This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 27, 2008.
The Parable of Iraq
It is a common device in fiction - the seeming threat that is anything but. From the Great Wizard in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to the Beast in the Lord of the Flies, the threat frightens the characters, spurs them to action.
Sometimes the falsity of the threat is revealed before any real damage is done - the Wizard is exposed as just a ventriloquist and for Dorothy, a way home is revealed. Often, though, the tragedy of the story is that the falsity is never realized, or realized too late. Ask Simon, the looming figure from the jungle mistaken for the Beast, killed in a frightened frenzy.
These stories resonate with us because such frightening non-threats are everywhere in real life. And, far too often, we realize too late how wrong we were.
We interned over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans during World War II because we were frightened that they would turn on their country. When the House Un-American Activities Committee and Sen. Joseph McCarthy saw Communist threats around every corner, we black-balled scores of talented artists and besmirched the records of civil servants and military officers.
And, most recently, we entered into an unfortunate war with Iraq because we were frightened into believing that Saddam Hussein was, or soon would be, looming over us with chemical weapons, perhaps even biological or nuclear weapons.
Five years ago, the undeclared war in Iraq started, and though we conquered Hussein, we still fight on there, against new threats. Only after it was too late did we learn that Hussein was no more a threat than that Wizard - a blustery, loud voice that emanated from a small, powerless man.
Sadly, the people we trusted to be right about the facts were either wrong about them or lying about them. The truth is, there were no chemical weapons, no biologicals, and certainly no nukes. Revealed just this month, we now know for sure that Hussein had no connection, whatever, with the 9/11 terrorists. The pretext for war was all wrong.
Like many of us, I feel partially to blame. I was willing to be convinced, willing to suspend my skepticism. I trusted Colin Powell when he showed me the evidence. I trusted the President when he said the links were there. But as time passed and as my suppressed skepticism began to reemerge, as new evidence belied old evidence, it became clear that our actions against Hussein were a fool's errand.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Hussein. He was a savage, brutal man, and I shed not a single fraction of a tear that he is gone. But was his ouster, capture, and death worth all of the physical destruction Iraq has endured? Was it worth a single Iraqi life? A single American life? Was it worth 4000 American lives?
What's done is done. Debate about what should have happened will go on for a long time - many books have been and will be written on the subject. Clearly, Colin Powell was right about one thing when he told Bush that if he sent troops into Iraq, he'd end up owning it. Indeed, we own this mess, dearly paid for in American treasure and American blood.
In this election season, a lot of speeches will be made about what to do in Iraq. Public opinion is mixed. Many want an immediate pull out, not realizing how irresponsible and foolhardy this would be. Many of us want to stay in Iraq and have no problem with an open-ended commitment. This is just as foolish.
What the next president must do is come up with the plans for withdrawal that were sorely lacking when we got into this mess. We must bolster the Iraqi political and military institutions, and redouble our efforts to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I firmly believe that by the middle of the next president's term, with the right leadership, we could be out of Iraq completely, save a few military advisers.
We should have looked at our own past, should have read a few more parables or morality tales - we could have prevented this tragedy. We didn't. As an electorate, though, it is not too late to take some lessons away from the parable of Iraq. The foremost lesson is that until we have a president with a will to leave, we won't leave.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Keeping government accountable
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 13, 2008.
Keeping government accountable
Of the fifty states in the union, Vermont and New Hampshire are unique in the terms that each gives its governor. Every other state allows the governor to sit for four years. We and our neighbor allow only two years. Is this a good thing? Or should it change?
This is the question the Snelling Center for Government has been asking Vermonters for the past couple of years. The reason the Center is asking now has everything to do with the calendar -- which I'll explain shortly.
The poll the Center cites on its website was taken in 2006, and reveals tepid support for the idea of a four-year term for governor. Only 53 percent of those polled agreed it was a good idea; 39 percent were against it.
The effort, as they say, has some legs. Governor Jim Douglas has endorsed the idea, and in January, some of Vermont's most popular former governors came to the statehouse to discuss the issue. Madeleine Kunin spoke out in favor of the idea, while Howard Dean spoke out against it. The fact that both Kunin and Dean are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats illustrates that this issue is not a partisan one. It goes to the very heart of what one believes is more important: effective government or responsive government.
Personally, I prefer the shorter term for our executive branch. I understand and acknowledge the arguments for the four-year term. Chief among them is the one I find most convincing -- it would allow the governor to concentrate on governing and not on politicking.
Money, and the need to raise it, does have a corrupting influence on politics. Its influence at the state level, where laws that most affect our lives are made and enforced, is particularly worrisome. Any attempt to lessen its influence needs to be taken seriously.
