In this Post I will conclude my mini-series look at
Roger Lancaster’s book.*
He concludes with the question: “Whither the
Punitive State?” (p.227)
He further asks “Is the punitive turn winding down?”
(p.227)
And then “If so, will the compromises of rights and
procedures that dominated politics of the recent past be discarded or will they
be incorporated into a reform version of the punitive state?” (p.227)
In partial response, he then notes that “the
Republican ‘Southern strategy’, with its subtle and not-so-subtle appeals to
racism, no longer packs an electoral wallop”. (p.227) Which may be true –
although I would have to point out that that ‘Southern strategy’ did not simply
concern itself with ‘racism’; with the Democrats in the very early 1970s having
decided to go whole-hog for creating new Identities (each with its marquis
‘victimization’ and – of course – its own Necessary Victimizer) and then
passing into law whatever dampdreams each of their organized advocacies could
think up, the Republicans became by default the only Party of refuge for any
voters who thought that somehow the Democrats had started the country down a
very dangerous and potentially lethal road.
(The quickly-developed Correct come-back to that, of
course, was that since most of the voters ‘just didn’t get it’, then the
government didn’t have to listen to them and, indeed, had to change them or create policies that
would sweep them – like the iconic
Archie Bunker – into the new Correct American version of the dustbin of history.)**
And all that Identity-Politics (with its Gender war
and all the rest, including the ‘war’ on men because of their ‘sexual violence’
that needs to be eliminated at the source) has done is to expand that ‘Southern
strategy’ from the Left, embracing
the new Identities as We now know them (as opposed to the old Southern
‘identity’ to which the old ‘Southern strategy’ appealed).
The politics of pandering to new demographic
Identities by deploying government police power against each such Identity’s
Necessary Enemy synergized tightly with the politics of fear that created the
Necessary Enemy to begin with.
RL thinks that “the politics of fear is beginning to
lose some traction”. (p.228) I’d like to hope so, but I’m not so sure. Both
Parties are now addicted to that “politics of fear” – as well as not wanting to
look like they’ve made some huge and perhaps lethal mistakes (such as, for
instance, the SO Mania Regime).
And at this point, have the consequences of the past
decades of ‘the politics of fear’- now erected into legislation and policy, as
well as so powerfully amplified by the media through the sly manipulation of
public opinion – become so entrenched that their effects are for all practical
purposes not only ineradicable but irreparable?
It’s difficult enough to get legislation abrogated
and major court decisions reversed. But how do you go about changing all the
inaccurate perceptions that now constitute (an increasingly distracted and
incompetent) public opinion? Especially since We have now had several generations of children raised with the idea
that the SO Mania Regime is somehow ‘normal’.
It would be a cutesy sound-bite to assert that the
Democrats are the Party of Regressives rather than the Party of Progressives.
But that isn’t accurate because for so long both
Parties have for their own purposes and using their own ‘justifications’
supported the SO Mania Regime.
RL notes hopefully that “the courts repeatedly
swatted back against the [G.W. Bush] administration’s most egregious examples
of executive overreach during the war on terror”. (p.228) Which is true, as far
as it goes. But the SO Mania Regime is not simply a creature of the Executive
Branch’s desires; it is based in the purposes and agendas of both Parties in
Congress and established by legislation and – in still too many instances –
major court decisions (including both the 1995 New Jersey Poritz decision and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Smith v. Doe decision).
Yes, there might be some hope in the fact that most
of the subsequent SO Mania legislation – on both national and State levels –
has had to be passed by voice-vote or other procedural subterfuge in order to
protect what apparently are the many Members who really don’t want to be
publicly on record as having voted for legislation.
And yes, there might be some hope in the fact that
as the government itself runs out of cash to play with, then the vital enabling
funding – feeding not only formal government enforcement but also the many
remora-like cottage industries that have sprung up to suck down all that public
cash – might dry up in the general scrum for funding in the increasingly
strapped government budgets.
But I wonder if We shall ever see the government
reject this SO Mania Regime with the same intense publicity with which it
embraced the Regime.
The budget and the courts seem the best chance, but I'm not the expert on that: perhaps the pols can be worked-with at this point.
RL notes that the government has been dialing-back
its punitive approach to certain crimes, such as drug-use crimes – but I don’t
think sex-crimes (however broadly and vaguely defined) are going to benefit
from that tide: the radical-feminist advocacies have too much invested in the
government somehow ‘suppressing’ males.
And yes – as RL notes – there has been some pushback
as the government, at the behest of various organized advocacies and special
interests, started up SO Mania attention on teen ‘sexting’ and such, including
children (sometimes of grammar school age) having some form of overt sexual
encounters.*** But is that likely to create sufficient movement toward
dialing-back on the entire SO Mania Regime?
In the Salem Witch Trials the madness and mania
finally got tamped down by the government when accusations were leveled at the
wife of the royal governor himself. But in modern America – alas – most elected
officials don’t seem to hold themselves accountable (or to be held accountable)
to the very laws that they have passed. Few – even if they have been forced to
resign office – have ever wound up on a Registry.
And while there is some movement toward a general
look at reforming the entire criminal justice system, there is still some
serious question as to whether such reforms – if they are recommended and officially acted-upon – will
actually reach a dismantling or major reduction in the SO Mania Regime.
We can certainly hope – with RL – that “key
institutional actors are beginning to question the desirability of organizing
social relations around panic”. (p.228) I would add that it is not only a
matter of ‘desirability’ but of the ‘dangerousness’
– on the most vital and fundamental levels or the nation’s political life and
integrity – that should be of concern (and even alarm). The SO Mania Regime
comprises both the philosophy and the structural characteristics of a police
state – and no republic can survive or even co-exist with a police-state
government.
Being in his heart a ‘liberal’ – meaning that he
tends to see so much of the ‘change’ and ‘reform’ of the past decades as ‘liberation’
– it is hard for RL to get beyond that mindset in order to see the Costs and
Consequences that have accompanied so very much of all that ‘change’ and ‘reform’.
But the probability of all those Costs and Consequences are very real and they were
built into it all from Day One.
And those Costs and Consequences are here now.
And all that ‘liberation’ has led to a nation that
now imprisons more of its Citizens than Stalin did in the days of the Gulag or
that China imprisons even today. But no elite or mainstream political discourse
wants to connect any dots to try to explain just how this repugnant and
alarming situation has come to pass.
RL keeps coming back to the post-9/11 engorgements
of government police authority. But as I have been saying, all of those
engorgements were based on the prior and already well-established derangement
of the Constitutional and Framing Vision’s first principles that had been
corroded and undermined in the SO Mania Regime for a decade and more before
9/11. Those corrosions and derangements simply migrated and mutated even more
virulently under the pressure of the 9/11 event.
National
Security simply adapted the corrosions and derangements that had been imposed
in the name of – if I may – Sexual Security.
So at this point – especially as We now see a
hotly-contested election in which nobody but nobody on the political scene
wants to point to the SO Mania Regime as an example of their Party’s ‘success’ and
instead there is a remarkable public and official silence about the whole Thing
– I think it becomes clear that this lethal and Constitutionally noxious and
toxic system of laws and cultural presuppositions demonstrates by that very absence from public discourse
a) just how deeply bad this whole Thing has been for the country and b) just
how deeply almost all the political elites and players as well as the Citizenry
itself realize that stunning reality.
But nobody dares to speak about it. Titanic has been ripped open like a tuna
can, yet the general awareness and discussion of shipboard matters excludes
that vital and primary reality from consideration.****
RL will discuss (pp.229-230, as one example) the
situation of African-American prisoners, so often imprisoned on drug-charges.
But that race issue is one of the marquis and still discussable elements of the
half-century old ‘liberal’ agenda; the SO Mania Regime – which is far more
lethal in its corrosions and derangements – still remains untouchable in ‘liberal’
discourse (or in putatively ‘conservative’ discourse as well).
RL comes to realize that something is going on here,
and that’s a good thing. But if even he can’t take this lethal bull by the
horns, then it’s open to question just how much better a job the responsible political
and commentator elites will be moved to do so.
He acknowledges – and rightly so – that “the
apparatus of punitive government … is not a fragile regime” but rather “has put
down deep roots in far-flung institutions and social organizations”. (p.230)
One thinks of the same strategy deployed in the
post-WW2 Pentagon strategy of placing its defense industry facilities all
around the country, and expanding its reach into universities through the
generous distribution of national-security research grants and funding. This strategy hardly differs in its
fundamental dynamics from drug-lords’ strategies for creating and continually
intensifying addiction to their ‘product’ and ‘services’ among the general
population.
And he rightly asserts that “the sex panics treated
in this book are an important part of the picture; they constitute the frontier
where the punitive state’s line of march seems least obstructed”. (p.231)
Yes. They seemed such a good idea at the time (to
those not looking or thinking carefully enough about just what the hell was
being constructed).
He also describes how ‘successive waves of sex panic
have kept sensational crime stories in the news, produced new victim (and
villain) identities, legitimized the political expression of rage, spun
elaborate webs of legislation eroded rights of the accused and other norms of
democratic law, and driven a culture of fear deep into established institutions
such as the family and the school system”. (p.231) Not a bad list at all. It
should be the cause for great public alarm.
Further, he says, “by tying together institutional and
popular thinking about such esoteric subjects as life, innocence, and risk, sex
panics have fostered new social norms and supplied a reliable and reproducible
set of tropes for the production of other panics in many domains.” (p.231)
This rightly takes things to a new and deeper level
of analysis and possible comprehension of the SO Mania Regime. What are the
philosophical (and I also mean vital political and cultural and social philosophy
here) implications and conceptual fundaments of the SO Mania Regime?
What does it say about Our ‘new’ approach to human
beings that such a cartoonish Good/Evil vision of Our fellow Citizens can come
to drive how they are treated by the government coercive authority?
What does it say about Our commitment to the first
principles of the Framing Vision and the Bill of Rights that We can not only allow but approve such official and formal corrosions and derangements of
fundamental Constitutional rights? (Recall that certainly since the early
1970s, but rooted back in the original Progressives’ approach a century and
more ago, the entire Framing Vision and the Constitution that was based upon
that Vision were considered by up-and-coming ‘knowledge elites’ to be outmoded
and insufficient to Ground and Shape the ‘progress’ of a mighty new nation in
the modern age.)
What does it say about Our fundamental approach to
conducting a human life itself that We not only seek a risk-free environment – no matter what the Constitutional
cost – but also look to the government to
ensure it? This is not – as used to be said – the spirit that built the
country. (It is evident even in military operations, where ‘force protection’
is now the primary concern; where would Lincoln have been had his generals seen
their primary task as protecting the force rather than engaging in the awful
risks of necessary battles that would win the war?)
And again, and again oddly and even weirdly, so much
of the past half-century of ‘liberation’ has led to a police-state government
that takes upon itself to guarantee that there will be zero-tolerance for ‘risk’
of any kind. Yet in a world where human beings are imperfect, how can a
risk-free life be guaranteed by any earthly power? Is it even maturationally
and existentially healthy for an entire citizenry to seek – let alone achieve –
a risk-free life?
RL also notes the role of the “endangered innocent
child” in the sustaining and intensifying of sex panic. (p.232) Once again,
this is a devilishly difficult topic to discuss: children were slyly put
forward almost like baby harp-seals to lubricate this monstrous slide into a
police-state. Where Lenin and Stalin and Mao (among a thousand other lesser dictatorial
demons) would impose their regimes on behalf of ‘the masses’ or ‘the fatherland’,
the American variant of the police-state will impose itself ‘for the children’.
And who can be ‘against’ that?
That Question deserves more serious and sustained
critical thought than it has received.
As a result of the ‘sexual liberation’ agenda of the
past half-century, RL sees that “sexual anxieties” have been greatly
intensified. (p.233) People may fear the whole trend from a philosophical point
of view (is ‘sex’ that important and will its ‘liberation’ necessarily lead
only to a ‘better’ quality of self and life?); or they may fear their own society
and fellow Citizens whose approach to ‘sex’ is somewhere to the left of Yaaa-hooooo!
There may well be a widespread and deep (but unrecognized or unacknowledged)
fear of a Shapeless society where anything goes if you feel it supports your ‘right’
to ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’.
All of these Questions and concerns were present
from the get-go half a century ago. But you don’t make a ‘revolution’ – or a
whole mess of revolutions – by asking and answering questions or Questions, or
by thinking-things-through. You have to act – and for the Progressive mentality
in its core that means that the government, informed of course by its
benevolent and oh-so-knowledgeable elites, must act. In that belief, both super-guy
Republican Teddy Roosevelt and professor-preacher Democrat Woodrow Wilson fully
concurred. And things have gone on from there.
And now look where We are.
Thus, RL continues, (p.235) ‘sex panic’ and the fear
of crime blended together like two poisonous streams, their hydraulic pressure intensified
and amplified by government and – I would add – so very many of the usual-suspect ‘elites’
in media and academia, quoting thoughtlessly from that pandemonium of entrepreneurs who have battened onto this whole Thing.
He takes a swipe at “Puritanism” as a cause. (p.235)
In a smaller sense, I might agree. But in a larger sense, the Puritan insight
was that it was a risky world because human beings themselves were risky amalgams
of good and evil and the Puritans preferred not to take too many chances: they
would create a solid Shape and structure to society and to people and thereby
they hoped to reduce some, or a whole lot, of the chances and risks.
Sounds familiar. The Puritans did it by erecting a religious
theocracy in the New World. The Progressives derided the Puritan theocracy and
instead sought to have the government set up an authoritarian, we-know-what’s-best/just-do-what-you’re-told
regime. But the basic game-plan remained the same, and remains the same even
unto this day.
The result, as RL notes, is a “system of social
control”. (p.235) And worse: some amount of control is necessary in every life
and every civilization and in every society. But the genuine and originating American
idea was that people would be the first sources of their own control through
self-control. A self-control buttressed by religious and traditional ways of
leading a life in society.
But instead of such an interior-based self-control –
once the whole idea of self-control and self-discipline was kicked to the curb
half a century ago – the government (which had greatly abetted that kicking to
the curb) stepped in to provide control of the self and of the society from the outside, imposing such control
through criminal laws and policies. Again, precisely the enabling dynamics of a
police-state.
RL goes on to note “paranoia about strange outsiders
[and] enactment of dramas of peril and rites of protection”. (p.235) Yes. And
all of these primeval human fears and sensibilities were played upon and
manipulated skillfully by the government and the story-desperate media in the
construction of the SO Mania Regime. Abetted by various special-interest
organized advocacies who sought both the deconstruction of any ‘oppressive’
Shape to society while also demanding Total Security from the inevitable
consequences of such deconstruction.
And thus We wind up with the dynamics of an endless
feedback loop: the more ‘liberation’, the more ‘risk’ and thus the more need
for externally-imposed Shape and Boundaries by the government.
No democratic republic can long survive this type of
dynamic.
This constitutes what RL will call “the new
authoritarianism”. (p.239) In appearance it is not the more ‘classical’ jack-booted
and uniformed authoritarianism of Lenin and Stalin and Mao and all the rest of
that demonry. Instead it is ‘sensitive’ and ‘liberating’ and concerned (not for
a genuine public morality or sense of self-discipline and personal responsibility
but rather) for a risk-free and zero-tolerance police state regime cloaked in those
‘sensitive’ and ‘liberating’ costumes and pretexted by ‘victims’ who are
voraciously fore-grounded by the cameras.
RL notes that “a number of social critics, not all
on the Left, used the term ‘fascist’ and related vocabularies to describe the
alarming usurpations of power that occurred under the Bush-Cheney
administration”. (p.239)
I can only add here that you would be rewarded by a
look at Jonah Goldberg’s book which I discuss a bit in Note ** below. Goldberg
raises the vitally interesting point that Fascism was a movement from the Left: Mussolini and Hitler saw
themselves as ‘revolutionaries’ of the Left who would unite ‘socialism’ and ‘nationalism’
for the purpose of controlling capitalism’s effect on the masses of their
citizenries. Recall that Hitler insisted loud and often that “there will be no
further revolution in Germany for a
thousand years”.
It is Goldberg’s contention that while in the (now
almost totally unremembered) prewar years, Mussolini and even the early Hitler
were considered paragons of efficiency not only by the actual Left but by the
American Progressives as well. It was only after the war and its revelations of
the Holocaust that the Left focused on the militaristic and nationalistic
elements of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s regimes, thus tarring the Right with the
monstrosities of those regimes.
But from 1922 (when Mussolini got started) up until
the outbreak of the war, the Left and the Progressives looked approvingly on
the programmes, agendas, and methods, and
human costs, of the putatively marvelous and thorough and efficient government
‘reforms’ that Hitler and Mussolini enacted.
After the war, there was still Left and Progressive
admiration for Stalin and his
approach (although the dawn of the Cold War tamped that admiration down at
least in its public form). As late as 1978 when Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn berated
American ‘liberals’ in a Harvard address for supporting the Soviet and
especially Stalinist regimes, he was received cooly and with distaste by the assembled
high-elites because he not only embarrassed ‘liberals’ by bringing up that
by-then buried sore point, but even more so because he had suggested that the
Russian state and people had to return to some genuine and profound
spirituality – precisely as the American Left and ‘liberals’ were trying to
secularize American society and culture in the name of ‘liberation’.
But perhaps I digress.
