(
Cross-posted at My Left Wing)
I was watching the History Channel the other day. They had a program on about NASA and America's trip to the moon. In all the travail to succeed in the monumental task set forth by Jack Kennedy; to reach the moon by the end of the 60s (after starting out a distant second in the Space Race,) there was only one real tragedy in NASA's otherwise long string of success. January 27, 1967.
It's called "the fire." Three astronauts died on the launch-pad during a `routine' systems' test. The Apollo 1 cabin had been filled with oxygen and there was an accidental spark from a faulty wire. It was all over in a few short, but tragic seconds. The deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee shocked the world; but the effect on NASA was devastating. The pioneers at NASA; the mathematicians, engineers, managers and rocket jockeys formed a unique culture and family. This death in the family made a profound and lasting mark on the organization.
The Apollo mission to the moon was stopped in its tracks while NASA agonized, analyzed and adjusted their operations. When it was over, more than a year had passed before Apollo flew again and the mission could re-commence. Through self-analysis and grief, a newly committed, passionate and excellence-driven organization was born. A good organization was made much better. The new, post-disaster NASA was founded upon two operating principles. Success was built upon:
toughness and competence.
The reason I bring this up and the reason the word "tough" (as opposed to "strong") is the right frame for Democrats is because what NASA meant by its use. NASA didn't have enemies (except a few in Congress and the Flat Earth Society.) Was NASA supposed to be tough on outer space? Did NASA decide to self-describe as `tough' to tackle the hard job of planetary conquest against ruthless space aliens?
Claro, que no.
It meant, in the wake of tragic disaster, NASA was determined to be tough on itself with an orgy of no-holds barred investigations; merciless self-criticism and brutal accountability. NASA didn't blame a faulty wire and pure oxygen for the tragedy. NASA blamed itself for not preventing the accident. Shit Happens was not good enough for NASA.
Tough means getting it right. It means measuring ten times, but cutting once. Tough means due diligence, contingency planning and details, details, details. It means instituting feedback loops and change mechanisms. It means doing everything possible to ensure success because failure means people die.
NASA lost three men in an accident and turned their world upside down to prevent it from ever happening again. (Shuttle era NASA is another discussion.)
And now for a stunning segue:
In light of NASA's definition of the word, can the War Party of George W. Bush be considered tough?
From Iraq to the economy, from ethics to WMDs, Republicans have shirked responsibility and evaded accountability. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress make the River Denial look like an evaporating rain puddle.
For all of their tough talk, Republicans are stupendously weak. And incompetent.
As much as I believe the lies to start the war in Iraq are criminal, there is no greater crime than how the Bush Administration prosecuted the unjustified war. The cakewalk was a clusterfuck. The plan was weak and the implementation inept. As a result, countless thousands of human beings, American and Iraqi, have been killed, wounded, shattered and left desolate. A casualty of war has a very extended family.
After 911, the Bush Administration was given carte blanche to `fight' the "war against terror" by a frightened, information-challenged citizenry and their Congress. And in the following four years, after literally hundreds of billions of dollars spent, bureaucracies created and civil rights surrendered, what does America have to show for it?
America is the proud owner of a useless and disgraced President and is as divided and malcontent as ever. As much as Republicans want to hide reality with spin and pretend Bush's America is a much greater country than it really is, the combination of war, international relations, Katrina, ethics and economic folly has shown the world Bush's America is the quintessential Emperor with no clothes.
So we look to our Democratic hopefuls and ask who among them projects the toughest competence. Which Democrat is really ready to jettison the poll-driven, consultant crafted platitudes and talk truth to power?
I am not interested in Democrats who want to win the war in Iraq. I am interested in Democrats who want to impeach the President for criminal incompetence.
I am not interested in Democrats who feel betrayed by the lies that led to war, but still feel the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I am interested in Democrats who demand an immediate, planned withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and support a full investigation into the Bush Administration's actions in the lead-up to the war.
I am not interested in Democrats who want to work with Republicans in a bi-partisan way. I am interested in Democrats who want to throw the bums out. Why would anyone want to work with the ineffectual and ham-fisted other than to train them for excellence? Further, when the Bush led Republican Politicos' weakness and incompetence has led to this time and place in America's history? We don't need no more stinking training and learning curve mistakes. America needs a radical rejection of everything Republican until they can prove a single common good from their misguided, (and I say, cynical) mad fusion of religious fundamentalism, America-first fascism and supercilious belief that money grows on trees in the ultimate proof of intelligent design.
But when I look around at the usual suspects of Democratic leaders; honestly I don't know what to make of it. Frankly, I think there are so few authentic political leaders in this country because of what politics has become. The system, in which Democrats compliantly participate, is absolutely corrupt. It's not about what you can do for your country, but what you can do for your political contributors.
How ironic that in the greatest and most enduring democracy in the world, the people have been marginalized in favor of the corporation.
Stunning segue #2:
This is where Democratic toughness is required.
Capitalism is not a religion. It's a flawed and messed up economic caste system. It needs continual process improvement to thwart insurrection from the `less fortunate.' Regulation is needed against systemic greed and gluttony. The purpose of an economy is not to enrich the few, but to deliver a secure and stable environment for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - for all.
As long as we live in a society that treats people as units of labor rather than spirits of nature, then our civilization will fall sure as Newton's apple. Ignoramuses like George W. Bush will continue genocides and other treacheries in the name of Free Trade.
What Democrat, dependent upon major contributions from transnational corporations, has the toughness to seriously challenge the State Religion of the Almighty Dollar?
It is a razor's edge between a heretic and a savior.
Does Edwards have what it takes? Feingold? Perhaps. But the more I look for tough and competent Democrats down at the usual suspects' watering hole, the more I believe our `savior' will not be a usual suspect.
Any ideas out there? How does a ticket of Ted Turner and Angelina Jolie strike you? Yeah? Well, then who?
And now back to your regularly scheduled programming:
After "the fire" NASA got the message. The most important part of any mission is the people pursuing it. Management is not superior to line personnel. Perception is not better than truth. Fingers should only point toward the mirror.
Approaching three years into Iraq, Bush and the Republicans have been so busy trash-talking they are not aware of how weak and incompetent they have become in the people's eyes. The sky has not fallen one too many times and nobody is buying their red, white and blue anymore.
If Democrats ever get on the same page and start acting smart and responsible next to the clueless and dangerous Republicans, this country just might have a chance.
It's just that my heart has been broken so many times by Democratic suitors, who talk tough, but act weak; who exude confidence and competence, but are crying on the inside for their corporate wet-nurse, that I am hesitant to entertain hope.
On the other hand; what choice do I have?
My country is being sold down the river by incompetent, vainglorious charlatans. If left unchecked and not rebalanced, the Bush inspired future darkens into a nightmare of biblical plagues upon our house.
I believe Democrats are inherently more competent politically than Republicans. Liberals are just flat out smarter than conservatives. But I question their toughness. I don't know if they have what it takes to win yet keep their souls in the process. I wonder if they have what it takes to avoid becoming ghosts in the machine. We have had too many Casper the Friendly Democrats, let alone outright traitors over the last few years.
So, to do what's right, Democrats must talk of the larger issues. Foundation issues: Justice and Equality, Honor and Duty, Freedom and Responsibility.
It's back to the basics:
Republicans believe the political process is about enriching their cronies. Democrats believe in increasing the common wealth.
Republicans believe in passing the buck and pointing fingers of blame. Democrats believe the `buck stops here' and in personal accountability.
Republicans believe all good comes from above and trickles down in dribs and drabs to the useless eaters below. Democrats understand a strong nation (and world) is built from the grassroots up and that economic and social justice is the foundation of any democracy.
Republicans do not care about winning friends and influencing people; winning the hearts and minds. They believe in gunboat diplomacy and shotgun weddings. Republicans believe War is Peace.
Democrats understand peace is peace and war is failure.
This is all well known. But, something new is needed now. Toughness. The Democratic Party, under Howard Dean's leadership must come to grips with reality: Actions speak louder than words.
Democrats running for Congress should run against Congress. Washington DC, the seat of Soviet-styled, One Party Power, has become a quagmire of crony capitalism and mafia-style corruption. There are too many offers being made that aren't being refused.
Democrats running for President should run to restore honor and dignity to a White House soiled by a liar and a cheat.
How is Bush a cheat? The same way his father was; the same way Reagan was. They broke the rules. In the 80s it was called Iran-Contra. Today it is called Iraqgate.
For far too long we have listened to the Conservative Noise Machine spew its bile, with lies and smear. Democrats, without the resources to counter the noise, became the three monkeys of the deaf, dumb and blind. As their power dwindled from Republican gains, Democrats acquiesced to "political reality' and just stopped fighting.
And now look where we are.
In order to win in 06 and 08, we need candidates who reject politics (and politicians) as usual. We need Democrats to call cheaters, cheats and liars, uh, liars. We don't need minced words, but bold statements. We need leaders to restore integrity at home and honor abroad. We need Democrats to challenge the Money Power, instead of trying to tame it. We need patriots to stand up and say, `enough is enough' and not be intimidated by the name calling of hyperventilating hyenas.
Some people are waiting for Jesus. I'm waiting for Paul Wellstone.
But unfortunately, in our heart of hearts we know, neither of those guys will make an appearance any time soon.
Still, it doesn't hurt to pray for a miracle.