Maureen Dowd, "Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!": Was There Ever a Democracy that Did Not Commit Suicide?

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

- John Adams, second president of the United States (1797–1801), letter, April 15, 1814

Maureen Dowd is not keen on the Clintons, and long before the final days of the inept, scandal-ridden, Obama administration play out, Dowd is already preparing to wage war against Hillary.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-money-money-money-money-money.html), Dowd begins:

"Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around.

The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money."

"America’s roil family"? Oddly enough, this play on words is not far afield from Frank Bruni's quip in his Times op-ed of today's date, "The Past’s Future Republican" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/frank-bruni-pasts-future-republican-was.html), in which he declares:

"Clinton versus Bush would be political royalty versus political royalty."

So, this is what results after a 240-year glorious experiment in democracy: Americans seek the return of "royalty," or at least something akin to a televised War of the Roses. Dowd, however, is far more "forthcoming" than Bruni when taking the measure of the House of Clinton:

"If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.

. . . .

We are supposed to believe that every dollar given to a Clinton is a dollar that improves the world. But is it? Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday.

. . . .

The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl."

Yup, I suppose I would call that less than friendly on the part of Dowd.

But thirst for power aside, is this latter day Lady Macbeth competent? Can Hillary claim even a single achievement during her time as secretary of state? On the other hand, after eight years of Obama, perhaps it no longer matters to the American electorate.

If she gets the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and succeeds Obama, America will have gotten - richly and royally - what it deserves en route to the nightmare ending foreseen by John Adams.

Frank Bruni, "The Past’s Future Republican": Was There Ever a Democracy that Did Not Commit Suicide?

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

- John Adams, second president of the United States (1797–1801), letter, April 15, 1814

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Past’s Future Republican" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-pasts-future-republican.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Frank Bruni also speculates about the 2016 presidential race. Bruni writes:

"[Jeb Bush is] better positioned for 2016 than he was for 2012, when the bitter disappointments of his older brother’s presidency were more keenly remembered and frequently invoked. Besides, if Hillary Clinton indeed rolls to the Democratic nomination, Republicans needn’t be so concerned about a nominee of their own with a dynastic aura. Clinton versus Bush would be political royalty versus political royalty."

So this is what results from the grand experiment in government after 240 glorious years: political royalty versus political royalty.

Meanwhile, I understand that we are expected to write off the remaining years of the inept, scandal-ridden, Obama administration.

Query: Against whom will Chelsea run for president in another 20 years?

With a little luck, I won't be around to see it.

[On the topic of Hillary in 2016, see also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-money-money-money-money.html]

Charles A. Kupchan, "Democracy in Egypt Can Wait": What Is "Responsible" Government in the Muslim Middle East?

Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, today, in a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Democracy in Egypt Can Wait" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/opinion/democracy-in-egypt-can-wait.html?_r=0), calls for change in American policy toward the Muslim Middle East. Much of Kupchan's opinion piece makes perfect sense:

"Incremental change produces more durable results; liberal democracies must be constructed from the ground up. Constitutional constraints, judicial reform, political parties, economic privatization — these building blocks of democratic societies need time to take root.

. . . .

Moreover, transitions to democracy in the Middle East will be more perilous than those elsewhere because of factors unique to the region: the power of political Islam and the entrenched nature of sectarian and tribal loyalties."

Kupchan's conclusion:

"Washington should downsize its ambition and work with transitional governments to establish the foundations of responsible, even if not democratic, rule.

. . . .

The United States should do what it can to shepherd the arrival of liberal democracy in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East. But the best way to do that is to go slow and help the region’s states build functioning and responsible governments. Democracy can wait."

Query: What is "responsible" government in the Muslim Middle East? More specifically, to whom should government be "responsible" in Egypt?

Kupchan seems to provide an answer:

"Rather than cajoling Cairo to hold elections and threatening to suspend aid if it does not, Washington should press the current leadership to adhere to clear standards of responsible governance, including ending the violence and political repression, restoring the basic functions of the state, facilitating economic recovery, countering militant extremists and keeping the peace with Israel."

