You Know Me Al: The Iraq War --- So What was it About, Anyway?

Column No. 8 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – March 16, 2004

As I have said before, most of the material that you read under my by-line is mine.  But occasionally I do present some thoughts from a political historian friend of mine, sent privately to me over time, that I think are worthy of note.  It happens that he wants to remain anonymous in The Political Junkies context.  The material, lightly edited by me, is used with his permission. His initials are “A.L.,” and his thoughts, with apologies to Ring Lardner, will appear in this column under the title “You Know Me, Al.”   This piece was written in May, 2003,

Widespread looting in Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities!  The destruction of the museum of antiquities in Baghdad including the removal of such items as a tablet on which was inscribed the Code of Hammurabi. I believe that it was the first known set of rules of law. (How ironic that its disappearance is the result of the combined work of two men for whom the rule of law is viewed only as an impediment to their continued rule, Saddam Hussein and George Bush.) This destruction will go down in history as of the same order as the burning of the library at Alexandria, c. 400 CE.  (My note: well perhaps not that apocalyptic; there have been some recoveries since that time, but I don’t know if the Tablet was among them.) The US, even six days later, is doing little to control the situation (although it is now doing more than the absolute nothing it did for the first four days or so).  As for the museum specifically and how it was allowed to fall to the mob, I have heard two stories, both on NPR.  One is that the museum directors, anticipating trouble, asked the US forces to guard the place, and were refused.  The other variant is that the US forces agreed to do so and then did not.

Among the critics of the US/UK invasion, the widespread reaction to these events, and the ongoing incapacity and partial destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, esp. electricity, pure water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, health services, fire-fighting, garbage collection, etc., has been "how could the invaders not plan for this predictable outcome?"  Thinking it over, I think that they did plan for it, that in fact things are going pretty much according to plan, and that this plan for the humbling of Iraq and its inhabitants is part of a larger US plan (to which the UK may or may not have been privy) that has been going extremely well, from its perspective.  To wit.

Let us assume that the primary reason for the invasion is oil and its control by the US (with a few drops here and there allowed to the UK).  An article by Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, Senior Analyst for the Middle East Economics Study Program of the Middle East Media Research Institute of Washington, DC (www.memri.org, a generally pro-Israeli think tank) projects how US control of Iraqi oil could eventually be used, among other things, to destroy OPEC, or at least Saudi domination of it (No. 131, April 10, 2003).  An article by Bill Vann of the World Socialist Website (www.wsws.org, April 8, 2003) cites an article by Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger in The National Interest magazine that projects the privatization of Iraqi oil to the major Western (mainly US) oil companies.

I, and many other observers, had thought that the US simply wanted a friendly government in Iraq, in control of its oil, but partial to US interests.  But now, two of the major planners of the whole project tell us that they want to go beyond that to a situation that has not existed since the Saudis nationalized ARAMCO in the mid-70s: actual US oil company ownership of Middle Eastern oil reserves, not just control over marketing and distribution.  Profits are even higher if you own the stuff in addition to selling it at the retail end.  And you are subject to the winds of no one else's fortunes.

(My note: For the past six months or so, published plans for the “privitization” of the Iraqi economy [read takeover by foreign --- read US with a few drops for the UK --- capital] have specifically excluded the oil industry.  I asked my friend about this and he said, “Just watch, in the dark of one of those desert nights, even though they couldn’t find any WMD they’ll find a way around that one.”)

We know that the Iraq war planning at the Pentagon has been going on for at least eight years and that, for example, Marines have training in urban warfare at a specially constructed "city" of the Middle Eastern type in the New Mexico desert for as many (Pentagon generals have said this on the air).  We know that the war was underway, through the use of Special Forces, for months (that is throughout the whole debate in the UN) before the main invasion.  We know that the Powell speech of Feb. 5 to the Security Council about the "evidence" of WMD was obviously false, as least to some extent if not in toto.

If the US knew that Saddam had WMD, and further if it knew where they were to the extent that it could demand that the UN act immediately: a) why did it not simply provide this intelligence to Blix and if it were not acted upon immediately then demand that the inspection process be changed to detection, with direct US participation, or b) why did it not now during the invasion go directly to the sites it supposedly knew about?  Why, because what the US knew, if it knew anything at all, was that either there were no WMD or that if there were, they existed in a severely degraded condition.

