There are a few hard won realizations that the human race has learned and re-learned many times. One in particular is that men who desire power and accumulate power, tend to continually strive to enhance their power and rarely give it up voluntarily. That is why even leaders who begin with the best of intentions often see their rule curdle into totalitarianism. (see Mugabe, Robert, for a current example.) Democracies attempt to minimize the risk of a descent into various forms of fascism (totalitarianism) by institutionalizing revolution. In other words, every 2-4 years, in America, we are offered the opportunity to stage a bloodless coup and "throw the bums out." Along with a Constitution designed to minimize the accumulation of power in one branch of government by counter-balancing with the other two branches, we were also blessed with a reluctant first President who did not see the accumulation and wielding of power as his primary interest.
Despite the excellent example set by George Washington, we continue to face the risk of a descent into fascism today, and the risks, at the moment, arise from two distinct venues.
Most people who gain their news from the MSM would have no difficulty recognizing the risk of fascism stemming from the Global War on Terror (an appellation the solons in Congress have decided needs to be censored since it offers a frame that reflects poorly on their policy choices). The President has repeatedly broken the laws, over-stepped his authority, abrogated the Constitution; we all have heard the arguments. There is some reason for concern. After all, if we are over-reacting to the threat of terror, and we are engaged in an struggle with transnational criminals, many of the steps taken by the Bush administration are pressing the limits, if not quite overt boundary violations. On the other hand, if this is a war then the kinds of infringements on civil liberties that we have thus far been heir to are relatively minor. In point of fact, the greatest danger to our freedoms remains an over-reaction to the next attack. Another 9/11, or perhaps the one after that, will almost certainly lead to such draconian measures as detention with de facto suspension of habeas corpus, extensive watch lists which would include those who are merely anti-war rather than actual members of terror networks (notwithstanding errors in such lists, the goal is to screen for terrorists and their allies, not for sympathizers; that would change after the next attack); other infringements on our liberties already include such compromises between reality and political correctness as removing everyone's shoes at airports, not allowing liquids to be brought onto planes, etc, which fit under the heading of trying to stop weapons and potential weapons, rather than trying to stop terrorists. We have tolerated such infringements on our liberties and given up some freedoms to the federal bureaucracy in the name of safety and security. This far, most Americans would see these measures as nuisances rather than threats to our freedoms. Again, another attack would almost certainly change the calculus.
There are two important structures that protect us against the current war-time strictures evolving into a more serious threat to our freedoms, one is the political opposition in the Democratic party and the other is the much maligned MSM.
The Democrats have become so deeply enmeshed in their animus toward George W. Bush that they almost reflexively oppose any measure he advocates. They now have a political majority, a majority too slim to set policy but large enough to challenge the administration at all levels, often irresponsibility, but with the salutary effect of minimizing the opportunities for th Bush administration to aggrandize itself more power. The MSM, with its longstanding adoption of a quasi-Marxist view that divides the world into oppressive and dangerous governments and sees themselves as the defenders of the weak, are always ready to attack any initiative of the Bush administration, up to and including exposing legal anti-terrorism programs to public scrutiny. The MSM may misinform and spread misinformation along with their occasional, seemingly inadvertent reports of news, but they also, at the moment are performing their watch dog function to a fault. The combination of factors make a power grab by George W. Bush, except in the imagination of the far left, a very distant possibility.
The other area of concern is much more insidious. While the issue of terrorism has receded, in part because our government has been so successful in preventing repeats of 9/11, the MSM and the left have latched onto a threat far greater than Islamic fascism and terrorism. While they depict Islamofascism as a nuisance, mankind, indeed the entire biosphere, is threatened with destruction in a hundred years because of Anthropogenic Global Warming (or, since the advent of record cold in the United States and many areas of the world, Anthropogenic Climate Change.) Europe and England are far ahead of the United States in their response to this hysteria. (I refer to the ACL anxiety as hysteria because in the UN reports worst case scenario, the danger of a 20 inch increase in sea level and a global increase in temperature of 4-7 degrees C does not warrant the kinds of panic the proponents are trying to engender. Here, the politicians and bureaucrats eager for more power, are ably abetted by the MSM component of the Fear Industrial Complex.) Creeping Climate and Life style fascism is already underway: [HT: Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under
Takeover by the State: Global Warming Alert From Britain
Something disturbing and ominous is happening in Great Britain as the country embarks on an all-out fight against the threat of global warming. Intent on making Britain the world’s first "green" economy, the government will soon introduce legislation designed to take SUVs and other "gas guzzling" vehicles off the road. By sharply increasing driving levies, the authorities intend to force car owners into making "more sustainable travel choices, including greater use of public transport, walking and cycling."
