Creative Tension

"You may well ask, ‘Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, etc? Isn’t negotiation a better path?’ You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in a monologue rather than a dialogue." – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Letter from Birmingham City Jail

Martin Luther King, Jr., recognized the potential benefits of creative tension. He mentioned Socrates in the above quote, who applied creative tension in an individual sense. And Martin had become a student of the Gandhi school of thought, which frequently makes use of creative tension involving groups of people.

As we know from King’s letter from the Birmingham jail, the use of creative tension can be expected to cause alarm, and that alarm is frequently expressed by those who tend to share the same general goals as those who create that tension. That was true in Gandhi’s India, in King’s campaigns, and it is true today in the democratic party.

These are tense times. Our nation is facing a variety of crises that require that we rise from the bondage of the myths and half-truths, and move in a radically different direction. We must do this on the individual and the group level. It is not easy, but it is necessary. And to do so, we should be using history as a guide. I quoted from Martin’s letter, because it can help us to see how he viewed creative tension. It is important to listen closely to Martin’s words, because too often today, our society has created the "Martin mythology" that, as his friend Stanley Levison noted after King’s assassination, was creating "their plaster saint who was going to protect them from angry Negroes."

Let’s take a brief look at one example of creative tension, which might help us view recent events in democratic politics in an interesting context as we approach the 2008 elections. King’s Selma campaign was one of the most tension-filled phases of his career. The Selma campaign took place over an extended period. There is no single book or film that fully captures the significance of that chapter of our history, and I will not try to today. But I do like one sentence from Taylor Branch’s classic "At Canaan’s Edge" : "Organs of mainstream culture divided over Selma." (page 184)

One of the most interesting parts of the Selma campaign took place on February 4, 1965. Martin was in jail. The others civil rights leaders were divided on what tactics they should use. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee invited Minister Malcolm X to address the young demonstrators in Selma. Now, if Martin created tension, Malcolm might be said to have caused a general anxiety among almost everyone, except those students.

Andrew Young and James Bevel tugged on Malcolm’s collar before he spoke, and warned him not to "incite." Malcolm responded, "Remember this: nobody puts words in my mouth." King’s coworkers then asked his wife to speak to Malcolm. Now, Mrs. King was a gentle person, but she was actually was a bit more militant in her beliefs than her husband. She was the right person to speak to Malcolm.

Mrs. King would later say that Malcolm had assured her that he was not there to incite violence. He asked her to pass a message on to Martin, that he believed his being in Selma would make King’s movement look like a more acceptable alternative than more "angry Negroes."
Of course, today we know that there were other communications between Martin and Malcolm in 1964 and ’65. It was not a case of King being offended by Malcolm being in Selma, even if some of his coworkers were. If we look back at that incident today, we see that it involved a huge step by Malcolm: the tensions that resulted from his being kicked out of the Nation of Islam had resulted in his moving beyond the myths and half-truths of that movement, and taking a more progressive, politically mature step in the struggles of human rights.

It’s interesting to note that at the end of the Selma campaign, King would give his second – and last – speech that was carried live, in full, by network TV. (The first was during the March on Washington; both are wonderful examples of Martin dropping his scripted speech, and speaking extemporaneously.) "They told us we wouldn’t get here. And there were those who said we would get here only over their dead bodies." He spoke about the journey "through desolate valleys and across trying hill," words that I think describe today. "But all the world today knows that we are here, and we are standing before the forces of power in the State of Alabama, saying, ’We ain’t gonna let nobody turn us around’."

It was in the Selma campaign that participants expanded on the songs of the movement. "We Shall Overcome" and "Go, Tell It on the Mountain" were part of the music of the Selma march. And so were "This Land Is Your Land" and "Blowin’ in the Wind." I think that reflects some of the changes that were taking place in the movement. Those changes led to what was Martin’s most important discussion regarding creative tension. In his 1967 "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam"), Martin said, "Every man of humane convictions must decide on that protest that best suits his convictions, but we all must protest.

"There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sober reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation.They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for those and another dozen names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God."

Today we are concerned about Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan. We are concerned about an administration that, for a variety of reasons, is seeking to trample the Constitution of the United States. They work to create a revolutionary executive branch that has no respect for the balance of powers envisioned by our Founding Fathers. And sadly, they are well on their way to accomplishing their goals.

Many dedicated people, including the majority of the members of the democratic party, are organizing in an effort to oppose the administration and its coworkers. Our goals cannot be accomplished without the use of creative tension. Some of our more "moderate" friends are upset by things such as the call for an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq, or by the calls for the congress to investigate and impeach some of the individuals in the Bush administration.

I do not question their sincerity, any more than I would question that of Andy Young or James Bevel when they tried to "control" Malcolm. But like Martin said, "We ain’t gonna let nobody turn us around." We are at a point where the creative tensions might make some of us question the tactics that one group chooses, or the actions another group uses to make its point. There should be differences of opinion within the party. It’s a good thing. Yet we should all use care so that others who are not sincere – and perhaps not even democrats – use those tensions to divide us, and to create discord and separation, rather than progress. We should take advantage of the opportunity to step back at times, and not react harshly to those who disagree with the tactics that we believe to be correct. For, as Gandhi said, "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause."

Ponds

This is an essay I posted on the forum Democratic Underground:

{1} "The increasing complexity of both technological tasks and the built environment is a source of many negative stress response patterns. In buildings, institutions, and communities, the nurturing properties of vegetation can ameliorate stress and provide maintenance for a healthy society." – Landscape Views and Stress Response in the Prison Environment; Marcia June West; M.A. thesis; University of Washington; 1986.

In the past three weeks on the Democratic Underground’s General Discussion forum, there have been a number of threads that have discussed issues involving how we all relate to the environment. Do we drink bottled water? How do we view our relationship with animals? Are we in Iraq solely for oil? Are children "bad" for the earth?

In the same period of time, I’ve noted a mild increase in the number of threads, and perhaps individual responses on threads, that reflect an "edge." Some people anticipate the current administration may create a national emergency to maintain power. Others express frustration with elected officials in congress. There are even a couple of threads with more than a hint of tensions between the sexes. Great googamooga, there are times when reading DU:GD is a lot like singing the Temptation’s "Ball of Confusion."

I’ve been wondering what people here do to "re-charge their batteries?" And what connections might there be between our personal space, our home environments, and how we deal with not only the stress in our own individual lives, but more: in a society where we have become a fear and anxiety producing machine?

{2} "We should consider how ‘our aesthetic reactions to landscapes may have derived, in part, from an evolved psychology that functioned to help hunter-gathers make better decisions about when to move, where to settle, and what activities to follow in various localities ….stimuli such as flowers, sunsets, clouds, thunder, snakes and lions activate response systems of ancient origin’." – Evolved Responses to Landscapes, from The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Generation of Culture; Gordon Orians & Judy Heerwagen; Oxford Press; 1992.

Sometimes on my posts on DU:GD, I have quoted from a wonderful poem about an Onondaga Elder, who explains to a "young" man that he never takes a drink of water, without giving thanks. That Elder’s name was Harold Elm, and he was from a generation that never would have associated water with something in a plastic bottle, purchased at a store.

His wife never planted corn, watered her gardens, or took part in a harvest without recognizing these activities as part of a ceremony. There isn’t really an end to that ceremony, because part of that corn becomes seed for the next year’s cycle. But there is a time she prepared the corn for her family’s meals.

There is a different consciousness found in Mr. Elm’s relationship to water, than to that of the person who produces bottled water. Mrs. Elm had a different relationship to the produce of her gardens, than Barbara Bush has to the produce her servants prepare for their "Thanksgiving" feast.

There is a real world, and there is an un-real world. One produces cool spring water and healthy food. The other creates fear and anxiety. No one can go "back in time," and few can inhabit a world that is fully detached from the tensions of modern society. How we find a balance between the wonderful advantages of modern technology, and the hustle and bustle of our high-tech society.

{3} "Sometimes, having had a surfeit of human society and gossip, and worn out from all my village friends, I rambled still farther westward than I habitually dwell, into yet more unfrequented parts of the town, ‘to fresh woods and pastures new,’ or, while the sun was setting , made my supper of huckleberries and blueberries on Fair Haven Hill, and laid up a store for several days. The fruits do not yield their true flavor to the purchaser of them, nor to him who raises them for the market. There is but one way to obtain it, yet few take that way. If you would know the flavor of huckleberries, ask the cow-boy or the partridge. It is a vulgar error to suppose that you have tasted huckleberries who have never plucked them. A huckleberry never reaches Boston; they have not been known there since they grew on her three hills. The ambrrosial and essential part of the fruit is lost with the bloom which is rubbed off in the market cart, and they become mere provender. As long as Eternal Justice reigns, not one innocent huckleberry can be transported thither from the country’s hills." – Walden; Henry David Thoreau; Chapter 9: The Ponds.

This weekend, I was able to eat huckleberries and blueberries growing on my land. I am lucky to live in a rural area, on an old farm. For generations, the people who lived here had a relationship with the fruit trees and berry bushes that I enjoy today. My daughters and their friends spent a few hours picking raspberries, which made their morning meal seem like dessert

My cousin has been here much of the past three days. He knew that I have wanted to put a pond on a swampy area on my property. I rented the machine, and he did the work. Like on any project, some things went "wrong." It would be easy to react by being upset, but it is easier – more natural – to not become upset when you are surrounded by open fields and children picking berries.

My cousin has a grasp of machines which I do not; I am able to identify certain plants that indicate a source of water 8 to 10 feet below the surface. Then, on another section, he found the water supply, located the 3 feet down, just below the frost-line in the coldest of winters. Years ago, one of my father’s elderly friends told me that his father, as a youth, helped lay the leather "pipe" that carried the water to an old, long-gone barn. Though that leather is also long-gone, the wood shaft was still there. My pond has water coming in.

My cousin asked, "Can you imagine how long it took to put that in 100 years ago?" Yes, but life moved at a different pace 100 and 200 years ago, when other people lived in this old house. And I am closer to that reality than to the anxious-nervous-frightened non-reality of republicans. I find that I can deal with the toxic parts of our fast-moving modern society by stepping back into the peace of "not doing" that Thoreau advocated.

Elaine Penwardin noted that "while pursuing the humblest occupation – such as planting or cutting flowers, I perceived, as a chink of light through a door opened quickly, a greater plan of things than our programme for the year, a larger world than that surrounding us, and one universal pattern of things, in which all existence has its place …. I have felt peace descend on me while I have handled plants, so that a rhythm and harmony of being has been brought about. That harmony is the beginning of health ….. There is a universal pattern, a pattern that flows like a stream, like the moving pattern of a dance. It is possible even through such contact with the earth as I have had, to be drawn into that pattern and move with it." (It’s the Plants That Matter; 1967)

We can’t fight fear by being afraid. We can’t cure the anxiety and depression that damages Americans’ daily lives by accepting the corporate definition of reality, which capitalizes on people’s anxieties and depression. We need a change in consciousness in this land. That’s as politically necessary as the 2008 elections, and as socially progressive as making education and health care available to everyone in the country.

When Decorum Becomes Repression

"What can I say about Schultze. He looked like a kid named Yale Newman that everybody picked on in my grammar school because he was always trying to brown-nose the teacher. Thick glasses, slightly uncouth, with pants that always looked like there was a load hanging in the back." – Abbie Hoffman; Soon to Be a Major Motion Picture; page 197

In the chapter titled "A Trial to End All Trials," Abbie Hoffman provided the above quote to describe one of the prosecutors in the historic Chicago Seven case. Older readers will remember an infamous incident from the trial, when Jerry Rubin whispered to Richard Schultze that he was considering peeing on the prosecutor’s foot. Schultze jumped to his feet, and shouted, "Your honor, the defendant Rubin just threatened to doo-doo on my foot!"

In general, I respect most of the men and women who participate in the legal battles that help to define our times, much as the Chicago Seven trial helped to define the 1960s. Judge Reggie Walton is a conservative republican, and has made some rulings in the past that I disagreed with. Yet I was very confident during the early days of the Scooter Libby trial that Judge Walton would be fair, and put the rule of law before any political loyalty he might have felt for the administration.

Likewise, I respect the attorneys who represented the convicted felon Scooter Libby. Going into the trial, it was obvious that they were representing a client who was guilty as sin. During the pre-trial and trial phases of the Libby case, there were some court filings that seemed weak, and I wish they had called Cheney and Rove to the stand. But they recognized their #1 duty was to keep an obviously guilty felon out of prison – and they did.

However, even before yesterday’s Memorandum Opinion by US District Judge John D. Bates, in which he dismissed the Joseph and Valerie Wilson civil suit, I considered Bates to be a Yale Newman-like character. A "Scientists Project on Government Secrecy" article on Bates being appointed to the FISA Court noted that, "Judge Bates, a Republican appointee, has a distinctively conservative cast to his resume. From 1995-1997, he served as Deputy Independent Counsel to the intensely partisan Whitewater investigation. In 2002, he dismissed a lawsuit brought by the congressional General Accounting Office seeking disclosure of records of the Vice President’s Energy Task Force."

From the day the Wilson’s civil case was filed, it was apparent that it would be a difficult struggle, and that it would ultimately involve a verdict being appealed to and possibly decided by the US Supreme Court. Indeed, this case highlighted the need to have appropriate judges placed in high places. Part of the Wilson team was Erwin Chemerinsky, the law professor at Duke University, who had previously been a US Justice Department attorney, and who had been the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law School.

On November 3, 2005, Chemerinsky had authored an article "Alito Is Too Far Right for the High Court" for Bloomberg News. In it, he noted that in "virtually every important area, Alito’s opinions are on the far right of the ideological spectrum. …. It is completely appropriate for the Senate to deny Alito confirmation because of his conservative ideology." This was not because Chemerinsky is opposed to conservative voices in the judicial system, but rather because he recognized the damage that individuals who are incapable of placing the rule of law above political ideology cause.

There was concern that John Bates would be unlikely to make any ruling against the administration in the Wilson case. The decision in the VP Cheney Energy Task Force case seemed to reflect Bates’ core beliefs in a powerful executive branch that didn’t need to answer to anyone. Still, there was one instance, in the Abu Ali v. John Ashcroft case, where Bates ruled, "The Court concludes that a citizen cannot be so easily separated from his constitutional rights." One hoped that Bates would recognize the Wilson cases raised important Constitutional issues.

Last July 17, in his first public statement on the civil case, Joseph Wilson told Keith Olbermann, "I think getting the truth out is one of the objectives and we’d like everybody to know precisely what happened ….and why they did this. I think the broader issue, of course, is whether or not individuals who have enormous power in our democracy should be entitled to use that power to exact personal revenge, which of course is what this administration did, from Mr. Cheney on down. ….When you see the vice president annotating a copy of my opinion piece with ‘did his wife send him on a junket,’ that’s essentially a talking point to his staff. So, the uncovering of – the compromise of her identity was clearly deliberate"

Judge Bates noted that, "The merits of plaintiff’s claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." But, rather than to consider these questions, Bates writes, "As it turns out, the Court will not reach, and therefore express no views on, the merits of the constitutional and other tort claims asserted by plaintiffs based on defendants’ alleged disclosures because the motions to dismiss will be granted." (pages 1-2)

The load from Yale Newman’s trousers is splattered across the 41 pages of Injustice Bates’ ruling. For example, on page 21, he writes that "Libby learned about Mrs. Wilson’s employment from various sources within the CIA, the State Department, and the Office of the Vice President." That is simple not true: Libby learned of Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment status from one man, VP Dick Cheney.

On page 31, Injustice Bates writes, "The Government has officially acknowledged, in documents filed in the Libby criminal case and at oral arguments in this matter, that Mrs. Wilson was a covert operative for the CIA." Yet in the same paragraph, he states that "in order to prevail on the merits of their equal protection claim, plaintiffs would have to allege and eventually demonstrate ‘disparate treatment of similarly situated parties’. … In other words, plaintiffs would need to introduce evidence pertaining to the Government’s treatment of other covert agents whose espionage relationships have not been acknowledged – evidence that might reveal the identities of those agents."

Bates then expresses concern that hearing the case would "inevitably require judicial intrusion into matters of national security." One suspects that federal laws such as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- and, indeed, the Libby case -- at very least hint at the need for some cases involving national security issues to be decided in the courts. But John Bates, like Richard Schultze/Yale Newman, is afraid that this runs the risk of exposing the doo-doo on the administration’s trousers and shoes.

He notes the Libby, Rove, and Armitage assert "qualified immunity" and Cheney asserts "absolute immunity" in the operation to damage Joseph Wilson, because he was viewed as an administration critic. He cites the 1988 Westfall Act, which requires "certification by the Attorney General or his designee that the individual defendant was acting within the scope of his office"; one wonders how Bates views Patrick Fitzgerald’s statements about a cloud hanging over VP Cheney as meeting this standard.

Judge Bates is not capable of viewing this case objectively. His sense of reality is summed up in the second of these sentences from page 8: "Now pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by each of the four named defendants. The United States has also filed both a Statement of Interest and a motion to dismiss." Bates confuses the Bush-Cheney administration with the United States. In doing so, he reflects the same type of ideological blindness that Chemerinsky had warned against in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is the same irrational type of thinking that Kevin Phillips warned of in his book American Dynasty: "…(Scalia) opinied that as written in 1787 the Constitution reflected natural or divinely inspired law that the state was an instrument of God. ‘That consensus has been upset,’ he said, ‘by the emergence of democracy.’ He added that ‘the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible’." (pages 107-108)

Judge Bates’ ruling is clearly a resolution to combat the dangerous democratic actions of Joseph and Valerie Wilson, and to protect the divine power of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The Wilsons will appeal his decision, and it is possible that they will still have their day in court.

Yet, as Abbie Hoffman said upon being sentenced for contempt in the Chicago Seven trial, "When decorum becomes repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." I urge both Joseph and Valerie to speak out. I believe that the real United States is depending on true patriots to do just that today.

We the People

{1} Al Gore is providing Americans with a type of leadership that transcends partisan politics. His leadership is based upon a type of authority that weak individuals, such as George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, can never exercise. While Bush and Cheney can use the power of their political machine in only a destructive manner, Al Gore is showing Americans the path we must take to transform this nation back into the Constitutional democracy that we are supposed to enjoying.

Will Gore eventually enter the democratic primary? Some people speculate he will, while others believe that he is unlikely to become a candidate. Today, I believe that speculating on that issue is less interesting – and indeed, far less important – than focusing on how Al Gore is participating in every race, from school board to mayor to senator to president.

Two things stand out: the earth-consciousness festival, and his book "The Assault on Reason." Both are outstanding. Today, I would like to discuss a few thoughts about the book, and try to do so in the context of the leadership, power, and authority that Al Gore is helping the public to access.

In the book’s introduction, Gore writes, "Whether it is called a public forum or a public sphere or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America’s earliest decades. Our first self-expression as a nation – ‘We the People’ – made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where people held government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government."

Gore notes that there are three "important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas": First, that it is open to everyone. He recognizes that literacy is an important factor in making it open to all, and that this is the key to the power to both receive and contribute information in the discussion. Second, Gore states that ideas are to be considered on their own merits, rather than the wealth and/or social class of the person advancing them. And third, he states that the "conversation of democracy" is based upon the assumption that those who participate will be "governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement."

He also expresses his concern that the "print-based public sphere that had emerged from the books, pamphlets, and essays of the Enlightenment has, in the blinking eyes of a single generation, come to seem as remote as the horse and buggy." (See pages 11-13.)

{2} One of the most important books for understanding the threat posed to our Constitutional democracy by the Bush-Cheney administration is "The Imperial Presidency," by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (Houghton Mifflin Company; 1973). In it, the former aide to President Kennedy traces the historic tensions between the three branches of our federal government. This includes how the executive branch has attempted to use war to justify claims for increased presidential powers. The book includes the attempts of both democratic and republican presidents to use the threat of conflict to do this.

In the period when Schlesinger wrote his book, Richard Nixon was abusing the powers of the executive office. Schlesinger was an advocate of impeachment. "In that spirit," he wrote, "I would argue that what the country needs today is a little serious disrespect for the office of the Presidency; a refusal to give any more weight to a President’s words than the intelligence of the utterance, if spoken by anyone else, would command; an understanding of the point made so aptly by Montaigne: ‘Sit he on never so high a throne, a man still sits on his own bottom’." (page 411)

It is clear that Schlesinger and Gore are describing much the same concept – a person’s opinions should be judged upon their value, not by the position or wealth of the person uttering them. That is the essence of true democracy. And we find, when we are exposed to the wisdom of a Schlesinger or a Gore, that they value history. They recognize that rational people can take the words of insightful and intelligent people from the past, and apply those words to the current situation.

Compare that to the utterances of George W. Bush: rather than having a president who focuses on the teachings of a Jefferson or an FDR, we have a fellow who constantly speaks of the threats that we face. Rather than attempting to instill confidence, this president sows the seeds of paranoia and fear. He and vice president Cheney do this in an attempt to grab a level of power that goes beyond what Schlesinger called "the imperial presidency," and in fact is engaged in actions that are those of a "revolutionary presidency."

Bush and Cheney attempt to exercise what is known as "overt authority." It is very different than the type of authority that Al Gore represents. Those who enjoy reading recognize the type of thinking that is associated with Bush and Cheney as having been described by John Dean in his wonderful book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." Although Dean does not seem familiar with Erich Fromm’s 1941 work, his book addresses many of the same issues that Fromm covered in "Escape From Freedom." The truth remains constant, and can be applied in 2007 just as it was 66 years ago.

Overt authority does not seek to expand individual citizens’ right. It uses fear, anxiety, and paranoia to justify its attempts to restrict those individual freedoms we recognize as being provided by our Bill of Rights. On August 9, 1975, FBI Director Clarence Kelley said, "We must be willing to surrender a small measure of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them." This is the constant untruth that avert authority attempts to convince the public of. It’s no different today than it was in the summer of 1975.

Many citizens are concerned by the administration’s moves to have federal police agencies spy on civilians. This is the same concern that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson expressed in 1955: "I cannot say that our country could have no central police without becoming totalitarian, but I can say with great conviction that it cannot become totalitarian without a centralized national police …. A national police … will have enough on people, even if it does not elect to prosecute them, so that it will find no opposition to its policies" (The Supreme Court in the American System of Government).

{3} When we witness any person say that we can no longer afford the full Constitution of the United States, and that the Bill of Rights is out-dated and needs to be somehow restricted, that they are agents of avert authority. They may mean well, but their minds have been poisoned by fear, anxiety, and paranoia. As Al Gore points out in his book, the dangers we face from externalenemies is no greater today than it was in the past. The greater danger we face are from "leaders" who fear the essence of democracy, and who seek to reduce our freedoms and restrict public debate on important issues.

Yet as others have noted in the past, we can not afford to see all of the weaknesses and dangers as coming from the republican Schlesinger points out democratic administrations who have attempted to expand executive power. And Erich Fromm wrote of another type of authority that is not restricted to any one party. It is "anonymous authority," and it has the same potential to reduce the public discussion and debate at the local level as at the state of national level. It tends to be found in groups and organizations that run as machines.

"Overt authority is exercised directly and explicitly," Fromm wrote in the foreword to A.S. Neill classic "Summerhill." He continues, "The person in authority frankly tells the one who is subject to him, ‘You must do this. If you do not, certain sanctions will be applied against you.’ Anonymous authority tends to hide that force is being used. Anonymous authority pretends that there is no authority, that all is being done with the consent of the individual. While the teacher of the past said to Johnny, ‘You must do this. If you don’t, I’ll punish you’; today’s teacher says, ‘I’m sure you’ll like to do this.’ Here, the sanction for disobedience is not corporal punishment, but the suffering face of the parent, or what is worse, conveying the feeling of not being ‘adjusted,’ of not acting as the crowd acts. Overty authority used physical force; anonymous authority employs psychic manipulation."

We must be on guard for those who attempt to employ the type of manipulation that Fromm speaks of. Again, like those who are agents of avert authority, these people may be sincere in their beliefs. But their beliefs are too often the type that would restrict the public discussions and debates that people like Gore and Schlesinger, and Dean and Fromm, recognized as essential for a healthy democracy.

We do well, instead, to read and learn from those leaders who exercised that other type of authority that does not require that anyone’s rights be restricted. We need to apply those leaders’ teachings to today. The great thing is that our nation has produced many such leaders. We can benefit from the works of our Founding Fathers, and from the great leaders from the generations that followed.

Those who tell us that we should not listen to the powerful message of Al Gore today, are the same types as who have said in the past that we should not listen to Robert Kennedy, or Martin Luther King, Jr. They are the same people who have always tried to restrict the national discussion that Al Gore notes is so important to a healthy democracy. We should never allow them to restrict the national marketplace of ideas. We can not allow them to define the boundary of debate on issues regarding the need to end the war in Iraq, Schlesinger’s recommendations on impeachment, or what candidates or platform we must accept.

And when we do that, we begin to exercise the force of democracy that Al Gore advocates: We the People.

The Cause of Democracy

{1} "Why now, blow wind, swell billow, and swim bark!
The storm is up, and all is on the hazard."
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

In the days since President Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence, there has been a strong, negative response in newspapers and on the cable news shows. The White House expected that there would be opposition to Bush’s action, and had prepared ways to try to spin the story while it is receiving attention. More, they anticipate that as a result of their spin, and of the nature of the media, that it would fade from the front pages by this Sunday’s evening.

The White House has attempted four tactics to spin the story: the first is to say that President Bush’s action upset the Libby supporters who wanted a full pardon, as well as those who believe he should not have taken any action; second, they have administration puppets spew the same lies about "no underlying crime," "Armitage leaked," "the prosecution was political," and "Plame wasn’t covert"; third, they attempt to frame the issue in terms of Bill Clinton; fourth, they say that the public really doesn’t care about the case.

Our job is to the focus on the Plame scandal. We can do this in a number of ways. These include writing letters to the editors of newspapers, and to our elected officials in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Let’s take a closer look at what tactics are available to us.

{2} "A man may build himself a throne of bayonets,
but he cannot sit on it."
Dean Inge

Numerous papers across the nation have had editorials that have criticized the president for commuting Libby’s sentence. Because newspapers provide the public with an opportunity to participate in on-going discussions on important issues that television and radio generally do not, we have the ability to keep this issue in the news.

There are three good reasons for each of us to write a "letter-to-the-editor" this weekend. Editors like to have people respond to their editorials. The LTTE section is one of the most popular parts of any newspaper. And this administration is counting on you to lose interest in the case, and not write any LTTE.

LTTE are more likely to be published and read when they are short and simple. Three paragraphs will usually do: start by identifying the topic; discuss the problem; and end with your opinion. When possible, get family members and/or friends, and coordinate a letter-writing campaign.

The Plame scandal provides us with numerous issues to focus on. Among the issues that we should focus on are these:

Cronyism: the commuting of Libby’s sentence was clearly part of the "good old boys" system that most citizens resent;

The Plame scandal was part of the administration’s lies that brought us to war in Iraq.

Valerie Plame was covert, and the republican puppets have lied to the public for 4 years about that.

The investigators believed there were two possible underlying crmes: exposing a covert agent’s identity, and also espionage.

Judge Tatel noted in 2006 that the case had national security implications, prosecuting for perjury and obstruction equaled prosecuting the underlying crimes.

Congress needs to investigate VP Cheney’s role.

The Wilson’s civil suit can lay all the cards on the table.

The leaking began long before Armitage spoke to Novak

{3}"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Arthur Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze

We should also be calling, e-mailing, and especially writing our elected officials in the House and Senate, and asking them to take action on the Plame scandal. Congress needs to hear from all of us: it doesn’t matter if you request that they investigate, that they impeach, or that they investigate and consider impeaching. The important thing is that every elected official hear from the general public on this issue.

The most obvious target of any investigation is Vice President Dick Cheney. He is one of the most unpopular figures in our nation’s history. Not only will democrats find him a popular target for investigations, but most republicans recognize that Cheney is, even more than Bush, a ball-and-chain on their party.

The commuting of Libby’s sentence removed the leverage that Mr. Fitzgerald had, to try to get Libby to tell the truth about what went on between Cheney, Rove, and himself in the spring and summer of 2003. Libby did not want to go to prison. In fact, in the weeks before he was actually indicted, Libby’s attorneys had attempted to reach a plea deal with Mr. Fitzgerald. Libby rejected it, because of the amount of time Mr. Fitzgerald insisted upon. Libby’s superiors in the White House knew about this, and his sentence appears to have been commuted in order to insure he remained silent.

Congress has the ability to take the steps needed to allow Mr. Fitzgerald to provide them with all of the information his investigation found, rather than just what is on the public record. They need to be encouraged to take that step.

More, as Mr. Fitzgerald has noted, the public record has information that should be of interest to congress. For but one example, the 6-10-03 State Department memo from Carl Ford, Jr to Under Secretary Grossman, regarding Joseph Wilson and the Niger yellow cake investigation, notes that, "Joe went to Niger in late 1999 in regard to Niger’s uranium program, apparently with CIA support." The majority of those in the House and Senate will understand the significance of this, even if it has been largely ignored in the media.

{4} "The mental muscles of democracy have begun to atrophy."
Al Gore, The Assault on Reason

The people in this administration are counting on us to sit like bumps on a log while they hijack our democracy. It’s time that we send a clear message that this isn’t going to happen. We need to exercise those "muscles of democracy" that Al Gore speaks of, which are found in Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights. We need to make our voices heard in the media, and in the halls of congress. Let’s roll.