USA - A Theocratic Nation?
Below is a succint, to-the-point letter written to Eric Alterman on MSNBC.com. In my opinion, the writer makes some fantastic points - judge for yourself:
Eric,
I started reading "The End of Democracy", got through the introduction and began Bork's contribution, but found it difficult to read further. The intellectual bankruptcy (I struggle for a better description) is predictable and simple, but nonetheless appalling. What is incorrect in all of it comes down to two simple points.
First, since the Judicial branch cannot write or pass laws, its ability to be "tyrannous" is never going to be great; when it is at its most "active" and strikes down a law, the rest of government is free to try again, ad infinitum. In the meantime, things revert to the status quo ante - a very "conservative" approach indeed.
Second, no matter how religious conservatives feel, and more importantly, no matter how great a majority they might become, they are not entitled to impose their religion's morality on the rest of us. The founders explicitly intended a secular government in which the "secular morality", if you will, of Reason is to prevail. In other words, the government must in each instance make a reasoned case that its actions will do more good for the citizenry than harm. Personal feeling or religious faith are supposed to be irrelevant to consideration of policy, and calls for either of them to supersede rational consideration in politics are tantamount to treason (at the risk of using a word so cheapened by the likes of Coulter et.al).
Even with rational majority rule, there are certain rights that NO MAJORITY, however large or insistent or belligerent or bullying or obnoxious or ignorant or militant or self-righteous or well-funded (or even well-intended), can take away. The religious conservatives simply cannot answer the charge that they are seeking to illegally impose their morality on all of us, so they do not. They pretend that the Founders were Benthamites - they were NOT, and they warned repeatedly about the "tyranny of the majority". They pretend that because many of the founders were Christians (or at least deists), that proves that we should be governed exclusively by laws that reflect Christian morality. They pretend that they can put their idea of God's will, God's law, above the law of the land - that they can render both what is Caesar's and the Lord's unto the Lord, if you will. Any such call is arguably a call to treason, and arguably a betrayal of their faith as well. The courts ARE functioning properly when they refuse to allow the Jim Crow south to continue to keep African-Americans second-class citizens; when they say, not that men and women are identical (Bork's propagandistic assertion), but that they are to be identical before the law; when they say that government has no role in matters of private conscience unless the public "weal" can be rationally held to be sufficiently hurt - we do not allow human sacrifice in religion, for example.
All of the authors share that basic refusal to acknowledge the bedrock of what the founders and framers sought - a secular, humanist government that would leave behind the tedious slaughter and oppression which is the legacy of government by Faith. The current Afghan case of the man who converted from Islam to Christianity perfectly illustrates all of this. By no means can Afghanistan, or any other nation, hold itself to be "democratic" when it claims a role in what is a matter of private conscience, as Madison put it. No matter how great the Muslim majority, the State cannot by definition both impose Muslim morality and be legitimate republican government.
America seems at times frighteningly confused about all of this, when it is in fact both simple and readily shown in the historical record. Witness the distress of our citizenry at the thought that Iraq, after all our sacrifice of blood and treasure, might turn into a nation governed by the Sharia and by Shia clergy. This, BY DEFINITION would not be a democracy or republican government, no matter how many purple fingers there are. Does anyone know what it would take to get people to understand this? I do not know about "No Child Left Behind", but the simple and direct ideas underlying this nation's founding have apparently been left behind by our education system.
Letter from a military man
This letter was written into Eric Alterman on
www.msnbc.com. Everyone should read it:
Old Navy guy here. I just returned from interviewing and meeting returnees and refugees from the devastated part of the United States on no one's mind formerly known as the City of New Orleans (and environs) but more on that at another time. I write in response to John from Vermont, Major Bob and the good Master Chief. As a retired senior Navy officer I have some direct experience with military topics. My continued involvement comes in many ways. Most significantly my son recently left the Marine Corps and was in both the Afghanistan invasion and the drive into Baghdad. My son-in-law served in Iraq as a "ground pounder" in the Army, having been called up from the Guard. He's an inactive reserve member and is being called up again to the end of his obligation to be sent back to Iraq.
Military members are like everyone else, especially a professional military in times like this one, in which national survival is not at stake. I can hear the howls now-but I challenge anyone to tell me how a well-financed terrorist organization of a couple of thousand members can threaten the nation to such an extent that an extraordinary and unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive and the violation of political rights and civil liberties (apart from the lies, corruption and abuse of power that seem to go hand-in-hand with these other actions) are necessary compared to, say, the Cold War where we faced the old Soviet Union with its sophisticated intelligence infrastructure, modern military and nuclear weapons that could (and we did come to the brink) wipe us off the map in a matter of minutes? Or how it compares to World War II where both Japan and Germany-two of the largest economies and military powers in the world at the time-were dedicated to our destruction and waged total war against us?
This is a fake war manufactured by cowards to hide their insecurities and to make money. Nor do military members have the inside track on virtue or truth (which should be self-evident). Only in fascist countries is the military held to a higher level of respect or position than a citizen. When I served I was doing a job. It was one that I felt required the highest ethical and moral conduct since the authority given me as a senior officer was quite weighty: one that flowed from the laws of the land. It is a necessary discipline because we all are only people-other citizens---and possess the same weaknesses, which-apart from all of the other stupidities to which one can become susceptible-includes the ability to be corrupted by power. There are military people who try to do the right thing, who obey the laws of the land, are professional and compassionate-like Major Bob and the Master Chief. But there are also those who commit crimes, abuse their authority and lead reprehensible lives. This is aside from the run-of-the-mill idealists, bootlickers, politicians, opportunists and careerists. Like the society that creates it, the military is generally representative of that society in terms of human frailties and virtues.
These common sense observations should go without saying, but a mystique seems to have grown around our military placing its members beyond criticism, especially convenient to those who would use it for questionable ends. The members of certain political and economic classes have aligned themselves with the military and, as a result, have through that alignment attempted to appropriate this mystique for their own gain. Some military members have been all too happy to oblige, further compromising their own legitimacy. Thus I think it is time to talk about the military tradition concerning the concept of accountability that seems to have been forgotten.
To the general public (and to the non-Sea Services) this is often and sadly a hard concept to grasp, but it is a necessary one for those who are given responsibility for decisions that can make the difference between life and death. After all, the sea is unforgiving. One who is given unique authority over others who falls short of what it takes needs to be removed from doing any more harm than he or she may have already caused. You can delegate responsibility to someone to achieve a particular goal but you, as a Commissioned Officer (or a President), cannot escape the judgment of accountability. For example, when you are given the "con" on a U.S. Navy ship, you are accountable for everything that happens during your watch. No special pleading about conditions that may have existed before your assumption of that position will save you from harsh judgment should you run the ship aground, hazard your vessel unnecessarily or collide with another vessel. You voluntarily took the con and are expected to understand all important conditions prior to assuming command. Without accountability power lacks legitimacy and we are left with official lawlessness and despotism. The Master Chief, of all the writers, should know better and is being disingenuous when he shifts blame for 9/11 and other lapses of judgment and offenses committed by this Administration to previous ones. I fault the 9/11 Commission for the same dishonesty. The 9/11 attack, the cooked evidence for the Iraq invasion, the Katrina debacle, the abuse of power in domestic spying involving hundreds of thousands of Americans with no connection to al-Qaeda, the widespread corruption involving billions of dollars in misappropriated funds all occurred on the watch of this President. Some of these involved unforgivable acts of omission and others were acts of commission involving the abuse of power.
No one forced George W. Bush to be President. He pursued that office and insisted on taking it even when all indications were that such a claim lacked democratic legitimacy. He sought it a second time through artifice and ruthlessness, cynically knowing that the perspective of time and discovery would be too late to stop him from continuing to pursue these acts. The judgment of the President's acts will play out in the political sphere, but there is another concern that I believe it is imperative that we understand. That is, it is time for this standing and institutionalized volunteer military-which increasingly is being manipulated and used as a pawn by economic and political elites through a presumptuous executive branch-be brought back into the fold of democratic government through reform before it is too late and we suddenly realize that we have reason to fear it.
Bush Administration Integrity?
During the 2000 election campaign, Bush derided Clinton for sleep-overs in the Lincoln Bedroom. I wonder what Bush gave away for this:
"The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.
New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period."
The Bush Administration cries "democracy" day and night. I guess that's only for countries and governments that kiss our boots:
"The United States and
Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.
The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president,
Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement."
...
"The strategy has many risks, especially given that Hamas will try to secure needed support from the larger Islamic world, including its allies Syria and Iran, as well as from private donors.
It will blame Israel and the United States for its troubles, appeal to the world not to punish the Palestinian people for their free democratic choice, point to the real hardship that a lack of cash will produce and may very well resort to an open military confrontation with Israel, in a sense beginning a third intifada."
