Our Would-be Fundamentalist King

[arendt]

Warning: For the English-history-aware only.

This is way too long for most. Sorry, I cannot make it shorter. The situation
was simply too complicated, as ours today is. Just follow Santanyana. If you
don't care to read this, don't be surprised at what happens.

--------------------------------------------

Our Would-be Fundamentalist King
by arendt

Although most Americans today are ignorant of it, our government has
a strong inheritance from English Law. This essay attempts to remind
us how the fragile newborn Habeus Corpus law, born out of the exhaustion
of the English Civil War, was protected against an over-reaching, bigoted
king by a rebellion of all classes and religions.

The bigoted king to whom I refer is James II, who ruled for three years
and attempted, by royal command and bureaucratic subversion, to remake
England into a Catholic country. To everyone alive today's great benefit, he
was tossed out by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 before he could achieve his
aims.

James II is a pivot point of history. Had he succeeded, England would have reverted
to Catholicism and autocracy; and the entire history of Europe, of the New World,
and of Parliamentary democracy would have been drastically changed. Because he
failed, and history went the opposite way, he is about as popular as King John.

But, in our midst today, we have his doppelganger: Bush II, the fundamentalist
who inherited the throne by family connection. Bush II reigns like a king, with executive
orders, executive appointments, a thug in charge of the House, with a loyal corps of
propagandists in the media and the biggest military/intelligence/domestic surveillance/
prison budget in the world by far.

There is not much that Bush II is trying that James II didn't already try, and for
exactly the same reasons: he is a religious fanatic who wants absolute power; large
segments of the Legislature oppose him, but he will not compromise one iota; and he
is obsessed with military power or domestic scheming as the solution to everything.

America has suffered Bush's purges for about as long as England suffered James II's.
In both cases, the situation came to a tipping point in about the same number of years.
If Bush is not kicked out in this election, the police state he is building will be a fait
accompli.

Given that, I have no time to argue with the "swing voters". Anyone who has no solid
opinion after the last three years is definitely part of the problem, and things are too critical
to waste energy on these people. I am definitely a "build the base" strategist. The base are
those of left or right, theist or atheist, who understand how Bush II is destroying our democracy
with unprovoked warfare, stirring up of religious hatred, secrecy, bad budgets, propaganda,
crony capitalism, job exportation, and the tearing down of the Constitution on more fronts
than can be listed.

...."The English Protestant nation would have been very foolish to trust themselves to the
....merciful tolerances of James II once he had obtained the absolute power he sought....
....They were quite sure, from his character, from his record, from his avowed unshakeable
....convictions, from the whole character of the Catholic Church at this time, that once he
....wielded the sword, their choice would be the Mass or the stake."

- "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Vol. 2 - The New World
....by Winston S. Churchill (hereafter, simply "Churchill")

And so would Americans be foolish to trust Bush II for four more years with absolutely
no incentive to restrain himself.

However, Americans have never known anything approaching the (mild by modern standards,
and certainly incorrupt) religious dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans who ruled
immediately before Charles II, and who executed Charles I - a shocking event in the 1600s.
(Yes, the same Puritans who founded New England.)

Puritanism was part of an English (Britain did not exist yet) "culture war" between high church
Anglican aristocrats and low church Puritan merchants. But, like all Civil Wars, it was incredibly
messy and complicated. In addition to the religious quarrels, there was a Parliament vs King
dimension, and lurking just outside the sheltered island, a Catholic vs Protestant continent,
simultaneously enduring the fag end of the Thirty Years War, which depopulated Central Europe.

It is precisely this lack of a frightful history that causes me to worry for our survival.
The Protestants who combined to expel James II had endured over 60 years of internal
and external warfare, purges, proscriptions, bills of attainder, and all the other horrors of a
religious and civil war. The English population was war-weary and vigilant of its liberties.
Nothing was taken for granted or overlooked, especially small trickeries in Parliamentary
bills or precedent-setting actions of royal power.

As part of the bargaining in restoring Charles II (James II's elder brother) after Cromwell's
death, the Habeus Corpus Act was passed. The act passed because everyone had just
lived through what it was like without such an act. Anyone, noble or common, had no
rights before the King or the Lord Protector (Cromwell). You could just be locked up
and forgotten or hauled out and executed.

Another part of the bargain was the Test Act, which prohibited anyone who refused to
swear an oath to the Church of England from holding a commission in the army or a
government office or even a parsonage. Remember, this was before the separation of
church and state, and in the middle of the Religious Wars of the 17th century. The Test
Act was the mildest possible way of stigmatizing unpopular religions. In most parts
of Catholic Europe, they would just kill you and take your property.

The fragile unity of post-Cromwellian England was maintained for over 25 years by
the clever, if appalling, policies of Charles II. Charles went so far as to obtain a subsidy
(i.e., personal bribe) from France, so as to avoid having to call Parliament to raise money.

But, this unity came unstuck when James II, a fanatical convert to Catholicism became king
upon Charles II's death. I now offer you a large number of snippets from Churchill's
history, interspersed with comparisons to today.

...."(James II) had exploited the victory which Charles II , by compliance, using time, by
....an ignominious foreign policy (fighting wars as a French ally), had gained for the house
....of Stuart. His accession to the throne seemed to him to be the vindication of the downright
....conceptions for which he had always stood. All he thought he needed to make him a real
....king, on the model now established in Europe by Louis XIV, was a loyal fleet and a
....standing Army, well trained and equipped. Warlike command appealed strongly to his
....nature...To form land and sea forces devoted to the royal authority and to his person was
....his first object. Here was the key by which all doors might be opened. Prating Parliaments,
....a proud, politically minded nobility, the restored, triumphant Episcopacy, the blatant
....Whigs, the sullen, brooding Puritans, all would have to take their place once the King
....of England possessed a heavy, tempered, sharpened sword."

Bush II is the beneficiary of Bush I's reputation, Bush I's cronies. Bush II is constantly
sucking up to the military (even as he defunds them and shafts veterans and families).
Like James II, Bush II has nothing but contempt for the tradition of democratic debate.
("Things would be simpler if I were dictator." "Who cares what you think?")

--

Immediately after James II came to throne, there was an abortive rebellion by the Duke
of Monmouth, bastard son of Charles II and a fanatical Protestant. In the spirit of
loyalty to crown and country, the English people and all the opposition closed ranks
behind King James. Monmouth was defeated and executed. The whole affair gave
James II a boost in the public opinion of the day. Can anyone say 911? Immediately
after this, James began to enact his program.

...."James was now at the height of his power...he proposed to his Council the repeal of the
....(religious) Test Act and the Habeus Corpus Act...In the emergency (of Monmouth's
....failed invasion) he had given many commissions to Catholic officers (in violation of
....the Test Act). He was determined to retain them in his new, tripled army.

...."The Commons offered...to strengthen the royal forces. They only asked, with profuse
....expressions of devotion, for reassurance that Acts of Parliament should not be set
....aside by (royal) Prerogative, and for comforting words about the security of the
....Protestant religion. The King gave a forbidding answer."

Does the Commons remind you of Congress?

--

But some members of Commons succeeded in throwing the King's program into the
courts:

...."Judges were invited to pronounce upon the lawfulness of the King's proceedings. James
....had not yet paced the Bench with his partisans...He therefore...summoned the Commons
....to the Bar, and prorogued Parliament. It never met again while he was King...(he)
....proceeded throughout 1686 to relieve his fellow religionists. First he desired to dispense
....with the Test against Catholics in the Army...after various dismissals and appointments
.... the Bench assumed a new complexion...a test case was arranged. (the defendant, an
....accused violator of the Test Act) pleaded the royal dispensing power as his defence.
....The court agreed.

...."At the same time Roman Catholic peers were admitted to the Privy Council. He set up
....an Ecclesiastical Commission...the main function of which was to prevent Anglican
....clergy from preaching against Catholicism.

