Letters to the Editor
Goedel
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 6
-
A Constitutional Weakness
[Read the article: Dithering Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democratic dithering may be called a constitutional weakness, with a small or a capital "C". Small "C" because like Republicans in our two-party rule, Demo politicians are professionals and their primary concern is to avoid offending voters. Large "C" because our Constitution was not written by framers who had any conception of party politics. For that reason, they wrote a constitution based on the separation of powers in order to prevent domination by the executive of the other branches - legislative and judicial.
But "factions" (as they were then called) or parties formed soon after George Washington's inauguration, and have become the principal division of government thenceforth. The separation of the branches is less important than the division by party in the governance of our country.
For that reason, we have little oversight by the Congress when there is no opposition party in strong control. The opposition must always be mindful that the president is elected (in theory) by all the people, and the opposition must be cautious in opposing him - especially in time of war.
With a bare majority in the Congress, the Democrats cannot stick their necks out too far, they think. They must wait for the president's party to hang itself. Problem is people are dying while we wait, and the government is being run on borrowed money from China, S.Korea and Japan.
The remedy for all this is a complete re-examination of our Constitution in light of the existence of political parties. This is not likely to happen, because too many interests like the system the way it is. It works for the wealthy interests, because it is so simple. Only two parties, and both are for sale to the highest bidders.
-
At least since Henry IV threatened Harfleur
[Read the article: Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Attacks against civilians as a matter of policy rather than as "collateral damage" have a long, honored and dishonorable history. In the West, after the fall of Rome (no bulwark of humane behavior), the slaughter of peasantry was the strategy of choice used by one manor-lord against another. No peasants, no food, fuel or stores, and the "donjon" became a dungeon! Henry IV spared Harfleur only when the mayor agreed to open the gates of his town to succor the invaders. In the Thirty Years War, peasants and other civilians died by the hundreds of thousands as their villages were sacked, crops burned, first by one side then the other. So it continued until the most flagrant examples of WWII bombings by the NAZI Luftwaffe and the US Army Air Force. Thenceforward, the destruction of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian villages was a no-brainer. That Americans favor violent attacks against civilians is particularly to be expected, because before 9/11 we never suffered an air attack directed against us at home.
Pertinent questions: If only 13 percent of US Muslims favor - under some circumstances - attacks against civilians, is that substantial though small percentage what really is of concern or is it that they are among us and we are the potential targets? Is it that fewer than 1 out of 10 said "yes" or that so many of them (like Bush) hear the voice of God? Is it just their lack of identification with the rest of America or their indifference to life in the here and now as opposed to the Paradise they believe will be the reward?
-
Correction: Substitute Henry V for Henry IV
[Read the article: Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See subject. Thanks!
-
Decline of the American Republic
[Read the article: Bush's blank check]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The ascent of American militarized imperialism and the decline of the American republic is well documented in the trilogy by Chalmers Johnson, beginning with "Blowback" and ending with "Nemesis". I have not seen interviews of Mr Johnson by popular TV hosts, such as Bill Moyers (on the left) or Charlie Rose (?). Perhaps that is why some of us are still surprised by the acceleration of military expenditures from year to year. We are locked in by the dependency of our economy on "military Keynsianism", as Johnson calls it: communities dependent on military basis, exports dependent on arms sales, production to supply over 737 known US foreign installations, unknown fortunes expended on the "intelligence community". One problem of military keynsianism is its growth: it feeds on itself. It is supported by borrowing from foreigners, because we do not like to pay taxes to support our addictions. Eventually, it will so undermine the rest of our globalized economy that it will end in our nation's bankruptcy. So argues Johnson, and it is a hard argument to counter.
-
Reply to "vaporland" on Eisenhower's warning.
[Read the article: Bush's blank check]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Former President Eisenhower is often credited with wisdom because in 1961, before leaving office, he warned of the military-industrial complex. I find irritating that Ike is so appreciated for that statement, when his presidency exemplified all of the worst elements of what he finally warned against. Using the CIA, his administration toppled the popularly elected government of Guatemala, resulting in a repressive and atrocious military regime that lasted for decades and killed unknown tens of thousands of Guatemalans. Similarly, in Iran, the popularly elected government of Mossadegh was brought down by Eisenhower's CIA and resulted in the regime of the Shah that was so hated. Eisenhower tried to deal with Fidel Castro by severing relations with and embargoing Cuba. Result: Cuba was driven into the arms of the USSR. These are just the "highlights" of Eisenhower's military-based foreign policy.
On the militarism of the American state, Eisenhower's warning came at the end of his final term. Further, if he had been a reader, he would have read the warning in the book by C. Wright Mils, "The Power Elite", published in 1956 when Eisenhower still had four years to do something about the militarization of the American state.