This is all good and well, but specifically what steps should be taken regarding Egypt's military, which controls more than 30 percent of Egypt's economy?

What measures need to be taken to protect Egypt's Christian Coptic minority, comprising some 10 percent of the population, whose churches are being torched by the Muslim Brotherhood (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/15/world/meast/egypt-church-attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)?

What sort of responsibility is owed to Egypt's women, more than 90 percent of whom have had their clitorises removed?

Or does responsibility begin with finding jobs for Egypt's unemployed, given that its tourism industry has been devastated, and with seeking to eradicate illiteracy (some 28 percent of Egyptians cannot read)?

End the violence in Egypt peacefully? Good luck. It will be a bit like cajoling the genie back into his lamp.

But most important, before seeking "to shepherd the arrival of liberal democracy in Egypt," perhaps the US would do well to first determine the nature of "responsible" government in the Muslim Middle East.

Jackson Diehl, "Obama’s Dangerous Passivity on Egypt and Syria on Display": Imagine If Diehl Hadn't Minced His Words

Do you remember how Obama said that his administration's legislative and foreign policy accomplishments were better than those of any other president, barring perhaps Johnson, FDR and Lincoln (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/new-york-times-editorial-military.html)? Well, Obama might want to take note of what Jackson Diehl had to say about the president's foreign policy in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s dangerous passivity on Egypt and Syria on display" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-obamas-dangerous-passivity-on-egypt-on-display/2013/08/15/69d085fc-0522-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Instead, this president’s extraordinary passivity in the face of crisis may have achieved its apotheosis this week. On Wednesday, as Egyptian security forces gunned down hundreds of civilians in the streets of Cairo, an unperturbed Obama shot another round of golf at Martha’s Vineyard.

. . . .

The crisis in Egypt has been distracting attention from the civil war in Syria, where Obama’s stubborn refusal to act has facilitated the emergence of the largest and potentially most dangerous incarnation of al-Qaeda since pre-2001 Afghanistan.

. . . .

Obama looks like a president in full flight from a world that looks nothing like what he imagined when he took office.

. . . .

In the last year, U.S. allies in the Middle East and Europe have marveled as Obama doggedly pursued a patently futile attempt to engage Russian strongman Vladi­mir Putin in another round of nuclear arms reduction talks even while tolerating toxic Russian intervention in Syria and rejecting his own national security team’s proposal for U.S. action. They have scratched their heads as Secretary of State John F. Kerry, with Obama’s blessing, has made the renewal of moribund Israeli-Palestinian talks his central focus while keeping a safe distance from Egypt.

. . . .

Obama may have meant to retire the doctrine of the United States as the world’s 'indispensible nation.' Instead, the disastrous results of his persistent passivity may lead to its revival."

Now, can you only imagine how this opinion piece would have read if Diehl hadn't minced his words?

Paul Krugman, "Moment of Truthiness": Americans Confuse "Deficit" with "Debt"

Can you imagine a non-economist confusing "deficit" with "debt"? Actually, I think such confusion is easily understood. Paul Krugman, however, is not so forgiving.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Moment of Truthiness" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/opinion/krugman-moment-of-truthiness.html?_r=0), Nobelist Krugman whines that the American public has been misled. Krugman writes:

"In a well-known paper with the discouraging title, 'It Feels Like We’re Thinking,' the political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels reported on a 1996 survey that asked voters whether the budget deficit had increased or decreased under President Clinton. In fact, the deficit was down sharply, but a plurality of voters — and a majority of Republicans — believed that it had gone up.

I wondered on my blog what a similar survey would show today, with the deficit falling even faster than it did in the 1990s. Ask and ye shall receive: Hal Varian, the chief economist of Google, offered to run a Google Consumer Survey — a service the company normally sells to market researchers — on the question. So we asked whether the deficit has gone up or down since January 2010. And the results were even worse than in 1996: A majority of those who replied said the deficit has gone up, with more than 40 percent saying that it has gone up a lot. Only 12 percent answered correctly that it has gone down a lot."

