Democracy in the fashion of Bush

Democracy in the fashion of Bush

February 12, 2006

President George W Bush rationalized and justified the war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Ultimatums were made to Saddam Hussein which he refused to abide, and the invasion of Iraq was on.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. It wasn’t long before dissension erupted on the DC beltway and voices, theretofore silent, told the American people that Bush’s rationalities and justifications for invading Iraq were false; there were no WMDs. Now we have former CIA employees saying that Bush heard what he wanted to hear and ignored that which did not fit into his desire to invade Iraq.

With his original rationale and justification in shambles, Bush’s mantra these days, his rationalization and justification for invading Iraq, is to set up a “democracy.” Interesting choice of words, that. A democracy is what the former U.S.S.R. had and what James Madison, in Federalist No 10, warned us against:

“Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Democracy is rule by majority with the rights of the minority at the whim of the majority, a species of government in which mankind serves the government, in which oppression is ever present in the name of subjugation and control, of raping the land and the people for the personal profit and largesse of the government and those who control with an iron fist, who exist in comfort at the expense of the masses who remain forever poor, dirty, hungry, and cold, huddled in hovels with no prospects for a better future.

Even passing scrutiny of the writings of our Founding Fathers would disclose their aversion to Democracy. But since the education of our youth in America today is so lacking, and so lacking in the history of our nation and the true intent of our Founding Fathers, how would our youth know that when Bush speaks of Democracy he speaks of that which our Founding Fathers avidly warned us against?

And Bush hardly ever opens his mouth but what “Democracy” in some form or fashion pops out. Sometimes he uses “our Democracy” which is no better. That Bush doesn’t realize we were never intended to be a Democracy is telling indeed but certainly explains his invasion of Iraq as well as his illegal wiretapping activities, the “Patriot Act”, his support of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the plethora of other international agreements and organizations — the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — which pierce the shield of American sovereignty. It also explains his unwillingness to stop the influx of illegal aliens, north and south.

Bush’s justification these days for invading Iraq was to depose the dictator, Saddam Hussein, once a friend to the United States government but not necessarily the American people, and establish a “Democracy” of the Iraqi people’s making.

There is hypocrisy in that also. Recently Palestine held “democratic” elections. Despite the influx of money from the United States government in an effort to buy votes and thus the election (corruption anyone?), the Hamas Party won. What was President George W Bush’s reaction to those “democratic” elections? I believe his exact words were “I will not work with a government that supports violence.” He might as well have said, “You can have your democratic elections, but I will not recognize the result unless it goes my way.”

Hmmm, hanging chads anyone?

But Bush’s outlook is not new. It is a defining characteristic of systems philosophy which says, bluntly (sic) you can have any car you want so long as it’s the specified model and color and contains the specified parts. Anything outside that will not be tolerated and must be rejected without exception. All really does mean all.

There has been much talk, speculation and facts presented about how elections are determined in America; such falls right into this philosophy. Such is also indicative of the growing discontent and civil unrest in America where the will of the people is not reflected in the actions of those supposedly elected by the people. The recent move in Washington State to vote by mail is an easy target for fixed elections.

As for Bush’s comment that he won’t work with a government that supports violence, what a hypocrite. It is the Bush Administration that without justification, invaded Iraq. What was that but violence? Or is it okay for Bush to engage in violence because this is the superpower, the United States of America, and whatever the United States government decides to do should be just alright with the rest of the world?

And speaking of violence, what about the goings on along the Mexican-American border, where armed Mexican insurgents (possibly Mexican military) are regularly crossing that border onto American soil, attacking American border guards and law enforcement they come in contact with. Where is Bush’s admonishment of the Mexican government and Vincente Fox who has done nothing to dissuade this activity? On the contrary, documents coming out of Mexico, produced by the Mexican government, tell foreign nationals where and how to cross the Mexican-American border illegally, where to receive help, how to respond if caught, how to remain in the United States illegally.

But when some poor pilot got too close to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, the military jets — that weren’t scrambled on September 11, 2001 when the huge commercial airliners, filled with thousands of gallons of volatile aviation gas and full of American people, went off the radar screens — were in the air within minutes forcing that poor pilot to land his plane and suffer the indignation and humiliation of interrogation. After all, he might have been a terrorist out to get our most important American personage: President George W Bush. It’s okay if terrorists kill thousands of Americans and destroy American property, but it’s not okay to get too close to the president.

Somewhere back in our history, someone has stated that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If people are to remain free, no special dispensation can be afforded to those elected to serve the people. The minute special dispensation is made; the road to tyranny is under construction. Those special dispensations have been a growing part of the differentiation between the people and those supposedly elected to serve the people.

Bush displays a defining characteristic of values clarification: his values at any given time are subject to change without notice and on whim; what is right today may not be right tomorrow, depending on what his agenda is at any given time. Such a man is not to be trusted and certainly not to be trusted with American sovereignty and the lives of the American people.

If our fledgling unique nation were to survive and prosper, our Founding Fathers knew that the American people must elect statesman — men of moral character and sentiment; men who display the self-discipline of the self-governed; men who adhere to those morals and values which tend to precipitate a civil society; men who live by the Ten Commandments of God.

Under those guidelines, most of our supposedly elected are not fit to serve today.