Time for change's Journal - Holocaust Denial

Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!

Time for change's Journal

Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Tue Jul 07th 2009, 12:23 AM

The world is filled with people who are way too willing to be led by those who are set up as authority figures. These people are too unwilling to exert independent thought and follow their own independent consciences. So, why do way too many American

Since as early as I can remember, I’ve looked at the Nazi Holocaust as a defining event in world history and have had a great interest in trying to understand it better. Consequently, I’ve read dozens of books on the subject, always with the aim of trying to better understand how such a terrible thing could happen.

I feel the need to provide some personal background on this subject before getting into the topic of this post: At least part of the reason for my great interest in this subject has been my Jewish family background. All four of my grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Russia or Eastern Europe. Some of my family were Holocaust victims, as was the one who wrote a book that included his escape from a Nazi concentration camp on the night before he was scheduled for the gas chamber. Many of those who escaped the Holocaust through emigration to the United States, such as my grandparents, experienced a great deal of anti-Semitism throughout much of their lives, which substantially colored their world view. Fortunately for me, I never had to experience much of that.

Because of my family background, I heard stories about the Holocaust from my family from a very young age. When I was young I considered myself Jewish, simply because my parents told me that I was. So I always filled in “Jewish” on forms that asked my religion. But later I wondered how my parents could consider themselves Jewish when they didn’t believe in God. When I asked them about that, they told me it was because Jewishness was not only a religion but a culture. And they always believed that Jews had to stick together in order to maintain their “identity”, which they saw as a means of combating anti-Semitism.

At some point before I became an adult I began to reject that idea. I also came to feel that it was silly to fill in “Jewish” on job applications, etcetera, since I had no religious upbringing whatsoever. So from that time on I checked “none” instead.

As I grew older, I came to see maintaining a Jewish “identity”, as my parents wished me to do, not merely as pointless, but as harmful and against my basic value system. To put it more generally, I have come to see any kind of religious, racial, ethnic, or national identity as harmful. I understand my family’s point of view on this, and I can understand why minorities who are discriminated against would be inclined to develop pride in their particular minority identities. And I don’t blame them for that. But at the same time I have come to see religious, racial, ethnic, and national identification as labels that divide people. And as labels that divide people, they have led to war and every kind of atrocity known to humankind.

In fact, it is such labels that led to the Nazi Holocaust itself, as well as so many other genocides. For that reason, when it comes to “identities”, I would now much rather consider myself as a citizen of the world before I define myself according to my race, religion (or lack of), or as an American. (I do however consider myself a “liberal”, since that is a philosophy that I have come to after giving it much thought).

Holocaust denial

“Holocaust denier” has come to be a pejorative term in the United States as well as most other parts of the world – as well it should be. I won’t go into the relationship between Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, except to note that, although I have never seen an obvious reason why the two are necessarily strongly related, it seems evident that they are.

Beyond that, there is a very important reason why Holocaust denial is a bad thing: The Nazi Holocaust is perhaps the most evil event ever to have occurred in the history of the world, in terms of the magnitude of human suffering that it caused. It is crucially important to learn from history so that humanity can take steps to prevent bad things from recurring and facilitate the good things. Denial of important historical events makes it impossible to do that. We can’t learn from history if we fail to acknowledge the most important historical events. It’s that simple.

Another way to trivialize the Holocaust

Partly as a result of my great interest in the Nazi Holocaust, I have sometimes pointed out analogies between that and other events. When I have done so I have sometimes been aggressively criticized, primarily on two grounds: 1) the event in question was of a much smaller magnitude, and 2) by making the analogy I was said to be “trivializing” the Nazi Holocaust. Indeed, so sacrosanct have some authors considered the Nazi Holocaust that in their view pointing out analogies between it and anything else is to “trivialize” it. Their point of view is basically that the Nazi Holocaust was so terrible that there never was and never will be anything like it. Therefore, comparing it to anything else is to trivialize it.

