Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Occupy LA brings RESULTS

Citizens gather together at a strategy meeting at Occupy LA
Photo credit: gpfoto


BAM. Occupy LA brings results, by ghod!

Local independent television and former PBS affiliate KCET reports:

"Other than general statements of support, City Council members did not debate the merits of Occupy LA's goals or the main crux of the resolution, which supports "the continuation of the peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights" of the protestors, hundreds of them who are camping outside city hall (and vow to through December). Rather, the council focused on the other part of the resolution: logistics of hearing a responsible banking measure that was introduced over a year ago by Council member Richard Alarcon.

"That measure seeks to divest city money from banks not cooperating with foreclosure prevention efforts and instead flow money into banks reinvesting in the community. Billions of dollars invested in banks could be affected. It will be discussed on or by November 21st by the city's Finance and Budget Committee, with a preliminary discussion at a City Council meeting that same week."


All you banksters: Suck. On. This.


Monday, October 10, 2011

The War of the Royalists vs. Everybody Else





During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt reminded the American people of the existance of the economic royalist class, how they unworthily captured control of the democratic process, and if we are to remain a free people, we must fight back. Do not doubt that it is truly a war of one narrow class who would be masters of the world against the larger other, that of the greater body of people who would be free.

"For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities...-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit...

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction...

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for...

In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight...

I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is...a war for the survival of democracy...

I am enlisted for the duration of the war."

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, June 27, 1936


Monday, June 29, 2009

The Real Struggle in Iran



Protesters in Tehran: Several hundred thousand government opponents took
to the streets of the Iranian capital. Photo: Der Speigel


The Real Struggle in Iran and Implications for U.S. Dialogue

By George Friedman


Speaking of the situation in Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama said June 26, “We don’t yet know how any potential dialogue will have been affected until we see what has happened inside of Iran.” On the surface that is a strange statement, since we know that with minor exceptions, the demonstrations in Tehran lost steam after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for them to end and security forces asserted themselves. By the conventional wisdom, events in Iran represent an oppressive regime crushing a popular rising. If so, it is odd that the U.S. president would raise the question of what has happened in Iran.

In reality, Obama’s point is well taken. This is because the real struggle in Iran has not yet been settled, nor was it ever about the liberalization of the regime. Rather, it has been about the role of the clergy — particularly the old-guard clergy — in Iranian life, and the future of particular personalities among this clergy.

Ahmadinejad Against the Clerical Elite

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ran his re-election campaign against the old clerical elite, charging them with corruption, luxurious living and running the state for their own benefit rather than that of the people. He particularly targeted Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an extremely senior leader, and his family. Indeed, during the demonstrations, Rafsanjani’s daughter and four other relatives were arrested, held and then released a day later.

Rafsanjani represents the class of clergy that came to power in 1979. He served as president from 1989-1997, but Ahmadinejad defeated him in 2005. Rafsanjani carries enormous clout within the system as head of the regime’s two most powerful institutions — the Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the Guardian Council and parliament, and the Assembly of Experts, whose powers include oversight of the supreme leader. Forbes has called him one of the wealthiest men in the world. Rafsanjani, in other words, remains at the heart of the post-1979 Iranian establishment.

Ahmadinejad expressly ran his recent presidential campaign against Rafsanjani, using the latter’s family’s vast wealth to discredit Rafsanjani along with many of the senior clerics who dominate the Iranian political scene. It was not the regime as such that he opposed, but the individuals who currently dominate it. Ahmadinejad wants to retain the regime, but he wants to repopulate the leadership councils with clerics who share his populist values and want to revive the ascetic foundations of the regime. The Iranian president constantly contrasts his own modest lifestyle with the opulence of the current religious leadership.

Recognizing the threat Ahmadinejad represented to him personally and to the clerical class he belongs to, Rafsanjani fired back at Ahmadinejad, accusing him of having wrecked the economy. At his side were other powerful members of the regime, including Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, who has made no secret of his antipathy toward Ahmadinejad and whose family links to the Shiite holy city of Qom give him substantial leverage. The underlying issue was about the kind of people who ought to be leading the clerical establishment. The battlefield was economic: Ahmadinejad’s charges of financial corruption versus charges of economic mismanagement leveled by Rafsanjani and others.

When Ahmadinejad defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi on the night of the election, the clerical elite saw themselves in serious danger. The margin of victory Ahmadinejad claimed might have given him the political clout to challenge their position. Mousavi immediately claimed fraud, and Rafsanjani backed him up. Whatever the motives of those in the streets, the real action was a knife fight between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani. By the end of the week, Khamenei decided to end the situation. In essence, he tried to hold things together by ordering the demonstrations to halt while throwing a bone to Rafsanjani and Mousavi by extending a probe into the election irregularities and postponing a partial recount by five days.

The Struggle Within the Regime

The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.

The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad’s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.

The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges — and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting. The Iranian president’s populism suits the interests of clerics who oppose Rafsanjani; Ahmadinejad is their battering ram. But as Ahmadinejad increases his power, he could turn on his patrons very quickly. In short, the political situation in Iran is extremely volatile, just not for the reason that the media portrayed.

Rafsanjani is an extraordinarily powerful figure in the establishment who clearly sees Ahmadinejad and his faction as a mortal threat. Ahmadinejad’s ability to survive the unified opposition of the clergy, election or not, is not at all certain. But the problem is that there is no unified clergy. The supreme leader is clearly trying to find a new political balance while making it clear that public unrest will not be tolerated. Removing “public unrest” (i.e., demonstrations) from the tool kits of both sides may take away one of Rafsanjani’s more effective tools. But ultimately, it actually could benefit him. Should the internal politics move against the Iranian president, it would be Ahmadinejad — who has a substantial public following — who would not be able to have his supporters take to the streets.

The View From the West

The question for the rest of the world is simple: Does it matter who wins this fight? We would argue that the policy differences between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani are minimal and probably would not affect Iran’s foreign relations. This fight simply isn’t about foreign policy.

Rafsanjani has frequently been held up in the West as a pragmatist who opposes Ahmadinejad’s radicalism. Rafsanjani certainly opposes Ahmadinejad and is happy to portray the Iranian president as harmful to Iran, but it is hard to imagine significant shifts in foreign policy if Rafsanjani’s faction came out on top. Khamenei has approved Iran’s foreign policy under Ahmadinejad, and Khamenei works to maintain broad consensus on policies. Ahmadinejad’s policies were vetted by Khamenei and the system that Rafsanjani is part of. It is possible that Rafsanjani secretly harbors different views, but if he does, anyone predicting what these might be is guessing.

Rafsanjani is a pragmatist in the sense that he systematically has accumulated power and wealth. He seems concerned about the Iranian economy, which is reasonable because he owns a lot of it. Ahmadinejad’s entire charge against him is that Rafsanjani is only interested in his own economic well-being. These political charges notwithstanding, Rafsanjani was part of the 1979 revolution, as were Ahmadinejad and the rest of the political and clerical elite. It would be a massive mistake to think that any leadership elements have abandoned those principles.

When the West looks at Iran, two concerns are expressed. The first relates to the Iranian nuclear program, and the second relates to Iran’s support for terrorists, particularly Hezbollah. Neither Iranian faction is liable to abandon either, because both make geopolitical sense for Iran and give it regional leverage.

Tehran’s primary concern is regime survival, and this has two elements. The first is deterring an attack on Iran, while the second is extending Iran’s reach so that such an attack could be countered. There are U.S. troops on both sides of the Islamic Republic, and the United States has expressed hostility to the regime. The Iranians are envisioning a worst-case scenario, assuming the worst possible U.S. intentions, and this will remain true no matter who runs the government.

We do not believe that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, a point we have made frequently. Iran understands that the actual acquisition of a nuclear weapon would lead to immediate U.S. or Israeli attacks. Accordingly, Iran’s ideal position is to be seen as developing nuclear weapons, but not close to having them. This gives Tehran a platform for bargaining without triggering Iran’s destruction, a task at which it has proved sure-footed.

In addition, Iran has maintained capabilities in Iraq and Lebanon. Should the United States or Israel attack, Iran would thus be able to counter by doing everything possible destabilize Iraq — bogging down U.S. forces there — while simultaneously using Hezbollah’s global reach to carry out terror attacks. After all, Hezbollah is today’s al Qaeda on steroids. The radical Shiite group’s ability, coupled with that of Iranian intelligence, is substantial.

We see no likelihood that any Iranian government would abandon this two-pronged strategy without substantial guarantees and concessions from the West. Those would have to include guarantees of noninterference in Iranian affairs. Obama, of course, has been aware of this bedrock condition, which is why he went out of his way before the election to assure Khamenei in a letter that the United States had no intention of interfering.

Though Iran did not hesitate to lash out at CNN’s coverage of the protests, the Iranians know that the U.S. government doesn’t control CNN’s coverage. But Tehran takes a slightly different view of the BBC. The Iranians saw the depiction of the demonstrations as a democratic uprising against a repressive regime as a deliberate attempt by British state-run media to inflame the situation. This allowed the Iranians to vigorously blame some foreigner for the unrest without making the United States the primary villain.

But these minor atmospherics aside, we would make three points. First, there was no democratic uprising of any significance in Iran. Second, there is a major political crisis within the Iranian political elite, the outcome of which probably tilts toward Ahmadinejad but remains uncertain. Third, there will be no change in the substance of Iran’s foreign policy, regardless of the outcome of this fight. The fantasy of a democratic revolution overthrowing the Islamic Republic — and thus solving everyone’s foreign policy problems a la the 1991 Soviet collapse — has passed.

That means that Obama, as the primary player in Iranian foreign affairs, must now define an Iran policy — particularly given Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s meeting in Washington with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell this Monday. Obama has said that nothing that has happened in Iran makes dialogue impossible, but opening dialogue is easier said than done. The Republicans consistently have opposed an opening to Iran; now they are joined by Democrats, who oppose dialogue with nations they regard as human rights violators. Obama still has room for maneuver, but it is not clear where he thinks he is maneuvering. The Iranians have consistently rejected dialogue if it involves any preconditions. But given the events of the past weeks, and the perceptions about them that have now been locked into the public mind, Obama isn’t going to be able to make many concessions.

It would appear to us that in this, as in many other things, Obama will be following the Bush strategy — namely, criticizing Iran without actually doing anything about it. And so he goes to Moscow more aware than ever that Russia could cause the United States a great deal of pain if it proceeded with weapons transfers to Iran, a country locked in a political crisis and unlikely to emerge from it in a pleasant state of mind.


This article is reprinted by permission from Stratfor.





Thursday, June 05, 2008

A Cool, Confident Couple



The other day a friend of mine sent me a threatening letter promising that if I didn't immediately send all my money to the Obama campaign, I would burn in hell forever, with the ghost of Hillary Clinton eternally sticking a pitchfork in my ass.

So, for the very first time in my life ever, I sent in ten bucks to a political campaign. Which I could ill afford, BTW.

The next day, as I reconsidered my rash decision, I came upon this photo on BagNews of Barack Obama and his wife Michelle doing the hand-bump. Take a good look at it:




Not since Jack and Jacqueline Kennedy have I seen such a damn good looking couple on the political scene, celebrating in public - confident, bonded, relaxed yet full of a coiled-steel-spring energy. They aren't doing the chest-bump, as our idiot-child president performed at the recent Air Force Academy graduation ceremony, or the high five like a pair of knuckleheads, nor did they whoop and holler like a couple of pickaninnys in a watermelon patch who just stole the fat one from The Man.

Au contraire, what I see are two very, very smart people, relaxed in public with each other, and, like islands in the stream, coolly allowing the storm around them to part around their mutual being. As a thought exercise, compare & contrast the photo above with any photo of Laura Bush's over-the-top imitations of Mamseille Antoinette or the battling, manipulative Vivien Leigh cynically imploring Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind for one more chance.

Barack's connections with big hedge funds troubles me no end, yet as I have watched his appearances over the last year, listened to him speak, and observed him when he was addressing a genormous record crowd in a waterside park in Oregon, I sense a depth in him of consideration and a patience that is almost preternatural, so far from Bush's arrogance and "bring 'em on" pusillanimous that the two men might be from different planets.

I have no major expectations from an Obama presidency; Bush and Cheney have managed to so screw up the Republic that, if it's not dead already, it's resuscitation is going to take a generation (at least) to revive, but with Obama, I think we might at last be seeing a real light at the end of a truly hideously dark tunnel.



Thursday, March 27, 2008

I'm hopeful, but not holding my breath



Photo: (c)Darren Abate/WireImagePhoto: (c) Darren Abate/WireImage


“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.” - Bobby Kennedy, US Attorney General


They say that cynicism is the armor of sentimentalists, and I confess to grudging agreement with that opinion. Intellectually, I'm a devotee of realpolitik, but I have an inner core of touchy-feely mush.

While I would love to wave the flag for this presidential candidate or that one, I have been cynical most of my life about the politicians who have ultimately been chosen for the presidency of our Republic. After the 1968 Democratic Convention and the defeat of Eugene McCarthy, I came close to despair, and unfortunately, it 's only gotten worse. Time after time, from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the utterly despicable Bush Jr, each president has been more manipulative, dishonest, authoritarian and beholden to corporations than the last. To be honest, my heart has shriveled with each new presidential inauguration.

But then along comes this guy Barack Obama from the South Side of Chicago, not a place that one would normally associate with brains as well as heart. I must confess that for the first time in forty years (!) I'm truly impressed with a politician. This is not to say that I'm gah-gah over Obama, as he carries much of the political baggage that one expects from a Chicago politician, and he has outlined some policy details that I don't see as actually fixing the root causes of many problems (health care springs to mind), and his announcement that "all options are still on the table" in regard to the Middle East is troubling. Still, I have to admit to being in awe of the man's attempts to talk straight to the American public, without spin or scripted PR baloney.

He's no Cicero, and he doesn't quite match the rhetoric of the singular Bobby Kennedy, but he's sharp and seemingly honest, talking from the heart while speaking as one adult to another. His recent speech about his pastor, the Revered Wright, was a case in point. It wasn't Shakespeare or Lincoln, but it was smart, honest, and was delivered with the right tone. As a measure of the universal impact of his style and intelligence, David Brooks, the conservative journalist and pundit for NPR's Newhour, was practically gushing as he gave his analysis of Obama's speech the next day.

That said, I have grave reservations about his ability to actually win the nomination at the Democratic convention and ultimately the general election.

While his opponent Hillary Clinton is a throwback left-over of the DLC and a tool of both AIPAC and regressive corporate interests, she is a white woman who has become a Joan of Arc to the female politically correct and a "champion of progressive values" (yeah, right) to male blue collar workers who don't know any better. In short, against John McCain, she will take the nomination and go on to win in November, but without my vote, as I will probably write in Edwards, an actual progressive. At this point, I truly detest the Democratic Party. For the record, I usually register Independent, because we get the longer, fuller ballot. Choice is good.

All the pundits are predicting it's Clinton in Pennsylvania. But if Obama ties there, or comes within 5 points, he can still take the convention, and then it's a close call for the general.

Here's hoping.




Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Out to lunch



The image “http://www.plotinus.com/images/universe34.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Recent personal events, not to mention the sheer exhaustion that comes from hating everybody in Washington, DC, individually and collectively, have caused me to forsake the petty world of politics for the nonce and consider other things, such as Life, meaning, and contemplation of the Void.

You can see the fruits of my ruminations over on my other blog, Marching Morons.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

We're number 3 !!



The folks in the Self Promotion Department brought this to my attention, and asked that I pass it along. It goes without saying that we have been consistently on the front page of Google since our founding in November of 2004, and more times than we can count have been in the top ten rank in Google searches for current political events.

Thanks, everybody.


Monday, November 20, 2006

A rude interruption




We’ve recently added a few readers to our subscription list, some of whom are not quite up to speed on how this republic is falling apart before they’ve had a chance to visit Colonial Williamsburg, hence this week’s post; it’s a little long-winded, and many of our Gentle Readers already know most of what’s in it, but a little refresher in recent American history might be just what the doctor ordered, seeing as we also have a freshman Congress waiting in the wings, many of whom probably don't know squat about American history.

Mike Whitney wonders how we got to where we are politically in only six short years. Actually, it took a lot longer than that: the failure of the American democratic experiment is only now becoming glaringly apparent as the political Other Shoe dropped with Pelosi's endorsement of the fascist policies of this administration. To paraphrase Shakespeare: the death of the Constitution has come about from a thousand cuts. The present unpleasantness is merely a repeat of events seen before.

In order to see where we really are, and how we got here, it's necessary to take a look back along our trail, and see where we missed the bread crumbs, so bear with me; we'll get to the point soon enough.

The methods of totalitarians are well known, and throw their shadows before them. We have been warned, early and often: everyone from Gibbon to Benjamin Franklin to Oswald Spengler has warned us that we can easily lose our freedom. It's my contention [here comes the pretentious-intellectual part] that the upward trajectory of America's historic role as model republic to the world - a template of humanist dignity and individual freedom - has, in Spengler's sense, been rudely interrupted.

This interruption has been aided and abetted by the reinvigoration of fundamentalist religions in America, obfuscated by the rise of multi-culturalist New Age movements, and encouraged by the discredited policies of the neoconservative cabal, who's hero - Woodrow Wilson - gave us WWI, the League of Nations and the exorable Treaty of Versailles, which resulted in World War II. And he was a Democrat.

America should still be on an upward arc of citizen government; instead, she is threatened with cultural and political collapse as the Middle East, which had passed out of History with the rise of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization, is now being dragged back onto the world stage in an untimely and unhistoric fashion with a dubious quasi-religious Crusade - our Never-ending War on Terrorism. Note well: the last time the West invaded the East, the conflict lasted over five hundred years, and the East won. They didn't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

While most historians don't think history is linear, or necessarily predictable - Spengler, for instance, understood history to be cyclic, following a kind of sine-wave pattern - most do think that civilizations go through various phases of religious and intellectual growth in their evolution to historical pre-eminence, followed by political and cultural rigidity, then collapse. [Now back to plain English]. The object is to put off that collapse as long as possible.

Europe experienced its cultural and political rigidity with the rise of democratically-elected neo-paganistic Nazism and Italian corporate state Fascism - despite the Enlightenment - then collapsed under the invasion of the citizen-soldiers of America, all of them - as hokey as it may sound now - educated in the liberal ideals of the American Revolution inherited from that very same Europe.

We could have demanded un-payable reparations from Europe, leaving it desolate and miserable forever - or sowed their fields with salt - but we forbade retaliation and generously rebuilt the whole continent. Post-WWII Europe was revitalized by the importation of American-style republican democracy, as well as massive American corporate investment. However, having heeded the lessons of class-warfare and the consequences of unfettered capitalist/colonialist imperialism, the Europeans relinquished their colonies and remade their countries into representative democratic quasi-socialist states, ensuring a high standard of living for the majority of their citizens, without having to diminish the principles of Enlightenment liberalism. (After all, they invented it). All signs are that a healthy, united, and democratic Europe has arisen from what were fields of ashes.

Back home, certain establishment intellectuals (e.g., George Kennan) began formally trying to fit future history into a mold of their choosing with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. This was America's first formal attempt to impose American will on the historic process, with mixed results. The Soviet Union became the country behind what Churchill called the "Iron Curtain," and American politicians of every denomination joined the communist witch-hunts, led by the junior Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. He personally was shown to be a bully and brought down when Boston lawyer Joseph Welch asked, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ('Decency,' now there's a concept!) In any case, America's foreign adventures began in earnest during this period - most egregiously in the former French colony of Vietnam.

(As an aside, it bears repeating that, while well intentioned and often bumbling, Democrats have never been a "Peace Party" or shrinking violets before the guns, having produced more than their fair share of warhawks. Don't lose sight of the fact that the major conflict began with John F Kennedy and escalated under Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats.)

Make no mistake: Vietnam was a complete moral cataclysm for America. The last helicopter lifted off from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon on Tuesday, April 29, 1975. The sight of former Vietnamese allies clinging desperately to the Huey's skids, only to fall back as the chopper rises, is sickening to watch, even today.

A Republican - Richard Nixon - was elected on the promise that he would end the war "with honor." He lied, of course; while he thought no one was looking, he increased the zones of violence into neutral Cambodia and Laos with massive carpet bombing of those countries, setting the stage for Pol Pot and the "Killing Fields," effectively setting back the civilization of Southeast Asia by a thousand years.

The infamous motto of this period is, "We had to burn the hamlet to save it."

Nixon also engaged in tactics that would cause his critics to accuse him of trying to establish an "Imperial presidency." It was during his presidency that massive protest movements - begun during the latter part of the Johnson administration - caused ordinary Americans to doubt the validity of the electoral process, and hence, American democracy. He was eventually threatened with impeachment, and he resigned his office in shame before the Articles of Impeachment were even drawn up! Everyone applauded and said, "See, the Constitution works!" So, it did, just barely.

As America was never intended nor designed to be a global empire ("No foreign entanglements!") the failure of the Vietnam adventure was never properly integrated into the American psyche, as empires rely on main force as their first tool of persuasion (the "Kissinger Principle") - a concept antithetical to average modern Americans (who are basically ignorant of their country's history of violence on behalf of economic hegemony) - which resulted in a national psychic schism, with a turning away of her elites-in-training from the heritage of the Enlightenment with its Rationalist ideals.

While the Vietnam conflict raged, this schism manifested itself as a broad-spectrum rejection of secular rationalism by the Yippies, hippies, and uncritical liberal multi-culturalists on the Left ("Tune in and drop out"), and an accelerating economic libertarianism by the Yuppie Right ("The Me Generation" and "Greed is good!") in the mid 1970s, continuing through the present.

Further, the social unease of America's eventual defeat in Vietnam produced both our now-familiar neoconservative 'democracy-imperialists' (former radical leftists turned radical rightists - to show you just how deeply the confusion runs) as well as a bitter backlash from conservative religious denominations of every stripe, and the 'political correctness' of an increasingly rigid and anti-intellectual left.

In practical terms, this resulted in vast numbers, who otherwise would be actively involved in the political process, to form anti-establishment attitudes and quit the political playing field, opening it up to anti-democratic forces.

In plain English, the Vietnam experience - which opened America's eyes to the fact that average Americans could be just as despicable and evil as the dictatorships we had only so recently demolished - threw ordinary Americans into a loop. It was during this Rude Interruption that certain elements of the economic elites - ever vigilant for the Main Chance - took advantage of our moral and civic confusion to hijack the American economic and political system, big time.

The social confusion of the Vietnam era cut across the board, but it was most especially troublesome in the inner cities, which were being systematically abandoned by cheap purse elites whose goals were not egalitarian ("White Flight") and in many cases exclusionary, if not out rightly retaliatory ("Red-lining").

With the abandonment of the inner cities by tax-paying homeowners and their replacement by non-tax-paying renters, the tax burden was thrown to the corporate sector, which is historically hostile to taxes for any reason. Thus it was necessary to embark on a program of tax reduction.

This abandonment of education in general and civic responsibilities in particular was accomplished by the massive slashing of social services starting in the Reagan administration - particularly in education, but not disregarding his union-busting and the throwing of the mentally ill to the curb - in order to shift the national economy to morally unjustifiable but highly profitable war material production, paid for by an increasingly ignorant and socially insular American taxpayer. Not coincidentally, this also resulted in sky-high interest rates and a massive national debt, enriching the investment community no end. Reaganite apologists explained this as the "trickle-down" theory, while a still socially disoriented public chose to refrain from examining this theory with the critical eye it deserved.

Basic social service budgets were gutted and 'privatized', to the horror of even Republican liberals, to be picked up by religious organizations with their own agendas, cementing ignorant Americans on the Right to religious institutions and ideologies, most of which are non-egalitarian, self-righteous and anti-democratic. While not immediately obvious, on the Left this includes most - but not all - New Age movements, embracing as they do paganistic and anti-intellectual ideologies, which have well-documented racist as well as elitist tendencies (including the for-profit Montessori schools), and are rigidly hierarchical.

While the theocratic impulse in American political life has always been with us (the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established as a theocratic dictatorship), this impulse had remained submerged under a reasonably good public education system, which had traditionally emphasized secular civic virtues and participation in public life.

The collapse of the American educational system has as a consequence the sad fact that Americans across the entire political spectrum (including, apparently, most of our elected officials) are totally ignorant of America's long experience with terrorism going back to before the Declaration of Independence, including by the colonists themselves, and as they are increasingly distracted by a pandering mass-media (the modern equivalent of the Roman 'bread and circuses'), fueled by base consumer lust, in turn sponsored by corporate/Chinese/Wal-Mart slave labor - they will not or cannot formulate effective counter-arguments, while their elected leaders are too busy playing golf in Scotland - paid for by corporate lobbyists - to attend to the People's business.

It is educational to note that almost every single major policy maker in the present Bush administration can trace his career back to service under Reagan, where, in fact, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Addington first began formulating policies of executive over-reaching, as well as perfecting capitalist interventionist policies in Central America and the Middle East, including the highly illegal funding of those policies (Iran/Contra - now conveniently forgotten by Reagan's cheerleaders).

It's also sobering to note that there is an office dealing with religious service organizations in the White House! While we're at it, why not an office for a visiting Pope, or the representative of the Missouri Synod of Southern Baptists?

Further, these policy makers use the Jesuitical argument of the 'end justifying the means' (the 'end' in the present example being the revived Crusades of the "clash of civilizations, or the non-sequiter of "Islamo-fascism") to continue promoting the theory of the 'unitary executive' - presidential dictatorship - thereby eroding Constitutional guarantees of the balance of powers. During the original Crusades, the slaughter of the followers of Islam and the conquest of their lands was justified by the slogan, "God wills it!" Today, we might say "the Decider wills it!"

So, did anybody in public life - the politicians, the political intellectuals, the policy wonks, the campaign advisors, the American public, or even the military - learn a damn thing from the Vietnam experience? Apparently not.

As has been previously pointed out, our Constitution was forged in the fires of bloody terrorism and revolution, and was designed to withstand anything, if one bothers to read and follow it, except a nonchalant citizenry. On the other hand, who's got money for Civics classes these days?

So there's one answer for you, Mike: the socio-psychic energy that should have been devoted to perfecting the republican experiment in America was re-channeled into immature war-hawkishness, selfish and distracting voyages to discover one's "Inner Me," or a general retreat into religious dogma as ordinary Americans withdrew from the public political arena and nursed their various grudges, creating a massively dumbed-down American citizen.

Given the recent congressional elections, it would seem that most Americans did indeed reject the blatantly obvious state of moral corruption of the Republican-dominated Congress and the undeclared war in Iraq. Unfortunately, even a casual examination of polling data reveals that nearly half of all Americans (Republicans, Democrats and independents) cannot parse the illogical arguments of this administration in its promotion of anti-republican methods in its make-believe war against an idea. Again, this inability to recognize the congruence of similarly repellent ideas (American fascism vs. Islamic revenge) is not unexpected given the sad state of American civic consciousness, and the lack of knowledge of American history and the Enlightenment's ideals of liberty and basic human rights.

As he was leaving the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1798, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of a government the delegates had formulated. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Franklin was keenly aware that a republic requires a constantly vigilant citizenry, well educated in the civic virtues, and always ready to throw the rascals out.

The first order of business of the new Democratic majority should be the utter rejection of the anti-constitutional policies of this administration, including an immediate cessation of hostilities in this unconstitutional and undeclared war. Unfortunately, incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for raising the minimum wage as her first priority - as if that had anything to do with democratic republicanism - with impeachment hearings "off the table," in effect endorsing a bipartisan, anti-constitutional administration in America.

Many of the incoming Democrats, and probably most of those re-elected, no doubt assume that we voted for them and their agendas personally, whereas in fact, we did not: we voted for the Constitution, and they need to hear that message, loudly, and often.

Spengler's prediction of cultural rigidity and collapse hasn't fully happened to us yet; we are still a republic, but we are balanced on a razor's edge. His theory of rise and fall is not necessarily an ironclad guarantee; nevertheless, there is also no reason on earth to assume that our Constitution - and with it, our unique Republic - can survive this present administration given its present state of neglect.

They said it couldn't happen here; sorry to tell you this, Gentle Readers, but it very much can, all too easily and all too soon. The Bush-Cheney junta has two years left to bury the Constitution forever.