Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Single Worst Expression in American Politics
Over the past week, Republicans have gone way over the top in my view, calling Barack Obama every name in the book, and it probably will get worse in the next three and a half to four days . . . . After next Tuesday, the very critics he has now and the rest of America will be calling him something else - they will be calling him the 44th president of the United States of America, our commander in chief Barack Obama!
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago (see the last few paragraphs): if I could be granted one small political wish, it would be the permanent elimination of this widespread, execrable Orwellian fetish of reverently referring to the President as "our commander in chief." And Biden's formulation here is a particularly creepy rendition, since he's taunting opponents of Obama that, come Tuesday, they will be forced to refer to him as "our commander in chief Barack Obama" (Sarah Palin, in the very first speech she delivered after being unveiled as the Vice Presidential candidate, said of John McCain: "that's the kind of man I want as our commander in chief," and she's been delivering that same line in her stump speech ever since).
This is much more than a semantic irritant. It's a perversion of the Constitution, under which American civilians simply do not have a "commander in chief"; only those in the military -- when it's called into service -- have one (Art. II, Sec. 2).
Worse, "commander in chief" is a military term, which reflects the core military dynamic: superiors issue orders which subordinates obey. That isn't supposed to be the relationship between the U.S. President and civilian American citizens, but because the mindless phrase "our commander in chief" has become interchangeable with "the President," that is exactly the attribute -- supreme, unquestionable authority in all arenas -- which has increasingly come to define the power of the President. Recall the explanation by GOP Sen. Kit Bond in June when explaining why telecoms should be immunized for lawbreaking after being "directed" by George Bush to allow illegal government spying on their customers:
I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.
And, in a December 2005 speech, Joe Lieberman infamously invoked the same twisted mentality to attack those Democrats who were committing the crime of criticizing George W. Bush "in a time of war":
It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.
It's this distinctly authoritarian mindset that also explains the still-astonishing confession by The New York Times' White House reporter Elizabeth Bumiller that reporters such as herself were "very deferential" to the Bush administration in press conferences in the run-up to the war because "It's frightening to stand up there . . .You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war." White House reporters weren't questioning a political official who is to be held accountable. They were gently -- "deferentially" -- posing questions to The Commander-in-Chief.
This is also a crucial aspect of the still broader trend of vesting more and more unchecked, centralized power in the White House. The more the President is glorified and elevated (he's not merely a public servant or a political official, but "our Commander in Chief"), the more natural it is to believe that he should have the power to do what he wants without anyone interfering or questioning.
Whether deliberate or not, the chronic assignment to the President of this title is a method for training the citizenry to conceive of our political leaders, especially the President, as someone whose authority is naturally and desirably expansive and absolute. He's supreme. It converts civilians into soldiers and Presidents into supreme rulers. It's no surprise that this is the shape our government has now taken; this phraseology both reflects and helps to enable the transformation of the President into an unaccountable, virtually omnipotent figure.
Worse still, to equate "the President" with "our commander in chief" is to depict the U.S. as a state of endless war and pervasive militarism. Even in the limited sense that the Constitution uses the term ("Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"), the President doesn't always wield that power, but only when those branches are "called into the actual Service of the United States."
It was never envisioned by the Founders that we would have a permanently deployed military, which is why they imposed on Congress' power "To raise and support Armies" the prohibition that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (Art. I, Sec. 8). Equating "the President" with "our commander in chief" rests on the opposite assumption: that this power is not just central to the presidency, but intrinsic to it, because we're always a nation at war. Gary Wills, in a superb New York Times Op-Ed last year, described the history of how the term "commander in chief" has recently been expanded and abused, and wrote: "The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements."
* * * * *
It certainly seems, by all appearances, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will win on Tuesday (though anything can happen, don't assume anything, etc. etc.). For reasons I've explained many times before, I consider that to be a good and important outcome (principally due to the need to excise the Right from power for as long as possible). But the virtually complete absence from the presidential campaign of any issues pertaining to the executive power abuses of the last eight years -- illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, due-process-less detentions, the abolition of habeas corpus, extreme and unprecedented secrecy, general executive lawlessness -- reflects how much further work and effort will be required to make progress on these issues no matter what happens on Tuesday.
Much of this is deeply embedded in the political culture. Very few people in the political and media establishment object to any of it; most either tacitly accept or actively believe in it. And the natural instinct of political officials -- especially new arrivals determined to achieve all sorts of things -- is to consolidate, not voluntarily relinquish, extant political power. It will help to have in the Oval Office someone who has, at least at times, evinced the right instincts on these matters (even though during other times he has acted contrary to them), and the better outcome on Tuesday (the defeat of John McCain) will likely ensure some very modest, marginal improvements in terms of the rule of law, executive power abuses and constitutional transgressions. But that outcome is merely necessary, not remotely sufficient; the election by itself will not produce fundamental changes in most of these areas. That's going to take much more than a single election, standing alone, can or will accomplish.
149 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to the Constitution. the President is only given the title "Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces" when war has been declared. War has not been declared. That title does not in any way refer to extraordinary powers or over congress or the general populace.
The situation you describe in your article reinforces the uncomfortable idea that the Democrats as well as the GOP are willing to bend the US Constitution into any form that will maintain and reinforce their own power.
I think it is an important reason why the Democrats have refused to check executive power the past two years. They think they have the White House and congress in their pockets and they want to be able to exercise the same illegitimate power that Bush has had the past eight years.
The security of the country would be much better served by re-instating the Constitution than an American version of a military dictator.
"Reagan legalized this by EO"
Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of such a critter as the Executive Order.
These legalize nothing and are but another manifestation of Royal Decree.
Indeed, ClassAct, no need to go that far afield -- commander in chief is a good translation of the Roman title "imperator", which became emperor in our language.
______________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
"Commander in chief" would be an apt translation for the Sanskrit word "parahita" from which the word "feuhrer" is derived.
Alexis de Tocqueville (I had the audacity to borrow his name)...., a French liberal aristocrat,former judge and Secretary of State in the new republic (1848), wrote in his famous book "De la democratie en Amerique" (Pt. 1, 1835):
..."if ever the continous inequality of conditions
and the aristocracy will again rise in this world,
one can predict, that they will enter through
the door of commerce and industry..."
Tocqueville, after having spent some time in England and America, worried that out of the rising business class could emerge a new form of aristocracy,one that would be more ruthless than the old feudal systems......
He saw it all coming: the economic dictatorship executed by the banks and big business that now passes off as a "formal democracy": Yes, people can vote - but not DECIDE the real policy and in the US, even the voting process is now so rigged that the "outcome" is not to be trusted.....
He also asked important questions, e.g.:
Which precautions are necessary to prevent that the (unleashed) pursuit of material wealth in a "free" society, lets people forget that political freedom can only survive if the citizens are actively engaged in politics? (he could not foresee the PR-industry and the manipulation of the masses...)
What is the "right" (democracy advancing) relation between politics and religion in a Republican system?
Which kind of system is necessary to enable the citizens to participate in public affairs outside elections?
I wish this book would have been discussed during the election campaign and I think every American should read it. Tocqueville was deeply impressed with the democratic America he saw, (then a beacon of hope to Europe)but also warned of the danger of what we today call "consumerism" and not being vigilant in protecting the hard-earned rights....
If we contrast this with the "10 signs of fascism" (source: Naomi Wolf "The End of America) -
1) Invoke a terrifying threat to frighten the public into obedience and distract them....
2) Create a secret prison system outside the rule of law including torture
3) Create a paramilitary force (private military contractors)
4) Create a surveillance apparatus for ordinary citizens
5) Power to arbitrarily detain citizens
6) Target key individuals (dissenters, peace and environmental activists, etc.)
7) Restrict the press / Control (own) the media
8) Equate criticism of government / military with unpatriotism > treason
9) Subvert the rule of law ("Emergency laws" override civil rights)
10)Invade other countries and call it "self-defense" (a "just" war...)
