| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Sogobia" |
| Date: |
31 May 2004 04:15:39 PM |
| Object: |
When the moral compass is toxic and dysfunctional. |
From the article:
Then came the Bush II administration, infected by the
Straussian/Machiavellian belief of the Noble Lie, the paranoid requirement
for Absolute Power to maintain security, all reflecting the Project for a
New American Century's vision of Empire. They ignored the lessons of history
(or simply hadn't bothered to read Kant, Locke, Jefferson, or Madison - or
modern history).
-----------------------------------------------
Monday, May 31, 2004
The Choice This Year Is Between Empire and Democracy
by Thom Hartmann
Having lived in Germany and extensively interviewed many (now elderly)
former members of Hitler's Nazi Party (and one spy for him) for a book I was
writing on the religion of the Nazis, I can say categorically that Hitler
had (or at least his people believed he had) a Vision. It was a vision of a
world at peace (for 1000 years, no less), a world purified of disruptive or
"undesirable" people, a world united in what Hitler called "A New
Christianity," a world where things worked smoothly and people were happy
because of "strong, steady leadership" (even during times of change), a
world guided by a leader who held tenaciously to a singular vision.
Hitler's idea was nothing new, really - it was the vision of Empire.
Alexander the Great had a similar vision, as did several of the Caesars of
Rome, the last Inca Emperor Wayna Capac, several Chinese dynasties, Papal
dynasties, and various larger and smaller empires from those of the last few
centuries in Europe, to those started in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago, morphed
into a reactive Islamic empire during the Crusades (eventually the Ottoman
Empire), and whose revival now fills the dreams of Al Qaeda.
It also appears, for the first time since George Washington outspokenly
warned us of engaging in foreign entanglements abroad, that the neocon
vision of Empire has largely taken over an American administration.
Vision is a two-edged sword. The upside of people holding a vision is that
they will work to fulfill a vision in a way that mere money can never
animate. This is true from companies to nonprofits to churches to nations. A
powerful and positive vision is the key ingredient for the success -
particularly long term - of any venture.
The downside is when the vision is toxic and dysfunctional (think Jim Jones
or Hitler) it can cause generations - centuries - of suffering, war, and
desolation.
For a bit over 200 years, the vision held by the majority of Americans and
our elected officials was one of egalitarian democracy in a constitutional
republic; government of, by, and for the people; and the belief that
democracy was a contagious idea. In that, we've been proven right - the UN
notes that in 1800 there were only 3 democracies in the world (none in 1775)
and today there are 81 "full" democracies with nearly 100 other nations
moving rapidly in democratic directions.
Empire and democracy are mutually exclusive - ultimately a nation must
choose one or the other.
Interestingly, in all of history, no two fully democratic nations have ever
gone to war with each other. Emmanuel Kant was right when he wrote, back in
1795, that the idea of a world of democratic nations, which was only a
flickering experiment in faraway North America and just catching fire in
France, might eliminate for all time the scourge of war.
Kant's treatise on the topic, Zum Ewigen Frieden: Ein Philosophischer
Entwurf (Toward Eternal Peace: A Philosophical Draft), suggested that when a
nation was ruled democratically - that is, by the will of the majority of
the people - those people would never choose war unless it was in
self-defense. Therefore, Kant reasoned, if all nations were democratic,
there would never be aggressors (because no majority of citizens would ever
vote to send their own children off to die), and war would be eliminated.
Kant's prediction didn't come out of the blue. Similar sentiments had been
suggested by Adam Smith in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, implied by
Roseau and Locke, and were openly advocated by America's Founders,
particularly Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, and Madison.
Kant's vision of a world at peace because of universal democracy even
directly influenced Madison to demand that the Constitution explicitly
specify that the ability to declare war rest exclusively with Congress, the
then-only-directly-elected branch of government. (In those days, nobody ever
imagined that in some future time our executive branch would lie to Congress
to get war powers.)
Then came the Bush II administration, infected by the
Straussian/Machiavellian belief of the Noble Lie, the paranoid requirement
for Absolute Power to maintain security, all reflecting the Project for a
New American Century's vision of Empire. They ignored the lessons of history
(or simply hadn't bothered to read Kant, Locke, Jefferson, or Madison - or
modern history).
The response in the world to Bush's vision of America transforming itself
into Empire - pre-emptive war, absolute good (our empire) versus absolute
evil (all others), unchallengeable international military superiority with
military bases in over 100 sovereign nations, "you're with us or against us"
rhetoric - has been both predictable and tragic.
Stable democracies are recoiling, distancing themselves from us as fast as
they can. Evolving democracies are abandoning many of Jefferson's visions of
democracy and becoming more repressive and less democratic, following our
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib lead. And dictatorships like China point to our
shift toward authoritarianism and the conquest of a non-threatening but
oil-rich foreign land as justification both for internal crackdowns, renewed
threats against their neighbors (particularly Taiwan), and a huge military
buildup in anticipation of the day when the Chinese Empire may well confront
the American Empire for the world's last oil supplies.
Vision is the core of it all, and understanding the power of a shared vision
is vital in this critical election year.
Visions are contagious. They animate and empower. They literally transform -
from the small (family, community, region) to the entire planet. And they
can just as easily be toxic as positive, a reality our Founders both knew
and used.
When Attorney General William Wirt delivered Thomas Jefferson's eulogy on
October 19, 1826 in the Hall of the U.S. House of Representatives, he noted
how Jefferson believed in democracy, national humility, and abhorred empire.
Jefferson well understood, Wirt noted, the danger of past empires as well as
the dangerous possibility of a future president who may seize more power
than the Constitution intended.
"The successful warrior, who had desolated whole empires for his own
aggrandizement," Wirt wrote about such a dangerous leader, "the successful
usurper of his country's rights and liberties, may have their hours of
swelling pride, in which they may look back with a barbarous joy upon the
triumph of their talents, and feast upon the adulation of the sycophants
that surround them."
In the next paragraph, however, Wirt cited Jefferson's certain knowledge
that those who seek empire will not only see their nation's downfall, but
their own internal spiritual destruction as well. "...but, night and silence
come; and conscience takes her turn. The bloody field rises upon the
startled imagination. The shades of the slaughtered innocent stalk in
terrific procession before the couch. The agonizing cry of countless widows
and orphans invades the ear. The bloody dagger of the assassin plays, in
airy terror, before the vision."
Empire, Jefferson believed, always ended in disaster, as the nations
oppressed by empire invariably rebel. As Wirt summarized Jefferson's
sentiments: "Violated liberty lifts her avenging lance, and a down-trodden
nation rises before them, in all the majesty of its wrath."
Which brings us to today. The battle of the election of 2004 - from local
races to the presidency - is fundamentally a battle of visions: Empire
versus Democracy.
Will we pursue, as most recently did Hitler, the historic - and failed -
vision of empire, sustained by wiping out the wealth of our commons and our
middle class while spilling the blood of our children? Or will we pursue
democracy - helping create a humane, multilateral, cooperative world while
working for greater social justice at home?
Those of us who share this latter vision of democracy must - in the best
grassroots traditions of the historic vision-driven populist, progressive,
civil rights, and anti-war movements - help bring it about by awakening our
neighbors, friends, and co-workers; and by infiltrating the Democratic Party
to challenge the corporatist vision of the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC), which is even today struggling to seize the soul of the Democratic
Party in service of corporate rule and empire.
Shall we move back towards the failed darkness of bloody empire, or forward
into the light of worldwide democracy?
The choice, this year more than most in the history of America, is ours.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning
best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive
talk show that runs in 57 markets from coast-to-coast.
www.thomhartmann.com. His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient
Sunlight," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would
Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."
www.commondreams.org
--
Although O'Neill said the Bush administration began planning an Iraqi
invasion just after taking office, Clarke said Bush's top aides immediately
sought to use the terrorist attacks to levy a war against Iraq even though
it appeared that al Qaeda, not Saddam, was responsible.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/20/clarke.cbs/
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: When the moral compass is toxic and dysfunctional. |
31 May 2004 09:42:09 PM |
|
|
Sogobia wrote:
...
-----------------------------------------------
Monday, May 31, 2004
The Choice This Year Is Between Empire and Democracy
by Thom Hartmann
...
Empire and democracy are mutually exclusive - ultimately a nation must
choose one or the other.
Actually, if you were an American Indian you'd have a lot of trouble
with this statement.
...
Kant's treatise on the topic, Zum Ewigen Frieden: Ein Philosophischer
Entwurf (Toward Eternal Peace: A Philosophical Draft), suggested that when a
nation was ruled democratically - that is, by the will of the majority of
the people - those people would never choose war unless it was in
self-defense. Therefore, Kant reasoned, if all nations were democratic,
there would never be aggressors (because no majority of citizens would ever
vote to send their own children off to die), and war would be eliminated.
Really? Shurly there are numerous examples - even in the USA. So much
for Kant.
Kant's prediction didn't come out of the blue. Similar sentiments had been
suggested by Adam Smith in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, implied by
Roseau and Locke, and were openly advocated by America's Founders,
particularly Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, and Madison.
Kant's vision of a world at peace because of universal democracy even
directly influenced Madison to demand that the Constitution explicitly
specify that the ability to declare war rest exclusively with Congress, the
then-only-directly-elected branch of government. (In those days, nobody ever
imagined that in some future time our executive branch would lie to Congress
to get war powers.)
Then came the Bush II administration, infected by the
Straussian/Machiavellian belief of the Noble Lie, the paranoid requirement
for Absolute Power to maintain security, all reflecting the Project for a
New American Century's vision of Empire. They ignored the lessons of history
(or simply hadn't bothered to read Kant, Locke, Jefferson, or Madison - or
modern history).
What about FDR? he was gung ho for war. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson,
Reagan, Clinton?
...
Stable democracies are recoiling, distancing themselves from us as fast as
they can.
It is not in their interest to get joint us.
...
Vision is the core of it all, and understanding the power of a shared vision
is vital in this critical election year.
Visions are contagious. They animate and empower. They literally transform -
from the small (family, community, region) to the entire planet. And they
can just as easily be toxic as positive, a reality our Founders both knew
and used.
That is the truth. Lots of fundamentalist Muslims are dying to kill us.
That kind of vision I can do without.
...
Which brings us to today. The battle of the election of 2004 - from local
races to the presidency - is fundamentally a battle of visions: Empire
versus Democracy.
Only in your deluded mind.
Try to remember, the ***** hit the fan on 9/11 while Bush was in a
Florica classroom selling his No Child Left Behind Act.
Those of us who share this latter vision of democracy must - in the best
grassroots traditions of the historic vision-driven populist, progressive,
civil rights, and anti-war movements - help bring it about by awakening our
neighbors, friends, and co-workers; and by infiltrating the Democratic Party
to challenge the corporatist vision of the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC), which is even today struggling to seize the soul of the Democratic
Party in service of corporate rule and empire.
The DLC does this in the service of its union constituancy which likes
corportations controlled by unions for unions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "abelincoln" |
|
| Title: Re: When the moral compass is toxic and dysfunctional. |
31 May 2004 08:17:04 PM |
|
|
kindasleazy says w's ***** is her compass. the problem is, it points
straight down most of the time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
