The Art of Politics

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I see that there hasn't been one administration (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who was, I think, a genuinely good man) that hasn't used tactics like these at some time or another

Gosh, Imp, this is such a good point, and one I was thinking about yesterday (as I was planting my new ranunculus, and thinking about this thread )

I think Jimmy Carter WAS a very good person, and tried, mightily, to be "above" the level of "political moves".

I think, however, ironically, he was one of the least effective presidents we have had. Perhaps BECAUSE he was unwilling or unable to manipulate the press and others in the manner in which politicians have for so many eons.

Because he was a poor politician, he was a poor president.

Discuss.

But that's my point exactly. We need to find a way to get beyond the age-old art of politics, where are governments are inevitably led by people who can not be trusted to tell the truth. We can't afford that any more; the stakes are too high.

Take the controversy over the NSA domestic spying program. The justification is that it is needed to protect the nation from these dastardly terrorists. Okay, not too many are going to argue with that. But here is the crux of the problem. "They" say that they are only spying on the terrorists. How do we know that, "we" say. "Trust us, we are the ones that know what we are doing, and we can't afford to let even the secret FISA court know what we are doing. Well I'm sorry, I don't trust you, because you have proven yourself eminently not worthy of my trust.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From the Houston Chronicle:

Feb. 11, 2006, 7:03PM
The Libby plot thickens: Who told whom to do what?


By CRAGG HINES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Can the president fire the vice president? That would be an interesting extrusion of the faddish concept of the nation's chief executive as unitary authority, which is so popular in the current administration.

The question (to which the constitutional answer is "no," but to which a political response is less cut and dried) arises as we juxtapose a damning claim from Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, the indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, against President Bush's once definitive determination to "take appropriate action" if anyone in his administration leaked classified information.

As emerged in news reports, Libby told a grand jury that "superiors" told him to leak to reporters in June and July 2003 information about Iraq's weapons capability. Let's examine this megawatt info, which is in a letter written in January by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and made available publicly in court papers filed Monday by Libby's defense lawyers.

But first a recap: Libby was indicted in October on charges of obstructing justice, making false statements and perjury in connection with media disclosures about CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Her husband, former diplomat Jospeh C. Wilson IV, is a central figure in what was a growing challenge to the Bush administration contentions about the threat posed by Iraq's alleged program of weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the U.S. invasion.

Libby claims he is not guilty and seems ready for a take-no-prisoners fight. There are wisps of flame coming from Libby's court filings. They hint at, among other things, a Nuremberg "only following orders" defense (you remember how well that worked, at least in cases decided by judges acting as jury). In short, Libby's legal team appears ready to rope in and drag along as many big names as may seem necessary.

Which leads to the question: What is meant by "superiors"?

Libby didn't have that many "superiors." Bush, Cheney and, at least organizationally, White House chief of staff Andrew Card.

Or could there be some higher, metaphysical "superiors" being suggested, which would be interesting jurisprudentially if not strategically (unless there's to be a sudden shift to an insanity plea)?

Or was it a common enough error of using a plural when the exact meaning is singular.

"Superiors" is used by Fitzgerald in a letter to Libby's lawyers in a description of Libby's grand jury testimony that "he had contacts with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate" of Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

Any way you slice it, that's an attention-getting claim, with National Journal and Washington Post reporting that "superiors" referred to Cheney.

After Plame's CIA connection was first made public, in a Robert Novak column in July 2003, the White House tried to row away as quickly as possible from the shipwreck. When, almost three months later, Bush was pinned down on the issue, he thundered, in answer to a series of questions: "I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business ... . I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

In the wake of his indictment, Libby resigned. But Bush's deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, who remains under investigation by Fitzgerald, has been shown to have leaked. He's still firmly ensconced in the White House.

That, in part at least, is because Bush last summer moved the goal posts for what it takes to get the heave-ho.

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said.

As I've noted before, that's a lousy benchmark for someone who, as Bush did repeatedly in the 2000 campaign, swore he would uphold the "honor and dignity" of the White House.

Under Bush's sliding standard of leaking as a firing offense, as long as Rove remains unindicted, he apparently can hang around.

Now we have Libby reaching for Cheney's throat — at least as a pretrial tactic.

Yes, leaking, even of classified information, is not new in Washington and often goes unpunished and even sometime unremarked on. But this is the case that is before us now. And it seeps its way closer to the Oval Office because an obstinate Bush will not keep his word and cut his losses.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 51608.html

[Cerin]

Geez Louise!

I just heard on the news that a Missouri state legislator has surreptitiously submitted a bill making Christianity the official religion of the state!

Church. State. Separation. Duh!

Apparently he refuses to talk to the media about it. So he must have some sense that something ain't right. But really.

[Primula Baggins]

Does he seriously think he's going to get away with it?

I suspect he's just trying to gain points with part of his constituency. "Look! I tried!"

[vison]

I respect and admire "politics" while I don't necessarily respect or admire "politicians". Someone once said that "politics is the art of the possible".

Humans are political by nature. Life as a social primate is a series of calculations, appeasements, acceptances or rejections of self or other, gift-giving, gift-receiving, alliance forming, cajoling, threatening, cowering, loving, hating . . . . . politics formalizes what must otherwise be simple savagery.

A noble calling.

