It's Book Review Time!

Lauren Smith: Why did you write this book?           

Sinking the Ship of State

Lauren Smith: I assume your columns are dead-on serious?           

Walter Brasch: Many of the columns are humor and biting satire. Even the "serious" columns sometimes have traces of humorous sarcasm. From humor and satire, you can often see the truth more clearly.

Lauren Smith: Is your book just a collection of columns?           

Walter Brasch: The columns that make up Sinking the Ship of State are published in chronological order. But, the work to bring them to book publication has been almost as great as writing a book with no base. In developing this book, I did a lot of additional research and have updated many of the columns, noting the updates and additional material in italics. Further, some phrasing and style has been modified to conform to the genre of books rather than that of the newspaper; redundancies necessary in column writing have been diminished. There was also a lot that needed to be said, but which wasn't appropriate for newspapers for a number of reasons, often relating to format; for example, some of the columns/chapters in the book are 2,500–3,000 words. They were written and then stored for future publication.  A few columns were written solely for this book during the time frame noted at the bottom of each column.

Lauren Smith: There are a lot of books on politics and the Bush era. Why do you think we need another one? How is your book different?          

Walter Brasch: Sinking the Ship of State is one of more than a million books in print; it is one of about 300,000 books worldwide that will be published in 2007. During the next few decades, there will be hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about George W. Bush. Some will be written by persons who have been his advisors and confidantes. Many of their books will be flattering, others won't be. Political realities will cloud their memories, their works reflecting a reality that their own political futures are largely based upon what they think the public wants to hear. As a result, there will be undercurrents in most of the books that the writer was someone who best represented the interests of the people, while standing up against the excesses of the Bush–Cheney Administration. Mr. Bush's critics will also write books, ranging from venomous to insipid. Some of these books will be written by those who were closet pseudo-liberals, persons who spoke out against Mr. Bush and his policies only among themselves, afraid to stand up in public for what was right until the President's popularity and credibility declined abruptly. Several dozen books will be written by journalists who incorrectly believe they are impartial. Some of these books, written late in Mr. Bush's presidency or after he leaves office, will tilt toward exposing his faults, yet will be written by the same journalists who willingly accepted their role of being compromised in order to achieve the "perks" of being close to the seat of power. By their failure to adequately question the President or his administration, while pretending to be objective journalists, they allowed abuses of the Constitution to continue. Mr. Bush himself may even write a reflection of his presidency. What makes Sinking the Ship of State different from the others is that not only is it is a collection of columns about a period in American history that was infused by the politics of terror, but it is a way for readers to wander a path to better understand the Bush–Cheney presidency and, more important, to better understand events that shaped the United States and its people between 2000 and 2008. I believe the words of others may be more important as to why this book is specifically different. Jim Hightower, a syndicated columnist and author of There's Nothing  in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos, says "When most Americans and the mainstream media were accepting whatever they were told by the Bush Administration, Walter Brasch was meticulously peeling away the incompetence, deceit, corruption and, most of all, their cavalier attitude to the Constitution. Sinking the Ship of State reveals the heavy price that our country has paid for the arrogance, autocracy, and avarice of the Bushites." Rob Kall, editor of the popular and influential website, OpEdNews, agrees: "During a time when the mainstream media were either inept or afraid to challenge a sitting president, Brasch was constantly pointing out constitutional and civil rights violations." Don Kaul, syndicated columnist and former Washington bureau chief for the Des Moines Register, says "Brasch lays the whip to an indolent press, 'cash register patriots,' and a corrupt Congress, among other miscreants." There were many of us who did speak out against the Bush–Cheney administration; hopefully, our voices have been and will continue to be heard.
 
Lauren Smith: If so many Americans are angry with the current Presidency (in major national polls, fewer than 30 percent of the nation now gives him credibility) why is it that we continue to tolerate it (and vote him into office a 2nd time)?           

Walter Brasch: During the Revolutionary War, at a time when there was even a greater terror facing America than at any time since, including right after 9/11, a time when every Revolutionary—whether a military leader like Washington, statesmen like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, political firebrands and journalists like Benjamin Eades, John Gill, and Sam Adams, or the quiet clerk in a local store were likely to be executed if captured by the British—the Founding Fathers, no matter how great their differences, still believed in the power of what developed as our Constitution that would protect the rights of all people, no matter how great the threats from outside the nation.
As the 21st century developed, America became even more fearful after 9/11 and allowed the Bush–Cheney Administration to lead us even deeper into believing that we needed to sacrifice some of our values and liberties in order to protect the country. In contrast to what our Founding Fathers wanted, we had sacrificed our rights before, tearing fabric from the Constitution; we would do it again. The people were skillfully manipulated by some of the best propagandists in the nation into believing that only the Bush team could protect us against another invasion upon our soil. To keep us "free and safe," the people bought into this propaganda. My wife and I, and a few million Americans, but only a small percentage of all Americans, took to the streets to protest the impending invasion of Iraq. We argued that the threat of al-Qaeda was not in Iraq but Afghanistan, that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, that this nation's resources, financial and human, would be used in a futile war, while allowing those who caused and supported 9/11 to escape. Dick Cheney called us traitors, who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The talk show blowhards and their followers, and most of the nation, called us unpatriotic; many even called us "unChristian," although many of the rallies were sponsored by Christian organizations, including the Society of Friends. I, of course, didn't mind being called "unChristian," since I'm a Jew; I did mind being called "anti-Christian," which I most certainly am not. The President's propagandists—and he isn't alone, for every president has a staff whose mission is to spin the truth—led us to put American flags and magnetic yellow ribbons on our cars and to wave the flag because we "support the troops." (Waving the flag is easy; being willing to expose yourself to combat is not, and a lot of "patriotic" Americans were more than willing to send 19-year-olds into fields planted with anti-personnel devices.) In a twisted bit of logic, we began to believe that by supporting the Bush–Cheney regime, we were supporting the troops; by supporting the troops we also supported the President's war policies. (Interestingly, my wife and I were editors of Oasis 2—we had done Oasis in 1990-1991 during the First Gulf war. Oasis and Oasis 2 were major publications funded by numerous non-profit agencies, including the Red Cross, that were directed to the families of combat troops. The newsletter gave the families objective information; we and our staff of volunteers served as liaisons to help families get further information and resources that would help themselves and those who were in combat. But there were many non-military families who questioned how we could possibly oppose President Bush if we "truly" supported the troops.) President George W. Bush was elected in 2004 by a combination of exploiting fear, and by successfully energizing a vast religious right-wing that believed Mr. Bush would lead us on this great crusade.
 
Lauren Smith: Do you think we can ever repair the country after the damage that's been done?           

Walter Brasch: During the last days of the constitutional convention, a citizen asked Ben Franklin what kind of government the delegates had created. "A republic if you can keep it," replied the 81-year-old journalist, scientist, politician, diplomat—and Revolutionary. It's been a struggle to maintain what our Founding Fathers believed. There have been many times that politicians at all levels of government, who undoubtedly believed that by stretching the law and the constitution they were acting in the best interests of the people, have caused damage to the Foundation that was established more than two centuries ago.

But if we truly believe in the Constitution, if we truly believe in the revolution that some of this nation's brightest people had created, we will be able to again make our country whole. The people are now recognizing that there were excesses, and that we have sacrificed some of our principles and our integrity in our desire to salve our fears; the only thing that we have done was to instill even greater fear among the people, while we sacrificed thousands of our children on a fool's errant.
 
Lauren Smith: What do you think is Bush's worst mistake? 

