Talkin' About The F-Word (Redux)

[[ Dear Readers: This article was first published in December of 2001, in the wake of 9/11, when thegrim outlines of police-state-like tactics were first starting to appear on the American horizon. It might beuseful to compare and contrast -- whoops, it turns out there isn't much to contrast -- between then and now.Doing so may help us understand the forces we're facing and how to respond as Bush&Co. continue their movetoward a more militarist society. At appropriate points, I've added [[ in italics inside double brackets ]]some observations from our contemporary situation.

Reading the essay this way might serve as a reminder that those of us warning then of the due-processdangers ahead faced epithets like "paranoid" and "conspiracists" -- much like those todaywho are connecting the dots that take us from Bush&Co.'s pre-9/11 knowledge and the Administration'smanipulation of a frightened Congress and citizenry that have followed. -- BW ]]

First, they came for the terrorists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the foreigners,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they came for the Arab-Americans,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't Arab-American.
Then they came for the radical dissenters,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was just an ordinary troubled citizen.
Then they came for me,
and by that time
there was no one left to speak up for me.

(Adapted from Pastor Niemoller's 1945 quote about the Nazis)

I've been steering clear of the F-word, because too many on the Left fling that term so carelessly that itsoon loses its truth-punch. But things are happening, so quickly, in this country that are taking us closer toa brand of near-fascism that is frightening in its seeming acceptance by the American populace and in itsimplications for the future of American democracy.

The non-domestic corollary: America, already resented and hated for its arrogant attitudes and policiesaround the world, is behaving more and more like a mad bull on a Pax Americana rampage.

In short, we appear to be at one of those moments in American history where the executive branch, using thegenuine need to respond to a terrorist attack of massive proportions, is badly overreaching in both domesticand foreign areas. (The first draft of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism law even recommended suspension of the ruleof habeus corpus, which would have allowed for indefinite incarceration without charges or trials.)

[[ In effect, Bush&Co. have been able to do exactly that to hundreds being interrogated for aconnection to terrorism; when people are "disappeared" in third-world countries, we get allweepy-eyed and angry as mothers and wives bang pots & pans in the public squares, trying to find out whathappened to their husbands and sons. Here, aside from civil liberties organizations, we remain basicallysilent. ]]

The Administration figures it can get away with its current actions, and assume even more power, becausethe Congress and the American people are frightened and willing to bend over backwards to make sure thePresident has the power he needs during "wartime."

[[ Recent polls indicate that Americans are deeply troubled by giving the government, any government,that kind of unbridled power, but, given the current terrorist threat, seem willing to trade off SOME of theirConstitutional protections for personal security. ]]

(Of course, there has been no official declaration of a State of War by the Congress, and the BushAdministration is not about to try to get one; doing so would give the legislative branch its rightful placein the balance-of-power arrangement the founders set up in order to prevent political mischief.)

[[ Now Bush&Co. are moving quickly toward attacking Iraq, and not only has there been NO declarationof war by the Congress against that nation, but there has been NO discussion, NO debate, NO hearings by theappropriate committees in Congress. After the body bags start coming back, prepare yourself to listen to allthe breast-beating in the Congress about how they should have tried to do something to prevent thisunauthorized war. See below. ]]

Now, whether we're moving into the outskirts of fascism because the Bush Administration is merely confusedand incompetent when dealing with issues of such moment is not clear. Equally plausible, especially giventheir ruthless, take-no-prisoners style as revealed in the Florida election chaos and beyond, is that theyknow exactly what they're doing: attempting to enforce a harsh interpretation of justice so as to more easilycram their far-right cultural and economic agenda through a complacent Congress and public, under the cover of"national security" and "homeland protection." (I grant that it's possible they sincerelybelieve they're doing so out of the best motives – protecting the American people from further terrorism –but, even if that were the case, the damage being done to the American polity and Constitutional system ofgovernment is incalculable.)

