ON THE (POSSIBLE) INDICTMENTS

Column No. 83 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - November 3, 2005

As I finish the writing this column on Oct. 25, “the indictments” (if any) have yet to come down.  Rumors swirl, from “Fitzgerald is going only with perjury/conspiracy indictments” to “Fitzgerald is going to issue indictments on such matters are the forging of the Niger-Saddam/yellowcake documents” to “Fitzgerald will go after Cheney.”  At this time, I will believe that there are indictments when I see them.  Nevertheless, I am taking a week off from my series on the future of the Democratic Party.  I am offering instead a few thoughts about the events and the people who are involved in what may be anything from the greatest scandal and political earthquake in the history of our country to a relative tempest in a teapot that the Rove Spin/Smear Machine at the service of the Republican Religious Right will handle with ease.  If it turns out to be the latter, please do be prepared for the deluge of gloating that will pour from O’Rhannibaugh and the rest of the Privatized Ministry of Propaganda for more months than you want to think about.

First, in his absolutely brilliant column of October 23, 2005, in the New York Times (“Karl and Scooter’s Excellent Adventure”), Frank Rich laid out the time-line of the Georgite plot-for-war.  At the outset and then at the end of the column, he asks the question “why?”  The poignant cartoon that accompanied the column asked the same question.  Mr. Rich hazards a few guesses, as have many other commentators.  However, there is an authoritative answer.  It was provided by one of the principal war-plotters before the Selection of George W. Bush.  Just listen to what Richard Perle had to say on the subject, in his chapter “Iraq: Saddam Unbound” that was published in Present Dangers (Encounter Books, 2000) from the Project for the New American Century, edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, (original date, June, 1997).  (The other authors in the book, from Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams on up [or down, depending upon your point of view] form a neocon all-star team.)

“Saddam Hussein threatens American interests in the [Persian] Gulf to a degree that cannot be over come by diplomatic accommodation. . . .  [A]n Iraq without Saddam would best serve our interests. . . . If the next administration is to protect America’s interests in the Gulf . . . it must formulate a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam . . .  Accordingly, the United States should move to recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the [Ahmad Chalabi’s] Iraq National Congress. . . .”

This is why Bush was totally focused on removing Saddam from Day I of his Presidency, as both Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, who both experienced that focus up close and personal, have both told us.  It was all about those “American interests in the Gulf.”  Just wonder what black viscous substance might be at the center of those “interests.”

As for Perle himself, not much to be seen these days, Maureen Dowd did refer to him in her demolition column on Judith Miller that appeared in the Times one day before Mr. Rich’s (“Woman of Mass Destruction”).  Dowd wrote: “Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq . . .”  I wrote to a friend: “to be totally accurate, one might speculate that that sentence should have read: ‘She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was feeding back to the neocons the stories that Richard Perle had instructed Chalabi to tell back to Perle himself and his fellow neocons, to knock out Saddam so they could get their hands on Iraq . . .’ ” and, one might add, large supplies of that black, viscous substance.

As for Miller, even before the at-first-within-the-Times and then most-public (viz. Dowd’s column) contretemps over how she conducted herself as a Times reporter, when she went to jail for 85 days, supposedly over a freedom of the press issue, I was wondering what the real matter was.  Libby had given her permission to reveal his name as a source for the Valerie Plame identity leak a year before.  And she was protecting him as source of that information?  Didn’t make sense.  What did make sense to me, given the prominent role that Miller played as a Times reporter in the run-up to the War, and the role she tried to play afterwards in showing that there were WMD in Iraq when indeed there were none, was this: my speculation that Miller herself was an integral part of a criminal conspiracy to get the country into a war based on lies.

If my speculation was correct, 85 days in the slammer made sense.  It wasn’t that she was protecting Libby on the Plame-identity leak matter.  She was waiting, and communicating with him (by back channels, not through her public attorney Floyd Abrams), rather, in an attempt to get their stories straight on a much larger matter (I speculated): how they all conspired to lie our nation into the Iraq War.  After all, it is possible that a Presidency is at stake here, along with the career of George W. Bush.  Speculation?  Absolutely.  Maybe by the time this column sees the light of print we will know more.

Speaking of bringing presidencies down, as a final subject let’s look at some of the differences and similarities between what started out as “Plamegate” and the Grand Gate that initiated the whole contemporary vocabulary for political scandal.  Watergate was indeed a “third-rate burglary,” as Nixon himself described it.  Like PlameGate it was plotted in the White House.  Like Plamegate, it was immoral, unethical, and illegal.  Like Watergate, in the grand scheme of things for their respective Presidencies’ political survival, if the deeds had not been done, both were entirely unnecessary.  Watergate was about trying to find out information about the Democratic Party that Nixon didn’t need for his re-election.  PlameGate was about taking revenge on someone who told the truth about the Georgite War. Yet if PlameGate hadn’t occurred, who would now be talking about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame-Wilson?  If in the end PlameGate brings down the current Presidency, the two events will be similar in that regard too.

Not every feature is similar, though.  The Watergate burglary itself hurt no-one.  The Valerie Plame outing has had and will continue to have, in and of itself, many negative consequences.  A life-long career in the service of US national security was ended.  Plame’s life as well as the lives of every person with whom she ever had contact in her undercover CIA role has been put at risk, for the rest of their lives.  A very important set of assets for the US in the fight against illegal/ criminal nuclear proliferation has been destroyed.  But the much larger plot, of which the Plame outing was a minor part, had much more serious consequences.  Comparing the war that in part engendered Watergate with the war-then-to-be that engendered PlameGate is instructive.

The infra-structure of Iraq has been virtually destroyed, as was the infrastructure of Vietnam.  The lives of many American service people were lost in both.  Many, many more civilians living in the country invaded by the US have been killed. The US has been immersed in a military quagmire halfway around the world.  The diplomatic disaster created for our country by the policy is even worse in the case of Iraq than it was in the case of Vietnam.  Watergate brought down a President.  PlameGate may just possibly do the same.

