June 03, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

MANIFEST DESTINY

Throughout our history there has been a belief that Americans are special. We can make up rules because we are special. There was the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" that said it was the destiny of Americans to take over the continent. Never mind those pesky Mexicans and Indians. We created the "Monroe Doctrine" that said only the U. S. could dictate policy in this hemisphere. I doubt there was consultation with countries in the Caribbean or Latin America. George W. Bush and his administration ran with the ideas of the PNAC group who advocated a "project for a new American century." Bush and company have used the belief in American exceptionalism to preemptively attack a country and to torture people. This article by William T. Vollmann is at www.latimes.com:

We are Americans, and so until recently, we knew that we were the best. Because so many people wanted to be us, we could act as we pleased — and we did, because we were the Great Exception; we were America the Blessed. Hence our complacent belief, so long borne out by the facts, that American movies and American brands would always sell. Hence also our comforting faith that the Kyoto Protocol did not apply to us, so that we could spew out all the greenhouse gases we liked, and use a pig's share of the world's resources. (Just this week, I learned of the U.S.' new plan for energy independence: coal plants, subsidized for the next 25 years.)

Being America the Perfect, we invented the doctrine, even before 9/11, that we could seize war criminals in any part of the globe and whisk them off to The Hague. Of course, we insisted that should we ever commit war crimes, we would remain immune to prosecution in that court. Well, after all, how could Americans do any wrong?

THE CONTRAST

I have been disappointed in Democrats on many occasions. Initial support for this despicable war, voting for bankruptcy "reform," supporting globalization, and foot dragging on impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney are all major disappointments. But there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, despite the rhetoric of people like Ralph Nader. Life will be better with Democrats in charge, not only for those of us in the United States, but for people around the world. We have a slate of Republican candidates who are fine with the war, fine with torture, who don't want to do anything about global climate change, who think we aren't unequal enough. They will continue the policies of George W. Bush, no matter how they try to dress them up. This article by E. J. Dionne is linked at www.working for change.com:

So when Democratic presidential candidates get together, they argue about who has the best health care plan. When Republicans have a big discussion, it's about torture and who'll use it when.

OK, OK, Republicans had their chat about torture in one debate in response to a hypothetical question. Still, the contrast points to one of the strangest qualities of the 2008 presidential campaign: Our two political parties and their candidates are living in parallel universes. It is as if they were running for president in two separate countries. Their televised debates next week will be productions as different from each other as "American Idol" is from "P.T.I."

The parties do have some things in common -- Iraq and the economy are concerns for both. But beyond these two issues, what matters most to Republican voters is hugely different from what matters most to Democrats. The polarization between our parties now extends to the very definition of our country, its problems and the stakes in the next elections.

March 03, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

"SPINELESS DEMOCRATS"

There are occasional letters to The Fresno Bee that provoke mixed feelings. Today there is a letter from a Nader supporter. The writer said he voted for Nader twice. He charges the Democrats with being "spineless." We should point out that charge is not true for all Democrats. John Murtha stood up against the Iraq war when it wasn't politically popular. People like Russ Feingold have stood up against the Republican machine.

I have been disappointed in the past failures to contest the Bush administration. Democrats didn't stand up against some of Bush's despicable nominees such as John Ashcroft for Attorney General. They didn't stop rotten Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They've gone along with heinous legislation such as the bankruptcy bill that was a gift to credit card companies.

And yet you have to acknowledge some realities about the American political system too. The media are a major part of American politics now. The media are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by people who essentially support reactionary policies. They cheerlead war, they support globalization, they resist doing anything about climate change, they get on board with low wages and job outsourcing, and they contribute to unmercifully smearing opponents.

Our system of government was designed in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. For the most part, it has been a very good system. Checks and balances is a wonderful concept. But the Founders couldn't foresee nuclear weapons or the alliance of big religion, big corporations, and government. We have the dilemma of needing the president and military to act rapidly to deal with military threats, even though funding and authorization for war is supposed to come from the Congress. So that "check" of the executive branch has been eroded by the pace of modern times. It has allowed presidents like Bush to commit troops and put Congress into a bind of "supporting the troops" or leaving them in imminent danger. If you're under the shadow of a nuclear attack, you don't have time to examine all the nuances. For the system to work, the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence communities have to have integrity and competence.

The Democrats also faced the problem of being in the minority for most of this administration. You can't do much as a minority party. I believe Democrats who voted for this war did so based on lies told to them by the administration. But even if they had voted against the war, it would have gone on because the Republicans in power rubber stamped everything the administration wanted.

The past few years have revealed major weaknesses in our system of government. We need a better way to check executive power, while giving presidents enough leeway to respond to genuine emergencies. We need to get the power of corporations and big donors out of government. We need people in power who truly represent all of their constituents, not just the big donors.

We need to do what works for the majority of us, even if there are those who would call it "socialistic." There is a crying need, for example, for universal health care. We need to break away from dependence on fossil fuels. We need for Americans to be as educated as our economic competitors around the world. We need more of a sense of community, not just the individualistic looking out for number one ethos that has come to dominate our society.