"Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels." – Francisco Goya
America has entered a new era of fantasy and unreason. In light of the controversy surrounding Jared Loughner’s actions in Tucson, it is time for American citizens to revisit one of the greatest societal mistakes in our history, which occurred as recently as 2006. That mistake relates directly to a string of societal errors starting in the year 2000 when the SCOTUS took what little democracy existed in America and assaulted it directly. The Bush/Cheney regime inspired a national air of lawlessness that stems from that regime’s view that America is not bound by international treaties it has signed, nor bound to respect the views of other nations that have historically been American’s allies, and that American governmental representatives at the highest levels are not bound even by America’s own laws of the land.
That “lone cowboy” persona has virtually always been an integral aspect of the American character, the American narrative; for many individuals it is a source of national pride. Interestingly, this persona evolved into something antithetical to the foundational values expressed by America’s founders in founding documents. In those documents we find the idea that “individualism” is to be valued, but not at the expense of fellow citizens or the greater good. And the only manner in which these values are protected is through the rule of law. Laws add a degree of concreteness to the abstraction we refer to as “justice”.
Question: Can a government that violates its own laws and values benefit a citizenry claiming to be founded on, and believing in, the rule of law?
When the SCOTUS imposed its political will on American voters, it issued a statement that we believe in the rule of law, but only as long as it benefits our will. Following that ruling we have seen a series of moves by Republican legislators, and then Democrats also, that violated a couple hundred years of precedents and significantly diminished the integrity of America, what there was of it, in the eyes of most of the world. In the days, weeks, and years since then most of the rhetoric from the Right has defended the view that America does not consider the values of her allies, but instead does as she pleases. Beyond that, those actions led to wars and expenditures related to those wars that have bankrupted this nation that had an actual treasury surplus when they took control.
Their disdain for government, and the protections it provides, or should provide, led to elimination of some of those protections, which cleared the way for even more lawlessness in corporate America, which is essentially not the same America in which average Americans reside. The air of lawlessness has continued to fester due to declining economic stability that creates the sense of desperation that leads to desperate acts, removes further protections for average citizens on many levels such as healthcare and police protection, and promotes a public sense of cynicism, resentment, and outright rage and fury.
When Nancy Pelosi declared, “Impeachment is off the table,” she issued a statement of far-reaching implications with long-term consequences for American society. Implied is the idea that American presidents are above the law, that America is separate from all other nations, America is a nation that lives by the doctrine, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Pelosi essentially declared in a very public manner with international extent that America is justified in condemning other nations for doing what America does, but that it’s okay when America does it.
In such an environment of confused values, can there realistically be any sense of wonderment at the lawless worldviews that are fermenting and gathering force in American society today and manifesting in such behaviors? We have a law passed in Arizona that says citizens can be stopped by police, questioned and even jailed on the basis of nothing more than appearing Hispanic. In Spokane, Washington, a mere 30 miles from where I live, a bomb was planted along the route of a parade honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. on a day set aside specifically for honoring him. Just this past summer there was a day in which stones that carried a “white-supremacist” message were thrown into people’s front yards in my neighborhood. A racist “color” that had been fading has suddenly seen new life and is rising again. And, of course, there is the controversy around Jared Loughner and the styles of political rhetoric that some suggest are responsible. These are just a few examples of some of the “fantasy and unreason” being propagated in America today.
Speculating about the heated political rhetoric spewing forth from so many politicians, one might also speculate, although I have not really seen it done, as to why these politicians are now resorting to such violent imagery. Might it be because they have, themselves, created just such an environment in which lawlessness is now seen as an American value? Is the rhetoric the problem, or is it the mindset through which these “legislators” now see the world? And what of the Americans who continue to support these so-called legislators?
I have to wonder if it is possible to reunite fantasy with reason in America, thereby giving a sort of rebirth to genuine creativity that has been so strikingly missing in recent years. Can the fantasies of lawlessness that permeate so many aspects of the current American psyche be harnessed with reason and metamorphosed into something less resembling “impossible monsters” and more resembling “the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels”?
"Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels." – Francisco Goya
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
You may be right. I'm not sure how conscious an effort is being made to actually "destroy the country", but it seems to me the changes are more like "collateral damage" or than intentional. It's like a narrow vision based in greed and self-interest that simply precludes consideration of far-reaching implications of actions.
