Self-Destruction Knows No Bounds

Don't ever think that the Palestinians have cornered the market on self-destructive tendencies. We have some among us here in America that are more spectacular in their intellectual combustion. Today, Harold Meyerson proves my point in The American Prospect with this little gem of an article: The Most Dangerous President Ever.

I like to occasionally pretend to be open-minded and willing to listen to the other side of an argument. And most of the time I'm rewarded by learning something new. It doesn't always change my position, but I'm usually better off for having listened.

Then there are arguments like this that deserve only contempt. Let's look at some of Mr. Meyerson's arguments one at a time:

Speaking first of Ronald Reagan:

The United States would be a far better place had he not been elected.

Now I know I was pretty young at the time of the Reagan Revolution's beginnings, but I really don't think the alternative, four more years of Jimmy, was a better choice. I shudder to think of what my life would be like with four more years of stagflation and unchecked terrorism and Camp Davids. So right off the bat, I'm already getting annoyed with stupid comments like that.

Next up:

What Bush seems determined to extirpate are the basic forms of common security in America. His particular targets seem disproportionately the handiwork of years ending in "5." From 1965, there's Medicare, which he seeks to subordinate to the pay-as-you-can calculus of HMOs; from 1945, there's the United Nations and the whole structure of postwar alliances, which he seeks to subordinate to an imperial America freed from international laws and treaties; from 1935, there's Social Security, which he still seeks to privatize, and the Wagner Act, whose pro-labor tilt he seeks to obliterate in his tax policy.

I'm going to ignore the Medicare and Social Security comments. I'm too young to have any hope of ever seeing a penny from either program. They are both rip-offs to me. But is Mr. Meyerson really complaining about America retaining its sovereignty? Not surrendering our Constitution is not the same as submitting the UN to "imperial America." That's just Bush upholding his Oath of Office and defending the Constitution against "all foes, foreign or domestic." And what's wrong with getting rid of "pro-labor tilt?" I'm poor. I have also suffered because of organized labor. I once had a job with an airline as a part time ramper. Spent three years there part time. Still had seven to go before I could even think of becoming full time. And that was assuming they didn't outsource my job before the 10 years was up. Labor started making noise about organizing us and the company accelerated the outsourcing program. I left as the battle was really heating up. But labor didn't do anything for me. Neither did the company. I had to do it myself to better my condition. I don't want a pro-anything tilt. I want a level playing field and a fair shake. That's all.

Moving right along:

And so, by strategy, inclination and conviction, George W. Bush has been pursuing a reckless, even ridiculous, but always right-wing agenda -- shredding a global-security structure at a time requiring unprecedented international integration, shredding a domestic safety net at a time when the private sector provides radically less security than it did a generation ago.

Global security structure? I'm assuming that somehow involves seceding sovereignty to our "Allies" like France and Germany. Somehow their "global security structure" doesn't seem too secure. Isn't that French colony of Algeria going through a bit of a rough patch? Didn't the French just have trouble controlling the massive and incredibly advanced Army of the Ivory Coast (without consulting the "global security structure" first, mind you)? Weren't the Germans and Russians providing intelligence to Iraq in the days leading to the recommencement of hostilities? Pardon me if I think the "global security structure" is a complete and total failure at providing security. I'll take my chances as a strong and independent nation instead. The international community doesn't want to integrate us, they want to subjugate us. Little difference there.

And we have already discussed the "domestic safety net" in this article. Like I said before, it's a great deal if you're not 30 years from retirement. But for me, who is now looking at probably (depending on how far they push out the "retirement age") 40+ years before I can file for Social Security it's a rip-off. Quit lying to me about how great Social Security is; if it were a private venture, it would be labeled the greatest fraud ever. Millions will pay in based on promises of future benefits only to find out they won't really get squat. I don't mind kicking in my fair share, but don't lie to me about it.

Let's get away from this safety net BS before I get really upset:

In its over reliance on a small number of neo-friendly Iraqi expatriates to gauge the mood of the Iraqi people, in its belief that our forces would be greeted as liberators, the administration has made almost the identical error that the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations made at the Bay of Pigs. In each instance, ideology and hope were substituted for factual assessment; in each instance, the people have not risen to join U.S.-backed forces (in Cuba) or U.S. forces (in Iraq) to overthrow their tyrant. In Iraq the administration has underestimated the size and intensity of the forces committed to fighting for Saddam Hussein -- forgetting everything we have learned about the infrastructure of a modern totalitarian state. It has forgotten, too, the power of nationalism in human affairs, especially in postcolonial nations. And in proposing to subordinate postwar Iraq to direct Pentagon control, it has all but ensured that our liberation (in the administration's assessment) of Iraq will be viewed as a neocolonial occupation, by Iraqis and just about everybody else. In so doing, it has inflamed anti-American sentiment throughout the world, and in the Arab world particularly, for years if not decades to come. Finally, because this is explicitly a war of choice rather than necessity, and because we have chosen to fight over the popular opposition of virtually every other nation, we are naked before our enemies. As an already apprehensive Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has noted, we have likely created a hundred new Osama bin Ladens with this war.

So if we weren't greeted as liberators, what were we? It sure looks like nationalism in Iraq has had a positive effect for us. The Iraqis can now actually be proud of their Iraq - not Saddam's Iraq. And we certainly were wrong in our estimates of the size and intensity of the fight for Iraq. It took three whole weeks to go from Kuwait to Baghdad - that drive should have only taken, what, maybe a day - even offroading it like we did. We lost fewer Americans in an entire war than Airbus did when the tail fell off of American Airlines flight 587 out of New York. Where are the condemnations of those murdering French?

As for the Arab world being upset with us, so what? The only ones that are upset with us are the ones who haven't seen the writing on the wall. They are the ones who are still stuck in the 6th century. The nations that have started or are starting their Renaissance's aren't upset, they may not have agreed with us, but they haven't reacted by creating "a hundred new Osama bin Ladens." And if there are a hundred new OBLs, it'll be like a giant Whack-A-Mole, they pop their head out of their little homey cave, we drop the hammer on them.

What else is there?

As with his foreign policy, no level of factual refutation seems to make a dent in Bush's economic policies. His programs not only shift the burden of Americans' economic security to an increasingly deregulated private economy, they do so at a time when the deregulated private economy is singularly unable to provide economic security. Given how the market has performed over the past two years, you might think that that would slow the course of the administration's economic agenda. But, as with foreign policy, that would understate the role of blind faith within George W. Bush's White House.

Ask and ye shall receive. Deregulation? Deregulation? Someone go resurrect Marx and Lenin! The capitalist nation of America is rejecting the basic foundations of socialism!

Keep whining about deregulation. I have yet to find a case where deregulation has been a bad thing. You want to talk about the airlines? There were (and are) too many poorly run ones that need to fail. There is no justifiable reason for the government to be able to tell an airline where it can fly, when it can fly, how many times it can fly, what stops it has to make on the way, or anything like that. Deregulation of the power markets and the electricity crises in California? Why don't we ask Gray Davis about that. But ask him about power planning and NIMBY - don't just let him spew anti-Enron rhetoric. The problems in California were coming to a head before deregulation. You don't suddenly run out of electricity that quickly unless you pursued flawed energy policies. Deregulation just provides a nice scapegoat in this case because of the timing.

The only redeeming part of the article is where Mr. Meyerson acknowledges that President Bush isn't a racist! I guess we won't be hearing that campaign smear again in '04.

Like I said, I like to pretend to be open-minded. It would be nice if a shrill demagogue like Mr. Meyerson could entertain the same pleasant fiction.

Read the whole article. It's interesting to see what the miniscule left-wing wannabe-a-conspiracy has to say.