Reveal and expose.....

The authorization of torture by the Bush-Cheney administration should be investigated by an independent authority of impeccable reputation and then fully revealed to the country and the world. It appears to be a shameful story which was planned from the offices of the highest officials in the White House.

After the smug self-righteousness of Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney and yes, often even Bush himself, clear violations of ethical and legal standards by them should be exposed, and the extent to which these individuals were responsible for these violations of human decency should be part of the historical record.

This morning I was listening to Jonathan Meachem discuss this on 'Morning Joe,' and Meachem quoted Arthur Schlesinger as having said that recording history helps a people identify and understand their life as does our individual memory. The record of history is our national memory, and in that sense whatever has taken place in the story of the 'War on Terror' should be known and recorded.

The catastrophic events of September 11 caused reactions in the White House and throughout the nation, and in each of us, that brought up the dimensions of a new and terrible reality to our shores and caused all kinds of reactions. No president or administration could be prepared to be confronted by such an event and all the unknown factors of that day. Was this the beginning of a whole series of attacks which would immediately become apparent? We can sympathize with fallible human beings feeling the weight of the responsibility of guiding the nation in such a circumstance. We can understand all of this but that must be balanced against our values and laws as a nation. Leaders in our government held the burden of a proper and effective response to this horrible new dimension of our collective life. The reaction of our leaders was to take us into war with a country they insisted had caused 9/11, and it turned out they lied.

All of the details of this history need to be known and understood, and if criminal acts were committed they should also be part of the record. The complications facing President Obama is how to react to this and how far to go if in fact there was criminal behavior in the White House. With everything facing his administration and the Congress, huge trials, or, perish the thought impeachments would paralyze the country and make even worse the partisanship which is epidemic in the way our politics work.

All of this faces each of us as citizens as well as our leaders. What kind of nation are we, what does our Constitution mean in our common life, where will and should all of this lead us as a people? Whatever the answer is, the facts should be known.

I guess I'm a socialist after all.

When I was a teenager I heard Norman Thomas speak at a church in Oak Park, Illinois. Six times Thomas had been a presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America. He was also a Presbyterian minister, had pastored a church in East Harlem, New York. He was a social liberal, a pacifist, a conscientious objector, and of course was a highly controversial character. He always denied being a Marxist and described himself as a 'Christian socialist.' I came away from hearing him not convinced that I could call myself a socialist as it seemed only a few steps away from communism which in my mind meant total government ownership and in Russia was a form of fascism, I believed. Though I found Mr. Thomas to present himself as a rather mild and gentle person with a twinkle and sense of humor. In our lifetime in America socialism hasn't been seen as a viable political factor or force in our politics, until now that is. Now I hear my conservative friends describe the president's proposed budget as a renewal of socialism. We hear that the free market system will be destroyed and business will be severely limited by confusing and restrictive government regulations. All of this is centered around proposals to find solutions for the financial crisis which is conceded to be epidemic.

The issue is whether the government making new regulations to control the excesses of the banking and lending institutions, ordering the way we do business can be called socialism.

The term ’socialism’ is a label or flag. I guess I might have to call myself a socialist because I believe in civil government and the idea that a democratically elected government can as ‘we the people’ regulate ourselves. Traffic laws are illustrative of this - without some orderly system of moving traffic on our roads and highways there would be total chaos. Intoxicated and reckless drivers need to be disciplined and punished if they commit crimes. But we all need speed limits, stated ways of proceeding in traffic, etc. So in the conduct of public business, financial transactions, banking, borrowing, mortgaging, advertising and selling products, making promises by contract and all the other transactions of daily living need order and rational sense. When we buy pajamas for our infant children we take comfort in knowing government regulations prohibit the manufacturers from selling materials that could be easily flammable.

Careful and thoughtful regulation of society is not the same as government ownership and the denial of private property and personal freedom. Is this some wild eyed subversion of society. or simply social order based on an intelligent ordering of our common life?