The Reich Wing: Bush-Era Conservatism as Reductio Ad Absurdum
by
William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
DIGG THIS

As
the Iraq war ripens into the largest strategic catastrophe in our
nation's history, dead-enders among the Bu'ushist faithful confront
a sobering question. No, that question is not how to extricate our
nation from the Mesopotamian morass, but rather how to deal with
internal dissent.
It's really
quite simple, sighed
35-year-old Hillary-Ann, a professional woman from California with
sufficient disposable income to drop at least $1,200 to spend a
week confined on a cruise ship with the editorial staff of National
Review.
"Of course,
we need to execute some of these people ... [a] few of these prominent
people who are trying to demoralize the country," she commented
with languid indifference as she waded waist-deep in the Pacific.
"Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas
chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at
a time of war, that's what you'll get. Then things'll change."
There's nothing
novel about the kind of "change" desired by this fully
indoctrinated member of the Reich Wing: For devotees of a certain
variant of statist conservatism, seizing dissenters and shipping
them off to gas chambers is old hat. What makes this off-hand expression
of an authentically fascist sentiment so remarkable is the fact
that it was typical conversational chatter among the 500 or so National
Review groupies who took part in the cruise, according to British
journalist Johann Hari, who tagged along incognito.
I would be
inclined to dismiss Hari's account as the dishonest fantasy of a
Euro-Trash
bien-pensant were it not for the fact that such sentiments are readily
on display practically everywhere Bush-aligned conservatives feel
comfortable to give expression to their deepest sentiments.

It is difficult
to predict what will be the most significant "legacy"
left by George W. Bush, assuming that word can be properly applied
to the accumulated residue of lawless violence and official corruption
that have typified his reign. Will it be metastasizing foreign hostility,
and proliferating foreign conflicts? Will it be the collapse of
the economy beneath the weight of profligate spending? Will it be
the official adoption of such malapropisms as "terrists"
and "nukular" as part of our long-suffering language?
My suspicion
is that Bush's most important and lasting contribution has been
the creation of a purely limbic
form of conservatism, in which the amygdala
(that portion of the brain focusing on fear and related base emotions)
plays the defining role in interpreting reality.
The movement
has succeeded in validating the worst caricatures concocted by the
likes of Theodor
Adorno and Daniel
Bell by reducing itself into an authoritarian
cult. Obsessive fear and reflexive, tribal loyalty to the Leader/Protector
are the defining impulses of contemporary conservatism. And until
perhaps I should say "unless" President
Bush and Crypto-President Cheney leave office in 2009, things will
grow progressively worse as the regime over which they preside makes
increasingly extravagant claims of extra-constitutional power.
Yesterday
(July 19), the Bush-Cheney regime informed Congress that "A
U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or
convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case." What
this means is that Bush will forbid the Justice Department to pursue
criminal contempt of Congress charges against four current or former
White House officials who defied congressional subpoenas, as Bush
instructed them. Neither Richard Nixon nor Bill Clinton nor
King George III, for that matter ever ventured such a claim
to complete immunity from legislative oversight, although Saddam
Hussein probably did.
More frightening
still is an
executive order issued three days ago (July 17) in which Bush
claimed the power to confiscate the property of political dissidents.
No, that is not how the order's provisions were described, but the
powers adumbrated in that decree would permit such whole-scale expropriations.
Entitled "Blocking
Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in
Iraq," the order asserts that the president can seize control
of financial assets and other property belonging to "any person
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense ... to have
committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or
acts of violence that have the purpose and effect of ... threatening
the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or ...
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
reform in Iraq ... [or] to have materially assisted ... such an
act or acts of violence...."
Let's leave
aside, for now, the Soviet-style cant about "peace [and] stability"
in occupied Iraq, a land where neither can be found.
What this executive
order means, in principle, is that the property of anyone who materially
"undermines" the war and occupation can be seized, without
a trial or due process of any kind, on presidential order with the
approval of three cabinet officials.
Yes, the order
supposedly applies to those who would be providing direct material
or financial aid to guerrilla fighters in Iraq, whether they are
partisan patriots fighting to expel foreign invaders, sectarian
fanatics, or opportunistic foreign terrorists.
But pay careful
attention to the phrase applying those sanctions to those found
guilty once again, by presidential decree of "undermining
efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform
in Iraq...." Wouldn't this apply to people who participate
in organized efforts to end the occupation?
Yes, expropriating anti-war activists wouldn't provide the same
visceral thrill that would result from the spectacle of a few of
them led away in chains to the gas chamber. But the Reich Wing can
console itself in the knowledge that those whom the State would
annihilate, it first expropriates.
Copyright
© 2007 William Norman Grigg
William
Norman Grigg Archives
|