|
MYTH-MAKING & OUR ELECTION YEAR NARRATIVES |
|
|
|
escrito por Dr. Cintli
|
|
viernes, 08 de febrero de 2008 |
In this election, there should be but one issue on the table: what
will be the relationship between the president and the people and laws
of the United States? Within the context of 2008, this means asking
the contenders: Does the United States – does the U.S. president –
have the right to wage permanent preemptive war against any and all
nations and do the nation's laws apply to the executive branch of
government?
This is what we should all be asking of the presidential contenders.
Currently, under the guise of "the war on terror" this administration
has given itself the right to attack, invade and/or occupy any nation
on earth, for any reason. This has resulted in the creation of secret
government – with no checks and balances – and without the consent of
the people.
Rather than the media pressing the candidates on this topic, pundits
and pollsters have transformed themselves into modern soothsayers and
omnipotent cultural interpreters on the meaning of who voted for whom
– by age, race, ethnicity, education, class and gender – and why and
why not they voted accordingly. As a result, they've become
mythmakers, drawing conclusions about how different peoples think,
what they believe and how they vote -- often pitting one group against
another, etc. If they've been wrong in most of their forecasts, why
should we believe their interpretations… which have now been
proclaimed to be fact.
This is happening at a time when this never-ending war has given this
president and all future presidents special "war-time" powers that
have resulted in the loss of Constitutional rights, such as the loss
of privacy; the right to free speech; the right to freedom of
assembly; the right to a fair trial; the right not to be unlawfully
detained; the right not to be tortured; the right to freely associate
with anyone; the right to freely travel – without being on secret
government watch lists, and; the right not to be spied on.
The bedrock principles of this society have been completely upended,
including and especially the precept of innocent until proven guilty –
and yet – the candidates are not being questioned about this. Under
the precept of "you're with us or you're against us," this
administration has created this "us against them" mentality and
environment. All this is predicated on fear, hate & blame. This has
created a scramble to define who is "us" vs. who is "them." So it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that currently, it is
Arabs/Muslims… and Mexicans who are on the outs. These groups are
nowadays not simply seen as "others," but also as "enemies." At best,
they [Mexicans] are seen as subservient populations.
As the political rhetoric is turned up – especially in the fall
election – the "us" category – fanned by hate radio – will shrink to
the point where only right wing white Christians will fit in this
category and only right wing white male Christian candidates will be
viewed as acceptable presidential candidates. (This is why Romney will
never win – because Mormons are not part of the "us" category.
Despite this, the mainstream media would rather focus on topics of
pantsuits, likeability, appearances, their hectic schedule, their
vocal chords, their electability, instantaneous polls and the
fundraising prowess of the candidates.
This election should be about the candidates explaining their
positions on the notion of the United States as a "nation of laws"…
and about these politics of dehumanization. It should be about the
future of the nation and the future of humanity. It should be about
their positions on transparent government and about a government with
checks and balances.
Utilizing this lens, virtually all Republican candidates, except Ron
Paul, would be disqualified. McCain envisions being in Iraq for 100
years. Mitt Romney is a virtual rubber stamp for the president on the
"war on terror" and appears to be the candidate most stoking the
politics of fear, hate and blame. Paul is the only Republican who is
not a war-monger, though his views on civil rights are suspect and his
stand on immigration is little different than Lou Dobbs.
What about the Democratic contenders?
On top of their views on the Iraq War and the so-called "war on
terror," they should be asked whether they would roll back the illegal
powers that have been amassed by this administration. That's how all
candidates should be judged; all else is but subterfuge and a
distraction.
(c) Column of the Americas 2008
Roberto "Dr. Cintli" Rodriguez
|
|
Modificado el ( sábado, 01 de marzo de 2008 )
|
glad to see your article, welcome to visit my blog