Out of Egypt:

why the Bush administration lost my trust: the closest i'll get to an extended political argument

In response to one of my recent quick political posts, which have often basically just been venting in response to things I read, Chris McCartney raised a fair question.

Here's my reply: I have, in a few posts, laid out the outlines of a political philosophy of my own (such as the one on sphere sovereignty and the value of Constitutional checks & balances, not to mention low government spending). However, I haven't gone that much into the reasons why the Bush administration has lost my trust since I voted for him in 2004 (the first election in which I was old enough to vote). I haven't really seen the need to engage in extensive critique of the Bush administration on my own when the evidence is out there, in such things as the WaPo's recent four-part series on Cheney's influence. (Btw, I've never, even prior to Bush's first term in office, bought into what's been said by people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who are just attack dogs and (until fairly recently) party-line supporters with no intellectual depth. (If you want me to support that, I'll be glad to do so sometime soon.) I had hoped he was not a Republican like them - I was a Republican by upbringing and because of my pro-life beliefs, particularly. Josh Strodtbeck, whom I link, has an excellent recent post on why orthodox Christians can't really vote Democrat since the party as a whole supports the Sexual Revolution.)

I think the reason why I speak the way I do now is because I supported the president at one point. Anger comes from a sense of betrayal, of being lied to.

I initially voted for Bush primarily because of social issues - because I thought he was a "compassionate conservative," but that whole thing turned out to be a failure, and because I thought he would nominate good Supreme Court justices (I admit he's done fairly well there, although I'm ticked about the recent decisions on affirmative action and job discrimination, as well as the earlier decisions on eminent domain.) Though I didn't vote for the president primarily for his war policies, but only as an improvement on Kerry, I trusted him to prosecute a limited war, pursuing al-Qaeda aggressively, but admitting mistakes when they were made; I trusted him to keep federal spending under control; I trusted he would "sunset" restrictions on civil liberty, preserving that part of the conservative tradition. His administration has shown no desire or ability to do any of these things, and no interest in making a detailed case for its policies to the American people. Furthermore, I have been absolutely disgusted by the administration's defense of criminal, or at the very least unethical, acts by people like Gonzales, Rove, etc., not to mention just general incompetence on the part of folks like Rumsfeld and Bremer. I simply don't trust him and Cheney to do what's right for the country. And more than that, I fear the lasting effects of the policies which they have implemented and the precedents they have set, following the advice of John Yoo and their other legal counsels. I read a review of Yoo's book on executive privilege in the NYT Book Review - truly terrifying.

I don't see how a reasonable defense can be made of the right of the executive branch to hide its communications by using non-government email accounts, to conduct warrantless surveillance, to hold detainees without informing them of any of the evidence against them, to make use of black prisons and interrogation techinques that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, and to never set a timeframe for the ending of any of these policies. Not to mention changing the rationale for the Iraq invasion after the fact - and going back on all the non-interventionist promises Bush made in 2000.

In 2005, I used to read sources like the NYT and think all their criticisms made a certain amount of success, but they didn't have anything to offer that was different, so I still supported the administration, at least to some extent. But now my patience with the administration & hope they would change from a losing course, say, in Iraq has more than worn out. It really worn out around mid-2006 - I just couldn't spend the intellectual energy trying to think of how they really knew what they were doing anymore. It was a kind of doublethink for which I didn't see the point. Still, I had some hope the administration would listen to the Iraq Study Group report. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than business as usual. Instead, Bush sloganeered and played politics with people's support for the troops, advocating the doomed-from-the-outset surge plan.

And I haven't even mentioned yet Bush's handling of the Walter Reed scandal, Katrina (putting FEMA under the should-never-have-been-a-Cabinel-level Department of Homeland Security), or environmental issues (letting Cheney run roughshod over the EPA - cf. the WaPo series). If anyone can come up with a good explanation for all this, I'd love to hear it. But when Bush's loudest defenders are as dishonest as Frank Gaffney, who used a fabricated and previously discredited Lincoln quote to suggest those in the gov't who questioned the adminstration's war policies were traitors, I get the distinct sense that Bush's administration, and the neo-conservative thought to which he foolishly wedded himself, are a sinking ship.

I admit that I was wrong to say that liberty is more important than safety. In order to live free you have to be alive. However, rule by a strongman who keeps what he's doing "for the good of the nation" secret, and who alienates all our traditional allies, does not to me seem to be a recipe for safety.

You are reading Road to Serfdom!

Posted by: funke at June 30, 2007 2:27 PM

The pro-life cause is the most important policy issue for me. Because of the way the SCOTUS has used its power of judicial review, there's not much the President or Congress can do to move things in the right direction, beyond judicial appointments. I'm happy with what Bush has done in that arena, and of course I can't blame him for particular court decisions. The best he can do is appoint judges whose overall judicial philosophy is originalist. That he has done. I'm happy about that, not only on account of abortion, but also on account of other policy issues that the courts have gotten entangled in, and because I think rule of law is more important than particular policies, and rule of law requires originalist jurisprudence. So, on the issues of most importance for me, Bush gets very high approval from me. And I note that he gets high approval from you on those same issues, although I'm not sure whether you agree on how important those issues are (but I'm guessing you might agree with me there too).

I never expected Bush to keep federal spending under control. If you did, I'm scratching my head: what did you think "compassionate conservatism" meant? Aside from being a feel-good label, what it means is economic socialism that opposes the new-left, 60s-revolutionary attack on traditional social mores.

When it comes to the pre-9/11, non-interventionist foreign policy that Bush abandoned, he was very up-front about the fact that he changed his mind after 9/11, precisely because of 9/11, and most Americans seemed to be on-board with that policy change, until the Iraq war started going badly.

When it comes to things like admitting mistakes, and explaining his reasoning to the American people: I am saddened by the fact that Bush has done such a poor job of this. But I don't put most of the blame on him. Our media environment makes reasoned discourse almost impossible. Few Americans will sit still long enough to listen to an explanation for anything. And a nuanced, qualified statement, not to say an admission of error, is easily twisted by one's political enemies. The ill-named "marketplace of ideas" is ruled by sound-bytes and 60-second video clips. Presidents sloganeer. If they didn't, they wouldn't be elected. They called Regan the great communicator, but most of what he did was theatrics. Granted, Regan did get some ideas across, and, granted, Bush could have done better than he has, but surely none of us expected another great communicator?

Regarding foreign policy: If I were running the show, I would be incompetent. I therefore don't feel myself qualified to charge the administration with incompetence in an area in which I know so little, even though, when it comes to geo-politics, reading Stratfor alone puts me way ahead of 95% of the American populace. Stratfor seems to think the surge strategy makes some sense. And one thing that is clear from the outset is that the insurgents are strengthened and encouraged to keep killing American soldiers by the lack of resolve exhibited by the American people. If there were no chance of us backing down, there would be no chance of the insurgents winning, their cause would be hopeless, and they would be much less likely to pursue it. It may be appropriate to oppose a war, even loudly, in spite of the fact that vocal opposition increases the danger to our soldiers. But we can hardly blame the President for pointing out the life-and-death consequences of our political opposition to the war, if we are not up-front about it. Most of the opponents of this war have not been up-front about that (though the blame for that can't go squarely on their shoulders for the same reason Bush can’t take all of the blame for his failure to make a detailed case for his policies to the American citizenry).

As for the accusations of criminal or unethical behavior by those in the admin., we have to look at the evidence in the particular cases. The mere fact that there are lots of accusations proves only one thing: the President is politically vulnerable. I note that you haven't explained why you believe the accusations (or even which accusations you believe) against Gonzales, Rove, and the elusive "etc.".

You mention lots of things, but you say so little about each that I'm not sure you've really answered my request. For this reason, and since I've already written a very long comment, I'll bring this to a close without addressing the other broad area of opposition you mentioned – the putative violation of the liberties and rights of Americans and of foreign outlaws captured in war and held on foreign soil. (I’d be happy to talk about that if you want, it’s just that there’s a whole lot on the table here, and I can’t deal adequately with all of it in a short space).

My worry is that your change of attitude has more to do with PR and “image” than anything else. The “sinking ship” metaphor; the “sense of" betrayal, of being lied to … By the way, I think it sometimes makes sense for the gov’t to lie to the public. “Are you sending spy planes over the Soviet Union?” “No we are not.” Keeping national secrets sometimes means telling falsehoods in public. Not because the gov’t wants to lie to loyal citizens, but because public statements are, well, public. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that secret prisons are legitimate (certainly there is a national interest in keeping some of its interrogations away from the eyes of a sensationalist media saturated with anti-American sentiment; let’s prescind from the question of whether that interest is sufficient to justify the practice). If someone asks, “are there secret prisons?”, you have to lie if you want to to keep the secret. I’m glad the gov’t doesn’t feel compelled to tell the truth in public when keeping a secret helps to keep us safe. (Just imagine if Bush had attempted to defend himself in a nuanced way like this: all over TV news, the soundbyte is repeated: “Bush says the gov’t should lie to the American people.”)

Now I really am going to bring this to a close: I'll just end by responding to what you said about Frank Gaffney. The loudest defenders of anything are rarely the ones most worth listening to.

Posted by: Chris McC at June 30, 2007 3:45 PM

Chris McC, regarding your comment "If there were no chance of us backing down, there would be no chance of the insurgents winning, their cause would be hopeless, and they would be much less likely to pursue it": there is very little historical precedent for a conventional army completely defeating an insurgent movement as long as the insurgent movement has the support of its respective population. In Iraq, the situation is more complicated because all the different sects are fighting each other in addition to the al Qaeda insurgents and the US military. But each movement has the support of the population it represents. So any amount of resolve we show will not necessarily translate into our "success" (whatever "success" means at this point). The fact that the Iraqi government is so fragile doesn't help, either, because it is a vulnerable target for all those groups that want power themselves.

That said, I'm torn about whether we should stay or leave. If we stay and use sound counterinsurgency tactics, we might have some success but will be there for a very long time. If we leave, the different sects will continue to duke it out in a power struggle, and most likely the Shi'a will win after a long, bloody conflict. Whether we stay or leave, the most important thing we can do is try every measure to improve relations with the entire Muslim world, not least those populations that support insurgents. It's a long, difficult path, but it must be done. Military resolve is important when it comes to rooting out radical insurgents. But military resolve alone is not the answer.

Posted by: Laura at July 1, 2007 4:35 AM

"... as long as the insurgent movement has the support of its respective population." That is precisely what the fight is about. Of course, no people likes being occupied. But if they feel that terrorist tactics are going to be as effective as waves beating against a rock, if they are convinced that the insurgency cannot win, and if they realize that the occupiers will make everyday life easier than it would be if the insurgents were running things, they are going to be much less supportive of the insurgents. This forces the insurgents into a strategy of trying to undermine what the occupiers are doing to help the local people: roads, shcools, hospitals, police, ... but such tactics make it harder and harder for the local people to see the insurgents as "on their side". And if the end result is that the Iraqi insurgents end up being as much of a problem as the Irish Republican Army is for her Majesty's government, I would call that victory.

Of course, it's possible to botch this. This kind of war can be lost through foolish strategery. I wasn't saying that being resolved to stick it out would guarantee victory all by itself, no matter how stupidly the war is waged. And, of course, war is unpredictable, so I can't really say "no chance" at all. That was an overstatement. But our lack of resolve does enbolden the enemy.

Reading your last paragraph, I'm not sure we actually disagree. Probably my fault for overstating things. My point was simply to respond to Evan's charge that Bush "played politics with people's support for the troops." Loudly calling for withdrawal regardless of outcome puts our troops in greater danger. Bush has every right to point that out. Call that politics if you like. It is politics. But war is politics, carried on not only by other means, but by some of the same means too. This is especially true of assymetric war. If anti-war politicking endangers our troops, as it does, then opposing politicking with politicking can lessen the danger to them. And that's something a President should do.

Posted by: Chris McC at July 1, 2007 3:28 PM

Evan,

I thought you "might" be interested in the argument of a book chapter I linked on my blog. It discusses "Civil Liberty and Civil Rights in the Vocabulary of the American Founding." It touches a bit on some of the thing you've been talking about.

http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/upload_images/32/Palm%20Chapter%20Claremont%20Happiness.pdf

Posted by: Jim at July 3, 2007 9:52 AM