Summary: The right wing rush to convert the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl into some kind of “scandal” represents an example of American rape culture at its worst. Of course, Americans, who used to stand up for their own who were held in foreign captivity, now eagerly take up the cause of the captor, not the captive. Watching the right wing whip its base into a lynch mob mentality over the circumstances of Sgt. Bergdahl’s recovery and whether Bergdahl was “worthy” of being repatriated has been embarrassing on many levels. This whole episode has spoken very ill of our national character, and his demonstrated once again not only the contemptible cravenness of the Republican Party, but also the cowardice of the Democratic Party. Watching this whole tawdry melodrama unfold makes one embarrassed to be an American and equally embarrassed to be a Democrat.
There has been of late a nasty shift in the way Americans view their fellow Americans who fall into the custody of foreign actors or states which bear this country ill will. Our foreign policy has been infected by an unhealthy dose of American rape culture, in which blaming the victim has become the default posture of American conservatives.
Time was that if an American was held captive in a foreign country, other Americans would rally to his or her support.
Not anymore.
In July, 2009, three Americans, Joshua Fattal, Sarah Shourd, and Shane Bauer, who had been hiking in Kurdistan, ventured too close to the Iranian border and were grabbed by Iranian border guards who had crossed into Iraqi territory.
The three were held in Iranian custody, Shourd for the next 14 months, and the other two for more than two years.
During the time of their captivity, American conservatives rallied, not to their side, but the side of the Iranians. The three were subjected, while still in captivity, to a barrage of nasty, often highly personal, criticism and finger-pointing of such intensity as to rise the level of defamation.
More recently, Andrew Tahmooressi, a former Marine, was arrested on gun charges in Tijuana, Baja California, after he inadvertently crossed the border with a gun on his person, violating Mexico’s rather strict, if laughably unenforced, gun laws. Instead of rallying to the support of this incarcerated American, American conservatives rallied to his captors, subjecting him to all manner of hateful criticism and abuse, though he remains incarcerated.
But the worst example of how “blame the victim” rape culture has infected our foreign policy has to be the case of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl, who was held prisoner for roughly five years by the Afghan Taliban. While Bergdahl was in Taliban hands, Republicans and conservatives alike gleefully belabored the White House, accusing President Obama of being inexcusably remiss in securing Sgt. Bergdahl’s release. Had Sgt. Bergdahl died or been killed while in Taliban hands, Republicans and conservatives alike would have gone into full meltdown/attack mode over the issue. There would, no doubt, have been hysterical, hyperventilating calls for Obama’s impeachment.
But Bowe Bergdahl remains inconveniently alive, as much as the Republican Party and the American right would much rather have seen him dead, if for no other reason than as a convenient stick to beat the Obama Administration with.
And so now, in a display of political cravenness and cynicism almost unparalleled in the history of the Republic, the Republican Party and its minions on the right, including the serial liars at Fox “News,” have engaged in a spectacular volte-face on Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, putting forward a three-pronged offensive against the ex-prisoner.
First, they squawk, the president allegedly violated the law by not giving Congress prior notice of negotiations for a prisoner exchange, notwithstanding that Congress had been made aware of the pendency of such negotiations almost 2 years since.
Second, they complain that somehow we “paid too much” to get Bergdahl back. Where was their outrage when Israel released 1,027 Palestinian militants to secure the return of Gilad Shalit? Many of the Palestinian militants sprung to recover Shalit were and remain far more dangerous than the five washed-up Taliban operators we released from Guantánamo —released, mind you, not back to Afghanistan, but into the custody of the government of Qatar.
Third, as is now typical of the American right, Republican and conservative strategists launched an all-out attack on Sgt. Bergdahl himself, alleging that he is a “deserter,” a “traitor,” and someone who was, to all intents and purposes, unworthy of repatriation. Moreover, not content with smearing Bowe Bergdahl himself, the right wing scream machine has now sought to employ a typically North Korean, Kim Jong-Un tactic of attacking the entire Bergdahl family.
And such lynch mob tactics seem to be working. Democrats, once again displaying all the spine God gave an axolotl, have managed to show their usual cowardice in the face of an all-out conservative media campaign directed against both Barack Obama and Bowe Bergdahl. Democrats have been consciously and purposely distancing themselves from the President and the quondam prisoner of war, with prominent Democratic legislators racing to criticize the president for not having kowtowed to Congress. That Democrats will always go into a crouch and wet or crap themselves every time Republicans say “boo” is no surprise. That Democrats would behave so cravenly on an issue so freighted with moral significance is contemptible. What the fuck is the matter with my party?
