A Chain Reaction

"I am happy to be friendly with the conservatives. If a boat is sinking, it is not a question of progressive and conservative, socialist and capitalist, Catholic and Protestant, Moslem and Hindu – for we are all in the same boat. Better a calm and courageous conservative than a frightened progressive if you want to save the boat. …. We are reaching a critical mass. A chain reaction will soon take place. But it will not be a controlled reaction …."
--Fidel Castro to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; page 5

This quotes, taken from page 599 of Schlesinger’s recently published journals, was from a meeting that the former Kennedy speech writer had with Fidel Castro on what would have been JFK’s 68th birthday. I think it is interesting, for a number of reasons. The most obvious one, of course, is its historical value: the idea of these two men sitting down and discussing subjects such as the idea of cooperation between adversaries is fascinating.

More, it is worthy of our consideration in the context of the questions asked to Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama during the CNN debate this week. Do we as a nation want to continue the current policy towards Cuba? Or do we wish to continue to hold Cuba to a very different standard than we hold every other country on the planet?

Although it is speculation on my part, I cannot help but think that if Arthur Schlesinger were here today, and heard Senator Obama quote President Kennedy’s line about never fearing to negotiate, but never negotiating out of fear, he would say that Obama understands the meaning of JFK’s words.

And finally, I think the quote is of value, because there are people on DU who – for a variety of reasons – attempt to smear Senator Obama by saying he will compromise democratic values by talking to and working with republicans. President Kennedy talked to and worked with his opponents; he did not compromise his values. Martin Luther King Jr., talked to and worked with his opponents; he did not compromise his values. And Castro, who is probably going to be recognized by history as more of a radical than even the most fierce-talking DUers that support Obama’s opponents, displayed a willingness to talk to others in an attempt to save a sinking ship.

The Bush-Cheney administration has done significant damage to our standing in the international community. I’ve long thought that it will take a generation’s time to repair that damage. One of the reasons that I have decided to support Barack Obama’s campaign is because I am convinced that he has a unique ability, among the candidates from both the democratic and republican parties, to communicate with both our friends and our enemies. I do not think that we have had a president with that ability since JFK.

We can't rebuild this nation by trying to be more partisan than Republicans. We do need to have sound policies based on common sense and principle and not soley on slivers of ideology, and include all people in the process.

their way. I don't believe that the current Repub party can be worked with. I think the last 15 years, and especially the last 8 years, have proven that conclusively.

esp when it was Senator Clinton who effectively stole away Senator Byrd's debate floor time to speak against giving the President unprecedented and unconstitutional war powers, in the middle of an eloquent oratory, when he was speaking passionately against it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. "Just stand there and look pretty, John."

republicans cannot be trusted or worked with. But for sake of discussion, let's look at that time period that you have identified. There are a few interesting things to consider.

The first would be the issues involving Newt Gingrich. His "Contract With America" was not only an attempt to cause severe divisions between the two parties, but more, to cause the Congress to become impotent. Those divisions leave Congress incapable of functioning as the co-equal branch of the federal government that it is supposed to be. And I think that most progressives and liberals would agree that Congress has not served the country well in those 15 years, especially the last 8.

More evidence of Newt's true goal is found in the fact that he participated with Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby's visits to the CIA to pressure analysts to change their reports on Iraq's WMD programs. He then participated in the first meeting, in Cheney's office, where the WHIG/OSP identified Ambassador Wilson as a target. It is important to remember that the OVP and OSP has not been subjected to any real congressional oversight. (See Wilson's book for more on this.)

I'd also add that the Bush-Cheney administration was forced on this nation by a betrayal by the US Supreme Court. By no coincidence, Justice Roberts has begun a program to reduce the influence of the USSC, which again causes the executive office (and OVP) to have an unconstitutional grasp on power -- Schlesinger's "imperial presidency" becomes a "revolutionary presidency."

One thing that should be of concern for all of us is the executive office's attack on the Great Writ. In January 2007, Attorney General "Gonzales told a Senate hearing that he didn't believe there was an express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution." (TIME; 9-10-07; page 41) Under Gonzales, the Great Writ was damaged. However, it is important to recognize that this second step was only possible, because of the first step that President Clinton took in 1996. And President Clinton worked closely with republicans to do that.