Your expressed inability to imagine what gain comes from this is shared, believe me. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Good times were easing that whole thing....but it's bad times now, with a non-white prez presiding...oh oh.
The manner in which the Right perceives the world is based primarily in negatives, and their policy platforms generally seem to reflect this. Focusing on the rhetoric alone seems like a doctor focusing only on symptoms while ignoring their cause.
Elijah,
Agreed; their ignorance dictates their view of the world and how they respond. I’ll check out your post. Thanks.
I read about that guy in Alabama, too. And you well know that I fully agree with your assessment about religion and how it relates to “reason”. Religion defies reason and Christianity may well be the single worst offender in this regard, as it has historically suggested openly that one must abandon reason to fully embrace it. Thanks for opening the door for me to say that.
;-)
Thank you for your comment; it does me good to know others remember Pelosi’s betrayal and also still “burn” about it. The congressional Democrats lost me permanently when they refused to hold the previous administration accountable. I say that with full awareness that many of them were complicit in the crimes of the previous administration and that the current administration has continued with many of those criminal policies, which is precisely one of the inspirations behind this post.
It resembles a ship's computers being programmed to take the ship, as quickly as possible, directly to point X with no regard to the preservation of the ship so that it may, later, continue its journey to reach another destination. This will likely put the ship on the rocks at point X.
This would be relatively easy to do since America has never had a defined goal as a nation other than more, bigger, faster, more powerful, etc. Few have the eyes that you do to see that the course being followed is in the process of endangering that ship and all aboard - except, of course, those who have arranged to leave the ship with the contents of the pursers safe as soon as the rocks come into sight.
The "passengers" are being kept busy with red-herrings. They quarrel over whether the ship should be red or blue and whether this group or that may enter the dining room first. Many are never allowed to eat properly. Many have to sleep on deck. Little concern is offered and the general attitude is that , "those who sleep on deck are too lazy to find a cabin." Or "to partake of the sumptuous feast available in the dining room." All suggestions that the ship is not being run properly and needs to follow a new course, are met with indignant outrage from those who have a cabin and a dining room pass.
The general attitude is, "I'm OK Jack - fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
That great ship, in its slow and stately manner, is now grounding. Its keel is rubbing on the bottom, it is, however slightly, being slowed. The rocks are ahead. They are now unavoidable. In infinitely slow stateliness that ship will break up. Many aboard will be lost.
The "America" that we knew and had a love/hate relationship with, will be lost. The effects of this will spread around the world. Many other ships will founder also.
The next 50 years will be very "interesting"; in the full meaning of the ancient Chinese curse.
Hateful tho it is, perhaps leaving that mess (war, international crap) alone is the only way forward. When Obama & and the dems try to put in place a feeble effort at a health plan to help its citizens, there's practically a civil war. The country might well be truly torn apart if the war criminals were pursued.
Similarly if O were to precipitously withdraw from I and A...and while the U.S. is still there, killing people, the current administration is being drawn into complicity with the Bush era crimes...
“…a cold, mechanical element to this ruthless pursuit of short term greedy profit” is exactly right. What is so baffling is that so few benefit, so few reap any of the “profit” but most pay the price.
“The country might well be truly torn apart if the war criminals were pursued.”
Yeah, this is the oft-repeated argument here. Of course, we’ll never know, now, eh? The problem I see with this argument is that it doesn’t consider the damage done by NOT pursuing them. It is likely that damage is actually worse because it is such that it works beneath the surface, unseen so that it is more difficult to recognize, and so it is more difficult to counter its destructive effects.
The fantasy of American exceptionalism is definitely one problem. But even that fantasy might be useful if it were tempered with some degree of reason. Unfortunately, we seem to be inundated with a whole slew of fantasies these days with little, if any, reason to moderate them.
I am an Independent. To think that one side of the political debate has all the answers in our incredibly complex world is a very comforting fantasy.
For me, that is the central problem: we have a bifurcated legal system. There is the law which the vast majority of us live within and accept as necessary, and then there is the nearly penalty-free, non-binding sort of *law* under which our political and corporate leadership operates. If I rob a 7/11 store for a few hundred bucks I'll do hard time in jail; if a CEO conspires to make himself and his shareholders several hundred million in profits and bonuses by creating and peddling very dicey financial instruments (incidentally crashing our whole economy in the prcoess), he gets a slap on the wrist, if that. History tells us that such dual-track systems, wherein there's one set of laws for the ruled and another set for the rulers, create either revolution or complete tyranny.
