BUSH WATCH...ERNEST PARTRIDGE

Newspeak and the Corruption of Politics

 

All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find ... that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship. George Orwell (1946) “Politics and the English Language"

Language is the constant yet unnoticed current that carries our thoughts. Thus, in the game of politics, the party which controls the language, controls the contest.

Newt Gingrich knows this, GOP strategist Frank Luntz knows this, and George Orwell, their apparent mentor, knew this.

So why don’t the Democrats know this?

I don’t mean to suggest that we are necessarily captive to the currents of language. Like a skilled navigator, one can factor the currents of language into the calculations of one’s judgment. But only if a person or a party takes the trouble to pause and take notice of the language.

Regrettably, the Democrats have not. For a party that is allegedly preferred by intellectuals, the Democrats have been tactically naïve and stupid, prisoners of their discredited habits. To be sure, astute scholars such as George Lakoff have offered the Democratic Party chiefs the key to their jail cells and have shown them the way out, but they have been told, in effect, “Thanks, but no thanks.” And Noam Chomsky is regarded as “too extreme” and an embarrassment. Never mind that he is the foremost linguist of our time.


Newspeak Lives!

In “The Principles of Newspeak,” an appendix to his novel, 1984, George Orwell wrote:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the [Party's] world-view and mental habits ... , but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of [the Party] - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words, and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings... Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought...

Orwell wrote this as a warning. The Right has apparently adopted it as its strategy. Thus we find “Newspeak” at work in Newt Gingrich’s self-explanatory memo, “Language as a Political Weapon.” And GOP strategist Frank Luntz has played the English language like Itzhak Perlman plays his Strad.


“Liberalism,” then and now.

Consider, for example, what the word-meisters of The Right have done to the word “liberal.”

Webster’s Dictionary gives us this traditional definition of “liberal:”

“From the latin, liberalis – of or pertaining to a freeman. Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual. Progressive.”

Throughout our history, up to the late twentieth century, "liberal" has been an honored word, applied approvingly by our founders.  George Washington, for example, wrote: "As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.  I hope ever to see American among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

Today, however, the propaganda mills of the right, and especially the regressive screech merchants of AM radio and cable TV, have turned the word “liberal” into an epithet, like a piece of rotten fruit to be hurled at the candidate or political commentator willing to be called a “liberal.” Remember the 2004 GOP ads? “Brie-eating, chardonnay-drinking, latte-sipping, French-speaking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading, elite liberals.” The word connotes “tax and spend,” “welfare cheats,” bureaucratic interference in “free enterprise,” and a weak military. To Ann Coulter, it means nothing less than “treason.”

Thus it is no surprise that when pollsters ask the ordinary citizens to describe their political orientation, “conservative” comes out ahead, followed by “moderate,” with “liberal” a poor third.

And yet, when the same citizens are asked their opinions on Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, public education, economic justice, racial tolerance, and the separation of church and state, by substantial majorities they endorse the traditional liberal agenda. In short, the American public remains liberal, even though it has been persuaded to despise and reject the word “liberal.” And that should be regarded as good news by The Left, for it is the ideology and the program that matter.  "Liberal" is merely a word.

Recall the quotation from Orwell above:

“... a thought diverging from the principles of [the Party] - should be literally unthinkable... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words, and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings...”

Now try to explain and defend the “liberal” ideas of Franklin Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, and the Kennedys. You can no longer do so simply by casually dropping the word Liberal" in conversation and debate. The word “liberal” has been spoiled by the relentless assault upon it by The Right, and thus today it has become useless and even harmful in ordinary discourse. In Orwell’s words, right-wing propaganda has succeeded in “eliminating” this “undesirable word,” “liberal,” thus making its original meaning simply “unthinkable.” And there is no word available yet to take its place. So what is the (old-definition) liberal to do? The remedy is simple: drop the word “liberal” and give the program a new name: “progressive.” Unfortunately, it will take some time for this new word for old ideas to take hold in the general population.

The Right has learned its lesson well from its mentor, George Orwell.


Who is a “Conservative.”

Imagine that you meet a visitor from abroad who is fluent in English and well acquainted with American history. However, he knows nothing about contemporary American politics and its rhetoric, and he is eager to learn about it.

You explain that there are two contending political ideologies:

One ideology is out to uproot the founding documents of our republic, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and take our society and economy back to the condition it was in over a hundred years ago. The other steadfastly endorses and defends those founding documents, and defends the gains in economic and social justice painfully obtained throughout the history of the American republic.

You then tell the visitor that one of these ideologies calls itself “conservative.” Which one would he reasonably conclude that you were referring to?  If he selects the second, he is in agreement with Webster's, which thus defines “conservative:” “The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.”

How then should one describe this first ideology, which advocates and strives to achieve a return to an earlier condition of the economy and society. Clearly “conservative” won’t do. How about “regressive.” That’s what I’ve chosen, and I urge that you do likewise. If the Democrats were to adopt “regressive” to describe the policies of the Republicans, and if they were to use the word “regressive” persistently in their publications, speeches, and media appearances, it might have a devastating effect on the GOP.

In fact, “liberal vs. conservative” is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be both, and indeed a thoughtful progressive is both. Janus-like, the progressive looks both backward and forward in time: backward, by cherishing and preserving the priceless legacies of the past; and forward, identifying injustices to be set right and anticipating problems that must be faced and dealt with.

Accordingly, the progressive should never refer to his opponents on the right as “conservatives.”


Doublespeak.

Wikipedia defines “doublespeak” as “language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning.” (It does not appear in Orwell’s novel, but emerged shortly after its publication in 1948, probably as a conflation of Orwell’s “Newspeak” and “Doublethink.”) In the hands of the GOP wordsmiths, words are often “distorted” to the point of outright contradiction. We are all familiar with Bushista doublespeak:

“Clear Skies Initiative”. (Relaxes clean air standards for industry).
“Healthy Forests Initiative”. (Allows clear cutting in federal land).
“Clean Water” proposal. (Exempts Clean Water Act protection of 70% of US streams).

Finally, Bush tells us that the objective of his foreign policy is to “spread democracy.” We’re all in favor of democracy, of course, and would like to see it “spread.” But take a closer look. Can one really believe that Bush wants to “spread democracy”?  Apparently our foreign policy amounts to approval of “the peoples’ democratic choices abroad” so long as they are our choices as well. But if not, we try to impose alternative “choices.” For example, in Palestine, Belarus, Venezuela and, yes, Iraq. In addition, consider what Bush is doing to our democracy.  As one wit put it, if the Iraqis want a new Constitution, they can have ours -- we're not using it.


Framing:

Far more subtle, and therefore insidious and seductive, are cognitive “frames,” a concept famously brought to public attention by George Lakoff, who describes them as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.” Lakoff continues:

You can’t see or hear frames. They are part of what cognitive scientists call the “cognitive unconscious” – structures in our brains that we cannot consciously access, but know by their consequences: the way we reason and what counts as common sense. (Goerge Lakoff: Don’t Think of an Elephant.  p. xv).

From the concept of framing, Lakoff derives this warning: “When you are arguing against the other side: do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame – and it won’t be the frame you want.” The Republicans are well aware of the framing phenomenon, and use it with consummate skill. The Democrats carelessly take the bait and fall into the GOP trap by adopting the GOP language, with the able assistance of the mainstream media, of course.

Lakoff offers the example of the term “tax relief.” “Relief” suggests an “affliction.” “And the person who takes it away,” says Lakoff, “is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy.” But Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests a different frame: “taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” According to this frame, taxes are the “dues” of citizenship. But you are unlikely to encounter this frame in current political debate, not even from the Democrats. Thus the game is lost even before it begins.

The “false dilemma” is one of the demagogues’ favorite framing devices. From the cold war we had, “better dead than red.” (How about neither?) Today it’s: “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” (How about negotiating instead? And what evidence is there that if we don’t “fight them over there?” our enemies will immediately pack up and set up shop in the United States?).

Another device is the “implied opposite.” The anti-abortion movement uses this to great effect. For example, if you are not “pro-life,” then you must be “pro-death” or “anti-life.”

“The war on terror,” a metaphor, carries a huge baggage of presuppositions. “War” entails mobilizing the military, restricting civil liberties, and invading other countries.. But what if we instead treated terrorism, not as a “war” but as a “crime”? Our approach would be radically different, and would invite international cooperation.

Finally, there is Bush’s surveillance program. Call it a “domestic surveillance program” and it is downright un-American – Fourth Amendment and all that. But call it the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” a name attached to the program after it was exposed, and, well, who can be against that?


Creative Dissonance.

According to the late cognitive psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, minds are changed and moral growth occurs when individuals are faced with dilemmas and contradictions. The resulting discomfort (“cognitive dissonance”) motivates one to search for new cognitive structures (“frames”) that will resolve the dissonance. For example, moral and political dilemmas that are unresolvable by authoritarian rule or conventional belief may be resolved from the perspective of “the social contract.” This, in fact, was the “solution” worked out by the framers of our republic.

Of course, cognitive dissonance can be destructive, depriving the individual of autonomy and initiative. This was the objective of The Party’s slogans in Orwell’s 1984: “War is Peace.” “Freedom is Slavery.” “Ignorance is strength.”

“Constructive dissonance” takes place when conventionally contrary concepts are appropriately combined. This can “break” the frames of one’s political adversaries, and prompt them to seek other frames – perchance, yours. Here are two examples:

When asked your political persuasion, say that you are a “conservative progressive.” Sounds like “freedom is slavery.” But as we noted above, the contradiction is only apparent. Change the conceptual frame, and the contradiction is resolved.

When asked my religious orientation, I answer that I am a “secular Christian.” But how is that possible? I reply that while I do not believe traditional Christian theology and prefer the scientific view of the origin of the universe, the earth, and life, I accept the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth. Upon encountering the seemingly incoherent concept of “secular Christianity,” one might take a fresh look at Christian ethics, and perhaps find common ground with someone thought to be an adversary.

In sum, the wise progressive – and in particular, the progressive aspiring to political office, or activity in the public media – should first of all step back and identify the “frames,” which is to say the hidden assumptions and implications of his opponents, and also of himself. Then one must refuse to accept the language or adopt the frame of the opponent.

George Lakoff advises against attacking an opponent’s frame directly, for it only reinforces it. Instead, the progressive should introduce and utilize the language and frames of progressivism. Specifically, avoid the word “liberal,” for it has been put in a negative frame by the right. Instead, identify yourself as a “progressive,” and act aggressively to give meaning to the word. Do not call the right “conservative.” They aren’t. They are regressive, so use that word, repeatedly, until it begins to “stick.”

The regressives have invested millions of dollars and devoted more than three decades to the task of establishing their agenda and policies. They have done so through their foundations, think-tanks, media control, and now their control of the federal government. And they have taken control of our political language. They are formidable opponents.

For all that, they are vulnerable. The right faces an invincible adversary: reality.   Their denial of reality, which they label "faith" and "intuition," cannot abolish evolution or the laws of atmospheric physics and chemistry that determine climate change.  Their "faith" will not put fossil fuels in the ground that are not there now, nor will their " faith" overcome the inevitable economic consequences of the approaching decline in oil production. Mitigation of the crises before us must come through scientific research, technological development, international cooperation, and government initiative, in contravention of regressive beliefs, policies and practices.

Remember too that the American public still accepts the liberal agenda, even though it rejects the word “liberalism.” But it’s only a word. Liberalism – the program and the ideology – is distinctly and inalienably American. It is in our founding documents. It is validated by our history of emancipation, of scientific and technological advancement, of the improvement of the workplace, of the emergence of the middle class, of the advancement of civil rights, and of the emergence of the environmental movement.

What we are enduring today is an aberration. The regressives are now in control, and they will be ruthless in their determination to remain in control. But their rotting foundation is beginning to crumble. Dissenting messages of truth and justice are breaking through in the mainstream media, while they are thriving in the alternative media. The public is waking up, as the approval ratings of the Bush and his crime syndicate continue to fall. The coalition of the right is falling apart, as libertarians, evangelicals and moderate republicans defect. We may all pay a terrible price in the struggle ahead to bring down this regressive regime. But a regime based upon groundless faith, lies, greed and injustice cannot stand forever.

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge

---

The Democrats: Missing in Action

By Ernest Partridge

March 30, 2006

Watching the Democrats, one would think that they never gave up believing in Santa Claus.

Like little kids in December, they seem to believe that just by being nice, Santa will deliver the gifts: election victories and control of the Congress.

The Republicans know better. They analyze, they scheme, they think things through, they act aggressively and ruthlessly, and thus they win.

Unfortunately, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And opportunities aplenty are coming their way which, for the most part, they simply ignore. For example, when one of their number, Senator Russ Feingold, speaks up with a loud and eloquent voice, he is told to shut up. Demanding censure of the outlaw President, he is told by his own party, is “not nice.”

One begins to wonder if the Democratic Party really wants to win in November. If they keep on behaving as they have, and if conditions remain essentially as they are now, they won’t win. The Republicans will have a lock on that election:

Provided conditions remain essentially as they are now.

Now the good news: it is virtually certain that conditions will not remain essentially as they are now. Beneath the placid surface of our body-politic, stresses are accumulating that could result in a seismic political rupture. (I’ve listed these “stresses” in my “Perception is Reality” and so will not repeat them here). More conspicuously: Bush, Cheney and their war are becoming ever-more unpopular, public trust in Bush’s competence and his honesty is likewise eroding, the mainstream media is beginning to desert Bush and his administration as the media continues to lose its credibility with the public. Still more moderate Republicans, libertarians and evangelical Christians are abandoning Bushism.  Following John Dean, Kevin Phillips, "Pete" Peterson and John Eisenhower in 2004, now its Bruce Bartlett, Francis Fukuyama, Larry Wilkerson, and Paul Pillar.  Even Chris Matthews, who once compared Bush with Henry V and Winston Churchill, has had it with Bush’s and Cheney’s lies. To Don Imus, he said just last week:

“From the beginning everything about how they've got WMD's, they are a threat to us, they are going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, this country is going to be an easy liberate, it's going to be a cake walk. As Cheney said as recently as ten months ago the insurgents are in their last throes. Everything that is said is not true...  They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact."

Whether or not the Democrats will wake up and seize the offensive in the upcoming election campaign remains to be seen. But of this we can be confident: the Democrats must venture forth and seize their victory. Santa will not bring it to them just for being passively “nice.”

A descent into despotism.

Critics who use “the F-word” (Fascism) to describe the Bush regime are denounced as “shrill” and “irresponsible.” Are they? Consider this: when Bush signs bills from the Congress forbidding torture and warrantless surveillance, he issues “signing statements” which states that he is free to ignore these laws when, at his discretion, he chooses to do so. And now this: “Last month ... President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the house.”  In effect, this demotes the Congress of the United States from a law-making to an “advisory” body.  Add to that the fact that Bush and his party are “elected” with privately owned and operated, unverifiable “black box” voting machines and compilers, conveniently provided by GOP partisans. So it comes to this: rule by decree by a “leader” who has placed himself above the law and beyond recall by the voters. If this does not define a “dictatorship,” I don’t know what does.

Meanwhile, the Congress, the courts, the media, the Democratic Party, and public acquiesce in silence.

We’ve not fully descended to totalitarianism. Dissent, however muted, is still tolerated. (But don’t you dare protest within sight or earshot of “Our Leader”).  Those of us who continue to criticize the regime have not yet been charged with “thought-crime,” and sent to “re-education camps.” Not yet.

So the task before us is not to protect our democracy; it’s too late for that. Our task is to restore our democracy, to re-institute the government we once had, “deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Election Fraud: “The Dragon at the Gate.”

If the Democrats are to capture at least one house of Congress in November and if, as a result, the American people begin to take back their own country, the party must first of all slay the dragon at the gate: election fraud. For, as anyone who dares face and study the evidence must appreciate, because GOP partisans build the unauditable machines, write the secret software, and count 80% of the votes, “the people’s will” at elections is essentially irrelevant. The election results are simply what the GOP wants them to be, as they were in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and as they will be again in 2006 – provided conditions remain essentially as they are now.

Accordingly, the restored integrity of the ballot is the sine qua non of the overthrow of the Republican autocracy in November.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, those “useful idiots,” steadfastly refuse even to recognize that there is a problem with the voting machines and vote compilations.

Nevertheless, the electronic voting scam is beginning to unravel, thanks to the determined efforts of a few dedicated individuals, an uncensored internet, and ad hoc citizen organizations along with all too few maverick politicians (notably John Conyers and Russ Holt), and despite the determined indifference of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.

More and more e-voting outrages, failures, and statistical impossibilities are coming to light, and even breaking through in the media (most recently in Florida,  Ohio, Texas,  Chicago, and California, and the public is beginning to take notice. This awareness accomplished some significant victories, notably in New Mexico and Maryland, where “black box voting” has been abolished by state law. If this trend continues, and if a few available albeit unused modes of verification are put in play, it is just possible that November’s election with be sufficiently (if not totally) honest to put an opposition party in control of at least one, and possibly both, houses of Congress. Then a balance of powers will be restored and the investigations, with subpoena powers and threat of perjury and contempt of Congress in play, may begin to probe the corruption and abuses of power of the Bush regime.

So, once again, opportunity knocks at the door of the Democratic Party. But if the Party persists, with the cooperation of the corporate media, in ignoring this opportunity, then that Party is once again likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Three roads diverge...

How will all this play out? I wouldn’t be so bold as to make a prediction. But we might speculate about some alternative futures, so that we might prepare ourselves accordingly.


Worst case – “The ‘Z’ Scenario:” Final descent into totalitarianism. In Costas Gravas’ 1968 film, “Z”, a popular movement is on the verge of overthrowing an autocratic regime. Then the leader of the opposition is murdered, and the ruling junta immediately imposes martial law and dictatorship. Could that happen here? As opposition to the Bush regime grows, as evidence of corruption and election fraud becomes widely known, this could lead to a crackdown on dissent, and a roundup and imprisonment of dissenters. Another terrorist “Pearl Harbor” could be the catalyst. Or possibly a new “pre-emptive” war with Iran.


A step too far – Cf. Russia, August, 1991. Is there a limit to how much abuse “the establishment” (the military, Wall Street, the media, the CIA, the courts, the federal bureaucracy, even the Churches), the Democratic Party, and the public at large will tolerate? Is there a point when these institutions turn around, dig in their heels, and say “no more!”? These institutions, along with the public, have the means to bring down the Bushevik regime. There are historical precedents:

When in Russia, the Communist Party attempted “the Z scenario,” the people and the military would have none of it. The people resisted, the Army refused to fire on the citizens, and the coup failed, and that was the end of the seventy years of Communist rule and the Soviet Union.

And when the extent of Richard Nixon’s villainy was exposed by the media, the courts required him to surrender his evidence, and at last his Republican Party deserted him.

The CIA has been demeaned by the Bushista excuse that the Bush Administration “misled by bad intelligence.”  Furthermore, the Administration exposed a CIA case officer, Valerie Plame Wilson,  in an act of political retaliation, at the cost of compromising a vitally important counter-terrorism operation and possibly the lives of several agents. A top-down revolt at Langley is highly unlikely, given the fact that the top offices have been given to Bush loyalists. But that is not necessary. “Further down,” intelligence strategically leaked, and blackmail strategically applied, could have devastating consequences for Bush, Inc.

As for Wall Street (the financial establishment), how much longer can they fail to appreciate that by supporting Bushenomics, they are scuttling the ship they are riding on – that they will not escape the coming Bush economic catastrophe?

Then there’s the military. What if Bush attempts to launch an attack on Iran in a desperate attempt to salvage a GOP win in November, and thus prevent those Democratic Congressional subpoenas and investigations? Will the military, having been ordered to fight and die in a meaningless and dishonorable war in Iraq, finally refuse?

I imagine the following scene in the Oval Office, as Bush orders the strike:

“Mr. President,” says the General, “our boys will go if they can follow you into Iran. So put on your flyboy suit, climb into the cockpit, and do your wild-blue-yonder thing, just like that President-Dude in ‘Independence Day.”

“But you know I can’t do that! I’ll crash and burn!”

“The thought has crossed our mind.”

The “step too far” may have desirable consequences, most significantly a restoration of our democracy. But it could be cruel and bloody, and the “winners,” the CIA or the military, just might not share our loyalty to democratic ideals. We could end up trading one autocracy for another. Just consider what followed the Russian counter-revolution of 1991.


Best case – A Velvet Revolution, November, 2006. This is the outcome that we should work toward.

Due to constant pressure from law suits, the progressive internet, citizen organizations, and the demands of ordinary citizens, the Democratic Party finally wakes up and actively demands action on voting fraud. The issue becomes too big for the mainstream media to ignore. While e-voting is not banished all at once, it is barred from enough key races that the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress. The e-voting fraud is finally exposed and then, following Congressional investigation, exposure and legislation, all unverifiable voting methods are outlawed.

Public repudiation of the mainstream media becomes so widespread that the media conglomerates face the choice: responsible journalism or bankruptcy. Congressional investigation exposes the political corruption of the mass media. In 2008, a Democratic administration initiates anti-trust action against the media conglomerates which are then broken up, and the FCC institutes and enforces regulations against market concentration.

The new Congress cuts funding for military operations and for base construction in Iraq. Chairman Henry Waxman of Government Reform Committee convenes hearings on corruption in government contracts in Iraq and military procurement. These are followed by criminal indictments and convictions of numerous members of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

The House of Representatives votes bills of Impeachment against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Conviction by the Senate fails when the Republican Minority votes in a block. However, the political power of the Bush Administration is effectively ended. In the 2008 election, the Republicans in Congress pay a heavy price for their support of Bush and Cheney. 

In 2009, the new Democratic president repudiates the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the precepts of “The Project of the New American Century.” He then takes active steps to repair international alliances, and to restore the reputation of the United States in the World community.


And what about the Democratic Party? I began this essay with a condemnation of the Party, and yet end with the hope that the same Party will act aggressively to regain power, and responsibly as they apply that power. How is it possible for the same Party to be impotent and irresponsible now, and aggressive and responsible in the near future?

Answer: it must not be the same party.

Today, many life-long Democrats are justifiably disgusted with their Party. I am one of them. The Party today is “Republican Lite,” staffed with comfortable DC regulars, many of whom are accomplices (if only through their passivity) to the corruption in Washington.

This disillusionment with the Party has led many progressives to leave and join The Green Party, and other minor parties. One result was the loss of Florida in 2000 and the "selection" of George W. Bush.

So this is my advice to the disaffected Democrats: Don’t abandon the Party, take it over. This is what the Religious Right did to the Republicans. Had they instead formed a minor party, they would have been insignificant, and the United States would now be a very different, and much better, country. On the other hand, a major party that is “taken over” by its grass roots, will have an organizational structure, an institutional memory, and financial resources – essential assets that are hopelessly out of reach of minor parties.

If you hate what the Democratic Party has become, I’m with you. Together we can make it a party that we can be proud of and support with enthusiasm. And also, a party that can win – as it must.
 

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge

---

The Right and the Left, in a Nutshell

Introduction to "Conscience of a Progressive," a Book in Progress.

Ernest Partridge

March 15, 2006

Those of us who are at middle age or beyond have lived through a revolution in political and economic theory and practice, a revolution so profound that few of us can even begin to appreciate its significance, much less its peril.

Future historians, however, will understand and appreciate this revolution and will wonder at the passivity of the public today and the ease with which those who instituted this upheaval achieved their success. The same historians, I would venture, will be equally or more amazed at how this moment played out. But this we cannot know, for their past is our immediate future. We are the agents of that still-to-be written history. The United States of America, in this year of 2006, is at a hinge of history. Our fate, and that of our successors, rests directly in the hands of all of us who are politically alert and active today. As Edward R. Murrow famously said, “we can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result."

Those factions and interests now in control of the United States government declare that their policies, which they choose to call “conservative” and I prefer to call “regressive,” are an advancement in the course of human history. Those who disagree, and the pollsters tell us that they are a majority of the American people, believe that in the past five years, and arguably in the past twenty-five years, the people of the United States and their government, have suffered a grievous setback.

I count myself among this dissenting majority. In my book, "Conscience of a Progressive," now nearing completion, I attempt to articulate that dissent, criticize the foundational dogmas of the regnant, “regressive” regime that now controls our country, and justify the principles of “progressivism” – the political-economic ideology that distinguished and honored our past, and if we are both determined and fortunate, may once again guide and enrich our national future.

Here, briefly, are the “players” in this political contest.

The Regressives:

To begin, it is important to note that the regressivism that controls and supports our present government is not a unified political doctrine. Rather, it is a coalition, some factions of which are in strong disagreement with others, most notably “the libertarian right” and “the religious right.”

In general, most regressives tend to believe that the ideal society is merely a collection of autonomous individuals and families in voluntary association. In fact they assert that strictly speaking, as Dame Margaret Thatcher once proclaimed, “There is no such thing as a society -- there are individuals and there are families,” and Ayn Rand, “There is no such entity as ‘the public’ ... the public is merely a number of individuals. ” It follows that there is no such thing as “public goods” and “the public interest,” apart from summation of private goods and interests. Moreover, there are no “victims of society.” The poor choose their condition; poverty is the result of “laziness” or, as the religious right would put it, a “sin.”

Each individual, by acting to maximize his or her personal self-interest, will always act “as if by an invisible hand” (Adam Smith) to promote the well-being of all others in this (so-called) “society:” that which is good for each, is good for all. Accordingly, the optimal economic system is a completely unrestricted and unregulated free market of “capitalist acts by consenting adults.” (Robert Nozick) Moreover, private ownership of all land, resources, infrastructure, and even institutions, will always yield results preferable to common (i.e. government) ownership and control. Finally, the regressives firmly believe that because economic prosperity and growth are accomplished through capital investment, the well-being of all is accomplished by directing wealth into the hands of “the investing class;” i.e. the very rich, whereby that wealth will “trickle down” to the benefit of all others.

The libertarian right insists that the sole legitimate functions of government are the protection of the individual’s unalienable natural rights to life, liberty and property. The libertarian’s demand for individual autonomy and government non-interference entails a tolerance and respect for privacy, and thus the libertarian has no use for sodomy and drug laws, for laws prohibiting gay marriage, abortion, voluntary euthanasia, and least of all for government endorsement of religious dogma or enforcement of religious practice. Thus the libertarian fully endorses John Stuart Mill’s pronouncement that, “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” In general, the libertarian advocates the fullest possible freedom of the individual, consistent with equivalent liberty of all others. In these respects, there is much of libertarian thought that should be attractive to the progressive.

The religious right, of course, vehemently rejects the libertarian’s uncompromising tolerance and insistence that the government has no right whatever to interfere in the private life of the individual. The religious right, to the contrary, believes that the government is entitled to enforce moral behavior and even to support religious institutions and “establish” religious doctrines in the law. In the most extreme cases, the religious right advocates the establishment of “biblical law” in place of our present system of secular Constitutional law.

With the exception of the dispute between the libertarians and the religious right regarding private behavior, all the other tenets of regressivism share this characteristic: They all lead to policies that benefit wealth and power (“the masters”), to the disadvantage of all others; i.e., the “ordinary citizens.

The Progressives:

“Progressivism” is essentially the “liberalism” of most of the twentieth century, as promulgated by both Roosevelts, by the Kennedy Brothers, and by many Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower, Jacob Javits and Earl Warren. “Progressivism,” to put it simply, is “liberalism,” free of the slanderous connotations heaped upon it by contemporary right-wing propagandists.

In general, progressives endorse the political principles of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as the fundamental moral precepts of the great world religions and the ideas of many secular moral philosophers – precepts most familiar to the American public through the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Accordingly, progressivism is founded on enduring “conservative” principles. Thus the familiar “liberal vs. conservative” dichotomy is a hoax. Moreover, the Right, far from being “conservative,” in fact endorses a radical political doctrine, with policies designed to return society and the economy to a condition of autocracy, wealth and power for the privileged few, and servitude, poverty and ignorance for “the masses” – a condition which, until recently, was generally believed to be permanently discredited and relegated to the distant past. Hence my preferred term, “regressive.”

In contrast to the regressive, the progressive regards society not as an aggregate of autonomous individuals but as an “emergent” entity that is more than the sum of its individual human components. In this sense, a society is like a chemical compound such as table salt or water: substances with properties that are separate and distinct from the properties of their component elements. It then follows that there are “social goods” and “public interests” that are demonstrably separate from the sum of private goods and interests. Moreover, there are genuine “victims of society” who are in no way responsible for their suffering and poverty. (The illegitimate child of a teen-age heroin addict did not choose her parents. The decision to “outsource” a job was out of the hands of the worker who loses that job).

Because society (or “the public”) is demonstrably distinct from the sum of its component individuals, behavior that might be good for each individual, may be bad for society as a whole; and conversely, what is “bad” for the individual (e.g., taxes and regulations) may benefit society at large. These fundamental precepts: “good for each, bad for all” and “bad for each, good for all” are of essential importance to the defense of progressivism, and by implication to the refutation of regressivism.

The progressive is not “against” free markets, but rather believes that in the organization and functioning of society and its economy, markets are invaluable servants. But markets can also be cruel masters. Thus, in the formulation of public policy, markets should count for something and even for much, but not for everything. There is a “wisdom” of the marketplace, but that “wisdom” is not omniscient. Adam Smith was right: each individual seeking his own gain might act, “as if by an invisible hand,” to the benefit of all. But as Adam Smith also observed and regressive economists tend to forget, there is a “back of the invisible hand,” whereby self-serving action by each individual can bring ruin upon the whole – a warning that was vividly presented by Garrett Hardin in his landmark essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” (1968)

The progressives are so much in favor of a market economy that they are determined to protect it from its excesses and from its inborn tendency toward self-destruction. The progressive recognizes that the natural tendency of “free markets” is toward monopoly and cartels, which are, of course, the end of the free market. Thus the progressive endorses anti-trust laws, which means, of course, a rule of law enforced by government.

The progressive also recognizes that market transactions, especially those by large corporations, affect not only the parties of those transactions (the buyers and sellers), but also unconsenting third parties, the “stakeholders;” for example, citizens who reside downwind of and downstream from polluting industries, citizens who are enticed by false advertising to endanger their health, and parents whose childrens’ minds and morals are corrupted by mass media. “Stakeholders” should thus have a voice in these corporate transactions, and the only agency with a legitimate right to represent the stakeholders is their government; hence the justification for regulation of corporations.

The progressive agrees that economic benefits “trickle down” from the investments of the wealthy. But he also insists that the wealth of the privileged few “percolates up” from knowledge and labor of the producers of that wealth – the workforce – and from the tranquility and social order that issues from a public that is served well by, and freely consents to the rule of, its government. The progressive insists that the workers are most productive and prosperous when they participate, through collective bargaining, in determining the conditions of their employment. The progressive also recognizes that the productivity of that workforce results from public education and from the publicly funded basic research that might otherwise be neglected by private entrepreneurs.

In addition to the libertarian’s defense of government’s function of protecting the rights of “life, liberty and property,” the progressive believes that it is also the function of government “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ... [and] promote the general Welfare." Critics of The Right, who choose to call themselves “conservatives,” should note that these words are quoted directly from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

Also, along with the libertarians, the progressive endorses the “like liberty principle” which affirms that each individual is entitled to maximum liberty, consistent with equal liberty for all. Likewise, the “no-harm principle,” expressed in the familiar folk maxim, “my freedom ends where your nose begins.” However, the libertarians fail to come to terms with the full implications of these principles, for their program results in freedom for the privileged few at the cost of the freedom and welfare of the many. To put the matter bluntly, the progressive disagrees with the libertarian, not because the progressive values liberty less, but because he values liberty more.

The progressive insists that certain institutions and resources are the legitimate property, not of private individuals, but of the public at large. These include, first of all, the government itself: the legislature, the executive, and the courts. In addition, the natural environment – the atmosphere, the waterways, the oceans, the aquifers, wildlife – can not be parceled out, marked by property lines, and sold to the highest bidder. Language, the arts, literature, the sciences, are common heritages which must be protected and nurtured for the common good, and not be used and exploited exclusively for private gain.

Finally, the progressive demands that government belongs to the people, and not exclusively to those interests that can afford to “buy into” access to and influence upon the government. “Governments,” the progressive reminds us, “are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” And if the (self-described) “conservatives” find such sentiments to be treasonous, they should again take note of the source. These words are from the founding document of our republic: The Declaration of Independence.

Accordingly, far from being “traitors,” as Ann Coulter would have us believe, progressives are among the most authentic of patriots.

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge

---

Vote Fraud: An Appearance of Guilt

Ernest Partridge

March 14, 2006

The accumulated weight of evidence of election fraud – statistical, circumstantial, and anecdotal – has failed to move the mainstream media to report or investigate this evidence, or the Democratic party to acknowledge and protest the apparent Republican control of our elections.

This essay is not yet another account of that evidence, which I have spelled out extensively and which I firmly believe to be compelling.

Instead, I wish to deal with another indicator that our national elections no longer represent the will of the voters, but rather are manipulated to produce the outcome desired by the "winning" candidates and party. This indicator is the behavior of those who manufacture, program, and operate the paperless, unauditable machines (direct recording electronic: "DRE"), and those who benefit from this technology.

Perhaps this new electronic voting technology is as honest and reliable as the private election industry and the winning candidates tell us it is. However, they simply do not behave as if this were the case.

My contention might be illustrated by this parable:

Suppose that a drug-sniffing dog at an airport identifies a suspicious piece of luggage. The customs officer then locates the individual whose name is on the tag, and orders him to open it. Now suppose further that this person then proceeds to do one or more of the following:

a) He denies that the luggage is his.

b) He calls his lawyer who presents an injunction against further inspection of the luggage.

c) He claims that he is a diplomat, and thus not subject to luggage inspection.

d) He offers a bribe to the inspector if he will "forget the whole thing."

Might one not suspect that the traveler was trying to hide something?

The dog then gets back to work, and soon identifies another bag, and the owner of this parcel is identified and ordered to open the luggage for inspection. He does so willingly and without qualm, having packed the bag himself and thus knowing that there is no contraband therein. He is also aware that the dog has a record of 30% false positives.

Which of these two responses more closely resembles the behavior of the DRE manufacturers (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), of the Republican Congress, and of the Republican National Committee? Are the DRE manufacturers and the Republicans acting in a manner consistent with their claims that "e-voting" is both honest and accurate? Or are they behaving as if they have something to hide?

Here are a few indicators. Because there are so many, I will be brief. For details and documentation, follow the links:

First and foremost: DRE machines use secret software and produce no separate record of the voting to allow auditing and validation of the votes. Thus, by design, it is impossible either to prove or disprove directly the accuracy of the vote totals of a DRE machine or the neutrality of the software. (However, there is abundant indirect evidence of e-voting fraud: statistical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. But that’s another topic).
 

The manufacturers and programmers of DREs (all of whom have close ties with the Republican Party) insist that their software ("source codes") must be kept secret – for no apparent and defensible reason. (They claim to be concerned about copyright infringement. But music, essays, fiction, drama, etc., all are public by nature, and yet all are protected by copyright).
 

The e-voting manufacturers also make ATM machines and automated gas pumps, both of which produce paper receipts. Yet they steadfastly resist demands that their "touch screen" voting machines produce printouts, which might then serve to validate the accuracy of the votes.
 

DRE manufacturers will not allow "test hacks"  of randomly selected machines. (Unauthorized hacks have proven DREs to be extremely vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation.  So too a recent report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office: a report that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream press).
 

A bill by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ)  that would require validated printed paper receipts of the votes and random inspection of the DRE machines has been locked up in committee by the Congressional Republicans. A discharge petition, which would allow a vote on the bill, is unavailing, due to insufficient support by the Republicans.
 

In 2000, computer programmer Clinton Curtis was asked by a GOP congressional candidate, Tom Feeney, to create a software program that would alter vote counts in favor of the Republicans. Curtis testified  to this under oath, signed an affidavit, and took a polygraph test. Of course, Feeney, now a congressman, denies Curtis’ allegations, but unlike Curtis, Feeney refuses to state his denial under oath or to submit to a polygraph.
 

In California, Stephen Heller, a temporary employee of Diebold Election Systems, obtained copies of memos indicating that Diebold may have used uncertified voting systems in the 2004 primary and suggesting that thousands of voters might be disenfranchised in subsequent elections. Heller’s "reward" for blowing this whistle? He was charged with three felony counts and, if convicted, could serve more than three years in state prison.
 

In 2004, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified Diebold DRE machines. In a special recall election, Republican Arnold Schwarznegger replaced Democrat Gray Davis. Kevin Shelley was then harassed and forced out of office and replaced by Republican Bruce McPherson, who "conditionally" recertified the Diebold machines.  (These are two types of machines: Optical scan with paper ballots, and "TSX" with touch-screens and no paper record. It is the paperless TSX machines that are especially vulnerable to undetectable manipulation and fraud."  There is a heated debate within the election reform community as to whether Optical Scanning is an acceptable improvement over DREs, or whether, on the other hand, only hand counted paper ballots will do.  But that's a topic for another essay).
 

The Alaska "flip-flop." The Republican state government of Alaska refused to release to the Alaska Democrats the Diebold database files from the 2004 election on the grounds that it was "a company secret." (These were records of a public election, mind you). After persistent requests, the state relented albeit under very restrictive conditions. But then, just two weeks ago, the state again denied the request, claiming that it was a "security risk" to the state of Alaska.
 

December 20, 2005: Rather than obey a North Carolina law requiring that source codes be made public, Diebold withdrew its machines from the state elections.

There is much more, which you might find here  and here. But this much suffices to make my point.

What we find, then, is an industry and a political party which, on the one hand, insists that the totals from electronic voting machines are entirely accurate and honest, though these same machines are so designed that they preclude any independent evidence to support these claims. On the other hand, this same industry and party steadfastly resist any and all attempts to introduce reliable methods of validation, much less the most reliable system of all: hand counted paper ballots.

Persistent suspicion and charges of fraud are damaging to the industry and the GOP. If they are as innocent as they claim to be, why don’t they just eliminate these damaging suspicions by offering proof, and then allowing, and even encouraging, paper records, independent audits, and exit polls?

Despite a near-total embargo by the mainstream media of news, analysis, investigation and commentary on ballot security and allegations of fraud, combined with an astonishing indifference to the issue on the part of the Democrats and their allies, public doubts about the security and accuracy of elections and hence of the legitimacy of the Republican control of the White House and the Congress, simply will not go away. In fact, these concerns appear to be increasing and will likely continue to increase, as the credibility and public approval of the Bush regime continues to drop.

