Saturday, September 18, 2004
(1:16 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Failure
I would maintain that the nomination of George W. Bush to be the Republican candidate for president in 2000 already represented a major failure in the mechanisms of the Republican party. His taking office in 2001 represented an obvious failure of our electoral system to live up to its (implied) promise of being "democratic." Conservatives can hide behind the Constitution all they want in that regard, but they certainly regarded Clinton as illegitimate after he won only a plurality of the votes, leading one to believe that the sudden resurgence in appreciation for the Electoral College on the Republican side of the aisle simply reflected the fact that the Electoral College happened to have worked to their advantage in this case.The fact that Bush did not do what any decent person would do and push for a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, combined with his cavalier style of governance, illustrated a two-fold failure in our system of government's claims to be representative or to be subject to the will of the people. The behavior of the Democrats over the past four years, particularly with regard to the tax cuts, ironically illustrated the failure of our system's claims to delegate power to wise people who will be relatively isolated from the capricious demands of the populus -- the Democrats went along with the tax cuts because people like tax cuts and they didn't want to be blamed for not liking tax cuts in the next election. 9/11 represented a failure in our intelligence-gathering system, and the campaign in Afghanistan represented a failure to hold the executive branch accountable. The Iraq War represented a failure of almost every "check and balance" in place in the US Constitutional system and in the system of global governance -- although token gestures were made toward gaining proper authorization, everyone knew and basically accepted that the war was going to happen no matter what. It also represents a failure of the unofficial "check and balance" of the press. Although now there are ample reports about why Iraq was a terrible idea, there was a startling lack of such voices during the period when it could conceivably have made a difference. The continuing chaos in Iraq represents a failure of planning, a failure to take into account the disinterested advice of professionals, and, perhaps even more significantly, a revelation of the failure of all our billions of dollars in military spending to enable us to achieve any but the most modest goals. And if the United States was supposed to be the indispensable nation and guarantor of world order, then the last four years represent a collosal failure, because the United States has basically done nothing but spread chaos and destruction.
Our military is not almighty. Our involvement in the wider world does not always have positive results. Our constitutional system is no guarantee that either the general good or the will of the people will prevail. Both our status as the benevolent hegemon and the exemplary character of our constitution seemed to be nearly unimpeachable while we were in a situation that did not put much pressure on them; now, however, that perceived omnipotence has entirely evaporated.
The first question, of course, is whether the miserable failures of the Bush regime -- which may yet be endorsed and rewarded by a frightened and uninformed electorate -- represent a definitive break with past history or whether the current administration merely exposes and exacerbates problems that were there the whole time (i.e., from 1776 on).
The second question is on possible courses of action. A commenter to Anthony's last despairing thread has suggested an idea that I have considered before: breaking up the United States into smaller countries. California, for instance, could easily be its own nation-state. The question of possession of nuclear arms, however, raises the spectre of a situation in which a break-up of the US would spell the end of all human life. Another possible option would be a new constitutional convention and a complete redrawing of state lines. Failing either of those options, a submission of the US to a higher authority such as the Hardto-Negrian "Empire" may grant us some immediate relief from the worst aspects of the current system and may be even more plausible now than at the time of their initial writing due to the obvious limits of US military power. Such a solution, however, is likely to generate as many problems as it solves in the short- to medium-term.
This is the end of my blog post for today. Thank you.