We've accepted the view that "Impeachment is off the table" willingly and now find ourselves like so many lemmings at the edge of the cliff. James Thurber's character wondered why the lemmings did that. The lemmings wondered why the humans didn't.
But we do. Time and time again.
"power corrupts" isn't merely an amusing cliche, it is the general field theory of political philosophy, and the only cure is to keep ultimate power out of individual hands.
rhode island held a referendum and rejected the constitution. too bad the other states were less democratic.
the good news is, places like russia and china have been equally nasty for even longer. life goes on, even when it's nasty, brutish and short.
Thanks for your comment. I think population is part of the problem, but I don’t see it as solely attached “immigrants” and I’m not sure I follow the assertion that they will lead to “environmental ruin”; I think American corporations are doing, and will continue to do, far more “environmental ruin” than any immigrants could possibly do. And those corporations are not only doing that damage in America, but virtually on a global scale. And then there is financial damage those corporations are doing.
I guess I also would be considered an Independent at this point since I don’t think either of the two major parties has any answers for us at this time; and I don’t think they would reveal them if they did; it is just more profitable to them to maintain the status quo for now.
Thanks for stopping by. The “two Americas” equation is a definite reality and it’s baffling why it is so well accepted and rationalized, especially by so many who are victims of that reality. Short of outright revolution to which you refer, I see no solution.
a.k.a.,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. The repeating of historical blunders to which you refer points out that history is perhaps the greatest teacher that nobody heeds.
Hi, al,
Thanks for contributing. While I’ve seen that some may find some of your comments frustrating, I for one actually appreciate them. You write, “…the only cure is to keep ultimate power out of individual hands,” with which I think few could reasonably disagree. And, as you say, life goes on.
Thanks for the reference. I just read it and I agree; it's an excellent article. I had to chuckle a little at the specific analytical style, which one might expect from a retired physicist, as is the author.
Using just a little "fantasy united with reason", it was easy to see how that article fits with my post here. Thanks again for the reference, which I suspect I'll re-read and reference again at some point in time.
Rated.
Pundits and politicians are pushing another myth -- that this tragedy was merely the act of a lone, crazed gunman, but you and I know better. That line might be acceptable if there weren't so many gun deaths committed in this country every year -- most of which get little or no attention. They can't all be committed by crazed killers.
The fact is vigilante"justice" has been common throughout our history, in part because an aspect of the American psyche admires the person who takes the law into his own hands to settle perceived grievances. Many of the western heroes were exactly of the type, Billy the Kid being one of the most obvious examples. Such "heroes" dominate not only western movies, but modern day movies as well.
Soulless politicians know this, and are not above an appeal to our baser instincts -- as their vile rhetoric makes plain. So, no, the tragedy in Tucson was not just the act of a crazed killer.
I thought of you as I wrote that line. I think, as you’ve said to me before, that we can’t underestimate the impact of environment on behaviors. I also think we need to be careful how far we go with blaming environment for behaviors. I’m less inclined to go that route when the perpetrator is insane than when he is not. But in both cases, I believe it is a factor.
I don’t recall a period when I have seen such a clear, steady ongoing movement in the direction of the “lone cowboy” mentality on a national level. The year 2000, in my estimation, was the single most relevant turning point in American history in my lifetime. Prior to that, I had viewed Reagan’s election in that light, but the year 2000 seems to have been the point to which the Reagan election was building because since then, we have seen the full development of the corporatist movement that has essentially killed America.
I could probably expand on that all night, but ...
You are dead on about the express destruction of any semblance other than now rhetorical to the rule of law. I've written about this a lot myself in many places. It's as if we're in a train that has actually taken flight into the gap over a chasm because there is no longer a train track, but most of the people on the train still think everything's fine because they haven't noticed and they haven't hit the ground yet.
I wonder what your post's title means in its reference to the "left."
I draw a distinction between impeachment and some other examples, as it is political, and more dependent on public sentiment than legal violations, and only works if the two are in agreement. There is a larger danger in torture than popular political expediency, as anytime you raise what is acceptable on the upper end of coercion and punishment, it pulls less abusive applications along behind. "This law is something new, and expands the envelope, but hey, it's not torture" -- for example.
The knowledge of that natural devolution requires a few logical steps, and is too "ethereal" for the public to grasp, so the "They're going after 'Merica's Protectors!" would most easily become the dominant mantra.
I am less concerned about political rhetoric, as it happens in an increasingly bright spotlight, as does its consequences, so does have a public, popular limiting control. Witness Fox telling their on - airhead talent to ratchet it down a bit. It's pathetic it took Tucson to finally get the media off the dime, but when the light went on, the cockroaches scattered.
The larger danger is with Bush-v-Gore, where the Repubs abandoned the Constitution and their love of state's rights to ensure an outcome. The almost sure bet that when it was thrown to the House, the Repubs would prevail doesn't discount the USSC partisan contrivance and Constitutional abuse.
Which led to Roberts and Alito, 2 more Federalist Society judges, which led to Citizen's United. Unlike Bush-Gore, this is the court making law the public rejects with a loud scream. It too is a judicial contrivance, from Aardvark to Zygote.
When unpopular law is made, respect for law diminishes.
Obama doesn't seem to have any intent to prosecute the Wall Street thieves, which no doubt is something that sticks in the craw of many Americans, even if it's not a story in the MSMedia.
When leaders refuse to prosecute lawlessness, especially for the wealthy class, respect for law diminishes.
Then the Failed State concept applies. Government has separated itself from the people, and the Rule of Men replaces the Rule of Law.
At its most fundamental level, the Constitution has become merely an object of convenience. The leaders having broken the contract, the people no longer have an obligation to accept their rule as opposed to our own, and, according to our Founders and those whose ideas they drew upon, we are justified in replacing the government.
Of course, that act should be peaceful and fueled by popular will, and the idea being to return to Constitutional rule, not revamp the system.
However, all of that is probably more a signpost to national disintegration than a call to action, so...........
As Justice Stevens said in his dissent, "What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. "
I feel like we are most definitely heading toward a "failed state," and only hope that I will be proven wrong.
Unjust law is the conclusion of those examples, as you say. Pasting some Aquinas here, a law is unjust if --
(1) it is not ordered to the common good, but merely to the private good of those who impose it;
(2) it exceeds the authority of those who impose it;
(3) it places disproportionate burdens on any of the people in the community.
An unjust law is no law, it is an act of violence.
Aquinas is part of the direct chain of custody between Aristotle's natural law and Jefferson's Dec of Ind natural rights.
Steven's opinion in Citizen's United is similarly stinging and relevant. The Federalist Society is far too political, ideological and self-absorbed in their right wing libertarian ends, so their Group Think contrivances justify the means. Constitution? We don' neeeed no stinking Constitution...other than the idea it says it means what we say it means.
The "individual" nature of the American people de Toqueville noticed right away; unsurprisingly, once given the right to kings of their little castles, many immediately ego-ized the concept and began focusing only on their little worlds, forget the group at large.
That was only up to the Mississippi, once west of it the Cowboy ideal Tom has written up developed, in large part to demonize Indians and Mexicans, which it did, and still does.
Those were many of our great-grandparents, it is absurd to think some of us aren't still like them.
The stolen election of 2000 sums up much of what's gone on since then. Gore was scared to death of a coup d'etait ... Bush and Baker would have tried it, too. We will never know if they could have succeeded, but that group is/was entirely capable of such a thing.
As you mention, and I have often tried to point out, the "States Righters" (of a Southern state, no less, albeit an integrated one) immediately become Federalists, based strictly on power and control issues. They have no allegiance to the "institutions" they declare are so important to respect and keep going, instead, flip-flopping wherever money or power reside, as per the mass exodus of nearly every racist Democrat to the Republican party, exactly as LBJ predicted, it was something he knew intimately well.
Non-military strategists don't realize how the Wars were and are used to prevent attacks on their instigators here at home. Like it or not, and my 2 kids have done 5 tours, which should explain to OS readers my HATE of Chickenhawks, once you have several hundred thousand young men and women overseas, you have a problem with weakened image and outcomes- this is hard fact, and done by warriors, not bleeding hearts. Cheney knew this very well. There would be no impeachments.
