"The Rise of American Democracy" ...

"This book’s simple title describes the historical arc of its subject. Important elements of democracy existed in the infant American republic of the 1780s, but the republic was not democratic. Nor, in the minds of those who governed it, was it supposed to be. A republic – the res publica, or ‘public thing’ – was meant to secure the common good through the ministrations of the most worthy, enlightened men. A democracy – derived from demos krateo, ‘rule of the people’ – dangerously handed power to the impassioned, unenlightened masses. Democracy, the eminent Federalist political leader George Cabot wrote as late as 1804, was ‘the government of the worst.’ Yet by the 1830s, as Alexis de Tocquesville learned, most Americans proclaimed that their country was a democracy as well as a republic. Enduring arguments had begun over the boundaries of democratic politics. In the 1840s and 1850s, these arguments centered increasingly on slavery and slavery’s expansion and led to the Civil War.

"The changes were astonishing, but neither inevitable nor providential. American democracy did not rise like the sun at its natural hour in history. Its often troubled ascent was the outcome of human conflicts, accommodations, and unforeseen events, and the results could well have been very different than they were. The difficulties and the contingencies made the events all the more remarkable. A momentous rupture occurred between Thomas Jefferson’s time and Abraham Lincoln’s that created the lineaments of modern politics. The rise of American democracy is the story of that rupture and its immediate consequences.

"Democracy is a troublesome word, and explaining why is one of my book’s goals. A decade before the American Revolution, the early patriot James Otis defined democracy in its purest and simplest form as ‘a government of all over all,’ in which ‘the votes of the majority shall be taken as the voice of the whole,’ and where the rulers were the ruled. As fixed descriptions go, this is as good as any, but its abstractness, of course, begs explication. Since the Revolution, citizens, scholars, and political leaders have latched onto one or another aspect of government or politics as democracy’s essence. For some, it is a matter of widening political rights; for others, democracy means greater opportunity for the individual pursuit of happiness; for still others, it is more of a cultural phenomenon than a political one, ‘a habit of the heart,’ as de Tocqueville put it, in which deference to rulers and condescension for the ruled give way to the ruder conventions of equality. …..

"Democracy appears when some large number of previously excluded, ordinary persons – what the eighteenth century called ‘the many’ -- secure the power not simply to select their governors but to oversee the institutions the institutions of government, as officeholders and as citizens free to assemble and criticize those in office. Democracy is never a gift bestowed by benevolent, farseeing rulers who seek to reinforce their own legitimacy. It must always be fought for, by political coalitions that cut across distinctions of wealth, power, and interest. It suceeds and survives only when it is rooted in the lives and expectations of its citizens, and continually reinvigorated in each generation. Democratic successes are never irreversible."
--The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln; Sean Wilentz; WW Norton & Co.; 2005

There was a discussion on the Democratic Underground earlier this week that questioned if that political discussion forum would have been created if Al Gore had won the presidential election in 2000. I found that both amusing and amazing, because the simple truth is that Al Gore did win. My favorite book on the topic is Vince Bugliosi’s "The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President." That title alone hints that the powers that denied President Gore his rightful office, and instead placed Bush and Cheney in power, posed a serious threat to our democracy.

The reasons why a small group of politically powerful people subverted the democratic process have become evident as this administration has continued to corrupt the Constitution of the United States in a manner that threatens the very foundation of the country. Perhaps no single issue is more important to this discussion than the administration’s invasion of Iraq. In a number of discussion on DU about that war, I have quoted from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s "The Imperial Presidency," the 1973 classic that detailed how presidents throughout history have attempted to gain an unconstitutional level of power by abusing the office’s war powers.

Schlesinger notes that the Constitution provides for abuses of power by allowing the Congress to impeach those who break the law. In two recent essays that I have posted on DU, and quoted from both Schlesinger and John Dean’s "Worse Than Watergate" – which details several areas that Bush and Cheney are at risk of being impeached, should Congress respect the Constitution – a couple DUers have reacted by saying that what I am advocating in "dangerous." Thus, I think it is important to warn the weak-kneed hand-wringers that Sean Wilentz states openly that he believes Arthur Schlesinger Jr. changed the way in which historians approached the topic of democracy in America, and quotes him on how "future challenges ‘will best be met by a society in which no single group is able to sacrifice democracy and liberty to its interests’."
Few people would debate that the administration lied to the American public about the actual reasons they were going to invade Iraq. There were no WMDs, and the intelligence community had provided quality information to the administration. The Vice President and his ilk have politely been accused of "cherry-picking" the intelligence. The truth is they distorted it purposely, and lied to us. The proof of their criminal intent is found in their criminal attack on Joseph Wilson when he told us the truth.

The horrors of their invasion of Iraq are obviously found in that land. It’s the dead and wounded American soldiers, who were betrayed by this administration. It’s the unbelievable amount of damage done to the Iraqi people. It’s obscene, it’s evil, and it is as sinful as anything that is found in that Good Book that Bush so self-righteously thinks justifies his behavior.

A country cannot do what we have done in Iraq, and not have a reaction in its own land. We see that reaction in an organized attempt by that same small group that corrupted the 2000 election, to trample the US Constitution. As I have noted before, what the administration is doing today is no different than what was known as the Huston Plan in the Nixon era. It includes the domestic spying, and the attempts to deny Constitutional rights to segments of the population. The historic Ervin Committee Report details the criminal nature of this plan on pages 53-57. Read it, and see if it isn’t exactly what this group of misfits is doing.

The 2006 mid-term elections were a democratic response to the administration’s war in Iraq. Yes, there are other issues that were extremely significant in the elections, but the nation’s rejection of the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq was the single most important democratic statement. And what has been the republican response?

Rumsfeld is being replaced by Robert Gates, a criminal from the Iran-Contra scandals. The crimes of the Reagan-Bush1 administration were no less dangerous to our nation than was Watergate. In fact, these crimes were more dangerous, because while Watergate was a domestic series of crimes, Iran-Contra was international in scope.

There is also a James Baker III commission that was supposed to take an objective look at the US policy in Iraq, and to find potential solutions. Today we hear what most progressive democrats knew: the Baker commission is merely fronting for a long-term occupation of Iraq, in order to provide access to Iraqi oil reserves.

