A common theme in the string of Democratic Party failures over the last years is what I call "Blaming The Process". Or at least that is the narrative Democratic Party officials use when justifying themselves to the activist base. Something outside of their control, something about the legal, political or media process is actually responsible for the outcomes.
The failure to block the Roberts and Alito nominations, the failure to do anything concrete to end the occupation of Iraq, and now the imminent approval of warrantless domestic surveillance, are somehow not the responsibility of the Democratic elected officials.
The fault is to be found in things like the intricate details of the Filibuster and the Nuclear Option, the military budgeting process, the process whereby the media will utterly destroy any politician they deem to be "soft on terror".
However much Democratic politicians express their heartfelt desire to do the things their activist base and now the majority of Americans want them to do, the desired outcomes fail to materialize.
In light of this, is it wrong to wonder whether blaming the process is just an excuse and that the politicians are not being entirely honest in their stated intentions?
I know it's not polite to question people's motivations. But I think it's only natural to question a person when what they do does not match what they say. Over and over again.
As workers in the "highly efficient" corporate economy, we citizens are judged based on results, not on the persuasiveness of our excuses. Well, maybe with an exception for CEO's...
The Republican Party's approach to The Process
Paul O'Neill, Bush Jr's first Secretary of the Treasury, was horrified by what he discovered was the Bushies' utter contempt for process:
[O'Neill] is upset at the regular violations he sees against his notion of "sound" government. There is, he concludes, "a pattern: either no process, or a truncated one, where efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."
As a good technocrat O'Neill believed in process: assemble the experts, follow procedures, learn from best practices, make decisions based on the best data, gather a consensus.. all in order to get the best results.
This reflects a similar devotion to process by Liberal
technocrats. Ideally, for them, the process itself will determine the best outcomes. Insistence on preconcieved notions of what the outcome should be will only ruin the outcome.
But for Republicans and the Bushies in particular, achieving their desired outcomes is all that matters. Fuck the process. The process is there to be manipulated, exploited, modified... whatever it takes to get the final result at the other end.
The Bushies have demonstrated this almost on a daily basis. They have successfully manipulated: the intelligence gathering process, the process whereby the media is supposed to inform the public, the election process, the legal process, the budget process, the very laws of the Constitution.
On pretty much every policy issue, the Bushies have gotten what they wanted. They have delivered for their base, for their donors and for their core constituents. And they never let the process stand in their way.
The past seven years are proof that the technocratic reliance on the process alone to determine the best outcomes does not work. This is because with things like running the US Government, the stakes are so high that there will always be groups of people who have no respect for the process and will do whatever it takes to bend it to their purposes.
The Democratic Party's approach to The Process
It's so frustrating to see some Democrats not even take a stand on what their values are and what, exactly, they want for the country.
Is this because of a deeply felt technocratic belief in process ("I'm for whatever a select panel of experts and stakeholders determines!") or is it really an excuse to escape accountability by avoiding setting any concrete goals (no goals, no failure!)?
It's also frustrating to watch activists and bloggers follow all the intricate details of the process like kittens chasing a ball of string (the Scooter Libby Trial, anyone?). As if the process fucking mattered with the Bushies still on the playing field and the Dems sitting the game out.
There has to be a way to govern with purpose, to achieve policy outcomes that benefit all citizens and to be able to do it without lying, cheating and breaking the law. Otherwise our system of government is pretty much done for.
- shystee's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
It is impolite to notice the shipwreck that is democracy
Chauncy has intimated as much...
++++
To be fair...
... let's include as part of the process description:
The Democratic Process -- live in fear of being hung out to dry as "not supporting our troops," "a communist," "Vince Foster's murderer," or worse, "someone who raised taxes."
The Republican Process -- live in comfort that whatever you do (as long as it's not an underaged boy), the media will treat you as a bold, moral, serious, decisive patriot.
That quibble aside, you make some great points here. The Democrats don't "play to win," while the Repubs win by cheating. It's not clear whether the Dems' problems can be solved by playing harder and smarter, or if the system has turned to shit (thanks in no small part to the way the Republicans -- and the MSM that loves them -- have gamed the game).
Update: On rereading, I see you did touch on this, but I think it deserves special recognition as a key reason why the Dems are afraid of their own and everyone else's shadows. Is it rationalization, or is it a legitimate reason for them to live in fear? Either way, Dem leadership ought to take a cold, hard look at the realities you describe and find a way to get out of this box.
shystee's nice, polite way of reminding everyone
of the very harsh truth. we don't have political representation, we do have punative taxation. among other things.
very nice essay, love. quality that shames the bobbleheads.
Process is the excuse politicians use
to pretend they are doing something they do NOT want to do.
The 'peace' process in Palestine, for example: as long as there is a 'process' in play, it is okay that there is no "peace." The USers, the Israelis, even the Arabs: all welcome the 'process' cuz it means they can go ahead exactly as they have been in the past.
I am QUITE sure that there is already in place, or in waiting, a 'process' by which the pols will be able to say they're 'working on' the global climate crisis (the GCC) WITHOUT actually having to do anything about it.
Process is the temporizers' and the meliorators' best friend.
Process is the excuse politicians use
to avoid doing anything substantive about a problem they haven't the courage or the will to actually solve.
think about the 'peace process' in Palestine, for example.
Is there civilization without process?
The Constitution is very much about process, about putting a shared commitment to a well-considered system of protocols above the whims of individuals.
Alas, a lazy and dishonest press and authoritarians who rule by fear and demonization of what we used to call the public good have trampled what was once a fairly effective process, and long a model for the world.
But we don't call it the "constitutional process."
We have a Constitution, not a "Constitutional Process."
A Constitution actually does things, among which is to stipulate as to the legitimate 'processes' with which it is amenable.
A "Constitutional" (or a 'peace') process does nothing at all except to be a place holder, a cypher, and a surrogate for the acts that whatsoever it was processing.
that's my read, anyway...
It's true that terms like "peace process"...
... indicate something short of a definitive agreement or any real commitment to change.
When dealing with the the irrationality and hate that nationalism and religion can foster (see Middle East), it's rare indeed that there's a simple, clear, and mutually supported resolution, so we try to sneak up on solutions with things like "peace processes."
I can't say that the Bush approach, to thumb his nose at diplomacy, is any sort of an upgrade though....
Pelosi's pathetic process letter
Posted on Nancy's site today (closed for comments, oddly, or not):
She writes a good letter, doesn't she?
But gosh, if doing the right thing is so important, why the Fuck
pass the bill at midnight and blow town? Why not stay in DC, doing the people's business, for an extra day or two? Or as long as it takes?
This whole sunsetting and amendment "process" stuff really pins my bogometer. 'Cause you just know Bush is going to leak some uncheckable story of a horrible plot that got prevented because the Dems handed him more power. What on earth makes the Dems think fighting later is always easier than fighting now? Are they keeping their powder dry again?
They were rolled. They know it. Bush knows it. The Republicans know it. Everybody knows it. Now, what are they going to do about it?
What are we going to do about it?
NOTE Wonderful post on dry powder at Big Orange.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
This analogy is inspired,...
...a work of art, Shystee. The kitten with the ball of yarn. The distraction that allows the sleight of hand.
The indignance when you try to point it out to people.
There are some very big blogs that fitz that description well.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
I wonder
Anyone else wonder if maybe the illegal wiretapping has turned up some kind of misconduct on the part of all those voting with the Bush administration, maybe Joe and some hooker or whatever, that has given Karl a strangle hold allowing him to black mail our congress. Seems that would account for the seeming willingness of Congress to burn our Constitution, would explain the strange vote on the wiretap law itself. I just wonder,
Dunc
I wonder
Sorry didn't get the anonymous coward bit,
RobD
It's the people, not the process.
Just as "guns don't kill people, *people* kill people," (although I am for stronger gun control), it's not the process, it's the people. Specifically, the Democrats, who keep using process and procedural matters as an excuse for their simple lack of political courage. If they wanted use their muscle - their majority - to get things done, they could, but they won't spend the political capital. They are wimps.
Something to consider
What if the Democrats consider their job to be protecting the American people from liberalism, rather than representing it?
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us
close to the mark
...to be generous, let's call the Democrats who use their public positions to privately oppose democracy for what they are: Democrats In Name Only.
The DINOcrat Party rules Congress, alas, whenever the Rethuglicans lose their grip.
It's not only liberalism, but information, progressive technology, and socioeconomic progress they seek to protect their vision of 'Merika from.
Like HHHillary likes to say, "Corporations are citizens, too!".
As we all know, some animals are more equal than others.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky