What Are the Alternatives?
By David Peterson at Mar 06, 2006 |
|
In calling the following report from today's Wall Street Journal to my attention---
"Impeachment Proves Risky Political Issue," Jeanne Cummings, Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2006 (as posted to Truthout)
---a friend of mine noted that "This important article shows the huge disconnect between the U.S. populace and the elites who run the show and dominate the media, a small group that Jeff Faux calls the 'governing class'." (Incidentally, for Faux's blistering new study of the same, see The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future -- and What It Will Take to Win It Back (Wiley, 2006).)
As my friend's note continued, the Journal article
I believe that my friend's comments were dead-on. And myself would add only that, their great power aside (e.g., the Bush regime's proclamation that the Government of Iran submit to it by renouncing Iran's own right under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to engage in the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes---or else face sanctions, or military attack), the unfitness of the Americans to engage with the civilized world is never clearer than in reports such as this one in today's Journal. Because what the report shows is that, as long as they invade other countries, rob their resources, threaten, kill, and torture foreign nationals, the managers of the American State are free to act in as criminal a fashion as they like. Hence, each of the articles of impeachment that dragged Clinton all the way to the Senate floor turned on lying under oath or obstruction of justice charges deriving from questions about his genitals. But as for lying about war and peace and American Power? Nothing.shows that whereas Clinton was impeached despite a large majority hostile to the idea, Bush is free from impeachment and even any significant discussion of the subject in the mainstream media, although a majority would favor impeachment if he lied us into a war. The rightwing and business class can “get” a Clinton, who they disfavor; and they can protect a Bush, who serves their spiritual and business needs -- even in the face of both popular sentiment and massive law violations and criminal behavior.
No matter how many American citizens might like to redress things, still, they lack a political party to which they can appeal for change. Just as they lack the necessary media for communications with which to express their interests and desires, and raise each other's consciousness accordingly.
Now. It seems increasingly unlikely that the rest of the world can count on the Americans to address, let along to settle and solve, the grave problems that their way of life poses not only to themselves. But---to the world.
This includes the impeachment of the Commander in Chief. A move which---however appealing it may sound---would do absolutely nothing to change The System, that American Way of Life, which undergirds it all.
So, what really are the alternatives? Which is to say: What are the real alternatives?
But we can't vote out The System. Much less impeach the American Way of Life.
Still. I am open to suggestions.
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, Center for Constitutional Rights (Melville House Publishing, 2006)
"Excerpt: Articles of Impeachment," William Goodman, Center for Constitutional Rights, as posted to Alternet, March 6, 2006
"Impeaching George W. Bush," Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006"Impeach 'Em All," ZNet, November 14, 2004
"Treason and the American President," ZNet, December 18, 2005
"A Failed State," ZNet, December 30, 2005
"Attacking Domestic Society I," ZNet, January 9, 2006
"A Loyalty Test," ZNet, January 11, 2006
"Attacking Domestic Society II," ZNet, January 20, 2006
"What Are the Alternatives?" ZNet, March 6, 2006
Postscript (March 17, 2006): Some very important material here on the depths to which the criminal spirit flows beneath the American Government:
"Reprogramming the Infinite Loop: The NSA Spying Debate," Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, March 17, 2006
And since we ourselves can't vote the Military-Industrial Complex - slash - National Security State out of office---and by this stage in American history, any national election in which the liquidation of this complex of institutions isn't an option must be regarded as worse than a sham---indeed, as a colossal subversion of the will of the people---perhaps the time has come for us to begin to appeal to those other forces around the world that might be able to come and help liberate us?



Is Impeachment REALLY the Answer?
By Kissenger, Clark at Mar 07, 2006 14:07 PM
David
It's not the dusty ole Constitutional tool of impeachment we need to dust off. As it has been said so many times before, getting rid of a single person is not going to do it. It's the structure that needs fixing. It's the structure that allows the most suspect, criminally oriented political animals to rise to the top, leaving far behind whatever ethics and morals they might have at one time possessed.
No, the dusty ole tool we need to take down off the shelf and get it all shined up again for use is called the Declaration of Independence, one of the finest documents ever written by the hand of man. Allow me one small quote and I will stand back and let others absorb the depth of its meaning:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I do not call here for a violent revolution but, instead, a revolution of the non-co-operative. A Gandhi-style revolution of non-co-operation, non-violent civil resistance. JUST SAY NO - We will not pay your taxes. We will not work in your factories. We will not serve in your military. We will not vote for your candidates.
Reply this comment
Low density democracy
By Kissenger, Clark at Mar 07, 2006 11:08 AM
Here on US Gunboat UK there was a contained blip of impeachment comment at about the time the British troop deaths in Iraq were approaching the one hundred figure. Kind of reinforces what the first commentor said.
This Guardian piece is a loose-cannon comment-styled piece including a chauvinist snipe at the ex leader of the Lib Dem party. It reminds me of the snide comments made in the press at ex-Labour leader, Neil Kinnock's expense.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1705695,00.html
I'm afraid I just did not want to pay up the £1 to get the whole Independent article. But, in the manner of the guardian article, it limits the impeachment debate in its headline to Tony Blair. I guess Jack Straw wasn't really in that room with the head of MI6 and Blair when they were told Washington was going for Saddam and going to fix the facts around that policy. And what of Defence Minister Hoon, and most of Westminster, who went along with the war; and the 'serious' British media...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article342145.ece
Samir Amin, in his book Obsolescent Capitalism uses the term low-density democracy to capture the essence of Western democracies and their economist, expedient practices, supported - by a compliant media, select commentators and 'experts' given the oxygen of sustained dissemination - as the policy that is the natural and only way forward, in the interests of corporate-driven globalisation. I am wary of citing a Marxian theorist here, but Amin is a subtle analyst of succinct density, who, as an Egyptian, is well aware of the pitfalls of Eurocentric vanguard-party Marxism.
Amin is understandibly fatalistic, but, in my view, the bottom line is that globally educated non-apologist, non-containing grass-roots movements are the only way forward.
There was an interesting program on UK terrestrial tv today looking at the effects of global warming on the amount of fresh water entering the North Atlantic from melting Greenland ice-flows (travelling at twice the speed they were 10 years ago) and flooding Siberian rivers (that dwarf the Mississipi already!). The irony is that a complicit Western Europe, while gearing up slowly for global warming, could be hit by a fresh-water halt to oceanic convection that draws warm currents north.
Western Europe could, ironically and devastatingly, become a frozen continent with ice flows in the English Channel/La Manche. Presumably that's what Blair means when he introduces 'our way of life' tropes into UK political culture in his support for military petrol-head Bush - our manifest destiny is to be very uncomfortably numb!
Reply this comment
You're absolutely right,
By Kissenger, Clark at Mar 07, 2006 01:06 AM
Reply this comment