Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Mark A. Flacy" <address@hidden>

    > Tom, please resume wearing your tinfoil hat.

Saying "put your tin foil hat back on" seems to me, in this context,
like a non-offensive, standard shorthand for:

        Tom, you're saying there's some sort of conspiracy to suspend
        democracy.  That's crazy!  A conspiracy of that scale (i.e.,
        involving all of the people who would ened to participate)
        could amost never happen.  The simplest explanation is
        problably best (Occam's razor and all).  These are likely just
        folks aiming to do exactly what they say: plan prudently for 
        a not-unrealistic disaster.

Taking the comment to mean that, I have a reply:

I'm not talking about a conspiracy.   Somebody once said that "No
conspiracy is necessary among a set of people who already agree," and
that applies here.

Large organizations can "go wrong" when, among the decision makers all
share some set of beliefs and values and each acts consistently with
that belief.   A set of commonly accepted ideas, if those ideas have
undesirable implications when acted upon, is enough to set the stage
for system failure.

In this case, the commonly accepted ideas are things like:

  ~ The population can not be trusted to behave rationally
    during an emergency.   For their own good, they must be
    relieved of power during such times.

  ~ Federal law enforcement agencies, on the other hand,
    can be trusted to behave rationally and in everybody's
    best interests in an emergency.   In fact, they can be
    trusted to such a large degree that it is not only
    acceptable but _desirable_ to suspend or weaken traditional
    constitutional guarantees in order to liberate these 
    agencies to act with impunity.    For example, we must
    suspend habeas corpus for certain classes of people during
    a war on terror;  we must rethink the rules about when torture is
    permissible and of what sort;  we must relax the prohibitions
    against government surveillance of its citizens;  we must
    limit free speech so that public criticism of these rules
    and even public discussion of their application is itself
    a criminal act.    We do these things to protect the people
    because we believe that these agencies are far more trustworthy
    than the people.

If a group of individuals each takes such beliefs as axiomatic then 
individuals within that group can independently reach seemingly 
absurd conclusions such as:  massive civil unrest in response to 
an election whose results are tainted by voting system failures
is one good reason to suspend the electoral process;  quashing (and
even preparing to quash) such unrest is more important than, for
example, fixing the voting systems and ensuring a legitimate election.

That the idea of empowering homeland security to suspend elections is
not driven off the table with immediate scorn and ridicule is telling:
it tells us something about the shared belief systems of our friends
in gov't, their advisors, and the USian mainstream press.

The proposal to empower homeland security that way will, I think,
fail.   It has already drawn strong pushback from the minority party
and, in this election year, I think that's about as far as it will
get.   (If the election proceeds normally, Bush wins, and the
republicans retain control of congress, the proposal will have a much
better chance of succeeding in the four years that follow.)

Less important than the specific proposal and its short-term fate is
what it tells us about what these folks think is, in general,
reasonable.  It tells us how they are likely to react to plausible,
even probable scenarios that loom on the horizon:

  ~ nobody disagrees that it won't be surprising if there
    is a serious terrorist attack on the U.S. in the period
    leading up to the election

  ~ many agree that wide-spread voting system failures are 
    probable in the upcoming election

  ~ feelings among "the people" are very polarized and strong;
    many are increasingly outraged towards the current administration,
    many are increasingly protective of it

  ~ many still believe that the outcome of the 2000 election was
    illegitimate

  ~ everyone agrees that we are a nation at war;  many agree that
    during wartime, some suspension of normal rights is a necessity


We can make a plausible prediction, from those things, that:

  1. There will be widespread voting system failures.

  2. Protests and demonstrations will follow on a scale not 
     seen since the height of the Viet Nam war.  These can
     easily turn violent either through spontaneous attacks
     on property or through confrontations with police.

     Widespread economic displacement just pours fuel on this
     fire (as per New York City riots after a blackout or
     Watts riots after a controversial trial outcome -- only
     now we're talking about this effect simultaneously in
     many cities at once in a context that relates it to the
     legitimacy of the federal gov't).

  3. This may very well be concurrent with a terrorist attack
     or significant development in the war.  If so, many 
     people will be frightened and accepting of any development
     that appears like the way to safety.

What will happen next?   Remember the belief system of the current
administration and its supporters:

  a. The government knows best.
  b. Prosecution of the war must not be jepordized.
  c. A breakdown of law and order undermines the war effort.
  d. During war time, habeas corpus is a luxury, not a necessity.

Also remember that, in our electoral system, provisions already exist
for both parties of the legislature to come together and override the
outcome of the vote.

The plausability of this outcome has some practical implications for 
concerned U.S. citizens:

  If this scenario unfolds:

  ~ Work very hard to help keep the resulting protests from turning
    violent. 

  ~ Work very hard to build bridges between protestors and the state
    law enforcement agencies and national guard.  If mass arrests
    _are_ eventually ordered, the goal to ensure that those orders are
    not followed.  The message here is that the protests will be
    justified, if messy, and that neighbors imprisoning neighbors is
    not the right reply.

  Meanwhile:

  ~ Voting system reform has been badly managed and must become
    a higher priority.   National elections whose legitimacy is
    in doubt are natural triggers for massive protests which
    in turn are natural triggers for further suspensions of the
    Constitution.

  ~ Emergency recovery procedures for a failed federal gov't
    or an illegitimate election must be from the bottom up,
    not the top down.  It is up to the several states, not 
    the crippled or illegitimate federal government, to 
    make the correction.

-t