Walter Brasch: Even in a book of 460 pages, I could point out only so many.  But, let's look at just a few. During his first campaign for presidential office, he preached a doctrine against nation building and pre-emptive military strikes. Within a year of his inaugural he was already planning to export his version of democracy to the world. Within two years, he had begun spinning half-truths and lies in his plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq and to create a "regime change." In exporting his version of democracy, the President contradicts his own beliefs. He wraps himself in the doctrine of the National Rifle Association, and what he believes the Second Amendment says, yet has ordered Iraqi civilians to be stripped of all weapons. He says he believes in a free press, but has ordered news media in Iraq that disagree with his political policies to be shut down. In attacking Bill Clinton for putting troops into Bosnia, Gov. Bush demanded deadlines for withdrawal. But, for the war he created in Iraq, and which looks like the quagmire that became the Vietnam War, he has decided that deadlines are blueprints for failure, that "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing." He and his Administration have preached a doctrine of "Support the Troops," but by not giving the troops adequate body armor, by not providing enough combat troops for Iraq, by not listening to his field commanders, by opposing military pay raises, and by allowing inadequate medical care for wounded veterans, he has proven that it is he, not the people, who doesn't support the troops. He pushed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires extensive testing of students to see that they meet Republican-approved goals. Within months of creating the program, teachers were forced to "teach to the test," rather than to improve a student's education. Yet, he becomes infuriated when critics suggest he has failed every test of success in Iraq, and defiantly tells a nation worn down by the cost of a failed foreign policy that it's impossible to measure success in war. His administration has rewritten the rules of combat and disregarded the Geneva Conventions. When the majority of Americans declared, in poll after poll, they opposed the use of torture, even against al-Qaeda operatives, the commander-in-chief decided the majority didn't matter. Disregarding the Geneva Conventions on the humane treatment of prisoners isn't just a "mistake," it's criminal conduct. He has disregarded the wishes of the people who believe in better health care for all Americans and the preservation of the environment. Shortly after he took office, he withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Agreement, signed by 37 industrialized nations. His response was not only to ignore but also to gut the environment and, against the findings of an overwhelming majority of scientists, not only claimed that global warming isn't a problem, but has suppressed the views of government scientists. In almost every campaign speech, even those after he was elected, he pontificates about fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and less government in the lives of people. His fiscal irresponsibility has led to deficit spending and a national debt that our grandchildren will still be paying; he launched an extensive spy system against Americans, and believes there needs to be even more legislation—Constitutional amendments, specifically—to ban both flag burning (an issue the Supreme Court has already dealt with) and same sex marriage. When the Republicans controlled Congress, the smirky President demanded that the Senate adhere to an up-or-down vote on all of his appointees—a majority vote was all that should be needed to approve his candidates. His belief, echoed by the nation's elected Republicans and googles of blow-hard conservative radio talk show hosts, opposed the entire history of the Senate that allows debate until 60 or more senators vote to end that debate. It's democracy, he bleated. Majority vote. Majority rules. (Of course, he conveniently forgot that had he truly believed in majority vote, Al Gore would have been president.) Nevertheless, after the Democrats took control of Congress, President Bush saw the light and decided that up-or-down votes didn't matter. The President's lieutenants blocked an up-or-down vote on the "surge" in Iraq. When the House voted 247–176 and the Senate voted 63–37 to allow federal funding for stem cell research, the oh-so-moral President decided the majority and up-or-down votes didn't matter, and vetoed the proposed legislation.

When Congress voted to require phased withdrawals from Iraq, President Bush vetoed that legislation. When the Senate, by a 53– 38 vote, declared they had "No Confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the President ignored the wishes of the majority; the "Decider-in-Chief" decided that he would continue to mismanage the country without judicial or Congressional advice or overview. However, what he has done to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is his greatest mistake—and his legacy. This administration's policies have violated the protections of six constitutional amendments: the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), Sixth (due process), Eighth (reasonable bail and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and Fourteenth (equal protection guarantee for both citizens and non-citizens). The use of the government to illegally spy upon Americans and his attitudes about dissent put him as far removed from the Founding Fathers as possible. His administration has routinely forbidden any dissent at his appearances, both political and official, while doing an excellent job of manipulating a compliant mainstream media. To an audience at China's Tsinghua University, President Bush said that "life in America shows that liberty paired with law is not to be feared. In a free society, diversity is not disorder, debate is not strife, and dissent is not revolution." How his Administration created and enforced the USA PATRIOT Act; how he and his Administration have routinely and maliciously suppressed the rights of dissent, linking dissent to treason; how he has disregarded federal, constitutional, and international law, puts the lie to what he told Chinese students was his philosophy of government. Perhaps, we may claim that the greatest mistake may be that he violated the trust of the Founding Fathers and the principles that created this nation.
           
Lauren Smith: What can the average citizen do to try and take back their country? Can anything be done?            

Walter Brasch: On March 9, 1954, during a time when the nation was being choked by the "Red Scare," when people lost their jobs and careers because they didn't believe as certain members of business and Congress wanted them to believe, Edward R. Murrow, on CBS-TV's "See It Now," told the nation, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty…We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven  by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men—not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." The foundation of this nation is in libertarian doctrine that all views must be heard, that only in a marketplace of ideas can truth emerge. The Founding Fathers had demanded vigorous and open discussion. Slightly more than a hundred years after the United States created its Constitution, President Theodore Roosevelt eloquently and forcefully told us, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Far too many Americans—liberal and conservative, journalist and politician—did not challenge the President when it was necessary. This failure has led to abuses I hope we never experience again. If all we hear is blowhard ranting in support of the President, and no one challenges that, we will have failed as a people to protect our nation. The average citizen must stand up, must speak up, and must be a part of the democratic process by intelligently questioning authority, by using facts to make sure that all views are presented to the people. Only when that happens can we have the nation that Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin envisioned.
 
