This is astonishing enough that I just had to share it--a story about just how miserably, catastrophically political Republicans made the process of "rebuilding" Iraq. (I use quotes there because much of the work of "rebuilding" was actually just forcing privatization on most of the country's industries and resources, and quashing organized labor.)

Courtesy of the Washington Post, some insight into the selection process for American officials sent to govern in Iraq:

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What they needed to be was a member of the Republican Party.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

[...] To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.

[...] He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.

[...] "I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. These are the people running our country, folks. This is what happens when Republicans are in power. Bank on it. There's much more to the story above--it's an excerpt from a new book--and it's well worth reading.

Labels: Politics

The latest estimate of how much it will cost to run for president in 2008: $500 million.

Half a billion dollars.

My first thought, perhaps predictably, is about how this is another nail in the coffin of what's probably always been a pipe dream, that anyone can grow up to become president. How our increasingly un-democratic country falls far short of its potential is an ongoing concern for me. I guess this isn't too surprising in light of how monstrously campaign spending has grown in the Bush II era, but if there was any last vestige of egalitarianism in U.S. politics, this is crushing it.

Upon further reflection, a more serious thought follows: that the most important issue here isn't how this unbelievable cost shuts most people out of the running for higher office, but how dangerously high the resulting level of indebtedness will be. Very few people on earth could come up with anywhere near this amount of money on their own, and so an incredible amount of indebtedness to others will result from anyone trying to obtain it. The more money that's required, the bigger the players it will have to come from. That means more corporate interests having more direct control over the democratic process, which means more time and effort spent repaying their calculated generosity and less spent on the wellness of the people.

This isn't a new thing in politics, but it seems to me like an alarming new level is being reached. With the stakes this high, how can the voice of anything that's not massively profitable have a chance to reach the ears of those in power?

My thought on how to solve this is pretty simple: remove all private money from the election process, and from the governing process. The first part means that elections would only be publicly funded. Far more is spent on elections than is necessary. Private money creates inequality before the process even starts, which is inherently unfair. Public funding would create the possibility of ideas winning out over cash.

That also means shutting down private donations to campaigns. This doesn't bother me because I don't believe that money equals speech, as many already-rich people would argue. Free speech is just that--speech, expression of beliefs through speaking or writing or otherwise communicating as a person. Everyone has an equal amount of that, fundamentally. Saying that money is speech suddenly makes super-citizens out of everyone who has more of it. So you're a multi-millionaire who wants someone specific elected to office? Then go hand out flyers and participate in rallies like everyone else, Richie Rich.

It also means banning all private money from the governing process. Gut the current lobbying system, no gifts of any kind to politicians, and at least a 5-year moratorium after politicians leave office before they can work for private interests they benefited while in office. Corruption seems to be an inherent part of the human experience, and rules won't eliminate it; but why not have rules that will get us closer than we are now? For Pete's sake, I have stricter rules for conduct in my job than do the leaders of our country. What congresspeople do every day, compromising themselves for financial gain and political favor, would get me fired immediately.

I used to be sympathetic to term limits, but have lately been feeling that isn't the best idea. There is something to be said for experience in politics. I've come to feel that the influence of money is the central problem in our government.

Now if only I had half a billion dollars to prove it.

Labels: Politics

The Republican party has announced its official strategy for the fall elections:

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

...Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

Here we see this party again revealing its true colors. If they believed in themselves, their message, or their track record, wouldn't that be enough to run on? It would, but they don't, and neither do a majority of the American people: polls left and right find majorities unhappy with the way Republicans have been running the country and opposed to Republican positions on major issues.

If you disagree with that, ask yourself: why else would they choose to play dirty?

It's because they only care about one thing: winning. Power. Anyone who considers themselves Republican or who's thinking of voting Republican should ask this serious question: would you resort to behavior like this in your own life? Would you want your children to behave like this, to believe that this is the right way to conduct themselves in life?

If the answer to those questions is no, then how can you support a group who makes it their official policy? How relative are your morals?

Labels: Politics

An update to an earlier post I wrote back in the spring, about a damn-fool plan by the Bush administration to sell off national forest land to help fund rural schools:

I'm happy to say that it looks like the plan is officially dead, and there's little likelihood of it coming back. With opposition from everyone from the usual environmental groups to the NRA, this and other similar plans have run into broad opposition which reveals just how many people can agree on one thing, at least: we love our public lands.

Aside from the issues of a gross abuse of power and failure to responsibly steward our public land, this topic made me think more about how obsessed this country seems to be with private ownership and hoarding of property and wealth.

If you're interested in the topic of land ownership, the rights of landowners vs. the public good and ecological health, I highly recommend an article in the March/April 2005 issue of Orion magazine, "The Culture of Owning", by Eric Freyfogle. A quote:

Encouraged by federal payment programs, farmers increasingly expect money whenever conservation measures reduce their crop yields. When development would harm a particular landscape, the growing practice is to avert it by buying up "development rights" or purchasing a conservation easement. And rather than banning landowners from destroying critical wildlife habitat (a ban that's quite legal under the federal Endangered Species Act), the Fish and Wildlife Service is now prone to pay them to leave the habitat alone...

A message is embedded in these payment schemes, and it's coming through loud and clear: To own land is to have the right to degrade it ecologically.

Realizing how sensitive and interconnected our natural lands are, and how long it can take for them to heal once damaged, should give anyone pause when considering how private lands are used, and any time public lands are opened to private interests.

After all, can land which has been here for billions of years and will presumably be here for millions more ever really be "owned" by some mammal with a sub-100-year lifespan? And if not, what justifies our abuse and destruction of it?

Labels: Environment, Politics