Are there important examples of democrats working with republicans in a good way? I would point to pages 127-128 in the Isikoff & Corn book "Hubris." Senator Biden was working with two republican Senators from his foreign relations committee -- Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel -- to slow the Bush-Cheney push to invade Iraq. The Biden effort was getting the support of members from both parties. It had potential. It made Bush furious. The administration was intent on derailing the effort. They accomplished this with the help of Dick Gephardt, who then posed with Bush, along with Hastert and Lott.

Working together for the right purposes is a good thing; yet surely we must be aware of the potential for working together to be a bad thing, as the examples of Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt show.

We need all three branches of the federal government to work as they are intended to. I do not think it is realistic to think that can happen if there are not attempts to work together with the people of good will from the republican party.

complicity of the Congress of the last few years has soured my outlook on bipartisanship. Not to mention that I think there are probably some Repubs who might attempt bipartisanship, but have been tamed by the carrot-and-stick treatment from the Admin. I believe there are bribes, but also threats to some Repub Congressmen, and maybe even Senators.

On edit: There has been a critcal weight of Repub Congressmen (and some Dems?) who are perfectly fine with the intense weakening of the legislative branch. This is incredible to me, which is why I believe in the "carrot-and-stick" theory.

There is a quote from the preface to the revised edition of Michael Scheuer's book "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" that I think fits in with attempts to describe the betrayal of the American people. It has to do with the outright lies that elected officials -- from both parties -- have been telling the American public for years. From page "x" of the book:

"...A decade ago, our leaders might have been given the benefit of the doubt for failing to understand the motivation of our eneny. Today, they merit no such indulgence from American citizens. They merit only scorn and contempt. President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator John McCain, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Hillary Clinton, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former President Clinton, and their print and electronic media acolytes are, quite simply, lying to Americans. The motivation of these leaders to lie is not for me to say; I cannot see into their hearts and minds. On the basis of easily accessible evidence, however, that they are lying is irrefutable."

There can be no rebuilding of America's towns and cities as long as we are engaged in the Bush-Cheney war of occupation in Iraq. We are unlikely to be able to end the war, by electing a president who played a role in allowing the war to happen. We have to move beyond the type of thinking that results in elected officials lying to themselves and to the American people.

Part of the potential solution involves not only a willingness to admit errors, but an ability to sit down and work with those who are "opponents" and/or "enemies." Certainly not every enemy. But it requires the ability to recognize that not all enemies are the same.

The American people have been, and are currently being, lied to by most politicians and the majority of the corporate media. The only possible solution is for the grass roots to become more active participants in the process. In that sense, the large numbers of people voting in the democratic primaries holds some promise.

and the presidency...
they will be dragged along, kicking and screaming, or be marginalized. i think some of them will work with us, some will be pissy little babies about it.

We have become so polarized these past few years that there are many who don't even remember a time when the two parties disagreed with each other with respect. I grew up in a household with Republican parents and a Democratic grandfather with lots of lively discourse but no rancor -- today there are many who cannot even broach political differences with each other in the same household. Stops the chances for progress right there when folks are too mad to even begin a discussion.

I think Obama has the capacity to influence the mindset that has set liberals and conservatives at each others' throats nonstop. The popularity of such hatemongers as Coulter and Limbaugh is still there, but it has been waning, and I have "hope" that Americans will continue to turn from them in derisive disdain rather than continue their mindset of hatred in retaliation.

In 2006, Thomas Mannand Norman Ornstein published an interesting book, "Thr Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to get it Back on Track." (Oxford) There were problems that can be traced to the Reagan administration, but surelt Newt Gingrich & Co engaged in a purposeful destruction of Congress -- to allow for an imperial presidency.

No intelligent person would advocate having democrats compromise their values, or to allow criminals to go without being held responsibile. Quite the opposite, in fact. The truth is that to promote our values, and to seek justice, we benefit from having all three branches of the federal government working as the Constitution intends.

(On edit: There were republicans in my extended family, too. We forgave them -- for democrats should be compassionate. Thanks for your post!)

