Post by Blaque on Nov 30, 2006 9:59:57 GMT -5
THE TAMING OF THE DEMOCRATS
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Since the recent Democratic wins in the U.S. House and Senate, there has
been a concerted effort from the corporate media to evoke from them
pre-installation promises of moderation, and a mass denial that there
are any plans to impeach a widely unpopular President, George W. Bush.
There has been equally aggressive attention paid to House Speaker-elect,
Nancy Pelosi (Dem. - Ca.), who makes history as the first American woman
to reach what is essentially the third most powerful office in the nation.
With few exceptions, most outspoken legislators have pooh-poohed the
idea of impeaching the President, even before there have been hearings
into the events that led to the ruinous disaster in Iraq.
Columnists lecture, "It would be too divisive." Others decry such talks
as 'radical.'
What is more radical than war?
Why are the same voices and institutions that led the cheerleading squad
to war now setting the parameters of acceptable political debate and
activity?
Perhaps the most influential newspaper in the U.S., the *New York
Times*, used its front pages as a virtual billboard for the Bush
administration, and high-ranking people like Vice-President Dick Cheney,
and Secretary of State (then National Security Advisor), Condoleeza Rice
quoted the *NYT* incessantly in the run-up to the Iraq War. Pulitzer
Prize-winning *Times* reporter, Judith Miller essentially served as a
scribe for the White House.
It was press scrutiny that led to the recent downfall of outspoken
anti-war figure, Congressman John Murtha (Dem.-Pa.) in the race for
House Majority Whip, using grainy tapes from almost 3 decades ago -- the
FBI ABSCAM attempts to bust corrupt politicians. It certainly appears
like the so-called 'Washington consensus' was unilaterally opposed to
Murtha in the Whip post, for it would have provided the critic with a
platform that could not be easily ignored. It was precisely this
so-called 'consensus' that lined up to support the Iraq adventure,
virtually without a whisper of dissent.
It very well may be the case that these same forces wanted to humble the
House Speaker-elect. And yet it was this same alleged 'consensus'
(driven, to be sure, by the mad neocons in the White House, the Defense
Dept. and the corporate think tanks) that led to this mess.
Consensus, here in the U.S., is actually the agreement of a fairly
narrow slice of the American (and sometimes foreign) elite. In the
brief but brilliant book, *Behind the Invasion of Iraq* (N.Y.: Monthly
Review Press, 2003) written by the Humbai, India-based Research Unit for
Political Economy, this theme is argued quite strongly:
"Typically apart from legislators and the press, a proliferation of
research institutes, semi-governmental bodies, and academic forums
circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby (leaving
the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy).
These proposals elicit objections from other interests, through similar
media; other powerful countries press their interests, directly or
indirectly; and the entire discussion, in the light of the strength of
the respective interests, helps shape the course of action finally
adopted and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it.
(This process, of course, has nothing to do with democratic debate,
since the *people* are excluded as participants, and are included only
as a factor to be taken into account)."
We shouldn't haggle with theory here. One need only recall the
unprecedented mass pre-war protests, all around the nation, and abroad.
The experts and think tank types decried the ignorance of the masses,
but time has proven that the mass demonstrations were right. Now, the
Democrats, being seduced by the lobbyists, the media, and the
know-it-alls (who might best be called 'the know-nothings') are being
persuaded to be bipartisan; to take impeachment off the table; to cool
that rap about ending the war.
That, like before, is the recipe for disaster, for it ignores the people
who turned out to vote, largely disgusted with Bush's war. People are
sick to the soul about Iraq.
If they ignore the public mood, they will, once again, be digging their
political graves. For this war, from beginning to now, has been an
unholy disaster, causing the deaths of at least a 1/2 million people.
That ain't impeachable?
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Since the recent Democratic wins in the U.S. House and Senate, there has
been a concerted effort from the corporate media to evoke from them
pre-installation promises of moderation, and a mass denial that there
are any plans to impeach a widely unpopular President, George W. Bush.
There has been equally aggressive attention paid to House Speaker-elect,
Nancy Pelosi (Dem. - Ca.), who makes history as the first American woman
to reach what is essentially the third most powerful office in the nation.
With few exceptions, most outspoken legislators have pooh-poohed the
idea of impeaching the President, even before there have been hearings
into the events that led to the ruinous disaster in Iraq.
Columnists lecture, "It would be too divisive." Others decry such talks
as 'radical.'
What is more radical than war?
Why are the same voices and institutions that led the cheerleading squad
to war now setting the parameters of acceptable political debate and
activity?
Perhaps the most influential newspaper in the U.S., the *New York
Times*, used its front pages as a virtual billboard for the Bush
administration, and high-ranking people like Vice-President Dick Cheney,
and Secretary of State (then National Security Advisor), Condoleeza Rice
quoted the *NYT* incessantly in the run-up to the Iraq War. Pulitzer
Prize-winning *Times* reporter, Judith Miller essentially served as a
scribe for the White House.
It was press scrutiny that led to the recent downfall of outspoken
anti-war figure, Congressman John Murtha (Dem.-Pa.) in the race for
House Majority Whip, using grainy tapes from almost 3 decades ago -- the
FBI ABSCAM attempts to bust corrupt politicians. It certainly appears
like the so-called 'Washington consensus' was unilaterally opposed to
Murtha in the Whip post, for it would have provided the critic with a
platform that could not be easily ignored. It was precisely this
so-called 'consensus' that lined up to support the Iraq adventure,
virtually without a whisper of dissent.
It very well may be the case that these same forces wanted to humble the
House Speaker-elect. And yet it was this same alleged 'consensus'
(driven, to be sure, by the mad neocons in the White House, the Defense
Dept. and the corporate think tanks) that led to this mess.
Consensus, here in the U.S., is actually the agreement of a fairly
narrow slice of the American (and sometimes foreign) elite. In the
brief but brilliant book, *Behind the Invasion of Iraq* (N.Y.: Monthly
Review Press, 2003) written by the Humbai, India-based Research Unit for
Political Economy, this theme is argued quite strongly:
"Typically apart from legislators and the press, a proliferation of
research institutes, semi-governmental bodies, and academic forums
circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby (leaving
the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy).
These proposals elicit objections from other interests, through similar
media; other powerful countries press their interests, directly or
indirectly; and the entire discussion, in the light of the strength of
the respective interests, helps shape the course of action finally
adopted and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it.
(This process, of course, has nothing to do with democratic debate,
since the *people* are excluded as participants, and are included only
as a factor to be taken into account)."
We shouldn't haggle with theory here. One need only recall the
unprecedented mass pre-war protests, all around the nation, and abroad.
The experts and think tank types decried the ignorance of the masses,
but time has proven that the mass demonstrations were right. Now, the
Democrats, being seduced by the lobbyists, the media, and the
know-it-alls (who might best be called 'the know-nothings') are being
persuaded to be bipartisan; to take impeachment off the table; to cool
that rap about ending the war.
That, like before, is the recipe for disaster, for it ignores the people
who turned out to vote, largely disgusted with Bush's war. People are
sick to the soul about Iraq.
If they ignore the public mood, they will, once again, be digging their
political graves. For this war, from beginning to now, has been an
unholy disaster, causing the deaths of at least a 1/2 million people.
That ain't impeachable?