How About Just This One Time We Don't "Move On"?
By Brian Lambert
The alternative title for this post was "Let's All Calm Down". Because I've about had it up to here with gloom and doomsaying.
But I've found that when high anxiety and panic are in the air, telling someone to "calm down" amounts to pretty much the same as screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater. Those who aren't royally annoyed that you're insinuating they look panicked seize on "calm down" as proof that things really are screwed and it's time to start tearing up the decking for anything that'll float.
The point of not "moving on" like someone--usually an offending party hoping to get past the unpleasantness of being identified as a fraud, scoundrel, or idiot--always says in the wake of a massive disaster, such as our current financial meltdown, is that this time it really might be a good idea to figure out conclusively--for the history books--how this disaster happened and who was responsible so we can build in (or actually enforce) the laws to prevent it from happening again.
We heard "let's move on" after the Florida 2000 recount and the Supreme Court decision that gave the election to George W. Bush. We heard it again in the aftermath of Katrina, with fingers pointing at everyone from the Army Corps of Engineers to corrupt Louisiana politicians. And, of course, we've heard it over and over in the context of Iraq: the non-existence of WMD, lack of preparedness for the insurgency, and the all-out civil war that followed.
Mistakes were made, but instead of engaging in "partisan finger-pointing," let's ignore the hows and whys and . . . move on.
"Let's move on" is part of a collective denial syndrome that accepts things are so colossally screwed up that we can't waist time, money, and energy hauling anyone into a dock in pursuit of anything like full, conclusive disclosure.
That is not exactly encouraging, is it?
So it is now "let's move on" time with the Wall Street meltdown that has, quite literally, thrown the entire planet into a recession-boarding-on-depression. (Two fascinating pieces almost back-to-back last week on NPR: One reporter interviewed an executive from The Royal Bank of Scotland, a company taking huge losses in the Bernard Madoff scandal. The other was a story about a factory manager from somewhere in deep Siberia. The bank executive didn't even attempt to hide his contempt for the American regulatory system that exerted--as we now see all too clearly--almost no authority, i.e. due diligence, over major banking institutions. The Siberian, thousands of miles from lower Manhattan but watching his factory go bust again--after a brief oil boom--could be heard vilifying "American business men" for their combination of greed and recklessness. Point being . . . they love us out there and aren't likely to trust us again any further than they can throw us . . . and who can blame them?)
While Barack Obama has the advantage of a country united in determination to make big changes to jump-start the economy, he arrives in the White House with the understanding that much unlike Bush and Dick Cheney, he really is going to be a "uniter." This doesn't bode well for those of us who think a handful of strategically selected Nuremberg-like show trials covering, oh say, the "intelligence failures" that got us into Iraq, the politicization of the Justice Department, the use of torture and rendition relating to the so-called "war on terror," and . . . biggest of all . . . culpability in allowing Wall Street titans to run completely amuck are exactly what we need to exorcise national demons.
Think of it as Drano for our collective conscience.
Obama's justified fear seems to be that any such trials--or investigations--would reek of "partisanship" and derail the consensus building he needs to push enormous, far-reaching infrastructure projects through Congress. I'm certain he knows better than I do (and it is enormously reassuring to be able to say that about a President after the last eight years), but my hope is that "No Drama" Obama understands that failures, disasters, and frauds of the epic scale of this last decade can't be allowed to drift off into the haze of history without clearly defining the wrongdoing and the lessons we've learned.
With that in mind, my hope is that he instructs his Justice Department--a true Justice Department, not a political wing of the White House--to simply do its job. Which, as I understand the law, means pursuing all misconduct wherever trails may lead without fear or favor. (I know, what a concept, post-Rove/Gonzales.) As long as Obama can stand up at his press conferences and say, "The Justice Department is simply doing its job. It needs no direction from me, which would, of course, be inappropriate," he'll be fine. Those whose oxen may likely be gored can scream "partisan score settling" all they want. This is way beyond the Clinton-impeachment contrivance. At least the rest of us can content ourselves that as we endure the anxiety and hardships inflicted by the crowd that, as New York Magazine put it, "Wrecked the World," we are at least getting effective judicial activity for our tax dollars.
My argument here is that we'll all feel modestly calmer knowing that we're strong and stable enough to bring justice to bear against the (formerly) powerful.
But I've found that when high anxiety and panic are in the air, telling someone to "calm down" amounts to pretty much the same as screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater. Those who aren't royally annoyed that you're insinuating they look panicked seize on "calm down" as proof that things really are screwed and it's time to start tearing up the decking for anything that'll float.
The point of not "moving on" like someone--usually an offending party hoping to get past the unpleasantness of being identified as a fraud, scoundrel, or idiot--always says in the wake of a massive disaster, such as our current financial meltdown, is that this time it really might be a good idea to figure out conclusively--for the history books--how this disaster happened and who was responsible so we can build in (or actually enforce) the laws to prevent it from happening again.
We heard "let's move on" after the Florida 2000 recount and the Supreme Court decision that gave the election to George W. Bush. We heard it again in the aftermath of Katrina, with fingers pointing at everyone from the Army Corps of Engineers to corrupt Louisiana politicians. And, of course, we've heard it over and over in the context of Iraq: the non-existence of WMD, lack of preparedness for the insurgency, and the all-out civil war that followed.
Mistakes were made, but instead of engaging in "partisan finger-pointing," let's ignore the hows and whys and . . . move on.
"Let's move on" is part of a collective denial syndrome that accepts things are so colossally screwed up that we can't waist time, money, and energy hauling anyone into a dock in pursuit of anything like full, conclusive disclosure.
That is not exactly encouraging, is it?
So it is now "let's move on" time with the Wall Street meltdown that has, quite literally, thrown the entire planet into a recession-boarding-on-depression. (Two fascinating pieces almost back-to-back last week on NPR: One reporter interviewed an executive from The Royal Bank of Scotland, a company taking huge losses in the Bernard Madoff scandal. The other was a story about a factory manager from somewhere in deep Siberia. The bank executive didn't even attempt to hide his contempt for the American regulatory system that exerted--as we now see all too clearly--almost no authority, i.e. due diligence, over major banking institutions. The Siberian, thousands of miles from lower Manhattan but watching his factory go bust again--after a brief oil boom--could be heard vilifying "American business men" for their combination of greed and recklessness. Point being . . . they love us out there and aren't likely to trust us again any further than they can throw us . . . and who can blame them?)
While Barack Obama has the advantage of a country united in determination to make big changes to jump-start the economy, he arrives in the White House with the understanding that much unlike Bush and Dick Cheney, he really is going to be a "uniter." This doesn't bode well for those of us who think a handful of strategically selected Nuremberg-like show trials covering, oh say, the "intelligence failures" that got us into Iraq, the politicization of the Justice Department, the use of torture and rendition relating to the so-called "war on terror," and . . . biggest of all . . . culpability in allowing Wall Street titans to run completely amuck are exactly what we need to exorcise national demons.
Think of it as Drano for our collective conscience.
Obama's justified fear seems to be that any such trials--or investigations--would reek of "partisanship" and derail the consensus building he needs to push enormous, far-reaching infrastructure projects through Congress. I'm certain he knows better than I do (and it is enormously reassuring to be able to say that about a President after the last eight years), but my hope is that "No Drama" Obama understands that failures, disasters, and frauds of the epic scale of this last decade can't be allowed to drift off into the haze of history without clearly defining the wrongdoing and the lessons we've learned.
With that in mind, my hope is that he instructs his Justice Department--a true Justice Department, not a political wing of the White House--to simply do its job. Which, as I understand the law, means pursuing all misconduct wherever trails may lead without fear or favor. (I know, what a concept, post-Rove/Gonzales.) As long as Obama can stand up at his press conferences and say, "The Justice Department is simply doing its job. It needs no direction from me, which would, of course, be inappropriate," he'll be fine. Those whose oxen may likely be gored can scream "partisan score settling" all they want. This is way beyond the Clinton-impeachment contrivance. At least the rest of us can content ourselves that as we endure the anxiety and hardships inflicted by the crowd that, as New York Magazine put it, "Wrecked the World," we are at least getting effective judicial activity for our tax dollars.
My argument here is that we'll all feel modestly calmer knowing that we're strong and stable enough to bring justice to bear against the (formerly) powerful.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
It's amazing that when the subject is third graders and their teachers, i.e. the utterly powerless, Republicans really insist on accountability, but when the subject is the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense the search for accountability becomes "divisiveness" and another example of the partisanship that is destroying the country.
I notice also that Republicans are big on the deterrent theory of criminology sometimes; when the subject is blue collar crime, they are sure that if we prosecute all offenders and lock them up in crappy prisons for a long time, that will deter crime. Once the malefactors are among the rich and powerful, Republicans lose their enthusiasm.
The problem is some many crooks so little time. Who prosecutes what and with how much enthusiasm? For example, I would appoint Fitzgerald as special prosecutor with a hell of a budget to clean out the DOJ with power to investigate the destruction of professionalism in hiring and firing, the subversion of the voting rights section, the firing of the AG's and the White House involvement therein ditto the Plame outing, the Siegelman prosecution and various other instances of the politicization of justice.
Congress should hold hearings on the Rumsfeld doctrine about the shaping of national defense, specifically the out-sourcing of war. The ideas have been tested, so congress should hold hearings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the doctrine.
The financial mess is going to take another special prosecutor; I think Eliot Spitzer would be good choice, as he's smart, except personally, and knows the terrain, and if the Senate and press can continue to pretend to take David Vitter seriously, why can't we allow Spitzer to take the scarlet letter off?
We also need a press that can think about something other than the White House dog and Obama's abs. There are going to be a slew of upper level bureaucrats, now unterrorized by gop hacks, willing to spill lots of beans about incompetence and corruption, but we need reporters willing to listen and smart enough to do the story. If the MSM won't do the job, people like Glenn Greenwald will be very willing.
LAMBERT: I emphatically second getting Spitzer back in the game. If his wife can live with his sexual problems I sure as hell can, and he has proven he understands the Wall St. game.
Posted by: John sherman on December 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I know – I for one can’t stand the R’s and their Moveon.org. Oh wait…
Posted by: 108 on December 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Surely you guys can make an emotional investment in someone besides Eliot Spitzer (no evidence of this man’s ‘smartness’. None). Lets bring back John Edwards while we’re at it.
Brian - as a practical matter, the Justice department would need a kind of moral leverage to reexamine the past in the way you describe. An Eric Holder Justice Department does not have that moral leverage.
LAMBERT: Post Bush/Alberto Gonzales, "moral leverage" is truly relative. The ability to follow the letter of the law will qualify anyone for sainthood.
Posted by: 108 on December 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
BL - “Nuremberg-like show trials”
The ‘show trial’ was invented by Stalin (in the 30’s) and has a meaning specific to Marxist-revolution. The prosecution of actual crimes is fairly outside the scope of the term. Nuremberg was public, triumphant, and somewhat flawed by victor’s justice – but it was not a ‘show trial’. You’re in error attaching the two concepts, but I’m sure it’s quite unconscious for whatever reason.
LAMBERT: As I'm certain you know the Nuremberg trials were criticized for being show trials, the inference that they displayed no more justice than Stalin's courts. But the counter argument was that they were staged the way they were to deliver as unequivocal object lesson as possible in the wake of such extreme crimes. That was my point. Next question.
Posted by: 108 on December 29, 2008 at 1:29 PM
There was accountability for Republicans, now we have to have Obama as President, and Hillary as SOS. Do you know how that feels? I feel like that prisoner with a life sentence pleading for the death penalty.
Can I hold Clinton criminally responsible for not getting Bin Laden then? Maybe a prosecutor could find out what Sandy Berger was stuffing into his pants.
On the Wall Street bailout, you seem to have decided that poor investment strategies should be criminalized. How much did you manage to lose in your 401k this year, Mr. Lambert? Probably at least enough to merit a misdemeanor.
Complaining from Siberia? Our worst days are 1000 times better than Russia's best. It seems to me his time is better spent complaining about and cleaning up his own country.
LAMBERT: "Poor investment strategies". That one might get you "Euphemism of the Year". The sad fact about the Siberian is that even way out there he understands how a few thousand of The Smartest Guys in the Room can screw him and everyone he employs.
Posted by: JB Saunders on December 30, 2008 at 12:20 AM
The collective madness of the human race manifests itself in many ways, including 1) the build-up of yet another investment bubble, this time in credit instruments, due to the primitive human instinct that what goes up will keep going up (asset values, primarily homes), and what goes down will keep going down (default rates), rather than what goes up or down is in fact more likely to go the other way and 2) that Mr. Lambert and the Siberian (the Russians are really good at this) will seek a scapegoat (greedy fixed income bankers!!!) that we can send away to die for the collective sins of the people (oh, but it feels so good). Regulatory regimes are supposed to put a check on this madness, and they clearly failed here or, more likely, were just inadequate, in the sense that these were risks we just weren't fully cognizant of. The hearings after the '29 crash were very instructive and formed the basis of a securities regulatory regime that did pretty good for 50+ years. We need to do it again. But try to check your bloodlust with the special prosector. Check your animal instincts and stop this ongoing madness!!
LAMBERT: Your money quote might have been "fixed in come bankers" if you hadn't offered up this one, "Regulatory regimes are supposed to put a check on this madness, and they clearly failed here or, more likely, were just inadequate, in the sense that these were risks we just weren't fully cognizant of."
WHY did they fail? That's the question I think it'd be useful to ask, unless you regard regular meltdowns of 40% of invested assets a natural risk of doing business. Personally I don't care if the lax, stupid or truly criminal here spend an hour in actual jail. Let them wear ankle monitors on their yachts. The point of thorough investigations is, A: To reassure everyone that laws are being enforced, and B: That we understand this debacle well enough to make definitive repairs.
On the other hand, if you prefer to think of this as just the natural Darwinian cycle, you're probably more interested in the validity of Obama's birth certificate.
Posted by: JB Saunders on December 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM
BL - As I'm certain you know the Nuremberg trials were criticized for being show trials, the inference that they displayed no more justice than Stalin's courts. But the counter argument was that they were staged the way they were to deliver as unequivocal object lesson as possible in the wake of such extreme crimes.
The criticisms are nullified because at Nuremberg the outcome was not pre-established, and there were in some cases actual acquittals. Defendants got a genuine hearing and justice was delivered. Stalin didn’t acquit anyone.
A show trial by definition is not an opportunity to stage a giant public object lesson in law and justice. It’s a ‘show’ of a hearing or trial to obfuscate that the outcome was pre-determined for political purposes. Show trials are unjust, undemocratic, and predominantly a Marxist, post-revolution political method. The term itself is a Marxist rhetorical flourish.
So I’m sure that’s not what you advocate, but this term ‘show trial’ is being misused in the broader vocabulary. It’s now a synonym for some concept of a high minded truth and recriminations tribunal (which we don’t need in the US, unless you really believe we’ve just overthrown Batista). You misuse it that way, but go further and attach the justice of Nuremberg for legitimacy. I get your usage, but it’s incorrect. A show trial can not be legitimized under a democratic system.
LAMBERT: Do you rest your case? By attaching "Nuremberg" to "show trial" I was making a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate. I, personally, would like the "show" part. High profile, with a lot of TV-friendly charts and diagrams so any American with an 80 IQ or higher could follow what has gone down. You remind of a history professor I had who'd threaten an "F" if I didn't re-write, re-cant and grovel.
Posted by: 108 on December 30, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I think it's fairly clear now what happened. 1) "non-banks" (Lehman, BS, GS, ML, etc.) started creating ginormous amounts of credit but weren't regulated like other banks--e.g., were allowed to leverage themselves at 40:1 or more, 2) bad models, that allowed buyers to convince themselves that "diversification" within the pools of debt they were buying into eliminated all of the default risk, and 3) easy-money Fed policies, courtesy of Mr. Greenspan (paging Mr. Volcker). I think that's what will emerge from another 24 months of necessary congressional hearings. 1) is already fixed--GS and ML are now banks, BS and Lehman are gone, 2) I bet portfolio managers have learned that lesson and 3) too late to do anything about that now, we need to spend our way out of this--time to crank up the printing presses and buy gold! I do think we can make change that will prevent this from happening again, I just don't think ankle bracelets are going to solve anything. If you really wanted to get tough in an appropriate way, you would have allowed a few more institutions to go through bankruptcy, wiping out shareholders and bondholders that were asleep at the switch.
LAMBERT: If you add in an investigation into the appalling laxness of the SEC (hell, in the Madoff case alone), how transparency statutes were re-written and why there was no pressure to re-invigorate enforcement prior to mid-September, I'm pretty much with you.
Posted by: JB Saunders on December 30, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The SEC is one of the weakest regulatory agencies we have. I always thought it was because it was run by a committee (the "commission" part). The politics of having democrats and republicans on the commission makes it impossible to decide anything, and no one feels responsible or accountable. They should just make it like any other executive agency, for better or for worse.
LAMBERT: Democrat or Republican, taxpayers have a right to expect it to properly enforce laws on the books, particularly when those laws involved effect a staggering run-up in the trading of byzantine derivative "products".
Posted by: JB Saunders on December 30, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Come on, Lambo, either words have meaning we can all generally agree upon or they don't. If not, then you're out of business. 108, while annoyingly pedantic at times, in this case is entirely correct, and significantly so.
"Show trial" is a pejorative phrase, period. The Nuremberg trials were criticized by a small minority and to drive the point home, they called them "show trials" specifically to delegitimize them. But the counter argument was not, as you argue, that they were show trials with a good end in mind--deterrence of monsters.
The Guantanamo Trials will be derided as show trials. And Bush and Co. might lazily argue as you did that they're show trials with a heart of gold intended to deter "evil doers."
That won't wash either. And they will not rise to the level of the Nuremberg Trials for their lack of the ear marks of legitimate trials. The defense to the charge that the Nuremberg Trials were mere "show trials" was quite straight forwardly that, no, they weren't because they do not match the description of a show trial. They were transparent, public, allowed for a vigorous defense, and were decided on the evidence presented in a public forum. By your definition, all trials are "show trials" for their transparency and public staging.
I get what you're saying. But your using lazy diction to make it. Find another phrase.
LAMBERT: Well, meanings "we can all generally agree on" is a relative sort of concept itself, isn't it? How close to "all" of the population knows anything about "show trials", much less any distinction between the Stalinist version and Nuremberg/ Sure, there's probably a better description -- "legal pageant", "circus court" ... give me a couple drinks and I'll come up with some more -- but what I was trying to do was apply "Nuremberg" to convey both the legitimacy of the legal action and the gravity of the various crimes we should be dealing with and "show" for the attention that should be given to emphasizing key details in a showman-like, storytelling fashion that would engage the public. (The irony here is that this is strictly my fantasy. As I say, for very good political reasons the Obama administration will do well to take a much lower key approach.)
If there is such a thing as a general public reading this who understood my amalgam, I'm content. And if the stern headmasters have their red pens out for me, I'll take my shots.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 30, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Well, I'll grant you that language evolves. But that's why we still keep dictionaries around, though they certainly are not chiseled in marble and continue to be published each year replete with revisions in order to enable us all to keep up with those changes.
But, for now, calling any legal proceeding a "show trial" is still to indict it as illegitimate. That may well change one day. But to date, show trial still has a widely understood, though perhaps vaguely in many cases, decidedly negative meaning and I don't think it's too much to ask any of us to respect that meaning. To be called a "show" anything is to be demeaned, a "show" horse, or "show" dog, as opposed to working. All "show" and no go, something that is "just for show" is insubstantial, of little consequence, a "show off," etc.
The United States does not recognize the World Court, where "public" trials are held to adjudicate the guilt of accused war criminals, the world's worst, and to reaffirm the universality of certain fundamental, shared norms. They provide catharsis to their victims and their survivors. No one but, I suppose, the Bush administration in an effort to impugn their value, would call them "show trials." They're just trials, public trials, in accordance with internationally-recognized evidentiary and procedural rules, at which we haughtily sniff.
If nothing else, the last eight years have taught us that words have meaning, and those meanings matter.
LAMBERT: OK. "Uncle". How about if I describe these proposed trials as "thoroughly transparent court proceedings refined for public consumption in such a way that the intent of the perpetrators is immediately and commonly understandable"? Does that have the lilt we're looking for?
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 30, 2008 at 11:06 PM
"Public" works. "Open court" has a tidy clarity. People know how trials work, Brian. They're on TV quite a lot, even real ones. OJ comes to mind. The Watergate Hearings, while not a trial, were rather widely viewed by the public to a good, cathartic end. Nobody called 'em "show hearings," except maybe Nixon and Co.
You've finally discovered a trait you and Bush share.
LAMBERT: Yeah, me and W ... like this.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on December 31, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Enough with the verbal masturbation Or should I say circle jerk. I've forgotten what the hell BL was talking about.
LAMBERT: I was saying these were serious crimes and that ... oh, never mind/
Posted by: elf on December 31, 2008 at 1:16 PM