?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I've been blaming our situation on a complacent and comfortable populace. As long as we are fat and happy, we aren't likely to start a revolution. But this editorial (behind cut) proposes that there is an inherent weakness and timidity among liberals---an unwillingness to grasp power and use it.

I think they're right, but I don't understand. Why are liberals like this? What is wrong with wielding power?

Pelosi's statement that impeachment is off the table is a prime example of someone who is in a position of power but doesn't want to appear to want the power. She should be saying "Look out guys, we'll remove you and I'll take over if you don't start flying right". It is exactly her responsbility as Speaker of the House to take that power if needed. I pick on Pelosi but we have an entire congress of wimpy representatives who would rather say "bad boy" than to take the stick away from the bullies and use it themselves to enforce proper behavior.

Even the timid and the shy can break out of old habits and become outspoken proponents of truth. Each of us so-called Americans who do not actively participate in guiding our representatives needs to break out and take action too. My pen is greased: lots of congressmen and senators are hearing from me. It's time for all of us to take our responsibility to this nation seriously.

Democracy requires an educated and involved populace, or it will fall. Ours is making whistling noises, it's falling so fast.


From: BuzzFlash <alerts@buzzflash.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Living in the Weimar Republic of America

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

It's become a bit of a cliché to compare the rise of Cheney-Bush fascism to the ascendancy of the Third Reich, but the analogy does reveal a fundamental truth about power and politics.

Fascists or Bolsheviks (just look at the short-lived Alexander Kerensky republic in Russia that fell to the Soviets in 1917) proceed on a premise that liberals are ambivalent about asserting power -- and take full advantage of that weakness.

Bush may be a tin horn cowboy propped up by Rove and Cheney, but almost all of his power at this time is derived by the unprecedented unitary authority granted to him by a Democratic Congress. In short, an utterly failed president guilty of illegal activity, whose poll numbers are in the dust, is able to make enough Democrats fearful that they give him power when they should be aggressively taking it away from him.

In the narrative of "toughness" that Rove has created for Bush -- and that Cheney has backed up with Franco-like substance -- Bush emerges as a "strong" figure, ironically, only because the timid Democratic leadership is so weak.

We are in a moment of history, when the Democrats should be controlling the debate and have Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales cornered. Instead of impeaching Gonzales, they -- due to a lack of party discipline -- just gave him the power to legally spy on Americans without any real accountability, even after he has confessed to at least two programs of illegal spying.

The right wing depends upon a fundamental weakness in the character of "liberals" to achieve its authoritarian goals.

At this point in time, after having failed to protect us from 9/11 -- despite being warned of terrorist acts by bin Laden about to happen in the U.S. -- and years of a failed war against terrorism that has consumed the financial resources of our nation and all too many lives, the Democrats should be making Bush quiver in his boots about the next terrorist attack and how his ineptitude has allowed it to potentially happen.

Instead, the Democrats fear a guy who spent the first ten minutes after 9/11 reading a story about a pet goat with grade school students until his handlers could figure out what to do with him -- and then he went AWOL, just as he did in terms of avoiding service in Vietnam.

The Weimar Republic fell because the advocates of democracy in Germany were too timid to fight back against the thuggish tactics of Hitler's storm troopers. They passed the "enabling act" after the Reichstag fire (read terrorist act) that gave him virtually omnipotent power to "protect the homeland."

The right wing is right about one thing: the Democrats in Congress don't have the will or the wherewithal to put up a fight for the Constitution. Bullying works against a caucus without a backbone.

Hitler's power was legally granted to him by those who thought that the "homeland" faced grave threats.

The gravest threat, of course, that the German homeland faced, was Hitler himself.

That is an analogy to Congress's abject surrender to Bush that is, indeed, worth repeating.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
genoochy
Aug. 9th, 2007 08:13 pm (UTC)
Not to sound too conspiratorial, yet...

I have to think the reason there is no inaction is because they really don't want to change anything. It's all one big cartel that has these little fights to make it appear as if they are doing something for our good, but don't really care. I think there is a lot of them who are scared about what might happen if they stand up, but they need to look to Dr. Paul and see there's no danger in doing so. In fact, you are likely to enrapture a fair portion of the population behind you like he has done.
liveonearth
Aug. 9th, 2007 08:21 pm (UTC)
Yes, I agree that many in our legislative branch have been bought off by corporations, esp pharmaceuticals and military contractors, and don't want to rock the boat because they are getting filthy rich just riding along....I agree. But in order for them to have risen to their positions, they must have once had the ability for critical thinking, speech and action. And I have hopes that in many of them a conscience lies latent, waiting to be awakened by the populace ringing the alarm bells. This is my hope.

I think there is great danger in standing up against the powers that be. I would not be surprised to hear any day now that Ron Paul has died in an "accidental" plane crash like Paul Wellstone. These guys in power have no trouble killing someone who destabilizes their monopoly on power, if their prior efforts to buy them off or distract them haven't worked.

And in thinking that there is danger for Ron Paul to speak out, I also believe that it is dangerous for me to post my views publicly online. Likewise it is demonstrably dangerous for me to drive a truck with a tailgate covered in my views. I do it anyway, because I am willing to risk my life to change the course of our culture. One idea at a time. Perhaps this sounds grandiose, but somebody has to do it. I think you are also one of those who is willing to put yourself at risk to accomplish change for the greater good.
(Deleted comment)
liveonearth
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:30 pm (UTC)
Who was it that committed "suicide" by a shotgun to the back of the head? I think I remember hearing about that suicide....
genoochy
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:34 pm (UTC)
I think that was the ex-chairman of Enron. The one that was against the illegal dealings and had accused the Bush Administration of being involved.
genoochy
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:25 pm (UTC)
Ja, I keep waiting for the head-on collision involving Paul's SUV, or as you said (since it seems to be the Bush's favorite way of getting rid of people) a plane crash. Wouldn't it be lovely, given that he flies commercial, that the plane was bombed by those evil Islamic terrorist? One annoying congressman out, and a whole new line of "patriot" acts in.

Yes, you are right, it is dangerous to speak out. As best, you might loose your job as a senator, at worst your King Air 100 has a date with a mountainside.

As a citizen, if you write a book on the subject, you might become "suicidal" and end your otherwise happy life with a shotgun to the back of your head. If your a blogger, maybe not much except added police harassment until the next terrorist attack. Then you might disappear into one of the black bags in the name of homeland security.
(Anonymous)
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:46 pm (UTC)
I just skimmed the link. Excellent collection of info from Democratic Underground about suicides and accidental deaths of a great assortment of people who were critical of Shrub. Thanks!
(Anonymous)
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:55 pm (UTC)
Would you please resend the DemUnderground link? I lost it and it's worth really reading.
genoochy
Aug. 10th, 2007 01:33 am (UTC)
Sorry, I was having trouble with HTML...

Here you go: Link
liveonearth
Aug. 10th, 2007 04:54 am (UTC)
Thanks!
neptunia67
Aug. 9th, 2007 08:37 pm (UTC)
Just passing through on a quick break at work. Haven't read the article yet, but in response to your post and question - could it be that our judicial process is so fucked up that they know it could take months, even years, to accomplish what they want? In the case of an impeachment, I bet it would still be in process in Nov '08 if they started now. Even if they had started a year ago. It just seems like our judicial process - for people who have money - is: Hear the judge. Appeal if you don't like what he says. Appeal again. And again.

It's really fucked up, IMO.
liveonearth
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)
is there enough time to impeach?
Perhaps it is true, that we couldn't possibly get it done in the time frame given. Lots of people say that. Perhaps, if faced with enough evidence and public condemnation, the villains would resign as Nixon did and make quick work of it. Regardless of the fuck-ed-ness of our system, there is no way to un-fuck it without facing it head on. It's not going to un-fuck itself.

In Nixon's case, his burlars were caught in the Dem Party HQ in June 1972. There was a row in October 1973, in which Nixon dismissed a special prosecutor and two attorney generals resigned. Congress was in an uproar over that and Bork's firing of Cox, and in November '73 numerous bills of impeachment were introduced in congress. In August 1974 Nixon resigned.

So that one took 9 months from the introduction of the bills to the resignation. Nine months of gestation is enough for the Shrub situation. The violations on the part of the Shrub regime are so rampant that the public confidence is lost (has been lost for years if you ask the pollsters) and congress is already booing and hissing at each new move from Cheney et all. Bills of impeachment are already being introduced in the house. We have 15 months before the elections. So as far as I'm concerned, there is time---and necessity.

Impeachment is an act of congress. It does not go to the judicial branch where they can appeal out the wazoo. If it goes to completion, it is done.
genoochy
Aug. 9th, 2007 09:32 pm (UTC)
Re: is there enough time to impeach?
However, even if the president is impeached, he has to give up power. He does not have to by law.
liveonearth
Aug. 9th, 2007 10:03 pm (UTC)
Re: is there enough time to impeach?
If Shrub, Cheney, Gonzales et al were impeached, and did not give up power, we would still prove to the world that we the people of the USA do not support these criminals. That reduces the blowback directed at "we the people" and points the blame precisely where it should be, for the world to see. Our national reputation is in tatters and impeachment would do wonders toward restoring it.
genoochy
Aug. 10th, 2007 01:34 am (UTC)
Re: is there enough time to impeach?
True. And I can think of a few militias that would love to help convince them they need to step down.
liveonearth
Aug. 10th, 2007 04:51 am (UTC)
Re: is there enough time to impeach?
Yeah. Armed rednecks can be very convincing.
hausfrauatu
Aug. 10th, 2007 08:03 pm (UTC)
It's because they have a terror of being called socialists or weak. Whatever. Bush and his cronies are FASCISTS. They have got to go.

I'm a liberal, power hungry feminist ball breaker! LET ME ATTEM! Plus I'm not anti-gun, and I'm rural.

I think baby boomer women with power struggle with their femininity. Pelosi needs to ovary up and take on those asshats. She has 5 kids! She comes from a political family! She needs to just do what I'm sure she knows needs doing. It's like all of the yak yak yak about all this stuff has clouded their brains.

they make me wanna puke.
liveonearth
Aug. 18th, 2007 10:05 pm (UTC)
I wrote Pelosi a letter and told her to "ovary up", thanks to you. Heh. And every time I post in the libertarian or Ron Paul groups, they bust me for being a socialist. But I see libertarianism as a logical structure to begin the swing away from "neocon" overspending back toward government fiscal responsibility, after which we can work on the healthcare issue....
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

moon
liveonearth
liveonearth

Latest Month

April 2019
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars