As headlines go, "Fight for the Filibuster" has got to be in line for some kind of award -- Lamest Slogan in the So-Called Left Press, maybe. Stiff competition for that one.
This profoundly pathetic appeal showed up in a section of the magazine's site called Act Now! "Act like what," I wondered, and "a laughingstock" was the only answer I could come up with.
But of course they mean "act" in the sense of "take action." And just what action is Act Now! urging upon us?
I won't keep you in suspense: They want us to write to our Senators. Tears of mirth are streaming down my face as I write these words.
Let's work through the possibilities. Either our Senator is a Democrat -- in which case he already looks upon the filibuster the way Paris Hilton regards her trust fund -- or he is a Republican, in which case he looks upon the filibuster pretty much the way I regard Paris Hilton's trust fund. Either way, is he going to be swayed by letters from the half-dozen little old ladies who read The Nation?
There's a touch of pathos on The Nation's Act Now page. Apparently the page is maintained by one Peter Rothberg, whose photograph is strangely arresting. He looks rather boyish -- but his hair is gray. And he is wearing an enigmatic, heavy-lidded, sedated expression.
I can't say I'm surprised. I wouldn't have that poor schmuck's job for love nor money.
Yet again, we see what Old Democrats these New Democrats are. The great filibusterers of years past were, of course, the segregationist Southern Democrats who used the tactic to block the progress of civil rights.
Dean would claim that his devotion to the modern filibuster has a different and much more high-minded basis, but for a smart guy, he's oddly incoherent when he talks about it:
"I think the change will be dreadful for American democracy, and I think it's going to be, frankly, very bad for the Republican Party. One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country."
Some very odd stuff in here. If he really thinks getting rid of the filibuster would be bad for the Republicans, why he hell isn't he pushing for it with all his might? And in what sense are the Democrats a "minority"? Yeah, they're a minority party, but since when do parties have "rights"? People have rights, but the only right a party has is to put up candidates -- a right which, incidentally, the Democrats have consistently and strenuously tried to deny to other parties.
Poor Dean has even lost his capacity to do arithmetic -- let's hope he isn't still prescribing medication to anybody, or anybody other than Joe Lieberman, anyway. Dean's 48% figure ignores the 40% of Americans who didn't vote at all. But they don't matter, I guess, because they're not Democrats.
And that brings us to what does matter, which is keeping the dear old brain-dead Democratic party on life support. They're such bungling knuckleheads that they lost a Presidential election to a certified moron in an election that set records for turnout, and at the same time reduced themselves to a pathetic, cowed, and ineffectual rump in Congress. And yet they have the chutzpah to tell us that they're entitled -- as of "right"! -- to some kind of veto on what the victors do. The hell with 'em. Away with all these procedural grotesqueries, and if that leaves the Democrats exposed as the helpless hogtied nonentities they are -- well, so much the better.
Full disclosure: I might not be taking such a Jacobin view of the matter if I thought the Democrats might really do anything good with their filibusters, or even prevent anything bad. But you know they won't. They'll use it to negotiate the terms of surrender -- okay, I'll vote Judge Vlad the Impaler onto the Supreme Court if we can get that highway bypass my owner wants back at home. Deal? Deal!
The congressional Democrats have turned into a kind of political rentiers, expecting to collect an unearned income of influence and horse-trading assets from their vestigial properties on the Hill.
I'm with Lord Keynes on this one: the euthanasia of the rentier can't come too soon, and the political rentier is an even sorrier specimen than the economic one.
In today's Times Kristof treats us to a Big Picture view of human history, as seen from the Olympian heights of West 44th Street. The Times has given Kristof's piece the ovation of a "multi-media" presentation on their site, and the International Herald Tribune obligingly reprinted it, for those of us who don't need to hear the oracle viva-voce.
My favorite bit:
"My vote for most important city in the world in the period leading up to 2000 B.C. would be Ur, Iraq. In 1500 B.C., perhaps Thebes, Egypt. There was no dominant player in 1000 B.C., though one could make a case for Sidon, Lebanon. In 500 B.C., it would be Persepolis, Persia; in the year 1, Rome; around A.D. 500, maybe Changan, China; in 1000, Kaifeng, China; in 1500, probably Florence, Italy; in 2000, New York; and in 2500, probably none of the above."
It's hard to know where to start with something as splendid as this. Personally, I'm always tickled when people feel they need to tell us that Florence is in Italy. I'm glad Kristof assumed we would know, at least, where New York is.
Then of course there's the wonderful anachronism of putting Ur in some place called Iraq. Was it ruled by a dictator then, too? But perhaps anachronism is a pedantic reproach to hurl at such a sweeping, godlike panorama. De minimis non curant Nicks.
