Sunday, March 25, 2007
Poor George!
Pity George W. Bush. He can’t seem to get away with anything. Lately he tried to replace a few federal district attorneys – attorneys he had appointed at the beginning of his term of office – with others who were more enthusiastic about carrying out the Bush Agenda. The Bush Agenda starts with the need to increase Republican support for Bush in Congress. One of the replaced attorneys had convicted one California Republican Congressman of taking bribes and had sent him to do time in prison. This attorney was about to go after another corrupt California Republican Congressman. Just in time, she was replaced by someone more loyal to Bush and his Agenda. Other federal district attorneys – there were eight in all who were replaced – were let go for similar reasons. One was replaced by a protégé of Karl Rove. Another was replaced for standing up to Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who wanted to know when indictments against some Democratic political operatives were to be unsealed, and please, could it be before the election last November? As a matter of law, the President has the power to hire and fire federal district attorneys. (The hiring has to be approved by the Senate.)
Also, as a matter of law, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. He can order them to go anywhere in the world. He can order them to attack a presumed enemy of the United States. The President’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, had sent American forces to attack Iraq to free the Emirate of Kuwait from Iraq occupation. Father Bush had an army of half a million men in his enterprise, including support from many nations. Several Arab nations supported Father Bush’s war to free Kuwait. Father Bush was criticized for stopping at the border between Kuwait and Iraq. The critics said he should have continued the advance, after defeating the Iraq Army, all the way to Baghdad. There he should have removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with a ruler friendly to the United States and its interests.
Son George resolved to complete the unfinished work of the father. He used intelligence of dubious quality to persuade Congress to give him the authority to use force against Iraq. He then assembled an army of about one-third the size of his father’s army and a coalition with fewer members than his father’s and proceeded to invade Iraq. His advisors convinced him that the attack would be over in short order. The coalition forces would occupy Baghdad, depose Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government, and depart. The people of Iraq would greet their American and coalition liberators with flowers. Any damage to Iraq would be paid for out of the oil revenues from that country. After Baghdad was occupied and Saddam Hussein had fled, son George arranged a celebration on an aircraft carrier. The theme of the celebration was “Mission Accomplished.” The war was over, the new government would soon be in place, American oil companies would take control of the oil from Iraq, and the armies would return home.
But, George couldn’t get away with it. When Saddam Hussein fled, the entire government collapsed, including the local police. Thieves looted the Baghdad Museum. Thieves stole the copper wires that supplied electrical power to the city. The Iraqi Army had been disbanded and there was no organization to maintain peace and order in the country. The coalition force was woefully inadequate to the task of occupying and policing Iraq. Worse still, some of George’s excuses for the war were exposed as false. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN inspectors had found and disposed of them after the father’s war to save Kuwait. The people of Iraq did not welcome the occupying army with flowers, but with home-made explosive devices. The country fell into a civil war between two factions of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi’a.
Poor George!
Also, as a matter of law, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. He can order them to go anywhere in the world. He can order them to attack a presumed enemy of the United States. The President’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, had sent American forces to attack Iraq to free the Emirate of Kuwait from Iraq occupation. Father Bush had an army of half a million men in his enterprise, including support from many nations. Several Arab nations supported Father Bush’s war to free Kuwait. Father Bush was criticized for stopping at the border between Kuwait and Iraq. The critics said he should have continued the advance, after defeating the Iraq Army, all the way to Baghdad. There he should have removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with a ruler friendly to the United States and its interests.
Son George resolved to complete the unfinished work of the father. He used intelligence of dubious quality to persuade Congress to give him the authority to use force against Iraq. He then assembled an army of about one-third the size of his father’s army and a coalition with fewer members than his father’s and proceeded to invade Iraq. His advisors convinced him that the attack would be over in short order. The coalition forces would occupy Baghdad, depose Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government, and depart. The people of Iraq would greet their American and coalition liberators with flowers. Any damage to Iraq would be paid for out of the oil revenues from that country. After Baghdad was occupied and Saddam Hussein had fled, son George arranged a celebration on an aircraft carrier. The theme of the celebration was “Mission Accomplished.” The war was over, the new government would soon be in place, American oil companies would take control of the oil from Iraq, and the armies would return home.
But, George couldn’t get away with it. When Saddam Hussein fled, the entire government collapsed, including the local police. Thieves looted the Baghdad Museum. Thieves stole the copper wires that supplied electrical power to the city. The Iraqi Army had been disbanded and there was no organization to maintain peace and order in the country. The coalition force was woefully inadequate to the task of occupying and policing Iraq. Worse still, some of George’s excuses for the war were exposed as false. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN inspectors had found and disposed of them after the father’s war to save Kuwait. The people of Iraq did not welcome the occupying army with flowers, but with home-made explosive devices. The country fell into a civil war between two factions of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi’a.
Poor George!
Labels: firing US Attorneys, Iraq, Kuwait liberation, looting in Baghdad, President G. H. W. Bush, President G. W. Bush, UN Inspectors
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Partial Democracy
There seems to be an uncertainty principle that governs the extent to which a supposedly democratic regime is truly democratic. In one extreme, decisions are made by the entire body of citizens, voting either in mass meetings or on initiatives and referenda. Such a system is slow and cumbersome. In addition, decisions made in this way are often not wise or carefully thought out, but represent sudden impulses of the public in reaction to some rather spectacular news event or condition. California provides many examples of propositions passed by large majorities that were later found to be poorly written or to put in place bad policies.