I have two answers to that. First, a small slice of pie and a whole pie are basically the same thing; the only difference is that one is much bigger than the other. Or more generally, there are many things that are very similar to each other except for their size. I am not arguing that size is not important. Of course it is. But just because two things may differ greatly in size, that does not mean that there can’t be very important similarities between them.

But more important is the fact that if one considers the Nazi Holocaust to be so unique, so sacrosanct that we dare not compare it to other events, that trivializes it in some respects just as much as denying that it ever occurred. For if it is so uniquely different than anything that ever happened or ever will happen, then we have nothing to learn from it. It is simply a unique event that has no relationship to anything else. If “trivializing” the Holocaust means anything, it means placing it in a context in which we have nothing to learn from it. That could mean on the one hand denying it. Or at the other extreme, it means claiming that it is so unique that it bears no lessons for us which we can use to prevent future similar (even if smaller) occurrences.

And remember this too: Genocides – even the Nazi Holocaust – start out small and grow bigger over time if not enough is done to combat them. The bigger they get, the more difficult they become to stop.

American atrocities

In my most recent post I wrote about several events that I characterized as indications of American imperialism and atrocities. This was just a small sampling of covert or overt interventions that the United States has perpetrated against sovereign nations in its two and a quarter century history. These were all offensive actions against nations that posed no threat to us whatsoever. You can read the post if you want more details, but here a short summary of some of the consequences:

Philippines (1899-1902): 36,000 dead Filipinos
Iran (1953): 26 years of brutal dictatorship
Guatemala (1954): 140,000 dead or disappeared Guatemalans
Indonesia (1965): up to 1 million dead Indonesians
Vietnam (1956-73): 2 million dead Vietnamese
Chile (1973): 3,200 disappeared or dead Chileans; 200,000 refugees; 80,000 imprisoned
Nicaragua (1980s): 14,000 casualties
Iraq (2003- ): 1.3 million dead Iraqis; 4 million refugees

But these are just numbers. To personalize it a little, here is a description of an interview with an Iraqi resistance fighter – the people who we routinely refer to as “terrorists” – by Jurgen Todenhofer, from his book, “Why Do You Kill – The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance”:

Omar… lost 10 members of his family, including his oldest son, Mazin, when the American troops invaded. Mazin was nine years old when the American troops shot him… He will never forget the look on the face of his dying son; his eyes were pleading: “Papa, help me. You always help me”. But Omar could not help this time, and Omar’s son bled to death in his arms…

He is disappointed by the coverage of Iraq in the Western media. He is astonished that no distinction is made between the Iraqi resistance to the occupation and the terrorism brought in from abroad that is directed against the civilian population. He also finds it strange that the resistance is criticized for hiding in residential neighborhoods among civilians. Where should they be? The resistance doesn’t have any barracks. Resistance fighters are freedom fighters…. Moreover, in most places the people all support the resistance.

And then there’s a report by the Global Policy Forum on how the United States has conducted its occupation of Iraq: The report explains:

U.S. military commanders have established permissive rules of engagement, allowing troops to use deadly force against virtually any perceived threat. As a consequence, the US and its allies regularly kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints and during military operations, on the basis of the merest suspicion…abusing and torturing large numbers of Iraqi prisoners… torture increasingly takes place in Iraqi prisons, apparently with US awareness and complicity…In addition to combat deaths, coalition forces have killed many Iraqi civilians. The U.S. has established broad legal immunity in Iraq for its forces, private security personnel, for contractors, and even for the oil companies…

American holocaust denial?

I recently read excerpts from the introduction to William Blum’s book, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II”, in which Blum describes our numerous imperialistic adventures in foreign nations, including the Cold War related ones noted above in this post. In that introduction, Blum describes his correspondence with a university professor and author of a book about Nazi Holocaust denial. Blum wrote her a letter:

telling her that her book made me wonder whether she knew that an American holocaust had taken place, and that the denial of it put the denial of the Nazi one to shame. So broad and deep is the denial of the American holocaust, I said, that the deniers are not even aware that the claimers or their claim exist. Yet, a few million people have died in the American holocaust and many more millions have been condemned to lives of misery and torture as a result of US interventions extending from China and Greece in the 1940s to Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s. I enclosed a listing of these interventions, which is of course the subject of the present book.

