Admission to the National Archives is FREE, America
When will so many Americans finally educate themselves? This is not an unreasonable question. American society now has a large segment of the population (though nowhere near a majority) that openly agrees with George W. Bush’s assertion that he will do whatever is necessary to “win in Iraq,” regardless “what Congress has decided.” Such language strikes as desirous to deflate or eliminate constitutional checks and balances limiting executive powers.
Naturally, no one really believes George W. Bush can possibly raise himself into the role of dictator. Institutional democracy does still rule in America, and powers would depose the strongest move to the contrary. Hell, even the gung-ho Marines fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention those other places around the world) would readily tell the Poseur from Crawford, “Shut the fuck up.”
Yet, the underlying problem is that group who do think Bush could (disregarding for the moment partisan fantasies of “should”) simply act as dictator and move pawns around the globe to fight his war—much as Adolph Hitler did throughout his war against Europe. This group is a problem because they seem to know little of the U.S. Constitution’s articles or overall function. It’s not enough to invoke the constitution when you demand freedom of speech, speedy trial, or right of refusal to incriminate oneself. Indeed, these are actual amendments to the constitution, and not the body and essence of its laws.
I am not going to conceit to teach constitutional tenets here. Instead, I want only to encourage everyone in America to disregard constitutional interpretation, and read the actual words written in the document. You can find it here, or any number of online sites. (Oddly—or perhaps ironically—the text of the constitution is conspicuously absent on the White House’s web site.) The constitution is much like a rule book one finds for playing cards, football, or any other organized activity. Only, there is much more at stake than losing the game, or cheating to gain a few cents in your pocket, if someone is allowed to circumvent or neuter constitutional rules.
As far as I know, American schools—even the worst of them—still require a “constitution test” be studied for and passed in order to graduate that most basic of educational achievements: High School. The constitution test may be given under a different name these days, but its purpose is to encourage informed citizenship in our youth. People will get the type of government they not only choose to allow, but ultimately deserve. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is effectively dismantling the democratic processes of his country, with the fealty of so many supporters, themselves terribly poor and undereducated. Is this where America is headed in another generation? It is possible. One part of that equation to disaster is Americans’ disregard for the meaning of democracy and the distinction of These United States powerful tool—the constitution.
When Voltaire wrote “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”, he did not mean for people to take thought and speech freedoms as a given notion of immortally there for us all. In fact, Voltaire was writing of the underlying meaning that allows us to differ in what we say, think, and argue, yet continue to function as a society. That functionality has a basis in law and civility, Voltaire described, and people must raise the apparatus of democracy above personal (or collective) beliefs. Because—and this, too, Voltaire understood—to so readily destroy the democratic machine leads directly (but not necessarily immediately) to oppression of the people. Lest we forget, Voltaire was kicked out of France for his words arguing for civil liberties, fair trial, and freedom of conscience—ideas American’s take for granted because they are written into our constitution.
With all this optimism pouring from me today, I must also point out Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations in his “Democracy in America”: “The American Republic will fall when the politicians learn they can bribe people with their own money.” It has been just a generation since we’ve seen this in full action. And look where we are, politically.
Mark Beyer wrote:
Hi, USA. Thanks for your response. You seem to lump together jihadists with all Muslims. While I despise all religions and the worship of any gods and superstitious edicts, there is a marked difference between terrorists and those religious Muslims who just want to get on with life. You can read that as “Westernized” peoples. In fact, though, I’m more worried about the US’s own homegrown evangelicals, who seem to have a death wish for everyone but themselves. But that thought is for a separate essay.
Furthermore, I’m not so sure more than 25% of Americans even understand what Congress does, much less think Congress has any notion of what truth is, much much less hiding any “truths” from the public. And which “leadership” do you speak of? Bush? He’s proven a total lack of anything approaching leadership. The newly empowered Democratic Congress? They cannot even muster the moral courage to begin impeachment procedures against Bush and his White House.
Finally, I don’t think people look to government for dependence. Some of that thinking happened between 1930-1960, but apart from those 30 years, US citizens have been left to fend for themselves….and rightly so. One problem, as I see it, is not that Gov’t wants people to feel dependent, but that Gov’t wants to simply dominate people’s lives.
And finally-finally: Marx (not Groucho) said that all governments go through capitalism before “achieving” communism. It’s simply the state of affairs that punishes people until they realize there must be a better way. As it looks right now, the haves and have-nots in USA getting decidedly spread apart, which is the recipe for eventual anarchic-communist revolution. When America’s streets no longer gleam with gold from its powerful economy, then blood will spill on its streets. That will not happen for a generation or three, but it will happen. The cycle is written in history…and hegemonic America cannot alter this course. It’s not about government, per se, but the greed within its people.
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 5:24 pm ¶
HeatherAnnastasia wrote:
I agree with almost everything you said here except your take on Chavez.
I know he’s walking a fine line with the powers he has taken recently, but I think he’s doing the right thing.
His policies have drastically improved the lives of Venezuelans from economy to education, but the changes he has implemented are fragile. I really think he has his country’s best interests at heart.
The American media also likes to consistently forget two important facts:
1) Chavez’s refusal to accept “help” from the IMF is what saved his country’s economy while the IMF continues to enslave other third world countries with crippling debt.
2) When a U.S.-backed coup removed Chavez fro power, it was his own people that took to the streets and demanded he be put back into power.
Sorry if I strayed off topic, but like I said, I agreed with everything else you wrote.
Posted 25 Feb 2007 at 6:40 pm ¶
California drmin wrote:
“People will get the type of government they not only choose to allow, but ultimately deserve. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is effectively dismantling the democratic processes of his country, with the fealty of so many supporters, themselves terribly poor and undereducated. Is this where America is headed in another generation?” One moment of clarity in an otherwise uninspired, agenda ridden bit of dribble. Heather please stick to the Sunday funnies, your take on Hugo Chavez is the “undereducation” referred to here.
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 2:46 am ¶
HeatherAnnastasia wrote:
California drmin,
Why don’t you come over to my blog if you want to argue?
Do you actually know anything about South American history, economy, or politics?
You didn’t counter either point that I made.
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 1:58 pm ¶
utilitarian wrote:
I love the infighting over knowledge. Like that kind of discussion will get us anywhere. Let us just get to the root of the problem in Washington today shall we? A lack of honesty by both parties. For the conservatives who say we should be tough and go after those who aim to threaten the U.S., they are just not doing enough. And the Democrats, who said they would get us out of Iraq if they won Congress, can’t even come together as a party to make that happen. This tells me that the 2-party system just isn’t working anymore and we need a party of ideas, of vision, and of action… not just false promises and non-binding resolutions.
Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 5:10 am ¶
Mark Beyer wrote:
Utilitarian,
Not sure what you mean by infighting. I made a point about gaining basic knowledge, which many Americans fail even there. As for the two-party system. USA politics is already rigged into that system: public moneys goes to those candidates (read “parties”) who get a certain percentage of the vote, which leaves out nearly every potential 3rd party (or 4th, 5th & 6th). Not that candidates shouldn’t try to break through that barbed-wire system. The change must come from within, as had fomented the end of slavery, the Robber Baron Age, and monopolies. USA is a young nation; Europe has government buildings older than the age of the US Constitution.
Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 10:33 am ¶
Mark Beyer wrote:
Utilitarian,
Thanks for another fine response. Yes, your screen name indicated your core mindset from the outset, and like any reasonable thinker, your thoughts reveal someone who can enjoy, debate, add demonstrative evidence for an opinion, and even be swayed from perhaps a contrary position to your own. If you like this site, please let others know.
I’ve been remiss with posts because of a much enjoyed stream of house guests over the past month, but now can concentrate on getting back into the scrum of political & social debate.
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 4:21 am ¶