Newshoggers Comments
Sorry, but the checks and balances aren't destroyed. Let's see, off the top of my head, the Dems just got an override of Bush's water bill veto. Mukasey's confirmation was in doubt, but for the right thinking of Feinstein and Schumer, the court's have routinely ruled against BushCo...
Where's Michael Van Der Galien when we need him! I can see it now:
"But Michael, you misread the intent of my post on Wolf, as did many others. I updated so I’m not going to repeat the explanation, but in no way should that post be taken as endorsing such uninformed opinions on our consitutional founding."
Oh yeah, thought I'd pass this along: Someone disagrees with your shoddy views on Venezuela:
http://antipatrioticvenezuelan.b...n.blogspot.com/
LIbby,
Naomi Wolf is a bit of a flake and quite naive historically. Her historical analysis is a tissue of fear-mongering. In fact, as she herself says in that interview, all kinds of people come up to her and "are basically saying to me, "Thank you for confirming our fears...""
Of course there are parallels, however strained, between what authoritarian leaders generally do and what the US government is up to now. The same could be said of virtually any era since WWII. If you want to find parallels, as Wolf clearly set out to do, then you'll find them.
That doesn't mean that the Bushies are organizing to impose martial law or such (Wolf is far from clear what it is that she's arguing). Bush & Co. already have power and they're wielding it in a variety of illigitimate and damaging ways.
The truth is much more complex than the thin gruel Wolf serves up, and the situation is much more dangerous in the long term to democracy. Any attempt at a coup would be widely resisted in the US, and the whole right-wing project would be discredited.
What Republicans have been doing, and too many Dems colluding in, is the gradual erosion of long-accepted modes and principles of governance. Simultaneously, we have the diminishment of the very systems that are supposed to block such erosion--the free press in particular.
The ultimate goal, whether or not it is clearly enunciated in those circles, is to alter the way Americans think about the nature of the State. Too many Republicans reject the Enlightenment view of government, and are trying to replace it gradually with something like a national-security state.
The danger we need to confront is incrimental erosion of the consensus on government, the gradual acceptance of ideas that ought to be anathema to a free people. The danger is not coming from coup plotters who will put mercenaries in the streets, or whatever the hell Wolf is worked up about.
Aneocon - I'm talking about accountability of the executive branch and you throw out a couple of procedural wins? I'll see your 'proofs' and off the top of my head, raise you with state secrets defenses, 5 million 'lost emails' in contravention of presidental recordkeeping mandates, refusals to honor subpoenas to testify, Cheney's fourth branch of government...
Smitheus - I'd agree that Wolf comes across as somewhat hysterical which is a shame, because it dilutes her message which I think is valid, but I think we're all actually on agreement on this point.
As you say, "The danger we need to confront is incrimental erosion of the consensus on government, the gradual acceptance of ideas that ought to be anathema to a free people." I think we're all arguing that this is the danger. That the checks and balances are being eroded so incrementally as to be almost indiscernable unless you're paying attention. It's the whole frog in the pot of water analogy.
As to whether Bush will declare martial law before he leaves office, I think it's just as dangerous to discount it out of hand as it is to panic over it. I'm not convinced it couldn't possibly happen and as I've asked before -- what if it does? How are we going to stop it once it's happening? You really think the citizenry is going to rise up and confront the armed jackboots on the streets? I don't.
We've lost habe, we've lost posse comitatus, any citizen can be deemed an enemy combatant and held indefinitely under the law. They have contracts to build detention centers. They have Blackwater with a significant private force of mercenaries well trained in urban warfare. Who knows what else is buried in 11th hour amendments and all those hundreds of signing statements?
I have to wonder why they went to the trouble to put all this into place if they didn't intend to ever use it? Me, I'd rather err on the side of misplaced fear and look silly when it doesn't happen, than I would to err on the side of misplaced trust and feel like a fool for not doing more to try to stop it before it did.
I look at all the people who supported Bush in 04 and now realized it was a mistake. Do we really want to take a chance on making an error in judgement twice?
Commenting by HaloScan
