Bush's Washington is a Potemkin village' By Dennis Jett, Miami Herald In Washington, symbolism frequently trumps substance. What politicians want people to believe often has had little to do with reality, but today's political theater would embarrass even Grigori Potemkin. He was the Russian statesman who built impressive, but fake, villages along the routes that Catherine the Great traveled. Today, however, the Potemkin politics of Washington is designed to fool not the ruler but the peasants. Take, for example, three recent events from one week in December: the presentation of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the test of the antimissile defense system and the White House's economic summit. # Presidential Medal of Freedom: The medal is "our nation's highest civil award given to men and women of exceptional merit, integrity and achievement." It was presented to former CIA Director George Tenet, retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks and former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority L. Paul Bremer. The White House said that they were given the award for playing pivotal roles in great events, making our country more secure and advancing the cause of human liberty. But wasn't Tenet the guy who presided over the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor? He told President Bush that the evidence about Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" case. Apparently giving the boss the justification for the war that the boss wanted is more important than being right. Franks conquered an Iraqi army that would not stand and fight. He also acquiesced to Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's insistence that the invasion be done on the cheap, and the chaos that is Iraq today is a direct result. Franks promptly retired before it all fell apart and the torture at Abu Ghraib came to light. Since the Presidential Medal is given to civilians, one might ask why it was given to someone who retired from a career in the military only last year. Apparently the service for which Franks was rewarded was his campaigning for Bush's reelection. Bremer presided over the CPA, which accomplished little except the further enrichment of Halliburton and other favored contractors. He did disband the Iraqi army and police, leaving a vacuum that the insurgents have been happy to fill. As a result, he handed over power and an ungovernable country to the interim regime. But the point of the ceremony was not to dwell on the reality in Iraq that these three helped to create. It was to give them an opportunity to grip and grin with Bush and to create an upbeat image to transmit to the world. # Testing the antimissile defense system: Equally detached from reality was the test of the antimissile defense system. An interceptor rocket refused to leave its silo, but a Pentagon spokesman described this as only a glitch. The reality is that the technology does not work, and the threat does not exist. The system has nonetheless been a success because it provided the opportunity to squander $130 billion and allowed those who favor unlimited defense spending the opportunity to rant that anyone who does not is unpatriotic. The threat does not exist because, while there are plenty of loony leaders in the world, none is crazy enough to launch a missile at the United States and be on the receiving end of American missiles about half an hour later. Self-preservation is always at the top of the "to do" lists of dictators. And only 20 interceptor missiles will be deployed. Would not a rogue nation, if it really wanted to threaten us, have three missiles to fire with, say, seven warheads each? (You can do the math. Washington can't.) # The White House's economic summit: Speaking with a backdrop that said "Securing Our Economic Future," Bush described why he is so intent on reforming Social Security. Long-term planning in Washington is Tuesday, or at the very best, the next election. So when politicians say that they want to fix a problem that is going to happen 40 or 50 years from now, taxpayers should hold on to their wallets. The urgency in going ahead with looting and pillaging Social Security is because it will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in commissions for the financial-services industry. Billions of those dollars will be recycled back to the politicians who made it possible. An honest backdrop would therefore have read, ``Securing our political future, at the cost of your economic future." So while in all three cases reality is inconvenient, the image projected is one of serenity and success. Potemkin couldn't have constructed a better façade. Dennis Jett, a former U.S. ambassador, is dean of the University of Florida's International Center. dennisjett@hotmail.com Reprinted from The Miami Herald: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10510573.htm
Great article. I would like to hear a substantive response from the intelligent, thinking conservatives.
First, let's assume that these are indeed facades and an illusion. The resulting question now becomes whether or not Washington should provide the facade or provide the truth. The answer is not always clear as sometimes a facade can stmiluate the ecomony and can stimulate social value. So these need to be measured first before you can answer. Anti Missile: Assumption: Facade designed to stimulate Social Value (Safety and no war) via Deterrence. Question 1: Does not providing the facade result in greater social value or economic value? Social Value: Possibly, as the goverment could invest in education, housing, ect. rather than investing in the facade, but my opinion is that deterrence provides more social value than any internal investment. First of all safety is a primary human need. It's right up there with food,water, housing and air. Preventing War around the world via the facade saves lives and money that far outweigh the return on an internal investment in the population. So ultimately, the facade saves ecomonically ( no war and restructur after the war) and socially (safety and lives). So the facade is extremely valuable. It has a postive impact on social vlaue and economic value. -------------------- Economic Summit: Assumtion: Facade designed to stimulate the Economic Value (Take money away from Social Security to pay for economic development in future) via projection of a future. Question 1: Does not providing the facade result in greater social value or economic value? Yes. Not providing the facade means that we are allowing people to keep their social security and thus providing social value. Social security was needed by evidence that it exists. It you elminiate social security, you destroy the viability of the population, and therefor any investment into the future becomes irrevelant because nobody is left to reap the benefits. So, the facade ultimately impacts social value so intensely that the economic result is never reaped. The facade is illogical and has a negative impact socially and economically. -------------------------------- Medal of Freedom: Assumption: The facade of international success leads to social value of good feeling about goverment decisions. Question #1: Does not awarding a medal result in greater gains in social value or economic value? No. It doesn't. So why not award a medal and try to stimulate some social value and possibly stimulate some ecominc value. The truth only results in the possbility of a negative result. The Truth is useless here unless you can somehow justify that not awarding that medal results in huge economic or social change. Which seems implausible. --------------------- conclusion: anti-missile facade: Good Medal of Freedom Facade: Good Ecnomic Future Facade: Bad
It can be. On the simplest level take the Cayman Islands. They were destroyed by the hurricane in September. In order to spark tourism and the economy they now campaign that the Island is the same paraidse it once was. But it's not. It's a total facade by the government. The economic value of misrepresenting the island is high so they do it. All of India and Asia will do the same in about five months. Guaranteed. Misrepresenting the Cayman island does not hurt anyone other than the tourists. It provides more positives than negatives. The possibility of backfire is there, but its negligible, it would take a newspaper or news expose to tell the truth. But who listens to that anyway. Not enough people to counter the marketing strategy. So Cayman and Thailand, and India will all misrepresent and be better for it. Ethically, you could question it, but if the policy strongly increases both the social good and the economic good of a country, without hurting the people of that country, you'd have to consider it a good policy.
Can we at least hedge our bets in the anti-ballistic defense program? I was a supporter of the current program but the air-borne lasers are showing so much promise that it seems silly to continue them both.. airborne laser defense When private industry starts investing their own money into something, you know it at least has good odds Ground based defense project
