Can ONE MAN Wreck a Planet?

Some people posting to this talk group are proposing that greens should think about different ways to 'kill George Bush,' supposedly after a proper impeachment, trial, etc.

There are reasons to believe these 'radical' posters are either double agents, or damned fools, because uttering loose threats against any US president can get a radical arrested. But beyond this - would radical Greens ACCOMPLISH anything, anything real, if someone DID remove Bush from office thru impeachment or force?

In a society where lobbyists and corporate Political Action Committees dominate the Congress, in an era when politicians and corporations keep each other in power forever with huge campaign contributions and endless TV ads, how much does ONE POLITICIAN - even a politician as sleazy as Bush - really matter in the bigger picture?

I don't even want to talk about the possibility of anyone killing the president: beyond the immorality of the act, it would be a complete disaster for the environmental movement and the left if anyone even remotely connected to a green organization had anything to do with it. But suppose Bush could be impeached, or suppose we all (Gaia willing!) defeat him at the polls next November - what then?

Won't Corporate America simply find a new face to put on its rule over the American political system? Won't the same old despoilers of the planet simply find a new set of lackeys?

Thomas Carlyle in Britain used to propose a 'great man' theory of history, but since the mid-1800s an alternative view, usually put forward by Marxists, is that the historical circumstances are usually more important than the great man: the man (or woman) may play a key role, and do it either either well or badly, but it's the environment in which the individual acts that ultimately sets the stage for the 'leader' to act. Before the 'great man' can play his role, other social and political and intellectual forces have to write the script to the movie.

The Marxists aren't right about everything, obviously, but on this point they have a lot of common sense on their side.

Granting that Bush may be particularly evil or virtuous, especially effective or especially ineffective in dismantling environmental laws and social programs - granting all of that, don't radical Greens need to look at the CONTEXT in which he operates, the institutional 'environment,' and work at changing THAT?

If so, how do we go about doing this?

Because fantasizing about the removal of one sleazy politician, by legal or illegal means, just barely addresses the most obvious symptoms of what's wrong with the US economy and the US government in terms of environmental and social policies.

Let's hope we can get rid of this rotten president in November, all very legally, But we urgently need a plan for what to do then. Because the bad guys will find a clone for Bush soon enough. How do we change the cultural, political, institutional, social ENVIRONMENT in order to defeat all the clones?

By restoring the Constituion which tried hard to limit government power of people. Now people are limited by government. When has so much power been so concentrated with so few? Power corrupts ...

You can send a message of hope by voting for Michael Badnarik.

I respect those who volunteer to help. I can not respect those who impose their values on others.

Classical libertarians are equally suspicious of concentrated power whether it calls itself 'government' or 'private sector.' It's only the neolibertarians who 'worship' the Invisible Hand and all that rubbish. Unfortunately the neolibs have the Cato Institute and the Chicago School of Economics and all those astroturf advocacy shops, and they currently control the US National Libertarian Party. So the 'official' face of US libertarianism has a bit more neolib character than the mainstream of its grass roots.

Classical libertarians are outraged at the modern anything-goes corporate charters, and they're not allergic to antitrust action the way the neolibs are. I think a classical libertarian Congress and White House might do something to reign in the monsters our transnational corporations have become. But the US LP is never going to let a classical libertarian on its national ticket.

Isn't it interesting how some people obey speed limits and some don't. Isn't it interesting that some people don't bother following the jaywalking laws. Isn't it ineresting that NY ligislators have for the past 20 ignored the constitutional obligation to enact a budget on time. Isn't it interesting how laws and the following of laws is ralated to interests and not blind obedience. I believe lawyers have an especially keen sense of this phenomenon.

I always have a problem with society's responsibilities just as I do with The Public Interest. Don't you?