A Home Run For Bill Moyers

[Winstonm]

Terrific interview of author, historian, and retired U.S. Colonel Andrew Bacevich on the state of the U.S. Here is an example: (Emphasis added)

 

BILL MOYERS: So, this brings us to what you call the political crisis of America. And you say, "The actual system of government conceived by the framers no longer pertains." What pertains?

 

ANDREW BACEVICH: I am expressing in the book, in a sense, what many of us sense, even if many of us don't really want to confront the implications. The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.

 

As the imperial presidency has accrued power, surrounding the imperial presidency has come to be this group of institutions called the National Security State. The CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the other intelligence agencies. Now, these have grown since the end of World War Two into this mammoth enterprise.

 

But the National Security State doesn't work. The National Security State was not able to identify the 9/11 conspiracy. Was not able to deflect the attackers on 9/11. The National Security State was not able to plan intelligently for the Iraq War. Even if you think that the Iraq War was necessary. They were not able to put together an intelligent workable plan for that war.

 

The National Security State has not been able to provide the resources necessary to fight this so called global war on terror. So, as the Congress has moved to the margins, as the President has moved to the center of our politics, the presidency itself has come to be, I think, less effective. The system is broken.

 

The entire transcript can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

[luke warm]

i think col. bacevich is pretty much dead on

[Lobowolf]

The "actual system of government conceived by the framers no longer exist[ed]" long before the 21st century. That system was based with a large emphasis on federalism, or shared power between the federal and state governments, and that power has almost entirely been usurped by the federal government by a variety of means. Probably the most pivotal historical point of reference would be the Civil War, followed by the post-depression policies of the Roosevelt administration.

 

The original system contemplated that different states with different values could and would be largely different and reflect those values, resulting in a much, much more heterogenous country. Hate abortion? Live in (insert your favorite red state). Want gay marriage? Live in (insert your favorite blue state).

 

Part of the power grab pertains to a growing expansion by the Federal Courts over what falls under various provisions (particularly the Commerce Clause) of the Constitution, permitting federal regulation. By (constitutional) definition, powers that are not specifically given to the federal government are DENIED to the federal government, and rest with the individual states or the people. However, nowadays, pretty much everything is considered to fall under the Commerce Clause, meaning that the federal government has jurisdiction over almost everything. For example, in the Oregon medical marijuana case, the issue pertained to personal, homegrown marijuana that was never bought, never sold, and never crossed state lines. The court held that it was subject to the Commerce Clause (essentially that it "affected interstate commerce" leading Clarence Thomas, in a nice dissent, to observe that if the Commerce Clause didn't mean that it doesn't apply to this case, then it pretty much doesn't apply to anything.

 

The States' Rights hidden lurker in every debate is abortion, btw, in case you're wondering why liberal justices are arguing against medical marijuana and conservative ones are arguing for it. The invisible part of the discussion is, "If we say Oregon has the right to permit marijuana, to what extent are we giving leverage to the claim that Arizona has the right to prohibit abortion?" Both sides of the aisle think the argument is strongest if there's no hedging, so the liberal battle cry is, essentially, that states have NO rights, and the conservative one is that states have almost all the rights they want.

 

The other tool used to undermine states rights is Congress's power of the purse. Congress said, for instance, "OK, we can't make you have a 55-mph speed limit, but if you don't, then none of the billons of dollars we dole out in highway funds will go to your state." Pretty much extortion at its finest. You might argue, rightly, that THAT tactic is provided for in the Constitution; however, there was no federal income tax in the Constitution (or for over 100 years afterward) -- Residents of State X wouldn't need federal blessings to enact law Y if they didn't give huge amounts of their paychecks to the federal government.

 

So, the "framers" argument is sort of a cute way to attack the Bush administration and the Patriot Act stuff, but we certainly deviated LONG AGO from the "system the framers envisioned," and we did so with the knowledge and consent, and the deliberate vision, of what would be now the strongest anti-Bush contingent - the progessive/liberal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it group that thinks that the federal government should regulate and spend money to bring about its preferred vision to the country as a whole, and that "agreeing to disagree" from state to state about things like, for instance, abortion, is not tolerable. And one of the most liberal area of the country, D.C., passed a law that would essentially make the 2nd Amendment meaningless.

 

So it's a bit of a specious argument, if it's used SOLELY to criticize the Bush administration. Both sides pick and choose those portions of the original framework that suit their preferences, and pretty much discard the rest if it doesn't fit.

 

Or to put it another way, the people most critical of Bush don't WANT to live in the society envisioned by the framers (just ask any of them what they think of Justices Thomas and Scalia, who are not entirely consistent, but are certainly the most concerned with the actual text of the constitution and the intent of its writers). The real complaint isn't a matter of principle -- that the Bush administration deviates from the intent of the framers -- but a matter of style and degree -- that Bush has been more successful at it than some of his predecessors, or that the aspects from which Bush wants to deviate are different in a negative way from those aspects from which Obama or Pelosi want to deviate. And if you think that (insert your favorite Democratic politician) wants to live under "the actual system of government conceived by the framers," I'm not sure that passes the straight face test.

 

In fact, the quoted language from Bacevich makes the point in much fewer words - "The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good." That statement IN ITSELF suggests that Bacevich's view of the framers' vision is selective, because in THEIR vision, it's LOCAL AND STATE governments taking care of the common good of the people in their jurisdiction, and not nearly so much "Congress." But there's no mention of any other level of government - the legislative branch is the feds, period.

 

Another curious omission...another casualty of the framers' vision was a relatively informed electorate. If Bacevich's two potential goals for Congress - getting reelected, on the one hand, and "articulat[ing] a vision of what is the common good" are INCONSISTENT. In other words, if doing the right thing doesn't help your reelection chances -- that implicates another party - THE AMERICAN VOTER - far more than anyone else.

[Winstonm]

What is so compelling about this interview is the decided lack of partisanship blame placing, so much so that Bacevich so much as says that there is no difference between the two parties - all are culpable.

[Lobowolf]

What is so compelling about this interview is the decided lack of partisanship blame placing, so much so that Bacevich so much as says that there is no difference between the two parties - all are culpable.

When it comes to grabbing power, the people not interested don't seem to run for office. I've often thought (half-jokingly) that we should first poll everyone in the country to see who would like to hold political office -- then draft all of our politicians from the other group.

[mike777]

"ANDREW BACEVICH: I am expressing in the book, in a sense, what many of us sense, even if many of us don't really want to confront the implications. The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress."

 

 

We forget sometimes that this talk of an Imperial Presidency, grabbing power from other branches of government, weak branches of government has been going on forever. :)

 

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/the-first-imper.html

 

 

 

 

According to Robert Remini, official historian of the House of Representatives, "Going back to the Founders, James Madison once told Thomas Jefferson that they didn't have to worry about the 'executive branch' because that was the weaker branch. The Founders expected the legislature to be the centerpiece of government."

 

 

But George W. Bush is not the first chief executive accused of being an "imperial president." That's a distinction that belongs to our seventh president, Andrew Jackson — and how Jackson acquired the power that led his enemies to label him "King Andrew I" has enormous relevance to the modern presidency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterr...imperial101.htm

 

 

 

 

Short History of the Imperial Presidency:

President Bush's attempt to obtain increased wartime powers represent a troubling challenge to American civil liberties. But the challenge is not unprecedented:

The Sedition Act of 1798 was selectively enforced by the Adams administration against newspaper writers who supported Thomas Jefferson, his challenger in the 1800 election.

The very first landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (1803), established the power of the judiciary by resolving a separation-of-powers dispute between the President and Congress.

In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), President Andrew Jackson openly defied a Supreme Court ruling--the first, last, and only time that any U.S. president has done so.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln took on unprecedented wartime powers and violated multiple civil liberties on a large scale, including due process rights for U.S. citizens.

During the first Red Scare following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson suppressed free speech, deported immigrants on the basis of their political beliefs, and ordered massive unconstitutional raids. His policies were so draconian that they inspired protesters to form the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1920.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order calling for the forced internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans, as well as forced surveillance, ID cards, and occasional relocation for immigrants from other perceived "hostile" nations.

President Richard Nixon openly used executive branch law enforcement agencies to attack his political opponents and, in the case of Watergate, to actively cover up his supporters' criminal activities.

Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton all actively pursued expanded presidential powers. One particularly stunning example was President Clinton's claim that sitting presidents are immune from lawsuits, a position the Supreme Court rejected in Clinton v. Jones (1997).

More About the Imperial Presidency and the Unitary Executive Theory

Overview of U.S. Government and Politics

Is America Developing an Imperial Presidency?

Summary of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

More About President George W. Bush

Profile of George W. Bush

George and Laura Bush Marriage Profile

Al Gore's Speech Condemning Bush's Application of Unitary Executive Theory

Related Articles

Landmark Speech by Al Gore on US Constitutional Crisis Created by President...

President Clinton's Legacy and the Unitary Executive Theory

Presidential Bill Signing Statements - Purposes and Legality

U.S. Government 101

Executive Privilege Based on Separation of Powers

 

Tom Head

Civil Liberties Guide

[Lobowolf]

I think what we have more of is an "Imperial Congress." For those who've actually looked at Article I of the Constitution, particularly Section 8 (powers of Congress), you'll notice a pretty common theme - Congress is there for the most part to do things that are either grossly impractical or impossible for the States to do for themselves, or to coordinate things between different states. For example:

 

Set up a post office

Regulate trade between the states

Coin money

Raise an army

 

etc.

 

"Articulating a vision of what is the common good" Uhhhhhh...

[y66]

Lobowolf, that is an amazing, mind-expanding post**. That "framers" argument does seem quite disingenuous now.

 

p.s. Put me down as a duly implicated American voter.

 

** your initial response.

[Winstonm]

"ANDREW BACEVICH: I am expressing in the book, in a sense, what many of us sense, even if many of us don't really want to confront the implications. The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress."

 

 

We forget sometimes that this talk of an Imperial Presidency, grabbing power from other branches of government, weak branches of government has been going on forever. :)

 

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/the-first-imper.html

 

 

 

 

According to Robert Remini, official historian of the House of Representatives, "Going back to the Founders, James Madison once told Thomas Jefferson that they didn't have to worry about the 'executive branch' because that was the weaker branch. The Founders expected the legislature to be the centerpiece of government."

 

 

But George W. Bush is not the first chief executive accused of being an "imperial president." That's a distinction that belongs to our seventh president, Andrew Jackson — and how Jackson acquired the power that led his enemies to label him "King Andrew I" has enormous relevance to the modern presidency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterr...imperial101.htm

 

 

 

 

Short History of the Imperial Presidency:

President Bush's attempt to obtain increased wartime powers represent a troubling challenge to American civil liberties. But the challenge is not unprecedented:

The Sedition Act of 1798 was selectively enforced by the Adams administration against newspaper writers who supported Thomas Jefferson, his challenger in the 1800 election.

The very first landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (1803), established the power of the judiciary by resolving a separation-of-powers dispute between the President and Congress.

In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), President Andrew Jackson openly defied a Supreme Court ruling--the first, last, and only time that any U.S. president has done so.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln took on unprecedented wartime powers and violated multiple civil liberties on a large scale, including due process rights for U.S. citizens.

During the first Red Scare following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson suppressed free speech, deported immigrants on the basis of their political beliefs, and ordered massive unconstitutional raids. His policies were so draconian that they inspired protesters to form the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1920.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order calling for the forced internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans, as well as forced surveillance, ID cards, and occasional relocation for immigrants from other perceived "hostile" nations.

