The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort 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.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, 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 go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
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.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
There’s a common thread linking conservatives’ positions on gun
control, immigration, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: the constant need to stoke
fear. By Michael Tomasky.
Liberals
and civil libertarians shouldn’t yet be saying that there’s utterly no
way that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be declared an “enemy combatant.” The
post-9/11 law, whatever one’s opinion of it, does say that an American
citizen affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, “or associated forces”
engaged in hostility with the United States can be declared an enemy
combatant. It doesn’t seem like he’s that, but who knows, he may shock
everyone when he comes to by saying that he and his brother were
precisely that.
But
it isn’t liberals who are jumping the gun here. As usual, conservatives
are rushing to judgment, shredding the Constitution, using the bombing
as an pretext for derailing immigration reform, and generally seeking
any excuse to reimpose their paranoid and authoritarian worldview, which
needs fear like a vampire needs blood, on the rest of us.
The
cry, which I’m sure will pick up steam this week, was led over the
weekend by the usual suspects—John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte,
and Peter King. On the basis of what evidence? On the basis of no
evidence at all. They know nothing! We’re starting to piece together a
portrait of these guys, although it’s more of Tamerlan than of his
younger brother. It’s a grim portrait. He evidently did become a
radicalized Islamist. But if he and his brother were acting alone, even
if the bombing was 100 percent politically motivated, they can’t be
called enemy combatants. Period.
On Sunday, politicians debated whether Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant.
At
most, they should say: “If the facts connect him to al Qaeda or any
other designated groups, then he should be declared an enemy combatant.”
Some would disagree with that, but no one could really criticize that
as a legitimate posture within the parameters of U.S. law. But to call
Dzhokhar a “good candidate” for enemy-combatant status now, as they did,
is appalling. Moreover, the Supreme Court said in the Hamdi decision
that U.S. citizens who are named enemy combatants still have their
due-process rights, so it’s not clear exactly what these four want to
happen unless they want the Justice Department to contravene the court.
Similarly,
other conservatives—especially in talk radio; notably Laura Ingraham in
an endless trail of tweets—are arguing that the bombings prove that now
isn’t the time to be liberalizing our immigration laws. What? These
guys were 9 and 16 years old when they came here. What exact change in
immigration law would “prevent” two future Tsarnaev brothers from
carrying out another bombing? It’s absurd.
Funny
thing, this urge to prevent. It’s awfully selective, have you noticed?
Tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of minors—many of them Muslim—have
immigrated legally to the United States since 1986, the last time
immigration law was substantially changed. Some of them are no doubt
reprobates or drunks or criminals, but surely some are cardiologists,
inventors, successful capitalists, and innovative artists. But suddenly,
these two guys and these two guys alone offer some kind of proof of the
need to crack down, to prevent this from happening again. Meanwhile, we
have a pile of dead bodies higher than the Himalayas, the vast majority
of them slain by native-born Americans who can go online or to a gun
show and acquire all the weaponry and ammo they please, but we can’t
ever try to do anything to prevent that. The Second Amendment is
inviolate. Can’t be touched or impinged upon in any way. To do that is
fascism.
This fear is basically what enabled the Iraq War to take place.
The
common thread through all of this is the conservative need to instill
and maintain a level of fear in the populace. They need to make gun
owners fear that Dianne Feinstein and her SWAT team are going to come
knocking on their doors, or, less amusingly, that they have to be armed
to the teeth for that inevitable day when the government declares a
police state. They need to whip up fear of immigrants, because unless we
do, it’s going to be nothing but terrorists coming through those
portals, and for good measure, because, as Ann Coulter and others have
recently said, the proposed law would create millions of voting
Democrats (gee, I wonder why!).
And
with regard to terrorism, they need people to live in fear of the next
attack, because fear makes people think about death, and thinking about
death makes people more likely to endorse tough-guy, law-and-order,
Constitution-shredding actions undertaken on their behalf. This is how
we lived under Bush and Cheney for years. This fear is basically what
enabled the Iraq War to take place. Public opinion didn’t support that
war at first. But once they got the public afraid with all that false
talk of mushroom clouds, the needle zoomed past 50 percent, and it was
bombs away.
Conservatism,
I fear (so to speak), can never be cleansed of this need to instill
fear. Whether it’s of black people or of street thugs or of immigrants
or of terrorists or of jackbooted government agents, it’s how the
conservative mind works. I don’t even think it’s always cynical and
manipulative; conservatives often do see enemies under every bed.
But that doesn’t mean they’re there, and it most definitely doesn’t
mean the rest of us ought to make law and policy based on their
nightmares.
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Follow Michael Tomasky on Twitter at @mtomasky.
Any way you look at America, this is the core of American dysfunction.
ReplyDelete