[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Creeping Dictatorship Creeping Dictatorship by Fred Reed DIGG THIS I miss the days of smoke-filled rooms when crooked pols chose corrupt presidential candidates who were approximately sane. Today we have a sort of presidential bus-station lottery. We choose as ruler any beer-hall putz who can shake hands and grin his way successfully through New Hampshire. This, plus the deep rot of the American political framework, is allowing the rapid conversion of the United States into something previous Americans would hardly recognize. "Ricky, Ricky he's our man. If he can't do it, nobody can. Goooooooooooo Plesiosaurs!" Permit me a foray of a paragraph into psychojournalism. It fascinates me to know that George Bush was a male cheerleader at Andover. Yes, it could have been worse. He might have been a table-dancer. But most of us who were in high school when he was recognize that you either came to watch football, or you came to watch the girl cheerleaders. There was something odd about a boy who wanted to be one. We are ruled by a male cheerleader who favors torture. I wonder what things twist in the inner fog. Given a president who seems chiefly concerned to display his indomitable manhood, the question arises: What restraints keep him from absolute control of a formidably armed nation of three hundred million? The Constitution, noblest of fables, was designed to do just this. But absent the will to enforce them, checks and balances do not exist, and laws, principles, and constitutions mean nothing. If no one says “no,” the president simply behaves as he wants. The genius of the strange little man in the White House has been to recognize this, to divine the weakness of the American political order. When he wanted to attack Iraq, he simply lied, and lied again, and shifted his ground and lied again. It worked. When he didn’t want to follow the Geneva Conventions in his treatment of captured Iraqis, he just declared his prisoners of war not to be prisoners of war. Torture? He just did it and faced down the country and the world. Disregard of civil rights? Spying? He just did as he chose. Here is the great discovery of the little man who doesn’t read. America is not the land of the free, nor of the brave, nor of the politically sentient. Nor is it a country of laws or of principles. It is a country of those who just do as they want. A president can do anything he chooses. Who will tell him no? Nobody has. Today there is speculation as to whether he will make war, perhaps nuclear war, on Iran. The universal assumption seems to be that if he wants to, he will just do it. The legislature, already having given up its authority to declare war, seems to regard the military as the private guard of the president. Is it not interesting that one dim, pugnacious, ignorant little man can bring on nuclear war all by himself? When Mr. Bush gets caught lying or breaking the law, he shows no embarrassment, contrition, or sense of having done anything wrong. He seems to have no conception of right and wrong, of principle. He is not accustomed to being told “no,” and accepts no constraints on his power. All that matters to him is that he get his way. He gets it. Where will this lead? Obviously, to vastly increased police powers. But I wonder. If, down the pike, Bush announced that to protect us from terrorism he would have to postpone the presidential elections and remain in office—what would happen? Suppose he came up with a bit of supportive theater. If just before the elections something blew up, and were attributed not to the CIA but to Terrace, what then? The Reichstag has burned before. The public, the congress, the judiciary are so very, very easily manipulated. All it takes is the will to do it. And that the little man has. A tribal rite in the column racket is the discovery of darkness in the hearts of presidents, or witlessness, and we discover away industriously. I have done my share. I thought Clinton a bright, libidinous lout, Jimmy Carter a moralizing cipher, Reagan a sort of Grandfather Barbie and, by contrast, Eisenhower a wise man hiding behind remarkable syntax. None was evil, or mad. Bush is something new in presidential politics, genuinely dangerous and genuinely out of control. The time is ripe for him. America no longer has the institutional defenses to say "no." What would happen if a president just refused to go? To remove him, someone would have to act. Who? Little would be necessary to stop a coup, granted. A couple of helicopters of Marines landing across the street from the White House would be enough. The various federal police bully civilians well (ask Steve Hatfill), but would find fighting real men another thing. But who in the military would have the courage to do it? Would the public do anything? I doubt it. The Born Agains would support him, the suburban Christians suck their thumbs and wait, blacks ignore the matter, conservatives see it as necessary to stop Tersm, and most people would watch football on television. The necessary strength is not in the country. The timbers are rotten. A popular uprising I cannot imagine. Who would rise? Overweight people with Volvos do not become urban guerrillas. Again, conservatives, who tend to be armed, rank among the most ardent supporters of Mr. Bush. In any event, how does one rise? Would upset semi-heterosexual professors at Cornell hold a Take Back the Night march? Oh joy. After three days the vigilists would become bored. Back to the television set. The Supreme Court certainly would, and could, do nothing. The court consists of insular antiquities who so far have shown no disposition to stand up to Bush. The termites have hollowed the judicial woodpile. Congress? It does what is paid to do, by anyone. What could it do? Some might say that it could shut off funding. With the threat of imprisonment at its collective head? It would huff, fumble, and hold committee hearings. But a coup would have to be squelched immediately or not at all. My impression is that much of the public wants authoritarian rule, or would be perfectly content with it if it even noticed its arrival. No, I can’t prove it. But what do most people care about beyond television on screens that grow ever larger, beyond porn, beer, and the competitive purchase of grander SUVs? I ask this not as a lifelong curmudgeon being tiresome (though doubtless I am both) but seriously. Who in a sprawling TV-besotted country cares about the Constitution? A comfortable police state is after all comfortable. I do not predict that the reigning curiosity will stage a coup (which should it occur would not be a coup but “an emergency measure,” necessary to protect us from Terrace). I do say that what is happening today is unlike anything that has happened before, and that people do not always see what is coming. If you read books from the Germany of the 1930s, you will find that people were uneasy, divided, unsure of things, but had no idea just what the squatty little man with the voice had in mind for them. He just did it. The unimaginable does sometime occur. We notice only afterward. October 12, 2006
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#1. To: christine, leveller, Burkeman (#0)
Dead America Ping.
No- Bush can't just sit there and continue to be president. The two party fraud demands the appearence of choice and "democracy". The Presidential "Election" is the central public ritual upon which the rule of the DC oligarchy rests. As long as we have presidential elections- no matter how rigged, staged, phoney- with candidates deeply embedded into ruling DC families- they can claim legitmacy and mask their increasing dictatorial police state rule.
While I would tend to agree with you on this, I would only point out that IF there appeared a chance that the NeoCons might lose their influence, in other words, if a Democrat or Republican came forward, and seemed to be leading in the polls, that DID NOT cast in with the NeoCons (which is a stretch I know because I can't think of one off the top of my head) then in that event I could see a "Crisis" emerge which would keep Bush (and more importantly, the influences represented by the Neo-Cons) in power. Not likely, however, there does seem to be a great undercurrent of unhappiness in the sheep of late (witness the popularity of John Stewart and his rather up front and barely disguised disgust, Colbert with the same, the growing popularity of Olbermann and polls showing 67% of Americans are sick of Iraq and want to leave) then if that tide should materialize in a sense of "throw the bums out" (even if that is not the actual practical result) and the Congress turned over, then I could envisage someone coming to the fore by 2008 who is not cast in with the NeoCons which would in turn justify in their minds the ends-means decision to keep him on. I think it is obvious that the NeoCon interests are playing for keeps.
The Neocon interests are well represented in both parties- witness the calls to attack Iran NOW by leading Dems. This country isn't Germany. We have never been a country that had lords, princes, kings, Emporers. Hitler canceling elections and simply declaring himself Fuhrer wasn't that radical a departure from German History- the scope of the power he accumulated was the departure from past limited monarchs and kings and lords but the cancellation of elections themselves wasn't the ultimate "warning bell" that it would be here. FDR held elections during WWII. There are ingrained cultural taboos that have to be lived with for would be oligarchs and dictators in this country and one of them is our ritualistic PResidential elections. Roman emperors kept the Senate around for window dressing not becuase they wanted a costly gaggle of court hangers on and parasites that did nothing but take bribes in between rubber stamping his laws and edicts but because the institution of the Senate was deeply imbedded in the Roman image of themselves. Elections serve the same purpose now- with us- as does our Senate and House. And our Oligarch's have not only worked around elections but made them instrumental to their power and legitimacy. They rule through bureaucracy/corporate power.
Like I said, I tend to agree with you. However, if there appeared some "realists" who were going to influence the next administration, perhaps as part of the other oligarchic fact(I think there are two factions who mostly have the exact same interests, but differ somewhat on what particular aspects of which policy will put the most money in their faction's pockets), I think the NeoCon represented faction would play for keeps. As I said unlikely, but possible. I do not think the oligarchy is monolithic. I always viewed our system as more feudal than early Roman Empire.
There are no replies to Comment # 11. End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||