See, I used to think that Russia was in this quandary of whether to have more democracy (US-style) or dictatorship (Chinese-style). We all know that Russia has been preferring secrecy, weakening the press and the judiciary and the duma has been willing to pass whatever laws the executive asks them to without asking any questions. After I read Savage I started to think that perhaps Putin and Medvedev aren’t taking all of their cues from Communist China, many of their moves are vintage Bush & Cheney stuff.

So I’m actually thrilled about Obama stepping in because I hope that he has more respect for the Constitution than this outgoing administration and he will start the slow and painful road back toward open government.

Charlie Savage makes a great case for the idea that Bush and Cheney indeed had a strategy. It was a big government strategy where this government was supposed to act in complete secrecy. They produced newscasts where one government official poses as a reporter and throws softball questions to another one who then gets to praise what a fantastic job the government has done – these news-imitating broadcasts were then aired at a number of local tv stations. Nothing wrong with commercials but these were paid by taxpayer money and presented as news. So perhaps I shouldn’t be saying so much about Russia practicing Bush-style secrecy, I might consider the possibility of the Republican US government producing Putin-style state journalism.

The legacy of the Bush years is that we don’t know what the government has been doing since everything that has been possible to keep secret has been classified. They have even reclassified plenty of stuff that had been previously released to the public based on the Freedom of the Information Act.

I think that government should work in an open and honest manner with the possibility for the public to check out what the executive has been doing. I know terrorism has to be fought through covert operations and the government needs powers to crack down on extremists. Of course! But remember, that’s not all the Bush legacy is about. George W. Bush has been a big brother-style huge government president, a government that does a whole lot but isn’t accountable to anyone. The size of the government has been increased during the past eight years, no doubt about that. But the efficiency of that government is another matter. When you increase the size of government to do something the public actually wants make sure there are plenty of checks and balances so that it don’t end up in corruption. That’s why the press needs to know what the government does, the judiciary has to be able to prosecute officials who do wrong and the government has to implement those laws that exist and not those that they wish that existed (something that Bush has been done by ignoring important parts of legislation with his use of signing statements in the way of “Yeah, I sign this law but I proceed to ignore a), b), c) and d) because these provisions are an unconstitutional encroachment on my absolute power”).

Bush has done a whole lot of things that don’t seem to be clear even to his supporters. I guess Winter is so focused on terrorism that he hasn’t been noticing all other things that the government has done. He has been using government power to the max, but not to promote public interest. Openness in government is actually in the public interest and the key reason for Bush and Cheney to limit that openness has been to promote certain special interests in a way that wouldn’t attract attention. Of course what happened to the economy has caught many people’s attention and there’s a reason for why the Bush Administration has low approval ratings. It’s easier to promote special interests if checks and balances are put out of place. It’s rather ironic that Enron, to name one company that expected their profits to go sky-high when Bush came to power, ended up bankrupt. There are plenty of business leaders who thought contributing to the campaigns of George W. Bush was a smart investment to them but I’m not sure if even those of them who were the president’s personal friends are convinced that this thing has worked out so wonderfully.

One lesson is that those who talk about a judicial philosophy of strict constructionism should do well to read even that part of the Constitution that is about the separation of powers. One of the biggest jokes has been the Bush judicial appointments who were supposed to be so great at upholding the ideals of the Constitution. I’m glad that the incoming president has worked as a teacher of constitutional law and he at least knows what the constitutional powers of the presidency are supposed to be. Bush had some bizarre ideas about that one issue and this is why his legacy resembles that of Putin on point of the centralization of power.

Any possible Islamist ideological assault on Western values has been hugely advanced by eight years of Bush, which have made the USA a laughingstock.

His reaction to 9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to the Jihadists, for whom Gitmo alone has served as a powerful recruiting tool, while alienating allies and potential friends. But it is kind of funny to see Bush, in his lame duck period, forced by the failures of super-capitalist economics, to effectively socialize the banking and car manufacturing industries.

This article in Time (a moderately conservative publication by any reasonable standards) sums it up pretty well:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html

And here’s a “late nigth joke” that a New York Times reader submitted to the humor section:

‘How bad must the G.O.P. feel right about now? It portrayed Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, and a friend of terrorists, and the majority of American voters said, “Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican.”’

Now we have a Chairman Obama who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists don’t seem to have got the Chairman Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we haven’t yet held talks without preconditions with.

This isn’t about repudiating the Bush years, or withdrawing from Iraq, or even liquidating Israel. It’s bigger than that. And if you don’t have a strategy for beating back the ideology, you’ll lose.

Bush has a strategy, Chairman Obama does not, unless you think the FBI will stop these guys. That strategy worked so well before 9/11, and it failed.

The parts filmed in Europe were. Just interested if the parts filmed in the US were as well.
I suppose it’s easier to ask someone who has lived there, instead of going to see it myself.