Letters to the Editor
-
I know where I stand
The real threat to any democratic, constitutionally based republic seems to come from within. It was as true with the Romans in the 1st Century as it was with the Germans in the 20th Century. The concentration of political and military power into hands of one or a very few people ended democracy and began autocracy.
Our Constitution is the Law of the Land. It was specifically designed to prevent all power moving into the hands of a few.
As a career Air Force Officer, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although retired now, that oath is no less binding. I swore to defend the Constitution, not to defend any political party, administration, ideology, religion or person. Now I see the Congress of the United States lightly passing off its Constitutionally defined responsibilities and powers to the Executive Branch. I see the Supreme Court being filled with appointees of the Executive Branch. And I see the Administration undermining any provisions of the Constitution which might limit it's power. It appears that enemies to the Constitution have already attained the highest offices of the Land.
I know where I stand, but I don't know what I can do to stop this.
-
James,
As the wobbly Joe Hill said before the gallows, "Don't waste any time in mourning. Organize.""
-
A salute
Major Freemon,
I'd be proud to serve in any army/air force/navy if only Congress had the wisdom to appoint men like you to lead it.
-
Jonathan
No, humans do not have an unalienable right to live without pain.
Life is pain. Some lives are more painful than others.
Sorry about your friend.
-
Platitudes really help chronic pain
Cowards cowards cowards.
Bob Barr just showed some real courage. He joined the Marijuana Policy Project as a lobbyist.
Imagine that. Talk about a political realignment.
-
If Bob Barr can change
then so can Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
-
Richardson,
I understand he's gone in New Mexico with medical marijuana despite the political costs for his presidential campaign.
Courage and sense can appear anywhere on the political spectrum.
-
It's fuzzier than you think
Glenn you're overstating your case. One can say that Bush and the neocons are bolder and more radical in their policies and rhetoric than previous Republicans, and certainly Democrats. But it's highly misleading to say that they represent some kind of extreme, unprecedented movement/ideology. It's easy to show this. From your article I assume you would agree that the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay are the defining aspects of neoconservative policy. Well, the Democrats did not disagree with a single one of those policies. On the contrary, the most important and powerful Dems (and their echo chambers in the liberal media) were out there on the front lines saying we had to attack Iraq, give the President new powers and restrict civil liberties to fight the endless War on Terror, and lock up "unlawful enemy combatants." Now the Dems are grumbling a bit, but only on pragmatic grounds: the Iraq War has been lost, Bush used his new powers to squeeze the Dems out of power, and attacking Bush is like shooting fish in a barrel and given the country's mood, sure to win elections.
(Don't say that the Dems agreed with Bush because they're weak and wobbly and he dragged them along with post-9/11 hysteria. Top Dems were saying we should hit Iraq before Bush was even elected. And in fact, we WERE hitting Iraq: Clinton bombed Iraq whenever the mood struck him. Bush just decided it was the moment to finish the game. How wrong he was! But not because of some radically new and bizarre ideology.)
-
Thank you, Mr. Greenwald
I am a fairly new reader of yours, and have found your columns good to read. You are articulate, persuasive, and use good reasoning. You also seem to devote effort to research. I guess such praise would make me a fan.
I don't read or listen to David Brooks very much at all. I read your column because I am interested in the neocon phenomenon besetting our government. Your analysis of the current goings-on seems to stop short of explaining the motivating factor of the neocon movers and shakers in ascendancy at the White House, and throughout the sphere of movers and shakers.
I am no scholar, but having waded through about 20 of the many pages of posts regarding this column, I concede that my point has already been made, although I will make it again. I think that plutocracy is the base motive, rather than love of authority or power. The rise of gated communities here in the good ol' US has aroused even my notice. The power of transnational corporations, the wealth of their ceo's, cfo's and whatever, has grown astoundingly in the last 20 or so years. But this is nothing new, it's just like the gilded age on steroids. Bigger, better, and more toxic. It is just a continuation of Clintonomics, (not acknowledged by the current gang), which was just a more hippyish, gayer version of GHW Bush. The result seems to be picking on the middle class, but that might be subjective reaction. Anyhow, I liked the post of mbf, who cited Lincoln. I think it's all about money.
The revelation of "Bush's landmine", here in Salon, in the current emergency appropriation bill seems relevant here.
Thanks, Glenn,
Sincerely, Tony Eastham
-
Glenn- don't forget the corruption
Glenn-- you are right about the militarism and drive for unchecked power- but there is also a deep corruption involved in this radical movement. The corruption comes from the contempt they have for Americans as weak, and needing protection, rather than seeing them as strong independent actors.
Therefore, when their friends and business associates propose plans that enrich themselves, that rip off public funds or propose corrupt contracts-- this movement sees no issues. Because of the all encompassing "you're with us or against us", anything (illegal, corrupt, immoral) goes for friends, and nothing (legitimate, deserved, or earned) goes to the "enemies", which now are the majority of the American people
-
how different are things?
Dear Glenn,
An excellent column, as always. I think that you are correct in much of what you say. The neoconservative movement has radically redefined the political spectrum in the US and it does advocate the expansion of government power, particularly in ways that lead to the creation of a police state. This is very frightening and disturbing and, I hope, it can eventually be turned back. Certainly, these people seem to have little in common with "traditional" conservatives though, I should point out, "conservatism" did not, historically, simply mean the rejection of big government. There was a long conservative tradition of actually supporting the use of government power to maintain and protect -i.e., "conserve" - society. Where that tradition has gone is one of the tragedies (among many) of modern "conservatism".
However, I also note, and agree with, a comment made by an earlier letter writer: the Democrats in your country have largely supported many of the changes and actions advocated by George Bush and the neoconservatives. The differences they have with Bush don't seem so much ideological as they are about questions of implementation. It may be that many of these people are simply political cowards, but I think that there is more to it than this.
When I look at the neoconservatives and their writing and thinking, what seems most clear is that they are concerned about creating and maintaining an American Empire. It is not obvious to me that they ever wanted to assert police powers and big government domestically - this is an element of their thinking that has evolved out of the events of 9-11 and that is tied to that event because they have come to understand that the pursuit of empire abroad is most easily facilitated when they can demonize and control the opposition at home, either through fear or intimidation. (They have also used the fear of 9-11 for simple domestic political gain) But the general goal of American Empire is one that the neocons share with most other aspects of the mainstream American political elite.
Consider: Chalmers Johnson first wrote about the gradual expansion of an American military empire in the book "Blowback". Johnson published "Blowback" in 1999; he was talking about creeping American empire and militarism under Bill Clinton. And (to paraphrase a quote that I can't find at the moment) there is no mainstream American political figure who does not believe in American primacy in the world until the end of time.
The neocons may be most distinguished from people like Clinton in that they are much more brutal and blatant in their goals, much less subtle, and much more confident (or at least they were) in the efficacy of military power. They were prepared to be bullies, to revel in American power, and to rub the nose of the rest of the world in just how superior the US is to everyone else. The liberals may have believed many of these same things, but they were much smarter, more diplomatic, and much more aware of the limitations of military force. But the goal - the creation and maintenance of American Empire - was much the same.
It may be that if liberals were in charge on 9-11, they would not have gone so far down the road to creating a police state. Their take on what was required for the maintenance of American power would have been different than the neocons. But the similarities in thinking between what passes as the "left" in the US and the right - even the warped conservatism of the neocons - should not be overlooked.
I hope I have not overstated my case, or repeated too much of what others may already have said. As always, thanks for the good work.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine