|
As in waving one before the other. And I'm bullish on the decline and fall of the empire, so naturally I'm a bit more pessimistic than is the writer of the OP. Taking a few of these claims in order, here are my responses:
>Yes, we're a country in decline, but it's unlikely to be a sudden transformation.
If BushCo nukes Iran, you're likely going to see massive protest marches, possibly exceeding those prior to the Iraq invasion. If so, there are so many pieces of legislation in place to deal with domestic insurrection (and that's what they call it when the people try to practice a little democracy) that invoking any two or three simultaneously could transform this country into a national security state literally overnight. See NSPD 51/HSPD-20, Military Commissions Act, executive order on asset seizures of opponents of BushCo war policy and all the way back to both patriot acts. These laws are on the books now, along with executive branch governance by fiat. They just haven't been ratcheted up to full strength yet.
>Liberals are not going to end up in concentration camps.
Imo, "liberals" aren't politically effective enough to become first- or second-tier targets of repression. Take, say, Pelosi and Kucinich. Which would you consider a threat to the status quo? Yet Pelosi is a self-proclaimed liberal, while Kucinich is considerably to her left on any issue I can think of and is, therefore, an actual leftist.
I'm far more concerned about progressives, lefties, radicals and such who understand and practice political activism. If the above scenario takes place, that's who's going to end up in the camps. There's a lot of talk about these camps, btw, and whether they actually exist. I'm not convinced that they're already in place, although many claim to have seen them and have pix to prove it. But whether they're here now or not, I'm sure the regime is more than capable of tossing a few billion at one of their favorite no-bid contractors and watching camps spring up like mushrooms.
>George bush will not try and stay in power.
No, probably not. However, the neo-con loons have been after the presidency since Goldwater got crushed in 1964 and the nazi wing of the GOP forced the entire party far to the right. Look what they've accomplished: A network of "respected" think tanks inventing excuses for neo-con insanity; a docile and controlled media composed of shills, apologists and screaming ranting madmen whipping up blood frenzy for BushCo's target du jour; the massive and growing abyss separating the elite from the rest; devolution of relatively decent core American values into a soulless, consumption-based zero-sum society floating on a permanent mix of fear and anger; the imposition of fundie nut-case religiosity; the institutionalization of predatory lending practices to keep the peasants permanently in debt... and so much more sheer awfulness.
So they're doing quite well, despite the temporary damage BushCo has done to the movement. I submit that, after all the work, time, effort and money the PNAC maniacs have invested in turning the US into a banana republic of narcotized, uninformed, fearful, debt-trapped indentured servants, they're not just going to pack up and go, give a last fond wave to their lost power and slither off into the night.
So Bush won't try to stay in power but the neo-cons, led by Cheney, are another matter. It's hatred, money and the taste of blood that keeps them going. So I just don't see them leaving peacefully in Jan 2009. And martial law would work quite well as an excuse to suspend the 2008 elections. In fact, if they're allowed to take place, I think that along would be fairly solid evidence that the fix is so deeply in place that there's no way we're going to have a democratic president and an increase in democratic seats in congress
>We will not become a full fledged police state like Burma.
How about partially fledged... No we haven't. But as I noted in the first point, just because we've not crossed that line doesn't mean that the systems aren't in place and ready to go. All it takes is a catastrophic event of some kind to trigger the provisions of NSPD 51/HSPD-20, which defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.” So that narrows things down.
Bush himself has sole discretion over what constitutes a catastrophic emergency and is solely responsible for maintaining "continuity of government," which is just code for call in the troops. At that point, it's martial law and game over for the great American experiment unless the citizenry decides enough is enough and takes up arms against tyranny. Or maybe we could just sub the revolution out to Blackwater.
>The press will not be shut down like it was in Nazi Germany.
No need, since five conglomerates control 80+ percent of all media content in this country. Which means, if you actually want to know what's happening in your own country, you have to look for sources published anywhere but the US. Hell, Pravda is becoming more reliable than the NY Times when it's reporting on politics and BushCo malevolence. And certainly the Guardian and Independent from the UK are still in the journalism business, while our mass media -- with damn few but notable exceptions -- is strictly in the infotainment business. Likewise Le Monde, various *.zeitungs, and various sources from New Zealand, Australia and around the Pacific rim.
The internet is the great equalizer, which is why I can't imagine it'll last much longer except as another medium for corporate sales and marketing. Too damn much contrarian thought going on in the blogosphere, most of which seems utterly opposed to the official government and corporate messages. Can't have critical thinking getting in the way of propaganda.
>There will be election fraud, but they won't be able to steal it.
Why not? It's certainly been done before, most recently in Costa Rica re the CAFTA vote. Just as in the 2004 presidential voting disaster, the Costa Rican exit polls all pointed to defeat for the highly controversial free trade initiative. And damn if the thing didn't pull out a narrow victory after all. Sounds like Diebold may have paid a sales call to the Arias government just in time to avoid a democratic "disaster."
>Things will limp along. They may *gasp* actually improve under a democratic president and increased majorities in the House and Senate.
Possibly, although trading one corporatist for another isn't my idea of progress. Assuming Hillary wins, all I can see is another four to eight years of "triangulation," which is just another word for adopting GOP positions on everything from the corporate wish list -- no taxes and no regulation -- to expanding the national security state and maintaining the US presence in Iraq. Hell, the "top-tier" gasbags couldn't even commit to ending the US presence in Iraq by 2013.
On the other hand, the unelectable and much reviled Dennis Kucinich -- man of principle, a model of consistency and one of the great political street fighters of all time -- says, "Yeah, I've got a time line. It's called NOW." But he's of course deemed unelectable because he's so very far out of the mainstream. Since the mainstream is now so far to the right that it's possible to claim to be a moderate and espouse torture, off-shore trials with no charges or defense counsel and "special renditions," I fail to see what's so wonderful about being in the mainstream. But that's another topic for another time.
wp
|