Connect the Dots

Please go to Salon right now and read Glenn Greenwald's latest, on the disturbing trend of right-wingers and members of the executive branch to transform the presidency into an unlimited monarchy. Which would be the D-word, now, wouldn't it?

I like to think I am not given to histrionics, at least where Notre Dame football and Cubs baseball are not concerned. I like to think Greenwald isn't, either. His article is a response to a Wall Street Journal piece written by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, arguing for the president's inherent power to operate above the rule of law (emphases Greenwald's):

In that article, Mansfield claimed, among other things, that our "enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force"; that the "Office of President" is "larger than the law"; that "the rule of law is not enough to run a government"; that "ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion"; that "with one person in charge we can have both secrecy and responsibility"; and most of all:

Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply.

The kicker, in my view, is this:

In the course of explaining how the rule of law applies only in "quiet times," Mansfield also argues that "civil liberties are subject to circumstances," not inalienable, and that "in time of war the greater dangers may be to the majority from a minority." Thus, he explains --in what might be my favorite sentence -- "A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away."

Mr Orwell to the white courtesy phone, please.

Meanwhile, President Bush reminded us yesterday that he is more than just the decider.

By the way, in the report it said, it is -- the government may have to put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's what we do. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander guy.

His position is as clear and simple as his grasp of his job description. Fuck Congress. He's the commander. He is America. And he's surrounded by people who believe that too.

On my way home yesterday, I saw that the semi-regular pro-war protestors had set up shop again in front of the neighborhood recruiting center, although the anti-war contingent that usually assembles across the street was absent. The centerpiece, in a sea of flags, was a large sign proclaiming

WE SUPPORT
* The troops
* The mission
* The president
AMERICA

I wasn't even tempted to stop and offer my views, which would be yes on one, so long as they're not committing war crimes or raping their female colleagues, no on three, and please explain two to me in fifty words or less. It's too difficult to debate when no shades of gray are permitted. The military, the desire to dominate the Middle East, and the Supreme Executive are all rolled into one conflated ball labeled "America," all necessary components of a single mindset, simultaneously (if paradoxically) interchangeable and inseparable.

Decider, commander guy, emperor. Take your pick. Single branch of tripartite government, equal to and checked by the other two? That's so pre-9/11.

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.