THE ‘UNLESS’ OF THE ‘COMING SECOND CIVIL WAR’ SERIES PART II

Column No. 42 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - January 6, 2005

This column is the third in this series.  Each entry will be preceded with variations on this brief introduction.  In my view, the projected cataclysm will come to our nation, if it does, because of the ideology, policies, and ever-growing political power of the Republican Religious Right (RRR).  As stated at different times and in different arenas by sources ranging the 2004 Republican Party Platform through George Bush to Jerry Falwell and Grover Norquist, their primary goals are to: impose their religious beliefs on all Americans through the use of the criminal law; reduce the functions of the Federal government to the barest minimum outside of the military-industrial, prison-industrial, and thought/private-behavior-control sectors; and replace Constitutional government as we have known it with Executive Branch dominance operating entirely on its own authority.

Except in appealing to their base in the Christian Right, the RRR does its best to conceal most of its true goals from the American public, to camouflage them alternatively with foreign wars, the “terror” threat, lies, and appeals to the basest instincts of fear and prejudice.  When the American public becomes fully aware of the true aims of the RRR, I am confident that they will reject it.  The rejection may come sooner, as the result of the political process (the “Unless” of the title of the series).  Unfortunately, it may come later as the result of a Second Civil War, which itself could come either before the RRR were able to institute a true fascist dictatorship, or after the occurrence of such a disaster for some period of time.  Some will characterize my position as alarmist and premature.  I fully intend it to be.  We have got to start focusing on what the RRR is really about.  The Firebell, to use Jefferson’s characterization of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as indicating future bloody conflict over slavery, is ringing in the night.  But first to the topic of this column, Part II of the “Unless” of the Series title.

In 1992, I published a book entitled The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency.  In it, I offered a proposal for that “broad, embracing, expansive vision” for the Democratic Party, for its then present and the nation’s future, that all of the observers and authorities quoted in last week’s column called for.  I believe that it is still very much what the doctor ordered for the Democratic Party.  It may indeed be, in the famous words of the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen (who would almost certainly find himself now on the left-wing of his party), “an idea whose time has come.”

In brief, it is a simple concept with a precise mission: to find the new grand vision for the Democratic Party, to find the bed-rock foundation upon which both the traditional agenda and the 21st century agenda of the Democratic Party can be established, to find the language and the civil weapons that our nation needs if the determined Georgite assault on American Constitutional Democracy as we have known it for 200 years is to be halted in its tracks and reversed, without bloodshed.  The New Americanism finds this vision in the very founding documents of our great nation.

The New Americanism projects a grand, integrated, overarching, forward-looking domestic and foreign policy based upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Together they provide the Statement of Purpose for our nation, the Purpose of our National Government, and the Primary Functions of that Government in achieving in the stated Purpose.

Our National Purpose is made clear by the Declaration: to demonstrate unequivocally that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . .”

The primary Purpose of our National Government is also made clear in the Declaration: “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.”

The Primary functions of our National Government in achieving this purpose are spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Why this is enough to make a strict constructionist out of anyone (other than the Republican Religious Right, of course)!

In my view, and in the view of increasing number of other political observers, if the Georgites are to be stopped, control of the Democratic Party must be wrested from the clutches of the “me-too” Democratic Leadership Council and their fellow-traveling “New Democrats.”  In their folly, these interests think that the salvation of both the Democratic Party and our nation is to be found in making our Party look as much like the RRR as possible.  The vision that I propose could be the rallying point around which the objective of recreating the Democratic Party as the true alternative to the RRR, in ideology, policies, and programs, can be achieved.  Then it could become the means by which the Democratic Party can win elections again, and the nation saved from the terrible suffering and bloodshed that will occur both here and abroad if they do not.  And truly, what better weapon to take into battle against the Georgite regime and its primary goal of destroying U.S. Constitutional Democracy than the text of the Constitution itself?

The ‘Unless’ of the ‘Coming Second Civil War’ Series, Part I

Column No. 41 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 30, 2004

This column is the second in this series.  Each will be preceded with variations on this brief introduction.  In my view, this cataclysm will come to our nation because of the ideology, policies, and ever-growing political power of the Republican Religious Right (RRR).  As stated at different times and in different arenas by sources ranging the 2004 Republican Party Platform through George Bush to Jerry Falwell and Grover Norquist, their primary goals are to: impose their religious beliefs on all Americans through the use of the criminal law; reduce the functions of the Federal government to the barest minimum, outside of the military-industrial, prison-industrial, and thought-control sectors; and replace Constitutional government as we have known it with Executive Branch dominance operating entirely on its own authority.

Except to their base in the Christian Right, the RRR does its best to conceal most of its true aims from the American public as a whole, to camouflage them alternatively with foreign wars, lies, slogans, and appeals to the basest instincts of fear and prejudice.  When the American public becomes fully aware of the true aims of the RRR, I am confident that they will reject it.  The rejection may come sooner, as the result of the political process (the “Unless” of the title of the series).  Unfortunately, it may come later as the result of a Second Civil War, which itself could come either before the RRR were able to institute as true fascist dictatorship, or after some period of national suffering from the occurrence of such an event.  My position can be characterized as bold, alarmist, totally premature.  I fully intend it to be.  We have got to start focusing on what the RRR is really about.  And so to the topic of this column.

On the Op-Ed page of The New York Times of November 4, 2004, Andrei Cherny, a former senior staffer for both Sen. Gore and Sen. Kerry, wrote:

“The overarching problem Democrats have today is the lack of a clear sense of what the party stands for. . . . Democrats have a collection of policy positions that are sensible and right. . . . What we don’t have and what we sorely need is . . . a worldview that makes a thematic argument about where America is headed and where we want to take it.”

Many observers have been saying essentially the same thing for many years past.  In The New York Times of May 26, 2003, there was a front-page story by my high school classmate Adam Clymer about the state of the Democratic Party.  Adam told us that what all of the Democratic Party leaders and outside observers alike, even the DLC people quoted, agreed upon is that what we need is: a new "clear identity," the ability "to think strategically" (Peter Hart), a "better message," to "stand for something" (Bob Strauss), to be able to "show that we can make progressive government work" (Will Marshall), "to move away from incremental new reforms to big and broad issues" (Bill Carrick).

In a New York Times article on September 25, 1987, the journalist E.J. Dionne wrote:  “All Democrats have been searching for language to call America away from the individualism of the Reagan years to a new sense of community.”  Bob Kuttner had this to say just before the 1988 election: “Democrats do best when they develop broad, embracing, expansive visions combining national purpose with economic advancement, and rally masses of non-rich voters.”

We Democrats have not found that language, that vision, yet.  If we had, we have won the Presidency this time around.  Bush’s post-election approval numbers are the worst on record, according to none other than "Fox and Friends" on the Fox”News”Channel on 12/20/04.  In an article in The Washington Post of Nov. 9, 2004, Dionne pointed out that a significant number of people who agreed with the Democrats and disagreed with Bush on individual policy issues voted for him anyway, in part because of the lack of an overall vision on the part of the Democrats and the presence of one (although we would strongly disagree with its content) on the part of the Georgites.  Finally finding that vision will be crucially important for beginning the Democratic comeback in 2006 that will be necessary if our country is to be saved from the worst outcomes of Georgite policies down the road of history.

For some time now, I have had on the table a proposal for that grand vision.  I will present it next week in Part II of this current series-within-a-series.

_______________

THE COMING SECOND CIVIL WAR (UNLESS)

This column is the first of a series on this subject that will appear intermittently over time in this space.  The columns in the series will be interspersed with columns on other matters that strike me of worthy of attention.

In my view, a Second Civil War will come to plague our country regardless of whether Bush or Kerry had won the 2004 election, Unless.  While something totally unexpected still could happen, Bush has almost certainly retained his grip on the White House.  Apparently, he did this with the use of massive cheating of all kinds across the country at the polls and within the guts of many voting machines.  Given Republican control of most of the courts through which any challenges in the key states must flow, it is highly unlikely that the outcome will be changed.  Of course, if the matter does somehow get to the Supreme Court again, just as in 2000 the final decision would come down to just one vote, that of  Sandra Day O’Connor, who, being an avowed Republican, would most likely vote just as she did in 2000.

