I think Sen. Feingold's call for censure provides a good entry point into a larger discussion of where we are in the U.S. right now. So Feingold is demanding that Bush be censured. I support his call along with many other stands he's taken (most notably his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act), but in the end censure has no legal standing. Hopefully Feingold has bigger plans for Bush down the road. But I'm not so sure. I'm paying more and more attention to his statements and want to believe that he's headed in the right direction (impeachment). However, another side of me is reminded that Feingold supported the attack on Afghanistan and I'm unclear as to his thoughts about Iran.
My skepticism aside, censure might have some very positive indirect effects - which could be made more direct if Democrats would get behind him (Does anybody actually believe that the Republicans view Feingold's move as a gift?). I can't think of a better rallying cry for the 2006 elections than one calling for impeachment. It's simple, direct and can act as a magnet for all of the frustration people are feeling in general about the political system. And I think it scares the shit out of the Republicans. So they're doing their best to make it appear that they welcome it. The question is: Do the Democrats really want it?
Ah yes the Democrats... It doesn't help that many are so blinded by their love of the Democratic party that they are unwilling to recognize that many of its current and previous members have been complicit with what I think in many ways is somewhat mistakenly called the neoconservative program. The neoconservatives are on the extreme end of the spectrum, but much of their program is in line with many of the Democrats. Support for the invasion of Iraq is the first thing that comes to mind but we could also talk about Clinton's support for the brutal sanctions that devastated the people of Iraq, the Omnibus Crime Bill, NAFTA, the Welfare Reform Act, etc. The whole power structure has shifted to the right. Thus you have these kinds of policies being put forth. With an increasing concentration of wealth and power among a small segment of the population, who would expect the situation to be otherwise?
I can't believe that the people who voted for the war were just fooled by the president and his administration. It's just not working out as they would have liked. The antiwar movement, which had far fewer resources available to commit to investigation of Bush's claims, today appear as prophets to some, but there's really no need for supernatural explanations. It just wasn't that hard to know the truth. So now those who supported the war are facing a population increasingly opposed to it with failure staring them in the face. So they change their tune, and desperately try to put a new face on something that's pretty ugly at its core while hiding in the accurate claim about Bush's incompetence. No matter what you think about the murderous Saddam Hussein, the simple fact is that we invaded another sovereign country. And now we occupy it. It is a war of aggression. Plain and simple.
Then there are those voices of the Army brass currently making their rounds in the media that have problems with the way the invasion was carried out (General Zinni comes to mind as I heard an interview with him the other day on NPR). They seem to be able to come up with little more than calling it a mistake and again, incompetent. You might hear them call it a failure. Maybe we just need more troops. Maybe we should withdraw to just outside the borders. Rumsfeld should resign they say. Sure Bush could hold him accountable by demanding his resignation, but if he did I think it would be little more than a PR exercise to put a new face on the occupation. And a close reading of the Rumsfeld criticisms reveals as much. How about letting the Iraqis decide what they want to do with their country? How about paying them reparations for what we've done to them? How about taking responsibility?
The only thing that really gives me hope is that the rest of the country seems to be headed in the opposite direction on most issues. If it happens that the powerful are able to convince the population to shift their anger though - particularly toward the powerless (and they have a powerful, mostly obedient media behind them to help), then I think we'll really be in trouble. The scapegoating of immigrants is unfortunately a time-tested means of diverting attention away from the actions of those at the top to those who have the least say in how a country functions. And the truly frightening thing is that it may be working (see April 9 AP article "Poll: Immigration Worries Growing in the U.S."). It might be a good idea to think about the effects of the massive marches and beautiful acts of nonviolent civil disobedience on the so-called immigration reform debate - a debate whose bounds in Washington are still mostly the interests of big business on the one side and racist/cultural supremacists on the other. I don't know how things will turn out in that case, but I think it would be a hard case to make that the marches haven't had a real effect on the debate.