Another Vote for Murtha

Remember Steny Hoyer's assinine remarks about Stephen Colbert's undressing of the Texas Tyrant at the Correspondents' Dinner early this year? If you've forgotten what all that was about, look back here.

Now, Steny thinks he deserves to be House Majority Leader, although Pelosi is looking elsewhere.

This election, no matter how you slice it, was about Iraq; and Murtha has the message and the persona to speak clearly and authoritatively on the war. He has already shown that he will not roll over (like the mass media) before Bush and his cronies on this war. Therefore, he's the guy to lead the majority in the House when the new and improved Congress takes it seats.

As for Steny, my message remains the same as it was six months ago:

Mr. Hoyer, if you think that the office of the President deserves respect, then my answer is, "when a person worthy of respect happens to occupy that office, then it earns my respect." But if you expect me to respect a man and an administration guilty of international murder; domestic theft; criminal neglect both at home and abroad; and the most violent and intolerable acts of villainy, corruption, and arrogance—then you will come up empty among roughly two-thirds of this nation's voting public, if I read my polls correctly. In short, I've had it up to my teeth with false, cloying, effete, unctuous, Janus-faced, contemptible Democrats like you, Zell Miller, Lierbermann, and the rest of your ilk. You are a sore upon the Democratic party, and the sooner you are removed, the better. You make me want to vomit, sucking up like that to tyrants. NO office is worthy of respect if the person holding it is a criminal. NO seat in Congress (even—ooh—if you're a whip!) is worthy of respect if a toadying, double-talking shadow of a man occupies it. There is no time or space for fear anymore, Mr. Hoyer, because the worst that can happen has already begun in this nation and on this planet. So for once in your miserable, humpbacked career, stand up for what's right; look Power straight in the eye and say "I accuse you!" Just like Stephen Colbert did the other night.

Monday with McKenna: Greed, Oppression, Power (G.O.P.)

New week, new banner quote. It seems a pithy comment on a certain trend that we hope only began last Tuesday. As always, if you think you know the author, post it in a Comment. Now for more in-depth analysis, who better than a Republican—that is, a clear-sighted one—to dissect last week's partial collapse of the GOP hegemony? Terry McKenna joins us now with his post-mortem.

Before we get to our analysis of the GOP's withering defeat and some recommendations for the victorious Democrats, let's remember how much the world lost because of the Republicans’ power grab. We have at least 150,000 Iraqi dead (some say 600,000). And the US army is in disarray. Our equipment is worn out and our reserves are exhausted. If anyone made a move against the US, anywhere on the globe, we’d be sunk. Maybe our air power could save us, but we’d have to use carpet bombing, not smart bombing. And the world is left with a near failed state in the Middle East.

Hey George, Dick, Karl, etc. … was it worth it? Huh?

Last Tuesday’s electoral rebuke of the Republicans was so stinging that it deserves the extensive critical analysis that it is getting.

So far, the consensus is that the failed Iraq war ended the Republican era – I don’t entirely disagree. Others suggest that it was conservatism itself that brought down the Republicans. That too seems reasonable. Paul Krugman places the blame on the good will of the American people who reacted to the Bush era with revulsion. That’s a good point. By the way, aren’t you tired of reporters who continue to confront Democrats with the question: “what is your plan for Iraq” – we are way past needing a plan – we need facts, lots of ‘em, and from all sides. Harry Reid proposes stronger Congressional oversight – that sounds good. Others have suggested an international summit, including all of Iraq’s neighbors – that means Iran and Syria. And then there is the Baker panel. Maybe they can share their insights now that the election is over (isn’t it ironic that Bush held back both Rumsfeld’s resignation and the results of the Baker panel because he feared that either would tip the balance against his party – considering how things turned out, the odds are that both would have helped his party).

But let’s return to the real cause of the Republicans’ demise. I think that their failure has its roots in the very same elements that make for a successful classical drama. Thus their fall was the result of a tragic (or fatal) flaw – several in fact. The Republicans’ failure is like that of Orestes and Oedipus or Hamlet and Macbeth. Well, maybe not that grand, but you get where I’m going. The Republicans’ failure was the consequence of old fashioned human frailty. The rest is just detail.

