-Caveat Lector-
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Weiner120502/weiner120502.html
Through a glass lightly: 10 hopeful cracks in the Bush façade
By Bernard Weiner
Online Journal Contributing Writer
December 5, 2002—Don't know about you, but I find myself caught right in the middle of
the glass half-empty/half-full way of looking at our current political situation.
In my last piece ("Shining Our Light on the Shadow Forces: Open Letter to the Fledgling
?Movement?"), I talked about how things are going to get worse before they get worse,
and then even more worse, and then things will start to get better. In my darker
periods—which these days is most of the time—I still believe this, that what is about
to
come down from Bush&Co. in the next few years is going to be horrendous, both for
Americans domestically and for those in the way of U.S. imperial moves abroad.
Domestically, due-process constitutional protections, already in shreds thanks to Bush
&
Ashcroft, will nearly disappear. Big Brother government will invade our privacy in
virtually
every area of our lives, thanks to technological breakthroughs and the magic word
"terrorists." More citizens will be yanked off to the American gulags, cut off from
judicial
review or even their attorneys. Internationally, Bush&Co. will continue to march
forward
belligerently, arrogantly and theateningly in their desire to bring "benevolent
hegemony" to
those areas of the world rich in minerals and energy sources, thus stirring up
anti-U.S.
rebellions and fueling more terrorism.
But rather than dwell on that awful picture, and what it presages for the future—the
glass
half-empty scenario—let's search for any hopeful signs that point to a way out of our
current morass.
In this glass-half-full approach, consider these:
1. Big Brotherism. A number of anti-big-government conservatives, appalled at the
constitutional excesses of the Bush administration and its Big Brother approach to
snooping
on American citizens, have begun to rebel. A bit late, of course—since many of them
supported those very excesses in helping get the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland
Security bill passed—but better late than never.
It almost boggles the mind to read that such rightwing stalwarts as Dick Armey, Bob
Barr,
and Henry Hyde are about to join forces with the American Civil Liberties Union, as
consultants, to try to rein in the police-state tactics of the Bush administration.
Politics does
indeed put one in the sack with the strangest bedfellows. (Incidentally, the ACLU—
which is
running TV ads in selected markets showing Ashcroft taking scissors to the
Constitution—reports that it is being inundated with new members, up 12 percent from
last
year at this time, and rising fast.)
In addition, such conservative/libertarian columnists as William Safire and Pat
Buchanan
likewise are taking frontal potshots at the excesses of this arrogant administration
and its
approach to the Constitution. Good for them!
If the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, and the anti-war movement in
general,
are wise, they will welcome these lapsed brethren into the anti-Bush&Co. fold and try
to
utilize their conservative credentials to lure more such disaffected Republicans to
the cause
of restoring constitutional balance and due process to our polity. (I think the
Democrats may
have leaders with that kind of wisdom; I'm not sure about some of the segments of the
anti-war movement, still locked into slogans and behaviors that are sure to alienate
the
great middle-class of Americans, without whom no political movement can make much
progress.)
2. The Jeffords example. Given this relatively slight but growing conservative
opposition to
Bush&Co. excesses, there may be more leverage for leaning on such moderate GOP
senators as Snowe, Collins, Specter and Chaffee to "do a Jeffords" and become
Independents, thus blocking Bush&Co.'s total control of the U.S. Congress. It would be
a
miracle if some or all of them were to bolt the party—those GOP moderates stand to
benefit
from the perks of being part of the winning side—but if they did, it would make it
easier for
Democrats to head off the more egregious policies of the Bush administration. Surely
these
GOP moderates are uneasy with (or even revolted by) some of those policies and, with
enough pressure from inside and outside the Senate, they might be willing to consider
such
a patriotic move. There is talk amongst some Democrats of trying to lure them over by
promising them key leadership positions and other blandishments—not a bad strategy, if
a
bit obvious.
3. The Supreme Court. One can expect that some of the more outrageous provisions of the
USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act will make their way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, perhaps as early as next year. Given the growing revolt by conservatives
against the
more extreme aspects of those bills with reference to civil liberties and privacy, it
is
possible that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, might rule that some of
those provisions are unconstitutional. (One can imagine that Rehnquist, Scalia and
Thomas
would always rule for Bush&Co.—they are, in a way, charter members of that
company—but Kennedy and O'Connor, a shade more moderate, might join the more liberal
four on questions such as these. Let us not forget, many conservatives are worried
about
the martial-law-type precedents established under Bush that would still be in place
were
liberal Democratic administrations to retake the government some day.)
Already, we've seen several key court cases recently where Bush&Co. have had their
hands
slapped. An appeals court has ruled that the feds cannot violate California law and
turn
over the oil-rich coastline to companies wishing to drill. And the judge hearing the
case
against Cheney's continuing refusal to make public who participated in shaping the
administration's energy policies once again has ordered him, in no uncertain terms, to
turn
over those papers and quickly. That's one courageous judge. (It's not clear what
penalties
could be exacted against Cheney if he chooses to ignore the court's order—contempt of
court proceedings are not likely, but it's conceivable they could be ordered; it's even
possible that impeachment could loom somewhere down the line. But, once again, the true
face of Bush&Co, arrogantly deciding for themselves what information should be seen by
the American public will be made manifest, and electoral consequences could ensue.)
4. The Esquire Article. In case you haven't heard, a Bush administration insider—John
DiIulio, who was Bush's head of the faith-based initiative program—sent a long memo to
Esquire writer Ron Susskind that takes a vivid peek behind the corrupt, power-hungry
mob
in the White House. Among his bombshells: "There is no precedent in any modern White
House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What
you've
got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the
reign of the
Mayberry Machiavellis . . . On social policy and related issues, the lack of even
basic policy
knowledge, and only a casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking . . ."
DiIulio made the obligatory public backtracking a few days ago, after coming under
heavy
fire from the Bushistas, but what he wrote stands as a most important critical attack,
all the
more effective because it's not from a Democratic heavy or an online progressive
writer but
from a conservative who continues to support Bush as a leader.
What he's saying is what many of us have been asserting for quite awhile: that the
extremist HardRight agenda is what is driving the Bush&Co. engine, not policy that is
intelligently vetted in terms of what is good for the American people. And Karl Rove,
the
Rasputin behind the throne, runs that domestic 24/7 political operation—just as Cheney
runs the foreign policy wing, and probably much more.
In short, a major fissure has opened up in the Bush facade, and through it the American
people can get a clearer view of the ambitious, power-hungry zealots in charge. Score
one
for our side.
5. "The Republican" charge. Chuck Baldwin writes in "The Republican," a newsletter for
the
GOP faithful: "Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts asked the question, 'Is a
vote
for Republicans a vote for a police state?' The answer seems to be a resounding yes!
The
Bush administration seems determined to turn our country into the most elaborate and
sophisticated police state ever devised."
"Things are so bad," Baldwin goes on, "that outgoing house majority leader Dick Armey
said
that under Bush the [Justice Department] is 'out of control.' In fact, the conservative
congressman is reported to be seriously considering taking a position with the ACLU in
order to help fight the federal government's usurpation of constitutionally protected
liberties. Does that mean one must leave the Republican Party in order to fight for
liberty?
Maybe so . . . The tyrannical tendencies of old King George III of England cannot hold
a
candle to the Machiavellian machinations of King George XLIII of the United States.
Unfortunately, there are few Paul Reveres around to sound an alarm. Unless contemporary
patriots act quickly, Republicans, not Democrats, will be the ones that ultimately
dismantle
our constitution and trample our liberties."
Again, this invective was not spewed by the partisan enemies of the Bush
administration,
but by a fellow Republican, thoroughly angered by his realization that his beloved
party has
been hijacked by far-right extremists, hell bent for leather to turn this country into
the exact
opposite of what small-government conservatives have been supporting for decades.
Grounds for hope.
6. Kissinger. This one is a bit convoluted, so hang with me here. It would appear on
the
surface that Bush appointing Kissinger to chair the blue-ribbon commission on how 9/11
happened means the results will be a whitewash for Bush&Co. The ex-secretary of state
and national security advisor—with blood all over his hands for his policies, and
notoriously
secretive in defending all regimes from public scrutiny—is regarded as a Bush toady who
will see no evil and report no evil in terms of what the Bush administration knew and
when
they knew it, and why they did nothing to protect American citizens from the terrorist
attackers on 9/11.
But one friend suggests the following, and though it's hard to swallow, it is a
possibility. The
shorthand version is: payback. Kissinger, in this reading, is not totally Bush's man.
Kissinger, who is like an elephant that never forgets, may want to revenge himself on
old
enemies, most notably Rumsfeld and, perhaps subconsciously, even the Bush family. And
so, with his own private resentments active, and with Democratic vice-chairman George
Mitchell prodding him from the sidelines, Kissinger—anxious to resurrect his image from
that of potential war- criminal back to the days of the brilliant, courageous Nobel
Prize-
winning statesman—may let some of the dirt reach the light of day.
If and when that smelly truth hits the fan, watch out! The American people, even in
their
terrorist-fright, would not take kindly to leaders who, to further their own political
agenda,
chose inaction in the face of knowledge of what was coming—leading to 3,000 innocent
American civilians dying. Out of that kind of rage and disappointment are impeachment
movements born.
7.Town Hall politics. Bush&Co. are trying to make war with Iraq an inevitability, a
fait
accompli, a juggernaut that supposedly can't be stopped by anyone, not allies, not the
American citizenry. To accomplish this end domestically, they pushed the USA PATRIOT
Act
and the Homeland Security Act through Congress. But in town after town, city after
city—22
at last count, and 40 more pending—municipal governments are voting not to recognize
the
validity of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the feds.
As Nat Hentoff reported about the growth of the work of these Bill of Rights Defense
Committees, by and large these resolutions are similar to the one passed unanimously by
the Northampton City Council on May 2, 2002, which required that:
"Local law enforcement continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech, religion,
assembly and privacy; rights to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings; and
protection from unreasonable searches and seizures even if requested or authorized to
infringe upon these rights by federal law enforcement acting under new powers granted
by
the USA Patriot Act or orders of the Executive Branch.
"Furthermore, federal and state law enforcement officials acting within the city are
asked to
'work in accordance with the policies of the Northampton Police Department . . . by not
engaging in or permitting detentions without charges or [using] racial profiling in law
enforcement.' "
Also, "the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and
Massachusetts State police [are to] report to the Northampton Human Rights Commission
regularly and publicly the extent to and manner in which they have acted under the USA
Patriot Act, new Executive Orders, or COINTELPRO-type regulations." This includes
"disclosing the names of the detainees held in western Massachusetts or any Northampton
residents detained elsewhere."
This is grassroots democracy at its finest, telling the over-reaching Ashcrofts and
Bushes
that they've gone way beyond the line of legal, or even decent, human behavior. Not a
good
omen for Bush&Co. (Why not try to get something similar going in your town or city?)
8. Snoops in Bed. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the
sodomy laws. The hopeful reasoning here goes something like this: If the court holds
that
the Southern law making sodomy illegal is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy in
the
bedroom, the mad dog fanatics in the Bush base of fundamentalist Christians will be
outraged and consider withdrawing support from Bush. If the court rules in favor of
such
laws—which, remember, have reference to heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior in
the bedroom—there will be a mobilization within the libertarian right as well as in the
incensed gay community to have Congress pass laws overturning the court's ruling. Bush
will then have to take a stand on this hot issue, and whichever way he goes, it
doesn't bode
well for him in 2004.
9. The Bush "mandate." Bush&Co. spokesmen and supporters claimed after the results of
the midterm elections were announced that they would continue to use their "mandate"
given them by the voters in 2000 to push their programs through Congress. But there was
no mandate in 2000—since the will of the voters, who chose Gore, was superceded by five
members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who halted the counting of citizens' ballots and
installed Bush into the White House —and neither was there a mandate on November 5 of
2002.
Only 40 percent of eligible voters actually cast ballots, and just slightly more than
half chose
the GOP candidates. In other words, 21 percent of eligible American voters chose the
GOP.
A swing of a few thousand votes here, and another few thousand there, and the Democrats
would be in control of the Congress. (I've written elsewhere about the possibility of
vote-
tampering in those key states where touch-screen voting was employed, with no paper
ballots and no exit polls to check those results against.)
In short, even if one believes the election results were on the up-and- up, the
victory for
Bush&Co. was razor-thin. There is no "mandate" to do anything but govern from the
middle, but, figuring this is their one chance to fashion the political scene for the
next
decade or two, Bush&Co. are pretending that they won a massive victory that permits
them
to push through their extreme greed-and-power agenda, and to hell with you.
10. The Sin of Pride. Finally, and following from the last one: There is in the
post-election
behavior of Bush&Co. no humility, no concession to decency, only a mad dash for the
goodies of profit and power. Domestically and internationally, there is little but the
willingness, even an eagerness, to push anyone aside who gets in their way.
There is, in this behavior, what the ancient Greek dramatists called "hubris," a
tempting of
the gods, who are prone to visit bad things on the heads of those mortals who pretend
they
are like gods themselves. The punishment for those who evidence overbearing pride and
arrogance is to be brought low by their own excesses, by their belief that they can
get away
with anything.
Pride goeth before the fall. Let it be so.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., is co-editor of the new progressive website The Crisis Papers,
where this article first appeared. He has taught American politics and international
relations
at various universities, and was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years
Download a printable version.
For a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here.
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those
of
Online Journal.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright © 1998-2002 Online Journal™. All rights reserved.
You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the
content.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
