This was sent to me by Doctor Bob Thompson--- its very long... but its very good and informative if you have the time.. Print it and read it when you feel like it.
Part 1: Bush II: Where We Are -- Where We Are Headed (1/14/05) / Part 1
William J. Thomson, Ph.D.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day -- January 17, 2005
_____________
"It is with pride that we see that one man is kept above all criticism the Fuhrer. The reason is that everyone feels and knows [that] he was always right and will always be right. The National Socialism of us all is anchored in the
uncritical loyalty, in the devotion to the Fuhrer that does not ask for the wherefore in the individual case.... We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to the German destiny! This belief is beyond all challenge." --
Rudolf Hess (6/25/34)
"The really dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the
channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common
man in eternal subjection." -- Vice President Henry Wallace, New York Times (4/9/44)
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President." George W. Bush, interview with Bob Woodward
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush (12/18/00)
"The most precise psychiatric term to describe his [Bush's] pathology is most frequently used to identify a particular condition exhibited by
schizophrenics...: megalomania. The psychological concept of megalomania refers as much to a mental attitude as to actual behavioral manifestations. A megalomaniac sees himself as the center of the world, the one figure who has all the answers. He tolerates no disagreement, and sees external reality as either threatening or nonexistent....It is a condition easier to detect in psychotic patients, but it can lurk beneath the surface of the most ordinary person....This characteristic is what makes Bush different from other presidents,
all of whom had significant lust for power. This is about omnipotent magical grandiosity that attacks all thought. He celebrates his ignorance, which helps him to preserve his omnipotent sense of self." Justin A. Frank, M.D. (2004)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Patriotism means to stand by the country.... It is unpatriotic not to oppose [the President] to the exact
extent that ... he fails in his duty to stand by the country." -- Theodore Roosevelt
___
It is now three days before the second Bush inauguration. For several weeks Republicans and their value-oriented allies have been celebrating and creating scenarios for the next four years; Democrats have been in despair and
searching for every possible scapegoat. It is time to take a close look as to
where we are and where we are headed.
I presume to wade in to this analysis because I believe that I have a perspective about this election and its consequences that may be unique, owing to a somewhat unusual collection of unavoidable circumstances and conscious
career and educational choices.
I will be addressing this situation, as I do many events, from a political/historical, mathematical, and psychological perspective, so let me begin with a brief review of my pertinent qualifications.
1) The political/historical part: I began my political participation as a
10-year old passing out "I Like Ike" buttons in the Tyler, Texas courthouse
square in 1952. Probably independent of my efforts, Texas entered the
Republican presidential column for (I believe) the first time since
reconstruction. Although in retrospect Eisenhower is looking like one of the
better presidents of the last century, I take no particular pride is helping
shift Texas to the Republicans. For information about more recent political
activity, please see Election Analysis-Progressive Directions??, Item 2 below.
Ever since that initial election, I have taken an intense interest in politics
and history.
2) The mathematical part: I minored in mathematics at the University of Texas, and received a Ph.D. in mathematical psychology (don't ask) from Stanford. Over the past 35 years, I have taught undergraduate and graduate
courses in these areas. In short, I understand numbers and their application to the political process.
3) The psychological part: After I received my Ph.D., I retrained as a clinical psychologist at the University of Michigan in the early 70's, and I have been a licensed clinical psychologist with an active clinical practice for over three decades. I am also a Texan (as least by my definition). You may draw whatever conclusions you wish from that, but I assure you that Texas
psychology and imprinting will have a significant impact on your lives over the next four years. Texas, by the way, has produced an amazing array of political characters on all sides of the political spectrum- Ramsey Clark and John
Connally, Barbara Jordan and Tom DeLay, Lyndon Johnson and Lyndon Johnson to name just a few.
Misconceptions
Let me begin by addressing two major misconceptions from this election:
1) George Bush did NOT receive a mandate by any reasonable objective standards. Out of voting age population of over 202 million, Bush received
just over 59 million votes (approximately 29%). Of those who voted approximately 115 million), Bush received 51%, Kerry 48%. Landsides occur
when a president receives close to 60 percent of the vote (most recently Eisenhower '56, Johnson '64, Nixon '72, and Reagan '84). Even though he lost, Kerry received the second-most number of votes of any presidential candidate in
American history. However, as we have seen throughout Bush's first term, facts which clash with wish-fulfillment always lose out to wish-fulfillment, and since Bush believes he won a mandate, we had best proceed under that assumption
if we want to have any impact over the next four years. As he said in his post-election press conference on 11/4, "Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it. It is my style." Be forewarned!
