Is the world coming to an end?

[petmoosie]

Some people are worried to the point of panicking about the Presidential election.

There will not be political violence of the type seen in Zimbabwe or Kenya.

Our leaders will honestly try to solve the problems using the tools of government. They will respond to the letters and calls of their constituents, not with a boot in the door and jail time, but with a "Thank you for your concern" type letter.

The habits of democracy and consultation are ingrained in our society. Pretending they are not just weakens them.

This fear feeds helplessness, feeds extreme articles in the main press and in the alternative presses. Then those articles feed the fear.

I'm seeing this in the middle class. Why oh why? It may feel like fun to pretend the sky is falling, but it actually weakens the supports to do it.

Comments

[ashtalet.livejournal.com]

You want to know why I lack faith in democratic (small d) institutions in this country? I'll tell you why.

It's because the executive branch says so. They say with their actions that Congress doesn't matter, that its subpoenas do not have to be honored, and that its laws can be selectively ignored through signing statements. And on the off chance someone in the administration should somehow get convicted anyway, they get pardoned.

It's because we have an offshore prison full of people who are being held without charge, subjected to torture, and thus far without recourse to habeas corpus, often for the crime of being in Afghanistan and only rarely for being an actual terrorist. And the military tribunals being used to judge them are so bad that prosecutors are resigning rather than proceed.

It's because there's a party which is strongly associated with voter suppression on a national scale, including admission of criminal guilt in a recent settlement in Michigan, and which established in 2000 in Florida that it will use violence (though not on the Zimbabwe/Kenya scale) to get elected. I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect and pure, because they aren't (especially here in Chicago) but there's a difference between occasional vote fraud on a local scale and a national campaign to eliminate people voting for the other side.

It's because the Justice Department really has been used to selectively prosecute Democrats to an unprecedented degree. To the point where I feel the need to confirm that a given case isn't being brought because of partisan bias before considering the possibility that a crime was committed.

It's because the chief maker of electoral voting systems isn't nonpartisan and actively opposes measures to ensure that votes are counted properly, and lots of places still have dubious systems for vote counting.

And frankly, I resent feeling like a nutbar conspiracy theorist (to quote Teresa Nielsen Hayden) just by saying what I think is occurring because it all sounds so ridiculous that it's happening in this country. Note that that's sounds ridiculous, not is ridiculous. Even if my preferred candidate (who should be obvious from the above) wins, the only reason things might get better is if he decides that he chooses to honor the law, not because he is compelled to.

It's a matter of scale.

[petmoosie.livejournal.com]

The executive branch is NOT getting away with it. Congress and the judiciary are holding them to account. That's a matter of the wheels of justice grinding exceedingly slow.

Same with Gitmo. The executive branch is being called on it again and again and having to change their methods.

I, on the other hand, believe that the system of checks and balances is working. There are errors, but most of them are correctable.

Re: It's a matter of scale.

[ashtalet.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is a matter of scale. The same people who got away with it under Nixon without being punished, got away with more of it under Reagan/Bush without being punished, and are getting away with yet more of it under Bush II. And the vast majority of them will be punished (at most) by being forced to leave government service until the next Republican administration. I'm sure they're terrified at the thought of having to spend a few years in the private sector.

And I see all those huge changes in Gitmo which are leading to ... what, exactly? Pretty much all the prisoners are still there. I suppose we're treating them a little more humanely; with a couple more increments, it might not be war crimes anymore. I really doubt the administration cares whether they actually get tried as long as they don't get released.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fairly well established that checks and balances only work when either the authority being checked accepts the checks, or (if it doesn't) it gets punished. So far, I'm not seeing either. Now, a new administration featuring my preferred candidate will most likely accept the checks, and it will appear that everything is functioning normally. Just like it did under Clinton. And Carter. And with just as much consequence to the next administration that tries to see how much they can get away with.

Re: It's a matter of scale.

[petmoosie.livejournal.com]

There are hundreds less prisoners in Gitmo. 600 to 140 is the decrease I've heard about.

"Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge, with only one prisoner, David Hicks, being convicted of a crime.[9] As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[10] More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers."--from Wikipedia.


Panic--Why we don't need to panic.
What we need is reasonable, planned moves. Not throwing up our hands and moving to Canada or the EU. Even with a third Bush term, you and I are not going to be seized and thrown in jail. Marching on the Lakefront is reasonable, arson on police headquarters is not.

I would be more panicked by a second incident. I was more panicked by the discovery of A.Q. Khan. Either way this election would go would be an improvement over the current and would be subject to the checks and balances of the Congress and the next election.

But political panic breeds helplessness. You are less likely to write to your Congressman if you believe the president is not responsive to Congress. You are less likely to vote if you believe that the "right-wing nutjobs" are a shoe-in no matter what.

I don't know if pretend panic (which is what I believe I am seeing) decreases voter turnout. But real panic does!!!

Re: It's a matter of scale.

[petmoosie.livejournal.com]

T here (yes I should create my own account. Yes, technically I DID, but I need to create one w/a user name that isn't real blah, blah)

Hmmmm.
On many points I think you're both in agreement. Even on who your voting for :-).

I think (delete, delete, delete....)
I love petmoosie dearly - but I started to write about people "vilifying the idea of a McCain presidency" and she said "well, actually the one that got to me was someone vilifying the idea of an Obama presidency. ' He'll take all our money! '"
...
I'm far too lazy to look it up (but if you're curious, I CAN look it up and get references) - but about 23% of the population is congenitally vulnerable to making nearly all political decisions based on blind panic and seeking a protective authority. They nearly all vote Republican. This is because in recent history (the "daisy ad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_ad was from a Democrat...) they have been the party to push that psychological button hardest. The majority of the current Republican strategy is FUD- Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - and on a much grander scale that Micro$loth ever conceived.

So please, if you are concerned about panic, direct that concern at those who are engendering it.

NOW that said, yes some people on "our" side of the political divide also panic. And panic is generally not productive. But I think the reason why we do not have to worry about getting picked up and thrown in jail w/o recourse to any law or support is NOT because the executive is uniformally obeying those laws. It's because none of us are named Muhommed Hussein Al-bibi (I made that name up, BTW, apologies to anyone who actually has that name) and there are practical (vs legal) limits to what the admin feels they can get away with.

petmoosie's rant is against panic (and ironically enough, ill-informed conservative panic). This is reasonable, and not inconsistent with ashtalet's point.

ashtalet's concern (not panic) is that lack of criminal punishment for politicians who have broken the law will result in future attempts to break the law. In 1975 (if I had been more aware at the time) I might have disagreed. However having seen the SAME people in the Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations simply get BETTER at breaking the law and getting away with it, and training a new generation of "rat-fuckers" (to use Rove's own term), I believe this is a very valid concern. The remedy is not panic - but it IS voting for Members of Congress and a President who (we hope) will have the spine to resolve this problem.

I'll let petmoosie say to what extent she explicitly agrees or disagrees with that point. I would say however: In general, decisions of policy should not result in a jail sentence. Lying on TV is not a crime. There are things that do and should land one in jail, however. (Ask former Congressman "Top Gun" Cunningham") W/o getting into a list, I think there are people in this administration who have earned an orange jumpsuit, and I think it would benefit our country more than it would hurt it if the official determination was made in a court of law.

- hubby of petmoosie

Re: It's a matter of scale.

[ashtalet.livejournal.com]

I really don't have a lot to add to this, other than apparently more people have been let out of Gitmo than I thought.

The remaining area of disagreement, fundamentally, is whether having an administration that chooses to obey the law will in any way constrain the next one to do the same. I think both petmoosie and I have made our feelings on that topic clear.

Agree to disagree

[petmoosie.livejournal.com]

It's the same relationship in my marriage. Sigh.