To those in denial ... do not be angry with one that holds the mirror up to you

by Mary MacElveen

As I think of the negative reactions coming from politicians within the United States in regards to President Chavez’ speech to the general assembly at the United Nations, a deeper psychology took place.

It is not so much the man in Bush that Rangel, Pataki and Pelosi were protecting, but the institution itself.

Most likely all three during these past six years have had their own negative thoughts concerning Bush and rightfully so. But, after September 11, 2001, America went into hyper drive in protecting herself and that includes the institutions such as the presidency. While the polling data has shown Bush suffer due to the Iraq War, Americans and the officials they elect will always protect the institution.

Think about it, when the Secret Service surround Bush, they are not necessarily protecting him, but the presidency. They are sworn to protect the institution. Human behavior what it is, I am sure that there are some agents that do not like Bush the man, but it is the presidency itself that they must focus on. They do not take the bullet to protect the man; it is the office of the President of the United States they are protecting. One has to wonder if some of these Secret Service agents have witnessed the true evil coming from this administration and how that may be affecting them personally. As agents though, they have to push their personal feelings aside and protect the institution. Otherwise, should the man himself succumb to assassination, it throws the country into chaos. But, what we witnessed through the Kennedy assassination is that while the chaos was short, the institution prevailed.

With regard to Rangel, Pataki, and Pelosi, they too are part of separate institutions. In the offices they hold, the sum is greater than the parts. The sum combined is each individual elected official coming together and governing as the sum. So, all will come together to protect not only the presidential institution, but the congressional and gubernatorial ones at that. After all, many are sworn into their offices to either vote no or yes when it comes to the policies and actions that do affect the rest of the world. So, when the institution as a collective is attacked, many take that on a personal level.

In the case of Pataki and Rangel, one has to wonder what their private reactions were as Bush held back funds after 9/11. If they are truly human beings, one wonders if some off the cuff expletives came out of their mouths. The same can be said of Pelosi who represents a state that faced an energy crisis in which Bush stated, "There will be no help coming from Washington, D.C."

Could her private thoughts have been "That SOB!"

So, when Rangel stated "If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not." Could it be that he did not want anyone especially someone from the outside, holding a mirror up to the institution that he is a part of? After all, the presidential institution in most cases works with the legislative institution as one unit.

I read this passage from President Chavez’ speech: "But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war."

What I think has happened is that President Chavez was holding up the mirror to each institution. No one particularly likes having a negative image held up for them to see. So, what is the only normal reaction each and as a whole can have, they react negatively. In fact they lash out as evident with both Rangel’s and Pelosi’s response to President Chavez. After all, both did not like what they saw.

In the Wild West back in the 1800s as horse-covered wagons made their way across the plains, if attacked they would circle the wagons in order to protect themselves and the same can be said of how these elected officials reacted.

President Chavez also stated: "And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say? He then went onto say, "And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists."

The people around the globe are not attacking our elected officials as individuals, but as an institution. So, the institution must protect itself in order to govern or rather continue to dominate since in all likeliness they will not have learned any lesson(s). The only institution that the world can react to separately and separate the man from the institution is Bush. Through his imperialist policies, he has tarnished the presidential institution at this point. So, the world will act accordingly. They will see these various institutions acting in consort and what does happen?

America itself is held accountable, even if we as individuals do not agree with the institution’s actions.

Now let us address the reactions coming from the citizens themselves. It is the citizens of this (USA) country that elect these officials based upon their own beliefs, so when someone holds the mirror up to them, they may not like what they see. Yes, people have soured on the Iraq War and may individually hate what their government has done, but when someone else holds the mirror up to their face, they too will most likely go into protection mode. They too will circle the wagons in self preservation.

As I was watching Fox News they were discussing what was said by President Chavez and every time that Natali Fani (Civil Alliance of Latin America) spoke in support of President Chavez in which she told how things are now better in Venezuela, the crowd booed and hissed at her. It was as if they did not want to hear the positive changes coming from him.

I wonder if some were not privately thinking, why can’t we have these programs in the United States?
One older gentleman even stated, "Don’t we have something to fight back with ... we must have something that they need!" One could see the venom coming from him. My question is: Was he protecting the presidential institution or Bush himself? One wonders if he has had negative thoughts of Bush as Bush and the GOP look to dismantle Social Security. His reaction may be akin to rubbing salt in someone’s wound or he is acting as if he is in denial.

As the audience booed and hissed at Natali Fani, what I witnessed was a mob mentality. It was as if each individual within that audience feeding off one another. As we all know, the mob mentality can be dangerous. Even if someone agreed with what she was saying, the fear factor came into play since they may not have wanted to stand out as an individual. In this post 9/11 world, individualism is something that is no longer thought of as a positive trait, but a negative one.

While the ’United We Stand’ was originally a positive response coming from a people that were attacked, it morphed into a mob mentality.

How many Americans who have disagreed with the actions of the institutions have been silenced or attacked?

Denial is also a big part of any psychological response that may be coming from those who reacted negatively to what President Chavez had to say within his speech. We know what is wrong, but we do not want to say it. But, when some outside person states it, our response mechanism is to deny, deny, deny. We will lash out against the truth teller instead of the policies and actions themselves. As I have included pictures of dead and injured Iraqi children in various pieces, is the reaction so intense that the reader is abhorred personally, yet they will deny any personal responsibility into the continued carnage?

To those in denial, do not be angry with one that holds the mirror up to you, but be very angry at the individual in any elected office for allowing this to happen.
Arrogance is also a negative psychological trait and the people that show this are the ones that I am concerned about. It is a symptom of narcissism. When President Chavez stated, "I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations." Do some not see through their arrogance that others living around the planet deserve equality, respect and the right to live in their sovereign nations? Must every thing revolve around what we want? The planet is not America’s oyster and that is the thought process that must be corrected.

We all know that the "Bush War in Iraq" is truly about oil and not fighting the war on terrorism. So, when someone is confronted with the evidence such as the pictures that I have shown, those suffering from arrogance will push that aside in favor of their wants and desires. They will allow various individuals to besmirch the institutions.

The framers of the United States of America created these institutions to act in a responsible manner in which they truly wanted those elected to these various institutions to work on behalf of the citizenry. I do not think they ever conceived of the institutions themselves working against the people. Our framers gave birth to this country because at one time they were being ruled by those who did work against the people. To help support these institutions in which they created, they also wrote a document that has very little meaning today and that is the United States Constitution and to support that document is the Bill of Rights. The laws that come from these documents are intended to empower a people. What these documents also say is that the institutions that each individual holds are supposed to be a representative government that is of, for and by the people.

If we are sick and tired of others holding the mirror up to our destructive ways, then it is our responsibility to start electing true constitutionalists that will bring back the rule of law. It is our responsibility as citizens that when we see an elected official besmirching the office they hold in which they break the law, they are impeached.

You do not get to break the laws of this nation and stay in power. You do not get to break the law in order to acquire economic dominance over any other nation. You do not get to break the laws in order to support another nation’s economic well being or dominance. I will give you a case in point. Iraq was sanctioned for violating certain UN resolutions, yet we excuse Israel from violating many UN resolutions. It is illegal to fund any nation that violates these resolutions and we are doing it on a consistent basis. This list will inform you of which resolutions Israel has violated.

The other day, Bush in representing the presidential institution came to the United Nations and by funding the Israeli pounding of Lebanon and Palestine, he besmirched the institution in front of the world body. To be honest, past administrations have done this as well.

As we have seen some in the Muslim world react violently against us, it is a conditional hate since they have witnessed coming from us that they must abide by these resolutions and we turn our backs on Israel’s non-compliance. If you see yourself as a law abiding American, shouldn’t everyone follow the rule of law?

To break it down using an example that everyone can understand: How would you feel if you were given a speeding ticket, only to see someone else get away with it because of friends in powerful places?

You would see them getting away with it Scot free?

Is that the Middle East in a nutshell?

In closing, any elected official that does not support the rule of law will only bring down this republic. Caesar also displayed a great deal of arrogance and narcissism, and what did happen to the mighty Roman Empire? It fell.

Will that be the fate of the United States of America?

I will leave you with this quote: "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Mary MacElveen
mary@vheadline.com

http://www.vheadline.com/MacElveen