The earth orbits the sun, as it has for four billion years, in perfect balance of two opposing forces: the centrifugal force which, in accordance with Newton's first law of motion, draws the planet outward, and the centripetal force of the sun's gravity which draws it inward.
Analogously, political rule remains stable only as long as centrifugal forces that would overthrow it are successfully resisted by centripetal forces that contain them. Among these centripetal forces are the rule of law and consent of the governed in democratic governments, and bribery, propaganda, intimidation, and brute force in despotic regimes.
History teaches us that while a threatened despotism can regain control through a ruthless imposition of force, as with the Russian revolution of 1905 and the Hungarian uprising of 1956, once the centripetal grasp of the despot is weakened, and is seen by the public to be weakened, an ever-accelerating collapse of the regime often ensues. Then, what begins as an appeal for reform can escalate into revolution. The American revolution began with appeals to the English Crown by petitioners who fully intended to remain British subjects. Mikhail Gorbachev's efforts to reform Soviet Communism triggered events that led to the downfall of both the Soviet Union and Communism.
Although we are too close in time to realize it, last week may have marked the beginning of the downfall of Bushism – the fatal loosening of the centripetal Bushevik grip – as senior intelligence officials from sixteen federal agencies finally stood their ground and said to Bush and Cheney, and to the world, "no more! – we will no longer validate your lies and be complicit in your war crimes!"
When, prior to the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, the Bush regime was determined to "fix" the facts and intelligence to fit the pre-determined policy, the intelligence apparatus complied, suppressing the compelling evidence that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and was in no way involved in the attacks of 9/11, 2001. Then followed an illegal war and occupation in Iraq, the violation of the Nuremberg and Geneva Conventions, the looting of the U.S. Treasury, and the deaths of a million innocent Iraqis and four thousand American soldiers and still counting.
An attack on Iran, equally illegal and unjustified, would possibly have even more drastic consequences. The military Joints Chiefs of Staff are reportedly opposed to the attack, along with career officials in the State Department and the CIA. But who will prevent an attack on Iran? The Bush administration owns the courts and the media. The Democratic Congress, elected to end the Iraq fiasco, refuses to do so. Neither will the Congress support a resolution to refuse funding of an attack on Iran.
That leaves the intelligence agencies and their primary weapon, the plain facts and the evidence that supports them. In their National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded, "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." It is reported that several senior intelligence officers told the White House that if the NIE report were not officially released, they would take the report directly to the media, even if it meant jail sentences for the leakers.
With the release of the NIE report, the primary Bush/Cheney pretext for an attack on Iran has been discounted, and the likelihood of such an attack reduced, though not, unfortunately, eliminated.
Bush responded to the NIE report with a package of excuses and outright lies so absurd and transparent that even the mainstream media had to take note of it. In a White House press briefing, "spokesmodel" Dana Perino's attempt at defending Bush was met with unprecedented ridicule from the press corps.
It is clear that the Bush/Cheney administration is at a crossroads: if it is to retain its power, it must initiate some bold and likely ruthless means of control. If not, a disapproving public, an erosion of media support, a deteriorating economy, and a revolt within the administration may lead to a spectacular disintegration of this misbegotten regime and with it the Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority."
Specifically, here is how the opposing forces are now lining up:
Centrifugal Forces:
**The American public has had it with this regime. The approval rating of George Bush, in the mid-twenties, is at an historical low. Cheney's score is in the teens. Equally significant, a majority of the public "strongly disapproves" of both. There is no prospect of reversal of these dismal numbers.
**As the mainstream media persists in its support of the Bush regime, it is increasingly at odds with public opinion. Accordingly, the media is losing its audience and its influence, and with these losses, its profits. Due perhaps to these pressures, the corporate media is becoming more critical of the regime, and even more significantly, is publishing and broadcasting damaging reports about the administration.
**As more information about the malfeasance and misfeasance of the administration comes to light, more and more of the public is willing to suspect the worst about the Busheviks: that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen, that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell lied the country into an illegal war, that "inconvenient" political enemies were murdered, even that the Bush/Cheney regime was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While I personally doubt that last accusation, the widespread support of 9/11 conspiracy theories testifies to an extraordinary public distrust of the administration.
**The dire economic consequences of the Bush/Cheney policies are becoming ever more apparent to the public. Paul Krugman reports: "Americans' Economic Pessimism Reaches a Record High." That's the headline on a recent Gallup report, which shows a nation deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. Right now, "27% of Americans rate current economic conditions as either 'excellent' or 'good,' while 44% say they are 'only fair' and 28% say they are poor." Moreover, "an extraordinary 78% of Americans now say the economy is getting worse, while a scant 13% say it is getting better." ... [In contrast,] in the fall of 1998 almost two-thirds of Americans thought the economy was excellent or good."
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .
I have never seen the situation laid out so clearly as you have done. It is quite an achievement and shows a clarity of mind that it needed and exceptional in this time of American troubles. Others in other countries might well learn from Bushism, it certainly seems so in Britain, God help us.
Its a bit lame in words but 'well done'.
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 178 comments)
on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 6:49:55 PM
I can't get to your crisis papers through that link. Perhaps you'd like to tell us who in your opinion did blow up those three buildings at the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2007. I personally can't think of anyone else with the means and the opportunity.
Robert Hoogenboom Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 182 comments)
on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 2:38:46 AM
Short answer to your question: No one blew up the three WTC buildings. The towers fell due to structural failure that resuted from the impact of the airliners.
WTC building #7 is not clear. Probably fell due to the load of debris from the towers and the seismic shock of their collapse.
Yes, I fully expect that you do not believe this, and I am fully aware that there is a lively "9/11 Truth" movement which insists that the Busheviks planned and executed the attacks on the WPC and the Pentagon.
For a much lengthier account of my reasons to doubt that anyone "blew up" the WTC buildings, follow the link above.
By the way, that article prompted more than 500 replies, the most by far of anything I have published on the internet.
And I expect soon to be writing still more about it.
Ernest Partridge
by
Ernest Partridge (101 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 5:05:47 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
