Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 06:42 AM

  The Heisenberg Principle in reverse

  I.e. the closer that politicians come to having real power--and, also, the closer that journalists and pundits gain access to such power--the more likely it is that their positions on the issues, both as declared and as acted upon--and, with journalists and pundits, their coverage of people in power as they declare and act upon these positions--will become compromised. This is an almost ironclad rule of politics, power and journalism, with very few exceptions in my opinion. For every Feingold or Kennedy, there are dozens of Feinsteins, Schumers and Wydens. And for every Hersh or Priest, there are dozens of Millers, Gordons and Halperins. The exceptions only prove the general rule, that with power--acquiring, protecting, extending and using it--come compromises. The only real questions are how, to what degree, and for what reasons, as some compromises are necessary, unavoidable and inevitable, and some are not.

  That Obama would likely never appoint a Ramsey Clarke as Attorney General or Russ Feingold as CIA director is almost a given. He is a politically cautious centrist who is still relatively new to national politics, and despite winning the presidency in convincing fashion, has not established a strong enough power base to be able to do as he wishes, nor is it his style to push envelopes. Anyone who might have done this would likely never have had a chance to win the presidency (and even if they had, there's no way to know if they'd follow through on their convictions). So while I don't like it, I can see why he wouldn't, and likely couldn't, do such things.

  But when it comes to torture, I honestly can't see why Feinstein and Wyden have decided to suddenly backtrack on their previously firm stands on it, unless they never really believed in them, and only claimed to do so for political reasons, and are now backtracking on them for equally political reasons. I.e. they don't really stand for anything, and are willing to compromise on literally anything (and have, in the past, e.g. FISA, PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, etc.), if it's seen as politically necessary or profitable. I.e. they're professional politicians. I.e. they're whores, people of weak to no conviction. Not all are, but most certainly are, to one extent or another.

  The same goes, of course, for the journalists who cover them and the pundits who opine on them. A few have integrity and do their jobs properly, no matter what the professional and social consequences. Most, though, are compromised, to one extent or another, as Glenn and others have shown for years now, and as any thoughtful, observant and honest consumer of news can see for themselves on a daily basis. They lie, they distort, they withold, they conflate, they skew, they spin, they carry water, etc., and whatever the reasons that they do this, which are many (e.g. stupidity, ignorance, cowardice, opportunism, bias, personal stakes, etc.), that they do this is indisputible. To claim otherwise is to either lie, or show oneself to be a fool.

  What I'd like to know in this instance, though, is why Feinstein and Wyden have suddenly decided to compromise on their previous apparently firm stands on torture, especially given that the supposedly anti-torture (for the most part) Dems have now increased their majorities in congress, and a supposedly liberal Dem will soon be president. It seems counterintuitive. Are they unmasking themselves, now that they feel more comfortable being in power? Or were they pressured to do this, and if so, by whom? What is the political benefit here? What messages is Obama sending Dems through backchannels regarding torture and related issues? And am I the only person harboring anxieties about who the real Obama is, and worries that he'll prove to be vastly more establishmentarian than he's let on, not just in terms of process, but ideologically as well? Will he follow through with his explicit and implicit promises to radically reform our national security policy (e.g. torture, Iraq, warrantless wiretaps, detentions, Gitmo)? Or will he either prove to be too weak, cowardly and compliant in reversing these policies--as have most Dems--or to never have been that personally opposed to them in the first place, and it was all just an act, to get elected? So many unknowns to cause legitimate concern.

  We already know what today's Dems stand for, believe in and are made of--not much, that is. The real question is what Obama stands for, believes in and is made of. I literally have no idea. Nor does anyone, I think--including Obama himself, I suspect. But we're about to find out, at least in an outward, practical sense, given that one can never really know what truly lurks in someone's heart and mind. His political smarts and skills aside, is Obama a principled politician of strong convictions and character who will at least attempt to follow through on his campaign promises in good faith? Or will he prove to either be too weak, cowardly and unprincipled to do so--or worse, prove to not have had such principles and convictions in the first place?

  I.e. will he prove to be yet another dishonest, weak and/or unprincipled Dem, like these?

  —kovie Read kovie's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel