(navigate back up a level to Writing pages, including Politics)


Why NOT impeach George W. Bush, et. al.?

I found this point as a link on Counterpunch first (link to Mickeyz.net); I felt it was worth repeating and adding some historical background.

Basically, if the Democrats impeach George W. Bush and co. this will perpetuate the myth that there's actually a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

MickeyZ in his own words:


It just so happens that most people I know have always believed that the American media is adversarial, and that the Democratic party is extremely adversarial to the Republicans. Perhaps it has never occured to them, and indeed it only occured to me after 25 years of living comfortably under the spell of the American dream, that the American media does not challenge the status quo in any significant way. Certianly not like foreign or independent media does.

I work in the natural sciences and Science is a method of doubt.

Not faith, but doubt.

For that matter, business is a method of skepticism, nigh on cynicism, so independent critical thought should not be too hard for Americans. I just try to apply this methodical skepticism in fields where I was discouraged from using it before - such as in politics, history and organized religion.

How can the Democrats afford to be any different from Republicans when they get their election campaign money from the same big corporations? ( to start investigating election campaign sources, I have found this link very helpful: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ )

Here's a few pieces from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" which caught my attention concerning the two-party system:

Politics in this period of the 1830s and 1840s, according to Douglas Miller... "had become increasingly centered around creating a popular image and flattering the common man". (p.216)

It was the new politics of ambiguity - speaking for the lower and middle classes to get their support in times of rapid growth and potential turmoil. The two-party system came into its own in this time. To give people a choice between two different parties and allow them, in a period of rebellion, to choose the slightly more democratic one was an ingenious method of control. Like so much in the American system, it was not devilishly contrived by some master plotters; it arose naturally out of the needs of the situation. (p.217)

In premodern times, the maldistribution of wealth was accomplished by simple force. In modern times, exploitation is disguised - it is accomplished by law, which has the look of neutrality and fairness. (p.240)

But the purpose of the state was to settle upper-class disputes peacefully, control lower-class rebellion, and adopt policies that would further the long range stability of the system. The arrangement between Democrats and Republicans to elect Rutherford Hayes in 1877 set the tone. Whether Democrats or Republicans won, national policy would not change in any important way.

When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for president in 1844, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould wired him: "I feel... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right. (p 258).

I suppose 'mainstream' Americans' response to the above may vary from "huh?!" to a quiet uncomfortable pause with rolling of eyes, to "so are you some kind of communist?!". From incomprehension to defensiveness. "We're all Americans here, we don't have any class system!..."

I can certainly relate to both the incomprehension and defensiveness against new theories or paradigms because I've experienced both reactions.

Getting back to independent critical thought: off-hand, the theory (or paradigm) that there is a class war within the U.S. and that the law and government favors the wealthy is just as valid as any other theory, until much further exploration and comparing of evidence might unearth one theory as more robust than any other...


...What might be missing for most Americans is an awareness that they were raised with theories - unproven theories about politics and all the social sciences. Value judgments and assumed priorities were hidden within their public education.

I implore you to recall from Galileo and Columbus that at any time the majority can be quite mistaken about physical material facts ("the sun and all planets revolve around the earth" or "the earth is flat"). How much more so can a majority be misled and misinformed with paradigms which assume subjective value judgments? (e.g. "America is still the greatest country in the world because...")

The philospher and mathematician Rene Descartes* set out quite an ambitious mission for himself: doubt everything which could possibly be doubted until I am left with things which can not be doubted. Then start building a new house of knowledge from there.

When I first heard this in an Introduction to Philosophy course I was just immediately taken with the whole idea of starting all over again. Perhaps my subconscious mind had some clue of the melting glacier I'd been living on the whole time.

The metaphor from the film "The Matrix"of waking up from a virtual reality into a nightmarish survival scenario is quite fitting for my experience.

Some wonderful news is that rude awakenings can lead to spiritual awakenings.

Unfortunately the first reactions are usually shock and anger.

There's a bit of work to be done between the rude awakening and the spiritual awakening, and that's what the rest of my writing is for.

And now at least I've drawn a tangent between the politics and the spiritual...

*Graphs and charts with an x and y axis are called the Cartesian plane, because he was the first to combine algebra and geometry which results in such a visual display of information.



(navigate back up a level to Writing pages, including Politics)