Scott mentions in a comment to a recent post that “There has never, ever been a more politicizing administration than this one, not to mention a more corrupt one.”
I’m not sure I understand what “politicizing” means — using current events for political advantage, I suppose. That’s endemic to politics as a whole, and I’m not sure Dubya’s administration has been egregiously worse than any other pre-/during/post-war administration, not to mention ones which followed up major economic downturns.
But the “corrupt” charge is an interesting one.
The classic Old School “most corrupt adminstration” was that of Warren G. Harding, of the Teapot Dome scandal. Of course, Harding himself may have just been stupid, rather than corrupt, no matter how corrupt his administration was. And corrupt it was — the first cabinet officer ever sent to jail, various resignations, and all sorts of financial skullduggery by an administration made up of friends and cronies — two of whom committed suicide rather than be prosecuted. Harding himself wasn’t seen as involved in the scandals, just responsible for them. Though, of course, there were allegations of personal misconduct of various sorts.
Turning to more contemporary administrations …
Kennedy got into office, many believe, based on known “counting the graveyard vote” in Illinois, not to mention prevaricating on the “missile gap.” We’ve learned more and more over the years about his personal sex habits, including many that may have laid him open to blackmail by the Mob. We’ve also learned he was far sicker and impaired in his leadership than was revealed at the time — a major lie, some say, that significantly tarnishes the gilt of Camelot. His covert escalation of US involvement in Viet Nam certainly should qualify him for some corruption charges as well.
Lyndon Johnson was of the old tradition of rough-and-tumble politics, and people point to any number of dubious electoral acts in his pre-presidential years. It was the under Johnson that the Viet Nam involvement metasticized, triggered by the extremely dubious Gulf of Tonkin incident. While I’m sure some folks think that Tonkin pales in the face of the manipulations of the Bush adminstration regarding Iraq, fact is it seems (with the perspective of history) a much more bald-faced lie that directly took us into war. That leaves aside his complicity in the act that brought him to the presidency.
Many folks, of course, point to Nixon, whose abuses of national law enforcement and intelligence agencies to personal political purposes, and (more significantly) his coverup of same, forced him to resign before being impeached. He had a VP who was nailed for taking bribes, and any number of personal cronies (and an attorney general) who did time. He’s arguably guilty of war crimes (by the same logic as has Kissinger painted that way
Ford was relatively benign as far as corruption goes — once you get past that major Pardoning Nixon thang. Was this a truly “unelected” president whose presidency was solely due to a dirty deal? And, of course, as a member of the Warren Commission, he, too, gets implicated in the JFK assassination dirtiness.
Carter lusted in his heart. Clearly he thought himself, in those days, as sinful a man as the next.
Reagan is certainly held in low esteem in many hearts regarding corruption: Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, the S&L collapse, invasions of Grenada and Panama … with over 400 members of the administration indicted or investigated, and 31 convictions, you can find plenty of people calling it the most corrupt administration ever.
Bush Senior came in tarred by the Reagan scandals — there were any number of folks who thought Ronnie was merely the affable dupe, and GHWB was the Richelieu behind Iran-Contra. You can find any number of folks who think Bush Senior was the devil incarnate, before and after becoming president. Those who believe the “CIA introduced crack cocaine to the ghettos” have their claim in there, too, Of course, he was behind the JFK assassination, too. Most of this stuff happened before GHWB’s admininistration — which only leaves open the question of how much more evil and corrupt that administration itself was.
Clinton? Though certainly there are plenty of rumors about other presidents on the list regarding extramarital affairs but — well, there are plenty of other corruption mud folks tossed his direction — ’nuff said.
Regarding Dubya …
Well, as a history major, I was always warned against making significant historical judgments any time sooner than fifty years after an event. I suspect there is always an impulse to consider what’s going on now the Worst, The worst president, the worst blizzard, the worst ecomic downturn, the worst drought, the worst whatever. That rat-bastard in the White House? He’s the most corrupt, politicizing, lying, rat-bastard son-of-a-bitch who ever defiled the Lincoln Bedroom — until the next one I don’t like.
Calling Dubya’s administration the most corrupt ever seems both wildly premature and, given some of the contrasts, more than a bit of an exagerration. Not by any means that he’s shown himself to be an angel, a hero, or a paragon. But all hyperbole does is muddy the waters, and masks issues with some big over-arching label that can then be summarily dismissed.
Halliburton.
Election 2000.
Gulf War II — “imminent threat” did not exist. Thousands died for spurious claims, intel that was adjusted to fit agendas.
What was known before 9/11? Why is it classified?
Richard Perle — making a fortune via his company, courtesy of war he brought to Iraq.
Bush/Harken.
Bush/AWOL — he didn’t serve as he claims. Records exist to prove otherwise.
California energy crisis.
How come Ken Lay hasn’t been indicted?
There’s a lot more.
Hyperbole is always damaging to debate. But Dave, I’ve been taken aback by your willingness to give the President and his administration the benefit of the doubt at every turn. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s most likely a duck. Saying that others were corrupt doesn’t exempt the current administration; in fact, if anything, it should make corruption more of an offense.
I’ve heard you invoke “Caesar’s wife” several times, most recently about Cheney and Halliburton. Does that phrase mean, though, that the offenses of Bush and Co. have been small, or non-existent? That they don’t matter except in the sense of “keeping our nose clean for the sake of appearances”?
When an administration gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy, trashes environmental protections and civil liberties, allows enormous influence by corporate interests, and hides and misrepresents its actions, everyone of every political stripe should come down on them like a ton of bricks.
..promotes a culture of fear with useless color-coded warnings, while doing virtually nothing to truly increase our safety; dismantles worldwide goodwill (and long-time strategic alliances) in the space of a few months; tells Americans the best way to be patriotic is to go to the mall; turns a budget surplus into a huge deficit in less than one presidential term; creates a new system of “law enforcement” for suspected terrorists that doesn’t include any traditional constitutional protections…
And on and on.
Hang tough, Dave. It seems they missed the point. Of course I’m also the kind of guy that very seldom fills in the extreme left or right bubbles on opinion surveys, too. 😉
I think a lot of it is human ego. No one wants to believe they’re not living in the most exciting time ever. And while a gray world is fine, black and white is so much easier to see!
Adam, on your second comment, none of what you describe represent a corrupt administration. We might debate the value, efficacy, adherence to American values, or intelligence of any of what you list, but I don’t see them as a matter of corruption.
On your first comment, my willingness to give the President and his administration the benefit of the doubt at every turn I tend to extend to most folks, especially if I find them being vilified by sound bite. Calling someone’s administration “the most corrupt of all time” is such an open-ended and unsupportable claim vs the other contenders, it’s essentially useless.
I do believe in the Caesar’s wife beyond reproach thang. I don’t think the Bush administration has met that test — though that doesn’t, per se, make it corrupt, let alone most corrupt.
When an administration gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy, trashes environmental protections and civil liberties, allows enormous influence by corporate interests, and hides and misrepresents its actions, everyone of every political stripe should come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I agree with conclusion, even if I find the premises unhelpfully sweeping.
Scott:
Halliburton. What about it?
Election 2000. Not the administration, per se.
Gulf War II — “imminent threat” did not exist. Thousands died for spurious claims, intel that was adjusted to fit agendas. I disagree with the first and second points. The third point is not yet established to my satisfaction, at least not that it was any more true than in intelligence in any other administration.
What was known before 9/11? Why is it classified? I dunno. Do you?
Richard Perle — making a fortune via his company, courtesy of war he brought to Iraq. I did some quick Googling, and despite allegations of that, what I’m actually reading about are making money off of international security and intelligence interests, which is not exactly the same. Perle does seem to a miasma of conflicts of interest around him, but it’s not clear to me that they (a) are particular to this administration, or (b) are more compromising than other folks who move between public and private (and back) high level positions. More specifics would be welcome.
Bush/Harken. Fishy (in the small change way that a lot of Dubya’s earlier business stuff was kind of fishy), but not germane to the corruption of the administration (certainly no more than the various analogous imbroglios that the Clintons were involved in back in the day, which always struck me as being played by their enemies for a lot more than they were worth).
Bush/AWOL — he didn’t serve as he claims. Records exist to prove otherwise. Actually, records don’t exist to prove that he did, which is a bit different of a thing. Frankly, what Dubya was doing in 1974 isn’t that important to me, nor does it indicate how corrupt the present Dubya administration is.
California energy crisis. Had a lot more causes than just Enron — and does not indicate to me, regardless, corruption in the administration.
How come Ken Lay hasn’t been indicted? I don’t know. Wish he would be. It may be that it’s taking quite a bit of time to establish the case.
But this administration had EVERYthing to do with what happened in Election 2000.
Where was the imminent threat, Dave? Show me. It didn’t exist — it was a trumped up charge. Even intel folks are saying as much. And counterterrorism? Read my latest.
I stand by my words — corrupt to the bone.
