Lewis Lapham, essayist extraordinaire and editor of
Harper's magazine, asked Congressman John Conyers what he thought
the point was of publishing a lengthy report
laying out evidence of Bush's impeachable offenses. Conyers' response
was: "to take away the excuse that we didn't know."
But Lapham still wanted to know what the hurry was:
why not wait until the Democrats had a large majority, or more investigations
were done, or the public demanded Bush's ouster? Conyers replied:
"I
don't think enough people know how much damage this administration
can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would
you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw
up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be
done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell
the story that ought to be front-page news."
We know of this exchange because Lapham wrote about
it in an essay called "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can
No Longer Afford George W. Bush," which Lapham published as
a cover story in Harper's, and which now constitutes Chapter 29
in a 29-chapter collection of Lapham's essays called "Pretensions
to Empire." Lapham's article focuses on Conyers' report and
draws the obvious conclusion.
"Before reading the report," he writes,
"I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such
a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading
the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching
the man."
This is a telling statement, because this essay sits
at the chronological end of a book preceded by 28 other essays in
which Lapham had chronicled the crimes of the Bush Administration.
He had done so, however, with a fair bit of grumbling, complaining,
making cynical jokes, and throwing up his hands. In fact, his first
28 essays are a bit frustrating to read, and it is wonderful to
see what Conyers does for Lapham. Conyers brings Lapham around to
a vision of possible productive action.
Don't get me wrong: Lapham throughout this brilliant
book is no advocate of apathy or acceptance. But his focus is on
analyzing the minds of the crooks running this country, not on strategizing
to put them behind bars. And Lapham produces some insightful analysis.
Lapham grew up very wealthy, and it shows. His style,
which includes frequent references to fashionable places and style
trends, is not always my favorite. But what he understands about
George W. Bush as a rich kid seems right. I've read analyses of
Bush by people who've spent time behind bars and who see the criminal
in him. Lapham sees the rich kid in Bush. After Bush gave an interview
to Meet the Press that was roundly considered a flop, Lapham wrote:
"Like the President's critics, the President's
admirers make the mistake of assuming that he gives much of a
damn about the intelligence product, about what does or doesn't
happen in Iraq, about the success or failure of the steel tariff,
the Environmental Protection Act, or the public schools. Although
comforting, the assumption is impertinent. To the President's
way of thinking, the only important story is the one about George
W. Bush – what he feels and how he looks; Pontifex Maximus, the
country's Celebrity in Chief, uninterested in history, lacking
any frame of reference except the stage on which George W. Bush,
the only actor in the play, must please George W. Bush, the only
audience….The children of fortune learn to conceive the making
of foreign policy as some sort of sporting event – a nation is
slave or free, north or south, Christian or Muslim, 'with us or
against us.' …He believes what he is told because he has no reason
not to do so. What difference does it make? If everything is make-believe,
then everything is as plausible as anything else."
In another essay, Lapham writes:
"President Bush and his friends bear comparison
not to Jesse James or Commodore Vanderbilt but to a clique of
spoiled trust-fund kids. Certain of their superiority by virtue
of their wealth (whether derived from corporate salary, family
inheritance, or a sweetheart real estate investment), they fit
the profile of wised-up teenagers who don't want to hear it from
anybody telling them what to do – which shoes to wear, how to
behave in a dance club, when to speak to the caddie or the French
ambassador, why it might not be a good idea to wreck the Social
Security system, redirect the flow of the Missouri River, or invade
Iraq…."
Time and again, Lapham interprets Bush as fundamentally
a brat. But also, time and again, Lapham explains Bush and gang's
actions as part of a class war of the rich against the poor. This
analysis too is worth the price of the book. So is Lapham's understanding
of religious, superstitious, and magical thinking, and the ever
prouder place it holds in American culture.
David Swanson is the Organizer of Camp Democracy, Washington
Director of
Democrats.com and of ImpeachPAC.org. His
website is davidswanson.org. |