Gates is a criminal. It would be impossible for him to stop the Bush-Cheney crimes in Iraq. Baker fronted for the group that denied Gore his rightful office. He isn’t going to oppose the Bush-Cheney agenda now. And one need look no further than Gates’ and Baker’s friend Newt Gingrich, who has played an influential role as an advisor to VP Cheney – including on the operation to damage Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson – who is running for the republican nomination for 2008. This week, Newt identified the 1st Amendment as a threat to our safety.

Wilentz and Schlesinger remind us that not only is democracy a process, but that anti-democratic actions are part of a process. In order for us to oppose the Bush-Cheney-Gates-Baker-Gingrich process, we must be active at the "rule of the people" level that some find so dangerous. I strongly urge progressives and democrats to write letters to Henry Waxman and John Conyers, and ask them to keep the process moving forward.

Our democracy depend upon our actions today. There is no greater outline of what those actions should include, than the 1st Amendment that Newt finds so threatening. We must use those powers provided by the Constitution to demand the Congress move towards impeachment proceedings. I’ve suggested we target VP Cheney, while others say we should target Bush, or both. I am comfortable with all of these positions.

We continue to have some say that we should not be talking about impeachment. It’s dangerous. Some continue to cling to the weak position that the impeachment advocates do not understand that we need investigations first. In fact, the pro-impeachment people understand the process better than the anti-impeachment friends. And more, we have a greater faith in that process. Prove it, you say? Easily: the anti-impeachment folk continue to hold tight to the "there aren’t enough votes" life jacket that barely holds their argument above the tide of pro-impeachment sentiment. There weren’t the votes when the process against Nixon began. But that didn’t stop those who trusted in the Constitution.

There weren’t the votes for civil rights when that process began. But those who trusted in the Constitution didn’t back down from doing what was right. There weren’t enough votes to stop the war in Vietnam, for that matter. But it didn’t stop those brave people who knew the war was wrong.

In his greatest speech, "A Time to Break Silence (aka Beyond Vietnam)", Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.told us that we "are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with lost opportunity. The ‘tide in the affairs of men’ does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. …We must move past indecision to action."

Have faith in democracy. Act today.

Rummy's Fall on the Street Without Joy

In the two weeks since the elections, it has become obvious that there is a shift in the power base within the Executive branch, just as surely as in the House and Senate. The two most high-profile changes are the retirement of Donald Rumsfeld, and the return of James Baker III to an unofficial leadership position. These two changes are, of course, clearly related. Some journalists have reported that this relationship illustrates a shift of power away from the Office of Vice President Cheney. I would suggest that this is not necessarily true.

Another curious phenomenon is the very public "attacks" being waged by some neoconservatives against the administration, in which they attempt to distance themselves from the tragic results of the invasion of Iraq that they had advocated since the end of the first Gulf War. On one hand, we see snakes like Kenneth Adelman and Richard Perle publicly calling the war in Iraq a failure. However, from Seymour Hersch’s 11-20-06 "The Next Act," we know that VP Cheney continues to address AIPAC about his plans to advance the neoconservative agenda in regard to Iran. More, Hersch notes that the "main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and ….. (who) argue(s) that there can be no settlement that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran."

Another part of Hersch’s article that stood out was this: " …Bush and his immediate advisers in the White House understood by mid-October that Rumsfeld would have to resign if the result of the midterm election was a resounding defeat. Rumsfeld was involved in conversations about the timing of his departure with Cheney, Gates, and the President before the election…." It is safe to safe that the image that the "powers-that-be" are attempting to create publicly, are not a fair reflection of the actual shifts in power taking place behind the scenes. I thought it might be worth our while today to take a look closer at those powers that are not visible to the public.
In previous essays, I have mentioned two books that help us to understand that invisible power structure. The first is "JFK," by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. He notes what Winston Churchill called the "High Cabal," and which R. Buckminster Fuller described as the "invisible power structure." Prouty states, "It goes without saying that few, if any, credible historians are going to be able to name the individuals who comprise such an elite …. One of the strengths of this power elite is that they have learned to live anonymously." (page xxiii)

Oliver Stone would use Prouty’s book for parts of his movie "JFK." Prouty served as a technical adviser for the film. More, he was played by Donald Sutherland in perhaps the most important scene in the film, where as "Man X" he explains to Kevin Costner some of the financial implications of the "Cold War." Interestingly, the preface to the updated version of Prouty’s book includes a preface that notes that a 9-2-53 speech by John Foster Dulles to the American Legion Convention in St. Louis, about eight years of US involvement in the war in Vietnam. This is the war that cost $570 billion and 58,000 American lives. It’s the one that President Bush recently claimed we lost because we quit too soon.

The second book I’ve recommended is "Farewell America," by James Hepburn. By no coincidence, the book was in part the result of Jim Garrison’s search for truth in the late 1960s. The book was a best-seller in Europe, at a time when it was not available in the United States. John Kennedy did not believe in censorship; in fact, Prouty’s book opens with this 10-29-60 quote from Kennedy: "If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas for more wise men reading good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all – except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security, as well as our liberty."

One of the "controversial" ideas that "Farewell America" put forth was that the oil industry was the single most influential source of political and economic power in the world. Several chapters detail how oil runs the world. In fact, the authors note, even the military industrial states rely upon oil to run their "machines."

In earlier essays, I have stated that there are members of the "invisible power elite" who, from time to time, step out from behind the curtain to take political positions that make them visible. One example I’ve used of this type of person is W. Averell Harriman. A more recent one would be James Baker III. Today we will look at another: Paul Nitze.

Chris Floyd has described Nitze as "a Wall Street blue-blood turned high-level bureaucrat who served several presidents …" John Kenneth Galbraith called him "a Teutonic martinet happiest in a military hierarchy." Let’s look beneath those compliments. Nitze was born in 1907 in Massachusetts, into a family of means. His family was in Munich at the beginning of WW1, and would later write about being impressed by the German population’s patriotic preparations for the war.