If the third-rate burglary had not occurred, Nixon likely would have finished his term in triumph, and then who knows what history would have looked like.  If Libby and Rove had just let Joe Wilson be and not gone after his wife in a case of school-yard revenge, the Iraq disaster would have been the same, to date least. But at this juncture, if indeed there are indictments, they could eventually bring down another Republican Presidency.  Nixon’s “gotta get some dirt” thing.  Rove and Libby’s (and Cheney’s?), “gotta extract revenge” thing.  Indeed, minor events, accidents of history if you will, that did, and could, lead to monumental events – just as have other accidents of history..

On the morning of June 18, 1815, one of the most famous generals in history woke up with diarrhea.  What happened later that day ended his career and would, six years later, lead to the end of his life.  Supposing Napoleon Bonaparte had not had tummy trouble that morning? Who knows what might have happened.  An accident of history.  On June 5, 1944, another one of history’s most famous generals left his assigned post, at which nothing much appeared to be happening, to be with his wife for her birthday.  If Erwin Rommel had been on the scene on Hitler’s Atlantic Wall on June 6, 1944, it might well have been the case that on that evening yet another of the most famous generals of history, Dwight D. Eisenhower, would have given the second of the two speeches that he had prepared in advance for delivery on that fateful day. Ike had prepared the ‘other one’ just in case, to announce the failure of the Normandy invasion under withering and totally well-organized German firepower, rather than its success.  An accident of history.

So we have a hissy fit leading to a revenge plot that to the plotters (maybe ignorant of the law concerning the revealing of the identities of CIA operatives and obviously unaware of the feelings of the father of the current titular President of the United States on that particular matter) seemed like an appropriate game to play.  An accident of history.  History, during the coming days, will now tell us what the consequences of this current “accident” might be.

The Future of the Democratic Party, IV: Bush, Bennett, Miers, and the DLC

Column No. 82 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH -  October 27, 2005

In this week’s column I return to a consideration of specific political issues that I believe are central to the development of the Democratic Party as a true opposition and governing alternative to the Georgite juggernaut.   Bush and Iraq.  The Miers nomination.  Bennett on race, abortion and crime.  I then briefly consider what one of the major DLC spokespersons considers to be important at this time.

On October 6 President gave a speech in which he announced a brand new major justification for his War on Iraq, his fourth.  (The first three principal ones were, you will recall, the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Saddam-bin Laden link, and “bringing peace, freedom and democracy” to the country.)  The latest is that the “enemies of America seek to create a radical Islamic ‘totalitarian Empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia’ bent on enslaving nations and intimidating the world” (C. Gordon, Newsday, Oct. 7, 2005).  Want a holy war?  You’ve got one.  Want data-free policy-making?  You’ve got it.  (If there is indeed some pan-Islamic organization or government bent on enslaving the world, they sure have been quiet about it.) Want an example of lethal, global, psychological projection? You’ve got one.  Can’t get much more totalitarian than Bush’s Christian Rightist base that right here in River City wants to substitute theocracy for Constitutional Democracy.  (Yes, Sen. Brownback of Kansas is considering a run for the Republican nomination in 2008 on a platform of “opposition to abortion and support for God in public life” [DD Kirkpatrick, “Kansas Senator Makes Faith the Bedrock of Campaign,” New York Times, 10/14/05].) And Bush says, THEY, the “Isamicists,” want to do it to US (when it is really some of us, the Christian Right, who want to do it to us).  The Collaborationist-DLC, which takes the position that the only thing wrong with Bush’s War is that he isn’t doing it right, would be hard pressed to attack Bush on that one I should think.

Let’s move on to the Miers nomination, on which the DLCers have been pretty quiet, except for noting that she might, “might” mind you, not be qualified.  (At the rate she is going of course, by the time this column, written on 10/20/05, appears, her nomination may be a thing of the past.) Allen L. Roland (10/5/2005, great website, http://www.allenroland.com) was one of the very the first to point out that a primary reason for this nomination is that Bush wants to have a personal lawyer on the bench when the matter of Executive Privilege comes up in the Plamegate, White House crime (Savafian), and Congressional-White-House-linked corruption indictments (that is if there are indictments from Fitzgerald, about which, as of Oct. 20, I still had my doubts).

There are three other possible reasons for the Miers nomination (other than Bush’s stated reason: she is the “most qualified” of all the candidates he considered). First is a "bait and switch" maneuver on the Democrats.  Nominate someone who the Far Right of his own party won't support.  Enough of them will then join with enough Democrats voting on either "she is unqualified by experience" and/or "she won't tell us what she about" and/or she is not openly a member of the Republican Religious Right (RRR) grounds to deny her confirmation.  Then Bush will nominate an open RR Rightist, but one over whom not enough Democrats will support a filibuster.  That person, say Janice Rogers Brown or Patricia Owen, will be confirmed.  The third possible reason for the Miers nomination is that she is indeed a closet rightist.  The White House has apparently privately assured leading theocrats like James Dobson that this is the case.  However, in this formulation the Dems would be lulled into supporting her just because certain members of the RRR, like Brownback, seem to be so openly against her.  Rove, even under a cloud (which may well prove to be temporary) is very inventive.

Finally on this week’s “what the Democrats ought to consider and respond to” agenda, there is the matter of Bill Bennett and his “let’s abort all black babies to reduce crime” statement.  To be fair to Bennett, that quote was taken out of context.  In the next sentence of the radio commentary in which he made it he termed it an “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,” at the same time allowing that the “crime rate would go down” (“Going on the Offensive,” Newsday, Oct. 1, 2005).  Bennett has been roundly attacked as racist and hyper-hypocritical (on the matter of abortion), as he should be.  But there are a few broader points about the kind of thinking this leading Republican ideologue represents that should be considered.

First, one has to give Bennett credit.  For while he did not go into any detail about how his plan would work in practice, since he mentioned it at all he has obviously thought through the matter of exactly how one would define “black” in such circumstances.  This is a problem that haunted the authors of the mid-nineties right-wing tome The Bell Curve.  Their thesis that “blacks” were by nature intellectually inferior to whites fell afoul of their total lack of definition of the term in a book of several hundreds of pages, before one even got to their totally inept and unscientific methodology.  But Dr. Bennett is nothing else if not intelligent, as least he is so reputed to be.  Obviously he must have worked out some kind of system.

It presumably uses some kind of rating of skin color. Otherwise he would not have used the term “black,” although he must have been using that term generically, for few African-Americans actually have skin of a black color, for reasons that are well-known.  Also, he obviously must have come up with some kind of exemption system, for surely he would not want to eliminate the possibility of in the future the Republican Religious Right having in its pocket such luminaries as Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown (he of a darker hue and she of a medium one, one must note).  So, good on Dr. Bennett for solving that one.

Second is the absence of facts in his presentation.  If social class-adjustment is applied, there is no evidence that the black crime rate is any higher than the white crime rate.  The black conviction and incarceration rate is much higher primarily because of the racist nature of the so-called “Drug War” that Bennett himself did so much to aggressively promote when he was the first Bush’s “drug czar.”  (It happens that 75% of drug use is among whites while 75% of persons incarcerated for drug-related offenses are black.)  So, drug-related crime for which persons are incarcerated would indeed go down if the population was reduced in size by eliminating blacks but no other forms of crime would.

Third, the Republican Religious Right, of which Bennett is a principal leader, defines abortion as murder.  I will not deal with his (and their) hypocrisy in the extreme.  Many others have, very effectively.  Perhaps even more importantly it should be noted that Bennett publicly considers killing as a way to problem-solve. In Germany of the 1930s, the first policy for dealing with “undesirables,” whether they were homosexuals, or Jews, or “mental defectives,” was simply to remove them the general society.  The killing solutions came later, after they had been under development for some time.

Finally, if killing certain members of society is a way to solve problems, even if at first the idea is rejected (and it was at first rejected in Nazi Germany) I wonder what the former tobacco-addict William Bennett (ironically he was heavy cigarette-smoker when he was the drug czar) would think about aborting the fetuses of smokers as a way to deal with the highly addictive substance responsible for close to 25% of American deaths annually.  I wonder what the overweight William Bennett would think of solving the obesity epidemic, which starts in childhood and in many cases is related to the overweight of parents, by aborting fetuses of the obese.  I wonder what the well-known compulsive gambler William Bennett would think of solving the gambling problem (so beloved by states that don’t want to tax those persons who can afford to pay taxes, but hated on religious-doctrine grounds by major elements of the Georgite base) by aborting the fetuses of known gamblers.

Hey, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gambler, I mean gander.  But I am much more concerned with the necessary Democratic Party response to Bennett than I am with the details of his thinking.  I don’t think that anytime soon the Collaborationist-DLC is going to be going on the attack on any of these issues.  They are too busy attacking progressive Democrats for promoting civil rights, civil liberties, defense of Constitutional rights, and a US withdrawal from Iraq. I guess that they just don’t have time to deal with the essence of Georgitism, as represented by the examples on these pages.

Guess what that leading DLC spokesperson mentioned at the outset, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton, was featuring in her email message of Oct. 19, 2005 (info@friendsofhillary.com; “HillaryClinton.com)?  “Hillary is working to increase the supply of vaccine to help meet the dangers of a worldwide flu epidemic and avian flu outbreak.”  ‘Nuff said.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, III: FIRST THOUGHTS ON DEALING WITH THE DLC

Column No. 81 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH  -  October 20, 2005

In my original plan for this series of columns I had thought to deal with the principal political issues first.  Then I would get into the specifics of Party growth and development so that it may become as a true opposition and governing alternative to the Georgite juggernaut. Given the rapid development of certain major political scenarios now on the scene, I thought in this column to present in outline my thoughts on progressive Democratic Party development.  I will return to political specifics in upcoming columns, and then further down the road consider proposals for Party strategy and tactics in more depth.  Thus along the way I will interweave consideration of both subjects, rather than trying to separate them one from the other, which is really artificial anyway.

On the subject of the development of the Democratic Party as a true Opposition, a good friend raised an interesting point regarding language that I used in the notice sent to the Personal Notification List that I maintain for family and friends for my column, this one for the October 5/6 issue of TPJ.  In that particular notice I said that “progressive Democrats, who now likely make up a majority of Democratic voters in our nation and who believe that Georgitism is wrong, dead wrong, for the country and the world, are going to have to take over the Party from the Collaborationist-Democratic Leadership Council.”

My friend wrote: “What and [whence from?] are the numbers to support your ‘who now likely’ assertion [referring to the use of the word ‘progressive’]?”  I responded that: “the polling numbers show that a majority of Americans now support withdrawal from Iraq on some sort of schedule (slow, fast, and in between), and Bush's poll numbers are abysmal (majority do not approve).  I think that it is safe to assume that a majority of those in both groups are Democrats, meaning then that it is safe from a statistical point of view to project that indeed a majority of Democrats (about half of the voting public) are anti-war/anti-Bush. However (I went on), perhaps the use of the term ‘progressive,’ which means much more than simply ‘anti-war/anti-Bush,’ was an overreach.”  My friend and I agreed that the term “progressive” needs further definition (I will be offering mine as we proceed with this series); but that we can safely say that a majority of Democrats are at a minimum “anti-war/anti-Bush.”  For the time-being then, that is the term I will use to describe the majority of the anti-Georgite Democrats.

It is fascinating that as I was putting together the components for this week’s writing on the subject of what the Democratic Party is, what it stands for, and what its public position should be, what should appear in the October 8 issue of TPJ but a summary of the latest broadside from the Collaborationist-DLC.  In his introductory comment on the content of the issue, Judge Gheen noted that:

Since 2000, Democrats have been trying to build a consensus of what the Party stands for and how to mount an effective attack on radical Republican policy.  The debate has been largely engaged between the ‘progressive’ and ‘centrist’ wings of the Party.  During the past week, James Carville and two leading centrists have separately made presentations that simply defy description. Collectively, TPJ interprets the centrist message to the Party as follows: ‘Democrats need to reject its failed progressive heritage and adopt centrist doctrines in order to attract sufficient voters to win elections.  Democrats can exemplify their new centrist policies by approving executions of a few semi-retarded prisoners, challenging Black liberal leaders in the Party and openly renouncing progressive doctrines.  In order to sell the centrist doctrines, Democrats only need field candidates that are smart, but not too smart, and strong, but not too strong.  Democrats need candidates who can convince Americans to adopt the new centrist doctrine by communicating to citizens as if telling a Winnie the Pooh story.’  It is not a joke.  Every Democrat should read: ‘Advice for the Forlorn Democrat.’

