"As the War on Terror lurches from
decade to decade, it will distract attention from far greater threats.
Nothing decisive can be done to combat global warming or curb nuclear
proliferation without American leadership. These, not terrorism, are
the dangers that threaten the survival of the human race." from
Geoffrey Perret's book "Commander in Chief"
It is a fundamental assumption of the the Constitution that concentration
of power is dangerous. Since media was not comparable in the
1700's, it is necessary now to beware concentration of media.
Not only has it become dangerously consolidated, it is almost
exclusively hard right-wing. Not only that, we know that US covert
agencies routinely shape media.
We need to assure that adequate information necessary for
responsible voting is reliable and widely available. When media lies, there should be consequences. How
did Rupert Murdoch come to own the Republican party and its megaphone,
the right-wing noise machine.
When corporations concentrate or even become monopolies, there
is the potential for abuse. The fewer participants in a market, the
more there is a need for regulation. Media has
become too concentrated and it is a clear and present danger for
democracy. Corporate media should NOT be part of the election process.
Prohibit political advertising. Keep them away from the debate stage.
Concentrated corporate media does not serve the public
interest. Since only corporations can
afford to buy broadcast time, only their message is allowed. Right wing
shock jocks rule radio. They were, and are,
cheerleaders for war, more than likely because they participate in the
profits of war. Even PBS was compromised by zealots.
The frequency of pharma ads is probably stifling useful
discussion of healthcare reform. (I am
politely not using the word extortion here.)
Support free time for political campaigning even if only on
public access facilities. It is media expense that is the cause of
campaign finance problems. Broadcasters, all progeny of major
corporations, are a major enabler of fascism. That is
why we need not only many participants, but also balance in media: some
private, some public, and some academic, and government.
There
ought to be a diversity of media sources that balance public and
private interests. Jeff Chester's book "Digital Destiny" has excellent
suggestions for reform. Since video is now the major source of
American's information and most can not create it, there is a kind of
illiteracy that further empowers corporate interrests.
Oppose further media consolidation and insist on a
balance of stakeholders and diversity of views in mainstream media.
The way US elections are conducted, it is a stretch to claim
that we live in a democracy. US decision-making has become
dysfunctional, and we are on an obvious downward spiral. We should be voting for an agenda, not candidates.
Range Voting is the most important
single change we could make to the election process. Privatized vote
counting is inherently untrustworthy. If we cannot have valid
elections, there is no need to go further. (Please click on the word election for details.)
To have a real democracy, we need
election changes. Voting
reform could solve a number of problems with US elections, and it
could be far more democratic than our current procedure. A third party
would not be a spoiler. Public debate would be much more varied. Notice
that it is not up for discussion though. We need to rethink the silly
race between states to be the first to hold elections.
Presidential primary voting has become a race between States for
campaign money and an opportunity for special interests in each State
to exercise a veto.
We need to re-think the two party system. Instant
Runoff Voting (IRV) or Range voting
is a minimum and necessary change if more than two parties are to be
allowed. Right now, a third party is a spoiler so you may not be able
to vote in good conscience for your first choice.
The two party system is not helpful, partly because it
suppresses a broad exchange of views, and also because party loyalty
(money) warps views of the real issues. Neither party wants the other
to accomplish anything, so nothing can get done. The sports metaphor is
no good for formulating public policy.
Although it is partly the fault of corporate media, really
major issues
are usually not discussed leading up to elections. We discuss the Rev
Wright or Rev Hagee, but real issues like health care, falling wages,
shrinking benefits, or even the disastrous Bush foreign policy, are not
on the table. Most Americans really don't agree with their government's
policy, so elections have to be about wedge issues like immigration, gay marriage or flag burning.
The influence of money should be reduced because plutocracy
and democracy cannot co-exist. The market is not democratic. Free
public media should be the platform for political activity.
Citizens United should be overturned.
Corporate
media belongs to hard-right Republicans and does not serve the
public interest. The two major parties have excluded all competition.
Excluding minor parties from debates has made our discussion extremely
limited. Corporate media agents should be off the stage. Debates should
be open to more candidates and run by independent NGO's...not corporate
media.
Vote counting cannot be privatized to hard-right partisans if
we are to have real elections. Partisans have installed machines that
are blatantly hackable, and unauditable. Lieberman was one of the leaders on the HAVA
(Help America
Vote Act which perpetuated the problem.
The Electoral College ought to be abolished and all
elections should use secure, standardized, transparent, open
source, techniques. Privatized vote counting is not acceptable
for trustworthy elections. New voting protocols like range voting would make multiple parties possible,
widen the dialog, and make the process more democratic.
Obviously prompted by recent events, Senator Feingold
proposed a Constitutional amendment that Governors should not appoint
Senators. He is right.
We should be voting for an agenda,
not candidates.
Each candidate in the US system makes their own agenda and you only get to
choose the least bad of them. Most likely, major campaign donors
(oligarchs) get to shape the platform. Once elected, candidates
frequently do not do what they promised. We should not have
to guess what the outcome of an election means. The candidates should
swear to faithfully implement the people's agenda. Clearly they are NOT
doing that. They are visibly working for the corporate elite...and
that's the very definition of fascism. Most
people no longer agree with the direction taken by the US, how is that democracy ?
People should decide the agenda, not a single individual or
even the President. We have seen what happens when the President is not
particularly wise.
Although details might best be left to experts, we can all
agree that we need to protect the environment,
operate a sustainable economy, avoid war, and maintain humane social programs.
Unrestrained markets clearly do not accomplish any of these things.
We need to see that elections are fair. Election rigging
should be a high crime, including staging false
flag events.
We need to be sure that we have, as the Constitution mandates,
provided for the general welfare. Even major corporations, like GM, now
concede that privatized healthcare is NOT
an option. The US is the only advanced country without national health
care. For
globalization to be on a flat playing field, ours should be
nationalized...like every other developed country.
Corporations want to use the environment
as their toxic waste dump. Now we are seeing the results of
that as global warming (better termed
climate degradation) has shown itself in many ways. Conservation is
necessary to mitigate the near-term possibility that oil production has peaked. The Bush record on
the environment, as Robert Kennedy of the NRDC has written, is atrocious. The more we
learn about near space, the more it becomes clear that there is no
other accessible planet that will support life. Growing population
means growing pressure on resources, and, of course, Republicans are on
the wrong side of population mitigation.
Take a look at the Earth Charter.
We should be careful of the planet
so that future generations can be healthy and prosper. We should
consider what our options would be if this planet becomes uninhabitable
as inevitably will happen one day.
Oil is probably at or past peak
production, and it makes sense to conserve energy
for environmental, geopolitical, and economic reasons. Although it may
be tempting to ravage wilderness areas, it is important to save
unrenewable resources for future generations. It is an assault on the
Constitution that Bush energy policy was made
in secret and not subject to review.
"Executive privilege" in a democracy is a dangerous myth. The
Republican policy of maximum drilling is extremely misguided.
The debate on global warming,
though still funded by some large conflicted corporations, is over. The
US should take an active role in attempting to save the
planet. Don't cound on Republicans for this kind of leadership though.
Fix the Economy
David C. Korten's book, Agenda For A New
Economy,
has an excellent analysis and some solutions for our economic problems.
Paul Krugman has accurately predicted economic events in his New York
Times column for years, but there is no evidence that anyone listens to
him. Wall Street rules.
We should reconsider the statistics we use to measure the
economy. When we add up all economic activity, we sum both goods and
bads. Miltary hardware only results in destruction. Nuclear weapons,
although a heavy investment, fortunately have never been used.
Such products ought not to be counted as part of our economic health.
They are a waste. Endless war will certainly destroy US democracy.
It is time to ask the question if 'growth' is a suitable goal
for a sustainable economy. Jared Diamond in his book, Collapse, warns
of the consequences when the economy overtakes the environment.
Population of the planet can now threaten human habitability of the earth.
Republicans, market
fundamentalists, unwisely deregulated the financial community and we
are now seeing the results. It should be
clear to everyone now that regulation should be adequate to assure that
speculator's risk is not passed on to taxpayers. In fact, government
has had to bail out the private sector every time there is a slip. At
times the bailouts look like crony capitalism.
"The very first priority will be to restore financial
oversight to the finance industry." From
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Charles R. Morris.
There should be a well reasoned discussion
of those things best done by the public and those that should
be privatized. Where one or two companies control a market, the private
sector needs oversight. A free market is at its best when there are
many competitors, where information is available and reliable, and
where everyone is allowed to participate. This condition is rare in the
US.
The private sector is not always the best choice:
healthcare and eldercare are examples that demonstrate where
privatization is not efficient or functional. Privatization of the
military is particularly grotesque and may, if not stopped, lead to a
praetorian guard. The simple-minded Republican mantra that lower taxes and smaller government are always better is
just silly. It is, however, effective in keeping income disparities at
extreme levels, removing the tax burden from the already wealthy, and
making government an ATM machine for the well connected. Republicans
have not made government smaller, nor have they been fiscally
responsible. They did not pay for the wars that they provoked, they
borrowed massively from third world countries (passing this debt on to
the next generation), and enriched their cronies with much of the
proceeds.
Republican policy is always regressive. They are
happiest when giving tax cuts to the already comfortable. They are not
willing to accept that the Constitution
provides also for the general welfare.
Capitalism is on a path to destroy the environment. It should be clear now that
where there is a common public interest, capitalism
does not work. (See Healthcare.)
Since the economy has been
militarized, it
is unlikely that we will ever again have the prosperity that we once
enjoyed.
Since the Supreme Court decided that corporations are legal
persons with full rights, corporations have used their weight to avoid
taxes, to lobby for special privileges, to reward CEOs exorbitantly, to
renounce their US citizenship, to expand their power at the
expense of consumers, and often to pillage the environment. Now many are busting their unions, and migrating off shore to low wage
countries while lobbying to allow low wage immigrants
to work here. Unions have been systematically weakened. Companies like Wal-Mart, while relying on the public
for healthcare, do not allow unions.
(It is in the UN declaration of Human Rights that everyone has a right
to join a union, but you wouldn't know that from recent US policy.) Republican deregulation has
caused broad lack of accountability, an alarming shrinking of public
space, and a carnival of corruption. Control of government by corporations is the very
definition of fascism. There is ample
evidence that the US is turning into a kleptocracy.
It is clear that democracy is not a corporate value and that
reform of corporate governance is necessary. Financial instability and
environmental deterioration will make this even more clear and soon. Workers should always have representation
on corporate boards. Shareholders should have voting rights over CEO
compensation. The public should have a voice.
As Robert Reich points out in his book "Supercapitalism", corporations
are not people. Since the Supreme Court
has ruled otherwise, to get back to basics we may need a Constitutional
Amendment.
Corporate good citizenship should be a requirement for
continuing the corporate charter. Government regulation of markets,
including corporations, is a requirement for consumer protection,
financial stability, a level playing field, and for democracy.
The Republican agenda is globalization
for the benefit of transnational corporations, and everyone else will
be a loser. We will also lose the Constitution, our democracy (what's left of it), our civil liberties, and our standard of
living. (They pretty much don't care about the environment either.) They are willing to
sacrifice the future of their children and the well-being of the
American people for empire.
Republicans seem to think that money is the only problem,
complain about taxes, and vow to make government smaller, but they
never acknowledge that most taxes go to the world's largest military. See here.
They blame the victims...it used to be welfare mothers but currently illegal aliens. US government, unlike
Europeans, seems unwilling to acknowledge the Constitutional duty to
"promote the general welfare" and, although the U.S. signed on to the
UN Declaration of Human Rights, there is only a very selective
recognition of its details.
Even though our distribution of income has become
progressively worse, red ink is everywhere, the Bush Republicans pushed
for unconscionable tax cuts
for the wealthiest, and didn't bother to pay for their wars.
That is a symptom of a banana republic: running large deficits to
benefit cronies. Financial crisis
could occur any time our foreign debtors decide to pull the plug. It
looks to be just a matter of time now.
We should have a social contract.
The very young, very old, disabled and sick (all who are not in the
workforce) should be provided for from the commons. There is no excuse for an advanced
country NOT to take care of its people. Right now there is a
Federal War on funding or providing Long Term Care, youth are being
forced into heavy debt for higher education, many are going
without adequate health care.
