2006 Midterm Elections: Complicity or Responsibility?

By Edger, Section Diaries
Posted on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 11:59:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At the end of the day on November 7th all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 Senate seats will be held by people the citizens of America will ostensibly choose. Leaving aside for another day the serious questions that have been raised about whether any US federal or state elections can be considered valid and honest processes, which I think doubtful in light of evidence that has arisen the past few years, and assuming for the moment that America really is, as advertised, a true democracy and that these elections are not a suckers game, let's consider the meaning and the ramifications of the decisions, well informed I hope, though I think likely not, that the US electorate will make that day.

Their choices will affect not just America, but the entire world and the lives and the deaths, of people everywhere, and quite possibly the condition and continuation of `civilization' on the planet, and whether we are on the verge of The End of Empire, and another dark ages.

Awesome power. And awesome responsibility.

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House said the other dayin a blog post:

"In short, Democrats do not believe in the Global War on Terror,", and "I don't mean that they don't support it, though they don't. What I mean is Democrats don't believe the war actually exists."
Hastert continued, "While Republicans believe the biggest threat to American freedom and security is the evil ideology that planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of our countrymen five years ago, and continues planning today, Democrats think the biggest threat to America is... Republicans."

Hastert tries to set the terms of the debate with a lie, a restating of the `war on terror' meme, and a rewording of the "you're either with us or you're against us" slogan. He once again makes the endlessly repeated insulting assumption that Americans are stupid, and shows how little respect he has for them. He says that only republicans believe there is a `war on terror' when in fact they do not. They've co-opted that phrase to justify wars of aggression, and the decimation of constitutionally guaranteed restrictions on the federal government, otherwise known as citizens' rights.

I am unsure whether Hastert knows he is lying, or has just been very successful at deceiving himself as much as he tries to deceive Americans generally in his quest for continued power. In my opinion it is non-republicans, whether independents, democrats, libertarians, or anyone who rejects the labels Hastert and Bush and the radical fringe fanatics who have hijacked the republican party try to apply, who are fighting a `war on terror': a war against people who without conscience would try to manipulate through fanning insecurities and fears and causing widespread death and suffering to increase their own profit and power. Like all who feel a need to control and dominate, they betray their own deep insecurities in the process.

I am not a lawyer and I welcome any comments and corrections to interpretations of law that I make here, but I want to be very clear that I use my interpretations more in philosophical and moral sense than in any legal sense. That said, enough of disclaimers, let's get down to it:

Accessory after the fact:

Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

Voting for republican candidates in the mid term races for senate and house seats is supporting the continuance of the warped and sick policies and actions of the past six years. It is now true more than it has ever been that World Peace Lies In Voters' Hands.

In the very real moral sense of the judgements made at Nuremburg, voting for republican candidates is, consciously and purposely or not, being an "accessory after the fact":

There was a fever over the land, a fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all there was fear, fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves.
...

What about those of us who knew better, we who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part?

...

And then, one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual begun in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life.

It's been said many time that all politics is local. It's true. And in these mid term elections it is every voters responsibility to act locally, but think globally. When you vote in November you are literally creating the world you and your children will live, or die, in. Your children will, as they do in all other things, learn from your example.

What will you teach them? To be part of the solution? Or to be part of the problem? Will you teach them Complicity or Responsibility?

Dennis Hastert is right: "The Choice Could Not Be Clearer"

You know there's something that's goin' on here,
That surely, surely, surely won't stand the light of day.

.

Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness

You got to speak your mind, if you dare.
--David Crosby: CSNY, "Long Time Gone"

< Fitz Goes Ginsu on Scooter's Witness | Bush Replays 2004 Bin Laden Card or the Limbaugh/Cheney/Military Echo Chamber! >

2006 Midterm Elections: Complicity or Responsibility? | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Re: The Choice Could Not Be Clearer (none / 0) (#1)
by Edger on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 12:05:21 PM EST

Through every lie, distortion, deception and crime that led America to war a pillar of American greatness has been lost, slowly eroding the foundations upon which a great nation once stood. A beacon of hope and human rights for billions of human beings for decades, the United States now has a sitting Vice President espousing torture, rendition and the destruction of due process.
For years portending to fight the "Evil Empire's" network of gulags, today America has its own gulag network throughout the vast reaches of Earth, torturing and murdering human beings, keeping hidden its atrocities, its activities, its lies. Proclaiming the Bush war as a means of cleansing Iraq of tyranny, America has nonetheless imported tyranny under the rubric of new blood and methods. Torture, rape, false imprisonment, white phosphorus, depleted uranium, collective punishment, mass murder, assassinations, insecurity, suffering and disappearances have become the hallmark of Iraq during American occupation.
A nation once admired and adored, the light that attracted freedom and democracy, has been extinguished in the minds of billions. The hypocrisy of America's foreign policy can be seen worldwide, even if it still blinds hundreds of millions within its borders.

A Cabal of Criminality

excellent points (none / 0) (#2)
by Patriot Daily on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 07:45:21 PM EST

On a moral level, the accomplice or "accessory after the fact" argument has teeth. If the voters keep the gop in office, knowing what they have done thus far, then they are telling them it is ok to continue with corruption and torture and spying on us and the list goes on and on...

I also love the think globally theme. Funny thing, the CNN guy (can't remember his name now, on show with blitzer) did a poll in the past couple weeks on the issue of should voters keep incumbents in office even if they like their local rep when there is such a great need to kick them all out of DC. He was talking about voting all incumbents out of office because congress has done such a poor job, and so even if you like your rep, ditch them too because you have to think nationally.

i still want to just vote out the gop, rather than also the dem incumbents, because you need to start with a majority to make change. but, that's why i oppose those who say that people in california should not have a say in who is the rep or senator from conn. or some other state, because the conn. guy needs to address local issues, but he or she is also part of the national team.

: Re: and the list goes on and on... (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 08:09:27 PM EST

"Think globally" is to mind looking at the bigger picture when voting, and in a way foregoing the "instant gratification" of voting for a candidate based on a promise to do something now for the local area, which is the usual meaning of "all politics is local". Basing the choice on the larger issues, knowing that the smaller local issues can be taken care of later once the more serious problem is addressed, if you will.
To frame it another way - convincing the purser to upgrade you to a fancier stateroom on the Titanic is pointless if you don't at least try to do something about the blind navigator steering the ship.
It's gratifying and humbling as well to see that many, many people have come and are coming to the same conclusion independently. One of the major advantages that liberals show over republican supporters is that ability to learn and see beyond short term interest rather than follwing political dogma, I think.