VIEW ALL MARIMAR'S BLOG ENTRIES
Now that the cat is out of the bag and it has become clear to us all that the President and his Cabinet intend to spy on Americans and to stretch the meaning of the law until it is paper thin, all we can do is sit back and reflect on how we got this far.
The neo-cons have succeeded in painting liberal democracy as an evil, as the weak stepchild of failed socialist policy. They have succeeded in painting any kind of dissent as inviting terrorism, if not outright fostering it. They have succeeded in convincing the poor and the marginalized that their condition is wholly their fault and that if they were morally upright, they would be destitute or in want.
How did this happen?
The Failure of Liberal Policy. Liberal Policy failed because it created bureaucratic entanglements that have made it increasingly hard for small businesses to operate and because the rhetoric often used was of the Yippy variety, i.e., “if you are not with me then you are against me.” In short, it was polarizing. The objective of Liberal Policy was certainly not either of these things, but both are the logical outcome of extremism and fundamentalism within the ranks of the liberals themselves. In a two party system, there necessarily have to be extremists on both ends of the spectrum. There is no where else for them to go, yet they need to be somewhere. The neo-cons have just shifted the focus and the mirrors in such a way that all liberals are seen in the same light – one that is bad and bad for America. It is a dirty word. “Oh, you liberal, you!”
For years, the neo-cons have been wheedling their way into the common parlance; they have used persuasion both pretty and ugly to convince Americans that liberalism is going to weaken the country so that “others” can come in and destroy us. They do not see the country so much as a shining star of freedom as much as they see it as the current reigning heavyweight champion. They do not see the American people as free citizens so much as they see them as potential security risks; otherwise, why would they want to spy on us?
Cheney has been a mastermind of creating the “us” versus “them”, like a Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam cartoon. For him, “us” means only those who agree with him. Taking the Yippy movement’s own rhetoric as his own, he has created an image of Americans that is absolutely frightening. His vision is that we are either all 100% behind his policies to spy, to torture, to forfeit due process, to suspend the First Amendment and so forth, or we are liberals who threaten the very security of the country and therefore our very way of life.
What is our very way of life? If it is not a right to privacy, due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of the press and free speech, then just what is our way of life? Many young people believe that our way of life means free to consume at will, whether food, SUV’s, shopping, energy, sex or drugs. They do not see invasion of privacy as an issue as long as they continue to consume at alarming rates. This is exactly what the neo-cons want.
The pacifier of unbridled consumerism is a necessary ingredient of the Cheney & Bush War. Without it, they could not convince the rest of the people that they are preserving anything, much less our way of life. Leading economic indicators are tossed around daily. This is an attempt to convince us that our way of life is in fact being preserved and that we should carry on as normal. And they warn us that voting for liberals will bring down our way of life, because liberals raise taxes, weaken the military and befriend terrorists. They tell us that in order to keep this from happening, we must have a strong authoritarian government.
In the political history of Man, the natural desire to have a participatory government is always stressed when social problems become complex. The Greek “demos”, from which we take the name “democracy” ended up with an autocratic government precisely because the threat of outside invasion (which was very real) stressed the old tribal process. The French Revolution found itself quickly faced with Empire when Napoleon came to power – again during a time of serious threat. Hitler’s rise to power was patterned on history – he and his publicists knew that by convincing the German people that their very identity was at risk he could persuade them to give him more and more power. Fascism in fact requires that the “us” fear the “them” and that a patriarchal figure of immense authority be installed as head of state. If Caesar or Augustus were alive today, both would agree that any threat real or imagined should be snuffed out, and that, if required, dissolution of the legislative power would be as valid a response as any to a serious outside threat.
But is the threat we face now serious enough that we should consider empowering the Executive Branch in such a way that it has no Congressional or Judicial oversight, or in such a way that domestic spying can take place without any of the checks and balances set in place by codified law? Is the threat significant enough to unravel the thread of democratic fabric, and re-weave it into a sackcloth for the People to wear? Is consumerism that thing that we are protecting? Are we preserving our rights or are we sacrificing them to the God of War?
Just thinking out loud.
Tags:
bush, cheney, fundamentalism, liberalism, neo cons, war
© All rights reserved.
Posted on 1/24/2006
(
Permanent Link
)
Send to Friend
