October 05, 2005
The real lesson from Miers (and Katrina)
My DSL has been down, and I’ve just gone through a hellish week, but I just thought I’d say one quick thing over lunch about Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
It’s one thing for conservatives to complain about Harriet Miers not being conservative enough. They’ve been waiting a long time for this opportunity, and so it’s hardly surprising that reality fail to live up to their expectations. But when conservatives are screaming about Bush’s cronyism, well, that’s pretty amazing (see Stephen Bainbridge here and here, Randy Barnett here and here, Right Wing News, Jim Lindgren, Greg Djerejian, Powerline, and Michelle Malkin).
Of course, it’s not hard to see why. Katrina exposed former FEMA head Mike Brown as an obvious crony (I say obvious because, despite all the accusations of cronyism, I have yet to hear an explanation of why Bush thought Brown’s background actually qualified him for the job). Indeed, cronyism within FEMA seemed to extend much further than Brown. Which raises valid questions about the qualifications of Bush’s other appointees (like cockroaches or baseball players on steroids, if you see just one crony, you probably actually have a whole bunch).
One obvious conclusion from all this is one that I’ve already explained at great length, which is that Bush doesn’t really care about the actual real-world consequences of his policy decisions, but instead cares only about the political implications. This is magnified in a second term, where he won’t have to clean up any messes he makes. That explains why he proposed a supply-side tax cut during a boom and enacted it without any changes during a cap-ex recession (i.e. a recession caused by too much supply). That explains the steel tariffs and his flip-flop on them. That explains why Brown ever had a job at FEMA. That explains why John Snow is head of Treasury. It explains why Paul O’Neill and Larry Lindsey were fired. It explains why Rumsfeld still has his job.
And it explains Harriet Miers.
But the more important question to ask is not about Bush’s appointees, but how someone with Bush’s qualifications could have gotten his job in the first place. And I think the emphasis of this question should not be on “Bush” but on “how.” He won two elections, and that should tell you right there that something is very broken about the way we select our leaders. Does anybody actually think that Bush (or Kerry or Gore) was the most qualified candidate to run the country? Of course not. The reason we had to choose between them is because we have is a system that filters out qualified candidates for bad reasons, one of which is that they have to first satisfy their own party. Not only does that subject the process to cronyism (note that the party elite have a much bigger say in the primary process than the rank and file), but this all but guarantees that they will not be a satisfactory candidate for the whole country. Never mind the fact that electability and charisma and campaigning skills are poor indicators of how well a candidate will actually govern.
And you can’t really fault people who voted for Bush (well, not completely, anyway). Conservatives were stuck between supporting an incompetent candidate that agrees with them or a less incompetent candidate that disagrees with them. Liberals, if the tables were turned, do you honestly think you’d vote for the Republican candidate? Honestly.
So it should be plainly obvious that the system’s broken. If economic markets don’t work well with only two competitors (i.e. an oligopoly), why would a political market fare any better? The only reason Republicans are in power is because Democrats have set the bar so low — and there are institutional obstacles preventing another party from kicking the Democrats out of the way and set the bar higher. In short, it’s time to seriously consider moving to a multi-party system.
And before somebody complains about governing coalitions being unstable, remember that multi-party doesn’t mean parliamentarism. The legislature doesn’t have to appoint the executive in a multi-party system. A lot of multi-party systems are parliamentary, but correlation is not causation, and the choice of parliamentarism probably has more to do with the fact that there aren’t very many examples of countries with a successful presidential system (and for those interested on the other side of it, I have a term paper discussing the reasons behind a country’s choice of two-party vs. multi-party — and they are surprisingly arbitrary).
More on this distinction later. For now, just imagine a scenario where qualified candidates are not dissuaded from running due to a stupid quirk in our out-of-date electoral system. A system that no new democracy ever copies. And a system that could very easily select someone as bad as Bush (or Carter or Nixon) in the future unless we fix it.
October 05, 2005 01:29 PM in Politics | Permalinkgeesh, pretty slim coverage of katrina, considering the post-title: “The real lesson from Miers and Katrina”
PS how bout getting some consistent voting regulations across the whole country? and having specific federal rules about recounts etc? and non-partisan electoral overseers?
Posted by hugh at 10/05/05, 03:38 PM (link)Yeah, this is what happens when I rush. I’ll go back and fix this to expand upon the cronyism uncovered by Katrina (which I think everybody knows about already anyway).
PS how bout getting some consistent voting regulations across the whole country? and having specific federal rules about recounts etc? and non-partisan electoral overseers?
Yeah, but I would lump these sorta things into problems that don’t get solved because neither party wants them solved.
Posted by fling93 at 10/05/05, 04:46 PM (link)Okay, made some changes (including the title). Will re-edit more later.
Posted by fling93 at 10/05/05, 06:39 PM (link)Wow. You hit my exact sentiments in a nutshell. (thanks for not blaming me for voting for him too). Our whole voting system is so substandard and impotent. I want to vote for the most qualified, not a Republican, Democrat or Independent but the whole concept of voting for President now is strictly toxic.
Posted by Tinti Friday at 10/06/05, 05:34 PM (link)(thanks for not blaming me for voting for him too)
Oh, of course not. I’m not a liberal, and some of the most intelligent and articulate bloggers that I know of supported Bush, like Greg Djerejian, Joseph Britt, Jane Galt, and Eugene Volokh.
Our whole voting system is so substandard and impotent.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks so. It’s pretty hard raising awareness. Every time I bring it up in online discussions, it’s a complete non-starter.
Posted by fling93 at 10/06/05, 06:01 PM (link)we have is a system that filters out qualified candidates for bad reasons, one of which is that they have to first satisfy their own party.
That reminds me of an article I read that said one of the smaller parties wanted to allow people outside the party vote to choose their candidate, and were forbidden to do that. So it seems a party can’t even try to come up with a candidate that’s good for everyone.
Sorry, I’m not too good on American (or any) politics, so I can’t remember the details.
Hmm, I recall California experimented with open primaries, but I guess that’s not what you’re talking about. But yeah, the big two aren’t particularly accomodating to third parties, which is what happens in an oligopoly.
Posted by fling93 at 10/18/05, 05:31 PM (link)Nothing is free my friend.
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management/positioning:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans -
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.
But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
I believe the coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god“‘s most favored people will pay dearly one day.
Posted by grandpa stole bets at 11/25/05, 01:53 PM (link)