Naively Cynical

Jeff Alworth

We learned yesterday that the Department of Justice became an extension of the White House's political machine. Under the regime of George W. Bush, political foes have been scrubbed from the department; accomplished, independent civil servants were fired and incompetent, servile GOP functionaries replaced them.  It was comic corruption, as when Monica Goodling, senior liaison to the White House, asked DOJ job applicants, "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" and "Why are you a Republican?"  When one applicant expressed admiration of the Secretary of State, Goodling frowned: "But she's pro-choice."  Goodling even committed crimes, as when she sacked Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen because of a rumor Hagen was gay.

This is the kind of stuff that you expect in "democracies" in rougher parts of the world.  In America, such deep corruption should create a huge wave of outrage.  Instead, it's not even getting much covered.  A Google News search yields just 637 results on the name "Monica Goodling."  Do a search on "gas prices" and you get 80,000.  Not a fair comparison?  How about the name of Tim Donaghy, the corrupt NBA ref who was sentenced to prison yesterday--he gets 2,500, four times as many as Goodling.  Corruption in the DOJ is just not much of a story.

We have become a nation of people who assume the worst about our government, and when the worst is revealed, we shrug.  This is no doubt a legacy of the Reagan school of hate-government conservatism, revived each election cycle with more and more vitriol, by every member of the right-wing conspiracy.  We have been fed a steady diet of bitter gruel about the failings of our government and the corruption of our leaders, and so in our received cynicism, we have begun to believe it.

The GOP are now enjoying the benefit of this strategy, as news of their many crimes are met with blank stares. But the cynicism is naive and wrong--corruption of the kind now revealed in the DOJ is not usualIt's unprecedented and it should be shocking to every citizen.  It makes the Watergate break-in look like quaint mischief--and that was adequate to bring down an administration.

In its editorial about the report this morning, the New York Times concludes succinctly: "The strength of American democracy depends on our ability to be shocked by abuses like these— and to punish them appropriately."  But the GOP have been actively inuring Americans to corruption by telling us that it's always been there.  There's not cancer in the government, government is the cancer, say sages like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist.  Americans have apparently come to assume that corruption like this is normal and expected, and so they've lost the ability to be shocked. What does this say about the strength of American democracy?  

_____________
PS: Ted Stevens, long-serving Republican Senator from Alaska, was indicted on seven charges of corruption this morning.  Shrugs all around?

A further thought. Based on the early internet reaction, the Stevens news is getting a lot of play. But Stevens' corruption is usual, ironically.  Throughout American history, there have always been pols on the take.  More disturbing is the corruption of agencies of the government--this is far more damaging to the republic and not so easily remedied.  Once the institutions of government have become corrupt, it's difficult to uncorrupt them. Power is like electricity--it flows along the course of least resistence.  Once it become usual (and politically acceptable) to alter reports, apply loyalty tests, and lie to the public, it is hard to back off.  Will Democrats use their power more wisely now that the Republicans have begun to dismantle the stops of power?  Our outrage may be the only thing preventing them.

  • (Show?)

    I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to anyone, least of all you, Jeff. And of course it's just the tip of the iceberg of abuses everyone has known about for years.

    Someone, quick, remind me again why impeachment is "off the table?" How about indictment? Could we at least get a censure? I'm not sure which branch of government is the more disappointing at this point.

    Whoever thought we'd get to the point of needing a truth and reconciliation commission in the U.S.

  • (Show?)

    The sad part is simply SHOCKED legislators demanding that Mukasey do something about it. Yes, the same Mukasey who continues to be in contempt of Congress by refusing to force witnesses to appear regarding this subject, or to prosecute their refusal. Why don't we ask David Addington to clean house in the wake of the Valerie Plame scandal, while we're at it?

    Totally with Jamais on this one.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment, why should the news media show much concern about newly confirmed crimes? Subversion of the justice department doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

  • (Show?)

    At the Oregon Brewers Fest, I got into a discussion about Dubya and his crimes. Most of the ire directed at him involve the arguably-criminal act of lying us into a war. But there are a number of actual crimes that constitute sufficient reason for action. Bush clearly broke the law with FISA, torture, secret rendition, this DOJ business. What else? If you were going to make a criminal case against the White House, what actual crimes do we know about?

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's a matter of corruption that BO doesn't seem to care about:

    Nader Calls on Penn AG to Expand Political Corruption Investigation, Calls for Similar Probes in Oregon, Ohio, Illinois

    "A state grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pa. today indicted 12 Democratic political operatives for the illegal use of millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds, resources and state employees for political campaign purposes...The grand jury found that employees and resources of the House Democratic Caucus were historically and routinely used to conduct petition challenges against candidates who were opponents of Democratic House candidates or the Democratic Party.

