THE DICK DURBIN DISASTER:" A FOLLOW-UP

Column no. 68 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH July 14, 2005

Last week I in this space, I published a lengthy column on what I called “The Dick Durbin Disaster.”  This week I am on vacation, so my column will be (for some readers, I know mercifully) somewhat shorter, but on the same subject: recognizing that we are in a war with the Republican Religious Right over Constitutional democracy.

Last week Stephen Gheen kindly introduced my article with the following words [slightly emended]:

“Dr. Steven Jonas authors an article today that [puts in bold letters] the problem that threatens the vitality and reemergence of the Democratic Party.  Dr. Jonas frames the issues with simple perfection: ‘Do we want to win?  Do we really want to restore and preserve our precious constitutional democracy and above it, the Rule of Law?  [If we do], the first thing we have to do is recognize that there are sides in this battle and then recognize who is on which side.’  [In his column] Dr. Jonas draws the sides and provides some critical [recommendations] for Democrats.”

Over the years since 9/11 and the Georgites’ response to and use of it to undertake in earnest their long planned full assault on Constitutional democracy in the United States, I have occasionally thought of a union song from the 1930s by a woman named Florence Reese.  Although we in the upper middle-class, left-wing, Depression/New-Deal Era households of the type in which I grew up, in New York City had not-too-much in-depth knowledge of, and certainly no direct experience with, the events, or even the type of events, to which it referred, the song was a staple.

The song was about the situation in the coal-mining county of Harlan, Kentucky that came to be known as the “Harlan War,” during which the county came to be known as “Bloody Harlan.”  The “J.H. Blair” referred to in it was the local sheriff who, after he had his men violently break up a local meeting of the National Mineworkers Union, famously said: “The Red revolt in Harlan County has been crushed!”  For a further brief history of the period, I refer you to http://www.carlestes.com/bloodyharlan.html.

Let me share with you the lyrics of that song, which often bring tears to my eyes when I think of them, and do now as I write this.  Will we need to have a book entitled Cry the Beloved Country written about our glorious land too?  For me, these words just resonate so well down to our own time, sadly on so much larger a scale.

“They say in Harlan County there are no neutrals there You’ll either be a union man or a thug for J.H. Blair.

“Chorus: Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

“My daddy was miner and I'm a miner's son And I'll stick with the union 'til every battle's done.

Come all you good workers, I have good news for you I'll tell of how our union has come in here to dwell.

“Chorus: Which side are you on? Which side are you on?”

“Oh workers can you stand it? Oh tell me how you can; Will you be a lousy scab or will you be a man?

“Chorus: Which side are you on? Which side are you on?”

Don't scab for the bosses, don't listen to their lies Us poor folks haven't got a chance unless we organize.

“Chorus: Which side are you on? Which side are you on?”

In defense of the Constitution, there are only two sides.  Just as on the slavery question, there is no middle ground.  You are either for it, or agin’ it, as they would say in the hills of Kentucky, and North Carolina too, for that matter.  The only question now is: is our side going to organize for its defense and protection before it is destroyed by the Republican Religious Right, lead by the Georgites, and win the battle through organizing and electoral politics?  Or will we have to fight for its Restoration after they have completed the campaign of total destruction leading to theocratic fascism they are currently engaged in?

TPJ MAG

THE DICK DURBAN DISASTER

Column No. 67 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - July 7, 2005

A moderate rises on the floor of the nation's legislative body, one that is dominated by conservatives.  He notes with anguish that his nation has begun to treat imprisoned enemies in a manner that many consider to be inhumane.  He uses as his source a member of one of the national security services who has seen first-hand what is going on.  He is particularly critical of the personnel who are carrying out the inhumane treatments.  He compares them to those who did similar things in the Soviet Union.  The events of which he speaks have been widely reported upon, from a variety of sources, not just the one he cites, and not in the official media.  Members of the government and the official media that support it immediately and ferociously attack him.  The attacks on him for "demeaning our young men and women" become so vicious that he eventually apologizes for his remarks, even though it is well known that they were right on target.

So let us see.  What is the setting, what is the facility and program, and who is the cast of characters here?  The Senate, Dick Durban, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Dick Cheney, the Fox”News”Channel?  Well, yes.  And was Dick Durban right?  Well, yes.  The process of arbitrary arrest, with the arrestees not being told of any charges against them, not being provided with either legal representation or trial, with the claim being made that because they were a “danger to the nation” they could be held indefinitely, that is just what happened in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.  Conditions in and the treatment of prisoners held at Gitmo bears many similarities to the situation in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union, as well.  To illustrate the point, and to bring the Nazi-Georgite comparison into even sharper focus, specifically, let us note that the setting for such a speech and what happened subsequent to it laid out above could easily have been the following.

The German Reichstag shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act could have been the setting.  The Act gave Hitler and his designees the power to arrest anyone deemed a "terrorist" and then imprison them indefinitely without charge, representation, or trial, just on his own say-so, just as the Patriot Act does for Bush.  The person rising could have been one of the few centrists left in that body, say a member of the Catholic Center Party just before it joined up with the Nazis.  The facility and program could have been the first concentration camp set up by the Nazis in March 1933, at Dachau, to house political prisoners labeled as "terrorists" by the regime, arrested arbitrarily without charges, and etc.

The attacker could easily have been Joseph Paul Goebbels, the Nazis' chief propagandist, just as Cheney is for the Georgites.  And then there was the national Nazi Party newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Fox”News”Channel of its day.  "How dare you," they would all say, "compare our brave young men and women [members of the SS] with the barbarians of the Bolshevik monsters?  You could not possibly be more un-German if you tried.”  And they would hammer this message home day after day, never, ever, ever dealing with the substance of the charges, known most widely (although in Germany not reported by any of the media, and this is an important difference, giving us some hope for the future) to be absolutely correct.

Sen. Durban was thus more right than he likely knew.  What then, is the "disaster" of this episode?  He attacked the Georgites the wrong way.  He focused on the guards personally, or at least focused on them enough to allow the Georgites to treat everything he was saying about what is going on at Gitmo and elsewhere in the gulag and what went on in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union, as an attack on our "fine young men and women."  Sen. Durban should have been focusing on the powers the Patriot Act gave the President to arbitrarily arrest and imprison forever, if he so pleases, anyone he labels as a "terrorist."  He should have been focusing on the presidentially sanctioned policy that not only condones torture but also encourages it.  He should have been focusing on how both types of Presidential action violate the Constitution.

He should have made it clear that in referring to Nazi Germany he was referring to all the totally abhorrent things that went there for years, well BEFORE the Holocaust got underway, AND that were certainly very important enabling factors in its development.  He then should have referred to the prison guards at Gitmo and elsewhere as victims of this policy, forced to act in ways that every true American rejects as totally abhorrent to our traditions of fairness, justice, and Constitutional government.  (Remember the "we were only following orders" SS refrain if any of the U.S. war criminals ever come to trial somewhere.) The Senator should have counter-attacked strongly, demanding a discussion of the reality of the situation, exposing the Georgites for what they do over and over again, killing the messenger so that they can avoid dealing with the message.  Apologize?  For getting the facts right, but not phrasing them in quite the right way?  Never should have happened.

Dick Durban's heart was in the right place.  What he said was absolutely correct, historically.  However, we face a very determined and highly skilled enemy, just as intent upon destroying American Constitutional democracy as the Nazis were intent on destroying German Constitutional democracy.  All of us opponents of the regime are going to have to hone our skills of verbal attack/counter-attack and searing debate to a much higher level, if the atrocious violence and seared landscape of theocratic-fascism and a resultant Second Civil War are not to be visited upon the nation of the United States of America.

Addendum

Shortly after the famous “Karl Rove Speech” of June 22, 2005, in which he reintroduced with a vengeance the Bush Policy Doctrine of “you’re either for us or against us” and “anyone who disagrees with me is aiding and abetting the enemy,” I received an email letter from John Kerry.  (I will be dealing in detail with the major significance of the Rove Speech in my column next week.)  I reproduce it here in part.  It is a prime example of exactly how not to deal with the Georgites.  Sen. Kerry said:

“Just hours after learning about an outrageous speech delivered by Karl Rove, President Bush's most senior advisor, I went to the Senate floor -- and I spoke from my heart.  I want to share those words with you -- not as a Democrat or Republican, not as a liberal or conservative -- but as an American.”

Sorry, John, Rove is right.  There is a difference, a big difference, between liberals and Democrats and those who call themselves “conservative,” (“reactionaries” or Republican Religious Rightists” are much better terms).  Our side, our Congressional representatives included, have to recognize that before it is too late.  The Georgites are the enemies of Constitutional democracy.  They make that clear over and over again.  You do not combat that by saying “we are all in this together.”  Kerry went on to say:

“[L]ook again at what Karl Rove said: ‘(P)erhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security.  Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.’”

Yes indeed, John, Rove lied through his teeth about the facts of who said what about whom, and who did what in response to the 9/11 tragedy (which the Sen. later mentioned).  But then Sen. Kerry went on to say further:

“I hope you will join me right now in signing an open letter to the President urging him to thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops. . . .  This is not the first time that Karl Rove and other White House officials have sought to divide America in ways that make it harder to keep our country safe and our democracy strong.  But, it should be the last.  That's why I ended my speech with a call on President Bush to fire Karl Rove.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Bush would not fire Karl Rove in a million years.  He agrees with everything Rove says.  Everything he says is reflected every day in Bush’s words and deeds.  (Actually, since it is highly likely that Rove runs Bush rather the other way ‘round, Bush couldn’t fire Rove if he wanted to.)  Leaders like Kerry must stop dealing with Bush as if he were a) above the battle, b) not an integral part of the enemy of Constitutional democracy, c) not joined at the hip with Karl Rove (and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld), d) someone who can be appealed to by our side, and e) someone who can be appealed to on the basis of reason.

Wake up, John, and all of the other Democratic leaders who do the same thing.  Bush is not above the battle.  He is leading the other side.  Instead of appealing to him to do something about the latest outrage coming from a member of his Administration, with the brush of the outrage, paint him all over with it.  “This is what Karl Rove said.  This is what Karl Rove charged.  This is what Karl Rove thinks of “freedom and democracy.”  And Karl Rove is the President’s man.”  Do we want to win?  Do we really want to restore and preserve our precious Constitutional democracy and above it, the Rule of Law?  The first thing we have to do is recognize that there are sides in this battle and then recognize who is on which side.

This column is based in part on my Short Shot No. 67: “The Dick Durban Disaster,” that appeared at http://planetmove.blogspot.com/on Thursday, June 23, 2005

TPJ MAG

WHY ALL OF THIS REPRESSION ABROAD?

Column No. 66 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - June 23, 2005

In this space, we have talked about Georgite repression abroad and Georgite development of the instruments for repression at home.  This column is another in that series.  According to an article by Peter Maas entitled "The Way of the Commandos" that appeared in The New York Times Magazine on May 1, 2005, US authorities in Iraq have organized an Iraqi "counter-insurgency" force that looks and acts much like the "counter-insurgency" force that the Reaganites organized in El Salvador in the 1980s.  Funnily enough, it is made up of Sunni Moslems who were among Saddam Hussein's crack troops, going after other Sunni Moslems who may or may not have been in the same commands.  However, money does buy loyalty, especially when there are not too many jobs to be had by ex-Saddamite soldiers.

The tactics?  According to Maas very similar to those used in El Salvador: summary execution, torture, indefinite imprisonment without specific charges and certainly without trial, holding family members responsible, destroying homes, and so on and so forth.  On whose watch was this effort organized?  Why on none other than that of the third American Pro-Counsel in Iraq, John Negroponte.  He just happened to be the US Ambassador in El Salvador when the "dirty war" against the "leftists" (which led to an estimated 70,000 deaths, mainly civilian) was being carried out there.

There was the scathing report from Human Rights Watch on the Abu Ghraib-Guantanamo­Afghanistan-"secret locations" U.S. international gulag (http://www.hrw.org/,scroll down to the "United States"), followed by the equally scathing report from Amnesty International (http://www.amnestyusa.org/) that focused principally on Guantanamo Bay.  The HRW report came out, to little notice in the US, just after most of the top chain-of-command officers connected with the Abu Ghraib horror had been exonerated by the Army.  (The Amnesty report received much more attention, because, quite unusually for them, the White House with their attack dog Cheney leading the way, chose to respond to it.)

The one exception to the exoneration of the senior Abu Ghraib commanders was Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the only female in the group, who got off sometime earlier with a relative slap on the wrist.  Of course the top, top officials responsible for setting the overall policy, the current US Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General and the President who signed off on their directives, never even were investigated in this country.  The Republican Congress is, after all, much too busy investigating the UN "oil-for-food scandal" and steroid use in Major League Baseball.  (Talk about WMD, Weapons of Mass Distraction.)  The Human Rights Witch report also appeared at the time a group of grunts directly involved with Abu Ghraib have confessed to or been convicted of participation in abuses.  One wonders if some future Secretary or State will have on his/her resume participation in the cover-up, as did a recent occupant of the first in relation to the My Lai Massacre.

An outcry has occurred, even in major media sources in the US (see the Amnesty International website) over the Guantanamo Bay scandal of the denial of any rights at all to those prisoners held there (to say nothing of how they are being treated, starting with routine sensory deprivation (Newsday, June 15 2005, cover), many of whom seemed to have been rounded up randomly.  In response, Sec. of Defense Himmler, I mean Rumsfeld, had this to say (News day, June 15, 2005, p. A5): "[The United States] does not want to be in the position of holding suspected terrorists any longer than is absolutely necessary.  But as long as there remains a need to keep terrorists from striking again, a facility [Guantanamo] will continue to be needed.”  You think that I am going over the top in using the words Rumsfeld and Himmler in the same sentence?  It is just the term that the Nazis used as they rounded up political opponents from the git-go of their regime.

And why will Guantanamo Bay in particular be needed?  Listen to Deputy Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins, who works for "The Geneva-Conventions-are-Quaint-and-We-Can-Just­-Ignore-Them-Even-Though-They-Are-Part-of-the-Constitution" Attorney General Gonzalez: "It's our position that they [the prisoners at Guantanamo] can be held in perpetuity.”  He makes this statement because, dear readers, under the U.S. equivalent of the German Nazi Enabling Act, the Patriot Act, it is all perfectly legal in these United States at this time.  They can be held in perpetuity because the President has designated them as "terrorists.”  Under the Patriot Act, which the President is so desperate to have made permanent, once that designation is made, persons held have no legal rights.  That the Supreme Court said a year ago that they do is meaningless.  The Georgites just ignore that ruling.  But then again, doing such things is part of the Georgite definition of "freedom and democracy."

By the way, the whole library records thing and the Patriot Act is a smokescreen.  The Georgites just gave Republicans in Congress something to hide behind, to "compromise on.”  The real stuff in the Act is the destruction of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments by the President, acting on his own authority.

Why, then, is all of this going on?  Why is torture being developed to a fine art among US forces?  Why is the US involved in organizing and supporting death squads once again?  Does it have anything to do with fighting terrorism, a worthy fight indeed?  Well, there does not seem to be any evidence of that.  Other countries, like Spain, are reeling in terrorists without resorting to these kinds of tactics.  As for death squads, they may have worked well, after the 70,000 deaths, primarily against civilians in El Salvador.  However, in Iraq, against other former Saddamite thugs, when most of the non-Kurdish people of the country just want the U.S. to leave, could the Death Squad strategy be useful?  Not likely.

My guess is that there is a long-range plan in operation here.  I think that the neo­-reactionaries/theocratic fascists know what they are doing.  The bulk of the Georgite program for constant war abroad, destruction of all government at home except for the instruments of repression and support of corporate power, and religious oppression at home is being kept secret from the American people.  They could hardly win elections on their real platform.  However, as their program becomes more and more obvious, opposition and then resistance to it, even given the totally gutless DLC-dominated Democratic Party, is going to become more widespread.

Eventually they are going to have to employ some very violent, very vicious tactics at home to suppress it.  What is going on here, against a group of poor Muslims, some of whom may have been terrorists (who could be dealt with, of course, by the conventional US civilian anti military justice systems which provide legal rights), but many of whom simply seemed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?  In my view, strategy development, technique perfection, target practice, facilities design experiments, and training for personnel, for what they will eventually turn on us here, on a much larger scale.  There is simply no other explanation for what the Georgites are doing.

The Patriot Act has given them the legal tools to do this, as I have said more than once in this space.  The attack on the independent judiciary, led by the likes of DeLay, Frist, and their close comrades-in-arms like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, becomes stronger every day.  A recent Act of Congress has given the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, unprecedented and totally unconstitutional powers to violate Federal statutes in a whole variety of areas from the awarding of contracts to voiding child labor and civil rights laws pertaining to his responsibilities, on his own volition.  And so, prepare for Georgite violence.

To undertake that kind of violence you have to have the systems and personnel in place, ready and able to carry it out.  Ergo, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, "detention in perpetuity" (without charges, without access to legal counselor the courts), and the Iraqi Death Squads.  In addition, who is running the "intelligence" side of the operation?  None other than John Negroponte of El Salvador and Iraqi Death Squad fame, who now just happens to be the top dog for all US intelligence forces, domestic and foreign.

I must say that I think that the charge that the presently foreign U.S. international prison system for people held in this manner constitutes a "gulag" is totally unfair.  "Concentration camps" would be a much more accurate description.  In pre-war Nazi Germany the concentration camps were set up (starting on the night of January 30, 1933 just after Hitler had become Chancellor, even before the passage of the Enabling Act) precisely to imprison "terrorists" (as the Nazis called them in the beginning) in perpetuity, without legal rights.  The Nazis used the concentration camp system, on German territory, to spread their terror and consolidate their power, long before they added the Death Camp (mainly outside of Germany) and slave labor (both inside and outside of Germany) features to it.

It is so ironic.  In the Time magazine article on the new Star Wars movie, it says, "Under Darth Sidious, the Sith Empire will shred and swallow up the fragile Republic .... Over the galaxy, the silence of repression will fall.”  Why is it that we are so good at talking about repression when it is in the past or in the movies, but not when it is staring us in the face?

Note: This column is based in part on my Short Shot No. 59: George Bush's United States, May 2005-05-09, that appeared recently at http://planetmove.blogspot.com/.

TPJ MAG

NOT VERY INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Column No. 65 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - June 16, 2005 (Slightly edited, Nov. 7, 2006

"Intelligent Design" (ID) is an hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth, the Earth itself, and the Universe.  Although its developers claim that it is a science, by science's own definition of the term, it is not.  Science uses the known to explain the unknown.  Science uses data, physical evidence, measurement, reproducibility, experimentation, and an array of facts of this type, not just one.  It then proceeds to make logical deductions based upon the array of facts that it has uncovered or discovered.

With two exceptions, ID attempts to explain the unknown, how life began and has come to be, as we know it now, in terms of the unknown.  This is just what religion does.  The essence of religion is to attempt to explain the unknown in terms of the unknown.  This characteristic can be observed on a regular basis at any religious service and in any religious text.  The exception to the religious mode of explanation that ID employs is that it does use facts, in a limited manner.  Actually, it uses just one fact, a fact of observation and only observation: life as we know it is very, very complex.  Rather than use an array of facts, as science does, it stops there.  One fact.

The one other characteristic that ID has in common with science is that starting with its one fact, it then attempts to use logical deduction, if/then; if/then; if/then, to arrive at an explanatory conclusion.  There is one little difference, however.  Science uses logic to derive explanations for observed phenomenae from evidence that science has discovered or experimentally produced, using, however, an array of facts, not just one.  That is, if this is the reproducibly factual case, then, using logic just the way ID does (the one method that they have in common), this is the most plausible, believable explanation.  Such is scientific proof: here are a set of measurable facts, and over here is the best explanation for them at this time.

ID, however, uses logic only in an "it must be" mode that it has made up, without reliance on an array of facts or any of the other tools of science as laid out above.  That is, ID states: life is very complex (provable; the one fact it cites); it could not have gotten here on its own, so to say (not provable; just a statement of opinion with no reproducible facts to back it up); consequently, there MUST have been an "intelligent" (not defined) force, with universal consciousness, around at the beginning of time (again undefined).  It does not tell us why “there MUST have been” using anything other than pure guess-work, not information gathered from observation, analysis, and experimentation like science does; just that  ‘there must have been.”  This ID hypothesis postulates some guiding force, presumably in existence some time ago (how long appears to be unstated), endowed with "intelligence" (however that may be defined), such a force being responsible for life as we know it. How did this “guiding force” come into existence?  That is, “Mommy, who made God?”  This they don’t bother to tell us. This approach to developing an understanding of the origins of life on Earth has been criticized from many scientific quarters.

However, in this essay we are examining a different question.  For our purposes here let us assume that the ID folks are right, that there was some conscious or sentient force around at or even before the beginning of time that set things in motion.  The question then becomes, was it intelligent?  Was it smart?  Did it know what it was doing?  Is it therefore worthy of our recognition, or, shall we say, worship?  Well, using the ID method of deduction from one fact, I've got to come to the conclusion that given the evidence we have before us, evidence that the ID people themselves refer to, that is that the existence of the human species is the end result of the operation of forces that the Designer set in motion, it was not Intelligent Design that set the whole thing up.  In fact (if I may use that term when discussing ID), looking at the facts present in our era, one must conclude that it was Not Very Intelligent Design at work, not Intelligent Design at all, in fact.  For just look at what he, she, or it has produced, now and over the ages as the end product of all that work.

The human species is the one that slaughters itself in gigantic numbers.  It is the one that slaughters huge numbers of members others species, indeed makes extinct huge numbers of others species in whole, species that also were presumably the result of the work of the original Designer.  The human species is one that ravages the natural resources of the Earth into which it has come, so that certain of them, such as petroleum, will eventually be completely used up.  It pollutes and indeed poisons the environment in which it lives, both for itself and for the other species, at an ever-increasing rate.  Its current policies threaten its own very existence as a viable species and may threaten the future of all life on Earth.

Intelligent Design?  Sadly, no.  Couldn’t be.  If there were some conscious force around at the beginning of all of this, given the final outcome of its work, the human species, using the one fact and the logical deduction method of the ID school, one must say that it must be characterized rather as the Not Very Intelligent Design source of all things.

Postscript:  Obviously, my dear readers, I am making fun of the ID people here.  At the same time I am showing, I hope, how the kind of reasoning they use can be put to produce any outcome they want.  For example, in this case, given that they are factless except for the fact that life is very complicated, why could not the “Intelligent Designer” have come up with Evolution to produce the outcome he, she, or it desired?

The point is that all of this is beside the point. Except to the extent that its promoters are trying to come up with an alternative to the Theory of Evolution that could be taught in the schools so satisfying the goals of the Creationists (who have additional motives), “Intelligent Design” is not really interested in producing some alternative theory of the origin and development of life.  What it is really interested in doing is attacking, and hopefully eventually destroying the utility of, science for making policy in our country.

There are a variety of reasons why the Creationists, “Intelligent Designers,” “clinical impressionists” (see No. 5 in my Schiavo Series), Dominionists, Rapturists, and etc. attack science as a useful means for understanding life and many other observed phenomenae.  A major one is that they do not want science to be used to determine policy, whether the subject be when life begins, when it ends, stem cell research, global warming, environmental poisoning, regulation of the economy, agriculture/food, forestry, and so on and so forth.  This is a subject to which I will be returning on more than one occasion.  Suffice it to say now that the purpose of ID is neither to create a better understanding of how life came to be, nor to further develop the scientific method.  It is rather to extend the foundation for Georgite policy making: “I want it; I say it; I think it; therefore it is right and we are just going to go ahead and do it regardless of what science might say about it, because science just gets in our way.”

Note: This column is based on a “Short Shot,” No. 64, “A Consideration of  ‘Intelligent Design’ ” that appeared  on http://planetmove.blogspot.com/, for which I am a Contributing Editor, on May 28, 2005.

TPJ MAG

Pat Buchanan’s ‘What If?’, Part III

Column no. 64 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS, - June 9, 2005, Modified 7-19-08

This is the third in what has grown to be an at-least four-part series on this subject.  (I’m having perverse fun with this one.  Thanks, Pat).  It’s right up my alley, like the scenario for “The 15% Solution” was.  It may go more than four.  However, it will also likely be suspended for a bit, due to the press of my time and the need to deal with other matters.

This writing and the series of which it is a part focuses on the subject of a book Patrick Buchanan published about a year ago.  He got some more publicity on it recently in the context of Bush’s remarks that “Yalta was worse than the Nazi-Soviet Pact.”  Buchanan has postulated that things could have been better in the world than they became had other paths been followed, especially for the US, given that there was a World War II.  His principal focus is on the evils of the Soviet Union, following its victory over German Nazism in World War II.  This series postulates that World War II as it did occur historically was not fought, as per Patrick Buchanan’s wish.  Given the imperialist designs of both Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan at the time, another war was, however.

In this scenario, I lay out what the world, and especially our country, might well have looked like over time, had indeed World War II not occurred.  The scenario postulates, however, that certain other events that really did happen, events that either occurred independent of World War II or, given what we know about the real world, well could have occurred had there been no World War II, did take place. The latter two types of events are summarized within parentheses.

At the end of the scenario set forth in last week’s column, the Republican candidate for President, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, a strong anti-New Dealer, a moderate isolationist, no anti-Semite, but tolerant of both of those wings of his party, easily defeats the last-minute substitution for a totally demoralized, retired, and soon-to-be dead Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one Sen. Harry Truman.  The Nazi German and Japanese Empires rule much of the globe, allowing truncated empires of Great Britain (India and parts of Africa) and France (parts of Africa) to continue in existence.  The Germans control almost all of the world’s then-known oil reserves outside of the United States, having captured the Caucasus through their defeat and demolition of the Soviet Union, having set up a puppet Shah (the real one, Reza Pahlavi) in Iran, and having moved unopposed into Saudi Arabia.  The Japanese are quite content with the oil of the former Dutch East Indies, as they continue to develop their Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (their real goal of World War II).  Absent United States help, the Chinese Nationalist government of Chiang-Kai-Shek has collapsed.  The Chinese Communists, with no allies anywhere, struggle on in Szechuan Province, but with no hope to overcome the Japanese stranglehold on their country.

The U.S. is in an uncertain state.  One Prescott Bush (in the real world, and this one, too, as we will see in later installments, father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush) and his colleagues had provided major funding for Nazi Germany.  (This was real.  In fact, into February 1942, Bush was still providing funding for Germany after Hitler declared war on the US, on December 8, 1941.  He did not want to do so at the time, but was obliged to do by certain treaty obligations to Japan.  [Hitler was not the only ruler who abided, or indeed abides, by the rule of law selectively.]  At any rate, in Feb. 1942 FDR threatened Prescott Bush with prosecution under the Trading with the Enemy Act and he stopped being a banker for Hitler.)

In the 1930s major elements of American society either supported or at least tolerated Nazi Germany (as they had done in the real world right up to December 8, 1941).  For example, Charles Lindbergh was an admirer.  Henry Ford was a traditional anti-Semite and actually an early financial supporter and literary colleague of Hitler.  Father Charles Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith were rabid anti-Semites.  The German-American Bund of course flourished.  (These were all real people and a real organization.)  However, the US as a whole was wary of the Germans and the Japanese as well.  While the country felt that it was protected by its oceans, there were some noises about re-armament, for “protecting our shores.”  They were not heeded by the governing powers in Washington.

Nazi Germany regarded the US warily as well.  Hitler knew of the American traditions of Constitutional Democracy and guaranteed rights, freedoms and liberties.  Similar provisions constituted major elements of the Weimar Constitution of his own country that he had overthrown upon taking power on January 30, 1933.  He was also wary of the potential of American industrial might.  He was concerned about what the reaction might be of the American Jewish community, should what had happened to European Jewry ever become known.  By 1944, the Germans had triumphed over the Soviet Union in a one-front war and demolished the country, literally as well as figuratively.  They found themselves at peace.  They then proceeded to finish methodically killing virtually every Jew in Europe.

No one believed the wild stories of the few who escaped (just as in the real world, no one would believe them as they started coming out as early as 1940, until it was too late to stop the mass murders in what came to be known as The Holocaust).  American Jewry was not nearly as powerful as the virulent anti-Semites of both Hitler and his American clones believed and stated repeatedly, but they did have some political influence.  Hitler was determined to deal with the Jews in the US, but he wanted to that without having to invade.  German industry was making increasingly profitable deals with such anti-Semitic American industrialists as Henry Ford, pro-Nazi bankers such as Prescott Bush, and the leading-edge American petroleum and other extractive industries.  He did not want to rock any boats, if he could avoid so doing.

The Nazis openly demanded that the Roosevelt Administration “repress” the American Jewish community, starting with rounding them up and putting them in camps (just as FDR did in the real world with the Japanese-American community on the West Coast).  However, the Nazis did no more than make demands until the end of 1944 because they were still militarily involved securing their control over the whole of what had been the Soviet Union.  With the election of Dewey, the Nazis demanded and got negotiations on the “resolution of the Jewish question.”  Dewey entered these negotiations with trepidation, and they proceeded slowly.  A protest movement began to develop over the issue of American cooperation with Nazi Germany and any form of it with Imperial Japan.  Not wanting to stir up trouble at home, Dewey responded in a desultory manner.

In the meantime, the Germans had been working on developing the atomic bomb.  Under the influence of the isolationist “anti-militarists” and the open German-collaborationists, of course the US Manhattan Project never took shape.  By the spring of 1945, the Germans had the bomb.  (In the real world, absent the destruction of Germany caused by the war, they probably would have had it a lot sooner, and probably would have beaten the US to it, even if there had been a Manhattan Project.)  They secretly tested it in their portion of Siberia.  They also developed a four-engine bomber capable of reaching the United States from Germany and returning safely.  (Such a bomber really was under development by the Germans in the early days of the war, and several prototypes were built and flown.  Development was stopped when the real war demanded the concentration of resources elsewhere.)  With the negotiations on the “Jewish Question” moving very slowly and the increasing anti-German protests in the United States, Hitler decided upon a different course of action. He decided to rock the US boat.

On August 6, 1945, with a monopoly on the bomb that lasted until the Japanese developed theirs 10 years later, without warning Hitler’s four-engine “American Bomber” drops one on New York City.  New York City was Hitler’s personal choice as the first target.  While the financial center serving many of Germany’s American corporate partners went up in flame, so did the largest concentration of Jews still surviving in the world.  (Anti-Semitism did run policy in the real world of Hitler, even when it went against his nation’s best interests.  For example, as they were losing the war to the Soviet Union in 1944-45, they still diverted resources from their war effort to murdering as many Jews as they could in the time remaining.)  The Nazis did forewarn many of their corporate allies in New York City that “something was going to happen,” and it might be a good idea for those who had not already left on vacation to do so.  None of them bothered to let the Dewey Administration of this development.

Three days later, Boston was obliterated.  Not expecting anything like either strike, of course, no American fighters rose to respond to the presence of a German bomber in American airspace.  It was thought to be simply a surprise good will visit.  Had interceptors intervened, however, they would have been shot out of the skies by the elite Japanese fighter force flying off the decks of the four elite carriers standing off the East Coast, the Hiryu, the Soryu, the Kaga, and the Akagi (which of course were not sunk at the Battle of Midway, because, in this version of history, there was none.)  In a “good will gesture,” they had been allowed to transit the Panama Canal by the Dewey Government two months earlier, and had refueled and refitted at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.  Some of the antiquated Army Air Corps fighters did manage to scramble from the Worcester Army Air Base in Massachusetts, but they were all destroyed by the Japanese.  Since there had been no modern weapons development going on in the US under the control of the isolationists and German sympathizers, the American craft were no match for the fourth-generation Zeros flown by the top Japanese pilots (pilots who, with no Battle of Midway in which, in the real world, the cream of the Japanese fighter pilot crop was killed, were still very much among the living).

In the face of the German possession of this monstrous weapon, the von Ribbentrop-Lodge negotiations proceeded very quickly.  The US was allowed to continue as an independent country.  In order to meet German demands and avoid any further atomic devastation, under what he claimed to be his inherent Commander-in-Chief powers (which in the real world a number of Presidents have claimed and used, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, and G.W. Bush, even though they nowhere appear in the Constitution), Dewey moved extra-constitutionally to crush the protests.  He imprisoned tens of thousands of protesters in hastily built camps.  The Republican-isolationist-pro-German Congress quickly ratified the Von Ribbentrop-Lodge Treaty and quickly offered its assent for the Dewey policy.

Ties between American and German corporations were strengthened, with a German “overseer” being put on every American corporate board of directors of any consequence.  Reinhard Heydrich arrived in the US with three elite SS divisions, to undertake the Final Solution for American Jewry as well.  (In the real world, Heydrich was the architect of the Final Solution for Europe.  He was killed by Czech partisans, called “terrorists” by the Nazis, who in the real world then proceeded to wipe out the male population of the Czech village of Lidice in a display of the doctrine of “collective responsibility” used by a number of governments around the world to this very day.)

A Constitutional Amendment depriving Jews of the equal protection of the law guaranteed to all Americans under the 14th Amendment (much like what the current “Protection of Marriage” Amendment would do to the homosexual population in the US) was quickly passed by Congress.  Under not-too-subtle German threats of further atomic bombings, it was quickly ratified by the states.  The SS, with the eager collaboration of American anti-Semites (just as happened in the real world in Eastern Europe and France), moved quickly and efficiently.  Some American Jews managed to flee and it was rumored for years that small colonies somehow managed to survive among the Inuit in Labrador, the Quechua in Patagonia, and high in the Southern Alps in New Zealand.  However, within two years, under assault by the new Masters of America and their acolytes, using highly efficient, third-generation extermination equipment, the American Jewish community as it had existed since the first Jews landed in New Amsterdam in the early 17th century, was no more.

Next on Hitler’s list was the Afro-American population, for whom he had shown open enmity at the 1936 Berlin Olympics during the four-gold medal domination of the sprints by the US track star Jesse Owens.  For these policies he found so many American allies that the Germans had to engage in a variety of lotteries of different types to determine who would get in on the campaign.  We will turn to the history of that era next time.

TPJ MAG

MUNICH AND THE NUCLEAR OPTION

Column No. 62a By Dr. Steven Jonas - May 26, 2005

On September 30, 1938, the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrived back in Great Britain following the conclusion of the Munich Agreement with the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.  Waving his copy of the document as he stepped out of his airplane, he announced that the agreement had achieved “Peace in Our Time.” That agreement permitted Hitler to march his army into Western Czechoslovakia and incorporate into the German Reich significant sections of it that happened to have significant numbers of German speakers in them --- an area known in German as the Sudetenland.

In doing this, the British, and their French allies, declined to honor treaty obligations they had to defend Czechoslovakia, ignored the open offer that Stalin had made to make the Soviet Army available for action against the Germans, and prevented the strong and well-equipped Czech army from fighting the Germans in defense of their own country.  In return for these non-actions, Chamberlain received a promise from Hitler that this would be his “last territorial claim in Europe.” In March 1939, Hitler marched into Prague, took over the balance of the Czech part of the original country and set up Slovakia as an “independent” country under a pro-Nazi, but native, dictator.

In resolving the “Nuclear Option” crisis in the US Senate, the Democrats agreed to confirmation by the full Senate on the Bush nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, for seats on various Circuit Courts of Appeal.  Among other things, Brown is a judge who, like Scalia and Thomas of the US Supreme Court, believes that there is some “Natural Law” standing above the US Constitution.  Since that Natural Law is unwritten, in practice that means that it is whatever she says it is, thus replacing the Constitution as the highest law of the land.  Pryor believes that church and state should be one.  Owen believes that judges who have previously taken money from corporations should represent their views on the bench.

In return for this agreement, the Democrats have received a promise from the Republicans that, with one exception, they will never invoke the “Nuclear Option” to destroy the power of the minority in the Senate to employ the filibuster to prevent a vote on judicial nominations. According to current Senate rules any change in them requires a two-thirds majority.  Under the Nuclear Option, the Republicans would violate this rule with a ruling from the Chair by the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, about which the Democrats could do nothing but scream bloody murder.  Oh yes, it just so happens that the “one exception” the Republicans gained as part of the deal was that they could employ the “Nuclear Option” in the future anyway, if they thought that its use were really indicated.

Sounding sort of like Neville Chamberlain, Harry Reid, the Democratic Minority leader said (New York Times, May 25, 2005):  “It took the nuclear option off the table.  The nuclear option is gone for our lifetime.”  Further (quoted in The Times), “Democrats said that there was a clear signal to President Bush that he needed to engage in ‘true consultation and cooperation’ with both parties before naming future court nominees, particularly to the Supreme Court.”  Big victory for the Democrats, eh, sort of like “peace in our time?”  Well, probably not.

The very next day (same issue of The Times), a headline said “Many Republicans Are Already Eager To Challenge Agreement on Filibusters.”  “This deal is really no deal,” said Sen. Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho.  According to The Times, “Other Republicans threatened to immediately invoke the nuclear option” anyway, if they happened not to like how the Democrats were interpreting the supposed agreement.  And as to the nature of the agreement itself, one which Sen. Reid saw as disposing of the nuclear option in  “our lifetime,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican and former Chair of the judiciary Committee said “this is merely a truce; it’s not a treaty.”  As for the Bush Regime and any possibility that they might change their criteria for choosing judges, namely, the further to the Right, like the three described above, the better, they said that they “did not intend to change  in any substantive way their method of selecting, vetting, and nominating candidates for the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court.”

Gee whiz, at least Hitler waited more than five months before he took over the rest of Czechoslovakia after promising that he would go no further than the Sudetenland.  The Republican Religious Right just has no class whatsoever.

Junkie:  Dr. Jonas’ article is an expanded version of his article currently published from THE MOVING PLANET BLOG, one of TPJ’s favorites. The Moving Planet Blog is published by TPJ Editor Michael Carmichael.

TPJ MAG