Volume CXXXII, Number 1 September 13, 2002 f

Playing the blame game
ALEX DUNCAN
CONTRIBUTOR

An overdone blame game. It seems to me that in many ways that's what politics has deteriorated to, or maybe always has been. My more serious attention to the happenings of Washington D.C. is a relatively new development, maybe three years old, so I can't really comment on the early 90s, and certainly not on the 80s and before. Sure, in high school I knew my senators and representatives, and engaged in the typical between-the-bells hallway banter, but I can't say that it was much more than the repetition of what I'd heard on TV the night before, or perhaps at the dinner table. I guess it's possible that my political knowledge these days is actually only a little more extensive than in my high school years, though I'd like to think that I'm a little more tuned in to happenings, being a government major and all. And to be honest, given the way that I see our beloved elected officials interact, I can't help but feel more and more politically capable. I mean, I can point my finger at someone else too. But the blame game is not limited to the suites of Washington, it's all of us.

The person who says 9/11 was someone in Washington D.C.'s fault is usually of the opposite political affiliation. An interesting example (though certainly not altogether representative, just humorous and telling at the same time) was the talkative New York City cabbie who (besides having the distinction of speaking comprehensible English), told me that if Bill Clinton had been in power on that crisp September morning, "then there would have been no attacks, I am sure of it." Yes, of course, because Clinton's administration showed superior anti-terrorist tendencies in hurling a volley of missiles Sudan and Afghanistan's way following the bombing of US embassies in Africa, apparently hitting little other than fine dust. But others apparently agree, including some at the often left-leaning Time magazine, which published a story implying that if the Bush administration had only taken more seriously the Clinton plan for ridding the world of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, then we all would have been spared the horrors of that day. However, in reality there's nothing particular to say that the Bush administration didn't give the Clinton plans due attention. In fact it seems that they were on course to move on the plan, but bureaucratic tape got in the way, and that's hardly unique to one side of the aisle or the other.

Of course, some on the right say that had a Republican been in power during Clinton's final term, September 11 would have been avoided, that the events of that day were, as one conservative columnist wrote recently, entirely the fault of Clinton's administration and more specifically, of Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her department. Oh, that's it? So if Colin Powell or any other republican appointee had been nestled in the State Department, then all would have been fine? So then I guess American voters are somewhat to blame, because we didn't have the foresight in 1996 to see that 19 Islamic crazies would crash jetliners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside, and didn't subsequently vote Dole, right?

Then there's the entire corporate scandal issue that has the blame birds out and the market down who knows how many points since the noun "Enron" first entered our vocabularies. To paraphrase some, "Ken Lay and the rest of the gang's crimes must be Clinton's fault, because the book cooking took place when he was still in power!" Or: "Bush is responsible because he was President when they were discovered!" I for one think it's rather unfortunate that Bush has to deal with these issues, because as John Stewart of Daily Show renown said, "George Bush lecturing on corporate responsibility is like a leper giving a facial." But the fact is that Dubya's not responsible for the WorldComs and the Martha Stewarts of the world. The greedy execs themselves, who apparently need $6,000 shower curtains, are to blame.
It's not my intent to make light of these recent happenings. They've greatly affected large numbers of Americans, in addition to others across the globe, and those people certainly have a right to probe for answers. I obviously hope that we take strides to ensure that these things don't occur again (I think we've already started), and try even harder to head off future events before they can reap their toll, be it terrorism, financial loss, or otherwise. I also am not implying that political parties are by themselves detrimental. Parties and affiliations have a major role in our government, the essential one of balancing power. But to allow political accusations to rule governmental and policy conversations and drown out more relevant and beneficial information is not only an incredible waste of time and breath, it's counterproductive and potentially dangerous. If we're too busy griping about which political affiliation or party was to blame in the past, how will we ever get to bipartisan prevention in the future? The solutions to the issues of today lie not to our right or left, but straight ahead.