Russ Feingold for President?

By Paul Quintanilla

When a new administration finally arrives (if we have a new administration in 2009) it will have a hell of a job reversing the national mood and overall national psyche. That is, if it wants to.

As a rule, new administrations offers some continuance. President Reagan, however, was an exception. He purposefully lunged the country toward the far right. He had a powerful and growing base. And now Bush and his neocon philosophs and business associates have taken the country a step further. There is even speculation today that we may have actually tipped, or are about to tip, into an American form of fascism. Some form of a nativist corporate oligarchy which pretty much runs the show. And it does so with a great deal of fear driven compliance from the American people. George Bush should feel completely at home in such a world.

So let's say a new, progressive administration takes over in 2009. We progressives hope, of course, that there will be no continuance. Many of us hope there will be a complete reversal in order to return to a state of calm national sanity. For President Bush offers us nothing but perpetual war. Against what? Evil? An elusive enemy we and our allies will never be able to even pinpoint or fully locate? An enemy which, in truth, our self serving alliances and current military and political activities in the Middle East may actually energize and even help create? A fiction called “Islamo fascism?”

This approach, the one Bush offers us, implies an unending war. They have even come up with a catchy title for it: “The Long War.” But the American people are becoming increasingly tired of war. Nor has the Bush administration explained how they intend to continue to wage war by bringing it to an end simultaneously. At this point, it appears, they can still promise that by merely “staying the course” victory will eventually be ours. But how will that be possible considering the nature of the enemy they have offered? One which will not merely go away with American military victories: which, in fact, grows in a subterranean manner as our enemies’ hate, anger, and desire for vengeance grows. As if our military were only stoking up a distant hornets’ nest.

But to change course will require an about face the American people may not be willing to go along with. At least not at this moment. And to bring an end to this war will require a great deal of political courage on the part of a new president and his administration. A courage few Democrats have shown. For many, perhaps a majority of Americans, still believe at this time that the only way to fight terrorism is with military force. By waging war in the Middle East. By fighting them “there” instead of “here.”

This is the climate the Bush administration has created in this country. And clearly they rely upon the fears and deep uncertainties of the American people to maintain their ongoing influence and direction. For Bush’s propaganda never ends: indeed, the president appears to be constantly campaigning for his war, as if this were his paramount role, creating enthusiasm with his unending tired lies and promises: displaying optimism, appealing to the nationalist and jingo sentiments of many followers.

If a more sensible, calm, and clear headed approach is offered to the American people, one which isn't sustained upon widespread fear and a policy of reliance on continued violence, that new president will have to accept the risk that when another terrorist attack occurs (and in all likelihood there will be more) he or she will be blamed for having allowed the attack to occur.

Why? Because, the far right will tell us, the new president wasn’t sufficiently "tough" on terrorism, didn’t “stay the course.” Wasn’t aggressive enough in this unending war, “The Long War.” And they will say that the attack is proof that they were always right.

President Bush, let’s not forget, has obtained a great deal of mileage so far out of this argument. And it still remains, even today, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, his final rhetorical straw. The one he and his White House allies shamelessly and continuously fling out in the face of all facts and reality. It is a simplistic argument which clears up the doubts of his loyal followers.

You and I, and many millions of Americans, can distinguish between Saddam and Osama: we know that the president has lied to us and that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. That in truth nothing has actually substantially changed since 9/11, except, of course, American attitudes toward terrorism and the Middle East. That, if anything, Iraq has become a more hospitable home for terrorists than it was under Saddam. That our terrorist enemies are still quite powerful, hiding, and strong. And that the world has actually become far more dangerous since 9/11.

Clearly we need a change. Millions of us long for a saner, better, and calmer political climate in America. A climate in which courage, competence, the rule of law, intelligence and understanding once again characterize the national scene. An America no longer resented by the rest of the world for its ongoing bullying, arrogance, and shameless lies and deceptions. And millions of us hope for an America which can be proud of the democratic and progressive ideals it can once again offer the world. Even though, it must be admitted, we have much in our past to live down. Indeed, many of our problems today derive from our former imperial adventures. Iran for example: where history in the neocon world view only begins with the ayatollahs. Never mind Mossadegh.

But will a new president have the courage to expose himself to charges of “weakness?” Of being “soft” on terror, of not “staying the course?” Or even of “losing Iraq?” For when the United States finally withdraws, perhaps in shame and defeat, it will not be the Bush administration which accepts the blame. That they will never do. The right will accuse the left of course: they will offer a simple 2 and 2 equation - that “softness” in the face of “hate and terrorism” creates the opportunity for new terrorist attacks. That the left didn’t “stay the course.”

So the question is: will a new president have the courage to deal with the threats our country faces in a sane, sober and intelligent manner? Especially when we can be fairly certain there will more terrorist attacks? Some of which may be extremely murderous and destructive. For the American people, under President Bush, have been conditioned into believing military force is the only effective means for dealing with terrorism: his “Long War.” And, let’s not forget, there are also the underlying scandals. The true root causes for this war.

Now we have to see what kind of candidates the two parties will offer in 2008. The Republicans may even be tired of the Bush dynasty and may chose someone more moderate. Or they may chose a pragmatic version of Bush. A corporate imperialist who’s more competent and convincing. A strong man offering conservative values under the veil of seeking worldwide peace and stability.

The question from this end of the telescope, for we are looking, of course, far into the future, is: will the Democrats chose a candidate who will offer the country (and the world) genuine, new leadership? Who will not merely offer a tepid and expedient form of neocon post-Bush continuity (Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman for example), but will be able to convince our fellow Americans that new approaches are required? Who can properly gain the trust of the American people by awakening the country at large from the spell it is currently in? By offering a new sense of national sanity and reality, one which many of us can see has long been lacking? And by (mirabile dictu) conceding that a great deal of corruption has guided our course for all these years?

The America of George Bush is a dark, superstitious, and fantastic place. Many demons occupy the air of his America: and many of our fellow Americans have accepted this new vision of reality - a country dominated by fear and a growing acceptance of authoritarianism. (As well as widespread corruption and a fanatical religious hysteria.) We have seen similar waves of national mindlessness before, in other countries, as well as our own. When insane fantasies appeared to dominate the national debate. For imperialism appears to be always based upon lies: Mexico, Hawaii, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Iran, on and on,. But our national popular discontent is rising today with each emerging scandal. And the American people, eventually grasping, hopefully, that they have been lied to and misled, may be willing to consider a new approach. Will the ancient checks and balances of our democracy finally save us? Will we adhere finally to the republican dream which Lincoln and the Founders transcendentally defined or will we capitulate to the demons in the air of George Bush’s America?

Will we have a candidate in 2008 brave enough to change the course? A candidate who truly believes in the American Dream, the experiment in fairness and democracy (yes, it has had its faults) the Founders hoped for and offered us? The one they hoped to bolster with their republican design deeply considering the unending upheavals of history?

Is that candidate Russ Feingold?

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/