Greater Democracy: Democracy for a connected world.

About
Greater Democracy

Greater Democracy news and opinion via email:

To subscribe, send a blank message to greaterdemocracy-subscribe at greaterdemocracy.org
To unsubscribe, greaterdemocracy-unsubscribe at greaterdemocracy.org

Weblog Team

Dana Blankenhorn
Michael Cudahy
Jock Gill
Jon Lebkowsky
Robert Steele
David Weinberger

Paperless Papers

"...To Dare Mighty Things..." by Michael Cudahy (written specifically for Greater Democracy)

The Internet Constituency by David Weinberger

Open Spectrum FAQ

Why Open Spectrum Matters: The End of the Broadcast Nation by David Weinberger

Nodal Politics by Jon Lebkowsky

Societies of Cooperating Cognitive Solutions, a weblog post by Jock Gill

Is Money Killing Democracy in America? by Jock Gill

Resources

Howard Dean Meetup (first Wednesday of each month)

Dean for America

Blog for America: The Official Howard Dean Weblog

Unequal Protection

Organizers' Collaborative

Common Dreams

Center for Democracy and Technology

Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network

ReclaimDemocracy.org

13 Myths
Instant Runoff

Orgnet.com

Featured: A New Restoration – American Politics for the Third 100 Years by Michael Cudahy and Len Vickers

Monday, September 29, 2003

The Possibility of Martial Law in America, Soon

by Bob Jacobson

Recently, the economist Paul Krugman wrote that the coming Presidential and Congressional elections might be the ugliest in the nation's history, especially because there are so many scandals brewing in the current Administration that its office holders cannot afford to lose in 2004. Although Krugman does not go there, it's quite possible that a coup d'etat – this time more violent than the 2000 theft – could be in the works.

I studied various writings on martial law, and the laws themselves. I thought that the Patriot Act was the premier document in this regard, but I was wrong. The real culprits are two executive orders (building on several predecessors) that lay out the machinery of imposed law and order.

The first is Executive Order No. 12656, November 18, 1988, issued during the lame-duck days of the Reagan administration. It defined "national security emergency" in loose terms, giving a President power to declare an emergency on very arbitrary grounds. Dangerously, it gave the Departments of Justice and Defense substantial post-emergency powers to enforce law and order. (Other departments are required to cooperate.) Coordination of agencies under the provisions of this Executive Order was left to FEMA:

http://www.fema.gov/library/eo12656.shtm

I thought that this Executive Order might have died with passage of the Homeland Security Act, creating the DHS. It did not. Executive Order 12656 was supplanted by an Executive Order issued by President George W. Bush on February 28, 2003. It specifically refers to EO 12656 and indicates that EO 12656 is now updated to make the Secretary of responsible for implementing its directives:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=42&content=495

In short, the stage is set for a complete lockdown. Read the language. I'm not kidding.

I seriously encourage the thoughtful individuals and opinion leaders in this newsgroup to seriously investigate this potential outrage against the Constitution and the American people. What would it take for a truck to conveniently explode beneath a tall building, a plane to crash into a sports arena, contagions to show up in public places, or a faux demonstration against a defense contractor or military base (or the WTO, for that matter) to get out of hand – and then for the President to react by invoking these EOs? What if this happened on Sunday, November 7, 2004, a couple of days before the next election?

It's inspiring to speak of a "greater democracy," but first it's necessary to preserve the democracy we have. Aside from going survivalist, what else can be done to prepare for – or better yet, prevent – this scenario?

Thanks to Jim Warren for inviting me in. I mounted this soapbox on my own, however, to speak to people whom I admire and whose opinions I respect.

Democratically yours,

Bob Jacobson San Mateo, CA
bluefire@well.com

Discuss The Possibility of Martial Law in America, Soon

Three Pillars of Prosperity

by Dana Blankenhorn

I believe there are three pillars of prosperity.

The nation that holds the maximum of competition, liberty and democracy will triumph. Those who fail to provide these will fail.

When I first began writing, I used the word capitalism in place of competition. But capitalism itself is no guarantee of anything. In fact, capitalism evolves toward monopoly, or at least shared monopoly. Only democracy, and a free people, can work against this.

Economic competition keeps people on their toes. Economic competition assures the lowest price and the highest quality. Economic competition within a society allows its winners to compete worldwide.

This is the miracle of American Capitalism. It’s competition.

The result of liberty is competition in the intellectual sphere. When all are free to contend in the marketplace of ideas, the winners will be tested. The scientific method represents this principle in action. Only authority – including the authority to say no to science – really threatens science. Science depends upon liberty.

So, in fact, does every other form of intellectual endeavor.

Democracy is the guarantor of liberty and competition. In a thriving democracy there is a real competition for power. There are several legitimate points of view. There is a balance of interests, a balance of power.

You can’t reach 100% on competition, democracy, and liberty. They do come into conflict. When they do, we expect some balance to be created. This balance will vary from place to place, and time to time. But the balance cannot be ironclad, it must be flexible, because people change and needs change. New political coalitions emerge, new trains of thought emerge, companies continually rise and fall.

The American Century was based on the proposition that we had more competition, more liberty and more democracy – in total – than any other place on Earth. We were not perfect in any dimension. We did not have perfect competition in our economy, or in our marketplace of ideas. We did not have perfect liberty. And our democratic system was designed from the start to frustrate short-term majorities.

But compare us to China, or compare us to India, which are our present competitors today, and we have stacked up very well.

The question I have is, for how long? China has liberalized, and become much more competitive. It has even tried some local democracy. India is the world’s largest democracy, and while its liberty isn’t perfect, its economics sphere has become increasingly competitive.

The only way our country can prosper is if we have more competition, more democracy, and more liberty than China or India. If we don’t, if it even gets close, their numbers and hunger will overwhelm us.

We need to watch this. We need to watch this closely. This is the competition for the 21st century, nothing else.

And since that century began we have been systematically throwing away our advantages. We have allowed Trusts and shared monopolies to dominate our media, our technology industries, and our communications. We have limited liberty in order to gain security. Diebold’s voting machines threaten our democracy directly, and the Republican Money Machine threatens it indirectly.

But don’t measure things that way. Don’t measure the threat subjectively. Look at the growth rates, look at the movement of economic power. Follow the money. And right now that money is moving to China, it’s moving to India. Reversing that is our challenge, and reversing it begins with increasing the amount of competition, liberty and democracy we give our citizens.

This must be our economic program.

There is no substitute for freedom.

— Dana Blankenhorn

Discuss Three Pillars of Prosperity

Latin America

by Dana Blankenhorn

The United States prospered throughout the 20^th century, while every Latin American country failed.

Why? And can it happen here?

It happened to Latin America, I feel, because of an Iron Triangle of interests - economic oligarchs, the Catholic Church, and the military - who kept a monopoly on all power and frustrated the change that leads to economic growth.

The oligarchs held all economic power. Their money was rooted in their ownership of land, usually inherited from Spanish or Portugeese ancestors. They passed this control from father-to-son, building economies based on natural resources. The manufacturing successes were foreign-owned, whether making Volkswagons or growing bananas. There was no real competition.

In times of Latin peace the oligarchs controlled the reins of government, from the Mexican border to Tierra del Fuego. They ran the business of politics, and politics controlled business, absolutely.

The Church held all social power. Schools, hospitals, your soul, all were held by Mother Church. This power, too, was handed-down, through the institution. Men could compete to hold this power, but the victory went only to those who stood, like the institution itself, against change. The Church would not speak against the oligarchs, and the oligarchs never funded social institutions that might compete with the Church.

The military held ultimate power. If the Church and oligarchs could not hold back the people, the military was there to seize power. The process of rising through the ranks, ironically, made the military the only meritocracy. Yet when the military did seize power, it was usually on behalf of the Church and oligarchs. Military men who chose to go against these powers seldom found any success.

This is no secret. It has even been turned into entertainment, Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Evita." Juan Peron was a General, a Catholic, who first seized power as part of a coup. His political revolution ended when it threatened the oligarchs, and he never had a clue about how to grow an economy, only to take, and give, what money already existed. Thje result, in Argentina, has been failure-after-failure, starting long before Peron, continuing into our own time. At the turn of the 20th century Argentina was as wealthy as the U.S., on a per-capita basis. Today it is firmly set in the Third World.

What protected the United States from this Iron Triangle? Mainly it was competition, starting with economic competition.

From the beginning U.S. businesses engaged in manufacturing, creating wealth away from the land. Companies had to compete. Monopolies and Trusts did come into being, but the system generally adjusted to fight them, making American companies more competitive against those from elsewhere.

There was competition in the pulpit as well. Most American churches are Protestant, there were many different Protestant denominations, thus none could gain the kind of political power the Catholic Church enjoyed throughout Latin America. Within states there were influential churches, and within the nation there were influential preachers. But few sought a veto over public policy. None gained it.

Because there was competition within the economy and the social structure, the American military never sought political power. Three soldiers, Grant, Eisenhower and Zachary Taylor, came from the military, but none sought office until they had left the service. Some soldiers, like Douglas MacArthur, held power from their posts, but even MacArthur knew not to cross the line.

You can say, well, the Constitution protected all this, and it did, but the fact is that the U.S. military, its churches, and its businessmen respected the system. When courts ruled against them, they backed down. There was a balance of power.

Today all this is threatened. In our generation, we have created conditions that could bring the whole wall separating our system from that of Latin America's discredited past crashing down, because we are developing exactly the kind of excesses that have plagued our southern neighbors.

Let's start with the oligarchs. George W. Bush is not our only oligarch. Throughout our economy we now find wealthy men handing power down, father-to-son, and through eliminating the Inheritance Tax, we are protecting this abuse through law.

Some sons who succeed their fathers, like banker David Rockefeller, have done fairly well, and some, like Thomas J. Watson of IBM, have done spectacularly well. Others, like Chris Galvin of Motorola, have bombed. But in the past they had to earn their way. That is no longer the case.

We have some ways of protecting against abuse in public companies. We don't even try to protect against it in private companies. Builders, car dealers, and even media moguls now pass their wealth and power down to princes, some of whom may be good, but others of whom are certainly idiots, and none of whom has had to earn that power in a competitive market.

The end of the Inheritance Tax takes a political oligarchy and extends it throughout the economy. Competition is being systematically destroyed, replaced by a Latin primogeniture.

Competition among churches was our best protection against having anything like a national religion, but in this generation that has begun breaking down. Fundamentalist Churches now dominate America, creating the same narrow, sectarian welfare system found in Latin America. Schools, hospitals, media, entertainment, sport - it's all provided to members-only.

That would be fine, were these same churches not seeking, and gaining, real political power. In many states Fundamentalist churches hold a veto over who might run the government. They are dictating public policy, forcing public officials to even protest the Constitution, as in the "10 Commandments" dispute. These churches now hold the soul of the President in their hand. And, as in Latin America, they are using this power for one thing only - to maintain their monopoly on power. By gaining taxpayer money to run their welfare programs and schools, they replicate the Latin model perfectly.

So far the military has stood strong. But for how long? Executive Orders have already been issued, allowing a state of martial law to be declared, to be enforced by the military if the oligarchs decree it. Over the last generation the military has become increasingly politicized. The bulk of the officer corps now follows one party.

That party is now in power, held up by the economic power of oligarchs and the social power of Fundamentalist Churches. A possible military veto over power completes the triangle.

Even our politics has become Latinized. The worship of celebrity over reality is part of the Latin model. Arnold Schwarzenegger is just another Latin Caudillo, a "strong man" seen as the savior, since voters no longer trust the politicians, thus they no longer trust the system. Voters yearning for dictators - don't cry for me California.

It only requires a crisis to set it all off. So the failures of the Bush Administration, and the election of 2004, represent the greatest threat to American democracy since it was founded. Will Diebold, which already stands accused of stealing elections with its voting machines, allow a free election? Will the oligarchs buy the votes of the people? Will the Church push people from the pews into the voting booths? If all this fails, will the military exercise the ultimate veto, first following an Executive Order to war on its people then, perhaps, seizing power directly?

I don't know. No one knows. What frightens me is we have no control over what comes next. It depends on the good will of the oligarchs, of the churches, and of the military, goodwill we can no longer take for granted.

We have become Latinized. Sí.

— Dana Blankenhorn

Discuss Latin America

Saturday, September 27, 2003

A New Restoration – American Politics for the Third 100 Years

by Michael Cudahy and Len Vickers

Critical problems have developed in the American political system over the last twenty-five years. The issues we face are long-lasting, complicated and partisan. Regrettably, President Bush and the members of the current administration have offered solutions that are short-sighted, simplistic and shallow. Their answers have disregarded the needs of millions of Americans, and have ushered in an environment of bitter political infighting.

It is a time that has laid the groundwork for a new approach. A moment to establish a new American politics. An opportunity to distinguish the third century of our republic by reviewing and restoring the visionary principles provided to us by our founding fathers two hundred and twenty-seven years ago.

This restoration must be built upon a willingness on the part of our leaders, and citizens alike, to anticipate, cooperate and innovate.

Anticipate because we need to acknowledge that meaningful solutions to critical problems can only occur when viewed in a thoughtful and long term manner. So often, we overestimate what we can do in the short-term, and underestimate what we are capable of when we work together in a committed, lasting and bipartisan fashion.

Cooperate because there is nothing we can not accomplish when we set aside bitter, divisive rhetoric and tactics and work together to conquer the complex problems that challenge our nation.

And innovate, because this is the American way, and because it is the only meaningful approach to building a strong and prosperous country.

Regrettably, at a time when imaginative thinking from the loyal opposition is in greatest demand, many Democrats have allowed themselves to be lured into the partisan bickering that has been a symbol of Republican political strategy since the early 1980's.

We have reached a moment in our history when we need to recognize the strengths of both political parties and seek a creative balance that understands the cooperative synergy between conservatism and compassionate innovation. A direction that embraces the very best of these opposing positions and incorporates them into a new perspective – one that recognizes the need to restore fiscal sanity and responsibility – so as to finance the visionary social programs that have made our country so great and so generous.

