I'm amazed how provincial some people are about this - several billion non-USers are extremely alarmed by the Bush admin. *They* think something is different - as Zizek put it, one of those differences of degree becoming a difference of kind. We owe it to the outside world to get rid of the thugs.
===============
Exactly.
The Bush admin is dangerous for reasons that we can see clearly - the reckless militarism - and for reasons that creep beneath the surface.
They are seeking to change, permanently we must assume, the character of the culture. They wish to eradicate all areas of American life that do not fit into their vision - such as it is. This is why Ashcroft, to cite a prominent example, is so important: he seeks to create new norms that will outlast his tenure.
Already, by invading Iraq, the Busheviks have succeeded in creating an occupation that will continue in one form or another for years to come - regardless of who's sitting in the White House. There are other violent endeavors underway which are being made permanent features of US foreign policy. Collectively these actions should be seen as little steps towards global suicide.
If the year was 1740, this would be bad but not a threat to the health of the species. Considering the destructiveness of the weapons at the world's disposal and the threats we face requiring international cooperation but which are being neglected while the US attempts to reverse its decline through force, the potential for a bad end for everyone - sooner or later - should not be dismissed as alarmist fantasy.
I believe Zizek laid out the stakes effectively in his essay, *THE IRAQ WAR: WHERE IS THE TRUE DANGER?* an excerpt from which is copied below.
DRM
.....
from -
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-iraq-war-where-is-the-true-danger.html
THE IRAQ WAR: WHERE IS THE TRUE DANGER? Slavoj Zizek. Lacan.com 03.13.2003.
<snip>
We do have here a kind of perverted Hegelian "negation of negation": in a first negation, the populist Right disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the "foreign threat"; in a second negation, the "decent" democratic center, in the very gesture of pathetically rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message in a "civilized" way - in-between, the ENTIRE FIELD of background "unwritten rules" has already changed so much that no one even notices it and everyone is just relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And the true danger is that something similar will happen with the "war on terror": "extremists" like John Ashcroft will be discarded, but their legacy will remain, imperceptibly interwoven into the invisible ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed, since their message will be incorporated into the mainstream.
...
full at link above
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree