An American named Sidney Blumenthal has written a new book with a fun title.
I for one fervently hope Republican America is dead and gone. But isn’t it more likely just playing dead in a zombie-kind of way? Lying quietly in a Bush-shaped-grave, about to jump out as soon as the Democrats stop fighting each other and try to win the actual election… Then it’ll start with the scare-tactics: hey America, do you really want to elect a Black Man as your President? Or a WOMAN, of all things?
Tuesday’s Fabian Society event, between the Guardian writer Jonathan Freedland, and the journalist/author/Clinton-ally Blumenthal, didn’t get its teeth far enough into the fascinating question of what the world will actually look like after Bush (which was, after all, half the title of the talk). But it started well, with Blumenthal painting the historical backdrop to the Republicans’ current crisis. “The Republicans have been the dominant governing party since 1968,” he began, “but through a mixture of arrogance and hubris… they’ve been discredited in a big way.”
Blumenthal, dignified in a blue suit and maroon-coloured tie (has he had his colours done?) was particularly insightful about Dick Cheney‘s vision for Republican power. “Cheney had the idea of an unfettered, unaccountable executive – an imperial presidency,” he said. “Of course he is a master of this kind of bureaucracy because he’s been in the White House for decades.” [Cheney started out as Donald Rumsfeld's deputy under Nixon].
Using the example of “decision memos” (which, naturally, Presidents sign off on whenever anything’s decided) Blumenthal gave us a peek into Cheney’s influence over Bush. While President Bill Clinton had apparently understood his administration’s policies so well he “could have written the memos himself”, information going to Bush was far more tightly controlled, with decision memos “carefully packaged” by Cheney. Bush merely signed on the dotted line. (Blumenthal talks more about this in his last article as a columnist for Salon but the best place to get the dirt on Cheney is in the Washington Post’s Pulitzer prize-winning series).
In Blumenthal’s eyes, the disaster of Hurricane Katrina sounded a death knell for Bush: it “blew away a facade,” revealing “not only cronyism and corruption but a hollowing-out of government”.
“We’ve seen the zenith of Republican power…” he surmised. “Now I think they’ve entered the wilderness years.” Great, I thought. That was before Blumenthal started bigging-up Hillary Clinton (for whom he’s a senior advisor). Then it all went a bit wrong.
“I remain hopeful there’s still a chance for Senator Clinton,” he said, earnesly. “I think, for good or ill, there is no consensus of who should be the Democratic candidate”.
Hmm. Tell that to the 1,982 delegates currently pledged to Obama (as opposed to 1,784 for Clinton). Or consider the latest figures from Pollster.com for the top democratic contender: Obama’s on 50.2%; Clinton’s on 41.7%. It sounded a lot like Blumenthal was in denial.
On the other hand, one only has to read Pollster’s own Mark Blumenthal on “the inherent shakiness of horse-race results” to understand why some experts are still hedging their bets on this contest. And, after all, Sidney is a long-term friend and advisor to both Clintons. So you can’t really blame him for fighting their corner. Can you?
The problem is, I was interested in Blumenthal for his insights, his analysis, his experience-based critique of the political machine. I’m not interested in what increasingly sounded like a spin doctor’s smoke and mirrors routine. As Blumenthal dodged questions about Hillary’s misjudgements and errors, it became hard to trust anything he said. The brand of wry honesty he’d displayed when chatting knowledgeably with Freedland about historical American politics evaporated as soon as he was asked about Campaign 2008. He took on a goal-defence position, twisting and turning (albeit uncomfortably) to counter any attacks.
Someone asked about Ms. Clinton’s threat to obliterate Iran. “That was certainly strong language for Hillary,” Blumenthal blustered. What about Hillary’s unnecessary references to Robert Kennedy’s assassination? Simply a case of “misunderstanding” on the part of the Obama campaign, retorted Blumenthal. It was all very frustrating. The ghost of Samantha Power hung over the discussion, warning Blumenthal not to say anything too provocative, or quotable, or interesting.
In the end, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Blumenthal was there to sell a book. He wasn’t pretending to be an objective reporter. I just wish Freedland had acknowledged that and steered the discussion away from Clinton vs Obama and onto the original question: what will the world look like without Bush? Because, with all this Democratic infighting and that ever-present zombie possibility, a White House minus George W. is the only scenario we can afford to predict with complacency.
