Power

I was in the shower musing this morning about the differences between democrats and republicans. Not the policy differences, or the ideological differences, which are manifold and manifest. But the low-level tactical differences.

Thing is, much though I have loathed Bush, and before him, Reagan, it's inarguable that they were exceedingly effective in accomplishing their political goals, even in the face of a Congress controlled by the other party. When the GOP controlled congress, they were also highly effective in achieving their aims, even when Clinton was president. (They lost a couple of fights, too, but the presidency does have an advantage in those squabbles, and Clinton was pretty canny.)

Then I look at the Bush record when it comes to fighting against all outside criticism and scrutiny. To call what they do "stonewalling" would not do justice to the term. Their willingness to ignore subpoenas, testify but refuse to answer, a complete refusal to provide documents, etc etc etc. It's just breathtaking how consistent and complete it has been, and how thoroughly they have gotten away with it.

Think back to 1993-4 for a moment. Consider this: amid a growing chorus of questions and criticism, Clinton instructed AG Reno to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate himself. Now take a moment to wonder, "would Bush have done this?" Of course not. He would have (and indeed has) simply ignored the critics and continued with whatever he was doing.

Or on another note, think about federal judges. In the '90s, the GOP simply never held hearings on most of the nominees Clinton sent to the Hill. It created a huge backlog of cases, but they were not going to give Clinton one more liberal judge than they could help. But the dems have confirmed something like 90% of Bush's appointees.

Now, my point here is not to excoriate the republicans for their perfidy -- not at all.

The difference, I think, is that democrats seem to have a naive sense of responsibility to "good governance," and to following the rules and processes. Republicans, however seem to have a more consistent and fundamental understanding that the primary goal in politics is the acquisition and application of power. The dems are looking for fairness; the GOP plays to win. Period. Out of this insight, a lot of things become more clear. The impeachment, the politicizing of the justice department, Bush's brinksmanship, Rovian election tactics, the marketing of the war, filibusters and the nuclear option, and much more. They even subordinate ideology to the pursuit of power, as witnessed by the lack of any action on abortion in the six years of total dominance, or the Medicare drug benefit: in both cases they allowed the political calculations to supersede key principles of their conservative ideals.

Again, this is not a criticism. I kind of admire them for their discipline, and wish the dems could learn a few lessons from them. When the dems have had power, they have not had the discipline or the will to use it. They could have ended the war, if they had simply defunded it. They got scared and caved. They could have stopped the patriot act re-auth, but there was no will or unity (or discipline) in the caucus. They allow a fractious and contrary fifth column of "Bush Dogs" in their caucus, where the GOP demands loyalty at all costs.

There is a down side to the republican strategy: I think the lesson of the '00s is that power for its own sake does not necessarily produce good government, which is ultimately self-defeating, as the voters will eventually recognize that and throw you out.

One thing I like about Obama, is that while he is more cautious and moderate than is generally apreciated, he also does seem clear-eyed about the use of power, and if elected, I think he will turn into a relatively powerful executive. He'll probably not follow the Bush "imperial presidency" template, but I think he has the potential to be veryy effective in the Reagan mold.

[Funny update: Today, the AG appointed an "special prosecutor" to investigate the Justice scnadal. Funny thing is, apparently she's not really an special prosecutor, but a regular US Attorney who is still subordinate to the AG. They are good.]