Vergissmeinnicht... ("Forget Me Not...")
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the Second Congregational Meeting House on Nantucket Island
Sunday May 25th, 2003
***
I’m just a little curious, but how many of you had the opportunity to see “the television event of the season” last week, the two part mini-series “Hitler: the Rise of Evil” which aired last Sunday and Tuesday nights on CBS? Apparently this was quite a controversial program: there were some critics who worried that by dramatically portraying Hitler’s rise to power from abusive and humble origins, the program created too sympathetic a portrait of the dictator, while others also complained that the producers had gone overboard in playing up the tenuous historical analogies between Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the contemporary political scene.
For my own part, I’ve long believed that when we simply dismiss Hitler as a raving madman we diminish the true dimensions of the evil which he represents. So I think it’s important that people remember that the most monstrously malevolent personality of the 20th century was also a decorated war hero in his youth, as well as a vegetarian, a teetotaler, and a vehement anti-smoker; that he was fond of dogs and children; that he was a charismatic and spellbinding public speaker who was likewise a master of propaganda and public relations, a clever manipulator of “sound bites” and “photo ops,” as well as a ruthlessly ambitious, ideologically-driven politician who came to power through a combination of “hardball” street politics, secret backroom deals, and the skillful exploitation of the legitimate electoral process. It’s a lesson we forget at our own peril.
As for analogies to the current political situation, I also think there’s a pretty big difference between appealing to nationalism and the threat of terrorist attack in order to suspend civil liberties and create a militaristic police state capable of waging war against the rest of the civilized world, while at the same time attempting to systematically exterminate of an entire race of people; and making those same appeals in order to justify another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, and loosening up the environmental regulations against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So you decide for yourself whether or not the analogies really fit.
These issues have been weighing on my own mind quite a bit as we approach this Memorial Day holiday. Memorial Day has its origins in the 19th-century practice of decorating the graves of Civil War casualties with flowers and bunting, and there was a time when it was actually kind of controversial, since it wasn’t at all clear whether or not the graves of Confederate soldiers should be treated with the same respect as those of the soldiers who fought and died to preserve the Union and bring an end to slavery.
But nowadays those controversies are all but forgotten; we’ve fought a lot more wars since 1865, there are lots more graves to be decorated. Nowadays Memorial Day is basically just a long, three-day weekend to mark the beginning of summer; it’s bookend companion is Labor Day, another three-day weekend at the end of the summer; and between the two is Independence Day, the 4th of July -- three quintessentially American holidays devoted to backyard barbecues (weather permitting), and family reunions, and the celebration of a Middle-class prosperity based on freedom, and hard work, and the sacrifices of American soldiers on battlefields at home and abroad.
As of last Friday, as best as I could determine, 162 Americans had lost their lives in the war against Iraq. Not all of these deaths were combat deaths; some were killed in helicopter or other vehicular accidents, some while attempting to disarm unexploded ordnance, or through the inadvertent discharge of their own weapons; and these numbers will no doubt continue to grow over time, as our soldiers continue to remain in harm’s way.
No less disturbing is the realization that 2.1 million Americans have lost their jobs in the two and a half years since the President assumed office, and this trend shows no signs of abating either. Our constitutional civil liberties, the precious freedoms that our soldiers have historically fought and died to defend, are now under attack by our own government, on the grounds of “Homeland Security,” yet it seems to me that our nation is no more secure now than it was 22 months ago, on the eve of the September 11th attacks.
Our battlefield strategy of “Shock and Awe” has degenerated into an occupation strategy of “Dazed and Confused.” Afghanistan has reverted back to tribalism, with local warlords controlling most of the countryside, and even the Taliban is making a comeback. In Iraq we see continued looting and anarchy, but no sign of democracy, minimal law enforcement, sporadic electricity, water, food, and health care -- only the oil fields are apparently secure.
We’ve been treated to terrific photographs of toppling statues and a “Top Gun” carrier landing, but we’re still only playing with half a deck: no Osama bin Ladin, no Saddam Hussein, no Weapons of Mass Destruction for that matter either, but the suicide bombers are out in force, and the end of the tunnel is nowhere in sight.
Perhaps most importantly, we are failing miserable at the only thing which truly matters -- the creation, through effective diplomacy, of an authentic international coalition of civilized nations capable of cooperating in a meaningful way to promote peace and justice in accordance with recognized standards of international law.
Let me just come out and say it in so many words: in my opinion, the Bush Administration is losing the war on terrorism, because it is more intent on exploiting America’s on-going fear of terrorist attack in order to promote its own political fortunes and ideological agenda than it cares about honestly understanding the problem and creating an effective, multilateral policy to address it.
And to that end, they are willing to distort the truth and deliberately mislead the American people, to ignore international law and the opinions of our historical allies, to needlessly risk the lives of American soldiers, and threaten the livelihoods of American workers, to explode the National Debt in order to pay off their big campaign contributors with lucrative government contracts, and another big tax cut.
It’s a travesty.
It’s a nightmare.
And one wonders when America will wake up and begin to see what is happening to this great nation of ours.
The threat to freedom and world peace represented by the likes of Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein has always been miniscule compared to what is happening right now in our nation’s capitol. But you probably don’t need me to persuade you of this; either you see it or you don’t, and if you don’t, nothing that I can say here today will probably convince you otherwise. If I’m right, you’ll see it soon enough for yourself, and that’s good enough for me.
But the real question, which concerns us all, is what can we do about it? What can we do, both as individuals and as a nation, to preserve our safety, promote our prosperity, and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?” Are a never-ending series of foreign wars, another round of tax-givaways to the rich, so-called “tort reform” which denies average citizens meaningful access to the courts, not to mention the abrogation of our rights to privacy, to habeus corpus, to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, trial by jury, representation by legal counsel, and just about every other section of the Bill of Rights with the possible exception of the right to bear arms, really the best method for defending the security of our homeland?
Or is there a better way? a way that draws upon the strengths of democracy to defend democracy, rather than undermining it?
I may be naive, but I honestly believe, that we are just one free and fair election -- an election in which everyone who can vote, does vote, and every vote is counted -- from restoring to our nation a government that truly is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” My fear is that such an election is no longer really possible: that widespread voter apathy and political cynicism, combined with a sophisticated, media-driven style of negative campaigning designed to depress voter turnout by playing on these very sentiments, have so damaged the political process that people no longer feel that their vote really matters.
But if we have given up on the democratic process in America, how can we possibly expect to champion it in the rest of the world? The answer is obviously that we can’t; the first step in promoting freedom and democracy abroad is to defend them here at home.
The challenge of revitalizing American democracy is far more complicated than simply voting out one set of political leaders and voting in another. It is also going to require changing our political culture and style of political discourse from one of photo-ops and sound bites, shrill pundits and droning “policy wonks,” to one in which people can speak civilly and intelligently to one another about the vital issues that effect their lives.
And not just on television or in the halls of Congress, but in their own living rooms or across the back fence, or in public forums (like this church, for instance), or anywhere else that people gather to create a common life together. It means less screaming and shouting and chanting clever slogans, and more reading and listening and discussion (rather than debate). Less electoral hardball, fewer political footballs; more soccer moms speaking to one another while standing together along the sidelines cheering for their children, more Fourth of July family softball games, in which every player gets a turn at bat, and nobody cares how many strikes they have.
America doesn’t need another round of “tax relief” for the rich, especially when it comes at the expense of vital public services like education, health care, veterans benefits and public safety. How can we possibly expect to make our homeland more secure when New York City and other local governments around the nation are compelled to lay off thousands of police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public employees for budgetary reasons?
America could probably benefit from an honest attempt at tax reform, coupled with a meaningful public dialog about the level of social services we desire in this country, and a rational plan for sharing the costs of those services equitably among those who have benefited most from the opportunities made available to them by our so-called free society (and who can therefore best afford to pay). Free enterprise does not mean a free lunch. We’ve danced to that tune often enough when it comes to welfare reform; why shouldn’t it play equally as well for tax reform, corporate accountability, and the enforcement of environmental regulations?
The most serious barrier to job creation in our economy right now is NOT a lack of access to affordable investment capital. Interest rates are at historic lows, although they are likely to increase as the Federal deficit increases. Nor is our economy likely to be stimulated by the phantom consumer spending brought about by a token middle-class tax cut, especially when those same taxpaying consumers are worried about keeping their jobs and holding on to their homes.
The most serious barrier to job creation in our economy right now is the absence of affordable, universal health care. This is especially true for small businesses, where most new jobs are created, and where the cost of providing benefits is most keenly felt. The expense of providing health insurance frequently prevents small businesses from adding new employees, even when business is good; while the failure to provide health insurance makes it difficult to retain good employees who see an opportunity to move to a job that does. T
he problem isn’t that we can’t afford it as a society. The United States already spends more money on health care (I believe both per captia and as a percentage of GDP) than any other industrialized nation, yet we cover fewer people; we’re paying more and getting less -- what kind of economic policy is that? By funding universal health care through public revenues, we can relieve both small businesses and large corporations from the expense of paying private premiums, thus lowering the cost of employing new workers and making us more competitive in the international labor market.
Sure, the money has to come from somewhere. But my point is that the money is already in the system; it’s just a matter of more equitably determining whose pockets it comes out of, and in whose pockets it ends up.
A second critical factor in determining our economic prosperity has to do with the price and the cost of energy. These may sound like they’re the same, but they’re not. Let me illustrate using a simple example. If you currently drive an SUV that gets, say, 13 miles to the gallon, and you trade it for a fuel-efficient hatchback that gets maybe 35 mpg, the price of gasoline can double or even triple and you are still going to end up money ahead, especially if you factor in the cost of the vehicle.
Not only that, but by using less fuel on an absolute basis you are also going to minimize all of the additional “hidden” costs associated with producing, refining, and distributing that fuel -- the costs of pollution (and pollution-related illness), global warming, the cost of maintaining the largest and most powerful military force in the world. These too are costs that have been shifted from the pockets of those who benefit most from the availability of cheap energy to those who can least afford to bear them.
And once again, not only does the United States use more energy per captia than any other industrial nation, we use it less efficiently; the widespread adoption of more fuel-efficient, “green” technology is literally like creating money out of thin air, and that can only be good for our economy as a whole.
These are just my opinions, of course; opinions I like to think are knowledgeable and well-reasoned, but opinions none the less. My real point is that, as a society, we need to be having a lot more conversations like this than we do; we need to read, we need to listen, we need to learn from one another as we share with one another important, democratic (with a small “D”) decisions about the future direction of our nation. This is the most basic freedom our soldiers and sailors have sacrificed their lives to defend. We owe it to their memory to exercise it fully.
***
READINGS:
Vergissmeinnicht (“forget-me-not”)
by Keith Douglas (Douglas served in a British tank battalion in North Africa, and was killed in 1944 during the Normandy invasion).
Three weeks gone and the combatants gone
returning over the nightmare ground
we found the place again, and found
the soldier sprawling in the sun.
The frowning barrel of his gun
overshadowing. As we came on
that day, he hit my tank with one
like the entry of a demon.
Look. Here in the gunpit spoil
the dishonoured picture of his girl
who has put: Steffi. Vergissmeinnicht
in a copybook gothic script.
We see him almost with content,
abased, and seeming to have paid
and mocked at by his own equipment
that’s hard and good when he’s decayed.
But she would weep to see today
how on his skin the swart flies move;
the dust upon the paper eye
and the burst stomach like a cave.
For here the lover and killer are mingled
who had one body and one heart.
And death who had the soldier singled
has done the lover mortal hurt.
***
From *Nuremberg Diary* by Gustave Gilbert -- interview with Nazi leader Hermann Goering during the [1946?] Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials.
Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
at the Second Congregational Meeting House on Nantucket Island
Sunday May 25th, 2003
***
I’m just a little curious, but how many of you had the opportunity to see “the television event of the season” last week, the two part mini-series “Hitler: the Rise of Evil” which aired last Sunday and Tuesday nights on CBS? Apparently this was quite a controversial program: there were some critics who worried that by dramatically portraying Hitler’s rise to power from abusive and humble origins, the program created too sympathetic a portrait of the dictator, while others also complained that the producers had gone overboard in playing up the tenuous historical analogies between Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the contemporary political scene.
For my own part, I’ve long believed that when we simply dismiss Hitler as a raving madman we diminish the true dimensions of the evil which he represents. So I think it’s important that people remember that the most monstrously malevolent personality of the 20th century was also a decorated war hero in his youth, as well as a vegetarian, a teetotaler, and a vehement anti-smoker; that he was fond of dogs and children; that he was a charismatic and spellbinding public speaker who was likewise a master of propaganda and public relations, a clever manipulator of “sound bites” and “photo ops,” as well as a ruthlessly ambitious, ideologically-driven politician who came to power through a combination of “hardball” street politics, secret backroom deals, and the skillful exploitation of the legitimate electoral process. It’s a lesson we forget at our own peril.
As for analogies to the current political situation, I also think there’s a pretty big difference between appealing to nationalism and the threat of terrorist attack in order to suspend civil liberties and create a militaristic police state capable of waging war against the rest of the civilized world, while at the same time attempting to systematically exterminate of an entire race of people; and making those same appeals in order to justify another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, and loosening up the environmental regulations against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So you decide for yourself whether or not the analogies really fit.
These issues have been weighing on my own mind quite a bit as we approach this Memorial Day holiday. Memorial Day has its origins in the 19th-century practice of decorating the graves of Civil War casualties with flowers and bunting, and there was a time when it was actually kind of controversial, since it wasn’t at all clear whether or not the graves of Confederate soldiers should be treated with the same respect as those of the soldiers who fought and died to preserve the Union and bring an end to slavery.
But nowadays those controversies are all but forgotten; we’ve fought a lot more wars since 1865, there are lots more graves to be decorated. Nowadays Memorial Day is basically just a long, three-day weekend to mark the beginning of summer; it’s bookend companion is Labor Day, another three-day weekend at the end of the summer; and between the two is Independence Day, the 4th of July -- three quintessentially American holidays devoted to backyard barbecues (weather permitting), and family reunions, and the celebration of a Middle-class prosperity based on freedom, and hard work, and the sacrifices of American soldiers on battlefields at home and abroad.
As of last Friday, as best as I could determine, 162 Americans had lost their lives in the war against Iraq. Not all of these deaths were combat deaths; some were killed in helicopter or other vehicular accidents, some while attempting to disarm unexploded ordnance, or through the inadvertent discharge of their own weapons; and these numbers will no doubt continue to grow over time, as our soldiers continue to remain in harm’s way.
No less disturbing is the realization that 2.1 million Americans have lost their jobs in the two and a half years since the President assumed office, and this trend shows no signs of abating either. Our constitutional civil liberties, the precious freedoms that our soldiers have historically fought and died to defend, are now under attack by our own government, on the grounds of “Homeland Security,” yet it seems to me that our nation is no more secure now than it was 22 months ago, on the eve of the September 11th attacks.
Our battlefield strategy of “Shock and Awe” has degenerated into an occupation strategy of “Dazed and Confused.” Afghanistan has reverted back to tribalism, with local warlords controlling most of the countryside, and even the Taliban is making a comeback. In Iraq we see continued looting and anarchy, but no sign of democracy, minimal law enforcement, sporadic electricity, water, food, and health care -- only the oil fields are apparently secure.
We’ve been treated to terrific photographs of toppling statues and a “Top Gun” carrier landing, but we’re still only playing with half a deck: no Osama bin Ladin, no Saddam Hussein, no Weapons of Mass Destruction for that matter either, but the suicide bombers are out in force, and the end of the tunnel is nowhere in sight.
Perhaps most importantly, we are failing miserable at the only thing which truly matters -- the creation, through effective diplomacy, of an authentic international coalition of civilized nations capable of cooperating in a meaningful way to promote peace and justice in accordance with recognized standards of international law.
Let me just come out and say it in so many words: in my opinion, the Bush Administration is losing the war on terrorism, because it is more intent on exploiting America’s on-going fear of terrorist attack in order to promote its own political fortunes and ideological agenda than it cares about honestly understanding the problem and creating an effective, multilateral policy to address it.
And to that end, they are willing to distort the truth and deliberately mislead the American people, to ignore international law and the opinions of our historical allies, to needlessly risk the lives of American soldiers, and threaten the livelihoods of American workers, to explode the National Debt in order to pay off their big campaign contributors with lucrative government contracts, and another big tax cut.
It’s a travesty.
It’s a nightmare.
And one wonders when America will wake up and begin to see what is happening to this great nation of ours.
The threat to freedom and world peace represented by the likes of Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein has always been miniscule compared to what is happening right now in our nation’s capitol. But you probably don’t need me to persuade you of this; either you see it or you don’t, and if you don’t, nothing that I can say here today will probably convince you otherwise. If I’m right, you’ll see it soon enough for yourself, and that’s good enough for me.
But the real question, which concerns us all, is what can we do about it? What can we do, both as individuals and as a nation, to preserve our safety, promote our prosperity, and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?” Are a never-ending series of foreign wars, another round of tax-givaways to the rich, so-called “tort reform” which denies average citizens meaningful access to the courts, not to mention the abrogation of our rights to privacy, to habeus corpus, to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, trial by jury, representation by legal counsel, and just about every other section of the Bill of Rights with the possible exception of the right to bear arms, really the best method for defending the security of our homeland?
Or is there a better way? a way that draws upon the strengths of democracy to defend democracy, rather than undermining it?
I may be naive, but I honestly believe, that we are just one free and fair election -- an election in which everyone who can vote, does vote, and every vote is counted -- from restoring to our nation a government that truly is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” My fear is that such an election is no longer really possible: that widespread voter apathy and political cynicism, combined with a sophisticated, media-driven style of negative campaigning designed to depress voter turnout by playing on these very sentiments, have so damaged the political process that people no longer feel that their vote really matters.
But if we have given up on the democratic process in America, how can we possibly expect to champion it in the rest of the world? The answer is obviously that we can’t; the first step in promoting freedom and democracy abroad is to defend them here at home.
The challenge of revitalizing American democracy is far more complicated than simply voting out one set of political leaders and voting in another. It is also going to require changing our political culture and style of political discourse from one of photo-ops and sound bites, shrill pundits and droning “policy wonks,” to one in which people can speak civilly and intelligently to one another about the vital issues that effect their lives.
And not just on television or in the halls of Congress, but in their own living rooms or across the back fence, or in public forums (like this church, for instance), or anywhere else that people gather to create a common life together. It means less screaming and shouting and chanting clever slogans, and more reading and listening and discussion (rather than debate). Less electoral hardball, fewer political footballs; more soccer moms speaking to one another while standing together along the sidelines cheering for their children, more Fourth of July family softball games, in which every player gets a turn at bat, and nobody cares how many strikes they have.
America doesn’t need another round of “tax relief” for the rich, especially when it comes at the expense of vital public services like education, health care, veterans benefits and public safety. How can we possibly expect to make our homeland more secure when New York City and other local governments around the nation are compelled to lay off thousands of police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public employees for budgetary reasons?
America could probably benefit from an honest attempt at tax reform, coupled with a meaningful public dialog about the level of social services we desire in this country, and a rational plan for sharing the costs of those services equitably among those who have benefited most from the opportunities made available to them by our so-called free society (and who can therefore best afford to pay). Free enterprise does not mean a free lunch. We’ve danced to that tune often enough when it comes to welfare reform; why shouldn’t it play equally as well for tax reform, corporate accountability, and the enforcement of environmental regulations?
The most serious barrier to job creation in our economy right now is NOT a lack of access to affordable investment capital. Interest rates are at historic lows, although they are likely to increase as the Federal deficit increases. Nor is our economy likely to be stimulated by the phantom consumer spending brought about by a token middle-class tax cut, especially when those same taxpaying consumers are worried about keeping their jobs and holding on to their homes.
The most serious barrier to job creation in our economy right now is the absence of affordable, universal health care. This is especially true for small businesses, where most new jobs are created, and where the cost of providing benefits is most keenly felt. The expense of providing health insurance frequently prevents small businesses from adding new employees, even when business is good; while the failure to provide health insurance makes it difficult to retain good employees who see an opportunity to move to a job that does. T
he problem isn’t that we can’t afford it as a society. The United States already spends more money on health care (I believe both per captia and as a percentage of GDP) than any other industrialized nation, yet we cover fewer people; we’re paying more and getting less -- what kind of economic policy is that? By funding universal health care through public revenues, we can relieve both small businesses and large corporations from the expense of paying private premiums, thus lowering the cost of employing new workers and making us more competitive in the international labor market.
Sure, the money has to come from somewhere. But my point is that the money is already in the system; it’s just a matter of more equitably determining whose pockets it comes out of, and in whose pockets it ends up.
A second critical factor in determining our economic prosperity has to do with the price and the cost of energy. These may sound like they’re the same, but they’re not. Let me illustrate using a simple example. If you currently drive an SUV that gets, say, 13 miles to the gallon, and you trade it for a fuel-efficient hatchback that gets maybe 35 mpg, the price of gasoline can double or even triple and you are still going to end up money ahead, especially if you factor in the cost of the vehicle.
Not only that, but by using less fuel on an absolute basis you are also going to minimize all of the additional “hidden” costs associated with producing, refining, and distributing that fuel -- the costs of pollution (and pollution-related illness), global warming, the cost of maintaining the largest and most powerful military force in the world. These too are costs that have been shifted from the pockets of those who benefit most from the availability of cheap energy to those who can least afford to bear them.
And once again, not only does the United States use more energy per captia than any other industrial nation, we use it less efficiently; the widespread adoption of more fuel-efficient, “green” technology is literally like creating money out of thin air, and that can only be good for our economy as a whole.
These are just my opinions, of course; opinions I like to think are knowledgeable and well-reasoned, but opinions none the less. My real point is that, as a society, we need to be having a lot more conversations like this than we do; we need to read, we need to listen, we need to learn from one another as we share with one another important, democratic (with a small “D”) decisions about the future direction of our nation. This is the most basic freedom our soldiers and sailors have sacrificed their lives to defend. We owe it to their memory to exercise it fully.
***
READINGS:
Vergissmeinnicht (“forget-me-not”)
by Keith Douglas (Douglas served in a British tank battalion in North Africa, and was killed in 1944 during the Normandy invasion).
Three weeks gone and the combatants gone
returning over the nightmare ground
we found the place again, and found
the soldier sprawling in the sun.
The frowning barrel of his gun
overshadowing. As we came on
that day, he hit my tank with one
like the entry of a demon.
Look. Here in the gunpit spoil
the dishonoured picture of his girl
who has put: Steffi. Vergissmeinnicht
in a copybook gothic script.
We see him almost with content,
abased, and seeming to have paid
and mocked at by his own equipment
that’s hard and good when he’s decayed.
But she would weep to see today
how on his skin the swart flies move;
the dust upon the paper eye
and the burst stomach like a cave.
For here the lover and killer are mingled
who had one body and one heart.
And death who had the soldier singled
has done the lover mortal hurt.
***
From *Nuremberg Diary* by Gustave Gilbert -- interview with Nazi leader Hermann Goering during the [1946?] Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials.
Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
posted by The Eclectic Cleric at 6:35 PM
