Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:November 27th, 2010 14:26 EST
The GOP Plans to Ruin The Presidency?

The GOP Plans to Ruin The Presidency?

By Djelloul (Del) Marbrook (Editor/Mentor)

So what was conspiracy then is politics now?

In 1964 the preacher-politician John A. Stormer published a book that would addict the American right wing. It was called None Dare Call It Treason, and it warned us about the Red Menace, as if that menace hadn`t already busted our budget and scared us out of our wits.

In 1986, Gary Allen and Larry Abraham warned us against the globalist beast in None Dare Call It Conspiracy. This book sent in the globalists as a second string to relieve the worn-out Marxists. We didn`t choose to be as scared by it "because Ronald Reagan in his role as Pied Piper had lured us into the fantasy world of trickle-down economics " but we`re still titillating ourselves by venturing into Stormer`s house of horrors.

And yet the globalist beast is hard at work making those nasty Marxists` premier idea prescient: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the globalist beast is the maitre d`. And the more the maitre d` tells us it will be a very long wait before we have a place at the table, the more some of us love it. Being excluded, after all, holds out the promise of entry.

And now we witness the spectacle of one of our two major political parties in a secessionist fit proclaiming that its intent is to ruin the presidency of our first African-American president. The party that emancipated the slaves has joined the Confederacy and declared that it doesn`t have to play by the rules that have kept the union together.

What about this is not a conspiracy? Did we not think, us poor, lowly citizens, that the purpose of our system of government was to make each successive presidency successful? Did we not think that whatever our politics we owed it to ourselves and to the office of the president to make each administration successful? Did we not wish that each president, whether we voted for him or not, would contribute something useful to the union and would be assisted in this task by politicians of every stripe? Was that too naive of us? Are the Republicans telling us that we should not be let out at night without adult supervision, that we are not people of good will?

And was it not implied in our faith in comity and civility that the parties would compromise, respect each other, speak with each other, and hammer out agreements so that the nation should not suffer a four-year debacle or an eight-year debacle just to suit the fancy of certain ideologues? Are the Republicans telling us that as adults we should abandon comity and kick each other around because we can`t stomach a dissenting view?

What about this retarded Republican truculence is not a conspiracy to ruin the office of the president? And if they succeed, what then is to stop other politicians from inflicting the same damage on future presidents, whatever their party? Obviously, the Republicans don`t believe in the butterfly effect, and now we see they don`t believe in the two-party system. They don`t believe in legislation, they believe in fiat. My way or the highway is not a republican idea, it is an authoritarian idea. It is the difference between George III and Thomas Jefferson.

What about this does not skirt treason? If I stood up in Union Square park in New York City day after day and said my purpose is to bring down the presidency, to ruin it, would the Feds not investigate me? Would I not be detained for questioning? And if I happened to encounter a particularly hard-assed Fed, would I not be arrested and charged? And yet the mainstream press doesn`t find this fascist strutting worthy of further inquiry. No wonder schoolyard bullying is on the rise.

Treason is vaguely defined in Article III of the Constitution, and for good reason, because it should be difficult to prove; otherwise it would impinge on our right to expression.

Nonetheless one can hardly think of the Republican stance without thinking conspiracy and even treason. And yet that is exactly what is happening "the press is hardly thinking. It is ignoring a breathtakingly antidemocratic and reckless pronunciamento from politicians of the right hell-bent on disgracing and ruining a presidency that was overwhelmingly established by the electorate. The press`s behavior is powerfully reminiscent of its docility when Dick Cheney and and George Bush were mendaciously cooking up a war that has brought us to the verge of bankruptcy.

The Republicans, emboldened by the November elections, presume a mandate that is far from clear. The voters are angry and disappointed. But there it stops and extrapolation begins. We can assume Americans want jobs. They want a future. They want fiscal responsibility. We can`t assume they know how to accomplish these things. And we certainly can`t assume the politicians they have elected, including Barack Obama, know how. But is that license to ruin a presidency? If it is, we probably no longer deserve our republic. Do you burn a house down because you disagree with its occupants? The president and the presidency are different. What the Republicans are really saying is we can`t have a president unless he`s a Republican. Even though John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were of different parties, they were friends, they respected each other, they wished each other well, they cooperated for the good of the country. And so should our current Congress.

How can a successful, vibrant republic stagger from one administration to another while something like half its politicians make it their scheme, their conspiracy to bring down a duly elected president?

The Confederates said they could no longer tolerate union. They would not abandon slavery, not yet. And they would not be dictated to by northern industrialists. Are the Republicans saying they can longer tolerate this form of government, this imperative to arrive at a consensus, to embrace differences and find solutions?

If so, their policy is comparable to the Fascist Manifesto of Combat, and yet it is being taken by the mainstream press as a ho-hum political development. It isn`t. And the degree to which the press continues to downplay it and leave it unexplored and unchallenged is the degree to which the press puts the lie to Spiro T. Agnew`s vampirical canard that we have a liberal press.

There is a clear and present danger "remember those words? They originated with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. from the Supreme Court and were given a second wind by Tom Clancy in the novel and movie of that name.

I say there is a clear and present danger that the Republican Party is dismantling our system of governance. With what would they replace it? How many of us think we elect men and women to go to Washington or anywhere to sulk like adolescents and to stamp their feet and say no? We elect them to work, to do the hard work of making government work by listening to each other and compromising, as all of us do in order to live our lives. We do not elect them to turn the United States of America into a giant, bullying adolescent.

Djelloul Marbrook is a retired newspaperman. His second book of poems, Brushstrokes and Glances, will be published by Deerbrook Editions on December 20, 2010. His first book of poems, Far From Algiers, won the Stan and Tom Wick Poetry Prize from Kent State University in 2007 and was published in 2008. It won the International Book Award in 2010. His novella, Artemisia`s Wolf, will be published by Prakash Books of India in December. His novella, Saraceno, was recently published as an e-book. His story, Artists Hill, adapted from the second novel of an unpublished trilogy, won the Literal Latté first prize in fiction in 2008. The pioneering e-book publisher, Online Originals (UK), published his novella, Alice MIller`s Room, in 1999.

Del`s book, Far From Algiers:

New review of Far from Algiers:

Artists Hill, Literal Latté`s fiction first prize:

His blog:

His mother`s art:

His aunt`s art: