and how it has very little in common with the values of traditional conservativism and The Republican Party of the post war 20th century. He espouses that the conservative movement has been usurped by the Neoconservatives and twisted to serve its agenda.
I didn't agree with everything he had to say about this:
"many of these grievances, it's the fault of the left. Even now, they the left can't seem to understand that we're all in grave danger and they need to stop waving the red flag in front of these peoples' face, but they don't. I'm not blaming the Left, I'm blaming the failure of conservatism."
That's not exactly what I heard initially. At the very least, Mr. Roberts would seem to be blaming the 'failure of conservatism' equally with the Left, and at most, his words could be seen as laying the blame for the failure on the Left.
When Mark asked for an example of the 'red flag' issues that Mr. Roberts alluded to the first (and only) example he came up with was:
"Homosexuality. If the Homosexuals had simply been quiet, I think they would have been tolerated.But they had to go get in your face about everything."
Quiet like the Abolitionists were in the mid 19th century, or organized labor activists and Suffragists were in the early 20th century? How about the activists for civil rights in the 1960's and women's rights in the 1970's? One of the bedrock foundations of the identity of America and what sets it apart (at least in theory nowadays) from the rest of the world is that every citizen has the right to express their desire for redress concerning any issue they feel passionate about. Be quiet? That's never gotten anyone anywhere. If you need a recent glaring example, look at Germany from 1933-1945.
To his credit, Mr. Roberts does acknowledge the importance of and current erosion of
the civil right guaranteed (at least on paper) to every citizen by the Constitution. However, I find it difficult to reconcile my viewpoint on the Neoconservative movement and how it got to where it is today with the fact that Gay Rights activists made their case to their representatives and got legislation passed in some states and also, more importantly, brought the issue to the forefront of the American public. The indirect results of this haven't been so positive (the issue was used to galvanize voters and most likely put the Shrub in the White House for a second term), but that has more to do with the diabolical genius of Karl Rove and the Republican machine he has his hand on the throttle of (a least until last November--he may (or may not) have been relagated to navigation duties from the shotgun (I don't like using that word when referring to any Republican) seat).
Mr Roberts states a little later in the interview that:
"the Left creates issues that these people [the neocons] use to solidify support for attacks on civil liberties. I think that what we should all do is to sit back and realize that the most important thing is the civil liberties. It's not Homosexual marriage, or abortion or any particular issue. It's our civil liberties, and we don't do anything to jeopardize them because they're already so jeopardized. In fact, we've essentially lost them with the war on terror."
This is one of the most direct statements on this issue I have heard since the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act were passed following 9/11. The administration is fond of saying that the terrorists "hate our way of life and want to see it destroyed." This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that have been employed to give the current leadership carte blanche to do whatever they see fit to do in order to achieve the main Neoconservative pillar (italics are mine):
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
From the Project For A New American Century site.
The terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11 did so at the behest of Osama bin Laden for a very narrow reason, and that was to attempt to coerce the United States to cease its support for the Saud regime which has been ruling Saudi Arabia in an iron fisted manner that marginalizes the majority of the population for several decades. They don't really care what goes on over here--they're primarily concerned with what's happening in their home countries. That's the primary reason that there hasn't been another significant attack on US soil for over five years. They've seen that striking the US on its home turf will not get the desired results. It will only precipitate the bombing of whatever locale the CIA and FBI can, through their bumbling investigative practices, come up with on short notice as the home base of those they say are responsible in order to placate the howling for blood that the government controlled media outlets can whip the public into with marathon coverage of the next Ground Zero.
The fact that civil liberties here in the US are being compromised can only be an ironic and amusing side effect in the eyes of al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Omar of the Taliban. It's ironic and chilling that the current state of affairs domestically was foreshadowed on a small scale in the film The Siege. Our civil liberties were being chipped away before Bush got to the White House (even before he was in the Governor's mansion in Austin, TX--possibly before he ran the Texas Rangers baseball team into the ground--oh, for a return to those old days of yore, when all this was just an unimaginable nightmare and anyone who suggested it as an even slight possibility would have been laughed out of the room) with all the wars that George Carlin liked to ridicule: the War on Drugs (search and seizure protections compromised), the War on Organized Crime (surveillance and wiretap protections compromised). 9/11 and the War on Terror merely gave the administration and the Neocons an opening to exploit this wide enough to drive a Mack truck through, which has culminated in the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
At the end of the interview Mark asked Mr. Roberts whether he saw any hope for the situation and he replied:
"the United States is is essentially finished. Liberty's dead, I don't see any way to bring it back. The country is balkanized, it's split, and ignorant. It hasn't the foggiest idea what's happening to it."
and later:
"No, I don't see any signs of hope at all. I see none. None at all. I expect to die in a concentration camp."
Mark was completely floored by that as was I. He tried to regain his momentum by saying to Mr. Roberts that he hoped that wasn't the case and that it's why he does the show to try and inform people about what's going on and spur them into some sort of action.
I can't really blame Roberts for his statements and attitude about the issues that were being discussed. He is an Economist, and they tend to have a clearer picture of how the world really works than most people, because it is, after all, money that makes the world go around more than anything else, and the driving force behind all of the maneuvering and positioning that the administration is and has been doing.
One does have to hope that he is wrong and that the Neocons and their meglomaniacal philosophy will be seen for what it is and brought to a halt.
No comments:
Post a Comment