--- Begin Message ---
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have
any."-- Alice Walker
http://www.alternet.org/rights/65450/
Is a Presidential Coup Under Way?
By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown.
Posted October 23, 2007.
The Constitution is being trampled and nothing less than American democracy
itself is endangered -- a presidential coup is taking place. Where is Congress?
Where is Congress? It's way past time for members to stand up. Historic matters
are at stake. The Constitution is being trampled, the very form of our
government is being perverted, and nothing less than American democracy itself
is
endangered -- a presidential coup is taking place. I think of Barbara Jordan,
the late congress-woman from Houston. On July 25, 1974, this powerful thinker
and member of the House Judiciary Committee took her turn to speak during the
Nixon impeachment inquiry.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total," she
declared in her thundering voice. "And I am not going to sit here and be an idle
spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the
Constitution."Where are the likes
of Barbara Jordan in today's Congress? While the Bush/Cheney regime continues
to
establish a supreme, arrogant, autocratic presidency in flagrant violation of
the
Constitution, members of Congress largely sit there as idle spectators -- or
worse, as abettors of Bush's usurpation of their own congressional authority.
Why It Matters
Separation of powers. Rule of law. Checks and balances. These may seem to us
moderns to be little more than a set of dry, legal precepts that we had to
memorize in high-school history class but need not concern us now. After all,
the founders (bless their wigged heads!) established these principles for us
back
in 17-something-or-other, so we don't really have to worry about them in 2007.
Think again. These are not merely arcane phrases of constitutional law, but the
very keystones of our democracy, essential to sustaining our ideal of being a
self-governing people, free of tyrants who would govern us on their own whim.
The founders knew about tyranny. The monarch of the time, King George III,
routinely denied colonists basic liberties, spied on them and entered their
homes
at will, seized their property, jailed anyone he wanted without charges, rounded
up and killed dissidents, and generally ruled with an iron fist. He was both
the
law and above the law, operating on the twin doctrines of "the divine rule of
kings" and "the
king can do no wrong."
(Alert: Ready or not, the following is a high-school refresher course on
American
government. There will be a test.) At the front of the founders' minds was the
necessity of breaking up the authority of their new government in order to avoid
re-creating the autocracy they had just defeated. The genius of their structure
was that legislating, administering, and judging were to be done by three
separate but coequal branches, each with powers to check the other two, and none
able to aggregate all three functions into its own hands (a result that James
Madison called the very definition of tyranny). Just as important, to deter
government by whim, all members of the three branches were to be subject to the
laws of the land (starting with the Constitution and Bill of Rights), with no
one
above the law. As Thomas Paine said, "The law is king."
These were not legal niceties but core restraints designed to protect citizens
from power grabs by ambitious autocrats. Such restrictions also make our
country
stronger by vetting policies through three entities rather than one. This
balanced authority helps avoid many serious policy mistakes (or at least offers
a
chance to correct them later), and it is intended to prevent the one mistake
that's fatal to democracy -- allowing one branch to seize the power to rule
unilaterally.
Of course, sound schemes are oft screwed up by unsound leaders, and we've had
some horrible hiccups over the years. John Adams went astray early in our
democratic experiment by claiming the unilateral authority to imprison his
political enemies; Abe Lincoln took it upon himself to suspend habeas corpus
during the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson launched his notorious Palmer Raids; F.D.R.
rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans; J. Edgar Hoover and the infamous
COINTEL program spied on and arrested thousands in the Vietnam War years; and
Ronnie Reagan ran his own illegal, secret war out of the White House basement.
In all these cases of executive excess and abuse, however, outrage flowed from
the public, courts stood up to the White House, congressional investigations
ensued, and the American system regained its balance relatively quickly. As
Jefferson put it when he succeeded Adams and repealed the Alien and Sedition
Acts, "Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in
moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the
road
which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
This Time Is Different
Now, however, come two arrogant autocrats like we've never seen in the White
House. George W. and his snarling enabler, Dick Cheney, are making a power grab
so unprecedented, so audacious, so broad and deep, so secretive, so stupefying,
and so un-American that it has not yet been comprehended by the media, Congress,
or the public. The dictionary defines "coup" not just as an armed takeover in
some Third World country, but as "a sudden and decisive action in politics,
especially one affecting a change of government illegally or by force."
Constantly waving the bloody flag of 9/11 and swaggering around in
commander-in-chief garb, the Bush/Cheney duo are usurping authority from
Congress, the courts, and the people, while also asserting arbitrary power that
does not belong to the
presidency. Their coup is changing our form of government, rewriting the genius
of the founders by imposing a supreme executive that functions in secret and
insists that it is above the law, unaccountable either to congressional
oversight
or to judicial review.
As Al Gore pointed out in a powerful speech he gave last year (read it here),
the
Bush/Cheney push for imperial power is much more dangerous and far-reaching
than other presidentia l excesses for a couple of big reasons. First, the
Bushites make no pretension that they want these powers only temporarily,
instead
contending that a super-powerful presidency is necessary to cope with a
terrorist
threat that they say will last "for the rest of our lives." Second, they are
not
merely pushing executive supremacy as a response to an outside threat, but as an
ideological, right-wing theory of what they allege the Constitution actually
meant to say.
Called the "unitary executive theory," this perverse, antidemocratic construct
begs us to believe that the president has inherent executive powers that cannot
be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other branches. Bush himself has
asserted that his executive power "must be unilateral and unchecked." Must?
Extremist theorists aside, this effectively establishes an executive with
arbitrary power over us. It creates the anti-America.
The list of Bushite excesses is long...and growing:
* Their sweeping, secret program of warrantless spying on Americans -- in direct
violation of a long-standing federal law intended to forestall such flagrant
intrusions into people's privacy.
* The usurpation of legislative authority by attaching "signing statements" to
laws passed by Congress, openly asserting Bush's intention to disobey or simply
ignore the laws. He has used this artifice to challenge over 1,150 laws, even
though the Constitution and the founders never conceived of such a dodge
(signing
statements were concocted by Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general, and were
pushed
at that
time by a young Reaganite lawyer who is now ensconced for life on the Supreme
Court, Sam Alito).
* Suspension of habeas corpus for anyone whom Bush deems to be an "enemy
combatant" -- allowing innocent people to be detained indefinitely in prison
without charges or civil trial, subjected to abuse and even torture, and denied
access to judicial review of their incarceration (thus usurping the power of the
courts). The routine and illegal assertion of "executive privilege" to
stonewall
Congress's legitimate efforts to perform its constitutional obligation of
executive oversight and to prevent the questioning of top officials engaged in
outright violations of American
law.
* The assertion of a "state secrets" doctrine to prevent citizens and judges
from
pursuing legitimate lawsuits on the spurious grounds that even to have the
executive's actions brought before the court would endanger national security
and
infringe on executive authority.
* An ever-expanding grab bag of autocratic actions, including using "national
security letters" to sidestep the courts and spy on American political groups
and
individuals with no connection at all to terrorism; censoring executive-branch
employees and government information for political purposes and using federal
officials and tax dollars to push the regime's political agenda; and, of course,
outright lying to Congress and the public, including lying for the most
despicable purpose of all -- putting our troops, our public treasury, and our
nation's good name into a war based on nothing but hubris, oil, and ideological
fantasies (including Bush's latest blatant lie that "progress" in Iraq warrants
the killing and maiming of additional thousands of American troops -- none of
whom comes from his family).
Democratic Capitulation
What we have is a lawless presidency. But our problem is not Bush. He is who
he
is -- a bonehead. He won't change, and why should he? He's getting away with
his
power grab! So, he has no reason to step back and every reason to keep pushing
and to keep trying to institutionalize his coup.
Rather, our problem is those weaselly, wimpy, feckless members of Congress who
have failed to confront the runaway executive, who have sat silent or
(astonishingly) cheered and assisted as their own constitutional powers have
been
taken and their once-proud, coequal branch has been made subservient to the
executive.
In the first six years of Bush/Cheney, the Republican Congress operated as no
more than a rubber stamp for the accretion of presidential power, shamelessly
surrendering its own autonomy in a burst of mindless partisan zeal. Too many
Democrats just went along, either buying the lies or being cowed by the
unrelenting politics of fear and intimidation whipped up by Bush and Cheney.
(The
Bushites are still using these bullying tactics, as when they demanded this past
summer that Congress legalize their illegal domestic spy program and C.I.A.
chief
Mike McConnell warned publicly that "Americans are going to die" if Democrats
failed to pass it.)
Which brings us to the new Congress run by Democrats. Where are they? Yes, I
know they have only slim majorities and that the G.O.P. uses veto threats,
filibusters, and demagogic lies to fight them -- but, come on, suck it up! At
least stop voting for "the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the
Constitution." For example, the party now in charge did indeed cave in to
Bush's
summer demand that it legalize his warrantless spying on Americans (a Lowdowner
sent an email to me saying he hopes Bush gets caught smoking pot, because then
the Democrats
will immediately legalize it).