President Richard Nixon openly used executive branch law enforcement agencies to attack his political opponents and, in the case of Watergate, to actively cover up his supporters' criminal activities.

Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton all actively pursued expanded presidential powers. One particularly stunning example was President Clinton's claim that sitting presidents are immune from lawsuits, a position the Supreme Court rejected in Clinton v. Jones (1997).

More About the Imperial Presidency and the Unitary Executive Theory

Overview of U.S. Government and Politics

Is America Developing an Imperial Presidency?

Summary of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

More About President George W. Bush

Profile of George W. Bush

George and Laura Bush Marriage Profile

Al Gore's Speech Condemning Bush's Application of Unitary Executive Theory

Related Articles

Landmark Speech by Al Gore on US Constitutional Crisis Created by President...

President Clinton's Legacy and the Unitary Executive Theory

Presidential Bill Signing Statements - Purposes and Legality

U.S. Government 101

Executive Privilege Based on Separation of Powers

 

Tom Head

Civil Liberties Guide

Mike,

 

A good point. Bacevich views the time from the end of WWII on, and especially the early 1960's, as the greatest expanse of the Imperial Presidency - unilateral expansion regardless of which party held power.

 

I strongly enourage all to listen to the entire program at PBS.org. I could never do justice to the thoughts of Bacevich as he expresses them so well himself.

[Winstonm]

I think what we have more of is an "Imperial Congress."  For those who've actually looked at Article I of the Constitution, particularly Section 8 (powers of Congress), you'll notice a pretty common theme - Congress is there for the most part to do things that are either grossly impractical or impossible for the States to do for themselves, or to coordinate things between different states.  For example:

 

Set up a post office

Regulate trade between the states

Coin money

Raise an army 

 

etc.

 

"Articulating a vision of what is the common good"  Uhhhhhh...

You seem to have decided to post on only one aspect of the interview, i.e. "The Imperial Presidency", and perhaps that is my fault for picking the particular quote I did.

 

The essence of the interview is much, much more than that - it is really about the misguided attempts to use external military power to cure the internal problems of the U.S., including economic problems.

 

If Bacevich's two potential goals for Congress - getting reelected, on the one hand, and "articulat[ing] a vision of what is the common good" are INCONSISTENT. In other words, if doing the right thing doesn't help your reelection chances -- that implicates another party - THE AMERICAN VOTER - far more than anyone else.

 

I did not understand this the way you seem to have heard it. My understanding is that instead of two goals, Bacevich indicates that there is only one worthwhile goal, and that Congress has subsituted "getting re-elected" for the correct goal of "vision of common good".

[Winstonm]

But, doesn't really mean that Bill Clinton before him, or George Herbert Walker Bush before him, or Ronald Reagan before him, were all that much better. Because they all have seen military power as our strong suit. They all have worked under the assumption that through the projection of power, or the threat to employ power, that we can fix the world. Fix the world in order to sustain this dysfunctional way of life that we have back here.

 

Herein lies the root of the problem - it is easier to tell you what you should do and how you should act than to change my own beliefs and actions. But the only ones we can change are ourselves.

[Lobowolf]

I did not understand this the way you seem to have heard it. My understanding is that instead of two goals, Bacevich indicates that there is only one worthwhile goal, and that Congress has subsituted "getting re-elected" for the correct goal of "vision of common good".

I don't disagree with the sentiment; I just think it has an implication that's going unstated. Why isn't doing what's good for the country the surest way to re-election in the first place?

 

Most voters, though, while they're dissatisfied with congress, are happy with their own congress member. Which is consistent with the framers, too, actually. Congress are there to look out for their district's interests.

[mike777]

"good point. Bacevich views the time from the end of WWII on, and especially the early 1960's, as the greatest expanse of the Imperial Presidency - unilateral expansion regardless of which party held power."

 

 

" is really about the misguided attempts to use external military power to cure the internal problems of the U.S., including economic problems."

 

All use of Military Power has a deeply ingrained economic purpose. That does not make it bad or good, just true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Military power has been used long before 1950 that affects internal economics.