Who, according to Krugman, is responsible for this misunderstanding? Those nefarious Republicans, of course.

Okay, the annual federal government budget deficit is the difference between government receipts and spending.

On the other hand, US public debt is the outstanding amount owed by the federal government.

The federal government deficit is currently down; however, US public debt is up. How much higher is US public debt? As of January 20, 2009, when Obama became president, US gross debt was $10.6 trillion. As of March 31, 2013, US gross debt was some $16 trillion and rising.

The American public is obviously confusing "deficit" with "debt."

But Krugman denies that he is calling Americans foolish:

"Am I saying that voters are stupid? Not at all. People have lives, jobs, children to raise. They’re not going to sit down with Congressional Budget Office reports."

So what did the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office say in May 2013 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44172) about America's rising debt (my emphasis in red)?:

"Such high and rising debt later in the coming decade would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates return to higher (more typical) levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, over time the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they would have if debt levels were lower to use tax and spending policy to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, a large debt increases the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates."

Hey, is it possible that a concerned American public, which is confusing "deficit" with "debt," is not so foolish after all?

New York Times Editorial, "Military Madness in Cairo": Dishonest

In an editorial entitled "Military Madness in Cairo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/opinion/military-madness-in-cairo.html), The New York Times concludes:

"Washington’s influence on Egyptian public opinion generally is limited. That has less to do with the low-key tone Mr. Obama has taken than with the preceding decades of uncritical United States support for past dictators like Mr. Mubarak and the military forces supporting them, to the neglect of most of Egypt’s 84 million people. It is past time for Mr. Obama to start correcting that imbalance. Suspending assistance to Egypt’s anti-democratic military would be a good place to start."

Of course, we must never blame President Obama, but let's have a look at the numbers. As we were informed by the Pew Research Center in May, 2013 (http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/16/egyptians-increasingly-glum/):

"Despite President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve America’s image in the Arab world, beginning with his famous June 2009 Cairo speech, his ratings have slipped steadily in Egypt since he took office, and ratings for the U.S. are lower now than they were during the Bush administration. Moreover, few Egyptians place much value on a close relationship with the U.S.

. . . .

Just 16% have a favorable view of the U.S., lower than the 27% registered in 2009 shortly after President Obama took office, and lower than the 22% who expressed a positive opinion of the U.S. in 2008, President George W. Bush’s final year in the White House."

Yes, anxious not to find fault with "fearless leader," The New York Times again has its head in the sand.

Congratulations, Mr. President, on another foreign policy success, which indeed will one day help place you in the pantheon of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln. Enjoy your time at Martha’s Vineyard!

Gail Collins, "Things to Skip in August": Gail Collins's Column?

It's August, and Gail Collins would have us believe, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Things to Skip in August" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/opinion/collins-things-to-skip-in-august.html?_r=0), that in the heat of summer, we should relax and allow things to "just work themselves out." Collins writes:

"August. A dead shark was found on a New York City subway. Meanwhile, at the Iowa State Fair, vegan activists broke into a refrigerated case in the Dairy Building and threw red paint on the butter cow. In San Diego, the mayor claimed the city should pay the costs of defending him in a sexual harassment lawsuit because he had never been given sensitivity training.

I am bringing all these things up to point out that you can be selective about what you have to worry about during August. It’s summertime. The living should be easy. Sometimes, if you relax, things just work themselves out."

Well, Obama and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, are certainly relaxing and allowing things to work themselves out in Egypt.

But then there are those other "things" regarding which Obama is not sitting by idly and allowing themselves to "work themselves out." As George Will writes today in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-unconstitutional-steps-worse-than-nixons/2013/08/14/e0bd6cb2-044a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html?hpid=z2):

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: 'I didn’t simply choose to' ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, 'this was in consultation with businesses.'

. . . .

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: 'Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?' The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority."

Yup, I suppose that notwithstanding the dog days of summer, there might still be certain "things" requiring attention from American journalists, notwithstanding the fact that many are fast asleep at the wheel.