Though I have often written about various American atrocities, I must admit that I had never quite thought about them in terms of a “holocaust”, or in terms of Americans being deniers of an American holocaust. But why not? Sure, there are differences between these atrocities and the Nazi Holocaust. The American atrocities were never carried out solely on the basis of race or religion. But so what? The victims described in Blum’s book posed no threat to us. Hitler had his Jews. We had our “Communists”, which I put in quotes because many or most of our interventions were not actually directed against Communists, but rather against nations that we claimed were susceptible to Communist takeover. But what if they were all Communists? Don’t other nations have the right to choose their own form of government? Here is how Blum makes the parallel between Hitler’s ravings about the Jews and our ravings about Communists:

Both the Americans and the Germans believed their own propaganda, or pretended to. In reading Mein Kampf, one is struck by the fact that a significant part of what Hitler wrote about Jews reads very much like an American anti-communist writing about communists: He starts with the premise that the Jews (communists) are evil and want to dominate the world; then, any behavior which appears to contradict this is regarded as simply a ploy to fool people and further their evil ends; this behavior is always part of a conspiracy… He ascribes to the Jews great, almost mystical, power to manipulate societies and economies. He blames Jews for the ills arising from the industrial revolution, e.g., class divisions and hatred. He decries the Jews' internationalism and lack of national patriotism.

The politics of holocaust denial

When I was in college I took at least one history course that considered and argued about the pros and cons of the Nuremberg trials. I was always very much in favor of them (and still am). But there was at least one argument against them that perhaps I didn’t take seriously enough at the time: the “victor’s justice” argument, which argued that the standards that we applied against the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials were only meant to be used against the losers of wars, never against the victors. I didn’t want to believe that. But the validity of that argument has become clearer to me over the years, and it became especially clear as I recognized the widespread disinterest in and even taboos against prosecuting the war criminals of the Bush administration. Prosecution of war criminals IS selective, and it is definitely driven by politics.

Robert Fisk makes a similar point in his book, “The Age of the Warrior”. He notes that Maurice Papon was tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity in 1998 for his role in the Nazi Holocaust, in which he deported some 1,600 Jews to Auschwitz. Yet that same man was never tried for his role in the massacre of at least 200 Algerian demonstrators in Paris in 1961, in his role as Paris police chief.

The bottom line on the question of who is held responsible for war crimes is that politics has way too much to do with it. War crimes committed while acting in one’s official capacity as a U.S. government official are highly unlikely to be prosecuted because, as U.S. Republicans are fond of whining, that would constitute the “criminalization of policy differences”. Yet we never considered our prosecution of the Nazis at Nuremberg as the “criminalization of policy differences”, even though it was precisely the carrying out of Nazi policies that we prosecuted.

Towards an understanding of crimes against humanity

When I first heard about the Nazi Holocaust as a young boy, I believed that there must be something genetically wrong with Germans. After all, I was told that such monstrous crimes could never occur in my country. And yet, look what happened in Germany. But by now, I have read enough to know that the capacity for mass cruelty and atrocities is widespread throughout history and throughout our planet – and that my own country is certainly not immune.

I believe that the underlying cause of both mass atrocities and their denial is the confluence two things: 1) excessive subservience of the masses to authority figures, and 2) the elevation to power of … the wrong kinds of people.

Bob Altemeyer discusses this issue in great detail in his book, “The Authoritarians”. The phenomenon of excessive subservience to authority figures is best depicted by his description of the obedience experiments of Stanley Milgram. In the most famous of these experiments, men were told that they were participating in a “memory” experiment, in which they would play the role of “Teacher”. Their job was to deliver electric shocks to a “Learner” whenever the Learner, who was actually part of the research team, gave the wrong answer to the memory test. Unknown to the Teacher, the “electrical shocks” were fake, as were the Learner’s reactions to the “electrical shocks”. In response to instructions from the authority figure (the Experimenter), the Teacher would continue to deliver progressively higher voltage until his conscience won out over his tendency to obey the authority figure. The results were disappointing, to say the least. 85% of the Teachers went past the point where the “Learner” appeared to be in such pain that he screamed and demanded to be let out of the experiment. 62% of the Teachers went past the point where the “Learner” appeared to be dead.