In the late 1920s, Nitze worked as an investment banker for a Chicago firm. He worked in Europe. Wikipedia notes that "upon his return, he heard Clarence Dillion predict the depression and the decline of the importance of finance." Around this time, he married the daughter of a Standard Oil financier and a NYS Congresswoman.

During WW2, Nitze began working in the federal government for James Forrestal. He was instrumental in not only creating the "Cold War" political policies for the United States, but also in charting the militarization of our economy for generations to come. This combination of his influence was perhaps best outlined in the secret National Security Document (NSC-68) that set the course for the United States from the Truman administration until today.

During the Eisenhower years, he served in positions outside of the administration, both in the Foreign Service Educational Foundation, and at the Foreign Policy Research and Advanced International Studies centers at Johns Hopkins University. This is the type of moving from the executive branch to university and related positions that one might note in the gentleman being nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld today.

Speaking of Rummy, he plays a curious role in Nitze’s career. JFK had appointed Nitze to the position of assistant secretary of defense. As such, he played a role in the formative days of the administration, as we read in Arthur Schlesinger Jr’s "A Thousand Days," but then moves to the background. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we find that he attended numerous important meetings, but that his advice to the President is exactly the opposite of what Kennedy decides to do to resolve the conflict without war. (See: "The Kennedy Tapes"; edited by May & Zelikow;Belknap Press; 1997)

In "House of War," James Carroll notes that , Failing to grasp how he alienated Kennedy, Paul Nitze had convinced himself that he would soon be promoted to the Pentagon’s number-two job. Sure enough, it opened up, but Kennedy named Nitze instead to the post of secretary of the Navy, a position on the margins of policymaking, a clear demotion. Humiliated, Nitze complained to the president, who essentially told him to take it or leave it." Carroll tells of how Nitze accepted the demotion, and almost was not confirmed.

A new republican congressman from Illinois was looking to make a reputation by attacking Nitze during the confirmation hearings. Donald Rumsfeld accused Nitze of being an advocate of disarmament, because he had attended a National Council of Churches meeting in the past. It is not clear if Rummy knew that then-secretary of state John Foster Dulles had given the keynote speech at that meeting. Carroll writes that although Rumsfeld would later try to befriend Nitze, the "wound of the insult would never quite heal." (See pages 280-1)

Nitze would go on to serve under LBJ, and republican presidents Nixon and Reagan. He would be involve in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) under Nixon, and an outspoken opponent of SALT II. As such, he did not consider even attempting to reduce the economic investment that the United States had in the arms race. Instead, he sought ways to promote new and more expensive weapons systems.

And, as most people who follow politics today know, along with Dean Acheson, Nitze helped guide the careers of some of the most powerful neoconservatives of the past 30 years. People like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. These are the people who put in place the neocon cells in the Pentagon that have challenged CIA intelligence estimates from the Reagan years until the George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney administration.

If one believed the reports coming from the corporate media, they would be convinced that Rumsfeld was fired, despite VP Cheney’s attempts to save his job. They would believe that the neocons have jumped ship, and are the Bush administration’s harshest critics. And that, because the Iraqi experience has been such a failure, that there is no way that President Bush would even consider attacking Iran. One might even take seriously one US Senator’s statement that we need to confirm Robert Gates immediately, so that Rumsfeld will be forced out as soon as possible.

But we don’t need to believe those things. We can follow the advice of JFK, and read controversial books and articles by controversial authors. We don’t need to listen to the latest White House attack on Seymour Hersch, and we don’t need to believe a single word out of a snake like Joshua Muravichik’s mouth, when he appears on MSNBC’s Tucker show, saying we need to bomb Iran. We can instead read the background of the American Institute he promotes, and look at what group it is an off-shoot from.

And then we should use all of our resources, such as internet political discussion forums, to inform other progressives of the need to lobby the members of the House and Senate to do things such as provide intensive oversight on the administration’s activities involving Iran. And, by all means, do not confirm Robert Gates.

Scooter & the Civil Case

"Valerie Plame has several potential civil causes of action."
--Worse Than Watergate; John Dean; Page 174

On Tuesday, November 14, lawyers for VP Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Armitage, and the United States Department of Justice filed Motions to Dismiss the civil suit of Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson. The case (1:06-cv-01258-JDB) is being heard in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, by Judge John D. Bates. While we should take interest in all of the motions, because the various defendants are in different positions in facing the Wilson’s claims, today I thought it might be fun to start with Mr. Libby’s three 11-14 filings. Let’s take a brief look at the others, and then focus on Scooter.

The DoJ, Cheney, and Armitage filings have been reported on in the news media. The Department of Justice filed, because of general concerns that members of the Executive branch could become entangled in civil cases in the future. The previous protections were, of course, reduced by the republican attempts to derail the presidency of Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Cheney’s legal defense reportedly focuses primarily upon some of the Constitutional issues involved. In the upcoming weeks, I hope we can examine his position closely.

Mr. Armitage, who had recently expressed sympathy for any harm his "leaking" may have caused the Wilsons, has changed his tune. His filing notes, "This case is a political exercise masquerading as a civil lawsuit. Plaintiffs Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson apparently seek to score public relations points through the presentation of this lawsuit."

I have not found any record of a response by Karl Rove at this point.

Now for Scooter Libby. His attorneys filed three documents: {1} a Motion to Dismiss (2 pages); {2} a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (37 pages); and {3} the Proposed Order (2 pages). The Motion briefly states the four positions of Team Libby on the need for the judge to dismiss the case as lacking merit, and the proposed order is a formality. The interesting document is the memo of points and authorities.

The Motion to Dismiss states the Wilsons raise four Constitutional under the Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics case; they call the Wilson’s case "novel Bivens claims" that are unsupported by law. They also call the Wilson filing "untimely." Next, they claim that Scooter is entitled to qualified immunity, because his activities were entirely in the scope of his employment. And last, they claim that Joseph Wilson lacks standing in the case, because he had no concrete injury.

The memo attempts to support that. The table of contents attempts to overwhelm, by listing 84 cases and 6 statutes that Team Libby claim support their position. These range from Nixon v Administrator of General Services, to Penthouse v Meese.