I’ll cop to going outside the “corrupt” theme of your original post. But I do think GWB’s administration has been almost eerily damaging to the country it leads. Are we in a better place now, in *any* sense, than we were in 2000?
I think we are in a stronger and healthier place now in terms of our international relations and security. There are some aspects of domestic security that may be stronger (it’s difficult to tell), which are (probably, though not definitively) exceeded by their cost.
Aside from that, I don’t think so. That’s not all the fault of Dubya and his administration, but certainly a goodly portion of it is.
Dave
I do not know how being the most feared and hated nation on the planet is conducive to being “in a stronger and healthier place”. I know that the Great USA Hegemony is the current PNAC plan, but history shows that those that are on top eventually squashed under someone else’s boot heel.
Our actions have caused the greatest increase in WMD (nuclear, in particular) production since the ’40’s.
As to Harken/Texas Rangers/AWOL: If we could waste $50m+ on investigating the Clinton’s, I think that it is worth some time and effort to investigate the Bush’s. Oh, but that’s right, the right wing controlled press isn’t calling for W’s head on a pike every minute of every day.
ENRON may have not been the cause of the California Energy Crisis, but it was the Key. It started the ball rolling. Every other privately owned energy company just jumped on the bandwagon to gouge the state for all that it was worth.
And while the Administration, per se, may not have been actively seeking to undermine democracy in this country, it certainly has nicely rewarded those who did.
And the imitate threat was propaganda…Maybe the Poles will invade next…
The only way Domestic Security in this nation to be fully realized is to give Ashcroft every thing that he wants. Barring that, if you want to live in a free and open society you have to have to expect that there will be the possibility of things like 9/11 happening from time to time. Only Police states are “completely” safe.
Last statement: We won’t know any of the really corrupt things this administration does until we can get at papers using the FOIA. But, most of te items we will want to see will have been shreaded long ago…Remeber…THIS is the best government that money can buy.
Ah yes, the ol’ right wing controlled press. Funny how control of the press changes faster than the wind, depending on who is arguing. It seems no one ever agrees with the coverage the press gives anything. The press is obviously under right wing control because they didn’t dig deep enough, right?
“most feared and hated nation on the planet”? Come on, if that were the case, why are immigration numbers so high? Because our country gives freedom to people to achieve their dreams and goals.
I would love to see unbiased documentation showing how we caused nuclear proliferation (not a granola source). Nuclear weapons are in demand because it gives the group/country trying to develop them power.
Nothing is completely safe, even police states. That’s the trouble with using such concrete phrases like “completely” and “never”.
I think Scotts last statement most accurately shows the lefts side concerning Bush junior: they cannot get over the fact the Gore lost the election. Ask yourself, would our country be a better or safer place with Gore leading us? Just as Clinton proved inept at dealing with foreign threats (tomahawk missle against a camel), Gore would have proved inept as well.
Thom I’ve been Miffed about the right wing controlled press since I fist got on to the internet and saw how press releases were censored/changed to fit the editors point of view. Most editors are right wing…so…
Sorry Adam B.
Can’t help you…I no longer have access to my source of information, and what I did have, I was forced to shread last year.
Like Clovis…I know things that most people shouldn’t.
I understand, “They” were probably after you, forcing the shredding of said documentation.
I will say that I agree with Thom. If you listen to most conservative talk radio, the theme is constantly “the liberal or leftist press”. If you come across one of the few left leaning shows, the theme is “right-wing, conservative, fire and brimstone christian press”. I think, in general, that people who are adamantly conservative or liberal cannot get past their own political leanings to view issues (such as the press) in an unbiased fashion. But I’m kooky like that.
Sorry Adam B.
I was “They”…
I will not go so far as to say that the press is unbiased, however. The person that can be 100% completely unbiased in their reporting is rare indeed–if not impossible.
Given that you can’t give 100% information on 100% of the occurances (that’s known as “the universe”), any selection of how to winnow it down is going to be biased.
As to the press — I suspect the truth is somewhere in-between. I think reporters-thru-editors tend to be liberal. I think publishers-thru-owners tend to be conservative. I think editors and publishers also try to cater to their readers, which can skew things all over the place even further. And these are just generalizations, which means there are plenty of exceptions.
I guess the point I was trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully, is that our own leanings, be they political, social, economic, cans bias how we interpret situations (ie the press). We, as humans, tend to pick and choose what we find to be “the truth” and disregard other information which doesn’t support what we want to believe. I believe that the deeper a person believes in a cause, the more unlikely they are to absorb information that would jeapordize their beliefs.
I suspect you are correct. But perhaps that’s my own biases talking …