    The grand jury found that as many as 50 Democratic House Caucus staff members participated in the Nader petition challenge and contributed 'a staggering number of man-hours.'

    A House Democratic employee testified before the grand jury that 'everybody was working on this.'

    'A veritable Army' of Democratic staffers were enlisted in the effort to deny Nader ballot status."

    Furthermore, Cass Sunstein, Obama's rumored first choice for the supremes, has advised Obama to block any prosecution of either Bush or his aides for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. (Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes)

    Sunstein, in case you haven't heard, supported John Roberts for Chief Justice. He also supports the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama?).

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The actions of Goodling and other political appointees at DOJ were outrageous. And you're right to point out that much of what we're seeing out of the Bush Administration stems from the conservative hatred of government. Since they already believe government is evil, many conservatives seem to have no problem participating in its further corruption.

    More disturbing is the corruption of agencies of the government--this is far more damaging to the republic and not so easily remedied. Once the institutions of government have become corrupt, it's difficult to uncorrupt them.

    I wouldn't go this far, because I think it confuses institutions with the actors who comprise them. Government agencies can never be corrupt on their own; only the people who run them can be corrupt.

    It seems to surprise many people -- even the media -- how much power someone like Goodling can have. But those who have worked in Washington know that the city is run by smart 20- and 30-somethings who are delegated tremendous power by their bosses, who are either elected or appointed government officials. Every cabinet secretary has a small cadre of young political staff who are in charge of the day to day operation of the agency. In the Bush Administration, many of those staffers came to the job with no sense whatsoever of the line between politics and policy. And the message that was sent from the top -- by Karl Rove, for instance -- is that it's PROPER to infuse politics into everyday decision-making.

    However, none of this makes the insitution corrupt. There are tens of thousands of employees at DOJ who are career employees, and they will continue to do outstanding work no matter who they work for. Upon electing a new president, the entire upper management of DOJ is swept out the door, and a whole new group comes in.

    Of course it's possible that Obama will also allow politics to seep into everything, and perhaps the point you are making is that once the precedent is set, it makes future corruption easier. But personally, I don't expect we'll see another administration that is this bad for a long time.

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We need a "cleaner" for AG, (you know, like "Victor the cleaner" in Pulp Fiction) - say John Edwards for instance.

  • (Show?)

    While Miles has a point, I think it doesn't obviate what I take to be Jeff's. This has become a deeply ingrained cultural pattern, to the point where the press won't mediate it -- and, given the number of hits Jeff cites, apparently not the "netroots" either.

    The example of this that most disturbed me was the system failures around Hurricane Katrina. At the time I thought it presented an opportunity to attack the hollowing out of the federal government by Reaganism, to illustrate the existence of social functions at which government, done right, is more efficient and better suited than the private sector, and the problems of knee-jerk cutting.

    To my dismay, few on the center left or liberals took this up, or if they did, they couldn't get the media to bite.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans had the temerity to use their sabotage to "illustrate" the supposed inherent inefficacy of government. It was like the old joke about the guy who murdered his father and mother and then pleaded to the court for mercy because he was an orphan. Except that it was as if the judge in the joke had given him mercy on that basis -- the media reported the claim with a straight face.

    From the angle of perpetuating this naive (or ignorant) cynicism, Brownie actually did do a heckuva job.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We have become a nation of people who assume the worst about our government, and when the worst is revealed, we shrug.

    Or, as Michael Moore put it in "Sicko," the French government fears the people. In America the people fear the government. Maybe the French government feels that way because the French are not a nation of sheep.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jamais Vu summed it up perfectly: "Someone, quick, remind me again why impeachment is 'off the table?'"

    Congress' abdication of their constitutional responsibility saddens me; so too, does the trad-media's failure to report truthfully - failures, both.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe the French government feels that way because the French are not a nation of sheep.

    Or maybe more likely, due to the strength of unions and other grassroots orgs, the french people can and do regularly shut the whole machine of bidness and state down when they are sufficiently aggrieved.

    There's not much logistical chance of that happening in the good old US of A.

  • (Show?)

    When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment...

    Tom, that straw man is beneath you. I have yet to find any Democrats who would argue that point. The issue isn't whether or not their actions are worthy of impeachment. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Democrats think they are.

    The issue is whether or not impeachment is the best way to highlight those crimes, bring about justice and restore the balance in our government under the current circumstances.

    I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. I personally have grave doubts about whether impeachment is a good idea in this case, I have none about whether or not it would be justified. I also have no doubts that highlighting the crimes, bringing about justice and restoring the balance in our government is critical.

    In some ways I think the focus on impeachment is letting Congress off the hook. What we get from it is a lot of arguing about whether or not impeachment is a good idea and that's been leading us not much of anywhere for some time now.

    What if instead of calling for impeachment we start asking how they do plan to highlight those crimes, bring about justice and restore the balance in our government? That is their job. They've sworn to uphold the Constitution. Let's hear their plan.

    Get the focus back on the crimes and the balance in government and off of impeachment and we might even change the climate enough that impeachment would be the result.

  • (Show?)

    Harry --

    Once again, I'll point out that BlueOregon isn't a person. It's a bunch of pixels and bytes on a server.

    It's also not a newspaper of record. That means we don't cover all the news, not even most of it.

    We cover the stuff we're interested in. If you're interested in something we're not covering (or, as in this case, haven't even heard about) feel free to post a guest column.

    I will point out, however, that while the word "Oregon" appears in Nader's press release, there's not a word in there that even suggests an allegation. What is Nader saying happened in Oregon exactly?

    We'll gladly cover Nader (we have, ad nauseum) but so far, there's no there, there.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom says: “When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment, why should the news media show much concern about newly confirmed crimes? Subversion of the justice department doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”

    Yes, indeed, we are foolish to widen our eyes, gasp disingenuously and tut-tut-tut the thoroughness with which this Administration did as they pleased in full view. We engaged in superiority and bloviating outrage, but have we really gotten serious about the intent carried out beneath the bumbling? I feel as if we are down at the KitKat Club with Sally Bowles, frankly. So long as it is not touching my recycle bin, my organic carrot patch and my kid’s stint in a chic internship, I am for it, all for it. I make Art! I slip in sly doggeral and well-researched commentaries. It’s been a long time since I was out on the front lines where heads could be broken open if you made the right kind of noise.

    So my question here: beyond sustained cozy cerebrations over the years, is BlueOregon actually a well-mannered cover for an exciting mosh pit of activism that is going to change some lives? I’m just wondering.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    post script: why are we still discussing our "expectations" that "this sort of Democracy" exists only in "rougher" parts of the world? Who is this "we"? This is the Democracy I've always known we had. The underbelly knows what it's getting. Recently America has kindly had it handed to us on a dish: election irregularities ARE how election is done. EVERYWHERE. So: grow up and get busy addressing it here at home and forget about your "this is like the third worrrrrllllldddd" noise. This is like "the world". I'm just not surprised by any of what is happening. I am excited to watch it all surface to the dimmest eye despite the lack of a rigorous media that loves detail and well-crafted thought.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari:

    Thanks for the list. Here's a small number of comments that I culled from it regarding crimes against the Nader campaign in 2004:

    Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 8:57:11 AM

    Bradbury's people locked the door, which was unlawful. A convention has 12 hours to get to 1,000. Some of the Nader people were locked out, and our ability to get more there was ended. My office was RN headquarters, and it was flooded with calls provoked by an email from Dem County Hdq. The phones were unusable. The Nader campaign was falsely accused of being in cahoots with the GOP, which I know for a fact to be false. Just before the 1st convention, Howard Dean was all over the air smearing us. He was interviewed by 4 or 5 of our most distinguished reporters, and said that Nader was using $ from the same corporations he used to fight to block the Ds. Not one reporter so much as asked him for evidence. There was, of course, none, since it was false. The Ds campaign against RN included the claim of fraud in signatures. Here is what happened: A tiny handful of petitioners made some dummy signatures, the campaign caufgt them and fired them all. Then, the anti-RN forces took those few petitions and paraded them before the press, claiming they were a representative sample. In fact, our disqualification rate was average. A Dem-linked law firm sent letters to our petitioners claiming that they faced prison if a signer turned out not to be registered. Some letters were handelivered ,at night. We lost some 33 petitioners over a weekend. The Dems were little better than gangsters, and if any of htem wish to debate the issue in public, simply let me know. Greg Kafoury

    Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 9:28:20 AM

    Couple more things: Historically, about 1 in 4 Nader voters is a Republican. They are not all troglodytes, some are true conservatives, distrustful of concentrated power whether corporate or governmental. Also, despite everything, we got far more signatures than needed to get on the ballot, but Bradbury created new rules out of thin air to throw out countless signatures. It was the moral equivalent of burning ballots. The Salem judge who reviewed his conduct trashed him. The Ore Supreme Court simply said the Sec can do anything he wants if he claims it has something to do with ballot integrity. Finally, the Ds nationwide used such tactics as corrupting petition sheets, so as to cause whole sheets to be invalidated. Lawsuits were filed that had no basis in fact, and were intended simply to overwhelm Ralph's volunteer resources. We won nearly all the lawsuits, but ultimately only half the voters saw Ralph on their ballots. If the major parties can crush minor , independent candidacies and parties, what will be the source of political regeneration? By the way, now that the Ds have Congress, how are they doing on blocking the emerging police state, how are the doing on ending the War? Greg Kafoury

    "When the Marion county signatures were not released (some never were released) until literally minutes before they had to be turned over to the Secretary of State, the result was that the pages could not be numbered...That's the story. Bradbury and the flunkies he's hired need incarceration, but that's my dream. Throwing them all out of work will have to do."

    "HB 2614 clearly demonstrated that state Democrats (and Republicans) don't want anyone else at the table except for them."

    "The Nader campaign collected well over 22,000 signatures to put Ralph on the ballot. But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule. In the first ruling in favor of the Nader campaign, Judge Lipscombe did not rule on the numbering issue because his ruling on other unwritten rules put enough signatures back in the mix to qualify the candidate. Later appeals then removed those signatures. All the legal actions to prevent access were undertaken by union lawyers with interceders from the DPO."

    "...allegations of intimidation of volunteers, sabotage of subsequent petition gathering by Dems, Dem leadership's openness about their legal challenges not really being about concern for the ballot laws at all, but only about obstructing Nader's right to run and people's right to vote for him."

    "Both Dems and Repos have separately conspired to remove/inhibit people from the ballot - for decades. The fact that Mr. Nader is suing on behalf of all candidates who might not want to tow the party line of either the Dems or Repos is a just cause. You may not like that Nader appears to get in the way, however, he's actually defending the Constitution, which both the federal D&Rs are rather flippant about lately."

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doretta,

    When I wrote, "When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment", I meant by "worthy", "worth doing". Excuse my verbal imprecision, please, but realize that you are one of the good Democrats to whom I referred.

    If some other "way to highlight those crimes, bring about justice and restore the balance in our government under the current circumstances" is what Democratic leaders intend, I will applaud when the doing is done. Until then, I will bark like a watchdog who sees the approach of the wolves of totalitarianism.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sam Geggy wrote:

    So my question here: beyond sustained cozy cerebrations over the years, is BlueOregon actually a well-mannered cover for an exciting mosh pit of activism that is going to change some lives? I’m just wondering.

    The majority inclination at Blue Oregon, in my opinion, is that anything political that does not relate directly to electing Democrats is not worth doing, and that anything political that cannot be accomplished by electing Democrats is probably undoable.

  • (Show?)

    This thread has had a strange, slow life.

    The majority inclination at Blue Oregon, in my opinion, is that anything political that does not relate directly to electing Democrats is not worth doing, and that anything political that cannot be accomplished by electing Democrats is probably undoable.

    Tom, do you have anything to back that up? I know a little bit what Kari does (he's a political strategist, and yes, unsurprisingly he does mainly try to elect Dems), and I keep up with Charlie from time to time, but beyond that, I myself am pretty ignorant. We have something like 20 active posters and dozens of commenters. I'd be interested in knowing what they all do politically.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hi Jeffrey: Let's start with you,as I am a tabula rasa newcomer -- tell! As for the others: does past hx count? Or only the current work of the individual? Time for a roll call? Interesting. Good question, and I am honestly interested to know the character of the posting public here. Could make a difference in magnitude of my own peevish bloviations from time to time.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff,

    I was thinking about the balance of comments, most of which do not come from those who contribute posts. My conclusion is based on reading through a lot of threads over many years - and ignoring the trolls. It is not aimed at you or any one else in particular.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Apologizing if that above comment has anything instructive for me, Mr. Civiletti. I can jump in with both feet sometimes. But I waited a long time and stayed quiet, just listening. Still not sure this is a "fit" in terms of my particular history of advocacy, policy and intervention work. Why in the hell do I post anyway? A lot of self-referential smack! If this is geared towards an oblique >ahem<, I'll take the cue. Scusa.

  • (Show?)

    Tom, we get a lot of comments, but it's still a tiny fraction of the total visitors to the site. We get dozens of comments a day and 3000+ visitors, may of them regulars. I would guess that most non-affiliated liberal activists read BlueO at least once a week. Same for affiliated Dems. That's a guess, but it is my working hypothesis.

    It's not surprising to me that partisans comment more. They have horses in the race. During the primaries, there were about ten commenters who reacted instantly to any Novick post and they generated hundreds (thousands?) of comments during the primaries. But it was still just ten bodies, motivated by the desire to get their candidate elected. My personal assumption is that the commenters are a totally unreprentative sample of who reads the site. but tracking this stuff is hard.

    <h2>(That's one of the reasons I co-edit. I have no formal affiliation to any Dem, though of course I do have my opinions. I try to balance Kari's insider-y posts--which are critical to the value of the site--with wonkier, not necessarily partisan posts.)</h2>

connect with blueoregon