In any event, regardless of the results of this election, as I said in my view our country faces the very real threat of a Second Civil War sometime in the foreseeable future.  With the Georgites remaining in power, this war is likely to occur sooner.  If Sen. Kerry were somehow to ultimately win, unless he were to make certain critical policy and political decisions early in his Presidency (which, based on his performance both before and after November 2 he would be highly unlikely to do), this war would still come, although somewhat later.

The reason, and the only reason, that we face this cataclysm is the ever-growing political power of the Republican Religious Right.  At its core is Karl Rove’s “base,” the Fundamentalist Christian movement, that is becoming stronger by the day.  The primary agenda of these people, and they tell us what it is every day in their speeches, sermons, and writings, is to gain complete control over the personal behavior and religious beliefs of every single American, through the use of the criminal law.  If they are not stopped, eventually the implementation of their agenda will lead either to civil war or to open, national, fascism and complete oppression of the all elements of the population that does not find favor with them.

My position can be characterized as bold, alarmist, totally premature.  I fully intend it to be.  We have got to start focusing on what these people are really about, and it has nothing to do with “values,” whatever that vaguest of vague terms means.  In this series, I am going to deal with what I see as the issues rending the civil fabric of our nation that may well eventually lead to violent conflict, if they are not confronted forthrightly and directly and soon.  In my view, together they form the present “Firebell in the Night,” warning of future civil war, the term that Thomas Jefferson used in describing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as a warning of just such a forthcoming event.  That Compromise dealt with the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories and the new states that would over time be formed in them.  Among the issues today that are similarly threatening our national social fabric are those of: race, sexual identity and its civil expression, the status of women, freedom of religious belief, the role of government in our nation, and Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law versus the Rule of Man.

In examining the parallels between the present situation in our country and those that existed on the rocky and convoluted pathway that lead to the First Civil War, in my view it is especially important to note the following.  The Civil War of 1861-65 did not begin as a contest over slavery, per se.  Abraham Lincoln came to see it as such by the time he wrote his Second Inaugural Address in 1864.  But the principal slavery-referenced issue that he campaigned on in the election of 1860 was the matter of its further expansion into the territories.  He wanted to stop it; the South wanted to promote it.

They wanted to force the slavery concept into all of the remaining lands of the original Louisiana Purchase and those conquered from Mexico in 1846-8 that had not already been incorporated in the Union as States.  In a similar way, the Republican Religious Right wants to force its concepts of what it calls “morality,” such issues of belief as to when life begins and of personal identity and behavior as to sexual orientation, onto our society and into the minds of every member of it by the use of the criminal law.  If they get their way, there will eventually be the death penalty for anyone providing an abortion, prison for women who have them, prison or worse for homosexuals who “refuse to recant,” some contemporary version of the Inquisition for “finding the heretics” who don’t happen to believe in their particular version of Christianity and then punishing them.  Don’t believe me?  Go to “Christian Reconstructionism” (which is the fundamental theology of the majority of Christian Fundamentalists) on the web.  Falwell would start with the “secular humanists,” Coulter with the “liberal traitors.”

Forcing the concept of white supremacy and thus black slavery onto all the territory of the United States other than that protected from it up until 1850, and forcing a particular view of “morality” upon everyone in the country by the use of the criminal law, are to my mind very similar, both in their effects and in their potential for leading to civil war.  In this series, I will be dealing with this primary issue and the others listed above.  But first, in the next two weeks, I will present a brief introduction to the “Unless” in the title of the series.

THE REAL MEANING OF THE ‘FAITH-BASED PRESIDENCY’, PART II

Column  No. 40

By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 23, 2004

As I noted two weeks ago, in The New York Times Magazine of October 17, 2004, Ron Suskind gave the most comprehensive picture yet of George W. Bush’s concept of the “faith-based Presidency” and how it operates.  George Bush apparently really believes that he is on a mission from God, that his decision-making is based on God’s wishes, and that he is carrying out God’s vision.  A major and well-known feature of this approach to governing is that Bush acts with absolute certainty.  He makes decisions that he just knows are right, because God is in his mind and Bush knows that God is right.  Part I (see below) of this two-part series discussed some of the implications for past Georgite policy of this approach to governance.

The critical issue now facing our country in the wake of Bush’s garnering of a second term (whether by a true electoral win or by cheating) is: what are the implications of the Bush “faith-based” theory of governance for American constitutional government and its future?

First, the theory can mean that, indeed, somewhere out in that immense Universe a God exists who is cognizant of humans and their affairs down to a fairly micro level and who takes a direct interest in their daily conduct.  In such a case, the leader of a country can really be guided by God and his/her/its wishes/plans for it and its citizens.  Whatever such wishes/plans are, of course, they are transmitted privately to The Leader who states that he/she has access to this God.  No one else is privy to the being, can confirm its existence, or affirm that any ‘other’ listener got the instructions right.  Second, “faith-based” governance can mean that even if there is fact no such a “God” as described above, the person in authority who rules based on “faith” truly believes that there is, and that in making all the decisions of the office, he/she is “carrying out God’s will.”

Nevertheless, whether or not there is a God, or at least one who gets involved at a detailed level in human affairs, the ruler who claims this authority is really making decisions and giving orders based solely on what he/she thinks is right and what he/she wants to do, based solely on his/her own authority.  Whether or not the thoughts are coming from God, the thinking process is going on in the ruler’s own mind.  Because that person is convinced that the thinking is produced by God or at least reflects God’s will, there is no reference either to evidence or (heaven help him) rational analysis, or to any binding human laws, such as the U.S. Constitution.

In reality such a ruler, in this case Bush, may or may not be doing “God’s will” (and Bush really seems to think he is).  But that matter is irrelevant.  In practice, the rules of governance have become Bush’s Rules (in this case proudly made without recourse to evidence, analysis, and the process of reasoning, as one source told Mr. Suskind).  So far as Bush is concerned the rules “come from God,” and in the well-known Scalia-Thomas way of thinking “Natural Law,” that is “God’s Law,” stands above the Constitution.  Thus in Bush’s mind, since he is “doing God’s will” the Constitution no longer needs to be adhered to.  On such matters as: individual rights (The Patriot Act), abiding by international treaties that just happen to be part of the Constitution (the endorsement of the use of torture on prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions), or the declaration of war (Bush’s “war on terror,” self-, and not Congressionally, declared), Bush has just ignored both the process and the content required by the Constitution and the traditional US Constitutional form of government and governing.

Whether Bush is “carrying out God’s purpose” or not, he has substituted his say-so for that of the Constitution.  He has substituted the Rule of Man, his own, for the Rule of Law, the Constitution.  When Bush says, “God’s will be done,” whether he recognizes it or not, in reality what he is saying: “MY will be done.”  This is an entirely new element in the American system of governance.  This theory of governance stands at the entrance to the road to dictatorship and fascism.

This is what a “faith-based” Presidency really means.  We have got a “faith-based” leadership in the House of Representatives as well, for Tom DeLay has publicly said that he is also “doing God’s work.”  This is what at its core the Republican Religious Right is all about: the substitution of the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law.  This is the battle that must be joined, and joined soon, if our beloved country is not to sink into the abyss into which this kind of thinking has lead every country ever governed by it in the course of history.

_______________

This is Part I of the Dr. Jonas’ two part series.

December 9, 2004

THE REAL MEANING OF THE ‘FAITH-BASED PRESIDENCY’

In The New York Times Magazine of October 17, 2004, Ron Suskind gave the most comprehensive picture yet of George W. Bush’s concept of the “faith-based Presidency” and how it operates.  George Bush apparently really believes that he is on a mission from God, that his decision-making is based on God’s wishes, and that he is carrying out God’s vision.  A major and well-known feature of this approach to governing is that Bush acts with absolute certainty.  He makes decisions that he just knows are right, because God is in his mind and Bush knows that God is right.

Once made, therefore, Bush’s decisions are right, because, expressing the will of God, Bush made them. (In the minds of religious people of the Georgite persuasion, circular reasoning has a very important place.)  Ergo his inability to see that he has ever made a mistake, at least since being ‘born again’.  So naturally, we witnessed the famous news conference and Presidential debate episodes in which he could not think of a single mistake that he had made.  If you never made one, there is nothing to admit, is there?  Another well-known feature of Bush’s approach to governance is that facts do not matter unless they happen to conform to or confirm his preconceived notion of what God’s vision is that he is carrying out.  A third major aspect of his approach, confirmed by Suskind, is that Bush wants a staff that has been trained not to question and not to offer data, evidence, or analysis, apparently either before or after he has made a decision.  This aspect explains thoroughly the character of the changes he is in the process of making in his Cabinet.

For example, Colin Powell was willing to lie at the UN for him, and thus throw his own reputation into the dustbin of history.  But apparently, on occasion, Powell would privately offer a contrary view on policy or pass along some information/analysis from the State Department staff that did not jibe with Bush’s already firmly-held conclusions.  And so, Powell had to go.  As did George Tenet at the CIA.  While he apparently tried hard to play good soldier, Tenet seems to have had the temerity on occasion to suggest that intelligence might influence policy, even if that intelligence went against Georgite preconceived notions.  Bush’s man Porter Goss has already issued an order that everything coming up from the CIA must be in accord with already set White House policy.  So absolutely gone are the days when knowledge and data might actually help formulate policy.  Policy will, rather, formulate intelligence.

Mr. Suskind explained and illustrated the major characteristics of Bush-think in great depth.  His writing and conclusions are based on interviews with many different sources who confirm the overall picture.  A number of those sources were willing to let their names be used.  It is fascinating that, to my knowledge, the White House never issued a single denial of any of the content of Mr. Suskind’s report.  Nor did they, as they usually do when negatives appear, furiously, viciously, and repeatedly attack the messenger through their privatized Ministry of Propaganda, Fox “News” Channel, Washington Times, HanniBaugh, and etc.  Of course, even if what Suskind wrote were false, the Bush people would be hard pressed to deny it -- because what he reported is exactly how Bush’s base wants him to think and be as President: “God’s emissary.”  It reflects exactly how the Christian Right has portrayed the source of his “victory”: God.  Given what we know from this article, and indeed from many other reports, the picture is indeed an accurate one.

Despite what is generally recognized as Bush’s approach to governance that leads to his decisions and his unchanging commitment to them once made, in fact, he does change his mind on what are to him relatively unimportant matters.  For example, whether global warming is real or not, whether there should be a 9/11 Commission or not, and whether the nation’s intelligence system should be reformed or not.  He can do this because he knows that nothing coming out of such position changes is going to alter his policies or his representations of reality anyway.

However, on his big issues, such as: waging war on Iraq; cutting taxes for the rich and the large corporations; ending Social Security as we know it; opening up as much of the US environment to corporate plunder as possible; making the Courts as right-wing as he can so that the Christian Right can get its way on gay marriage and abortion rights; eventually destroying the whole of the Federal government as we know it, in accord with the policies of Grover Norquist; changing the Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process, in accord with the policies of Karl Rove (Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian UK, 11/25/04); he is indeed unchanging.

The critical issue now facing our country in the wake of Bush’s garnering of a second term (whether by a true electoral win or by cheating) is: what are the implications of the Bush “faith-based” theory of governance for American constitutional government and its future?  I shall offer some answers to this question next week, in Part II of this essay, and it is a subject to which I shall return in more depth from time to time.

THE COMING SECOND CIVIL WAR (UNLESS)

Column  No. 39 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 15, 2004

This column is the first of a series on this subject that will appear intermittently over time in this space.  The columns in the series will be interspersed with columns on other matters that strike me of worthy of attention.

In my view, a Second Civil War will come to plague our country regardless of whether Bush or Kerry had won the 2004 election, Unless.  While something totally unexpected still could happen, Bush has almost certainly retained his grip on the White House.  Apparently, he did this with the use of massive cheating of all kinds across the country at the polls and within the guts of many voting machines.  Given Republican control of most of the courts through which any challenges in the key states must flow, it is highly unlikely that the outcome will be changed.  Of course, if the matter does somehow get to the Supreme Court again, just as in 2000 the final decision would come down to just one vote, that of  Sandra Day O’Connor, who, being an avowed Republican, would most likely vote just as she did in 2000.