One that is capable of significantly renewing confidence in our political process.

Reviewing this difficult moment in the history of the American political system one can not help but think of Abraham Lincoln's annual message to the Congress in December of 1862. Overwhelmed by the darkness of the Civil War Lincoln said,

'We can succeed only by concert. It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise – with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.'

President John F. Kennedy communicated a healing message to a bitterly divided nation when he said in his Inaugural Address that, 'We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.'

It has been forty-two years since President Kennedy stood, in the bitter cold, on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to remind the country that its strength and future lay in our ability to remember and restore the wisdom of the founding fathers to our nation's leadership.

James Madison did not advocate trusting the future of our country to wealthy lobbyists and power brokers. Instead, when he addressed the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 20, 1788 he said,

'I go on this great principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there isn't we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, nor form of government can render us secure. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.'

For the first quarter of America's third hundred years, Madison's great principle of allowing the virtue and intelligence of the American community to guide our nation has been increasingly eroded by the politics of power, greed and influence.

The time has come for a new restoration of our political system. We must turn to the remarkable American political scripture our founding fathers left us to restore the balance our country so desperately needs. Words like, 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.'

We must replace the arrogance and swagger that saturate the rhetoric of this current administration, with a quiet confidence that is grounded in the visionary principles of Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Adams.

We must advance a spirit which does not press a partisan advantage to its bitter end, and which can understand and will respect the other side. A character which feels a unity between all citizens and does not punish the country with the bitter language of political propaganda. A vision which recognizes a common fate, while respecting the common aspirations of the American people.

And, as we examine our current situation, we should consider the words of President Dwight Eisenhower when he said,

'As we look ahead to the problems that confront us, let us remember that a political party deserves the trust of America only as it represents the ideals, the aspirations and the hopes of all Americans. If it is anything less, it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.'

For the leaders of our major political parties to regain the complete trust of America's citizens, they must be prepared to embrace the creative tensions that exist between progressive goals and conservative means. They must demonstrate an understanding that the solution is not a question of either/or, but is instead a matter of how to incorporate what is best in each.

From there we must work to establish a broad understanding that to do things differently, we must see things differently, and that such a shift in perception is consistent with the ambitions of our founding fathers.

Finally, we must reject the corrosive political policies of the last 25 years. Such an action reflects our understanding that by ignoring them we have reinforced their power, and the damage that they have inflicted on our society.

When we implement such changes, we will demonstrate, not only to ourselves, but to the world as well, that the United States has restored its respect for our historic traditions. Principles such as liberty, personal dignity and a reasonable expectation that our leaders will reflect the virtue and the wisdom of the people that they serve.

These are the fundamental values for whose sake our political system was founded.

These are the principles to which we must maintain our enduring allegiance.

Discuss A New Restoration - American Politics for the Third 100 Years

Thursday, September 25, 2003

From the Guardian Unlimited: "Vision of the neocons stays fixed on making hard choices"

The neoconservatives of the American Enterprise Institute, ideologues who pushed for war in Iraq, are trying to figure out where things went wrong: was it Rumsfeld's commitment to a high tech revolution in military affairs? A bizarre colonial attitude on the part of Colin Powell's state department and the British? Failure to commit sufficient funds to the effort? Surely it couldn't be the failure of a bunch of black-coffee ideologues to grasp the complexity of the real world...? Whatever the case, it's a problem $87 billion will fix – billions more added to the existing deficit, while domestic programs are slashed and the American economy resists any kind of real recovery. Hard choices, indeed, though perhaps much harder for those who can't afford a daily dose of black coffee. [Link]

"[The administration has] been trying to do it on the cheap, and that's a mistake," Mr Kristol said. "What's going to rectify that mistake is not the UN - it's the $87bn, and a more urgent full-throated US commitment to getting it right, doing the reconstruction, and laying the conditions for the Iraqis taking over."

Discuss "Vision of the neocons stays fixed on making hard choices"

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

The Independent: "White House is ambushed by criticism from America's military community"

Members of America's armed forces are beginning to declare their opposition to the Bush Administration's handling of military matters. They are increasingly skeptical of the war in Iraq, and they have reason to question the administration's commitment to their welfare, considering its proposal to cut combat pay and veterans' health benefits. [Link]

How deep the anti-Bush sentiment runs is not yet clear, but there is no doubt about its breadth. Charlie Richardson, co-founder of a group called Military Families Speak Out, said: "Our supporters range from pacifists to people from long military traditions who have supported every war this country has ever fought - until this one.

"Many people supported this war at the beginning because they believed the threat from weapons of mass destruction and accepted the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida ... Now they realise their beliefs were built on quicksand. They are very angry with the administration and feel they've been duped."

Discuss The Independent: "White House is ambushed by criticism from America's military community"

Paine in the Ass

by Dana Blankenhorn

Lately I have been giving a lot of thought to Thomas Paine.

This might be because my own career is, in the short term, paralleling his. I have become a polemicist. (http://deandefense.org/archives/001037.html#more) I call people to the ramparts.

But when Howard Dean came to Atlanta last week I was not in the audience. My son gets off school at 4 - I was picking him up. And when they have meetings of Georgiafordean, or even the state Democratic Party apparatus, I'm absent from there, too. Mostly I sit here in front of my screen and call others to the cause.

Paine is proof there is value in that. Paine's Common Sense (http://www.bartleby.com/133/0.html) was a vital document in the Colonial struggle. Paine's work was a best seller. It galvanized and directed public sentiment toward separation, which the Second Continental Congress finally approved and announced to the people of Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Even with Paine's work it was a close thing. There were no polls then, but it was generally considered that one-third of the Colonists supported Revolution, one-third were Tories, and the other third were apathetic. Without France, England could have ground us down. The diplomatic work of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson made as big a difference as the leadership of Washington, but since Washington was in the field he got the glory.

Paine got nothing. Of course he asked for nothing. Paine followed the cause, specifically to France. And at first, the French Revolution gave him great joy. But then the revolution began eating its young. It ate him, imprisoning him in Luxembourg. Only the intervention of a new ambassador to France, James Monroe, got him out.

The result of this was his Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html). As Republicans ignore the later Martin Luther King, preferring the March on Washington to the march for Memphis garbage collectors, so too the right loves to quote "Common Sense," while keeping silent on Paine's more mature work.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of," he writes. "My own mind is my own church." (Stick that in your rotunda, Judge Moore. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34192)) "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," adds Paine.

Paine then gives the most eloquent explanation I can think of for the separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment. Let me quote it here in full:

"The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow."

Paine, in other words, meant for the First Amendment to overthrow religion. That it has protected religion, and made America the most religious nation this side of Iran, would have surprised (and no doubt pained) him.

It is not necessary to believe a word Paine writes in Age of Reason to be a good American. But it is necessary, in my view, to consider Paine American, in order to be a good American.

And this is a right Judge Roy Moore does not grant. Neither does any figure on what is called the Religious Right. They have all, every one of them, rewritten our history, transforming all the Founders into Good Christian Gentlemen. They have insisted we are a Christian Nation, based solely on Christian Values, and have condemned anyone who denies this as not only blasphemer, but unpatriotic. Anyone who doesn't "believe" as they believe is less of an American than there are.

The Right loves to blame everything bad in America on Vietnam, but I assert now that the power of the Religious Right stems from the same cause. Before Vietnam most people, even religious people, belonged to one or more non-sectarian organizations. You may still find their names on signs welcoming you to small towns across America. There were the Optimists, the Rotary, the Lions, and the Shrine, among others. All these organizations lined up in support of the Vietnam War, and so they declined in the next generation.

But, left adrift, many millions of Americans, regardless of their feelings about that war, looked for certainty. And they found it in the absolutes of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not, as some would have it, the product of poverty, or of terror. It is certainty in the face of an uncertain world. It can thrive wherever people decide that thinking is too hard, the result uncertain and ambiguous.

Yet what I have learned of the scientific method is just that. Certainty is a myth. Dinosaurs might be birds. Tomorrow's evidence may force today's theories to be discarded, and tomorrow's textbooks to be rewritten. What matters in a theory isn't its absolute truth, but whether it is useful.

Evolution is useful. Evolution leads to new breeds of dogs, new breeds of plants, and directly to genetic engineering. Creation science, creationism, or whatever they're calling it now, has no such usefulness. A miracle occurred, or God intervened, maybe it's true. But I can't create an experiment around it, I can't build a new product around it, it's a dead-end. It's not science.

Yet increasingly this ignorance is being placed in our childrens' textbooks. They rewrite our history, why not our science?

But there is a bigger problem with this Sectarian takeover of our national life, namely how they have walled themselves off from us.

Religious conservatives are not within hearing distance. They watch Fox News or CBN. They have their own music, their own books (including novels), they have their own culture. They have no need for government - their own schools and churches provide recreation, education, socialization - all the products of the Welfare State and (for the believers) at no cost (just your soul).

How then do we reach them? TV and radio won't do it. Magazines and newspapers won't do it. The Internet won't do it.

I'm not answering this one. The Religious Right has become a separate society within our society, just as it is in the Muslim World, which may be exactly why it is now on a crusade against the Muslim World.

Paine felt this as well:

It is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and in this case it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those people pretend to reject reason?

Paine does not tell us how we must fight the Sectarianism that now rules us in God's name. The best that can be said is that it existed in his time, and in even greater quantity, than in ours. His time found a way out or else our time would not be here.

So, now, we must find a way. If the world is divided solely between America's Christian Army (supported by Israel's Jewish Army) on the one side, and the Muslim armies of Al Qaeda on the other, then there is no future. Except, perhaps, for the Chinese.

The Age of Reason has no certainty. But the Age of Reason is what we're called to. It is not an easy road. It is most definitely the Road Less Traveled. But unless America is called back onto it, then America will fall, just as every other civilization before us has fallen, on the altar of religious prejudice. — Dana Blankenhorn

Discuss Paine in the Ass

Sunday, September 21, 2003

Needed: cooperation by ADULT Democratic presidential candidates

by Jim Warren

We all know how, uh, "over-zealous" players – and coaches! – can be in hotly contested sports events. And how petulantly self-centered and egotistical some of the most famous players behave.

And the current efforts, by almost everyone, to grab the brass ring in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is certainly a contest. A race among candidates with STRONG egos, and zeal to win.

But the presidency of the United States is NOT a sporting event!

We need "players" who behave more like presidential candidates, than like bush-league hockey players. The same is true regarding their "coaches" – campaign teams – and even true of the "fans" – grassroots activists – who support each candidate.

However, just like successful sports teams, if the Democrats are to have any hope of beating the well-disciplined, entrenched Republican administration in the 2004 presidential "race", they damn-well better start BEHAVING like responsible, ADULT "players".

In particular:

The Democratic candidates must start COOPERATING!

They must STOP back-stabbing each other in petty cat-fights and exchanged criticisms, that are more appropriate for children in a sandbox fighting over who gets to play with the Tonka Toy.

It's time for all of the ADULT candidates to agree to the following pact:

1. It is more important to replace the dangerous, destructive, failed Bush presidency, than it is for any particular one of those candidates to be the replacement!

2. To that end, they will focus attacks ONLY on the massive array of failures – past and predictable – of the Bush administration and Republican congressional "leadership". A field rich with targets of opportunity!

3. They will NOT criticize each other. No matter how much the Republicans would appreciate such self-destructive feuds among Democratic candidates.

4. They will NOT allow their campaign teams to criticize other Democratic candidates. No matter how much their "coach" wants to win-at-all-costs. No more planted stories; no more leaked sniping from campaign sources.

5. They will NOT conduct negative campaigning against their Democratic rivals – a desperately needed improvement in the political process, that will earn and energize far more support than it will loose. Turn voters off, and you loose!

6. They WILL each focus on stating their OWN policy proposals, agendas and personal track records.

7. They will leave the ample airing of every iota of imperfection of each Democratic candidate, to the responsible press, plus the self-enchanted screeching of the Republican lackeys of Rupert Murdoch's Fox "News" and talk radio.

8. To enforce this pact, if any candidate then violates it, ALL other candidates will promptly and publicly disavow the attack and the violator.

9. They will agree to this pact, SOON, in a high-profile joint public announcement – and then HONOR it! Illustrating that they really ARE mature enough to be President, and dedicated to improving the political process.

This may sound like a Democratic counterpart of Reagan's well-known "11th Commandment" – Thou shalt not criticize another Republican." So what?! All SUCCESSFUL generals and admirals quickly adopt the parts of their opponents' strategies that work.

Will Rogers quipped that he wasn't a member of any organized political party; he was a Democrat. It's time for REAL leaders to show that they know they're in the 21st Century, and Rogers' accurate comment of three-quarters of a century ago is finally, at long last, a thing of the past.

Now ... the question is: How many Democratic presidential candidates are sufficiently mature and competent, to negotiate an effective agreement to COOPERATE in pursuing the ONLY goal that IS significant: Replacing the Bush administration with ADULT leadership? – Jim Warren

MicroClark and OpenDean

Dana Blankenhorn compares Wesley Clark to Microsoft vs. Howard Dean's Open Source campaign. [Link]

Discuss MicroClark and OpenDean

Friday, September 19, 2003

Ramblings from the Fringe

by Constantine von Hoffman

Months after President Bush declared "victory" in Iraq, he has yet to provide the American people with a coherent argument for U.S. involvement. As Americans are "shocked and awed" over the price tag of the occupation, they are rapidly forgetting this administration's rationale for why we went there in the first place.

Time has not been kind to President Bush's justifications for sending thousands of American soldiers onto one of the most dangerous battlefields in the world. Indeed with the passage of each day the reasons are even flimsier than when he first presented them to the nation months ago.

The WOMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) theory, for example, has dissolved so quickly from weapons of mass destruction to programs of mass destruction to practically -"issues" of mass destruction, that this administration's defense of this sounds more and more like OJ's claim that now that trial is over he will find the real killer.

The stated reasons for the war don't hold up to close inspection either. And, further proof of their falsity can be seen in the slew of post bellum rationalizations for the war. One of my favorites is the flypaper excuse. The thinking behind this argument is that terrorists will attack Americans in Iraq rather than Americans in the US and hence Iraq is now serving as "flypaper" for terrorists. Even if true, this strikes me as a terribly haphazard reason, at best, for going to war. I – like everyone else – have been left to examine not the stated reasons, but the far murkier, sub rosa possible motives, that might make the war against Iraq – and its huge physical and fiscal costs – make sense.

[... Continued ...]

A veteran freelance writer Constantine von Hoffman has worked for everyone from Rupert Murdoch (city editor, Boston Herald) to National Public Radio (associate producer, Living On Earth & Only A Game). His work has appeared in many magazines, including The Harvard Business Review, CIO, The Industry Standard, Sierra, Health, Yankee, and Boston Magazine. More details can be found at his moderately amusing website: www.areporter.com.

Discuss Ramblings from the Fringe

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

AlterNet: Betrayal of Trust

George Lakoff suggests that the real issue with the administration's statements about the Iraqi war is not whether Bush and crew lied, but whether they betrayed the nation's trust. (Suggested by Jock Gill) [Link]

But lying, in itself, is not and should not be the issue. The real issue is a betrayal of trust. Our democratic institutions require trust. When the president asks Congress to consent to war – the most difficult moral judgment it can make – Congress must be able to trust the information provided by the administration. When the President asks our fighting men and women to put their lives on the line for a reason, they must be able to trust that the reason he has given is true. It is a betrayal of trust for the president to ask our soldiers to risk their lives under false pretenses. And when the president asks the American people to put their sons and daughters in harm's way and to spend money that could be used for schools, for health care, for helping desperate people, for rebuilding decaying infrastructure, and for economic stimulation in hard times, it is a betrayal of trust for the president to give false impressions.

Discuss "AlterNet: Betrayal of Trust"

Monday, September 15, 2003

Just Say No

by Michael Cudahy

President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone."

It is clear that President Bush and his chief political advisor Karl Rove either paid no attention to, or have no respect for, one of the great Republican presidents of the last century. Worse they seem to lack any comprehension of the legacy their cynical political policies of fear and division will have on our country.

I have grown tired of my family and friends being scared by the exploitive and calculated rhetoric being employed by the current Republican administration in Washington. It is embarrassing to traditional Republicans who honor and respect the wisdom of their party's visionary leaders like Presidents Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt, and it is inflicting great pain on the people of the United States.

Regrettably, many Republicans feel that their Party has been lost and that there is little that they can do to overthrow the current band of pretenders who have hijacked it in the name of God, patriotism and Republican family values.

A few days ago I had the pleasure of being interviewed by radio political commentator Thom Hartmann. As we took calls from his listeners around the country, I was terribly concerned by the number of Republicans who had given up hope and were prepared to walk away from their Party.

One deeply frustrated caller from New Mexico asked, "They have all the money and all the power – what the hell can I do?"

The short and simple answer is: engage in a well organized bipartisan effort and throw them out.

Millions of Republicans, Democrats, Independents – Americans – are appalled, but too many are afraid to speak. And, that is a reaction that political operatives like Karl Rove depend upon to maintain their grasp on power.

As our country moves into a new century, we must reject the divisive politics of the last 20 years, and demonstrate – not only to ourselves but also to the watching world – that the United States is capable of better. We must examine our political system and make certain it is prepared to support our nation for its third hundred years.

And while President Thomas Jefferson's recommendation that, "a little revolution once in awhile is a good thing" may be too extreme for most Americans, many would agree that getting rid of a mean spirited, ineffective administration is probably a good idea.

Theodore Roosevelt said, "Our country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, this country demands bold, persistent, experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it, if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

Perhaps the bold experiment we should consider is reintroducing civility and reason back into the political process.

Is it so preposterous to assume that candidates from this country's major political parties can not advance the arguments and positions of their party in an imaginative and rational fashion?

Where is it written that Republicans and Democrats must treat each other with suspicion and contempt? Where is it ordained that differences in philosophy should be grounds for despicable and contemptuous political media?

Many friends suggest that my advocacy of returning civility into political discourse borders on the naive. And, perhaps it is. If, however, we do not try, we surrender our country, and its system of governance, to the hostile and virulent manipulations of duplicitous presidential advisors like Karl Rove. Political mechanics who are determined to undermine the fundamental principles of our democracy, and redefine the symbols of our American republic.

That is not something that I am willing to do.

It is my hope that millions of Americans share my feelings and are willing to demonstrate the power of the great American center. A place of courageous innovation and bipartisan cooperation. It does not require Americans to abandon their political parties, but instead to support candidates who are unwilling to accept the status quo – candidates who put principle and civility before the acquisition of political power.

For me this process begins by supporting the grassroots oriented presidential candidacy of Howard Dean, and letting Republican leaders know that they have failed in protecting the honorable traditions of a great political party.

It is my hope that people like Thom Hartmann's frustrated Republican callers will contact Republican state chairmen around the country and let them know that they are no longer willing to stand by and allow their party to be dominated by a group of neo-conservative deceivers who neither understand nor respect the traditions of their party.

It is my hope that Independent voters will speak out as well – talking to the leaders of both parties – articulating the frustrations that have driven them out of their respective parties.

The time has come to provide a grassroots counterbalance to the years of misrepresentation and fear.

The time has come to educate Republican talking heads like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter – who parade around this country empowered by neo-conservative media outlets – that they do not speak for us.

The time has come to send the Rove Republicans home and reestablish the great traditions of the Republican Party. Traditions grounded in the wisdom of Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower.

We do have a choice.

And we can – just say no.

NOTE: Michael Cudahy's Republican political management and press relations responsibilities have ranged from the 1980 Reagan/Bush mid-western presidential effort, to the 1980 George Bush for President campaign, as well as the Andrew H. Card, Jr. gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts. He also worked as National Communications Director for the Republican Coalition for Choice.

Mr. Cudahy's full bio is at: stratfocuscommunications.comprincipals.htm#Michael%20Cudahy.

Discuss "Just Say No"

Journalism's Master Narrative

Jay Rosen's posted a brilliant piece on the role of the "master narrative" in political reporting. That's a term borrowed from the Post Modernists and Rosen uses it to point out that the common themes of political reporting are social constructs, not natural. Politics gets reported as a horse race not because candidates are horses in a race but because that's the narrative form we've created and accepted. As Jay says in another piece, " Journalism schools don't teach this, but it's nonetheless true: Facts can't tell you how they want to be framed." (He should know; he's chair of journalism studies at NYU.)

This is George Lakoff territory and it needs to be more fully explored.

There's no escaping narratives, a mortal blow to objectivity's dream of hegemony. Narratives area how we understand, not an obstacle to understanding. But it's important to remember that events can be incorporated into many different narratives. (My Inner PoMo wants to blurt out that events are not atoms independent of the narratives that take them up.) And, it would be useful to cast politics into alternative master narratives.

For example, maybe the elections of 2004 could be reported not as a horse race but as a conversation. Or as a form of co-evolution. Or as the way in which a community forms its will. Or as how a nation makes up its mind. Or as the story of how many-ness becomes one.