In another extreme, decisions are made by individuals and groups chosen indirectly. The American Presidency is a good example. The people elect "wise" electors who then use their wisdom to choose a President who serves for four years. At least, that's what the founding fathers thought they were creating. Even with Presidential Primary elections and nominating conventions, the process of electing a President is indirect. Once elected and inaugurated, the President is given the power to make decisions with very little accountability except that he (or she, in some countries) must obtain the authority of the elected legislature to spend any money to carry out his decisions.
The problem with a Presidential system, such as the one we have here in the United States, or with a Parliamentary system, such as the one in place in many other countries, is the power that is granted to the leader (President or Prime Minister) to make decisions without regard to public support of those decisions. Of course, in a Parliamentary system, lack of public support often leads to lack of support in the Parliament, and an unpopular or incompetent Prime Minister can be easily removed from office. In the case of an unpopular or incompetent President, it may be necessary to put up with him until the end of his term of office. In some countries, however, for example, Ecuador, an unpopular or corrupt or incompetent President can be removed from office by public mass demonstrations against him.
In this respect, I believe that Ecuador is closer to the democratic ideal than the United States.
The object of having a President with power is the expectation that the incumbent will use the powers of the office to promote and carry out policies and programs that benefit the nation. The President's decisions should be based on good and wise counsel given by advisors and elected officials. They should not be based on his whim or his ideological belief in the way things should be, as opposed to the way they are.
The American Presidency was modeled after the British government at the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The monarch could declare and wage war. The monarch could seize private property, as Henry did with much of the property of the Roman Catholic Church. Monarchs like Henry and Elizabeth knew that it was necessary to maintain public support. Unpopular monarchs had been removed by revolutions and by assassinations.
A fabulous example in history of a bull-headed monarch is provided by one of the Saxon kings: Ethelred the Unready. The word "unready" in Old English meant "unadvised," that is, "bull-headed" or "rash." Ethelred was eventually deposed.
We have today an example of an "unready" or "unadvised" monarch (i.e., President). Perhaps the word "ill-advised" fits better. He has led this nation into a horrible situation in Iraq from which there is no good way out. We're like Bre'r Rabbit in the story of the Tar Baby. However, there's no hungry but easily duped Bre'r Fox standing by to separate us from the sticky mess and throw us into the safety of the briar patch.
To get back to my original point, a President or King or Prime Minister who makes decisions without regard to their popularity or their long-range effect on the people is not acting to promote democracy. The American People want our country to escape from the quagmire of Iraq, but George the Unready plans only to become even more involved in that country.
In another extreme, decisions are made by individuals and groups chosen indirectly. The American Presidency is a good example. The people elect "wise" electors who then use their wisdom to choose a President who serves for four years. At least, that's what the founding fathers thought they were creating. Even with Presidential Primary elections and nominating conventions, the process of electing a President is indirect. Once elected and inaugurated, the President is given the power to make decisions with very little accountability except that he (or she, in some countries) must obtain the authority of the elected legislature to spend any money to carry out his decisions.
The problem with a Presidential system, such as the one we have here in the United States, or with a Parliamentary system, such as the one in place in many other countries, is the power that is granted to the leader (President or Prime Minister) to make decisions without regard to public support of those decisions. Of course, in a Parliamentary system, lack of public support often leads to lack of support in the Parliament, and an unpopular or incompetent Prime Minister can be easily removed from office. In the case of an unpopular or incompetent President, it may be necessary to put up with him until the end of his term of office. In some countries, however, for example, Ecuador, an unpopular or corrupt or incompetent President can be removed from office by public mass demonstrations against him.
In this respect, I believe that Ecuador is closer to the democratic ideal than the United States.
The object of having a President with power is the expectation that the incumbent will use the powers of the office to promote and carry out policies and programs that benefit the nation. The President's decisions should be based on good and wise counsel given by advisors and elected officials. They should not be based on his whim or his ideological belief in the way things should be, as opposed to the way they are.
The American Presidency was modeled after the British government at the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The monarch could declare and wage war. The monarch could seize private property, as Henry did with much of the property of the Roman Catholic Church. Monarchs like Henry and Elizabeth knew that it was necessary to maintain public support. Unpopular monarchs had been removed by revolutions and by assassinations.
A fabulous example in history of a bull-headed monarch is provided by one of the Saxon kings: Ethelred the Unready. The word "unready" in Old English meant "unadvised," that is, "bull-headed" or "rash." Ethelred was eventually deposed.
We have today an example of an "unready" or "unadvised" monarch (i.e., President). Perhaps the word "ill-advised" fits better. He has led this nation into a horrible situation in Iraq from which there is no good way out. We're like Bre'r Rabbit in the story of the Tar Baby. However, there's no hungry but easily duped Bre'r Fox standing by to separate us from the sticky mess and throw us into the safety of the briar patch.
To get back to my original point, a President or King or Prime Minister who makes decisions without regard to their popularity or their long-range effect on the people is not acting to promote democracy. The American People want our country to escape from the quagmire of Iraq, but George the Unready plans only to become even more involved in that country.
Labels: Ethelred the Unready, Henry VIII, Iraq, limitations of democracy, Removal of unpopular leaders
