Chapter 5 The Role of Religion in Politics

The Role of Religion in Politics

However, I feel strongly that religion should not be intertwined with politics. Wasn’t that the major underlying principal for our founding fathers? Have we forgotten why they came to this land and broke away from Great Britain in the first place? Even Barry Goldwater, the father of modern day conservatism and the person that made it “OK” to be a conservative told John Dean: “Goddamn it, John, the Republicans are selling their soul to win elections.” He went on to tell Dean…..

Mark my word; if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, he said, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. The government won’t work without it. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them¹.

Goldwater told this to Dean in the mid-1990s, well before the ascent of Bush and Chaney. His words were very perceptive and now those so-called “Christians” are in power in the United States and promoting their brand of Christianity and wielding power throughout the world to the detriment of everyone.

Come back America, …….come back! All we have to do is look at other places where that has happened to see what is in store for the U.S. if it continues here: Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and Iraq to name a few. Is that what we want for America? I don’t think so!

1 John Dean, Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, page xxxiv-xxxv.

Chapter 4 Lackluster Leadership

Lackluster Leadership

With the end of the cold war America found itself in a unique position of being able to do almost anything it wanted to do in the world with little opposition from others. Unfortunately we seem to have lacked the vision, leadership and the willpower necessary to lead. I would argue that since World War II there have been only a few examples of enlightened leadership on the part of America’s leaders: The Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program) under Harry Truman would surely qualify; Dwight Eisenhower’s calling for an Interstate Highway System transformed the productive capacity of the United States from a rural, agricultural based nation to an urban, industrial nation almost overnight (But this was an unintended consequence – he justified it on military expediency grounds); John F. Kennedy’s stance and restraint during the Cuban Missile Crisis (He could have invaded Cuba, but he chose diplomacy over war.); Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights advances (Certainly the Civil Rights advances during LBJ’s term in office could not have taken place had it not been for the assassination of President Kennedy.); Richard Nixon’s opening of relations with China (Had any other President tried to open China he would have been tarred and feathered and run out of Washington by the right wing, but since Nixon was their champion he succeeded.) ; Ronald Reagan’s hard line stance against the Soviet Union ( Reagan was the first President, since Kennedy, to really stand up diplomatically to the Soviet Union, and he was successful.); and, Bill Clinton’s addressing the national deficit (He could have reduced taxes as most Presidents would have done as a political expedient, but he elected to do what was in the nation’s best “long-term” interest instead.) come to mind .

But even those were mostly isolated events in otherwise somewhat lackluster administrations. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush have little to remember them by. Carter made his mark after he left the presidency and was even awarded the Nobel Piece Prize in 2002 for his years of trying to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.

Among the post-World War II presidents, perhaps Bill Clinton has come the closest to becoming a “great” president, but as we all know, that opportunity was blown (pun intended)¹. John Dean says: “Ostensibly, Clinton was impeached and ….. tried for lying about a sexual liaison. If truthfulness about extramarital affairs had been a requisite for everyone in Congress to hold their seats before they voted to oust Clinton, neither the House nor the Senate could have formed a quorum².”

Following World War II America was, for the most part, looked up to as the way of the future: We were the beacon of light for all those who were oppressed around the world. The United States was a place where everyone wanted to live or at least the United States represented a life style people wanted to emulate in their own country. Many who could afford it sent their children here to go to school, hoping they would learn from us and then return to their homelands to implement what they had been taught. Even many of those who currently oppose us with violence attended college in the United States. While many still have positive feelings about the United States, changes have taken place that have tarnished our image both at home and abroad³.

This negative view of the United States started, I would argue, as a result of World War II and the resultant industrial buildup that was necessary to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Followed rapidly by the Korean conflict and then the protracted Cold War, the United States was thrust into its world leadership role perhaps, at first, reluctantly but none-the-less a role our elected leaders eventually seemed to covet and cultivate. Oftentimes, however, we have not performed this role in a manner consistent with our heritage or in a manner that was always in our best interest. We have so alienated major segments of the world’s population (including our so-called friends) that it has been easy for demigods to stir up enough negative sentiment to foster the current wave of anti-American terrorism acts. And of course our “holier-than-thou” attitude has culminated in the unprecedented invasion of Iraq by the current administration. This quagmire we are in is similar in many ways to the quagmire we faced in Vietnam over 40 years ago. We simply did not learn, or we forgot, our lesson from that experience. Come back America, …….come back.

We should neither prop-up and support corrupt governments (as we did in Vietnam) nor attempt to overthrow corrupt governments (as we did in Iraq). No matter how bad these governments are, it is the responsibility of the people of those sovereign countries to change their governments: it is not the responsibility of the United States to impose our will from afar. Yet we often do so because we think (or convince ourselves) or are pressured to think it is in our best interests to do so. Where does that pressure come from? In many cases it comes from the multi-national corporations based in the United States.

President Eisenhower in his 1960 farewell address to the nation⁴ warned us of the impending Military Industrial Complex. He said:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Unfortunately too few Americans took him seriously! But his words have turned out to be very prophetic. Instead of being the beacon of light and hope for the world, we have become the bully of the world. Eisenhower also warned us about this in his farewell speech. He said: “…America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

But we failed to heed his warning here as well. For the most part our bullying of other countries, I would argue, stems from corporate pressure on the President and Congress to take actions that are in what the corporations’ see as their best interests, not in the nation’s best interest or for that matter in the corporations’ “long term” best interests.

And I doubt even Eisenhower foresaw the actual capture of the top levels of government by corporate heads such as occurred when Dick Chaney became Vice President in 2001⁵.

Chaney sits on the Council on Foreign Relations and has ties to the Carlyle Group⁶ as well as being a former Senior Fellow at the prestigious “right-wing” think tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Chaney’s wife, Lynne, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. Curiously, Chaney reportedly continues to draw a $1,000,000 a year paycheck from Halliburton while serving as Vice President⁷. Apparently he sees no conflict of interest between taking this money and leading the decision-making process that allocates billions of dollars worth of bids to Halliburton as a result of the Iraq War! Furthermore, Chaney has been described as the most influential Vice President in history⁸. John Dean of Watergate fame calls Vice President Dick Cheney "the architect of Bush’s authoritarian policies," and deems Bush "a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality⁹."

While it is unrealistic to think we can do away with the “Military Industrial Complex” there are and/or should be ways in which the government can mitigate its influence over policy decisions both in the White House and in Congress. Certainly an immediate and necessary step would be to eliminate completely all contributions by corporations to candidates and elected officials, including trips and other gifts¹⁰! As a nation we should go further by outlawing the acceptance of “paychecks” or money by any other name by elected or appointed officials from firms, corporations and/or individuals associated with corporations and firms who are dependent upon the military for contracts. We should require them to recuse themselves (or at least disclose their relationships-- past or present) from any decision-making related to firms they have, or have had, contact with.

Unfortunately, this emphasis on corporate interests has had a spillover effect on domestic policy as well¹¹. The perception is that our rich keep getting richer while the poor get poorer¹². At the same time the middle class struggles to keep their heads above water. Families fight, even with two incomes, to get ahead. According to a recent Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it (the economy) is in “excellent” or “good” shape, compared with almost seven out of ten when George Bush took office¹³. Every measure shows that, over the past quarter century, those at the top have done better than those in the middle, who in turn have outpaced those at the bottom. The gains of productivity growth have become increasingly skewed¹⁴.

In the meantime children with both parents working (assuming a two parent household) are left to fend for themselves and the result is they often get into trouble due to lack of parental guidance.

Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm

And:

Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm

The situation is exacerbated when it comes to low income families. More often than not they are female headed single parent households.

Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm

When you examine children living in poverty it is even worse.

Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm

Not surprisingly almost half of the children living in a female-headed household live in poverty.

Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm

Not only do the children not have two parents at home, most lack a positive male role model. For many drugs and crime are the immediate results.¹⁵ According to The National Drug Control Strategy: 1997 “an estimated 12.8 million Americans, about 6 percent of the household population aged twelve and older, use illegal drugs on a current basis (within the past thirty days). This number of "past-month" drug users has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of twenty-five million -- a decrease that represents an extraordinary change in behavior. Despite the dramatic drop, more than a third of all Americans twelve and older have tried an illicit drug. Ninety percent of those who have used illegal drugs used marijuana or hashish. Approximately a third used cocaine or took a prescription type drug for non-medical reasons. About a fifth used LSD.” But in the long term lack of proper education and preparation to become productive citizens may take more of a toll on our future population.

On the domestic front then, immediate steps need to be taken to right the ship of state. We are the most powerful country in the world and as a result we have certain world-wide obligations. But we can never be successful on the world stage unless and until we address our own problems at home. Until we do, we will not be able to right the international ship of state. Our failure to right the international ship of state will cause us and the rest of the world to sink into deeper despair and continued strife.

Certainly President Clinton made some strides on the domestic front during his two terms in office. More jobs were created under his administration than under any previous administration in history; we saw the longest economic expansion in history; unemployment dropped to its lowest level since 1953; we had the highest homeownership rate ever recorded (66.8%); and, the lowest poverty rate since 1979. Perhaps his most notable accomplishment was his ability to deliver a balanced budget and even reduce the out of control federal deficit¹⁶.

Source: PPI | Front & Center | October 18, 2004, Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index
By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutton

Unfortunately, personal peccadilloes and the unprecedented attention and focus on them by right wing, religious Republicans¹⁷ and the press prevented him from making greater efforts to accomplish greatness and right the domestic ship of state.

However, despite setbacks, we have made some strides forward: This even while the nation continues to be divided and polarized. I would argue this division and polarization is a result primarily of the intentional actions of a few right-wing, religious zealots. It would seem that if you oppose them you are un-American, non-Christian and worst of all “liberal!” They even go after fellow Republicans who do not share their political platform. As John Dean notes, they (a significant percentage) want to follow an authoritarian dictator¹⁸. Dean notes that empirical studies show that authoritarians are regrettably, “enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral”¹⁹. Unfortunately the leaders of these “conservatives without conscience” now occupy the most powerful positions in the world: President and Vice President of the United States of America.

Not only did Clinton miss a great opportunity on the domestic front, another great opportunity was missed by the second Bush Administration after September 11^th to right, at least, the foreign portion of our Ship of State. We had the sympathy of nearly the whole world along with their support following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon²⁰. Unfortunately we had an administration in office that was hell bent on starting a war in Iraq and imposing their ideology on not only the United States but on other countries around the world rather than doing what was right²¹. The opportunity of the century was lost by our invasion of Iraq. In my estimation, George W. Bush and his administration have single-handedly set the United States back at least 50 years with respect to global relations and trust and respect from the people and nations around the world.

In getting ready for the mid-term 2006 election and more importantly the 2008 elections, the Democrats have attempted to come together to develop a strategy to take control of Congress and eventually the White House²² from the Republicans. So far, their ideas are mostly a rehash of old tired policies and rhetoric that didn’t work well in the past and, so far, offer nothing new for the future. They have yet to energize even the Democratic faithful, let alone the vast number of voters in the middle of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton²³, perhaps the leading Democratic candidate for President at this juncture, attempted to strike a slogan that would resonate with the voters by paraphrasing her husband’s successful 1992 slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” by claiming that in 2008: “It’s the American Dream, Stupid²⁴.”

The Republicans, on the other hand have been captured by the religious right and since they are in power, see no reason to change their strategies or policies. Those centrists Republicans either cannot wrest control from the right-wing faction of their party or are afraid to attempt to take control. They continue to concentrate on “non-issues” that are what many refer to as “values issues” – issues designed to elicit strong feelings among voters, especially those on the extremes: stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage. Surprisingly however they do not seem to be working for the right wing extremists.²⁵ Time will tell if this trend holds; yet the Center and even the Left seem frightened to death to touch these “hot button” issues and do the “right” thing. Perhaps the best hope for the right-wing, extremist Republicans are their ability to raise more money than the Democrats and the continued apathy of the center. The centrists Republicans seem to be willing to bide their time and wait for another day.

Likewise “left-wing” Christians have started to organize²⁶ to push back the right wing ultra conservatives who claim that God is on their side. Reuter’s reporter, Thomas Ferraro notes that they are intent on ending the war in Iraq, easing global warming, combating poverty, raising the minimum wage²⁷, revamping immigration laws, and preventing “immoral” cuts in federal social programs. Some argue that the religious left is becoming more active than it has been since the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy were key movers and shakers in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements of the 1960s.

But they have just begun and have a long way to go to secure a balance between the so-called “Christians” in the United States. No one seems to be much concerned or care about the other religious groups in the United States, let alone those that have given up on organized religion altogether. As Ferraro noted it clearly was the strong efforts of the religious right in 2004 that made the difference for President Bush. By bringing abortion²⁸ and gay marriage to the table they whipped up enough fever amongst the extreme right to push Bush over the top. Can they do it again? Time will tell, but as Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) says if the left leaning Christians don’t make an effort to counter them they will be successful again.

1 Dean confirms what many felt to be true: The impeachment of President Clinton was a “payback” by the right-wing conservatives for the Impeachment of President Nixon earlier. Dean states that: “Several Republicans (members of the House and Senate) told my that this was payback to the Democrats for what had been done to Nixon, and when I pointed out that Republicans had been part of that undertaking, a typical response was, ‘Yeah, but they weren’t conservatives.’” Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, page xxix.

2 Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, page xxi.

3 I recently returned from a trip abroad and found several expatriates who volunteered that they moved out of the United States in the past few years because they were ashamed to admit that they were citizens of this great country. I have also met several who still live in this country who, if given the means, say they would leave as well. Likewise when I talk to my circle of friends around the world (Europe, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, India, Mexico, Latin America, South America and Australia), almost to a person they tell me they love America and Americans but they hate the current administration and cannot understand why Bush and Chaney and their operatives do the things they do. I am at a loss to try to explain their actions to my friends as I do not understand it either except for the reasons I have tried to outline in this paper.

4 The full text of his farewell address is attached.

5 Not only did he serve as Secretary of the Defense Department under President George Herbert Walker Bush, he also served as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Energy Services! In addition he served as White House Chief of Staff under President Gerald R. Ford.

6 For many years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defense firms.

7 http://www.sourcewatch.org. Whether he does or not, in 2005, the Cheney’s reported their gross income as nearly $8.82 million. This was largely the result of exercising Halliburton stock options that had been set aside in 2001.

8 Ibid.

9Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, by John W. Dean. According to his findings, a vast majority of Conservatives are drawn into the Leader/Follower archetype, where the Leaders are considered infallable, and the loyalty of the Followers is completely unshakable. About "23% of the populace falls into the follower category" said Dean. "These people are impervious to fact, rationality and reality. And their numbers are growing".

10 Congress and especially the House of Representatives have been very reluctant to put curbs on lobbying activity and giving to political campaigns. Following the highly publicized lobbying scandals and misuse of charitable organizations, such as that by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Congress gave lip service to lobby reform. However it barely touched the surface to get at the root causes of corporate influence on Capitol Hill.

11 Among other things Chaney, for example, has strongly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, is anti-abortion, supports prayer in school (All right wing hot-button issues) and has taken the lead with the Energy Task Force, setting energy policy for the Bush administration.

12 According to The Economists, “The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country…..” They go on to say: “But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker – the one at the very middle of the income distribution – have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

13 The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them The Economist print edition

14 Ibid.

15 President Clinton in his National Drug Control Strategy: 1997 noted that “Nonetheless, we are deeply concerned about the rising trend of drug use by young Americans. While overall use of drugs in the United States has fallen dramatically -- by half in 15 years -- adolescent drug abuse continues to rise.”

16 The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003). It increased under both Clinton and Bush (in today’s dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

17 President Clinton was impeached in his second term and that process consumed most of his and Congress’ attention.

18 Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, by John W. Dean

19 Ibid., page xii

20 As reported by CNN: “Many countries introduced tough anti-terrorism legislation……and took action to cut off terrorist finances (including the freezing of bank accounts suspected of being used to fund terrorism). Law enforcement and intelligence agencies stepped up cooperation to arrest terrorist suspects and break up suspected terrorist cells around the world…..The attack prompted numerous memorials and services all over the world. In Berlin 200,000 Germans marched to show their solidarity with America. The French newspaper Le Monde, typically critical of the United States Government, ran a front-page headline reading “Nous Sommes Tous Americans”, or “We are all Americans”. In London, the U.S. national anthem was played at the Changing of the Guard…..In the immediate aftermath, support for the United States’ right to defend itself was expressed across the world, as expressed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368. The reaction to the attacks in the Muslim world was mixed. The great majority of Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks – virtually the only significant stand-out was Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq.

21 See Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks

22 Among other events was the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in Denver in July, 2006.

23 See her entire speech to the Democratic Leadership Council. Attachment 3

24 Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council that: “Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared.” She continued: “A lot of Americans can’t work any harder, borrow any more or save any less.” She said President Bush and the Republicans had “made a mess out of the country’s finances.”

25 A recent poll conducted for National Public Radio in the 50 most competitive House Districts found that on the question of which party would do a better job on “values issues,” like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, Democrats prevailed by their biggest margin in the entire poll: 51 percent to 37 percent. “And when we list values issues like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, these are the issues that Republicans took the initiative, used their control in Congress to get on the air to be voting on, to be talking about,” Democrat Stan Greenberg says. “What this says: By 13 points, voters say they are more likely to vote Democratic because of hearing about these issues. Which suggests that the strategy of using the Congress to get out the base in one that’s driving away a lot of voters.” On other issues like the war in Iraq, or the state of the economy, Democrats have a smaller advantage. Only on the issue of illegal immigration are the parties tied – in the view of likely voters in the most competitive districts.

26 Reuters, July 25, 2006 Religious left gears up to face right counterpart. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has said it is imperative for Democrats to seek to counter the influence of the religious right. He said: “If we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway”. See complete article in Attachment 2.

27 The minimum wage has not been raised in 10 years.

28 I believe abortion should be a decision entirely between the woman and her husband, her God and her doctor. Government has no business intervening. Likewise, I feel government has no business controlling stem cell usage for research.

Chapter 3 Fractured Political Parties

Fractured Political Parties

Traditionally, it didn’t matter that issues were not discussed in the election campaigns. Party and group politics governed. If the candidate was a Republican you knew basically where he or she stood running as a Republican on all of the issues. Likewise you knew where the Democratic candidates stood simply based on their party affiliation. If you belonged to a union, or were a blue collar worker, or an educator you knew you were to support the Democrats. Likewise if you were a business owner or a farmer you were for the Republicans. Life was simple and uncomplicated!

Party platforms were hammered out at least every four years during the conventions that selected the standard bearers of both parties. Interest groups then lobbied both parties for their points of view to be adopted by the respective parities with the promise of delivering a “block” of votes to the party that championed the particular groups’ issues. For the most part winning candidates actually tried to, and were surprisingly successful at implementing the planks of their party’s platform. Nowadays however, things have been altered. The parties do go through the motions of debating policy stances and building a platform but it is mostly smoke and mirrors designed for media consumption. The key these days seems to be “don’t rock the boat” for fear that the media will cover your differences and in the process alienate some voter or group. The result is both parties tend to have such watered-down platforms that they often are indistinguishable from one another. And that often leads to third party candidates running for office and muddying the waters further.

A further complication to the old style party platform is the fact that with all the early primaries and caucuses, the party standard bearer is known well ahead of the party’s national convention. With the leader of the party already chosen, delegates merely develop a platform that the eventual presidential candidate dictates. In the old days generally there were several viable candidates for the party’s nomination for president still alive at the time of the party convention and the result was there was a real debate between the various blocks of delegates over platform issues. It was only after the platform was hammered out and adopted that the delegates actually chose their standard bearer. Even this was often done after many votes and compromises. Not so today!

Interest groups often “hedge their bets”: They will support candidates of both parties in the hopes of being able to exercise influence no matter which candidate ends up with the most votes on Election Day. Gone are the days of honest knock down drag out debates in front of the television cameras. Too much is at stake to allow even the appearance of division or diversity in either the Republican or Democratic party. The net result is that the Republicans have driven the moderates out of the party infrastructure and the Democrats have adopted a centrist position trying not to alienate any voter. The result is voters no longer really know where candidates stand, regardless of party. Is the Republican candidate really a moderate or is he/she among the conservatives without a conscience? Is the Democrat committed to the traditional values of the Democratic Party or is he/she just trying to get elected in the most expedient way possible? Is it any wonder that the apathetic voter is reduced to voting on personality or good looks of the candidates – assuming they are energized enough to vote at all? Looking at voter turnout over the post World War II period we struggle to get 50% of the eligible population to the polls on Election Day, and in off-year elections it is even less! So in reality about 25% of the eligible population decides who will be our leaders, year-in and year-out.

Chapter 2 Authoritarianism, Fascism and Neo-Fascism in America

Authoritarianism, Fascism and Neo-Fascism in America

John Dean makes a strong case that the current Bush Administration is an authoritarian regime. I would go further and say it borders on fascism or neo-fascism. Fascism is difficult to define and over the years it has meant different things to different people¹. Neo-fascism generally refers to the post World War II brands of fascism so I will use the terms fascism and neo-fascism interchangeably. If we look at the major tenants of fascism (those which most scholars agree on) we see many similarities to elements of the Bush administration:

• Fascism is foremost an authoritarian regime. In John Dean’s book Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, he makes a compelling case that Bush and his followers, especially Vice President Chaney are authoritarian to the core. Authoritarianism is however but one component of fascism or neo-fascism. I believe had John Dean looked further he would agree that while authoritarian in nature the Bush administration has many of the other components of fascism as well.

• Fascism, especially neo-fascism, is strongly anti-communist and anti-liberalist in nature. They are opposed to any “leftist” policies that threaten property interests or support socialist policies. Of course the opposition to communism is not limited to the Bush administration: it is, and has been, an inherent component of both parties and all politician’s philosophies in the United States and has been a central theme of U.S. policy since the end of World War II and throughout the long “Cold War” period. However, the Bush administration pushes the envelope about as far as you can by asserting that “liberal” democrats are “pink.” This, of course, brings back memories of the McCarthy era in the 1950’s where communists and communist sympathizers were labeled “pinkos”. Most often right-wing Republicans over the past half century have blurred the distinction between communism and liberalism.

Recent history is replete with examples where democratically elected leaders are labeled or pushed into the communist (socialist) camp or overthrown by right-wing dictators supported by U.S. foreign policy through rhetoric and actions of the United States simply because they are liberal (We often label them socialist in an attempt to attach a stigma that is more acceptable to the American public.) in their outlook and have upset stable right-wing despots. Examples of our support of dictators and shunning democrats can be pointed to throughout the last half of the 20^th Century. Salvador Allende of Chile was overthrown by Augusto Pinochet in 1973 with the tacit support of the United States.

Our treatment of Gamal Abdel Nasser, certainly no democrat, in the 1950’s forced him to turn to the communist bloc for help. He came to power through a coup in 1952. As a dictator we supported him, however, largely because of the Suez Canal and our need to keep it open and available to the west. We, along with Great Britain, even pledged $56 million in western money in 1955 to help build the Aswan Dam. But a year later we withdrew that pledge which left Nasser no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union for assistance. To this day one wonders how different the politics of the middle east might be had the west built the Aswan Dam rather than the Soviet Union.

In Cuba the United States had an early opportunity to support Fidel Castro in his attempt to overthrow Dictator Fulgencio Batista. But we were supporting Batista and his corrupt government and chose not to support Castro. Again Castro was no democrat but he was not a communist then either. He simply wanted “liberal” reforms for Cuba which went against the interests of many powerful people (business interests) in the United States.

More recently we have been hell-bent on not supporting democratically elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela because he is a critic of the United States. Not only is he a critic of our foreign policies, Chavez has been very critical of President Bush.² Yet after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, the Chavez administration was the first foreign government to offer aid to the region. The Bush administration however, chose to reject that aid. Later in the winter of 2005, several officials in the northeastern states signed agreements with the Chavez regime to provide discounted heating oil for low income families³.

• Historically fascism has a strong corporatist component. Corporatism generally is the opposite of pluralism. Rather than groups competing for control of the state and decision making authority, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. Often this is done in secret, behind closed doors and out of view of the press or citizens. One example from the Bush Administration might be the energy policy discussion held by Vice President Chaney in 2001. The task force, formally known as the National Energy Development Policy Group, was created by President Bush in early 2001 to devise the nation’s energy policy. It was chaired by Cheney and consisted of 10 Cabinet-level officials who met with representatives from oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries⁴.

• Fascism generally includes a strong militaristic component too. Militarists hold the view that security is the highest social priority, and claim that the development and maintenance of the military ensures that security. Safety becomes the end all and the justification for all actions. In the United States this also goes hand-in-hand with Corporatism. I’ll speak more about this later when I discuss the Military-Industrial Complex. With Dick Chaney, a former Secretary of Defense, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush being the most powerful advisors in the Administration, the military focus has been primary.

I believe one could make a strong case that the Republican Administrations starting with Richard Nixon, with perhaps the exception of Gerald Ford, have increasingly been more fascist than democratic! And even those Republican Presidential contenders who were unsuccessful dating back to perhaps Richard Nixon in 1960 and certainly Barry Goldwater in 1964 were also demonstrating most, if not all, of the major components of fascism. Of those contenders only Gerald Ford and Bob Dole might have been the exceptions⁵.

Fascist or not and regardless whether Republican or Democrat, for the most part, we have lacked enlightened leadership over the past half century. For sure there have been instances of sound and sometimes even great leadership, but for the most part our leaders have taken the expedient course of action rather that action that has been in the best “long-term” interest of the United States. In this era of mass media and instantaneous news coverage, perhaps this is due to the increasingly high degree of scrutiny of the candidates by the media. No person in their right mind these days would subject themselves to such a review. More and more it would seem that only those who are power seekers in the worst sense of the phrase run for office at the national level. And those that are sincere and want to make a difference are often corrupted by the same power they are attempting to harness and control. Likewise, campaigns are primarily negative in nature, focused more on attacking the character of the opponent⁶ than being a true discussion of, and debate over, the issues. Even on the rare occasion when issues are discussed, it tends to be only a superficial debate which boils down to a few 20 second sound bites for media consumption. And in these modern times where continuous and instant polling occurs, once a candidate falls behind in the polls, they unfortunately start to throw “mud” at their opponent in an attempt to regain lost ground ……. and it goes downhill from there.

To a large extent the media themselves are to blame. They are in competition to get the greatest viewership or readership. To do so sometimes they promote the silliest of stories or headlines that then become issues of the day. One of the most ridiculous in recent times revolves about Barack Obama. When he announced his candidacy for the White House in February, 2007, the media didn’t start to ask about his stance on issues or even his experience. Instead, they raised the bogus issue: “Is he black enough to garner the support of the black community?⁷” I ask you, it that really important? Shouldn’t they be looking at his position on issues and perhaps his other qualifications to become president? To the cynical person it might be seen as a smoke screen by bigoted whites to divide the black community! No one has asked if Hillary or Condoleezza are women (or men) enough to become President? Will those be the next questions during this silly season? Those who asked the question about Obama seem to think that just because Hillary Clinton got more support within the black community than Barack Obama did, he isn’t strong enough with that group of voters! I would suggest that time will tell but it stands to reason that just a few weeks into the campaign Ms. Clinton is much better known than Mr. Obama and should receive a higher rating that him. After all, Hillary Clinton’s husband is often referred to as the first “black” President by many in the black community, so naturally his wife will receive a favorable rating.

1 There is a large body of work dealing with fascism and all the variants of the fascist movement over the years. One might start with: Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4094-9.

2 Chavez has openly referred to George Bush a pendejo (“dumbass”) and often refers to him as “Mister Danger.”

3 Andrew Miga, Associated Press, “Venezuela to expand cut-rate home heating oil to U.S.”, April 25, 2006.

4 The Bush administration formed the National Energy Policy Development Group to develop the nation's energy policy in 2001. However, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or the open meetings law, as it is better known, the task force refused to turn over information pertaining to who was involved and what was discussed. (This is same law conservatives accused Hillary Clinton of violating when she attempted to launch her secret government takeover of the nation's healthcare system in the early 1990s.)

Judicial Watch immediately filed Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal actions to bring the inner workings of the Energy Task Force out in to the open for public scrutiny. When the Bush Administration refused to comply, JW had no choice but to file lawsuits. Since that time, nearly 40,000 pages of documents from agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have been released into the public domain. Unfortunately, on May 9, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Vice President's Energy Task Force did not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Act. See Judicial Watch Press Release, July 22, 2005.

5 It is perhaps noteworthy that of the Republican candidates for President since 1960 those that have been successful have, with the exception of George Herbert Walker Bush, have all come from the Governor’s ranks. At the same time the unsuccessful candidates have all come from the legislative branch of government. Of course Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush did serve as Vice President and both had short stints in Congress. Gerald Ford never won election as President but was elevated to that post as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon. He served for years in Congress before being appointed to the position of Vice President to replace Spiro Agnew who resigned under a cloud of tax evasion.

6 Maybe it is time to establish a review committee to approve all ads prior to their being aired.

7 Surprisingly this was the main topic on Nation Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation” on February 15, 2007!

Chapter 1 Background

Background

For over 200 years America has been the democracy torchbearer for the world: setting the example for all others to strive toward. However, in the past few years our torch has flickered and at times threatens to go out completely. We seem to have lost our way. The lofty ideals that America has stood for over the past two centuries are in the process of being derailed. While we give lip service to democracy at home, we often act more like a fascist dictatorship than a democracy. Our leaders prefer to make decisions behind closed doors rather than seek input from the American public. And worse, the public doesn’t seem to mind that decisions are made in secret. Today leaders tend to use the public only to support a decision or direction they have already decided on.

In our interactions with other countries, as a government, we seem to promote democracy abroad only when it is convenient for us to do so and then only when it is in our own image or, more correctly, in the image of those in power in Washington. At the same time we support some of the most despicable dictators in the developed world when it appears to suit our interests or suit the interests of our large corporations. We tend to ignore tyrants and the problems they create in Third World countries because they either support our interests or they are perceived to have no value to us. We need to reexamine our role and responsibilities at home and in this world and start over again.

It is not always the politicians that are to blame however. For the most part, the American public seems to turn a deaf ear to what goes on in Washington. We appear to be more interested in the latest “reality” TV show or the latest scandal in Hollywood than what is happening within the beltway! And when we do pay attention, our opinions are split 50-50 on nearly every issue – foreign and domestic, big and small, important and unimportant. On the right of the political spectrum, approximately 23% are, in John Dean’s words, “authoritarian ideologues” and on the left there are approximately 11% who are determined ideologues in their own right. Neither group is interested in debating or compromising. Both only seem interested in being “right”! The remaining middle, while probably willing to debate and compromise on the issues, are apathetic to the point of not caring¹ and as a result opt out of the political debate altogether.

We are a government and nation in crisis. The challenge for mainstream Republicans and Democrats alike is to get the middle engaged and active so the extremes, especially the large extreme on the right, can be nullified. We are stalemated as a great nation. We have always been a pluralistic society and that has served us well and in the process made us great. As a nation we have always thrived on diversity and differences. Yes, we have been slow at times to accept differences and assimilate those differences into the mainstream of society, but for the most part we have always striven to do so. Even with the most divisive issue of the past 200 years—equal rights and racial relationships--we have made, and continue to make, strides to bring all races into the mainstream of the American fabric.

As a pluralistic society and nation we always knew that we must come together and work out solutions that were neither perfect nor totally what any particular group wanted in order to move this country forward. We perfected the art of compromise. That is, until recently! We now seem to have lost it. Many of our leaders are mean-spirited and look only for total victory. Instead of fostering a win-win situation they look forward to a zero sum game: Total winners and total losers! The result, more often than not is stalemate.

Today powerful forces, albeit a minority, are trying to turn us into a monolithic society-- the anathema of what we have always stood for. It is not just the Bush administration that brought us to this point although his administration has expedited the process and polarized the nation more than any other President in modern history² (Perhaps a level of polarization that that we have not seen since the Civil War 160 years ago.); it is something that has been building for nearly 50 years – sometimes more aggressively than at other times, but none-the-less building. We have lost sight of our “mission” at home and around the world. We have lost sight of what made us great. We need to get back on track-- supporting and fostering those ideals that everyone looked up to. We need to learn all over again that civility is prudent and compromise is necessary. Come back America, …….come back.

1 Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, by John W. Dean

2 John Dean notes in his latest book, Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience that: “Contemporary Conservatives have become extremely contentious, confrontational, and aggressive in nearly every area of politics and governing.” During the administration of Daddy Bush, there was a “presumption of civility”—not so under son Bush and his administration. Dean quotes Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute: “we lost it under Clinton,” when he notes that conservatives relentlessly attacked Clinton’s presidency and the present Bush “…deliberately chose a strategy of being a divider, rather than a uniter.” Dean goes on to say more troubling is the deliberate and open defiance of international treaties and blatant violations of domestic law by the Bush-Chaney presidency and the fact that they continue to push the limits of presidential power “beyond the parameters of the Constitution.”

More

Several months ago (July, 2006) I started to write a book on the upcoming Presidential election. Because of pressures at work I got stalled and never was able to complete it. However I will attempt to publish what I have completed in this blog over the next few blogs.

My first blog

I guess the first thing to do would be to introduce myself:

I am a 68 year old white man, who is highly educated and I consider myself to be a liberal Democrat! When I was much younger I was a Republican but my hero, John Lindsey (former Mayor of New York City), switched from being a Republican to a Democrat in the mid-60s. I followed suit and switched at that time. While it shouldn't matter, I am also gay. (Unfortunately people in our society like to put labels on you.) As long as I can remember I have been interested in politics, not running for office but studying the political process and trying to understand the American psyche!

My first opportunity to vote was in the 1964 presidential election (not counting some small local and school board elections in Kansas, where I was raised. It is interesting that in the first election my sister and I voted in our candidate won by two votes.) I was an avid Barry Goldwater supporter. By 1968 I was a staunch Democrat however and have voted Democratic every since, except perhaps for some local candidates. In the late 1960s I even managed a Republican candidate's run for the state legislature in Kansas. We won the primary but I was off to graduate school and he lost the general election! To this day, I'm not sure if my being there would have made a difference or not.

I spent eight (8) years in the Air Force, first as an enlisted person and then after going to Officer Candidate School and an officer in the Atlas ICBM missile program. I served during the Cuban Missile Crisis and was eventually assigned to NASA when the Air Force had visions of having a secret manned space program. Then came Vietnam and Congress realized that we could not afford two separate manned space programs.

In 1967 I got out of the Air Force and returned to college to finish my B.A. degree. I had a double degree in Political Science and History. In 1970 I went to graduate school majoring in Political Science. I received my M.A in Political Science in 1973 and completed all my work toward my Phd, including being admitted into candidacy. I never finished writing my dissertation for a number of reasons: 1.) my fellowship had run out and I went to work full-time and 2.) a member of my dissertation team moved on to another university and his replacement wanted me to change my topic. Since I had been admitted into candidacy and my prospectus had been accepted I wasn't ready to change topics simply because he thought I should. Furthermore, I had thought I had wanted to become a college professor but after teaching for a few years and working in an administrative capacity I realized I enjoyed the administrative role much more than the "publish or perish" role.

After working in the university setting for a number of years I went into government work in 1984. Except for a couple of years trying my hand in the private sector, I have been in government every since.