FOREIGN POLICY

The hawks in the Administration seem to have convinced Bush that with the successes in Afghanistan –forgetting that perhaps as many as 20,000 Al Queda troops are holed up for the winter, in caves and inneighboring Pakistan – it's time to widen the war by going after Iraq, and maybe a few weaker states, suchas Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, maybe even North Korea. (This plan may be put on temporary hold while the U.S.assays the military/political fallout from the quick-building war between Israel and the Palestinians.)

Why go to war against any of these countries? There is no evidence that any of the states named above hasengaged in threatening activity – no bombs exploded on US soil or US assets abroad, no airplanes flying intotall buildings, no biochemical attacks launched – but, we are led to believe, these rogue states threatenAmerica's vital interests merely by existing and, in some instances, by having weapons similar to ours.

Iraq may be a special case. Saddam Hussein, who Bush Sr. let stay in power, i s a truly vicious,monomaniacal dictator who has been known to dabble in biological weaponry and other weapons of massdestruction. Since he kicked out the U.N. inspectors, we don't know what mischief he's been up to. A goodcandidate, so goes hawk-logic, for getting his ass whupped by the US, provocation or not.

Were the US to bomb or invade Iraq to topple Saddam and install an opposition government, the current warcoalition would collapse, and the worst stereotype of US foreign policy – of America as a giant bully notaverse to arranging a Pax Americana with massive violence – would be verified in a good share of the globe.There might well be uprisings widely in the Muslim world, and probably the toppling of several key governmentsin the process, Pakistan and Indonesia being the top candidates – either by popular revolts or, more likely,by military coups. (Let us not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.)

[[ There is speculation that Saddam will resign and appoint one of his sons in his stead; it is hard toimagine that this ruse will stop the U.S. from attacking. ]]

But let us suppose that the US approach is successful, and that it is able to navigate its way through thenegative foreign consequences flowing from that demonstration of high-tech warfare carried out againstlow-tech resistance. How would you feel living in a modern version of the Roman Empire, our armies abroadenforcing a peace on several continents at bayonet point?

DOMESTIC POLICY

Which brings us to what life would be like domestically in such a neo-imperialist arrangement. Even someright-wingers are reacting negatively to the alterations of our judicial and Constitutional system a la Bushand Ashcroft. There have been columns in the Wall Street Journal, William Safire's blistering attack on Bushas a would-be "dictator," ex-FBI officials willing to be quoted denouncing the Administration's moreextreme policies, politicians such as right-wing Republican Bob Barr decrying Bush's policy excesses,editorials in the mainstream press chorusing that Ashcroft has gone way over the top.

[[ Off the record, many GOP senators and Congress members -- especially conservatives anxious aboutgiving too much power to big-government, which regularly has abused that authority -- express their revulsionat what the Bush Administration is doing to Constitutional guarantees. But they tend to keep silent in public,lest they be accused, in an election year, of being insufficiently "anti-terrorist." However,lately, a few GOP moderates have begun to speak out publicly, along with more Democrats. But virtually all ofthem tend to backpedal whenever Bush&Co. make growling noises. ]]

Unless you've been living in a cave – whoops!, wrong metaphor these days – you must have becomeacquainted with Ashcroft's way-out-there approach to civil liberties mostly, it is claimed, directed atnon-citizens suspected of terrorism. That would be bad enough. But the wording of some of Ashcroft's orders– and Bush's setting up of secret military tribunals – is so vague and (deliberately?) sloppy that itwouldn't take much to blur the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.

[[ Despite Ashcroft & Bush's protestations that such a thing would NEVER be allowed to occur, thisis already happening, as several U.S. citizens have been whisked out of Constitutionally-guaranteed dueprocess, and secreted away in military installations, and permitted no contact with lawyers or anyone else.They can rot there for years with no contact with the outside world. Did a judge or jury OK this? Nope, Bushsigned a piece of paper authorizing the transfer. Bush&Co. thus becomes prosecutor, judge and jury. It'sclear that this could happen to ANY citizen now. ]]

Already – shades of J. Edgar Hoover's COINTEL program of the 1960s-70s! – Ashcroft wants to begin morespying on US citizens, especially religious and political organizations.

[[ Just recently, Ashcroft, by fiat, simply gave the FBI this authority to spy on any organizations --just as under COINTEL decades ago -- including, in this new technological era, fishing expeditions intoanyone's personal e-mail. ]]

In short, the foundations for officially-sanctioned neo-fascist policies are being contemplated and swiftlyput into place. And, since Bush and Ashcroft, from the beginning, have made it clear that if you're not on theside of the war on terrorism, you're probably a supporter of terrorists, the way is clear for cracking down ondissent internally against US citizens. It's not outside the realm of speculation that in the near-future evenwriting analyses such as the one you're reading might be adjudged detrimental to the war effort and thusliable for prosecution – or to being "disappeared" into the judicial system, with all thatsuggests in the way of respect being paid to citizens' constitutional rights.

Am I being overly paranoid? I hope to God I am, that I'm misreading what's happening. After all, Bush andAshcroft and their spokesmen claim that their approach will NEVER overstep Constitutional bounds andeverything will be handled fairly. Maybe you trust the government, especially this government, that much; Idon't. These guys are playing political hardball, and they appear to be aiming at any institution andindividuals that dissent beyond certain boundaries.

Those boundaries are being laid out clearly for the usual sources for dissent: the media and academia. Mostof the big papers and networks are now owned by huge corporate conglomerates; Lynne Cheney's American Councilof Trustees and Alumni, a well-financed conservative group devoted to curbing liberal tendencies on campuses,already has issued its first blacklist of professors it considers insufficiently "patriotic." Manywill be fired or eased out, many more will tone down their criticism – as many journalists already have –and the message will be quite clear: Do not dissent too vocally.

[[ Look what happened at the Ohio State graduation ceremonies recently, when Bush came to speak. Theauthoritative voice of the university's president announced that any students who turned their backs on Bushas a protest would face expulsion and arrest. Only a few continued their planned silent, turning-of-backsprotest, and were immediately hustled outside to the waiting police. ]]

Two scary ramifications:

1. We're only in the first year of Bush's term; the damage he can cause to the Constitution and the bodypolitic during the next three (or, God help us, seven) years is frightening to imagine.

[[ Even more frightening, because Al-Qaeda elements inside our borders are planning another massiveattack inside the U.S., frightening the population even more -- which fear Bush&Co. will attempt tomanipulate once again, to give it even more extra-Constitutional control over thought, activity, dissent. ]]

2. The American people, for the most part, still appear to be lending strong support to Bush'sinterpretation of the war on terrorism, although cracks are starting to show up.

[[ Nearly 4000 innocent Americans died on 9/11, and Bush&Co. had been apprised months in advancethat an attack like that was coming and did nothing to prevent it. Many ordinary Americans are disgusted andangered by that behavior. In addition, there are the Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, Venezuela scandals, andprobably many more, that are starting to cause stirs and ripples in the body politic. Dots are starting to beconnected. ]]

So what is to be done? If there ever was a time for a rebirth of the Movement, this is the time... The USSenate is probably the place where most attention should go at the moment, given that the House is pretty welldominated by the Bush/Armey/Delay-led right-wing majority. The Democrats in the Senate, who rolled over tooeasily on the so-called PATRIOT anti-terrorism act, need backbone; hearing from their constituents, urgingthem to stand up for the Constitution and the balance-of-powers that rein in power-hungry executives, mightactually work in stopping some of the more extreme actions to date, and to come, by the Bush Administration.

This struggle for peace and justice and respect for the Constitution will not be an easy one, if onlybecause of the politicized nature of the Supreme Court majority. But it is one we must join, and, for the sakeof our representative democracy, we must win.

[[ That's even more clear today. If we can't stop them now -- or, at the very least, put sand in theirtotal-control wheels -- it may not get any easier in 2004. ]]

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government and international politics at Western Washington Universityand San Diego State University; he was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years, and has publishedin The Nation, Village Voice, and widely on the internet.