In other words, the world is filled with people who are way too willing to be led by those who are set up as authority figures. These people are too unwilling to exert independent thought and follow their own independent consciences. So, why do way too many Americans deny the atrocities committed by their own government? Basically, because of their eagerness to believe whatever their authorities tell them.

The biggest problem comes when a society or a nation falls under the sway of what Altemeyer refers to as “social dominators” or “authoritarian leaders”. He describes them as:

inclined to be intimidating, ruthless, and vengeful. They scorn such noble acts as helping others, and being kind, charitable, and forgiving. Instead they would rather be feared than loved, and be viewed as mean, pitiless, and vengeful. They love power, including the power to hurt in their drive to the top…. Social dominators thus admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral.

What can be done?

Altemeyer sums up the basic problem like this:

The vast majority of us have had practically no training in our lifetimes in openly defying authority. The authorities who brought us up mysteriously forgot to teach that. We may desperately want to say no, but that turns out to be a huge step that most people find impossibly huge – even when the authority is only a psychologist you never heard of running an insane experiment. From our earliest days we are told disobedience is a sin, and obedience is a virtue, the “right” thing to do… I am saying that we as individuals are poorly prepared for a confrontation with evil authority, and some people are especially inclined to submit to such authority and attack in its name.

There are other major problems, of course – racism and militant nationalism, for example. But humanity is taught those things. In fact they are taught those things by the very “social dominators” that Altemeyer describes. Howard Zinn sees the problem in terms very similar to Altemeyer. From his book, “Failure to Quit”:

Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem."

If one believes that Altemeyer and Zinn are correct – and I do – the answer then lies in finding a way to facilitate independent thinking. Altemeyer has shown that a college education helps. So does exposure to different kinds of situations and different kinds of people. Altemeyer has noted, for example, that “nothing improves authoritarians’ attitudes toward homosexuals as much as getting to know a homosexual – or learning that they’ve known one for years.” I’m certain that the same thing can be said about racism and nationalism, and any other kind of bigotry – the traits that have been so responsible for humankind’s inhumanity to their fellow humans throughout history.

The common denominator for all these things is expansion of the human mind and heart. But is there enough time for that to happen before humankind destroys itself?

Discuss (64 comments) | Recommend (+67 votes)

U.S. Democracy in Crisis

Time for change

The Democratic Underground was born on one of the worst days in U.S history – The day that the worst President in U.S. history took office.

Now, here we are 8 years later, and we’ve managed to remove that cancer from our nation and replace it with something much better. Notwithstanding my many ambivalent feelings towards President Obama, I have no doubt that he will be infinitely better for our country than his predecessor.

Yet despite that, our country has been terribly scarred from the events of the past eight years, and it continues to suffer from all of the root problems that brought us the worst President in our history in 2000 and 2004. Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the root problems that brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES

One thing that we must keep in mind when considering our current problems is that they are not new. They were greatly exacerbated by eight years of Bush administration misrule, but they did not start with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Money in politics

All but the most naïve of the American citizenry know that the wealthy and powerful in our country routinely influence our local and national elections through huge campaign contributions. And they also know that they are generally well rewarded for their “contributions”. And they also know that bribery is presumably against the law in our country. Yet, on the rare occasion that our politicians are actually accused of bribery, our news media makes a great big deal over it, as if bribery is actually a rare event in American politics.

The end result is that a great many of our politicians do everything they can to make their wealthiest constituents happy with them, at the expense of everyone else. They do that with the knowledge that the voters they lose in doing so will be more than compensated for by the disinformation that will be paid for by their wealthiest constituents. I discuss this situation in more detail here, here, and here.

There are a few dots to connect here, but any reasonable assessment of American politics tells us that bribery is routinely used to buy and sell elections in our country. So routine is it that it is actually built into our system and legalized. But that fact is never overtly spoken of. To do so would imply that our system of government is as much or more an aristocracy than it is a democracy.

Bill Moyers, in his book “Moyers on Democracy”, explains the situation bluntly:

We have lost the ability to call the most basic transaction by its right name. If a baseball player stepping up to home plate were to lean over and hand the umpire a wad of bills before he called the pitch, we’d call that a bribe. But when a real estate developer buys his way into the White House and gets a favorable government ruling that wouldn’t be available to you or me, what do we call that? A “campaign contribution”.

Let’s call it what it is: a bribe.

The legality of contributing money to political candidates, with the implicit (though not explicit) understanding that that money will buy political favoritism, has been defended by both our courts and our Congress by sanctimoniously pointing to the free speech provisions in the First Amendment to our Constitution and claiming that money is speech. But the absurdity of that contention should be obvious to anyone with some primary school education. Speech is of value from a political standpoint (or any other standpoint) only when it is heard. But if one billionaire has one thousand times as much opportunity to speak through a medium which reaches millions than several thousand other people added together, the speech of that one billionaire will drown out the speech of most other people, thereby interfering with their right to free speech.

Election fraud

Electronic vote switching with DRE (direct-recording electronic) machines poses a great danger to the integrity of our election system – by virtue of its ability to switch a voter’s vote without being noticed by the voter. In other words, someone tries to vote for John Kerry, and the machine registers a vote for George Bush instead. What makes matters worse is that many or most of these machines don’t even produce a piece of paper with the vote on it, which can then later be used for a recount. So, if fraud is suspected there is no recourse. And worse yet is the fact that most of these machines use proprietary (secret) code to determine who the voter voted for.

We know for a fact that vote-switching occurred in the 2004 election. One study, based on voter reports to the national Electronic Incident Reporting System (EIRS), showed that vote switching incidents favored Bush over Kerry by a ratio of 12 to 1 nationally. A similar study showed that these vote switching incidents that favored Bush were 9 times as common in the heavily contested “swing states” than in non-swing states. To make the point that the EIRS reports represent only a small fraction of actual Election Day problems, an investigation by the Washington Post identified about 25 electronic voting machines in Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio, that were said to have been switching votes all day long. Yet only eight incidents of this nature from Mahoning County (all in favor of Bush) were reported to EIRS that day.

Clint Curtis, a computer programmer working in Florida prior to the 2004 election, testified before the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee that he was requested in 2000 by his boss (at the request of a high level Republican operative, Tom Feeney) to “develop a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in an election and be undetectable”. Curtis’ testimony was followed by the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Curtis’ allegations was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”,

Another type of election fraud is the illegal purging of registered voters from the voter rolls. Like vote switching, the increasing computerization of voter registration is no doubt making it much easier to perpetrate this type of fraud on a mass basis.

This article describes a great deal of evidence that voter registration fraud played a major role in the 2004 presidential election, and in fact was probably the deciding factor in Ohio, which gave George Bush his electoral victory. Similarly, although the 2000 presidential election was stolen by a variety of means, voter registration fraud was quantitatively the most important method used. In 2000, the Florida Governor’s office used a computer program to purge tens of thousands of mostly black and Democratic voters.

There are many other means of election fraud that have been used in our country to destabilize our democracy. I discuss this issue in more detail, along with means for preventing election fraud, in this post.

Our corporate news media

If cash donated to their political campaigns is not enough to carry them through to victory, and if election fraud doesn’t happen to play a significant role, the corporate news media serves as another valuable tool for those seeking to sabotage our democracy. This problem overlaps with the role of money in politics, since those who own and control the corporate media are uniformly wealthy, and since it was their money that led to the acts that enabled our corporate media to become what it is today – Ronald Reagan’s veto of Democratic legislation to enforce the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This legislation allowed the monopoly consolidation of our news media to the point where today it is controlled by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals.