So why did Powell lie?  To get the Security Council to approve the "second resolution?"  I think not.  I think that the strategy was exactly the opposite. Before we go on to a consideration of what the strategy is, whether or not Blair is privy to it is interesting, but immaterial, except for British politics of course.  Do note, however, that the British forces in the "coalition" have been sequestered in the South, nowhere near Baghdad.  They are near the southern oil fields, but plenty of US forces are too, and the Brits were bogged down for quite some time in subduing Basra, a large city.  They are certainly going to have no say in the future national military governance of Iraq.

Based on the assumption that Kissinger and Perle did for some unknown reason (arrogance, hubris, whatever) let the cat out of the bag, and that the US goal for Iraqi oil is not only to control its distribution but also to actually own the stuff, privately, what kind of government does the US want in Iraq?  A national, democratically elected one?  One that could, for example, possibly is moderately left-wing (there were left-wing elements in the original Ba'ath Party, murdered by Hussein the same way that Hitler murdered the left-wing elements in the Nazi Party in June, 1934)?  One that could, heaven forefend, include Iraqi communist deputies?  One that could some time in the future say, "You know this oil really does belong to the Iraqi people and we are going to administer it for their benefit?"  Hardly!

And so, would the US then want a national government at all?  Hardly.  Iraq is gradually splitting up before our very eyes.  Under the cooperative Brits, a Shiite regime is being established in the South (although there is already internecine warfare going on among them for control of it, [Diep Hiro in the London Independent, April 11, 2003]).  A Kurdish State is being established in the North, with the US "allies," the Turks, be damned.  (The US was probably just as happy that the Turks didn't allow it to use Turkish territory for basing ground troops, nor allow the use of Incilrik for launching air strikes.  Now the US owes Turkey nothing, in re the Kurds.)  A Kurdish government, landlocked as it is, will be quite easy for the US to control and will be happy to give up ownership of the oil for a royalty. And after all, who are they going to send against the US armed forces, peshmurgah fighters?  And now, with control of those two big airbases in Western Iraq, the US will soon have no need for Incilrik.

As for Baghdad and the looting.  If the US had stepped in right away, the cries would have gone up about "imperialist/infidel military government," etc.  Now the US has been asked in by some local Iraqi leaders, at least.  And in the meantime, virtually all national records have been destroyed, among other things.  What that means is that the possibility of forming a new national Iraqi government becomes even more remote and less of a potential headache for the US.  And so the trifurcation of Iraq is becoming a reality (remember the British colonial policy of divide and conquer?)  As for the promises made by George I to the Saudis and the Turks that he would not do this (the reason he did not go on to Baghdad in 1991), in return for the use then of Saudi and Turk territory for staging areas, the old double-cross seems to be in the Bush genes.  After all, George I told Saddam, through the American ambassador April Glaspie, just before he invaded Kuwait, that it would not stand in his way (See Chap. 8, "The Gulf War," in Jonas, S., The New Americanism, Port Jefferson, NY: Thomas Jefferson Press, 1992).

Now, how does this all fit with what Powell et al did at the UN?  Given that the long-term US goal is private ownership of Iraqi oil; did the US have any interest in having a UN role in any armed enforcement of its resolutions?  No way.  UN sanction, and a broad coalition would have included at the very least French troops (promised by Chirac should Blix have eventually declared the inspection process at an impasse) and possibly Russian ones as well.  That would have meant that those two countries would have had a leg to stand on in their demands that their oil contracts with the Iraqi government be enforced.  (A side issue to the trifurcation of Iraq and with at best only a weak "Federal" central authority, but no true national Iraqi government, means no legal successor to the Hussein government, and thus no one of whom the French and Russians could ask for enforcement of their contracts.)

And so, I have come to the conclusion that the Powell effort was a charade, intended to fail, and in the bargain get the French and the UN to look bad to an American public somewhat skeptical about going to war without UN sanction.  I think that the invasion date had less to do with the weather than with a fear that if the inspection process kept going, and the Iraqis kept saying with (to date at least) truth on their side that they had no WMD, but with American demands getting ever-more insistent, the French and Russians would have caved and joined the invasion, the very last thing the US wanted.

Furthermore, making the UN look bad to the US public, by setting the "shirking of duty" trap, makes it much easier for those forces in the Administration that want the US to leave the UN to sell that to the American public and the Congress.  I think that the US intentionally made 1441 open to interpretation, rather than the other way round.  If Blair were in the plot from the beginning, then he would be the perfect guy to ask for a second resolution, with both the US and the UK holding their breaths just in case it might pass.  Of course, Bush had already announced that he was going to invade anyway, regardless of what the UN did.  And of course, the Bush "diplomacy" (redefined by the Georgites to mean talking with the parties on your side, in contradistinction to the usual definition, talking with those parties with whom you have a dispute) was done in such a way as to almost assure that the second resolution wouldn't pass or if it did that the French and/or Russians would veto it.

Perle et al, have been working on this plan since the mid-90s (Perle, R., "Saddam Unbound," in Kagan and Kristol, eds., Present Dangers, San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000).  As have the military planners (under the Clinton Administration, it should be noted).  The Special Forces were on the ground for months.  British and US activity in the "no-fly zones" (not UN sanctioned) had been stepped up while the UN inspection process and debates were ongoing. The military plan was meticulous.  It boggles the mind to think that there were no plans for, for example, the possible outbreak of civil unrest.  The plan was, in fact, to let it happen, so as to make it that much easier for a) Gen. Jay Garner to come in with a military government and b) to proceed with desired trifurcation of Iraq.

(My note:  Well, right now, the trifurcation of Iraq is not happening, and the public position of the US is that the Iraqi oil industry is not to be taken over by foreign powers.  It does look as if there will be a national government for Iraq, at least on paper.  So maybe my friend wasn’t all right, although I do think that he was right about Powell, the UN, and making sure that they wouldn’t join in the intervention.  But the history of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is far from over.  And Perle and Kissinger certainly have not publicly gone back on their statements about Iraqi oil.  So maybe, down the road, my friend will be proved to be right after all.)

A Word (or two) on Ralph Nader

Column No. 3 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – March 11, 2004

Well, all the world knows that Ralphie boy has done it again.  How should progressive Democrats react?  Yes, we could talk about why, if one is really interested in changing the Democratic Party, one didn’t do what Governor Dean and Rep. Kucinich did, entering the Democratic primaries?   Yes, we could engage in analysis of Nader’s ego needs (as some leaders have already done): why did he have to start on another one of his destructive ego trips outside of the Party? We could ask if, regardless of any other considerations, it is really helpful for progressive politics and policies for Nader to be doing what he is doing? (Apparently he really, really, deep down thinks that it is).

It should be noted that Nader hardly gives one the impression that he is capable of negotiating anything.  How much change in the Democratic Party would be enough for him?  It has already changed a great deal in the last six months, due in large part to the efforts of Dean and Kucinich.  One observer of the latest Nader raid said that the Democratic Party “needs to grow up.”  Well, yes, if “grow up” is taken to mean really differentiate itself from the Republicans, shed the DLC, and return to its 20th century, Progressive Era/New Deal roots.  But that process is, finally, underway.  When we are talking about Ralph Nader, it's the man with the ego larger even than that of Mario Cuomo, who now needs to grow up.  But those types of considerations are at base aimed at trying to change Ralph Nader’s behavior.

In my view, that is a lost cause, a total waste of time.  This man is totally convinced of his own rightness.  He will listen neither to leading Democrats who agree with him on many of the issues, nor even to a number of his own advisors, former and possibly even present.  He marches to his own drummer, whose drumbeat is so loud in his ears that no other sounds can possibly get through.

So let’s forget about Nader and either trying to analyze him or worse yet, trying to get through to him with a view to getting him to back off.  If the results of the 2000 election couldn’t do that, I don’t know what can. His behavior is so obviously unchangeable that why then should time and effort be wasted trying to change it now?  Thus what we need to do now is ignore Ralph and aim at getting through to the Nader voter, past and potential.  Here are a few suggestions for how to do that.

1.  Don’t run guilt trips.  Don’t focus on the 2000 election.  Focus on the 2004 election.  Focus on what happens if the Georgites (as I like to call them) get re-elected.  Focus on the need, therefore, for every possible Democratic vote, in every single election district no matter Democratic it is.

2.  Point out that while neither the Democratic candidate (whomever it might be, most likely Kerry) nor the Democratic platform is or will be perfect, on many of the major issues, both are and will be certainly a lot closer to the interests of the potential Nader voter than are those of the Georgites.  And on some of them, like the principles on which health care and environmental policies should be based, it is virtually the same (unless I have missed something and please, don’t swamp me with detailed differences).

3.  Point out that if Nader voters and especially activists get involved in the Democratic primaries and the Democratic platform-building process now, they will have much more influence than they could have as outside voices, which many Democratic voters and most of the Democratic leadership would look upon with scorn.

4.  Point out that (as mentioned above) because of the efforts especially of Gov. Dean and Rep. Kucinich, both of whom have pledged to support the eventual Democratic nominee even though they won’t agree with him on every issue, the Democratic Party has changed, significantly.  As late as last fall, the message coming from both the DNC and the Congressional leadership, to say nothing of certain prominent candidates, was a primarily DLC-accomodationist, “let’s-not-offend the [supposed] ‘center’” one.  It has now become a full-throated roar from virtually all sectors of the Party (note the absence of the DLC from the chorus) to throw out the Georgites and replace them with radically different people and policies.

5.  Please, please, please, we should say to these folks, if nothing else, don’t ignore what has happened to the Federal judiciary under the Georgites, how that process would be compounded many fold should they be re-elected, and what impact that outcome would have on so many interests that progressives have in this country.

And so.  Let’s focus on the Georgites, let’s focus on the issues, let’s focus on potential Nader voters and what their concerns are, and let’s just forget about Ralph.  If you happen to be interested in payback (not an interest of mine), the worst thing that could happen to Ralph personally is to be finally ignored, and to go down in the history of Presidential campaigns as just another Ralph Stassen/Lyndon LaRouche.

Postscript

For those of you interested in seeing how Ralph Nader thinks on paper (and it is fascinating) rather than over the airwaves, take a look at the March 8, 2004 issue of The Nation.  In the Letters column Nader has a very long reply to The Nation's plea to him not to run that appeared in the February 16 issue. – (See Nader’s Letter and the Editor’s Reply by clicking here: The Nation)  He of course said "no," but he did it at great length.

He also seems to be caught in a time-warp, justifying his running by attacking a Democratic Party that is fast undergoing major change before our very eyes.  But Nader either cannot see that or doesn't want to.  He can't take "yes" for an answer.  He cannot declare victory and say, "OK now let's work very hard to make sure that all of our very correct concerns most surely get into the platform and Sen. Kerry's primary message."  He cannot even claim some credit for forcing that change (although since he has been just attacking, not trying to build, I don't think that much of the credit belongs to him).

The Democratic Party is in the process of changing because of the work of Gov. Dean and Cong. Kucinich, the work of people like Steve Gheen and Michael Carmichael and Joe Napolitan, the work of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, and yes because of the work of people like Sen. Kennedy, an old-fashioned liberal who just happened to supply the steam that reinflated the Kerry campaign on both process and substance.  Unless there are some very big surprises in Sen. Kerry's choice for VP and in the platform, the DLC is on its way to being history.

This all tells us that the focus on the Nader issue must be on the potential Nader voter.  The man himself (who without a party may not be able to even get on the ballot in very many states anyway) should be simply told that he is behind the times.  The train has left the station, and he ain't on it.  Of course he could have been if Democratic Party reform were what he really is about.  But it isn't.

But in his letter, he did lay out many issues that are important. I don't have to repeat the list here.  And so, the Party can address his voters with the "these are the issues that we know you are interested in, and this is how our party is handling them.  Perfect, no, but who is?  Much better than the Georgites, and not just a lesser evil, however, aren't they?"

Let's focus on that and leave perfectionism to Ralph Nader.

