secrets and substance
“So if the Democrats want a truth commission, and the Republicans and Dick Cheney want a truth commission, why can’t we order up a double order of truth commission? Am I missing something here?” ~ John Cole
Of course neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually want a truth commission. They all just want to be properly postured when it becomes apparent that a truth commission is inevitable.
To me, Pelosi’s denial (and accusation against the CIA) lays bare a deeper truth about the Democrats. Without Obama they’d be nearly as big a mess as the Republicans. Most of them are complicit in the Bush torture program and the wars. The party is almost headless without Obama – led by the fickle and hardly inspiring Reid/Pelosi duo. After Obama, if conservatives learn anything over the next eight years – yes, I’m predicting it will be eight – unless the Democrats get some sort of order and discipline and more importantly, some grander vision, then I think the GOP should have no trouble at all coming in and cleaning up.
Tony Blair’s true heir will be David Cameron, not Gordon Brown. Similarly, I can imagine a state-side conservative following somewhat in the mold of our current President – much as Cameron’s charisma mirrors that of Blair. It is often the party out of power that learns the most, both from its own mistakes and from the mistakes of its opponents. Of course, the GOP shows no signs of learning from or even admitting to any mistakes, nor do they exhibit any talent for adaptation. They have adopted the ostrich approach to politics.
***
So much rests in the personality of our leaders in the democratic system. This cannot be stressed enough. This is the fundamental problem with Cheney taking the spotlight – or Limbaugh or any of the other vapid, bellicose pundits of the Republican party; and likewise it is Brown’s dourness as much as his perceived incompetence which has put him at such a disadvantage to the Blairesque Cameron.
Personality is also the fundamental strength of the Democrats now that Obama is at the helm – which isn’t to say that the President does not have vision or ability – quite the contrary I’d say – but the truth of the matter is the Democratic brand itself lacks any real substance. Reliance on personality politics is a serious problem with both parties, neither of which seems to have struck up much of a coherent, guiding philosophy to push their agendas.
***
I mentioned this the other day in the comments, but I sometimes think that Congress should be shipped off to some desert island while in session, far from the preening eyes of the media or the desperate clutches of K street and the special interests that make our legislation so special. Can anyone honestly imagine the founding fathers crafting the constitution whilst under the white hot glare of a 24 hour news cycle? Could such a document ever be produced with the multitude of special interests we have now all clamoring for some privilege or other?
The founding fathers had special interests of course – each with a natural stake in the interests of their home states and the various commercial concerns of the day. It was the magical act of locking themselves away for a few months that allowed them to get anything done. In secret.
***
“Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state.” ~ Cardinal Richelieu
“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” ~ J.F.K.
I agree with you about the power of personality in our/ any democracy, but I’m not sure there is any way around that. To a degree personality politics in not a bug but a feature of democracies. We don’t have a particularly intellectual country that respects learning so personality often takes it’s place. Politicians are to a degree another consumer product. Although I’m not sure what you mean that the democratic brand lacks any substance.
There are plenty of D’s who want a truth commission or better yet prosecutions. It is silly to assume all members of a party agree with all the same ideas. I actually don’t think we will have any sort of truth commission, the public does not want one , the R’s will burn down the country to prevent one and there are not enough D’s who do want one. The truth will dribble out slowly over years.Report
True, there are many Democrats who do in fact want a truth commission – though I am much less sure of the leadership of the party. The point I’m making is that if you take Obama out of the equation, the Democratic party suddenly seems a lot less appealing.Report
Fair enough but if you took Reagan out of the equation of the 1980’s the republicans wouldn’t have looked like much either. The president for better or worse becomes the leader of the party even if they didn’t start that way before the election. Anyhoo, before the election the R’s were grossly unpopular and while the D’s were ascendant. There arn’t large majorities in both houses because everybody hates the D’s.
I agree the D leadership is often less then aspiring on some/many issues. Then again on support of veterans they are worlds better then the R’s.Report
Yes, and the Reagan-as-leader (as posthumous leader, I might add) of the GOP is one of the fundamental problems with the GOP today.Report
And yet, the Gifted One ‘protects’ Cheney and Bush, breaks the one campaign promise for which the radical Left hungered, and continues to hold, without trail, those innocent and unfortunate sons-of-the-desert illegally imprisoned and tortured by the evil Republicans. Question: Is the Big “O” a pawn of those secret societies that manipulate the central gov’t? And, do these actions define him as ‘evil’ as George W. Bush, or is it different for Democrats?Report
I think you are pretty much dead-on when it comes to the top-driven Democratic party (much as the party was under Clinton as well). And your points about personality are well taken. But you can’t overlook the fact that the Democratic base is far wider, deeper and more engaged in the issues than the Republican base–fertile land for growing future leaders. And many Dems (and others who voted for Obama) aren’t involved because of Obama’s personality so much as the way he engages the issues. If Obama’s election shows us anything, it isn’t that personality triumphs, but that temperment does.Report
I agree that Harry’s a waste of space, but I think a bit more highly than you about Nancy.
Nevertheless, the Republicans are in deep doo-doo of their own making. Who could rise to a leadership position in today’s GOP without disowning evolution, climate change, legitimate functions of government, separation of church and state, etc.?
As long as the 21% of Americans who qualify as morons are GOP, I think the Dems will always have the lead in the leadership contest.Report
Michael:
Nancy has one big problem. She can’t seem to control Steny Hoyer. The Democratic leadership in the House is old and corrupt. We need new blood(which doesn’t include Rahm coming back to the House in a few years). It is obvious why Reid, Pelosi and Hoyer occupy the posts they do. Campaign cash(which Hoyer spreads around alot better than Pelosi). What we don’t need though is Blue Dogs like Hoyer and his ilk running the place. They’d just as soon cave to Republicans on everything(like Reid already does). In the end, the Republicans are the ones that blew it. The Democrats just fell into regaining the majority. There is a good reason Will Rogers said what he did and it applies as much now as it ever did.Report
It’s true that personality is a remarkably strong force in politics, and that the current House and Senate leaders for the Democrats are currently rather useless. However, I’m not sure how rudderless the Democrats would be without Obama. If he hadn’t run we’d probably have Hillary in charge right now, and say what you will about her, she is certainly leagues more capable than Reid or Pelosi.
I think the Democrats also have a pretty clearly articulated agenda, particularly on the environment and health care as well as the wars abroad. Now, is there an overarching philosophical principle as there was with conservatism a few decades back? No. But I for one hope we (as a country or even dare I say planet) are moving away from an era of grand governing principles (not just conservatism or liberalism but also recent failed grand experiments like communism, fascism, and socialism). I would like to think that we are instead perhaps heading towards an era of pragmatic solutions to problems on the ground.Report
If Pelosi and Reid are such schmucks you’d have to wonder how they won control of house and senate TWO YEARS before Obama was elected president and then further increased their majorities in 08. This attempt to drag Pelosi into the torture controversy is basically an in beltway game that has little resonance in the country and will probably be forgotten in a week, If it’s not it will be because it builds the pressure for some sort of congressional or administration truth investigation. Somehow I don’t see this ultimately redounding to the credit of Republicans particularly since a few nasty accusations are surfacing that amongst other things these guys were being tortured to provide evidence of a link between Hussein and Al Quaeda. Overall the effort to make Pelosi some sort of boogey man to compete with Cheney doesn’t seem to have any legs to me. I’m also mildly entertained by the newfound Republican enthusiasm for the truth and integrity of the CIA who they have been more or less at war with for the past eight years.Report
Ottovbvs:
What has Reid accomplished in the Senate? Very little. He can’t even get Dawn Johnsen confirmed. How sad is that?Report