Several excellent books have been written about the extent to which wealthy corporate interests control our news media today. I would highly recommend “Lapdogs – How the Press rolled Over for Bush”, by Eric Boehlert, “What Liberal Media – The Truth About BIAS and the News”, by Eric Alterman, and “Into the Buzzsaw – The Myth of a Free Press”, edited by Kristina Borjesson. And I have ranted about pseudo-journalists such as Tim Russert, who have made a largely successful, but hypocritical effort to appear unbiased to their viewers.

The bottom line, as Bill Moyers points out, is that the protection offered us by our First Amendment is based on the assumption of a separation of our government and a free press, which is supposed to protect us from government abuses. Moyers wrote this during the Bush administration:

What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands, ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation". Giant media conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state.

Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know.

Secrecy in government

Democracy suffers terribly when a nation’s citizens are uninformed – especially when they are uninformed with respect to the actions and motivations of their own government. If we don’t know what our government is doing, then how can we be expected to vote them out when they do something that we would consider deeply immoral had we known about it?

Consider war for example. If Americans understood the real motivations for its nation’s wars, they would probably be much more likely to strenuously object to those wars. That would make war much less politically feasible, and our country would therefore be led into war much less frequently than it has been in the past.

That is why I so hate the “national security” excuse for withholding information from us, the American people – which has become so routine that it is willingly or passively accepted by the good majority of Americans. I very much doubt that the “national security” excuse for withholding information from the American people has anything to do with national security more than 5% of the time. Rather, the reason for withholding such information from us is almost always something totally different. It is to blind us to the real reasons for war or other nefarious acts, so that we will accept them and willingly support or even risk our lives in their cause.

Rampant U.S. nationalism and the GAME

Two months ago I wrote a DU post that I titled “The GAME”, which I began by discussing “Unmentionable things in U.S. politics” – including such things as the stealing of a U.S. presidential election, calling American military or covert actions immoral rather than merely “misguided”, and imputing bad intentions rather than mere incompetence to a U.S. president.

I find this to be terribly repressive, not because I personally can’t mention these things, but because our elected representatives are under tremendous pressure not to discuss them. We elect them to represent us and our nation, and except for some rare courageous exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Robert Wexler, they refuse to even talk about some of our very most important issues.

It has occurred to me that this provides the backdrop for a huge GAME that has been foisted upon us. A prerequisite of the GAME is to create an alternate reality that must be believed by a critical mass of people in order for the GAME to proceed. Why is that necessary? I believe it’s necessary because the reality is so terrible that if enough people consciously recognized it they would rise up and simply refuse to play the GAME.

Although the GAME’s masters set the rules, there are two related character traits of many Americans that cause them to play along: Rampant nationalism and a propensity for denial. Rampant nationalism is the attitude that our country is inherently better than any other country – so much so that it can do no wrong. This attitude is drummed into the American people from the time that most of us learn how to talk. We are made to feel that to believe or speak otherwise demonstrates a dangerous lack of “patriotism”, which makes us deserving of being shunned – or worse.

The other character trait that persuades too many Americans to play the GAME is denial. Believing terrible things about one’s country can be very painful. Accepting reality as it is, rather than as one would like it to be, can be very painful. To make this point, in a recent post titled “12 Things that Never Happened in American History”, I discuss the following official stories that we have been told (or not told):

The U.S. is not an imperialist country; FDR’s New Deal was not instrumental in ending the Great Depression; the Cold War was just about fighting totalitarian Communism; JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman; bribery is infrequent in American politics; Iran-Contra was not a criminal abuse of presidential power; U.S. presidential elections cannot be stolen; Bush and Cheney did everything they could to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; the Bush administration’s crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment or prosecution; and, we’re barely told about our nation’s killing of more than a million Iraqi civilians, the October Surprise, or Operation Northwoods.

CONSEQUENCES

These impediments to democracy work together to surrender great amounts of power into the hands of a small number of elites, who use that power in the cause of increasing their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. It is a vicious cycle that is very difficult to break. Here are some of the major tragic consequences.

Rampant militarism and illegal aggression against sovereign nations

We are so often told how good and pure our nation and its people are that only a minority of Americans are aware of the extent of our many illegal and immoral activities. Many or most who aren’t aware of these activities would be shocked to learn about them and quite resistant to accepting that information as the truth.

In myriad instances we have overthrown or assisted in the overthrow of sovereign nations. In the good majority of these instances we have substituted a repressive right wing government for one that was much more responsive to the needs and desires of the nation’s citizenry. Sometimes genocide was used to accomplish our goals. The purpose of these activities has most often been to create a government that is friendlier to the desires of American businesses or corporations – though we always have some sort of rationalization for our actions.

In “Excuses for War” I discuss many of the phony excuses that the United States government has used to lead us into war, including its Indian wars, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Vietnam War.

In “The Roots and Consequences of U.S. Overseas Imperialism” I note or discuss our covert and overt illegal and immoral overthrowing of the sovereign nations of Hawaii (1893), Cuba (1898), Puerto Rico (1898), the Philippines (1899-1902), Nicaragua (1910), Honduras (1911-1912), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), South Vietnam (1963), Chile (1973), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003).

In “The Meaning of U.S. Imperialism, Genocide and Militarism” I note U.S. perpetrated genocides, as described in “State of Darkness” by David Model, including our atomic bombing of Japan (1945), those perpetrated against Guatemala (1954), Vietnam (1954-73), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970-75), Laos (1969-74), and East Timor (1975), and our two wars against Iraq.

Other atrocities include our invasion of Cuba in 1961; U.S. Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to put down a rebellion against their repressive right wing government; U.S. military support of Haitian tyrant and mass murderer, Francois Duvalier; and numerous brutal interventions in several Latin American and African nations.

Massive Income and wealth inequality

Inequality of wealth in the United States is truly astounding – and it is increasing at a fast rate. In the United States in 2001, 1% of the population controlled 38% of the wealth, whereas the bottom 40% owned just 1%. That means that, on average, individuals in the top 1% owned about 1,500 times more wealth than individuals in the bottom 40%.

The rising level of income inequality in our country recently exceeded the point where it stood just prior to the stock market crash of 1929, which led to the worst depression in U.S. history. There are many who see a connection between the income inequality preceding that depression and our current situation. This graph, which plots income inequality measured as the ratio between the average income of the top 0.01% of U.S. families compared to the bottom 90%, over time, makes that point.

I discuss the subject of income and wealth inequality here, here, and here.

The loss of the rule of law

During the Bush Presidency I often argued that he should be impeached for his many crimes. Now that he can no longer be impeached, I have argued that our Justice Department should prosecute him for those crimes, and if it fails to do so then the International Criminal Court (ICC) should step in.

While Bush was still President, President Obama weighed in against impeachment, saying that impeachment should be reserved for only the most serious crimes. Now that he is President he has thus far given little or no indication that he intends to have his Justice Department prosecute George Bush or any other high level Bush administration official for their crimes. But if widespread torture, an illegal war of aggression, spying on American citizens, suspending of the right of habeas corpus, and numerous other violations of our Constitution don’t constitute serious crimes, then what does?

What would people say if a prosecuting attorney failed to prosecute a rapist and murderer simply because he had high level political connections? Who would accept that? Then why when far more serious crimes are committed by a President of the United States are there so many people who seem to think that it is ok to sit passively by and make no attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes?

I’ll tell you why. It’s like I said earlier in this post. Saying that a former U.S. President might be guilty of prosecutable crimes is simply against the rules of the GAME. Given that and the failure to hold the Reagan administration accountable for its Iran-Contra crimes, George Bush and Dick Cheney connected the dots and thought that they might be able to get away with just about anything. Testing that assumption by moving ahead with prosecutions might be politically risky for the Obama administration. The Republican Party would no doubt raise holy hell if there was an attempt to prosecute high level Bush administration officials.

Consequently, we live in country in which, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, certain people are indeed above the law. That fact, taken together with all of the impediments to democracy discussed in the first part of this post, means that democracy and the rule of law in our country are in grave danger. Indeed, some believe that we narrowly averted a military coup perpetrated by the Bush administration.

The American people and their leaders need to reassess what our country stands for. Is our democracy important enough to take steps to remove the role of money in politics, reform our election system, break up the corporate monopoly on our news media, require government actions to be much more transparent than they now are, and dare to look more objectively at who we are and what we do? Can we give up imperialism and warfare for the sake a world in which nations live and work together to further the cause of peace and justice? Can we make our nation one in which all of its citizens truly have the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And do our laws apply to all people, not just to those who lack the political influence to avoid them?

If we think that these things are important we have a great deal of work to do, lest our country sinks into a tyranny from which it may never recover.

Profile Information

Time for change

DU Donor

11473 posts

Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004

Silver Spring, MD, US

Male

Visit Homepage

Visitor Tools

Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.

	Track this Journal
	Blogroll this Journal
	RSS/XML

The Usual Suspects

	The Top 10 Conservative Idiots Mondays
	The Crisis Papers Tuesdays
	Ask Auntie Pinko Thursdays
	Blog Box Fridays
	Hate Mailbag Whenever

Greatest Threads

The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.

Support for Rep. John Lewis, .. Support for Rep. Barney Frank.. We stand with you
152 recs : By Peacetrain

I think I've just lost a friend and perhaps my mind.
94 recs : By Better Today

Here is MY problem with today's "Centrist" Democratic Party:
73 recs : By bvar22

CBC member: Health bill protesters called Rep. Lewis the N-word
70 recs : By kpete

If Private Health insurance is so good - WOULDN'T NEED A MANDATE TO FORCE US TO BUY THE CRAP! nt
61 recs : By grahamhgreen

Teabaggers SPIT ON my favorite congressman today. Yes they spit on him!!!!
52 recs : By proud2BlibKansan

Our food chain is being decimated & a great fish stands on the verge of annihalation
47 recs : By jonathon

John Lewis called a "N$gg$r" Barney Frank called a "F$gg%t" today on the Hill by teabaggers
45 recs : By wndycty

We Stand on the Cusp of one of Humanity's Most Dangerous Moments
44 recs : By Jackpine Radical

Rep. Tim Ryan calls out teabaggers and demands the GOP denounce them
42 recs : By wndycty

More Greatest Threads

My Forums

Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.

	Activist HQ
	Election Reform

Random Journal

Discussion Forums

Enter Discussion Forums

Big Forums

	Latest Breaking News
	Editorials & Other Articles
	Political Videos
	Research Forum
	General Discussion
	General Discussion: Presidency
	The DU Lounge

More Forums

	Topic Forums (35)
	State & Country Forums (56)
	DU Groups (133)

Today's Featured Forums

	September 11
	Iowa
	Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality Group
	Deaf/Hard of Hearing Group

Latest Threads

The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.

Freeper spin on the racial and homophobic slurs cast at Frank and Lewis
By cali

LOL!
By Hopeless Romantic

Cop's Wife Shot, Dies Sunbury, PA
By yankeepants

Labour crackdown pledge after MP lobbying cash claims
By dipsydoodle

Pleasures of Desertification: Having Drained Owens Lake, LADWP Proposes Dried Lake Bed As A Solar...
By NNadir

Toon....History of America ..Texas Board of Education
By Ichingcarpenter

We don't pay premiums for police, fire, roads, schools. Why premiums for health care?
By WillYourVoteBCounted

March for Immigration announces Speaker Lineup – No Speakers for LGBT Bi-nationals
By FreeState

I'll be working tomorrow when the Insurance "Reform" bill passes.
By cherokeeprogressive

4 Shot during argument at Uptown Charlotte restaurant
By depakid

More Latest Threads