Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Who’s to Blame?

By Claude Bohn

On a recent Sunday (5/23/04) morning net surfing session, I came across a rather thought-provoking article, in the Courier-Journal. It was headlined: “Who’s to blame? 9/11: We all are.”

          The author, a Mr. William T. Warner – identified as “a Louisville attorney” and “a former Navy Intelligence officer” – makes several good and valid points. But, in my opinion, his conclusions fail to hit the mark.

          He admits, that: Yes, our so-called “intelligence system” failed; our government (obviously) failed, on 9/11, in its primary responsibility to the citizens of this country – to protect our lives, liberties, and property. And I agree! But, he fails to mention the fact that those in government (as with Pearl Harbor, and our entry into the first World War – to name but a few instances) have been actively courting such a disaster for years, through a meddling, intrusive, overreaching, imperialistic, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL foreign policy agenda! In fact, the entire 9/11 travesty is merely another classic (and tragic) example of what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) terms: “blowback”! 

[“Blowback,” is simply a term used to define the (predictable) “unintended consequences” of such a foreign policy agenda. It means, simply, that if you insist on poking a stick into a hornet’s nest, you can expect, sooner or later, to be stung.] Mr. Warner, a “former Naval intelligence officer,” SHOULD know this.

But, he seems to believe that it was, rather, our antiquated national security apparatus – built to deal with the moribund Soviet Russian threat – which needed “updating” in order to deal with new foes and new threats. Perhaps. But even a near-to-total police state – such as Israel’s – seems inadequate to protect against a committed bunch of hornets. So, I remain skeptical. Rather, what was (and IS) REALLY needed is for this government to begin minding it’s OWN business (and the Constitution) and to cease poking hornet’s nests!

          He then makes an even more dubious argument – with which I partially agree - as to why this failure is directly traceable to our own failure, as citizens of a democracy, to be responsible for our own government. And he seems to place the blame for this failure on our complacency, our apathy, our ignorance, and our failure to use the power of the vote. In this regard, he makes several interesting points:

Point #1 – “Three other characteristics we should understand about the Washington political class: first, is its permanence, starting with the Congress, which now has a reelection rate — 95 percent plus — higher than the one-party Soviet Parliament at the height of Stalin's tyranny. Even the presidency is homogenized from one administration to the next — maybe not in its talk, but certainly in its walk. As Pat Buchanan truly said, the only thing at issue in national elections now is who gets to ride in the limousines”

Point #2 – “Second is the deification of money and all the rituals that focus on money worship, particularly that intricately choreographed, only-in-Washington embrace of political contributions and policymaking in ways that most of us used to call bribery. Duty? Honor? Country? Forget it.”

Point #3 – “And, third, is the effectiveness of the Faustian bargain the Washington political class has made with everybody else. They keep the good times rolling — SUVs, 401(k)s, vacation homes — and we let them do anything they want.”

He then asks us to consider:

 “ In the 2000 presidential election, citizen participation — those who voted — was so low that a president was elected by only about 11 percent of the citizens of this country who were eligible to participate in that election by registering and voting.”

First of all, the number of people participating in elections has historically been rather low – with a few notable exceptions. In fact, in the beginning, when we were a republic, rather than a democracy, a goodly majority of citizens weren’t even illegible to vote! – women, Blacks, non-property owning white men, etc.

Furthermore, the problem isn’t really who does, or who doesn’t vote; the REAL problem is that the office of president, itself, has become a far more powerful position than the founders could have even imagined! As Lord Acton once said: “Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; and, with so much power vested in one man, it’s hard to imagine installing ANY mere mortal in that office who wouldn’t eventually become corrupted.  [And this assumes that anyone who could seriously be considered for such an office wasn’t already corrupted to begin with.]

Additionally, at least some of the current high reelection rate – as well as the apathy that inspires low voter turnout - I believe, has to do with the fact that at least some of those potential voters (myself, included) have seen, all too clearly, and all too often, that “throwing the rascals out” doesn’t really work very well – as Mr. Warner seems to acknowledge. Incumbent,inschumbent! Electing a fresh Democrat, or Republican face, regardless of campaign rhetoric, has virtually no effect on the overall agenda. Has it?

Secondly, see Points 2 and 3, above. Our political class isn’t alone in its addiction to money and “money worship”. The whole idea of bread and circuses is an ancient tool, and it has always worked; and nowhere more effectively than in democracies – which this so-called republic has effectively become. Besides, as Mr. Nock pointed out – in a 1939 essay, entitled, “The Criminality of the State”:

“…democratic State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other. Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics:  ‘You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.’”

Finally, regarding Mr. Warner’s statement about low voter turnout: This seems to me to be yet another lame attempt to “scapegoat” those of us who have recognized the abject failure of the political system, of democracy, and have simply chosen to no longer play the game – even IF, it really is, “the only game in town”. [Let’s say, for example, that “the only game in town” involves following everyone else off the closest bridge – would YOU play?]

IF Points #1 and #3 (above) are valid – and I believe they are – then it makes no sense, to “blame” those of us who have recognized these facts and the futility (and insanity) of “playing the game”. Does it? In effect, our refusal to participate in this thimblerigging, which we euphemistically call the election process, is a loud (and growing) “vote,” for the ONLY real option – “None of the above!”

Mr. Warner says: “So who was at fault?” [for 9/11] And he tells us: “… we, as citizens, set ourselves up for Sept. 11, by simply walking away from our most basic obligations as citizens – as well as our responsibility to each other – by failing to inform ourselves, by ignoring our Cassandras and truth-tellers, and by not acting as free citizens need to act.”

By “we,” I can only assume Mr. Warner means ALL of us; but “we,” would, then, necessarily include those “Cassandras and truth-tellers,” who Mr. Warner says “we” failed to heed. And, in many instances, these “Cassandras and truth-tellers” are the same non-voters whom he castigates for failing to fulfill their “most basic obligations as citizens.” So, how are “we” to blame for 9/11? [Answer? “We” AREN’T!! Though the clear majority of “us” certainly are.]

That is, those “Cassandras and truth-tellers” who have for years been attempting (in vain) to warn their fellow citizens of the inevitable consequences of our foreign (and domestic) policies are, in MY opinion, blameless. Like their namesake, they were (and are) fated to go unheeded.

          In closing, then, let me add this: There’s an old saying; I can’t remember where I first heard it, or who originally said it but, it would appear, it is a valid statement (in MY opinion, at least) – “If voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal.” So don’t be surprised - regardless of for whom you vote for (or against), or whether you vote at all; regardless of how well, or poorly, you inform yourself on the “issues” – when nothing changes. Except, perhaps, for the worse. Tell ‘em you heard it from Cassandra.

(Editor’s note:  "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."   --  Edmund Burke)

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN