Despite the fact that Republicans increased their majority in the Senate to a health 55-45 in the 2004 elections, we learned last week that it does not take much for Republicans to lose political battles in the Senate. Democrats over the last four years have engaged in an unprecedented use of the filibuster to stop an up-or-a-down vote on the President’s judicial nominees, who would otherwise win confirmation in the Senate. This last week, we almost reached the point where Republicans would execute the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option, depending on the spin on which one wants to apply, to change the rules to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees.
The systematic practice of the judicial filibuster has caused escalating acrimony in the Senate. Republicans have worked hard to win the Presidency and a clear majority in the Senate in the hopes of selecting future judges less disposed to create law and more inclined to adhere to an “original understanding” of the Constitution. Hence, they are frustrated by the use of the filibuster by Democratic Senators to exercise political control that they could not win at the ballot box.
However, if Republican used their voting power to restore precedent and traditional with respect to judicial nominees, Democrats promised to slow the progress of legislation. Moderates, on both sides of the aisle, in a stated effort to restore comity, bipartisanship, and fraternity conjured up a last-minute deal. The President gets an up-or-a-down vote on three of his judicial nominees that had been filibustered. Democrats promise not to use the filibuster for judicial nominees except under “extraordinary” circumstances. Republicans agree to not vote to Senate changes the rules in the meantime.
The supposed comity and fellowship the deal engendered lasted about 48 hours. Democrats raced to filibuster the nomination of John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the United Nations. The brokered filibuster deal technically included only judicial nominees, not nominees to other posts, but the Democratic filibuster following so closely after the deal certainly marked an abrupt end to any alleviation of tensions in the Senate and amounted to a deliberate poke in the eye to the “moderate” Republicans who had brokered the deal. The terms “chump” or “schmuck” come to mind.
With respect to judicial nominees, Democrats had argued that extended deliberation and supermajorities ought to be required for judicial nominees because these judges would serve lifetime terms. The action against the Bolton nomination, not a life-time appointment, demonstrates that the term of the appointment was never really a concern of the Democrats.
Given the ruthlessness with which Democrats have employed their minority status to thwart the efforts of Republicans, one wonders why Democrats seem so reluctant to apply the same skills, determination, unity, and moral certitude to dealing with America’s foreign enemies. On the other hand, Republicans who are so hard-nosed about America’s enemies seem to rollover to Democrats like whipped dogs. Democrats just want to get along with others countries, while they are willing to use every device and subterfuge at their disposal against Republicans. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is more likely to be found making harsh remarks against Republicans than Al Qaeda.
These contrasting behaviors can be explained by the contrasting self-images and world views of Republicans and Democrats. Democrats, at least domestically, are convinced they are morally superior to Republicans. They are at least encouraged in that view by the media which creates a news narrative of Democrats as compassionate politicians looking out for the “little guy.” After all, Democrats created Social Security and want to fashion a government-run health care system. Democrats believe they are inherently a majority party, irrespective of what they expect is a transient Republican majority. Part of this arrogant certitude is an outgrowth of the Vietnam War and Watergate era, when current Democratic leaders came of political age.
While Democrats are convinced of their moral superiority of as a political party, many appear embarrassed of their country. They believe that America is a clumsy giant, meddling in the world. The United States is essentially a mediocre world leader, and only has moral legitimacy when it is acting in accordance with the United Nations and with fawning approval our European allies. After all, Europeans have moved much closer to socially-conscious society in the mold of the highest aspirations of Democrats. How can Americana have any moral authority in the world, if we are not civilized enough to have national health care and socially-leveling rates of taxation. In foreign policy, Democrats just want to get along.
Republicans, especially older Republicans like the ones serving in the Senate, are so accustomed to being in the minority that they have internalized that minority status. In their hearts, they are not quite sure of their legitimacy as a majority party and are consequently reluctant to exercise majority power in politics. They continually seek approval from their fellow legislators and the chattering classes. Moderate Republicans like John McCain seem to depend upon reassurance of praise from the editorial pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times. On the other hand, Republicans are more likely to believe in “American Exceptionalism,” that America represents a “shinny city on a hill” to other countries. Republicans stride confidently righteously in the world, less inhibited by the opinions of others or the constraints of comity.
How much better would the world be if we only persuade Republicans to act like Democrats in politics and teach Democrats to act like Republicans in the world?
Anti-Military Bias in the Media
Monday, May 30th, 2005Given the recently retracted report in Newsweek claiming that a Koran was deliberately flushed down the toilet to upset Muslim prisoners held a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the question has arisen as to whether the American media dislikes the military and is all too anxious to believe the worst about them. Newsweek concedes that the report did not reach journalistic standards of credibility and should not have been published. Could an anti-military bias be at work?
For some members of the journalistic generation that grew up during the Vietnam War, there remains a deep and abiding distrust and even animosity towards the military. There is every indication that the younger journalists, especially those that were embedded with the troops actually report with far more empathy for the troops. Reporters traveling with the troops in Iraq shared their danger and two famous journalists even died. David Bloom of NBC died from a blood clot from sitting in a military vehicle for many hours. Michael Kelly of the Atlantic Monthly died when the Humvee he was riding in flipped while avoiding gunfire. Geraldo Rivera is an older reporter who seems to have transcended generations. He has history of support for “progressive” causes, while still largerly sympathetic to individual military soldiers.
For other older journalists, many of them in leadership positions, it may be another matter. Earlier this year, CNN news executive Eason Jordan, suggested at an open discussion that US troops had deliberately targeted journalists. Liberal Democrat Representative Barney Frank was present and was taken a back by the remarks, while Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd was “outraged by the comments.” Jordan tried to explain away his comments as a misinterpretation of his true feelings or the result of accidentally clumsy wording. However, the evidence of Jordan’s real feelings was too strong and he resigned from CNN.
Given Jordan’s fate, one might expect journalists, even those who might secretly agree with him about the US military, to be a little more circumspect in their remarks. However, in the company of like-minded people, it is possible for people let down their guard. This seems to have happened to Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild. On May 13 at National Conference for Media Reform Foley claimed, “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the US military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.” The remarks elicited cheers from the crowd, suggesting that at least some present were in agreement with her allegations.
Attempts by Hiawatha Bray, a member of the Newspaper Guild, to have Ms. Foley clarify her remarks have thus far not been successful. According to an article posted at the Newspaper Guild website, Foley claims her remarks were distorted. Perhaps she would be willing to clarify them by stating unequivocally that she does not know of the deliberate targeting of journalists by US troops. Click here to listen to the entire video of her remarks to determine for yourself, if her remarks were taken out of context.
If Ms. Foley has proof of her allegations she should share them so that any problems might be resolved. Without proof she should refrain from making charges lest she tar other journalists with any anti-military bias. So far, Ms. Foley’s allegations about military behavior reveal more about her than they do about the troops.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »