Democracy at Stake

Our democracy is being tested.

I have wondered why there has been so little public dissention and discussion regarding the policies and practices of the Bush administration. I had attributed it to the “take-over” of the government (Congress and President) by the conservative, right-wing, Republicans. The promotion of their political agenda superseded the questions of policy and practice. I have criticized myself for not publicly protesting these same policies and practices. I have attributed this behavior to the perception that it would do no good.
Al Gore’s new book, “Assault on Reason” and Professor Andrew Bacevich’s interview on WBUR (18 May) focus on the serious signs that our democracy is weakening.
Al Gore focuses on the Senate, an institution most familiar to him. He reminds the reader that the requirements of raising campaign funds and meeting with lobbyists and other vested parties result in empty chambers when Senators speak. He cites as an example the time when Senator Byrd strongly critiqued that the lack of debate over the proposed legislation to enable the President to use force in Iraq, legislation that he vehemently opposed. No one was present and there was no serious debate. In fact, one can question whether any serious or substantive debate has ever occurred.
Professor Bacevich (Boston University) has credentials in his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war. He is a retired Lt. Colonel (US Army), a West Point graduate with involvement in two wars (Vietnam and the first Iraq war) and an academic (Ph.D. from Princeton). He has repeatedly attacked the validity of the intervention and its implementation. He has seen no positive end to this debacle, in spite of the fact that his son joined the Army and was currently in Iraq. Now, in an interview with WBUR about the sadness associated with his son’s death caused by IED, he questions our democracy. He questions whether he should have done more, but more importantly, he questions the meaning of the phenomenon of the 2006 election being discounted by our representatives.

How is it that the clear rejection of the administration policy has not resulted in action to implement the public’s support of a change?