Junkie: Dr. Jonas has aptly captured the perfectionism that lies at Nader’s core.  I encountered Nader in the early 1970’s when I introduced him to a very large audience in the mountains of North Carolina.  In the personal time I spent with Nader my sense of the man was: brilliant intellect; highest moral character; Spartan dedication to his cause; and pursuit of perfection in all things.  Certainly the attributes of a true sage, but unbending and uncompromising pursuit of perfection in a political system designed to foster compromise in order to reach a majority consensus is impractical.

Dr. Jonas has the best prescription for the approach the Democratic Party should take in dealing with the “Nader issue.”  I would only add that we should never speak ill of any man who has dedicated a life’s work to the betterment of mankind – even when we should disagree.  Nader has earned and deserves that respect.

A Firebell in the Night

Column No. 2 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH -  March 4, 2004

As is well known, a so-called "Gay Marriage" Constitutional Amendment has been introduced into the Congress.  It is supported in full voice by the leader of one of the two major political parties (who just happens to be the President).  What has not yet been widely recognized is that with its introduction, the United States has entered into what will in my view become the most serious Constitutional crisis since that which eventually led to the Civil War.  This essay will present in outline form the principal reasons why I consider this to be the case.  Over time, I hope to be returning to consider the issues in some more detail, as will, of course, many other commentators, over time.

At present, most observers considering the Georgite proposal for a Constitutional amendment to ban "Gay Marriage" from a critical perspective are using one or more of the following arguments against it: that it violates "States Rights;" that it represents the Politics of Distraction; that it's not "fair," "just," "moral," etc.

I have serious problems with the "States' Rights" argument as one on which progressive forces should rely.  Its origins lie in the pre-Civil War political conflict over the institution of slavery and the post-Civil War conflict over legal segregation of African-Americans in the South.  Thus, for most of our history it has been used as a basis for fostering white supremacy, racial discrimination and other reactionary policies.  Furthermore, it has often been criticized for being faulty in terms of what the Constitution actually says about the matter.

As a reader will see below, certainly I am in full agreement with the second and the third arguments presented above.  However, I will not consider any of these arguments further here.

I will consider a list of other issues and arguments that I think are rather more important.  They have to do with the Constitution itself and what the adoption of this amendment would mean for it and our future as a nation.  Indeed even were it never to pass in its present form, its introduction, and its support by a President who took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, are chilling, one might say terrifying, events for persons who revere the Constitution and the values that it, in its present form, represents.

As I said above, these arguments are here presented in outline form, not necessarily in order of importance. While I intend to deal with one or more them over time, I hope as well that others will do the same.

A.        Marriage in this country is bimodal.

There is religious marriage and there is civil marriage.  In promoting their position, without at this time saying so openly, the Republican Religious Right is using as justification for the amendment the religious dictums of a particular English translation of the Bible (from Latin from Greek and for the Old Testament from Hebrew from Aramaic), known as The King James Version.  (It is, among other things, a notoriously homophobic text.) In doing so, they want to define all marriage as a solely religious matter, with their particular religious view being controlling.

But in the US, marriage is also a civil institution, covered by civil law.  Many people now get married without any religious aspects to their wedding.  And for any marriage to be legal, wherever and by whoever performed, a civil license is needed to make it legal. The provisions of that license are defined in the civil law of the jurisdiction in which the marriage takes place.  When two people get married in the civil realm, they take on certain responsibilities and obligations that are defined by law.  Thus there clearly is a civil institution of marriage that has nothing to do with religion.

Nothing prevents any church now from saying that it will not perform same sex marriages.  And that is how it should be, under the 1st amendment.  However, because it defines marriage in the religious context, this amendment would have the effect of eliminating civil marriage in the United States, making it a purely religious matter.

Under the Constitution as presently written, since marriage does exist in the civil as well as the religious realm, it is the equal protection clause that the 14th amendment applies to the states that indeed does entitle any two people to get married in the civil realm in the state in which they reside.  The Republican Religious Right knows this very well.  When they (including Bush) attack “a few judges,” what they are really attacking is the Constitution itself.  For they know that, unless they get this amendment passed, or unless Bush gets re-elected and gets to pack the Supreme Court with Radical Religious Rightists, even this Supreme Court will eventually rule all of the existing state anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional.

B.   The issue is not one of "States' Rights," that is "Rights" that the states can independently wield against Federal authority outside of the confines of what is granted to them by the Constitution.

