[PeacePolitical Blog] An Editorial by the Editor
A CALL FOR A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP
Surely any extraterrestial beings, or Being if you prefer, looking at Earth from afar with 'benevolent watchfulness' and hoping for Peace On Earth, must have superhuman powers of patience to have let the human race run the bloody course it has taken and continues to take -- up to the present moment.
In recent decades, we have had the ability to see the Earth from afar ourselves, and the pictures sent back of the tiny blue-green planet have made us realize how marvelous and relatively unique it is. Although the peoples of Earth have never even approached a capability of unified planetary self-governance, a system of treaties and international laws has grown up that effectively organizes the affairs of nations with respect to each other -- as long as there is willing participation and compliance, by the most powerful nations, at least.
The current Bush administration has led the U.S. in a unilateral disavowal of this system of laws and treaties -- moving the world backwards toward the rule of brute power and force -- not for the benefit, even, of the people of this country, but for the benefit of the few, the rich, the powerful members of multinational corporations and de facto political conglomerates (or 'alliances').
The voters of the U.S. expressed very clearly their disapproval of the actions of this administration last month (November, 2006) in the midterm elections which turned out the Republican majorities of both houses of Congress and by continuing to give President Bush a 'vote of no confidence' in the form of increasingly low (approaching an unprecedented low) level of approval and popularity. Yet, even in the face of this, Bush's dogged determination and dedication to his own particular hope and views of the war in Iraq tends to be seen as an admirable trait of character and leadership.
Given this set of circumstances, the nation faces a truly challenging dilemma.
We need to fashion a workable way to resolve a disparity between the President, administration, and the people by whose consent the elected officials, including the President and his appointed administration, are allowed to govern. In the British parliamentary system, a call for resignation could be initiated by the legislative houses and, by tradition, the chief executive would be bound to honor their vote.
It is well-known that the resignation of Richard Nixon was essentially assured once the leading members of his own party told him that it was time to go peaceably and voluntarily. The position of George W. Bush is much closer to this circumstance than acknowledged. The members of the Baker-Hamilton review commission have recommended a scaling back of the war in Iraq and increased use of diplomacy, especially with Iran, Syria, and of course, Israel, to find ways to bring political incentives for resolution of the conflicts in the region, including Palestine. This would be a dramatic change in course from the U.S. military dominance (including their support of the Israeli military) in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other key points in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Such a dramatic change of course, urged by Republican as well as Democratic leaders (including those who have seen long-standing service within their respective parties and with previous administrations of both major parties), may well require a change of leadership at the highest level -- namely the President and Vice-President.
It would appear that a rational analysis of the current situation, as we enter into a new year, suggests that a more formal call for such a change in leadership may be in order. Stay tuned, and remember, you heard it here first.
Rick Mitchell, Editor
Surely any extraterrestial beings, or Being if you prefer, looking at Earth from afar with 'benevolent watchfulness' and hoping for Peace On Earth, must have superhuman powers of patience to have let the human race run the bloody course it has taken and continues to take -- up to the present moment.
In recent decades, we have had the ability to see the Earth from afar ourselves, and the pictures sent back of the tiny blue-green planet have made us realize how marvelous and relatively unique it is. Although the peoples of Earth have never even approached a capability of unified planetary self-governance, a system of treaties and international laws has grown up that effectively organizes the affairs of nations with respect to each other -- as long as there is willing participation and compliance, by the most powerful nations, at least.
The current Bush administration has led the U.S. in a unilateral disavowal of this system of laws and treaties -- moving the world backwards toward the rule of brute power and force -- not for the benefit, even, of the people of this country, but for the benefit of the few, the rich, the powerful members of multinational corporations and de facto political conglomerates (or 'alliances').
The voters of the U.S. expressed very clearly their disapproval of the actions of this administration last month (November, 2006) in the midterm elections which turned out the Republican majorities of both houses of Congress and by continuing to give President Bush a 'vote of no confidence' in the form of increasingly low (approaching an unprecedented low) level of approval and popularity. Yet, even in the face of this, Bush's dogged determination and dedication to his own particular hope and views of the war in Iraq tends to be seen as an admirable trait of character and leadership.
Given this set of circumstances, the nation faces a truly challenging dilemma.
We need to fashion a workable way to resolve a disparity between the President, administration, and the people by whose consent the elected officials, including the President and his appointed administration, are allowed to govern. In the British parliamentary system, a call for resignation could be initiated by the legislative houses and, by tradition, the chief executive would be bound to honor their vote.
It is well-known that the resignation of Richard Nixon was essentially assured once the leading members of his own party told him that it was time to go peaceably and voluntarily. The position of George W. Bush is much closer to this circumstance than acknowledged. The members of the Baker-Hamilton review commission have recommended a scaling back of the war in Iraq and increased use of diplomacy, especially with Iran, Syria, and of course, Israel, to find ways to bring political incentives for resolution of the conflicts in the region, including Palestine. This would be a dramatic change in course from the U.S. military dominance (including their support of the Israeli military) in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other key points in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Such a dramatic change of course, urged by Republican as well as Democratic leaders (including those who have seen long-standing service within their respective parties and with previous administrations of both major parties), may well require a change of leadership at the highest level -- namely the President and Vice-President.
It would appear that a rational analysis of the current situation, as we enter into a new year, suggests that a more formal call for such a change in leadership may be in order. Stay tuned, and remember, you heard it here first.
Rick Mitchell, Editor
posted by Rev. Rick Mitchell, PhD at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home