Tom Friedman Is Shrill

Steve Clemons reports that Tom Friedman calls for the censure and resignation of George W. Bush:

The Washington Note: New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman was one of the headliners at a star-studded annual "Opinions Award" dinner sponsored by The Week in partnership with the Aspen Institute on Tuesday night.... George Stephanopoulos... asked: "Are we just treading water for the next 22 months until the Bush administration leaves office?"

Tom Friedman responded:

We need a new constitutional amendment called "Can I Go Now?" Something less than impeachment but more than resignation. President Bush just needs a "Can I Go Now?" clause in the constitution.

Friedman got a lot of applause.

Steve Clemons goes on:

On the war and what to do in the Middle East, Friedman admitted he was out of ideas. He didn't know what to do.... Friedman... expressed real frustration with where we are at and sees a problem in a world that is perceiving an America that has increasingly diminished capacity to achieve its objectives in the foreign policy arena.... Friedman also stated that we "used to worry about a world with America having too much power. Now we have to consider what to do with a world with too little American power."...

The cynicism that ran through the room about the sorry state of American affairs in the world was palpable and shared by most there -- across the majority of the political spectrum.

I am not sure that Clemons means "cynicism." I think he means "pessimism." Perhaps "sardonic despair."

Comments

[Matt]

Friedman who has proposed just about every possible action for American power, now has the right idea, no idea. We Americans want to have fewer ideas for world security.

[John Emerson]

April Fool!

[Roger Bigod]

Mr. Friedman's reason for going to war was:

"This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something ..."

He got his wish. So what's he complaining about?

[sm]

What he did say was pretty wishy-washy compared to "smash something," considering that not just Iraq but the US Constitution has been smashed.

Why not say, "he should resign or if he won't, be impeached?" A heck of a lot gentler than the treatment Iraq got.

Smashing doesn't look so good close to home.

[howard]

i've been asking myself lately if there is a democrat who is both prominent and not a candidate for president in 2008 who can call for bush and cheney to resign in disgrace and leave a caretaker administration in place, but not only can't i think of one, i can't imagine how to get a caretaker administration in place.

which is to say that like so many of friedman's ideas over the past 6 years, this is another non-starter. wonder when he plans on looking in the mirror?

[NJ Lawyer]

Sandy Levinson has proposed amending the Constitution to permit impeachment on the basis of maladministration:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/levinson

"...Unfortunately, this was a deliberate decision by the Framers, who rejected an altogether sensible proposal to make "maladministration" an impeachable offense for fear that this would give Congress too much power."

...

"Far better than a politically pointless--and almost certainly counterproductive--campaign to impeach George W. Bush would be the initiation of a serious discussion of the extent to which we are disserved, in 2007, by a political system devised for an entirely different era. However divided we might be, most Americans might be persuaded that we would all be better off if future Presidents could face the possibility of a Congressional vote of "no confidence" that would trigger eviction from the White House. Perhaps that discussion, too, would be doomed, given both the preposterous reverence that Americans have for the Constitution and the near-impossibility of constitutional amendment because of the hurdles placed by Article V in the way of amendment. But at least such a discussion would focus on the most important feature of the Bush Administration--its gross incompetence--in a language that could readily be understood by any attentive citizen rather than quickly degenerate into an arcane (and acrimonious) discussion among constitutional lawyers."

[bigTom]

NJ Lawyer: (incidentally I was born in that state). I hear you. I think we are burdened by being the first modern democracy, the founders couldn't understand some of the less obvious ways things would play out. The parlimentary system looks much better to me, (and nearly all democracies have choosen some form of it). But our way is clearly a sacred cow. I just don't see us making any headway.

In any case the next administration is going to have several serious problems that can no longer be put off for another day.

(1) Our accumulated Foreign Debt.

(2) Overhaul of our broken health care system.

(3) The army has been severely damaged, and we will have to pull back on foreign adventures, and begin to rebuild.

(4) Our soft-power has been severely eroded -we are no longer liked.

(5) We will have to respond to global warming.

So we will have a very full plate of difficult, expensive and painful problems, which of course will come just when the demographic transition
(too many old people) will start hitting hard.

