I am sick, sick, sick to death of being treated like the enemy by the person who is supposed to be my president.
For that matter, I don't like that word 'enemy', period. It's too easy to go from 'the person or country we're currently fighting against' to the 'personification of evil', thereby removing all traces of humanity from said 'enemy' and transforming them into faceless monsters to be eliminated at any cost without guilt. And when you indiscriminately use the word 'war' for anything you oppose, the corollary to that is there has to be an 'enemy' to fight and hate.
Of course, when you're running for office, you're supposed to be partisan. Everyone expects that. But once you've 'assumed' the Presidency, you are in charge of the entire country, not just Republicans. You're supposed to make decisions that are in the best interests of everyone, Democrats as well as Republicans.
But the Resident, from the moment he seized office, has treated Democrats the same way he treats 'the terrorists' (another convenient buzz-word). He talks about us as enemies to be vanquished and silenced. And we're paying for him to do so.
He ran for office in 2000, among other things, on a platform of being 'a uniter, not a divider'. What became immediately apparent was that, by 'uniter' he meant 'getting everyone to do what he says'. Bipartisanship simply meant forcing his agenda upon Democrats. It's always a one-way street.
By 'Americans' he seems to add 'who agree with me' under his breath, like some kind of mental signing statement. And now, with this latest travesty of a bill that he shoved through Congress last week, he's merely formalizing it.
Eery time he gets in front of a microphone, he's blasting Democrats. And I'm sick of paying him to do that. Once you're in office (however you got there), you're on my dime.
I don't often wax eloquent on the charms of the Democrats, because lord knows there's a lot I'd like to see us do that doesn't happen. But I'll tell you one good thing about us (since I'm one), and this is a signal difference between the two parties:
Our platform does not specifically include the elimination of the opposing party!
Republicans have just come out and said it. This is a specific goal - to nullify Democrats and liberals entirely. As bumbling as Democrats can be, by virtue of our relative independence, we don't seek to eliminate a two-party government. We don't want to eliminate checks and balances. Sure, we want to implement our agenda, but that agenda does not include silencing all who disagree with us.
Not so the Republicans. Not so George W. Bush.
They are not in favor of a democracy. They couldn't care less about the Constitution, unless it's twisted around to bludgeon someone with who disagrees with them. They are opposed to liberty and justice for all. They only want 'the best' people to be in charge, 'the best' being the richest or most powerful. Certainly they don't want 'the brightest' anywhere near - that has been painfully obvious. And 'one man, one vote' is a dated, outmoded concept. Quaint, you might call it.
So, who's the enemy? You tell me.
5 comments:
Alicia, the enemy is George W. Bush and the GOP fundies who support a blind puppet. Our generation won't see the end of their damage.
Murkans got what they wished for. This begs the question of whether all need to vote-or whether all who vote need to be literate.
The Founders of the Constitution carefully outlined three separate, but equal, branches of government: Legislative (House & Senate); Judicial (Supreme Court) and Executive (The White House.) These three branches were intended to give a system of checks and balances so that NO ONE BRANCH become overly powerful.
Now we have a stacked Supreme Court - stacked with political cronies who do not check their partisanship at the door. We have members of a Legislative Branch who march in lock-step with the party line. We have a President who has such blatant disregard for human life, dignity and diplomacy that we stand on the edge of world disaster.
The Republicans play to fear. Fear makes people severely apathetic. Apathy makes people unable to act even for their own good.
So now what? In The US Vs. John Lennon, one of the comments that stuck out was this: Revolution is not always violent. We need to revolt; it does not need to be violent. If Bush labels me, labels us, as The Enemy, then we have an obligation to take back our country. We need to define him as the enemy. We need to act now.
People are starting to say that the 2006 mid-term elections may be the most important elections of our lifetime, and I agree. We are at a tipping point - we can either find a way to pull back from the bringk of disaster, or we go over the edge.
It's slowly changing. I remember when I first started blogging no one believed I was in the military, and when they started too, the called me a traitor. Ever since more and more Generals have spoken out, and more and more reality seeps into the American mind, I haven't heard it as much lately. Bush's words are ringing hollow on all fronts now.
HI Alicia,
Good post, the man in the white house insists on biting the dime that feeds him. er, that sort of thing. But I was particularly struck by your comment that the Republicans have as a stated aim the destruction of the Democratic party and liberals. This is very interesting, and I will have to (yuck) go read through the R platform to get the quote, but it will be worth it.
As I recall, one of the reasons 'we' cannot negotiate with Hamas (or the Taliban or fill in the blank) is that 'they' deny that Israel (or the Sunni's or the Shiites or the Kurds -- same drill) have a right to exist. Hmm, another similarity between 'us' and 'them'. I declare, those guys just want the Taliban to get their market share. It' not a war, it's a hostile take-over.
HotFlash
Post a Comment