Over the weekend, aided by perhaps a glass too many of viognier, I found myself engaged in political discussion with friends and my surgical partners. One refrain kept passing my lips, especially as the more conservative of my companions kept trying to point out the dangers posed by Iran.
"Yes, but the administration is incompetent"
After a while, everyone started joining in, and upon reflection this notion does crystallize a substantial amount of my antipathy towards the administration.
When Bob Dole was running for president, I supported Bill Clinton. If the country had decided to elect Dole instead, though, I don't think anything terrible would have happened. Though I disagreed with him on most matters of policy, I didn't have the impression he'd fill his administration with incompetent cronies (except for the commerce department, which is what it's for). It wouldn't have troubled me if McCain had been nominated in place of Bush, again for similar reasons. I am too young to remember Gerald Ford, but he's ill at the moment and I see posts here and there on the web about how he was a pretty decent guy as president, even if you didn't happen to agree with him. But the current administration, fundamentally, is not competent to exercise the power it has.
The current administration lacks many things - candor, compassion - and is tainted with corruption - but the worst failing, in my view, is the gross incompetence. In fact, I think all of these problems have a lot to do with one another. I have concluded that one of the reasons the administration seeks additional powers it hasn't been granted is precisely because it wishes to obfuscate its total lack of competence.
So, I have discovered that it's extremely effective in conversation to argue:
- "Well, the Iran situation is certainly a matter of concern, but the administration is incompetent to deal with it"
- "Asking European nations to forgive Iraqi debts, and then telling them they can't bid on reconstruction contracts.. in the same week? What are these guys, incompetent or something?"
- "Sure, Senator Kerry voted against the 87 billion appropriation because they couldn't tell him where the money was coming from, but who was the incompetent who sent troops into battle without the proper equipment in the first place?"
- "Let's definitely rebuild New Orleans - and get some people to manage that who aren't incompetent."
- "More domestic powers? But the administration has used the powers it had already in a way that is totally incompetent."
You get the idea. To answer the argument, your respondents have to defend the indefensible record of the administration. You decouple the whole issue of motivations. You can even step past ideology a bit.
And that's really the response to the Iran situation. It's possible a diplomatic response might suffice, or perhaps a military response might be justified. But either way, the starting point of the debate should be that the administration is not competent to select or execute any option.
My goodness. Even the fascists made the trains run on time.