...."These actions disturbed the whole realm. The methods of absolutism were being used
....to restore the Catholic religion, more dreaded than absolutism itself. Lawyers discerned
....that a direct conflict between statuary law and Royal Prerogative had arisen."

Gee, court packing and test cases; rewriting the local charters (redistricting); religious
partisans appointed to the government. Like I said, Bush is doing just what James did.
And, like then, a few brave people have fought the tyrant.

--

And just as we see honest conservatives appalled by Bush, so it was in England:

...."By the end of the year James had driven away many of his most faithful friends and
....disquieted everybody.

...."During the whole of 1686 and 1687 James held Parliament in abeyance, and used his
....dispensing power to introduce Roman Catholics into key positions. Whigs and Tories
....drew closer together. James was uniting the party that had challenged his brother
....(Charles II) with the party that had rallied so ardently to his brother's defence."

--

With both, the blatant courtship of the military proceeded apace:

...."Meanwhile James was raising and preparing his Army...The King went often to the
....(army) camp, seeking to make himself popular with the officers and all ranks. He
....allowed Mass to be celebrated in a wooden chapel borne on wheels and placed in
....the centre of the camp...He continued his infusion of Catholic officers and Irish
....recruits...He increasingly promoted Catholics to key posts.

Shades of PNAC nutcases running the Pentagon and fundamentalist nutcase generals
and colonels in key positions. And, didn't Bush II quote some codeword fundie passage
in the Carrier Stunt.

--

The defining feature of both these autocrats was their relentless and duplicitous encroachments
on the status quo and their constant provocation of anyone who got in their way.

...."The provocations of royal policy continued. The first Declaration of Indulgence was
....issued. It did precisely what James's Parliament had objected to in advance: it set
....aside statutory acts by Royal Prerogative.

...."The King had, in modern parlance, set up his political platform. The second step was
....to create a party machine, and the third to secure by its agency a Parliament with a
....mandate for the repeal of the Tests. The narrow franchise could be manipulated in
....the country(-side) by the Lord-Lieutenants (sort of regional governors) and by the
....magistrates, and in the towns and cities by the corporations...Lord-Lieutenants who
....refused to help pack a favorable Parliament were dismissed...The municipal corporations
....and the benches of magistrates were drastically remodelled so as to secure the
....fullest representation of Papists...

"Manipulating the franchise", "packing a favorable Parliament", "remodeling the Bench".
The English have "been there, done that". America has not. Not even in the Civil
War did America ever stoop to manipulating the franchise. But, by all evidence
available, that is exactly what Bush did in 2000. By 2002, with the deliberate
cancellation of exit polls and the deliberate funding of known-insecure and known-
manipulable voting machines, we are now without even physical evidence. 2004
will only be worse. That is why I said above that we have run out of time.

--

At this point, there is but one thing that can save America. And that thing is for all
the so-called conservatives in this country to wake up and smell the coffee. We need
to put the focus on Bush and all the outrageous things he is doing.

...."The old Catholic families in England however, apart from favored individuals, were
....deeply apprehensive of the headlong adventure upon which the King was launching
....them. The Pope himself,..deprecated James's excessive zeal...But the King hardened
....his heart and strengthened the Army."

One final similarity - even the Pope says to knock it off, but both wannabe dictators
tell him to stuff it.

--

Ladies and gentelmen, this amateur historian rests his case for Bush II as James II
redux with a snippet of a book review:

...."England has had many disastrous monarchs, but perhaps none quite as inept as James II.
....From a position of strength at his accession in 1685, he rapidly managed to alienate the
....monarchy's natural supporters and, by the time of William of Orange's invasion in late 1688,
....even his own standing army was beginning to desert him. The puzzle is that, as duke of
....York, James appears to have been quite a successful soldier and administrator. The
....discrepancy is usually explained on the grounds that James must have experienced a
....rapid and sudden decline in later life, perhaps as a result of contracting syphilis. The
....favorable view of James's early life, however, rests on an uncritical overreliance on
....James's semiautobiograhical Life, a highly problematic source that can scarcely be taken
....at face value. By using a wealth of other documentary evidence—official reports,
....memoranda, letters, personal diaries, and narratives—John Callow, in his superb
....biography of James before he became king, offers a more realistic assessment. The
....conclusion seems clear: James was not tragically cut down in later life by prolonged
....physical and mental deterioration (and he certainly never had syphilis); he had always
....been inept."

.... -"The Making of King James II: The Formative Years of a Fallen King."
....by John Callow, New York: Sutton Publishing. 2000. Pp. ix, 373. $32.95.

Bush II may prove to be the most inept and disastrous American president ever, and
that is only if we manage to get rid of him now. Otherwise, he could approach world
historical levels of disastrousness and could make the name of America as ignominious as
that of the later Roman Empire.

[arendt]

1. Kick

It always takes a few kicks to get one of these started.

arendt

[arendt]

2. Good night kick

Boy, this one's a real snoozer.

Did anyone manage to stay awake throught it all?

Can't someone even say something bad about it?

Oh, well.

G'nite mates,

arendt

[Tansy_Gold]

3. Actually, I started it and was immediately hooked by the

connection to English history.

Unfortunately, even as interesting as English history is, I'm utterly exhausted and am heading for bed. But I bookmarked it to read Monday, when I'm recovered from the week-end.

Before reading the rest of it, however, I wanted to ask if you've read Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins' War."

My eyes are glazing.

the totally and completely

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Tansy Gold

[arendt]

15. Yes, I like Philips. Although, he is a right wing populist, not a liberal

I have read both the Cousins War and several of his economics
books. I am looking at his expose on the Bush crime family.

It is through the Cousins War that I first became interested in
the politics of the English Civil War.

arendt

[TrogL]

5. Just waded through it

want to re-read it tomorrow

[jokerman93]

4. Damn!

Now that's why I love DU!!!!!

That was a great ride, my friend. Thanks.

[ninkasi]

6. Fascinating read...

I'll reread it tomorrow. Perhaps Americans should be a lot more familiar with history; nobody can claim there hasn't been a precedent for what Bush is doing. We can see what happened in England, the question is, can enough of us stop it from happening today in America?

Judging by the way most of my fellow citizens refuse to become educated about things, I'm not really optimistic.

[arendt]

7. Morning kick, and a missing lead-in quote

I somehow forgot the lead-in quote to this piece.
To late to edit it in:


"The descent into despotism which has engulfed so many
leading nations in the present age has made the virtue of
this enactment (the Habeus Corpus Act), apparent even
to the most thoughtless, the most ignorant, the most base."

- Winston S. Churchill


Apparently, Lord Winston never met someone as ignorant
and base as W.

arendt

[arendt]

8. The winner, and new champ for "most boring, unread thread"...

Not one comment in 12 hours, on a Saturday, no less.

Four people confess to reading this, and one of those admits
it put him to sleep.

My only solace is that there is no such thing as total failure, you
can always use the thing as a bad example.

Looks like what this example demonstrates is that DU doesn't
care about history, even when it is directly relevant to the history
of a fundmental right like Habeus Corpus, even when events
line up like mirror images. Nobody cares. We are in Santayana-land.

And, you can bet I will use this example any time someone asks me
to be "reasonable" and "intelligent" instead of sneering and incendiary.
This thread proves that reasonable and intelligent is boring. What
DU seems to like is arguing for the sake of arguing, blood on the floor,
etc. In short, its just like the rest of America.

arendt

[SpiralHawk]

11. Hey, give us some time to digest, arendt

This ain't exactly a slice of pizza.

More like the 48 oz. -- "if you can eat it all you get it for free" -- steak offer.

There's a lot to chew on here. I suggest we e-mail this sucker around to some of our conservative friens and acquantainces.

"At this point, there is but one thing that can save America. And that thing is for all the so-called conservatives in this country to wake up and smell the coffee. We need to put the focus on Bush and all the outrageous things he is doing." - arendt


P.S. - pass the Pepto Bismol

[arendt]

13. Okay, go take a snooze on the couch and work off this meal :-)

> I suggest we e-mail this sucker around to some of our
> conservative friends and acquantainces.

