The Campaign For Democracy: An Alternative Strategy To The War On Terror

The events of September 11, 2001 were a dagger in the heart of American optimism, and a body blow to the United States Constitution — a shock from which the republic is still reeling, that may yet engrave the defeat of the American democratic experiment.

To defend our country, to defend our values, to stand up for all that we know to be true and good about America, it is time to drop the rhetoric of the "War on Terror." It is time for comprehensive rethinking of American policy in Iraq, and a change in the direction of America's efforts in the broader campaign against Islamic militancy, both at home and abroad.

We need to use language that helps us remember who we are fighting, what we are fighting for, and to understand the best and smartest ways to fight. We need to join together, as Americans and with other nations, to oppose the tyranny of the minority, the tyranny of anti-democratic forces in our own society and in worldwide threats against us. We need strong, outspoken leaders and forward thinkers to assert a "Campaign For Democracy."

And as we move into the 2006 midterm election season, Americans need to declare political war against the "War on Terror," in the name of democracy — to protect us from the very thing which makes us less safe.

If Ayman al-Zawahari could cast a vote, there is no doubt that he would prefer to keep George Bush in power, along with a dithering Republican Congress and Senators like Joe Lieberman who are complicit with his aims, as long as possible. Bush has been the perfect rope-a-dope for al-Qaeda: in spite of early successes in Afghanistan, and a lot of smart police work that no President deserves credit for, the Bush administration has done more to facilitate the long-term objectives of worldwide jihadists, and to ensure the continued viability of terrorist resistance movements for a generation to come, than Bin Laden's imagination could ever have manufactured in his wildest dreams.

While the goals of real security are something that all can share, particularly with a realistic, non-hysterical assessment of actual threats and proportionate expenditures in response, the "War On Terror" has functioned as a smokescreen for the domination of American politics by a corrupt elite. Whatever its actual intent, it has served as a tactic to preserve the hegemony of moneyed interests at the expense of genuine national interest, keeping the discussion away from topics like Katrina that symbolize the people's interest. Every time a Democratic politician uses the words "War On Terror" they might as well be campaigning for Karl Rove, filling the air with pernicious distortions and framing the issues to cast George Bush in a Machiavellian, favorable glow.

The truth is that George Bush knows how to command an army, but he does not know how to lead a war — and he will hide behind the valor and virtue of our troops, when his own performance rightfully deserves scorn. He understands conquest, but not governance; executive authority, but not democracy. He has not grasped the reality that public relations battles are equally or more important to America's success abroad than military and tactical victories, and that the way to win hearts and minds is by standing solidly on peaceful, democratic principles — not by assassinating heads of state, brainwashing the public or propagating a moral quagmire. He has not understood that the tipping point in winning the peace is when people of the world are in sympathy with America's aims; and we will achieve this only when the means justifies the means, and nothing more.

And after all, America as a nation is not at war. George Bush is claiming wartime authority; the American military is fighting against resistance to an occupation; and the American government is on a war footing — or rather, is off-balance, basically standing on one leg. But the American people are not mobilized; and this is something we need to change. Because the battle we face is not something that governments and armies can do without support and participation of the people.

At a societal level, through culture and education, we need to declare a "spiritual jihad" against the military jihadis — to make a declaration of peace against those who embrace the use of violence to achieve political goals, or who would enforce the spread of their religion by attacking governments and nations. This must be our answer to all terrorist engineers of hate, whether their causes are just or unjust: that we will not be shaken from the foundations of a truth that is based on our own spiritual values, whose highest expression is found in political democracy and the free exchange of thought.

This is the essence of an ideological battle. As Bush has declared, it is, indeed, the seminal struggle of the 21st Century. But it applies equally to Islamic militants as to Christian fascists like Eric Rudolph (the Atlanta Olympic bomber) and others who assassinate obstetricians or bomb abortion clinics. It means defending against the hijacking of Christianity by virulent dogma as well as defusing messianic murder committed in the name of pan-Arab nationalism. And though there may be armed militias and covert cells operating both within and outside conventional state jurisdictions that we may need to defend ourselves against by force, it is a military campaign only in very small part.

