11 June 2005
Whence Terrorism?
I've been trying to count how many acts of terrorism the United States endured. If my memory serves me, there have been two terrorist attacks from foreign adversaries: 1) the automatic weapons attack by Puerto Rican nationalists in the Senate chambers in the 1920's and 2) Al Quaeda's attack on 9/11/2001. All the rest involved Americans on American soil: After the Whiskey Rebellion, there was the Civil War; a presidential assassination or four; numerous Native American campaigns against Anglo settlers and the federal Army throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries--and vice versa; organized crime's internecine battles in the 20th Century; the Civil Rights movement's conflicts with institutionalized and legislated racism- in Detroit, Watts, among many; the Weathermen during the Viet Nam War; the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing to name the ones I recall. One's perspective determines whether these were terrorist acts or not.
The above examples may be called 'terrorist', 'criminal', 'un-American', 'racist' at the time according to the political spin of the victors or dominant political parties. What is the difference between a riot and an uprising, a terrorist versus freedom fighter; a criminal versus a religious zealot? These are political words, not absolute, self-evident terms. Is the difference determined by the target location irrespective of human life? Is the difference determined by the personal versus larger principles? Are all the talk shows wrapped up in semantics rather than the reality of a situation or action? I think semantics establish chimeras of difference and opposition. 'Spin doctors' operate in the realm of semantics at the behest of the centers of political and governing power and one shouldn't confuse the two realms. If one does not separate spin from power base, then the power base will have almost unassailable barricades in politics.
The Bush Administration cannot define 'terrorism' that includes all of the above examples. Bush uses an unidentified fear of death in the mall. They use racism to pit American against American. They use piety to support their spurious legislation and police activities and to suppress dissent. The appeal to pious motives and righteous goals creates a much greater and pernicious public opinion among people vested in their religious beliefs--without allowing this same public to see the activities and results from the Bush Administration's subterfuge.
If the terrorist threat is predominantly internal, the Patriot Act must have been designed to address groups, ideologies and juris prudence within the United States. The class and ideological groups disenfranchised by the social revolution of the 1960's and 1970's are trying to regain their preeminent status in America. Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Carter represented populist federal activism that was anathema to the OWNERS (Old White North Eastern Republicans). Reagan and Bush the Younger use the same people within their administrations to reclaim the federal agenda from the populists and progressives.
So why do we need a Patriot Act?
Post a Comment
The above examples may be called 'terrorist', 'criminal', 'un-American', 'racist' at the time according to the political spin of the victors or dominant political parties. What is the difference between a riot and an uprising, a terrorist versus freedom fighter; a criminal versus a religious zealot? These are political words, not absolute, self-evident terms. Is the difference determined by the target location irrespective of human life? Is the difference determined by the personal versus larger principles? Are all the talk shows wrapped up in semantics rather than the reality of a situation or action? I think semantics establish chimeras of difference and opposition. 'Spin doctors' operate in the realm of semantics at the behest of the centers of political and governing power and one shouldn't confuse the two realms. If one does not separate spin from power base, then the power base will have almost unassailable barricades in politics.
The Bush Administration cannot define 'terrorism' that includes all of the above examples. Bush uses an unidentified fear of death in the mall. They use racism to pit American against American. They use piety to support their spurious legislation and police activities and to suppress dissent. The appeal to pious motives and righteous goals creates a much greater and pernicious public opinion among people vested in their religious beliefs--without allowing this same public to see the activities and results from the Bush Administration's subterfuge.
If the terrorist threat is predominantly internal, the Patriot Act must have been designed to address groups, ideologies and juris prudence within the United States. The class and ideological groups disenfranchised by the social revolution of the 1960's and 1970's are trying to regain their preeminent status in America. Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Carter represented populist federal activism that was anathema to the OWNERS (Old White North Eastern Republicans). Reagan and Bush the Younger use the same people within their administrations to reclaim the federal agenda from the populists and progressives.
So why do we need a Patriot Act?
<< Home
