Balkinization: "In the name of God, go!"

"In the name of God, go!"

Sandy Levinson

There is an interesting review in today's Times Book Review, by Jon Meacham of Troublesome Young Men, by Lynne Oseon. It is about a number of Tories, besides Winston Churchill, who dissented from Chamberlain's policy of appeasement during the '30's and 1940. As Meacham notes, most of the men discussed are scarcely known today, other than than Anthony Eden. One of them, Leo Amery, is depicted speaking before Parliament on May 7, 1940, as he stood before Chamberlain and, like Cromwell almost three centuries before, told his ostensible leader: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing! Depart, I say, and let us have done with you! In the name of God, go!" And, of course, that was to happen, as the invasion of France on May 10 brought Chamberlain's government to an end.

Can one imagine any memer of the Republican Party saying anything similar to day? The answer is no, but not only because American politicians as a breed seem to be less prone to display courage than their British counterparts. (Colin Powell, for example, could not bring himself to resign, and George Tenet has waited three years to share his doubts about the Administration he served so loyally.) Rather, Emery and other critics of Chamberlain were practicing their oratorical arts within a system where it was indeed possible to envision getting rid of a dangerous and despised leader without waiting around for the next election. Once Germany invaded, Chamberlain clearly knew that his days were numbered, and he didn't wait around to face a vote of no confidence. We, alas, do not live in such a system. Instead, even most of Bush's bitterest opponents (with whom I certainly identify) accept the awful fact that we face another 630 days of being "led" by a President whose incompetence and demonstrated misjudgments of the world scene are at least as great as Chamberlain's, though, as yet, with less disastrous consequences than Chamberlain's. The great irony, of course, is that Bush believes he's Churchill, a delusion no doubt encouraged by his sycophantic "team" and by foreign admirers like Natan Sharansky, a great refusenik and a terrible politician.

But Bush might catch up, especially if he gets us into war with Iran. And Nick Kristoff's column in today's Times demonstrates how our fearless leader rebuffed what seem to be quite important overtures in 2003 from Iran (which was cooperating with us in Afghanistan). Bush seems not to agree with Churchill that, often, "jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

What will it take to get people to question the fitness of our Constitution for the 21st century presidency? As a matter of fact, I quite believe that strong presidential leadership is necessary; after all, presidents must sometimes make rapid decisions, which requires that we place quite a bit of discretion in the Commander-in-Chief. One of the reasons I have been so strongly touting reading Carl Schmitt (and Clinton Rossiter) is that I think their analyses about executive power can scarcely be dismissed. But this only makes it all the more important that we have ways of holding the C-in-C fully accountable, which means not only oversight (which we're finally getting a bit of), but ultimately the ability to be unceremoniously fired, to say as something other than a fantasy, "In the name of God, go!"

(I continue to believe that if a vote of confidence could be taken by secret ballot, more Republicans than Democrats might in fact vote to dismiss Bush and Cheney, given the foreseeable disaster shaping up in 2008, the subject of an aptly named column, "Grim Old Party," by David Brooks in today's Times. Publicly, because there is in fact no way to get rid of Bush and Cheney, most Republicans feel it necessary to rally 'round "their President." Bushand Cheney are the greatest gift to the Democratic Party, however catastrophic they are for the country, since Watergate and, perhaps, Herbert Hoover's ineffectuality during the Great Depression. For better and worse, though, we can't test any of these surmises because, of course, Congress has no opportunity for such a vote, public or secret.)

Posted 5:35 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

"We, alas, do not live in such a system."

Which is why Richard Nixon remained in office until after the next regularly scheduled election, right?

# posted by

Brett : 7:09 PM

Which is why Richard Nixon remained in office until after the next regularly scheduled election, right?

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this story, nor for it's actual impact on Nixon's decision to resign, but I read that Barry Goldwater went to Nixon near the end and told him he had to resign.

I don't think any current Republican has the status to go to Bush or Cheney and make such a demand. Even if there were such a person willing to play the Amery/Goldwater role, neither Bush nor Cheney would listen. These are people who refuse to acknowledge the incompetence of others (Rumsfeld, AGAG); they certainly aren't going to admit their own.

Cromwell, of course, had greater means of persuasion than his own words when he dismissed the Long Parliament.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:24 PM

Sandy,

You seem to admire the British parliamentary system, and yet you say you still see the need for a strong executive independent of the legislature. You (and Bush) admire Churchill as a strong effective leader of his people in a time of crisis, but you seem to ignore that he was not a strong executive in the sense that our president is. He was first the leader of the majority in parliament,and only because of that, the Prime Minister.

I fail to see how we can correct the problems in our government without a transition to a parliamentary form. There would be equally strong and decisive leaders in the house of Representatives: we do not need a strong president to lead us.

GYL

# posted by

Gary Y Larsen : 10:01 PM

As to Gary Larsen's comment, he is, of course, correct that if we switched all the way to a parliamentary system, then the "executive" would come from the legislature itself and, presumably, be subject to votes of no confidence. In spite of everything, I'm not an unequivocal admirer of a parliamentary system, especially for a country this large. Although some people believe I'm hostile the very idea of a senate, that's false: I'm hostile only to the present allocation of voting power. So can one combine the virtues of a (relatively independent) executive without paying the costs of our own system with regard to being stuck with a clearly incompetent and frighteningly oveor-his-head Commander-in-Chief during a time of war? I really don't know, which is why my book calls for beginning a national conversation (that would eventuate in a new convention) rather than offering a blueprint for my idea of a "perfect" Constitution (and, of course, there's no such thing).

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 10:47 PM

Professor Levinson,

Forgive me if you mention this in your book, but I was wondering if you think there is any particular country that "gets it right." Or, are cross-country comparisons too problematic.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 11:01 PM

"I don't think any current Republican has the status to go to Bush or Cheney and make such a demand."

I don't think Bush has achieved sufficiently low status outside of the closed universe of Democratic activists, to create the sort of consensus necessary to remove him under any system which would permit divided government to exist.

# posted by

Brett : 11:59 AM

As to Brett's comment, there's really no way of knowing what Republican support would be if there were in fact a way of replacing Bush and Cheney with, say, George H.W. Bush as a caretaker president until the next election. To say that one has lost confidence in the President is very scary if he is indeed 'the only president we have, since we really can't get rid of him.'

And, with regard to "someone"'s question, I really don't present a good comparative discussion in the book. I do offer the suggestion for a vote-of-no-confidence procedure tailored to our own system (e.g., 2/3 of both Houses meeting together and selection of the successor by the president's own party caucus). Perhaps it would be better to adopt the German or Israeli system of allowing votes of no confidence in PM's or Chancellor's only if there's someone who can immediately garner majority approval, since I can easily concede that it could be quite disastrous to have a discredited (and functionally ousted president) during a time that the party caucus was fighting out the struggle for succession.
Indeed, as I think of this, I probably would rewrite what I put in the book to require this, which, of course, would also be a further "disciplining structure" with regard to those who fear that Congress would be tempted promiscuously to dismiss presidents they didn't like.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 12:24 PM

Professor,

One thing often lacking in the liberal world is the ability to stay on message. Most of our ideological brethren could learn a thing or two from you on that score. ;)

That said, let me turn to address my fellow readers. If you think Professor Levinson is passionate here at Balkinization or in the pages of his books, well, you ain't seen nothin' 'til you've seen him speak in person. Friday night's ACS event in Los Angeles was a real treat which leaves me all the more envious of his students.

I continue to disagree with the notion of a new convention; that seems to me a rip-roaring case of the cure being worse than the cold, for the real issue is not flaws and foibles of our Constitution but that the Constitution, and the political process itself, is increasingly an abstraction of commercial interests. In 2000 I was faced with voting for oil or tech. Oil won, tech lost. The parties and personalities are nigh irrelevant so long as the truly dominant factors, increasingly gargantuan corporate interests, run the country by running the campaigns.

