Many bits or bytes of news come flying through the ether as I listen to radio in the backgound. Occasionally, one of these bits or bytes sticks in my mind's craw. I can't absorb it, neither can I disgorge it. Here's two examples --
- A couple of weeks ago, NPR interviewed former Senator Tom Daschle, who took two or three calls from listeners. Someone called to ask him about the false intelligence on WMD. Daschle's response has been stuck in my mind ever since: "I have to believe" -- and here I can only paraphrase -- that the President did sincerely believe that the "intelligence" that was submitted to the Congress on Saddam's WMD was valid.
- Just today, I hear Bush making a statement on the passing of Pope John Paul II. Something about "a good and faithful servant of God has been called home." There are many reasons why this statement sticks in my craw, but a leading reason is the use that was made of Senator McCain's Roman Catholic christianity in order to defeat McCain in the Carolina primary in Y2K . . .
Yes, one big reason for my discomfort with Bush's pious statement on the passing of John Paul is how his campaign back in Y2K made unethical use of Senator McCain's Roman Catholic christianity in order to defeat McCain in the Carolina primary in Y2K so as to assure the nomination of George W. Bush. Not to mention the attack on the sincerity of Daschle's own Roman Catholic christianity by the radical right --
WEEKLY STANDARD
Now, how do these two craw-sticking statements relate to each other? How and why do I find a convergence of import and implications? It has to do with the "have to believe" thing -- do you, dear reader, ever indulge in "have to believe"?
"HAVE TO BELIEVE" AND ELECTION FRAUD
zentiger comments in the recent free-for-all of 500+ comments following the very brief diary by 3¢ NEW REPORT says PRES 04 vote outcome 1 in a million with a decidedly eloquent (IMHO) have-to-believe statement, as follows:
I either need to believe that my country, the country that my ancestors have built over 400 years, has turned to Fascism as the answer, or that the American voice has been silenced.
I am playing Jefferson:
"I deem ... essential ... a jealous care of the right of election by the People--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided..."
to your Hamilton:
"Your People, Sir--your People is a great beast!"
Others -- while unwilling to submit to election fraud -- simply DO believe that Bush won by a substantial majority in 2004. Still others simply do not find the Edison-Mitofsky.pdf report to be the most effective tool or weapon with which to prosecute our election integrity campaign.
Myself, I apply a reductionist method and focus on Ohio. And I simply have to believe, based on the fact that Ohio alone could have tipped the election to Kerry, that the electoral college vote was rigged in 2004 as it was in Y2K with Florida. Regardless of the national popular vote count.
That doesn't mean that Kerry would have had a "mandate." It just means that Kerry should have had a chance. I would even equate that to "our constitutional democracy should have had a chance."
KERRY'S HAVE-TO-BELIEVE
In the 500 + comments following the very brief diary by 3¢ NEW REPORT says PRES 04 vote outcome 1 in a million there was some condemnation and some consideration of Kerry's too-easy concession immediately after the election. There's also been, all around the iNet, some condemnation and some consideration of Kerry's concession. I do believe in the philosophy of "moving on" as learning from the past while also studying the present to see what opportunities present themselves, rather than focusing on the obstacles only. So, I pointed out in a 4-rated comment titled "Remember the Precautionary Principle" as follows:
[T]his isn't a Democratic Party issue at all -- it's a non-partisan all-American issue. That is an unforeseen positive outcome of Kerry's decision -- that now the Ohio case (the point project for the election integrity issue) cannot be framed as a "sour grapes" Demo thing. We are in an alliance with the Greens and Libertarians around this! That means that we are potentially in an alliance with dissenting (thinking) Republicans and with independents! That means that maybe, just maybe -- if we pursue our election integrity campaign vigorously and effectively and starting IMMEDIATELY -- we CAN WIN THIS!
BACK TO DASCHLE ON WMD AND "REVEREND" BUSH ON JOHN PAUL II
Why does Daschle "have to believe" in the sincerity of Bush about the WMD's? Would he also believe in the sincerity of Cheney in allowing Halliburton insider standing in the non-competitive award of what will probably add up to $ billions in Iraq contracts? Would he believe in the sincerity of Senator Frist when Frist made absurdly opportunistic statements about the late Terri Schiavo?
Here's where the two statements -- the one by Daschle and the one about John Paul II by Bush -- converge. Other senators, even a vice-president -- these are still mere humans, whereas a PRESIDENT is like a Pope (human, yes, but authorized and charged with superhuman duties). Let's rephrase the question about WMD as "have to believe in the sincereness of the President of the United States." It has to do with the old saying, "I may not respect the man, but I have to respect the office." That's what it comes down to. Daschle has to believe whatever he has to believe in order to perpetuate what many (including myself) would call the American myth of the "god-king-president."
There is, however, a fundamental contradiction between democracy and any central authority that isn't strictly accountable to the people in real time. The SOVEREIGN in any analysis of the modern nation-state is the PEOPLE, not the President. Just as the Pope, although the head of the Church, doesn't equate to the Church -- so, too, the President, although the "head" of the people cannot equate to the people. This distinction was manifest in Daschle's treatment of requests in early 2002 by both Bush and Cheney to restrict the scope of any congressional investigation of the 9/11 events so as not to "take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism." Daschle, while never doubting the sincerity of Bush in making that request, (never doubting that it could not be politically motivated), stated, as quoted by CNN.com
Daschle said [that] he has not agreed to limit the investigation.
"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.
"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.
It has to be noted that Daschle has taken his faith -- in what I guess must be called the "goodness" of any U.S. president -- to its logical conclusion that Bush is an incompetent commander-in-chief. As quoted at
PeaceQuotes website
This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war.
I guess this could be a way to retaliate against the "Why do you HATE Bush so much ploy?" -- "I don't hate him, I just feel sorry for him and for the country that he's been an incredibly incompetent Commander-In-Chief."
You could say that all the senators that voted for the Iraq invasion must have been equally incompetent, but it was the President that sent the "intelligence" to the Senate and it is Bush who should be held accountable for presenting it as factual, if not for fabricating it. Bush is a broken link in the three-link chain of the separation of powers.
CAN EMPIRE CO-EXIST WITH DEMOCRACY ?
Who has not felt this in recent times? Who has no dark feeling that "the center cannot hold" (W. B. Yeats) ?? I suspect that all thinking Americans in this era of the millennial transition are painfully aware of the judgment of history as to the fate of any democracy, as espressed, for example, by G.K. Chesterton, quoted in LibertyQuotes
Despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy.
It appears, perhaps too late to do anything about it, that the American presidency is so constructed as to lend itself to a global urge toward empire. As the Roman emperors retained also the title of proconsul of the Roman Republic, which was never formally dissolved, so it may develop for the presidency of the United States. Surely, we are at a constitutional crisis.
We must either transform the United States from a "super-power" into just one nation among many nations, making such structural changes as that may require, or we will become like ancient Italy, as described by Richard Maybury in PeaceQuotes
Washington...has become an alien city-state that rules America, and much of the rest of the world, in the way that Rome ruled the Roman Empire.
IMO, requisite structural changes will have to include changes in the U. S. Constitution to restructure the presidency and to redefine the separation and balance of powers.
(PLEASE RESPOND TO POLL at end of diary as to the U.S.A. in or approaching a constitutional crisis.)
THE GOD-KING-PRESIDENT MYTH
We have known about the depth-psychological foundations of such myths as the "god-king-president" since the publication of Julian Jaynes' THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND It very likely goes all the way back to the very earliest civilizations and may be almost hard-wired in human nature.
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
--- I Samuel 8:6-7 (KJV)
GLOBAL CAPITAL AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
The U. S. presidency was devised as a compromise between democracy and monarchy. That compromise has resulted in a presidential mythology that has become antithetical to democracy as the U. S. presidency has become too important to global capital to be left in the charge of the American people. At the same time, and for the same reasons, the U. S. presidency has grown so powerful that the triumphirate of the three branches of government is barely able to function.
The two tendencies -- growth of presidential power and the rise of global capital -- now combine to push the U. S. toward fascism. It is my belief that we cannot confront fascism, by whatever name you choose to give it, without confronting the constitutional crisis that has arisen from those two tendencies -- excessive power of the presidency and excessive influence over the U. S. politic by the international ("corporate") institutions of global capital.
When I coin "corporate" in this context, I don't necessarily refer to the restructuring of U. S. corporate law, although that is clearly a necessary reform. By international ("corporate") institutions I mean to refer to such financial institutions as the Bank of China, the Communist Party ("Animal Farm") government of China, and even "our" own World Bank and IMF -- and, above all, to the W.T.O. beaurocracy and the corporate insiders that control that beaurocracy. And when I say "excessive influence" of those institutions, I do not refer necessarily to particular pools of capital that come and go in the world of global capital -- nor to any conspiracy of such particular pools of capital -- I refer rather to the systemic influence that must be wielded by the competitors for control of global capital.
THE FIVE PRESIDENTIAL HATS: Implications for political strategists
The U. S. president wears five hats -- with implications for the presidency and for the national politic. Let me put it this way: anyone who wears five very different hats will eventually be perceived as either a clown or as crazy.
The U. S. President must function as:
- Party head
- National vicar
- Chief Executive Officer
- Commander-In-Chief
- Acting monarch (as implied by the Constitutional compromise resolving the democracy/monarchy dispute at the origin of the Republic)
PRESIDENTS AS PARTY HEADS: RESPONSIBLE FOR POLITICAL OPERATIVES?
A glaring example of the problems that inevitably crop up is shown by the unethical attacks on the religious convictions of Senators McCain and Daschle -- while Bush is exempt from paying any political price therefor. Thus, we see that -- as long as the balance of powers remains dysfunctional -- the contradictions in the various roles of the president can work not as constraints upon presidential power but rather to enhance and perpetuate that power.
In the latter half of the 20th Century, the fact that the president was both "papal" (by virtue of being charged with superhuman responsibilities) and also the head of his political party, resulted in an imperative working to eliminate corruption. For example, Eisenhower had his Sherman Adams -- and Eisenhower acted in timely manner to eliminate the appearance, if not the reality, of corruption. Eisenhower no doubt had more sincere motives in so acting, but there was also the force of public opinion and press exposure.
Nixon, similarly, had his Halderman, not to mention the "G-Man" (Liddy), but Nixon failed to act timely enough to eliminate the appearance and the reality of corruption. Both public opinion and press exposure, along with the fact that Republicans like Barry Goldwater still exerted the forces of conscience and honor, led to Nixon's forced resignation.
Since the PATRIOT Act, the forces of public opinion and press exposure no longer operate to force any constraint upon the abuse of presidential authority. See, the recent diary [Visit from the Secret Service - GOP paranoia strikes http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/1/163740/1449}
As for whether there continues any force within the Republican Party to represent conscience and honor -- that will perhaps be determined when the show-down comes on the "nuclear option" (cloture rule).
Well, anyway, that's what I "have to believe." What about you?