 

Whiskey Rebellion

Pirates of Tripoli

Civil War

Indian Wars

 

 

 

Just remember all the things we did before 1950. Ignore Supreme Court, Ignore internal treaties, throw Japenese into Camps(Supreme Court says legal) etc.....

 

I just think we ignore how the world really was before we were born. Previous bad actions do not justify current day bad actions but let us not forget how the World really is and was before many posters were born.

 

 

"The system is broken."

 

 

Bottom line the system is no more broken than it has ever been last 200 years+. I respectfully disagree with his most important point. But I always disagree with these doom and gloom, things are worse than ever before viewpoints.

[mike777]

"But the National Security State doesn't work. The National Security State was not able to identify the 9/11 conspiracy. Was not able to deflect the attackers on 9/11. The National Security State was not able to plan intelligently for the Iraq War. Even if you think that the Iraq War was necessary. They were not able to put together an intelligent workable plan for that war."

 

As far as 9-11, Good Grief Tom Clancy wrote a bestseller before then all about...hijacking airplanes into buildings and killing off the political leaders of the USA. That information cost me 20 bucks not 20 trillion bucks.

 

 

 

In general we have fought all wars rather poorly.

 

BTW Europe, Asia, Africa, etc have not done any better.

 

Civil War was fought very poorly yet we saw it coming for decades.

We did not see Pearl Harbor, we had a tiny army, navy etc that was in horrible shape, despite War in Europe going on for a long time.

We did not see the Chinese in North Korea.

Vietnam...need I say more........

etc etc etc/

 

 

Thank goodness with all our super spys and super technology we saw the Russians invading Georgia. :(

[Winstonm]

Bottom line the system is no more broken than it has ever been last 200 years+. I respectfully disagree with his most important point. But I always disagree with these doom and gloom, things are worse than ever before viewpoints.

 

An honestly expressed sentiment,

 

My beliefs duplicate those of Bacevich almost perfectly, so I see a long term trend toward worsening conditions.

[Winstonm]

I did not understand this the way you seem to have heard it.  My understanding is that instead of two goals, Bacevich indicates that there is only one worthwhile goal, and that Congress has subsituted "getting re-elected" for the correct goal of "vision of common good".

I don't disagree with the sentiment; I just think it has an implication that's going unstated. Why isn't doing what's good for the country the surest way to re-election in the first place?

 

Most voters, though, while they're dissatisfied with congress, are happy with their own congress member. Which is consistent with the framers, too, actually. Congress are there to look out for their district's interests.

I don't know if you had a chance to read or watch the entire interview, but Bacevich basically says that our foreign policy is an adaption of what "we the people" expect.

 

No one wants to sacrifice, save, do without, or work hard, so our leaders formulate policy that re-elects them based on those wants of the electorate.

 

As Bacevich implies, it was the honesty of Jimmy Carter that ended his political career.

[mike777]

Bottom line the system is no more broken than it has ever been last 200 years+. I respectfully disagree with his most important point. But I always disagree with these doom and gloom, things are worse than ever before viewpoints.

 

An honestly expressed sentiment,

 

My beliefs duplicate those of Bacevich almost perfectly, so I see a long term trend toward worsening conditions.

Fair enough. :(

 

I continue to believe that long term our Grandchildren and their Grandchildren will have much better lives and opportunities than we did.

 

But I did think The Road was a truly great book.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road

[Al_U_Card]

The US political "organism" was given life from idealistic and dissatisfied parents. As it has grown and changed, it has been exposed to many influences, both foreign and domestic. Now, well-past maturity, it is in danger of being overwhelmed by the cancer-like growth (in influence and control) of the powerful elite.

 

Each cell within the body politic is seemingly without effect but if properly grouped and able to direct their energies in an appropriate manner, there is still a chance.

 

Your Article five convention has yet to be purged from the constitution.

[pclayton]

Great post Dan.

 

Haven't ALL branches expanded their power?