Corporations should not be burdened with the costs of social
services because, it is now plain to see, they become uncompetitive.
Anyway, they are backing out and people are
losing what little security they had.
The US made a fundamental mistake in
making social programs an employer burden because, on a global scale,
it puts us at a competetive disadvantage. The welfare state should be
paid for with general taxes.
There should be an assurance that Social Security will remain
strong, that health
care will be there for everyone. Robert Reich in his book
"Supercapitalism" advocates decoupling healthcare from employment.
Doing this would make for a better population and a more robust economy.
The government should, as the only institution that can,
assure the well being of the people: this includes guarantees of a
minimum standard of living, access to healthcare, appropriate education
for everyone, and decent eldercare. This is a moral value and lack of
money for these things is no excuse.
Scandinavians may pay high taxes, but they do a good job
taking care of their people. They pay ALL expenses for higher
education. Elder care is a public responsibility. Their system is more
democratic also, and their economy performs better. Here are a couple
of examples.
Homeland Security never was a goal of the Bush administration
and we are not safer. They stripped away the National Guard,
directed security funding to red states, and generally ignored real
security risks. The logical result of Republican individualism is what
happened after Katrina. Lieberman was on
the committee that quickly endorsed Michael Brown as head of FEMA.
The Civil Service should be strengthened so that party cronies do not
replace competent, experienced professionals. Bush habitually
appointed ideologue incompetents, like himself, to high office.
Everyday security has deteriorated substantially while Republicans used
the government like an ATM machine.
Broaden Education
Charlie Savage writes (in his book Takeover) "In August
2004, Education Department researchers released a surprising study of
test scores showing that students at charter schools were performing
worse than comparable students at regular public schools. The findings
were a disappointment for those in the Bush-Cheney administration who
favored charter school funding. Less than two weeks later, Education
Department decided to sharply cut back on the information collected
about charter schools." (This pattern of suppression
of ideologically unfavorable information was frequently
seen in the Bush administration and Savage details some of it.)
Republican religious zealots damaged US education with their war on science. Dr. Hansen's book,
"Censoring Science", describes the techniques used by the Bush
administration to muzzle scientists. It's not just bad for policy, for
general knowledge, but also for education. The US could easily lose its
scientific edge to countries that are now importing our jobs.
Recognize that Republicans have a stealth program to privatize education... for profit.
Finland, which pays for ALL education, has the world's best
education outcomes.
Encourage the best professors at the best Universities to put
their lectures on the internet. Some schools have done this already,
but they need better incentives. Lectures from our best Universities
could be publicly available. Higher education could be cheaper, better,
and more democratic. It might be an antidote for ignorant, exploitive,
partisan, corporate media.
Oppose theocracy
The Republican War on Science, a direct result of their unholy
alliance with religion, degrades our science education,
introduces hateful prejudice into the political process, makes Middle
East war look like a new crusade, and has very little value in policy
making. Kevin Philips, Mark Crispin Miller and others have written extensively
about this. Ralph
Nader's comments on US support for Israeli bombing of Lebanon is
instructive. Lieberman naturally has the interests of the Israelis at
the heart of his agenda, but we need to be neutral so as not to be the
recipients of (well deserved) blowback from the Middle East. Bush has made comments that make the War in Iraq
look like another crusade. We need to examine religions
for their role in fomenting war. Religions that urge violence are
criminal. Their schools should be closed, their assets seized, and they
ought to be illegal.
Defend civil liberties
Unauthorized telephone
searches, internet surveillance, library monitoring, financial record
data mining, all threaten our basic rights. The Patriot Act is
an assault on our civil liberties and
on the Constitution.
"Congress approved and President [sic] Bush signed
into law the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, which does away with habeas corpus, the
right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have
been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply
to you and declares you an enemy combatant... Does
that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so,
anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up
being an unlawful enemy combatant? Jonathan Turley, George
Washington University Constitutional Law Professor: It certainly does.
In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an
organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups,
you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this
tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the
signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said
that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the
point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like
that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting
on this board." (From 10/18/06 CLG
news) Keith Olbermann:
Call off the War on Drugs. It
is a sham. Americans seem to have trouble learning lessons from other
countries or from history. Compare results from prohibition or from the
Netherlands.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right
to form a union. Republicans, notably Reagan, made union-busting a
goal. They have been successful in propelling much of the population
downward through wage cuts, shrinking benefits, higher tuitions,
niggardly welfare, out-of-sight healthcare costs, and other predatory
activities. They also brought the economy to its knees in the process.
Insist on transparency in government
Secrecy in government is the enemy
of democracy, and the Bush administration was reluctant to allow
visibility into its dealings. That Bush is the son of a former
President created enormous conflicts of interest, not the least
of which was the flaunting of the law which would have opened Bush Sr's
records to the public. Charlie Savage's Book "Takeover: The Return of
the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy
describes in some detail the process by which secrecy has all but kept
the Congress from exercising its oversight role.
We need to have the Freedom of Information Act reaffirmed so
that it cannot be pushed aside as the Bush administration did.
When government is secret, there must be vigorous,
responsible oversight.
Make intelligence agencies accountable and independent of
politics
Bush's father was head of the CIA, an agency skilled in
rigging elections. Recently, covert
agencies have become more powerful, the Freedom of Information Act has
been seriously weakened. The US government now has little transparency.
It is no wonder that it is so dysfunctional.
Evidence is abundant that Neocons
intimidated intelligence agencies until they got the answers to justify
war in Iraq.
(Overriding professional 'intelligence' should be criminal.)
"Intelligence" agencies may be the president's Praetorian
guard, enabling his grab for power. In fairness to CIA agents who were
disgusted by Bush's torture and rendition orders, Ray McGovern points
out that torture and renditions have been privatized to companies like
Blackwater.
It appears that when the Bush administration did not get the
results they wanted from 'intelligence agencies', they intimidated them
until they got it their way.
Twisting 'intelligence' for political gain is treason.
Especially if it causes a war.
It is clear that covert agencies are a threat to our
democracy.
Vigorous oversight and suspicion is warrented for government activities
that cannot be made public.
Defend the Constitution
"The American people are going to have to say,
'Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the
war on terror.' Either the Constitution and the laws of this country
mean something or they don't. It is truly frightening what is going on
in this country." Bob Barr, former GOP Congressman from Georgia.
Bush Republicans attacked the Constitution.
It's not just that the "Patriot Act" was
a frontal assault on the Bill of Rights,
or that the Military
Commissions Act negated Habeas Corpus,
rolled back FISA,
allowed torture,
or dismissed the Geneva Conventions, they blazed a path to an imperial Presidency.
These are the same people sworn to defend the Constitution and
propagandizing for its strict interpretation. See Conyer's report on
the Constitution
in crisis.
During Bush's first six years,
Republicans controlled of all three branches of government, had
effective control of the press, and we had
one-party government. Party loyalty among Republicans
assured that the Bush agenda, which turned out to be extremely
misguided, was US policy.
There was no Congressional oversight of major issues. In short, Bush
Republicans obliterated Constitutional checks and balances by misusing
their party.
Real conservatives would want
to protect the best features of the Constitution at the very least.
Instead the Bush administration undermined the bill of rights, neglected important
assumptions such as the avoidance of foreign adventures, the revulsion
against concentration of power (whether it be the media, corporations,
or the Presidency.), or the continued functioning of those 'checks and
balances'. Long standing international
treaties, like the Geneva Convention, negotiated over
decades, were scrapped.
Andrew Bacevich pointed out: There is nothing in the
Constitution that justifies an agenda of remaking the middle east. The
framers knew to avoid foreign entanglements. We should participate in
international problem solving instead of committing the US to endless war. Congress has thrust power on the imperial President.
Staying Bush's course means the end of our republic, and it
confirms our path to empire. History
has shown the
likely fate of empires is destruction. It should now be obvious that we
are a lot less safe now. War has become
increasingly more destructive and our fate worse than those which have
gone before. We are, as Noam
Chomsky points out, on a path to an "Armageddon of our own
making". See Chalmers Johnson's "Republic or Empire" in the
January,
2007 issue of Harpers Magazine as well as his three important books.
Repair the Constitution
So far, the US Constitution has not failed completely, but it
is over two hundred years old and needs alteration.
There should be unmistakable Constitutional clarity that the President
is not above the law and, given his penchant for 'signing
statements', that he is on no account a legislator. 'Signing
statements' by the President should have NO effect in law. If the
Courts do not agree, (remember the Supreme
Court selected Bush for office), we need a
Constitutional amendment to make that clear. Establishing an imperial
President will signal an outright revocation of the Constitution.
Limit the Imperial Presidency
A President out of control has shredded the Constitution,
broken the social contract, thumbed his nose at
international law, and committed war crimes.
He and his administration, even after leaving office, need to be held accountable.
The divine right royals in Europe no longer rule. They have
been reduced to attending ceremonial events and most of their power has
been reallocated to representatives of the people subject to recall. It
is clear that we do not need a strong-man Presidency. It is
dangerous. When the President is not too wise, as is sometimes the
case, our national direction may be very misguided. When his advisors
are sycophants, there are no limits to the damage he can do.
When the President is above the
law, then the office has become too strong for the Constitution to
survive. The Congress needs to be aggressive in its oversight and to do
that it cannot allow the high levels of secrecy
that now prevail. The President is unaccountable in his use of
'intelligence' agencies and they have been engaged in activities that
Americans would not accept. There are obvious conflicts of interest
when successive Presidents come from the same family. The Bush family
has been particularly self-serving.
Bush has used signing statements, 'executive privilege',
secrecy, and war to enhance the power of his presidency and the
Congress has been only too willing to let him. It should be clear that
'executive privilege' does not have a place in a democracy. Records
need to be as open as is reasonably possible, with the presumption that
most documents should be open to public scrutiny. Secrecy
allowed the war in Iraq to occur without real
provocation, without good reason, with extremely poor judgment, and
without public discussion. Jane Mayer reports that the "key piece of
evidence buttressing congressional support for going to war against
Iraq - was in fact fabricated to make the torture stop." (from the
jacket of Jane Mayer's book 'The
Dark Side'.
Congress made a grave error when
authorizing Bush to go to war. As Chris Hedges put it: "A country that exists in a state of permanent war
cannot exist as a democracy." (The Nation: Dec 10, 2007. pg
6.)
Atrocities committed by the CIA and
rogue military agents can only be carried out in secret.
Although their actions are mostly secret, it is public knowledge that
the CIA engaged in torture, renditions, illegal wars, assassinations,
regime changes, and that its 'intelligence opinions' can be twisted by
senior administration. They trained very undemocratic strong-man
states, military at the School of the
Americas to practice atrocities. (See Naomi Klein's book Shock
Doctrine.) Americans, like Germans of the 1930's, are complacent even
though the atrocities are widely known. What should the good American do ?
In history, a strong-man head of state arises in the process
of building an empire, civil liberties are curtailed, the
military becomes the primary resource consumer, and people find that
their needs are not attended. Corporations win. A powerful elite
benefit, but the middle class disappears and most of the people are in
extreme poverty. As the gap between rich and poor becomes wider, walled
communities with high security become more common.
The President should not be able to set the agenda, he should
have the responsibility of executing one democratically agreed on. He
should be removed when his actions are at odds with the public good.
Unfortunately in our rigged election process, we don't vote for an
agenda, we vote for an individual and the agenda is often a surprise.
Over time, unreported by corporate media,
the agenda has become disaster capitalism. (See Noami Klein's
book The Shock
Doctrine: (also the video
and this.)
Since we have a partisan Supreme
Court, to save our republic it may be necessary to amend the
Constitution to prevent a strong President from acting above the law or
imposing a military dictatorship.
Constitutional checks and balances need to be maintained and
in good repair. A President who can make war on his own word is too
powerful and needs to be constrained. A President who is above the law
is clearly not acceptable by any American values.
The Presidency has become too powerful and is a threat
to the Constitution. Bush claimed to be a unitary
President in a direct slap at the Constitution and in violation of
his oath of office, His policy of privatizing everything
including Social Security, healthcare, public schools thus removing
them too from public accountability, was misguided, unpopular, and
reflected not only Republicans trademark incompetence, but their
insatiable grab for political power. As the unitary President, he made
the agenda. That's wrong.
The concept of a unitary
President is a betrayal of the Constitution and should be cause for
impeachment. Bush
Republican's character, supposedly Christian, includes willingness to
torture, to ignore the law (in signing statements), to blithely
override the will of the people (re-read the Declaration of
Independence for an appreciation of this.) and certainly has no
intention of protecting the checks and balances intended in the
Constitution.
"Executive Privilege" and secrecy
of vital information can render Congressional oversight impossible,
thus destroying Constitutional checks and balances. Ignoring the
Constitution, Bush in hundreds of signing statements, made it clear
that he believed he is above the law. (When or if this is validated by
his Supreme Court, we will officially live under a dictatorship.)
The President should be prohibited from going to war
unless the US is directly attacked by another state. The Constitution
is clear: the "Congress shall have power to declare war,...and make
rules concerning captures on land and water."
Going to war, as Ronald Reagan did, in secret should be
an impeachable offense.
Lying to make a case for war is treason.
Politicians can, and do, override the judgments of 'intelligence'
professionals...even though information has been gathered at staggering
cost under conditions of secrecy.
Twisting intelligence should be a high crime. However it is
another tool to enable massive military budgets, war profiteering,
pre-emptive war, and a 'unitary' Presidency.
Checks and balances need to be restored. Congress,
even though facing a corrupt executive branch, did no oversight. Even
though Bush policies were failures, the Congress ceded him even more
power. Party loyalty can trump the Constitution, and it has.
The Constitution
should be amended to restrain Presidential power. He should not be
permitted to pardon himself for crimes he authorized.
Secrecy
Reaffirm the Freedom of Information so that it cannot be
pushed aside. (as the Bush administration did.)
The law should require that
high-level officials keep complete, open records. Only with strong
judicial oversight should they be closed. A revised Constitution should
reject the 'executive privilege' claimed by Nixon, Bush, and Cheney.
They are public servants, not dictators. Refusing to deliver needed
information to the Congress should be a crime and an impeachable offense.
Covert agencies are not accountable.
They not only have budgets that are large and hidden, they have been
responsible for all US wars since WWII and many illegal activities. We
know that the CIA has run drugs into
Los Angeles, that Afghanistan under the Taliban produced almost no
narcotics but now it produces a large part of the worlds drugs, the
agency has engaged in renditions, torture,
assassinations, regime changes...and it has supported dictatorships in
many parts of the world. If good US citizens were fully informed, there
would be an even more massive change of politicians.
There must be some restraint,
judicial oversight, of the governments decisions of what secrets to keep. The Bush administration's
volume of 'classified' documents was unprecedented, and extremely
anti-democratic. Without a doubt, the Bush administration's worst
abuses occurred because they could keep their activities secret.
They succeeded in neutralizing the
FISA court. They were able to do this, in addition to other crimes,
because it was secret.
Information that caused us to go to
war in Iraq was extracted using torture....in
secret.
Having failed to learn lessons from history, we went to
war in Iraq based on twisted information. The same
people, some felons, who justified the massive and dysfunctional
arms buildup in the Reagan administration
also were responsible for twisting 'intelligence' to justify the war in
Iraq. Although media
is complicit in keeping Americans ignorant about these facts, Congress, unwilling or unable to access
classified information, has failed in its oversight
of the executive branch. Secrecy will
likely be a fatal poison for the US Constitution.
We know that the Bush administration used secrecy to hide
corruption, activities of covert agencies, black budgets, unsavory
political activities, lawbreaking, ideological falsehoods, and an
assortment of other lies. All of this is unconstitutional.
The Congress failed to exercise its Constitutional duty
to determine, with due diligence, when it is necessary to go to
war.
(It dramatically failed in providing oversight in the recent
past.) Keep in mind that the UN Charter forbids war without Security
Council approval. (The US has signed the UN Charter and made it
the law of the land, but it doesn't bother to pay its dues either.)
To exercise oversight Congress should open
proper investigations of war profiteering, and 9/11.
It also needs to assert that signing statements are in violation of the
Constitution.
