The phrase is familiar to all US citizens, stretching forth across the years and from the pages of history to all who call this nation their own. Found in the Declaration of Independence, the words strike at the heart of the problems now so darkly coloring the events of our time:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Governments instituted among men -- and women -- derive their power "from the consent of the governed." From us. It's a concept that led to another historic document, one central to our national heritage and key to the nation's heart and soul. The very first line, in fact, recalls it. Remember "We the People" folks?
Words have power. So do the people. And it is by manipulating the will of the people -- manufacturing their consent -- that those people heading our current Government have betrayed us.
Here is an excerpt of the words we should live by, as they are the words our nation was founded upon:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Our consent is required to give the George W. Bush Administration the power to wage war. Our consent is required to give the George W. Bush Administration the power to ignore climate change. Our consent is required to give the George W. Bush Administration the power to tap our phones, intercept our communications and read out mail. Our consent is required to give the George W. Bush Administration the power to obstruct justice, to break laws and to ignore the will of the people.
Our consent.
Consent that has not been given, nor received.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
We don't need a new form of government. We need new people in the leadership roles of the government we already have. People who will heed the will of the citizenry. People who will obey the laws. People who will govern in accordance of, not in spite of, the Constitutional principles established upon the founding of our nation, guided by the beliefs expressed in the Declaration that first sounded our intent.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It is our duty to expel the pretenders who betray our nation for their own selfish goals. Congress, once controlled by the party of pretense and complicit in the usurpation of our nation's helm, now rests in the control of a new party. A party ostensibly in tune with the will of the people. A party that appears to know the will of the people, and understands the implications wrought by a renegade leadership that has manipulated events and circumstance to render a faux consensus of the public in order to initiate heinous crimes against both humanity and nature.
Such has been the patient sufferance...
And "such is now the necessity which constrains them" to act on our behalf. There is no "if" or "and" or "but" outside of this, no other issue of such singular importance. The will of the people and the clear communication of our consent -- and our dissent -- must be re-established to salvage this nation from the cancers that now ravage it, and the world in which it lives.
Full Circle
Dated July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was the first official document to cast aside the imperial rule of a man named George and launch our nation on a journey toward independent rule with a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Two hundred and thirty one years later, we now found our nation constrained by a government reshaped under the auspices of an aggressively interpreted aspect of the very Constitution that lay the foundation for our laws and leaders -- the rise of the "Unitary Executive" to support the imperial aspirations of another man named George, George W. Bush. We have come full circle, finding our very freedom and democracy at risk once again.
The White House has steadfastly worked to stack the deck -- and the courts -- with cohorts of like mind in order to help preserve their legacy and their power.
...under the "unitary" theory favored by Alito the President effectively is the law.
- Robert Parry, "Alito & The Ken Lay Factor"
via ConsortiumNews.com, January 12, 2006.
The insidious, incremental undermining of all branches of government through the unitary theory threatens our nation and our security, as well as the very foundations of our once-vaunted democracy. In the Parry article I cited above, the author gives some specific and very sobering examples of how a "Unitary Executive" might undermine our rights and freedoms:
- if the "unitary executive" had existed in 2001, Bush might have been tempted to halt the SEC accounting investigation that spelled doom for Enron Corp. and his major financial backer, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay.
Direct presidential control of the FCC would give Bush and his subordinates the power to grant and revoke broadcast licenses without the constraints that frustrated Richard Nixon’s attempts to punish the Washington Post company for its Watergate reporting. Bush also would be free to order communication policies bent in ways that would help his media allies and undermine his critics.
The Federal Election Commission...[...snip...]... is another agency that would fall under presidential control. ...[...snip...]... influence-peddlers like Jack Abramoff ...[...snip...]... could get a measure of protection if the President didn't want the agency to pursue their violations.
The "unitary executive" applies as well to the President’s authority to interpret laws as he sees fit, especially in areas of national security where right-wing lawyers argue that the commander-in-chief powers are "plenary," which means "absolute, unqualified."
Effectively, the "Unitary Executive" theory attempts to create the basis under which Nixon's infamous statement "If the President does it, it's legal" would be true and inherently unquestionable. We've already seen the attempt to geneerate supporting buzz to this effect with regard to the Bush Administration's implementation of "Unitary Exectutive" theory in the words of Steven Bradbury, U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, July 11, 2006: "The president is always right."
The President is not the Pope, and neither the President nor the Pope are infallible. While the neoconservatives and Republicans aren't attempting to elevate the Bush Administration to the position of Party Pontiff, they are in fact recreating an imperial monarchy.
From George the III of England to George Bush II, the circle is nearly complete.
The Unitary Executive vs. the Consent of the Governed
This nation was created with the express purpose of founding a democratic republic wherein the citizens would enjoy a voice in the governing of their nation. The very spirit of this democracy is now threatened with the usurpation of our laws and judiciary under a false and malignant premise: "The "unitary" theory asserts that all executive authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception." [Hat-tip SourceWatch.]
During the time that our founding fathers sought to gain approval for the ratification of the new Constitution, many papers were written to explore, explain and elicit support from the citizens. One such paper, Federalist 47, cited a definition that cut to the quick of how a tyranny could arise within our nation:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
- James Madison,Federalist Papers, Number 47,
hat-tip USPatriotsUnited.
Throughout the early years of George W. Bush's reign, Congress consisted of a rubberstamp Republican majority in both houses. The threat of Constitutional oversight was effectively nullified; the White House lost no time in quickly installing controlling elements to the Department of Justice as well as installing tightass highly conservative judges like Alito and Roberts. The most notably controversial appointment, IMO, was the Alito nomination -- Alito, who was a strong proponent of the Unitary Exective theory, may yet stall attempts to unravel the massive mass of tangled laws and rulings that the Bush Administration and the complicit Republican congressional majority nailed into place.
Our founding fathers also foresaw this potential for dangerous abuse:
The executive [President] ...holds the sword...The legislative [Congress]...commands the purse...The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse...can take no active resolution whatever...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, [as usurpers] but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments..." [in usurping power]
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Number 78
again, hat-tip USPatriotsUnited.
[Emphasis mine.]
Democrats now control Congress, breaking the obscene hold of the neoconservative cabal and initiating long overdue investigations and oversight functions. Absent, however, is any direct action at this time to put the brakes on the "Unitary Executive" and force the courts to consider the improper and unConstitutional tenets of the imperial presidency. This is, so far, to be expected: the new Congress has only been in office less than a month, and has in that time made considerable progress. However, it is not merely the job of the Congress to fulfill the agenda of the majority party -- it is the job of Congress to listen to and enforce the will of the people, as well as understand what our just and right consent for their authority and that of the Executive and Judicial branches entail.
One of the most significant ways for the Congress to do this is to dismantle the blinders that the Republican party put into place, so that the citizenry will once again be capable of providing it with informed consent. There are significant barriers in place to prevent this, all coincidentally reminiscent of a theory scoffed by many conservatives: the theory of Manufactured Consent utilizing the Propanganda model as defined by Noam Chomsky in his co-authored work "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media." [Wikipedia analysis]
The GOP, the Propaganda Model and Manufacturing Consent
Controlling the Message: "Truth, Justice and the American Way"
In the 1970s, Newt Gingrich introduced an innovative party platform and organizational tool called "Contract with America." It was a powerful, effective program that helped lead to the dominance of the Republican party for the next 30 years.
It helped set the stage, control the message, coordinate the troops and unify the base. It was extremely effective, powerful and ultimately flawed. Under the auspices of this program, the Republican party created and refined funding avenues and message-delivery sources that are to be envied -- and feared. In essence, he and his compatriots created the ultimate monster and set it loose upon the nation.
This creature has taken up residence in the seat of American power, and grafted itself to two other monstrosities -- the military industrial complex, and the radical religious right. Now a chimera of consumate power, the nation trembles as the unholy beast tightens its grip like a cancer run rampant in a dying victim. We, as a nation, are running out of time, and must act quickly to intervene on behalf of the patient if we are to salvage any vestige of the original "American Dream." But, ultimately, how can this creature, this monstrosity, be defeated? What has given it the power it weilds?
Essentially, that which powers this once-invulnerable beast is the Consent of the Governed; by manipulating and manufacturing propaganda to generate false impressions of consent and support while decimating any opposition or dissent, the GOP has armored their beast with a vast array of sycophants, psychopaths and blindly faithful psychotics. "Controlling the message" helps maintain the illusion -- in essence, this ties back to a rather infamous statement that underscores the beliefs driving this misAdministration:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
- A White House aide in the summer of 2002, as related
by Ron Suskind in the NY Times on October 17, 2004.
[Emphasis mine.]
What types of impact would this type of "reality-making" power have upon our nation? Quite simply, the establishment of a tyranny. The words of James Wilson are relevant here, as they presage the very nature of the situation that we now found ourselves mired in. From the Wiki entry on Unitary Executive theory:
James Wilson emphasized the advantage of greater accountability with a single chief executive:
The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes... far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.
[Emphasis mine.]
Here's a big chunk of Chomsky to digest:
"At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community.
The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival."
- Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," 1992
[from here.]
[Emphasis mine.]
The establishment and operation of the Bush Administration's claim to imaginary powers of the Unitary Executive, as well as the explicit actions taken and supported by the former Republican majority in Congress, speaks to Chomsky's question of whether democracy and freedom "are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided" -- in short, under the myopian, imperial rule of George W. and company, democracy and freedom are most assuredly threats (to their power) and to be avoided at all costs. The Republican Party has used their powerful message machine and political alliances to set the stage in support of this presidency, shutting out any objections or attempts at oversight or accountability by striking out with a vengeance. Even treasonous acts of betrayal in response to political gain, in spite of the potential impact on national security, do not figure into the onslaught against democracy.
Managing Perceptions & Manufacturing the Consent of the Governed
The effects of the GOP propaganda efforts to "manufacturing consent" can be seen in the manner and methods used by the neoconservatives and the GOP to usurp more power. By "manufactured consent" the illusion is created in the popular mind of the public that news and events support the stated opinion that "everyone believes that this is so" -- it's the use of propaganda and the control of the media to fake out the public.
The propaganda model postulates that the media is a business selling a product (the readers or consumers of the media) to another business (the advertisers). Five general classes of "filters" determine the type of news presented: [ref. Wikipedia, "Propaganda Model"]
- Ownership of the medium
Herman and Chomsky argue that since mainstream media outlets are either large corporations or part of conglomerates (e.g. Westinghouse or General Electric), the information presented to the public will be biased with respect to these interests. Such conglomerates frequently extend beyond traditional media fields, and thus have extensive financial interests that may be endangered when certain information is widely publicized. According to this reasoning, news items that most endanger the corporate financial interests that own the media will face the most bias and censorship.
The authors claim that the importance of the ownership filter is the reason that corporations are subject to shareholder control in the context of a profit-oriented market economy. The theory then argues that maximizing profit means sacrificing news objectivity, and news sources that ultimately survive must have been fundamentally biased, with regard to news in which they have a conflict of interest.
See the Wiki for examples.
- Medium's funding sources
Since the mainstream media depends heavily on advertising revenues to survive, the model suggests that the interests of advertisers come before reporting the news. Chomsky and Herman argue that, as a business, a newspaper has a product which it offers to an audience. The product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper — who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population — while the audience includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this "filter", the news itself is nothing more than "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the real content, and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers. Stories that conflict with their "buying mood", it is argued, will tend to be marginalized or excluded, along with information that presents a picture of the world that collides with advertisers' interests. The theory argues that the people buying the newspaper are themselves the product which is sold to the businesses that buy advertising space; the news itself has only a marginal role as the product.
See the Wiki for examples.
- Sourcing
The third filter concerns the mass media's need for a continuous flow of information to fill their demand for daily news. In an industrialized economy where consumers demand information on numerous worldwide events unfolding simultaneously, they argue that this task can only be filled by major business and government sectors that have the necessary material resources. This includes mainly The Pentagon and other governmental bodies. Chomsky and Herman then argue that a symbiotic relationship arises between the media and parts of government which is sustained by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest.
[...snip...]
This theoretical relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor", in which "officials have and give the facts," and "reporters merely get them". Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
See the Wiki for examples.
Nothing like being pwned by a little conflict of interest, eh?
- Flak
Chomsky and Herman claim that "flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as targeted efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g., "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms — which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms — flak is characterized by concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information.
See the Wiki for examples.
- Anti-Ideologies
Formerly "Anti-Communism"
A final filter is anti-ideology. Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real or imagined.
[...snip...]
Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, press, etc. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.
[...snip...]
Proponents state that new, more functional anathemas have arisen to take its place. Chomsky and Herman argue that one possible replacement for anti-communism seems to have emerged in the form of "anti-terrorism".
To the extent that the massive consolidation of media outlets has been noticed and decried by the netroots, and the various issues pertaining to net neutrality that could potentially impact the growing "voice of the people" as it grows in power and influence, the Propaganda Model suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.
Taken in relation to the tightly coordinated Republican message machine and ties to corporate interests over the public good, the Propaganda Model also takes on rather dark (and formerly tinfoil-like) overtones. To the extent that the Republican party has worked with the Bush Administration to control and preserve the dominance of their ideology,
those with the greatest willingness to cast the Constitution into the trash have found themselves rewarded with promotion and the attention of high officials, their ideas greeted with nodding heads in the Oval Office. Some have been granted lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
- Paul Waldman, "Unitary Executive or Autocracy?," TomPaine.com, March 08, 2006.
The abuse has become so blatant and obvious that at least fifty-eight percent of the nation wants the Bush presidency to end, now. Here's what Digby has to say about it:
The 58% of the country who just want the Bush presidency to be over with are in for a rude awakening. Bush and Cheney are racing to rape and pillage the country as much as they can until they are term limited out. They just don't give a damn what the people want, never have, and they know full well that nothing will happen to them. In fact, performance in office is now completely irrelevant.
"Performance in office is now completely irrelevant." Painful to read, particularly given the accuracy of it.
The Administration's rational for this accumulation of power has permitted it to embroil our country in several conflicts as well as brace it for at least one more. Worse, still, is the view that the Unitary Exectutive has freedoms that extend not only beyond the laws of this nation, but also operate beyond the reach of international treaties, conventions and accords. Remember the 2003 memo on torture that was leaked to the press? Let's check in with RawStory's report "Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times," by Jennifer Van Bergen:
"Congress may no more regulate the president’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield," said the memo.
How about the words of Alberto Gonzales with regard to the Geneva Conventions?
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and "quaint" and argued that Bush had the constitutional authority to determine that Geneva did not apply to al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Operating outside of the laws of our nation and the world, the Unitary Executive appears to be a demigod infused with powerful delusions of grandeur. Is this what our nation's founders intended?
The RawStory piece ends with a very powerful quote from Charles Gittings of The Project to Enforce The Geneva Conventions:
"The President has no Constitutional authority to commit crimes," he said.
To that I can only add this: The President has no Constitutional authority to commit crimes, nor does he have my consent.
And therein is an integral part of the solution: Just say 'No.'
Dismantling the Message Machine, Defanging the Monster
Throughout this long discourse, I've hoped to preserve one basic message: the Executive Branch is operating illegally and unconstitutionally, with the complicit assistance of the Republican party, while working to manipulate the citizenry and create the illusion of support and consent to justify their goals.
We -- the People -- must put an end to this.
Our major tools consist of the netroots and the Democratic majority in Congress. Our own personal excursions into the realm of citizen journalism, perhaps best exemplified now with the recent light cast by ePluribus Media and TPM Muckraker upon the DOJ attorney firings, help shine lights into the darkness.
Our capacity to work on a worldwide basis and assemble facts to expose the lies and manipulation, like the recently exposed lie about the death of four American troops, [Hat-tip Bill in Portland Maine] presents a powerful force in the fight against the Republican practice of manufacturing consent.
Our ability to work with the various Democratic members of Congress to ensure that our voices are heard, and our proven track record at exposing the true media bias of major outlets, have led to awakening of more Americans to the dangers and hypocrisy that the Bush Administration and their Republican sycophants are exposing us to.
We must keep up the fight. We must protect our capacity to fight, by working to preserve net neutrality and continuing to expose hypocrisy and corruption.
And Congress...Congress must continue to step up to the plate. In the words of Eric Margolis, in his column on the Toronto Sun ("Imperial Presidency"),
At a time when America is reeling in defeat, and plunged in deepening confusion, Congress must roar, not whimper.
C'mon, Congress -- let's hear that roar. Just say "NO!" to the Unitary Executive.
And make it stick. You have our consent.