[Swedish Chef]

I question the need for a maladministration clause to get rid of Dumbya. One need not look far to find enough evidence of criminal malfeasance sufficient to reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Lying to congress in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, illegal domestic wiretaps, systemic violation of Geneva 1948, possible obstruction of justice by firing US attorneys: these are all criminal, impeachable, offenses. Not to mention crimes against humanity for invading Iraq without just cause.

If the political and business elites who run the US actually wanted Dumbya gone, he'd be back to Crawford in a heartbeat.

[FreakyBeaky]

Tom Freidman: you can go now.

[John Bignucolo]

I'm governed via a parliamentary system (Australia) and I have to say that I look longingly at the American system.

I don't believe that a parliamentary system, especially one derived from the Westminster model, as is the case for the Australian Parliament, is any more responsive, or provides better scrutiny of the executive than does the American system. Quite the converse is true.

The maladministration endured by the U.S. from 2002 to 2006 chiefly occurred because the executive and the (parliamentary) majority were from the same party. Well, that describes the standard operating model for the Westminster system.

Nominally, the Parliament is meant to be supreme, but in reality, it is the executive that rules. Rigid party discipline ensures that Parliament is unable to fulfill is real purpose in holding the executive to account.

The absence of clearly delineated powers and rules (because of the English aversion to writing anything down) leaves too much to the discretion of the majority party of the day. The parliamentary abuses perpetrated by the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives during its reign fairly standard procedure for Westminster parliaments, especially if the majority party doesn't feel like playing nice.

[Ginger Yellow]

"I question the need for a maladministration clause to get rid of Dumbya. One need not look far to find enough evidence of criminal malfeasance sufficient to reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. "

Indeed. If Congress wanted to impeach Bush, it could. He has, after all, effectively been found guilty by a federal court of committing a felony. It's still under appeal, but in theory he would be subject to up to five years imprisonment for violation of FISA.

[reason]

John Bignucolo,
I think you are wrong. The nature of the Senate in Australia provides the safeguard (it is always delicately balanced).

And I don't like systems that divide power and responsibility, you obviously weren't paying attention during the Clinton years. In Australia, when people vote they know they are voting for the Executive and the Legislature and vote accordingly. And compulsory voting helps to avoid extremism of the sort that plagues the US. Be careful what you wish for.

Australian's are pretty sensible and play the politicians off against one another. Why do think the other party always seems to control the State Governments as the one in power in Canberra.

Yes, better consitutional safeguards are a good thing, and Australian's have at times voted for them. (Australia unlike the UK does have a written constitution).

[David]

No one has mention incompetence. Had this administration been competent and not acted like a bunch of freshmen America would still have its influence and prestige. This administration eroded America's exceptionalism through stubbornness, hubris and stupidity.

It is time for Bush to go. Without him not going things can not improve in Iraq. He alone is the obstacle to some kind of resolution.

[John Bignucolo]

Reason,

Australia does indeed have a powerful Senate (modelled I believe on the US Senate). In the past, the Australian Senate has acted as a brake on the executive, tempering its excesses and bastardry. But it's an electoral fluke, not the result of a deliberate constitutional decision to restrain the power of the executive. The committee system and its government oversight duties were the result on reforms to its processes introduced in the 1970's by the reformist Whitlam government. The current Howard is trying very hard to neuter/undo them.

Since October 2004 the conservative coalition has controlled both houses of Parliament. They've used their powers to stifle scrutiny and accountability. So yes, in theory the Senate can counterbalance the executive, but at the moment it can't and doesn't.

Australia does have a written constitution, but its an extremely thin document, being more concerned with issues of interstate trade and national defence than enumerating the rights of its citizens.

Australia has no Bill of Rights. What rights we as citizens have are grounded in the Common Law, and unfortunately, this makes them subject to a capricious parliament, fickle, ill-informed public opinion, and whatever way the political winds blow. Australians really do depend on our politicians to do the right thing. [Insert joke here.]