The same is true of Wall Street's criminals, who heed no laws of any land, instead raping and pillaging as if they were white collar Vikings up the Seine. Like the Vikings, they hold the capitalists hostage ... do as we say, or your whole system will fail.
Obama grew up with some of the most elite folks in the world in Honolulu, who know how the whole world, not just Washington, works. He knows they have us over a handbasket. He knows he can push only so much before the people's jobs and continued recovery is at risk ... the dirty work is not for idealists, but for the pragmatic.
But, we so need the idealists to shine the Sun on this. The web, and OS as a small cog, is slowly changing their ability to hide information, slowly letting people take the hippy vision that started the public web to its conclusion, where each of us are in full circle, back to those early Americans who finally felt in control over their own lives after eons of Royal abuse from whence they came.
And, on the ideal, ALL should re-read the Republic again from time to time, it clearly spells out what it would take to have leaders who are immune to all this ... but, that school will likely never open, so, we must instead, as Mr. O'Rourke continually points out, follow the line from Aristotle, to Spinoza, to the Enlightenment- and to our Founders ... and build on Lincoln, on King ... and, and you will all see it in the 2nd term, mark my words, you will know the Buf n Blu, on Obama. Saviors are always hard to see; reality is subjective and subject to rendering by brain types destined for natural selection.
Aloha Rick- IMUA (Onward)
Thanks for stopping by. My reference to “the Left” in my title, as is the title itself, is primarily aimed at Congress, or more inclusively at the U.S. government in general, including the SCOTUS. The Democrats in Congress have been almost equally complicit in the misdeeds of the Republicans, although there have been a few Democrats who have stood on principle. The so-called “Left” representatives in Congress have, as I know you’re well aware, their share of lawless votes to account for.
I’m always glad to get your input on anything I write. You write, “The larger danger is with Bush-v-Gore, where the Repubs abandoned the Constitution and their love of state's rights to ensure an outcome.”
This is exactly the way I see it. That event, to me, was such a significant act, highlighted by the fact that the Court ruled that their judgment in that would ONLY apply to THAT case, that sent this nation into a spiral of lawless attitudes in Congress that we will not recover from during my lifetime, that I think impeachment should have started with those S.C. justices. But our current governmental representatives have no value in terms of rule of law.
I’m curious about your view on the refusal to impeachment of a presidential regime that clearly violated U.S. law in it clearly dishonest agenda for war against a nation that posed no threat. The lies expounded by the Bush regime are clear, documented, and beyond any doubt. The value of an actual impeachment would have been to create a sense of transparency, it would have exposed facts that have instead remained obscured, it would have sent a message to the public as well as to the rest of the world that the “rule of law” is alive and well.
I can’t see that holding them accountable, or in this case refusing to do so, is any more political than many of the other things that have occurred under their criminality. Interestingly, I see the refusal to impeach as more political. The implementation of torture to which you refer would seem to be only one component of the lawless nature of the regime that the congressional representatives refused to hold accountable. And I have to think that there were Democrats who also benefited by NOT holding certain criminals accountable for their actions since those Democrats could clearly be seen as complicit in those crimes, at some level.
I think you’re right that there would have been those on the Right that would never have accepted that THEIR presidential regime had committed crimes; they still don’t. I think allowing criminals to go without accountability based on that issue is precisely part of the problem to which I refer. It seems to me that any attempt to prosecute a crime is political on some level. If the Bush regime was not ripe for impeachment, it certainly becomes questionable as to whether ANY regime would ever be. In effect, I believe that the statement by Pelosi, “Impeachment is off the table” had a sense of permanence to it, in that I believe it effectively removed one more check from realistic usefulness. It created a precedent that will be difficult to override in cases of future abuses.
I don't justify not going after the Bushies, of course, I explain why it wasn't and isn't going to happen. It's about politics.
First, it sucks up all the oxygen, and would have back-burnered Obama's brilliant plan to piss off mass swaths of America with his insurance mandate.
There was no public demand to do it, so would have to be created. Doing that means it sucks up oxygen, yada-yada see above.
It's a sort of trap, like Iraqghanistan and Vietnam...backing off = weak. This is 'merica, after all.
Going after the war lies and torture, and then having a terrorist attack happen = political graveyard.
So, it's different because there is no violation of public will, even if it ultimately harms the public. Politicians are self-interested by nature, and don't like pushing unpopular ideas. And that old standby -- we only prosecute other country's war criminals---this is 'merica, ya know.