2) In their constant search for scapegoats to explain away their own failures, some of the Democratic hierarchy has focused on gays as having cost Kerry the election. Fact: Two recent polls, one in the NY Times and one on
NPR, show that roughly a third of the American public supports gay marriage, a third supports civil unions, and a third is opposed to both. It could be argued, in the same way that I made the Nader (2000) argument (email me for details), that had gay marriage ('04) / Nader ('00) NOT been on the ballot,
that the Democratic candidate would have won (although the '04 gay marriage
argument is much shakier). However, that by no means validates that Nader
('00) or gay marriage ('04) COST the Democrats the elections. What cost the
Democrats these elections was the massive abandonment of Democratic party
principles that allowed Republican operatives (read Karl Rove) to exploit these
issues to their advantage.
I'll have much more to say about the Democrats' situation later, but for now I
would like to discuss the major problem that the United States (and the world)
will have to deal with over the next four years, George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush's Psychological Profile
At the outset, let me state for the record that I have never clinically examined Mr. Bush. I seriously doubt that anyone ever has--or ever will.
Nevertheless, the concept of "remote" psychological profiling of public figures
is well established in the psychological/psychiatric literature, and I am
convinced that any effective opposition to Mr. Bush's future actions will require this knowledge.
It is unclear to me whether Mr. Bush's profile is a result of psychological factors (e.g., poor parenting, repeated failures in early school, later lack of academic and athletic success, etc.), or physiological factors (e.g., early
organic damage likely exacerbated by decades of drug and alcohol abuse), or some combination of the two. For treatment, most therapists would want to know this information, but for political application, it is enough to understand the
profile and what behaviors are predictable. For an extensive elaboration of the psychological factors, you may wish to read Dr. Justin Frank's excellent book, "Bush on the Couch (2004)"; for a brief description of the organic
picture, please see <http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35360/index.php#>.
-----------------------------
Let me begin this section by listing the symptoms of two disorders, taken
verbatim from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (this is the standard
reference used by the American mental health community).
Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) -- 301.7
There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of
others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the
following: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for
arrest, 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure, 3) impulsivity or failure to
plan ahead, 4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated
physical fights or assaults, 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or
others, 6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations, 7) lack of
remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt,
mistreated or stolen from others.
In Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, Aaron T. Beck, Arthur Freeman,
and associates (1990) list typical beliefs associated with each specific
personality disorder. Here are the typical beliefs that they have listed (pg.
361) for Antisocial Personality Disorder
(http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/antisocialpd.html):
· I have to look out for myself.
· Force or cunning is the best way to get things done.
· We live in a jungle and the strong person is the one who survives.
· People will get at me if I don't get them first.
· It is not important to keep promises or honor debts.
· Lying and cheating are OK as long as you don't get caught.
· I have been unfairly treated and am entitled to get my fair share by
whatever means I can.
· Other people are weak and deserve to be taken.
· If I don't push other people, I will get pushed around.
· I should do whatever I can get away with.
· What others think of me doesn't really matter.
· If I want something, I should do whatever is necessary to get it.
· I can get away with things so I don't need to worry about bad
consequences.
· If people can't take care of themselves, that's their problem.
THE defining characteristic of APD is lack of remorse for one's actions, and I
would note that 70-80% of convicted felons meet criteria for APD. As you might
imagine, APD characteristics are also found in the "normal" workplacefor
example, high-pressure sales, the legal system, and politics, among other
areas. This is not to say, of course, that the vast majority of people in
these occupations exhibit APD, only that certain elements of the APD population
would be drawn to these areas.
--------------------------
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) -- 301.81 (verbatim from DSM-IV)
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a
variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1) has a
grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents,
expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements), 2) is
preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or
ideal love, 3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people
(or institutions), 4) requires excessive admiration, 5) has a sense of
entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment
or automatic compliance with his or her expectations, 6) is interpersonally
exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends,
7) lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and
needs of others, 8) is often envious of others or believes that others are
envious of him or her, 9) shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.
Beck, et al's (1990) list of typical beliefs for Narcissistic Personality
Disorder (pp. 361-362) (http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/narcissisticpd.html)
are:
· I am a very special person.
· Since I am so superior, I am entitled to special treatment and
privileges.
· I don't have to be bound by the rules that apply to other people.
· It is very important to get recognition, praise, and admiration.
· If others don't respect my status, they should be punished.
· Other people should satisfy my needs.
· Other people should recognize how special I am.
· It's intolerable if I'm not accorded my due respect or don't get what
I'm entitled to.
· Other people don't deserve the admiration or riches that they get.
· People have no right to criticize me.
· No one's needs should interfere with my own.
· Since I am so talented, people should go out of their way to promote my
career.
· Only people as brilliant as I am understand me.
· I have every reason to expect grand things.
Typical occupations for NPD would be business, medicine, the legal system,
religion, and politics, among other areas. Again, this does not mean that most
people in these occupations exhibit NPD, only that certain elements of the NPD
population are to be found in these areas.
--------------------------
Do these symptoms sound familiar?
Many politicians, of course, have ample characteristics of APD and NPD, but
none of these folks other than George W. Bush happens to be president. And few
other politicians seem to be as immune to normal input as Mr. Bush. I think a
large part of this immunity results from his well-documented belief that God
has chosen him to be president, a belief bordering on psychotic delusion
(although, according to PBS Frontline of 4/29/04, Mr. Bush does NOT attend
church regularly). Mr. Bush's religious fanaticism (I know of no gentler way
to put it) is dangerous in the extreme, and seems to be one of the two major
forces driving his political decisions. This religious component, and in
particular its apocalyptic aspect (which assumes that the end of the world is
near and the second coming of Christ is imminentsee Bill Moyers' recent Harvard
Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award speech for details) results
in policies which eliminate any rational concern about future impact (e.g.,
consider especially his environmental programs). The second major driving
force is Mr. Bush's desire to reduce the size of government (at least on the
domestic side) so as to make it ineffectiveas the saying goes, "small enough to
easily drown in the bathtub". I have taken to running each of his proposals
through this "minimal government filter" and have yet to find one that doesn't
fit. The best example of this approach is the massive deficit that Mr. Bush
has created, a deficit that will have impact on social and domestic welfare for
generations.
A third factor, which I believe to be of somewhat less importance, is Mr.
Bush's psychological conflict with the senior Bush. I am about as far from
Freudian in psychological outlook as possible, but sometimes Mr. Bush does
something that has such obvious oedipal implications that it meets the
"interocular trauma test" (hits you between the eyes). One such example
occurred shortly after the election at the dedication of the Clinton
presidential library. Upon that occasion former presidents Carter, Bush I and
Clinton heard Bush II make the following totally gratuitous remark, "He
[Clinton] gave all to his job, and the nation gave him two terms." Now, let's
see, were there any one-term presidents present, maybe even one in his own fmily?
However, the friction between Bush I and II goes both directions. Perhaps Bush I's "two term" remark was stimulated in part by the fact that his father left Washington on the Wednesday after the Tuesday election before Sen. Kerry had
conceded. It is difficult to imagine business so pressing that the senior Bush had to return to Texas before the election was finalized. But leave he did. This, by the way, is not a Bush family member's only questionable rapid exit.
When his daughter Jenna underwent an emergency appendectomy on Christmas morning 2000, Mr. Bush was not present (he visited in the evening). The next day he left for vacation in Florida. When reporters inquired about Jenna's
condition, he responded, "Maybe she'll be able to join us in Florida. If not,
she can clean her room."
A fourth factor, which interacts with and supplements the father-son issue, is
Bush's need to be recognized as a Texan, which I understand from firsthand experience. As mentioned above, I consider myself a Texan, having moved therewhen six weeks old (my standard statement to justify my having been born elsewhere. In fact, in dreaded "Yankeeland"was that I moved to Texas as soon as I was smart enough to recognize the possibilities). However, the fact that I spent the first six weeks of my life elsewhere automatically excluded me from
the title of "Texan" by most of my compatriots, and I spent considerable energy proving that I belonged. This may sound like a fanciful "Texas tale", but believe me, not being born in Texas is important, especially to males. (If you have any Texas friends, just ask them.) And of course, Mr. Bush was not born in Texas.