In comparison with the UK, we have extremely weak institutions. The public service has mutated into its American counterpart but without its acknowledged separation into political appointees and permanent staff. The ethos of providing "frank and fearless advice" is dead. The head of the Department of the Treasury and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have stated that it's their job to provide what their ministers want to hear, not what they need to hear.

Freedom of Information laws exist on paper, but a recent High Court decision expressly supported the Executive's interpretation that according to the controlling legislation, it doesn't need to give you the time of day if it doesn't want too. (To gauge High Court's current ideological disposition, think of a court largely made up of Antonin Scalias.)

As to having different parties in power in the states versus the Federal government there is little evidence that voters choose one party at the Federal level and the converse at the state level. It's much more a function of the local dynamics at the state level. It has happened, but equally, for long periods, conservatives have been in power federally and most if not all the states.

There are obviously serious shortcomings with both systems, but as an exemplar of representative democracy, the American model gets more things correct than does the Australian model.

[trevelyan]

I can't shake the suspicion that anything Tom Friedman is advocating has to be deeply flawed and intellectually sophmoric. Perhaps now that Bush has become such a political liability it is better to keep him hobbling around Washington gathering scorn, derision, and (one can hope) legal indictments.

[reason]

Uh-uh..
the American system is a disaster. Seperation of power and responsibility is bad news. You may not like the Australian government of the day, but the US government is light years worse, and harder to chuck out. And forget about constitutional reform in the US, the constitution is holy!

"The head of the Department of the Treasury and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have stated that it's their job to provide what their ministers want to hear, not what they need to hear."

If that is what they have said (link?), that should be VERY bad news for the current government. (And it also means that the PS is against the government in spite of your claim of political manipulation - think about it). It's just a shame the opposition is so weak.

Australia has historically mostly had a center right Federal government and center left state governments. Not a bad choice really, the people who run government services (education, public transport etc) should believe in them. The people who give out goodies should be cautious with other peoples money. Look at the results, not the colour of the advertising slogans.

[eweininger]

"...Friedman admitted he was out of ideas."

Something to be thankful for, I suppose.

[John Bignucolo]

The comments from Ken Henry, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, were in the following speech:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=008&ContentID=1230

There's a good analysis here:

http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2007/02/tuesday-column-ken-henrys-public.html

The other reference is to the following speech by Peter Shergold, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, entitled "Pride in Public Service" (and who says mandarins don't have a sense of humour):

http://www.pmc.gov.au/speeches/shergold/pride_in_public_service_2006-02-15.cfm

And the argument that a Public Service which tailors its advice to the (often base) political demands of its Minister, instead of the interests of good public policy and the national interest, somehow means the Public Service is working against the government is nonsensical.

Take a look at the title of this blog. "A Fair and Balanced Economist Member of the Reality Based Community". Please note the "Reality Based" element. Or perhaps it's late and I missed the smiley and your (deliberately?) ironic handle.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html

4 G.I.’s Among Dead in Iraq; McCain Cites Progress

[Though I may have all too few ideas about all too much, I know precisely what to do about Iraq. We must leave Iraq immediately, as we have needed to leave Iraq these 4 tragic years, and, no matter Hillary Clinton, leave no American soldiers occupying Iraq.]

[David]

22 months? that's almost 4 Friedmans!

[Suvi]

"the... reverence that Americans have for the Constitution..."

Not to mention the reverence they appear to have for their Supreme Court Justices, who serve until they retire (at a time of their own choosing), drop dead or are impeached.

I would feel deeply uneasy at the open-endedness of such sensitive appointments. But I'm a European and obviously don't "get it", so could someone please explain the benefits (to the American people) of this arrangement?

[Lee A. Arnold]

"palpable and shared by most there" -- if so, then they are unfit to lead!

I'm not pessimistic, except about the movers and shakers who showed up at this dinner. The Iraq war is a disaster but not a long-lasting one, from the viewpoint of US influence in the world.

First order of business: IMPEACH THE ADMINISTRATION. The US can provide an advanced demonstration of how democracy corrects its errors and incompetences, and remains the preferable form of government. The US can RETURN to the forefront of global influence, simply by impeaching these terrible and crooked people.

