Leadership
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.
Robert Kennedy
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
John F. Kennedy
The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new ideas. Rather, it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the great enterprises and ideals of American society.
Robert Kennedy
Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
John F. Kennedy
What hope or change for the future does pragmatism bring us?
How does pragmatism solve the worlds big problems?
The problems that the pragmatists have been unsuccessfully solving for all these years?
Where has pragmatism gotten us?
Al Gore ran a pragmatic campaign, discarding Clinton for fear of the GOP.
He lost.
John Kerry ran a pragmatic campaign, not speaking of Abu Ghraib or coming out strongly against the war for fear of the GOP.
He lost.
This years crop of Congressfolk ran on and won on one overriding theme, change.
And won.
What does pragmatism change?
America is in crisis, fighting two wars and considering another, in debt way past our eyeballs, a broken military, a major city destroyed with no real relief in sight, a bought and paid for Congress, K Street is happy with Hoyer, and the GOP licking its chops like lions in the Coliseum at the prospect of more Dem bi-partisanship and questionable spine.
Pragmatists say that the goal of gaining power is showing the American people that the Dems can govern, pragmatists' idea of change is not to do different things, but to do the same things better, thus gaining the trust of the voters.
Pragmatists' stated goal is to pass legislation that shows that they are responsible and effective in governing.
Their largest ambition is to get Bush to veto the legislation they pass. What this means is that they wish to spend the precious time they say we don't have to impeach...on passing legislation that George Bush will then veto.....to make George Bush look bad. While George Bush continues unchecked (whats to check him?), we will pass legislation that we know won't be enacted! How is that pragmatic?
(clue....George Bush already looks bad and is not running in '08)
Pragmatists say that there aren't 67 votes for impeachment, so we shouldn't try.
Those same 67 votes are needed to override any Bush vetoes.
So what pragmatists are proposing is that the Dems spend two years Not Accomplishing Anything. After the biggest do nothing Congress ever was just overwhelmingly voted out....the pragmatists advise that the best course.....is not actually accomplishing anything, but instead spending the next two years acting symbolically. They feel that this will so impress voters, that we will then be unbeatable.
Pragmatists say we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Pragmatists say there is no time to impeach...because we will be too busy passing legislation they admit will be vetoed
Pragmatists say there is no evidence to impeach Bush.
Pragmatists also say that investigations are good.
Pragmatists say that they don't think investigations will produce evidence of wrong doing that will provide grounds to impeach. Pragmatists say that George Bush's lawyers will get him off, even if their is evidence. Pragmatists say we are doomed to two more years of Bush, no matter what happens. Pragmatists say that to try and fail will doom us in the eyes of the voters.
Then why even have investigations? What is the point of investigations if you are certain in advance that they are not going to achieve anything? If the purpose of investigations is to produce evidence of wrongdoing, in order to punish wrongdoers, why take the ultimate punishment off the table? All that does is weaken your tactical postion, not a pragmatic move.
Pragmatists say we don't have time to impeach. But they never say what actual accomplishments we will achieve in that same time. They don't say what it is we can get done with the same small majority that they claim is insufficient to impeach. With Bush in office armed with signing statements and the veto, what changes can the voters expect to see that will tell the voters we are doing a good job of governing? That will convince them to elect us in 08. They voted for change, do the pragmatist have a plan to implement that change in the face of the veto and signing statements? The pragmatists seem to offer two years of symbolic stagnation to those same voters that voted for change.
None of this seems very pragmatic to me.
::
::
I am a realist.
I say the system is broken.
I say we need real meaningful change.
Not two more years of the same, with different, albeit friendlier faces
I say we need to tell our politicians that we want real change, LOUDLY.
I say the best way to call for, to express, to communicate, to insist on that real change, is by calling for the removal of the acme and pinnacle of what our current broken system has produced.....George W. Bush.
I say that only after Bush is gone can we affect meaningful change.
I say we cannot wait for two years for Bush to be gone and the HOPE we will win elections, that then MIGHT lead to meaningful change. I say we need to shake things up to achieve meaningful change. Actually....well....change things. I say the call to impeach George Bush is our most pragmatic way to shake things up. To let our representatives know that we are serious about change and not content with business as usual.
Pragmatists are not traitors, Bush supporters, anti-constitution or anti- American. They are just...and excuse me for this, I don't mean it perjoratively.....afraid that trying for big change will backfire. Pragmatists think that a slight change will make everything good enough, will fix things. Pragmatists think that if we just screw things up less for two years we will be beloved by the voters. Even when the RW spin machine is cranked up at election time screaming tht the Dems didn't accomplish anything.
Do pragmatists think that slight changes will stop the profit driven war machine? Do pragmatists think that a slight change will stop lobbyists corruption of our government? Pragmatists don't want bold decisive change, they want to wait for two years and then hope.....HOPE! that change will come from Obama, or Edwards, or Clark. Pragmatists think the big picture calls for solidifying our position so we can hope for change.
Sometime in the future.
Pragmatists think that if we ask for <strongly> only </strongly> what they believe is 'achievable,' only what is 'possible,' only what is 'doable,' only what is 'safe,' somehow, someway, things will be different. That by only calling for the minimum changes they call for, someone will somehow come along and fix things, someday. Or are pragmatists happy with things as they are? They are calling for a small symbolic change...for Bush to veto legislation that they spend all their time passing....so Bush can veto it, then pass some more legislation, so Bush can veto it. How does that effect the change that we need? Or do pragmatists think we don't NEED change?
What do YOU think?
Impeachment is, ABOVE ALL ELSE, a call for change.
When you go to negotiate ...in a contract or deal or purchase....do you ask for what exactly what you will settle for?
Or do you ask at the start of negotiations for what you really want?
Maybe even a bit more?
Knowing that all the time that the very nature of negotiations dictate that you will get something less?
Politics is the art of compromise, if we ask only for the minimum, for the easily possible, what will we get after the compromises?
Representative government is a negotiation. We ask of our representatives what we want, they give us what they can obtain through compromise and negotiation. If we only ask for what we will settle for....competent governance...what will we get?
If we ask for what we really want, real, meaningful change...as expressed symbolically by impeachment, we at least have a chance to achieve SOME change. That is how our government works.
THAT is pragmatism.
::
And heck, if these guys are as incompetent at coverups as they are at everything else....... it might even work!
Oh yeah....I also thinks its pragmatic to say to George, in private first and in public if neccesary...end the war or we'll impeach your ass.
[disclaimers
Yes, Cheney too.
Impeachment cannot occur without evidence produced by investigation
Anyone saying anti-impeach folks at dkos are traitors or Bush supporters needs to stfu with that shit, its not true and is harmful to actually gaining support for impeachment]