Integrity and the State of the Union
“ Meanwhile, the president's talk of escalating America's
war against terrorism to include new foes, this time
definable states like Iraq, stands in sharp contrast to his
abandonment of a domestic battlefront. This is the war
that many in Congress and the nation as a whole want to
declare — the war on money politics and the
big-contributor stranglehold on policy making that lets a
rogue corporation like Enron rise to influence and power.
The unexpected consequences have ranged from last
year's California energy crisis, in which Enron was both a
victim and a culprit, to Enron's bankruptcy, with its loss of
jobs and pensions.”
The New York Times
January 31, 2002
By KEVIN PHILLIPS
OSHEN, Conn. -- The United States is in the middle
of two undeclared wars. George W. Bush addressed
one of them with considerable eloquence on Tuesday
night. His pride in his new role was clear. So were several
important omissions.
The president has done well so far in the war against
terrorism, but this war is unlike any other, and his
rhetorical approach is unlike that of other wartime
presidents. We are told that "the state of our union has
never been stronger." More significantly, we are told that
the war has united Americans and made them better
people, with a new ethic and a new creed.
This shift toward an elaboration on national character may
help explain a major omission in the president's war talk:
his failure to make any mention of Osama bin Laden, who
planned the Sept. 11 attack but has yet to be captured. In
many minds, the justification of the United States attacks
on Afghanistan was retaliatory, exemplified by the
president's vow to track down Mr. bin Laden. This is what
Americans want, the yardstick they have identified for
victory.
But Mr. Bush has become transcendental. The war may
have to be enlarged to deal with added threats in Iraq,
Iran and elsewhere. The fight against "evil" — a word he
used five times — may require it. Justifiable retaliation
may be turning into a wider crusade. Mr. Bush, a
Bible-minded man, also preaches to Americans the need
to collaborate on domestic policy as they have on war.
This is red, white and blue bunting on an inaccurate
reading of history. In America's traditional military
conflicts, from 1812 through Vietnam, large and disunited
chunks of the country spoke disrespectfully of Mr.
Madison's war, Mr. Lincoln's war, Mr. Wilson's, Mr.
Roosevelt's or Lyndon Johnson's. Domestic consensus
was not expected, although from Abraham Lincoln to
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one recurrent presidential
wartime emphasis was greater tax fairness — rates that
rose most for the wealthy because of their greater ability
to pay. Mr. Bush, in contrast, had nothing to say about
who ought to pay for the war.
Meanwhile, the president's talk of escalating America's
war against terrorism to include new foes, this time
definable states like Iraq, stands in sharp contrast to his
abandonment of a domestic battlefront. This is the war
that many in Congress and the nation as a whole want to
declare — the war on money politics and the
big-contributor stranglehold on policy making that lets a
rogue corporation like ENRON rise to influence and power.
The unexpected consequences have ranged from last
year's California energy crisis, in which Enron was both a
victim and a culprit, to Enron's bankruptcy, with its loss of
jobs and pensions.
In response, Congress seems to be moving to pass
campaign finance reform. The president declined to
address the issue. Congress and the public are talking
about Enron. The president failed even to mention the
company's name.
It is a refusal he will probably not be able to maintain, for
the role of money in politics strikes too close to home. The
rise of Enron, from 1985 to 2001, was not achieved
through imaginative accounting. It was a direct
consequence of favoritism and the tailored deregulation of
energy policy since 1988 both in Texas, Enron's corporate
domicile, and in the nation.
President Bush's ties with Enron are longstanding. He
had a close Texas relationship with Kenneth Lay, the
former Enron chief, whom he made chairman of the
governor's business council. Since 1993, Enron has given
Mr. Bush $700,000, more than any other company. Mr.
Lay also donated $100,000 to the president's 2000
campaign.
Last year, the Bush administration produced a report
recommending that the federal government help India
"maximize its domestic oil and gas production." Enron's
$2.9 billion Dabhol power plant in India was in a
controversy over excessive electricity charges and
repression of local protests against the facility. At the last
minute, the firm's problems put that plan on hold.
The plan was part of the report of Vice President Dick
Cheney's task force on energy policy. Because the
administration has refused to provide full details about
the workings of the task force, the General Accounting
Office, the Congressional auditing agency, has decided to
sue the White House to obtain the records.
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush and his allies
promised an anxious nation they would replace a Clinton
administration marred by lies and scandals with a new
government — a government in which Americans could
believe, a government of truth and integrity. Save for the
implied positioning of the Bush administration as
representing "good" versus global "evil," there was no talk
Tuesday of a new morality, no affirmation of truth-telling
or a new integrity in Washington. This aspect of the state
of the American union is far from strong.
It is premature to say that President Bush's global
crusading is so intense because he means to distract the
country's attention from any new reformist crusade in
Washington. But clearly he cannot afford the current
starkness of the juxtaposition between ardor on one hand
and sullen silence on the other.
Kevin Phillips is author of the forthcoming "Wealth and Democracy:
A Political History of the American Rich."
nytimes.com
Home | Back to Opinion | Search | Hel |
