(what's this?)
Home
Discussion Forum
Blog
Galleries
Headline Archive
Video Archive
Audio Archive
Document Archive
Charts
Timelines
POAC counter- spin
Buzzwords
Daily Email Newsletter
Postal newsletter
Links
POAC Store
Recommended Books
Donate
Contact
POAC Myspace 
 
You can have POAC headlines emailed to you every day free of charge. Subscribe here
 

Paper or plastic? NO! Earth-friendly reinforced canvas grocery totes now available in the POAC store
 
If you are presently serving in the military or in the Delayed Enlistment Program and beginning to rethink your participation, here are resources to help you.
 
Your text ad here: $50/week or $150/month Click for details
 

 Contributing Columnists

Tj Templeton
Jack Dalton
Anwaar Hussain
Doris Colmes
Crisis Papers
Vincent L Guarisco
W. David Jenkins III
Dr. Steven Jonas
Lucinda Marshall
Jason Miller
Andrew Wahl
Rowan Wolf
Reader Submissions
 

POAC merchandise:

T-shirts, fleece, tank-tops, prints, magnets and more...

 

Must-see Selections

 
14 points of fascism
 
Sept. 11: They Let it happen 
 
A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher 
 
Bush Cronyism
 
2004 election data
 
Catapulting the propaganda: The Rendon group
The office of special plans
The Whitehouse Iraq Group
 
 

POAC ENDORSED: The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001 to 2022 
 

F r o m   t h e Archives

Dateline 2002: "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq..."
 
Iran-contra all over again. (Video) "Explosive" new Hersh scoop: Bush funneling money to Al Qaeda-related groups
 
BRITAIN ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq.
 
April 9, 1944: The Danger of American Fascism
 
It's fascist picture story time!

 

Secret Rightwing Agenda Unearthed & The Liberal Resurgence (Fiction?)
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers


The first article below, which seems to have been delivered as a speech to a
small group of Rightist movers and shakers, was discovered in a 2063 dig in
the ruins of what was once the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. On the top of
this copy were the words “Confidential, For Your Eyes Only.?

This speech has not yet been verified, but its contents lend documented
credence to previously discovered artifacts and articles concerning the history of
the once-powerful rightwing movement in the U.S.

Below that planning document is a progressive essay found during another
Washington dig the following year -- an essay that may well have helped pave the
way for the liberal resurgence that followed decades of rightwing rule.

We remind readers that neither of these documents, apparently written in
late-2004 or early-2005, has been authenticated -- even its authors are unknown.
But they do seem to provide a valuable glimpse into politics in America shortly
before and following the turn of the 21st Century. -- Prof. Mary Andrew,
Harvard University, Department of Social Anthropology (March, 2065)
                                          ----------------

SECRET RIGHTWING AGENDA UNEARTHED

We gather here today -- leaders in industry, government and civic life -- to
re-affirm our patriotic goals. Our love of country, and belief in the
wealth-producing virtues of American capitalism, demand no less than our full
commitment to roll back the insidious institutions of socialist-type programs, lest
they further pollute and destroy our society.

I know that the chronology I’m about to lay out is well-known to many of you,
especially to us older conservatives. But many younger members of our “vast
rightwing conspiracy? don’t know enough of where they came from -- and
besides, it never hurts to hear the good stories again. So here goes:

Liberals had been in control of most of America’s public institutions since
the 1930s -- the media, the courts, the Congress, academia, and, with a few
exceptions (the diluted liberalism of Eisenhower and Nixon), the White House --
and their proto-socialist philosophy effectively was the dominant mode of
thought of the country for decades.

But there were countervailing forces in the wind. Many of us recognized that
it was high time to take back our nation -- Bill Buckley was there early on,
laying the groundwork with National Review -- and so, finally, in response to
the worldwide cancer of communism, in 1964 we were able to nominate, in Barry
Goldwater, a true-blue conservative.

As it turned out, American voters were not yet ready for such a frank and
dynamic leader. He was seen by many as an “extremist.? It wasn’t the voters’
fault; we’d been able to take over the Republican Party from within, but we
hadn’t done the requisite preparation work in the general public to make such an
electoral victory possible.

BUILDING THE CONSERVATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE

The next time, we determined, we would lay the foundations for victory in
such a way as to preclude the resurgence of liberalism ever again. Only in this
way could our conservative agenda be realized to its fullest degree.

To accomplish this goal of total dominance, we recognized that we had to
create, from the ground up, a massive conservative infrastructure that eventually
would be unassailable. Yes, we realized that it would cost us a lot of money,
time and energy up front, but we knew that we would come to see a huge
economic and ideologic payoff down the road.

It took us decades to prepare the ground, but our movement began to take off
big time in 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan. (As suggested
previously, we can’t really call Nixon a true conservative.)

The Reagan years helped prepare the way for the institutional victories that
followed in the ‘80s and ‘90s and early part of the 21st Century. The budding
institutions we founded -- most notably much of the mass-media we now
controlled, and our think-tank columnists and speakers -- aided considerably in
critically weakening and effectively destroying the centrist-liberal presidency of
Clinton.

The Democrat party played right into our hands when it nominated Gore --
tainted by his too-close association with the disgraced Clinton -- to succeed his
mentor. Still, it wasn’t easy getting our candidate -- not the brightest bulb
on the Christmas tree -- into power and keeping him there.

In both of his presidential races, Bush the Younger won only by the slimmest
of margins, and in several instances needed, how shall we say, extra
assistance from his friends. But now the liberals are preparing a massive
counter-attack to oust conservatives from power. (Thank goodness we and our friends still
have control over the election process, with privatized, secret, unverifiable
vote-counting software.)

RETAKING THE PLEDGE

We therefore need to re-pledge our fealty, and a large portion of our
financial assets and energies, to the following goals:

1. Consolidating our control of the mass media.

2. Increasing our control of the Congress.

3. Making more inroads into controlling the Courts.

4. Keeping control of the White House.

5. Rolling back the socialist programs from the FDR and LBJ days.

6. Tightening up our education reforms.

7. Strengthening our electoral base.

8. Increasing our redistribution of wealth upwards.

9. Further weakening of, and ultimately destroying, the Democrat party.

Let’s take those areas one by one:

1. The Mass Media. True, today we do control most of the mass-media,
especially those to which our base voters pay most attention: radio talk shows, Fox
Network, cable TV anchors and pundits, along with our stealth mass-media: the
fundamentalist churches and their publications and word-of-mouth networks.

But, in addition to not having full and consistent control of some of the
larger-circulation newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los
Angeles Times, USA Today, et al.) -- the liberal bastions in the Blue states
-- we definitely do not exercise adequate control of the one fully free press
in the country: the internet. There are numerous liberal/socialist websites
and bloggers out there dedicated to our ruin.

It is necessary, therefore, to rein in the internet. This can be accomplished
in a wide variety of ways -- either doing what we did earlier to the other
media forms, buying them up and bringing them into line, or declaring a kind of
“national security? martial law and take them over as “detrimental to the war
effort.? And, since our “war on terrorism? is designed to be permanent, our
intervention will last forever. By and large, our friends run the large
servers (AOL, Comcast, Microsoft, etc.), so it shouldn’t be too difficult to
accomplish this technically.

2. The Congress. Yes, we control both Houses, but the Democrat party still
holds way too many seats, thus having a platform for attacking us -- and even
filibustering some of our judicial nominees -- and a launching pad for their
national campaigns. After decades of acting meekly in the minority, they are
starting to get it into their obstructionist heads that they need to act as a true
Opposition.

To put it bluntly, the Democrat party must be marginalized to the point of
effective extinction. There is no way we can enable our agenda quickly if we
permit them to exist and hinder our every initiative. In the same way we need
permanent war to permit us to enact our foreign and domestic agendas, we need to
treat politics as a permanent political campaign. Take lessons from Rove.

Go after our political enemies every day, as if we are running against them
in an electoral campaign. Whatever it takes needs to be employed -- endless and
expensive TV ads, running solid and (if possible) name and celebrity
candidates against them in state after state and district after district, threats,
dirty tricks, smear tactics, impeachment, recalls, extreme measures, whatever.

This is down and dirty smashmouth politics we’re playing, which we’ve
demonstrated we’re far better at during actual campaigns. Permanent political war
needs to be our motto. No more Mr. Nice Guys. The stakes are too high. Go for
the jugular and slice and dice this opposition to bits.

3. The Courts. We’ve been able over the years to get our supporters onto the
various federal appeals courts, but there are still way too many holdovers
from liberal appointments. We’ve got to do a better job in packing those courts
with our kind of folks whenever vacancies appear.

The Democrats in the Senate have filibustered our strongest nominees, and
threaten to do so again. Nuke ‘em. Remove the filibuster as one of their tools.
True, by doing so, we’d give the liberals a massive weapon against us if and
when they ever got back into power. But the idea here is that by taking the
necessary action now, they won’t get back into power, ever.

Effective one-party rule is what we’re after and once we accomplish that, the
hell with them. Short-term gain is always better than long-term
wishy-washiness. We can always deal with unpleasant situations later, if we have to.

And, when those rare vacancies open up on the U.S. Supreme Court, we ram our
youngish candidates through, no quarter shown to those who oppose us -- unless
we have good stealth nominees who we can slip through without a real fight.

With our ideological supporters on the high court, we then will have total
control of legal system, even if various Appeals courts are not fully in line,
and thus can throw solid red meat to our more activist base: abortion,
religious power, laissez-faire capitalism, free and unrestricted corporate use of the
environment, etc.

4. The White House. Our history with Reagan and Bush the Younger demonstrates
the effectiveness of our strategy to place lesser lights in the White House
-- non-intellectuals with simplistic answers to complex problems -- that we can
control from behind the scenes. We should continue this strategy, though we
need to be aware that some of our choices often place our agenda and political
tactics in jeopardy by their tendency to missspeak or stumble into telling the
truth now and again.

Dumb but not too dumb should be our watchwords. But there are always are
plenty of good candidates along those lines, so this shouldn’t be too much of a
problem.

Other things to watch out for as we move forward in managing democracy:

* We might seriously want to consider doing away with presidential debates.
They can be dangerous; we can’t always control the situation.

* We need to resist with all our means any attempts to institute nation-wide
voting reforms, including, of course, any moves to regulate the way votes are
cast and counted. The current privatized and GOP-controlled e-voting system
works just fine for us. And, of course, we need to permanently abolish
exit-polling and other modes of so-called independent verification. We don’t need them;
they just confuse people.

* We must resist with all our might any attempt to have publicly-financed
election campaigns. The current system works well, even if our opposition can
raise as much money as we can. What we do need to do is to build a gargantuan,
unchallengeable pre-election kitty -- billions -- well in advance, so that the
opposition has to spend all its time playing catch-up and having to go to the
same corporate sources as we do to get the big bucks, thus compromising their
independence and leftward-leaning tendencies.

5. Smashing Social Programs. We must continue dismantling the various
socialist programs from decades ago, starting with Social Security, Medicare, Head
Start, Medicaid, and so on. Many of these programs are popular with the masses,
so we can’t always attack them frontally. But we can starve them to death --
blaming budget cuts because of foreign wars in the name of “national security?
and “spreading freedom around the globe? -- or devise innovative alternative
ways of ruining them, such as privatizing parts of them, and finishing them
off later.

6. Education Reform. We need to abolish so-called "liberal education" and
curricula that emphasize critical thinking. Instead, we need to emphasize
vocational training over broad-based education, and standardized testing over
essay-writing. Public education can be starved financially, with more support going
to faith-based private education. The end result of these reforms will be the
raising of generations of malleable young people trained not to pay any mind to
liberal strategems and theories.

7. Our Electoral Base. The fundamentalist movement is our bread & butter, and
we must make sure to keep those folks happy. Bring them into the
Administration, listen to their concerns, appoint them to high posts. We can’t afford to
lose them; in several states, they made the difference in getting us victories.
But we need to expand beyond this guaranteed base; we made inroads into the
African-American and Hispanic communities this time out, by hitting hard on gay
marriage, but we need to do more. Don’t let the Democrat party bring them
back into the liberal fold. Bring their conservative leaders into the fold and
use them for leverage.

8. Economic Redistribution. Those who own businesses and offer major
employment opportunities deserve our special support. We must continue to redistribute
wealth upwards, by providing even more tax breaks to our friends in the
corporate sector. The middle class may be even more squeezed, but this may not be a
negative development for us, as they will be concentrating more on getting by
in their daily lives, not paying all that much attention to our economic and
political maneuverings.

9. Destroying the Democrats. If we follow the programs outlined above, the
Dems should go the way of the Whigs into the dustbin of history. The key is: no
mercy shown, no politics as usual, no compromise. They’re out of here, and the
public will jump on our bandwagon, even if they don’t always agree with a
particular policy, because they know there is no alternative. And because they
know if they don’t play ball with us, they won’t get any of the goodies.