They begin by stating on page 1 that "… the allegation that Mr. Libby had anything to do with (the Novak article) is preposterous." However, this is at best an attempt to mislead, because the Wilson case is not limited to Novak’s sources, nor does it claim Libby leaked to Novak.

In a rare example of honesty, Team Libby notes on page 2 that Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger was as a result of a CIA request. Their positions go downhill from there.

On page 4, they claim that the federal courts cannot "expand" the Bivens case, because the US Supreme Court has refused to allow such expansions. VP Cheney’s Motion makes this same claim. However, as the judge will be aware, the US Supreme Court has twice allowed the expansion of Bivens to meet unusual circumstances. I suspect that the Wilsons can argue that argue that having the Office of the Vice President involved in a conspiracy to expose a CIA operative is rather unique.

But Team Libby takes a different position: "The impropriety is further heightened by the fact that this case deals with sensitive matters of national security and classified intelligence procedures best handled by the executive rather than the judicial branch." (page 4) Of course, the judicial branch is already handling a case of multiple criminal charges against Scooter Libby, because of the improprieties in the executive branch’s mishandling of the situation.

The claim on the timing of the case is interesting. The defense claims that Bivens has to have the same one year limitation as similar cases in the state courts. Again, I do not think the courts will find many cases similar to the Wilson’s.

Team Libby claims the OVP’s operation against the Wilson’s did not have a "chilling effect" on free speech, because Joseph Wilson has continued to speak out. Two things stand out: First, Wilson isn’t the average person – he continued to "speak out" even when Saddam threatened him at the beginning of the Gulf War. Second, as dean noted in Worse Than Watergate, "It also sent a message to the intelligence community that if you mess with this White House, we will mess with you, which they did by attackin Wilson’s wife." (page 171)

They also attempt to frame the case as an "employee vs supervisor" issue. It’s not. It is not a matter of an employee in a department being denied a promotion because they spoke out against their supervisor. It seems dishonest for Team Libby to try to take this position.

They also claim that the secrecy involved in the CIA is only for the benefit of the Agency, not the employees. This seems a rather limp claim, that does not deserve a dignified response. However, for the Wilsons’ attorneys, it provides an opportunity to knock the ball out of the park.

On page 14, they again claim that "Matters of espionage are uniquely for the Executive’s consideration, and beyond the judiciary’s capacity." Considering that people connected to the OVP are connected to the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal – which is presently being heard in federal court – one can only shake their head upon reading this. They continue with the curious claims on page 19, where they demand that any "inquiry (be) objective and context specific. It ‘must be undetaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general position’." This is in reference to possible immunity for Scooter. However, from a casual reading of the Wilsons’ complaint, one clearly recognizes that they are suing for the very specific actions of those listed. There is nothing broad or general about the case.

And on pages 24-26, they claim they did not violate Valerie Plame Wilson’s privacy, because the information they leaked was not of a personal nature. This seems unlikely to convince an objective person.

In the next few weeks, we will continue to examine the civil case, as well as updates on the Libby criminal case.

Regarding Impeachment and Ending the War

"The New Left has tried to create a sense of revolution in the nation by shouting slogans and marching up and down the streets. But when the hated establishment is left secure in its citadel, certain that it cannot be dislodged, then it has very little reason to pay attention to them and maintains the power to suppress them. The New Left should use the system to create uncertainty in the minds of Congressmen it dislikes so that all would tend to change lest lightening strike them in their next election.

"In a comparable manner the executive branch of the government could be easily changed if sufficient pressure were to be applied to it through the proper channels. …. There has never been a system that would not gladly sacrifice one of its own for a moment’s peace, no matter how brief. If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared."

--We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf; Vine Deloria, Jr.; Dell; 1970; pages 65-66.



Last week, I posted my essay "On Impeachment" on the Democratic Underground. It was one of dozens of threads that discussed the potential advantages of having the House of Representatives begin the investigations of the Bush administration that should lead to the impeachment of one or more officials in the executive branch. The response was interesting, and included the opinions of people who are strongly in favor of having our democratic officials follow the Constitution, as well as the views of many who believe that potential impeachment hearings would be a dangerous mistake.

Those opposed to the concept of impeaching Bush administration officials tended to express some common concerns. The first was that impeachment is all about "revenge." This is a weak position that deserves no serious consideration. If there is a bank-robber or a murderer in your community, you want the legal system to prosecute him/her. You don’t wring your hands in anxiety, fearful that the criminal might get mad.

Others said it will cause a cycle of impeachment, and used the example of Bill Clinton as evidence that they are correct. They are convinced that Clinton’s experience was only a result of the democrat’s having forced Richard Nixon from office. While it is possible, at least in theory, that some republicans were motivated by a strong sense of loyalty to Richard Nixon, in truth this "theory" reflects a shallow grasp of history.

It is fair to say, however, that in the current climate, a push for Congressional investigations will create hostilities. It is equally fair to say that efforts to protect the environment, to provide adequate health care, and to protect civil rights, will also be marked by conflict. Because republicans are at times hostile is no excuse for inaction.

It has also been stated, numerous times, that impeachment would require investigations first. I would hope that we all could agree that in the history of the United States, there has not been a single impeachment of any official that was not based upon an investigation. Pro-impeachment people seem more aware of this than the anti-impeachment folks.

The last anti-impeachment point is that we have more important things to deal with now. That’s an interesting thought Let’s look closer. What was the #1 issue of concern to voters across the country in last week’s elections? The war in Iraq. Survey after survey showed that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular. Republican candidates who recognized that voters associated President Bush with the war were not in a hurry to have George campaign for them.

The war is correctly associated with President Bush and VP Cheney. They came into office planning to invade Iraq. They lied to the country in order to manipulate the public’s perception of the "threat" that Iraq posed to the country. And Dick Cheney was involved in efforts to twist the WMD evidence to scare the hell out of Americans.

More, despite the democratic gains in the House and Senate, it is still the executive office that makes the major decisions about the US occupation of Iraq. Anyone familiar with the Constitution and the history of the USA knows that the president tends to gain the most power in the context of "war." I would be interested in any evidence that indicates that George W. Bush is not inclined to attempt to expand his powers through the use of "war," as well as any evidence that he is inclined to willingly turn that power over to others, especially democrats in Congress?

Some might think that the firing of Donald Rumsfeld is progress in this area. I strongly disagree. Though the timing of his action may have hurt republicans in the elections – and I’m not sure it did – the truth is that this is something that had been under consideration for some time. In fact, some republicans advocated replacing Rumsfeld with Joe Liebermann. It’s difficult to believe that we can rely upon a neoliberal senator like Lieberman to work with the Iran-Contra participant Robert Gates to end the war.

Others might have faith in the James Baker III group. I don’t. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that the Baker group is looking to end the US occupation in the next two years. Baker may try to reduce American involvement in the day-to-day killings to an extent, but he is not going to advocate a complete withdrawal. If anyone heard President Bush talk about the control of the Iraqi oil supply last week, they should know he isn’t going to go along with any plan that doesn’t include control of that oil. And you can be sure that Dick Cheney is going to use his still considerable behind-the-scenes power to block any attempt to give up that control.

That is why I followed my "On Impeachment" essay with two informal surveys on DU. The first asked for opinions on what our course should be in Iraq; the second asked what leaders DUers thought could best help our nation to reach that goal. The first one had a good response, and there were numerous progressive suggestions on what steps we should take to get out of Iraq. The second one had far fewer responses, and I think that the people listed are among the last people on earth that Bush or Cheney would listen to.

So that’s the blockage that we face. We can have good plans, good leaders, and good intentions. But the Bush administration will continue to block real progress in the effort to get the US out of Iraq. Unless, of course, we understand Deloria’s words: "If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared." That pressure is the grass roots lobbying Congress to investigate the lies that brought us to war in Iraq. The weak point is VP Cheney. And the republican party would gladly sacrifice him for a moment'’ peace, and for the chance to be re-elected in '‘8.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Dear Matt and Christina Drayton:

I read in the Nov. 8 edition of the Syracuse Post-Standard that civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson will be speaking at the Hendrick’s Chapel of Syracuse University on the 17th. I am hoping that you will be able to attend the speech, because I believe that it might help to address some of the concerns that you expressed about my recent essay "On Impeachment." It seems that some of the beliefs of one segment of the democratic party makes another segment uncomfortable – in fact, a few members of the Democratic Underground stated that my proposals in "On Impeachment" were "dangerous" – and I believe that Rev. Jackson is uniquely qualified to define the role of the Rainbow Coalition in democratic politics.

It was with some amusement that I read, in the Post-Stand article(page B-5), that one of the university faculty was concerned that Jackson would "give a speech that is purely political. That is going to be the greatest temptation right now." I hope that Jesse gives a very political speech, and explains how "politics" impacts the every day lives of those students.

It would be important for Jesse to talk about his runs for the presidency in 1984 and ’88. In particular, I would hope that he covers that time period found in Chapter 17 of Marshall Frady’s 1996 book, "Jesse: The Life and Pilgrimage of Jesse Jackson." That chapter is titled, "The Desperation After Coming This Far." It tells about how Jesse had brought large numbers of the progressive movement into the democratic party. He had earned consideration for the VP spot on the ’88 ticket.

US News & World Report had a poll that showed that a Dukakis-Jackson ticket would beat George Bush by 47% to 42%, while and Dukakis ticket without Jackson would lose by a similar amount. Jackson made it clear he wanted the chance: "For some people who have come by the way of the stars and have had silver spoons in their mouths and many job options – shall they run their father’s ranch, shall they run his plantation, shall they run the family corporation? -- maybe the vice presidency is not quite the top, but it’s a long way from where I started …" (page 402)

The book tells of how Dukakis invited Jesse and his wife to dinner at his home in Brookline, and then to the 4th of July celebration along the banks of the Charles River, to listen to the Boston Pops and watch the fireworks. It was a strange night. There was no one to pick the Jackson’s up at the Boston airport. Jesse’s staff had told Dukakis’ staff that he could not eat any milk products, yet almost the entire meal was milk-based. After the meal, Dukakis asked Jesse, "If I offered you the vice president spot, would you accept?" Jesse said, "Yes." It was, however, the last time they ever discussed the issue. Dukakis did not contact Jesse to tell him he had made another choice. And, as we know, Dukakis lost by the margin the US News & World Report had predicted.

Jackson’s address is sponsored by the African American Male Congress. I hope that Rev. Jackson talks about how the recent elections make it likely that Detroit Congressman John Conyers will likely be the chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee. In that position, the Nov. 6, 2006 TIME predicted Conyers will hold hearings to examine the Patriot Act (page 30). Jesse can tell these young people how Rep. Conyers is familiar with how the executive branch can abuse powers such as those granted by the Patriot Act. In fact, Jesse could read from the first Nixon White House "enemies list," made by Charles Colson, that had Conyers near the top: "Coming on fast. Emerging as a leading black anti-Nixon spokesman. Has known weakness for white females." (The American Police State; David Wise; Random House; 1976; page 329)

Those students might find that interesting, perhaps especially so in light of the republican ad attacking Harold Ford, Jr. For you see, Mr. And Mrs. Drayton, William Faulkner was correct when he wrote in "Intruder in the Dust" that "The past is never dead. It’s not even past."
Rev. Jackson might point out that the 2006 elections were so close that no one group can claim the full credit for the many democratic victories. It was a group effort. There are many good democrats who believe the victories were the result of "taking the middle." That is true, but it is equally true that the margin of victory was less than the number of progressives in the party. Take away that middle, and there would not have been progress; take away the progressives, and the democrats would find themselves in the middle of defeat. Again.

Each group that makes up the democratic party is a finger. Alone, our enemies can twist and break any one finger. But when we combine in a common effort, we make a powerful fist. It’s that fist that led us to victory in the elections, not just any one finger.

And that is why we want our place at the table today. Progressive democrats pitched in the funds it took to win the elections. We did our part in the hard work that brought the victories. Now we expect to be seated at the victory feast.

Jesse can tell the Syracuse students about the difficult work that was done in the 1960s. There was a lot of friction in those days. I think about part of the wonderful series "Eyes on the Prize" that played on PBS. There is an episode titled "Bridge to Freedom," about the march from Selma to Montgomery. There was an infamous film clip of James Foreman, dressed in the movement coveralls, telling the crowd, "This problem goes to the very bottom of the United States. And you know, I said it to them and I will say it again: If we can’t sit at the table, let’s knock the fucking legs off, excuse me." I remember afterward that James said he wished he hadn’t cursed in front of the people that day. But he was frustrated.

The progressive democrats are not cursing the party, or threatening to overturn any tables. But we want our say. We know that there have been episodes where those in that "middle" have been not only silent, but unwilling to listen to our voices. All you need to do is to look at Michael Moore’s film "Fahrenheit 9/11," and in some of the opening scenes, there are progressive members of the House of Representatives asking for the help of even one US Senator, because they were intent on making concerns about the republican effort to disenfranchise black voters in Florida part of the official record. Those Representatives were trying to do the same thing that the Selma marchers did.

Today we want to say that we must be willing to put the most important of topics on the table, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. We recognize the Patriot Act, because we have seen it before. It had a different name, but it was the same danger to democracy. In the Nixon days, it was called the Huston Plan. You can read about it in David Wise’s "The American Police State." Or in Bob Woodward’s "The Secret Man." Or, better yet, read about it in the historic Ervin Committee Report, in the Section A of Chapter 1, "The Background of Watergate." The Senate Committee, made up of both democrats and republicans, noted that the Huston Plan was in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights. It was this Huston Plan that led to the crimes we know as "Watergate," and which posed a danger to our democracy.

I thought it interesting that some on the Democratic Underground thought that my essay "On Impeachment" contained "dangerous" suggestions. Indeed, I think that they are in gross error. It is the Bush-Cheney administration that poses the dangers to our society. I merely suggested that when we are confronted by an updated Huston Plan, with the Patriot Act, the threats to the Bill of Rights that Keith Olbermann has noted, the Downing Street Memo, the Plame and the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandals, the WMD lies that led us to war in Iraq, and many, many other related crimes, that we lobby Representatives like John Conyers and Henry Waxman, and ask them to investigate. Investigate in the manner defined by the Constitution of the United States.

I remember that Dick Gregory spoke to a group of parents in a Selma church, to address their concerns that what their children were doing by marching was "dangerous." You can find Dick’s beautiful and moving speech at the end of his book "Nigger." He told the crowd,"Let’s analyze the situation. We’re not saying, ‘Let’s go downtown and take over city hall.’ We’re not saying, ‘Let’s stand on the rooftops and throw bricks at the white folks.’ We’re not saying, ‘Let’s get some butcher knives and some guns and make them pay for what they’ve done.’ …

"We’re saying, ‘We want what you said belongs to us. You have a constitution …. And you make me take a test on the United States Constitution, a constitution that hasn’t worked for anyone but you. And you expect me to learn it from front to back. So I learned it’." (page 202)

My essay "On Impeachment" shows that I’ve read that Constitution from front to back, too. It’s not dangerous. I suggested others read it. That’s not dangerous. I quoted from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Look at him: he’s an elderly intellectual who wears a bow-tie. He isn’t threatening. If you don’t want to read his "The Imperial Presidency," then please read his wonderful books "A Thousand Days" (about JFK) and "Robert Kennedy" (the best book on RFK). Then you will understand the promise that was made to progressive democrats. And you’ll know who invited us to this table.

I hope that you will be able to hear Rev. Jesse Jackson’s message. Perhaps afterwards, we could go out for a meal. I promise I’m not planning to kick the legs out from under that table.

On Impeachment

{1} "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers, and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article 1, Section 2.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Article 1, Section 3.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution

In the first 24 hours that followed the ’06 elections, members of the Democratic Underground debated the issue of Congress beginning investigations of actions taken by members of the Bush administration that might lead to impeachment hearings. The democratic party’s victories in the House of Representatives will lead to progressive members being in the position to initiate investigations into things such as the purposeful misrepresenting intelligence on the "threat" posed by Saddam’s WMD programs. The administration’s lies – and they surely did lie – led to the US invasion of Iraq.

Clearly, the war in Iraq was one of the most significant factors in the democratic gains in the elections. It seems reasonable to ask that Congress look at the administration’s actions. Yet there were a number of DUers who claim that this would be wrong. They state that it would be an act of "revenge," and that the democratic party would be harmed in future elections as a result.

I’m confident that these people are sincere in their beliefs. But they are absolutely wrong. Their position indicates a lack of familiarity with the Founding Father’s intent, the Constitution itself, the history of impeachment at the federal level, as well as with the three recent cases involving considerations for impeaching presidents. Let’s take a closer look.

{2} "The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." --Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson wrote those lines to James Madison six weeks before the inauguration of the first US President. As we all know, but all too often take for granted, the Founding Fathers were intent upon creating a separation of powers that would balance each other at the federal level. Thus, they created three co-equal branches of the federal government: the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches are each defined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Article 1 defines the legislative powers of the Congress. It is far longer than Article 2, which defines the executive powers, or Article 3, which defines the judicial powers. In fact, it is twice as long as those Articles combined. That is because the Founding Fathers intended the Congress to be first among the co-equal branches of government.

In creating the system of "checks and balances" of power, the Founding Fathers included a Congressional power to impeach members of either the executive or judicial branches of the federal government. Historians believe that it was originally conceived of as a check on the president, and that the inclusion of others was an afterthought. I think that this is worth debating, as the concept of impeachment appears to be traced to a 14th century method the House of Commons used to indict "high officials." But we can discuss that at another time. For the sake of this discussion, I think we can agree with Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to get it Back on Track" (Oxford; 2006) that the power to impeach is one of the most important functions of the legislative branch. (see pages 17-24 on Article1.)

