Does this mean protest and petitioning is pointless, overall? No. But these efforts do seem misdirected, pointless and futile unless they actually do something to change how the system works. Our political and economic systems work just fine for the people they are designed to serve. The problem is that those people comprise less than half of a percent of the total US population. This is the system that made sure George W. Bush was President of the United States for two full terms without winning a single election. This is the same system that hand-picked a young black man from Illinois to placate millions of angry "Americans", and it's the same system that will ensure Obama dutifully protects his predecessor from any sort of "prosecution" -- against the best interest of every "American" who supposedly "elected" him to office.
Most importantly, this system keeps everyone so busy trying to prosecute and petition and protest the symptoms of the problem that we don't have any time, energy or interest to invest in building a new system that doesn't generate those kinds of symptoms. With due respect for all the moral crusaders who insist upon extracting truth and justice from this fiasco -- what exactly is the plan? With such adamant refusal from our newly appointed leadership, how do we intend to enforce all these "laws" that George W. Bush has so casually dismissed?
What consequences does Obama face for not prosecuting George W. Bush? Will "progressives" withdraw their political support? Seems to me, "progressives" were fairly divided about Obama long before he was appointed to office. So what exactly is a "progressive", anyway -- and what sort of threat do they present to the newly selected President? Obama has firmly denounced any attempt to prosecute Bush and his pals. How "progressive" is that? Where do we turn next? Congress? The Supreme Court? The same people who appointed Bush to the Presidency in the first place?
As Dr. King suggests, laws are meaningless unless they are enforced -- or at least enforceable. Now a black President -- one of the most popular Presidents in US history -- deliberately ignores King's admonition with his refusal to enforce those laws. This, if nothing else, should clearly indicate there is enough wrong with our current system to warrant its replacement with something that functions more effectively in the general interest.
Do I agree with Barack Obama that nothing should be done regarding the crimes of the Bush administration? No. Quite the contrary, it seems reasonable to expect Obama -- out of a little courage and common sense if nothing else -- to voluntarily begin proceedings against the previous administration. But exactly the opposite is actually happening. What does this tell us about our system and Barack Obama and the "new" administration?
Good lord, this guy was a constitutional law professor for 12 years! So if we, the people, are forced to prod, coax, beg, plead, whip, shame, lobby, coerce, bribe, or petition him to do his duty according to the law, then "something REALLY WRONG is going on here!" But according to Aziz Huq, it's worse than most Americans even realize. Turns out the US Constitution does not in any way obligate Barack Obama to pursue the prosecution of George W. Bush. Quite the contrary, there is plenty of "constitutional" incentive against the idea. But wait -- it gets better. Now, when the President signs a new law, he can also approve another document reserving his right to ignore the law.
What's wrong with this picture?
1) Less than half of a percent of the total US population are passive claimants of economic wealth, who are also the most active daily participants in the democratic process.
2) The rest of us tend to be active daily participants in generating economic wealth, but we are also the most passive observers in the democratic process.
We, the people, consent to this crippling arrangement every single day we get out of bed and go to work and hand over most of the value (power) we produce to passive ownership. But as Thomas Jefferson famously suggests, any time we get sick and tired of the system, all we have to do is scrap it and build a new one.
Is "too big to fail" too big to exist? No. In fact, "too big to fail" strongly suggests that certain structures must exist. But public structures like our government do seem far too big and essential to be privately owned and controlled by a few passive claimants of wealth and power. The question of civilization is no longer "who decides who gets what?" The more pressing question is, "how can the democratic process become an integral part of daily living to answer this and many other questions?"
Genuinely democratic control of our government and its policy might have prohibited the terrible tragedies of the past eight years (200-years?), making prosecution of George W. Bush completely unnecessary. But genuinely democratic control begins in the workplace and is then extended to government -- not the other way around. Under the current system, no amount of protest or petitioning will result in the prosecution of George W. Bush or anyone else in his administration. I wish I was wrong. But once again, the model is upside-down. It's time to flip it over.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