Speaking of anachronism, though, here's the moral our sage draws from his Gray Line tour of imperial grandeurs:
"One lesson is the importance of sustaining a technological edge and sound economic policies. Ancient China flourished partly because of pro-growth, pro-trade policies and technological innovations.... Thinking of Kaifeng should stimulate Americans to struggle to improve their high-tech edge, educational strengths and pro-growth policies."
"Pro-growth?" Citizen Of The World Kristof has got a toolbox of concepts that apply anywhere, anytime -- a little like the way the US dollar is international currency.
Does anyone else feel that Kristof's little fugue of lessons from the past is a bit of a letdown after the thunderous prelude? Indeed, if my respect for the mighty intellects of the Op-Ed page were less profound, I might be tempted to suggest that he had toppled from Gibbonian sublimity into... Rotarian bathos.
The group's recent report urging 100,000 new troops is so eager to create alarm about the condition of the Army that it lets the cat out of the bag about a phenomenon usually little commented upon, namely the fact that the "volunteer army" isn't getting many volunteers these days.
Joining the Army isn't such a bad deal in peacetime -- no worse or better than being in high school, really, except you get to play around with all these way-kewl weapons. But when there's a war on, it's another matter. You could get killed.
Apparently the Army fell short of its recruiting target by 42% in April, according to the Third Way report. It had also missed target in February and March, by increasing margins each month. They don't expect to meet their goals for May either. ROTC enrollments are down. The National Guard and Reserve are in even worse shape than the regular army. Recruiting standards have been lowered; the Army that enlisted Lynndie England is now going even more downscale.
The problem is, of course, that only very stupid people will put their necks on the line for damn-fool stunts like this Iraq adventure. And there just aren't enough stupid people. True stupidity is really quite rare, so rare that we have difficulty filling the highest posts in our Government and occasionally have to let in somebody intelligent. If we have to depend on stupid people to fill the ranks of the Army, too, we'll have a real problem.
Third Way's report doesn't quite confront this damning fact. It characterizes the problem a little differently: "The army must either be used less or its strength must be increased." The report's author (no contrarian he) hastens to add that of course using it less is unthinkable, so we've got to build it up.
And how are we supposed to do that, if people won't join up? Third Way doesn't seem to have an answer for that one. One sentence alludes arm-wavingly to "education incentives, pay and enlistment bonuses, and time-of-service options." Step up here and get shot at, Private, and we'll pay your tuition if you survive. Rrrright.
So this leaves me wondering. It's like a joke with no punch line. The big question is very alarmingly raised -- and no answer is forthcoming. So what exactly is the purpose of this report? Are they just trying to position the New Democrats as friends of the military for PR purposes, without any serious intention of proposing real solutions? Or is there a real solution lurking in the wings that they don't want to acknowledge just yet -- like a draft?
Well, I for one would welcome a draft. I'm too old to serve, and imposing a draft would make the country blow up in their faces. So as Mr. Bush said -- Bring it on!
I got up and closed the office door, with as much dignity as I could manage.
N: You don't have to do that. They can't see me.
Me: I suspected as much. But what will they think if they hear me talking to you?
N: [laughs] They already think you're nuts.
Me: Well, let's not make it any worse. Why am I a fucking idiot? I mean, in what way am I a fucking idiot?
N: I know what you mean. You're a fucking idiot because, you know, I read your posts on that stupid blog of yours.
Me: Well, I'm glad somebody does.
N: You keep saying that these so-called New Democrats are trying to imitate Republicans.
Me: They're not?
N: No, idiot, you don't get it. They've made us what we are.
Me: Oh come on.
N: [glowers wordlessly]
Me: Sir.
N: That's better. Look, you remember that moron Ford, right? My one-time Vice President?
Me: Of course.
N: Well, then you realize that anybody could have beaten him in '76. Hell, McGovern could have beaten him in '76.
Me: He was not what you would call a strong candidate.
N: Okay. So. That being the case, why did the Democrats, the supposedly oh-so-liberal party, run a so-called centrist -- and you know what that means --
Me: Do I ever.
N: -- a so-called centrist like Carter? They weren't exactly running scared, you know.
Me: Tell me.
N: They couldn't wait to ditch all that liberal shit, shut those fools up in a padded cell. All those hippies and bra-burners and guys in dashikis, they all swarmed into the Democratic party as soon as I took over in '69 and the Democrats could pretend they weren't responsible for Vietnam. Vietnam? Where's that? [He assumes a frightening expression of feigned innocence.]
Me: The monkey was off their back and on yours.
N: Ain't that the truth. Anyway, the old Democrat honchos, they wanted to lock up all this youth demographic, as they called it -- phonies! -- but they sure as hell didn't want 'em to have any influence. Same with the ni-- uh, the blacks. Get 'em in the tent, lock 'em up, but don't give 'em bupkis.
