I might indulging in a ridiculous flight of paranoia here, but follow my thinking here. In yesterday's Altercation, Michael Tomasky wrote about Dick Cheney's history of aggressive foreign policy planning (he links to reporting here and here).
While Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1992, the DoD produced a Defense Planning Guide that laid out a strategy for the US that looks a lot like the approach that the Bush administration is taking now: a focus on preventative use of force, an aggressive stance and a sidelining of standing alliances temporary, "ad hoc" coalitions. It was an belligerent plan that used force, or threat of force to enhance the United States position in the world, and to prevent a strong rival from emerging.
Now think about the proposals in Patriot Act II (here is my slightly over-the-top rant from yesterday, and here the more learned, but still scary commentary that I linked to). Doesn't it seem at least plausible that Patriot Act II is the domestic analog to this militaristic foreign policy? Both use a very visible application of power (law enforcement internally, military forces externally), intimidation, and the undermining of opposing alliances. Both policies are antagonistic to dissent, both are undemocratic, and fundamentally un-American.
If this seems unlikely, imagine Dick Cheney's view of the eighties. Conservative hawks, backed by a popular President saw apparent validation of their philosophy. Yet they were challenged by Catholic nuns standing in front of weapons trains, and hippies protesting America's activities in Central America. They saw men like Ollie North and John Poindexter brought down by liberals who did not understand the need to project America's power. They are not willing to see their political power sapped again by a vocal, domestic opposition. If the price of their power is our freedoms, that is a cost they are apparently willing to pay.
9:35:12 PM 
|
|
