In all human history, no human or group of same has ever faced what currently confronts any or all of us. The only thing we know for certain is that the tired old Republican notions our relatives, friends (??? word choice) and associates supported, the ones that put us here, sure as shootin' will not lead us anywhere but to drowning in the muck.

::::::::

Define OK. We’re not — and it’s unlikely we will be.

At least two people are aware that what I am going to say is true, that years ago I proposed total civil and political collapse was not only possible in the United States and throughout the world, it was highly probable. I had been struggling to find some way to put the prediction in novel form, but at last concluded such was beyond my feeble reach.

The title, No Law, was a play on words with multiple meanings. There existed no law that could make it rain, that could end drought. Both the US’ Southeast and West had been suffering one for the greater part of a decade. Forest fires and crop failures had become common. Entire lakes had dried to the point that ground that once had been well below the water surface had turned to cracked cakes.

I premised that prolonged drought would before long lead to catastrophic worldwide food shortages. Prices would escalate beyond the means of all but a few. Grocery shelves would become barren. And facing such total disaster, cataclysm — “no law” — would be the end product.

In other words, there just is no superceding natural law guaranteeing democracy; American or otherwise. Through human history brutal despotism has been the predominant form of governance. The American experiment, or fling, if you will, has ever been no more than just that. No more.

This is precisely why I have looked with unfettered alarm and genuine outrage at what we have quite willingly allowed to brew in our midst, the kind of swirling down the drain of every democratic principle that Chris Hedges articulates in the February 4 Alternet piece, “It’s Not Going to be OK.” (http://www.alternet.org/workplace/125192/?page=entire) The only difference, one without a consequent distinction, between what he suggests and what I did inheres in the provocation to totalitarianism. Mr. Hedges points to today’s near, and likely soon to be, complete economic collapse. The products we predicted were the same.

Here is where I bow to Hedges’ superior insight, however. It will not be a drought that proves the death knell of American democracy; no ominous foreboding or calamity from the skies or heavens or stars. Rather, to borrow from Shakespeare, two quotes. “The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.” And, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”  

For decades we have eschewed serious civic responsibility. Quite apart from our Founding Fathers, rather than commit ourselves to the sort of earnest quest for knowledge that was liberal Enlightenment, and the willingness to suffer privation, even death for liberty, if that was what was required, we have been content to believe what those who would lead us told us: “We are great,” “We are intelligent,” and “We are brave.” Kind of like, “just add water and heat” could make of us great cooks. We believed all those television commercials because we wanted to. And now, to be a great cook, by the commercials that bombard us, an eager populace, it’s not even necessary to add water, just plop the meal in the microwave!

As a people, we don’t even want to learn the truth via serious news, from serious newspapers or from serious television newscasts. In 1960, Edward R. Murrow, on CBS Reports, presented a documentary, “Harvest of Shame.” The 55-minute piece illustrated the desperate plight of the migrant farm workers who toiled so that an American public might dine sumptuously. It also angered hell out of powerful corporate interests; a reactive response that presaged the corporate takeover of the news that, for all intents, has resulted in a near completely dumb and compliant public.

In the place of a Murrow, of a Cronkite, of a Huntley and Brinkley, of a Dan Rather, of a John Chancellor, none of whom ever smiled while delivering the news, all of which was serious, even grave, for serious and grave audiences, we’ve a coterie of smiling, talking heads, all to make us feel good about ourselves. Not in a one of those much earlier newscasts was there a “Person of the Week,” or anything trivial. We weren’t condescended to or patronized. We were regarded with respect, entitled to know the truth of an issue that would enable us to form our own opinions.  

For more than 30 years, I lived in the Bay area. News was delivered seriously by the likes of Dave Mc Elhatten on KPIX, by Pete Wilson on KGO, and by Dennis Richmond on KTVU in Oakland. All serious, intelligent and devoted, they are gone now, they have been replaced with twittering nincompoops who chitchat, laugh, and make everything seem just so damned merry. “Thanks for that Bambi.” “Oh, you’re welcome, Bret,” Bambi smiles back.

The message we’ve sopped up like some wonder towel hyped by “Billy Mays here!” is, “No need to worry your pretty heads over all that boring stuff.” In the stead are titillating stories about Hollywood entertainers, amazing stories “You just won’t believe” about a dog who rescued his family from fire, and some gruesome murder, in some town, some thousand miles distant. (I’ve yet to discern why anyone outside the Bay area might have given the first damn concerning Scott and Lacy Peterson.)

And rather than trouble ourselves the least, gathering even a most rudimentary outline of history, of basic economics, of fundamental geography, of even the Constitution and some understanding how our own government works, we sate ourselves in mind-numbing amusement: House, Lost, Scrubs, The Biggest Loser, CSI, Ugly Betty, and much, much even more insulting fare; exactly what the corporate powers intend. And we laugh about our ignorance; not an embarrassed laugh, but a laugh that says, almost proudly, we just don’t care that we’ve become tragically ignorant. More important, likely most important to us, is whether the question, “Are we having fun?” can be answered affirmatively, or negatively. Iconic of our laconic disregard for much that doesn’t amuse was President Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, when she unembarrased announced, “I knew the Cuban Missile Crisis had something to do with Cuba and missiles.”   

Are there any other usual suspects?

Three short paragraphs on that, and you may not like the last one.

Not counting the over-the-cliff mess we’re facing, all of the very worst — defined as the deepest and most protracted — recessions since the Great Depression occurred during Republican administrations: Eisenhower, and the two most destructive, both of which took place under Reagan. Now of course we have what commenced as a blind devotion to Reaganomics and the truly don’t ask/don’t tell, the “market” is self-correcting nonsense that was George W. Bush and his GOP sycophants in the House and Senate.

Other suspects are the ministers and priests and fundamentalist preachers who led all their all-too-eager-to-forsake-genuine-reasoned-thought flocks to cast ballots for candidates based solely on their advertised level of support for constitutional amendments that would ban gay and lesbian marriage, constitutional amendments that would ban all abortions (including those necessary to save the life of the mother), candidates who promised to legislate against the scientific use of flash-frozen embryos (the overwhelming majority of which are destined for incineration as bio-hazards), and those who would work on behalf of “intelligent design” and in opposition to the fact of evolution. (Yes! Evolution is a fact. Doubt it? Consider that “man’s best friend” was once a wolf, or that polar bears started out as grizzlies. It’s the “theory of natural selection” that the pontificating ignoramuses and their ignorant parishioners are completely confused about.)

Certainly, for some of the reasons cited above, the biggest malefactors include you and me. A person’s vote is an expression of his or her opinion; what he or she does and does not want, insofar as governing policy is concerned. Nonetheless, for friendship’ sake, for peace in the family, for cordiality in the workplace, or for just cowardly reasons, we refuse to draw the connection. This isn’t to deny anyone his or her vote. Rather it’s to suggest all of us have an absolute right to decide with whom we will associate on a friendly basis.

Let’s use a simple example on this one. Let’s suppose that you and your next door neighbor work for an employer who has only five employees. Times are tough. The employer gathers everyone together and says, “I can either give some of you a raise, which will require that I layoff two of you, or I can forego giving raises this year, and keep all of you aboard. I’m going to put the matter to a vote. You decide which option you prefer. If you elect the one where I layoff two of you, you’ve also got to say who those two should be.”

If you knew that your neighbor voted to have you canned, exactly how friendly would you continue to be towards that person? Well, every one of your relatives, friends and associates who voted GOP in 2004, in 2006, and in 2008, and who yet remain Charlie McCarthy to Rush and Sean and Bill and Fox News voted exactly that way. Yet you fail to castigate them, to rail against them, to remove yourself from their presence, why?          

Oh! You didn’t think of it that way. Perhaps you should. Because the righties who catapulted us into the sloshing excreta-filled hog sty are at it again, only harder. They did not get the memo last November. They’re picking nits in Obama’s stimulus package, threatening to damn us all for the sake of a couple million dollars, out of the $900 billion — granted, it will likely climb much higher — forecast thus far. But it’s “pork,” you parrot. You want pork, refer back to the third sentence of this paragraph.

(A pop quiz: Question 1.) If it cost auto execs $23,000 to use the corporate jets to get to Washington and back [acknowledged as poor PR, but given the larger picture . . .], what percentage is that of the $35 billion needed to forestall economic disaster? Question 2.) What percentage is $23,000 of the $350,000,000,000 the finance industry received from Bush & friends, no strings attached? Question 3.) Of the “pork” the Republicans claim is larding up the stimulus package, what proposals specifically compose that pork, what percentage are they of the total, and how much ammo will you need to protect yourself and family when all hell breaks loose this summer?)

In all human history, no human or group of same has ever faced what currently confronts any or all of us. Textbooks are but modest guides. In other words, no one knows what might work. The only thing we know for certain is that the tired old Republican notions our relatives, friends (??? word choice) and associates supported, the ones that put us here, sure as shootin’ will not lead us anywhere but to drowning in the muck. So the next time you encounter any of them expounding the Republican line, summon the courage and decency to thank them for all they’ve managed to do to us so far, then, as you’re turning away, tell them to just shut up.    

Recommended Reading: Harold Meyer’s op-ed, “The New Landonists” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403117.html).

—    Ed Tubbs

Authors Bio:
An "Old Army Vet" and liberal, qua liberal, with a passion for open inquiry in a neverending quest for truth unpoisoned by religious superstitions. Per Voltaire: "He who can lead you to believe an absurdity can lead you to commit an atrocity."