{3} "A country preserved at the sacrifice of all cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preserving."
--Abraham Lincoln

I believe that the ’06 elections were a clear indicator that the American people believe that this country and its Constitution are indeed worth preserving. I can appreciate that there are sincere democrats who are concerned that, at this time, we would risk the stability of the state if we were to advocate a Congressional investigation that might lead to the impeachment of one or more members of the executive branch. I strongly disagree. I think of a quote from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., that is found in his book "The Imperial Presidency": " But what kept a strong President constitutional, in addition to checks and balances incorporated within his own breast, was the vigilance of the nation. Neither impeachment nor repentance would make much difference if the people themselves had come to an unconscious acceptance of the imperial Presidency. The Constitution could not hold the nation to ideals it was determined to betray. The reinvigoration of the written checks in the American Constitution depended on the reinvigoration of the unwritten checks in American society. The great institutions – Congress, the courts, the executive establishment, the press, the universities, public opinion – had to reclaim their own dignity and meet their own responsibilities. As Madison said long ago, the country could not trust to ‘parchment barriers’ to halt the encroaching spirit of power. In the end, the Constitution would only live if it embodied the spirit of the American people." (page 418)

The election was a reinvigoration of citizen participation in our democracy. People want the nation preserved. This is not a time to give in to fears that following the Constitutional process is somehow dangerous, or presents a threat to our democracy. Quite the opposite. It is the moving away from the Constitution that is the threat to democracy. Perhaps the illogical fear of the Constitution expressed by those who advocate not having congressional investigations comes from an ignorance of what the process entails. Thus, I will suggest reading three books from the Watergate era, which are of great value in understanding the concept of impeachment:

Impeachment: Trials and Errors; Irving Brant; New York; 1972.
Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems; Raoul Berger; Cambridge; 1973.
The Imperial Presidency; Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Houghton Mifflin; 1973.

{4} "The house of representatives … form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things."
--US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson; 1791

The Wilson quote comes from his famous lecture at the College of Philadelphia, and can be found in "Grand Inquest" by Telford Taylor (New York; rev.ed. 1961) It points out something that we tend to forget: that the Congress can impeach more officials than just the President. And we find that this is indeed the history of impeachment in our federal government. The first recorded case came in 1797, when the House was considering impeaching Senator William Blount . The Senate expelled him before the impeachment took place.

In 1804, Jefferson advocated impeachment to get rid of a senile and alcoholic federal judge. By the time of President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, the process had been used five times, and four of these were with judges. Three were from the lower courts. (And three were convicted.) In the 1867 conflict over Johnson’s problems, there were people who believed that impeachment should be avoided because of the damage it could cause the nation. One senator wrote, "Better to submit to two (more) years of misrule … than subject the country, its institutions, and its credit, to the shock of impeachment."

Some advocated something less, such as a Congressional censure. Yet, in 1834, the Senate had censured Andrew Jackson. And he had responded by challenging them to impeach him if they believed he was guilty of a crime. For the sake of our discussion, the issues involved in these two cases are best when reduced to a couple simple concepts: a President has to obey the law of the land, and when he breaks the law, the Congress has the right and responsibility to confront him in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. And James Madison made clear that this includes the responsibility that the President and Vice President have for those whom they may encourage to commit crimes. (See Schlesinger, Chapter 11.)

In 1876, President Grant’s Secretary of War escaped impeachment by resigning shortly before the House would impeach him. In the next 60 years, impeachment would be confined to cases involving five federal district court judges. Two were convicted; two were acquitted; and one resigned. Thus, we can see that leading up to the Watergate era, the impeachment option was not abused: it was not reduced to a form of "revenge," nor was it over-used as what Schlesinger called a "quasi-parliamentary" process similar to the English vote of confidence.

{5} "Dean testified the White House feared the Senate hearing might force the Justice Department into further criminal investigations that would lead back to the White House. It was important, Dean said, that the President meet with Kleindienst and ‘bring (him) back into the family to protect the White House …. (and) solicit Kleindienst’s assistance during the hearings and if anything should develop during the hearings, to not let all hell break loose in a subsequent investigation’."
--Senate Watergate Report; 1974; page 145.

Two months after John Dean had advised President Nixon on issues involving Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, the issue of impeachment was brought to the public’s consciousness. Older readers will recall that this was a result of Kleindienst’s smug testimony to the Ervin Committee. When debating the merits of administration claims to executive privilege, the Attorney General stated that if the Congress was not satisfied with the president’s decisions, they could either cut off appropriations or begin impeachment hearings.

Looking back, one can safely conclude that this was not the approach that either Dean or Nixon had hoped for Kleindiesnst to take. But it led to a reinvigorated approach to the investigation. And, as Daniel Schorr noted in his original introduction to the Carrol & Graf book of the Senate Watergate Report, "It is debatable whether the re-invigorated prosecution and the impeachment inquiry would have happened at all had the Senate investigation not turned illegality, corruption and impropriety in high places into a national issue. It is hard to remember, looking now at the gashed investigation landscape, how hard it was to cut the first furrow. Now that we know so much, we can hardly recollect how it was when we knew so little."

Few people would argue that the nation was damaged by the Constitutional process that resulted in Nixon’s resignation. It was the Nixon administration’s crimes that posed the threat to our country. It might be the single example from recent history that we should use for a guide today. Yet, for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at two other recent events that relate to impeachment.

A decade after Watergate, the Reagan-Bush administration would engage in a series of criminal activities known as the Iran-Contra scandal. There came a point when the Congress uncovered evidence that President Reagan had likely committed crimes, and they debated if they should begin impeachment hearings. The democrats were convinced by republicans that the process would be damaging to our nation. It seems fair to say that this decision likely was the wrong one, considering that the full extent of the criminal activities was never made public, and the criminals were able to escape justice. Indeed, several would go on to serve in the Bush1 and Bush2 admministrations.

Then, in another decade, President Bill Clinton was impeached. I think that readers are familiar enough with the circumstances involved , that we need not review them here. The only thing we need to consider here is did the country gain any advantage by the democrats opting to not impeach Reagan? Was the Constitution form of government strengthened? Or made weaker? And were the republicans in Congress punished for impeaching Clinton? Did they lose control of the House as a result?