I’ve selected two traits - Greed and Hubris. The thought that they could craft a perpetual majority led Republicans to re-configure everything in terms of politics. Thus, they appointed unqualified party hacks and hangers on to serious jobs (remember Brownie) and they reduced Federal revenue while at the same time, increasing spending (wars cost real money, and then we have the Medicare drug benefit). When failure occurred, instead of looking for solutions, they tried to explain it away (so the looting in Iraq was spun into freedom, the insurgency was described as concerning just dead enders or outsiders agitators). The only question for me is which one came first—greed or hubris.

The irony here is that conservatives have for decades been preaching that all would be better if we just returned our education system to the teaching of the so called Great Books – otherwise called the Western Canon. The notion is that somehow these would inculcate lessons of traditional morality and honor. (Former secretary of Education, William Bennett is one of the more prominent bloviators in this matter. The western canon is worthy of study – but not for the same reasons put across by Bennett and his ilk and we might disagree upon which books.

Another aside - should we teach our high school kids the Bible? Taught as literature, the old testament gets pretty weird, though I bet the kids would love Solomon’s Song of Songs*…. In any case, the irony is… that despite their being steeped in traditional morality (don’t they all attend Bible study), conservatives fell victim to our old pals, greed and hubris.

An excellent assignment for a high school literature class would be to discuss which of the Republicans’ tragic flaws led most to their doom. I think it’s Hubris (but the modern usage, not the ancient Greek version – see Wikipedia for the difference) – for it was hubris that blinded them. Can’t you just imagine Karl Rove preening before a mirror, thinking of himself as the genius everyone said he was, and no longer able to hear the voice of his conscience? And what about Dick Cheney? Friday’s NY Times shows him sitting in the White House with the president and Nancy Pelosi – he certainly didn’t hear the clues – or didn’t care. By the way, in his picture, he looks like he’s eating a turd.

So the Democrats should not act like they have seized power, but instead should try to govern from the humble and moral center. Yes, I would love impeachment hearings - but the Democrats should get down to serious business. Find America’s agenda (whatever that really is) and stick to it.

If they do, they won’t have another 40 years of unchallenged leadership as they did prior to 1994, but they might win the next election in 2 years.


*When I first read this one, I thought – the Bible? Can’t be. I also don’t take seriously the commentary by pious Christians that the real message is of sacred love.

Friday Reflection: The Enduring Value of Humility

Before we get to the Friday Reflection, a few more notes on politics, in the wake of the Dems' sweep of Congress.

Now some of you who wander by fairly regularly may wonder why I seem to be such a cheerleader for Dr. Eric Alterman. Well, aside from the fact that he's smart as a bullwhip (or taser, to update the metaphor); is nearly always right and even prescient about fairly complex matters of politics and the media; is a terrific writer with a natural talent for elucidating often difficult material; and is rigorously honest and respectful with his audience, Alterman also has a great sense of humor and seems to be a genuinely humble person (try and find one of those in the mass media today, and take a strong lantern).

Now I've never met him (I've never gotten to meet any of my favorite writers), but I have evidence for the last claim. Wednesday evening, I wrote an email note into his blog at Media Matters, expecting it to be ignored. I was being kind of critical—I hope good-naturedly—of his pre- (and even post-) election pessimism, actually referring to him as "Mr. Sunshine." The whole text is here.

Well, as you can see, he published it. And strange to say, when I saw it, I instantly realized my own blind spot in the wake of this election, and I saw where Alterman was coming from in his post-election realism. When he talks about a continuing "political dysfunction," I think he is referring to the considerable likelihood of Congressional gridlock over the next two years, which of course could sour a lot of people who voted for these Democrats. It's a warning that Pelosi, Reid, and all those new committee chairpersons should keep keenly in mind as 2007 dawns. My hope is that they'll be rigorously mindful of the mandate they received, and the responsibility that goes with it, which includes exposing these neocon creeps for what they are and what they've done, even as they formulate a fresh agenda for progress. In other words, don't attack—just expose; and keep building while you do it. Truth almost never needs the help of force to make its presence felt. I'm pretty sure the Democrats understand this.

Still, it must be added, they haven't proved a blessed thing yet. Therefore, I must apologize to Eric, and I publicly retract that "Mr. Sunshine" thing. My only excuse is that I was carried away by my euphoria—it's been a long, dark six years, you know.

_______________________________

Now our banner quote for the week comes from one of those great books that no one ever reads anymore (I don't think I've even read the entire thing—my well-worn copy is an abridgement made for Penguin by Dero Saunders—click the graphic above to find a copy). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, is filled with stories, character profiles, and incisive analysis of people and events that make it a classic.

