Great Society

[H2O Man]

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

“No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy -- even when it blows heavy.

“But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asked you to, or because someone else does. Please know why you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try, when you disagree, to offer a choice to the course that you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order.”
-- President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966.


My father often said but for the war in Vietnam, that LBJ would have been America’s greatest president. I remember saying to him that this, my favorite LBJ quote, must have been written for him by Bill Moyers, as Johnson was notoriously thin-skinned. My father said no, that this was “pure Johnson,” and simply evidence of the complexity of a very intelligent person who felt inferior to DC society. Johnson, he said, knew that disagreement was a necessary part of the political process; it was just that he never forgot or forgave any slight, public or private, real or imagined.

Dad had a limitless supply of stories he could tell about how LBJ sought “revenge” on those who dared to disagree with him. Some were downright hilarious; others indicated a cruelty that made it difficult for some loyal aides to work for this curious President. I try to remember those when I find myself thinking that it’s too bad President Obama wasn’t more like LBJ, at least in getting things through Congress.

When President Obama took office, I remember him saying that he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire on important issues. I believed him then -- not only did he have no reason to lie, but it strikes me as something he believes people have the responsibility to do. More, when a lady from Code Pink recently challenged President Obama on the death of innocent human beings by drone attacks, I was convinced that he appreciated her courage, her sincerity, and the harsh message she delivered.

President Obama said that he didn’t agree with many of the things this lady said. Yet, there is an inescapable logic to what she was saying: if President Obama gets credit for killing an Usama bin Laden, then he has to accept responsibility for killing innocent people, as well.

War is a terrible thing. President Obama didn’t start the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, just as LBJ didn’t start the war in Vietnam. But, as the President of the United States, he is responsible for his administration’s war policies. And that goes well beyond viewing this in the context of foreign policy. Wars transform presidencies, and they transform the country. LBJ took office with a plan to transform our nation into a Great Society; 1968, his last year in office, stands out as posing the greatest challenges to our Constitutional Democracy in the 20th century.

When Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008, he had a vision of where he wanted to bring the nation to. The Bush-Cheney years had done much to damage this nation, domestically and abroad. He knew it would be difficult, and that the dysfunctional Congress posed many of the greatest stumbling blocks that would prevent any real healing in America. Indeed, the problems we face are so enormous that even a united effort would be incapable of resolving all of the crises we have created for ourselves and future generations.

If we take an objective look at these many problems, several things stand out: both the House and Senate have degenerated into disgraceful institutions; the Supreme Court is a partisan corporate outhouse; and the unholy blend of the corporate and military power has made a mockery of the Constitution. These are real, and literally every decision that President Obama makes -- especially involving “war powers” -- must be viewed within the context of those dynamics.

Thus, the question: if President Obama’s actions appear to be flowing in the current of the corporate-military-war energy force, and against the values of the US Constitution (and especially against that Bill of Rights), what should one do? Place all responsibility for the current situation directly on the President? Excuse Obama, and focus all blame on the Congress? Or perhaps some combination of holding President Obama responsible for his choices -- which must include credit for the good, and blame for the bad -- while also working to change the makeup and nature of Congress?

The most realistic option for Democrats is, in my opinion, to invest our energies in two areas: letting President Obama know which of his policies we like and which ones we dislike; and at the same time, preparing now for the 2014 elections. By “preparing,” I mean putting voter education and registration programs into action, and looking at what candidates may be or are definitely running for office. And that means communicating to those either in Congress (the House and Senate), or preparing to run, and letting them know exactly where we stand on important issues.

If, for example, you were opposed to the Bush-Cheney attack on the Bill of Rights, and continue to be concerned by recent news about President Obama’s policies, it makes no sense to grant the administration a pass, and expect Congress to deal with the problems. (If you favor the illusion of “safety” over the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a Constitutional Democracy, however, simply carry on -- because this military-corporate government is moving in the direction you desire it to.) Making a phone call or sending a letter to the White House does not imply that you hate Obama, or support the republicans. It doesn’t weaken the Democratic Party. And anyone who says that exercising the rights defined in Amendment 1 will “harm” this president, or our chances in the next elections, is either uninformed, misinformed, or a republican at heart ( thus, grossly uninformed and pathetically misinformed).

President Obama was not lying when he said he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire. He wasn’t joking. He was serious. It’s our responsibility, our duty, to speak up on important issues. For we cannot hold his feet to the fire on insignificant issues -- there’s no flame to be found there. And if we fail to do so, we have betrayed our obligations to the very Constitutional Democracy that we seek to re-establish.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Gregorian]

1. As I read your post, I suddenly thought of something that may seem obvious.

My biggest concern is that the citizens of this country are losing vigilance and intelligence. I'm assuming they had it in the first place. I am seeing scenes from Idiocracy in my head when I think of how a George Bush versus Al Gore election could have ever been even close. Maybe that is how this specie is- a nearly 50/50 ration of intelligent versus stupid. I guess survival really depends upon how fast one can run, and not how well one can think. But then that gets into a complex area. After all, we have survived all of these millions of years. Are we any stupider now than we were?

What I was thinking while reading your post is that we always hear there are three branches of government. Well, four if one counts the press. So we look outside of ourselves AT government. Yet there is another branch- The People. We make up another branch. And yet I've never heard anyone say it. As if we're detached. It's them versus us. I don't have a cellphone. I was in San Francisco recently, with my 90 year old father. We had separate things to do. When we drove home that night I remarked about how people seemed so detached from one another. He was surprised to hear me say it, because he had been walking around, and he noticed that people were all glued to their "devices". They were walking like zombies. It was so different than the SF that we knew in the 60' or even 90's. Whether or not this has anything to do with anything, it is dramatic. And I often wonder what kind of an effect modern, easy, living has had on our ability to be engaged and consciously part of something. I fear we've become so impatient that whether or not we're less intelligent now, we just don't have the connectivity to enact a better world for ourselves. For example, if we know that burning fossil fuel is going to kill us, and yet people seemingly blindly race around in cars, and jets, frivolously burning massive amounts of petroleum, as if it were benign, does that not indicate an unconsciousness towards self preservation? Is it no different than preservation of a genius work of civil construction? We built this house called America, and yet some seem to think they can live in it without any maintenance.

I have always thought that the majority of people were caring, vigilant, intelligent. I never imagined it was half and half. If that is the case, I don't see how this will ever be anything but a tug of war.

There are voices like Norman Soloman, who speak for me. But they seem to be unheard but for the noise made by the bigger voices. The corporate voices.

When Obama asked us to hold his feet to the fire, I thought of two things. That he knew he was one man up against the momentum of Pentagons, and lobbyists. And that he was telling us that we're another branch of this monumental orchestra.

[H2O Man]

2. Right.

You are exactly right: we, as citizens, have both rights and responsibilities. I frequently talk about the rights as defined by the Bill of Rights. But equally important are the responsibilities, and they are found in both the "main body" of the Constitution, and in all of its amendments. We play a role, and the level to which we exercise those rights and responsibilities is the exact level of life our Constitutional Democracy shall have.

Your post reminds me of a sociological concept on personalities. It has to do with the individual's belief in his/her locus of control. People with an external locus of control believe that their life is decided primarily by outside influences; they view themselves as the victims of circumstance. People with an internal locus of control recognize that while they cannot control all events in their lives, they are capable of influencing those events much of the time.

The first type believes that a heroic politician can change the course of the United States. They are not unlike those who await the Second Coming. The second type doesn't believe in super heroes; they recognize and accept that they have both rights and responsibilities in their personal, family, and community life; and they understand that there is an internal, psychological evolution that has been described by both the socio-political geniuses and mystics, that can bring about meaningful change in human society.

No one else can do it for us. It's entirely up to us. And it's that simple.

[Octafish]

3. Outstanding essay!

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Your words make people smarter. Thank you!

If we bust our chops in 2014 and get the Congress you describe, we may have a chance. Success in that, IMO, depends entirely on President Obama's leadership. If he uses the Bully Pulpit and asks America to elect liberal, progressive, Democrats, we win. If he sits back and lets surrogates back the most centrist, "practical" and "electable" candidates around, we lose.

[H2O Man]

4. Yikes!

Thanks -- I edited that as quickly as I could!

2014 is hugely important. And it should be part of our long range goals, that we start working on today, every day. Long and short term goals reinforce one another.

I work with a few groups (as well as alone). Those groups that are always active get a heck of a lot more accomplished than those who work part of the time .....usually during the campaign season.

[H2O Man]

5. kick