“Some nations have a gift for ceremonial,” wrote the future third marquess of Salisbury, Lord Robert Cecil, after watching Queen Victoria open parliament. “No poverty of means or absence of splendour inhibits them from making any pageant in which they take part both real and impressive. Everybody falls naturally into his proper place, throws himself without effort into the spirit of the little drama he is enacting and instinctively represses all appearance of constraint or distracted attention.”
What was arguably true for 19th century Britain (Cecil, as it happens, believed that Britain did not possess that gift) is no less so for 21st century America. As one party convention ends and another begins, we are halfway through a fortnight of ticker tape, talking points, balloons and bluster.
There was a time when these conventions meant something more than mere pageantry. They were the place where arguments were made, platforms thrashed out and delegates wooed with policy. But like British party conferences, conventions are now essentially media events at which the media enjoy neither particular access, information nor, for the most part, insight. The result is two weeks of propaganda rolled out like a well-choreographed marketing campaign and faithfully transmitted by supine outlets.
Like most acts of ceremony, form has long surpassed content. The further they have strayed from the substance, the more the symbols matter. Strip away the high-minded commentary and you are left with two patriotic parades steeped in electoral rivalry and masquerading as a celebration of democratic culture.
As far as pageantry goes, they could certainly be worse. At least in these there are no gilded coaches, crowns, ermine or wigs. And yet despite the slew of historic candidacies — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and now Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin — it seems as though this year the political class in the US has less to celebrate than ever.
For the conventions mark not just the beginning of a new presidential cycle but the passing of an old one. The fact that this administration has been criminally incompetent is now the stuff of water-cooler orthodoxy. The fact that it has been plain criminal is not. But it should be. Under George W. Bush the US has tortured, disenfranchised, lied, spied and on more than one occasion flouted its own Constitution. Those who would not go along were fired or demoted. Those rulings it could not garner support for it simply classified or hid. Those enquiries it could not prevent it thwarted.
When Major General Antonio Taguba tried to pursue his investigation of Abu Ghraib up the chain of command, he was stopped.
“I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority,” he told The New Yorker.
The Bush administration’s violation of international law is ultimately a matter for the international community. But its violation of US law is a matter for the American public.
However, it is now clear that the political consequences of these transgressions will range from negligible to non-existent. The Bush administration should be led away in handcuffs — either indicted or impeached. Instead, it is about to leave the scene of the crime in broad daylight while those tasked to police this democracy — notably politicians and the press — blind themselves with confetti.
Those who regard impeachment as merely a vindictive attempt to adjudicate the past display a chronic lack of imagination. True, it is not going to happen. But that makes it no less morally compelling or politically relevant to argue that it should. Trying to look ahead without acknowledging how you got to where you are is a sure-fire way to end up wandering around in circles. And the last place the Democrats want to be is where they were.
Take voter registration. Around this time last year former attorney general Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign amid allegations of perjury before Congress over his role in the politically motivated firing of seven US attorneys. They were replaced by what his then chief-of-staff referred to as “loyal Bushies” on the advice of the White House. Five of the fired attorneys were in battleground states. They had irritated local Republicans by refusing to bring voter fraud cases targeting loyal Democratic groups because of lack of evidence.
The congressional hearings were a farce. Gonzales said he “could not recall” more than 71 times in one day. Clearly he hoped we would forget too.
But in a year when voter rolls are swelling with the expectation of an unprecedented turnout, it is crucial that we remember. A few weeks ago Republican Senator John McCain’s campaign attorneys attended a national training session for Republican lawyers on election law, which included a session on identifying and responding to instances of voter fraud.
Despite the Department of Justice’s own studies showing that voter fraud is extremely rare, Republicans are gearing up for mass intimidation in minority areas on election day. If the election is close, expect to see Florida 2000 replayed from Virginia to Nevada. And if the challenges go to court, Gonzales’ “loyal Bushies” will be there to hear the cases.
Such are the lasting consequences of Bush’s crooked tenure. Casting him as inept and unethical is not difficult. He is the most unpopular president for six decades. Some have been loathed more — but none by so many for so long. But understanding how he managed to do it demands a wider lens.
For he could not do it alone. The US is not an elected dictatorship. The president is supposed to stand at the helm of a system of checks and balances. The reason there was no balance was because there were no checks. The real problem with the Bush years is not so much that he did what he did, but that he managed to gain the consent of the political class. His political estrangement is not because he tried, but only because he failed.
This has more or less been conceded by none other than the leader of the House, Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, who voted against the war in Iraq. When asked recently by The Nation why she took impeachment off the table before the 2006 elections, Pelosi answered: “What about these other people who voted for that war with no evidence ... Are they going to be voting with us to impeach the President? Where are these Democrats going to be? Are they going to be voting for us to impeach a President who took us to war on information that they had also?”
In other words, for the Democrats to impeach the president they would first have to implicate themselves.
This is not to say the Democrats were equally culpable. But they were differently responsible and, cowed by accusations of lack of patriotism, most of them abdicated that responsibility.
Asked to explain the administration’s use of torture, the director of the Sept. 11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow, said: “Fear and anxiety exploited by zealots and fools.”
But there is, it seems, no price to pay for being a zealot or a fool in power.
The US will no doubt be anxious and fearful again some day. And for all the ceremonial hyperbole of this convention season, there is little to suggest that when that day comes, the fools and zealots won’t once again come out on top.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS