I've been privileged, if that's the right word, to live through the tenures of two of the worst presidents in American history: Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign after his felonious crimes were revealed against the Constitution and the American people, and G.W. Bush, who likely will leave to a rousing citizen chorus of "here's your hat, what's your hurry?, don't let the door hit you on the way out."
In both cases, covering up their lies and crimes associated with reckless wars (Vietnam then, Iraq now) led Nixon and Bush further down the road to authoritarian misrule. Nixon claimed that the Chief Executive cannot violate the law because when a president acts, ipso facto what he's doing cannot be illegal. Bush claims that whenever he says he's acting in the national-security interests of the American people, he can violate whatever law or Constitutional protection he so desires. Furthermore, Bush asserts, the Judicial Branch should not restrain him and the Legislative Branch has no jurisdiction either. The courts, which he's packed with his ideological cronies, tend to uphold his "Commander-in-Chief" ukases, and the Democratic majority in the Congress tends to roll over and whimper whenever he (or The Cheney) raises his voice.
Now, of course, Vietnam and Iraq are not exact copies of each other, but there are disquieting similarities worth re-examining. In both cases, the military and diplomatic experts warned the president that the war against nationalist guerrillas could not be "won," that the best-case scenario would be endless stalemate -- the Q-word (one that rhymes with magmire) comes into play here. In both cases, few in the government understood the deep cultural complexity of the countries they were invading and occupying. In both cases, the local governments, which the Americans helped install, were corrupt, ineffective and lacking in moral authority among their peoples. In both cases, there was collusion on a grand scale between the U.S. government and greedy corporations in the occupied country.
What got me thinking once again about the parallels between 'Nam/Iraq and Nixon/Bush was engendered by my having been laid low by the 'flu bug last week. After getting fed up watching crappy TV and surfing the internet, I spent a few hours cleaning up my office, and in the course of this rare activity, discovered some old letters of mine to friends and fellow activists during "The Sixties." Those reflections of the time are depressing in a certain way since they indicate how far we've backtracked from the socio-political gains of that idealistic, convulsive era, but they also provide more hope and justification for our current activism. So, here goes:
TIDAL WAVES = CHANGE & FEAR
In a March 1972 letter to a radical colleague, I talked first about how to speed the end of the Vietnam War, and then moved to broader issues:
"You ask, in effect, whether our tiny tokens of political activity can be cashed in -- or, in other words, what the hell are we really doing, and is it worth it? I don't know. It seems as if in the mid- and late-'60s that we ("we!!!") created a tidal wave of new consciousness that socked the solar plexus of Middle America into a state of change but also fear. After a while, the huge waves receded and we found the traditional breakwaters (plus that fear) had done their job well, since the foundations of the structures were only weakened, not destroyed. Now we must pick up from where we left off; some of us will gnaw away at the rotten wood, others will meet with carpenters to design some of the new projects when the old structures fall away, others will talk to those with boats for the flood, others will spread the new gospel (the good news), others will rap with middle-class residents in a desire to alleviate their anxieties and show them how they will participate in the new order, and so on.
"In other words, we do what we can, while there are relatively quiet eddies in the whirlpool, to rebuild our strength, get our own heads together after the delicious ecstasy of riding the lip of the wave of the future. Our separate efforts, no doubt, seem small -- and they are small -- but combined perhaps they can create enough sucking power and momentum to generate the next wave of consciousness.
"Our victories must be appreciated in small doses, and we must learn not to allow our frustrations to drag us down into the pits of despondency and inertia. We hack away with our home-made chisels, and someday perhaps our sculpture will begin to emerge more clearly. It would be easier, perhaps, to simply blow it all up and try to pick up the pieces after it's over -- but what would have changed, really? Certainly not 'us'."
THE APPRECIATION OF SMALL VICTORIES
One could offer much the same advice today. We may not be able to push all our ideas to fruition each time, or in the ways that are so necessary for significant social advances. This being so, we have to celebrate our rare victories and appreciate our incremental advances, knowing that getting to the "tipping point" will require constant progressive effort and will include innumerable disappointments and failures.
While we are working like crazy to change the Democratic Party from within, defeat bad Dems, get more good candidates to run, start the ball rolling about a possible third party, agitate for impeachment and a quick end to the war, etc. -- while we're doing all that necessary work, we need to keep in mind what William Rivers Pitt ( http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/343 ) wrote recently about his frustrations with, and ultimate acceptance of, the Democratic Party:
"The Dems will do what the current system requires, and that won't change anytime soon, and it no longer staggers me. The bear's gonna shit in the woods, it says so right here in the guide, so ... I don't care all that much about who the Dems nominate next year, because all of them are beholden to the same system...
"My job is to get these rubes elected, again and again and again, and to be patient. Every time we increase our majority, we will increase our ability to pass good laws and appoint good judges, which will slowly bring the country back from the far-right mentality that has dominated for years, which will make it possible and then probable to elect better Dems, and better Dems again. It'll take 10-15 years just to get the national head out of the national ass, which is precisely where the GOP has been shoving it since '81, but that's cool, because I'm patient. Like a stone.
"I don't matter. The idea that is, was and can again be America is all that matters. I'm not supposed to be happy, or pleased, or self-satisfied, or anything other than quietly and patiently horrified. My job is to cope, to work each day on this, and to play for the long term, ten elections minimum, and maybe there'll be a bit of progress...
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
I promise to be one of those "younger leaders" who "will emerge from the growing grassroots to provide the energy, innovations and solid ideas to take us further along this path to peace and justice in our time."
I'm hard at work building up connections with people through the Dennis Kucinich campaign, seeking to find a way to get an income that will finance a political life, writing political pieces that get my ideas and mindset out there, and calling and contacting through mail my elected leaders to let them know how frustrated and upset I am and that I expect them to change.
I am seriously thinking about running against whomever in Indiana's 2nd District after I turn 25. That gives me six or more years to strengthen my soul, mind, and body plus get my life going so that it is stable.
I encourage more people frustrated like me to come out of the woodwork and run. America needs you.
by
Kevin Gosztola (172 articles, 89 quicklinks, 62 diaries, 710 comments)
on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 8:44:47 AM
so I was there with Nixon as well. The mistake you make (if mistake it is) has to do with changes in the way the country is run--then and now.
Then we had corporate power guiding things, but nowhere near the corporate tsunami that now drowns every aspect of our republic. In Nixon's time
There was no Blackwater--we ran our own military
Wars were profit centers, but they were not created for profit
The Judiciary still functioned
Republicans as well as Democrats turned Nixon out of office
My electoral 'memory' goes back as far as FDR and never over the course of 14 presidencies have I seen such universal alarm and discontent, tied like Gulliver to the sandy beach of lobbyist interest.
Patience and incremental progress is the culture of those who are sure of their rights. We were sure of those rights until very recently. No more.
America is going to have to go to the streets to get their country back. We have been remade into a homeland, crafted upon fear, greed, profit and world dominance. I don't want a homeland.
I want America back. My America.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 40 quicklinks, 160 diaries, 328 comments)
on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM
"we had corporate power guiding things, but nowhere near the corporate tsunami that now drowns every aspect of our republic"
Globalisation has changed things. And I am pro fair trade just leery of piracy under the euphemism of free trade.
Capital flows faster than labor but also faster than governments can be elected. There are massive incentives for individuals to adopt shorter term planning horizons (every time one picks a managed investment or superannuation vehicle that operates globally to maximize profits or you change to another vehicle) because in the longer term national governments just don't have the power to control markets anymore.
What countries did better before was create a nexus between human rights with the citizens championing human rights as the interested parties through their votes and where and how money could be made. Citizens cared about human rights because when corporations pushed human rights aside it was they the citizens that were the effected humans. With an international financial system that nexus is broken.
Rupert Murdoch used to be an Australian. You know his nationality now. How could he deny himself the protections of the US Bill or Rights and operate a global company from a smaller pond.
The wealthy are already beyond nationalism and patriotism. So are major corporations. And that is not entirely a bad thing - except that the safety checks against human rights abuses mostly reside in national laws.
America is merely the biggest country now in a world where if human rights are to become part of a nexus and to influence where money is made the solution is likely to have to be global.
I don't actually think anyone even the very wealthy think what we have is an ideal state of affairs either in America or in the world. What we are up against now is in my opinion something of an evolutionary local peak.
Civilization is likely to have to climb down from the hill that was the United States of America (a national democracy) in order to get human rights and human values back into the way people live.
I don't think you can have your old America back. Civilization is going to have to be global now. To have human rights anywhere we are going to have to have the rule of law everywhere.
But getting from here to there is not going to be easy. Or quick.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 784 comments)
on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 5:10:21 PM
You are right to draw attention to differing temporal contexts between the two eras. Sadly you then contradict your point by indulging in ‘picket fence delusions’ (we always imagine things of our youth were rosier than they objectively were) some of the claims you make are not supported by the facts.
For example it depends on whose perspective you apply about the Judiciary. Ask some older Americans who aren’t White. Particularly if they were in the Southern States. It could be argued that the Supreme Court was just as good maintaining the power structures as today’s.
Wars and profit centres perhaps not on the scale of Vietnam but proxy wars ‘for influence’ is a long standing factor of the West including America. e.g.Latin America, Africa, Middle East regimes were if not funded were supplied with weapons. By the way when did Israel first get military assistance?
Do you really imagine that Corporate America wasn’t influencing the decision makers?The only difference today is that it’s more blatant.
The same goes for government sanctioned private armies….soldiers of fortunepaid for by secret funds (cia).
Human nature is the same now as it was when we sat in the sun grooming each others nit from our fur.“People and organizations resist change and aggressively resist rapid or dramatic change. The more dramatic the more violent the resistance”. Andris’ law of political change.
An Objective perspective of Black rights tell you that all serious change in incremental and requires commitment to the ultimate goal, doggedness, and patience and planning that factors in the above.
It has taken at two hundred years to weave the toxic web that is the Western reality one can’t expect to change it in one or two elections. The political institutions are rightly geared to slow changes and anyone going there as a representative will soon learn. only those with the above qualities will survive.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 9:20:42 PM
We are a group of candidates for Congress who promise a clean sweep of the corruption and cronyism, restoration of justice and re-establishment of the Constitution. withdrawal from foreign military adventures, rebuilding the infrastructure, working with other nations to solve global problems. We cross party lines. Check us out at http://sances.info/newbroom/ If you are a candidate and can subscribe to our mission statement, and want to join us, email me your info at cwolman@mcn.org
Peace, Carol Wolman
Green Candidate for Congress, CA District 1
by
Carol Wolman (214 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 12:29:34 PM
We need to restrain an empire driven imperialist executive
In both cases, covering up their lies and crimes associated with reckless wars (Vietnam then, Iraq now) led Nixon and Bush further down the road to authoritarian misrule. Nixon claimed that the Chief Executive cannot violate the law because when a president acts, ipso facto what he's doing cannot be illegal. Bush claims that whenever he says he's acting in the national-security interests of the American people, he can violate whatever law or Constitutional protection he so desires. Furthermore, Bush asserts, the Judicial Branch should not restrain him and the Legislative Branch has no jurisdiction either. The courts, which he's packed with his ideological cronies, tend to uphold his "Commander-in-Chief" ukases, and the Democratic majority in the Congress tends to roll over and whimper whenever he (or The Cheney) raises his voice.
This is the main reason we need to advance Impeachment. Nixon was allowed to resign and he was given a pardon. This left his assult on the rule of law unchecked and lying dormant until this administration set up the needed criteria for implementation of the Patriot Act.
The Act should have required Constitutional ammendments and received none. It was an assult on the Constitution and it was implemented with acts of TREASON. There is no way ever that a false flag attack on citizens or a cover-up of such a false flag attack should be considered anything less then treason at the very least it is aidding and abbeiting an enemy of our Constitution.
We need to get back to our founding basics. Give the Constitution the validity that it deserves. I have seen some initiatives calling for a Constitutional Convention to address some of our problems but first we have to acknowledge the crimes of a runaway executive branch that seeks to dismantle the civil protections of our Constitution.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10:10:14 AM
We need to restrain an empire driven imperialist executive
In both cases, covering up their lies and crimes associated with reckless wars (Vietnam then, Iraq now) led Nixon and Bush further down the road to authoritarian misrule. Nixon claimed that the Chief Executive cannot violate the law because when a president acts, ipso facto what he's doing cannot be illegal. Bush claims that whenever he says he's acting in the national-security interests of the American people, he can violate whatever law or Constitutional protection he so desires. Furthermore, Bush asserts, the Judicial Branch should not restrain him and the Legislative Branch has no jurisdiction either. The courts, which he's packed with his ideological cronies, tend to uphold his "Commander-in-Chief" ukases, and the Democratic majority in the Congress tends to roll over and whimper whenever he (or The Cheney) raises his voice.
This is the main reason we need to advance Impeachment. Nixon was allowed to resign and he was given a pardon. This left his assult on the rule of law unchecked and lying dormant until this administration set up the needed criteria for implementation of the Patriot Act.
The Act should have required Constitutional ammendments and received none. It was an assult on the Constitution and it was implemented with acts of TREASON. There is no way ever that a false flag attack on citizens or a cover-up of such a false flag attack should be considered anything less then treason at the very least it is aidding and abbeiting an enemy of our Constitution.
We need to get back to our founding basics. Give the Constitution the validity that it deserves. I have seen some initiatives calling for a Constitutional Convention to address some of our problems but first we have to acknowledge the crimes of a runaway executive branch that seeks to dismantle the civil protections of our Constitution.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10:11:18 AM
We need to restrain an empire driven imperialist executive
In both cases, covering up their lies and crimes associated with reckless wars (Vietnam then, Iraq now) led Nixon and Bush further down the road to authoritarian misrule. Nixon claimed that the Chief Executive cannot violate the law because when a president acts, ipso facto what he's doing cannot be illegal. Bush claims that whenever he says he's acting in the national-security interests of the American people, he can violate whatever law or Constitutional protection he so desires. Furthermore, Bush asserts, the Judicial Branch should not restrain him and the Legislative Branch has no jurisdiction either. The courts, which he's packed with his ideological cronies, tend to uphold his "Commander-in-Chief" ukases, and the Democratic majority in the Congress tends to roll over and whimper whenever he (or The Cheney) raises his voice.
This is the main reason we need to advance Impeachment. Nixon was allowed to resign and he was given a pardon. This left his assult on the rule of law unchecked and lying dormant until this administration set up the needed criteria for implementation of the Patriot Act.
The Act should have required Constitutional ammendments and received none. It was an assult on the Constitution and it was implemented with acts of TREASON. There is no way ever that a false flag attack on citizens or a cover-up of such a false flag attack should be considered anything less then treason at the very least it is aidding and abbeiting an enemy of our Constitution.
We need to get back to our founding basics. Give the Constitution the validity that it deserves. I have seen some initiatives calling for a Constitutional Convention to address some of our problems but first we have to acknowledge the crimes of a runaway executive branch that seeks to dismantle the civil protections of our Constitution.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10:11:26 AM
