Rules of engagement

In the context of U.S. politics, bipartisanship means working together--engaged in a critical but respectful dialogue, aimed at acheiving a high quality result.

This is why I sometimes call myself an "inside outsider." I can talk the language of planning and development, but I have an overarching philsophy about urban design and urban livability that guides my approach and recommendations, and for the most part, I am uncompromising when it comes to that philosophy.

People appreciate it when I talk the talk, but not when I point out the disconnects between the proposals and the broad principles. They call it criticism. "Negative energy." Whereas I am merely focused on making things work, by identifying likely and potential failures far in advance, when they can be fixed or eliminated.

A lap dog is something different.

Lap·dog n.

1. A small dog which is or can be fondled in the lap.

2. One who does the bidding of another; a servile follower.

I bring this up because of Senator Lieberman's defeat in yesterday's primary, as discussed in today's Post, "Lieberman Defeated in Democratic Primary."

Nobody in the world would say that Saddam Hussein was a good leader of Iraq. He ordered tens of thousands of people to their deaths. But was this the war the U.S. should have been fighting? And once in, a "bipartisan" leader should be working to make the engagement successful. (See by the way the excellent article by James Fallows in the September issue of The Atlantic magazine--not available online--"We Win: A New Strategy for the War on Terror.")

But Lieberman's engagement was one of "following the leader," a leader who didn't want to hear any or (from the) opposition. I mean, this is a guy who represents a party that defeated a U.S. war veteran, Max Cleland--a person who lost most of his limbs in Vietnam--by claiming he was "soft" on defense!!!!

Abu Ghraib. The latest on the rape and killing of a Iraqi family by U.S. troops. The civil war.

As an American citizen I am sick to my stomach over the things being done in my name.

I have a bad habit of reading schlock fiction. Leon Uris' Armageddon, about the military government in Germany after World War II and Harold Robbins' The Adventurers about the "governance" in a Latin American country and the impact of rebellion on the people and how terrible acts in the countryside create the next generation of "rebels" might have taught the neoconservatives something about how to approach getting involved in Iraq. The books are pretty good and full of insights.

I am all for bipartisanship, for a focus on results rather than ideology. Joe Lieberman didn't show us this. At least on the war in Iraq.

Index Keywords: civic-engagement