It is funny – or maybe it's not funny at all – that the
editors of the New York Times have a solution at their fingertips for the
security situation of every country except their own.
For example, they can and they do – in an instant –
articulate a solution for China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan and just
about everyone else in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. And yet,
here they are, writing a piece about America 's security situation; an
editorial that is devoid of a single hint as to how the country could solve its
own problems.
It is that the editors of the Times believe they live in a
democracy; the reason why they know everyone else's problem stems from the fact
that they are not a democracy. Thus, to solve their problems, those countries
must adopt the democratic form of governance, say the editors of the New York
Times, and this will bring to them instant bliss.
So we ask: What is this democracy they talk about
incessantly? And they say democracy, like the other systems of governance, is
an ideological package-deal. What separates democracy from the others, however,
is that it allows the people to govern themselves by electing representatives
who do the bidding for them. This being the case, democracy is a
self-correcting system, they go on to say, because it includes a subsystem of
checks and balances; also the ultimate arbiter in the form of an electorate
that periodically evaluates the performance of the incumbent governing team,
and decides its fate.
What this means ultimately is that democracy has – built
into it – an immune system that is analogous to what we see in biological
organisms. Its function is to help the democracy heal itself when something
goes wrong. But we know that organisms get violently ill at times, even die as
a result. We must, therefore, question if the same cannot happen to a society
that adheres to the democratic form of governance.
The answer is yes, the same can and does happen to
democratic systems. A case in point is discussed in a piece that was written by
the editors of the New York Times under the title: “A Fearful Congress Sits Out
the War Against ISIS,” published in the Times on December 26, 2015. This is a
very telling editorial because the security of a nation – as exemplified by the
peace it seeks to establish and the wars it seeks to avoid – is supposed to be
the highest priority of the governing team. And yet, America 's team thinks differently,
say the editors of the Times, but do not help with a suggestion of their own.
Why is that? Because those editors only know how to solve the problems of
everyone else … something they do with a snap of their fingers.
So then, what does the editorial say? It says that America 's
legislative branch of government – known as the Congress – is fearful of
something. There is an ongoing war and a looming threat that must be addressed,
say the editors, but the representatives of the people are afraid to tackle the
subject; so they sit it out and do nothing. And we wonder: if the
representatives behave in this manner with regard to the highest item on their
priority list, what do they do with the other items. And the question that
comes to mind is this: Can we still consider America 's democracy to be a
self-correcting system? If not, can its adherents continue to claim it is the
best system ever devised?
But wait a minute. The fact is that the members of Congress
are tackling the subject, say the editors of the New York Times; it is just
that they are not tackling it honestly or frontally or in a manner that would
allow the people to evaluate the merit of what they do. Here is a montage of
the words and expressions they use in several paragraphs to make those points:
“The spending bill Congress passed includes explicit mentions
of the military campaign and a budget line that will allow the Pentagon to
continue fighting … the White House and leaders of Congress have given up on
drafting a new authorization for the use of military force that would set clear
parameters for the conflict … lawmakers see plenty of risk in casting a vote
that could come back to haunt them … they are unwisely emboldening the
executive branch to overstep its powers.”
And we ask: Is this an ideological organism that has gotten
violently ill? Is it at risk of dying? Look what the editors say is happening
in other democracies that are tackling the same subject: “There is political
consensus in the West that a military response is needed to fight ISIS . Congress has been unwilling to hold the type of
substantive deliberations lawmakers in Germany
and Britain
conducted on what they are willing to contribute to the effort.”
Now, given that we readily acknowledge the existence of a
difference between the democratic system and the other systems, would it not be
appropriate to ask what the difference may be between the fearless democracies
of Europe and the fearful democracy of America?
When fear obliterates the checks and balances that bind the
Legislator and the Executive, and when it keeps them in a permanent state of
paralysis, does it not mean that the time has come to diagnose America 's
illness and work to find a remedy for it?
What if we begin by stating the truth that contrary to the
functioning democracies of Europe, the Congress of the United States wakes up from deep sleep and revs
up its engine only when considering Israel 's
business, then falls asleep after fulfilling the needs of that entity without
taking up America 's
business?
What if we consider this to be the unmistakable sign that America 's democracy has been corrupted
deliberately so as to fulfill the needs of Israel ,
always Israel and no one but
Israel ?