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

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.