The founders would be stunned that Congress has failed to assert itself. They
saw checks and balances not as an option but as an obligation, a fundamental
responsibility that goes to the very heart of each lawmaker's oath faithfully to
support and defend the Constitution.
It's important to note that Congress is not a weak institution. It has powerful
muscles to flex, including control of the purse, which Congress used in 1973 to
tell Nixon, "No, we will not provide money for you to extend the Vietnam War
into
Laos and Cambodia." Nixon had to back off. Legislators also have clear
constitutional mandates to oversee, probe, and expose presidential actions
(remember the extensive Fulbright hearings in the '60s and the Church
investigations of the '70s, for example). Members of Congress have wide-ranging
subpoena power, as well as something called "inherent contempt" power to make
their own charges against outlaw executive officials and to hold their own
trials. And, of course, they have impeachment power -- which the founders saw
not only as a way to remove an outlaw president (or veep or cabinet officer),
but
also as a means to compel a
recidivist constitutional violator to come before the bar of Congress and to be
held accountable. The process itself, even if it does not lead to conviction in
the Senate, is educational and chastening, putting the executive branch back in
its place.
None of this is about making a partisan attack on Bush/Cheney. It's really not
about them at all. Rather, Congress must find its backbone because our
democracy
cannot function without a vigilant legislative branch. Outlaw presidents must
finally leave office, but their precedents live beyond them if left unchecked.
As historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote of the power-grabbing Nixon
administration,
"If the Nixon
White House escaped the legal consequences of its illegal behavior, why would
future presidents not suppose themselves entitled to do [the same]?"
Bang Pots and Pans
Sam Adams, the organizer of the Boston Tea Party, knew that it is the citizenry
itself that ultimately has to do the heavy lifting of democracy building. "If
ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest
seats of government," he declared, "our country will stand in need of its
experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
That's us. And now is that time.
What can we do? We can do what millions have been doing-only more of it, more
insistently, more loudly, more creatively. Our friend Molly Ivins, just before
she died this year, urged us to start "banging pots and pans" to make the
bastards hear us. Raise a ruckus through street demonstrations, peace actions,
visits (and/or confrontations) with lawmakers, political campaigns, alliances
with military families, religious ceremonies, coalitions with constitutional
conservatives, outreach to young people, and grassroots media action, including
blogs, email blasts, call-in radio, letters to editors, op-eds, bumperstickers,
and whatever you've got. Make a mighty noise.
Don't forget our friends in office. Such Democrats as John Conyers, Henry
Waxman, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, and Dennis Kucinich
are all over Bush and Cheney with investigations, subpoenas, censure motions,
impeachment bills, and exposes -- not only on the war, but most emphatically on
constitutional abuses. Thank them, find out what you can do to help them,
demand
that your own Congress critter join them.
And here's a creative idea from Garret Keizer. I have no idea who he is, but he
wrote a punchy piece in the October issue of Harper's Magazine (read it here)
that I like and that Lowdowners might want to embrace. He's calling for a
general strike. Not by unions, but by us-you and me. As a symbolically
appropriate day, he suggests the first Tuesday of November, the traditional date
for our elections -- this year, Nov. 6. He dubs it "The Feast of the Hanging
Chads."
A general strike means that We The People, as many of us as possible, would
disobey the inept, corrupt, undemocratic (add your own adjective here) system by
withholding our presence at for least one day. Don't go to work. Stay home.
Better yet, take some political action. Also, don't go to the mall, the
supermarket, or the bank; don't use your credit card or make any commercial
transaction. This would be the ultimate affront to the corporate president who
so pathetically told us after 9/11 that our highest patriotic response to the
attack was to "go shopping." So don't fly, use your cell phone (hard, I know),
watch TV, or otherwise participate. Sometimes, silence is the loudest sound of
all. As Keizer says, "As long as we're willing to go on with our business, Bush
and Cheney will feel free to go on with their coup."
On one level, the strike is against the war, against Bush thumbing his nose at
the American majority that has already emphatically said -- OUT! -- and against
the Democratic leadership that can't seem to muster the will to rein in the Bush
administration. On another level, however, this is a strike for the
Constitution, a strike against the betrayal of the rule of law and our
democratic
ideals. It's a strike for the America we thought this was. It's an affirmation
that the people are the only "larger force" that can stop the BushCheney coup
and
make America whole again.
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/
--- End Message ---
