Sunday, June 17, 2007

No Confidence

The Senate recently failed to pass a “no confidence” vote on the so-called Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. One might wonder what it would take for the Republicans (and one virtual Republican, Joey the Rat) to express “no confidence” in Gonzales, since he’s nothing but a water boy for Karl Rove, and is apparently suffering from amnesia as well. Confidence must be an almost unlimited resource for the Republicans, if they can retain it in the face of the complete duplicity and incompetence of Gonzales.

Back in the real world, it seems to me that the “no confidence” vote was too limited in focus. I have no confidence in the Secretary of State either. Or the Secretary of Defense. I have no confidence in the ability of the Vice-President to speak the truth at any point in which he opens his mouth. I have no confidence in the administration’s Iraq policy, no confidence in its ability to protect our soldiers or anyone else. I have no confidence that this administration can respond to an emergency (say, for instance, a hurricane) that will be of help to the citizens of the country, or indeed not make it many times worse for us. I have no confidence that King Bush can do anything at all for the public good, no confidence that his rule will not weaken and destroy us in every imaginable way. Since every single policy and pronouncement of this administration is based on gaining political advantage for their criminal outfit, I have no confidence in anything that any administration official might do or say from now until whenever they might be forced to step down, if that blessed day ever comes.

“No confidence” is really a very mild way of expressing the reality of all this, don’t you think? Revulsion, outrage, protest, condemnation—these would seem to be more appropriate responses to the depth of venality, cruelty, and corruption manifested by the current occupants of the White House. But the Democrats tried “no confidence,” I suppose, because they still want to maintain some kind of decorum, at least some pretense that there is such a thing as the rule of law in this country, such a thing as decency and civilization. Gangsters are running the country, and the chief executive is an insane maniac, so the Democrats are trying to quietly take the steering wheel away without panicking the country. I almost sympathize with them. How to deal with such a frightening situation without making it worse?

Impeachment is the solution offered by our founding document. People around the country are clamoring for it. A Newsweek poll says that 51% of the public favors it. (That may not sound like a good majority, but compare it to the numbers on Clinton’s impeachment.) Most importantly, it’s the right thing to do. I think there’s a high level of denial on the part of Washington Democrats as to how bad things are, and how much worse they could become if we don’t get rid of this illegitimate regime. It’s easy to get complacent in Washington. The Democratic leadership thinks that it’s better to take little bites out of Bush, weakening him more and more, rather than try a full frontal assault. The received wisdom is that’s too politically risky to try that. I don’t doubt that the Barbarian Party will cry bloody murder about impeachment. But Republicans howl and whine about anything that the Democrats do, no matter what. They need to be ignored. As an institution, the Republican Party has ceded its right to any respect, since it refuses to respect others.

This whole bloody mess needs to be brought out to the forefront of the political process, and at least an attempt made to bring the Bush gang into accountability for their crimes. They will continue to degrade and destroy people’s lives, and our values, regardless of how low their poll numbers may be. Only an outright public fight, which involves an admission that we’re in a constitutional crisis, can give this country a chance to survive.

Telling the truth is always healthier than denial, even if it seems more painful in the short run. We have no confidence left. There’s been no confidence in quite some time, actually. The only real confidence comes from honesty.

1 comment:

fiddler said...

Why would your, mine, all non-Republican's contempt for Gonzales be a reason for his own folks to withdraw their confidence? To them, his reputation might not be more than a PR liability, if that, and an unpopular AG any government can live with. Yes, to us there's more to it than that, but when you ask what it takes for the Reps, then we don't count.

Kurt Tucholsky thought that a group can be judged after its lowest, most contemptible member, the one that's just barely tolerated *within* the group. Imagine a doctor sexually abused a patient in his office, the facts were clearly established beyond reasonable doubt, and he was convicted in court. We can safely assume his medical association would immediately kick him out. Consequently the association can't be judged by his conduct, it's not their fault he once was one of their own.
Conversely, when a party still expresses confidence in Gonzales (and the rest of the gang), can we not assume his conduct is at least within accepted bounds, and judge the group according to these bounds it has itself set? So here's in one fearful word what it would take for the Republicans: Change.

That said, do you have any confidence in substantial change (other than a little patching up here and there) under a Democratic govt? I don't sense them any less horny for power (and thus corruptible) than the GOP, and regarding the Middle East, just as pervaded by AIPAC sock puppets as them.