I submit, to my fellow readers and to Professor Levinson, that it is simply not possible to craft a set of rules which do not in themselves rely on the existence and participation of an adequate number of good-faith players. Today we are faced with ever more bad-faith players, folks who from a position of power mouth "might makes right" glosses supporting the flouting of law if it's better for the bottom line to just pay the fines. So long as that kind of thinking predominates or even merely holds adequate sway then there really isn't any reason to squabble over what the rules are on parchment.

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:23 PM

I don't think Bush has achieved sufficiently low status outside of the closed universe of Democratic activists, to create the sort of consensus necessary to remove him under any system which would permit divided government to exist.

Perhaps not. His approval levels are very low, but not quite Nixonian (Cheney's, though, are that low; perhaps he has to reach Agnewian levels). I'd love to believe that the number of "Democratic activists" has risen to these levels, but I think that's optimistic.

In any case, my point was that, assuming such a level were to be reached, there isn't anyone who could play that role.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:24 PM

# posted by

Brett : 1:42 PM

Sandy,

Thank you for your response to my comment. I would like more clarification of the reservations you have about a parliamentary system. My reading tells me taht there are really only two alternatives for a democratic government, the parliamentary system or the presidential system, with of course many variations between these two types. Most of the variations, as I understand them, are tilted toward the parliamentary system. The presidential system is an anomaly of the historical time in which it was created, whereas the parliamentary system has a much more organic evolution.

The other comment I have is that in my reading of Ackerman and Magliocca, I am struck by the degree to which the constitution has been changed quite outside of the prescribed processes of amendments or conventions. The reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the people is sufficient to demand a change. The constitution is as much an organic document as is any other law. The problem then is to generate the will.

gyl

# posted by

Gary Y Larsen : 2:14 PM

As indicated in my earlier posting, I'm attracted by the German parliamentary system, which is, of course bicameral (and arguably has some real protection for states qua states, for people who think that's important, inasmuch as the Bundesrat is composed of state officials) and requires a "constructive vote" of no-confidence (i.e., the selection of a successor) with regard to the Chancellor. But the one thing I'm certain of is that I don't know enough to have sufficiently confident opinions about how we should redesign the presidency (or perhaps simply eliminate it). I even hold open the possibility that at the end of vigorous discussion, I could be persuaded that "the devil we know" is better than the likely devils we don't.

I also agree with Brett that if Bush really faced conviction (and not simply, as with Clinton, impeachment by a rabidly partisan House), then it might not matter who delivered the message. (Indeed, one can well imagine it's being his mother, trying to save the family from further disgrace.)

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 3:42 PM

Don't need somebody with Goldwater's level of respect; Goldwater could only get Nixon to resign because he could make it clear to Nixon that the alternative was impeachment. At such time that Bush reaches that level of unpopularity, the messenger will matter far less than the message.

You may be right, but I don't believe Bush would resign even if the Senate were in the process of voting on his conviction. Even if his mother told him to.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:49 PM

"The reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the people is sufficient to demand a change."

No, the reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the political elite is sufficient. The whole point, after all, of bypassing Article V, is to keep the people from having much of a say.

# posted by

Brett : 3:56 PM

Professor Levinson:

Apart from wanting to use the pithy quote, is there any basis for the attempted analogy between the epitome of clueless appeasement to fascism Chamberlain and his polar opposite in Bush? Indeed, Mr. Bush comes off rather well in the comparison.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:33 PM

"Bart" DePalma sez:

Apart from wanting to use the pithy quote, is there any basis for the attempted analogy between the epitome of clueless appeasement to fascism Chamberlain and his polar opposite in Bush? Indeed, Mr. Bush comes off rather well in the comparison.

We talking North Korea here? China?

Dubya's just like "Bart". He likes to pick on "straw men" that can be easily disposed of (even if knocking them off really doesn't address the problem at hand). But he's just so incompetent that he can make a complete bollix of even this overt politically motivated thuggery (witness Iraq).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:55 PM

On the analogy, from David Cannadine's review of Olson's book in the April 22 Washington Post:

"He was a dominant leader of his government, utterly convinced of the righteousness and the rectitude of his policies, especially insofar as they concerned international affairs. He gathered around him a coterie of tight-lipped conservative advisers who were as like-minded and narrow-minded as he was. He scorned his critics in the legislature, branding them foolish, ignorant and unpatriotic. He had no time for members of any party but his own, and he treated the opposition with contempt. He cowed and coerced the media, and he authorized telephone tapping on an unprecedented scale. By such arrogant and intimidating means, he was determined to leave a more significant mark on public affairs than either his father or his brother had. But the result was a succession of foreign policy disasters that did his country untold damage in the eyes of the world.

"George W. Bush? No, Neville Chamberlain."

# posted by

LMA : 10:13 AM

@LMA,

To the extent trolls prompt such posts then maybe they really do serve some purpose in the Plan. Excellent work, and thanks for it. But too subtle by far if your goal was to extract some kind of admission from a certain cowardly, lying cheat. ;-)

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:14 PM

It is amusing to see those who advocate surrender to fascists struggle so mightily and vainly to analogize the archetype of appeasement of fascists with the President they condemn for prosecuting wars against fascists.

If the British in 1938 applied the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war to Germany, the Allies would have invaded Germany for violating the Versailles Treaty with the intent to remove the Nazi fascist regime before Germany further armed and attacked the Allies.

This is the diametric opposite to the Chamberlain Doctrine of negotiating with the Nazi fascists and giving into their demands in exchange for a delay of war which the Nazis simply used to further arm.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:07 PM

Well, to continue with Cannadine's Washington Post review of Olson's book:

"Yet in the end, the rebels [against Chamberlain] were proved right, and they eventually prevailed. . . . [T]wo of them, Eden and Macmillan, later became prime minister. . . . [Eden's] prime ministership turned out to be a disaster. Convinced that Egypt's nationalist president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, was another Hitler, Eden launched a military expedition in 1956 to get back the Suez Canal, which Nasser had nationalized. World opinion was outraged, and the Americans refused to help; Eden's health collapsed, and he was obliged to resign, whereupon Macmillan succeeded him. 'Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last,' Olson rightly notes, 'the lessons of Munich and appeasement were wrongly applied to a later international crisis.' President Bush and his fellow neocons should take note."

# posted by

LMA : 11:18 AM

Bart: It is amusing to see those who advocate surrender to fascists struggle so mightily and vainly to analogize the archetype of appeasement of fascists with the President they condemn for prosecuting wars against fascists.

Bart, you lying, cowardly cheat, you should give lessons. In sophistry. Maybe your school taught it as a surrogate for actual reasoning. Maybe you are just a natural. Either way, you are a disgrace to the profession, regardless whether you believe nonsense such as what you've written above or if you merely use such tactics as part of a cynical partisan strategy. You have a true gift for self-serving re-phrasings and outrageous misstatements. You wouldn't be half the troll you are without this gift. But what a pity you seem to mistake it for reasoning or intellect.

No one condemns this President for prosecuting wars against fascists, probably because that doesn't begin to be an accurate description of the Cheney/Bush junta's adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither has anyone called for the President to surrender to any fascists. Heck, by your standards it would be impossible to surrender, since we had "mission accomplished" four years ago; to whom would we be surrendering? But, true to troll form, it's necessary to put things a certain way, to maximize confusion and distraction. Otherwise someone might back you into a corner and you'd have to admit to yourself what everyone else already knows about you and your positions.

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:13 PM

Remember, we're madly in love, so it's all right to kiss me anytime you feel like it.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 2:18 PM

Yuk berobat
Cara Menghilangkan Jerawat
Cara Menghilangkan Jerawat Secara Alami
Cara Menghilangkan Bekas Jerawat
Jerawat Batu
Suntik Jerawat Batu
Jerawat Pasir

# posted by

Unknown : 7:54 PM