Reader Tom sent me an article by Frank Rich today. The New York Times op-ed luminary published a piece called "Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich" in the December 13 edition of the paper of record. You can go to it here.
As the Times intro to the piece says, as bad as the corrupt Illinois pol is, he is but "a timely national whipping boy for an era of corruption and profound lack of accountability." Yes, the guy is a scum, if not literally crazy. They should impeach the rat and then throw the criminal book at him. But it's rather like Michael Vick or Scott Peterson. Kill some dogs or your pregnant wife or rob a liquor store and people are incensed. Kill thousands and squander billions and it somehow provokes less of a reaction. As Stalin once said, "Kill one person and it is murder. Kill a million and it is a statistic."
Blagojevich is a figure we can get at, unlike the seemingly invulnerable authors of the disasters that now place the national weal in peril. Where is our sense of proportion? As Rich points out, "Blagojevich's alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald."
George W. Bush neglected his duty to get the enemy who attacked us and used fear of it as a pretext to start an unrelated war against a different power. He justified it with a web of intentional deceit. He still even this week blames "the intelligence," ignoring the accounts of former administration insiders that attacking Iraq was on the agenda in the first month of the Bush presidency. As a result, thousand of Americans are dead, tens of thousands are maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and at least $600 billion of our money is gone. These have all become statistics. And the original enemy still plots, schemes and kills. Yet the votes are not there for impeachment. It would be inconvenient.
Stealing elections, abridging the Constitution, torturing prisoners, abrogating treaties, spying on citizens without cause, politicizing the Justice Department, falsifying scientific research, selectively revealing classified information and identities for political gain while keeping the basic workings of government secret - these are the kinds of practices for which tin-pot dictators from third world countries eventually wind up getting hauled in front of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. For the "greatest democracy on earth" they are business as usual if the offenders work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The financial malefactors will likely suffer no real consequences either. One would think the reputations of people like Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan would be ruined. Instead, the damage they caused was so severe it became imperative for the people at large to come to the rescue of the institutions they destroyed in order to prevent the total crashing of the entire economy. Instead of being held to account they are, in effect, being rewarded. Make sure to see Rich's article for a fuller list of the miscreants. The bottom line is that this has got to stop. Some people need to go to jail.
We cannot afford this kind of dishonesty and self-delusion any longer, either morally or financially. In 1945 the United States stood like a colossus over a ruined world. It accounted for 50% of the world economy and alone possessed the ultimate military weapon. Those days are long gone. Institutions with the power to misdirect our entire political system or the wealth to short-circuit our entire financial edifice have to be watched like a hawk and held to account. Gov. Blagojevich is a useful example, and the example should not stop with him.
2 comments:
With Congress and the Executive branch all controlled by the same party for most of his Presidency, the likelihood of impeachment would have been about the same as you or I winning the lottery. Two chances of that - slim and none.
I think the Democrats probably did the right thing in the long run by not pursuing impeachment in the last two years of his administration. I think it would have been viewed as a tit for tat retaliation type of thing.
It's amazing though that "stealing elections, abridging the Constitution, torturing prisoners, abrogating treaties, spying on citizens without cause, politicizing the Justice Department, falsifying scientific research, selectively revealing classified information and identities for political gain" doesn't get impeached, yet lying about a blow job will get a person impeached.
On a side note, this is the anniversary of your first post. Congratulations on your first year. May you have many more years to come with this blog.
Thanks Webfoot! You are right; today is the first anniversary of beginning this blog. Thanks for your encouragement and readership.
The blow job reference is quite apt. Priorities and all that. The public felt the same way, as Clinton's approval ratings actually went up during his impeachment trial.
You certainly have practicality on your side regarding impeaching Bush. It would never have gotten anywhere politically given his party's loyalty to Bush for most of his tenure and agreement with his depredations.
Post a Comment