I can't help wondering what is motivating the dems to keep resisting telecom immunity. We, here and elsewhere, have literally hated the imperial presidency we've endured. The one the Cons were so anxious to have and which the eye of Newt helped put in place. What was the thinking there? Like Rove, did they think there would always be a Con president? For as much as we have des tested the imperialness of the presidency I can assure you that a dem pres with the same powers they have put in place for * will drive them mad. Is their vision so shortsighted?

I brought it up here at DU, more than once, at least a year ago and likely even before that.

I'm not here 24/7, admittedly, but I haven't yet seen any real discussions of or attention to this very puzzling aspect of the Repug agenda.

WHY, indeed, would they work so hard to geld and render ineffective the Congress while at the same time manipulating every other arena of power they can toward the end of an imperial type presidency? Wouldn't that backfire on them bigtime when a Democrat eventually wins an election and inherits the unprecedented powers now gathered to the Oval Office?

It just hasn't made much sense to me, unless as you noted, they might (however irrationally) have been counting on having ONLY Republican presidents for the foreseeable future. I say "irrationally" because, of course, it's just not logical to imagine that no matter how wrongly we are treated and how angry we get, American voters will not turn out overwhelmingly to put a Democrat back in the highest office.

Could it be that they thought they had their election-theft processes honed and fine-tuned enough that they could rebuff any attempts by the citizenry to assert their voting power and boot them out? I suspect that may be the oversimplified truth of it -- nothing else I can think of makes sense to me.

I hope Mr. O'Waterman will return to respond to this question, as it has nagged at me for quite a long time now. Surely he has some thoughts on this. :)

Excellent thread, btw, H2OMan, as I've come to expect from you. Unlike some others I've noticed of late, however, I don't expect you to be either a saint or unerringly correct at every single turn, intellectually or otherwise. Hope that's a comfort. Hah! :hi:


Oh, and I heartily concur with the OP, too. No other way to deal with the enormously dangerous mess we find ourselves in at this point, surely, and I, too, see the potential for Obama to succeed in what most politicians won't even attempt along these lines.

Perpetuating the standoff and bitter rancor cannot serve the people well; and if it continues, we could find ourselves a few years from now wondering how we ever let things get so completely out of whack AND out of control. Will the obvious, simple answer -- "We were righteously PISSED!" -- satisfy anyone at that point?

I do not like to say this, the answer to "Me's" question is the most obvious one. The congress has submitted to the demands of the executive branch ..... and not just the White House of President Bush, but more so, to the "shadow government" that was instituted by VP Cheney and Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The "shadow government" that is described in detail in Senator Byrd's 2004 book, appropriately titled "Losing America."

A number of times over the years that I have participated on DU, I have recommended that people find and read two books by David Wise: (1) "The Invisible Government," (Random House, 1964); and (2) "The American Police State: The government against the people," (Random House, 1976). I would add "The Espionage Establishment," (Random House; 1967).

If a person reads those three books, what the Cheneyites have done is put into the context of a form of government that promotes people like George W. Bush, and intimidates many of the democrats who once were outstanding and brave advocates of true democracy. I do not know of any other rational explanation.

And finally, thank you for your kind words.

I was hoping you wouldn't have to say that, too, but I guess we cannot hope to overcome what we're up against unless we realistically face what it is.

I have read a couple of Wise's books: Molehunt, which blew my mind, and Cassidy's Run, back when I was more mobile and could get to a library. Fascinating stuff, for sure! Strangely, I have read neither of the two important books by him you mention here. I'm glad you gave those titles again, though -- can't do it too often, imo.

In a quick search online, I've found some fairly recent stuff by/about Wise and will get all I can from that for now. I'm also interested in Byrd's book. Sure wish Tulsa's library system had some way to get books to disabled folk like me who can't readily drive even to the local branch anymore. :(

Grim as our national situation is, I still believe there could be a truly powerful, even unstoppable, "revolution" of a sort, driven by the people who want their country back and focused and managed by Obama. I haven't seen this much positive energy and activity surrounding a leading political figure in a very long time. Remains to be seen where it's all going and how much success is possible, of course, but inertia works both ways!

:thumbsup: