Carpe Datum

Warning Flags

One reason I guess my frequency of political posts has dropped recently is because with the war going on, I guess my heart isn't into criticism of our leaders, as mad as I get about things. It's not that I feel constrained in any way, just more apathetic about it. Anyway, Paul Krugman has a good column today about people who wrap themselves in the flag and question the patriotism of those who disagree with the administration:

Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" ó knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.

Anyway, what defines patriotism? Talk is cheap; so is putting a flag in your lapel. Citizens prove their patriotism when they make sacrifices for the sake of their country. Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test. Most of his critics haven't.

I'm not just talking about military service ó though it's striking how few of our biggest hawks have served. Nor am I talking only about financial sacrifice ó though profiting from public office seems to be the norm, not the exception, among those who wrap themselves in the flag. (Mr. Racicot himself accepted the job as R.N.C. chairman only on the condition that he remain on the payroll of Bracewell and Patterson, a law firm that specializes in lobbying.)

The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.

Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.

Lots of critics have gotten all over Kerry for referring to the current administration as some sort of "regime", as if it weren't democratically elected and so forth. Actually, about that whole democratically elected thing ... nah, we're supposed to move past the fact that Bush lost the election, sorry. Anyway, just about every one of these loud-mouthed conservatives used "regime" many many times when referring to the Clinton administration, even during times of war, so they actually look pretty dumb. Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he won a presidential election.

Oh well, on the homefront, Bush continues to fuck over average Americans for the benefit of the super rich. Remember the big scandals involving pension funds (Enron, Halliburton, etc.)? What happened basically is that the companies were going bankrupt and so in order to pay off the golden parachutes for all the executives, they converted the pension plans to cash only instead of stock, then paid out the cash to executives. Then they tell all the rank-and-file employees, sorry, we're out of money.

Of course, everyone was shocked, shocked!, and the Bush administration said they sure planned to do something about all that real soon now. Well, with a war going on, they are burying the news way back in the business section of our Liberal Media, because I guess it just doesn't matter. Turns out the new rules proposed by Congress to protect rank-and-file workers from executives raiding the pension funds? Scrapped by Bush.

WASHINGTON, April 7 ó The Bush administration said Monday that it would scrap ó for now ó a proposed rule that sought to ensure that highly paid workers aren't unduly favored when companies switch to a new type of retirement plan.

Now, what Bushco is *saying* is that they just don't want to throw any unintentional consequences into the mix for companies trying to convert from one kind of pension plan to another, that they want to make the laws simple without putting all these restrictions in place. They say they're going to push *really hard* for a rule that lets workers opt to remain in their traditional pension plans if they desire, etc., without loss of guaranteed benefits.

Yeah, right, say the rich Republican donors ... err, I mean company executives. You want your guaranteed benefits? You can sue me (especially after my pals in Congress and the Supreme Court institute caps on punitive damages in lawsuits to punish those evil evil trial lawyers). Oh, I'll be sipping a tequila on Grand Cayman Island, so you may not be able to get hold of me or my assets, which were held in offshore banks all along anyway so I could avoid paying taxes. But if you do want to come looking for me, I'll be the fat white guy dressed in the hawaiian shirt with an American flag in my lapel.

Posted by Observer at April 8, 2003 03:23 PM