In any event, regardless of the results of this election, as I said in my view our country faces the very real threat of a Second Civil War sometime in the foreseeable future.  With the Georgites remaining in power, this war is likely to occur sooner.  If Sen. Kerry were somehow to ultimately win, unless he were to make certain critical policy and political decisions early in his Presidency (which, based on his performance both before and after November 2 he would be highly unlikely to do), this war would still come, although somewhat later.

The reason, and the only reason, that we face this cataclysm is the ever-growing political power of the Republican Religious Right.  At its core is Karl Rove’s “base,” the Fundamentalist Christian movement, that is becoming stronger by the day.  The primary agenda of these people, and they tell us what it is every day in their speeches, sermons, and writings, is to gain complete control over the personal behavior and religious beliefs of every single American, through the use of the criminal law.  If they are not stopped, eventually the implementation of their agenda will lead either to civil war or to open, national, fascism and complete oppression of the all elements of the population that does not find favor with them.

My position can be characterized as bold, alarmist, totally premature.  I fully intend it to be.  We have got to start focusing on what these people are really about, and it has nothing to do with “values,” whatever that vaguest of vague terms means.  In this series, I am going to deal with what I see as the issues rending the civil fabric of our nation that may well eventually lead to violent conflict, if they are not confronted forthrightly and directly and soon.  In my view, together they form the present “Firebell in the Night,” warning of future civil war, the term that Thomas Jefferson used in describing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as a warning of just such a forthcoming event.  That Compromise dealt with the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories and the new states that would over time be formed in them.  Among the issues today that are similarly threatening our national social fabric are those of: race, sexual identity and its civil expression, the status of women, freedom of religious belief, the role of government in our nation, and Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law versus the Rule of Man.

In examining the parallels between the present situation in our country and those that existed on the rocky and convoluted pathway that lead to the First Civil War, in my view it is especially important to note the following.  The Civil War of 1861-65 did not begin as a contest over slavery, per se.  Abraham Lincoln came to see it as such by the time he wrote his Second Inaugural Address in 1864.  But the principal slavery-referenced issue that he campaigned on in the election of 1860 was the matter of its further expansion into the territories.  He wanted to stop it; the South wanted to promote it.

They wanted to force the slavery concept into all of the remaining lands of the original Louisiana Purchase and those conquered from Mexico in 1846-8 that had not already been incorporated in the Union as States.  In a similar way, the Republican Religious Right wants to force its concepts of what it calls “morality,” such issues of belief as to when life begins and of personal identity and behavior as to sexual orientation, onto our society and into the minds of every member of it by the use of the criminal law.  If they get their way, there will eventually be the death penalty for anyone providing an abortion, prison for women who have them, prison or worse for homosexuals who “refuse to recant,” some contemporary version of the Inquisition for “finding the heretics” who don’t happen to believe in their particular version of Christianity and then punishing them.  Don’t believe me?  Go to “Christian Reconstructionism” (which is the fundamental theology of the majority of Christian Fundamentalists) on the web.  Falwell would start with the “secular humanists,” Coulter with the “liberal traitors.”

Forcing the concept of white supremacy and thus black slavery onto all the territory of the United States other than that protected from it up until 1850, and forcing a particular view of “morality” upon everyone in the country by the use of the criminal law, are to my mind very similar, both in their effects and in their potential for leading to civil war.  In this series, I will be dealing with this primary issue and the others listed above.  But first, in the next two weeks, I will present a brief introduction to the “Unless” in the title of the series.

THE REAL MEANING OF THE ‘FAITH-BASED PRESIDENCY’

Column  No. 38 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 9, 2004

In The New York Times Magazine of October 17, 2004, Ron Suskind gave the most comprehensive picture yet of George W. Bush’s concept of the “faith-based Presidency” and how it operates.  George Bush apparently really believes that he is on a mission from God, that his decision-making is based on God’s wishes, and that he is carrying out God’s vision.  A major and well-known feature of this approach to governing is that Bush acts with absolute certainty.  He makes decisions that he just knows are right, because God is in his mind and Bush knows that God is right.

Once made, therefore, Bush’s decisions are right, because, expressing the will of God, Bush made them. (In the minds of religious people of the Georgite persuasion, circular reasoning has a very important place.)  Ergo his inability to see that he has ever made a mistake, at least since being ‘born again’.  So naturally, we witnessed the famous news conference and Presidential debate episodes in which he could not think of a single mistake that he had made.  If you never made one, there is nothing to admit, is there?  Another well-known feature of Bush’s approach to governance is that facts do not matter unless they happen to conform to or confirm his preconceived notion of what God’s vision is that he is carrying out.  A third major aspect of his approach, confirmed by Suskind, is that Bush wants a staff that has been trained not to question and not to offer data, evidence, or analysis, apparently either before or after he has made a decision.  This aspect explains thoroughly the character of the changes he is in the process of making in his Cabinet.

For example, Colin Powell was willing to lie at the UN for him, and thus throw his own reputation into the dustbin of history.  But apparently, on occasion, Powell would privately offer a contrary view on policy or pass along some information/analysis from the State Department staff that did not jibe with Bush’s already firmly-held conclusions.  And so, Powell had to go.  As did George Tenet at the CIA.  While he apparently tried hard to play good soldier, Tenet seems to have had the temerity on occasion to suggest that intelligence might influence policy, even if that intelligence went against Georgite preconceived notions.  Bush’s man Porter Goss has already issued an order that everything coming up from the CIA must be in accord with already set White House policy.  So absolutely gone are the days when knowledge and data might actually help formulate policy.  Policy will, rather, formulate intelligence.

Mr. Suskind explained and illustrated the major characteristics of Bush-think in great depth.  His writing and conclusions are based on interviews with many different sources who confirm the overall picture.  A number of those sources were willing to let their names be used.  It is fascinating that, to my knowledge, the White House never issued a single denial of any of the content of Mr. Suskind’s report.  Nor did they, as they usually do when negatives appear, furiously, viciously, and repeatedly attack the messenger through their privatized Ministry of Propaganda, Fox “News” Channel, Washington Times, HanniBaugh, and etc.  Of course, even if what Suskind wrote were false, the Bush people would be hard pressed to deny it -- because what he reported is exactly how Bush’s base wants him to think and be as President: “God’s emissary.”  It reflects exactly how the Christian Right has portrayed the source of his “victory”: God.  Given what we know from this article, and indeed from many other reports, the picture is indeed an accurate one.

Despite what is generally recognized as Bush’s approach to governance that leads to his decisions and his unchanging commitment to them once made, in fact, he does change his mind on what are to him relatively unimportant matters.  For example, whether global warming is real or not, whether there should be a 9/11 Commission or not, and whether the nation’s intelligence system should be reformed or not.  He can do this because he knows that nothing coming out of such position changes is going to alter his policies or his representations of reality anyway.

However, on his big issues, such as: waging war on Iraq; cutting taxes for the rich and the large corporations; ending Social Security as we know it; opening up as much of the US environment to corporate plunder as possible; making the Courts as right-wing as he can so that the Christian Right can get its way on gay marriage and abortion rights; eventually destroying the whole of the Federal government as we know it, in accord with the policies of Grover Norquist; changing the Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process, in accord with the policies of Karl Rove (Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian UK, 11/25/04); he is indeed unchanging.

The critical issue now facing our country in the wake of Bush’s garnering of a second term (whether by a true electoral win or by cheating) is: what are the implications of the Bush “faith-based” theory of governance for American constitutional government and its future?  I shall offer some answers to this question next week, in Part II of this essay, and it is a subject to which I shall return in more depth from time to time.

Two recent ‘Dr. J.’s Short Shots’ from the Weblog of The Planetary Movement

Column No. 37 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – December 2, 2004

I am very pleased to be back on the Web with The Political Junkies.net.  I hope that you are happy to have us here.  There is much to talk about, to be sure, and you can be sure that we, with your help and participation, will be doing just that in this space for the foreseeable future.

Shortly before the election, Michael Carmichael, European Editor for The Political Junkies, was kind enough to invite me to be a Contributing Editor to the Weblog of his new international organization, The Planetary Movement.  I invite you to visit its website at http://www.planetarymovement.org/.  TPM’s Weblog can be found at http://planetmove.blogspot.com/.  For this returning column, I am pleased to offer you two of what I call “Dr. J’s Short Shots” from the Weblog.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 25: The True Agenda of the Republican Religious Right (Nov. 25, 2004)

In The Guardian (UK) of November 25, 2004 the US political analyst Sidney Blumenthal had a column about the opening ceremonies for the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, AK.  The article is entitled "One gulp and Bush was gone.”  In the article, Mr. Blumenthal makes a number of fascinating observations.  I just want to note the most chilling of them.

In reference to Karl Rove, Blumenthal noted that "offstage, beforehand, Rove and Bush had had their library tours.  According to two eyewitnesses, Rove had shown keen interest in everything he saw, and asked questions, including about costs, obviously thinking about a future George W. Bush library and legacy.  'You're not such a scary guy,' joked his guide.  'Yes, I am,' Rove replied.  Walking away, he muttered deliberately and loudly: 'I change constitutions, I put churches in schools ...' "

This, folks, is the true, bedrock, agenda of the Republican Religious Right in general and the Georgites in particular.  They are already well on their way to achieving it, as I have noted both in this space and in my weekly columns for The Political Junkies.net.  In fact, the President has already unilaterally amended the Constitution, without so much as a peep from either the Congress or the mainstream media.  First, he gave himself the power to declare war.  It just so happens that declaration of war is a power that the Constitution grants to the Congress, not to the President.  And then he further unilaterally abrogated international treaties, those of the Geneva Conventions that under Article VI of the Constitution are part of it as the highest law of the land, because, in a masterpiece of Constitution-destroying circular reasoning, "we are at war."

This puts into the boldest of type the fundamental conflict we Americans now face.  Hopefully, the Democratic Party will soon wake up to that fact, make it the No. 1 political agenda item for the foreseeable future, and will eventually be able to win the battle in the political arena.  If it does not, or if it is not succeeded by an opposition party that has both the proper focus and the broad-based support, the struggle is sure to become long, violent, and very bloody.

I will be treating the subject of "The Coming Second Civil War (Unless)" at length in an upcoming series at The Political Junkies.net.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 27:  Iranian Nukes

Not a day seems to pass without the Iranians changing their position on nuclear weapons development.  One day, they are accepting European proposals for an agreement to suspend it; the next day they seem to be repudiating any agreement.

I happen to think that the scariest nation having nuclear weaponry at present is the United States under the Georgites.  It is well known that leading members of and top advisors to the Georgite regime have for some time openly talked about invading Iran.  The U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons, and since the time of Eisenhower American administration, (only under successor Republican ones to my knowledge) has actually considered using them again in one situation or another.  Currently, in the Iraq situation Georgite sympathizers talked about “nuking” Fallujah and it is only recently that cost-cutting Republicans in the Congress have eliminated, for the time-being at least, the Georgite program to develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons, designed to get at underground facilities of various kinds.

If I were in the Iranian leadership, given these facts and given that close-by Israel, presently under the Partition-rejectionist/Palestinians-ejectionist Sharonists, is estimated to have about 400 nuclear weapons, I would want to have them too.  Unless a deal is made, given that the Iranian nuclear industry is widely decentralized, only a complete takeover of the whole country by the US could prevent that from otherwise happening eventually.  The trade that the Iranians may be on their way to making with the Europeans and the Russians may be indeed to not acquire nuclear weapons, in return for a solid guarantee of protection against U.S. aggression.  (Remember, like Iraq, Iran is strategically located and has lots of oil.)  Perhaps this is what the on-again/off-again nature of the public Iranian position is all about, as the various forces maneuver behind closed doors to provide those guarantees to the Iranians.  Stranger alliances have occurred in history.