Part of the Texas birthright, for males at least, is to aspire to the lofty ideals of macho male supremacy. Every Texas child is imprinted with the story of the town that was enmeshed in a massive riot, which the local constabulary
was unable to handle. So the call went forth to the Texas Rangers, and a single ranger answered the summons. When asked why only one ranger showed up,
he replied, "Well, there's only one riot, isn't there?"
It is not by accident that the Dallas-Ft. Worth baseball team is called the "Texas Rangers", and it is supremely ironic to me that Mr. Bush was the head of that franchise before becoming governor of Texas. It is precisely that level
of "I am the alpha male in charge here" that every Texas male aspires to.
--------------------------
Up to this point, I have attempted to make the primary point that Mr. Bush
exhibits qualities of two separate personality disorders, and is influenced as
well by conflicts with his father and by attempting to meet the standards of
Texas identity. I would readily concede that probably every president, indeed
every national politician, has more than a touch of narcissism, and some have
their fair share of antisocial characteristics (LBJ also possessed the chains
of the "Texas alpha male syndrome"). I would also admit that in order to be a
successful president, it may be necessary at times to exhibit some
characteristics of both NPD and APD. When used for the public good, such
characteristics might be valuable to possess. However, I can think of no
president in recent history other than Bush II who couples these
characteristics with an utter lack of remorse and a total lack of compassion
for other people.
But there is yet another critical factor we have not yet addressed, Mr. Bush's
incompetence in governing. As New York Times columnist Bob Hebert wrote
recently (1/7/05), "There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of
power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has
been explosive."
What are the psychological roots of Mr. Bush's incompetence in governing?
I am convinced that Mr. Bush suffers from a third major psychological disorder,
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type (DSM 314.01). The
symptoms are as follows <http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.cfm>:
The principal characteristics of ADHD are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity . These symptoms appear early in a child's life.
According to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), there are three patterns of behavior that indicate ADHD. People with ADHD may show several signs of being consistently inattentive. They may have a pattern of being hyperactive and impulsive far
more than others of their age. Or they may show all three types of behavior.
This means that there are three subtypes of ADHD recognized by professionals. These are the predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (that does not show significant inattention); the predominantly inattentive type (that does not
show significant hyperactive-impulsive behavior) sometimes called ADDan outdated term for this entire disorder; and the combined type (that displays both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms).
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
Hyperactive children always seem to be "on the go" or constantly in motion. They dash around touching or playing with whatever is in sight, or talk incessantly.Sitting still at dinner or during a school lesson or story can be a difficult task. They squirm and fidget in their seats or roam around the room. Or they may wiggle their feet, touch everything, or noisily tap their pencil. Hyperactive teenagers or adults may feel internally restless. They often report needing to stay busy and may try to do several things at once.
Impulsive children seem unable to curb their immediate reactions or think before they act. They will often blurt out inappropriate comments, display their emotions without restraint, and act without regard for the later consequences
of their conduct. Their impulsivity may make it hard for them to wait for things they want or to take their turn in games. They may grab a toy from
another child or hit when they're upset. Even as teenagers or adults, they may impulsively choose to do things that have an immediate but small payoff rather than engage in activities that may take more effort yet provide much greater but delayed rewards.
Some signs of hyperactivity-impulsivity are:
· Feeling restless, often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming
while
seated
· Running, climbing, or leaving a seat in situations where sitting or
quiet behavior is expected
· Blurting out answers before hearing the whole question
· Having difficulty waiting in line or taking turns.
Inattention
Children who are inattentive have a hard time keeping their minds on any one
thing and may get bored with a task after only a few minutes. If they are doing
something they really enjoy, they have no trouble paying attention. But
focusing deliberate, conscious attention to organizing and completing a task or
learning something new is difficult. Homework is particularly hard for these children. They will forget to write down an assignment, or leave it at school. They will forget to bring a book home, or bring the wrong one. The homework, if finally finished, is full of errors and erasures. Homework is often accompanied
by frustration for both parent and child.
The DSM-IV-TR gives these signs of inattention:
· Often becoming easily distracted by irrelevant sights and sounds
· Often failing to pay attention to details and making careless mistakes
· Rarely following instructions carefully and completely losing or
forgetting things like toys, or pencils, books, and tools needed for a task
· Often skipping from one uncompleted activity to another.
Children diagnosed with the Predominantly Inattentive Type of ADHD are seldom
impulsive or hyperactive, yet they have significant problems paying attention.
They appear to be daydreaming, "spacey," easily confused, slow moving, and
lethargic. They may have difficulty processing information as quickly and
accurately as other children. When the teacher gives oral or even written
instructions, this child has a hard time understanding what he or she is
supposed to do and makes frequent mistakes. Yet the child may sit quietly,
unobtrusively, and even appear to be working but not fully attending to or
understanding the task and the instructions.
These children don't show significant problems with impulsivity and
overactivity in the classroom, on the school ground, or at home. They may get
along better with other children than the more impulsive and hyperactive types
of ADHD, and they may not have the same sorts of social problems so common with
the combined type of ADHD. So often their problems with inattention are
overlooked. But they need help just as much as children with other types of
ADHD, who cause more obvious problems in the classroom.
For some time it was assumed that since most adults do not exhibit the symptoms
seen in childhood, ADHD was a disorder that simply disappeared with
maturation"the child grows out of it". What we now believe is that children
with ADHD, many of whom are quite intelligent, simply develop very effective
compensatory mechanisms, and create life styles where the symptoms of ADHD are
unlikely to cause serious problems. For example, an ADHD adult would be
unlikely to become a commercial airline pilot or surgeon, but might become
quite proficient at numerous occupations that do not require the sustained
attention and concentration of piloting or surgery.
However, note the following characteristic symptoms of ADHD: "easily
distracted", failing to pay attention to details". As adults, many ADHD
individuals compensate with rigid routines (including, in Bush's case,
alcohol/drugs and, later, exercise and religion), and by extension, rigid
beliefs. Such compensations, if carefully constructed, often lead to
successful living styles, where the symptoms may even be seen as "charming" or
"eccentric". However, these symptoms applied to a job as complicated as the
presidency are a prescription for disaster. As Franks (2004) writes, "Bush's
aides say he `never anguishes over decisions, preferring to gather information,
make a decision, and move on,'....The president is also known for keeping a
strictly regimented daily routine, in which short, heavily scheduled workdays
with brief meetings are punctuated by regular breaks for exercise. Some would
praise this as evidence of a disciplined mind, but it points equally to a
desire to minimize the impact of a short attention span, and avoid the
impulsive behavior that can otherwise result. As commentators Eric Alterman and Mark Green have reported, Bush's advisors have admitted that the staff usually limits him to three or four thirty- to forty-five minute `policy time' sessions per week, about what Bill Clinton engaged in per day. Then, more often than not, the president sloughs off responsibility with the admonishment,`You guys decide it.'"
So there we have it, a president of the United States who is suffering from three psychological disorders that predict repeated patterns of arrogance, infallibility, lack of compassion / concern about the future, and incompetence. Coupled with almost unlimited power, it is a combination that,if unchecked, will almost certainly lead to disaster.
What Can We Do?
I'll begin this section with some observations about what we CANNOT do.
1. We cannot assume that Mr. Bush will change. Personality disorders are
notoriously difficult to treat, even with the most competent professional help,
and there's no indication whatsoever in either Mr. Bush's or his family of
origin's history to suggest that he would ever opt for professional help. Mr.
Bush's actions since the election (renomination of rejected judges, elevation
of Alberto Gonzalez to AG, attack on Social Security, "Messopotamia", etc.)
suggest that we are in for the full brunt of his perceived "mandate". As Mr.
Bush said in an interview with Tim Russert (2/8/04), "I'm not going to
change....I won't change my philosophy or point of view." Dr. Frank adds, "The
presidency is an extraordinarily effective defense system for someone of Bush's
mind-set. There he is protected by the cloak of his own manias and
projections; after tentatively conquering his addiction, investing supreme
faith in a rigid regimen [of] religion and exercise, he has found the perfect
perch from which to indulge his tendencies toward sadism and paranoia while
hiding behind his charismatic personality."
2. We cannot assume that he will be restrained by his Republican
colleagues. One possible exception would be if the deficit gets even more out
of control, but I see the boycotting of Sen. Daschle's valedictory address to
the Senate by his Republican colleagues (an absolutely unprecedented event) as
evidence of "Republican absolutism" that will recognize no limits.
3. We cannot depend on the Democrats. I would love to have the "Depends"
concession on Capitol Hillevery time Bush, Frist, DeLay, Rice or Rumsfeld looks
cross-eyed at the Democrats, I could sell a fresh supply. We need look no
further than the selection of Harry Reid, a second term, red-state senator (who
won his first election by a whisker) as the Senate Minority Leader. OK, I'll
look furtherBarbara Boxer was the ONLY senator willing to go on record as
contesting the obvious voting irregularities that occurred in the 2004
election. Further stillthe predominant theme of most office-holding Democrats
is that the party needs to move more to the "center" to gain electoral
viabilityin other words, "Republican-lite". More about this below.
4. We cannot depend on the Senate filibuster to prevent judicial and
cabinet appointments. Some may assume that the 60% vote to limit Senate debate
is Constitutional in originit isn't, it is simply a rule of the Senate that may
be changed at the will of the Senate (and guess which party controls the
Senate?). The level has changed in the past (it was 67% until fairly
recently), and there have already been rumblings about changing it again, or
limiting its application to non-judicial situations. An additional note about
the Senate: people are jumping the sinking shipthree democratic senators
(Dodd-CN, Corzine-NJ, and Schumer-NY are considering leaving the Senate to run
for governor of their respective states).
5. We cannot depend on the media. Any organization more obsessed with
firing people for failing to investigate the validity of Bush's National Guard
service documents, rather than investigating Bush's National Guard service
itself, is not to be depended upon. I cannot think of a major political figure
in my lifetime that has received more of a pass from the media than Mr. Bush.
When the most likely restraining influence is fiscally conservative
Republicans, we know we're in serious trouble. So what's left?
WE ARE -- WE, THE PEOPLE.
And I'm afraid folks, that it's going to be up to us to stop this juggernaut.
Once again, the operative question, what can we do? I believe there are
several steps we need to take.
In the Short Run
We need to prepare immediately to "take to the streets"it's going to be the Vietnam era all over again (quite possibly even with a military draft). We need to prepare to contest every Supreme Court appointment (for further
analysis of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary, please contact me), every
escalation in Iraq, any movement toward war against Iran/Korea/Syria, and every piece of significant legislation that will have a negative impact on our country. It was movement in the streets that eventually pressured enough
members of Congress to contest the Vietnam war to lead to its ultimate resolution. That is the model we need to follow.
Sooner or later, Mr. Bush will massively overreach. The only question is
whether the overreach will occur in a situation that can ultimately be
corrected (e.g., Social Security), or cannot (e.g., Supreme Court, escalation
in Iraq, war against Iran/Korea/Syria). As Voices in the Wilderness
(www.vitw.org) puts it,
We...commit ourselves to building, deepening and strengthening a campaign of nonviolent resistance. Towards this end, we are inviting others to join us in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience / resistance beginning in January 2005 and continuing onwards, including:
· Nonviolent sit-ins, blockades or other disruption of business-as-usual at federal buildings, military recruiting stations, military entrance processing stations, and weapons manufacturers to demand a reordering of our country's policies away from war making and towards providing for the social goodhealth care, education, jobs that pay a living wage, etc.
· Occupations of congressional offices to demand that our representatives
and senators vote against future funding of the war in Iraq as well as to
demand that our country actually spend the money allocated for the
reconstruction of Iraq in a manner that employs Iraqis who are paid a living
wage and whose rights as workers are respected.
· Occupations of congressional offices and state legislative offices to demand that our representatives pledge to vote against any proposed constitutional amendments which deny gays and lesbians the human right to
marriage.
· Nonpayment of federal income taxes for weapons and war. (see
nwtrcc.org)
We need to support organizations such as the War Resisters League
(www.warresisters.org) and many others that are working daily for peace and
justice in America and abroad.
We need to join with the multitude of organizations protesting the inauguration
and those who have led the fight to investigate the fraud in the 2004 election
(e.g., the Green Party http://www.gp.org).
But most of all, we must immediately prepare ourselves physically and mentally to fight what is likely to be most important battle of our lifetime.
In the Long Run
We need to fundamentally change the political system of the United States.
