I think there's an odd conundrum for political junkies like us - the present probably always (or damned close to always) seems to have a characteristic of dire import. We tend to feel as if we are sitting on the edge of serious and profound changes that might easily send us hurtling quite out of control and in quite the wrong directions. Our friends and family members fearing for our emotional balance suggest good and comforting reasons why we ought to chill out. Or, less empathetically and fearing for their own emotional balance, they tell us to "shut the fukk up for once!"
The charge or suggestion of pre-clinical paranoid delusion isn't easy to defend against. We know it might be true.
One compelling bit of evidence for this diagnosis is the observation we make of ourselves, if we are honest, that anyone who disagrees with us about the 'tipping-point' acuteness of the present is
clearly suffering the reverse disorder - quaaludia, the belief that butterflies and bats would spend their wee hours tripping the moonlight fantastic together like Fred and Ginger if only all our ears were attunded, like the President's, to the voice of the Good Shepard and, of course, if there was a flat-tax system. We think these people are dangerous lunatics and we should admit that we do. Once you've frantically yanked a bat-creature out of your hair and seen with even the briefest glance that it had the same face as Richard Nixon, any notion of benevolent guidance henceforth gains the odor of butterfly landing on a lightbulb.
finn wrote:This seems to be an interesting way to hide an assertion of certain correctness within an insincere admission of possible error.
ISSUE ONE: The imperial presidency.
Whether democracy, in any fullsome sense of that word (ie., the framers' sense of it or your and my sense of it) will survive the accretion of power by the present crowd with attendant loss of balancing institutions, is not certain. Retention of the congress in Republican hands will push this change further. Retention of Republican control of congress and the presidency in 2008 will likely make the matter irretrievable for decades, if ever.
finn on [i]the imperial presidency[/i] wrote:Well, at least you acknowledge that (at present) the falling of Democracy's sky is not certain.
The real issue here is to what extent the executive branch has assumed greater powers, the balancing institutions have seen their's diminish and, most importantly, what peril, if any, this presents to the nation. I appreciate that for you and others there really is no issue in this regard, but if you are truly willing to acknowledge some of your fears may be unfounded, you should have no problem acknowledging that your assertions are debateable.
Retention of the congress by Republicans may very well maintain whatever the status quo is, but there is no certainty at all that it will, or that it will advance the situation in the direction you fear. Congressional Republicans are by no means as unified in their support of the President's policies as they were during his first term: McCain's anti-torture bill and the extension of the Patriot Act are two legislative examples that immediately come to mind.
It is possible, but unlikely that Republicans will strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006. It is more likely that they will retain their control with a diminshed majority in the house and simply hold on in the Senate. It is quite possible that they will lose the Senate.
No matter what happens (including the unlikely strengthened grip on Congress) there is no reason to believe that an essentially lame duck Bush will enjoy the level of support he had in the past. In the end, individual Republicans (in the main) are more concerned with maintaining and increasing their own personal power than that of the President. Their goals post 2006 will be to save those seats that are up for grabs in 2008 and securing the White House for their party. If they at all perceive that this requires them to distance themselves from Bush, they will not hesitate to do so.
Your dire prediction about continued Republican control of the congress and White House is a great example of the paranoia of which you led off your post.
Side note: We better hope for a Democrat winning the presidency in 2008, because they have never been guilty of establishing an Imperial Presidency!
ISSUE TWO: Information control.
The combination of increasingly effective modern marketing techniques deployed in the polical sphere, the already established fact of an entirely and exclusively conservative/Republican media system, the continuation of those factors working to smother a viable independent and critical press (corporatization, fragmentation of audience, Orwellian demands/bullying towards state-sanctioned consensus), along with further damage to FOI access and the certain growth of covert 'news' agents and mis-information/state-controlled propaganda systems will continue to erode citizens' ability to truly understand and effect governance policies.
finn on [i]information control[/i] wrote:I agree with all of this except your absurd assertion of an "established fact of an entirely and exclusively conservative/Republican media system." This is the sort of hyperbolic comment that typically, sorely undercuts your arguments.
It is important to note, however, that there is no reason at all to believe that the trends you have identified will not continue under Democratic control of the congress and the White House.
ISSUE THREE: the promotion of fear within the polity
If you don't grasp this one and how it facilitates oppressive and dicatorial governance then you either haven't read Orwell or you are such a daddy-image loving weenie that you deserve your paternalized and hate-filled future. In Manhattan, the only community to actually suffer an attack from 'terrorists', a full 80+% of the electorate did NOT vote for Bush last election. This ought to provide a clue as to the manufactured nature of the fear and hatred being nurtured in the American psyche.
finn on [i]fear mongering[/i] wrote:How wonderfully ironic that a Liberal warns of a paternalized future. Oh, and by the way, we all know that Liberals are incapable of hatred in any negative sense of the emotion. They only hate the 'bad-guys': the military, corporations, the rich, fundamental Christians, right-wing pundits, opponents of abortion, et al.
And the Left/Liberals/Democrats do not employ the tactic of fear mongering in their strategy to obtain power and promote their policies?
"Our civil liberties are being stripped from us. We will soon live in a Orwellian police state!"
"Global warming is going to result in the destruction of life on this planet!"
"An invasion of Iraq will lead to World War III!"
I'm afraid that I've entirely missed the clue presented by the 2004 presidential election results in NYC. Are you suggesting that New Yorkers are not afraid of another terrorist attack? Are you suggesting that the only reason anyone had for voting for Bush or Kerry in 2004 was whether or not they were afraid of terrorism? Is it your argument that if 80% of New Yorkers followed their decades long pattern of voting Democrat in presidential elections and didn't vote for Bush that anti-terrorist policies and rhetoric is trumped up fear mongering?
You haven't been in NYC all that long blatham, but already you've developed the The Big Apple's conviction that it is the center of the world.
Washington DC also sustained an attack on 9/11, but I suppose you covered this with your use of the qualifier "community." As the DC attack was limited to the Pentagon, there was no "community" involved. Good Grief, how could there be when the target was the evil heart of the American Military-Industrial Complex?! I'm sure you fall short of some of your fellow lefties glee that the Pentagon was hit, but, let's face it, it wasn't a "community." Of course the people who work there and the families of those who died might think otherwise, but hey who are they to argue with a Liberal when it comes to the definition of "Community?"
Fear is an appropriate motivator when the threat is real. If the threat is manufactured out of whole cloth or exaggerated far beyond its normal scope, it's fear mongering and of real concern. Now we just have to debate intelligently on what is an actual threat and what is not. You, apparently, have gone on record as arguing that another major terrorist attack is not a real threat.
ISSUE FOUR: war makes for huge corporate profits and peace is an anti-capital growth money-loser
Forget all the rest of Moore's film and keep in view the single segment that covered the meeting of corporate execs in Washington slavering over the huge bucks to be made in Iraq. That happened. You saw it. The great modern growth of privatized military services and mercenary functions along with the traditional weapons manufacturering enterprises and Pentagon budget outlay only adds impetus to the dynamic of profit-making through the happy circumstance of war. Signing onto Kyoto would, we hear, seriously damage the US economy. It would be interesting to compare that projected level of damage to what would result if peace were to break out.
finn on [i]war profiteering[/i] wrote:War does indeed offer opportunities for some to make profit, but there is plenty of evidence that the economy prospers in times of peace as well, and so your statement is untrue.
In virtually every human action and event there will be an element of economics. That there are billions of dollars made on the basis that humans enjoy sexual relationships does not imply that sex is a product of capital profit. Certainly the people who make large sums of money from our affection for sex will, if they can, try and influence public thinking and political decisions in such a way that their profits are at least sustained, and hopefully, for them, increased.
The same can be said for those who profit from war. What we think about those who not only profit from war, but who attempt to influence public thinking and political decisions to enhance their ability to make their profit is one thing. It is another thing to suggest that this is the only "real" reason we go to war. And to the extent that it is argued that Republican presidents are more influenced by the military-industrial complex than their Demcrat counterparts:
Presidents during whose terms wars were either initiated or significantly advanced:
Republicans:
Lincoln
McKinley
Nixon
GHW Bush
GW Bush
Democrats:
Polk
Buchanan
Wilson
Roosevelt
Truman
Kennedy
Johnson
This is not to, necessarily, say that any of these wars were not necessary or that all of these men were the tools of war profiteers. It is simply to point out that no political party in America has a monopoly on war or peace.
ISSUE FIVE: incumbency inertia
Almost nobody gets voted out of office now. Party manipulation, the huge cost of running for office, big-money investment in the election process, highly sophisticated computer-drawn redistricting along with an understandably apathetic electorate all work to maintain power in the hands of those who hold it.
finn on [i]incumbency inertia[/i] wrote: We tend to agree here, except that this is a pehnomenon that predates GW Bush, and the Republican control of congress. From time to time the rascals are thrown out, and there is a shift in power from one party to the other. You can argue that this should happen every year or even every four years, but then we would disagree.
In any case, I doubt too many Democrats will bemoan incumbant inertia if and when their party gains control of congress.
ISSUE SIX: the stealth campaign (their own wording) to politicize the courts
The Federalist Society has changed the horizon regarding the US court system through organizing and training the conservative/republican leaning lawyers to move into key positions of legal power while being prudently quiet as to their ideologies. They've been very successful. The influence falling out from this project is difficult to predict as these judges aren't ideologues in any sense comparable to the Rove or O'Reilly sort (see Luttig's recent ruling on the Padilla case). But the effects could prove critical on a number of deeply important issues. For example, if Alito still holds the same notions expressed earlier regarding vesting greater power in the Presidency, then ISSUE ONE above will gain even more impetus just as this battle is about to be fought.
finn on [i]a politicized judiciary[/i] wrote: Once again you characterize a particular trend as being advanced only by Conservatives or Republicans. That Liberals and Democrats may not be as effective as their adversaries in achieving a certain goal, doesn't, at all, mean they don't share the same goal or prize it as highly.
Liberals and Democrats have been as active in the politicization of judical appointments as respects blocking them as Conservatives and Republicans have been in advancing them.
In any case there is a difference between stacking a court with political stooges who will rule in ways that will promote and strengthen the power of a party, and in advancing the appointment of judges who there are reason to believe will rule in ways that are in alignment with a particular set of values or principles. Do you believe the appointment of Ruth Ginzberg was the result of a diabolical plot attempting to ensure the White House for the Democrats in perpetuity? Do you deny that she was a liberal/Democrat leaning lawyer before her appointment to a judicial seat, and, for that matter, has leaned left ever since she became a judge (including her current seat on the SC)?
So, that's how fukked up the scene looks to me. But there are some good signs too.
GOOD SIGN ONE: Patrick Fitzgerald. There are people in positions of responsibility who actually have integrity and who give a **** beyond gaining power and wealth for themselves and buddies. Judge Luttig, the conservative judge who just slapped down the administration for its cavalier manipulation of the court system; the Republican judge in Pennsylvania who pushed back against the ID movement with astonishing clarity of mind and integrity.
finn on [i]Good Sign One[/i] wrote: Yes there are, and some of them are even Democrats and/or Liberals.
GOOD SIGN TWO: Jack Abramoff. This wonderful scandal (wonderful in that it has blown open) has the potential to at least somewhat inform the broad electorate as to the level of corruption that the modern Republican machine has achieved. This is NOT an equal opportunity matter, it is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal. It has the potential to gather up people like Norquist and Reed who, as key Republican power-brokers and organizers, have made fortunes for themselves and for their party while fundamentally undercutting the democratic process in the US. It also has the potential to reach up into the Republican congress and the White House and strip away the deceits and the spin and reveal, once again, that trusting politicians to be working for YOUR best interests is delusional and they need to be watched and that requires a real transparency of operation and an independent press.
finn on [i]Good Sign Two[/i] wrote: Yes, this is a good sign in that it is a sign that the system works. It remains to be seen where it will go and how far it will reach, but I hope that all who are guilty are held accountible.
GOOD SIGN THREE: Iraq
In 1992, the neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute wrote a paper wherein they postulated that a Pearl Harbor type of incident would provide the necessary catalyst for re-instituting government of the sort they thought real spiffy. This group includes all the architects of the War on Iraq and most of the key players in this administration. They got 9/11 and they ran with it and still are.
What those of us who think those men dangerous nuts have now been bequeathed is the disaster in Iraq for which they are responsible. This hair-ripping outcome has but one good facet...the extremism, hubris, unilalateral idiocies, and cavalier war-mongering (where war is fought by others and other people's children, NOT by them) has become increasingly evident to the US electorate.
finn on [i]Good Sign Three[/i] wrote:
Here's is your most paranoid of accusations. Why don't you come out and state what you have so obviously implied: 9/11 was staged to provide Neo-conservatives with a catalyst for establishing a government of their preference.
Your celebration that the American people see Iraq through your wild eyes is completely unfounded.
As for "cavalier war-mongering." This little bit of emotional spittle is impossible to ignore since it is such a mainstay of the Left's argument against the war in Iraq. When was the last time any war was fought by the leaders who initiated it? Are you suggesting that the children of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Pearl et al are required to fight in a war that their parents have initiatied or supported? Are you suggesting that those who have volunteered to serve in our armed services should only be asked to do so when you and your friends agree with the purpose of that war? Do you suggest that these very same volunteers are, in the majority, duped fools for believing their cause is just and for supporting Bush?
GOOD SIGN FOUR: polls
As absolutely depressing as it has been to see Bush's poll numbers decline this slowly, they have finally declined and it is difficult to imagine anything bringing them back up. He's dead as far as any hope the Republicans had that he might become another Reagan. The polls also show an increasing perception by the electorate that the policies and ideas of this administration and its conservative supporters has been both extremist and misdirected. Thank god, I say.
finn on [i]Good Sign Four[/i] wrote:
Another Reagan in what sense? That he won two terms as president? Been there, done that.
That he might some day hence be considered in the top tier of American presidents? Way too soon to say that hope is dead, and certainly the current polls have little bearing on it.
finn in conclusion wrote:
As I've reread your comments I very much find the paranoia of which you joke: excessive and irrational suspicion and distrust of the political Right; bordering on, if not crossing into, the realms of fear and hatred you often warn and rail against.
Many of my counter-arguments have been premised on the notion that both parties engage in the sort of base practices which you decry, and have done so for some time. This of course doesn't excuse them. Nor does it paint a picture of America as a perfect nation where truth, and justice are synonomous with the American Way. However it does, I think, go to show the the American system of government is resiliant and has been fairly successful in dealing with the worst excesses of ou rleaders. It also suggest that your dire predicions are unfounded, just as you yourself seem to argue with your list of Good Signs.
In addition I have tried to argue that some what you perceive to be evil, because it is being perpetrated by the Right, is nothing of the sort, nor is it when engaged in by the Left.
In other words, take a deep breath and relax, Big Bad W and his neo-con cronies are not going to turn America into a dictatorship and or destroy the rest of the world (well, maybe Canada, but no all of the rest of the world).
On another thread someone pointed to this one as a thread of major importance. I can only hope she was being ironic, but, unfortunately, I feel certain that she was not.
What's left to say but: Bernie, shut the fukk up for once!
