Commentary
Is the United States a republic or a Busharchy?
By Ben Tanosborn
Online Journal Guest Writer
Dec 9, 2005, 00:27

Americans have always seemed obsessed with celebrities; of any type; from any source. And royalty has often stood at the head of the regard queue. For all the satirical treatment of the monarchy, there has always been a certain respect and curiosity towards the blue bloods. This, no matter whether these people came from any of the more famous European royal houses, other lesser houses, or even some not-so-regal domestic dynasties founded by our very own captains of power and greed.

This brings us to some royalty realities . . .

Two centuries and a score ago, American colonists decided for a parting of the ways with their ruler across the Atlantic, King George William Frederick [George W., yes!]. Some of these colonists were seriously considering replacing the British monarch with a George W. of their own. After contesting certain taxing matters dealing with "stamps and tea" . . . here were our fiscal ancestors severing tributary and political ties with the Brits. They were ready to cast a crown for the take-charge emancipator, commander of the raggedy colonial troops, Gen. George Washington [George W., yes!], as king of the newly-freed colonies.

Whether or not George Washington might have been tempted by the prospect of kingly power and privilege, the United States of America, then much of a work-in-progress as a nation, had a slate of wise men that after putting their heads together would have none of it. A republic, they decided . . . that's what this US of A ought to be; with freedom and justice, and a constitution to help preserve both in posterity.

Now Americans are finding themselves once again facing the crowning [of sorts] of yet another George W. -- an anecdotal item for the history books. Deja vu all over again!

Did the post-election Supreme Court decision in 2000 herald the nation's crowning of George W. Bush? Or, was it the 9/11 shock a year later that made fearful Americans accept Dubya's governance by acclamation, something which changed their status from citizens to subjects? Or, was it revelations by the Almighty to the supreme high priest of televangelism, Pat Robertson, which made a true-blue scoundrel appear as a virtuous man of God, one deserving of a throne?

Or . . . could it be that for five years we have been witnessing the gradual self-crowning of this incompetent-extraordinaire by default; through our own laziness . . . our unconditional surrender to a government of self-anointed aristocrats? America's Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, would not let a competent and disciplined Washington become king. Today, in a nation with four times the area and 70 times the population (vs. the original colonies), there appears to be no wise leaders in sight willing to step forward and challenge the stubborn, arrogant Bush from conducting himself as a king; no true patriots calling for the citizenry to reclaim their participative democracy.

It matters little whether we think of Dubya as president, as king or as crown-pretender. Shamelessly, his entire administration has shown to be a royal court of ultra-right ideologues, warmongers, Robin Hoods in reverse and incompetent cronies ( . . . if only some of those cronies had been technically, not just ideologically, competent!).

It was not through evolution but intelligent design that the miraculously successful transformation of a wild parrot from Texas to a monarch wannabe (and we aren't talking butterflies) took place in Washington. It's a safe bet, however, that the intelligent design was not through divine intervention but the shaping hands and crooked mouth of Dick Cheney, who more than a grand vizier for this Busharchy, has been the architect and holder of the seal for every major political and economic decision made during the last five years at the White House . . . and Congress. You may also rest assured that this unpatriotic patriot, together with his cohort at the Pentagon, have made an art . . . not of stretching the truth, but rather of compressing lies in a way that can be easily fed to Americans as "swallow that" sound bites.

A downward slide in "popularity numbers" on the handling by the administration of any specific issue- be it Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or other foreign policy and economy-related matters, will prove to be only temporary setbacks for Dubya's dubious, if not downright malefic, agenda. Propaganda machinery is well in place ready to shift Americans' opinion without the need to change political direction: on Iraq, on wealth redistribution. The Iraq fiasco might see a phase II of even greater military significance; and the sacking of the American producing-class by the predatory investing-class will continue marching on without pause.

In pledging allegiance to the flag, Americans pledge to the republic for which that flag stands. But, taking stock of America today . . . is the nation really a republic, or has it evolved into something else? I truly believe that it has. A Constitutional Busharchy, perhaps; in danger, should the neocons establish roots, of becoming in time an Absolute Busharchy . . . no matter who follows Bush "the Incompetent" to the throne.

Yet, for many of us, this republic is well worth saving; after all, that's all we have!

© 2005 Ben Tanosborn