Feingold Takes on Bush: Another Battle in the Ongoing War between the Map and the Territory
I've been harping on this subject for a long time. I am pretty sure it started with the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. A theme presented there, which has resurfaced throughout my adult life, is that of confusing the map with the territory. I am reminded of it, once again, after reading today's Washington Post.
The Post article Feingold Pushes to Censure President presents a perfect example of the confusion I am referring to. It also shows quite clearly how the failure on the part of our elected representatives, to properly distinguish between the map and the territory, is turning our nation into a worldwide joke and our country into a third-world nation. I refer, specifically, to the habit of focusing on appearance versus reality.
The crux of the Post article, referenced above, is that the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, wants the president to be held accountable for using his presidential powers to bypass the law and legislate from the White House. Feingold, who is clearly concerned about the use of the wiretapping program Bush has authorized and its effect on our (yours and my) civil liberties, is introducing a resolution to censure the president. This would, presumably, lead to a debate in Congress over the situation and would call to account the specific actions taken by Bush, as well as provide an opportunity to look more closely at the ways in which we might provide the security measures needed to protect the public without breaking the law. In other words, rather than jump to impeachment, as many others have suggested, Feingold wants to solve the problem.
As anyone who has ever solved a problem knows, it can't be done if the problem isn't recognized first. Step one, then, is acknowledging that the wiretapping program Bush implemented is outside the law. This we know. This particular issue isn't even up for debate. The law says, clearly, all domestic wiretapping comes through FISA. Period. Bush didn't use FISA; he ignored FISA. So first, we must deal with that issue. Here's an excerpt from the Post article:
In a floor speech introducing his resolution, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said: "When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable." Bush, he said, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program."
So, this is how it begins. Once the problem is acknowledged, Feingold wants to look at how we can use this lesson to improve the way the executive and legislative branches of the government can work together in the future to both provide the security the nation is so concerned about and ensure that our (yours and my) civil liberties are protected.
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In fact, the only extreme element of it is that our president chose to ignore the law put in place specifically to address this situation in the first place, that being the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which already established a secret court for the purposes of dealing with wiretap warrants. In other words, what Bush says he needed to do, he could have done, without breaking the law.
For people with critical thinking skills, this can't help but bring up other questions, such as: Why didn't he go through FISA? Was he concerned that FISA would not have approved some of his requests? Did he plan to spy on people he didn't have reason to think were tied to Al Qaeda? Why wouldn't FISA have approved his requests--if they were reasonable?
These are not extreme questions; they are the logical result of applied critical thinking to real, practical issues. In other words, we're working with territory, not maps now. We're talking about what's real, not merely what's perceived. But now, let's take a look at how the Republicans supporting Bush are reacting to this.
Sensing a Democratic misstep, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) labeled the resolution a "political ploy" and called for an immediate vote, hoping to put Feingold's colleagues in a tough spot. But Democrats invoked Senate rules to postpone action, and it was unclear last night whether Feingold's measure would face a roll call.
Even Democrats are scrambling to assess the effect this move might have on their map, how damaging it may be to their image, how it may adversely influence their political prospects for the future--completely forgetting that the real issue isn't how good they look or how popular they are but whether or not they are actually protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States, rights they have sworn to uphold:
Several Democratic strategists said surveillance issues are not Bush's most vulnerable spot, and they fear the party may appear extremist. "It is more likely that a big censure fight would have the effect of rallying folks to his side," said one Democratic strategist and former Clinton aide.
And here's another:
Democratic leaders reacted cautiously to Feingold's move. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) commended him "for bringing this to the attention of the American people."
Yes, they are being cautious; they are also wrong. For one thing, Feingold didn't bring this to the attention of the American people. The official who leaked it (and will, if Republicans have their way, be found out and prosecuted for it) brought it to the attention of the American people. Then the American people brought it to the attention of Russ Feingold. Let's at least get the facts straight: Feingold has confirmed that his office has received, literally, thousands of letters calling for Bush to be held accountable for his actions in violating the FISA Act, and many are even calling for impeachment.
When, do you think, was the last time thousands of citizens wrote to their elected representatives and asked that action be taken to address illegal activity in the White House? The Iraq War maybe? And see how well Democrats handled that? Fear, fear of a messy map, that's what drove them then. Let's hope it isn't what drives them now.
The political debate Republicans insist on having is simply a cover for the real issues. Their response to everything is to put a better spin on it. In other words, they make a new, nicer map. If Democrats are foolish enough to accept the Republican map instead of focusing on the territory (yet again) they will meet, in the 2006 mid-term elections, the same fate they met in 2000 and in 2004. They simply can't win by playing a game invented by their adversaries.
I keep hearing that the Democrats need a message, so here it is: It's not about how you look, it's about what you do. It's not about strategy, it's about morality. It's time to change the game. It's time, in fact, to stop playing games and start going to work. It's time to throw away the map, roll up your sleeves and get dirty.
If you need a leader, you've got one: his name is Russ Feingold.
The Post article Feingold Pushes to Censure President presents a perfect example of the confusion I am referring to. It also shows quite clearly how the failure on the part of our elected representatives, to properly distinguish between the map and the territory, is turning our nation into a worldwide joke and our country into a third-world nation. I refer, specifically, to the habit of focusing on appearance versus reality.
The crux of the Post article, referenced above, is that the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, wants the president to be held accountable for using his presidential powers to bypass the law and legislate from the White House. Feingold, who is clearly concerned about the use of the wiretapping program Bush has authorized and its effect on our (yours and my) civil liberties, is introducing a resolution to censure the president. This would, presumably, lead to a debate in Congress over the situation and would call to account the specific actions taken by Bush, as well as provide an opportunity to look more closely at the ways in which we might provide the security measures needed to protect the public without breaking the law. In other words, rather than jump to impeachment, as many others have suggested, Feingold wants to solve the problem.
As anyone who has ever solved a problem knows, it can't be done if the problem isn't recognized first. Step one, then, is acknowledging that the wiretapping program Bush implemented is outside the law. This we know. This particular issue isn't even up for debate. The law says, clearly, all domestic wiretapping comes through FISA. Period. Bush didn't use FISA; he ignored FISA. So first, we must deal with that issue. Here's an excerpt from the Post article:
In a floor speech introducing his resolution, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said: "When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable." Bush, he said, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program."
So, this is how it begins. Once the problem is acknowledged, Feingold wants to look at how we can use this lesson to improve the way the executive and legislative branches of the government can work together in the future to both provide the security the nation is so concerned about and ensure that our (yours and my) civil liberties are protected.
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In fact, the only extreme element of it is that our president chose to ignore the law put in place specifically to address this situation in the first place, that being the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which already established a secret court for the purposes of dealing with wiretap warrants. In other words, what Bush says he needed to do, he could have done, without breaking the law.
For people with critical thinking skills, this can't help but bring up other questions, such as: Why didn't he go through FISA? Was he concerned that FISA would not have approved some of his requests? Did he plan to spy on people he didn't have reason to think were tied to Al Qaeda? Why wouldn't FISA have approved his requests--if they were reasonable?
These are not extreme questions; they are the logical result of applied critical thinking to real, practical issues. In other words, we're working with territory, not maps now. We're talking about what's real, not merely what's perceived. But now, let's take a look at how the Republicans supporting Bush are reacting to this.
Sensing a Democratic misstep, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) labeled the resolution a "political ploy" and called for an immediate vote, hoping to put Feingold's colleagues in a tough spot. But Democrats invoked Senate rules to postpone action, and it was unclear last night whether Feingold's measure would face a roll call.
Even Democrats are scrambling to assess the effect this move might have on their map, how damaging it may be to their image, how it may adversely influence their political prospects for the future--completely forgetting that the real issue isn't how good they look or how popular they are but whether or not they are actually protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States, rights they have sworn to uphold:
Several Democratic strategists said surveillance issues are not Bush's most vulnerable spot, and they fear the party may appear extremist. "It is more likely that a big censure fight would have the effect of rallying folks to his side," said one Democratic strategist and former Clinton aide.
And here's another:
Democratic leaders reacted cautiously to Feingold's move. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) commended him "for bringing this to the attention of the American people."
Yes, they are being cautious; they are also wrong. For one thing, Feingold didn't bring this to the attention of the American people. The official who leaked it (and will, if Republicans have their way, be found out and prosecuted for it) brought it to the attention of the American people. Then the American people brought it to the attention of Russ Feingold. Let's at least get the facts straight: Feingold has confirmed that his office has received, literally, thousands of letters calling for Bush to be held accountable for his actions in violating the FISA Act, and many are even calling for impeachment.
When, do you think, was the last time thousands of citizens wrote to their elected representatives and asked that action be taken to address illegal activity in the White House? The Iraq War maybe? And see how well Democrats handled that? Fear, fear of a messy map, that's what drove them then. Let's hope it isn't what drives them now.
The political debate Republicans insist on having is simply a cover for the real issues. Their response to everything is to put a better spin on it. In other words, they make a new, nicer map. If Democrats are foolish enough to accept the Republican map instead of focusing on the territory (yet again) they will meet, in the 2006 mid-term elections, the same fate they met in 2000 and in 2004. They simply can't win by playing a game invented by their adversaries.
I keep hearing that the Democrats need a message, so here it is: It's not about how you look, it's about what you do. It's not about strategy, it's about morality. It's time to change the game. It's time, in fact, to stop playing games and start going to work. It's time to throw away the map, roll up your sleeves and get dirty.
If you need a leader, you've got one: his name is Russ Feingold.
posted by LA Fosner at 5:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home