The system of imperial government...may be defined [as] an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth. The masters...surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the Senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed.

The "imperial government" that Gibbon was describing was the Augustan empire. It retained vestiges of the old representative system from the Republican era that preceded it—consuls, tribunes, and the Senate appeared to provide appropriate checks and balances on the princeps, the Emperor. Yet, as Gibbon revealed, the reality was a thinly-disguised despotism, in which the Emperor dictated legislation to the Senate and then executed it with an often oppressive rigor. If that doesn't remind you of what we've seen in America these past five or six years, then I would suggest that you haven't been paying attention.

_______________________________

Friday Reflection

Those of you familiar with some of my other work may be aware that I favor the old Chinese oracle, I Ching, for certain personal and interpersonal purposes. On Wednesday, I happened to cast Hexagram 63 of that book, which is titled "After Completion." Let's read a little of it, from a book about the I Ching written by a professor of constitutional law at Yale, Jack Balkin:

Ferrying complete
Mission accomplished
Everything in its place
After fording the stream
After fulfillment
Consolidating gains
Maintaining equilibrium
Nipping problems in the bud
Preventing deterioration
Watching carefully
Minding the kettle

Ji Ji [the Chinese title of the hexagram] means 'already across the stream' or 'already forded.' Because crossing a river was considered a very arduous endeavor, the expression eventually took the more general meaning of having successfully completed a task or undertaking.

The structure of the hexagram symbolizes that everything has been put in proper order...However, the problem with the situation is its very state of perfection...Special efforts have to be made to keep the situation from deteriorating.

It was, to me, an amazingly apt commentary on the outcome of this election (and the use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" is downright eerie, and humorous as well).

Where I part company with Balkin's interpretation (which, by the way, is fairly common to most scholastic commentary on this hexagram) is over the point about success requiring "special efforts"—vigilance or manipulation—for it to endure.

My own feeling is that, for success to endure, all it needs is humility. Humility means not taking credit for good fortune; it means acknowledging success as a gift, not a reward—and certainly not a right. The Democrats will not lose a single glint of luster from their victory by remembering this.

Try to see your own life in this light—as a stream of gifts. Make a list of them if you wish; it only requires a certain tilting of consciousness, a change of attitude. But one thing is certain to me: pride and vigilance only tend to obstruct the flow of good fortune; they can easily reverse the tide of success.

See the gifts that live and move around you; look at circumstance the way the old Chinese horse farmer in Lieh Tzu's parable* did—seeing the opportunity in what others deem disaster; the success in what others see as failure; the blessing in what another might call a curse. While I will allow Eric Alterman his point that we are in a fairly dark period—politically, environmentally, and journalistically—it is also a moment bursting with potential, as we saw Tuesday night.

Is such a holistic view of success just a trick to make you settle for less than you might have by struggle and contention? It may depend in part on the value you place on what your culture tells you is important or valuable. But if you try that horse farmer's perspective on within yourself, you may discover that humility is not about self-abasement or abnegation. Humility is simply a clearer brand of realism. If you can feel this, and live it, then you have accomplished more than the most vaunted guru, the most revered spiritual teacher—and of course, far more than the merely wealthy or the vapidly famous.

But there is one lesson of Hexagram 63 that must be remembered: humility is a well that needs regular replenishment. The spring that feeds this well is not vigilance or pride, but the stream of quantum gravity that I call Love. This is the meaning, to me, of "after fulfillment...preventing deterioration." Humility doesn't repel success—it invites it to linger.

So what is the meaning of this to a politician? Perhaps Nancy Pelosi's experience on election night may serve as our guide here: her daugher is expecting a baby any day, and so when the phone rang Wednesday morning, Pelosi urgently asked the person who had picked up the call, "did we have our baby?"

The answer was mildly disappointing: it was only Bush, calling to congratulate her on her victory and her status as the first female speaker of the House of Representatives. If Ms. Pelosi can only keep those priorities in mind as she returns to Washington and prepares to undertake her new position there, she will never cower or retreat in the face of Bush and his cronies, and she will inspire confidence in those of us who voted for her, her party, and the hope for change that they represent to us.

We shall see.

_______________________

*Lieh-Tzu: A Taoist Guide to Practical Living, Eva Wong, ed., Shambhala Dragon Editions, 2001, Ch. 96