A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Damage To Our Nation: Introduction

At the behest of my lovely wife, I’m going to start a series of essays on why I think the Bush administration is actively damaging to this country, using references to past stories to try to justify my arguments, rather than starting with those stories and then commenting. In thinking over the last hour or so, I’ve come up with a list of 9 bullet items which I think Bush, his Administration, and the Republican Party in the hands of the so-called “Neo-Conservative” movement have done or are doing which damage our country. I think what I’ll probably do is take them down one or two at a time over the next week or two, and of course as I go, I may come up with more, or I may decide that some of them are small enough that they detract from my argument, and may decide to drop them from the list.

That said, here’s a taste of what I hope to show is damaging about the current political majority (President, Administration, Congress, etc):
  • Made us less safe from terrorist attacks, and actually helped breed a new generation of terrorist martyrs.
  • Distracted us from the “War on Terror” and our definite enemies in this regard, Al Quaida and Osama bin Ladin, with a completely unrelated war in Iraq.
  • Continues to push for more power to override basic rights in this country (the Patriot Act).
  • Horrible on the environment, putting Philip Cooney (an Oil Industry lobbyist) in charge of Environmental policy, a Timber Industry lobbyist in charge of the Forest Service, a Mining Industry lobbyist in charge of public lands, a utility lobbyist in charge of the EPA’s air quality division. Regulatory bodies should not be run by those who would most be restricted by proper regulation.
  • Undermining our Constitution and our core values.
  • Spent the good will of the world after 9/11 and turned it in record time into what appears to be near universal enmity.
  • Returned us from a balanced budget to the world of record deficit spending.
  • Consolidating power in the Senate from a distributed structure, with power resting largely in the hands of the committees and their chairmen, to a structure where power rests largely with a few individuals at the top.
  • Trying to fundamentally change the balance of power in the government, limiting the power of the judiciary as a check/balance on the other branches of government.


Hopefully after a series of essays, I’ll be able to convince you that at least some of these bullet items are happening. Whether you choose to ascribe the actions to malicious intent, unintended consequences or plain old stupidity is up to you. I’ll try not to ascribe motives, merely actions taken and how I think they harm the United States.

In the mean time, if other topics strike my fancy, I will probably post them as well. This series of essays will all have “Damage To Our Nation” as part of the title.

10 Comments:

Blogger Ralph said...

Fair enough. It's interesting to note that some of the things you think are so bad, I think are good.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:10:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

I'm curious which ones you are in favor of. I'd be happy to debate with you why I think each is bad, but I'd prefer to know which ones, so we can dispense with discussing any that we all agree are bad.

And for the purposes of the comments on this particular item, let's posit that we're debating the merits of the 9 bullets only, not whether Bush, his Administration, or the current leadership of the Senate is actually guilty of them. I'll cover why I think each of those later. For right now, I simply want to debate whether, for example, "Returning us to a world of record deficits" is a bad thing or not.

(I pick that one because on the one hand, it's CLEARLY bad, but on the other, a longer term record is what really matters. For example, last year I bought a car (non-financed), and so my net cashflow for that year was actually negative. But I'd been saving for the car, and so my net cash flow over the last 5 years is positive. The same could be said for governments, and I'm open to the idea that the events of 9/11 may justify a short term (3-5 year) deficit spending, as long as we have a plan to get out from under it.)

Liam.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:15:00 PM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

Ok lets start with deficits. I don't like them. The government spends too much money for programs that don't work but that is not the primary reason for the current deficits.
It's because we were attacked, had to rebuild a military force decimated during the Clinton administration and began an expensive but necessary war. I will accept a deficit for defense (we certainly had a deficit during WWII). Where I get upset with Bush is the expensive drug entitlement given to seniors and throwing addional federal money at education.
So I am ok for now with the deficit but Bush and Congress need to be more fiscally responsible to make me happy.
Oh, and I don't think relative to GDP that we have a record deficit.

I was trying to work with your list but it is too editorialized to deal with logically. Can you restate the issues without the evil intent flavor?

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:58:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

OK, per your request, here's an attempt to restate the 9 bullet points.

Again, I'm not at this point debating whether the Administration HAS done any of these things, I hope to show that they have over the coming week or two. That said...

1) Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if actions taken by the administration made us more susceptable to future attacks (aka less safe)

2) Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if actions taken by the administration directly changed our focus away from the terrorists who hit us on 9/11, allowing the leadership of that terrorist organization to remain at large and free to plan more attacks? Certainly it can't be PROVEN that we would have caught said leader had we not been distracted, but is misdirection a good or bad thing?

3) Is it good or bad to erode personal rights, freedoms and liberties on which this country was founded? Does the question depend on the nobility of the goal, or is any erosion of fundamental principles a bad thing, and ultimately damaging to the country?

4) Do you consider governmental oversight to be a good thing or a bad thing, with regard to the environment? Is it acceptable to put people with a demonstrated vested interest in NOT being overseen in charge of overseeing themselves? Is there any detriment to the country in putting the prisoners in charge of the jail, or the fox in charge of the henhouse? Or is your position that governmental oversight is detrimental to those overseen in greater measure than it is beneficial to those the overseen are thus prevented from doing harm unto?

5) Do you feel it is a bad thing to undermine the intent of the framers of our Constitution, and the core values on which our country is based? Do you think a President should be held accountable if it can be proven he lied to the Congress (a high crime)?

6) Do you think diplomacy is important? Is it important to get along with our neighbors? Do you believe we are so perfect, and so superior, to any other nation that we should be free to impose our will on other nations without regard for how anyone else feels about it? Does might make right?

7) You've already answered that you think deficit spending is sometimes OK. I think this is symptomatic of our credit-driven society. We think nothing of living our lives on extended credit lines, and so don't seem to care if those who govern us do the same, without any plan to bring spending back in line.

8) Is efficiency a legitimate reason for altering a long standing way in which the Congress has worked? Should our country have power weilded by a broad variety of people, or in the hands of a very few? Is there an inate risk in having a very small group, all with one agenda, controlling the vast majority of the government and seeking to curtail what little opposition power exists? Or was the slower, more bureaucratic older style actually safer, at less risk of a coup by a small group to turn the country from a representative democracy into some other form of government?

9) Do you believe it is acceptable to tamper with the balance of power so carefully set up by the forefathers of this country and the framers of our Constitution? Are checks and balances beneficial to the country or more of a hindrance than they're worth? Is it OK for an Administration or one group, in the name of "getting things done" to attempt to severely alter the balance of power?

Yes, the questions may seem slanted. Re-frame them in your own terms if you like. I think all nine are dangerous and damaging to the country, and so I find it hard to phrase them in ways that don't reflect that, especially when the issues are complex and not as simple as "do you think [X] is bad?"

Liam.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:30:00 AM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

Looks better. I don't have the time this morning to get on it (being a working man like yourself)

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:20:00 AM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

1) Of course.

2) Absolutely.

3) A bad thing but necessary due to the attacks on our way of life.

4) Oversight is absolutely required.

5) Yes. What about perjury?

6) I think diplomacy is over-rated, especially with countries that are dictatorships and corrupt. Right can justiify might at times.

7)....

8) No . which is why I wanted to stop the newly discovered tradition of filibustering judicial appointment.

9) No but I do believe that at various times each branch has grabbed too much power and correction has occurred.

What interests me is that we don't disagree on the generalities but the devil is in the details.

Friday, June 17, 2005 12:24:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

That is interesting. Obviously, we see the details differently, and hopefully if I can write each of the coming essays well, perhaps I can... if not persuade you, at least explain some of where I am coming from.

I'm curious what you're referring to when you mention perjury in #5.

In #6, I didn't mean (necessarily) diplomacy with dictatorships. I meant diplomacy in general. My belief is that we can't view ourselves as the guardians of right and to hell with everyone else. Golden rule, we should treat as we'd like to be treated. I think we'd insist, at the very least, that before someone invade us because of something we did, that the majority of the world agreed that we were wrong, not just one high-and-mighty country deciding to dictate to us how to conduct our affairs. It doesn't particularly bother me that we didn't (or were unable to) engage in diplomacy with the Taliban. But that for most of the first term we pretty much thumbed our noses at EVERYONE else... that strikes me as bad.

On #8, we still have to agree to disagree on this one. It has been done before, just not successfully, but these are odd times. No President has ever re-nominated someone to a position from which they'd been blocked once. This President did. No minority party has ever successfully used filibuster on judicial nominees. That's still true. And I still think that this wouldn't have come to filibuster if the Republicans in the Senate were actually thinking for themselves and not all marching in mindless obedience to the party line. A few of those nominees were beyond extreme in their views, that's why those 10 (of hundreds) of nominees were the only ones blocked.

I still think a President who really had any interest at all in being a uniter instead of a divider would have said "Heck with it. I've already gotten more of my nominees in place than any of the last 5 Presidents. If they really don't like these small few, I'll withdraw them." That he'd re-submit them shows that he's more interested in having his way than in working together to accomplish anything, and that (to me) comes dangerously close to removing the vital checks and balances that keep our country safe and running smoothly.

It may just be more propaganda, but I've seen several interviews recently with people who see frightening parallels between the current neo-con/Religious Right plans for our nation and the ultimate fall of other nations who got away from the secular and into the religious. I'm not SURE we're headed down that path, but some of the things we're trying sure feel like it.

Liam.

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:15:00 AM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

#5 Clinton
#8 How about diplomacy with corrupt governments.

Have you ever read the communits manifesto?

Friday, June 17, 2005 2:10:00 PM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

Diplomacy is 6 not 8. and communist not communits.

Friday, June 17, 2005 2:12:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Hmmmm. I thought that was where we were going with #5. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say "typical", because that does seem to be a typical response on the part of Republicans. Any time a legitimate point is brought up regarding one of their own, they try to shift the conversation by saying "Oh yeah? But what about Clinton?"

However, I did ask for comparisons.

I have not read the Communist Manifesto.

And as to #6, I still think it misses the point. Because there is certainly corruption in our government, there has been under most (if not all) administrations in recent times. We are not, and should not be, the worlds' police force. We are not their parents.

If everyone in the world except you went insane and started seeing the same visions, at what point is it no longer reasonable to claim YOU are the only one who's right?

Liam.

Monday, June 20, 2005 10:00:00 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Career Education