…That's a good idea. I like that.”
A torture scandal at the start of a new century—hardly what one would have hoped for America in the Age of Aquarius. Yet the scandal, as awful and terrible as it is, can have an illuminating effect, like a flash of lightning during a murky storm. What exactly does this scandal reveal?
Well, one simple thing that such events reaffirms is that Americans are not “exceptional” except in having, by and large, a history that has spared most of us much of the horrors experienced by humanity the world over. And no, we are not immune to such horrors, and certainly not immune to inflicting them ourselves (a lesson our sad history with regards to race one would have thought had made clear). But we love to flatter ourselves with the prideful notion that somehow “we” are the chosen people…. And yet even under the best of circumstances even the best of people can succumb to monstrous promptings when they come wrapped in the mantle of authority.
Another thing this scandal does is throw into sharp relief is the extent of the Gulag archipelago constructed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush; both in terms of geographical reach—from Guantanamo, to Afghanistan, and centered in the hell that is current day Iraq—and in terms of the extent to which norms of decency and reciprocity have been utterly cast aside.
This new Gulag, “justified” by the so-called war on terror, has antecedent that stretch back decades and administrations, to the death squads and the disappeared of Central and South America, to the Santiago stadium in Chile. The difference now is that the “law free zone” is directly administered by Americans—as is the torture, mental and physical, that is carried on there.
But the nihilistic concepts of “anything goes,” of the “ends justifies the means” are—sadly—not new to American foreign policy, at least as it has been conducted under Republican presidents. And the rest of the world remembers this, even if we don’t. Not only is the torture conducted in Afghanistan, Iraq and Gitmo systematic in its nature (as anyone who examines the evidence assembled by Gen Toguba can ascertain fairly easily), but it is also a systematic outgrowth of a dangerous approach to foreign policy—arrogant, unilateral, mendacious, secretive and needlessly vicious—that has increasingly come to characterize Republican administrations for the past 35 years.
This Gulag is not the result of a few rogue operators run amok. It was constructed deliberately, with the intention of stripping every safeguard that has been painstakingly constructed between nations and within our own legal framework to protect individuals—no matter how depraved—from the arbitrary state action. George W. Bush deliberately instituted secretive “law free zones,” the results of which would be tragic if history had not taught us that they were so obviously predictable.
AND YET… that attitude that has characterized the Bush administration’s foreign policy is not limited to just the foreign policy. What is striking is how such attitudes pervade each and every aspect of the current American regime. Economic policy, the budget, social security and Medicare, the environment, health care, education, policy analysis, even ordinary partisan politics… name any aspect of democratic governance, and this ideological administration has set the bar when it comes to arrogant, unilateral, mendacious, secretive and needlessly vicious behavior.
Bush believes himself chosen by God, and his actions betray a belief that the presidency is a form of “(s)elective” monarchy. His is an American of privilege and deference, closer to the life of a banana republic than the land of opportunity bequeathed Americans by FDR and the New Deal. And not surprisingly, Bush has set about destroying every last element of the New Deal—progressive taxation, social security, labor representation, workers’ compensation. But if you were merely to focus on the arrogance and incompetence of the policies, as John Kerry apparently does, then you miss what is truly at stake in the election this fall. It is not merely the policies of government, but the very practice of democratic government that is at stake.
[Wesley Clark put his finger on this very early in his campaign for president. It is a shame he is not the Democratic nominee, because he demonstrated that he both understood what was most dangerous with the current regime and was able to articulate it in ways that appeal to Americans of all persuasions (see for example the transcript for Bill Maher’s Real Time for Sept. 25, 2003). Alas, the Democratic electorate seems to have selected the candidate with which they feel most secure, a teddy bear on a stormy night. Yet Kerry is undoubtedly a far superior choice to Bush. It’s just, despite his realization that the Bushies are nasty, that Kerry doesn’t seem to realize democracy itself is at stake. Add to that the fact that, due to regional prejudices, a New Englander simply does not make the best standard bearer. I hope Kerry taps Wes Clark as the VP nominee, because it would open the door for many Americans still on edge, but also because—hot damn!—Clark has also shown he doesn’t pull punches: "There's more than a systemic failure [in Abu Ghraib] - there's a failure of leadership that goes right to the top."]
The Bush regime has demonstrated time and again its utter contempt for the rule of law, for checks and balances, for the very essence of what has proved worthy and enduring in the American experiment. It is often said that if you truly want to know someone’s values, watch how they treat their social inferiors. Is it any wonder that the open assault on democratic rights of open government, accountability, and truthfulness finds its ugliness echoed and amplified in the oubliettes of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?
8:34:48 PM 
|
|