"On 1 October, Bush deployed the First Brigade in the United States of America - that's 3,000 to 5,000 warriors redeployed from Iraq, battle-hardened, with tanks, with weapons. The army say their mission is crowd control and dealing with unruly individuals..." Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/31-8
(Is the "commander-in-chief", who never saw a battlefield,turning into a "fuehrer"?)
My view is, that Wall Street wants Obama as president, the military-industrial complex wants Mc Cain - let´s see who is going to win....(the "voting" (vox populi) will apparently not decide....)
Excellent post. The amazing de Tocqueville, whom reportedly George W. Bush himself has read, is certainly very rewarding reading. An overly incurious, cowed and deferential White House press corps; combined with the much too evident failures and shortcomings of what is supposed to be our representational democratic Republic; along with the inarticulateness of President Bush himself; have all led, I believe, to his getting away with a shocking degree of unaccountability.
This has got to be the best article I've read on CD in a long time.
Our next president will be the Executive administer. The servant to our constitution, our laws and us, the people, serving to secure our rights through his sworn duty to uphold them.
But that would be if we had an Executive administer, but it looks like we will get a commander in chief, hail the next king of the world, Obama.
I think it is ironic to praise an article that's main focus is to show how the use of a power-laden word like "Commander in Chief" can reinforce the propaganda machine and then to use a term like 'king of the world', even sarcastically.
We are what we think, say and eat.
We don't stop the noise machine by becoming a more ironic and hipsterish noise machine. We don't confront the Leviathan and rant and rave at it we dismantle it with organization and diligence from the inside and out.
I never claimed to want to "stop the noise machine" that is something you are obviously dedicated to.
Good luck.
The Bill Ayers connection, Rev. Wright and all the rest are simply irrevelent at this point. The time for that consideration was before the election.
All but a couple of the top-of-thread posts commenting on this article are completely off-topic.
Mr. Greenwald was writing about the complete turning of democracy on it's head encompasses by the Phrase "commander in chief" particularly where it is increasingly being used with respect to general ctizenry. In any republic that can be called a democracy, it is the consensus of the people who command the president (and through him, the armed forces too). - through the representative legislative bodies or other means.
This is why the Pelosi/Conyers refusal to impeach was such a criminal capitulation to dictatorship - and it matters very little that the dictator changes every four to eight years - it is still a dictatorship.
I really don't think that Pelosi/Conyers were capitulating. What they did was done not to give in to the powers that be, but to give to the powers they wanted to be.
I fully agree with your correction.
Thank you, it is very telling that most of the left wing will frame their head of the of the two headed beast with the crown of victimhood over and over and over.
No accountability for democrats. I think the best support a citizen can give to their chosen representative is honest support. But in the win at all cost political era we live in, the well of morality is dry.
The term "Commander in Chief" is properly used only when it is applied with regard to the president and his civilian command of the army in time of war. It has become problematic only under this current Executive because of their jingoistic application of the term. It has come to mean that the President is an Imperial Authoritarian rather than an ordinary citizen who holds the Army under his command.
Mr. Greenwald has it exactly right, the original purpose of its meaning, civilian leader of the army, has been corrupted by this administration. American's fawning deference to any President extremely is dangerous. Speaking truth to power is true patriotism, that is why the American press is no longer relevant to preserving American liberty.
Amen, about the failure to impeach. Pelosi is morally complicit by dereliction of any abuses she failed to impeach.
citizenpaine
http://apoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/
USAn:the usual long winded "essays" from folks who are now like "broken records".
I post way better article on my blog check it out. http://progressives-agains-obama.blogspot.com
Good domain name. What "progressives-looking-to-further-alienate-themselves-from-the-american-public.blogspot.com" was taken?
Go divided third party in 2012 again? Let's get real.
I joined, but I have to ask you if you made a typographical error? Why "agains" rather than "against"?? Could anyone point me to message boards to join that are pro-progressive pro-alternative parties??
We have been a state of endless war and pervasive militarism for 50 years so "commander in chief" is perfectly acceptable.
Way more relevant than this article is the possibility that we might be in a permanent state of martial law starting Wednesday. The media is hyping Obama's victory and riots after the McCain "win" are highly likely. That's the perfect excuse Bush will need to declare martial law.
All these polls showing him up to 13 points ahead might be a ploy. We'll be calling McCain "commander in chief" for a long time.
As a swing state resident, I think that that is bull.What, I think, that we will have, are countless lawsuits by FOX, McCain (?), GOP , etc. The rightwing-nuts will come out of teh woodwork.
And, honestly, although I am "waiting to trade" my vote, it is nice to see so many rich capitalists squirm! The more the neo-cons squeal, teh more they tell you what their values are--moneymoneymoney.
I, persaonlly, do not think that they have anything to worry about--I would just love it if Obama probved them right!
My sincere hope is that the current adminstration is only about 2 months a from having to place their hand on a bible and say the words " I promise to tell the truth,the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God".
And justice is served. One of the things this country is really suffering from, is a lack of accountability.
Bring America Back !!!!
Usually, Im right down the wire with Greenwald, but on this point he missed
the genius of the forefathers.
The expression 'commander in chief' was adopted by the Constitutional Congress to preserve the ultimate power to the Civilian President elected by and for
the People !! The forefathers recognized that the military commander could
always intimidate by use of that very power (military arms & force)==so they
wanted clarity in the founding document, where ultimate power is vested !!!
In other words, The Founders wanted the military of America to be under the
control of the Civilian Elected President, not vice versa.
**Now, when it comes to using that expression by a war mongering criminal
like George W. Bush, it obviously rankles Greenwald against his grain !
Then again, the Founders probably did not envision a civilian President who
would make a pre-emptive Offensive war, where their Military powers had
always been Defensively oriented, and mainly to break away from unjust
taxation of the Monarchy !!
**And, on example, if the power of Commander In Chief went to John F, Kennedy
to order a Military Blockade of Russian missile shipments to Cuba, 9o miles off
our shores==The Founders probably would find that within the Defensive
powers it contemplated. And not a shot was fired !
**We must not expunge the expression 'Commander in Chief' since it firmly
places military under Civilian Management in our Government !! And, it is
not a "political" term in the strict sense. President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
in his farewell speech warned us of all the problems.
You missed Mr. Greenwald's point. He wasn't saying get rid of civilian control of the military.
He was pointing out that the phase "Commander in Chief" applies only to the military and only in times of war declared by Congress.
Commander in Chief does not apply to US citizens.
You missed Mr. Greenwald's point. He wasn't saying get rid of civilian control of the military.
He was pointing out that the phase "Commander in Chief" applies only to the military and only in times of war declared by Congress.
Commander in Chief does not apply to US citizens.
I agree that that is probably what the Founders had in mind--they also do that in UK, EU, etc. where the head of state of not the pM. Maybe it is just grating on me, because its Bush--but I dont think so. I dont want Obama as CIC either! We just give the president way to much power, invest too much in them emotionally, etc.
Maybe what the Founders did NOT enmvision, was a totally lame and compliant Congress!@
Glenn Greenwald's lukewarm endorsement of "the better outcome on Tuesday" conceals some real contempt for the miserable con-man Barack Obama.
When Obama broke his promise to filibuster the FISA bill...
Glenn Greenwald said...
"Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."
So anyone planning to vote for the con-man Obama on the basis of a few silly slogans and a big smile should also remember...
"Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Jacob Freeze
Obamabots often claim Obama will obviously protect the Constitution if he gets himself elected President, because Obama is an adjunct professor teaching elementary courses in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
Let's just forget that...
Obama never published an article in a legal journal,
and...
Obama never tried a case in court.
So how did Obama manage to get himself appointed as an adjunct law professor at the University of Chicago?
Nobody knows.
It's a vast understatement to say that most professors at the University of Chicago have published something other than a couple of "inspirational" made-for-Oprah bestsellers!
Obama's other legal "distinction" is winning a student election for president of the Harvard Law Review.
Until the Seventies, selection as an editor of the Law Review was based on grades, and until the Seventies, the president of the law review at Harvard was the student with the highest grades in his or her class, but by the time Barack Obama entered law school these qualifications had been eliminated, and...
Barack Obama was appointed to the editorial board of the Law Review and elected president of it.
As a "constitutional scholar," Obama sided with the Scalia Supreme Court about the "individual right to bear arms," which all previous Supreme Courts rejected. Obama supported the NRA in District of Columbia v. Heller, "a huge victory for gun-rights advocates" which will make it almost impossible to maintain existing gun-control laws, much less write anything new.
So Barack Obama conned his way to a reputation as a "legal scholar" without any demonstrable scholarly accomplishments whatsoever, neither grades nor publications, and whatever legal insight he may have is aligned with the radical, right-wing Scalia Court.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Jacob Freeze
hmmm, primed for election? Like Bush fake national guard service? Images and paper trails all the way the highest office in the land.
Where the highest office becomes Images and paper trails all the way to war.
leadership in american seems to have nothing with being humble and leading by example. Wouldn't it be great if we had a president who gave up the white house and lived in his or her own home in Washington paid for by him or herself - just like everybody else. Maybe she/he could walk to work or take the bus. Maybe she/he could do some manual labor to keep in touch with what it means. Maybe she/he could try to save our country some money by being simpler and more down to earth. the president could be the anti-ceo. but then she/he wouldn't be a "king" or "queen" and running our government wouldn't have to be something that we run like a business. Government is not a business - it is something much greater and we don't need MBA's, corporate lawyers or wall street tycoons telling us how our government should be run. When will we get a real person instead a constant series of egotists.
Your Commander in Chief is a moron! No ifs or buts! Someone should've put him out of his misery seven and a half years ago, before he caused any trouble.
Is there a special place you get your Presidents from, some hillbilly farm where ferals interbreed?
Perhaps this time around you'll make a mistake and choose someone with some intelligence, some integrity, some statesmanlike qualities, some wisdom.
Come on guys and gals, lift your game. You can do better, I'm sure you can!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Greenwald sez: "...to equate 'the President' with 'our commander in chief' is to depict the U.S. as a state of endless war and pervasive militarism.
***
Uh, I hate to break this to you, Glenn, but ...
***
"We've always been at war with Eastasia." — George Orwell
In the past Commander In Chief has meant the President as commander of the Armed Forces against a foreign enemy.
With the end of the Posse Commitatus Act and Homeland Tours, our military could be directed against Americans with the President as Commander in Chief. The Democrats complicity in all these Executive Powers, legislation and elimination of rights that have stood the test of time under far more extreme emergencies than 9/11 have me concerned.
I am also concerned about Biden and others predicting with what seems absolute certainty that Obama will be tested within his first 6 months. Having some ideas about who actually was behind 9/11 this certainty does not surprise me.
Now given Brzezinskis is Obamas main adviser and having recently read Brzezinskis Two Ages from 1970, it is noted then that he expected the next revolution to restore equality between whites and blacks. A laudable goal, but revolutions tend to be rather messy, and he has other reasons relating to One World Government for a revolution. And since equality has never really evolved since 1970, that got me thinking.
Obama has been said to have connections with former Weathermen, which is interesting given Brzezinskis views on revolutionary change. Weathermen, which were almost 100% white, had ties to black power groups like the Black Panthers in the late 60's early 70's. In fact, the reason for them splintering off from the SDS was because they were too peaceful and they believed they could never trigger a revolution with the SDS, they were too white, meaning life was good for whites except for the war.
Obama and Brzezinski were both at Columbia University in 1981-1983. Brzezinski was in charge of the Russian department. Little is known about Obamas time at Columbia University. His records are sealed, no transcripts released, and he kind of skips over his time there in his books. Columbia University is where many of the Weathermen leaders came from and where the movement gave birth.
In any event, the Weathermen believed a revolution was needed to be triggered by a black movement as they had been ill treated and a vast reservoir of anger and hatred existed which could provide the fuel for change, unlike the young whites who mainly just wanted to end the war and the draft.
The Weathermen and SDS they came from were said to be funded by the Ford Foundation. Obamas mother worked for the Ford Foundation for many years, and Obama worked for a satellite of the Ford Foundation. Some of the leaders at the national and regional levels of the SDS were controlled intelligence assets.
A revolution largely made up of white students was thought to be no danger to the power structure, and was desired as they wanted an excuse to change the constitution with a constitutional convention before 1976.
But this was a no go, the white students did not want war at home. Going at it with a black movement was a risk then, it could get out of control as we did not have the technological and police state apparatus in place to control it like we have today. So the Weathermens function was to discredit the anti-war movement and the SDS was essentially defunded and it's national organization dismantled. The SDS soon withered, allowing the war to continue for a few more years.
So they moved onto Plan B which was the Trilateral Commission plan, developed after their formation in 1973, cofounded by Brzezinski and implemented in the first TLC Presidency of Jimmy Carter, with Brzezinski as Carters NSA. The plan was developing Islamic Terrorism as a bonafide threat to replace the Cold War, destroy the US industrial economy by increasing interest rates and replace it with a credit-markey-debt service economy, keep America dependent on foreign oil by destroying nuclear development with the sabatoge of TMI on FEMA's first days of operation (FEMA created by Carters EO), and high interest rates coupled with cheap oil; and developing Chinas economy and military so we could use China as a weapon against Russia someday, and so it could absorb the US manufacturing exodus that would come with Free Trade and the WTO.
Many people do not know this but the Foundations do intelligence work for government agencies, the stuff that gets outsourced or privatized. Reagan legalized this by EO but the relationship had been in place for some time, so today it is even more extensive.
Obamas association with former Weathermen is far from a casual one. Obama was Chairman of the Board of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, the architect of who was Bill Ayers. From 1995 to 1999 Obama and Ayers promoted a program that raised and spent over 150 million dollars up till 2003 to improve education and did nothing but cause dissension in the system, which was likely the real goal. In 1995, a fund raiser was held at Ayers home for Obama to kick off his political career. So the ties are real despite Obamas efforts to minimize it.
People call the Weathermen terrorists, and so they were. It is interesting how many of these terrorists still have prominent places in society and are in education like Ayers and Gold.
Obama book Dreams From My Father had been published in 1993 and expressed sympathy for black nationalism. The Weathermen, Brzezinski and Pastor Wright combo make you wonder what kind of change Obama is talking about. Change is sometimes code for revolution. Now Obama is talking about changing the world.
Then I read some stuff about how he wants to have mandatory national service, a civilian security force, and how in the next war of choice he wants it to be shared by all the people.
Not good folks. And not saying McCain would not do any different. Just that he could not possibly be effective.
.I would not attempt to speak to much of this post. I would suggest that the supposed link you assume between Barack Obama and the Weather Underground is a false one, which then topples much of what you base the rest upon.
If you bothered to do the research you might find that the link to William Ayers, from which this absurdity stems, comes from two sources; first a common membership in an education forum sponsored by the Annenburg Foundation ( remember him Nixon's guy?)and, secondly a coffee Ayers had in his own home to raise money for an Obama run at the State Senate.
As to the supposition that the Weather Underground received money from the Ford Foundation, well a link would be nice ( impossible I suspect)...It would be difficult to imagine that foundation funding their own worst enemies....The purpose of the WU that you propose, discrediting the antiwar movement, is about as absurd as , well, sorry, as the rest of this rather dark and devious glimpse into a science fiction reality that never happened....The WU was formed from the wreckage of the fading SDS with the sole purpose of fomenting a revolution, here in this nation. In fact, your statement that the WU was formed at Columbia University is also incorrect, but then again, so is much of this stuff. That group was always a Chicago based organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee: you have a high tolerance to wading thru drivel of some comments. Bravo.
.Actually I have admired much of what this poster has presented in the past, but, and this may be strange for an old lefty to note, it is more than a bit dangerous to devolve into extremism. It is usually untrue, and, even if it were true who in hell would believe it. Better we stick to the laborious task of gaining converts slowly....at least in my opinion.
Besides, I was there.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee:I wasn't specific to this poster. One of many. Do you really think we change any minds with "reason"? Extremists are locked in.
.Yeah, probably. But reason is really all we got, and great editorial art too....graffiti on walls counts as such.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Some people seem to enjoy presetrnting the WU as some sort of Black Panther-type organization.
Actually it was , basically, a bunch of rich college kids who were trying to end the war. If they mistakenly killed one (janitor?), it was regreted. They had infiltrated the Winter Soldiers, the ROTC, and, just about everything! You younger people (I may be one--but my sis knew alot of the WU!)may not realize what it might be like to have a draft, and, an inability for 18 yr olds to vote!
They refused to vote for, or support, the Dem candidate, who would not speak of immediate withdrawal. In other words, they stood by their convictions.(The Chicago 10)Four dead in Ohio, 60,000 dead soldiers, 1 million (?) dead Vietnamese. WHO were the murderers?? "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming..we're finally on our own...this summer I hear the drumming..four dead in Ohio".
Go have a beer, ignore the "war(s)", and vote. Then, dont judge.
BTW--For their "times"--the Black Panthers did alot of good.
.Firstly, welcome back, you were missed!
Many cannot understand the mind set of those days, K, it seems that you are not one of those. Coming, as we did, from the idyllic fifties we were shocked when we began to learn about the less than ideal actions of our nation. Heretofore we thought the USA unique and very special and those godless commies the problem.
Especially after the events of Kent State we felt a very great sense of urgency that we had to effect change, and immediately. The sight of Bobbie Seale bound and gagged before the bar of justice, the dead piling up in Viet Nam, the assassination of Fred Hampton, shot seventy times in his own bed, hell colleges were becoming increasingly politicised and many were turning to sympathy with radical solutions.
I guess you had to be there...or know someone who was.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Yes. I'm 72 and remember it well. So many people believed that the system had failed. But they also believed that the government was capable of being reformed and could be reformed by calling attention to the problems. Because of their actions, they were labelled revolutionaries and other things. (Remember Agnew's "Effete group of impudent snobs.") There was no middle ground. The violence that followed was frightening.
We heard about the government's illegal bombing of Cambodia. We saw busloads full of law inforcement people armed with what looked to me like baseball bats. Many of us knew people who had been injured.
It was a terrible time.
Later, we were told that the center held. It was more like the power sturcture held.
Assinating policemen and firemen and murdering others pretty well cancelled that out. They were scum.
Guess that explains the MSM bandwagon and money coming into Obama's campaign, talks with Iran (Bush said it would never happen), negotiations for a time to pull out of Iraq (Bush said it would never happen), North Korea being removed from the terrorist list, bombing Pakistan, our Georgia puppet initiating a conflict with Russia (Brzezinskis main target), a manufactured financial crisis and bail out led by dems (price of being President, 700 billion and counting), price of oil plummetting so we can afford a carbon tax, and the pirging of the Air Force neocons on June 6th (same day as the Bilderberger meeting that likely voted in Obama). I'm telling you, we already have an Obama administration, they do not even wait for the elections anymore.
Excellent posts MiMiCcS.
Per Webster Tarpley's book and speeches on Obama, there is quite a lot of dirt on the guy that his bosses will use as leverage in the event that he makes any populist moves. Citizenship, communist ties (family in Kenya?), Weathermen, etc. Obama is compromised, and the corporate media will have a field day if/when they are given the green light to destroy him. Barack is the elites' boy, a fresh face coming down on us with the same police state international banking system.
Whatever the New World Order wants, be against it.
Vote 3rd party.
An elite communist--hmmm. Never heard of one of those. (I know that you think that they all are)
Obama is NOT a "communist", nor, even a socialist. Take it from a socialist, who is waiting to see if the polls tighten up in this swing state.
Socialist is not a epithet. Community organizer is not an epithet. "Re-distributing the wealth" is an attempt by a centrist Democrat to save the middle class.And, it is not near enough! My Gawd--we just gave the rich $1 trillion dollars!
With what Wall ASt. has done to this country, I am simply amazed at the still idiotic FEAR of socialism.
Does Denmark seem "unfree' to you? Canada? UK? Austrailia?
Obama is the tip of the iceberg we need. You cannot tax teh niddle class any more--ther isnt one! And we NEED revenue! Where should we get it? Cut "social programs"? (What few we have!) Just let people who have worked and believed in the ridiculous "system" die in the streets?
We are becoming a Third World country, and the whole world knows it. I am much more afraid of having my countrymen die in teh strests than I am of TAXES!
A permanently deployed military? Son of a camel! That means war!
THE CHRONIC WARFARE STATE IS THE SOURCE OF THE PHRASE
Since the build-up before World War II we have had a huge standing army, military budget, and military industrial complex. And, since WW II we have fought nearly ceaseless wars of aggression and CIA instigated coups. Guatemala, Iran, Iraq in 1963, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iraq now twice again. These are only the most prominent. Mostly for the enrichment of American and multinational corporations, though always in the name of anti-communism or now anti-terrorism. Or as major general Smedley D. Butler says it in his book of that name, "War is a Racket." (Smedley Butler should know. He was "rewarded" for his leadership role in the "policing" of Central America in the 20's by being invited (he declined and testified) to lead the right wing coup against FDR in 1933 by, among others, Prescott Bush, W's grandpa.)
So. The phrase "commander in chief" is deeply obnoxious. But the reality behind it has killed millions, and kept large parts of the world in subjection. How to challenge that reality? I wish I knew. But we can start by becoming aware of it.
The President is only Commander in chief of the US military, to the rest of us he is our "hired hand" who derives his power and authority from "We the people". It is gonna be so much fun to console the racist-fascist faction of this country by counseling them, "you have about two and a half months to practice, now just say it, "President Obama"--there, see, that wasn't so bad was it?"
Bwwahhahahaha!!!
Poet
who early voted for Nader-Gonzalez by the way
Poet:let us hope. NYCartist who early voted for Obama (after voting for Kucinich in primary).
I feel the same way, poet!
Greenwald makes good points about the glorification of war and war leaders who often are nothing more than armchair chicken hawks that know nothing about the horrors of war but eagerly send others to die for the profits of their paymasters.
Unlike the days of old when commanders lead the fight like bold Leonidas (300), the closest this modern day chicken hawk will come to a battle field is a staged photo-op in the green Zone, surrounded by flags and troops, designed to be converted into a 30 second reelection commercial, narrated by Chiefie Wiefie Obama, in a deep and well-rehearsed, MLK-cadenced voice.
Obama: “And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?”
-he means and how YOU will fight it. What is this "we" bullshit?
.
"I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."
~ Ralph Nader
.
Arrgh!
No man in that stinkin' "white house" is, or ever will be, my "Commander in Chief"!!!
In full disclosure, as federal worker, he might be my "supervisor in chief", for 8 hours a day at least, via a chain of 5 intermediaries. But, then again, I always have the option to tell him to take his job and shove it too.
The pay and fringe benefits of federal service (4 weeks vacation, sick leave that accrues at 104 hrs per year forever, nice retirement plan) are better than I am likely to get from a capitalist boss, however.
USAn:we, the taxpayers, are pleased you like your job and benefits as a federal employee. Republican Administrations have been chipping away at federal jobs and benefits.
"The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements."
This worries me greatly.
It is evidenced even here on CD by the sheer number of posts on all things Obama and McCain as opposed to the lonely threads on such mundane issues such as global warming and renewable energies.
We absolutely glorify the role of the president - our leader, our liege, His Royal Highness, our commander-in-chief. We shouldn't...we are supposed to be the leaders.
Let's get on with it.
Hey, Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer and professor, so I am sure understands his constitutional role vis a vis CIC. So don't sweat that one. However this country will be in perpetual war mode unless Obama makes an effort to reduce unnecessary armaments/defense spending and moves to reduce nuclear weapons. If he doesn't, you will know he has sold his soul to the arms merchants who pay for elections. If there is any part of the budget that needs trimming it is the Pentagon's portion as we move forward with hugh deficits and a country living way beyond our means.
Malthus2 says "Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer..."
Barack Obama is not a "constitutional lawyer" in any possible meaning of that silly phrase. Barack Obama is barely a lawyer of any kind.
Barack Obama has never tried a case in court.
Barack Obama has never published an article in a legal journal.
You might wonder how a simple law school graduate became an adjunct professor at the University of Chicago, without ever publishing an article in a legal journal, and without any other scholarly distinction of any kind, and without ever trying a case in court.
But don't bother to ask how Barack Obama got where he is, any more than you would bother to ask how any other con-man conned his way up the ladder of self-promotion with nothing but bullshit and blather.
It's just part of the magic of Barack Obama!
Jacob Freeze
Constitutional "scholar" is the term.
Having been presient of the Harvard Law Review is generally considered a bit more than being a "simple law school graduate".
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
"In the fall of 1989, when Obama returned to campus for his second year, students were protesting the lack of minority law school faculty. They staged sit-ins in the law library, camped outside the office of Dean Robert C. Clark, and carried signs that read "Diversity Now" and "Homogeneity Feeds Hatred." The tensions continued the following spring, reaching a high when Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first tenured black professor at the school, resigned in protest. Obama was a member of the Black Law Students Association, which organized many demonstrations that spring. But he was less confrontational than some of his peers.
"Barack was a stabilizing influence in that he would absolutely support those efforts, but was also someone who could discuss and debate them with students or faculty who had different views," said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who became Harvard's seventh tenured black professor in 1993. . ."
Now Charles Ogletree is delusional, ignorant, deceitful, etc?
. . . "You should not underestimate the significance of him being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review because that was and remains a very elite group," said Bell, now a law professor at New York University. "These were some tough folks. . . . It's almost as impressive that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review as him being elected senator of Illinois."
And Derrick BELL is delusional, ignorant, a victim of the fiendishly clever yet mysteriously empty Obama?
Are all those quoted simply re-writing their memories as part of some deep conspiracy hatched in 1990 to make Obama POTUS in 2008?
Do any of you realize that you sound EXACTLY LIKE Limbaugh & Hannity when you tap out your puerile denunciations?
Obama won a student election and became president of the Harvard Law Review.
Until the Seventies, selection as an editor of the Law Review was based on grades. Until the Seventies, the president of the law review at Harvard was the student with the highest grades in his or her class.
Obama was appointed to the editorial board of the Law Review and elected president of it, but...
Nobody ever claimed that the con-man Barack Obama doesn't know how to get himself elected.
Winning a student election is the beginning and end of Barack Obama's "distinction" as a lawyer.
Obama never published an article in a legal journal.
Obama never tried a case in court.
As a "constitutional scholar," Obama sided with the Scalia Supreme Court about the "individual right to bear arms," which all previous Supreme Courts rejected. Obama supported the NRA in District of Columbia v. Heller, "a huge victory for gun-rights advocates" which will make it almost impossible to maintain existing gun-control laws, much less write anything new.
So Barack Obama conned his way to a reputation as a "legal scholar" without any demonstrable scholarly accomplishments whatsoever, neither grades nor publications, and whatever legal insight he may have is aligned with the radical, right-wing Scalia Court.
Jacob Freeze
Thanks for the amunition. I had no idea his "legal scholar" persona was as much fluff as the "community organizer" stint that lasted from June 1985 to May 1988 (less than 3 years). Obama also directed Illinois' Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and seven hundred volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 (less than a year).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
I am probably missing some things he can recieve credit for, he can't actually be such a complete empty suit. I do know he has barely been a US Senator for 3 years.
Over half of both Houses are attornies. I dont know how many are Ivy League.
Bill
It was quite noticeable that during the Republican convention, McCain was far more often identified as the future Commander-in-Chief than as President. I surmised that they knew something I didn't, that war with Iran was only a couple of months away. Of course, that label, as some reader has probably noted already, converts the Presidency into a full-time military command post rather than an office in service of the general welfare.
It's fair to wonder how the US will shed this war/fight mentality. It's bound to happen. But when everyone's fighting...listen to what candidates say, how they're fighting for this and that for their state, etc. We're still fighting a war on drugs. We're fighting to kill diseases. We fight colds. We battle depression. Businesses fight each other over the market. It's all too much.
Now, a certain amount of determination and resolve are very handy tools in life. But when the hand becomes heavy and starts pounding out of frustration and short-sightedness, we're in trouble.
An entirely new concept of service to the nation is badly needed. To be willing to kill and die for a nation is pure ignorance.
"To be willing to kill or die for a nation is pure ignorance."
I feel like putting that on a tee-shirt! Are you sure that isn't an Albert Einstein quote?
Really, it is a good point. It is disappointing to hear Biden using "Commander in Chief" because it means something about the Democrats and their style of governing.
"Democracy" means a few different things, but let me spew forth on one context: an elected official can either be elected on the basis that they will legistlate according to their opinions on issues, OR that they are promising to do the will of the people and were elected as the best candidate to do that job.
Commander in Chief totally removes any possibility that the will of the people is going to be implemented, and thats why it disappoints me to hear a Democrat using that term ; I used to think it was that Democrats believe in the will of the people, whereas Republicans like to force everyone to live by certain rules [no abortions, for eg. ]
Soon we will be expected to put our hand in the air and HEIL when we speak of the President.
Oh and also bow in his presence. Bush wishes... Hufffffffff
When I'm asked for my ID, I put my hand in the air and say "Heil Cheney".
They never get it!
We do it with all of them, Nannie...including Ralph Nader. They will all save us!
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
In this ridiculous area of the country you aren't even supposed to have an opinion on anything serious unless you are a military veteran. So I just walk around wearing my Veterans for Peace tee-shirts and sweat shirts and they give me dirty, glaring looks in the grocery store.
Losing the Iraq &/or Afghanistan war would go a long way towards putting a dent in the public's infatuation with all things military. This isn't conjecture but is based on what actually took place in Argentina in 1982 when it lost the Falkland Islands War. Shortly thereafter its ruling fascist military junta fell, democracy returned to Argentina. Even better, the generals were so disgraced by that ill-planned war and shattering defeat that when it comes to public opinion, they've yet to recover.
The US has already lost in Iraq and Afghanistan but is currently in DENIAL MODE about it. Don't worry though. Obama will take the blame and the fall once in the White House.
frances
The commander in chief business bothers me too, and it was used more often by Bush II than previously.
Jesus, Greenwald. We're about to have the most important election of the last century and you're worried about what the hell we call the President? You honestly can't think of something more significant to write about? Instead of quibbling about what we call this guy, let's GOTV for Barack and then thank God if he wins!
This just in: Obama ahead of McCain 54(Obama)/37(McCain) in Iowa:
"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has strengthened his advantage in The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll, establishing a commanding lead over Republican John McCain heading into Tuesday's election."
"Obama has widened what was a solid lead in the Midwestern swing state, and has strengthened his position on key leadership traits since the Register's September poll. Meanwhile, support for McCain and perceptions of his abilities have slipped despite several campaign appearances in the state this fall."
"Obama, an Illinois senator, was the choice of 54 percent of likely voters, while McCain, an Arizona senator, was the choice of 37 percent."
You're a tool, dmia.
It is absolutely important as hell, and I have tried to point it out to countless people! If you are are a civilian, you have no CIC!!
I thought it was dumb for Obama to run on CIC stuff anyway--I was afraid that people woudl think --CIC--military--McCain. Well, that didnt hold true, but the fact remains, that this govt is subject to the constitution!
Every single word of it matters!
I think that we need a constitutional convwention--but, barring that--we have to stick with the one we have. This administration has wiped its butt on it 1000s of times. That is why he will be leaving a mess--the worst in this country's history.
The president is a CIC-OF THE MILITARY- at wartime, but, we have never elected a "CIC"--he/she is a civilian representative of the people that works FOR the people
Not the other way around.
If we do not insist on it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Agreed, KDelphi. It matters a lot.
Greenwald is right on, as usual. The irony is: For decades Cubans routinely refered to Fidel as "nuestro comandante en jefe"--our commander-in-chief. They may still do so; I haven't been to Cuba in many years. I wonder if Palin and her ilk would use the term so freely if they knew that the "totalitarian, Communist, etc." citizens of Cuba use the same term!
I believe that "Commander In Chief" is an accurate description, as we have not been a Constitutional republic since 911. The US President has deployed several army brigades in the US (not just the one reported in mainstream news), in contravention of nearly 200 years of US law and precedent. The continental United States is under the military control of the United States Northern Command, which reports directly to the President (actually he's just mid-level management in the policy food chain), and not to Congress.
Get angry and challenge this; or get used to it.
BTW, all those FEMA camps and detention centers (remember the military bases Cheney conveniently closed down to save money?) have as their stated purpose, the control of civil unrest and the coordination of work brigades forced upon us if/when society unravels.
http://www.northcom.mil/news/2007/102207.html
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/02/18542606.php
From Youtube BakersBoyz: "The synchronization of five seperate military disaster drills on 11/13/2008 should cause Americans to be watchful over OUR military. The deployment of the search and destroy combat brigade at NORTHCOM, and NORTHCOM's coordination of the disaster drills, should make us take notice. There were mysterious drills scheduled with FEMA the night before WTC. Let's just be watchful, civilian control of the military. Golden Guardian on 11/13/2008. 11/13/2008 martial law planning takes place near L.A. under the ruse of Operation Golden Guardian, run by U.S. NORTHCOM. Investigate the mobilization of 5,000 personnel near L.A. (see Edwards AFB, Mojave Desert). This is the location of a FEMA camp near Palmdale, CA. Better pass the word. Google Golden Guardian. Category: News & Politics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb5z5Geu3Hk
Powell and Biden have both spoken about a great test of Obama's mettle in late January. Some think that there will be an event in the middle east that draws the US and Russia into conflict with each other. In the past year 8 of the 10 richest Israeli billionaires have left Israel. The US will default on its international debt obligations. Get ready for a wild ride.
Commander in Chief Obama, indeed. He's already got the Mao-like posters to go with the title.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
my more extreme interpretation of Art. II - sec. 2 holds that the President would be Com. in Chief only if HE/SHE were in "actual service": ie. a military man/woman.
Glenn Greenwald wrote: "It will help to have in the Oval Office someone who has, at least at times, evinced the right instincts on these matters ..."
Here's the first question in the Boston Globe's interview that Greenwald linked to, with Barack Obama's answer:
Q: "Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?"
A: "The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes."
Greenwald then immediately links to an article on Obama's support of FISA, thereby revealing the duplicity of Obama's answer to the Boston Globe's question. This is what Greenwald views as having "the right instincts"? Notice how Obama's response was carefully crafted to lead his followers to believe that he was supporting their Constitutional right to be free from warrantless search and seizure, when in fact he was merely saying that he would follow existing laws - namely, the very laws that undermine those Constitutional rights, laws that Obama helped put in place after promising to oppose them.
Let's put Obama's answer under the microscope.
Obama very carefully admits that the Supreme Ct. has never stated the president has the power to surveil without a warrant from a judge. He then says he'll follow the FISA law when/if he chooses to wiretap.
A Reminder: Obama initially said he'd not only vote AGAINST FISA but join Chris Dodd in his filibuster of the legislation.
The rest is history. Obama then flip-flopped and voted YES on FISA.
Obama's primary objection to FISA at the time was that it gave retroactive immunity to the telcos., not that it negated the need for the FISA judges to issue a warrant after probable cause was proven.
A good follow up question would've been: The new FISA law allows a president to surveil a U.S citizen without probable cause and a warrant, this is at odds with the 4th amendment, you just said the Supreme Ct. has never stated the president has this power, isn't this at odds?
Then the next question I would've asked would be about the Patriot Act, which Obama signed (Patriot Act 2). This act also strips citizens of their 4th amendment rights by allowing the government, or FBI, to read through your private papers and records (bank, medical, legal, etc.)
Once again I'm sure Obama would answer that a president doesn't have the right to violate the 4th amendment rights of citizens and that he'll follow the guidelines set out in the Patriot Act (which violates the 4th amendment).
He's just talking in circles. And unlike George Bush he's exceptionally smooth with his language.
To me it sounds like he's fully prepared to use both the FISA law and Patriot Act regularly ignoring their obvious unconstitutionality.
He's probably also prepared to suggest either news versions to these acts which will expand his power or even new laws.
In his answer here I don't see any evidence that he's going to concede any of these powers.
Sioux Rose
JOHN MITCHELL: Astute analysis.
The importance of this article cannot be understated in that the use of commander in chief puts the citizenry into an expectation of continuous/ongoing war. And who does it serve? The military industrial complex and its ubiquitous tendrills.
Bush as commander in chief reminds me of the guy that shoots his wife, than argues to the judge that he deserves custody of the children as sole remaining parent. Since the whole 911 to Iraq bridge to no where is a callous fabrication, to MAKE war to become commander in chief is tantamount to murdering to upgrade the power aspect on your professional (as prez) resume, at least according to Bush law.
"when in actual service" ie. war duly declared by Congress.
I'm glad at least one American seems to have that straight.
Thank you Mr. Greenwald.
.
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
Vote for PEACE
End the wars
Your NOT going to get it with Big Corp Obama and Big Corp McCain.
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
During wartime the President becomes the Commander-in-Chief.
So the question becomes, Is the US constitutionally at war?
The war against Iraq was over in 2003, per the war goals in Public Law 107-243.
The war against the supporters of the attackers of 9-11 (Bush announced the enemy to be al-Qaeda and that the Taliban would be treated the same way) goes on until the President prevents 'any future terrorist acts' (read the actual AUMF, Public Law 107-40). Basically, that means a forever war.
The GWOT (global war on terror) is either the same war as that against the supporters of the attackers of 9-11 (under a new name) or not. If it is a new name, a new war, then it's unconstitutional, because Bush announced it but Congress never declared it (Bush - 'our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda but doesn't end there...'). It's another forever war, and without constitutional basis. It exists as long as people believe that it exists.
As long as the US is engaged in forever wars, the President will forever be the Commander-in-Chief, with all those extra powers.
Will Obama and the Democratic-controlled government roll back the powers of the C-in-C?
I give you locust's law - nobody gives up power voluntarily.
Is there not a limit to how long that CIC can wage war before going to the Congres again, also? Like two years?
Some might say that , by approving funding, teh Congress is consenting to it.
Gee..I never did.
It's much more important to recognize and realize what our military's "commander in chief" actually does with his or her command. If it is to further empire through imperialism, to send soldiers to kill and murder overseas, to purchase more weapons of mass destruction or sell them to others, and to terrorize others through the use of military force - be it for oil, or dominance in a region of the world, etc. - is a much more important issue.
Some consideration should be given to retiring "my commander in chief" and replacing it with "Mein Fuehrer".
No need. It's merely the English translation of the same thing.
wow
I heartily agree with the sentiment expressed by Greenwald. I don't know how to intelligently counteract and immunize the populace from this ideological idolatry. Maybe a decent grade school and high school civics education would be a start. Maybe a broad, intelligent and comprehensive history education that isn't warped into a completely America-centric curriculum would be helpful. Maybe a grounding in geography could make US citizens comprehend that we live on a single globe.
.
PEACE PEACE PEACE
That is the goal to have in America.
With PEACE comes harmony and the ability to achieve.
Without PEACE we are STAGNANT and DYING.
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
You tell them, Nannie!
You tell them, Nannie!
Big hug and WELCOME BACK....
(smiles)
Uh, he's been here a while. I don't recall him ever leaving CD.
SHE is back! That is all you need to know...
Fred..
Kate is a female and she was blocked by CD but now she is in their good graces again. Glad to have her back. she asks great questions.