RL proposes that “something went terribly wrong in
American society during the first decade of the 21st century”. (p.239)
I would say that it went wrong far earlier, but certainly as early as the first
‘sex panics’ of the very early 1980s (the McMartin Pre-School Ritual Day-Care
Satanic Abuse cases) or the mid-1960s and the first formal enactments of ‘victim-friendly’
legislation (in California; when former CA-governor Reagan became President in
1981, he quickly made ‘victimism’ a national initiative, and as I have often
pointed out, formally enabled the synergy between the law-and-order Right and
the radical-feminist Left with its simultaneous demands for women’s sexual ‘liberation’
and for the suppression of males’ ‘violent sexuality’ … all of which was simply
put into super-charged overdrive when the Clinton administration came to power
in 1991).
RL concludes his book with a call for “a sounder
public discourse”. (p.243) I can only strongly agree. But you have to wonder
how much possibility remains of recovering such a discourse since “the public”
has over the ensuing decades become so incapable of sustaining attention and
serious critical analysis and thought; and since there are now, as I have
mentioned, several generations that have been raised with the idea that what is
actually a punitive carceral state and an apparently unending SO Mania Regime
are ‘normal’ or at least ‘necessary’ and generally Good things.
But RL offers some starting suggestions (p.243-4):
Take a deep breath; Always insist on hard evidence; Demystify; Be wary of
biopolitical monsters; Return to basics; Forget; Try retrofitting; Accept some
risks; Change the political discourse.
By ‘Forgetting’ he means growing away from the
sustained re-ignition of old ‘rage’ about face the present and the future. This
refers to Victimism’s (in its American mutation) unending demand to focus on
past victimizations – genuine or otherwise.
By ‘Retrofitting’ he means trying to find some other
and more constructive and less corrosive use for all of the cottage-industries
and government bureaucracies and political strategies that have grown up around ‘sex panic’.
But this is going to be a nation-sized task of
essentially weaning addicts off addiction.
So much, then, remains to be done.
NOTES
*Lancaster, Roger. Sex Panic and the Punitive State. Berkeley: U/Cal Press (2011).
ISBN: 978-0-520-26206-5 (pb). 246pp plus Appendices, Notes, and Index.
**This general vision of the role of the government –
knowledgeable and benevolent ‘elites’ who would advise the government on how
best to shape the demos, the masses
(formerly known as The People in the Framers' and Lincoln’s vision) – wasn’t all that new.
In the first decade of the 20th-century
the American Progressives (who, whether Democrat or Republican, were for big
and knowledgeable government, both for re-creating the lumpish American masses and
for sending out the gunboats to bring the blessings of modernity to whatever
peoples on the globe were sitting on some useful real estate) pretty much had
the same idea: the masses didn’t really know what they were doing and needed to be led. Both Teddy Roosevelt
and Woodrow Wilson subscribed to this political vision, even though to all
appearances the former was a macho and gregarious do-er, and the latter was a
bookish and preachy think-er and so it appeared as if there was a major
difference between the two Parties’ basic concept of government for 20th-century
America.
Thus the Citizenry and The People – along with their
18th-century ‘democracy’ – weren’t really the most up-to-date Way Forward into the
glittering 20th-century America.
If you are interested in American intellectual and
political history as it bears on contemporary America (and on the SO Mania
Regime) then I could recommend a look at Jonah Goldberg’s 2007 book, Liberal Fascism (Doubleday; ISBN
978-0-385-51184-1).
For a hundred years and more, the Beltway –
Republican and Democrat – has been under the strong impression that it could
and should do ‘whatever it takes’ because it is the only element in the country
that knows what has to be done; and that in furtherance of its plans and
visions and agendas it should not allow ‘the masses’ with their ignorance and their
doubts and their ‘democracy’ to stand in the way.
This now-long established presumption is, I would
say, yet another reason why the SO Mania Regime has been so resistant to what
is now 20 years of evidence that it doesn’t work and that it constitutes a
serious threat to genuine American democracy and moves the country ever closer
to a totalitarian police state. But these Mania Regime laws were not originally
passed on the basis of any demonstrably-proven rationality, and thus they are
not going to be repealed on the basis of any demonstrably-proven rationality;
they were politically opportunistic from the get-go and genuine ‘science’ and ‘rationality’
didn’t enter into the pols’ calculations at all.
To the Progressives, the then-new idea of the
‘totalitarian’ state – meaning a state that was competent enough and powerful
enough to shape and guide and impose its ‘wisdom’ on the ‘total’ life of the
country and the Citizenry – was taken as Gospel from the get-go. The Beltway
would make and ‘improve’ people the way Henry Ford was making and improving
automobiles (back then, the Model T).
