Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Jonathan Westminster: "The 15% Solution," Serialization, 4th Installment: Chapter Three

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Steven Jonas       (Page 1 of 8 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 50778
Become a Fan
  (19 fans)
- Advertisement -

This is the fourth installment of a project that is likely to extend over a two-year-period from January, 2010.  It is the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 .  This chapter describes how, the fictional   Republican candidate , a not-too-bright personage totally beholden to the Religious Right, managed to win the Presidency.   Regardless of the real economic and social problems   the nation was facing, he then to proceeded to make his focus a "real war on drugs," as if the one that Nixon had launched 30 years before had not been real enough for its many victims.   Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster, the book is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United States. It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY. The copyright is held by the Press.  Herein you will find Chapter 3.

Chapter Three

2001: The Real Drug War --Author's Commentary

              The year 2000 marked the election of President Carnathon Pine, who came to be known as the Last Republican.  A former Republican Senate majority leader, he was known for his sharp tongue, his war-damaged leg, and over the course of a long and not otherwise dis­tinguished career, his exquisite at­tention to politics rather than policy and governance.  At age 74, he was the oldest man ever to be elected President.

- Advertisement -

              He had run on a platform of "if not her, then me," "everything they do is wrong," and, referring to the series of natural disasters which had befall­en America annually since Hurricane An­drew of 1992 and the Great Floods of 1993, "God is pun­ishing America for its sinful ways."  This theme had be­come increasingly popular for   Reaction­aries since the mid-90s.  For example, in 1993 Christian Coali­tion lead­er Pat Robert­son said this about the flooding in the mid-west of the old U.S. ( Right-Wing Watch ):

"I just grieve to see this happening and we have to pray for them [the victims].  But . . . the Bible makes it very clear.  When you take God out of your life, and the Supreme Court clearly mandat­ed God out, . . . and [when you] have a Presi­dent . . . who is opening the flood­gates of homo­sexuality and opening as best he is able the floodgates of this horror of abor­tion, . . . [then] the Bi­ble says that the blood of the innocents will cry out against us and the land will be cleansed and the only way it will be cleansed is through the blood of others . . . So don't be surprised if you see natural disas­ters (700 Club, July 2, 1993)."            

              For the focus of their Year 2000 campaign, the Right-Wing Reac­tion­aries took off from the Republican 1996 Presidential election plat­form.  That plat­form itself was much like the 1992 Platform (Bond), which had essential­ly been written by the Christian Coalition.  Howev­er, by the Year 2000, the Re­publi­can Party, now the untrammeled pro­mot­er of Right-Wing Reac­tion in the old U.S., had become even more blatant and in essence honest about what they were really about.

- Advertisement -

              And so, in addition to their themes of the 90s, they organized vari­ous­ly around such additional ones as: increasingly unvarnished racism and xenophobia expressed in such slogans as "you know who is stealing your jobs, sucking up your taxes, and attacking you in the streets--and we do too, trust us--we'll take care of them," "the U.S. is a Christian nation," "the Bible is our fount of natural law," "taxes are inherently un-American and un-Godly," "the free market way is the only moral way," and "pover­ty is the fault of the poor, and no one else."

              This last position was utterly central to Right-Wing Reactionary think­ing.  Its adoption was essential if the "poor" were to be character­ized and main­tained as the "enemy" of "hard-working" Americans.  (Of course, by constant Right-Wing Reactionary propaganda contrary to the facts, in the minds of many, the word "poor" was made synonymous  with the word "black.")

              But said straight out like that, it had a judgmental, some said "cru­el," sound to it.  A formulation designed to deal with that problem that became popular had first been uttered by one Michael Forbes, a Right-Wing Reac­tion­ary member of the famous "Freshman Class" of the 104th Congress.  Shortly after his first election to the House of Repre­senta­tives from the First District of Long Island, NY he said (Henneberger):  "We don't have actual poverty.  We have behavioral pov­erty. Very few people out there go to bed hungry [empha­sis add­ed]."

              This original thought, and others like it, comprised an internally con­sistent ideology.  Never mind that in some cases this ideology, as reflected in the Right-Wing campaign themes of 1992, 1996, and the Year 2000 seemed to many outside observers to be in conflict with the facts and an understanding of reality that had been built up over de­cades.

              Even more importantly for the future of the country, this ideology was in conflict with the basic, fundamentally American precepts of the Declara­tion of Independence, and the Constitution from the Preamble through the Bill of Rights (see Appendices I and VII).  But no oppo­nents of the Right-Wing Reac­tion in general or the Republican Party in particular ever made anything out of that finding or even seemed to recognize it.

              The centrists, liberals, and progressives had been split, between the Demo­cratic Party and a variety of "third parties of the left."  They agreed on little except that Right-Wing Reaction was a bad idea.  Nei­ther the Democrats nor the third parties presented any coherent pro­gram for rescu­ing the continuously declining economy.  And no major politi­cal organiza­tion, Democratic Party or otherwise, at the time rec­ognized, publicly at least, the danger that the growing power of Right-Wing Re­action in gener­al and the Religious Right in particular presented to the maintenance of Constitutional democracy in the United States.

- Advertisement -

              Thus the opposition to Right-Wing Reaction failed to organize around the obvious theme, one with which they might well have been able to mobilize large numbers of Americans, especially non-voters, to turn back the Right-Wing tide: "only the Declaration of Independence and the Con­stitution represent true American values, and only adher­ence to those val­ues will pre­serve Constitutional democracy and the United States as we know it."  (This theme was the basis of Dino Louis' politi­cal theory and program, "Progressive Patriotism."  Gener­ally ignored at the time, in this book excerpts of Louis' own writing on it are presented in Appendix VII.)

              For the Democrats, there was no comprehensive na­tional strategy.  Instead, as the Bush Republicans had done in the elec­tion of 1992, for example, all the Democrats offered was "we can do better than we have done--we deserve one more chance."

              And the so-called "left" was not much of an improvement.  They offered neither a comprehensive national strategy nor a specific pro­gram for the defense of Constitutional democracy.  Rather, they pre­sented a laundry-list of complaints about both major parties; vague, worn-out slo­gans like "no justice, no peace," and "the people, united, shall never be defeated"; and, in no partic­ular order, a laundry list of specific "fix-it" programs from "jobs for all" to "affordable housing for all," all of which would cost much money.  But they offered no politi­cally via­ble program for raising it, saying only "tax the rich and cut military and prison spend­ing."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books. In addition to his position on OpEdNews as a "Trusted Author," he is a Senior Editor, (more...)

Steven Jonas Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Pope Francis and Change in the Roman Catholic Church

Limbaugh, Santorum, Sex, and the Origins of the Roman Catholic Church

The "Irrepressible Conflict" and the Coming Second Civil War

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

The Republican Party and the Separation of Church and State: Change Does Happen

What the Gunners Want: What's in Rick Perry's Pocket, Unlimited