Standing On A Cliff In A High Wind

Standing on a cliff in a high wind. Teetering perilously as the gale sweeps one way and then the next. A gust, and the wind pauses as if sucking a great breath, then hits again. That is how I feel as I look at developments in the United States - my country ... my home. Inexorably we are moved closer to the brink of? I don't know exactly what to call it as it seems to bring the worst of influences together. Some have called what is emerging an oligarchy; others fascism; others a totalitarian state; some Christo-fascist. It has overtones of all of those, but what I do know is that we are speeding away from a free democracy.

Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blues reported that Bush blew up in a Whitehouse meeting with the GOP leadership on the renewal of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. He was told that certain provisions of the Act were seen as undermining civil liberties and the Constitution. Bush reportedly responded "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Thompson said he confirmed the event with three different folks present at the meeting. It has not been denied by the Whitehouse. Regardless of whether Bush has said this publicly or not, he certainly treats the Constitution as if it were a "goddamn piece of paper."

This is obvious from Bush's authorization the National Security Agency to spy without a warrant. Bush acknowledged he had ordered spying on U.S. citizens in his radio address on December 17, 2005 (transcript). Hi justification - the war on terrorism, and now, the stalling of the extension of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. This prompted an analysis by Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post to write that Bush is "

"In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s."

Reforms that were put in place to protect the people of the United States from the abuses of government "intelligence" activities.

Also in the December 18th Washington Post is an article by Dana Milbank, "Bush's Fumbles Spur New Talk of Oversight on Hill." I would hardly describe the examples Milbank gives as "fumbles." They add to the list: the CIA's secret prisons, and detention of innocent foreign nationals overseas.

Left out of these discussions are a number of other "fumbles:" the Whitehouse engaging in producing propaganda for the U.S. release, manufacturing a case to legitimate the invasion of Iraq, refusing to disclose information on meetings with energy industry big-wigs, the treasonous act of revealing the name of a covert CIA operative, detention of U.S. citizens indefinitely as "enemy combatants," authorization for the broad scale use of torture, ...

"Pushing the limits?"

"Fumbling?"

These actions are not just little slips. They point clearly to a direction for the nation which is frightening - if we want to continue to consider ourselves a "free" society, or a government for and by the people.

The Bush administration has pushed diligently for increasing the scope of power in the Executive Branch, and increasing domestic activity of the Military. The initial argument for increasing the domestic presence of the military was the war on terrorism. In the wake of hurricane Katrina, and the totally shambled FEMA response, the argument was the military was the best prepared. Hence, the Pentagon is pushing itself to be the first responder in a natural diaster. Mark Sappenfield sums it up succinctly in his December 13, 2005 Christian Science Monitor article "Battle brews over a bigger military role:

"The emerging opinion at the Pentagon is that Katrina laid bare the limitations of the nation's current disaster-response plan. Officials are quick to note that the system works well for the 50-odd natural disasters that occur routinely every year: Governors make a request for assistance to the president, and the president then asks the Department of Homeland Security - which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - to organize federal resources to help local officials."

But let's look at the failures of response, particularly FEMA's response, to Katrina. The agency had been gutted of both funding and staff when it was folded into the new Homeland Security Department. Experience management was replaced by inexperienced cronies of the Bush administration with Michael Brown ("Browny") in charge. The mission of disaster response was sacrificed to a tunnel vision view of "security" focused around the "war on terrorism," and that in the form of external random occurrence. Even given that, FEMA was not tasked to respond to potential attacks.

Under "normal" circumstance, the National Guard remains at the call of the local and state authorities. However, the war in Iraq has stripped not only troops from the states, but also their equipment. The National Guard was largely incapacitated to respond to the emergency. While the arrival of General Honoree with his troops was a life saving event, even he refused using a military approach - having his troops carry guns, but not bullets. (This was apparently not the case for all U.S. forces sent to New Orleans.) Honoree coordinated combined National Guard unites from across the country - all of which took time to mobilize.
'
Hurricane Katrina provided a wake up call to the nation on the quality of Bush's leadership, and the consequences of the frightening course we are on. The fact that they still "haven't got it right," serves as an ongoing reminder.

The Pentagon argument now is that they should act under their own authority - not under state control, and not under FEMA. Bush supports this change. but is it "disaster" that prompts calls to lessen the leash of the posse comitatus act?

When you combine this ongoing push for a significant domestic military role, however, it is not emergency response that is being pushed - or practiced. This is clear with the use of predator drones by (one presumes) INS. It is questionable how they came to use the drones, or whether they are being flown by the military. One presumes that it is one of the "grey areas" out of Homeland Security.

Not so slowly, we are moving into a government largely beyond the reach of either oversight or control. The military seems to be being positioned to having an active role in domestic control. This role is no where more clear than in the secret Pentagon database which includes U.S. anti-war groups.

Cries by the Congress - even by Republicans in Congress - for increased oversight seem pointless. There is no mechanism they are willing to enact that would force the Whitehouse to be more transparent. Is this then a "fumble" by the Congress in failing to stop the expansion of secrecy and outright illegal activity in the Bush administration? Just when were they going to stop the deterioration of our democracy? Just when were they going to notice that the highly vaunted "balance of powers" is totally unbalanced?

Add to this the seemingly tremendous influence of one part of Bush's "base" - the Radical Christian Right. This is a "group" which has grabbed the reins of Republican power, and insinuated itself nicely into the military. One glaring example of this the evangelical push at the U.S. Air force Academy. I would not be at all surprised at similar pushes elsewhere in the military. This lends a whole new take to "Onward Christian Soldiers" - soldiers who may soon be called on to operate in "godless America."

Do the "issues" coming to light reflect a free democracy going about its business? Or does it seem like a nation moving rapidly towards a dictatorship of some form that brooks no reins on its rule - or is at least paving the way to suppress all dissent.

So what exactly are we becoming? Is it a totalitarian state?

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05 Totalitarianism: a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen's duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society. 1
Various totalitarian systems, however, have different ideological goals. For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian--the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People's Republic of China under Mao--the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society (see communism); German National Socialism, on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race. 2

Characteristics
Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret police. Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret police and military force. However, only with modern technology have governments acquired the means to control society; therefore, totalitarianism is, historically, a recent phenomenon.

Or is it some form of fascism? According to Wikipedia, fascism is "an authoritarian political movement, and it is generally considered to be part of, or in coalition with, the extreme right. Which seems to fit the Bush cabal in general. However, there are certainly elements of "Clerical fascism" - "an ideological construct that combines the political and economic doctrines of fascism with theology or religious tradition" (Wikipedia). Given the clearly "Christian" orientation of Bush and his "base," then Christo-fascism might be more accurate. Bush labels the "Muslims," purportedly arrayed against us, as "Islamist." The term apparently refers to a militant, fundamentalist, Islamic philosophy. Does that make the Bush government "Christianist?"

Carl Davidson argues in his article "Globalization, Theocracy and the New Fascism: Taking the Right's Rise to Power Seriously" that the Religious Right has engaged in a campaign on numerous fronts to advance its political power, and to advance disruption and loss of human rights. In my article "Fascism USA," I argued that on numerous fronts the u\US had already arrived at a fascist state. In Creeping Fascism, I elaborated on how the role of lies from the Administration, and denial by the public, was advancing an agenda that is destroying the United States. The only image of fascism those in the U.S. seem to hold is that of Nazi Germany, and we have told ourselves for three generations "It can't ever happen here." There is a pervasive belief that somehow the U.S. is immune - or too smart and savvy - to be "sucked in" by such a coup. It is yet another variant of "American exceptionalism." Unfortunately, for those who are willing to step beyond the blaring horns of "America the Perfect," the groans of a dying democracy come loud and clear.

I don't know what combination of rhetorical labels can be accurately linked to what the U.S. is right now - or what we are becoming. What I do know is that it is far from the mythic image most have of the United States. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It has nothing to do with moving in a positive and peaceful world. It has lots of gloss and glitter, reinforced by lies told a thousand times (so they must be true), and propaganda that would make honest agent blush.

I will be honest. I have never been a believer in the myth of the United States. To me, the Pledge of Allegiance has always bee tinged with sadness, or perhaps what we are struggling to attain. Because of this, it has been my personal commitment to do what I can to make the dream of the United States (rather than the "American Dream") become a reality. The hope of that possibility has rested in the Constitutional right of citizens to peacefully control the political process and political leaders. One thing that becomes clearer with each new "revelation," is that power is slipping through our fingers.

A strong wind is blowing, but it is not blowing us towards a golden shore. Instead it is blowing us towards an abyss which could take generations to climb out of.

Related Articles of Interest
Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives

Bush allowed spying on Americans in US after 9/11

Pentagon accused of spying on American

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

Pentagon Will Review Database on U.S. Citizens

Pentagon Is Said to Mishandle a Counterterrorism Database

Battle brews over a bigger military role

Military Admits Planting News in Iraq

Pentagon Will Review Database on U.S. Citizens

Battle brews over a bigger military role

Nepalese soldier shoots many dead

Anger Mounts After U.S. Troops Kill 13 Iraqi Protesters

Military Admits Planting News in Iraq

Pentagon Rolls Out Stealth PR

Globalization, Theocracy and the New Fascism: Taking the Right's Rise to Power Seriously

Creeping Fascism

Fascism USA

The Christo-Military State of Corporate America

Spread Of State Surveillance Is Global Social Control Project

Merging "Rights" In A Time of Fear

Posted by rowan at December 18, 2005 4:43 PM | [eMail this article!] |