Even given this, though, I think it is far more important that we have elected leaders who have to frequently return to the people to justify the retention of their office. Elections are the only way for the people to directly influence the governorship. Vermont has no recall provision; impeachment must be conducted by the legislature.
The question of term length is timely for a reason that most Vermonters probably do not know. The current two-year term is set in the Vermont constitution, and the only way to change it is through amendment. Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is simple in comparison to the cumbersome method devised for the Vermont constitution.
Specifically, amendments can only be proposed in every other biennial legislature, beginning with the one that convened in 1975. That means that this session of the legislature must propose an amendment, or it will have to wait until 2011. To move along, the amendment must pass by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and then by a majority of the House.
The amendment then must lay over to the next session of the legislature, and it must pass the House and Senate again, though only by a majority of each. Finally, the amendment must be presented to the people for a vote, and must then be approved by a statewide majority.
According to the Snelling Center, named of course for the late, venerable Governor Richard Snelling, the process went all the way through to the statewide vote once in the early 1970's, but failed there. Though the Center's polling in 2006 indicated support for the idea, it seems the people may now, as then, be having second thoughts.
According to a WCAX poll conducted in February, only 33% of those polled thought the four-year term was a good idea; 48% thought it was not. The amendment, PR0004, is currently in the Senate Government Operations committee for hearings. My hope is that after reasoned debate, it dies there.
We Vermonters like being a little quirky, but those quirks are seldom random. We have our reasons for doing what we do. In this case, I think Vermonters have taken a look at the effectiveness versus responsiveness debate, and decided not to chance it. I think our best bet will be to have leaders, whether new or incumbent, who can be both responsive and effective. When you scrutinize the candidates for the upcoming gubernatorial election, keep that in mind.
Keeping government accountable
Of the fifty states in the union, Vermont and New Hampshire are unique in the terms that each gives its governor. Every other state allows the governor to sit for four years. We and our neighbor allow only two years. Is this a good thing? Or should it change?
This is the question the Snelling Center for Government has been asking Vermonters for the past couple of years. The reason the Center is asking now has everything to do with the calendar -- which I'll explain shortly.
The poll the Center cites on its website was taken in 2006, and reveals tepid support for the idea of a four-year term for governor. Only 53 percent of those polled agreed it was a good idea; 39 percent were against it.
The effort, as they say, has some legs. Governor Jim Douglas has endorsed the idea, and in January, some of Vermont's most popular former governors came to the statehouse to discuss the issue. Madeleine Kunin spoke out in favor of the idea, while Howard Dean spoke out against it. The fact that both Kunin and Dean are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats illustrates that this issue is not a partisan one. It goes to the very heart of what one believes is more important: effective government or responsive government.
Personally, I prefer the shorter term for our executive branch. I understand and acknowledge the arguments for the four-year term. Chief among them is the one I find most convincing -- it would allow the governor to concentrate on governing and not on politicking.
Money, and the need to raise it, does have a corrupting influence on politics. Its influence at the state level, where laws that most affect our lives are made and enforced, is particularly worrisome. Any attempt to lessen its influence needs to be taken seriously.
Even given this, though, I think it is far more important that we have elected leaders who have to frequently return to the people to justify the retention of their office. Elections are the only way for the people to directly influence the governorship. Vermont has no recall provision; impeachment must be conducted by the legislature.
The question of term length is timely for a reason that most Vermonters probably do not know. The current two-year term is set in the Vermont constitution, and the only way to change it is through amendment. Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is simple in comparison to the cumbersome method devised for the Vermont constitution.
Specifically, amendments can only be proposed in every other biennial legislature, beginning with the one that convened in 1975. That means that this session of the legislature must propose an amendment, or it will have to wait until 2011. To move along, the amendment must pass by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and then by a majority of the House.
The amendment then must lay over to the next session of the legislature, and it must pass the House and Senate again, though only by a majority of each. Finally, the amendment must be presented to the people for a vote, and must then be approved by a statewide majority.
According to the Snelling Center, named of course for the late, venerable Governor Richard Snelling, the process went all the way through to the statewide vote once in the early 1970's, but failed there. Though the Center's polling in 2006 indicated support for the idea, it seems the people may now, as then, be having second thoughts.
According to a WCAX poll conducted in February, only 33% of those polled thought the four-year term was a good idea; 48% thought it was not. The amendment, PR0004, is currently in the Senate Government Operations committee for hearings. My hope is that after reasoned debate, it dies there.
We Vermonters like being a little quirky, but those quirks are seldom random. We have our reasons for doing what we do. In this case, I think Vermonters have taken a look at the effectiveness versus responsiveness debate, and decided not to chance it. I think our best bet will be to have leaders, whether new or incumbent, who can be both responsive and effective. When you scrutinize the candidates for the upcoming gubernatorial election, keep that in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)