So rather than argue over xxxxxx, it would nice to figure out other names for it.
..............
Let's walk this around a bit and see where we end up.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) insists that the US must seize the 'opportunity' created by the USSR's demise. PNAC asserts that power must be boldly, unashamedly exercised - decisively and without looking back - to create the conditions they want to see: prolonged American hegemony. The invasion of Iraq makes more sense when understood as being inspired - at least in part - by this dangerously impatient idea.
To me, it appears that the Bush administration's authoritarian policies are fueled by a similar notion: the Executive branch should rapidly move to do what it wants and leave other government branches and disparate activists behind, scratching their heads and shouting their complaints to the wind.
Brushing xxxxxx and its heavy baggage aside, and digging deeper back into the past, this looks like a reawakened Augustan maneuver: - i.e., provide a pleasing explanation for your actions (in our case, the relentlessly used "security"), pay lip service to the forms and traditions of democratic government but proceed forward without regret or reflection. Augustus completely re-worked Roman government in lasting ways by doing precisely this (along with employing a complex web of threats and flatteries, rich rewards and terrible punishments).
I believe the Bush admin hopes to do the same for Washington.
Recall these words from Zizek regarding the invasion of Iraq:
<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.
[...]
>From Lacan.com: "THE IRAQ WAR: WHERE IS THE TRUE DANGER?"
Link - <http://www.lacan.com/iraq.htm>
The Bush administration's Augustan Maneuver is intended, I believe, to create new norms. How do you create these norms? By laying the ideological groundwork via endless repetition of key ideas (War on Terror) and, by doing what you damn well please. You establish power, and new norms of power, through merciless use.
Seth Ackerman pointed out current and past examples of authoritarian excess from various Western countries. What is the difference between these and the Bush administration's actions? I think the difference lies in the overall scope and audacity of Bush admin efforts, which appear to be an assault on almost all established government norms - and not only the norms themselves, but sentimental attachment to them.
The TSA, to take one example of this multifaceted authoritarianism, wants you to forget the era preceding shoe searches and random detentions at the airport. Shoe searches and random detentions are the new reality, a harsh necessity brought about by the War on Terror.
There is no appeal and no recourse. There *is* an official complaint system but it's only a shadow puppet of past forms. Power is unapologetically exercised while the idea of appeal and checks and balances receives only a decorous bow.
But, the precedent of search and detain has been set and, with each passing day, becomes more entrenched. A new tradition replaces the old.
This is the pattern to watch.
.d.