|
May 17, 2004
Big plots that fizzle...
Let me start by saying that I never said there weren't any conspiracies. Any time two or more people agree to do something, there's a conspiracy. It's just that the big, grand, magical conspiracies, if they exist, tend not to work. I just read Megan McArdle's piece on doom and gloom, and here's an excerpt I like: The shape of liberty has changed over the 200 years of our existence, expanding in some places and contracting in others. There is no libertarian eden, located somewhere in the American past, from which we are now fallen, or falling.Are we all victims of a big plot? Is the sky falling? If only life were so simple! I want to address an idea which has gained quite a bit of traction lately, and which I touched on in the last post: that George W. Bush is an evil would-be dictator who was behind 9-11 so that the Neocons could launch a giant war and end up ruling the world while destroying what's left of freedom in the United States. I recall similar thinking about Richard Nixon. A massive wave of hysteria swept the country, with many people saying that Nixon had "shredded the Constitution" (if the bungled Watergate burglary, an "enemies list," and a special unit dedicated to stopping wartime leaks of classified material was that), and that he was going to suspend the elections, etc. Nixon certainly had his chance to seize all power and do these terrible things, and guess what? He resigned rather than be impeached. Didn't go out with a bang; just a whimper. Why? Same reason he didn't demand a recount in 1960 despite the Daley shenanigans; he thought it would be bad for the country. Some "dictator." Bush is being demonized much the same way Nixon was, and even assuming for the sake of argument that he wants to institute a totalitarian government (something I doubt), history shows that he couldn't do it if he wanted. He watches the polls, worries about his numbers, and of course wants to win the November election. But if he loses, there won't be a military takeover. He'll just exit the White House, and Kerry will enter! I could be wrong of course, but I've lived long enough and seen enough of politics to doubt it. If Bush wins, guess what! He'll have a second term, and then who knows? If he even attempted a totalitarian takeover, he'd be impeached so fast it would make everyone's head spin. Bush has to deal with the Supreme Court, Congress, the mainstream media, the blogosphere, and even public opinion. Just like any other president. (Hey, and maybe even the military might not take kindly to a president canceling elections and seizing power....) Which is why I am not terribly impressed by claims that 9-11 was a big plot to seize power by the Neocons. I don't think they'd get away with it. There are too many other spheres of influence and power. Sorry it's not a more exciting post, but I think the doom and gloom, sky-is-falling stuff is quite misguided. And highly overrated. And (in this country at least) not well grounded in history. Bear in mind that this is coming from a pretty gloomy, ultimately doomed person. We're all doomed, too. Well? Does anyone expect to get out of life alive? posted by Eric on 05.17.04 at 12:24 AM
Comments
Excellent points. I hope both parties block each others' judicial appointments and filibuster each other's legislation. Keep Borks and any more Scalias off the Supreme Court and also keep gun-haters off the Supreme Court. Keep bad legislation, when it be any more gun control or an Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment, from passing. Gridlock is good. It was a great day when Gingrich and Clinton, between them, shut down most of the federal government for a while. There's no government like no government, as they say. I say the Supreme Court should strike down more legislation. We need to get conservatives back the way they were before the New Deal, when they opposed most government and supported a strong, independent judiciary, and emphasized that America was founded to be a Constitutional republic and not a democracy. Turn back the clock. I'd like to turn it back to 2004 B.C.. I'm a reactionary. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · May 18, 2004 02:35 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Funny. Great classical arguments why a Republican can't take over the country. So a frontal assault won't work. Let's try a different tactic. How about controlling the press, blocking judicial appointments, letting loose organized labor as the occupying army of choice, keeping the lower and middle class down while at the same time promising that government programs are "really" helping them, locking down free enterprise and draining the blood out of entreprenurial turnip. Weaken our armed forces so they not only cannot police the world, but that they can only defend the new "peoples" government of liberal Democrats. More scary than you thought.