Lauren Smith: What do you hope people learn from your book?           

Walter Brasch:  Sinking the Ship of State presents one perspective of the Bush–Cheney years; hopefully, the reader will see it as an important perspective, and one that should serve as a call to action. If anything is learned from this book, it is that people should question authority, and intelligently challenge it if necessary. By accepting the fear that compels us to believe we need to compromise our civil liberties and the Constitution in order to pretend we are "safe," we have allowed excesses to occur and have damaged our nation. People who are silent, whether out of fear or failure to understand and speak out on behalf of our nation, all contribute to a decline of this Republic.
 
Lauren Smith: Where can readers get other information about the Bush years?         

Walter Brasch:  No book can ever be a complete history of anything, and this book is no exception. Readers who wish more in-depth information about certain aspects of the Bush–Cheney Administration may wish to read three of my other books—America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights (January 2005), 'Unacceptable': The Federal Government's Response to Hurricane Katrina (January 2006), and Fool's Gold (November 2007), a study of the Bush–Cheney Administration's use of data bases and data mining in its campaign that reduced constitutional rights of privacy while doing little to reduce the terrorist threat. There are numerous books from all perspectives; some outstanding writing has appeared in many major magazines, including TIME, Newsweek, Harper's, Vanity Fair, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, and National Review. Readers can look at innumerable credible web-based newspapers or go to on-line newspaper archives. Many radio shows are now archived, as well.

Lauren Smith: Where can a reader purchase your book?           

Walter Brasch: This is always my favorite question. Readers can purchase Sinking the Ship of State at www.Amazon.com; www.borders.com; by contacting me through my website, www.walterbrasch.com (I always like to hear from readers!); or by going to a bookstore. If the store does not have the book in stock, just tell the clerk to order it from Baker & Taylor, a major wholesaler. Persons who would like to have a deluxe hardcover edition may order it from Savant Books (www.savant-books.com).
 
Lauren Smith: Finally, you have written 17 books, you do a regular syndicated column, you have written magazine articles, you were a newspaper reporter and editor, and even did PR campaigns and multimedia shows. What's your favorite medium?        

 Walter Brasch:  A good journalist must be able to write for almost all media. I especially enjoy producing multimedia shows, for it requires me to be adept at understanding and using several kinds of media. In the pre-computer days, we often had to link banks of 32 slide projectors, two or three film projectors, and numerous special effects on three or five screen projection. And, the possibility of error was as numerous as sand on a beach. Unlike writing a newspaper column, producing multimedia requires several people working closely together—writers, artists, photographers, graphic designers, musicians, and many others. Even today, with PowerPoint and computer graphics, it's challenging and rewarding. Writing isn't necessarily a lonely profession. But, I also like writing a hard news or feature story now and then—it might go back to my beginnings as a journalist, and a wish not to lose that part of my life. I like books, because they allow a writer to develop in-depth knowledge into a subject. I once wrote for radio and TV, but haven't done that for so long; arrogantly, I don't even think of "journalism" and "local TV news" in the same sentence. As a social activist, I still do PR work for various issues. My favorite writing, at least right now, is the column. There's a certain freedom to find the data, analyze it, and then synthesize it into something readers can understand in only a few minutes of their time. Unfortunately, far too many newspapers have tried to become USA Today clones, while at the same time they have downsized their staffs and newspaper size; in the quest to "maximize the bottom line," they have decided that stories and columns should be no more than 700 words. They claim the attention span of readers is so short that anything more than that won't be read. It's a nice spin for what is really happening with newspapers. My columns may go as high as 1,500 words (longer, I think about magazines). And, because certain newspapers believe that a story may need more than 700 words—while some of 200 words may be overwritten and in need for judicious editing—I have found newspapers and online publications that are a perfect fit for the column. Besides, a column requires discipline, thought, and constant attention to detail and knowledge of what's happening in the world. But, if all I write are columns, I'd be rather bored. Thus, books and other media. And, sometimes, like Sinking the Ship of State, you can develop columns into books.

Tag it:

?