Getting back to the business of the “scandals”
Most people refer to the problems that have come to the fore in Obama’s second term—the deepening of the Benghazi evidence of wrongdoing on the government’s part, the misuse of the IRS’s power for political reasons, the NSA domestic spying, and the invasion of the privacy of certain members of the press—as scandals. I’ve done it too, but mostly because I’ve not been able to think of a better word for them.
I don’t think “scandals” fits the bill. It implies some sort of conventional wrongdoing—sex and/or money, for example, The Weiner emails were a scandal. Clinton having an affair (whether he “had sex” or not) with Monica Lewinsky was a scandal, although it had other connotations as well. Fanny Foxe and Wilbur Mills—now, that was a scandal (ah, for the golden olden days!).
What’s been going on with Obama is something different, and something much more basic to the exercise of government. Perhaps a word we could use is “violations” or “abuses,” although those really don’t seem strong enough or specific enough, either.
But let’s not worry so much about semantics. Events like the Zimmerman trial raise their own important concerns, but they also tend to act as distractions from these other issues that are more basic in terms of abuse of government power (although the post-Zimmerman “dialogue” seems to have a larger agenda, too, which is to increase white guilt, inflame black rage, and further erode the right of the average person to protect him/herself).
However, even that term “distractions” is tricky, because there are so many violations that each one acts as distraction vis a vis the others. It has been overwhelming, a game of whack-a-mole where the machine keeps winning and we can’t keep up. And that seems to be part of the plan.
So this post is an attempt to get back to business and update on what’s happening, so we don’t lose sight of it:
—IRS hearings continue with an eye to finding how high up the rot went, and Carter Hull, a retiring IRS lawyer, says it began in Washington.
—The Benghazi probe seems quiescent for now, and Congressman Frank Wolf is indicating that the government made the Benghazi survivors sign non-disclosure agreements.
—And surprise surprise, the NY Times prints a deceptive headline about Obamacare’s probable effect on premiums in that state, making it sound much better than it is likely to be for most people.
—Notice, also, how little we hear about Egypt and other world news—except, of course, for the royal baby whose arrival seems imminent. Here’s one about Syria, and of course there’s also the burning question of whether Mexico’s obesity (which we discussed here) is actually the fault of the US. I kid you not.
Has there ever been an administration so corrupt? What do your lib friends think of him? Is this corruption ok because he is on ‘their side?’ If yes, I hope they enjoy the karma coming back to bite them in the butt.
Steve, 2:17 pm —
I think the “lib friends” have an alternate explanation for virtually every item.
They see MSM while we see FOX, and so on and so on. We’re on completely different planets.
We see incipient lawless, authoritarian fascism, they see doing what needs to be done to forge a more perfect collectivist social-justice society. Sometimes you have to break eggs to make the omelette.
And all that.
One thing that makes me want to scream is the world-weary tone that “pundits” like Mara Liasson (sp?) take, droning on about how predictable it is that administrations get “mired in scandal” in their second terms.
You’re right, “scandal” is a euphemism, and they use it to normalize the frighteningly serious corruption of this administration.
Headline for this should be: “Okay, Breaks Over. Everybody Back On Their Heads!”
I just posted the link under one of Neo’s Zimmerman posts regarding the government seemingly leading the mob charge against Zimmerman, but it’s appropriate here.
Obama matches the profile of a charismatic authority in Max Weber’s typology. This lecture provides an easily digestible explanation:
http://oyc.yale.edu/sociology/socy-151/lecture-19
Transcript on the lower left if you don’t want to sit through a 50 min video.
The problem is charismatic authority conflicts with legal-rational authority, which is what America is or at least what we were designed to be.
“–The Benghazi probe seems quiescent for now, and Congressman Frank Wolf is indicating that the government made the Benghazi survivors sign non-disclosure agreements.”
Can’t the House still subpoena them, put then under oath, and let them testify that they can’t testify because they were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? If nothing else this will show Team Obama is trying to coverup the Benghazi tragedy. They will claim national security as an excuse, but it puts their refusal to come clean for political purposes front and center.
Yes neo, these scandals are far beyond what we normally think of as political scandals. Let’s start referring to them as crimes against the people.
I agree that scandal is the wrong word — scandals flow from acts that can be identified, punished, and corrected. These things seem much more systemic, a symptom of what our political / governmental culture has become.
It would be a scandal if someone in the White House ordered a reluctant number of bureaucrats to persecute the president’s opponents. To that there’s a simple solution — remove the bad actors at the top and we’ve removed the problem.
I think it’s more of a problem if there is no connection to the WH or anyone in real authority. What if the bureaucracy persecutes conservatives because that’s the behaviour that has become built into its DNA? Then we have a permanent problem that threatens our precious nation. Even if we assume that 53% agree with the persecution — how long will the 47% put up with it?
Remember the EPA functionary that said my approach is to crucify a few, then the rest will fall in line? How many progressives in government agree with him (secretly, now, or course)? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Whatever the number, it’s not a temporary problem with a simple solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoArEFkDEP8
The label “scandals” is inadequate and there is a term for this criminality; “high crimes and misdemeanors”. That the democrats in Congress are so ideologically corrupt, as to violate their own constitutional oaths while preventing any effective investigations into the most corrupt and criminal administration in history, changes the accuracy of that term not a bit.
That the republican congressional leadership is so corrupt that they won’t even publicly accuse the administration and congressional democrats of what they have and are doing, changes the accuracy and appropriateness of that term not a bit.
If a rose still be a rose, whatever the name, so too are “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Regarding Mexico – Nothing is ever anyone’s fault anymore. It’s not like those Mexicans could actually be responsible for their own diet, no, they need to have their choices restricted so they will only eat healthy food. Most problems in the world seem to stem from the US, if you dig deep enough.
There’s a perfectly good English word:
“Crimes.”
Astute observation about the inadequacy of the word scandal. Using this word really serves King Barack et al well by trivializing abuse/ineptitude that merits a more damning label than one that reeks of snickering connotations of illicit nookie. The deaths in Benghazi and the bludgeon of IRS intimidation deserve a more sinister term.
I’ve been searching through an online thesaurus and interestingly, there seems to be no good word for gross acts of political corruption, deceit, abuse of power and/or incompetence causing serious damage.
“. . . there seems to be no good word for gross acts of political corruption, deceit, abuse of power and/or incompetence causing serious damage.”
I myself think that is because most people have so far been unable to conceive of what is happening. There is deceit and abuse of power a-plenty, all right, but those are about the only conventional ideas that apply. The rest of it, though, doesn’t. It’s very insightful to point out that “scandal” doesn’t apply. But neither do “incompetence” or “corruption.” These wizards are not incompetent at all, and anyone who thinks this mess is a result of those running the show not knowing, or being any good at, what they’re doing had better wake up pretty fast. They are in fact highly competent.
And, while they are certainly living very nicely themselves at other people’s expense and wielding power upon which they have no legitimate claim, “corrupt” doesn’t fit either–personal enrichment is almost certainly incidental and transitory to the ones at the top. They have bigger fish than that to fry; they’re comitted Leftist ideologues, and the worst of them are quite simply deliberatel destroyers.
And here I thought that the Aztecs gave us maize/ corn — and the consequential HFCS.
And what of the Aztec crime against the cocoa bean?
I don’t think Zimmerman issue is a distraction.
It’s unique among the ‘scandals’ cited in that the government and media have thrown aside the legal system and are leading a highest profile witch hunt and inciting a lynch mob against one citizen. Not a foreign policy with embassies burning and people dying over there. Or overseas drone targets. Not a corporate entity. Not a non-specific American people. Not the economy or the healthcare system. But one specific American man.
If they can do this to Zimmerman out in the open and no one will stop them, they can do it any of us.