They were using the Justice Dept to bring phony charges of voter fraud in order to disenfranchise opposition voters! Cheney ordered the name of a spy to be revealed in a retribution! What more do you want?

Next order of business: GROW UP AND TAKE YOUR LUMPS. The Saudi King's recent remarks set the stage for a regional conference. They might look back in a hundred years and call Dubya of Arabia the initial thorn that started to unite the Sunni and Shia. (This was predicted by your less-than-humble reporter in these threads some years ago.) In essence, the Saudis are providing a WAY OUT for the US, without sounding like allies. The recent votes in Congress underscore the urgency to all players. (Republican PR consultants warn that this will be pinned as a political mistake on the Dems (thanks for the crocodile tears -- we love you too!) but no one really doubts that the troops will get what they require. While a line has been drawn neatly at the next election.)

Third order of business: START WEANING THE U.S. FROM OIL. Start now, in the thousand little ways it needs to be done. And readdress the equity issue brought up in Kyoto. It isn't just our foreign policy, it's the biosphere at jeopardy! How are you going to get the rest of the world to respect you, if you can't respect science?

Was everyone at this dinner a worthless brainless clown?

[Roger Bigod]

Some random observations:

The Philadelphia convention almost didn't work because the participants were after factional advantage. One of my embarrassing relatives spent his time whining for advantages for slaveowners and big states, then wouldn't sign because he hadn't been appeased enough. A big consideration was that if they didn't improve on the Articles of Confederation, Britain would get it together to ...ahem rectify the disorcerly North American situation and eat their lunch. We don't have that incentive, and the power of pressure groups and lobbies is vastly greater than in 1787. So a major redesign isn't a good idea.

When the post-Revolution French discussed copying the new US Constitution, the author of the final draft was serving as ambassador to France. His comment was that the US Constution had a chance of working because it was operated by the US citizenry, but the chances of it working in France were nil. The point is that the success of the Constitution has been largely due to the people who have implemented it over the years. Even a better design wouldn't help if it is carried out by incompetents. The fault may be not in our Constitution but in ourselves.

The cult of the Constitution, with the fervent belief that the Holy Spirit walked among the Founders, has positive features. It's one of the few things that unites the country. Someone commented after Watergate that in most countries there would have been worries of Presidential suspension of the Constitution, or a military coup, or both. But that was never a consideration. And we have plenty to worry about as it is.

One merit of the Constitution is that it's brief and clear, something we owe to Gouverneur. You can read it at one sitting, and it's possible for an ordinary literate person to read it and see the playing rules. And it's honest, in that those really are the playing rules. The chances that we could come close to that are remote. Not because there aren't people with a deeper knowledge of political institutions than the Founders. But for obvious reasons, they wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the drafting.

Some tinkering at the margins with the most problematic parts sounds like a good idea. But it's difficult to know where to start. The general take-home lesson from Abstract Systems Theory is that when something is deeply dysfunctional it tends to stumble along until something breaks.

[johne]

Suvi, US federal judges have lifetime appointments for much the same reasons that professors have tenure: to allow them to hold unpopular views without having to worry their livelihoods. The intent is to allow judges to decide cases on their merits, untroubled by political pressure, or the fate that (to pick just one example) General Pervez Musharraf has dealt out on occasion to his country’s Supreme Court justices.

To be sure, the arrangement has not lacked its American critics, a notable recent example being ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who, after the court decision that allowed Terri Shiavo’s death, famously said, "We will look at an arrogant, out of control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at the Congress and president….”

[JonF]

Re: i can't imagine how to get a caretaker administration in place.

Having Nancy Pelosi take over in the event of an immediate double resignation would be a non-starter for obvious reasons. So we'd need for the Agnew-Nixon scenario to replay: first Chenney goes and Bush appoints a respected GOP moderate (surely there are some left somewhere?) as VP, then Bush resigns.

Re: we would all be better off if future Presidents could face the possibility of a Congressional vote of "no confidence" that would trigger eviction from the White House.

Which would simply result in the VP taking over, and in many cases (notably now) that would be more of the same, or even wosre. No, we'd need a way for a no-confidence vote to trigger an early election so we could really clean house.