Me: Bupkis?
N: That's a German expression. Ol' Karl uses it all the time. I told you Marx and I are great pals now, didn't I?
Me: You did. But -- McGovern? Oh, we already talked about this. You thought McGovern was, like, a human sacrifice. They knew you were unbeatable in '72, so they threw ol' George in, and he lost of course, and that discredited the Left, such as it was...
N: [interrupts] Which was what the old Party guys wanted all along. Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or something...
Me: [straight-faced] Of course not.
N: [ignores interruption] I mean, I don't think they had it all planned out, they just thought, what the hell, we're not winning this one, let the hippies go bust their balls. Then in '76 we'll see. So then comes '76, and it's electable, electable, electable, hardhats, middle Americans, bla bla bla, all stolen from me of course. See, now that the Party has a chance, you can be damn sure they don't want some hippy-dip like McGovern in there, they want a good ol' boy who'll help get the country back to business as usual. And I do mean business. [He ruminates for a few seconds] I mean, man, they had us on the ropes that year. If they'd wanted to run Stokeley Carmichael and Jane Fonda they could've. But no, they wanted to put the old party, the pre-Sixties party...
Me: [mutters] The pre-Roosevelt party.
N: [laughs] You're not far wrong there. They wanted to put the old party back together on the old basis, with a few captive blacks and liberals just to make up the weight. And the business guys wanted to get back in the saddle -- they got a fright back in the Sixties, y'know, which I took advantage of -- and all the Israel fanatics had woken up and realized when people get all anti-imperialist, as thy say, then they start putting the hairy eyeball on precious Israel. So all these guys right there in the Democratic party really wanted to roll back the Sixties, and we were the excuse. So they moved the field way right with Carter.
Me: Okay. But how did that force you to do anything? You guys, I mean, the Republican party?
N: [Looks at me disgustedly] It's a question of branding, dummy.
Me: Oh, like, you're the right-wing brand, and they're encroaching on your turf...
N: ... And what are we gonna do? Leapfrog 'em and go for acid, abortion and amnesty? No, they start sweet-talkin' our pissed-off white guys, well then we've gotta come up with a better story, or lose 'em. So we find a way to get 'em even more pissed off, and promise to put all the queers in concentration camps, or tattoo the Ten Commandments on everybody's back, or some shit. Stupid. So stupid. It's embarrassing. I was a fucking statesman, for Chrissake, and now all these pulpit monkeys are running my party... I tell ya, I can't look fuckin' Disraeli in the eye when I meet him.
[A bottle of single-malt Scotch, with a twenty-syllable Gaelic name on the label, materializes at his elbow, resting on a rather froufrou little Chippendale side table, obviously of Pat's choosing. There's also a large tumbler, which, conveniently, is already full. Nixon absent-mindedly takes a man-size swig.]
N: [continues] And it's all the Democrats' fault. They made us do it. When they turned it into a one-note contest for the pissed-off white guys, well, there's only one place that can go.
Me: [eyeing the whisky] Gimme a hit of that, willya? [I produce a china mug from my desk, with the logo of a long-out-of-business modem manufacturer on it. Nixon pours, and to my surprise there's real whisky in the mug, and damn, does it taste good].
N: And Clinton pulled the same stunt. Carter was like John the Baptist to Reagan, and Clinton was like John the Baptist to this other damn fool that's in there now. Clinton and Carter, they spend all their time saying the stuff we're supposed to be saying, and so then we have to...
Me: Out-Herod Herod.
N: [looks at me with annoyance but doesn't let himself get distracted] You know why my fellow-Republicans hated Clinton so much?
Me: [musing] It did seem kind of... gratuitous. I mean, he was doing everything they wanted...
N: [excited] Exactly! He was taking our job away. I mean, with Democrats like Clinton, who needs Republicans? Othello's occupation's gone. Mr. Shakespeare.
Me: Touche. [ponders for a minute] So, basically, the devil made you do it.
N: [laughs] Okay, okay, I overstated a little. But you get the point.
Me: I get the point. It wasn't just pull from you guys...
N: It was push from them too. And the more they pushed the more we had to pull...
Me: And the more you pulled the more they had to push...
N: [excited again] No, no, not at all. Don't you see? They had somewhere else to go. We didn't. When we pulled, they coulda walked the other way and left us high and dry.
Me: [I haven't had lunch, and the whisky is very good] I think that's a mixed metaphor.
N: Mix, schmix. As Karl would say. You know what I mean. And then they've got the nerve to say they were just trying to keep up with us. Such chutzpah.
Me: Food for thought, food for thought.
N: [severely] You shouldn't drink so early in the day.
Me: Thinking about the Democrats, I always need a drink.
N: I feel the same way about the Republicans. [He takes another swig and begins to fade] A bientot, as Jackie Kennedy used to say. You find her attractive?
Me: Not a bit. That awful little-girl voice.
N: And no hips. Get yourself some coffee unless you wanna be back on the unemployment line. [He vanishes, leaving a peaty aroma of malt Scotch in the air and the impress of Presidential buttocks in the tired upholstery of the visitor's chair. My mug is empty, my head hurts, and somebody is knocking on the office door.]
Wouldn't you love to know just which areas those were?
Then there's the question of who they're hiding it from. It seems unlikely that Osama bin Laden would have any more trouble getting hold of the uncensored imagery than Google itself had. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the goal here is to conceal things from the public, not from the enemy.
Most of the Third Way site so far consists of self-congratulatory press releases, but there is at least one item of interest: a report, rather kinkily titled "Boots on the Ground", by Aaron Scholer, a staffer at Third Way. Scholer appears to be a protege of Joe "Mad Dog" Lieberman, prominent cheerleader for war and spokesman for God. Lieberman seems to have been one of the main sponsors of Third Way. Scholer doesn't mention God in his report, thank God, but war is front-and-center.
"Boots On The Ground" (BONTHEG, for short) urges that the US Army needs to be expanded -- by about 100,000 troops. And why? well, among other scary scenarios, what if we're still tied down in Iraq and have to "handle a confrontation with Iran"?
This mastery of euphemism suggests that Scholer can expect a distinguished Washington career. Translated into English, of course, what BONTHEG is saying is, Let's build up the Army so we can start a war with Iran, alongside the one we're already fighting with Iraq.
The funny thing here, for many of us, is that these rarin'-to-go conference-room commandos are supposed to be "new" Democrats. In fact, of course, mythical "bomber gaps" and "missile gaps" and the like have long been a staple of Democratic demagoguery, running all the way back to Woodrow Wilson's "preparedness" campaign, the overture to American involvement in the First World War. The Third Way donkey is running true here to long-standing form.
So, Democrats -- what's new?
"A study sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security has found that corporate insiders who sabotage computers and networks are motivated mainly by anger against their bosses.
"The DHS examined a number of cases involving computer sabotage over the past six years, focusing most intently on why employees felt the need to attack networks, steal data and wreak technological havoc within their companies.
"Most attackers were motivated not by financial gain, the study found, but by a sense of revenge against their superiors. The study also noted that most attackers typically worked in technology departments like I.T., and had specific beefs, like getting laid off or missing a promotion.
Wrench in the Works
"A review of the sabotage cases revealed an array of techniques for hurting a company through its electronic resources. Attacks included deleting mission-critical software and data, posting pornography on a company's Web site and taking down an entire network.
"Almost all the employees took numerous steps to conceal their identities, with some even posing as coworkers."
Gracchus: I particularly love the bit about posing as coworkers, though I'm not sure exactly how you ork a cow -- what's that? Oh, co-workers. Never mind.
So if the computer guys are pulling stunts like this, whaddya think those folks at McDonald's are doing to your milkshake?
The latest From sock puppet is something called Third Way, a name that has some ironic resonance for us oldsters. Jackie prattling finishing-school French to Malraux, and the assassins busy in the dark corners. Ah, those were the days.
But that's comparing small things to great. The contemporary Third Way is classic 18 Brumaire: First time as tragedy, second time as farce. The style is even more downmarket than Jack and Jackie's glamor-mag product: an earnest, clunky web site draped top-to-bottom in the inevitable red-white-and-blue bunting that everything in DC, from cocktail napkins to condoms, has got to display. I think there's a Federal law.
But credit where it's due. If you're looking for pompous, self-infatuated intellectual comedy, this outfit is a little ahead of the other From flacketerias. "Idea industry," for all I know, may already be a cliche, but I never saw the phrase before I blundered onto the Third Way website. It got me thinking.
Scenes from the Idea Industry
(The Third Way conference room. It's morning in the District of Columbia, and a dark-skinned PAROLEE, wearing a stylish-by-DC-standards RFID TRACKING COLLAR, has just finished arranging the red-white-and-blue ROSES in a depleted-uranium VASE at the center of the CONFERENCE TABLE, made from a single plank of the last surviving specimen of a now-extinct tree. Two BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS, Eric and Craig, enter at opposite doors, wearing identical clunky not-quite-Brooks-Brothers SUITS. They are white, but trying very hard to talk as if they weren't.)
Eric: Dr Foozle! How they hangin', dawg?
Craig: Dr Boozle! My man!
Eric: So... any ideas this fine mornin', m'nizzle?
Craig: Sho'nuff. You sittin' down?
Eric [suiting the action to the words]: Sittin'.
Craig: How 'bout -- we do anything that a really big corporation wants?
Eric [smacks self upside the head] Genius!
