Kautzman’s AP GO PO Blog

December 23, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON — Understanding isn’t the same as forgiving. The history-be-my-judge interviews that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been giving recently help me understand why they acted with such contempt for our Constitution and our values — but also reinforce my confident belief, and my fervent hope, that history will throw the book at them.

The basic argument that they’re making deserves to be taken seriously. I don’t think either man would object to my summing it up in one sentence: We did what we did to keep America safe.

That terse formulation of the Bush-Cheney apologia leaves out important details. Cheney came into office with preconceived ideas about restoring executive branch powers and prerogatives that he believed had been lost after Vietnam and Watergate; Bush either shared Cheney’s views or was willing to go along. But the main narrative of the Bush presidency began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists — the worst such assault on American soil.

In a not-for-attribution chat with a member of the Bush Cabinet a couple of years ago, conversation turned to 9/11. I said something like, “I can imagine what that day must have felt like for you.” The response was immediate: “No, you can’t.”

The official went on to describe the chaos and anguish — the shock of seeing the 110-story World Trade Center towers collapse into rubble, the fear that other hijacked planes might still be in the air, the gut feeling that the president and those around him were personally under attack. The official talked of how administration officials racked their memories to think of anything they might have done differently to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I doubt that anyone in the Situation Room actually quoted Malcolm X, but essentially a vow was taken to protect the country from another assault “by any means necessary.”

These were human reactions, understandable and appropriate at the time. The truth is that the administration had missed signs that an attack was brewing — most famously, the president’s daily brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” But these portents were lost amid the avalanche of information that buries every president every single day. Anyone in Bush’s position would have been filled with grief, anger and resolve.

Initial reactions are supposed to give way to reasoned analysis, however. For Bush and most of his top aides, this didn’t happen until far too late.

For Cheney, apparently it never happened at all. In an interview broadcast Sunday, he invited Fox News’ Chris Wallace to “go back and look at how eager the country was to have us work in the aftermath of 9/11 to make certain that that never happened again.” People have since become “complacent,” he said, but the administration’s actions have “produced a safe 7.5 years, and I think the record speaks for itself.”

That record, admirably, includes the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the dismantling of al-Qaeda’s infrastructure and the killing or capture of some of the terrorist organization’s most important operatives. Shamefully, however, it also includes the violation of international and U.S. legal norms by subjecting terrorist suspects to indefinite detention and cruel, painful interrogation; the creation of a mini-gulag of secret CIA-run prisons abroad; and unprecedented domestic surveillance without court supervision — all justified, Cheney maintains, by a state of “war” that has no foreseeable end.

The Bush-Cheney record also includes the invasion of a country — Iraq — that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. This misadventure has claimed more than 4,000 American lives, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and grievously damaged our strategic position in the Middle East. In an interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News earlier this month, Bush claimed credit for vanquishing al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq. When Raddatz pointed out that there were no al-Qaeda forces in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion, the president answered, “Yeah, that’s right. So what?”

Here’s so what: Bush and Cheney, understandably shaken by an unprecedented act of terrorism, declared and prosecuted a “war” without specifying who the enemy is. Rather than focus on the architect and sponsor of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, they turned away to lash out at others in pre-emptive blows that dishonored our nation’s most precious ideals.

History will note that the point of the Constitution is that the ends don’t always justify the means — and that nowhere in the document can be found the phrase “so what?”

December 23, 2008

By Steven Malanga

An international group holds an event every holiday season called Buy Nothing Day, in which members protest our consumer culture by urging shoppers to restrain for at least one day from shopping. This year, not surprisingly, the event was reportedly a smashing success. Although I imagine many shoppers took part unwillingly, having lost their jobs or witnessed the value of their assets plummet, others said they were buying nothing, or at least buying considerably less this year, in sympathy with those who were struggling.

“Even though we can afford to spend more, we’re not going to,” someone identified as Mary from Brenham, Texas told CNN. “It just doesn’t seem right to spend lots of money when so many are hurting.” Bart, the head of a nonprofit in Springfield, Missouri, told a local newspaper that with so many people struggling, “It just doesn’t feel right to go out and spend a bunch of money on Christmas gifts.” The sentiment seemed pretty much the same across the pond, where a columnist for the London Times observed that rich friends “have all cancelled their customary Christmas holidays. Sure, they could afford Tobago as usual, but this year it just doesn’t feel right.”

Not once during the dozens of stories I saw about Buy Nothing Day or about consumers’ general holiday abnegation did anyone, including the reporter or TV producer constructing these accounts, seem to consider that it might actually be counterproductive for those who can afford to spend as much or more this year on gifts to instead spend less. Indeed, many of these stories ran virtually side-by-side with gloomy reports of layoffs, retail bankruptcies, companies cutting wages and eliminating bonuses, and factories going on furloughs because of the difficult holiday shopping environment. Yet it is as if the two stories were virtually unconnected.

Why is it that in tough times it seems rational and even noble to deny oneself, even when doing so only spreads the pain? Much of the reason for this may be that we humans have been living in the modern, consumer-driven economy for just a few hundred years�”since the great leap forward of the Industrial Revolution, when technological advances greatly expanded humans’ productive capabilities, vastly increasing standards of living in the process. By contrast, we spent a hundred thousand years or so living in tribes and roving bands where existence was day-to-day and tribal members shared resources to survive. We’re still not always comfortable reconciling the consumerism that’s at the center of our economy since the Industrial Revolution with the egalitarianism of what anthropologists call our deep history.

That’s why during times of economic stress some of us still preach sacrifice and restraint because it appears unseemly to have and consume too much when others are going wanting. Doing otherwise is politically unacceptable. When President Bush, for instance, urged Americans after 9-11 to shop enthusiastically during the 2001 holiday season, critics derided him for emphasizing something as frivolous as consumerism at a time of deep national pain and introspection.

Maybe it’s best that our leaders simply lead by example rather than words. Our President-elect, for instance, is now vacationing with his family in Hawaii after spending nearly two years running a grueling campaign for office. With a hefty bank account thanks to two-best selling books, President-elect Obama isn’t about to deny his family or himself the way those British rich folks are denying themselves their Tobago vacations this year, and our citizens of Hawaii are no doubt grateful to him for his business.

Still, our press and cultural commentators have it in for anyone who spends lavishly during times like this, even if it is a business investing generously in its future. At Major League Baseball’s winter meetings in early December, a number of teams made whopping contract offers to star players who were free agents. The press subsequently roasted these free-spending teams for heaping riches on guys whose only contribution to our society is to hit a fastball at 95 miles per hour, or throw one that fast. What a strange reaction to businesses that are investing to improve their product during a downturn?”a perfectly sensible strategy if you have money to spend, talent is available and your competitors are being cautious.

The winter baseball meetings were Christmas come early for a few players, and one hopes they celebrated appropriately by spending some of their new-found wealth and in the process boosting the economy. As one of the 20th Century’s most notable non-believers, Ayn Rand, observed about Christmas, “The gift buying…stimulates an outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure.”

And to give them jobs. There’s still time, though just a little, to renounce your vow of moderation and buy liberally. It’s the least you can do for your fellow man.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/save_jobs_buy_something.html at December 23, 2008 – 10:59:35 AM CST