The Singularity Fallacy: Why the US Port Management Scandal is Not About National Security
The debate over Dubai Ports World managing US ports, while vigorous, has been confined to a single, simple message – George Bush is compromising our national security. While this is certainly a serious matter, the reduction of the debate to a singular issue increases the ease with which this administration can dismiss the controversy. If the scandal is simply whether or not national security is threatened, Bush can simply provide that this arrangement deals only with the management of the ports which is in no way related to cargo inspection or security of the ports. It’s an unsatisfying response, but would address the national security angle enough such that the media would move on with its news cycle.
A profound opportunity is lost when scandals such as these are viewed as isolated events around a single issue, in this case whether national security is compromised. What Democrats should be talking about is how this issue is connected with the never ending flow of administration failures and how those failures will certainly continue because of an incompetent and unresponsive administration and that change is needed in the 2006 elections to restore competency to government.
That said, the following points are what Democrats should be emphasizing in response to the port security issue.
(1) When faced with a problem, the administration’s response is to blame the messenger and avoid debate unless forced or shamed into responding. Rather than engage in a meaningful way, Bush’s response implied that those raising an issue were racists because port management is shifting from a British to an Arab company. While Congressional Republican’s may be aghast at being on the short end of the name-calling stick, sophomoric dismissive responses are not new tactics of this administration. Whether it’s blaming bad intelligence or wearing band-aids at the RNC or calling people liberals or flip-floppers or trial lawyers or activist judges or ridiculing a global test or a sensitive war or claiming Social Security is bankrupt or any of the other scores of examples.
One has to call into question how many meaningful issues are hidden from Americans when Republicans silence debate through personal attacks and to be aware when such attacks happen in the future. If you want to continue under leadership centered on dismissing debate, then vote Republican. If you value an open and honest debate, then vote for Democrats who value engaging on the issues.
(2) The administration consistently favors corporate interests over competency. There’s no transparency to the selection process of Dubai. There’s no evidence that the administration chose Dubai over the consideration of many companies. Of course, we don’t know this because the review process is confidential. However, it is clear that the company has ties to members of the administration. Just like Brownie led FEMA with no experience, the person in charge of forest policy was a timber lobbyist, Heritage foundation members with no experience were leading the CPA, an ex-Enron executive was the Secretary of the Army, Ari Fleischer’s brother was in charge of Iraq private sector development, the Chairwoman of the FTC worked for Chevron, the head of Mine Safety led a Utah coal mine, and the list goes on.
One has to call into question the motivation behind all Bush’s appointees to determine whether their values and competencies are consistent with the departments they are called upon to serve.
Republicans are interested first in rewarding friends with jobs and under whose leadership hurt the government’s responsiveness to America’s problems. If you want that to continue, vote Republican. If you want to restore competency to a responsive government, vote Democrat.
(3) Why are we outsourcing port management to overseas companies? In a time where outsourcing is such a sensitive issue costing American jobs, why isn’t the administration looking to Americans to fulfill a homeland security matter? Furthermore, why is the Republican reflexive response to every problem facing America to take the easy and unaccountable road – privatization? It calls into question all of the billions of dollars that are touted for “homeland security” or for “the troops.” Is this money truly going to the deserved individuals, or to CEOs, or to overseas CEOs?
Republican solutions involve throwing money at corporations under the pretext of helping hard working Americans without assuming the burdens of oversight or accountability. If this approach to governing is acceptable to you, then vote Republican. If you want your government to put American people first, vote Democrat.
(4) The administration dismisses UAE ties to 9/11 and terrorism as not relevant to national security. We went to war with Iraq sacrificing American soldiers and unimaginable billions of dollars under less justified connections claiming that Iraq was a threat and that it was involved with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. I thought countries were either with us or against us? That we were making no distinctions between terrorists and countries that harbor them? That Republican’s have a post-9/11 mindset? It calls into question whether there was a genuine belief in the Iraq threat or if fear is generated for some situations and not others.
The underlying implication is that Bush is asking you to “trust him.” This from the leadership that brought you the happy talk of Iraqis greeting our troops as liberators, that the reconstruction of Iraq would pay for itself, that tax cuts for the rich would help the poor, that honor would be restored to the White House, that we’re not torturing prisoners because we serve them rice pilaf. You can see that the arrogance of this administration that it has all of the answers and refuses to acknowledge alternative criticism or ideas results in horrible consequences for America
As the administration cherry picks the reasons for siding with UAE and invading Iraq, it calls into question all of the absurd jingoistic rhetoric that the administration uses to justify its actions. It is clear that there is no substance behind such phrases, and that they are only used when convenient to advance a preordained policy. The next time you hear Bush say that they hate us for our freedom or we’re fighting them there so we’re not fighting them here or that Social Security is bankrupt or the estate tax hurts family farmers, or that the judicial confirmation process is in crisis, you should question what radical agenda the administration is advocating such that it needs to hide behind meaningless rhetoric. If you want to continue under leadership that doesn’t value inclusiveness or honest discussion with the American people, vote Republican. If you want to return to competent, responsive leadership, vote Democrat.
(5) This administration is unresponsive and reactionary. The administration only appears to awaken to issues after a catastrophe or when they are shamed into addressing it. If the media didn’t raise the port management issue, Bush would not have been aware of it or thought to have addressed it (Bush admitted to only hearing about it after the media attention). After the August 2003 blackout Bush touted the need to review the power grid, though he refused to address the problem when it was previously drawn to his attention. After Katrina he stressed the need to fortify levies even though his previous budget cut a proposal to do so. After the coal mining accidents there was a pledge to look at mine safety even though the head of coal mining in 2001 cut safety standards. Gary Hart proposed a Department of Homeland Security in January 2001, which was dismissed. While no one seriously contends that 9/11 could have been avoided, it is equally not seriously debated that terrorism was not a priority of pre-9/11 days of the Bush administration.
This profound absence of proactive government calls into question – what exactly are the priorities of this administration? What other catastrophes are awaiting us that do not have the attention of this administration? Global warming? Oil dependence? Protecting our borders? Protecting our nuclear plants? Inspecting our cargo? Securing Russian nuclear material? Health care? Medicare? If you want to continue under leadership that only reacts to problems, vote Republican. If you want a responsive proactive government, vote Democrat.
Finally, the above is not simply criticism reserved for Bush and the current administration but to all who supported this administration for the past five years. Certainly Republicans running for office in 2006 and 2008 will seek to distance themselves from the radical administration. Blind allegiance for five years should not be erased in an election year epiphany. If you want to continue under part-time representation interested in the people’s will come election time, vote Republican. If you want full-time public servants addressing the needs of Americans, vote Democrat.
Lance Manion is a freelance writer and can be e-mailed at lance_manion1994@yahoo.com
About the Author
Rating: Not yet rated