At the same time, homeowners will be asked to make their homes "carbon neutral" and required to draw their energy primarily from low or zero carbon sources such as wave, tide, solar or nuclear power. To ensure compliance, the government will send out inspectors to scrutinize everything from how a home is insulated to the kind of appliances it uses. Those who fail to meet the decreed standards will be fined and penalized. Just how serious the government is about enforcement can be sensed from the words of Environment Secretary David Miliband who stated -- while unveiling the program -- that it would be "painful" for home owners to continue to have an "energy inefficient home."
These sentiments were echoed by a group of cabinet ministers who said that complying with the new regulations will necessitate sweeping changes in lifestyle across the board. Everybody in Britain, they concurred, will have to "live, work and
travel differently."...
This is precisely why the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to those on the political left. Being ideological cousins of erstwhile socialists, they share a desire to expand government regardless of the cause or issue they ostensibly espouse. In global warming they have sensed the perfect opportunity, for if the underlying claim is true and the planet is indeed headed for destruction, then the impending catastrophe can only be averted by united action on a grand scale. And such action can only be taken by a strong state which has been granted a wide range of powers to deal with this life-or-death crisis.
What makes the global warming scenario even more appealing is that the chief perpetrator is none other than the left’s perennial villain -- the business establishment. After all, most of the pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by unscrupulous businesses as a by-product of their relentless pursuit of ever greater profits. Close second on the list of culprits are us the people whose excessive consumption, runaway appetites and outright recklessness further exacerbate the already critical situation.
The way to safeguard our survival, then, is for government to exercise strict control over both business and the masses. This will be done through taxation and regulation, which, admittedly, will have to be severe at times. But no one should object or complain, since it is only to be expected that this extreme emergency calls for extreme measures. Thus the alleged threat of man-made global warming is used as a means of realizing the left’s perennial dream of society administered by a powerful state.
If you are convinced that this can never happen here or that the story is somehow overblown, consider that our public servants have shown themselves increasingly able to rationalize taking greater control over our behavior. At one time we could laugh at the efforts of the right wing prudes attempting to take away our pornography and marijuana; now few people laugh when such a stalwart defender of civil liberties as Mayor Bloomberg of New York takes away people's right to gorge on trans fats or smoke cigarettes in bars and restaurants. (For the record, I minimize my intake of trans fats and would not eat in a restaurant that allows smoking, however, I prefer the law require the proprietors offer me the requisite information so that I can make an informed choice rather than having the life style police tell me and my neighbors how to live. First they come for your cigarettes and trans fats, then they come for my ice cream!) Fewer laugh when the environmental partisans suggest taking away incandescent bulbs and require fluorescents (which have their own problems, for instance increased mercury pollution upon their disposal); headache specialists are salivating at the prospect.
Wars justify the temporary diminution of civil liberties and there is a current danger that a permanent war will be used to justify a permanent change in the balance of personal and governmental power. This is most dangerous when the war is a semantic war rather than an actual war. (The war on drugs has justified more nonsense than most recent crises: What We Need Now: A Baking Soda Registry.)
Most Americans believe we are facing a dangerous future. Dinocrat puts it well:
Lindzen’s views accurately mirror our own, as you know. But isn’t it interesting that many on the Right agree with many on the Left that some catastrophe lies ahead? They just can’t agree — at the moment — whence the catastrophe comes.
The danger of fascism from the left has always been greater than the danger from the right because the major players in the Fear Industrial Complex belong ideologically to the left and believe in whet they are doing, protecting people from the dangers of corporations and right wing governments. The political class on the left may be true believers, as Al Gore appears to be, and they often blind themselves to their own desire for power. In this they may not be much different from their opponents on he right, however, fascism form the left is far more likely. Because the MSM supports the beliefs of the left, they fail to recognize the danger of concentrating power in government bureaucracies; they fail in their fundamental job of protecting us from the powerful because they agree with the powerful in their world view.
Creeping fascism from the left, in the name of doing good is a much more grave risk to our future freedoms than anything the right has conjured up to fight the War on Islamofascism.
It remains unclear whether our long war against ideological Islamofascism in all its guises will transmogrify into a long term but low level, manageable, conflict or turn into a more ominous Global Clash of Civilizations. It also remains unclear whether Climate Change of whatever source, will remain a manageable environmental problem affecting some limited parts of the world or a world wide catastrophe striking in a hundred years. Both crises remain more potential than real though I would submit we are much closer to one emergency than the other.
Recent Comments