 

--The Presidency through the proliferation of EO's.

 

--Congress by going way above and beyond Article 8.

 

--Activist judges

[Lobowolf]

Great post Dan.

 

Haven't ALL branches expanded their power?

 

--The Presidency through the proliferation of EO's.

 

--Congress by going way above and beyond Article 8.

 

--Activist judges

Pretty much. The original Power Grab was really by the Supreme Court, which was originally the weakest of the three branches, by far. The case was Marbury v. Madison, just after the turn of the century into the 1800's, and it was political genius by Chief Justice John Marshall. While addressing the dispute involved in the case, the Court also decided, by the way, the Supreme Court has the power to definitively interpret the Constitution, resolve the conflicts of law that arise under it, etc. Had the Court directly challenged the executive branch by ruling against Madison (at the time, Jefferson's Secretary of State), it might have been cut off at the knees by just being ignored. Marshall sort of semi-bluffed his way through with a mix of logic, legal reasoning, and pure politics. One of the issues was whether the Supreme Court even had the authority to rule either way, as the Judiciary Act was in conflict with the Constitution. The Court decided (and made a decent job of justifying) that is had all the authority necessary to decide the case (and a whole bunches of cases to follow down the pike), interpret the Constitution, resolve conflicts of law, etc. -- things that were by no means a given at that time --BUT, decided it in Madison's favor. They basically said, "Well, of course we'd have the power to thwart the executive branch, but the laws of the land and the facts of the case are such that they're right, so we're not going to." Probably largely because the decision itself didn't challenge the executive branch directly, the Court never really got called out on the claim of authority that went along with it, and it sort of became a given that the Supreme Court could do all sorts of things, particularly invalidate legislation (or portions thereof) that it found unconstitutional.

 

If you look at the actual powers of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, they're extremely minimal - much less than the other branches.

[Winstonm]

If you look at the actual powers of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, they're extremely minimal - much less than the other branches

 

I don't know about that. Section II seems to be fairly inclusive of all judicial power, i.e. in stating "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...."

 

 

 

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

 

 

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

IMO, the reasons for the disparity in the Constitution is that the powers of the legislature and executive are limited and thus had to be specifically enumerated, while the powers of the Supreme Court, while narrow in scope were unlimited within that scope and thus needed less definition.

[Lobowolf]

There's a very wide gap between being authorized to hear cases, which by definition arise between specific parties, and being able to, for instance, strike down laws. The Court's power was extremely tenuous until into the 19th century.

[y66]

I highly recommend Page Smith's book The Constitution - A Documentary and Narrative History to anyone whose interest has been piqued by this thread. I started reading this book 2 days ago after reading Lobo's first post and I can't put it down.

 

In the intro, Smith says:

 

"The center and climax of this book are the debates in the Constitutional Convention convened in May, 1787, in Philadelphia. Everything leads up to this extraordinary meeting. Everything else in the book follows from it and refers back to it. It is the ur event. It is one of perhaps a dozen such occasions in the history of the race, and for the modern world it is the determinative event, one of those rare moments when intellect and experience combine to change the world.

 

"... Profoundly moving and profoundly mysterious, it recapitulates the inexhaustible drama of men's efforts to to discover how they may live together in some degree of harmony in communities, states and nations, and that of course is, and continues to be, the primary object of our attention under however many guises it may present itself: sociology, psychology, literature, poetry, philosophy, history, government, politics, economics -- they in essence all deal with the same question".

 

Profoundly moving and profoundly mysterious stuff? Double that.

[jtfanclub]

I like this article, myself....

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-...ist=SecMostRead

[Winstonm]

[A TomDispatch recommendation: Bill Moyers had Andrew Bacevich on his Journal for an hour Friday night, discussing his new book, The Limits of Power (which is now the number one bestseller at Amazon.com). It was nothing short of a tutorial for the American people on the three-pronged crisis that faces us – economic, political, and military. Believe me, it's not to be missed and can still be watched at Moyers' Web site