Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 641
-
Holly M
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with all of your points, and have made some of them myself in the past. Clearly, there is no one explanation for why they're doing what they're doing, and why they're doing it in the way that they're doing it. Some because they truly believe in this form of tyranny and inherently reject the limitations proscribed in the constitution. Others because they simply want to have their way. Not all tyrants have a "theory" of tyranny to inspire them. For many, if not most, it's simply about power, and theory is irrelevant. And even many of those who believe in the theory are shrewd enough to know that implementing it is best done in the shadows.
But whatever their true motivations and actual methods, it is imperative that they be called out on not only their crimes and misdeeds, but on the thinking and theorizing that to a great extent underlies and motivates these crimes and misdeeds. These are not mere garden-variety criminals who simply wanted to acrete as much power and money to themselves and their corporate friends (although, of course, this was clearly part of the operative motivation for their actions), but rather anti-democratic would-be usurpers of our (admitedly creaky and imperfect) democracy and the constitution and principles upon which it stands.
And thus while we must clearly deal with their crimes and misdeeds as we would those of regular criminals and incompetents, we must also, I believe, deal with their underlying and motivating ideas and values, as the profound threat that they pose to our democracy--much more so, I believe, than did the ideology which their political ancestors and heroes so strongly opposed, communism, which I believe never stood a chance of taking hold in this country.
I do not believe that this current movement was driven solely or even largely by the desire for money or personal power. I believe that, at bottom, those who have driven this movement were themselves driven primarily by this theory of power--and, of course, by the desire to implement it. At bottom, these are people who simply never had faith in our constitution or democracy, and sought what were in their minds surer and more visible protections for their lives, possessions, ways of life and other specific "freedoms", from the encroachment of them by those vile masses that they clearly so despise and fear.
This whole topic of the "theory" of BushCo (or, really, the movement that led to BushCo) deserves much more serious treatment than is possible in a blog, and certainly by me--no political scientist or lawyer. Books need to be written on it, conferences held, movements, think tanks and associations formed, to understand its nature, motivations, popularity and danger, in order to properly combat it. This is a very serious matter indeed.
This movement owes its successes, I believe, as much if not far more to the strength of its ideas among those who believe in them, than to any weaknesses currently present in our democracy, and/or to the desire and attempt by common criminals and greedy corporations to exploit these for their own gain. It will outlive BushCo and continue to work towards completion, and cannot be effectively fought without our side first understanding it and its adherents more thoroughly. Theirs is ultimately a shadow state in the making, and not merely an attempt to subvert and exploit the existing one. And to fight it, we must first understand it.
-
casual_observer
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're referring to Thomas Mann, Ornstein's partner in exposing the failings of our current political situation. They don't blame Repubs exclusively--nor should they--but they clearly put the brunt on it on them--as is warranted by the facts.
And, as an aside, can someone please explain to me what a fine, decent, intelligent and honest political observer like Ornstein is doing at the AEI? Was he there before they went fully over to the dark side, or do they have a few other bright spots in an otherwise dismal lineup of neocons and corporatists? In any case, he really belongs at Brookings, CAP or NAF.