It appears that the Bush Administration has discovered a fantasy world in which real threats can be ignored while imaginary threats must be destroyed with little regard to the expense involved. How else can you explain its refusal to deal with North Korea even after Saddam's little fiefdom has been toppled?
The quote in question regarded the visit of a state department official to Bejing for trilateral talks with a North Korean representative. In that meeting the North Koreans "revealed" that they did, in fact, have nuclear weapons, and that what the country did with them would depend on the United States' actions.
"We do not respond to threats!" I think the quote came from Donald Rumsfeld's inteview with the Associated Press. "WHAT?!" I immediately questioned. What excuse was given for invading Iraq? Wasn't it because of the threat its weapons of mass destruction (if they indeed existed) posed if they fell into the hands of "terrorists"?
The associated costs should also be an issue. It appears that North Korea simply wants some attention and economic assistance. (It might also desire a cooling of administration rhetoric.) Whatever it wants would probably be quite a bit cheaper than the war against Iraq.
The "we don't respond to threats" rhetoric makes great sense. No nation should be able to get what it wants by threatening violence. "When you settle down and act like grownups we can talk," should be our message. But under the principle of sauce for large waterfowl, the United States should set an example by not using violence to get what it wants.
Do I really think the well-educated men who surround our president really have such a tenuous grasp on reality? Of course not. The only other explanation that makes sense is that, somewhere in this muddle, they're lying to us. And this time they're lying about what really matters.
You remember that many of these same people castigated the previous president for lying. They called it a "character" issue. I agree with them. Slick Willie's comittment to honesty needs strengthening. But the lies he told involved private behavior that affected a small number of women and their families. King George and his cronies are playing with the security of the world. And they're telling lies so big they must have to unhinge their jaws to get them out.
How can they so blatantly fail to practice what they preach? How can they sleep while living so inconsistently? The answer gives us a blazing example of the dangers of tearing down the wall of separation between church and state.
George and friends believe they're fulfilling a Divine mission. The president really believes he was put in office at this time to do what he's done in Iraq. When you're doing something mandated by God the important thing is to finish the task. How you get it done isn't so important. At least that's how most people feel about it.
Having thus removed the ordinary moral restraints on the behavior of leaders, they believe their actions demonstrate that their characters are elevated, not debased. They have managed, in just two and a half years, to make the world (not just the United States) much less safe and secure. And they've done it in a way that makes the unthinking masses believe they're wonderful.
Now it's time to put that political capital to work to screw those very masses. What other explanation can you give for this administration's demand to spend more and collect less? In order to give the wealthy a break on taxes George is willing to sell out the future economic well-being of the average American. (You don't think the wealthy would agree to pay down the federal debt after they got the tax breaks they wanted, do you?)
Of course that's not how he's selling it. He's trotting out the tired old Reagan "trickle-down" economics. Actually any trickling will probably be sideways, not down. The same newscast quoted Mr. Bush, touring factories in Ohio, as saying the tax cut was needed to "create jobs."
Here, again, we find a perverted logic. America's monied elite, who have never had it so good, want more and more. And the way to get more is to pretend like there's some sort of economic crisis, lay off some workers, and create panic among the masses. Then you tell them they need to vote for politicians who support such brain-dead ideas as "trickle-down" economics in order to "stimulate" the economy.
Here's an idea. How about we take a play from the administration's Iraq strategy book and decide that the stick is more powerful than the carrot? Let's rule that it is a social obligation for those with money to use it for the benefit of the society. If someone with money refuses to invest it in job-creating enerprises we assume they're unpatriotic. For such treasonous action they get the death penalty.
Yes, yes. I went a little overboard. But if we're willing to kill someone for ending one life, shouldn't we also be willing to kill someone who makes the lives of thousands miserable in the extreme? If we can take down a soverign government because it might provide weapons to our enemies, can we not also take drastic action to prevent the greed of the well-to-do from threatening the economic security of millions of Americans?
On the other side of the argument, if we decide that the best way to deal with that greed is to give its perpetrators what they want, shouldn't we also do the same in the name of world security? No doubt the current administration suffers the restriction of other Reaganesque ideas. North Korea is a communist nation. Conservatives don't need any other reason to despise and fear it. And why not; it's so much like them.
The primary distinction between conservative and liberal has to do with the balance one makes between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. The conservative gives more weight to the needs and demands of the society, while the liberal gives more weight to the rights and privileges of the individual. Thus the conservative sees restrictions on abortion as a fundamental government function. The liberal believes the right of a woman to choose is more important.
The conservative believes anti-social individuals (criminals) should be treated harshly as a deterrent to others considering crime. The liberal believes the best solution to crime is to eliminate the conditions that cause it so as not to tread too heavily on personal liberty. The conservative believes people should make their own way; the liberal wants society to guarantee some level of sustenance and dignity to everyone.
But conservatives make great use of the "liberty" buzzword. They push "free market" ideas and want to dismantle government regulations that protect workers and the evironment. Notice how their "freedoms" always go to the wealthy? And that is why they fear communism so much.
Communism as a social system says no one individual should control large portions of society's wealth. The government, acting on behalf of all individuals, controls wealth and provides jobs and concomitant remuneration. The ideals are lofty, but the implementation usually falls far short.
In that sense communism is "liberal." But when it comes to the balance between individual rights and social needs, the communist system leans heavily toward society. That's how it is so like a conservative administration.
In our system the government shares power with the wealthy. In a communist system the government IS the wealthy and does not share power. This, of course, leads to corruption. In this sense our system is better, but it is far from ideal, as the lunatic assertions of the current administration demonstrate.
Don't get the idea that I said that George created the current economic downturn. He didn't. To the extent that government can control the economy (and that's very little) the current recession is Bill Clinton's fault. That's when it started. Since the government has little direct control of the economy the real cause for our recession is the excessive greed spawned by the unprecedentedly long growth cycle of the mid to late 1990s.
Bill Clinton did nothing to stem the cycle of greed that caused that growth. Why should he? It allowed him to be the first president since Ike to supervise a budget surplus. To that limited extent, then, the recession is his fault. The real fault, of course, lies with the greedy men who control most of the nation's money.
And that's w