sufi said:
The leaders of the US have had the state hijacked for a long time, and is it too cheesy to mention that it doesn't really matter who wins the elections?... you always gonna get a monkey in a suit in friont and the same anonymous unelected dodgy geezas in background...
I used to believe that, that it didn't matter who was elected, and then Bush was. The last four years have been a real wake-up. It's fashionable to act like it doesn't matter, but it's not really true. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that Gore would have approached issues like the economy and national security in a way that he would be no difference from Bush.
the govt don't have a majority of citizens behind them already, (just more than what the other party got), they already behave with total impunity - they didn't need the support of either the US people, nor the UN to start up GW2. I wouldn't call US a healthily functioning democracy (or UK for that matter) if senate/parliament, whatever, cannot prevent the leaders from undertaking an illegal war whih the majority of the electorate don't support.
In Britain a majority of the population didn't support the Iraq War. Here, they did (I didn't). It's falsifying history to suggest that, initially at least, a pretty sizeable majority of Americans didn't support the Iraq War. Of course, they supported it through paranoia and lies, but they supported it nonetheless.
Is America a 'healthily functioning democracy'? How do you define what one is? There has always been corruption and backroom dealing in American democracy, from the inner-city machine politics of the 19th century to Eisenhower's military-industrial complex to today's K Street lobbying firms. That is the nature of the beast.
Bush may have won on fear, but he won.
America is a big place Pearsall - i don't think there is any need for the blackshirts, or orange jumpsuits to disturb tranquil Brooklyn
What you say about secession or civil war is just rubbish, given levels of complacency in 21stC america (or Yurp for that matter) - & the junta doesn't need to be so audacious as to openly declare 'martial law' or whatever (if you consider that hasn't already happened with the 'patriot act') = stealthy democratical coup de etat - bush quoted by zizek (sufi quotes zizek
) "the future will be better... tomorrow"
Rubbish? I don't know, feelings are running pretty strong here. If Bush were to decide at some point that he were to become permanent leader there would be armed conflict (after all we have a lot of guns in private hands). I find the argument that the population is 'complacent' a bit strange considering the election we just went through. What should Americans have done to prove they were less complacent about politics? Armed raids on each other's political rallies?
Having said that realistically I don't see it happening. For one thing the Patriot Act can be seen of a piece with other bits of authoritarian legislation from the past, from laws passed in WWI to the McCarthy era; in none of those times did it lead to juntas and such. Ultimately, people woke up, were embarrassed, and the laws were gutted. I personally doubt that this time is much different, because the Republican Party itself is a coalition that is weaker than it looks. The different factions showed amazing discipline this time around but now that the election is over they are already starting to attack each other (ie the social conservatives trying to block Arlen Specter's nomination to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee). Since Bush is out in four years and Cheney isn't going to run for president the Republicans will probably devolve into furious infighting, because there isn't really much to tie the Christian Right together with the corporate boosters and the isolationists.
you better hope they ain't paranoid and won't feel like a nuke or crash (or another terrrrist spectacular) is necessary for them to consolidate power, luckily though, they won't need to while apologists like persil constantly excuse their contempt for their electorate.
Apologist? No, I'm just a realist who knows the history of my country. I think Bush is a disastrous president, but this idea that they are going to seize all levers of power is just ridiculous. For one thing, it is ahistorical, if it hasn't happened before in darker periods then I see it unlikely to happen now. Plus you seem to be making assumptions about their competence in carrying out policy that I surely won't. These people are basically useless at everything except running for office.
And for another, Bush is less strong than you think, and in his second term he won't benefit from a Congress that is lock-step behind him because they wanted him to be re-elected. Now that he is, they are going to turn their attention to their own turf wars, their own interests. Already recently the intelligence reform bill failed because of the immigration restrictionists. Bush values loyalty above all else (otherwise why would Rumsfeld still be at defence?) but there are a lot of Republicans who were loyal to Bush purely out of a marriage of convenience. And the Democrats are slowly but surely rebuilding.
Apologist? No, I'm just not a paranoiac who thinks this is the end of American history. Maybe you should get your information about America from a wider variety of sources than Chomsky and The Guardian.