I do recommend going back to read the full article by Judge Gheen, if you haven’t already.

Perhaps the biggest shocker in the piece reproduced in full in the October 6 issue of TPJ, was that James Carville --- who used to be at least somewhat on the liberal, if not progressive, side of the Party -- is now full-bore with the Collaborationists.  Since the time he married the far-right wing political attack specialist Mary Matalin some years back, I have wondered who would finally win the ideological battle that must have occurred from time-to-time in that household.  When asked, Carville (although not Matalin) would say that they simply did not talk about politics.  I never believed him, and now we know who won.

Briefly here I will review the DLC position as presented by Carville.  What Carville says does tell us why, if Constitutional Democracy is to be restored and Civil War avoided, our side is going to have to take over the Party from the Collaborationist-DLC, or split the Party and then win electorally. The DLC is big on criticism of the anti-war/anti-Bush Democrats, apparently not so big on criticizing Bush (don’t believe me? Just check out their website: http://www.ndol.org/).  They seem to think that there is some huge pool of “undecided” voters out there that they can get to vote Democratic by abandoning certain key Democratic principles, like defending equal rights for non-white Americans, women, and homosexuals.

Carville himself is currently circulating a fund-raising mailing on behalf of the Democratic anti-choice candidate for the US Senate seat in Pennsylvania, William Casey, Jr.  Carville stresses the differences between Casey and the incumbent, the far-right wing Republican Sen. Santorum, on Social Security.  In a note to Carville responding to the fund-raiser, I told him that the issue of whether one’s belief as to when life begins could and should be criminalized was even more important for the future of our nation as a Constitutional Democracy than Social Security.  On this critical issue, the criminalization of belief, Casey and Santorum are in full agreement.  Why should any Democrat support Casey?

The DLC-ers seem to believe that there have been a series of “progressive” or “liberal” Democratic Presidential candidates who have contested national elections and lost  (when in fact all of the Democratic Presidential candidates since Sen. McGovern, most of whom lost, have been of the DLC persuasion, to a greater or lesser extent).  They seem to believe what they define as “centrism,” which seems to be “rightism but not quite so right as Bushism,” would be good for the country.  Like the Republicans, they seem to enjoy engaging in data-free politics and policy-making.

Carville and Casey are playing right into Republican hands by putting Social Security out in front, leaving the larger issues concerning the very nature of the Untied States as a Constitutional Democracy right out of the equation.  I believe that if the Democratic Party is to truly become an Opposition there are four issues that have to be out front.  These four issues are not only the most critical ones facing the country, but the development of the specifics with which to deal with them will at the same time produce that new Grand Vision for the Democratic Party that so many observers have called for, for so long.

I.                     An end to the US War on Iraq, with a return to the multi-lateral foreign policy that worked so well for our country from the time we entered the Second World War until the advent of Georgitism, and a return to abiding by the UN Charter, which forbids “pre-emptive war” of the Georgite type.  A specific plan for achieving that withdrawal can be found in my column of Sept. 1, 2005.

II.                   Making the protection and promotion of Constitutional Democracy, in accordance with the Preamble to the Constitution, the center of the Democratic Party’s approach to governing.  A return to the System of Checks and Balances and the requirement that the President abide by the Constitution is essential

III.                  A vision of government that understands that big problems require big solutions, that when necessary for the common economic good, government needs to be big, that the Norquist Doctrine of Bathtub Government needs to be flushed won the toilet.  On the other hand, when it comes to matters of personal belief, expression, and adult behavior, government needs to be small.  This is the exact opposite of the Republican view, which wants government to be overwhelmingly big when it comes to such matters and overwhelmingly small when dealing with the economy.

IV.                A return to totally free elections, and a full-scale assault on the Republican practice of Grand Theft Elections.  The Report of the Carter-Baker election reform commission, http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/203832.htm, is a good place to start (although not to finish).

A number of current proposals for a Democratic version of the old (misleading) Gingrich “Contract on (oops, he said “for”) America, begin and end with versions of the usual Democratic “Christmas Tree Ornaments” list of programs: Social Security, health insurance, and etc.  Those elements are of course vital, but they are not the central issues now. We need to move well beyond them if we are to get the country back from the crypto-theocratic fascists (see Lewis Lapham in Harper’s, at http://www.harpers.org/LewisLapham.html).   We also need to develop a viable alternative to the Democratic Leadership Council.  Very briefly, there are a number of progressive Democratic Organizations now in the field, such as the Progressive Democrats of America (http://www.pdamerica.org/), 21st Century Democrats (www.21stcenturydems.org) and Democracy for America (http://www.democracyforamerica.com/, formerly Dean for America).  They do both policy development and political organizing.  I believe that what we need to successfully go up against the DLC is an organization similar to it, policy-only, not connected with the electoral campaigns of any candidates, but hoping to attract Democratic office-holders to sign on.  How does Council for Progressive Democrats sound?

Of course I will be returning to these subjects in more detail down the line.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, II: ON THE REPUBLICANS

Column No. 80 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH -  October 13, 2005

To defeat an enemy, ancient Chinese military doctrine tells us, first know the enemy.

Consider the case of the Democrats vs. the Republican Party leadership.  For many in the Democratic Party leadership, the first lesson, unfortunately, will have to be that the Republican Party now, under the leadership of the Bush Men, of the Republican Religious Right (RRR), of the Georgites, is the enemy. (Notice that I use the phrase, “Republican Party leadership,” not simply “Republicans.”  For it is clearly the leadership who is the enemy, certainly not simply “Republicans.” Many Republicans fully and firmly support US Constitutional democracy, which the Georgites are out to destroy.  Thus many rank and file Republicans differ from traditional Democrats only in degree, not kind.)  Why, one might ask, is that so?  Why must we now not deal with the Republican Party in the way that we dealt with them throughout the 20th century – as a party with whom we differed in degree, but not in kind?

The answer is that until the so-called Gingrich Revolution of 1994, we were dealing with a party that was, for the most part (with certain exceptions such as the McCarthy Era), committed to the Rule of Law, to US Constitutional Democracy, and to some significant role for the Federal government in the managing of the economy, the regulation and protection of the environment, and programming for the common good.  (The groundwork for Gingrich’s bloodless coup within the Republican Party was laid by the Goldwater revolution.  Remember that the convention that nominated Goldwater booed Nelson Rockefeller off the stage.  He was a man who, today, probably could not get the Presidential nomination in the DLC-lead Democratic Party because he would be viewed as too “big government,” in the positive sense of government as the means for major problem-solving. The Reagan Presidency laid the groundwork for the country as a whole for the Gingrich Revolution.) For example, Richard Nixon, as paranoid and personally vicious and right-wing in the traditional sense as he was, presided over the largest expansion of Federal environmentalism the country ever experienced and actually introduced a program for national health insurance into Congress in the Spring of 1973, one that was similar in many ways to the Clinton Health Plan.

But now we have a President whose personal philosophy of good national policy was clearly established by the time he was a student at the Harvard Business School in the 1970s.  It closely reflects the fundamental beliefs of the “neocons” who dominate the formulation in detail of Federal government policy under the Georgites (“President George Bush and the Gilded Age,” Yoshi Tsurumi, Professor of International Business, Baruch College, the City University of New York, March 1, 2004, http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20040301_tsurumi_president

“At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that ‘people are poor because they are lazy.’ He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to ‘free market competition.’ To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was ‘socialism.’ “

There is no evidence that George Bush has changed any of his views. However, do the particulars of the above list alone constitute the major issues that set apart the Georgites and traditional Democrats?  Does the list by itself tell us why the RRR and the current Republican Party leadership must be considered an enemy that must be vanquished, not an opponent with whom we can compromise and work with if we are to deal with it effectively?  Unfortunately, not.

What informs us that a compromise is not possible in part is the ideology underlying the list: according to Georgite ideology when it comes to dealing with issues of the economy, of the environment, of the health care delivery system, of education, of (somewhat) leveling the playing field, of doing anything to help people help themselves or helping people in desperate straits, government, whether Federal, state, or local, has no role to play.  In the timeless phraseology of Grover Norquist (detailed in last week’s column), what the modern Republican Party stands for is what can be best described as “Bathtub Government.” In other words, for them the preamble to the Constitution, quoted at the end of last week’s column, is non-operative.  This is what the Georgites are about. This is a major difference of kind, not degree.

The other major ideological concept establishing the RRR as an enemy that must be defeated is its construct of what the body of the Constitution itself actually means.  This is a subject that I have discussed a number of times in this column from a variety of perspectives.  I will not repeat here all of the arguments and all the details. (Interested readers can find them in last week’s column, in the recent one entitled “Let’s Hear it For Original Intent [Sept. 8, 2005],” and in my columns all the way back to “A Fire Bell in the Night, [March 4, 2004].”)  For the Georgites, it’s “Constitution Optional.” (For Bush’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, “Original Construction” (sic) Scalia, there is something called “Natural Law” stand above the Constitution.  Neither the term nor the concept appears anywhere in the document, but Scalia is sure that he knows for sure what it is and he brings it into play at whim or at will.) Thus under Georgitism, A.G. Alberto Gonzales can characterize the Geneva Conventions --- as treaties they are part of the Constitution --- as “quaint,” and advise the President that on his own authority he can ignore them.

Sens. John McCain and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee John Warner, traditional right-wing, but not RRR Republicans, proposed an amendment to a defense bill requiring the military to abide by the Geneva rules. McCain is proposing another amendment that would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in Department of Defense custody.  Cheney told them to desist on the grounds that such laws would “interfere with the authority of the President.”  Such “authority” would allow the President to abide by the Constitution when he pleased and not to when he didn’t.  This is what the Georgites are about.  This is a difference of kind, not degree.

Next on the list of what the Democrats need to understand about the Republican leadership is the matter of Bush’s Supreme Court nominations.  Much has been written about Roberts, his apparent life-long commitment to the principles of the RRR, and his unwillingness to answer any meaningful questions during his confirmation hearings.  Much more important than that in understanding the Georgite approach to government and Roberts’ support for it are the following.  In the 2000 election, as an attorney Roberts was a key advisor to the Bush Team on strategy and tactics in developing and implementing their plan for Grand Theft Election I (Florida).  (Much has been written in TPJ and many other places on GTE I.  For details on Grand Theft Election II (Ohio), see, for example, “None Dare Call It Stolen” by Mark Crispin Miller, Harper's Magazine, 0017-789X, August 1, 2005, Vol. 311, Issue 1863; and "http://www.nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html: 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA,” by Angry Girl, Nightweed.com).

Then, at the time Roberts was being considered for nomination to the Court, he was a sitting Appellate Judge on the “Guantanamo” case challenging the government’s right to imprison permanently foreign nationals on American territory without charges, access to counsel, or trial.  Both he and his interviewers knew of the situation.  He voted to uphold the Georgite policy of ignoring the Constitution and doing what the President wanted to do.

So we now have as Chief Justice a man who helped Bush take office following an election he did not win and a judge who voted for the Constitution-busting Bush policy when he was being considered by Bush for a Supreme Court appointment.  And oh yes, this new Chief has had exactly two year’s experience on the bench. This says volumes about the Georgite approach to the judicial branch of government and to Roberts’ as well.  Do you ever wonder how all of those German judges and courts could have ended up supporting the Nazis?  Just look at what is happening here.  And on the day I am writing this, Bush nominates for the court a long-time personal lawyer of his who has no judicial experience whatsoever.  But she is a long-time Bush crony who, if and when such issues as the outing of Valerie Plame come before the Supreme Court, is most likely to provide support for guess who?  This is what the Georgites are about.  This is a difference of kind, not degree.

In his column in The New York Times of Sept. 22, 2005, entitled "Voters' Remorse on Bush," the excellent left-liberal columnist Bob Herbert noted that along with everything else, the Georgites have shown that they are woefully incompetent at dealing with such major matters as the post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq and the consequences of both hurricane Katrina and The Great New Orleans Bush Flood of 2005.  (Note that this section is adopted from my “Short Short Shot No. 10” posted at Michael Carmichael’s Weblog [http://planetmove.blogspot.com/].) Their incompetence in doing what the United States government has been expected to do since the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of the Progressive Era and that of his cousin who established the New Deal may be part of what eventually brings down the Georgites.