Nathan.. your mistaken again. We love Fred . He is a needed supporter. I like his posts very much.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
"Kate is a female and she was blocked by CD but now she is in their good graces again."
Ok, thanks for the info. I didn't know she was kicked out though I see no evidence that she said anything that would have her blocked. Maybe being a real progressive got her kicked out? I've seen that happen to some others on this site. I'm surprised I wasn't one of them. What's the matter with CD anyway?
Hi Fred. I haven't seen you in a while myself. It's kind of funny that you're a Nader supporter but none of the Nader fans, Nannie included, are showing your their gratitude. Drop the loser Nader and join the Obama folks. Hey, Obama isn't perfect but he'll moderate the damage over time.
Excuse me but I don't go out there begging for people to kiss up to me. I just say what's in my heart and mind. Sometimes, I can sound too foul mouthed and sometimes I may discuss certain issues which can accidentally offend some although I try not to let it spill into that way. Still, I'll keep my preference to Nader, thank you. Obama has sold himself out issue after issue vote after vote just these past 1.5 years alone as if his first two years in the Senate weren't enough damage given his implicit support of the war and his role in undermining true progressives in Democratic primaries and fighting for "conservative" Dems such as Tammy FUCKworth against Cegalis and Joe LIEberNAZI over Ned Lamont in addition to pissing off the civil rights base with his support for moving corporate wrongdoing cases to the corporate controlled federal courts and voting yes on confirming Condi Rice to be Secretary of State. Mccain or Obama? No difference. I hate to say this but if you think Obama is gonna move even one millimeter to the left once he's in the White House, prepare to be thoroughly disappointed for the next 4 years or 8 if he somehow makes it to 2 terms.
Thanks!! ; )
A very perceptive observation by Glenn Greenwald.
Obviously what he describes is but a piece of the brainwashing done by government, but a very important piece.
I think that the single worst expression in U.S. politics is "My fellow Americans...."
"Off the table" is a close second.
To be honest I find "God bless America" the worst single expression in US politics especially coming from Bush at the end of a speech which he tries to justifies the mindless wars he started due to his alleged "hotline from god" which is more than likely Dick sending him telepathic messages on orders from the military-industrial complex...
Sioux Rose
POPE SERI: I, too, agree with your assessment, and see Bush & his neocon comrades as the personification of the anti-Christ since they freely use Christ's names while rabidly following a policy of bloodlust for human beings, with the count now over one million. So if it was all for oil, and the prices have fallen to about where they were before this callous debacle, what a waste of blood, treasure and human resources on all levels! Absolute evil...
Ok, but that doesn't mean religion is a bad thing. "God Bless America" wasn't a bad thing back in Eisenhower's days when this nation was peaceful.
As for oil prices, you do realize that it's just another repeat election season stunt, don't you?
"God Bless America" back in Eisenhower's days was used as a weapon against "Godless Communism" (AKA the USSR). That Texas Republican president used "under God" to drive a wedge between "one nation" and "indivisable" while spying on Russia (Gary Powers) and plotting the assassination of the first Prime Minister of the Congo (Patrice Lumumba) and overthrowing the democracy of Iran (Kermit Roosevelt Jr).
All this was back when this nation was peacefully building fallout shelters and holding air raid drills for school children and testing sirens weekly. Yes, how I remember those 'peaceful' days.
.Lest we forget..the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Guatemala to further the interests of United Fruit Company. 1954.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Eisenhower was a Texas president? Interesting. I can't see he was perfect in any case but although he opened the door to engaging in Vietnam war, if I had to compare presidents from Texas, he sure outflanked LBJ and Dubya. Thanks for the info. By the way, wasn't the USSR already crumbling in the 1970s even before Raygun came into office?
Wasn't Eisenhower from Abilene, Kansas?
.Born Oct. 14,1890 Dennison,Texas
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.Amen to that, Pope ( your eminance(?))
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Commander in chief gets the cigar for worst expression, due to the wide-ranging implications pointed out by Greenwald.
"God bless the United States of America" wins for worst punctuation in USAn politics. It has become the Gatorade bucket of political speechifying; quaint when it first appeared in the 80s, but now a tiresome routine.
Isn't the subtle power of words and symbols remarkable? Hopefully Barack will bring proper prestige and honor to the term "President".
I remember shortly after the Vietnam tragedy all sorts of gun enthusiasts started referring to "firearms" as "weapons". I was, and am still, very disturbed by this. It seemed to me that culture of gun enthusiasts was becoming markedly warrior like, that instead of promoting the imagery of the dear hunter's childhood, they, or their leader's in the NRA, were promoting the language of war. Instead of firearms being categorized as rifles, shotguns, or pistols, suddenly it was proper to categorize all guns as "weapons", as if even the hapless deer were an enemy.
A symbol which caused me equal ire were the imperial gold braids which Chief Justice Rhenquist unilateral decided would be a nice adornment to indicate his authority. The solemnity of black robes did not satisfy his ego. Thankfully Chief Justice Roberts quietly dropped this blatant pridefullness before it became traddion.
George Ripley
"It's this distinctly authoritarian mindset that also explains the still-astonishing confession by The New York Times' White House reporter Elizabeth Bumiller that reporters such as herself were "very deferential" to the Bush administration in press conferences in the run-up to the war because "It's frightening to stand up there . . .You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war." White House reporters weren't questioning a political official who is to be held accountable. They were gently -- "deferentially" -- posing questions to The Commander-in-Chief."
There are a LOT of people in this country that want an authoritarian president, unfortunately. If you will recall, a very large number of people voted for Bu$h/Cheney not only once, when they were promising to be moderate, compassionate conservatives, but twice, the second time it being very obvious that they were in fact almost the exact opposite of mainstearm compassionate conservatives. They had instead shown themselves to be extremely authoritarian...to the point of being dictatorial.
If anyone is wondering why this is/has happened, I refer them to the article posted by John W. Dean on October 31st that sheds light on the reasoning of Right Wing Authoritarian followers. I truly fear that a large number of people in this country do in fact want a Commander in Chief that rules in lieu of a leader that listens to the electorate and LEADS (rather than rules) through making decisions based on their input. Could it be that people want someone who will make decisions for them and by doing so, absolve them of the responsibility of thinking, making decisions and acceptiong the consequences of those decisions? If so, I must remind those who do in fact have that mindset that they are responsible for the decisions of whomever they choose as a leader, regardless of whether they participate in the making of his/her decisions or not and will be held responsible by the rest of the international community for whatever decisions are made.
Sioux Rose
AUSSI: John Dean's book is even better as it goes into a far broader analysis fo this authoritarian mindset, a study that began in Germany either by the Nazis or as a result of research into WHY people "went along." I believe that sports (the passion for team membership) and fundamentalist religion (do NOT question authority figures! To question faith is to be damned!) pave the way for this type of mindset. Not every child succumbs, but the ones strong enough to break away from the filial programming are often psychologically wounded, carry a stigma for life. These creeds are anti-life and anti-democracy because they come from a place of fear and division, rather than love and unity. These belief systems ARE dangerous, not to mention antithetical to the very basis of a democratic, diversified society!
I have read "Conservatives Without a Conscience" (if that is the book you refer to) and agree. It was an EXCELLENT read. I also agree that these beliefs are dangerous, ESPECIALLY when the leader is an amoral leader that will go to any lengths to achieve their end goals (people like Dick Cheney.) I agree with Dean in his recent article in stating that McCain fits the Right Wing Authoritarian leader. It is indeed worrisome that at present, some 42% of the people polled (poll cited by Yahoo showing current standings of Obama vs. McCain in the elections) want this kind of leader or rather ruler. After eight years of the Bu$h regime disaster at that!!! I agree with Mr. Dean's comment that IF McCain/Palin are in fact elected Tuesday night, I'm not really sure that Americans are capable of responsibly ruling themselves.
Cheers Souix Rose!
John Dean was a Nixonite and even a Reaganite. The only reason he turned different was he was part of the Nixon gang that was held accountable. If Nixon had completed his second term, he'd still be another die-hard Republican by now. By the way, nice of you to finally understand the authoritarian mindset some of us have been long pointing out. And eh, congratulations for improving your posting skills sweetie.
BTW...I realize I am preaching to the choir and should have instead posted this for the Freepers, et al. to consider. However, it obviously would have fallen on deaf ears. I apologise if I insulted anyones' intelligence.
On the contrary. I'd like to chime in, agreeing with your analysis, but also pointing out that the authoritarian mindset is hardly limited to the right. The 20th Century is littered with glorious leaders from the left -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro ... The darling of my folks' generation, FDR, the most left-wing US president, definitely increased the power of the presidency, and set the stage for the post-war national security state.
To me, one of the lessons of the 20th Century is the danger of depending on a paternalistic glorious leader, or a small elite, who "know best". For positive changes to really stick, there has to be open-eyed agreement from the majority, not blind obedience. We do need leaders, but we don't need glorious leaders.
Dfairley, you are absolutely correct. There are those on the left who could fit into the authoritarian follower mindset. However, in today's world, at least in the U.S., I would have to agree with Wilmoor, at least partly. In fact one of the characteristics of the Right Wing Authoritarian follower, as defined in Bob Altermeyer's book "The Authoritarians" [ http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemmey/ ] (are there any html commands that work on this site?) is a strong belief in religion. BTW, this is an excellent FREE online book. If you can take the time to read it, I think you would find it interesting, to say the least.
Cheers!
aussidawg - your post got me to thinking about those who would want an authoratarian president, and why. I'm guessing most are evangelical/fundamentalist christians, and have been taught (or programmed) to follow the churches dictates even in their private lives. It stands to reason they'd need their president to lead their political lives the in the same rigid manner.
This rings true. I have to wonder, however, how many "lefties" put too much stock in their own person to lead them. Different road, same destination.
Nader himself has said many times: "This is not about me, it is about you." I think we should listen to the man.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sioux Rose
WILMOOR: Right on. Have you read Wilhelm Reich on where the fears originate? It has a lot to do with basic instinct, and I'm talking primal sexuality. Some people are afraid of themselves, their own desires and need to live within strict rules. They really resent, sometimes to the point of hatred, those who are free and live without such confining narrow-minded regulations. Granny D related this brilliantly to why some rant so intensely against abortion. She nailed it!
Indeed, Sioux Rose! The majority of this country is stuck in the lower two chakras . . . it was even worse right after 9/11. And what better symbol for those lower two chakras than the military.
I agree with aussie completely.
USAns put entirely too much stock in ONE person.
That is why we meed proportional representation, and a parliament.
A prime Minister would be more accountable to the people.
I have often thought that a parliamentary system might work better. It's just that I would really love to see if true representative democracy would work first. Of course, that would mean hard, honest, work by both the representatives and the represented.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
USAns? Wow, you are cracked.
Are you disturbed by the term "USAn"?
Well if you have done some traveling, and learned some Spanish, you would know that often, our neighbors to the south get offended when we call ourselves "American". Because if you check a map, "America", (or América) refers to a pair of continents, of which the USA covers only a small part. so, when the term "American" is used to mean "a citizen of the USA", it is reflective of imperialist arrogance.
They call us up here "Estadonuidese", for which "USAn" is the best English translation.
What do you mean?
That's what we are, Citizens of the United States.
"American" implies imperialistic "ownership" of two whole continents.
The most historically proper way for USAns to refer to themselves is as Citizens of their individual States -Vermonters, Mainiacs, Georgians, Californians, etc.. That has of course fallen out of use in the last century as the U.S.A. has become more of a centralized State.
We have a regular poster here to thank for this change to more accurate and less chauvanistic self-identification ~USAn~ (or at least I do).
Thanks matti,
Your response is a good one.
I left my desk, then posted my response before refreshing the page, so I didn't see yours.
The U.S. has been a militarized society for a few generations now, and it gets worse all the time.
The cops are indistinguisable from heavily armored combat troops, and the country's economy runs on war and war "preparation."
No surprise that terms such as "commander-in-chief" gain precedence over time.
"Make no mistake."
Please--let us retire this Bush phrase after he goes.
I hear it all the time.
Others: "But y'know what...?" (when it is not a question). "Wall St to Main St."
" " (air quotes) Air phones. the "liberal media".
Referring to people as "sir" 50 times in one quote, as if deferring, but, really insulting.
"With all due respect" (when none is warranted)
"The moral majority". "Family values". "American values". "Freedom"--YES! I'm not kidding .
It is used to describe being able to choose which e coli burger you wil buy, but not whether your elected persident can spy on you and lock you up without reason or notice.
A Iraqi vet explained that he thought the war was "good" because they had brought them "freedom"--"She shoudl be able to go to McDonald's without getting blowed up".
I couldnt make that up.
That one and a hundred others!
Whenever anyone calls liberal talk show hosts on this, they say "Good point," and then continue to use it, as do the callers, as if the mere discipline of excising it from one's vocabulary were somehow difficult.
To anyone with recent roots outside the US, whether Latino or European, the term has an alarming resonance.
"That is a good question " (as a way of delaying an answer).
"I dont recall" "Not that I am aware of". "I wil have to get back to you on that".
"Lets appoint a Blue Ribbon panel"."We should discuss that further".
"We will vote for it and fix it later"."I am unable to comment".
"Richest country in the world". "The world looks to the US"
Ad nauseum
To this UK citizen, the emphasis on the president's role as commander-in-chief seems quite new. Perhaps it comes from the fact that your current president spent the time he was eligible for overseas military service in the National Guard, and even went AWOL from that cushy billet. The need for him to redeem himself from that act of cowardice seems to trump even his massive Oedipus complex.
Like about 90% of the world outside the USA, I hope Sen. Obama is elected, and then, I confidently hope, the dangerous emphasis on the president's role as C-in-C will be quietly dropped.
Secretarybird, like so many of us, is full of hope. Hope that Obama wins and hope that he will then the 'Commander in Chief' title will be dropped. What is allowing her such 'hope'? Obama says we will WIN THE WAR! No talk about ending it and bringing all of our troops home alive. No talk of cutting the military budget to fund the programs we need at home to put people to work on a new energy system so we can get off the oil. How people can be so full of hope that Obama will bring us CHANGE! is beyond my understanding. Obama seems to be more of the same with a nicer smile. The article mentioned how in this campaign real issues are not discussed. And they are not if you just pay attention to the two corporate parties. Nader and Gonzalez talk about the war and the bailout and the corporate destruction of the earth. They also talk about having health care for all without the insurancec companies running the system for their profits.
We don't need hope. Sitting back and hoping things will get better is not going to make any changes. Don't vote for personalities and what you 'learn' on TV adds. go on the internet and look at www.votenader.org
Obama has been in Congress for 4 years. He has a horrible record, including pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-FISA and pro-bailout. But people insist on believing that he's just pretending.
Cynthia McKinney was in Congress. You can check her record. Remember that she questioned Rumsfield on the missing billions, she questioned in 2002 what the President knew and when he knew it about 9-11, she was the first to file for impeachment.
You don't have to "hope" that Cynthia McKinney will turn progressive. She already is.
There are no provisions in the Constitution for a standing army.
southern--"Amen"!
Thank you.
Maybe "It was never envisioned by the Founders that we would have a permanently deployed military" but it sure is looking more and more that way.
But I am still glad to know that there is at least ONE person who thinks that it could be otherwise. I'm really tired of so many levels of validity being based on military service.
great article, totally agree. the u.s. has to get away from the warrior mentality. even left wing, pacifists go all giddy when military jets streak overhead. they're enthralled.
Not my Dad! We tried to get him to go see the Blue Angels and he refused. He said that the purpose of those planes was to terrorize people and it was a big waste of fuel to boot. (This was in the 80s) He was right.
I don't even know him, but I like your dad a lot!!
Yeah, me too. He's a great Dad and a great person.