I addressed this issue in detail following the 2000 election, and I haveappended my analysis below. Sadly, not enough has changed in the past four years to cause me to change the basics of that evaluation.
We cannot be naïve about the time and effort this will take. Since the Republican nadir of 1964, it has taken that party 40 years to reach the lofty heights it holds today. I believe that reformation could be significantly
shorter, but we need to gird for at least a decade-long struggle against the
"forces of darkness".
I believe that the place to begin is to forget trying to appeal directly to the
59 million eligible voters who voted for Bush and focus on the 143 million
eligible voters who didn't. (In so doing, I'm convinced that a significant
number of the 59 million will be persuaded as well.)
I believe the most efficient way to achieve these objectives is to take over the Democratic Party, in the same way that the far right rose to the ascendancy of the Republican Party.
In that 2000 paper, I said the following:
"There are almost 100 million Americans who failed to vote in this election.
How many of them could be persuaded to participate in the political process?
The Perot candidacy [in 1992], even though primarily an "anti-" candidacy, increased turnout by 14%. That number would be decisive in virtually any election. How many more of the 100 million could be persuaded?...For example,
one idea would be to make voting a requirement of citizenship, as I understand
it is in Australia. 100% (or close to it) participation would necessitate a
scramble for those voters, and would also have the positive benefit of conveying "ownership" of the system on the American public. Another factor to be considered in the potential participation of the American public is the influence of the revolution in communication technology (email, internet, etc.) It is not coincidental that the last great revolution in American political values (FDR) coincided with the rapid rise of radio and FDR's mastery
of the medium. Political parties who fail to understand the influence of electronic communication do so at their peril. Finally, let me point out that
there were several million first-time eligible voters in this election, most of
whom did not vote. Progressives need to make a direct, continuous and
sustained effort for that vote.
Consider issues. It is always a tricky business to try to define historically positive issues in advance, but in my opinion, the current Green platform <www.gp.org> contains many such issues. An even better source is the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
<www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm>, with its emphasis on freedom, respect,
dignity, peace, equality, justice and tolerance. These are all historically
positive concepts; the key is putting these concepts into clear choices for
real people.
It does seem to me, however, that there are at least four issues that could be used by any candidate to reach both enfranchised and "disfranchised"
voters, as well as the youth vote.
1. Universal health coverage.
2. Elimination of child poverty.
3. Universal free education through undergraduate/trade/professionallevel.
4. Universal service (e.g., WPA, not military, type) for all 18-yr. olds.
[To this list I would today certainly add "energy independence", which I believe is at the root of much of our foreign policy fiascoes.]
There are others, as well, especially campaign finance reform, but I believe
that the preceding four are easily understood and potentially experienced on a
visceral level, especially by the disfranchised.
How to pay for this? That's easy--significantly reduce the military
budget.
Let me give you just five facts:
1. The US is responsible for 36% of the world's military expenditures,
more that the next 12 countries combined. <www.cdi.org/issues/wme>
2. The US military budget is 22 times that of the 7 "rogue states"
(Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria). <www.cdi.org/issues/wme>
3. The combined military budgets of the 9 potential enemies of the US
(rouge states + China and Russia) are 35% of the US military budget.
<www.cdi.org/issues/wme>
Many would consider this as it should be, since there is an impression that the
military establishment is financed out of a bottomless pit of money, but
consider....
4. For the cost of a Stealth bomber (about 1 billion), we could put an
additional teacher/social worker into EACH middle and high school in the
country.
5. In Ann Arbor, MI, the residents and businesses through income tax
payments contribute over $380,000,000 annually to the cost of present and past
military-related activities (over $3500 per capita), an amount 25% GREATER THAN
THE ANNUAL CITY AND SCHOOL BUDGETS COMBINED. There are priorities at work
here, and I would submit, a powerful political argument to be made. It cannot
be the case that Ann Arbor is unique in this respect. This argument must be
made, and made at the local level!"
This, of course, was written prior to the obscene expenditures associated with
the so-called "War on Terror" and the Iraqi debacle. We need to hammer home
that local and state budgets cannot be balanced because so much of our national
treasure (both human and monetary) is being needlessly squandered.
We have a long road ahead of us. However, I have always been impressed by the
ability of human creativity and optimism to deal with even the most intractable
problems. We have a whopper of a problem here, but I am convinced we can solve
it.