In January 2009, the nightmare will be over. Bush, Cheney, and Rove will turn in their keys and exit the White House. And in the great American tradition of peaceful presidential transitions, a new administration will take over. Of course, our country will still have massive challenges, and the new team could include many members of the old, but the specific combination of extremists we have now will be gone. And that will allow us to sleep a little bit more easily.
This is what 99% of Americans believe. This is what I would like to believe. However, all it takes is a realistic view of the players involved, a grasp of history, and a bit of imagination to realize that this outcome is far from assured.
(More below the fold)
Consider what we know about the two key players: Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Both are evil geniuses. Both have spent a lifetime lusting for the power they have today. Both will cut any corner, break any law, and undermine any part of the Constitution to keep this power. Both count as their exemplars not past U.S. Presidents but imperial rulers like Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Why in the world would they voluntarily give up this power just because of a silly clause in the Constitution? Let me say this again: why in the world would Rove and Cheney give up power just because of a silly clause in the Constitution? To do so would be to betray their lifework and everything we know about them.
And consider George Bush. He sees himself as divinely chosen for the Presidency. Would anyone who believes this voluntarily walk away before God has said it's time to? And do you really think that the divine follows an election calendar? Bush doesn't think so.
Here's what I'm suggesting: It is not only plausible but logical to suggest that this Administration will make an effort to stay beyond its allotted eight years.
If they were to pull off such a feat, how exactly would they do it? There are two broad scenarios:
1. Cancel the election. There was talk of this in 2004. In fact, the White House legal team wrote several memos that we might view as the testing ground or trial balloon for 2008. The assumption was that a terrorist strike on or before election day might justify postponing the election. Many political experts said this was ludicrous, because there is no reason a terrorist act in Los Angeles should keep people in the rest of the country from voting, but this did not deter the Bush-Cheney legal team. Nor should we expect it to deter them in 2008.
2. Hold the election, but refuse to leave. If a Republican won the presidential election, and if Karl Rove was the power behind the campaign, they could work out a back room deal in which Bush leaves but Cheney and Rumsfeld stay as VP and Secretary of Defense, respectively. If the Democrats won the presidency, the Bush-Cheney team would do exactly what they did when the 2000 election was still up in the air: declare power and start naming Cabinet officers. In this case, Bush would already have control of the military and Secret Service, and Republicans likely would control Congress and the Supreme Court. Who is going to stop them?
By the way, this last scenario is also plausible if Democrats win back control of the House and Senate in 2006 and then impeach-and-convict Bush and Cheney. Being convicted by the Senate and physically departing the White House are separate acts. If the Commander in Chief and Vice President don't want to leave the White House, who is going to force them to do so? One might answer: a Democratic Congress. But how exactly would it force them to leave?
Journalists and political commentators aren't asking these questions because they seem unrealistic, if not delusional. Unfortunately, as Bill Moyers reminded us, the delusional is not longer marginal. Indeed, it controls the White House and Pentagon. And 9/11 plus Katrina have taught us to stop hushing brave voices of caution and instead take a clear-eyed view of the future.
Thus, when purveyors of wishful thinking offer the following two reasons why the coup of 2008/9 won't happen, we can easily refute them.
1. The public would never let them get away with it
This concern--and it is truly more a concern than a fact--hasn't stopped them from stealing the 2000 election, starting a unprovoked war under a cloud of lies, approving torture, outing an undercover CIA spy, and being criminally negligent in their handling of both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. When you believe that your power is absolute and have gotten away with one illegal or unconstitutional action after another, why stop?
2. They would have no valid case for doing this
First, masters of propaganda with a powerful media noise machine don't need valid arguments. As we've seen time and time again, they make up reasons that, while absurdly ungrounded to the trained eye, seem like common sense when repeated over and over. Second and more importantly, all it takes is a little imagination to envision not one but half a dozen scenarios in which they would have at least a semi-reasonable case. What if a dirty nuclear bomb exploded in a U.S. city in 2008, killing millions and putting the public in a state of fear? Graham Allison of Harvard predicts there is a 50% chance of this happening by the end of the decade. Or what if a portion of Saudi Arabia's oil supplies are cut off, producing $6/gallon gas in the U.S. and a global economic meltdown? Or what if China calls in our debt, producing a similarly large economic disruption? In any one of these scenarios, can you actually imagine Bush, Cheney or Rove saying, "Well, I guess we better leave now since our eight years are up?" C'mon. This is the most power-hungry, corrupt, and opportunistic White House in memory. They would repeat the argument Rudy Guiliani's supporters made in the aftermath of 9/11 in a behind-the-scenes plot to continue his mayoralty after its legal ending date. (9/11 happened on the day of the primary election to chose his successor. Guiliani's plot, reported in papers at the time, has largely been forgotten, save for Jack Newfield's book The Full Rudy). The argument: a crisis is not a time to change leadership. Sound familiar? It's also one that the Bush-Cheney campaign made in 2004.
Some may argue that Bush is tired of being President and never wanted the job anyways. This is very plausible to me. However, this is hardly a reason to relax. If Bush and Cheney stay in the White House into 2009 and Bush resigns, who is President? Dick Cheney.
Now, these are just the most extreme ways in which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al could remain past 2008. Other scenarios:
1. Cheney runs as VP candidate in 2008. Cheney has said he will not run in the Presidential primaries. He has never said he won't run for VP. And there are no term limits for that office. In this scenario, it is easy to imagine Rumsfeld being hired on as Defense Secretary.
2. Cheney and Rumsfeld sit out the election but are named to the Cabinet.
What gives me hope? Cheney (and Rumsfeld. for that matter) is old. He could get sick. He could die. He could simply get so tired that his exhaustion overrules his lust for power. Unfortunately, Cheney's past heart attacks haven't slowed him down. In fact, it may well be that the combination of exhaustion and delusion serve as fuel to the fire of ambition.
Give me a good reason to think that these scenarios are implausible so I can sleep better at night. Repeating the assertions I have refuted doesn't count.