by robertdreed » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:29 pm
Thankfully, I think that in regard to our present situation in the USA, the omnipotence of the Bush regime is overrated.<br><br>It appears to me as if their plans have bogged down considerably. I think they reckoned without the Internet, for one thing. They thought that they'd be able to mold public opinion in fervent support for their grand schemes, through a combination of mass media control and the use of a core of popular support to strongarm-intimidate dissenters and smother inquiry. But too many of the dissenters didn't fit their fantasized stereotype of wimpy, nihilistic, pacifistic leftist whiners. There has been entirely too much skepticism from populations like military veterans, police, local political officals, community leaders, freelance gadflys, and even within the ranks of Middle Americans. And, to the palpable frustration of neocons like David Horowitz, the majority of of the skepticism and dissent has been non-ideologically based. Most of the dissent has related to sound practical concerns and good sense, like a reluctance to endorse waging war for any reason except self-defense, and an antipathy to having one's intelligence insulted by appeals to hysteria. <br><br>So I think the Bush administration is in the process of curbing their more gandiose ambitions. If they don't, look out. But if they do decide to escalate- by invading Syria, say, or instituting the draft- I think the whole thing will come down around their ears. The more prudent course for someone like George W. Bush would be to consider that he's already achieved many of his major goals- the tax cuts; takeover of much regulation by big business; increased government secrecy- including the continued ability to shield the official archive of his father's career from historical scrutiny; a strengthened American presence in Southwest and Central Asia; Congressional assent to giving him the war-making power that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, thus augmenting his presidential power with the powers of Commander-in-Chief; the winning of a second term; the success of his party in capturing a majority in both houses of Congress. <br><br>So Bush can settle for being a lame duck at this point, leaving the country to remain in a holding pattern without too much drama. The safe thing to do at this point is to jawbone and act as if he's in the process of quietly winding down the American military commitment in Iraq, rather than escalating and widening military action. He risks disaster at home by doing that. The reaction to a renewed draft would be cataclysmic, I think. <br><br>I'm guessing that we're stuck with Bush for another three years, but that he's been put in check by increasing public wariness. The public is increasingly finding out about some of these torture scandals and civil liberties threats, and it's apparent that many of them are upset, and calling their Congresspeople about it. Praise democracy. So I think the worst of that will be exposed and ended. And I anticipate significant gains for the Democrats in next year's Congressional elections. <br><br>Not to say that I'm free of worry- mostly about devious incremental encroachments on citizens through the adoption of biometric ID cards, ubiquitous radio tracking and surveillance, SDI tech, conversion to the "cashless society", and the continued reliance on electronic voting rather than physical paper balloting. I consider untraceable electronic vote fraud to be a grave threat, no matter who does it. But as of now, I think only Republicans are in a position to pull it off. I wish that legislatures would come to their senses and return to a method of voting that isn't vulnerable to wholesale untraceable fraud. The naivete is mind-boggling. <br><br>I'm also wary of legislation intensifying the War On Drugs, whether under the guise of a War on Terrorism or otherwise. I think the average age of a Congressperson is still about 25 years older than that of the average American, and that indicates to me that they remain sufficiently out of touch enough to possibly pass a new batch of terribly draconian "antidrug" laws in a fit of desperation. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 6/16/05 7:32 pm<br></i>
