Democratic Conversation

Hurricane Katrina is in the news again. As an anniversary, that is. The anniversary also notoriously celebrates the fact that the federal government, disaster agencies, and insurance companies have yet to do all that much for the destroyed areas, the city, or the people who have lost everything. I have nothing but scorn for the Bush administration’s failures to help the people, and the insurance companies who refuse to pay people for their losses, and to the disaster-relief agencies that refuse to help the people yet needing help.

However, we all must face facts: whatever has not yet been rebuilt of New Orleans should never be rebuilt. The lands that sit below sea level? Clear the trash and give that land back to the animals and plants that once lived there. It’s pretty simple as to why an official No-Rebuild Policy should be put into effect where a de-facto one already exists: there is no money to rebuild the portion of New Orleans that has been destroyed simply to say We Can Do It!

We cannot do it. We cannot pay for it. Not now, not in the future. And what’s more, the greater American public should not have to foot the bill. I don’t give a damn if its white, black, creole, or Native Americans who were wiped out. The flood planes on which that part of New Orleans stood were a disaster waiting to happen. And so the hurricane came, and the disaster took place. Now its time to move on. Hell, most of the displaced people are effectively relocated already, and by most accounts they enjoy their new homes. They have gotten on with their lives, so why can’t the politicians, the media, the Rebuild N.O. bloggers, and the few remaining holdouts who want to return to the dump site, why can’t they all move on?

The reason, once again, is money. Everyone wants a piece of the phantom pie called “tax bail-out.” Well, that’s what insurance is for, that’s what disaster agencies are for. If you don’t think you got enough, then sue the bastards. This is, after all, America. And when you’ve gotten all you can, move on. Move out. Move away.

Life will go on.

I am an artist by temperament and intellect; I look for insight in the beauty and the grotesque as beauty as ways to explore, help define, and enjoy the human comedy. This is not so difficult, as I need only look around with ears, if not eyes, open to the environment. I came to political inspection and commentary as a by-product of my literary artistic inquiry. Again, one only need read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Wharton, and Sun-Tsu to grasp the significance that art can have upon a people caught in desperate struggle with authority (as well as themselves). Also, I believe in democratic principles such as discussion, dissent, and freedom of speech.

It is with an immensely heavy heart that I must admit that for many years now I have thought America has been in its decline as a nation of hope for all democratic principles. It began, I think—and to agree with Gore Vidal’s oft-repeated assessment—with Harry Truman’s failure to withhold his political sentiment that the United States needed to become in nature that which it had become by default after leading the victory over worldwide despotism in the Second World War: an imperial power that could only become an example of despotic naturalism in order to uphold its banner as the modern example of a Super-power (because, let’s face it, superpowers have been with us since recorded history: see: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Victorian England). Truman succeeded in paving this road by developing the forerunners of the CIA and NSA, two government agencies that have done everything against the precepts of rights, freedoms, and pursuits which Thomas Jefferson emoted so well in this country’s seminal document of existence.

The succession of presidents after Truman was finally bounced from office have been equal abject failures in reversing this slide toward despotism and tyranny: Eisenhower played golf behind the White House while Joe McCarthy helped to take the second and third bricks out of the foundation of the Bill of Rights—a monumental failure of Ike since he worked so desperately to insure Europe would get some of those same rights as Allied Commander in Europe during WWII; Kennedy slept his way (not literally, but by euphemism “bedded” women) through his famed “One-Thousand Days” as president, and meanwhile gave us Cuba’s failure and the beginnings of Vietnam’s uber-failure; Johnson helped domestic issues that Reconstruction and southern states did not have the moral gene to perform—much less the moral compass to navigate—but as president Johnson disguised foreign policy in the cloak of fighting communists, only to certainly and permanently create the military industrial complex that presently makes American policy (and the Congress) tick; Nixon campaigned on getting of our of the war, but only escalated Vietnam when he gave us Henry Kissinger, who gave America his German-roots version of realpolitik: dip your money, hate, hands and agents into those foreign nations whom you want to subvert for economic, military or political purposes (Kissinger is so afraid of his war crimes that he dares not set foot in a country whose honor it is to arrest criminals for trial in the World Court); Carter failed in everything politically, but has some arresting things to say himself these days; Reagan sold his soul to help big business dismantle what 80 years of grass-roots political action had achieved: workers’ rights, living-wages, political relevancy—and meanwhile he gave us radical Islamism and Osama bin Laden; George H.W. Bush continued that horrid legacy in his do-nothing presidency—until he needed a righteous war to help bring his solvency back in time for election, and so he allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait so he could play world leader (it didn’t work for his try at a second term, but it did help the USA to permanently establish military presence in the lands of a murderous religious people; the roots of 9-11 attacks grew easily in those arid sands); Bill Clinton failed the American people because he played centrist, and effectively did little for the people, did a lot for Big Business subsidies, and continually held a wetted finger in the political winds to wager decisions for 300 million people—meanwhile the conservatives of the country and in politics did everything in their limited and substantial powers to derail any legislation that actually would help the people of America; and finally, bringing up the rear in both literalism and figurative ass-dragging failure to this long list of presidential failures, is George W. Bush, criminal par-excellence for his lies to the American public against his oath of office (“to protect and defend the constitution of the United States”), his treasonous actions in orchestrating the Iraq Invasion (with incubating help from the Congress), and his war crimes/crimes against humanity for the murder of Iraq civilians in the execution of the invasion and subsequent occupation.

It has been just 60 years since the Truman-Bush continuum of American Presidential failure began. Essentially only two generations have become fully realized through this era. This time represents, however, nearly one-quarter of the history of the United States. One failure after another, for 60 years. One more nail in the coffin of Americans’ freedoms weighed against the so-called “needs of the state.”

No one can claim that we American citizens were not warned against the tyrannous nature of government. It was the establishment of “these United States” against such government that brought the world a newer form of “government by representation,” with the power of constitutional rights and rule of law set in three branches of government that held checks and balances according to such laws that could not eliminate such rights accorded to the people. No, we were warned, by Jefferson, by Benjamin Franklin, and by George Washington. Jefferson wrote in later life that government needs to be overthrown every seven years, because that is how long it takes for tyranny to get hold of the people; Franklin wrote that a constitutional convention should be held every ten years in order to discover what needed to be changed according to the needs of the people, and then implement those changes with as little compromise as possible; Washington, in his farewell address no less, after serving two terms as president, warned his colleagues to refrain from forming political parties, as parties set groups against each other. Surely the reader sees the incongruities that exist in today’s political climate with what three of the nation’s Founding Fathers gave us. Their ghosts must cry within the halls of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court every single day.

If their ghosts do cry, they do not cry out of what the government has done to the people, but because of what the people have allowed the government to do to them. As I said, They warned us.

Vice President Dick Cheney now thinks he’s part of the Congress, after seven years wagging his (and others’) tail as semi-head of the executive branch. One must admit, he has conviction. Now, as a comic would introduce, all we need do is get a prosecutor to try him for his crimes. Joking aside, and America needs to put aside jokes in such a case, Mr. Cheney has handled his office with about as much finesse as Joseph Goebbels did for Adolph Hitler, and perhaps with equal success, I might add. Only, lets hope there aren’t ovens being built for Cheney to deal with his detractors in a Final Solution scenario.

Political pundits like to say these days that Cheney is merely doing his best as advisor to the president, the essential role of the vice-president of the United States. However, they seem to miss the point that the essential role of the vice-president (as well as the president, the Congress, and all members of elected and appointed government) is to serve the people vis-á-vis upholding the constitution of the United States. This means, as you well know, that Mr. Cheney works not for George W. Bush, but the American people. And the American people, last time I read a poll, want a bit of candor, honesty and ethical actions from elected officials. So far, the Bush White House makes the Reagan White House look girl scouts.

How far will American’s allow themselves to be lead by incompetent criminals? Is every elected official, political appointee, or civil servant-lifer so afraid of his and her job (or power base) that we Americans on the street cannot find someone who will take action and resign under protest, make a citizens arrest, or otherwise speak loudly over the media fluff to give candor and speak truth America? Perhaps I’m asking rhetorical questions.

I honestly don’t have the time at the moment to look up the finer points of Congressional subpoenas, but surely Congress-people or their staffers do have the time. What is the problem with serving Mr. Cheney a subpoena to appear before Congress, be put under oath (under penalty of perjury, then, if he speaks lies), and answer for this latest action and all others under question stretching back nearly seven years? If the answer is “We can’t because of legal restrictions” then fine, find some other way to boil the fuk-nut in oil. However, if the answer is “We cannot embarrass the vice president in such a manner to the World At Large because that would diminish the country’s standing in the world” then we certainly do have a problem. We have a problem for three-fold reasons. One: the world now holds America in the lowest of esteem, and only such a move against a scheming, criminal member of the present government can only help our standing in the world. Two: America has tried to lead (in some distance past, if only in my dreams, perhaps) by example in areas of jurisprudence and political righteousness against such over-stepping of powers. Three: It’s time to stop these clowns who have taken over the American dialogue of what is right and wrong, and correct them in the most harsh terms, for the best reason, in order to set establish a norm for future officials in how they must conduct themselves and the business of American government for the present and the future.

We’ve all heard the phrase “Give an inch and they’ll take a mile” or some such version of the aphorism. This phrase is an aphorism because it holds a semblance of truth. To wit, when the Democrats in Washington, and fair-minded people across the country, failed to stop the Cheney and Bush tactics to circumvent constitutional and conventional law in their steamroller politics since October, 2001, there was little those two crooks needed to do to take that mile — and then take mile after mile after mile. While some people say Bush and Cheney are trying to set up a kingdom, there cannot be anything further from the truth: Bush and Cheney will leave office come March, 2009. To attempt anything of the Hitlerian variety would in fact only (and finally) encourage the populace to rise up with pitched forks and scythes, March on the White House, extract America’s leading criminals, and hang them from the nearest tree.

And that could be the least of what Bush and Cheney deserve.

Faith & values issues have created in American politics a smokescreen to what the country requires: smart talk on realistic problems that must be answered correctly to correct living-wage job loss, global warming, Muslim extremist murderers, and changing the country from oil dependency to renewable energy independence.

Yet this is the political season (as if there isn’t ever a political season anymore, given 24/7 news), and politicians are out and about sixteen months before the 2008 election, saying pretty much what people want (or for some people, need) to hear. So the religious questions have begun, and last night on CNN a special two hours were devoted to pelting Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson with questions attempting to properly vet the candidates to those who see religion as a most important aspect for holding presidential office.

Obama went easy, speaking in milquetoast sequiturs. Edwards went typically Southern, and linked just about all his daily actions to prayer and God’s so-called wisdom and influence on his thoughts. His disturbing – and disturbed – answer begged the question, Who will be running the country, Senator Edwards? You or God? Free will is the foundation of this country; letting God direct your thoughts and actions is antithetical to a country based on laws, freedom, and pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. This last phrase, if you didn’t already know, Senator, can be found in the Declaration of Independence, a document composed by deists who had first-hand knowledge of countries ruled by religious edict. They didn’t like them!

Clinton took a much-needed route to putting religion & politics in its place, in my opinion. “I come from a background that looks suspiciously at people who wear their faith on their sleeve.” Well, thank you Senator Clinton for putting a little perspective on the job of president of the United States versus religious evocation.

Not that it matters or should matter to Americans, but to the outside world, America’s too-narrow focus on religious-minded leaders is a joke. They also think this deflects from America’s much-needed leadership role in the world’s greatest problems. But that’s the outside world, and in America, the outside world matters little unless there’s cheap oil or manufactured goods to be had. What America does have is a lot of God-fearing, personal-relationship-with-Jesus types who want to hear a certain idea come out of its candidates mouths.

The republican candidates have for a long time tapped into this sort of snake oil charm of the ignorant masses. The democrats decided that they needed to get fully dressed for the church social this time around, and so have gladly paid their dues at the altar of mass media-produced Q & A forums. Is this scary? Should politics be infiltrated by religion and religious language in the political arena. And, how can a republic founded on law justify how these developments fly directly in the face of America’s foundation against religious tampering with the political or/and governmental processes?

Americans complain about Muslims, about Jews, about Hindus, about atheists. Yet America is the most radically religious country extant today. No, we don’t exactly send true believers out to commit suicide bombing missions. However, George W. Bush, a loudly proclaimed born-again Christian who admittedly has taken cues from his prayers, has brought murder to other countries in the form of military invasion, occupation of a sovereign country, torture chambers, and now just released: chemical weapons attacks on Iraqis. All of this, and at the neglect of genocidal maniacs in Darfur, Sudan. Hmm. What about the murderous maniacs in the White House? Is this what Americans want? Is this the symbol that Americans want to portray to the world?

There are many American citizens who oppose the idea and current practice of bringing religion or even religious belief into the White House. These people think that personal faith should remain personal, and not become either public or political. Many of these people have faith. There is also a large population of atheists in America who cringe at each politician’s reference to God or Jesus as a daily influence on their actions. When will more of both step forward and say what needs to be done in America to save the republic from becoming a religious state?

The Democratic presidential hopefuls staged their first debate, and it was not Thursday Night at the Fights. It seems they want to present a more-or-less amicable style to political campaigning against which the American voters can see a stable Democratic Party that has differences, but is not fractious to the point where people say “these nuts need Prozac” merely to stand on the same stage together.

By this approach—and I must admit it is too early to say that this approach will last—the Dems can certainly also present themselves as holding a sense of reality which George W. Bush and his White House has never shown, and who continue to try to drown out any mention of sanity from reasonable Americans, the Congress, the media, the rest of the world’s nations, and the Republican presidential contenders (who’ve tried their best to not mention his name).

At the debate Thursday night, what seemed most obvious was that both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton did not want to say anything off center or new. In this, they succeeded. And for this, they melted into the background, almost disappearing behind—to my sense of outrage at American government these years—the needed reality language demonstrated by Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Kucinich pulls no punches and did not Thursday night. I like this guy. He wields a big stick. He says what most Americans, I think, need and want to hear: the truth—impeach Dick Cheney; get the troops home; end this war-crimes-worthy war an American president started; the failed democratic experiment which is Iraq was doomed from the beginning because of religious hatreds. Kucinich is unelectable because he speaks truth to voters, who are so fucking scared of everything, one-third of the nation wants to kill anything that moves, while another one-third wants to make New Age nice-nice.

Bill Richardson has a style and command of the English language that breathes life into political language. Not to create new jargon, but to say what’s on his mind based on the evidence in front of his eyes. He’s also unelectable to more than half the nation, pretty much for the same reason Kucinich scares the be-Jesus into religious conservatives (i.e., half the American population).

The other four contending debaters stood somewhere between the Obama-Clinton mindset and the Kucinich-Richardson intervention duo. So what’s a voter to do?

As we’ve seen, centrism strikes a natural tone come election day. Bill Clinton got elected as a centrist, and his policies pretty much stayed there, but not necessarily for lack of trying to do something for the average and below average American. George W. Bush tried to play a centrist in the 2000 campaign, and while few liberals bought into it, the media pretty much let him get away with that, and the conservatives new they had a snake in the grass waiting to hatch eggs of destruction if Bush got into the White House. He did, and he did.

Now the pieces are scattered, and the country is again in massive debt, murdering innocents abroad while neglecting the real dangers to the nation, is seen as a government that tortures people and disallows civil rights, has denuded Americans of many constitutional rights, and whose economy is in the toilet even as the stock market surges (for this anomaly, you need to understand that while the stock market is supposed to reflect the state of the nation’s economy, what really matters is how many people are out of work or are working, what types of incomes they make, how much they spend, and how much they save, and the nation’s debt level compared to trade imbalance; when you add these up, there is no correlation in fact with stock market numbers and the solvency of a nation). The country keeps rolling along, but that is more out of inertia than anything else because companies still open in the morning, collect their employees for eight or ten hours, and disgorge goods and services. Hell, even Iraq does this despite car bombs ripping people apart every day. But America is not Iraq—at least not yet—and so should function as sane country with energy and drive.

With all of this and more on the plates (and palates) of American voters, do you see why they always go for the mostcalmvoice instead of the fresh-ideas and this-is-what-needs-to-be-done voices? Thomas Jefferson did not trust government. Benjamin Franklin did not trust government. Both wrote about the citizens’ need to turn over old government for new government every seven years. Why? Because that’s how long it takes for tyranny to take control.

America is nearly 231 years along in its democratic experiment. What are you going to do to see that it continues?