THE SHRUB PUTS DOWN ROOTS
NAFTA and other recent trade agreements rep-resent the largest surrender of national, state, and local sovereignty in America's history-all with but the most cursory debate. Today, such anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, and anti-national agreements are treated as just business as usual by an elite and media that increasingly views America more as a mail drop than as a homeland. The Washington Post, for example, buried this major story on its business page:
The Bush administration signaled that it will open the US border at least partially to Mexican trucks, after an arbitration panel ruled that Washington's ban on such vehicles violates the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The administration's stance marks a sharp departure from that of the Clinton White House concerning one of the most controversial aspects of NAFTA. And although administration officials declined to say how or when the border might be opened, the prospect of Mexican trucks rolling onto US highways triggered an outpouring of warnings from the Teamsters union and other groups that argue that public safety would be endangered. The 1993 free-trade agreement, which reduced or eliminated barriers to US-Mexico trade in a host of sectors, contained a phased-in provision allowing Mexican trucks to haul goods directly into the United States provided they meet US safety standards. While President Bill Clinton championed NAFTA, he bowed to pressure from the Teamsters by refusing to open the border, asserting that Mexican trucks couldn't be adequately monitored for safety problems. Paul Blustein, WASHINGTON POST: <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35445-2001Feb6.html>
Fewer than 1 percent of Mexican trucks entering the US are inspected. The US has neither the facilities nor the personnel to inspect every truck. Although Mexico pledged to institute a comprehensive truck safety program when NAFTA went into effect, seven years later, that country still has not instituted an effective system. Mexico does not limit the time drivers spend behind the wheel. Some drivers report being required to drive 36 hours straight with just a six-hour break before returning to the road. Mexico's hazardous materials control system is much more lax than the US system. Mexican truck carriers last year were more than three times as likely to have safety deficiencies as US carriers. "Mexican Truck Report," PUBLIC CITIZEN, <www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html>.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell once said of his friend, Richard L. Armitage, "I would trust him with my life, my children, my reputation, everything I have." Indeed, since the two men met 20 years ago, they have spoken as often as five times a day, trading gossip, swapping advice, and hashing out each other's crisis of the moment. Today, President Bush reunited the two confidants, announcing his intention to appoint Mr. Armitage as deputy secretary of state. . . . TPR: A ghost of the Vietnam and Iran-Contra disasters, Armitage's appointment is another sign that the Bush administration not only remembers history but is content to repeat it. ERIC SCHMITT, "Richard Armitage, <http://prorev.com/bush3.htm#armitage>
To longtime defense policy observers and arms control advocates, watching the restoration of Rumsfeld to the Pentagon has been disconcerting. Though genuflected to by the Washington press corps and political establishment as a genteel graybeard, the real Rumsfeld may be, in fact, much closer to Darth Vader, both on defense issues and as a practitioner of politics. "The notion that he's a gray eminence," laments William Hartung, the World Policy Institute's veteran defense analyst and a longtime Rumsfeld watcher, "is, in large part, based on press laziness."
During his confirmation hearings and in the press, there has been hardly any mention of Rumsfeld's participation in a slew of far-right organizations going back to the 1970s. Nor has there been any real acknowledgment that the watershed ballistic missile panel he headed in 1998 was not the level-headed "bipartisan" effort it claimed to be but, rather, a distressing flashback to one of the most outrageous intelligence manipulations of the Cold War . . . . And while a few profiles have made passing references to Rumsfeld's Machiavellian power politicking during the Ford era, few seem to comprehend just how formidable he is likely to be within the Bush administration. Indeed, there's a striking parallel between the new administration's power structure and the regime Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney effectively controlled nearly 30 years ago, in which the duo set up a dominant advisory axis to a perceptibly weak-on-national-security president, in part by marginalizing a high-profile secretary of state seen as too moderate. Back then, Rumsfeld had a reliable coterie of protégés and comrades he could depend on in the service of furthering his goals. Three decades later, a new generation of Rumsfeld admirers is obsessed with the idea that a completely effective nuclear missile defense system can be deployed, giving America the power to use "peace through strength" in dealing with the rest of the world. JASON VEST, AMERICAN PROSPECT, <www.prospect.org/print/V12/4/vest-j.html>
After a presidential transition remarkable for its speed and efficiency, the first splits are starting to appear within the ranks of the Bush Administration over policy, portfolios, and power. In one of several looming turf battles, Richard Cheney, the Vice President, already firmly established as President Bush's most influential adviser, is seeking to tighten his grip on national security policy at the expense of Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, according to Newsweek magazine. At the same time, there are early signs that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, may not be on the same wavelength as his colleagues, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, the hard-edged Defense Secretary. Mr. Cheney is swiftly emerging in a prime ministerial role, as the former Defense Secretary has accrued more clout than any Vice President of recent times. In his latest move, Mr. Cheney is making an attempt to chair the so-called "principals committee," where Cabinet-level secretaries hammer out foreign policy and defense options for the President.
BEN MACINTYRE, TIMES, LONDON
<www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,3-82837,00.html>
CASH FOR CHRIST: Despite a few bloated verbal bones to secular programs, it is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, in his Cash for Christ Crusade, is making an invidious and illegal distinction specifically favoring "faith-based" organizations over skill-based or community-based ones (of which religious groups, of course, might be a part). We suspect that an examination of statements by Bush, his aides, and mentors over the past couple of years would reveal this strong and improper bias for funding religious rather than non-religious social service organizations.
Witness this from the NY Post: "New York Cardinal-designate Edward Egan met yesterday with President Bush at the White House and later praised Bush's proposal to give churches a bigger role in solving social problems. Egan said he told Bush his chief concern was that the president's 'faith-based initiative' would remove the religious emphasis from Catholic charity work. 'I will not be secularized,' Egan said. But Egan said Bush reassured him that churches wouldn't have to de-emphasize their spiritual message if they took government money. 'I was delighted with what I heard,' Egan said."
There are other problems with Bush's dollars for deities scheme:
·By emphasizing faith over competence, Bush's plan is raising hackles among social service professionals. This insupportable emphasis provides further evidence that religiosity is central to the Bush scheme and hence it is unconstitutional.
·Bush has been unable even to control the spin on the subject, so it is unlikely that he could control the actual outcome of the program. For example, even at Bush's own news conference, potential beneficiaries were not denying that they intended to use the funds for conversion as well as service. The Washington Post reported, "At a White House briefing, the Rev. Mark L. Scott, a Pentecostal minister from Boston, said the Bible might be used if the youth program he heads, the Ella J. Baker House, reaps new government funds. Asked if such a program was designed to help potential converts 'see the light,' Scott said, 'Right.'"
·Religious fundamentalism involves mind reprogramming not totally dissimilar to that accomplished by the drugs it is meant to help wean sinners from. While admittedly, as George Bush himself may have learned, rote recitation of biblical bromides in place of actual thought is preferable, say, to flying a plane or driving a car while drunk, as government policy-the question of religion aside--it represents an unconstitutional intrusion on freedom of speech since the subjects are no longer free to think as they wish.
·Some religious groups are already expressing concern as to the effect that Bush's program will have on their own independence. This is a worthy concern because the effect will not be insignificant. The capital itself is a prime example of a place where church and state have been co-mingled to the disadvantage of each. Marion Barry was particularly effective at politically defanging both church and secular non-profits by the clever disbursement of government funds. Others have followed suit. For example, during a battle over an initiative that would have provided for a deposit on soda bottles, the bottling industry spread its largesse around town. Suddenly, behind the city's churches, "faith-based" recycling centers popped up, and the deposit initiative went down in flames. Similarly, Fannie Mae--which has a congressional exemption from paying some $300 million in city taxes-keeps a lid on complaints about this scheme by making much smaller donations to churches and other groups around DC. So extensive and effective are such payoffs, one wonders whether there even would have been a civil rights movement if the segregationists had simply thought of the idea of faith-based bribery.
--Sam Smith is editor of THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, 1312 18th St. NW #502, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 232-5544, Fax: (202) 234-6222. For a free trial subscription to the bi-monthly hard copy edition and regular e-mail updates, send e-mail and terrestrial address to <ssmith@igc.org>.