It will be argued by the opposition that our policies will harm the
struggling middle class, outsource more jobs overseas, and create more poor people. But
we can emphasize the virtues of self-reliance, faith-based aid, and
trickle-down economics. That’s why, in concert with slicing away at these social
programs, our tax cuts must be made permanent; this is a win-win: Our wealthy
supporters (including ourselves) will be happy; maybe some of that money will wind
up creating jobs for the less-fortunate.

In summary, if we do all that’s outlined here -- and remember that what we
say today is absolutely confidential; we can’t risk our agenda being aired in
public -- we can guarantee perpetual rule for ourselves and our kind for decades
and decades to come. God Bless America!

****************************** ****************************

THE LIBERAL RESURGENCE

Look, friends, we’ve lost the last two general elections by a hair (if we
really lost, that is, in a fair and honest fashion); our domestic programs are in
tune with the public’s desires; we dominate a good many state legislatures
and control a number of major governorships. In short, we’re not dead or dying,
but, especially after the 2004 campaign, when so many million new volunteers
came on board, vibrant and determined.

We made lots of mistakes, and we can do much better, but the important thing
is that many of us are more than willing to rock ‘n roll for the cause.

But we’re certainly aware that we face an opposition that doesn’t play by
the understood rules of civil discourse; in a sense, they’ve decided that the
“Geneva Conventions? of contemporary politics, so to speak, are quaint and
obsolete. Their only objective is to win and nothing stands in their way of
victory -- certainly not truth and fair play. Smash-mouth politics, and dirty
tricks, are key methods of stealing their way to victory.

As a result of this aggressive approach, many of us liberals and progressives
-- used to playing by the rules, used to using logic and reason to combat our
opponents -- have been thrown back on our heels. Recent, ruthless
developments in American politics, introduced by Rove-ian Republicans, reminds one of how
the Nazis handled their enemies in ‘30s Germany: With Big Lies, and threats
of brutal retaliation.

And, sad to say, those techniques have worked just enough to deny us victory
and to get themselves installed, fraudulently or not, into power. So many
Americans, badly educated in politics and history, and kept in a constant state of
fright and confusion by the Bush Administration -- still milking the 9/11
attacks for political gain -- have permitted themselves to be swayed by the
rightwing propaganda machine into voting against their own self-interests.

BUSH FORCES PEELING AWAY

But, as the imperial foreign wars grind on, for no good reason -- with
thousands more dying and being maimed -- and as more and more popular social
programs are decimated or eliminated, a good many Bush voters are finally coming to
realize that maybe they made a bad mistake in November of 2004.

They have come to agree with us that the Bush folks are greedy, irrational,
mean-spirited, power-hungry, selfish and ruthless -- in short, not the kind of
political leaders who are interested in helping out the common people and in
protecting the long-term national interests, but only in short-term gains and
in aiding themselves and their wealthiest supporters.

Given that many more sections of the population -- including true
conservatives -- are waking up to the realities of the Bush Administration, a window of
opportunity is available to us, if we’re strong and savvy enough to take
advantage of it.

As often happens with arrogant leaders, they tend to believe that they are
untouchable and can do anything they want. Since nobody has been able to stop
them to date, they believe nobody ever will be able to stop them. And so they
overreach, behave abominably, initiate policies that are self-destructive.

We are seeing that now in both foreign and domestic areas.

RUSHING TO WAR IN IRAQ

Their first war, in Afghanistan, was only partially successful. It could have
been totally successful, but the Bush Administration wasn’t terribly
interested in that scenario. Bin Laden and his top cadres were more useful to them
politically if they were still out there. So the U.S. arranged the installation
of their guy, Karzai, in power and quickly abandoned Afghanistan in order to
move on to their real target, Iraq. Of course, they had to tell a whole passel
of lies to get their war started, but start it they did, in a big hurry before
the U.N. inspectors reported that there was no WMD in Iraq.

Iraq is a thoroughgoing disaster, but once again, the neo-cons in charge of
U.S. foreign policy are eager to move on to the next wars, against Iran and
Syria -- although they may wind up having to deal militarily with North Korea at
the same time.

The Bush Administration seems to feel they’ll be able to install a
U.S.-friendly government in Baghdad, but the recent elections may prove a disaster for
U.S. aims, since Iran-friendly mullahs and ayatollahs will be in charge, either
out front or behind the scenes.

Bush always has said that if the Iraqi government requested that the U.S.
Occupation should end and the troops depart, of course that request would be
honored -- but that they didn’t anticipate such a likelihood would ever
materialize. But it may -- then what?

"SHOCK & AWE" AS OBJECT LESSON

So two festering wars still going on, and maybe three more on the way -- all
this in the face of high desertion rates in Iraq, inability to meet
recruitment quotas for new troops, forcing old ones to stay on and return to duty, and a
military draft necessity that would be political poison. (Another huge
terrorist attack in the U.S. might provide enough political cover for re-instating
the draft.)

Now the Bush Administration would prefer not to have to invade Syria and Iran
and North Korea. It’s hoping that the example of “shock & awe? bombing and
regime change will do the trick, and the leaders of those “axis of evil?
countries will bend the knee appropriately to U.S. demands.

But the lesson that many countries seem to be learning is that the only
defense that might work against the U.S. is to arm itself quicly with nuclear
weapons, thus re-creating the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario that kept
the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from annihilating each other during the Cold War.

The Bush Administration finally has come to realize that none of their
geopolitical moves in the Middle East will be effective unless there is some major
progress on the Israel/Palestine issue. So it is engineering a cease-fire and
more talks between the warring parties.

BUYING TIME IN THE MIDDLE EAST

It hopes that the Israel/Palestine pot will stop boiling long enough to
permit the U.S. a claim to a kind of victory there, while it moves aggressively to
alter the geopolitical realities in the rest of the Middle East.

But one can guarantee that the slaughter will break out again unless the U.S.
is willing to force Israel to abandon virtually all its settlements in the
West Bank, to end its Occupation, and to somehow agree to give the Palestinians
rule of part of Jerusalem, perhaps under an International City mandate by the
U.N. (Of course, the Palestinians also must come through by agreeing to the
right of Israel to exist within secure borders, and to cease its terror attacks
on that country.)

There is no indication that the hardliners in Israel have any desire or plans
for abandoning the major West Bank settlements, or in doing much more than
giving the Palestinians a severely circumscribed, geographically and
economically non-viable state.

The Bush Administration is gambling that the Palestinians, worn out and
desirous of any kind of peace and state of their own, will accept whatever
compromised Palestine the Israelis offer. Perhaps the present Palestinian Authority
leadership will be tempted, but the hardliners in Hamas and Islamic Jihad will
ensure that such offers will be rejected. And then it’s back to the usual
bloodbath on both sides.

Taking all the above into account, it’s clear that the neo-con Bush
Administration is vulnerable on its wars and its diplomacy, despite Condoleezza Rice’s
fresh face.

BUNGLING ON SOCIAL SECURITY

But the Administration also is overreaching domestically, and thus is highly
vulnerable there as well.

Its incompetence in foreign and military policy -- best expressed in its
never-ceasing bumbling in Iraq -- is matched in its domestic policy battles.

The best example of its overreaching arrogance in this regard is its attempt
to “reform? (read: decimate and ultimately destroy through privatization)
Social Security. The Administration is having trouble selling this destructive,
dangerous plan not only to seniors and Democrats but to Republicans as well,
who are hearing from their constituents that this is a non-starter.

But rather than back off, Bush and Rove are determined to brazen it through,
hoping that their lies and distortions will do the trick, just as they did in
getting the country to approve of going to war against Iraq.

Here is our best chance to hand the Bush Administration a huge, embarrassing
defeat, and to build on that for other such battles coming up on Medicare
“reform? and judicial appointments of extremist nominees.

Of course, it ain’t gonna be easy; we still have to battle the
corporate-controlled mass media to get our message out, but the times are right for making
headway even in that difficult area.

With a revitalized Democratic National Committee, millions of revved-up
volunteers from the 2004 campaign, huge political warchests from internet-inspired
donors, the beginnings of a liberal infrastructure building, increasing
resistance domestically (and worldwide) to America’s bullying approach abroad, and
more and more moderate conservatives peeling away from the extremist Bush
Administration -- with all these developments, it is entirely possible that what we
are part of right now is the start of a liberal resurgence in this country
that will turn politics around in the near-future.

Keep on keepin’ on. We will prevail.#

Bernard Weiner, a playwright and poet and Ph.D. in government & international
relations, has taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor for
the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org).

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

privacy policy

© 2002- 2006  OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com