Decades later, this presumption fueled and continues
to fuel the SO Mania Regime. If the Beltway was ‘wrong’, then that would cause
everybody to doubt the omni-competence of the government, and you simply could
not allow that to happen.
***I point out again the incoherencies of all this
over the past half-century: the flower-child Boomers were all for a culture of
overt and for all intents and purposes formal or official ‘sexual liberation’ (which
kinda sorta shades quickly into sexual libertinism in practice) while their
radical-feminist sistern insisted on ‘sexual liberation’ as a vital necessity
for ‘women’. That required a
loosening of parental authority and that worked
out to a ‘deconstructing’ of almost all social and cultural authority (with its
traditional ideals of commitment and sexual self-discipline).
But then – quickly and hardly surprisingly – the replacement
for the cultural abolition of parental authority in matters of sex (abetted by
the government and the media as ‘liberation’) became the government’s own sovereign coercive police power. And thus one
of the prime feeder-streams of the SO Mania Regime became joined to the ‘gender
war’ agenda against males (pretexted as the male propensity to ‘sexual violence’
or even pretexted on the presumption that pretty much all (heterosexual) sex is
rape) which has now mutated toward the official presumption that all
sexual-experience is rape if the female at any point (including well after the
event) decides she feels it was rape.
And while political programs aren’t necessarily
noted for their coherence (rather: only for their political attractiveness to
this or that demographic cache of votes) yet
then this whole multi-headed dynamic was
erected into law. And thus
the watering down of evidentiary standards and the presumption of innocence of
the accused that was built into the Bill of Rights and thus further the erection of the SO Mania Regime with its
still-engorging Registration requirements.
Thus a culture built upon traditional ideals was a)
swept away and b) replaced by government fiat through its sovereign coercive
police power and through the civil and criminal law.
Leading inevitably and ineluctably to a national
culture sustained not by the moral will and self-structuring of the individual
Citizens but rather through the imposition of government police authority. This
is a clear characteristic of an authoritarian or even totalitarian police state,
where government coercive authority is the primary Shaping force of the ‘totality’
of the culture (as well as of the economy and so forth).
****This grossly unhealthy civic dynamic is especially
evident in erstwhile ‘liberal’ commentary that now decries that National
Security State derangements of the post-9/11 era, in both foreign and domestic
government activities, yet never ever mentions the SO Mania Regime as one of
the most influential and early sources of those now-florid derangements.
ADDENDUM
I can recommend a look at this interview with
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley.
He doesn’t mention the SO Mania Regime; he is
focusing on the erosions of legality and of Constitutional first principles
evident in both the Bush and Obama administrations in their ongoing pursuit of war
on terrorism.
But he notes that a) in the Beltway there is no
longer any concern for ‘principles’, but rather merely the overriding concern
for the objective that the government has chosen to pursue.
And that b) there are thus no longer any “bright-line
rules” which provide boundaries and which constitute a “Rubicon” which can
never be crossed by the government power. We have seen this in the SO Mania
Regime with its vague and ever-expanding definitions.
And that c) there is no longer any “clarity” –
meaning that words and terms no longer mean what they appear to mean, and that
descriptions of the actual actions taken are no longer meant to actually
describe those actions accurately, but rather merely to spin them for the convenience
of the spinner. Thus “due process” in the matter of the President’s ordering
the execution or assassination of persons is nothing of the sort; it is now
actually just the government claim that we have a due-process, but it’s a
secret one, and you can’t know anything about it. Which is precisely the
opposite of the public and highly-structured due-process guarantee demanded by
the Framers.
And that d) in light of (c) the government is
essentially just saying “Trust Us”. But Turley points out that the Framers
erected the Constitution precisely because human beings are not angels and that therefore no
government comprised of human beings can ever be so fully ‘trusted’ to remain
benevolent and honest.
And that e) the primary Question facing voters and
Citizens is not What Obama or the Presidency has become but rather What have We become? And this, I have often said, is the truly profound
Question at the bottom of the SO Mania Regime: its costs and consequences for
Our own integrity and the nature of Our stewardship and tenure as individuals
on this earth and as Citizens of this Constitutional republic. And at this
point – with Our government conducting so much violence around the planet,
lubricated by the ‘normality’ of such egregious monstrosities as the SO Mania
Regime – what responsibility We bear as the ultimate governors of Our
government.
Finally, says Turley, it comes down to wondering
when We as the voters and the Citizens say “Enough” and start making the
government move back from the edge of the moral abyss to which it has brought
Us all.