Toward Democracy

Labels R Us

The f-word is a curious feature of our increasingly polarized political landscape, with charges of “fascism” slung from one end of the spectrum to the other.  For the sake of historical and linguistic accuracy, here’s the “Webster’s New World College Dictionary” definition, 1988 edition: 

    “fascism:  1, a member of the Fascisti; 2, a system of government characterized by a rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc; first instituted in Italy in 1922.”

I would argue that private economic enterprise is not under government control (quite the contrary), with a few benefitting at the expense of many.  However, be that as it is and not withstanding that fascism originated on the “right,” opponents of the administration’s policies in Iraq are being increasingly fascist-baited.   From the currently fashionable “Islamo-fascism” to sly suggestions of “appeasement” (Dick Cheney) and more overt analogies to “those who enabled Hitler” (Newt Gingrich), Webster is flung to the winds. And for a cross-spectrum, if muddled, reference, there’s George Bush in a recent speech at an American Legion Convention, citing both fascism and communism as “the decisive ideological struggle of the twenty-first century.”  Somehow it’s hard to picture him as middle-of-the-road.

My friend and colleague Doug, being quite literal about definitions, contends that charges from the “right” of fascism on the “left” represent a massive case of psychological projection.

Meanwhile, some of those labeled “left” increasingly describe the Bush administration as fascist.  No veiled accusations, the f-word is liberally used, so to speak, by many critics of current U.S. policy.

Closer to home, Katha Pollitt, author and columnist for ‘”The Nation.” recently pointed out that “New Republic” editor Lee Siegel equated liberal bloggers with “blogofascism.”

George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.”

Would that we could exchange ideas and express disagreement without labels, but at least we might retire the f-word and the c-word.

The Real Nature of War

"...the obscene profits made by arms manufacturers and by the oil industry”

“Wars of conquest over the past centuries, or even millennia, have been fought not to add to the comfort of the people who were represented by the invading armies, but for the feeling of power of the emperors, kings or presidents. The huge difference between yesterday’s cruel wars of conquest and today’s cataclysmic wars is not only the high-tech approach to the devastation, but the obscene profits made by arms manufacturers and by the oil industry.”

Thus begins an article titled “The Real Nature of War” by Swedish-born Siv O’Neall, which appeared in the September issue of the eclectic magazine “Vitality,” available for the taking in stores across Cape Cod. 

I would add to her profiteers the private contractors and  “security” forces (read mercenaries) who have racked up billions in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no one better to nail the real nature of war than Smedley Butler, born to a Pennsylvania Quaker family in 1881 and at the time of his death in  1940, the most-decorated Marine in U.S. history.  In “War is a Racket,”an article he wrote in 1935, General Butler described himself during most of his 33 years of military service as “a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.  I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.  I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in....I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.  I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.  In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.”

A Man on Horseback, written in 1937 by journalist George Seldes, described the 1934 plot by a group of bankers, stockbrokers and American Legionnaires to bribe Butler to help overthrow the Roosevelt administration and replace it with a fascist regime.  Clearly this offer was made before the general came out of the military closet!  After the plot was thwarted, congressional hearings were published by the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities. 

Siv O’Neall sites a current group of plotters, the creators of the Project for a New American Century, which identified Iraq as the first target of 21st century U.S. power projection.  Formalized in 1997, PNAC was hatched over many years by a who’s who of neo-conservatism.  Among its 25 initial signatories were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush (where was George?), Paul Wolfowitz (now installed at the helm of the World Trade Organization), Elliott Abrams (convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal; later president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center; current deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy), Zalmay Khalilzad (the only Muslim member; former consultant to the oil corporation UNOCAL; and current U.S. ambassador to Iraq).

The Project for a New American Century would not surprise Smedley Butler. A report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, includes the following:

"The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself." To ensure this "American peace" through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." Further, "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

This report was dated September 2000. 

A classified National Intelligence Estimate completed last spring is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the invasion of Iraq. “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” represents the consensus of 16 spy services, finding that Islamic radicalism has not retreated, but rather has metastasized across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

Listen to Women....

A quarter century ago; “Battle of the Sexes”

Thirty-three years ago today Billie Jean King beat Bobbie Riggs, on right, in straight sets. Running across this tidbit, I reflected on how far women have come since – if not because of –  this tennis match, ballyhooed as the “Battle of the Sexes.”

Cheers to Liberia’s Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman president of an African country. She and Veronica Michelle Bachelet Jeria, elected president of Chile earlier this year, signal that women don’t have to emulate Margaret Thatcher in order to reach the pinnacle of leadship in their country. 

In another arena, The Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori recently became the first woman to be elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, and Professor Ingrid Matttson, a Muslim convert from Canada, was just elected president of the Islamic Society of North America.  Both  women are assuming leadership positions during an especiallly challenging time in their respective religious traditions: the worldwide Anglican Communion, to which the U.S. church belongs, is embroiled in controversy over the election of the first openly gay bishop, The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire; and North American Muslims are not only dealing with internal cultural issues, but with the wider culture’s association of Islam with terrorism.

So leadership isn’t a bed of roses or a bowl of cherries, for all its perks and power.  Take the two recent embattled female CEOs of Hewlett-Packard.  Or for that matter, Condoleeza Rice. Whadda job!

While some women are breaking barriers, others at less lofty heights are doing what so many women have always done: talk with one another – not at or to, but with. And ultiimately, this is what we humans need to do, whatever our views on global warming or the next governor of Massachusetts.

 Speaking of politics, at meetings of the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, members from other countries have long told us in the U.S. Section that we are widely regarded as the most apolitical people in the world.  What, us?!!!  Why, we’re in the throes of yet another election campaign.  How can this be? 

A WILPF friend who just returned from an International Executive Committee meeting in London told me of members from Israel, Lebanon and Palestine grappling with a joint statement on the ongoing conflict among their governments.  This is not to say it’s easy.  I’ve been in meetings with Israeli and Palestinian women where the tension was palpable, but they didn’t draw weapons and they didn’t stalk away.  I would love to find out what they would do at the head of their respective governments. 

No guarantees, but the increasing presence of women in a variety of arenas and positions is a hopeful sign – whatever else, promising greater balance in the world.

I’m reminded of my favorite WILPF button:  Listen to Women for a CHANGE!

Charades report....

Satyagraha and “Here comes a member of the commonwealth”

Thanks to all who contributed charades or juicy quotes.  I forgot to mention that we have a ten-word limit.  “Here comes a member of the commonwealth” from Love’s Labours Lost  lent itself to quite a creativel portrayal.  It also sparked a lively conversation, since many of us are supporting John Bonifaz for Secretary of the Commonwealth in Tuesday’s primary election.

Speaking of quotes, I just ran across this one in an e-mail posting: “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”  George Orwell

I also learned that September 11 was the 100th Anniversary of Gandhi’s launching in South Africa of Satyagraha–The Truth Force or Strategic Nonviolence.

How many words...?

The third Friday potluck tradition

Approaching my favorite night of the month, I am taking a break from serious issues and strong opinions to focus on charades.  This third Friday potluck has become a tradition in my community, a guaranteed evening of laughter in an increasingly unfunny world.
Within a pool of attendees, a given session includes from four to fourteen players and occasionally more.  The food is always interesting and sometimes spectacular, and “dinner table conversation” has become a favorite category.

Our version is neither timed nor scored, except that the two teams compete to come up with the most memorable charade -- and to laugh the loudest while creating them.  And team members can jump up to help a stuck actor. The agreed-on ten-word maximum imposes limits, and over time we have added our own categories and signals to the standard ones.

A Shakespeare quote is obligatory, in memory of founder Mort, and a favorite category of the regulars is bumper stickers, identified by slapping one’s bum.  With the hope that there are no bloggers among our group, here’s my entry for this Friday:  Club sandwiches not seals! 

I welcome your ideas.

New York Times editorial, 9/11/06

Editorial   

The feelings of sadness and loss with which we look back on Sept. 11, 2001, have shifted focus over the last five years. The attacks themselves have begun to acquire the aura of inevitability that comes with being part of history. We can argue about what one president or another might have done to head them off, but we cannot really imagine a world in which they never happened, any more than we can imagine what we would be like today if the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbor.

What we do revisit, over and over again, is the period that followed, when sorrow was merged with a sense of community and purpose. How, having lost so much on the day itself, did we also manage to lose that as well?

The time when we felt drawn together, changed by the shock of what had occurred, lasted long beyond the funerals, ceremonies and promises never to forget. It was a time when the nation was waiting to find out what it was supposed to do, to be called to the task that would give special lasting meaning to the tragedy that it had endured.

But the call never came. Without ever having asked to be exempt from the demands of this new post-9/11 war, we were cut out...

You can read the rest of this 9/11/06 Editorial in The New York Times here. Comment below. 

Where are We the People?

What about the ongoing victims of “Ground Zero” ?

Rhetorical flourishes and flags aside, on the eve of this ballyhooed anniversary of the cataclysmic attacks five years ago, I especially think of the living victims -- those for whom I share accountability if this nation is indeed the democratic society it claims to be.

I refer to the tens of thousands of fire, police and medical personnel, volunteer helpers and rescuers, and a variety of demolition workers in the following days.  Early concerns about toxic waste and contamination weren’t taken seriously enough by people who should have known or did know better.

A survey recently made public by the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City estimates that 70% of the first responders have increasingly experienced lung problems -- the earlier the response, the worse the suffering.  Billions have been spent on a war that used the attacks as a rationale, while only $52 million has thus far been appropriated for the medical care of the live and ongoing victims of “Ground Zero.”  The administration’s own coordinator for September 11th health efforts, Dr. John Howard, said of the many people with inadequate or no health insurance who are still waiting for medical help, “I can’t blame them for thinking, ‘Where were you when we needed you?’ “

Where are We the People?

^{(Today's NY Times Editorial is reprinted here. )}

Freedom from Fear

This was one of the “Four Freedoms” in FDR’s congressional message of January 6, 1941, expressing his hope of a postwar world (the other three were freedom from want, freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of religion.

Jack (thanks for naming yourself), you asked the following, in effect combining two of FDR’s freedoms:

“Mary, would you agree that one of the best ways to determine if a society or culture or country is democratic is by the willingness of its citizens to express their opinions without fear?”

Of course my short answer is yes.  I also find it a loaded question – not in the sense of baiting me, but because it is rich with possibilities for discussion. For example, democracy and democratic are overused as words and underused in practice, and I doubt that we blogsters, much less the wider populace, would agree on definitions.

In terms of citizens expressing their opinions without fear, what came to my mind was federal legislators and candidates for office.  How many really speak and vote their own – or constituents’ – minds, rather than put their fingers to the winds of polls.  And even more to the point, how many are free from the fear of jeopardizing their corporate funding if they vote against the K Street interests?

I would be interested in folks’ definitions, examples, opinions on Jack’s question.

P.S.  Speaking of polls, dozens of fearless people held peace/antiwar signs and waved to departing visitors during Monday’s traditional Labor Day demonstration at the rest area on the MidCape Highway. There was general agreement that although traffic was lighter this year, no doubt due to the weekend weather, the number of honks, waves and peace signs were proportionately greater than ever -- with only a smattering of middle fingers!  And yes, I prize the freedom to be there, and the fact that the state police car that cruised through the rest area didn’t stop.

Fear-Mongerer in Chief

Fear-mongering at the American Legion Convention

George Bush’s speech at the American Legion convention yesterday put me in mind of a quote by Noel Coward, English playwright, actor and composer (1899-1973):  “He always speaks his mind and thereby considerably limits the scope of the conversation.”

According to Mr. Bush, “The war we fight today is more than a military conflict.  It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.”  Now if the president and his handlers have a crystal ball, why didn’t they look ahead even several years and foresee the disaster in store if they invaded Iraq, and the fact that the truth would come out about the absence of the fabled WMDs and the nonexistent connection between sworn enemies Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Or don’t they care, having presumably acquired permanent bases in Iraq?

Novembeer in sight, Mr. Bush continued on one of his favorite schticks, fear mongering. “If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.”  

As for democracy, one wag recently pointed out that the U.S. has exported so much of it that it’s in short supply at home!