I haven't got any of those. They all hate me. If you have
conservatives you are still on speaking terms with, feel
free to pass this along.

And. actually, this is meant for conservatives. That is why all my
quotes come from Winston Churchill, who had always been looked
upon as some upper-class tyro/twit prior to his becoming wartime
leader. How many Americans today have a clue that the man was
65 years old when he became prime minister? He was amazingly
flexible.

Anyway, your point about digestion time is valid. But, I hope
that people will help me boil down this indigestible meal into
some fast food that will sell like hotcakes.

arendt

[Grins]

21. Nope.

It's just you posted too late, and on a Saturday to boot. People have lives other than a DU board (I hope). I read it, liked it, and even saved it to another file. Have some faith.

[arendt]

22. Thanks for the feedback. Hope you use the analogy yourself

BTW, I originally posted it on Friday night, and kicked it all day
Saturday. Practically no one responded.

So, I take your point. But, the weekends are really the time when
I can be productive on DU. The rest of the week is work.

arendt

[ithacan]

9. excellent and scary!!

This is great, thanks so much arendt for writing and posting this.

It's extremely on target, given the extent to which the religious right has taken over so much of the Republican party. For details on this (background for the text too, I think), see http://www.TheocracyWatch.org/

[arendt]

10. Thanks for the scary link, more to keep me awake at night n/t

n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

12. I did enjoy reading it

it was much more enjoyable than any gossipy blog by any of the current "popular" bloggers who seem to be adored by those who would have to adore someone in order to feel "accepted"

I appreciate the research and the effort to bring it all together in this way. It is very deep indeed.

[arendt]

14. The credit for any depth should go to Mr. Churchill...

I will take credit for the digging which uncovered this idea.

I think it is much better than the Hitler comparison. Any
expat Brits in the US can explain it to their friends. It is
too obscure for most Americans to get what a complete
slam it is. Yet, it shows what forces the imposition of
an unpopular religion can let loose in an English-common-
law country.

[DrBB]

16. Couple of comments

I'm not sufficiently schooled in the Jacobean, Interregnum and Restoration history to offer a very detailed response. But a couple of things come to mind.

One is that it's exceedingly useful to have the origins of habeus corpus contextualized in this way, and if for nothing else your post is valuable for that. It bothers me no end that otherwise well educated commentators seem to assume that such things are graven in stone, that somehow even if habeus corpus is weakened or suspended "for the duration" that it will somehow be restored to its full potency later on and we needn't concern ourselves.

But in a "war on terrror," "for the duration" means indefinitely, which could easily become forever. My own confidence in the grip of the public at large on even the most recent history is not very high, and the attention span seems to get shorter all the time.

Another thought:
The historical parallel is in some ways illuminating, but the parallel breaks down for me when you start looking for ways to split old-style political conservatives from Bush as a religious fanatic. The fear of a Catholic king drew on attitudes much more analogous to modern attitudes toward Communism than fundamentalism. Aristocrats, gentry and popular opinion alike had been indoctrinated in a pathological suspicion of Catholicism that is similar to what Americans have been indoctrinated to feel toward Communism/Socialism over the last 75 years or so. Whereas the political conservatives in this country have long made an accommodation with fundamentalists, and fundamentalism doesn't have the kind of negative charge for most Americans that Catholicism had for a wide swath of 17th century Britons. More's the pity. There just aren't the same kinds of energies to draw on.

But that said, as a sometime professional medievalist I have tried many times on DU to point out that the Bush admin operates much more like a royal court than a modern government, and that court-faction struggles provide a much more useful model for understanding what's going on than ideological or policy disagreements. Paul O'Neill is only the latest to point out that this administration has NO real interest or expertise in governance--in policy for its own sake: a functional economy, effective social programs, fair tax policies etc. Just pure ideology. In a royal court, of course, the only ideology is loyalty to the monarch. But that's much the same here. Bush gets called a "conservative," but his true "ideology" seems to be really just enlisting and enforcing the loyalty of the powerful. That's why he runs such a close-mouthed shop--this is a Bush family trait, and the thing that makes them seem like a crime family (the BFEE): that it's all about loyalty to the family, and disloyalty is savagely punished.