However, to be competent at doing what the Federal government has done for most of the 20th century is not what the Georgites were selected to do by the powers that selected them. They have proven to be extremely competent in carrying out their true electoral mandate (whether or not that mandate was made widely known to the American electorate either by themselves or by the Democrats, and what it was not). And so, as readers of this space know very well, the Georgites have proven highly competent at moving toward achieving their true goals for Iraq (creating permanent US bases in the Western Iraqi desert and creating a US/Kurdish protectorate in the north so that the US oil companies can get their hands on what may prove to be truly enormous reserves); at providing the obscene tax cuts enacted for their rich supporters; ballooning the Federal deficit as rapidly as possible while cutting all non-military/non-selective-law-enforcement spending as much as they can; eliminating environmental and economic regulation to the extent possible; and perhaps most importantly, laying the groundwork for fascism by their ongoing offensive against the Constitution.

At the end of his column, Mr. Herbert says: "But the next time around, the voters need to keep in mind that beyond the incessant yammering about left and right, big government and small, Democrats and Republicans, is a more immediate issue, and that's competence." Mr. Herbert, I beg to disagree. The central issue is NOT competence per se. As I showed above, the Georgites are fully competent about plenty. The issue is what they are competent about. The Democrats cannot regain control of the Federal government by running on "competence." All the Republicans would have to do is say, a) we'll learn from our mistakes (as Bush is already saying, although not doing), and b) you made plenty of mistakes when you had power, as their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda is already doing 24/7.

It is fascinating that the Georgites have appointed so many clearly incompetent people to high-level positions in the Federal government.  Even more fascinating is that despite the Mike Brown (FEMA/Bush Flood) disaster they continue to make such appointments (Sunday, Sep. 25, 2005, Time, “How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?” by M. Thompson, K. Tumulty, M. Allen).  Part of this is Bush’s well-known “middle-finger” approach to his office.  But part of it goes along with the whole Georgite approach to government and governing.  Bush excepted, these people are not dummies.  They know that incompetent people will do incompetent jobs.  (That may be one reason why George Bush, who never succeeded at anything he ever tried, except getting out of his National Guard obligations, was himself chosen to be the neocon’s President.)  There may well be a method in their seeming madness.  Let’s turn the people against “government” (except when it comes to controlling personal beliefs and behaviors, looting the Federal treasury for their rich friends, and all the rest) by showing them how lousy a job government does.

Thus, the central issues separating the Republican leadership and traditional Democrats do have to do with substance –- policy and underlying it ideology, not process --- that is competence. These issues have to do with what you are for and what you are against in foreign and domestic policy, what the role of government is and what it isn't, maintaining traditional American Constitutional democracy or not. These are the issues that should be primary for the Democrats, not the usual laundry-list of proposed Federal government programs that so often fills DNC fund-raising letters. These issues are what the Republicans don't want to talk about. Nevertheless, how the RRR acts on these issues, however, tell us exactly what the Georgites are truly about.  This is a difference of kind, not of degree.  These basic issues of governance and governing are what the Democrats have to get back to. If they do, they will win. If they don't, they won't.

Next week we shall begin to turn our attention to how the Democrats can confront and address these issues, so that the Party can play a part in turning our beloved country around before those of us who believe in the Constitution the way it was written can do nothing else but cry, for our beloved country.

THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I

Column No. 79 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - October 6, 2005

Last winter and into the spring I ran an occasional 11-part series in this space entitled “The Coming 2nd Civil War” (TPJ column nos. 39-59).  I discontinued the series under that name because, unfortunately, many of the topics that I deal with regularly in this column could be subsumed under that rubric.  Indeed, the crypto-theocratic-fascist Georgite onslaught against Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law continues unabated, whether in the response to the Great New Orleans Bush Flood of 2005 or the (clever) Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts.  Unless this blitzkrieg is stopped in time politically, it is an onslaught against US Constitutional democracy that will, sooner or later, lead to a future civil war. At one time or another I have been discussing this matter for quite some time now, for the reasons set forth below.

There are two irreconcilable sides to the questions of what are the meanings of “freedom and democracy,” the Rule of Law, and the “Original Intent of the Constitution”.  There are two irreconcilable sides on the question of what is the role of government under the US Constitution.

There are two irreconcilable sides on the questions of the separation of church and state, of whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment means what it says, or doesn’t.    Without going through the constitutionally mandated amendment procedure, there is no possible compromise on what the words of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments mean in terms of the rights of American citizens in matters of criminal procedure.  On these matters, and many others currently on the politico-historical agenda of our Constitutional democracy, there are only two sides, not three or four. Just like a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, there are no compromises possible here, as much as certain “center-right” politicians would like there to be.

As I wrote at various times in the earlier series, 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), also known in my phraseology as the “Georgites.”  In different arenas, different sources have stated the primary goals of the RRR. These range from the 2004 Republican Party Platform through George Bush to Jerry Falwell and Grover Norquist (recently revealed to be “ethically challenged” through his associations with his college room-mate Jack Abramoff [see “The Progress Report” of Sept. 23, americanprogressaction.org]).  Their goals are: to impose their particular  religious beliefs on all Americans through the use of the criminal law; to reduce the functions of the Federal government to the barest minimum outside of : the military-and-prison-industrial complexes, the predominance of the opposition-repression/suppression and private-thought/behavior-control sector, and the use of Federal fiscal and monetary policy to loot the public treasury on behalf of RRR financial/corporate supporters and cronies, while deforming economic and environmental regulation on their behalf; and to replace Constitutional government as we have known it with overwhelming Executive Branch dominance operating on its own authority (otherwise known as “fascism”).

To be clear about what I mean by “fascism,” let me post a brief definition here (for a long one, see my TPJ column of May 24, 2004): “Fascism is executive branch domination of the government without constitutional constraints on its power – that is, the substitution of the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law; no independent judiciary; no guaranteed individual rights; a single governmental national ideology that demonizes and then criminalizes all political, religious, and ideological opposition to it; corporate domination and determination of economic, fiscal, and regulatory policy.”  In the US variant, were it to come to full fruition, the “national ideology” would be based on the theology of the Christian Right.

A good lesson on what George Bush is both really about and what he says he is about was contained in his 2005 Inaugural Address.  The entire speech was a Weapon of Mass Distraction aimed at his domestic audience, primarily his core RRR supporters, and those who otherwise voted for him.  He focused almost entirely on the foreign mission that he laid out for the United States, to spread “freedom and democracy” around the world.  Nowhere did he tell us exactly what he meant by those words, although he did use terms like “oppression” and “tyranny” as bad and “rights” and “dignity” as good.  They were all undefined.  However, the best lesson on what Bush really means is found in his approach and policies on “freedom and democracy” right here at home.  As I have noted many times in this space, they are legion.

We have:

The 341-page Patriot Act, snuck through an hysterical Congress in the dead of night,  which for persons labeled on Presidential authority as “terrorists” or “abettors of terrorism” among other things eliminates: protection against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause provided by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, the guarantee of the due process of law provided by the 5th Amendment, and the right to a speedy and public trial in criminal cases guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.  (These presidential powers, in relation to an American citizen, were recently upheld by a Federal Court of Appeals in the Padilla case.  The new Chief Justice of the United States, in a decision rendered while he was being considered for nomination to the Supreme Court and knew it, upheld similar powers in relation to foreign nationals in the Hamdi/“Guantanomo Bay” case.  The Constitution itself makes no distinction on the attribution of those rights between foreign and US nationals on American territory).

There is the “Gay Marriage” Amendment, a top agenda item of Bush’s core Christian Right constituency during the 2004 elections.  It would deny full access to and protection of the law to a sector of the population defined solely by who they are as people, not anything they have done.  It would do this just because one religious minority defines their private behavior as a “sin according to the Bible.” Such an Amendment would return to certain concepts of non-full-personhood contained in the original Constitution: Negro slaves counted as 3/5’s of a person just because they were Negroes and slaves, and Native Americans did not count as persons at all.  Furthermore, such a designation for homosexual persons would vitiate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in relation to civil marriage, which happens to be defined in the law by all 50 states.

The abortion-ban amendment that is part of the Republican National platform would criminalize anyone’s belief that life begins at any time other than the moment of conception, to say nothing of depriving pregnant women of freedom of choice in the outcome of their own pregnancies before the time of fetal viability outside of the womb.

In the torture controversy, the present Attorney General has stated that, in his role as Commander-in-Chief the President can declare war in violation of the Constitutional provision that grants that power to Congress alone, and then, using that declaration as his reason, the President can unilaterally amend treaties without consulting our treaty partners, thereby violating another provision of the Constitution.

As I noted in a recent column (on Original Intent, 9-8-05), there is nothing in the “plain language” of the Constitution, so beloved by Right-wingers when they are looking to suppress individual rights (by ignoring the 9th Amendment --- which the “original constructionist” Robert Bork loves to term just an “inkblot on the Constitution” --- yes, the 9th is inconvenient for them), that gives the President anything like these powers.

To the Georgites, “freedom and democracy” means committing Grand Theft Elections.  It means buying the news.  It means being as secretive about government operations as possible.  It means having the Secretary of Defense able at will to violate the law on intelligence functions and services.  It means lying to the Congress, the people, and the United Nations about the true reasons for invading a foreign country.  It means attacking any political opponent as “partisan,” as if partisanship were not a central element of the political process in a free and democratic nation.  Finally, it means describing an election in Iraq as “fair and free,” despite the fact that it was held by necessity under the tightest security that the US Army and Marine Corps could possibly provide.  Perhaps the solution to the problem of no longer having free and fair elections right here at home would be to mobilize our armed forces on Election Day to make sure that they are not.

Yes, well beyond tax cuts (for the rich), “staying the course in Iraq” (to secure the Kurdish oil for American companies), “getting the government off your back” --- which it is for virtually no law-abiding citizens, but would be for everyone in their bedrooms and worse, their minds if the RRR gets it way, the above is what the Georgites are really about. However, the RRR does its best to conceal most of its true goals from the American public.  It camouflages them alternatively with foreign wars, the “terror” threat, open lies, and appeals to the basest instincts of hate, fear, and prejudice.  If and when the American people become fully aware of the true aims of the RRR, I am confident that a majority of us will reject those aims.  The critical question now is a matter of timing, and that relates directly to the matter of whether or not there will indeed be a 2nd Civil War.

There are three possible time-lines.  The first foresees that the battle with the Georgites will be openly engaged now, by a major Party in the political arena, and that the Georgites will be prevented from ever being able to even try to implement full-blown fascism through the political process.  (Recall that Hitler – who was much more open than the Georgites are about his true aims; he set them forth in a whole book about the subject, called Mein Kampf – was able to do just that.  The only major round of gunfire cementing the Nazi takeover of 1933 was heard on the Night of the Long Knives, June 30, 1934, when Hitler had murdered his political opponents or men whom he saw as potential opponents, within the Nazi Party.)   The second possible time-line postulates that the Georgites will move politically to the full implementation of their plans without facing any effective political opposition beforehand and that the 2nd Civil War will then break out as they try to do that.  The third alternative is that, whether or not there is major conflict at the outset, the Georgites are able to establish a full-blown fascist state which then, down the road, will become the subject of a full-scale revolt with the 2nd Civil War occurring at that time.

Some will characterize my position as alarmist and premature.  I fully intend it to be.  One of my principal mentors when I growing up, Dr. Edward K. Barsky, was a so-called “premature anti-Fascist.”  As commander of the medical unit for the International Brigade, during the Spanish Civil War he fought to preserve the Spanish Republic against the Fascists under Franco.  If I am premature in my fears, I can only hope the development of Georgite fascism to maturity in our beloved country can be prevented. To use Jefferson’s characterization of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as indicating an eventual bloody conflict over slavery, “the Fire Bell is ringing in the night.”  The policies and programs of the Georgite tell us that once again that is the case.  The Fire Bell is ringing loud and clear.  All who are presently capable of hearing it, are doing so.  Many more must become so capable. Obviously, what we want is option I.  Obviously, that is where the Democratic Party comes in.  Please, as they used to say on the radio serials of my childhood, do stay tuned.

