"No worries people, iIt's all just the American Democracy in full flower!",
An assumption based on an inner vision that presumes a theoretical bipartisn "hammer it out" congressional
interaction. You know, the one in which a civic-minded majority holds the equivalent of a "constitutional convention" to define
the manner in what a system of wise governance with checks and balances would look like.
What would be hard to assume would be an attitude toward the existing Constitution, it's Bill of Rights,
its amendments, it's "Marbury vs. Madison" consequences and separation of branches as well as church and state - if included
- would look like.
However, what seems to have happened since the mid-90's' rise of Republican dominance based on inflammatory,
exaggerated and deceptive rhetoric is the ugly reality we face today. As a society is moved albeit gradually by a vocal minority
in the direction of a more prejudicial civic approach thoroughly dominated by partisanship, the good of the party or president
gets placed above the highest wise governance of the country.
We allowed the elevation of a small but influential minority - at a critical moment - to facilitate an almost
irresistible temptation to usurp movement toward change. They have in fact accomplished a "coup," if you will, where the gradual
movement transforms into a gigantic and rapid great leap.
The "great leap" or "coup" remains an attempt or an experiment temporarily "legitimized" only so long as
the control group remains in control.
Some form of this scenario seems to be what has happened in all countries who slipped into fascist and/or
theocratic government. Removing the destructive cancer has had many a failed attempt in many cases. Freedom had not proven
to be any automatic kind of ultimate do-no-harm medication/treatment of human political or social disease.
And in retrospect, viewing the "coup" of 2000 where an influential minority kept their objectives mostly
secret and disguised the philosophical and political intent of the Bush administration and it's backers, their ongoing agenda
proved to be more difficult to divert in 2004 than expected.
The minority pretending to a mandate of the people had as an agenda something that was only pretense of
concern for the well-being of our country.
1. Turning U.S. foreign policy into open imperialism using our military blood as the prime
weapon in our arsenal.
2. The culmination of 60+ years of conservative capitalist opposition and effort to repeal the national
legislation that came out of FDR's victory, Hoover's defeat which formalized the end of the Gilded Age.
3. The destruction or dis empowerment of labor unions and escalated evolution of market capitalism
that with the repeal of all things "New Deal" that came out of the Great Depression, leaves all of us trapped within a social
and economic Darwinism.
Conservative activism post-Goldwater accelerated in the 1980's when Limbaugh-like propaganda explode publicly
and relentlessly coupled with courtship between the Republican Party, corporate lobbying and consolidation of economic power
and an aroused and aggressive Christian coalition.
These pretend representatives of the little people launched their gradual movement toward acceptance of
another "New Deal" regarding American social and political form.
Is the attempt succeeding?
Many think we will know by summer's end. Many think Bushco will never relinquish the reins of government
and has little if any concern about the danger to them of a Democratic electoral landslide in 2008.
Many wonder that we might not even see an election in 2008 - instead only martial law.
The right wing movement - now much more powerfully public and in our national social awareness - was the
context of the election of 2000. Had that campaign management's inner circle publicly proclaimed and campaigned by openly
and honestly advocating the three items listed above, they would have lost the election in 2000.
No matter ... Americans at that time were already sleeping and now may awaken way too late to do anything
Bushco people (political and religious components) in the preceding 4 years RUSHED to make their desired
changes as rapidly as possible - with so much haste one wonders if their biggest fear was that we the people would be on to
them too early in their game plan and more easily derail it.
But the 2004 revealed that they had done their work well. 2006 was supposed to turn that around but we who
opposed Bush electorally find ourselves still acting as if WE are the loyal opposition.
We remain obligated to stand up and speak out. Only in our most naive mental states can we just sit back
and be content. Only out of personal foolishness can we content ourselves with intellectual/emotional debates of policy and
political theory based on a participatory social consciousness.
2007 also finds us facing a political, social and economic philosophy that has revealed itself as more interested
in private good than public good.
My worries are not about a pre-Armageddon scenario of theocratic takeover. As a social worker who administers
public welfare, works with homeless, aged, under-educated, broken families and individuals, I have worries about where the
above 3 objectives are leaving and have left the rest of America.
My worries are about apathy and what it takes to wake up slumbering majorities while there is still time
There is an almost devil-may-care relentlessness about Bushco's determination to ignore popular wisdom and
popular will. Their attitude suggests the existence of a "plan B" with which they will stay in power. This Republican administration
and party have labored to greatly and intensely to obtain, assert and exercise that power to now act with apparent unconcern
for giving it up.
Where it is leading is very disconcerting. It has for me reached a point of annoying yet frightening distraction.
I'm no longer willing to buy the bridge with the idea that morally I'd rather be the one who bought it as opposed to the one
who sold it.
I'm sure that if in fact we were to fail to "fight them there" and consequently the "enemies" followed us
home, most of us would put on our fighting boots, arm ourselves in whatever manner we could (In my case my bb-gun, er ...-
air rifle) and head for the point of contact or invasion.
But what about inflamed and exacerbated chaos in the country - deliberately injected with self-serving political
What about waking up too late to do something about the loss of too many rights and freedoms and struggling
to maintain sanity in a nation whose Constitution is now about as meaningful at that dictated to Iraq by the Bush administration?
What about a resultant civil conflict based on religious and political differences inflamed by administration
rhetoric specifically designed to both divert the public and establish sufficient chaos as to justify martial law?
What happens when the national government - as it did with Katrina - has no intention of protecting homes,
families and domestic well-being.
If we try to stay out of violent civil conflict and harm's way, who's going to defend my home and town from
resultant incursions by partisan militias of one ilk or another who need to raid and loot in order to sustain themselves and
their revolutionary cause?
At what point will everything break down and our life never again be the same?
When do I take such a possibility seriously?
When do I go out and buy a gun or two and start to seriously build a survival basis of food and supplies
for 6 months or more - knowing I may need a gun or two to keep may neighbors away from my stash?
Ultimately, why doesn't the current administration seem to much concerned about any of this?
It may be too late for some things,
It may be better late than never for others.
Perhaps a genuine rebel alliance is out there somewhere and they will find folks like us and we'll be one
of many links in some sort of underground railroad that might hopefully lead in some meaningful direciton.
Hopefully ... lest all the rebels die.
© Arthur Ruger 2007