Last time I filled this space, it was in the
edition of Illinois Times that appeared just before Christmas and
Hanukkah. In that commentary I suggested that Congress should
impeach President George W. Bush. I was angry that the president directed the
National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens. That action fit a
pattern of lawlessness, considering that Bush and his
administration lied about Iraq, imprisoned people indefinitely
without charges, and countenanced the use of torture. My suggestion, of course, was impractical,
counterproductive, and a tad ridiculous: Congress is led by members
of the president’s party, and impeachment would leave us with
Dick Cheney as the commander in chief. And nobody wants Cheney in
charge. But friends and readers who shared my
viewpoint were gracious enough to overlook the fact I’m not
always grounded in reality, though everybody appreciates a good
rant now and then. Temper tantrums are a manifestation of
powerlessness. They’re usually not productive or entertaining, though sometimes it just feels good
to yell. Think of Shakespeare’s Lear, shaking his fists at the
skies, unable to change the course of events but still weirdly
compelling in his rage and despair. How do you respond to the steady drumbeat of sad news? Do you
shake your head at the hypocrisy of a president who denounces leaks
but then is caught having authorized the disclosure of classified
information for political purposes? Do you just shrug when you hear
news that the administration, which is having trouble occupying and
pacifying two nations, is planning military strikes on a third? For more than three years, the peace movement
has been trying to mobilize public opinion against the Iraq War
with vigils, teach-ins, and demonstrations, and today most
Americans agree that the war and the occupation were dumb; most
Americans have lost confidence in Bush to competently extricate us
from this situation. But moral persuasion, intelligent argument,
and common sense aren’t enough — they never have been
in the face of arrogance and brute power. The real arguments
against the stupidity of this war are being won each day in that
godforsaken place, where our ineptitude has opened a
Pandora’s box of misery for our sons and daughters —
and the people of Iraq. U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. — one of the
few actual progressives in national government — recently
introduced a resolution calling on Congress to censure the president
for the illegal domestic spying. Censure is a measured but serious
condemnation, but it’s not the same thing as impeachment, which
may lead to removal from office. As expected, most members of Feingold’s
own party have run to the sidelines, including, as staff writer
R.L. Nave noted last week in his column, Illinois’ two U.S.
senators, both “progressive” critics of the
administration. Seems that everybody with designs on 2008 would
rather allow public resentment to build than take the risk of
becoming a punching bag for shrinking but still potent supporters
of the president. Profiles in courage? It’s hard to find
any, these days. But is it any surprise? The genius of the conservative movement that
led to Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980 lay not only in its
ability to demonize and caricature its enemies but also in its
single-minded, take-no-prisoners focus on redefining the language
of public discourse. “Liberal” became a derogatory
epitaph, sympathy for the poor a character flaw, tolerance a
weakness. Affirmative action meant giving minorities an unfair advantage. Welfare was a
reward for indolence. Unions and job security meant featherbedding.
Environmentalists were tree-huggers. Today we live with the horrible consequences
of coarsened public discourse, when we are somehow convinced that
we’re not all in the same boat, that we don’t sink or
swim together, that we are not really our brothers’ and
sisters’ keepers. So we have too few members of Congress
courageous enough to do the right thing — and that means
we’re probably stuck with Bush until January 2009. But just
because we elected jellyfish legislators doesn’t mean we can
afford to sit idly by, marking time. George W. Bush defined the war on terrorism in
stark terms: Either you’re with
us or you’re with the terrorists. In this election year, let’s try the
same approach, and treat the war in Iraq as the defining issue.
Either you’re for the occupation or you’re not; either
you’re with Bush or you’re not. Iraq is a local issue;
it’s a state issue; it’s a national issue; it’s
an international issue. Find out where your candidates stand. And vote
for peace.
This article appears in Apr 13-19, 2006.