Helping Democrats Win the Election...and some other stuff
Surprise, surprise: "Nearly six months after two hurricanes ripped apart communities across the Gulf Coast, tens of thousands of residents remain without trailers promised by the federal government for use as temporary shelter while they rebuild.”
Winning the Election: Can't we get everyone on board with repeating that basic phrase "cronyism, corruption and incompetence," or one similar to it? It drives home some basic points and allows us to jump off from that general phrase to the specifics, like the failed rebuilding effort in Iraq (too many cronies getting contracts); the failed response to Katrina (cronies in high level jobs at FEMA); and the whole Abramoff/Delay/K Street Project lobbying scandal (corruption, corruption everywhere). Say it early and say it often: "the GOP in Washington has fostered a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, and it's costing the American people every day."
People are missing the real issue, and that's the perception of the party by the average Joe. Republicans came to have a majority after many years of labelling liberals as certain things. It doesn't matter if these labels are true or appropriate, it matters that the average Joe who gets his information from sound bites and TV commercials, believes them. And the Democrats have failed miserably in countering the perception, of which the opposite is often true. Big spenders - Republicans or Democrats? Ask the average guy and whats's he going to say? My guess is he'd say Democrats when in fact the opposite has been true when we look at the last 60 years. Democratic presidents have averaged a 6.96% overall growth in government spending from 1962-2001, while republican presidents have averaged 7.57%. If we eliminate non-defense spending, it's democrats 8.43% and republicans 10.08%.
Republicans are the big government party. How about the number of public employees (non-defense related)? From 1961-2001, the number of federal employees has increased from 782,000 to 1,151,000. On who's presidential watch did that occur? Democratic -16%, Republican -84%. But would the average American think that? Again, it's an example of
successful propaganda. Good for the economy? The stock market? Inflation? GDP? Real disposable income growth? After tax return on capital? These are typically regarded as republican friendly topics, when in fact Democratic presidents have outperformed them in all of these. Why don't we know about this?!!! Soft on defense? Take a look at the list of prominent Republicans and Democrats and who served in the military and
who didn't. But is that the public perception?!!!
Border Security
I usually listen to Don Wade and Roma on WLS 890 AM during my drive to work. A couple of weeks ago, they went to the U.S./Mexican border to see for themselves how porous the border is and to speak with Sheriff Arven (sp?) West about the Mexican military incursion a few days previous.
After Don and Roma returned to Chicago, they played their interview of Sheriff West on their radio show. I was struck by some of the comments Sheriff West made, including:
"I don't know who's in charge up there (meaning Washington, D.C.). It seems to me nobody's in charge."
"I wouldn't let Michael Chertoff run a day-care center, much less the Department of Homeland Security."
"We're no safer now than we were on September 10, 2001."
This morning, Don and Roma had Sheriff West on their show again. Sheriff West is in Washington, D.C. to testify in front of a congressional committee. Evidently, the Mexican military made another incursion into the U.S. a few days ago. Sheriff West repeated his comment from the previous show, "We're no safer now than we were on September 10, 2001."
For anyone out there who thinks Bush is doing a great job, you might want to rethink your position.
Beyond the imperial presidency
Steve Chapman
Published December 25, 2005
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.
His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."
He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.
But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.
If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.
This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.
The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.
He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
E-mail: schapman@tribune.com
Questions for President Bush
A writer to Eric Alterman on msnbc.com had some terrific questions for President Bush, if he ever had the chance to ask and, if Bush even could answer:
You contend that you are authorized by Article II of the Constitution (and, apparently, by the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force against al Qaeda after 9/11) to conduct warrantless surveillance even of US citizens. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the President does not have such authority, would you comply with that ruling and cease such surveillance? Or, for that matter, if Congress were to impeach and convict you, would you leave office? Wouldn't that also be inconsistent with your inherent authority as Commander in Chief during a time of war? And how would Congress force you to go, since Congress has as many divisions as the Pope? Are there any actions that your inherent authority as Commander in Chief does not permit? For example, are you empowered to cancel elections? Are you empowered to declare that, in the interest of national security and public safety, that you will remain in office beyond the scheduled expiration of your term on January 20, 2009? Since you consider that you are authorized by the same Congressional resolution mentioned above to hold even US citizens as enemy combatants, are you also authorized, as Commander in Chief, to order these persons be executed? If not, why not? Or must their torture stop just short of death?
