In an investigative analysis at consortiumnews.com on November 2, Robert Parry does a good job of distilling the historical importance of this election. In his view, we have a referendum not on BushGÇÖs competence but on BushGÇÖs world view, although Parry does not put it quite that way. He says that Election 2006 will answer two fundamental questions:
1) Does the publicGÇÖs hunger for more safety from terrorists trump AmericaGÇÖs historic commitment to constitutional liberties? In other words, do we trade in our original revolutionary principle that we are a Republic whose citizens posses unalienable rights for a system where one man, the unitary executive or President, not only decides who has what rights, but also where and when to wage war?
2) Is World War III inevitable between America and the Islamic militants or jihadistsGÇö- or should we try other alternatives first, isolating Muslim extremists and reducing world (political, social, and economic) tensions?
Personally, I encapsulate these two choices as: Will we slide into totalitarian dictatorship out of Fear as we march into a Forever War? This election is in fact a referendum not on: If Democrats win so do Terrorists, but on this: If Republicans win, we have accepted dictatorship (however prettified) and the gritty life of a militarized society always at war. Sounds like the twentieth century novel GÇ£1984,GÇ¥ doesnGÇÖt it?
SAFETY VS. LIBERTY
The core of BushGÇÖs reasoning, repeatedly stated, is that the Government exists primarily to do everything in its power to protect the American people. This contradicts the traditional view that the primary duty of the President, all elected officials, and the military as well, is to defend the Constitution, and that it is The People who possess unshakeable Constitutional rights and hold the basic political power. For some reason, no one points this out publicly.
Once he rather gleefully proclaimed himself after 9/11 to be a wartime President, Bush began implementing claims to the self-described plenary powers of a Commander in Chief, snipping away at one Constitutional guarantee after another, often in secret, abrogating checks and balance bit by bit with the full cooperation of a compliant Republican-dominated Congress.
As early as spring 2002 Bush ordered the indefinite military detention of an American citizen as an enemy combatant, overriding habeas corpus without filing any charges or offering any evidence, but accusing the citizen, Joseph Padilla, of possibly planning a dirty bomb attack. Three and a half years later, when it looked as though the Supreme Court would reverse this incarceration, Bush turned Padilla over to civilian courtsGÇö- but not on the original charge. Padilla now is supposed to be tried under new charges of supporting a terrorist group. Padilla claims he has been tortured.
Meanwhile, Bush established special military tribunals to try the large numbers of alleged Unlawful Enemy Combatants swept up across the world, originally from U.S. operations in Afghanistan, but now elsewhere as well. When the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 decision, struck down BushGÇÖs kangaroo courts, Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership immediately reincarnated the special tribunals legislativelyGÇö- but added explicit extensions of presidential powers in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which in effect permit the President to throw American citizens into the military commissions set-up, outside the reach of our civilian court system, and also strips the regular civilian courts of ever having jurisdiction to GÇ£hear any claim or cause of action whatsoever... relating to... a military commission, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.GÇ¥ Our established third branch of government, the Courts, are by-passed, effectively trivialized.
This means that, if the President for whatever reason, at his option, decides that ANY person (including a citizen) might be aiding GÇ£an enemyGÇ¥ they are now subject to these kangaroo courts, and there is absolutely no way out. They are now Disappeared, as they said in Peronist Argentina. Goodbye, 900 yearsGÇÖ tradition of habeas corpus. Also, Goodbye, right to speedy trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Take another look at the loose definition of GÇ£any person,GÇ¥ who may be accused of conveying information that might be conveyed to an enemy. This could easily apply to journalists who publish stories based on confidential sources which displease Bush and his allies. Goodbye Freedom of the Press.
The Fourth AmendmentGÇÖs requirement of a court warrant for searches and seizures has also been ignored by Bush, first secretly, then defiantly with secret wiretapping which bypassed even the loose requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1973 that gave the President enormous discretionary powers anyway. These powers were not enough for Bush and, when caught in his illegal (and, truthfully, impeachable) offense, Congress again rescued him, effectively approving whatever Bush had done or wanted to do retroactively. Good bye, Fourth Amendment.
All of this is presented to excitable Bush supporters as a choice between the Democrats' protecting terrorists when they make whiney arguments about constitutional rights, and the muscular Republican leadership of Bush who is protecting us all from terrorists by doing whatever is necessary... in Bush's narrative, itGÇÖs GÇ£Be Afraid, but Trust Me.GÇ¥ BushGÇÖs speeches sound like a preacher eliciting responses from a congregation, or Hitler whipping his adherents into a frenzy.
He proclaims: GÇ£When it came time to vote on whether the NSA should continue to monitor terrorist communications, almost 90 percent of House Democrats voted against it.GÇ¥ The crowd booed Democrats. GÇ£...Democrats follow a simple philosophy. Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, whatGÇÖs the Democrat answer?GÇ¥ The crowd: GÇ£Just say no!GÇ¥ GÇ£When it comes to questioning terrorists, whatGÇÖs the DemocratGÇÖ answer?GÇ¥ GÇ£Just say no!GÇ¥ GÇ£When it comes to trying terrorists, whatGÇÖs the Democrats' answer?GÇ¥ The crowd: GÇ£Just say no!GÇ¥ and so on. As Mr. Parry makes quite clear, this antiphonal response routine has a psychological result of demonizing anyone who shows the slightest doubts about BushGÇÖs chosen course of action. I ask: Can a lynch mob be far behind?
THE FOREVER WAR
These same scare tactics apply to BushGÇÖs Global War on Terror. If Republicans hold on to power (or, I suspect, lose only the House while retaining control of the Senate) Bush will regard this as giving him a blank check to continue his crusade, expanding the GWOT to Iran, Syria, and so on, into what Newt Gingrich with great anticipation calls GÇ£World War III.GÇ¥ Many of the Right Wing including evangelicals, frankly say that World War III has already started, and are preaching for war against the jihadists They are also making their personal financial investments accordingly in defense contractors, if we are to believe their investment advisory newsletters. The fact that the neo-cons have not planned more than one move ahead in this endless expansion of war, just as they failed to plan more than one move ahead in Iraq does not stop them. How this new war can be undertaken, where the additional troops will come from, how it will be paid forGÇö- this has never been explained. But Bush says, GÇ£However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.GÇ¥ (Statesboro, 30 October speech).
That is the world view being peddled by Republicans in tones of high emotion, and that is our choice: madness and barbarism vs. adult responsibility and a positive future. Remember before 9/11, which was like a gift to Bush and the neocons? Remember when we were all looking to a peace dividend, structuring the world economy and politics to end the need for war and other forms of torture, when it actually seemed we might save ourselves from nuclear immolation and bring the human family to some sort of uneasy but civilized style of living together, preserving our planetGÇÖs resources for our children? Well, we almost made it.