Hubris

Note: I'm playing with the style of my post a bit here as an experiment. If you like it, great, if not, leave a comment. One talking point that keeps cropping up from Republicans defending Bush's continuing abuses of power: we're at war the Commander in Chief has a responsibility to protect us, extreme measures are necessary in warfare, etc., ad infinitum. Bullshit. We are at war, in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember me!). What we are not at War with is "Terror," any more than we were or are still at war with "Drugs." The concept is ludicrous. We were attacked on 9/11/2001. Well guess what: we've been attacked by terrorists before; (whatever the Bush apologists might like to think) we will be attacked again. Creating an ephemeral "War on Terror" only obfuscates the reality of the situation. Other countries cope with attacks, take steps to limit their exposure, and try to restore normality. Our own country has managed to do the same in the past after plane hijackings, the Unabomber, or the Oklahoma City bombing. In contrast, it's absolutely typical of the current administration to exaggerate the threat of things we fear to catastrophic levels. Bush and Co.'s MO is to use fear as a weapon to terrorize the (disturbing gullible) public and solidify their power. In doing so, they move the country further and further from the true democracy of my ideals. The threat of Terrorism is never going to go away. Even when our great-grandchildren have force fields (and, one would hope, jetpacks) our enemies will find ways to terrorize us (an IPod melting virus?). It is essential that we don't compromise our morals or legal system over an endless conflict: that way lies 1984, Brazil, and a host of other works. Good fiction...Bad reality. The latest travesty to draw my ire and provoke this post is the President admitting he broke the law in authorizing wiretaps and other invasions of privacy without warrants and refusing to stop doing so. Pure hubris. It may be that these wiretaps were essential to national security or that they provided necessary intelligence; I hope so. Regardless of their effectiveness, they reflect the President's belief that he is above the law. It's Clinton's "Executive Privilege" writ a hundred times worse. It's not the specific act that bothers me so—it's the principle that an impeachable offense is supposedly rendered palatable, even honorable, for a Wartime President. Here's a quote from an email from Dr. Rusty Shackleford ("The Jawa Report") to August J. Pollack, reprinted on xoverboard.com:

I would simply point out that historically President's have done far more during war time than Bush. For instance, FDR ordered censorship of all media during the war. Was that impeachable? Lincoln ordered prominent Northern Peace Democrats to be jailed. Did he violate his oath of office. Wilson ordered the jailing of antiwar protesters during WWI. Did that make him Hitlerian?

This upsets me on so many levels. First, we're elevating Bush to the ranks of FDR and Lincoln now? I would've thought climbing above the Nixon/Hoover/Coolidge strata would have been a prerequisite. (Then again, this is a man who went from AWOL to Harvard Business School and from losing a congressional race to Governor. He rebounds better than Rodman.) Second, these examples of censorship and illegal search and seizure are favorable comparisons for Bush's actions? On what planet? You can admire FDR and Lincoln without accepting that their misuses of executive power were also praiseworthy. The President's always lived in a fantasy world—Katrina was hard proof of that—but now he's apparently cast himself as (WARNING: pop culture reference) Jack Bauer, torturing villains and smashing terrorist plots. But I don't need to tell you that the real G.W. is no hero. ----- Listening to: Brock Butler - Suburban Speedball (2006-01-06) and it's a damn good thing too. Without Brock's soothing tones this post would be much less civil.