So, it smells, but it's not a monumental dismissal of the General Will, such as it is. Most people simply assume torture happens when it needs to, and has for decades, and they don't want to hear about it.
Politically, it's easier and acceptable to let it fade from view.
I thought perhaps that's what you meant, but wanted to make sure. I think it's not really accurate to call the Democrats in Congress and in the White House and in general as a party today as "left." In what way are they left? The Dems today are actually to the right of George H.W. Bush when he was president.
Paul, as to your arguments about impeachment. 1) There was an enormous amount of demand for impeachment among the public. In many of the polls since they started asking the question a majority wanted it, despite the fact that the Democrats had ruled it off the table and were against it. 2) This business about "sucking up oxygen" is really a ridiculous argument. If Obama had moved to hold the Bush regime accountable, including for their war crimes and/or for their express violations of the law in other respects, he would have mobilized millions and exposed the GOP as utterly immoral and bankrupt. He would have destroyed their electoral chances for a generation. However, he didn't do this because
a) the Democrats are colluders, not adversaries in any real respect,
b) in fact the Democrats' collusion dates to the first Bush term when in 20o1 leading Dems, including Nancy Pelosi, were told in confidence that the White House had been wiretapping millions of Americans and they had been using waterboarding on detainees. When it came out years later that Pelosi knew about this back then she admitted most of this, but said that she didn't say anything because she couldn't. If the Congressional leadership can't reveal when the executive branch is committing war crimes and felonies, then what's the purpose of letting a select group of Congress members in on what's going on except to legitimate it. Thus, for the Dems to have gone after Bush for his crimes they would have had to reveal their own complicity. Ergo, they didn't. The net result? The continuation of the Bush agenda under Obama and the fueling of a proto-fascist movement against not only the Democrats but any one who they see in their way.
In 2007 pro-impeachment activists arrived in large numbers on Capitol Hill to lobby legislators for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They were told by Congressional staff that the Congressmen/women knew that a majority of Americans wanted impeachment but the legislators weren't going to support impeachment because they were "listening to their party leadership."
I guess that was an oversight on my part. Add-- too deep in collusion to the list of political considerations. I don't recall a clamor for impeachment, and the only poll I found while glancing back, Pew 7/07 has 62% against.
As far as sucking up oxygen, it is far more real than the idea the Bushies would be exposed and Americans would line up to cheer. The Dems would secure eternal rule as they lead the criminals to the stockade. That vision is likely caused by low oxygen, and is a mirage.
So, for the previous and adding collusion reasons, it's easier to let it fade as, whether one likes it or not, that's what most Americans will accept. When asked, they "want" to investigate, but when not prompted, most wouldn't say it was a concern. They'd rather not know about it at all, and stick with the opinion that it happens when it "needs" to.
That's just the way it is, and considering the law is a creature of majority opinion, it is a sort of a trial-preempting verdict from a low information jury.
I really did not think you were “justifying” the failure to prosecute. I think I understand your perspective at least well enough not to think you would.
;-)
I just don’t buy the excuses given for not doing it. That’s why I included the Left in my essay here; I see them as being equally complicit, just for different reasons than the Right. I don’t buy the reasoning that it would have divided the country because NOT doing it divided the country and actually did more damage on other levels, too, such as those we’re discussing here.
Not prosecuting damaged credibility even further than what had already been done by the Bush regime. Can anybody take an American seriously, now, when one condemns human rights violations, or other war crimes? Clearly, the answer is, “No.”
I also believe that not prosecuting is one huge aspect that alienated Obama’s base and caused them to not respond to the mid-term elections. I think, and I may be wrong, but I think that as time goes on, not prosecuting and instead continuing those crimes will prove to have been one of the biggest political blunders in our nation’s history.
All I’m really saying is that I know why they didn’t do it, but the reasons aren’t necessarily those they have given publicly.
I get that the Democrats aren’t “Left” as you and I might define them, but for the most part, they are still defined that way in the media (plus, the title wouldn’t fit the 60 space allotment if I wrote “Democrats & Republicans”).
;-)
As to what a majority of Americans wanted regarding impeachment, I seem to recall, as Paul has found, that most polls indicated a majority didn’t seem to really care. But, as is always the case, the matter may be more one of how the question is asked than what the respondents actually wanted. I don’t know because I haven’t seen the individual polls.
However, a majority of people were clearly against Clinton’s impeachment, but that did not stop Congress from pursuing it, anyway, and looking at the 2000 election I can’t see that it hurt the Republicans any for doing so. So, I also don’t buy the “majority rules” bullshit regarding the impeachment issue. I think there is one reason only; virtually the entire Congress, with only a very few excluded, had something to lose personally or politically by doing it, so the “rule of law” be damned, thus, “Lawlessness, Left & Right”. With Clinton’s case, only he was really affected, it did not involve other congressional members.
But, whether majority or not, there was an exceptionally strong movement for impeachment.
I feel your pain. I think Obama and the congressional Dems have pissed away some great opportunities. But in fairness, we have to recognize that the Dems' Party has been infiltrated by "fake Dems" -- so-called "fiscal conservatives/social progressives". The problem with them is that the "fiscal conservative" fails to recognize that social progress often costs money, it requires an investment. They are a greater problem that Obama himself.
Below are several of the polls administered by professional polling organizations on the question of impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. The first poll asking about impeachment was by Zogby in June 2005. As I note in this list, the lowest percentage found in support of impeachment was 26% in a Newsweek poll on 3/18/06. The next lowest was 30%. In general the percentages in favor of impeachment between June 2005 and 11/13/07 were roughly even or above 50%.
(The 26% Yes in the 3/18/06 poll was in the same poll in which 42% expressed their support for censure of Bush and Cheney. At that point censure was being pushed as the “better” alternative so the low level of 26% was largely a function of that. As Rick correctly notes, when Congress impeached Clinton a minority supported it. Coincidentally if I recall correctly, that number was also 26%.)
One should note here that throughout the entirety of the George W Bush years that the Democrats and the media were expressly against impeachment, impeachment was rarely broached in the media or by the Democrats and when it was it was to dismiss anyone supporting it as out of the mainstream and seeking partisan advantage. Despite that fact, the level of support for impeachment was very high given that people saying they were for it had to state this preference knowing that no one in leading positions in media or government was in favor of it and in fact thought the idea was crazy.
In other words, already a very large percentage of the population, frequently in these polls a majority, wanted impeachment. This was before an actual Congressional investigation. Had an impeachment proceeding been launched, the cascade of new revelations of extremely ugly deeds and grossly illegal behaviors that would have come out, facts that then were not then known to the public (and still not known to the public at large), then the scenario that I painted in my previous remarks which Paul caricatured as sheer fantasy, would have been very, very realistic.
Zogby 6/30/05
Hold accountable through impeachment:
“If it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.”
Yes 42% No 50%
“No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress - Want Bi-Partisan Solutions - New Zogby Poll,”
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1007, retrieved on April 10, 2010.
Ipsos 10/11/05
Consider impeaching:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
Yes 50% NO 44%
Bob Fertik, “Poll: Americans Favor Bush Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq,”
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1, retrieved on April 9, 2010.
Zogby Poll 1/16/06
Hold accountable through impeachment:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
52% Yes. 43% No
Bob Fertik, “Poll: Americans Support Bush Impeachment for Wiretapping,” http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2, retrieved on April 15, 2010.
MyDD 2/1/06
Hold accountable through impeachment and removal:
“If it were determined that President Bush broke the law, do you support the U.S. Congress holding him accountable through impeachment and removal from office?”
Yes 50% No 39%
Chris Bowers, “Polling Project, Sixth Release,” http://mydd.com/2006/2/1/polling-project-sixth-release, retrieved on April 15, 2010.
Newsweek Poll 3/18/06 showed the lowest support for impeachment recorded re Bush of any poll asking about impeachment
Impeach and remove:
“Do you think Congress should take action to IMPEACH President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?”
Yes 26% No 69%
“President Bush and the Bush Administration,” http://www.pollingreport.com/bush_ad.htm, retrieved on April 10, 2010.
In the Newsweek Poll of 3/18/06 they also asked about Censure:
“As you may know, Senator Russ Feingold has called for Congress to censure or formally reprimand President Bush over the issue of his warrantless wiretapping program. Censure is a way for Congress to express strong disapproval of a President's actions without going so far as impeachment. Would you support the CENSURE of President Bush by Congress, or not?”
