Second, the spectacular refusal by the political leadership class to prevent and undo a de facto dictatorship - a dictatorship that has been successful in making this unfettered executive unaccountable to any other branch of government de jure - cannot merely be the failings or poor judgment of weak and credulous individuals. This is a structural failure, not a transitory problem. Whatever the possible merits of the incoming president, he or any future president has an open license with no expiration date to become a tyrant who claims his or her power on the grounds of “protecting the homeland against an external and/or internal enemy.” The means to fabricate a state of emergency, to initiate or allow a false flag attack, are now within the grasp of any president, present or future. This strategy is immune to any challenge so long as its premises remain unchallenged. In other words, we have a simple, foolproof recipe that Bush and Cheney have been following, and that the Democratic Party has been fully co-operative in carrying forward, for any tyrant to consolidate power.
What Must Happen?
Bush and Cheney’s record levels of protracted unpopularity has not been enough to provoke their being brought to justice for their abuse of office and, beyond that, their horrid crimes against humanity. All of the ingredients are presently in place for a police state to be swung into motion. All that is lacking is a precipitating incident such as another 9/11 or civil unrest. Inertia among the people and betrayals by our leaders, barriers standing in our way until now, must therefore be overcome to avoid the full and open implementation of a police state at some point in the future, and quite possibly in the very near future.
To meet the terms of this critical situation represents a tall order. Americans do not have the rich tradition of mass political struggle we can find in other countries such as France. Belief in representative government and the sufficiency of voting alone is very strong among Americans.
The Milgram Experiment and Germany in the 1930s
Even more important than the relative weakness of mass political action in the U.S., we have the precedents of the 1930s’ rise of fascism in Germany and the 1960 Stanley Milgram Experiment. The fascists took power in Germany and Italy and were ultimately defeated in WW II, but not before the Nazis had killed nine million in their concentration camps alone. Milgram, a social psychologist, sought to understand the social dynamics that permitted the Nazis to rise to power and to hold onto it despite the barbarousness of their rule. His initial hypothesis was that there was something about Germans that made them peculiarly obedient to authority and willing to do monstrous things, or permitted them to look the other way when terrible things were done to others. Milgram planned to take his experiment to Germany after pilot testing it in the U.S. He never did make it to Germany, however, because he discovered the answer here at home: Americans are just as willing to do terrible things to strangers when instructed to do so by men in authority as were the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and 1940s.
The comment by an expatriate American in Paris in Michael Moore’s film, Sicko, is true, “In Europe the governments are afraid of the people. In America, the people are afraid of the government.” Much anguish has been expressed and will continue to be expressed by Americans and non-Americans about how the U.S. population has allowed the predations of the Bush regime to continue. But the German Nazi experience and the Milgram Experiment indicate that the problem we face here is not principally a question of national character.
The problem comes down to two fundamental factors. First, relatively more comfortable conditions for Americans, in combination with a corporate media that has become increasingly an integral part of the ruling structure and less and less an even mild critic (much less, watchdog) of that structure, tend to make Americans less inclined to engage in political actions on behalf of justice. Second, obedience to authority is difficult to overcome. The first factor has to do with material conditions and the impact of those material conditions on consciousness. The second factor has to do with human social dynamics in general.
Because the Democratic Party is the one of the two ruling parties in the most powerful military and richest imperialist empire in history (albeit an Empire now hobbled, in deep debt and in trouble!), it is only realistic to expect that such a party would be fundamentally representative of the rich and powerful. How could it be otherwise? Were it otherwise and were the Democratic Party really representative of the people, why would those who actually exercise power in our country not disallow and marginalize the Democrats? Why would the wealthy be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a party that didn’t protect in fundamental ways the wealthy? “One person, one vote” isn’t how political power is actually exercised. Votes don’t decide matters. If they did, George W. Bush would never have been president.
So that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, people cannot change public policy or repudiate the Bush regime without political leadership advancing their sentiments. The sentiment against the Bush Program is widespread – indeed, it is by far the majority sentiment. The media, by treating impeachment as verboten, and the Democratic Party, in doing the same, have effectively blocked what the majority of Americans want - the impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney. If the New York Times or Barack Obama were to come out for impeachment tomorrow, would anybody be wondering why the American people have allowed these reactionaries in the White House to remain? Of course they would not, because the outpouring of public sentiment in support of impeachment and trials followed by convictions would be immense.
The Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the corporate media will not provide this kind of leadership because to do so at this point means that the leading institutions and opinion-makers in the society would have to open a Pandora’s Box and not only risk widespread social instability but also reveal the level of their own complicity in crimes against humanity. The level of their complicity is profound.
In the face of their abdication of moral and legal responsibility, constituting an alternative legitimate authority to the existing one is absolutely indispensable. Without this, mass sentiment cannot find meaningful expression and become a material, potentially decisive, force.
So this is what must be done. Can it be done?
The realization of such a scenario has no real historical equivalents in a country such as this, but let me sketch out a couple of points.
The problem needs to be attacked from two ends. On the one hand, people on the grassroots level need to start – on an individual level – to speak out and take a public stand against tyrants and a consolidating police state. As individuals (and organizations) do this, they will find that they are changing the atmosphere around them because they are speaking to and representing majority sentiment. They are voicing openly the sentiments that most of those around them share but feel unable to do more about than grumble to their friends and family. By voicing these sentiments publicly and calling for others to act upon these sentiments – wearing an orange ribbon daily is one visible way of doing this - those who step forward in this way are creating new conditions and giving an opening for others, who share their sentiments and have been gnashing their teeth in frustration, to also step forward. The individuals who do this are acting as leaders among the people and becoming leaders by doing so.
Let me give an example of this from a college student who on her own set up an orange-draped table on my campus to distribute orange ribbons:
"Honestly it was one of the most frightening things I've done in a long time. I was praying for a familiar face, but I just dove in and started asking students as they walked by if they wanted to pick up a ribbon to support our anti-war movement, at first many of them just kept walking and said no thanks (a little discouraging...). However, as more students began to come out of class I was able to grab the attention of a few who came up to the table and wanted to know what the orange and the ribbons were all about …
"I was so pleased to see many people taking the ribbons and putting them on their backpacks and on their shirts. As time passed and more students came out, I begin to get people to pledge to get three other people to wear the orange ribbons. I got about 10 pledges from people who said that they had friends that would wear the ribbon in support. I remember this one guy who came back and asked me if he could have one for his girlfriend :) It was great! …
What Must Happen?
Bush and Cheney’s record levels of protracted unpopularity has not been enough to provoke their being brought to justice for their abuse of office and, beyond that, their horrid crimes against humanity. All of the ingredients are presently in place for a police state to be swung into motion. All that is lacking is a precipitating incident such as another 9/11 or civil unrest. Inertia among the people and betrayals by our leaders, barriers standing in our way until now, must therefore be overcome to avoid the full and open implementation of a police state at some point in the future, and quite possibly in the very near future.
To meet the terms of this critical situation represents a tall order. Americans do not have the rich tradition of mass political struggle we can find in other countries such as France. Belief in representative government and the sufficiency of voting alone is very strong among Americans.
Even more important than the relative weakness of mass political action in the U.S., we have the precedents of the 1930s’ rise of fascism in Germany and the 1960 Stanley Milgram Experiment. The fascists took power in Germany and Italy and were ultimately defeated in WW II, but not before the Nazis had killed nine million in their concentration camps alone. Milgram, a social psychologist, sought to understand the social dynamics that permitted the Nazis to rise to power and to hold onto it despite the barbarousness of their rule. His initial hypothesis was that there was something about Germans that made them peculiarly obedient to authority and willing to do monstrous things, or permitted them to look the other way when terrible things were done to others. Milgram planned to take his experiment to Germany after pilot testing it in the U.S. He never did make it to Germany, however, because he discovered the answer here at home: Americans are just as willing to do terrible things to strangers when instructed to do so by men in authority as were the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and 1940s.
The comment by an expatriate American in Paris in Michael Moore’s film, Sicko, is true, “In Europe the governments are afraid of the people. In America, the people are afraid of the government.” Much anguish has been expressed and will continue to be expressed by Americans and non-Americans about how the U.S. population has allowed the predations of the Bush regime to continue. But the German Nazi experience and the Milgram Experiment indicate that the problem we face here is not principally a question of national character.
The problem comes down to two fundamental factors. First, relatively more comfortable conditions for Americans, in combination with a corporate media that has become increasingly an integral part of the ruling structure and less and less an even mild critic (much less, watchdog) of that structure, tend to make Americans less inclined to engage in political actions on behalf of justice. Second, obedience to authority is difficult to overcome. The first factor has to do with material conditions and the impact of those material conditions on consciousness. The second factor has to do with human social dynamics in general.
Because the Democratic Party is the one of the two ruling parties in the most powerful military and richest imperialist empire in history (albeit an Empire now hobbled, in deep debt and in trouble!), it is only realistic to expect that such a party would be fundamentally representative of the rich and powerful. How could it be otherwise? Were it otherwise and were the Democratic Party really representative of the people, why would those who actually exercise power in our country not disallow and marginalize the Democrats? Why would the wealthy be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a party that didn’t protect in fundamental ways the wealthy? “One person, one vote” isn’t how political power is actually exercised. Votes don’t decide matters. If they did, George W. Bush would never have been president.
So that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, people cannot change public policy or repudiate the Bush regime without political leadership advancing their sentiments. The sentiment against the Bush Program is widespread – indeed, it is by far the majority sentiment. The media, by treating impeachment as verboten, and the Democratic Party, in doing the same, have effectively blocked what the majority of Americans want - the impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney. If the New York Times or Barack Obama were to come out for impeachment tomorrow, would anybody be wondering why the American people have allowed these reactionaries in the White House to remain? Of course they would not, because the outpouring of public sentiment in support of impeachment and trials followed by convictions would be immense.
The Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the corporate media will not provide this kind of leadership because to do so at this point means that the leading institutions and opinion-makers in the society would have to open a Pandora’s Box and not only risk widespread social instability but also reveal the level of their own complicity in crimes against humanity. The level of their complicity is profound.
In the face of their abdication of moral and legal responsibility, constituting an alternative legitimate authority to the existing one is absolutely indispensable. Without this, mass sentiment cannot find meaningful expression and become a material, potentially decisive, force.
So this is what must be done. Can it be done?
The realization of such a scenario has no real historical equivalents in a country such as this, but let me sketch out a couple of points.
The problem needs to be attacked from two ends. On the one hand, people on the grassroots level need to start – on an individual level – to speak out and take a public stand against tyrants and a consolidating police state. As individuals (and organizations) do this, they will find that they are changing the atmosphere around them because they are speaking to and representing majority sentiment. They are voicing openly the sentiments that most of those around them share but feel unable to do more about than grumble to their friends and family. By voicing these sentiments publicly and calling for others to act upon these sentiments – wearing an orange ribbon daily is one visible way of doing this - those who step forward in this way are creating new conditions and giving an opening for others, who share their sentiments and have been gnashing their teeth in frustration, to also step forward. The individuals who do this are acting as leaders among the people and becoming leaders by doing so.
Let me give an example of this from a college student who on her own set up an orange-draped table on my campus to distribute orange ribbons:
"Honestly it was one of the most frightening things I've done in a long time. I was praying for a familiar face, but I just dove in and started asking students as they walked by if they wanted to pick up a ribbon to support our anti-war movement, at first many of them just kept walking and said no thanks (a little discouraging...). However, as more students began to come out of class I was able to grab the attention of a few who came up to the table and wanted to know what the orange and the ribbons were all about …
"I was so pleased to see many people taking the ribbons and putting them on their backpacks and on their shirts. As time passed and more students came out, I begin to get people to pledge to get three other people to wear the orange ribbons. I got about 10 pledges from people who said that they had friends that would wear the ribbon in support. I remember this one guy who came back and asked me if he could have one for his girlfriend :) It was great! …
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