{6} "(Impeachment is) the main spring of the great machine of government. It is the pivot on which it turns … In this mode, the machine will be kept in motion by its own powers and on a proper balance."
--James Monroe; The People, The Sovereigns

The genius of impeachment, Schlesinger tells us, is that it can punish the man without punishing the office. The Founding Fathers recognized that it was essential for the country to remain democratic. "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?" asked George Mason. And James Madison wrote that corruption "might be fatal to the Republic" if there was no manner of confronting it, and holding the offender responsible.

In the past six years, members of the Bush administration have participated in a number of activities that appear to be criminal. These include the purposeful distortion of the intelligence that led the nation to war in Iraq; the exposing of Valerie Plame; and a number of related issues. It is important that the new Congress begin to investigate these issues. Just as Daniel Schorr pointed out about Watergate, all that lies beneath the surface will not be exposed unless Congress cuts the furrows.

We need to lobby with the Congress to do so. We cannot afford to give in to the fear or the weakness that leads some to say doing so would be dangerous. For, as Walt Whitman warned, "There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves – and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance – Tyranny may always enter – there is no charm, no bar against it – the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men." ("Notes for Lectures on Democracy")

November 7, 2006 is Frederick Douglass Day

"The need for change, we believe, is compelling and urgent. In foreign policy, with an agonizing war in Iraq joining serious problems in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, the need is clear for some broad consensus on America’s role in the world, or at least for an understanding that these issues cannot be shoved aside in a kind of War of the Roses between the parties and the branches. In domestic affairs, unsustainable deficits looming in the next decade without a redirection of taxing and spending policies, along with unsolved problems in areas like pensions and health care, require a return to serious deliberation and measured bipartisanship. The country and its enduring constitutional pact should not, and cannot, endure a broken branch for long." – The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track; Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein; Oxford; 2006; page 13.
One of the more interesting books that I am reading now is by two political scientists who came to Washington in the late 1960s. They are openly "both hardcore partisans – institutional partisans." Their book focuses on the "first branch" of the federal government: the Congress.
They note that the U.S. Constitution places the Congress in its first article. Article 1 is twice as long as Article 2 (the executive branch), and four times as long as Article 3 (the judiciary). In the separation of powers, the Congress is given the special powers which allow it to: (a) override a presidential veto; (b) change the size and/or jurisdiction of the courts; and © impeach and remove from office members of the executive and judicial branches.
With these great powers come great responsibilities. The House of Representatives and the Senate are supposed to represent the citizens of the United States at all times, but especially so in times of great struggle. Members of Congress are, in theory, men and women who can rise above "hardcore partisan" interests, and demonstrate what these authors call an "institutional patriotism."
Yet there is no question that the Congress is almost incapable of that institutional patriotism, and instead has reached historic lows in its ability to serve the citizens of the United States. Certainly it is true that there have been other eras where the Congress was dysfunctional, and where the lowest of human passions infected its ability to reach the promise of that Constitution. But Mann and Ornstein make clear that we are at an all-time low in both the House and Senate.
Two things stand out to me: first, that politicians are in a constant quest to win re-election, which means that most are going to do the bidding of the interests that donate the most; and second, that large numbers of citizens are absolutely unrepresented by any politician in the most meaningful ways. With a broken Congress, there are two groups in particular who are no more likely to be "counted" in the halls of Congress than their vote is likely to be counted in parts of Florida or Ohio. These groups are the poor, and those who are "progressives," including many democrats, along with others on the political left.
And so, while I am excited about the 2006 elections, and am confident that democrats are going to win control of both the House and Senate, I recognize that it is really just the first step in the right direction. I am reminded of 1852, when a black man named Frederick Bailey, who had changed his last name to Douglass, was invited to speak in Rochester, NY on the occasion of Independence Day. Douglass began by speaking of the great accomplishments of the Founding Fathers. However, midway through his speech, he went in another direction. It is one that those who are not represented today might ask as well.
"Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? …. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. …Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans?" – The American Reader; Diane Ravitch; Harper Collins; 1990; pages 115-118.
Today we see the result of a broken Congress: the executive office is allowed to go unchallenged along the way to becoming the Imperial Presidency that historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr had warned of three decades ago. We see President Bush moving in a direction that denies the essence of the United States’ Constitution to an extent that threatens the very foundation of our democracy.
Mann and Ornstein begin their book with the example of the improper actions the republican leadership in the House took to force through their bill on prescription drug benefits under Medicare. They compare it with a 1987 budget bill forced through by Speaker Jim Wright, and quote Wyoming Representative Dick Cheney’s calling Wright a "son-of-a-bitch," and calling his action "the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I’ve ever seen in the ten years I’ve been here." (page 5)
The Bush-Cheney administration’s arrogant, heavy-handed abuses of power are so numerous that it has taken a dozen good books to document the most obscene of them. One of the best was David Corn’s "The Lies of George W. Bush" (Three Rivers Press; 2003). Another wonderful book on the abuses of the republican party is Joe Conason’s "Big Lies" (Thomas Dunne Books; revised and updated version 2003).
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do not believe in democracy. They are not invested in the Bill of Rights. Quite the opposite – they are the party of Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Tom DeLay Newt Gingrich, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Their ability to damage the democratic foundation of this country is in exact proportion to their ability to disenfranchise and marginalize segments of the population.
The healthiest movement in our country today is the grass-roots level organizing by progressives. In the November elections, progressive-minded activists will have the greatest chance of success by supporting democratic candidates for both the House and Senate. But that is just the beginning of a larger, vital struggle for democracy. The Constitution demands that citizens do more than simply vote for politicians to do for them those things they need to do for themselves. And the Bill of Rights provides us with the tools we need to rebuild that broken Congress.
It’s a tough struggle, but we are beginning to see progress. I’m reminded of Frederick Douglass’s August 3, 1857 speechabout emancipation at Canandaigua, NY, which have become his most famous words:
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must be this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." – Two Speeches by Frederick Douglass; Frederick Douglass; Rochester; 1857.
Next Tuesday, we have the opportunity to make a democratic statement. Be sure to call your family and friends, and be sure to get as many people to the voting booths as possible. This is one of the most important elections in our nation’s history. Take pride in being a progressive participant in the democratic process.