Unfortunately, we have only a little control over which narratives master us. But it'd be worth trying...

Jay has just posted a piece on how you "cover" 133 candidates for governor that touches on some of the same issues.

- David Weinberger

Sunday, September 14, 2003

Steele Reviews

Mark Hertsgaard, The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World

As the only reviewer for Amazon who focuses exclusively on national security non-fiction, across the categories of information; intelligence; emerging threats; strategy & force structure; blowback, international relations, and dissent; and US political, leadership, and the future of life; I want to say quite clearly that I regard this book as one of the three "must reads" for every American between now and November 2004. The other two are #1 William Greider, "The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy", and #2, Jonathan Schell, "The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People."

... continued...

Discuss Robert Steele Reviews

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Is it that they weren't paying attention? Or could it be that their attention was colonized by viral propaganda? You can count on the fingers of one elbow the Bush administration's attempts to correct this mistaken impression... they have manipulated consent by conflating 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq. Now we're asked to pay 87 billion dollars, much of it to companies like Halliburton, for the reconstruction of Iraq, though there is no evidence of any real attempt at reconstruction thus far. Oh, wait... we don't have those billions yet. (Thanks, Valdis! [Link]

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

Discuss "USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link"

Monday, September 08, 2003

Restoring the Balance

by Dana Blankenhorn

Balance is an essential element in all systems.

In the economy there is balance between supply and demand. In an ecosystem there is a balance between species. In politics there is the balance of power.

There are natural forces that mediate and restore the balance. Price mediates the economic balance, and depressions result when the mediation fails. Death mediates the ecosystem, and natural disaster results when that mediation fails (and even if it doesn’t). Democracy mediates the political balance, and when it fails the result is dictatorship.

At the end of the year 2000 all the world’s balances were tilted in favor of the United States. The U.S. was the only superpower, its economy provided nearly one-third of the world’s output, its political leadership was unquestioned.

It was inevitable that this balance would change. But the Bush Administration has spent the last three years fighting the very concept of balance. We have poured lives and treasure into Iraq when we could have simply squeezed Saddam Hussein’s hollow regime until it collapsed on its own. We have ignored the balance of rights between citizens and the government. We have been contemptuous of the environment, we have ignored the business cycle, and we have even pretended that loans don’t have to be repaid.

Why did this happen? Certainly 9/11 was part of it. The events of 9/11 allowed an ideological minority, neo-conservatives who had been pushed out of the liberal "big tent" by its turn away from anti-communism, to take over our foreign policy. We went from leading the world to attempting to dominate it. Anyone, friend or foe, who opposed us was derided, discarded, or physically destroyed. This remains the case.

But that wasn’t all. Long before 9/11 supply side economists had captured the Bush policy, pushing tax cuts for the wealthy as an all-purpose panacea. Tax cuts were called the solution to our surplus, then our recession, and those tax cuts were always skewed heavily toward the "investing classes," a kind way of saying rich people. The portion of assets held by the wealthy, already skewed by the gains of the previous 20 years, were skewed even further, even while millions lost their jobs.

The balance between citizens and their government were skewed. Again, 9/11 provided a handy excuse, but the process was already underway. Attorney General John Ashcroft came into office convinced that "technicalities" were keeping the cops from crushing drugs, pornography, and copyright thieves. While "fighting terrorism" was the motive behind the Patriot Act, he quickly moved to extend that new rubric to all crime by proposing a second, Victory Act.

The balance between man and the environment was also skewed. Laws called "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" were pushed through, aimed at increasing the subsidized extraction of resources from all lands, both privately and publicly owned. The Kyoto Treaty, aimed at fighting global warming and greenhouse gases, was scrapped. Alternative systems like fuel cells were given lip service, but little more. This came at the expense of the environment we all need to live.

The question is no longer where the balance should be. The political question seems to be whether we need a balance at all.

Of course, that is nonsense. Disasters always create new balances, but these are balances nevertheless. Disasters are the predictable results of ignoring the need for balance.

What we face today are a string of disasters:

Iraq is a disaster.

Our economy is a disaster, the road back blocked by growing trade and budget deficits.
Our environment is degrading before our eyes.
We can’t afford to retire our baby boomers.
Our tech economy is still flat on its back.

What is most disquieting, however, is that the idea of political balance and even political debate is being rejected by this Administration and its friends.

Anyone questioning the Iraq policy is called a "Saddamite," or the claim is made that they want "the French to have a veto over our foreign policy."

Anyone questioning the economic policy is called a "Socialist."

Anyone questioning the environmental policy is called a "tree-hugger."

Anyone pointing out the problems of our future retirement is called a pessimist.

Anyone who questions is dealt with firmly, no matter where they come from. Honored generals who warned about the cost of Iraq, whether Anthony Zinni or Eric Shinseki, were dismissed, then derided. Entertainers questioning the war, whether the Dixie Chicks or Janneane Garafalo, had their careers trashed, their work boycotted. Science itself was skewed to justify new anti-environmental policies.

But as I noted at the top democracy is all about balance. It is based on the assumption, proved through 200 years of wars, depressions, and internal strife, that all progress must be slow and incremental, and that no one will be able to seize power the people have not given them.

This too is under threat, as never before.

This President was not elected, but it is vital for Democrats to understand that his rule was ratified, through the 2002 election results. We have been, and must act like, a minority party. That means we must not make enemies among ourselves. We must be absolutely united. Once we’re united, then we must take steps to bring independents and Republicans over to our banner, based on the concept of balance.

We need a balanced foreign policy, a balanced economy, a balanced politics. If we fail to achieve that on our own, the world will impose a new balance upon us. And we won’t like the result one little bit.

Friday, September 05, 2003

A Declaration of Conscience

by Michael Cudahy

When I sat down to write my first essay for Greater Democracy.org, I was motivated by the advice of one of my early political mentors — Ambassador Elliot Richardson. He told me on a number of occasions that, "whenever I found myself conflicted over an issue I should always allow myself to be guided by principle."

What has saddened me over the last few years is how principle in the Republican Party has been replaced by a cynical manipulation of the political process, and how organizational and personal conscience has been discounted in a relentless pursuit for power.

I have told friends that I am convinced that there does exist (what Ambassador Richardson liked to refer to as) a "radical center" in this country, but that they simply had not found the tools to make their voice heard.

In the last week I have received an overwhelming number of generous, thoughtful, and eloquent e-mails in response to my essay. I am convinced that they demonstrate that Ambassador Richardson was absolutely correct, and that we have now found our tool in the form of Internet blog communications.

These personal expressions of commitment to correcting the current political imbalance from remarkable people in Florida, New Mexico, California, and Texas are truly inspirational. And, I have found that we all share one critical desire — to see conscience and principle restored to the American system of public discourse.

Many of the e-mails reminded me of a speech delivered on June 1, 1950 by the freshman Republican U.S. Senator from Maine — Margaret Chase Smith. Motivated by the paranoid and divisive impact McCarthyism was having on her country, she went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to publicly confront Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges that those who disagreed with his version of patriotism were — as Attorney General John Ashcroft now says of his critics — giving "ammunition to America's enemies."

Long known as her "Declaration of Conscience" speech, Senator Smith addressed a packed Senate chamber in a quiet and trembling voice to make the following observations.

I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered; that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

The right to criticize;
The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
The right to protest;
The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know some one who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn't? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared........by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

With an administration that refuses to respect and embrace the basic principles of Americanism so eloquently described in Senator Smith's "Declaration of Conscience," what evidence do we have that we are in fact living in freedom?

It is my sincere hope that the powerful and constructive bipartisan dialogue that we have started here on GreaterDemocracy.org can embrace the courage and patriotism of that simple, dignified woman from the great state of Maine.

If we are able to build on this extraordinary conversation that we have started I am convinced we can demonstrate to members of all political parties that at the end of the day it is not a question of ideology but instead a matter of principles. An issue of what is right and wrong for the American people.

We can create a force that even the most highly paid, political operatives in Washington will not be able to extinguish.

We can put an end to politics of fear and division and usher in a new era of courageous innovation and bipartisan cooperation.

I am committed to the vision Governor Dean expressed in his announcement speech when he said, "The history of our nation is clear: At every turn when there has been an imbalance of power, the truth questioned, or our beliefs and values distorted, the change required to restore our nation has always come from the bottom up from our people."

I look forward to working on this process with all of you, and to attending what should be an extraordinary party celebrating our victory.

Again my thanks.

— Michael Cudahy

Discuss A Declaration of Conscience

Dana Blankenhorn: The Best Analogy (I Can Think Of) For The Dean Campaign

Dave Winer forced me to think hard about the Dean campaign this week.

Dave runs Scripting News, the most-popular blog on the planet. He founded Userland Software, which wrote Radio Userland, one of the chief blogging programs.

I started it with a note that suggested Dean's momentum is irresistible, and he will be the Democratic nominee. Dave responded questioning my conclusion, but adding some points about Dean's software effort. I responded, and finally concluded by giving a graphic conclusion to what the Dean campaign represents -- a Google logo.

Dean is growing like Google, his campaign is thinking like Google, and in the end they are bringing to politics a campaign that recaptures the human contact politics was meant to be about. Google is re-making the Web, and the Dean campaign is remaking politics.

— Dana Blankenhorn

Thursday, September 04, 2003

An open letter to the Democratic presidential candidates

By Jerry Michalski

An open letter to the Democratic presidential candidates (who often act as if there aren?t enough meaty issues for the 2004 campaign)

Apologize.

Apologize for how the Bush Administration immediately pulled out of every treaty and international governing body it could. Apologize for turning our backs on people in trouble around the world, until the various pots boil over, and for turning over stewardship of the environment to those who seek to plunder it.

Apologize that Bush exploited the September 11 attacks to manipulate Americans. Apologize that he not only squandered the empathy the world offered the US at that time, he actively destroyed it by shoving an unnecessary war on Iraq down everyone's throats. Apologize that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld rolled over the UN Security Council, just as it was doing well what it was designed to do. Apologize to the Germans, the French, the Russians, the Chinese. Apologize to Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks and others who were speaking their consciences about matters of global urgency. (You may need a special apology to make up for Anne Coulter. Treason? Really, now.) Let us know that speaking one's conscience should never be a dangerous thing.

Apologize for John Ashcroft and other Bush appointees unnecessarily denying civil liberties to our own citizens and to many welcome guests. Apologize for the way public discourse has been weakened by the forces of ultra-conservatism, so that now the loyal opposition is a shambles. Apologize that principled individuals who speak up now expect to have their characters impugned and their livelihoods threatened or destroyed. Apologize for how elections have become little more than consumer mass-marketing exercises -- even for Democrats. Apologize for weakening the very foundations of our democracy, even as Bush speaks the sweet words that attract us to it.

More importantly, apologize that Bush instituted a stunning, unprecedented US policy of preemptive strikes -- the "Bush Doctrine" -- by fiat. Apologize that whom these strikes hit seems to stand at the political whim of this country?s self-appointed leader, because all the ?evidence? used to support the strikes have fallen apart. Apologize that Bush?s policy of preemptive strikes legitimizes it for others, even though he probably thinks it's reserved just for him. Apologize that the world?s remaining Superpower feels the need to run roughshod over the world, heeding no higher authority, and in fact acting as the higher authority.

Apologize that George W. Bush Jr. and his team appear genuinely to believe that these are their only alternatives -- that they have no other path but to act like the thugs they claim to be pursuing.

Apologize that Bush could speak of the need for "humility" in foreign policy during the election, then do all these things. Apologize for the US Government?s longstanding hypocrisy and double standards, which the rest of the world understands and we cannot see, blinded as we are by national pride and Government propaganda. Pledge to correct these injustices.

Apologize that Bush?s economic minds seem to think that giving the rich more money will somehow trickle down to everyone else, even as jobs are being de-skilled and workers laid off. Apologize to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of America?s citizens that a Federal budget surplus estimated at $236 billion when Bush took office has already turned into projected record deficits of $455 billion this year, a swing of $691 billion -- two-thirds of a trillion dollars -- in the two and a half years of his Administration. This is not a lag effect from bad management by the Clinton Administration, or even a hangover from an economic downturn: this is mismanagement, plain and simple. And maybe fraud. Oh, and apologize also for the veil of secrecy that Bush and his proponents have thrown over this land, keeping us from knowing what our elected representatives are really doing, keeping us from seeing the frauds perpetrated.

Apologize for Bush because he never will. Apologize for Americans because history will regard us very poorly if these actions are not at least acknowledged, and hopefully reversed. Apologize because these actions mean Bush apparently doesn?t trust us. Not his own citizens. Not foreigners. Not for a second. He trusts only the vocal and furious minority with the power and money to keep him where he is. They must be furious and desperate, or they wouldn?t be pursuing the scorched-earth strategies they have adopted.

Finally, apologize because we really are on the cusp of a prosperous, peaceful world, and all these actions are keeping us from it. In fact, the magnitude of turmoil in the air today is evidence of the massive tectonic pressure that has built up between the Bush world view and a new, emerging world view. Perhaps you should apologize also that the Democratic party is so bought into the process and the pressures that it is part of the problem.

Apologize for each and describe how you will change each.

It takes a strong, confident person to apologize. These apologies are also a form of pre-election foreign policy in action. Bush will have to respond, and he can?t blame Osama bin Laden for all this. (Where is that Osama, anyway?) No, this is a much larger problem, and we can solve it. Let?s start by making amends.

This essay published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Feel free to forward it, etc.

Tuesday, September 02, 2003

The Pick

by Dana Blankenhorn

Before every national election someone discovers a demographic group they breathlessly state holds “the key” to the election.

In 1992 it was “soccer moms.” In 1994 “angry white men.” In 2002, supposedly, it was “security moms,” women more concerned with safety in the wake of 9/11 than domestic concerns.

For 2004, we’re told, the group is “NASCAR Dads.” (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/31nascardads.html) Supposedly they belong to Bush. They are patriotic, gun-loving, God-fearing, barbecue chomping men who watch Fox, read “The Washington Times,” and equate Democrats with Saddam Hussein, Communism and atheism.

If the election is held on that ground, it is said, we don’t stand a chance. The result is a lock.

But there is a key, or maybe we might call it a pick, that can unlock this election for Democrats.

That pick consists of military families and veterans.

As “Take Back The Media” notes so eloquently on their Flash presentation “Army of One (http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html),” our soldiers are having their pay cut, their tours extended, their lives sacrificed. But it’s not just the bodybags (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx). Military housing allowances are being cut. Veterans benefits are being cut. Child care credits are being cut. The Administration opposes extending health insurance to returning servicemen. The list of abuses goes on-and-on.

I don’t expect our troops to suddenly turn into Democrats. But there must be a way to get military families and veterans to listen to Democrats.

It won’t be easy. Most Democrats I know (and I include myself) know few people in this group. We have become accustomed to having the military march in political lock-step with the Republicans, which happens to be an imminent danger to our democracy, and we have done nothing.

I know one veteran, a Vietnam-era veteran. He’s a Democrat. He didn’t get the care he needed until Clinton came into the White House. And he’s willing to help.

But he is estranged from many of his fellow veterans because he supports Democrats.

The situation is dire. It demands attention. Millions of people are being systematically screwed and they’re either unwilling or afraid to do anything about it.

The Dean people talk all the time about “outreach” to various people – seniors, union members, college students. In all these cases the job is pretty easy. We have a lot of people on the ground who know these people.

It won’t be easy with the military families, or with the veterans. We need to find ways to make an extra effort.

I have tried to work with the Georgiafordean.com folks for some time, and I have sometimes emphasized these issues in blog entries. But there is a disconnect. The people who are attracted to Dean are those who are least likely to know veterans on a first-name, glad-to-see-you basis.

Yet this is a fight we must make, a case we can make, and (IMHO) the key to the whole electoral enterprise. Because if we can win over a substantial number of military families to our cause, if we can have Dean Meetups outside military bases, well-attended, if we can get loud, public veteran support, then we have something to take to the NASCAR dads, something that will pry them away from the false symbols of the Republicans, and toward their economic self-interest.

You bring the military around, in other words, and I guarantee the NASCAR dads will follow.

So this is worth a major effort, a lot of thought, a lot of work, a high priority.

Let me know how I can help.

Discuss The Pick

Monday, September 01, 2003

Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions

By Robert Steele

This book should shake the very foundations of the White House, because it is the first really well-documented discussion of--as the title defines--why America under the neo-conservatives has become a rogue nation. However, it is important to emphasize that at the institutional and cultural level, the author's critique carries backward to the Clinton Administration and forward to all but one Democratic candidate (Bush Lites).

I consider it extremely important that the author is a conservative Republican, Christian, and patriot with a proven track-record as head of the Economic Strategy Institute--a man who understands what moderate Republicans have been trying to tell the incumbent all along: fiscal prudence, no deficit, multilateral treaty adherence, these all provide for stability. If Bush is worried about 12% of the Republicans voting for Dean, after this book is read and absorbed by the educated and moderately-well off Republican base, he should start thinking in terms of losing 25%. This book is political and economic DYNAMITE.

In ten thoughtful chapters, all well-sourced and well-indexed, and complemented by a *superb* five page list of additional recommended reading, the author lays out, with objective precision and a clear love of country extant throughout, why American unilateralism and all we have done since 2000 has been "stupidity, arrogance and ignorance in the exercise of power."

His early use of Webster's definition of "Rogue" as "deviant, having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition" not only suits the unilateralist Bush team perfectly, but makes it clear that in objective terms, as perceived by the rest of the world--not just the Middle East, but the responsible Asian powers as well as what Rumsfeld revealingly denigrates as "old Europe"--the USA is indeed a "rogue nation."

A few small quotes capture the value of this work, which I have heavily marked-up and which I recommend be read carefully, every word, by anyone contemplating their vote for November 2004 and beyond:

According to former EU Ambassador to the US, Hugo Paemen: "...while your intentions are usually good, your actions are frequently informed by ignorance, ideology, or special interests and can have very damaging consequences for the rest of us."

One Latin American Ambassador is quoted as saying, "The United States mistrusts the whole world. It relies only on military force and has no vision of itself working with others."

Other authorities quoted by the author characterize US national security and foreign policy as "ambivalent", defined by "inconsistency and neglect."

The author is especially strong on documenting the inconsistencies and incoherence of the over-all US national security strategy, and brings his special competency in international economic strategy to bear. He says, "An important aspect of the American empire is that because Americans don't see it as such, few look at the totality or thinking about where it is going and what it needs, and certainly no one is in charge. This inattention creates neglect and incoherent, often contradictory policy initiatives."

Taking Africa in particular, a continent that Henry Kissinger says will be the ultimate test for US policy (see my review of "Does America Need a Foreign Policy"), the author is brutally candid: "In West Africa, the face of American-style globalization and free trade is not the hope-inspiring one of Colin Powell, but a harsh, hypocritical one that inspires a drift to radicalism and perhaps to terrorism. The cost of dealing with that would, of course, far exceed anything spent on subsidies or aid."

Skipping over the many other excellent and honestly presented thoughts the author presents in this book, which is a "must read, right now" book, I will end with three quotes that capture the urgency and relevancy of this book to the future of the Republic.

At the top of page 277: "The imperial project of the so-called neoconservatives is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adverturism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism. Real conservatives have never been messianic or doctrinaire. The very essence of conservatism, which the neoconservatives constantly preach, is limited government. Yet the imperial project they are proposing will greatly increase the role of government both at home and abroad. ... This is not conservatism. It is Big Government."

At the bottom of page 281, "The procedure of American foreign policy badly needs to be reviewed. It is terribly damaging when one or two powerful congressional chairpersons can dictate U.S. policy, despite a lack of significant public support. Even more importantly, the question of who decides when America goes to war desperately needs to be clarified. Congress seems to be less and less involved. But America was not meant to be run by a Caesar." [The author goes on to discuss how a more democratic and openly derived holistic national security strategy would not only resolve the instability associated with mis-directed globalization, but also address the fundamental: water scarcity, disease, deforestation, soil depletion, and overpopulation.]

On page 284, the last page, "Particularly, I would like to remind my fellow Christians of the words of Oliver Cromwell, who enjoined in a letter to the Church of Scotland, 'In the bowels of Christ, please believe that you may be wrong.' As an elder of the Presbyterian Church, I [the author] want to emphasize that Christ was not about nations and power, and did not spread his gospel by force. ... Politicians who use God as prop for their campaigns should remember that 'God is not mocked.' An America that stressed its tolerance rather than its might, its tradition of open inquiry rather than its way of life, and that asked for God's blessing on all the world's people and not just its own, would be the America the world desperately wants."

This book brought tears to my eyes. This is a great book, a worthy book, and the author merits our most earnest and respective attention and appreciation.

Discuss Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions

Weblog Team

Paperless Papers

Resources

Archives

Featured: A New Restoration – American Politics for the Third 100 Years by Michael Cudahy and Len Vickers