Of course, if my party has managed to live down to its reputation for wetting itself and floating away on its own fear pee every time Republicans say “boo,” the Republicans have managed to live down to their own reputation for relentless, nihilistic political Maoism. Mao Zedong used to exhort his followers that “[they] should oppose everything the enemy supports and support everything the enemy opposes,” and that they should “always put politics in command.” To a Republican Party that has adopted in their fullest form the mindsets of Francisco Franco’s Falangist outlook, Democrats and reasonable Americans are a collective enemy to be destroyed by any means necessary. Republicans would have applauded when the Franquistas herded more than 900 Spanish loyalists into the bullring in Badajoz in 1936 and machine-gunned all of them to death.
In Bowe Bergdahl’s hometown of Hailey, Idaho, plans to welcome him home had to be shelved after the town fathers and mothers were besieged with angry phone calls and emails, including death threats. Rather than put up with the mouth-foaming vigilantism of a mob whipped to frenzy by conservative operatives in slick suits, Hailey took the line of least resistance. Of course, if conservatives were worried about real traitors from Hailey, they ought to remember that it was also the hometown of whack job poet Ezra Pound, whose aid and comfort to Bonito Mussolini’s Italy earned him an indictment for treason following the Second World War.
But Bowe Bergdahl is no Ezra Pound. While all manner of allegations have been whipped up against him, largely at the urging and conjuring of the Republican Party and the conservative scream machine, nothing has been adjudicated, no competent evidentiary facts have been developed, and any case against Bowe Bergdahl at this point remains far thinner than was ever the case of United States brought against Ezra Pound.
Yet, the rush to blame the victim has become so much a part of the poisonous discourse of American society that any speculation about its etiology necessarily leads us right back to an examination of America’s rape culture. In rape culture, the rapist is never responsible. The rapist is always led on by the victim, who, if female, enticed the rapist by either dressing immodestly, or behaving seductively, or just existing.
Rape victims are routinely characterized on the right and in social networking as “sluts,” “whores,” “skanks,” “tramps,” or any of a series of other shaming monikers. We saw rape culture on its fullest display when Rush Limbaugh spent two full days of his program slut shaming Sandra Fluke for having had the temerity to openly discuss her need for birth control medications to control ovarian cysts. As usual, Limbaugh could not be bothered to get his facts straight before launching into his disgustingly misogynistic attack.
As usual, the “Bergdahl is a traitor” crowd cannot be bothered to get their facts straight before launching into an attack that is embarrassing to all right-thinking Americans. To speak of Bergdahl’s traducers as a lynch mob is metaphorically, if not necessarily literally (yet) accurate. What we see is rape culture in action. Because Bergdahl is not dead, and thus his metaphorical bloody shirt cannot be waived before the Republican base to whip up another frenzy of hatred against an African-American president they cannot stand, then Bergdahl must be punished for his transgression of still being alive. What better way to score political points off a President whose race is objectionable to the right than by crapping in the punch bowl of the relief Bowe Bergdahl and his family must feel that he is out of Taliban hands?
There is enough cravenness on both sides the political aisle to justify damning both political parties to hell. The Republicans have been exponents of everything we profess to dislike about rape culture, blaming the victim, attacking the victim’s family, and attacking the institutions put in place to help the victim. The Democrats deserve a universe of contempt because, with the heroic exceptions of Barack Obama and Harry Reid, most of them have soiled themselves before Republican bullying and sullied themselves in their dishonorable haste to cover their own asses.
There have been very few times in my life when I have been embarrassed to be an American and embarrassed to be a Democrat. This is one of those times.
-xxx-
PAUL S. MARCHAND is an attorney who lives and practices in Cathedral City, California. The views contained herein are his own, and not necessarily the views of the Democratic Party of which he is a member and County-level official, largely because the Party lacks the hardihood to stand up unconditionally and say that no American should be left behind to languish in the captivity of barbarians.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Sunday, June 1, 2014
CAMPAIGN LAWLESSNESS IN CATHEDRAL CITY
Summary: In a state well-known for having some of the nation’s toughest campaign finance disclosure laws, some locals in Cathedral City seem to believe that those laws do not apply to them. Organized (largely Tea Partisan) opposition to Cathedral City’s Measure B sales tax reauthorization seems to revolve around three residents, former one-term Palm Springs Councilman Tuck Broich, his wife Alice, and local gadfly/disturber-of-the-peace Jens Mueller. When called on their blithe disregard for campaign finance disclosure, the “No on B” troika pushed aggressively back, contending that they are in some way not bound by the law, a position often taken by outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa, whose willingness to play fast and loose with campaign finance disclosure laws has gotten her heavily sanctioned by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. If Cathedral City has become something of a “Wild West” in terms of almost routine violations of campaign finance disclosure laws, it is because DeRosa has set the tone therefor.
California is justly well-known for having some of the toughest campaign finance disclosure laws in the country. If you want to run a state or local political campaign anywhere in the Golden State, you had better be prepared to disclose the identities of those who are bankrolling your effort.
Apparently, though, there are some people in Cathedral City who believe that the rules just do not apply to them. Among them is outgoing lame-duck mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa, who recently got slapped with a fairly hefty fine by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) after getting caught engaging in some fairly severe campaign finance lawbreaking.
Of course, DeRosa, who cannot be said to be a classy individual, tried very hard to shunt the blame for her criminality onto the late city clerk Patricia Dale Hammers, whose own corrupt and unneutral conduct might well have earned her criminal prosecution and potential jail time had she not died. Nonetheless, DeRosa has a long history of playing fast and loose with the law and with the truth, and no particular embarrassment about allowing her campaigns to be substantially underwritten by local developers. But at least DeRosa is on the way out; we may hope that under a new mayor and council Cathedral City will enjoy a restoration of correct and honorable government.
But no matter how correct or honorable the government may be, any government must have the fiscal resources to be able to carry out its core functions. Here in Cathedral city, there are a number of vocal local residents who do not seem to agree with this proposition. They has been vehement in their opposition to Measure B, a reauthorization of a 1% local sales tax. To hear these opponents of Measure B tell it, the reauthorization of the sales tax is the most awful thing conceivable, and would push the city into a cesspit of “corruption.”
Still, one does not need to get into a debate over the merits of Measure B to be somewhat concerned about the way in which opponents of Measure B have fallen into the DeRosa trap of playing fast and loose with California’s campaign finance disclosure laws. Example; most of the “No on B” signs that have been popping up like weeds around the city do not contain the required disclosure of the name of the entity or committee that has paid for the signs. There is no committee identification and no FPPC identification number on the materials that had been disseminated in opposition to Measure B.
When our local Gannett newspaper disclosed these matters in an article in yesterday’s newspaper, certain opponents of Measure B were quick to attempt to push back. The nonconforming signs, for example, were printed by two local Tea Partisan activists, Alice and Tuck Broich. Now I happen to know the Broichs personally, and on a personal level they seem like perfectly nice people, even if I reprehend their politics to the nth degree. But Tuck, a sometime one-term councilman from Palm Springs, having run at least one victorious political campaign, ought to know better. Instead, Tuck seems to have taken the position that somehow the law does not apply to him. This is a position he needs to reconsider, given that there has been an uptick in both public integrity and campaign finance prosecutions in California. An FPPC that was willing to slap thousands of dollars in fines on Kathleen Joan DeRosa may feel no compunction about going after Alice and Tuck Broich, and the Commission would be within its rights to do so.
But there are more than Broichs in the troika of vocal opponents of Measure B. Among the loudest and most strident of the “No on B” contingent has been perennial gadfly and disturber-of-the-peace Jens Mueller, a naturalized immigrant from Germany with rather disturbing views about Adolf Hitler. Mueller, who runs a Facebook page called “Citizens against Corruption,” has gone on record praising the Nazi dictator for destroying the German labor union movement in 1933, declaring “[Hitler] had one good idea, then.” Mueller, who twice ran unsuccessfully for city Council, has a reputation for being loud and disruptive at council meetings, and for trafficking in claims concerning our city’s fiscal condition that can be, and have been, easily and repeatedly disproved.
The Broichs and Mueller seem to represent the core of what is essentially Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B. Indeed, the troika’s opposition does seem to be grounded in an anti-tax, “starve the beast” view of government, a nihilistic formulation first propounded by anti–tax extremist Grover Norquist, who has expressed a desire to reduce the size of government to the point where the government can be “drowned in a bathtub.” Such an ideology apparently fits Jens Mueller to a T. Mueller, when running for office, described himself as the “anti-tax, anti-union, anti-pension” candidate. It should not come as surprise that Mr. Mueller never, in either of his campaigns, was able to articulate what he was for, but could only rage against what he opposed. Indeed, Mueller has made noises about wanting to run for mayor this fall, opening himself up to legitimate questions about the extent to which he possesses the moral character or municipal loyalty to hold any political office whatsoever. If, as is expected, sitting councilmember Stan Henry seeks the mayoralty, it is anticipated that Mueller would be trounced.
Unfortunately, the anti-tax Tea Partisans who has been leading the opposition to Measure B seem to have been able to convince some residents of our Cathedral City Cove to jump on the “No on B” bandwagon, wherein some of these gullible residents have uncritically adopted much of the rhetoric we have become accustomed to hearing from people like Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, and the Republican National Committee.
To repeat, I do not propose to argue the merits of Measure B or the extent to which the debate over measure B may be starting to take on a partisan tone. What does trouble me, however, are two separate yet not dissimilar trends with respect to the battle over B. The first is the apparent “screw you, I’ve got mine” viewpoint that seems to have animated other organized oppositions to prior revenue measures in our city’s history.
The other, somewhat related issue is the apparent belief in some quarters in our community that it really is possible to get something for nothing; if you just keep cutting, the services will keep coming. Our own history in Cathedral City teaches us that this is not the case. At a certain point, it simply becomes impossible to afford all of the Cadillac goodies that a population may want but is only willing to pay Hyundai prices for.
But, what is most troublesome about the Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B is the extent to which it has bought in to a philosophy of lawlessness espoused time and time again by our outgoing mayor. To a certain extent, DeRosa needs to take the blame for the lawless behavior of the “no on B” contingent. Over the ten winters she has been mayor, DeRosa has set a tone for borderline behavior and for playing fast and loose with California’s campaign disclosure laws. On DeRosa’s watch, Cathedral City has become something of a “Wild West” with respect to campaign finance disclosure.
It is debatable whether the Broichs and Mueller would have imagined themselves immune to California’s campaign disclosure laws if they had not taken their cue from Kathleen Joan DeRosa. Her departure cannot come soon enough, and we may hope in the meantime that the public will reject the lascivious and unlawful oglings of the “No on B” disturbers of the peace.
California is justly well-known for having some of the toughest campaign finance disclosure laws in the country. If you want to run a state or local political campaign anywhere in the Golden State, you had better be prepared to disclose the identities of those who are bankrolling your effort.
Apparently, though, there are some people in Cathedral City who believe that the rules just do not apply to them. Among them is outgoing lame-duck mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa, who recently got slapped with a fairly hefty fine by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) after getting caught engaging in some fairly severe campaign finance lawbreaking.
Of course, DeRosa, who cannot be said to be a classy individual, tried very hard to shunt the blame for her criminality onto the late city clerk Patricia Dale Hammers, whose own corrupt and unneutral conduct might well have earned her criminal prosecution and potential jail time had she not died. Nonetheless, DeRosa has a long history of playing fast and loose with the law and with the truth, and no particular embarrassment about allowing her campaigns to be substantially underwritten by local developers. But at least DeRosa is on the way out; we may hope that under a new mayor and council Cathedral City will enjoy a restoration of correct and honorable government.
But no matter how correct or honorable the government may be, any government must have the fiscal resources to be able to carry out its core functions. Here in Cathedral city, there are a number of vocal local residents who do not seem to agree with this proposition. They has been vehement in their opposition to Measure B, a reauthorization of a 1% local sales tax. To hear these opponents of Measure B tell it, the reauthorization of the sales tax is the most awful thing conceivable, and would push the city into a cesspit of “corruption.”
Still, one does not need to get into a debate over the merits of Measure B to be somewhat concerned about the way in which opponents of Measure B have fallen into the DeRosa trap of playing fast and loose with California’s campaign finance disclosure laws. Example; most of the “No on B” signs that have been popping up like weeds around the city do not contain the required disclosure of the name of the entity or committee that has paid for the signs. There is no committee identification and no FPPC identification number on the materials that had been disseminated in opposition to Measure B.
When our local Gannett newspaper disclosed these matters in an article in yesterday’s newspaper, certain opponents of Measure B were quick to attempt to push back. The nonconforming signs, for example, were printed by two local Tea Partisan activists, Alice and Tuck Broich. Now I happen to know the Broichs personally, and on a personal level they seem like perfectly nice people, even if I reprehend their politics to the nth degree. But Tuck, a sometime one-term councilman from Palm Springs, having run at least one victorious political campaign, ought to know better. Instead, Tuck seems to have taken the position that somehow the law does not apply to him. This is a position he needs to reconsider, given that there has been an uptick in both public integrity and campaign finance prosecutions in California. An FPPC that was willing to slap thousands of dollars in fines on Kathleen Joan DeRosa may feel no compunction about going after Alice and Tuck Broich, and the Commission would be within its rights to do so.
But there are more than Broichs in the troika of vocal opponents of Measure B. Among the loudest and most strident of the “No on B” contingent has been perennial gadfly and disturber-of-the-peace Jens Mueller, a naturalized immigrant from Germany with rather disturbing views about Adolf Hitler. Mueller, who runs a Facebook page called “Citizens against Corruption,” has gone on record praising the Nazi dictator for destroying the German labor union movement in 1933, declaring “[Hitler] had one good idea, then.” Mueller, who twice ran unsuccessfully for city Council, has a reputation for being loud and disruptive at council meetings, and for trafficking in claims concerning our city’s fiscal condition that can be, and have been, easily and repeatedly disproved.
The Broichs and Mueller seem to represent the core of what is essentially Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B. Indeed, the troika’s opposition does seem to be grounded in an anti-tax, “starve the beast” view of government, a nihilistic formulation first propounded by anti–tax extremist Grover Norquist, who has expressed a desire to reduce the size of government to the point where the government can be “drowned in a bathtub.” Such an ideology apparently fits Jens Mueller to a T. Mueller, when running for office, described himself as the “anti-tax, anti-union, anti-pension” candidate. It should not come as surprise that Mr. Mueller never, in either of his campaigns, was able to articulate what he was for, but could only rage against what he opposed. Indeed, Mueller has made noises about wanting to run for mayor this fall, opening himself up to legitimate questions about the extent to which he possesses the moral character or municipal loyalty to hold any political office whatsoever. If, as is expected, sitting councilmember Stan Henry seeks the mayoralty, it is anticipated that Mueller would be trounced.
Unfortunately, the anti-tax Tea Partisans who has been leading the opposition to Measure B seem to have been able to convince some residents of our Cathedral City Cove to jump on the “No on B” bandwagon, wherein some of these gullible residents have uncritically adopted much of the rhetoric we have become accustomed to hearing from people like Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, and the Republican National Committee.
To repeat, I do not propose to argue the merits of Measure B or the extent to which the debate over measure B may be starting to take on a partisan tone. What does trouble me, however, are two separate yet not dissimilar trends with respect to the battle over B. The first is the apparent “screw you, I’ve got mine” viewpoint that seems to have animated other organized oppositions to prior revenue measures in our city’s history.
The other, somewhat related issue is the apparent belief in some quarters in our community that it really is possible to get something for nothing; if you just keep cutting, the services will keep coming. Our own history in Cathedral City teaches us that this is not the case. At a certain point, it simply becomes impossible to afford all of the Cadillac goodies that a population may want but is only willing to pay Hyundai prices for.
But, what is most troublesome about the Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B is the extent to which it has bought in to a philosophy of lawlessness espoused time and time again by our outgoing mayor. To a certain extent, DeRosa needs to take the blame for the lawless behavior of the “no on B” contingent. Over the ten winters she has been mayor, DeRosa has set a tone for borderline behavior and for playing fast and loose with California’s campaign disclosure laws. On DeRosa’s watch, Cathedral City has become something of a “Wild West” with respect to campaign finance disclosure.
It is debatable whether the Broichs and Mueller would have imagined themselves immune to California’s campaign disclosure laws if they had not taken their cue from Kathleen Joan DeRosa. Her departure cannot come soon enough, and we may hope in the meantime that the public will reject the lascivious and unlawful oglings of the “No on B” disturbers of the peace.
-xxx-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)