It's So On

Right now I'm watching a discussion on PBS on the realistic possibility of impeachment proceedings against either or both the president and vice president. On one side of the table is John Nichols of the Village Voice arguing in favor of impeachment. On the other side is Bruce Fein, author of the articles of impeachment against Clinton and consultant to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation... arguing IN FAVOR of impeachment. WTF, mates?



I suppose one reaction to this is to bemoan the lack of balance on PBS. Whatever... I really don't care. At this point I tend to view anyone defending Bush as pretty unbalanced themselves. All I'm looking for are interesting arguments from interesting people. MY reaction was actually one of relief. At the admittedly young age of 24, I've come to see the Republican party as a pack of power hungry mobsters who will back each other to the end, because their solidarity is where their strength comes from. To my mind the most destructive thing to happen in politics in the last 50 years came in 1966 when Gaylord Parkinson issued the 11th commandment as part of Ronald Reagan's gubernatorial campaign: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Man, did those guys ever internalize THAT one!



I've seen vote after vote go down party lines over the last 5 years (which is about as long as I've been paying attention to anything). Well... ALMOST along party lines. I'm thinking here of the narrow votes with Republicans amassed like a monolith on one side, and just enough Democrats to solidify the decision. You simply cannot say that Democrats vote in a block the way Republicans do. Count the votes, it's an observable phenomenon. Part of it is surely the strongarm tactics of figures like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay, but a large part of it also just seems to be the cultural fabric of the Republican party. Republicans understand at a very deep level that each vote is not one of conscience, although I imagine the two frequently coincide. Each vote is an opportunity to stand with your allies, and if you come through for them then they'll come through for you when your time comes. There has not been an effective equivalent of Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich on the Democratic side. It's all Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can do to call a meeting to order, much less enforce party orthodoxy.



Is it simply that Democrats are too stupid or weak-willed to realize their shortest route to power? Sometimes I wonder, but I think a better answer is that they lack the groupthink that the Republican party imposed on itself so long ago and has never really made an effort to shake off. Personally, I hope the Democrats never acquire it. It will take another 40 years to shake them of it.



The most recent example of the 11th commandment came today when the House Judiciary Committee ruled (surprise!) along party lines that Harriet Miers was not entitled by executive privilege to disregard a subpoenae. To me, there could not be a more clear-cut case for contempt of congress. You get subpoenaed, you show up. That's the point. I can understand maybe one or two members of the committee having qualms with with the privileged advice between a president and his counsel, but the fact that EVERY republican in question seemed consumed with this tricky questions seems HIGHLY suspicious to me. Ask yourself: Do you really think that's what happened? Do you really think that every republican on that committee voted to disregard a woman's blatant neglect of a legal order for any reason other than that she's on their team?



Sadly this is what I, and it appears most people, have come to expect. I have literally heard people get confused about what's so wrong with Bush firing U.S. attorneys at will. "They weren't doing what he wanted them to do! Of course he fired them!" Somehow the concept of separation of powers has gotten muddied. This is why I was so refreshed to hear Bruce Fein endorse impeachment. Finally, an honest to God republican true believer sees the light. There is hope after all.



What infuriates me more than anything else about Congress over the last 6 years is its continual refusal to exercise its own power. All they need to do to hold Harriet Miers accountable is... do it. They have the power to hold someone in contempt. The primary reason put forward by John Conyers not to do it? It would be a long, drawn out process likely lasting until well after George Bush has left office. Seriously? They're thinking about not doing it because it would be a hassle?!

Part of the damage that Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/Ashcroft/etc/etc/etc have inflicted is that that have operated on the assumption that they are accountable to no one -- and all they have to do to get away with it is just be stubborn enough and eventually they can walk away. Well so far, they've been right. Whoever the next president is needs to understand that this will not be tolerated. For all the popularity that Bush has lost, for all the conservative commentators that have deserted him, he hasn't really been touched by any of the scandals he's been caught in. That needs to change.

The reason impeachment is important is not only symbolic. As the commutation of Scooter Libby shows, Bush and Cheney still hold very real power. The neutralization of their political influence does not equate to the neutralization of their threat. Each time I thought I've seen everything they can throw at me, something new breaks. Who knows what they'll do in the next year and a half? Let's take this option seriously.

If you've read this far, you're obviously interested in the topic. If you haven't watched the video I linked to at the beginning that started me on this rant, take 45 minutes and do so. It's worth it. It's important.

Gender Roles

God Bless C-SPAN. I've come across a couple of surprisingly coherent discussions of the male and female roles in our culture, and I give them my full endorsement as worthy of your time. Each is about an hour.

The first is a discussion with Leslie Bennetts on her book, The Feminine Mistake. She talks about the recent shift among women towards being homemakers instead of pursuing careers. Some really interesting questions from the audience at the end.

The second is an interview (audio only) with Harvey Mansfield on his book, Manliness. He is, for lack of a better term, an enlightened chauvenist. He fully recognizes that women are valuable in society, but he sees them contributing value through their traditional roles as supporters of their husbands. This is more of a side discussion, though, and I bring it up only to serve as a contrast with the first link. His main point is that there are some qualities that can be defined as distinctly "manly" and that men should strive to embrace them. Oh, and he's also interviewed by feminist author Naomi Wolf, who clearly takes umbrage at the notion that the qualities he lists aren't considered "womanly" as well. I've never heard two such well-spoken and educated people want to tear each others' eyes out quite so badly.

Finally, a summation of the male-female dichotomy by the sociologists of Good Charlotte. When you get right down to it, their analysis of the resource-driven behavior of both sexes is the most accurate description of the three: