Impeach The Zombies By: Mark W Adams

Monday: 81 87 Iraqis Killed, 57 61 Wounded
Also, eight of 11 tribal chiefs who were kidnapped yesterday
were freed today during a military operation.

Are you fed up with the petty bickering, the one-ups-manship, the tired cliches the right have been hammering us with for thirty years to the point the Democratic Party resembles a battered wife more than a political force to be reckoned with? Fear not. The bullies are all but dead.

Would a rational discussion on Social Security tickle your fancy? No seriously, a diversion of sorts that prepares you for the dog and pony show the candidates will foist on us over the next year or so. Take a glance over at TPM Cafe and read Jared Bernstein's The Death of Conservative Economic Policy: Part II. Part One is the Obituary for Zombie Conservatives, which is a fun read as well in a "See, I told you so" way.

Together they form a simple economic answer for the reasons conservatives still kick our asses, as opposed to the more esoteric , psychological approach Paul Rosenberg has been exploring in his Duality of Right and Left series at Open Left. I took a look at the first three parts of Rosenberg's thesis here and here. Where Bernstein offers up an appealing and easily digestible look at what's going on with the demise of Brand Conservative because their economic models are inherently doomed; Rosenberg goes deeper, to the psychology of it all.

More on the flip.



Rosenberg's picked up where we left off a couple of weeks ago with Part 4 analyzing the political dynamics of the conflict over TeleCo immunity between Harry Reid and Chris Dodd as a function of their respective cognitive awareness -- their alternate perceptions of the forces in play. Rosenberg even favorably quotes Bernstein's "Zombie" piece and they both look to NY Times columnist Paul Krugman's Death of the Machine article which, (like all good political thrillers) follows the money -- the lobbyist money, which is running from the GOP and into Democratic Party coffers.

Rosenberg acknowledges that money has a lot to do with the politics, but discounts it at a fundamental part of his analysis. This is problematic, since a simple understanding of Versailles on the Potomac requires that until the money is taken out of the game, it will be rigged. I'm sure he appreciates this, but embracing this overwhelming factor would probably prevent him from frustrated cries of Cleanup Hitters Needed! ("Can't Anyone Here Play This Game?" Edition). Paul does promise that "all will be revealed."

If you really read all these polemics, and really tried to Grok them, you'd already have a handle on how he starts part 5 (a) and understand that to break this cycle of Democrats channeling all their brain-power into good, sound policy initiatives while neglecting the election winning thing, which is where conservatives function at a higher level, you know we need to Break the Rules to Fix the System.

His conclusion, however, did not take me where I thought it would. Maybe I too was wrapped up in a more limited awareness, because I thought he'd go somewhere along the same lines as John Edwards, and advocate removing the money from politics. Instead in 5 (b) he went where I instinctively (by indoctrination?) didn't expect -- Impeachment.

"Pipe Dream!" I'm thinking. "All this for that?" It can't happen, won't happen, the Senate will never convict and Nancy took it off the table so we'll behave -- like taking the cake off the table so the children don't stick their fingers in it before dinner. If we thought there was a chance, us kids just couldn't help ourselves and rant and rave until we got a slice of the Impeachment goodness. (Mmmm, chocolate.)

But realistically, isn't taking away the rich folks' toys. like influence pedaling and media manipulation, just as fanciful as impeachment? That's why the conservatives are Zombies, just like Bernstein was saying. They've got enough money to keep their monster on life support indefinitely, until another generation forgets how completely wrong, wrong, wrong they are.

Hillary Clinton isn't going to give back all her lobbyist donations any more than Rudy Giuliani is about to fire his national security team and make a campaign stop in Teheran. AT&T isn't going to try and influence politicians who can cost them billions of dollars any more than you or I wouldn't at least try to talk our way out of a speeding ticket with government employee with a badge making decisions about if our car is going to be towed.

Rosenberg promotes the idea that just as Conservatives crave power for power's sake, we should demand impeachment for the sake of reinforcing the system that created it -- using the system for the system's sake --to protect the power of impeachment for future use and like the Sword of Damacles, it's threat alone will continue to keep this and future administrations in check. Rosenberg calls for...

the use of impeachment proceedings to expose Bush Administration lawlessness and the moral bankruptcy of movement conservatism, but without the intention to remove him from office.

In the end, this conclusion might leave a bad taste in your mouth. He makes the case that even though it won't get anywhere in the sense of removing Bush or Cheney, as a cathartic exersize in "National Truth-telling" it will at least shame the GOP into behaving within the rules the Founders set out. The GOP will abandon lawlessness if only to prove how useless the impeachment proceeding is and that they are indeed innocent of the high crimes and misdemeanors they have all but institutionalized.

Fear the GOP will accuse Democrats of wasting valuable time should be utterly ignored, since working for the last month on alternate drafts of a Children's Health Care bill to attract enough Republican supporters to override another Bush veto only got them accused of wasting time. You think we're wasting time now, George? You ain't seen how much time they can waste if Nancy Pelosi only would unleash John Conyers on your crime syndicate. Think about the country you're leaving your grandchildren Nancy, and not your job.

Say what you will about the despicable nature of Newt Gingrich, he could never be accused of being dim witted. He would never have let a Democratic President come even close to the overreach of the Bush/Cheney cabal, and long ago would have started an impeachment proceeding -- for the good of the country.

For the good of the country, Please Mrs. Pelosi, Loose The Hounds!