Colin Powell's resignation as Secretary of State is good riddance, even if his successor is likely to be even less principled and even more inept. My home town paper's editorial page toasted Powell today under the heading "Moderate": "His moderate, multinational, pragmatic views were routinely rejected in the Bush team's squabbles on nuclear nonproliferation, Iraq, the Middle East and other major challenges abroad." If this was Powell's strategy, the editorial writer (Randy Scholfield) would have been right to conclude that "his tenure can only be described as a failure." Yes, it's been a failure, maybe even in Powell's own limited terms. But it hasn't been a failure because Powell's moderation was rejected by hotter heads; it's been a failure because of Powell's willingness to support the hawks. And there's damn little evidence that Powell isn't one of the hawks. His disagreements have at most been tactical.

Theodore Roosevelt's used to say "speak softly and carry a big stick." Powell alone among Bush's War Cabinet seems to have taken that as a maxim. But Roosevelt's intent was to camouflage a whole administration. If only Powell speaks softly, he loses his voice. The bigger question is why did the others speak so loudly. And the evident answer is that Bush's foreign policy has first and foremost been a matter of domestic politics. Bush's bully tactics are meant to show his base that he's their strong leader; and the world be damned -- it's not like their votes count. Powell's most famous self-description was as the "bully on the block," so how much space does that leave between Bush and Powell? Damn little, at least in the realm of intentions. I don't discount that Powell has a stronger grip on reality and the limits of American power, but let's face it: for Bush that's off-message. Powell did nothing effective to bring such concerns to bear on administration policy. Maybe this too is just an act.

Certainly, Powell's famous U.N. speech on Iraq's WMD was an act. The case he made has been totally discredited. What seems to have escaped most observers' attention is that the case was never meant to affect the U.N., as it didn't address any of the fears that most other nations sensibly had about opening up war there. No, it was meant to persuade the only hearts and minds that ever mattered to this administration: the U.S. Congress and American voters. Among the immediate responses to Powell's speech was that it was the signal for the Republicans in Kansas' sorry congressional delegation to declare for the war. It may seem like a sick joke now, but Powell was the single most effective proponent of the Iraq war. As such, he deserves as much opprobrium as his more fanciful collaborators; to the extent that he knew better, maybe he deserves more.

As far as his successor, Condoleezza Rice, is concerned, this is what America gets for granting Bush a second term. Had Kerry won the likelihood is that Rice would never work in Washington again. On her watch as National Security Director, the "intelligence" organizations split into factions rewarded for political utility. As far as we've been able to tell, none of the "intelligence" that trickled up to the White House has been valid, and she has been completely inept at challenging it. Rather, she was too busy on the PR front -- remember "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? Some years ago there was a business management theory called the Peter Principle, which asserts that managers rise to the level of their incompetence, then stay there. As Bush himself has proven, incompetence in the White House extends all the way to the top.

As the second term cabinet turns over, the most notable trend is that the new cabinet members are almost all current White House staff (e.g., Alberto Gonzalez for John Ashcroft). This bespeaks an administration that will be even more closeted and close-minded than the last one. You voted for it, America. This is just Bush's way of saying: fuck you.

Also in the paper today was an item titled: "Now you know: Top Ten 'Economic Freedom' State." This reported findings of the Pacific Research Institute, "a San Francisco economic think tank," which ranked states according to "the most 'economic freedom' for businesses and individuals."

The top ten (most economic freedom) states were: Kansas, Colorado, Virginia, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Delaware, Wyoming, Missouri.

The bottom ten (least economic freedom) were (from the bottom): New York, California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

Note that eight of the top ten voted for Bush (New Hampshire and Delaware were the exceptions); nine of the bottom ten voted for Kerry (Ohio was the exception). Also note that per capita income is strongly correlated inversely against "economic freedom." At least on the "least" side; the poorest states in the country are mostly southern states which didn't show up on either list.