Flabbergasted

Hi friends --

I have been trying to keep my focus on writing the thesis on this side of the pond, while continually finding myself distracted by the craziness in the political scene at home. I'm sad to see that the really personal attacks have begun, and am praying this doesn't poison relationships for people of good conscience who are supporting different tickets.

And I've been keeping quiet on the blog -- because you don't read this for more politics -- you read it because you are my friends / family and we love each other. My conviction / reminder from the Spirit today has been to step back from the personal stuff and ask which issues really matter to my vote this year -- not all the stuff swirling around individuals.

Personally, I came up with 5 issues today that are swinging my vote, and none of them have to do with personalities, or who is on top or bottom of the ticket. They are 5 issues in which the 2 sides are pretty distinctly divided, and all 5 don't fall neatly into just one party, you'll be happy to note.

Don't worry -- not going to get into it -- but one of them has been our national response to the tragedy of the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes (which are and remain inexcusable) -- and I don't mean our collective grief. I am referring to our use of these attacks to justify pre-emptive action against terrorists -- this is and has been a deal breaker for me ever since we invaded Iraq, a war justified on this principal (i.e. they intend to use WMD on us, so we need to attack them first.)

Now -- I know that we don't all agree on this -- no problem. But we should all know about this. WE should, as Americans, know that this is the foreign policy of our current government.

So imagine my reaction when, watching a clip from the ABC interview when Gov. Palin was asked about the Bush Doctrine -- I saw that the word "pre-emptive war" didn't spring to mind for a current Vice Presidential candidate -- even after the prompt that identified it with Sept. of 2002.

I don't expect that everyone out there is watching Charlie Rose, or reading Wendell Berry's essay response, or all the other things on my list of favourite ways to procrastinate -- but I do expect a Vice Presidential candidate to know about the radical shift in foreign policy that took place between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq (i.e. the Bush doctrine) -- and why it is considered, by myself and others, a greater threat to democracy than Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

Wendell Berry can articulate it better than myself in his essay in 2003. Here's a link to the whole essay, and I put a key quote below.

Really -- I'm not writing this to slam Gov. Palin -- to be fair, the wording of the question may have thrown her -- kind of like watching the person on the game show and knowing the answer and flabbergasted that they aren't coming up with it. I hope that it is simply the wording of the question, and not knowledge of the policy, that eluded her.

And I don't expect that we'll all agree on this particular issue -- but I do hope and expect, as an American living abroad, that my friends and family at home are atleast aware of the Bush doctrine -- it stands at the centre of one of the greatest differences of opinion / issue represented in this election, and it matters a lot to me, at the heart level, not just the head.

So thanks for listening in... you can pretty much guess at this point which column this particular issue lands in for me!

Love, Laurie


The beginning of Wendell Berry's essay:

THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY published by the White House in September 2002, if carried out, would amount to a radical revision of the political character of our nation. Its central and most significant statement is this:

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists… (p. 6)

A democratic citizen must deal here first of all with the question, Who is this “we”? It is not the “we” of the Declaration of Independence, which referred to a small group of signatories bound by the conviction that “governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And it is not the “we” of the Constitution, which refers to “the people [my emphasis] of the United States.”

This “we” of the new strategy can refer only to the president. It is a royal “we”. A head of state, preparing to act alone in starting a preemptive war, will need to justify his intention by secret information, and will need to plan in secret and execute his plan without forewarning.

The idea of a government acting alone in preemptive war is inherently undemocratic, for it does not require or even permit the president to obtain the consent of the governed. As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free. By this new doctrine, the president alone may start a war against any nation at any time, and with no more forewarning than preceded the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.