However, it is very much an issue of the historical "Police Powers," which arose centuries ago in English law.  The Police Power covers such local government functions as policing, sanitation, pure water supply, zoning, education, and yes, civil marriage.  While it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is generally considered to be among the body of powers delegated to the States by the Tenth Amendment and in historical practice has been treated that way since the earliest days of the Republic.  This amendment would remove authority over civil marriage from the states.  What local authorities might be next, one might ask?

C.   The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Judge Bork refers to the Ninth, very inconvenient for reactionaries and Right-Wing “strict constructionists,” as a "blot upon the Constitution."  The 9th is very much in play when it comes to the matter of same-sex civil marriage.

Actually, I am a “strict constructionist” myself. I take such Constitutional elements as the (largely ignored) Preamble (which provides a very broad statement of purpose for the Federal government) and the Bill of Rights very seriously and literally.  I also consider that the ambiguity so widespread in the Constitution was put there purposely by the Founders that it was their Original Intent that within the limits set by the specific parts, the Constitution could grow and change with the Republic and its people. One must note that judicial review itself, which the Right used to select the current President, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  It was an invention, an invention based on legal logic to be sure, but an invention nevertheless of Chief Justice John Marshall.

D.    The Georgites have been attacking the whole concept of an independent judiciary since they took office, both directly and by appointing to the bench judges who do not believe in it, but rather believe that the judiciary should be subservient to the Executive Branch (as long as that branch is in the hands of the Right Wing, of course.)

When a reactionary Court was able to gut large parts of the New Deal, in opposition to the will of the people, the Right was all for that.  Bush has made a point of linking his support of this amendment to the role of "a few activist judges."  "Activist judge" in the Georgite vocabulary means "any judge who renders an opinion on the meaning of the Constitution that does not agree with ours."

E.    The introduction of this proposed amendment also recognizes, as I said above, that unless they were to get full control of the Supreme Court, that that body, reading the 14th, would eventually have to rule that gays are entitled to marriage, not just “civil union,” under the (civil) marriage laws of each and every state.

The original Constitution discriminated against one group of people.  Otherwise, it promoted rights, not denied them.  It took a Civil War to eliminate that written discrimination and then another century of struggle before the meaning of the 15th Amendment, the Original Voting Rights Act, was actually put into enforceable law.  This amendment would reintroduce into the Constitution formal discrimination against one group of people, based on who they are, what their nature is, as people.

F.    While many Republicans are racists, many are not.

Nevertheless, the Party does have its Southern Strategy that is based in racism.  However, that force is gradually losing its political utility, especially as the nation becomes darker skinned and more multi-cultural. Since the time of the Great Depression and the New Deal, and now especially that the Cold War is nothing but a memory, the Right has relied principally on racism for gaining and maintaining power.  It is clear that certain Right-wing forward planners have recognized the need to target a new group around which discrimination could be rallied for political purposes, as it has used racism since 1964.  Who better for their purposes than the homosexuals?

As none other than Newt Gingrich said in 1985; when addressing the issue of AIDS (The Freedom Writer, “Inside Glen Eyrie Castle, August, 1994, p. 1): “AIDS is a real crisis.  It is something you ought to be paying attention to, to study.  AIDS will do more to direct America (sic) back to the cost of violating traditional values, and to make America (sic) aware of the danger of certain behavior than anything we’ve ever seen.  For us, it’s a great rallying cry (emphasis added).”

G.    This amendment could easily be used as a basis for passing all kinds of homosexual discrimination laws.

One could see a reactionary, Georgite Supreme Court, say with Justice Scalia as Chief, using this amendment and its "original intent" as they would interpret it, to justify such laws under the Constitution, simply because it (literally) discriminates against a particular group of people, based on who they are.  Just see Dred Scott.

Since the basis of the definition of marriage it uses is religious, not civil, by putting it into the Constitution, the "Wall of Separation," heavily under attack from the Republican Religious Right for the past 40 years, would be essentially demolished.

Again, by its mere introduction the Republican Religious Right has signaled the beginning of its formal assault on that Wall.

H.     Bush said that the definition of "marriage" is based on its ''cultural, religious and natural'' roots.

Not that we could fairly expect this dumb and ignorant man to know any better, but it is of course simply not true that the definition of marriage is historically immutable.  In the 19th century, it meant that the woman became the property of the man and that her property did too.  In the Middle Ages there was "doit de seigneur," the right of the feudal lord to have the first night with any woman any of his male serfs married.  Perhaps they are thinking about re-establishing that, the qualification for "seigneur" status to be something like a minimum of $100,000.00 per year to the Georgite campaign fund.

I.       I don't want to go too far out here, but this could be the first step on the road to outlawing homosexuality.

The Republican Religious Right thinks that it is a matter of choice. As Trent Lott once told us when he was Republican Majority Leader and the third leading Republican politician the country, it is after all a sin (and that because the Bible, as the particular translation that Lott reads --- one must ask, did God speak English, a language not around when he supposedly laid down the “inerrant” text of his thought --- says so).

Finally, in Nazi Germany, before the Yellow Star came into wide usage following the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, known homosexuals (other than those in the upper reaches of the Nazi Party such as Ernst Roehm, Commander of the SA until his murder by Hitler for political, not sexual discrimination reasons, on June 30, 1934) were required to wear a Pink Triangle.

I believe that this battle must be fought on these grounds, not simply on fairness or state rights.  This one has meaning for everyone, because if the homosexuals are first, who could be next to have the rights that they presently under the explicit elements of the Bill of Rights, under the 9th, and under the 14th eliminated?  Why, for example, could the next step not be an amendment defining marriage solely as a religious institution and perhaps specifying which religion(s)?

Let us not limit the argument simply to the rights of homosexual American citizens, as American citizens (which argument should of course be used as well).  Let us remember the words of Pastor Nimbler in Germany which went something like: “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Let us not make the same mistake the pro-choice movement made years ago, by arguing that the issue was a woman of child-bearing age's right to choose her desired outcome of pregnancy, until the time of fetal viability.  The primary issue then, as now, is the right of everyone to his or her own belief as to when life begins.  This is an issue for everyone who wants to remain living in a (relatively) free, but definitely not theocratic, country.

In 1820, an Act of Congress called the Missouri Compromise permitted the expansion of the institution of slavery beyond its original boundaries.  Thomas Jefferson referred to that Act as a “Firebell in the Night,” warning of future bloody conflict.  For our time, the mere introduction of this Amendment, a rallying cry for the Republican Religious Right with enormous implications for the nature of our society, with all of its grave potential consequences for the future of Constitutional democracy in the United States, supported as it is by the present President of the United States, presumably to become policy for his Party indefinitely, regardless of the results of the next Presidential election, should be regarded as well as a “Firebell in the Night.”

On DOCTOR Dean

Column No. 1 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - February 7, 2002

JUNKIE EDITOR, MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

TPJ is honored to welcome Dr. Steven Jonas as a TPJ contributing author.  Dr. Jonas opens with “On DOCTOR Dean.”  Dr. Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author of some twenty books.

Dr. Jonas is one of America's most perceptive Democratic political analysts. He has written two books expressing his political theories: The New Americanism and The 15% Solution.

In The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles, and he urges a swift return to support for the constitution as the best source for America's patriotic, political and social culture. He defines American patriotism as commitment to our core constitutional principles. Revealingly, he points out that the Republicans have adopted a false definition of patriotism that places reverence for the flag, the presidency and the military above all other constitutional criteria.

Dr. Jonas' second book, The 15% Solution, is a novel set in America's not too distant future. Published in 1996, The 15% Solution describes the unification of the religious right with the Republican Party which initiates a period of American fascism signaled by draconian legal discrimination against gays and lesbians. Chillingly, many of Dr. Jonas' predictions have already taken place. With this week's announcement by Bush that he and his Party now support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay and lesbian marriages, Dr. Jonas is now being heralded as a prophet of the collapse of American constitutional culture. I urge all Junkies to welcome Dr. Steve Jonas and to read his two important books.

Greetings to the friends of The Political Junkies.  TPJ has been kind enough to invite me to become a regular contributor, and I am most honored to accept.  I tend to think and write in the analytical/historical realm, although I do occasionally get into “news-of-the-moment” issues as well.  But even those, I tend to deal with from the analytical/historical perspective. I also like to engage in strategic planning from time to time.  Thus Steve plans to have my stuff appear in the Thursday sub-issue, with which I am starting today.

Most of the material that you will read under my by-line is mine.  But occasionally I will present some thoughts from a political historian friend of mine, sent privately to me over time, that I think are worthy of note.  It happens that he wants to remain anonymous in The Political Junkies context.  The material, edited by me, is used with his permission. His initials are “A.L.,” and his thoughts, with apologies to Ring Lardner, will appear in this column under the title “You Know Me, Al.”

This first piece, entitled “On DOCTOR Dean,” is one of his.  It was written in May, 2003, just after that first nine-person debate in South Carolina, I believe it was, that was generally viewed as a not-too-good outing for the Governor.  What eventually happened to his candidacy will likely be the subject of several books and more than one doctoral dissertation over the years.  But given what did happen, I think that my friend’s observations were rather prescient.

“You Know Me, Al.”

“On DOCTOR Dean”

Dear Steve  I had a thought about the Governor's personality and why he may be reacting the way he did in the "Big Nine" debate on Saturday.  If I'm right, there is an issue/problem.  But, to use your lingo, it is diagnosable (sic) and treatable.  And doing so would certainly help him to improve his chances of gaining the nomination.

The Gov. is, first, a doctor.  And like many of those in your profession (so you have told me) he may well suffer from what you have called "doctoritis."  That is, most doctors, and I would certainly include the Governor in this group, are pretty smart.  They have to be; otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into medical school.  The problem is that a) they know it and b) they do not suffer fools, or even other smart people, gladly.  How many doctors do you know who can hold a real conversation with someone?  To do so means you have to think that the other person has something of value to say. And there is nothing in their education or experience that helps them to overcome the malady.  Those who do, and there are some, have to draw on insights and lessons of life from outside of their medical training and experience.

Doctors are used to diagnosing and prescribing, telling patients what they have and what they need to do about it.  Doctors give orders, literally.  That is what most of them are trained to do.  The Governor was a family practitioner.  Contrary to what might be generally thought, you have to be real smart to be successful in that specialty, because it covers such a wide range of human maladies.  Furthermore, you have got to have all of that knowledge in your head.  You do also have to "keep up."  While doing so is pretty straight forward, it happens that the demands that these docs are meeting are ones that for the most part they place on themselves.  Unlike in the political realm, they are not often placed on them by anyone in the outside world.

So here is a real smart guy, trained to give orders, and not necessarily trained to listen to others (except in an information gathering mode).  He got to be Governor of a small state by happenstance, and then managed to stay in office for a long time.  But Vermont ain't the US and his opponents in the state were not like those he is facing now.  Nor is the media up there, between Burlington and Brattleboro.

You know that a lot of folks in the business of politics are not that smart.  Successful politicians have other skills of course.  Just look at one of the dumbest (as well as most ignorant) people ever to inhabit the White House, the current incumbent.  So what may be going on with the Governor, as he starts to go out into the big-time political world, is that a) he doesn't like to waste him time with people who aren't as smart as he is, b) he thinks that he can wing it in venues like Charleston based on how smart he is, what he does know and how he can think on his feet, and c) generally, doctor knows best.

Like so many doctors I know, he thinks that he knows it all, and for what he doesn’t know he thinks he can wing it.  In other words, doctor knows best (to coin a phrase).  You and I know that this is not going to work in a national campaign for the nomination, much less the Presidency.  How do you get to Carnegie Hall?  No matter how much talent you have, it's practice, practice, practice, and until you get up to top, top level, it’s coaching, coaching, coaching.  And even some of the greatest musicians have coaching for their whole careers.

This man has some great ideas, especially about what’s is going to be needed to energize the Democratic Party and that mass of people who, customarily non-voters, who would come out and vote Democratic, given something truly different from what the Republicans have to offer to vote for.  But to get the nomination, he is going to have to be much better prepared on the issues, history, and their details.  And he is going to have to be open to being coached on moderating that doctor-arrogant tone of his, and be able to accept his coaches’ advice and change in accord with it.  I do hope that he will be able to do this, for he is a good man, and with some work, would, I believe, make a great President.

And so wrote AL, last May.