Yes 42% 50%
“President Bush and the Bush Administration,” http://www.pollingreport.com/bush_ad.htm, retrieved on April 10, 2010.
(Note: the emphasis at that point in time (3/06) was on censure rather than impeachment. In the remainder of all polls taken re: impeachment specifically, the lowest percentages supporting it was 30%. The highest was over 50%.)
Newsweek 10/21/06
Impeach (responses by Democrats)
Yes 51% No 44%
USA/Gallup 10/25/06
Major investigations (by Democrats)
“Suppose the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress in this year’s elections and try to do each of the following after they take control in January. Please say whether you would approve or disapprove of that action:
Conduct major investigations of the Bush administration”
Yes 51% No 47%
“USA Today/Gallup poll,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-10-25-poll.htm, retrieved on April 12, 2010.
ARG Poll 7/6/07
Impeachment proceedings against Bush:
“Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?”
Yes 45% No 46%
“November 13, 2007 –Impeachment,” http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/, American Research Group, Inc, retrieved on April 9, 2010.
ARG Poll 7/6/07
Impeachment proceedings against Cheney
“Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?”
Yes 54% No 40%
“November 13, 2007 –Impeachment,” http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/, American Research Group, Inc, retrieved on April 9, 2010.
These polls are similar to what I recall seeing at the time, which seem to support an argument either way depending on how one interprets the polls’ results. What I see is essentially not really a majority support for impeachment overall, but I’m also not seeing any majority support against, either. And then there are the discrepancies between the concepts of “censure” versus “impeachment”. Polls like these are always interesting but they too often can be abused through what little information they really contain.
I wonder what it would look like if one took the “Yes” votes for impeachment and “averaged” them against the “No” votes, leaving out the question of censure altogether. Regardless, as I said above, “…whether majority or not, there was an exceptionally strong movement for impeachment.”
Sorry to have skipped responding to your comments. I'm not sure how I managed to do that, but ...
Thanks for your input; it is much appreciated.
You write, "once given the right to kings of their little castles, many immediately ego-ized the concept and began focusing only on their little worlds, forget the group at large."
That's a very good way of putting it. It's the "I got mine ..." attitude that permeates most of American history.
You mention the acts intended to "demonize Indians and Mexicans", which has always been a part of this nation's history, as well. Import Chinese to work the railroads and then condemn them because they are different. The fear of "The Other" has always been prevalent in the ignorant and uneducated elements of this nation's population.
You also reference the concept of what is "pragmatic". I suggest it is time that people revisit the true meaning of that word. I don't think that a lot of what has transpired in U.S. government over the past 10 years fits the true meaning. I think the meaning has been adjusted to fit the actions, instead of actions fitting the meaning; it's just a thought.
As to the openess of of the Internet, I think that is already under assault. It will be interesting to see how long it survives in its current form.
So, you get : Why are they focusing on this instead of jobs?
And then the media frenzy that would include, as the Repubs would scream it -- the Democrat complicity Loo refers to.
And yes, it would suck up oxygen. That is realistic as an observation and expectation from the outside as well as the Oval Office inside.
Obama's people would bemoan the fact it's taking attention away from their agenda, and it would have. Would that have been a bad thing? Maybe not.
I advocated for a House investigation that would trickle out info that could generate public outrage, and if it built, then politicians would have found their lost integrity and pursued it.
However, the fade-from-view majority acceptability was too tempting, politically.
I'll put my "mirage" up against your "ridiculous," Dennis, and call it a draw.
I guess what I really question is whether the results they expected from NOT impeaching those criminals is actually what resulted. I don’t think they got what they wanted from it, and I don’t think anyone benefited from their decision except the corrupt politicians and the Republican Party at large.
Sometimes the more difficult path is the most beneficial, and that’s how I see this situation. This has become a clear trademark of the Obama administration; always take the easy course, capitulate, surrender before you’ve even begun to fight for the good. The path they took was the easy one, and I think they, and WE, are paying the price and will be for a long time to come because of the precedent it set. That precedent, though it is only implied by this lack of action, is essentially that there really are no grounds for impeachment. If we can’t impeach members of our government for crimes like the Bush regime committed, for what would we impeach?
We can expect more capitulation and surrender in the coming years, and with the precedent set in recent years, it becomes all the more difficult to hold “representatives” accountable for ANYTHING.