The "Campaign For Democracy" is not a war that can be waged with guns — not if you want it to be won with votes. The real battle for freedom is fought with words; and its highest calling is the right to live in peace. If we want the support of other nations, noninterference must be our basic platform — not to withdraw from involvement, but to set the ground for collaborative relationships. We need a new name for America's role in the world: to put nation-building everywhere in the context of world-building. There is an honored place for astute law enforcement and counterintelligence; but the abuse of military power is the most counterproductive tactic in our arsenal.

The "Campaign For Democracy" is a spiritual and political movement first, a police and military operation last — a campaign more than a war, as it can be only when our ideals are the beacon of the world.

The "Campaign For Democracy" must take the place of the "War On Terror," because we have reached a moment in history when religion and politics, though distinctly separate, are implicitly conjoined. In these exceptional times, we need political action to protect our people and prevent against physical destructiveness, working in concert with spiritual action by community leaders and citizens in local spheres.

We need to form common cause with all those interfaith voices who adhere to nonviolent spiritual principles. If there is a common set of moral precepts that can unify followers of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and other religions — and a parallel ethical code among those who subscribe to atheist philosophies — we need to speak out together, in the strongest possible terms, against those who argue teachings contrary to the common interest of humanity.

Especially, we need to embolden and uplift voices of reason in the Islamic fold. Clearly, those who interpret Islam as an instrument of bloodshed have not merely set out an intellectual landmine for the civilized West, but have thrown down a gauntlet to the Islamic world at large.

Non-Muslims have viewed themselves mainly as bystanders to this drama until now, limited to encouraging and exhorting moderate Islamic voices to condemn the "perverse ideology," as Tony Blair described it — to declare the authority of the true Islam as a religion of peace. It is seen as a struggle that Islamic thinkers and teachers must resolve among themselves; and though it is the definitive issue determining the future of relations across cultural lines, it is a discourse in which the West has assumed little or no leverage or influence.

Notwithstanding this, of course, the Bush strategy has had profound impact in the Islamic world. The actions of America and Israel, considered as a unified attack with the "War On Terror" as a veil, have served to radicalize Islamic populations, enhancing the perceived righteousness of violently confrontational resistance and undermining moderate leaders more agreeable to Western interests.

That is why the "Campaign For Democracy" must stand in opposition to the "War On Terror," first and foremost.

But if the specter of a religious sect that embraces, encourages and even glorifies violence as a means to communicate its message indicates a schism within Islam, in the West this forms a subject of debate, disagreement and confusion. Islam is sufficiently distant from the mainstream of American culture that the average person cannot easily distinguish which is the true Islam, and which is the apostasy.

Is it, after all, a religion of mercy, tolerance, compassion and humane values, which supports individual freedom of expression? Or is there, as some would contend, a fundamental theological dissonance with these principles that derives from the central teachings of Islam and originated with Mohammed himself?

The question is so severe a challenge to the Western mind, and particularly to the Christian view of morality, that Pope Benedict XVI raised it in mid-September in a lecture before students at a German University. Though the Pope's speech drew ire from Islamic scholars and adherents around the world, it was aimed at the precise heart of the matter: a serious attempt to grapple with apparently irreconcilable differences between the Christian and Islamic ideas of God.

Under the duress of modern asymmetric warfare propelled by an Islamic vision, Western civilization, which owes much to the championing of individual freedom derived from Protestant doctrine, is being challenged to identify its core values. Behind the Pope's query to Islam is a stark recognition: if there is one God that speaks through all the different traditions and cultures of the world, then the character of Islamic extremism is not compatible with the moral constitution on which Western ideals are framed.

If, as an implied, paramount principle within Christianity, there is one God — regardless of differing ways of worship and the naming of 'isms' — then there is but one Church, which is not Catholicism per se, but the human race itself; and the choice is whether it will be ruled by force, or whether divine power has a claim to the territory of the human soul that is not enshrined with a weapon.

These are muddy waters. Facing this struggle squarely means wading deeply into theological discussions, and probing the conscience of humanity to comprehend the place of God and religion in everyday life. It means bringing the language of religion, offensive to some, a tool of demagoguery for others, but normally a more discreetly veiled reference, openly into public conversations and political dialogue.

There is a religious conflict consuming the world; and there are political battles being fought both militarily and philosophically. We cannot resolve all of these problems unless we address them coherently.

The fact that Western powers have sometimes taken actions that resemble the methodologies of terrorist factions — sometimes, perhaps, all-too-willing to adopt a veneer of comparable, if less explicit, divine justification — only serves to underscore the complexity of the challenge. Indeed, the "War on Terror" has so blurred the boundaries of America's moral foundation that it has been difficult to see it as the defense of a democracy that Americans recognize as their own. Moreover, while some in the Middle East may have initially viewed the terrorist attacks on America as deplorable, the brutal, misguided American response has legitimized the ideology of Islamic extremism, and drawn legions of new converts to the cause of Osama Bin Laden. As the "War on Terror" has answered evil with more and greater evil, it has demonstrated to many that Bin Laden was right all along in his accusations about America's nature and intentions.

We need to understand that we can only succeed in the "Long War" against the ideology and methodology of religious fascism — whether its immediate aim is religious "conversion by the sword"; political influence achieved through violence with the same longterm effect; or other, more subtle infringements on individual freedom in the name of God — by following a praxis of peace.

We will defend ourselves most effectively by strengthening our own democracy, empowering our own people to overcome the 'corporatocracy' — the forces of political fascism that threaten our own society.

We will defend ourselves most effectively against those who hate freedom by becoming, ourselves, yet freer and more open — more rights for women, more freedom of thought, standing up for the right to critique the Q'uran like any other work of literature, the right to interpret and analyze Mohammedism like any other historical event, the right to draw a picture, write a novel, sing a song.

Then is this, as Rumsfeld warns us, a "Munich moment"? Western Christendom must choose whether it will seek to appease the anger of the Muslim world — whether we will bow down to those who proclaim violence in the name of God, or stand up for a love that is greater than death.

But even by the slogan, "War On Terror," Bush is on the wrong side. His overwhelming emphasis toward militarism empowers the worst of inhuman intelligence — an ultimate degradation of society and civilization.

We will defend ourselves most effectively against those who attack us in the name of a just cause by becoming ourselves the champions of justice. Our primary answer must be to focus on diplomacy: to build a foreign policy that presents not America against the world, but America with the world, and for the world. We need to prosper an ethic of social change that will regain the respect of an embattled humankind still widely struggling for liberation from economic and political oppression. We must emphasize the power of our economic, educational and social institutions to build bridges of intercultural dialogue and understanding. And above all, the power of our ideals can move mountains and make friends out of enemies; but only if we live up to those ideals.

We need to strengthen, not weaken our own democratic system. We need to affirm the sense of national community that encourages all of us to take care of and look out for each other, so that we all participate in keeping our country and our communities safe. Resorting to tyranny, sanctioning torture, suspending the Constitution, imposing forms of martial law, violating the rights of our own citizens and inflicting widespread civilian casualties abroad weakens us morally, spiritually and politically, and will not bring victory in the end.

No, it is not as bad as all this, yet; but in the new world disorder we have come to know since 9/11, some of these dismal things have already come to pass; and nothing is off the table.

The principle of spiritual action is clear; and the yardstick for moral judgment is easy to obtain, if not always a snap to apply. It is an ideological teaching that we need to bring to the forefront of discussion. The words themselves may be contentious; and perhaps there are gentler ways of phrasing it than those it strikes me with. But the point is, how can you convince someone who may be captive of a different meaning of religion, and a different idea of God than your own? How can you stand up to an aggressive insult to your own God, if you are not willing to contend?

My own credo is this: I believe in the power of the individual to achieve the creative mastery of their own life; and I believe in the power of the human race to assume the conscious direction of our collective evolutionary destiny. These ideas, for me, have a religious foundation, because they embody the working of God in the world, the fulfillment of God's plan and the highest aspirations of humanity. But it is not necessary to state them as religious truths, because God is everywhere and in everything I see.

But if I defend this as an ultimate sacred circle, I must answer those who lay claim to possess some divine right or particle of God: whoever would put religion to the service of murder, war, killing, kidnapping and torture is an abomination that makes holiness itself a desolation. Whoever would put prayer toward seeking harm to others desecrates the very name of God. Make a long list, and let it be the province of damnation: whoever would use religion as the justification for evil is a worshipper of death, and not of life.

If we use the dualism of God and Satan, put it this way: no one will conquer Satan by killing a human being. No one will conquer death by killing God.

This is not the doctrine of any particular faith; but perhaps, these are statements many can agree upon.

As the New Testament says, "It is not flesh and blood against whom we contend, but spirits, airs, principalities and powers." This is the definition of what it calls "fighting in heaven" — a contest of ideas. Whether it lives up to its own rhetoric or not, Christianity represents a theology propounding the victory of love over death; and in Islamic extremism it meets a perplexing confrontation with a spiritual movement that seeks murderous annihilation of its adversaries, proscribes extreme corporal punishments, and embraces military subjugation as the means to topple or influence governments — deeds performed in the name of God, with the object of imposing religious law.

This is the crux of the conflict, as I see it: the point that religious thinkers and moral ethicists need to converge upon. While few would disavow the right of self-defense where violent extremists may be lurking, the real answer to religious fascism, in my view, the tool of transcendence and our most potent weapon is the essential understanding of God itself, which we as a species need to grasp and apply. It is the historical imperative of our generation and the next.

But in the short term, the real, extreme danger is more fundamental and closer to home. In the demise of the Cold War, America faces the greatest enemy we have ever faced: power itself. Unchecked by any counterbalancing opponent with parity deserving military respect, the lone superpower has been free to exercise authority as she deems fit. America has shrugged off its allies, flaunted the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, dismissed caution and become not a saviour but a rogue superpower in the eyes of much of the world. George Bush and Dick Cheney, who invaded Iraq precisely because they could do so, because no one could tell them otherwise, have therefore shown us our greatest weakness, and placed America at the most vulnerable point in its entire history, both from internal and external threats.

Mistaking disaster for "crisis" in the Middle East, Condoleeza Rice (paying homage to Chinese philosophy) has seen "opportunity" where fiasco exists. Crisis may, in fact, reveal the most strategic approach to a situation; but many of America's difficulties abroad have resulted exactly because crises have been ignored, and therefore favorable circumstances and advantageous moments have gone entirely unrecognized. Situations that were merely difficult at the outset have become intractable, or have mushroomed into clusters of problems that are each spawning more and greater difficulties.

There is a process visible here, a progression through stages of change that is not merely in the eye of the beholder. When the path of policy leads into quagmire, staying the course merely takes us from bad to worse. Pulling up with the right leg drives the left leg deeper, until we are now up to our waists and looking to catch tree branches with any rope we can find. Just because some initial mistakes have been corrected, and we are no longer digging as vigorously as we started, does not mean we have eliminated the fundamental flaw.

The uncorrected mistake that got us here is the policy decision called the "War On Terror." Quagmire has led to fiasco, and it is discernibly worse than the status quo ante. But this is not the end of the ballgame, and the score is going higher. This is why I have been sounding an alarm from the earliest point that I could see the direction of events in 2003, and took it to a national stage beginning in 2004.

America IS special. America has a special place in history, a special role in the world — an extraordinary regard of the highest magnitude. But America is not invulnerable from the consequences of its own mistakes; and a continuation of Bush administration ineptitude right now threatens a disintegration of world order and American power that most of us find hard to accept and can scarcely conceive.

I believe there have been some defeats already that cannot be overcome. And even if we are able to change course soon, escaping a negative outcome will only be realized at great cost.

But the resiliency of the American system offers profound, extraordinary hopefulness. The coming midterm elections present a remarkable opportunity for a Wave of Change, a tidal movement sweeping out calcified incumbents on a scale not seen since the Republican takeover of 1994. Whether or not everyone agrees that the vote will be a referendum on the Bush Presidency, the fact is that if Republicans maintain control in 2006, Bush will claim yet more political capital, and although there may be trends already slowing him down somewhat, there will be very little left to dissuade America from proceeding on the path that leads from fiasco to conflagration.

If there is to be a defense of democracy, it may well begin and end on November 7th, in the hands of the American people to determine their own fate. It is always a truism in American politics to say that the future of the world is at stake, because of America's global influence; but this time, the direction of American world leadership is definitely on the line.

I am not a Democrat — I've been registered as an Independent for more than 30 years. But I organized and facilitated a focus group based on the legacy of the late Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone in early 2004; and I campaigned nationally for Ralph Nader's Independent Presidential bid later that year. Perhaps I ought to note that I was never part of Nader's inner circle of advisers, though I offered some strategic thinking that was most distinctly not accepted.

In any case, I am not an aficionado of the party system; and Democrats as a group do not inspire confidence in me. But I have often felt that, with appropriate education and training, Democrats could learn to function as a viable opposition party; and I've been supportive of those who have been working to create reform from the inside.

I suspect that a great many Americans similarly mistrust the Democratic Party, for reasons that are quite well-deserved. But if ever there was a time when a change of course is called for, even though the navigator may appear hapless and bumbling and lacking a coherent center, that time is now. And the Democratic Party holds the answer.

If Democrats sweep to majorities this Fall in the House, or the Senate, or both, changes in the leadership positions of these institutions will drastically curtail Bush's laissez-faire, and the carte blanche he has been given for most of the past six years by Republican loyalists who have all but abolished the independence of the Congress.

A few senior Republicans have recently taken wise and prudent actions to help straighten the crookedness of Bush's undemocratic ways, and some have even expressed regret for the abdication of Congress' traditional oversight role during the Bush Presidency until now. But in Democratic hands, oversight will return to Congress as it has not been seen since vastly different winds were blowing in the corridors of power. Compromise will become a necessity in governance, and inclusion of dissenting points of view, to an extent that Republicans have not allowed in their eagerness to deliver virtually unbridled authority to the Executive branch, and enforce unquestioned dominance of their own agenda.

The consequences will be tangible. For example, many recall how Harry Truman, a Democratic Senator serving under Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the thick of World War Two, conducted relatively unflinching probes of Defense Department expropriations, cutting costs and eliminating waste wherever possible. In a more sensible age, it was simply the responsible service one would expect from the leaders of a nation whose people shared investment in the war, shouldered common sacrifice, grieved together at the pain of loss, supported one other and supported our troops with inspiration drawn forth by a President who declared that there was nothing to fear except fear itself. By contrast, under fairly comparable conditions, literally tens of billions of dollars have disappeared in Iraq — wheelbarrows of cash for which written accounting does not even exist — while Republican leaders have not so much as permitted public questioning of the Presidential policy of disbursing no-bid contracts.

And in a "War On Terror" that makes more and more Americans feel less and less safe, it is considered so unpatriotic to question the President that some Republican leaders will instantaneously rebut criticism by suggesting that anyone who does so — even, let's say, a retired military General and former Secretary of State — is more interested in supporting al-Qaeda than standing up for America.

It is not merely evidence that the Republican majority is clinging desperately to power, so that no smear is too crude, no twisted argument can be convoluted enough; but the "War On Terror" is itself a dark vision that has hung over Washington like a cloud, a fog that has dimmed our national imagination, a fabric of illusion that Bush has used to keep the world spellbound.

The point of criticizing Bush is precisely that Americans want to win in whatever struggle we face; but the Bush approach is not only not working, it is exacerbating the problem. And as vehement as the Bush team's response against those who disagree, we must push back even harder. We cannot say it strongly enough or too many times, that the Bush claim to be defending America against terrorism is the real house of cards.

And it must be the key and central issue of these midterm elections. We need the counterweight of an opposition party in Washington which is not merely the weaker side of the same coin as the Republicans in the White House, not merely a gaggle of conniving opportunists waiting for the ruling party to fumble their responsibilities, not a scheming crowd of obstructionists seeking to embarrass and trip their political adversaries, but a loyal opposition composed of leaders who actually stand for something.

We need leaders who will put their country first and party second, like soldiers being sent to war, who do not ask whether their President is a Republican or a Democrat; we need patriots who always want an American President to succeed. We ask for a President who will represent America to the world and make us proud; who will move the country forward and not take us into a pit.

It's too late for that. The die was cast in elections past, and events conspired to grant us the most supreme tragedy that has ever touched our nation. Now the danger has never been greater; and yet the hope has never been brighter, for America and all people.

As Darcy Burner, Congressional candidate from Washington State's 8th District, said in her address to 400 members of the Democratic National Committee this past August, "We can turn this from one of the most dangerous moments in American history to one of the biggest opportunities we have ever had to create a new world."

With Darcy Burner in Washington State, Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee, and Ned Lamont in Connecticut, the possibilities seem real. But if the balance tilts in Washington next month, who knows which Democratic Party will show its face? If Lamont prevails over Lieberman in Connecticut, the mandate will be clear. But one way or another, we need the Democratic Party to step up for the interests of the American people: not to play it safe, not to be cute, not pretending to be something they're not; but to recognize the gravity of the moment and the meaning of history.

We need voters across the country to send a clear message, an unequivocal indictment of the "War On Terror."

We need a change in the tenor of the times; and we need a "Campaign For Democracy" to elect a new vision of what the world can become.

We need a renewal of Congressional oversight: to restore honor and maintain viability for the American military; to monitor foreign policy so that someone is minding the store; to provide accountability for intelligence failures, miscues and misdirection; to insist on competent management of the government's business, to the degree delegated by the Constitution to the Legislative branch.

And if we cannot start over in Iraq, we need to understand what we are doing there, why and how we have failed, and what we can do about it. It is not a simple question. As United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on September 13th, "America cannot stay in Iraq, and America cannot leave."

Perhaps, three and a half years after the war ended with the Fall of Baghdad, the central problem is still the same as it was, or as it should have been if the Bush team knew what they were doing: not how to get American troops out, but how to include the international community in the aftermath of a messy war of America's choosing, in a region that does not welcome this intrusion. Changing the nature of the foreign presence in Iraq, to set up a governing authority not ruled by Americans, may well have been key to creating a workable formula for domestic Iraqi security.

But part of the elusive complexity of the whole debacle is that solutions once possible may no longer be achievable. There are many different angles to be considered, both short term and longterm; and each one of them has been continually changing. America's interests may be analyzed from numerous standpoints — terrorism, regional issues, global relations, economics, to name a few — and they are not necessarily the same now as before the invasion, or as they were from the outset of the occupation. Even the moral questions are not straightforward, if justice is the aim.

If there is a constructive approach, perhaps it begins with the humbling of America: to recognize that America's interests are, after all, not the decisive metrics. Iraq is not an American fiefdom, to do with as we wish; and never was, or will be. It's not about us. It's about the Iraqi people, their interests, and their needs; and America's best interest, in terms of our own national security and from every other consideration, is to provide the best possible outcome from an Iraqi perspective.

This is not a manner of thinking that comes naturally to Americans. Certainly, the Bush administration never took the trouble to understand the society that they were invading, and consequently, from day one of the occupation they have been unable to provide even a semblance of public safety, let alone to govern the evolution of that society toward an harmonious system. Although it has taken longer to become apparent, the same weakness seems to be surfacing in Afghanistan. It is as if the Bush personnel are watching a different screen than the one on which events are really happening. It's hard to say what they are really looking at, and one doesn't want to assume it's completely off the mark. But it seems ultimately as if their attention has been more absorbed by decisions about which of their friends are going to get jobs, or which American corporations will get a slice of the pie, rather than meeting the needs of another nation's people that they have, by military conquest, taken responsibility for. It is an insular and self-centered approach to foreign affairs: the very definition of hubris, and the perfect recipe for disaster.

Given these factors, it is not really appropriate for any American politician to pretend they have all the quick answers in a nutshell. Calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops has had the useful effect of forcing the issue; but it has also allowed George Bush to set up a straw man for debate purposes, and delude the public with phony arguments. The movement inspired by Cindy Sheehan a little more than a year ago touched a deep emotional chord, but it was essentially inarticulate; and it did not convince Americans that there was a valid alternative plan.

But the real issue that it confronted, indirectly — the judgment that Americans seem finally ready to accept — is simply that George Bush actually doesn't know what he is doing. It's not that his left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing, like some sort of disconnect between the different parts of an organization. The left hand doesn't even know what the left hand is doing — there's a basic disconnect with the brain.

It does not bode well. How will Democrats succeed at influencing the direction of the "War On Terror," if Bush remains staunchly incapable of recognizing the consequences of his own actions? One has to believe that the will of the voters, heard only dubiously in the past two Presidential elections, is finally capable of making a difference. And then, it is up to Democrats to portray a clear, alternative course: perhaps, the "Campaign For Democracy."

Call it what you will, but the greatness and lasting power of the American system will be proven in November if voters send the Democratic Party to Washington to help take responsibility for the mistakes of George Bush. Finally, our public discussion may begin to turn toward identifying which of his many mistakes we can overcome quickly, and which will take a longer time. Mistakes not only in terms of what has been done, but in the way things have been implemented; mistakes and missteps that continue, as for one example, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger pointed out to Charlie Rose during the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Bush administration put themselves in a public diplomatic wrangle over "who is in favor of an immediate ceasefire, against who is in favor of more casualties."

Whether Bush made this mess himself, or was helped along by others in both parties, is less important than finding the way forward. Democrats in the next session of Congress, if they hold the reins, should not be obsessed about who is at fault for current conditions, or who is to blame for our situation. We know that Bush is the architect of much misfortune; and this is why we need to speak out against him right now. But our main concern is not to punish Bush, or to hold him accountable for criminal misconduct, as much as to take responsibility for his incompetence, to make amends and atonement, to set the country and the world on a creative and not a destructive path.

More than merely tactical modifications at the margin — more than what the U.S. military has already done in continuing attempts to improve performance in Iraq — we need to politically defeat the "War On Terror" as an essentially misguided policy. We need to correct failures of political leadership by George Bush, domestically and globally, that are causing continuing harm.

And we do need to show the world that the truth matters, that America is a government of laws, and that our Constitution is still a treasure for all humankind to admire, to appreciate, to give thanks for. Indeed, if there is a silver lining at the end of this, an opportunity for legislative triumph that a divided government in Washington can achieve during the remaining years of Bush's lame duck Presidency, perhaps it is to finally address the issues of comprehensive election reform that were swept under the rug when Bush first took office six years ago.

How much more we might remember Bush — how much more we might regard him already as a uniter and not a divider, if he had moved quickly in the early days of his Presidency to help correct the fundamental flaws in our electoral system that were exposed in Florida in 2000!

Perhaps Democrats in 2007 will be able to show what it truly means to get beyond partisanship, to act for the good of the country, by dealing with the issues of verifiable voting, fair administering of election procedures, Electoral College reform, instant runoff voting, outlawing gerrymandering, opening Presidential debates to all qualified candidates, and so much more — to finally begin learning the lessons of Florida in 2000, and Ohio in 2004.

And then, perhaps, the prototype established by the founders of this country — still a young nation, but now with one of the oldest among modern political systems — perhaps this democratic experiment will yet succeed, in a hopeful world, to prove the superiority of a worldwide movement that has not yet fulfilled its destiny, the movement toward freedom that stands behind the "Campaign For Democracy."

Michael Butler

Tonawanda, New York

2 October 2006

2006 Michael Butler

Permission granted for noncommercial distribution with inclusion of this notice.

Public appearances: address inquiries .