Blame Where Blame is Due --by Stephanie Donald
Although the more liberal outlets for news (mostly on the Republican-dreaded
Internet) are spending most of their time blaming George W. Bush and
the Neo-Con Congress for everything from the election 2004 debacle to
the failed Iraq policies and the purchase of independent journalists
to push Neo-Con programs.
One can only view the present finger-pointing of the media and the citizens
and wonder when everyone is going to place the blame where it truly
belongs: On themselves.
Who spent the past 50 years voting for "the lesser of two evils"
without demanding third, fourth or even 100th political party representation?
When the Neo-Cons established "First Amendment Zones", who
obeyed their rules and stood in them? Who stood by and allowed Bush
to smirk at them after the coup of '04 when he passed by in his limo
on his way to being sworn in a week ago? Did any one of those protesters
want to rush the Secret Service and extract him from his limo to be
dragged down the streets in fear and shame, the same fear and shame
he ordered be performed to prisoners in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay,
Does everyone really want to know why the Neo-Cons feel they can get
away with tossing our Constitution and plunging headfirst into unbridled
fascism? In case any of you are wondering why, here's the answer: Because
they know they can do it and the majority of the American people will
do nothing but verbal objections to counter their actions.
Although I believe nothing in the politics of the Republican and Free
Republic hard line conservative movements I must admit that there is
one thing that I admire and that's their philosophy about how to change
things: They never stop short or moderate their actions in order to
accomplish their goals. This is a failing of the so-called "liberals"
in this country to rise to the occasion in kind. Their flag has "Moderate"
stamped all over it and their seems no way to break their belief that
"moderation" will stem the tide of a rising right-wing extremism
that makes the McCarthy Hearings of the 1950s look like a Sunday picnic.
How can any sane mind think that extremism can be halted by a philosophy
that believes ultimately in nothing at all? The entire premise reeks
of mental instability.
For those of us who are old enough to remember the Viet Nam War protests
of the 1960s and 1970s, who can forget the news that some individual
protesters stood in front of the White House, poured gasoline over themselves
and lit themselves on fire while holding their draft cards in the air
as they burned? Although the press refused to carry the photographs
of these individuals, the prose descriptions of these events are indelibly
burned into our minds even if we tried hard to forget them. It was those
individuals more than the mass protests of the student groups and other
organizations that brought Lyndon Johnson down and caused him to declare,
"I will not seek the nomination of my party for re-election to
the Presidency". Any individual or group of individuals who have
the dedication to their cause to burn themselves in symbolism of their
cause have the will to win at any cost.
It was the counter culture heroes of Joe McCarthy in 1968 and George
McGovern in 1972 that pressed many of us "old liberals" into
a belief that the Democratic Party could be the saviors of the rising
tide of Neo-Fascism but one must always remember that while many of
us stridently believed in the words and philosophy of McCarthy and McGovern,
they were after all, losers. The Democratic Party did everything in
its power to stop the hard line liberal movement because after all,
the Democrats are just as dependent on corporate money as their Republican
counterparts. Their goals are ultimately the same as they state over
and over that corporate flourishing means the flourishing of the United
States. The Democrats have fueled the fall of Democracy just as much
as any Neo-Fascist movement has done in history. Remember that even
the beloved Franklin Roosevelt believed that the key to recovery from
the Great Depression was to favor the recovery of the people first and
then the corporations would benefit ultimately from their recovery.
It turned out that although he was right but the strength of corporate
influence was never far from his mind and ultimately contributed to
the present corporate domination of the people. The main difference
is that Roosevelt's professed confidence in the people was a major trump
card in motivating them into corporate servitude for the good of the
nation and winning World War II. One can only wonder what might have
happened if George W. Bush was President when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
He would have most likely formed an alliance with Hitler to defeat the
Japanese thereby opened the door for Hitler to turn on us when we least
expected him to. After all, it's not even in dispute that Prescott Bush,
George W.'s grandfather, was a major investment broker for the Third
Reich and while the Bush family maintains that Prescott's interest in
the affair was strictly profit no one with a brain can not make the
supposition that the elder Bush's alignment was as much political as
it was financial.
Yesterday's news from the Associated Press indicates that there is new
hope on the horizon for the Republicans to fall into mediocrity: Former
New Jersey Republican Governor and Bush first term Environmental Protection
Agency head Christie Todd Whitman is touring the country calling for
the Republican Party to align themselves with "Moderate" themes
and goals. The call to believe in nothing is spreading even among the
Neo-Cons. Perhaps nothing will come of her campaign but you can never
tell. One can only wonder that if the Republicans go moderate then will
the Democrats slowly slip back to the left? Hardly likely considering
that the Democrats are dedicated to believing in nothing. Never once
did John Kerry depart from agreeing with the centrists in the 2004 campaign
and that is the reason why he truly lost; because no one in the campaign
believed in the party stance hard enough to overwhelm the Republican
gerrymandering of the election results. 2004 was an exercise in apathy
and accounts for the losses of the Democratic Party more than the efforts
of the Neo-Cons to seize dictatorial power in the U.S.
Kerry's steadfast profundity to "stay the course in Iraq"
presented no real alternative to Bush's "bomb them all to hell
and let God sort them out" political stance. What was Kerry going
to do, bomb civilian populations in Iraq and then send in a team of
Marines to apologize to the survivors? The entire concept was moronic
and reflects the U.S. population's dive into the politics of stupidity.
Those of us who were unwilling to vote for Kerry were assailed by the
"moderates" as not choosing the lesser of two evils when there
was no lesser of evils but the idiotic belief that ideology based solely
on the premise that killing and expressing remorse would woo more people
to the Democratic Party than no remorse at all. There is no honorable
way to kill and when there becomes no alternative, apologizing is construed
as weakness, not strength. The problem is that there was an alternative
and it would have led to a peace with the supposed terrorists: remove
the imperialistic goals of the U.S. Government and help them to reconstruct
their countries and pledge not interfere with their sovereignty ever
again. Many people believe that Bush is a terrorist so does that mean
that some opposing nation should bomb the hell out of the United States
and remove Bush from a hiding hole and present him filthy and unshaven
to the world as a criminal because he rigged elections to maintain power
and performed horrible, unthinkable acts of terror and genocide against
gays, lesbians and transgendered persons by turning public opinion against
them and passing laws that reinforced negative and violent actions by
the less informed population? Actually, someone needs to forcibly remove
Bush but it isn't a foreign power.
In the grand scheme of things, if blame is to be laid at anyone's feet,
it is the American people who should be held accountable for the actions
of their President and not removing him from office when he threatened
the peace and security of the world. However, the people of the world
will not hold an entire nation responsible and for that reason the world
will be doomed to repeat the present day debacle over and over.
My mind goes back to the 1961 movie "Judgment At Nuremberg"
with Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster. At one point during the trial
Burt Lancaster's ex-Nazi character refused to speak and recognize the
authority of the tribunal. Finally, he speaks in a long soliloquy and
notes that in regards to the ignorance of the German people over the
deaths of millions of Jews in the concentration camps that "if
the German people did not know it was because they did not want to admit
If no one in the United States knows the horror and evil of the Neo-Cons
it is because they do not want to admit they know.
expressed by contributing writers do not necessarily reflect those of
CLG or its editorial staff.