THE BUSH FLOOD, AND THE GEORGITES: NEW ORLEANS, III

Column No. 78 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH  - September 29, 2005

My late step-mother, Jeanne Erlanger Jonas, liked to quote an old Jewish saying: “When something that appears to be bad happens, how do you know for sure that it is a misfortune?”  Let me tell you something, Karl Rove and his puppet sure like that one.  Think about it. 2001: Bush’s polls are sagging; he doesn’t seem to have a program other than tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for the corporations and the environmental plunderers.  He cannot talk about certain major elements of what he really wants to do in office – e.g., invade Iraq; amend the Constitution on his own authority -- because to do so with no context would be intensely unpopular.  And so along comes 9/11.

Were the Georgites part of it, or did they simply know it was coming, or did they know something was coming but didn’t know what, or did they really know nothing?  Who knows?  Since the day after the tomorrow there have been all kinds of suspicions, accusations, all around the Internet, all around the world.  Just on this Sept. 15 came the word, from a right-wing Republican Congressman no less, that 2.5 terabytes (apparently that’s a lot, a lot and then some) of information about the key 9/11 plotter Mohammed Atta, was shredded on orders from who knows who (Donna de la Cruz, Associated Press Writer)

One thing about the Georgites: they sure have a real big capacity “shredder” somewhere, probably built on a no-bid contract by one of their manufacturing buddies. Did this --- did using some monster shredder or a monster furnace, or what-have-you --- sound suspicious? Well yes, but, after all, you know, it’s time to move on….

Nevertheless, whether they were in on 9/11 in some way, they sure knew how to use it.  Gotta admire Karl Rove.  They moved a “the-President-can-do-just-about-anything-he-wants-to-in-the-name-of-national-security” resolution through Congress in about 72 hours back then.  Within six weeks, they rushed the 342-page Patriot Act through Congress, after giving members one hour to read it.  A number of provisions of the Act had been drafted before 9/11, but the “Justice” Dept. under Ashcroft knew that the measures would go nowhere absent a big bang.  And they got just what they wanted, on 9/11 (maybe not the deaths, but surely the Big Bang --- no not that Big Bang that so many if their supporters on the Religious Right deny ever occurred --- but one they could use, politically).  And then there was the invasion of Iraq, the story of which everyone reading this column surely knows.

To recap, a major tragedy occurs.  Over 3000 people are killed, more injured.  Many businesses, large and small, are put off track, some never to come back.  Many lives are disrupted, some never to resume normally.  The reputation of a Mayor is saved, a mayor who otherwise would have gone down in New York City history as the one, touting himself as a “fiscal conservative” no less, who left behind the largest budget deficit by far.  Bush rides 9/11 into Iraq, going after Kurdish oil, permanent bases in the western Iraqi desert, and the projection of “US Power” into the Middle East on the ground --- these being the frequently published neocon objectives for the US in the region since the mid-90s.  Further, Bush and “I-change-Constitutions” Rove (see my TPJ column No. 37 of 12/2/04) used the 9/11 hysteria which they amped up to the highest degree possible to, with the total cooperation of an utterly supine and intimidated Congress, arrogate to themselves the power to simply ignore major provisions of that great document, beginning with the felling at one swoop of major protections supposedly guaranteed by the 4th (reasonable search and seizure), 5th (due process), and 6th (jury trail guarantee for criminal cases) amendments.  This was soon followed by the elimination of habeas corpus and the assumption of power to end or ignore international treaties that, by provisions of the Constitution itself, were part of it.  9/11 was indeed no misfortune for the Georgites when it came to implementing totally reactionary foreign and domestic policies that they otherwise would have had a very, very hard time getting by with.

Now again, with “The Great New Orleans Bush Flood of 2005”, they are on their merry way to doing the same thing using what for many people is a great misfortune.  They have another whole series of policy objectives which they otherwise would have had a very hard time putting through, at a time when Bush’s popularity keeps reaching new lows, especially in response to his response to the Flood.  Numerous observers (Paul Krugman of The New York Times was one of the first) have already noted the fact that Bush is already using his Flood to implement another whole series of retrograde policies, this time domestic, many of which are becoming increasingly unpopular. These include policies that respond directly to a principal Georgite objective, in Grover Norquist’s term, to “starve the beast” that is government, in this case that hungry, aging, New Orleans dike system.

So, the Georgites want to undercut prevailing labor pay rules, do away with many environmental regulations (particularly ironic in this case because large parts of New Orleans may become permanently uninhabitable due to the “toxic gumbo” created by Republican environmental policies [John Rumpler and Alex Fidis, TomPaine.com, “Poor public policy created the chemical soup inundating New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain”], hand out no-bid contracts in the billions to their buddies, likely by sending boys to do men’s work as they did with the Coalition (sic) Provisional Authority in Iraq and, similarly, continue their incredible mismanagement here so that government will continue to look bad, further, use the spending on New Orleans as an excuse to cut other non-military, non-criminal “justice,” non-repressive government spending, also further drive up the deficit so that if the Democrats were ever to get back into office, ever, there would be no money for them to spend on fixing the nation, and so on and so forth.

One major question:  are the Democrats, finally, finally, finally getting mobilized?  Perhaps, yes.  Even John Kerry and Bill “watch-me-if-you-want-to-learn-how-to-set-policy-by-poll-numbers” Clinton are making strong anti-Bush speeches (too bad they never did it even once during the last Presidential Campaign), and Senator Kennedy, long a strong, public Bush opponent, can now speak out without fear of being belittled by the Senate Democratic leadership.  What should these and other newly mobilized potential leaders be talking about?  Everything that is wrong with Georgite policy and the Georgites from incompetence to corruption to their true aims for democracy, here at home, not as fantasized for there in Iraq.

Most important in my view, an awakening Democratic leadership should be talking about just what the proper functions of government are.  Over such issues should political battles now be fought.  A very, very clear line should be drawn between the Georgite ideological tenets of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost; the rich take everything they can get their hands on; the oil companies rule; every problem can be solved with violence; facts don’t matter -- only what they think does,  and science be damned; a theocratic fascist dictatorship would be the best way to run the country, replacing the system under which our country has been governed, for better and for worse, but more better than worse, for 200 years: Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law, not men.

The ideology of US Constitutional Democracy, from which we do stray from time-to-time, is clearly stated 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.”  This is what the Constitution itself tells us it is there for.  This is what the Georgites are totally opposed to.

This is what the Democrats should be taking into battle against the anti-constitutionalists.  Time will tell, of course, if they do.