Because there is so much information that is secret and kept
from the Congress as well as the people, it is possible that
Constitutional checks can no longer operate. Clearly, the people oppose
the war in Iraq, while the President did not. Remember what it says in
the Declaration of Independence: "governments...derive
their power from the consent of the governed."
The evidence strongly suggests that the legislative
and judicial branches, having become so servile in the presence of the
imperial presidency, have largely lost the ability to respond in a
principled and independent manner. Could the people themselves restore
constitutional government? A grassroots movement to abolish the CIA,
break the hold of the military-industrial complex, and establish public
financing of elections may be theoretically conceivable but is unlikely
given the conglomerate control of the mass media and the difficulties
of mobilizing our large and diffuse population." Chalmers Johnson:
Nemesis pg 269
Since media would not acknowledge it, most Americans are in
denial that their government is maintaining an empire.
They tend to believe what the media tells
them. (Putin's
comments.)
The
Neocons
plan to remake the world is in writing for anyone that cares to look.
See Chalmers Johnson's book "The
Sorrows of Empire", Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", or John
Tirman's "100 Ways...". Morris Berman's thoughtful outlook on the fate
of the US is probably right. See his book Dark Ages
America, the Final Phase of Empire. Berman thinks the outlook for
the US is bleak. He is most likely correct.
Ike warned about the growing power of the military
industrial complex, but most people seem unconcerned for the
arms industry is widely scattered across the country. It is a very
misguided jobs program. We spend more on the military than all other
countries of the world COMBINED. As a result, weaponry is now our
largest manufacturing sector, other industries have bled
away to low-wage countries. An all-consuming military will inevitably
lead to a national security state.
(We are already well on the way.) War
profiteering should be regarded as criminal, but its benefits seem to
go to the very highest level of the administration. It is the world's
most powerful military that is causing a tsunami of red ink. The arms
race is accelerating. Diplomacy should be our response to problems,
not military action.
The Declaration of Independence reads "a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation.", but Republicans
have shown only contempt for international
law.
Because we have already signed these laws, it should be
unnecessary to say this: The US should demonstrate
an unwavering commitment to the Geneva Convention, human rights,
the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the judgments of the World Court,
the International Criminal Court, and the Millennium Goals for the UN.
(It is wrong for an unwise, out-of-control President
to nullify treaties made over decades. You know its right when John Bolton opposes
it.)
The rest of the civilized world has rejected the death penalty, so should
we. Take a stand against
torture in any form. See this
video of Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh:
On Human Rights at the University Of Connecticut Sakler Lecture.
Make diplomacy a priority, not war. Bush foreign policy
has been a disaster. If the US did its fair share in foreign aid, which
is clearly does not, there might be a little good will and a decline in
terrorism. You don't make a lot of friends with bombs. See Jeffrey
Sachs book The
End of Poverty
We should make the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights national policy. After all we did sign
it. The reason it is universal is that it applies to everybody.
Something the Bushies overlook.
Assure the UN a reliable revenue stream
The US should pay its dues.
The UN should take the lead in international crisis, not the
US. Most Americans agree with UN goals.
Like the US early experiments in government (the Articles of
Confederation), the UN has been given responsibility but no tax base. A
Tobin tax would do the
job of dampening speculative international currency flow, raise large
amounts of revenue, and support the UN.
In the US a majority
support the UN. The US does not have to be the policeman for
the world, nor should it be.
Traditionally the US maintained an illusion that it was
interested in peace, but with the Bush
administration the
reality is evident. Both official political parties cannot wait to
throw more money to the military. Even if the spending is wildly
dysfunctional (like the BMD). What we
have is a complete takeover of the US government by the
military/industrial complex. Chalmers Johnson has described the
consequences in his book Nemesis.
It is unlikely that we will have an opportunity to vote for a
candidate that is committed to peace. War is too profitable for
that.
A Department of Peace would be a good idea. We should rely on
diplomatic and economic solutions instead of military ones.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands,
partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because
technological development and the increasing division of labor
encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of
the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of
private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively
checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is
true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political
parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private
capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate
from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of
the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the
underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing
conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or
indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).
It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite
impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions
and to make intelligent use of his political rights." Einstein on
Politics, Rowe and Schulmann. Monthly Review, May 1949.