Maybe Demagoguery Is Not the Only Item on the Menu
Ok, Katulis, you got me. The experience of the last eight years shows that a leader can inflict enormous damage on American institutions, American civil society, and indeed the global polis without meeting the formal definition of demagogue -- which, I would argue, Bush (and Cheney) do not. They gained and retained power not so much by building and exploiting a popular movement outside our system but by cleverly gaming our system from inside at every turn, then engaging segments of the public just enough (and, opportunistically exploiting fear when 9/11 gave them the chance to make use of it) and actively trying to shut down the public the rest of the time.
This suggests that the political science construct Mike is working with is either:
not updated to the ways that the societal-technical changes I wrote about in my previous post make demaoguery both more and less of a threat to us; or
only one of a number of paths by which democracy can be undermined from within.
To Brian's questions about accountability, I think there's an answer that comes straight from the pages of Mike's book. Can we hold our leaders and institutions accountable in ways that actually strengthen the institutions going forward, without degenerating into a media circus of accusation and counter-accusation that actually winds up weakening them?
I had the privilege of listening to Ted Sorensen walk through the pros and cons of accountability last night. (He's on the advisory board of the National Security Network, which I run; neither he nor we has taken a position on the various proposals circulating.) The challenges he laid down were formidable ones: can an accountability process be made bipartisan or non-political; can it avoid draining energy from the President's forward-looking initiatives; and can it lead to actual institutional change? In Michael's words, can it become a seminar in advancing constitutionalism, or is it inevitably a circus that actually leaves the parameters of constitutionalism more in doubt?
If we have reasonable suspicion that crimes were committed, and I think everyone agrees that we at least have reasonable suspicion regarding Bush and Cheney, then you investigate and maybe prosecute. You don't worry about it seeming partisan or about the media.
February 27, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If people are serious about imposing the rule of law on our government, what we will probably need are some constitutional amendments. Existing constitutional provisions, along with the tradition of checks and balances among "coequal branches", don't seem nearly adequate.
February 27, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demagoguery is as old as the South. Southern politics has a long history of demagoguery and private politics. That is, politicians used their elected or appointed positions for enriching their personal wealth and power. They then use demagoguery to justify their behaviors or more to distract most of the predisposed public.
Until lately, I have wondered if the entire country wasn’t becoming “southernized”. Bush used an element of demagoguery to create fear and enable his business partners to profit tremendously from war.
C Vann Woodward pointed out an interesting insight in his writings about the impact of southern history upon current events. Back in the ‘70’s he said that after the defeats of Vietnam and of Watergate, the entire country would become more like the South. He explained that the feelings of being a defeated people underlies many southern attitudes, and now the entire country feels defeated. He said that we would seek a sense of power and would become more conservative because many perceive conservatism as representing a more powerful identity. Sure enough, we elected Reagan. After that, the southernization continued to evolve until recently.
So----how long will Obama’s message of hope prevail over the failure in our foreign adventures and economic collapse that includes no real increase in incomes since the 1970’s?
Bob Spencer
February 27, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that the word is Greek in origin, it's a great deal older than the South, or European migration to the Americas, for that matter.
February 27, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"can an accountability process be made bipartisan or non-political; can it avoid draining energy from the President's forward-looking initiatives; and can it lead to actual institutional change?"
We have a test case at hand. Will Recovery.gov usher in a new era/model of transparency with the expected benefits, or will it be like the old special prosecutor office, an opportunity to launch demagogic attacks against political opponents?
February 27, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink