.

But what happened to the two Presidents who were actually impeached by the House of U.S. Representatives?

In the story of Andrew Jackson, it is hard to find a clear cut hero.

Johnson succeeded Lincoln upon his assassination. A Tennessee Democrat, he broke with his party on the question of Southern Session. The former Democrat was nominated by the Republicans to serve as Lincoln’s VP to show the nation and the world the Party of Lincoln was the party of all loyal men. [Freidel, Frank. Our Country’s Presidents. National Geographic Society. Washington DC. 1981.] But, he was never fully trusted by them.

Certainly, it is hard to love Johnson. As Howard Zinn points out, Johnson, seeking to bind the nation’s wounds, often ended by siding with former slave owners and racists. “Johnson Vetoed bills to help Negros,” writes Zinn, “he made it easy for Confederate states to come back into the Union without guaranteeing equal rights to blacks.”

However, the Republican Congress of the time is not very lovable either. Following the war, and the assassination, the passions of the country ran very high. According to Nevins and Commager in their Short History of the United States [Random House. New York. 1945] this situation was quickly exploited by a Republican Party who wished to “perpetuate it’s power and by the wish of selfish business groups to use the situation to their own advantage. Manufactures who wanted high tariffs, bondholders who wanted to be certain of interest payments…railroad builders who wanted land grants all rallied behind the Republican Regime.”

These Radical Republicans, annoyed at the Democrat, Johnson, for standing in their way, passed some highly questionable laws about who he could, and could not, appoint to his cabinet. Johnson defied these laws. And he was impeached by the House.

The Senate voted NOT to convict Johnson by one vote. It is possible that some Republican Senators were more concerned at the judgment of history than they were at the judgment of their party.

Johnson’s term was soon over. However, he WAS later elected to the United States Senate. From Wikipedia: [In the Senate] Johnson denounced the corruptions of the Grant Administration and his passions aroused a standing ovation from many of his fellow senators who had once voted to remove him from the presidency.

So, with Johnson, we see that a failed Impeachment has enabled historians to make an argument that he was a bullwork against those same forces of corporatism that Bush’s foes are fighting today. And we see that it helps gain for this mediocre President a STANDING OVATION in the Senate.

Now, I urge all in the center-left who are crying for Bush to be impeached to project that same picture 150 years into the future. Is this really the curtain call you want for George W. Bush? A STANDING OVATION in the Senate? Personally, I find that an increadibly distasteful picture.

When Impeachment Fails: Clinton

Fortunately, it is not necessary to spend a lot of time recreating this moment in history. It is still fresh. What is worth noting, however is that the party of Clinton gained seats during the 1998 midterm elections, that Clinton’s approval rating has continued to RISE following his impeachment trial, and that his wife is considered a very serious contender for the Presidency. Bill Clinton has hardly been confined to obsurity by his opponenents.

Republicans, unable to beat Clinton in open political warfare, chose to fight using the weapon of impeachment. They were beaten then, and they continue to be beaten. With the exception of the die-hard Clinton haters, most people seem to reguard this impeachment trial as pointless partisan warfare. Many remember Clinton was a certain degree of respect.

Again, is this the fate we would wish for George W. Bush?

Don’t Hand Them a Weapon

For eight years (if you include the 2000 campaign) George W. Bush and his cronies have been unsavory, slippery, dishonest, nasty, unscrupulous opponents of the Center-Left coalition.

They have done great damage to this country in every area. They have wreaked havoc on our diplomacy, our military, our financial stability, our programs of social justice, our environment, and on our civil liberties- upon which all else depends.

For most of that time, they have frustrated all of our efforts to stop them. Not until 2006 was there even so much as a glimmer of hope.

Now, we are tempted to go for broke, our luck is changing, and many of us are ready to bet all of our chips on impeachment.

It would be a bad bet on our part.

Presently, the right wing is fractured and floundering. Conservatives cannot find a clear cut leader and they are reeling from last fall’s reversal of fortune.

The American people, despite their basic conservative instincts, seem to be coming around to a more sensible view of the world. We see this in Bush’s plummeting levels of support, and, of course, in last fall’s midterm elections.

The facts, in other words, are speaking for themselves to our fellow citizens.

But, if we throw Impeachment into the mix, not only will we give conservatives a point around which they can rally; but by bringing a charge without being able to obtain a conviction, we will actually leave the question of Bush’s guilt wide open.

Because it is likely that Bush would not lose his trail in the Senate, the American people will have an excuse to stop their journey toward common sense.

That is why I agree with the political leaders of Vermont: Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, and Gaye Symington that Impeachment is not the right decision and that we would be handing our opponents a weapon.

Instead, let us continue to support and follow the efforts of Congressman Waxman to expose the fraud perpetrated by this administration, let us continue support the prosecution of second tier officials like Scooter Libby. Let us continue to show the American people what “Support the Troops” means to a Republican Administration that runs Walter Reed.

Let us keep exposing the Bush Administration for the Disaster it truly is.

And IF we do, in the course of this exposure, find a smoking gun…by all means let’s go for impeachment. I’d love to see George W. Bush be forced from office and stand open to criminal prosecution.

But, until that moment arrives, let us NOT allow Bush to beat us one last time. Until we really have the smoking gun, let’s don’t pretend that we do.