[Primula Baggins]

My son wants to be a politician, because he wants to make the world a better place. He's eighteen.

I don't know—maybe he'll do it!

[Cerin]

I'm voting for him!

[Túrin Turambar]

I was an apologist for the Clinton admin, too, although that "let's not think about Monica, I'll lob a missile or two at the terrorists to distract you" thingy was so blantant a tap dance routine even I had to shut up.

The funny thing is that Clinton did have some good leads on Al-Qaeda at that point – he was prevented from pursuing them by the impeachment scandal. Had he kept his hands of Lewinsky, he might have been able to stop 9/11. Not probably, but certainly possibly.

As an outsider, I don't see this. I see that there hasn't been one administration (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who was, I think, a genuinely good man) that hasn't used tactics like these at some time or another - some have been caught out more, others have been slicker at camouflaging their tracks.

Carter’s real problem, IMHO, is that he had imagination in the place of decisiveness. He had a lot of big ideas – and quite often good ideas. He just failed to being them to reality. In part, he overestimated how much others would care about his goals. For example, watching 1980 campaign adds, you see Carter’s adds talking about peace in the Middle East while Reagan’s talk about jobs and taxes. He also overestimated the ability of the President and Government to bring policy into action – Government is poor at implementing big things. On the flipside, he failed to make use of the office to its full effect.

I doubt Carter would have changed that, though, He himself said that he wanted people to say, at the end of his term – ‘you know, Jimmy Carter made a lot of mistakes, but he never told me a lie’. He kept that, at least.

Overall, it isn’t so much that a good man can’t be a good political leader, but politics also requires confidence, drive, decisiveness, and a hell of a lot of focus.

As to playing the political game, it depends a lot on the political culture of the polity that you’re dealing with. To use an Australian example, only a specific type of politician can succeed as Premier of Queensland. If you dropped any of Queensland’s great Premiers into another State, they’d sink like stones. The reverse also holds true. To understand the real qualities that people appreciate in their leaders, you need to look at their backgrounds and how they’ve learned to think over the years.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jaws Drop: Murdoch Fundraising for Clinton

Talk about strange political bedfellows! Murdoch-owned media outlets repeatedly have savaged Hillary, particularly Fox News and the New York Post. Hillary, for her part, has railed against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" of which Murdoch was supposed a key component.

So, is this a good thing, a sign of bi-partisan cooperation and a harbinger of better times to come? Or is it, as I believe, an example of the "art of politics" gone haywire?

[Túrin Turambar]

I recall from studying American Politics last semester that political donations in the US tend to follow the following principles –

1. The incumbent usually gets more
2. The candidate most likely to win usually gets more
3. Donations by one person or group to both candidates are common
4. Donations do not need to match ideology – business groups are not above donating to socialist-leaning candidates

IOW, donations are usually insurance to try and gain favour with the likely winner than to try and put a preferred candidate in power.

[The Watcher]

I recall from studying American Politics last semester that political donations in the US tend to follow the following principles –

1. The incumbent usually gets more
2. The candidate most likely to win usually gets more
3. Donations by one person or group to both candidates are common
4. Donations do not need to match ideology – business groups are not above donating to socialist-leaning candidates

IOW, donations are usually insurance to try and gain favour with the likely winner than to try and put a preferred candidate in power.

So, sort of like seeding the field and seeing which are the strongest plants which arise? And whatever those plants are (variety one or variety two or three) then fertilize them with even more donations to try and buy their favor?

Yeah, I know it happens. The political parties depend on such stuff. Maybe for once, a candidate could arise out of the slime that is above such stuff, but I doubt it. That is the way politics here work, it is expected. We talk about campaign reforms - it will NEVER happen as long as our two major American parties continue to support the blatant money for favors strategies that are in place now.

[truehobbit]

My son wants to be a politician, because he wants to make the world a better place. He's eighteen.

I don't know—maybe he'll do it!

If you don't want to make the world a better place at eighteen, there's something wrong with you.
If you still want to do it at thirty, there's something wrong with you, too.

Not sure where I read that many years ago, but I've never stopped wondering if that's true or not.

[JewelSong]

If you don't want to make the world a better place at eighteen, there's something wrong with you.
If you still want to do it at thirty, there's something wrong with you, too.

Not sure where I read that many years ago, but I've never stopped wondering if that's true or not.

Wow. I hope it's not true. I'm 51 and still want to make the world a better place. I'd hate to think that becoming jaded and complacent at age 30 was the "norm!"

[Primula Baggins]

Me, too, Jewel!

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for the good to go play golf.

[Impenitent]

*sheepishly puts down putter*

[Túrin Turambar]

The original quote, I think, came from Winston Churchill – Anyone who is young and not a Liberal has no heart, while anyone who is not young and still a Liberal has no brain, or something to that effect.

The version that floats around here substitutes ‘Socialist’ for ‘Liberal’. I tend to fit into the ‘no heart’ category myself.

[Jnyusa]

It's the duty of the young to be optimistic.

Jn

[Whistler]

And the duty of the old to slap them silly for it.

Metaphorically, when possible.

[Democritus]

There is no time when Bush could have announced this that would satisfy most of his detractors. No matter what he would be accused of being dirty about it.

Well, I'm no fan of Bush but I have no problem with the timing of it.

I think that is true enough.