The most puzzling part of the Bush/Cheney destruction of America (especially since 2004) has been, why aren't Republicans, especially Republican leaders and "thinkers," outraged at the Bush/Cheney?
- Do they simply not see that the Bush/Cheney administration is a grave danger to the United States, to the Rule of Law, and to the Constitution?
- Or do they see it, and think the destruction of our way of government is acceptable?
- Or do they see it and are now enjoying the benefits and they are foolish enough to think it will last forever? (I.e., are they in denial?)
- Or do they see it and are just so lazy they choose not to act?
Which of these is the right answer? And does it mean the end of America as we knew it?
There are, like, eight little dots just below here. If you go past them, there's more.
I think the answer is a little of each, but a lot of #3. But how could anyone be that foolish? NOTHING lasts forever; this is one of the lessons one must learn to reach maturity. So how would someone (say, a Republican) overlook this important lesson?
I suspect the main reason is that our good Republicans (/snark) simply never (ok, rarely) hear anything that is counter to their current comfort-zone beliefs, counter to the idea that Republicanism is the main ideology of the US, counter to the idea that Republicans will never quit winning the Presidency, counter to the idea that they themselves will ever lose an election.
And they don't hear it because of the Balkanization of the US. (OK, now it's time for all of you to point out to me all of the diaries about how red states aren't really all red, and blue aren't really all blue. I've read them already. They're right, to a point.)
But the US is very Balkanized. Georgia where I used to live is VERY red, and Texas where I live now is VERY red.
And do you think when K. B. Hutchison or J. Cornyn or Isakson or Chambliss goes home that they hear anyone telling them than impeachment is necessary? No, of course not. What they hear reinforces their previously held beliefs: "Gee, you're doing a great job standin' up to that-thar Democrat party. Gosh, ya jist gotta stand up fer Preznit Bush--he's the only one that kin keep us here in East Podunk from havin' terrists fly a 747 inta the tallest buildin' in town--the 2-story abandoned hotel."
While it's true there are a few of us blue folks in these red states, the politicians aren't going to hear much from us. First, because we're relatively few, second, because they don't seek us out, and third, they don't hear us anyway, because our message doesn't fit into their previous belief framework.
And the senators aren't the most Balkanized. If you look at congressional districts (GA and TX are great examples), the congressmen and women are NEVER (ok, that's an exaggeration. Some of us keep trying to get through to these nu-nu heads, but in general they don't hear any opposing ideas) going to talk to someone who doesn't agree with their pre-conceived notions. This is, of course, a result of sustained Republican efforts over the last decades--NB especially Texas--to make each district "pure." (Democrats aren't blameless in this, though.) So expecting any Republican to come to his/her senses is pretty much denial in itself. They ain't gonna.
This Balkanization is a very serious threat to the United States. It promotes what I've just mentioned: since there are about half the states that are red, that means half the senators are very red, and those aren't likely to ever vote for impeachment (the only way to correct our current trajectory). Only way to get them to change their minds is the live boy / dead girl case (or a bj). So the nation suffers, possibly a fatal illness.
Yes, yes, I know that these states are more purple than the picture I've painted. And I don't think we should give up trying, even in Tom Cole's district. But there are REAL differences between red and blue states and red and blue districts, and these differences are really causing serious problems for the nation.
I think this is why the Republicans are still holding out against holding Bush accountable. They may see the problems themselves, but when they talk to their constituents they don't hear any complaints, so they can stay in denial--and expect that it will go on forever. To the detriment of the nation.
By the way, not only will the Bush administration not last forever, the United States won't last forever, either. Because borders and nations are relatively stable during our lifetimes, we tend to think they're permanent. They're not. No nation has lasted forever, and the US will not be an exception. The current Balkanization I think hastens the likely end. We've already got two countries here, one that thinks Bush is ok, and one that doesn't. And these two countries are largely geographically distinct. So in 50, 100, 150 years, what will we have? Two countries, or three? (That would be northeast, west coast, and south, with the middle states divided up some way.)
Please, prove to me I'm wrong.