Here’s a thought experiment for those who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the past three elections were above reproach and doubt. Put this confidence aside for a moment and just imagine, hypothetically, that the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were all fixed, and that the coming election of 2006 will be fixed. Then ask yourself: if this were so, how would the behavior of the industry and the GOP be in any way different from what it is now?

Then ask, if the elections are honest and accurate, why don’t the industry and the Republicans act like it? In short, if they are innocent, why do they willingly persist in appearing guilty?

These questions must be asked by the democrats, loudly and persistently, for as Karl Rove and the GOP propaganda machine knows so well, repetition is the key to successful persuasion of the public.  Satire and ridicule are also very much in order. We must "pile it on" until continuing silence by the GOP and by the compliant mainstream media becomes unendurable.

And if the e-voting establishment – party and industry – are ever forced, however reluctantly, to enact reforms consistent with their protestations of innocence, what might they do?

Here is a list of proposals that any honest voting machine industry and political party should be willing to endorse:

a) Publish the source codes. (The copyrights can be fully protected).

b) Include printers with all machines. Stipulate by law that in case of recounts, the paper receipts are to be the official ballots of record.

c) Require independent audits – of local balloting, and of regional compiling of election returns.

d) Allow examination and "test hacks" of machines, selected randomly.

e) Outlaw all data inputs (by direct line, wireless, or UV) to voting machines and compilers with the exception, of course, of the "inputs" by the voters.

f) Rigorously enforce and prosecute election fraud laws.
 

If the industry and the Republicans won’t agree to these assurances, then they must present a  plausible explanation as to why they decline to do so.  Absent that explanation, we citizens of this alleged democracy under an alleged rule of law must demand that every vote be counted and verified, and we must be supplied with proof that this has been accomplished.  Furthermore, every individual who has engaged in election fraud must be tracked down and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  We are entitled to no less than this.
 

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge
 

---

Perception is Reality

Ernest Partridge

February 24, 2006

 

Today the many disparate crises of the past have combined into one general systemic crisis, placing the basic structure of the Republic at mortal risk. At the forefront of concern must be the question: Will the Constitution of the United States survive? Is the American state now in the midst of a transmutation in which the 217-year-old provisions for a balance of powers and popular freedoms are being overridden and canceled? Or will defenders of the Constitution step forward, as has happened in constitutional crises of the past, to save the system and restore its integrity? Jonathan Schell

Yogi Berra said it best: “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Predictions in politics rest upon two assumptions: (a) that present trends will continue into the future, and (b) that there will be no totally unexpected “surprises.”

Both assumptions are rarely true and both are refuted both by common sense and by the lessons of history.

Case in point: last week’s “Texas shootout.” Until last week, the White House routine was in motion and functioning smoothly: Bush was the public face of the Administration, and Cheney the hand in the sock-puppet, self-selected in 2000 to give stability, maturity and “gravitas” to the Bush regime. Last week Cheney was exposed to the public at large as the reckless, self-absorbed, super-annuated adolescent that his perceptive critics knew him to be. Today the right-wing propaganda mills are up to full speed, telling us “move along, folks, nothing to see here.” But try as they might, the public perception of Dick Cheney will not revert to status-quo-ante. The “present trend” of the Bush/Cheney team has been turned in an altered direction.

But Dick Cheney’s bad aim was a minor disruption, of interest to us only because of its immediacy. Other “surprises” are well known to all of us.

• In the fall of 1958, Fidel Castro seemed to be insignificant irritant to the regime of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba. On New Years Day in 1959, Batista fled Cuba, and two days later Castro and his “brigands,” marched into Havana.
   

• In the summer of 1963, John Kennedy’s election to a second term appeared to be a near-certainty.
   

• So too, his brother Robert’s nomination at the Chicago Democratic convention in August, 1968.
   

• On election day in 1964, Lyndon Johnson seemed assured of a second term four years hence. And on election day, 1972, there was no reason whatever to doubt that Richard Nixon would serve out a full term.
   

• In the early eighties, Reagan’s UN Ambassador, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, warned us all that where communism had established its rule, it had never retreated one square inch. And Mikhail Gorbachev, the Right told us, was just another Communist apparatchik, like all the others – “Khruschev with a tailored suit and a thin wife,” as George Will put it.
   

• In 1990 Nelson Mandela was a prisoner of the South African apartheid regime. In 1994 he was elected President of the Republic of South Africa.

Political upheavals are like earthquakes. Beneath a placid landscape, stresses quietly build up until the fault ruptures, suddenly and without warning, forever transforming the landscape.

So, is an upheaval looming ahead for the United States? Not necessarily. For history also teaches us that democracies can descend slowly, by small increments, into despotism. As William O. Douglas put it: “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged.”

Which is our future? A bang, or a whimper? Or perhaps a renaissance? We don’t know. But the answer, to no small degree, is in the hands of us, of "we the people."

This much seems likely: given the increasing unrest among the American people, the accumulating evidence of GOP corruption and Administration crimes, and the likelihood of a devastating economic setback, come September and October this year, the political landscape will be radically different than it is today. It could be far worse, with an intervening catastrophic terrorist attack followed immediately by martial law and full-fledged fascism. On the other hand, we the people just might achieve our deliverance from this reign of error, lies, greed, and cruelty.

The latter, hopeful, outcome may appear impossible today. But we must never forget that every successful peoples’ liberation movement begins as an impossible dream. (And, be sure, many such movements remain so). They then proceed to possibility, then probability, and finally to inevitability and success.

The resistance to Bushism is now at the “impossible” stage; today, the Busheviks control the ballot box and the mainstream media. Their continuing control of the Congress and soon the Courts seems assured, and the alleged “opposition party” is enfeebled, disorganized and compliant. To be sure, if conditions and trends remain as they are today, and there are no “surprises,” continued control by the GOP of all branches of government is a certainty.

However, it is very unlikely that conditions and trends will remain as they are, or that there will be no disrupting “surprises.” Below this controlled and placid political and economic landscape, the stresses are accumulating.

Among them:

• More and more moderate republicans and authentic conservatives are finally coming to realize that they share little more with the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress than a name, “Republican,” and an adjective, “conservative.” With the rightward shift in US politics, traditional Republican values and policies – fiscal responsibility, small government, local control, individual self-reliance -- are approaching congruence with those of the Democratic party. And genuine conservatives share with the Democrats, and in opposition to the Bush regime, a respect for our Constitution, the balance of governmental powers, and the rule of law.
   

• Similarly, many libertarians are becoming disenchanted with the Bushevik assault on civil liberties and its flirtation with theocracy. In fact, a recent analysis of congressional voting records has determined that with the exception of the estimable libertarian-republican, Ron Paul, virtually all the top voting scores in the libertarian index belong to House Democrats.
   

• Bush has lost the confidence and support of a majority of Americans. His approval ratings have once again dropped below 40%. A November AP-Ipsos poll found that 57% of those polled do not believe that the Bush Administration has "high ethical standards," and the same number say that Bush is not honest.  Last month, a Gallup poll found that 58% consider Bush's second term a failure, and 53% believe that Bush's administration deliberately misled the public about Saddam's alleged WMD programs.  Finally, an October Ipsos poll found that exactly half of the population would want Congress to consider impeachment if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war with Iraq
   

• The Religious Right is fracturing, and the moderate Christians are becoming politically active, reminding us that Jesus blessed the peacemakers and condemned the wealthy and the hypocrites. Some evangelical Christian ministers are openly criticizing Bush’s environmental policies and expressing concern about global warming.
   

• The patience of the international community with the neo-con’s imperial ambitions is wearing thin. And as knowledgeable observers of international politics and economics are fully aware, the community of nations is quite capable of exerting considerable economic pressure on the US government.
   

• Bushism is based upon and sustained by a scaffolding of lies and deception. At long last, the public is beginning to “wise up,” and as the Busheviks respond to public skepticism with still more lies, their credibility crumbles, and with it their legitimacy and political clout.
   

• Doubts about the validity of the election process will not go away, despite the disparagement of the issue by the mainstream media and the persistent indifference of the Democratic Party. More and more jurisdictions are decertifying electronic voting devices as legal challenges proliferate.
   

• The US economy is approaching a breaking point, as the housing bubble is about to burst followed by the bankruptcy of millions of double-mortgaged speculating home owners. With ever-more Americans “maxing-out” their credit cards and credit qualifications, and with the continuing decline in median middle-class income, consumer spending is certain to stall.  Nothing provokes the American public to political action more than economic distress.
   

• It is finally beginning to dawn on a few “movers and shakers” of finance and industry that where Bush, Inc. is leading, they should not want to follow. There are few winners in an economic depression, least of all investors. And a country that fails to invest in infrastructure, in scientific research, in technological development, and in education, and which “outsources” its technical jobs, is committing economic suicide. Savvy investors and corporate financial officers recall that they flourished during the Clinton administration, not to mention most Democratic administrations.
   

• After five years of slavishly spewing out Bushite/GOP propaganda, the mainstream media is losing its credibility and its audience. The public is beginning to look to alternative sources for its news: the foreign media, the independent press, and of course, the internet.
   

• The would-be despots, Bush, Cheney and the rest, are not very good at despotism. There is a widening charisma-gap, as these leaders appear ever-less “commanding” and ever-more puerile, incompetent, and even pathetic. In addition, Bush and his minions are not “deep thinkers.” They prefer faith to science, and gut-feeling to expertise. The public is beginning to appreciate that this administration can not bend reality to its will, and that eventually “reality bites.”

All these factors are working to the disadvantage of the Bush regime, thus, the sub-surface stresses are accumulating. Given the manifest skills of the Bush propaganda machine, and the blackmail and intimidation issuing from Karl Rove’s office, the political fault beneath could hold fast throughout the next decade, into the Jeb Bush Administration. Or it could rupture next month. My guess is sooner, rather than later.

Meanwhile, the resistance is gaining in strength.


The catalytic moment for liberation movements arrives when (a) the movement achieves self-awareness – when the dissenters look about and find that they are not alone, and recognize that they are participants in a concerted political force, (b) when the movement acquires effective leadership that focuses goals and coordinates action, and (c) when leaders and followers of the movement achieve results, albeit minor, and thus perceive that success is achievable. This perception that success is possible is, in itself, a formidable political force. “Perception is reality.” Si, se puede!

I opened with a warning about the unreliability of political predictions. So I will not now hazard predictions about the State of the Union in the fall, as the mid-term election approaches. However, I can point out some factors that might emerge in the meantime to re-shuffle the political deck.

Election fraud: As Bush’s approval ratings continue to fall, the economy sours, the Iraq casualty toll increases with no end in sight, the Abramov and Plame scandals yield indictments, the defensive lies from the White House become more transparent and desperate, opinion polls point to a Democratic blowout in the November elections. As more and more voices are heard to ask, “why on earth did we elect these guys?,” the public becomes ever more receptive to the reply, “we didn’t! Those damned machines elected them!”  Then the Busheviks face a daunting dilemma: can they allow a Democratic takeover of the Congress, and with it the power of congressional investigation including the levers of subpoena and the threats of perjury and contempt of Congress? Or dare they once again "jigger" the computer programs, in the secret and unauditable ballot and compilation codes, to assure a GOP “victory,” thus inviting a Ukrainian-style public rebellion?

The Mainstream Media: As the MSM continues to lose its audience, it faces another dilemma: propaganda vs. profits. When the Soviet media, state-owned and thus in no need of profits, persisted in spewing out state propaganda, it gave rise to an underground media, samizdat, and an enthusiastic public audience for foreign broadcasts and publications. In the United States today, profits are a factor, as here and there elements of the MSM, facing competition from foreign and independent sources and the internet, are exhibiting increasing critical independence from the GOP party line.  The opponents to Bush, Inc., need no counter-propaganda. A healthy dose of the truth will suffice as an invaluable resource in the struggle to bring an end to the reigning oligarchy.

Leadership: The resistance to Bushism is essentially leaderless, and thus unfocused and disorganized. When the leaders emerge, reflecting the values and aspirations of the resistance movement, that movement may become a formidable force.

I am not proposing another despot to replace the ones we have. If prospective leaders step forward with agendas alien to the followers, they will be discarded. Successful leaders must embody the values and aspirations of the movement. In an authentic popular movement, communication and coordination between leaders and followers flows in both directions.  Though rebels by nature resist authority, leadership in a resistance movement is essential, for if the movement is to be effective, its goals must be defined and focused, and its activism coordinated.  Let’s be realistic: where would the sixties civil rights movement be without Martin Luther King, Jr. – or, of not King himself, a King-like leader? Where India, without a Gandhi, South Africa without a Mandela, Russia without a Sakharov? For that matter, where would the United States be without a Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest? All of these succeeded as leaders because those in their movements chose to follow. Other individuals, lost to history, claimed leadership and were rejected.

Message Discipline is behind much of the success of the GOP. Memos with “talking points” issue forth from the offices of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, with clear and simple messages that are heard, incessantly, in the echo chambers of right-wing talk radio and right-wing punditry. In contrast, the left speaks with a thousand tongues, with worthy causes spread all over the political landscape, and with factions, that should be allies, fighting amongst themselves for a place at the podium. Witness the Washington Mall peace rallies, where we hear messages of gay pride, reproductive freedom, animal liberation, save the rain forests, abolish the death penalty, and, oh yes, end the war. All these are commendable causes, and all these are also wedge issues that fracture the coalition, to the delight of the right, which therein gains an opportunity to divide and conquer.

To the public at large, a thousand messages equate with no message, and a validation of the tiresome right-wing criticism that “the left has no new ideas.”

The essential message of the resistance movement must be simple, clear, with few elements, and comprehensive enough to encompass a broad coalition of citizens, who may differ on particular issues: liberals, progressives, the religious, the secular, moderate Republicans, conservatives, libertarians. To the religious, ask “What would Jesus Do?” (I.e., promote peace and charity, and condemn wealth and hypocrisy). To “establishment” Republicans and their followers, “What is the supreme object of your loyalty? A party? A man who happens to be President” or your country and its laws and Constitution?"  And to citizens in general: “What have they done to our country?”

If these few and simple messages are repeated, over and over, the public might at last pay attention, and the resistance movement might achieve self-identity and grow into an irresistible force for reform and renewal.

In conclusion, we must pay no attention to the pundits’ proclamations that Democratic control of Congress is “out of reach,” that impeachment is impossible, or that claims of election fraud are groundless paranoia.. There are live bombs in the basement of The House of Bush – scandals, crimes, betrayals, treachery, even treason. Any one of these potentially explosive issues might, at any time, go off and bring down the entire wretched structure. Or they might all be defused, as a long night of despotism falls upon our republic. We can be confident only of this much: the present trends will not continue, and we must expect and be prepared to deal intelligently with the unexpected.

We Americans are not an evil people. Woefully ignorant at times, and short on political sales-resistance. But when we sense that we’ve been swindled and lied to, watch out! Our country was born in rebellion against tyranny. We have a Constitution and we have a tradition of liberty and the rule of law. We have vivid memories of a short time ago when we lived in a country that was both prosperous and free.

But neither were the Germans or the Russians fundamentally evil people. Yet they succumbed to evil regimes. The Germans had to be liberated at horrendous cost. After seventy long years, the various nationalities of the Soviet Union threw out their oppressors. We may suffer the fate of the Germans – there are no guarantees. Or perhaps “the Old World” will come to the rescue of the New,” just as we came to their rescue in the century just past.

Far better that we accomplish our own liberation and renewal. For only the American people can restore the honor of the United States of America.

Copyright 2006by Ernest Partridge
 

---

The View from Abroad:
A Personal Reflection

Ernest Partridge

February 8, 2006

Except for a Naval Reserve cruise to Hawaii when I was nineteen, I had not, until my fifty-fifth year, stepped off the North American continent.

The decade that followed made up for all that. During that time, I was invited and participated in nine scholarly conferences abroad (four in Russia, two in Italy, and one each in Germany, Japan, and at Oxford University in England). In all, I visited fourteen countries for durations varying from two days to six weeks. Whatever I might have contributed to these events, I can testify that I returned home with a much-enriched understanding and appreciation of the cultures that I visited, and with the advantage of perspective gained through detachment and distance, an enhanced understanding and appreciation of the heritage, traditions and values of my own country.

Here are three impressions that are both vivid in my memory, and relevant to our current political circumstances.
 

War and Peace: War, to the Europeans, and especially the Germans and the Russians, means something quite different than what it means to most Americans.

Since the close of the Civil War in 1865, "war" for the United States has always been "over there." For the Europeans, as well as the Japanese, it was "right here!" In World War II, not a single Nazi shell fell on American soil, and except for one fatal "balloon bomb," the Japanese caused no damage to the Continental United States. In all fronts of that war, we lost a quarter million dead in combat.

In Europe, in that same war, entire cities were reduced to rubble. At least ten million Germans and more than twenty million Soviet citizens were killed. Of the Soviet males born in the early twenties, ninety percent perished. For every American GI who fell in combat, over fifty Russian soldiers were killed. Scarcely a single family in Germany or Russia was spared the loss of several close relatives.

For all too many Americans, war is an adventure, especially so to those, who, like George Bush and his cabinet, have never experienced combat. "F— Saddam, we’re taking him out," Bush was heard to say, and when he decided to launch his war, he struck his fist against his palm and said "feels good!" That decision was to cause the death of more than one-hundred thousand, and still counting.

To the Europeans, who have experienced it, war is an unmitigated disaster and an unspeakable horror. And a half a century later, its evidence is everywhere. For example, across the street from my friend's apartment in St. Petersburg is "Park Pobedy" ("Victory Park") -- a pleasant plot of trees, ponds and lawn through which I walked to and from the Metro station. Under that turf lies the bones and ashes of tens of thousands of Leningrad citizens, victims of the 900 days of siege in which up to a million residents starved. About a kilometer past the park on Moskovsky Prospect (Boulevard) is a monument to the siege of Leningrad, and a museum that commemorates that horror. There I saw on display a small cube of sawdust and wallpaper paste -- the "bread" that served as a daily food ration -- and lighting the perimeter of that huge room, there were 900 lanterns placed in shell casings, one shell for every day of the siege.

True, just a mere twenty-one years after the first World War, the Europeans were back at it again. Even so, I am convinced that as long as the general public has a significant say in the matter, the Europeans will remain at peace with one another. Given the recent behavior of United States governments, both Democratic and Republican, and the scale of our so-called "Defense" budgets, I am not similarly confident of our own peaceful behavior.
 

Public Infrastructure: "Infrastructure" refers to roads, bridges, telephone service, electricity, water and sewage disposal – in short, the facilities and accommodations in place that service and sustain a nation’s economy. With the exception of Russia, I found the European infrastructure to be excellent, as was the Japanese. In Russia, the infrastructure varies from "adequate" to sub-standard, although I can report remarkable improvements between my first visit in 1989 and my last in 1999.

An informed account of European and Japanese infrastructure would require an unacceptable investment in research time and in space in this essay. So I will confine my remarks to my personal experiences with just one infrastructure: rail transportation.

The contrast of European and Japanese railroads with our own is breathtaking – and acutely embarrassing to the American tourist. Clean, quiet, comfortable, reliable, efficient, all describe these accommodations, though they must be experienced to be fully appreciated. At the Osaka airport, I walked a short distance from the baggage pickup to the awaiting train, which looked like it had just been delivered from the factory. In just forty-five minutes I was in Kyoto. (The trains run every five to fifteen minutes).

Most astonishing was the "Chunnel" train from Paris to London: 213 miles in two and a half hours, at speeds up to 140 mph. (The British rail-beds require reduced speeds). From downtown Paris to downtown London, the Chunnel train is faster, cheaper and more comfortable than a flight, and at a small fraction of the energy cost per passenger. By comparison, auto travel between the cities, involving a time-consuming ferry across the English Channel, is unthinkable.

Why don’t we have such facilities in the United States? Why not a "bullet train" between Boston and Washington? Why was a proposed fast-rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles recently de-authorized? With even the aging equipment and decaying rail-bed, the downtown to downtown travel times between Washington and New York, by air and by rail, are comparable. Imagine the savings in time and fuel if a European- or Japanese-quality rail link were established between these cities. As for the advantages in time, fuel and convenience over auto travel, you have no idea!

How did it come to this? It happened by design, and not by accident. Soon after the end of World War II, a consortium of auto, gasoline and tire manufacturers bought up and then shut down major intracity commuter railroads, and the passenger railroads went into steep decline as investments dried up. Then Congress approved and funded the interstate highway system, "for national defense," we were told. Autos and airplanes were to be the transportation of the future, and they were subsidized by tax revenues for highway and airport construction and promoted with untold billions of advertising dollars. Public investment in rail transportation? "No way!," we were told. "That’s socialism!"  Why public investment in roads and airports were not also "socialism" was not explained.

The short-term return on investments for the holders of automobile and petroleum stocks were extravagant. The long-term social, environmental and economic costs – well, we’re beginning to find out. In the coming global competition among nations, as energy costs rise (as they must), economic advantage will be enjoyed by nations with fast and fuel efficient transportation and distribution infrastructure in place – the sort of infrastructure that I experienced when I rode the trains in Europe and Japan.
 

Language. The United States is a nation predominantly of monolingual citizens, the few exceptions are found in Louisiana Canada (French), Florida and the Southwest (Spanish), Indian reservations, and in our largest cities, some ethnic neighborhoods. Otherwise, despite immigration, our population is becoming ever-less acquainted with foreign languages, as language instruction is disappearing from the public schools, and the language requirement of the Bachelor of Arts is being discarded in our Colleges.

Thus the American visitor abroad, this one included, depends upon the language skills of others to get around. For the most part he or she is generally well-accommodated. The American tourist’s response to this limitation may go in two opposite directions: arrogance ("what’s wrong with these people; why can’t they understand me?") or, more appropriately, embarrassment and humility.

I knew, of course, that there were many distinct languages in Europe, but came to appreciate it in a five-day train ride from St. Petersburg, Russia, to Florence, Italy, as I encountered, in sequence, Russian, Finnish, Swedish, Danish, German, French and Italian. And throughout all, English.

Much impressed with the linguistic skills of even the ordinary citizen, I encountered mind-boggling virtuosity in an attractive, twenty-something tour guide in Copenhagen. As we were about to embark on a boat tour of the harbor, this young lady asked us, in sequence: "please raise your hands, who speaks English?" Then she continued, "Qui parle française?" "Wer spricht Deutsch?" "Quien habla Espagnole?" "Kto gavarit pa Roosky?" And perhaps a couple more languages including, of course, her own: Danish. She then proceeded to conduct the tour in six languages. How many more languages she had in her repertory, one could only guess. Amazing!

I have often pondered the price that we Americans pay for our neglect of foreign language study. Of course, it aggravates our isolation from the rest of the world, for our confinement to a single language shuts off the opportunity to study, understand and appreciate other cultures on their own terms and with their own evolved meanings.

But even if we confine our travels and our studies to our own country and culture, our failure to study other languages might also constrict and distort our thought-processes. Monolinguals, I suspect, are more susceptible to "word-magic" – the linkage of words with the things and ideas that they designate, a cognitive trap that is much less likely to ensnare a person who has the capability of expressing a thought in two or more distinct languages. Moreover, multilinguals are well aware of the limitations of a language, as they struggle with translations and encounter "untranslatable" words and phrases.

As George Orwell was so well-aware, "word magic" is the primary tool of the propagandist. Newt Gingrich was also aware of this when he drew up and distributed his notorious memo, "Language: a Key Mechanism of Control."  The master’s project has been carried on, with great skill and effectiveness, by such GOP spinmeisters as Frank Luntz and Karl Rove.

A public of monolinguals, as victims of "word-magic," are more inclined to focus on what politicians say, and less on what they do. Thus supporters of Bush and his policies applaud his "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" initiatives, after all who is not for healthy forests and clear skies? They do not bother to notice that "healthy forests" allows clear-cutting on national forests, and that "Clear Skies" permits an easing of pollution controls. Similarly, "No Child Left Behind," "USA Patriot Act," "Compassionate Conservatism" and so on.

Search the Bush/GOP educational policies, and you will find scant attention to foreign language study. Small wonder.
 

In general:  I found that Americans were well-liked and respected, but then I was usually among professional colleagues. The general public abroad that I came in contact with treated us, in all but a very few cases, with courtesy. I gained the impression that American political institutions and traditions were genuinely admired, but that some American personal traits, in particular ethnocentrism and arrogance, were not. My last trip was in 1999. What the typical European thinks of Americans today, I dare not contemplate.

I encountered a sample of that American arrogance on a return flight from Moscow. I was assigned a seat next to an officer of a prominent American right-wing think tank. He explained that he was in Moscow to conduct a seminar in free-market economics – in effect, he was a missionary to the heathen. For several hours he related what he had taught the Russians. I don’t recall that he said a word about what he had learned from the Russians. I listened and occasionally posed some innocuous questions. But by then I had learned not to engage a dogmatic regressive in an argument. Might as well attempt to persuade Jerry Falwell to accept evolution. It was, after all, a long flight home.

The countries I visited were not "teeming" with populations desperate to emigrate to the United States – with "huddled masses yearning to breath free."  Instead, I met people who were proud of their own countries, and content to remain there. Many live comfortably on much less then we do – or did, since, of course, the median American standard of living is in decline. I found no slums, such as I find in Los Angeles and other American cities, though of course I did not visit Africa or south-east Asia.  Europe and Japan, are free and prosperous, and Russia less so. I remain fully aware that the vast majority of the world’s population experiences a level of poverty that is unimaginable to most Europeans, Japanese, and North Americans.

We like to call ourselves "the leaders of the free world." But world news, along with personal correspondence with my friends and colleagues abroad, tell me that this leadership is slipping away. News from within the United States, when read critically, tells us that our self-congratulatory "freedom" is eroding, and that which remains is in grave peril.

After a decade of travel abroad, I remain proud of our political heritage and of our scientific and technological accomplishments. I cherish our natural environment, and I revere our founding documents and the political and moral principles therein. My recent world-travels have served to intensify these sentiments. Thus I am enraged as I see that heritage betrayed, that environment despoiled and sold-off, and the Constitution tossed aside by a President who regards it as "just a goddam piece of paper."

Will "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" not "perish from the earth," as Lincoln resolved on the field of Gettysburg? I believe, with Lincoln, that it shall not "perish from the earth," as I have met in foreign lands, many admirable individuals who are so resolved. But will such a government survive in the United States of America?  Of that outcome we can not be assured, for we have, in five brief years, traveled far along the road toward despotism. The government now in power will not turn us back on that road; this is something that we the people must do for ourselves. The United States was born out of a struggle to overthrow a despot from abroad. Now the despot resides in our Nation’s capital.

In the darkest hours of that founding struggle, the cause of freedom and independence seemed hopeless – "these were the times that tried men’s souls."

Our times are not as grave – not yet. We the people can still prevail. After all, we’ve done so before.

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge

---

---

“Evidence? We Don’t Want
Your Stinkin’ Evidence!”

Ernest Partridge

January 25, 2006

Like biologists with evolution and atmospheric scientists with global climate change, those who warn us that our elections have been stolen and will be stolen again must now be wondering, “just how much evidence must it take to make our case and to convince enough of the public to force reform and secure our ballots?”

The answer, apparently, is no amount – no amount, that is, until more minds are opened. And that is more than a question of evidence, it is a question of collective sanity.

In his new book, Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not only presents abundant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but in addition he examines the political, social, and media environment which made this theft possible.

When I first read the book immediately after its publication, I confess that I was a bit disappointed. What I had hoped to find was a compendium of evidence, from front to back. To be sure, Miller gives us plenty of evidence, meticulously documented. But evidence tells us that the election was stolen. Miller goes beyond that to explain how and why it was stolen, and how the culprits have managed, so far, to get away with it. So on second reading, I find that it was my expectation and not Miller’s book that was flawed. We have evidence aplenty, to be found in John Conyers’ report, and the new book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, in addition to the Blackbox voting Website  among numerous others. Soon to be added is Prof. Steven Freeman’s book on the statistical evidence of election fraud. What we don’t gain from these sources is an understanding and appreciation of the context in which this crime was committed. This we learn from reading Miller’s book.

If, in fact, the last two presidential elections have been stolen, and if in addition there is a preponderance of evidence to support this claim, then this is the most significant political news in the 230 year history of our republic.

So what is the response of the allegedly “opposing” party to the issue of election fraud? Virtual silence. And of the news media? More silence. Case in point: the media response to Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again. As he reports:  "There have been no national reviews of Fooled Again. No network or cable TV show would have the author on to talk about the book. NPR has refused to have him on... Only one daily newspaper – The Florida Sun-Sentinel– has published a review.”

Force the question of election fraud and demand an answer, and the most likely response will be a string of ad hominem insults – “sore losers,” “paranoid,” “conspiracy theorists” -- attacks on the messenger and a dismissal of the message. We’ve heard them, many times over

Persist, and you might get as a reply, not evidence that the elections were honest and valid (there is very little of that), but rather some rhetorical questions as to the attitudes and motives of the alleged perpetrators and to the practical difficulties of their successfully accomplishing a stolen national election. Questions such as these:

• How could the GOP campaign managers believe that they could get away with a stolen election?
   

• Why would they dare risk failure, and the subsequent criminal indictments and dissolution of their party?
   

• What could possibly motivate them to subvert the foundations of our democracy?

The answer to the first two questions is essentially the same: they believed and they dared because they controlled the media and thus the message. Miller’s sub-text throughout his book is that the great electoral hijack has been accomplished with the cooperation, one might even say the connivance, of the mainstream media, without which the crime could never have succeeded. Immediately following the election, the critics were shouted down with such headlines as this: “Election paranoia surfaces; Conspiracy theorists call results rigged” (Baltimore Sun), “Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is dismissed” (Boston Globe), “Latest Conspiracy Theory – Kerry Won – Hits the Ether” (Washington Post), and in the “flagship” newspaper, the New York Times: “Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried.” (Miller, 38). Even more damaging than the slanted “reports” in the media, was the silence. The Conyers investigations? Ignored. The scholarly statistical analyses of exit poll discrepancies? Ignored. Evidence that Bush cheated in the debates with a listening device? Dismissed. The recent GAO report on e-voting vulnerabilities, and the Florida demonstration hacking of computer vote compilation? Ignored. And most appalling of all: the media blackout last week of Al Gore’s eloquent speech, warning of the threat to our Constitution and our liberties posed by the Bush regime.

And all this merely scratches the surface of media malpractice. For more, read the book.


The motivation to steal the election, says Miller, combined religious (or quasi-religious) dogma and self-righteousness and a perception of the opposing Democratic party, not as “the loyal opposition,” but as “the enemy” deserving, not defeat, but annihilation. (“You are either with us or against us,” says Bush). Together, this adds up to what Miller calls “The Requisite Fanaticism.”  He writes:

It is not “conservatism” that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se... The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms... The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in “politics” in the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe in “competition.” In both cases, the intention is not to play the game but to end it – because the game requires some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what these bitter-enders most despise... (Miller 81-2)

Reiterating a theme that is prominent in his writing, Miller points out that the psychological pathology most conspicuously at work in the right’s demolition of politics is projection: the attribution in “the enemy” of one’s own moral depravity:

The Bushevik, so full of hate, hates politics, and would get rid of it; and yet he is himself expert at dirty politics: an expertise that he regards as purely imitative and defensive. Because his enemies, he thinks, are all “political” – dishonest, ruthless, cynical, unprincipled – he is thereby “forced” to be “political” as well, in order to “fight fire with fire.” As we have seen, this paranoid conviction of the Other’s perfidy suffuses and impels the propaganda campaigns of the right, and it was especially important in Bush/Cheney’s drive to steal the last election. Indeed it was their firm conviction that they had to steal the race, in order to frustrate the Democrats’ attempt to do it first. (Miller, 82).

This is just a brief sampling of Miller’s astute political and psychological analysis of the “why” and the “how” of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That analysis, which takes up about a third of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an invaluable dimension to our understanding of the political disaster that has befallen our Republic, and that analysis suggests guidelines in the struggle to avoid the theft of the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008.

I have written at length about what might be done if we are to restore the ballot box to the voters. These crucial steps come immediately to mind, as I read Miller’s “Fooled Again.”

Briefly, we need a media, we need an opposition party, we need an aroused public, and we need a miracle. But take heart: history tells us that political crises have a way of producing miracles.

The mainstream media (MSM) must be discredited and an alternative media established in its place. The internet offers a voice to an opposition that is excluded from the mainstream, and a few independent publications and broadcasts remain, however feeble in comparison to the MSM. If a sizeable portion of the public deserts the mainstream, and directly informs the publishers and broadcasters why they are doing so, the media, and particularly their sponsors and advertisers, will take notice. Recently, some of the media have become more critical of the Bush regime and the GOP Congress, but it is, by and large, too little and too late. So either the commercial media must resume the role of watchdog of government power, as intended by Jefferson and Madison, or it must be made irrelevant. The Russian dissidents late in the Soviet era have given us an example: if you have no media, create one, even if it is suppressed by the government. It was called “Samizdat” – a painstaking process of typing several carbon copies of forbidden manuscripts on condition that the recipients would do likewise. Similarly, the Iranian dissidents during the reign of the Shah copied and distributed audio tapes of revolutionary speeches. In the computer age, there are huge advantages: internet publication and, if the internet is taken from us, CDs and minidisks. For now, the internet is our Samizdat.

The Democratic party is the only potentially effective opposition party in sight. But at the moment, it is a toothless tiger. We must tell that party that it must either lead the struggle to restore electoral integrity or step aside. When the Clintons, Cantwells, Liebermans and Feinsteins run for re-election, they must be opposed in the primaries by authentic progressives. Even if those progressives lose, but with a creditable showing, the “establishment” Democrats will nonetheless get the message. Next time you get a solicitation notice from the DNC or the Senate or Congressional Campaign Committees, tell them “no dice” unless they deal with the election fraud issue. Then tell them that instead of a contribution, you are purchasing Miller’s book and donating it to the local library.

As for the public, remember that more than half the public is awake, aware, and opposed to the Bush regime. Of these, a small but significant minority is convinced that election fraud is a serious problem. But that dissenting public lacks a voice, cohesion and leadership. This is a recipe for potentially sudden change: like fuel and oxygen, lacking the third necessity – heat of ignition. A message, from a Tom Paine or a Jefferson, or leadership from a Washington, a Gandhi, a Mandella or a Sakharov, can ignite the fire that will consume this evil regime. Or not. That depends on whether concerned citizens sit by and wait for others to act, or instead take some initiative and join the struggle – writing to Congress, talking to any and all associates that will listen and perhaps a few that won’t, contributing to alternative media, copying and distributing dissenting essays, and generally raising hell.

And finally, miracles: they are, by nature, unpredictable. Some possibilities: A few corporate and financial elites will finally come to realize that where Bush is leading, they don’t want to follow, and they will join the opposition. (There are a few intimations of this already). Similarly, perhaps a few journalists, and even some Republicans, will finally if belatedly decide that they would prefer not to live in a dictatorship. Bushenomics is bound to lead to an economic collapse that is certain to wake up the public. And even now, some state Attorney General or some District Attorney may be preparing an indictment for election fraud against an e-vote company executive that could break this conspiracy wide open.

But don’t wait for miracles to happen – make them happen.

If we are to take back our country, we must first take back our vote. Mark Crispin Miller’s book will tell you what has happened, how and why it has happened, and what must be done about it.

Will we, the people, take up the challenge? On that question rests the fate of our republic, of our liberties, and of “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
 

Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge
 

---

---

In 2006, Voting Fraud is the Keystone Issue

Ernest Partridge,

January 9, 2006

The significance of the election fraud issue can not be overstated. The fate of our republic turns on how this issue is dealt with and resolved in the coming year.

On the one hand, the Bush Administration, the Republican party and the Republican Congress, with the continuing connivance of the corporate media and the persistent indifference of the Democratic party,  may successfully resist public demands for electoral reform, and consequently the existing system of unverifiable voting and secret software will remain in place. If so, then the Republicans will surely retain control of the Congress, regardless of the will of the American people.

On the other hand, if, at last, it becomes irrefutably clear to a large portion of the general public that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen, along with key congressional races in 2002, and if indictments follow and a fair election ensues, then public outrage will result in the Democratic control of at least one, and more likely, both houses of Congress. Still worse will then be in store for those who stole our elections and our democracy, as the congressional Democrats gain the power of subpoena and the threats of perjury and contempt of Congress. The likely outcome will be the disintegration of the Republican conspiracy, and the relegation of that party to minority status for the next generation.

The ballot is the heart of democracy. If one party “owns” the ballot box, it owns the government, for that party is no longer answerable to the will of the people; it rules without the “consent of the governed.” Thus it is no wonder that the Bush regime and the GOP want to keep this issue off the public agenda. We can’t allow them to succeed. It’s as simple as that.

The Busheviks, their Congressional toadies, and their fat-cat sponsors are fully aware of the stakes. Not only do they want to remain in power and keep their ill-gotten booty, many of them want desperately to stay out of the federal slammer. Accordingly, there may virtually nothing that they might not resort to in order to avoid this outcome. Things could get very nasty.

So it all comes down to this: voting fraud is the keystone issue for this year. If the keystone remains intact and in place, the structure will endure, and the United States will continue along the road toward oligarchy and despotism. Remove the keystone, and the structure will collapse, opening the possibility for a restoration of the rule of law and of a government of, by, and for the people.

At this moment the outcome of the struggle for ballot integrity is uncertain and is, in no small part, in the hands of ordinary American citizens, for our political establishment and our corporate media have forsaken us and our republic, while the ostensible “opposition party” is AWOL. It is up to us in our everyday, face-to-face-dealings with our fellow citizens, and through our remaining mode of public communication, the internet, to force the issue into the mainstream media, on to the agenda of a reluctant Democratic Party, and into the criminal courts.

Despite the coordinated and so-far successful effort by the media and the GOP to keep the election fraud issue contained, the pressure under the lid of media and establishment silence is rising, as more and more evidence of stolen elections and of the vulnerability of computerized voting seeps into public awareness. This evidence includes: the report of the Congressional General Accountability Office, the spectacular “hacking” demonstrations in Florida, statistically impossible polling vs. voting discrepancies in the 2005 Ohio election, leaks from whistle blowers within the e-voting industry, and the actual and pending decertification of paperless touch-screen machines in a growing list of counties and states. Add to all this the continuing output of articles and now books by Mark Crispin Miller, by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, by John Conyers and his congressional colleagues, and soon still another book by the statistician, Steven Freeman.

As a consequence of growing public concern, stocks in the e-voting companies have sharply declined and stockholder suits and criminal charges are pending against company officials. Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, who foolishly released a lett