So to that extent anyway, the analogy to a royal court is well taken, and like a royal court, the ideology of Loyalty to the Monarch won't withstand too great a threat to the well-being or interests of the powerful dukes and barons. Plenty of instances of court figures ousting the king and taking over (viz Henry IV). Not necessarily an encouraging model for us, but not an implausible one either, alas.

Let's see, what else.

Oh yes. I think your statement about swing voters and "build the base" strategy is one I'd agree with, in part. The failure to do it last time around--the DLC strategy--clearly bears a large responsibility for where we are now, and only a candidate who can resolidify the base will have a chance (Lieberman is right out). But alas, I'm afraid we need those swing voters. Because in my opinion, we need more than to just elect a Dem president. I can easily imagine a Dem president, in by a narrow margin, who has all the problems of Clinton times ten because of a vindictive, toxic, and unified Republican congress and judiciary. Better that than another 4 years for Bush, which we would never recover from, but if there's any chance for it, what we really need is a humiliating defeat for Bush, a general repudiation of him and his policies and big coattails in congress. May not be in the cards, but if there's any chance of it, it's going to require those swing voters to swing Democrat.

Finally, isn't it interesting that your chief source for the prosecution should be Churchill, the leader whom the Shrimp admires above almost all others. Just shows what a shallow ignoramus he truly is I guess. {on edit: in the sense that he obviously hasn't READ Churchill and understood him as you have here. Hope that was clear--I suddenly realized this could have been misinterpreted--yikes!}

Anyway, great post Arendt, and thanks for putting all that energy into it. Hope I haven't misunderstood you too grossly. Gotta go back and look it over again....

[arendt]

17. Dr. BB wins the door prize for first substantive comments

Thanks. These comments show that you really know your history.
Too bad most Americans and even many DUers don't.

> it's exceedingly useful to have the origins of habeus corpus contextualized
> in this way

Yeah, most people think that this was around since Magna Carta;
but it took a really nasty religious Civil War to get people to agree to
it. For example, the War of the Roses, a typical dynastic fracas,
didn't make it happen.

> the parallel breaks down for me when you start looking for ways to split old-
> style political conservatives from Bush as a religious fanatic. The fear of a
> Catholic king drew on attitudes much more analogous to modern attitudes
> toward Communism than fundamentalism. Aristocrats, gentry and popular
> opinion alike had been indoctrinated in a pathological suspicion of
> Catholicism that is similar to what Americans have been indoctrinated to
> feel toward Communism/Socialism over the last 75 years or so.

A solid point, solidly made. (I was hoping to gloss over that.)

But, the entire 60 years from 1630 to 1690 was such a mess of side-
switching coalitions that it was impossible to map the whole thing
directly onto today. So, I chose to tighten the focus to James II.

It is true that anti-Popery was the ideology of England. The problem
with the US today is that all that has been taught for the last thirty
years is anti-communism and its mirror image, pro-capitalism. The
whole teaching of pro-democratic institutions and civics and
citizenship and our Constitution has been pretty much eclipsed.

But, what sense does anti-Communism mean as an ideology fifteen
years after it ended when we are told that our new enemy is Islamic
fanatics? How did the Bushistas transfer the anti-Communist hatred
directly onto the Islamicists? And why should the American public
run to hand its liberties and rights over to an underachieving, insensitive
jerk like Bush II?

> There just aren't the same kinds of energies to draw on.

Again, very well phrased. Its not that there are no energies to draw on,
though. First, the Democratic base is definitely energized. And so are
the Libertarians and a lot of isolationist paleo-conservatives.

The problem is the @#$$%%^ media. The energy is being blocked.
100 stories on the MoveOn Bush-Hitler ad, zero stories on the Dean-
Nazi column in Murdoch's NY Post.

I am looking for messages that can resonate with genuine conservatives,
hence the Churchill quotes and the English/Protestant setting.

I agree with you that the energies are different. But, hasn't there been,
at some time in the past, a "fundies are dangerous nutcases" groundswell
in the US? I mean, at the time of the Scopes Trial, it was "fundies are
rural, backwards buffoons".

I know that the scientific community is thoroughly sensitized to the
constant fundamentalist assault on all science. Its not just Darwin
anymore. The fundies hate knowledge and Bush is appointing their
crackpots to the medical establishment. One of Bush's appointees
single-handedly screwed up all the VA research for this year. The
scientific community hates and fears fundies. Maybe we should
start there.

I mean, science has been a secular religion in America since the
A-bomb and Sputnik. Yes, a lot of people are afraid of science today
for many good reasons. But, most of those reasons have to do with
the way corporate and military power have shielded socially dangerous
science from oversight, review, and regulation.

Maybe we need to begin with a campaign to explain to people that
you can't feed the world's population with Biblical technology. Maybe
we could explain to people who care about this country's security
that you can't put Armageddon-crazed nutcases in charge of military
policy; and you can't ship all our low-level tech jobs to India because
soon we won't have the hi-tech jobs needed to maintain our military
advantage.

So, maybe we need to get some techies out front in calling Bush
on the carpet.

> the Bush admin operates much more like a royal court than a modern
> government,

This is very well said. I'm sorry I missed the other times you posted
this thought. There is little I can add, but to give full agreement.

Thanks for your comments

arendt

[arendt]

18. Putting this to bed for a second night. One substantive comment so far.

Can I ask, without sarcasm:

if everyone who bothers to post says this is worth reading,
then why is almost nobody reading it? And why is there
only one comment after 24 hours?

The weekend? Post holiday burnout? Everyone out working
in the primaries?

OR, is this just the most boring thread ever?

Nite,

arendt

[arendt]

19. Last call, lads, the King James pub is closing...

I guess real history is a "no sale", even to DUers.

In the future I will stick to juvenille invective and
rabid partisanship. Clearly scholarship has no
place in politics.

arendt

[oneighty]

20. I read it arendt.

I do not consider myself well enough educated to comment on it in any constructive manner.

Having said that however, one can see the drift of our government in that direction. But have you a solution? What can be done? Who is going to do it? How many Americans even see this as a domestic issue? Is this more important than oil? What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do? Does anybody really care?

Tomorrow does not belong to me. The new generation must confront this drift towards Bush's* "New World Order.".

180

[arendt]

23. Thanks for your response

> I do not consider myself well enough educated to comment on it in any
> constructive manner.

But, all you have to do is get Vol 2 of Churchill's history at any bookstore,
and read about 100 pages. It is engaging writing from a famous historical
figure.

Don't let the world hand you that "I'm not educated." crap. Everyone
is capable of educating themselves.

> But have you a solution?

Dr. BB pointed out that we do not have the same visceral anti-fundie
reaction as we have an anti-commie reaction.

My response was to begin with people who do: scientists, environmentalists,
teachers sick of fundie encroachments. These people ARE outraged.
And so should anyone who doesn't want whack-jobs in positions of
bureaucratic power in our medical and educational establishments,
and corporate rapists in our environmental regulatory agencies.

As the bumper sticker says, "You think education is expensive? Try
stupidity."

arendt

[opihimoimoi]

24. Thank you for a piece of effort Arendt, tis much appreciated

by this limpet.

Come to Opi's Pub where I pour you a glass of Sanity and Reason. Vintage stuff and 80 proof. Very Rare and diff to acquire.

Madness Reigns Supreme in our Land. Our Society is based on Fantasy, not on Math, not on Truth, not on Facts/Science. Unless changes to our Society, occur very quickly, our Nation and, really, that of the World, is doomed to an extended period of misery. If we are lucky, we will self extinct in a nuke winter.

I too, have found very little interest exists here in DUStan re our society and self improvement. Profound and complex concepts often go by the wayside in favor about tales of Arnies Groping, etc.

We all must work/ think harder for Time is running out.

Bush is a loser and must be replaced.