A Letter to my Friends and Loved Ones
on Birth and Death of Democracy

By Judy Hess 11/20/2004

Dedicated to Bill and my parents, with hopes and love for generations unborn for all of us.

I’ve written this because I’m not getting any younger, and our country isn’t either. I have
learned things recently, which I just didn’t know. They worry me deeply. They are hard to
get one’s mind around. The information is not in one place. I’ve had to spend the last
several evenings trying to find it. I am sharing it with you in hopes that you will read this
with care, and take whatever action you deem appropriate.

Citizenship isn’t easy, but I had to work for mine, and I love this country. I know you do,
too.

Just a Little History

In 1215, at Runnymede , England , King John signed the Magna Carta. This was the single
seed which sowed the birth of democracy in “modern” civilization. It was a pact brought
about by of a series of tensions between the British monarch and his subjects. It provided
very limited rights to the people. What made the signing so important was that this was the
first time that the people had had any influence on how they were governed. Slowly, ever so
slowly, democracy in limited form emerged in England .

It was not always believed that democracy was the best method of governance. There were
two schools of thought on the subject. By the 1600’s two men emerged to write the signal
treatises advocating monarchy on one hand and democracy on the other.

In 1660, Thomas Hobbes authored his world famous treatise in support of monarchy, The
Leviathan. Briefly, his premise was that Man in a state of nature is in a state of war. This
unmanageable animal will always seek war and chaos to manage his affairs. He will band in
social groups for safety, but will fight within his group for predominance. Therefore, the
group will be at war within, and will always be at war with other groups.

This chaotic state of nature had to be controlled, reasoned Hobbes, and his solution was that
the group had to have a leader with unlimited power. His word for this leader is king. Today,
it would be dictator. He further reasoned that the method of obtaining power would be
dictated by this state of nature—that the strongest and best fighter would be this leader. His
sense of justice or mercy, or lack thereof, would be of no importance. He would have to have
unbridled power to maintain order in his savage group.

On the other side of the equation was the proposition of John Locke. In 1690, he wrote his
Second Treatise On Civil Government. Its premise was that man in a state of nature is a
“tabula rasa”, a blank slate upon which his life experiences would “write” what he would be
like. Locke argued that man is capable of self-government. He posited that leaders should be
chosen by agreement through the democratic process.

Of course, throughout western Europe over time, Locke won the argument, and today, all
countries in Europe have some form of democracy. Some countries like Great Britain have kept
a titular monarch, and others, such as France , have simply abandoned the monarchy. Some have
done this through evolution, and others, like France again, have done so through revolution.

In 1620, the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. Through democratic means, those first brave
souls, seeking the right to worship in their own way, developed their way of self-governance
through the Mayflower Compact. Not a bastion of democratic thought this document;
nevertheless, Locke’s coming principles were firmly present between the lines.

Come 1776. Thomas Jefferson authored the most faithful articulation of our beliefs about the
rights of man in the Declaration of Independence. And as we know, those rights were elaborated
upon and encoded in our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our Constitution.
Through the centuries, from 1690 to today, there has been no great threat to the idea that
democracy is the method of choice for governance in western civilized thinking.

What Has Changed?

The last thing one would think has changed in the American ideal would be that democracy is
the best way to govern. But some individuals subscribe to Hobbes’s theory, not Locke’s.

How did this happen? I don’t know. But certain facts have come to light, which are instructive.

I had to learn by going backwards. A friend has told me the name of a group. It is the Project
For the New American Century (PNAC). I knew it existed, and I had heard of a few of its ideas.
I knew of a few of its members. But I really knew little, and still have much more to learn.

I would say immediately that I have learned enough to be deeply alarmed.

Emerging Agendas

I will start with 1997, although the thinking did not start then. It was then that this group, PNAC,
was forming. It was comprised of a variety of powerful persons, perhaps with diverging agendas,
perhaps not. But they had one critical link—they were neoconservatives.

What makes them particularly interesting is that many of them had been influenced by the teachings
of Professor Leo Strauss, an expert on Plato and Aristotle, who taught philosophy at several major US
universities. He died in 1973.

I now borrow (in blue) from some of what I have read and refer you to the sources at the end of this
paper.

Strauss was a proponent of Hobbes and his Leviathan. He wrote, “Because mankind is intrinsically
wicked, he has to be governed. Such governance can only be established, however, when men are
united -- and they can only be united against other people."

Among his beliefs and teachings is that the governed do not need to be told the truth. "Perpetual
deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be
led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them. Like Plato, Strauss taught that
within societies,"some are fit to lead, and others to be led," according to Drury. But, unlike Plato,
who believed that leaders, which he called philosopher-kings, had to be people with such high moral
standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to
rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the
superior to rule over the inferior."

Moral law was nonetheless indispensable in Strauss' view because "it is necessary to keep internal
order." It should be propagated through religion, which, like Karl Marx, Strauss considered to be "the
opiate of the people," or in Strauss' own words, "a pious fraud." But religion is for the masses alone;
the rulers need not be bound by it; indeed it would be absurd if they were, because they know there is
no reality behind it.

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism
and relativism, precisely those traits which may encourage dissent that in turn could dangerously
weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate
like putty," according to Drury.

Philosophy Meets Action

In September 2000, PNAC issued its white paper outlining what it believed to be America ’s needed
defense agenda for the 21^st century, called Rebuilding America ’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century. It is important to understand that this paper is not exactly a secret. It is proudly
displayed on the Project’s own website today. Read it for yourself. There is no need to take my word
for what it says.

But here are some highlights.

In capsule, the premise of this paper is that in the 21^st century, the United States must dominate the
world. No country or countries must be allowed to match the United States in military might, power or
influence. The United States should be the primary arbiter of international disputes, and the influence
of the United Nations should be greatly diminished.

High on the list of priorities is domination of the Middle East and its resources.

The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power:
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The report builds upon the 1992 draft document Defense Planning Guidance which claimed that the US
must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role”.

The 2000 paper states pointedly in relation to the Middle East that, "Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Nations which are not aligned with US thinking need attention, particularly in Latin America . Governments
which do not approve of US policies, which are left-leaning, must be addressed.

Any nation which threatens the US or its allies is subject to preemptive war. Any nation which seeks to
have the ability to threaten the US or its allies is also subject to preemption.

The U.S. must “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” as a “core mission”.

The US , argues this document, must have new ways to fight, including the use of nuclear weapons. New
nuclear weapons need to be created. SDI (Star Wars) must be revived. In order to accomplish these
objectives, the US cannot sign nuclear proliferation treaties. It would be subject to them.

It posits “the creation of US Space Forces, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to
prevent ‘enemies’ using the internet against the US .”

For those too young to remember 1984, Brave New World, and other science fiction books of the sixties,
The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: "New methods of attack --
electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new
dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological
warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a
politically useful tool"

Why Is This Important?

If this were an obscure document with proponents of little influence and power, and with no resources to make
it come about, it would fade into obscurity, a brief topic for titillating discussion at cocktail parties. It would be
dismissed as the futuristic ranting of a group of hapless lunatics.

Alas, these hapless lunatics are the backbone of the current administration, aided and abetted by countless
neoconservative think tanks awash with money and the ability to influence Americans daily.

Who are these people?

Founding members of PNAC are Dick Cheney, his assistant Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul

Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush, among others.

They permeate—even control-- the most powerful halls of our government-- they are our Vice President,
our Secretary of Defense, our Assistant Secretary of Defense, also in Defense, Douglas Feith, Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, our just elevated Assistant Secretary of State, John Bolton- -
all persons who have the loyal ear of the President. No other persons in the government of the United States
have the policy influence over the President and Condoleeza Rice than these people do. No member of the
Cabinet, no staffer, no governor, other than Jeb Bush, has this influence over American foreign and domestic
policy.

The Defense Policy Board, a civilian and unelected body is the primary advisor to the Department of Defense.
Its most famous member is Richard Perle, removed from the Chairmanship for conflict of interest with the
defense industry, but an influential member. He was a founder of PNAC. When Rumsfeld could not count
on the CIA to give evidence of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq , he founded his own intelligence group
in the Defense Department, headed by another PNAC, Perle’s protégé. They “found” the connection.

Could all this really happen?

Indeed.

Since these persons have come into office, everything described in Rebuilding America ’s Defenses: Strategy,
Forces and Resources For a New Century, save one (as far as we know), is coming to fruition.

Our Department of Defense is under restructuring by its Secretary. SDI is being revived. Small nuclear
weapons are being developed. Bunker Buster bombs are being deployed. Troops are scheduled for deployment
away from South Korea and other venues, and new plans are being developed for redeployments.

Preemption is the new American Way . Two hundred years of history have no influence over current policy.

We are engaged in an Iraq war sold as one thing and now justified as another. Wolfowitz was plain to the
others: they had to claim ties to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction or the American people would not
tolerate an invasion. Nor would the people stand for an invasion which would fall into chaos and guerilla war.
So flowers and kisses were sold as the way we would be welcomed. Since among the Project’s aims is to have
control over the resources of Iraq , there was no need to be forthcoming that the oil would not pay for the
reconstruction.

Americans voted for Bush in large numbers because they perceived him as a strong leader. And they want to be
led.

Churches and religious groups now openly support political agendas and candidates, but are likely not aware that
they may be falling under the power of Strauss’s legacy. Little would they, on reflection, support the tenets of
Strauss’s thinking. It is counter to even the now
archaic Mayflower tenets.

Converging Agendas

Stepping back to 1960, in his last address as president to the American people, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned,
“Beware of the military industrial complex”, lest the consolidation of power threaten our democracy.

We are well aware of the marriage of the defense industry with the government, from defense contractors, to
energy companies, to the chemical industry to the drug companies. Powerful lobbyists contribute to the
campaign coffers of influential legislators and presidential candidates.

The dilution of anti-trust enforcement and deregulation of crucial service industries make possible the
consolidation of financial and political power. Defense contractors and other conglomerates with their own
agendas own news networks, newspapers and news magazines, and their lobbyists influence the FCC.

Some right-wing Christians believe that Israel ’s interests must be protected to the total exclusion of the needs
of the Palestinians, and the Middle East dominated, in order to prepare the way for the Second Coming. What
they may not realize is that their government’s concern is geopolitical power and wealth, not any arrival, and
they are unwittingly cooperating in the domination of impoverished and uneducated peoples throughout the
Middle East . I have been a staunch supporter of Israel for my entire life, and always will be, but this goes
beyond the pale. We do not have to abandon Israel to help Palestinians.

All of these elements have combined to create an unprecedented assemblage of power, now concentrated in
the hands of a relatively small number of neoconservatives.

Where is the Press?

Our Founding Fathers put freedom of the press in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights for a reason.
They knew the press was the single most important protector of our democracy. Only with a vigorous and
watchful press could the people have an instrument to keep them informed of concentration of power, the use
of power, and the abuse of power, to take appropriate action. It was called the Fourth Estate, meaning
something akin to the 4^th branch of government in the separation of powers. So why are we not completely aware
of this new and revolutionary policy and how it came to be implemented?

Why has the press not shouted from the rooftops what this is all about? Are they complicit, or incompetent?
In 1789, the press was independently owned. It was only print, so its words were permanently capable of scrutiny
long after the events it was describing had passed. Flaws in the thinking were there to be criticized. Errors were
visible. There was no nuance, tone of voice, or other form of manipulation.

Today, we learn of current events through every form of media. It is fleeting, it has a 24 hour cycle, it disappears
after it leaves its psychological mark. And it is far from independent. Its ownership is by the very corporations
which benefit from military contracts and other profit-motivated organizations. There is no prohibition against
consolidation, such that single corporations own hundreds of media outlets. Some own newspapers, radio and TV
stations in the same city. The message is capable of being very concentrated, very canned, and often is.

In many ways we are losing or have lost an independent press (media). The 4^th Estate has become a pup tent.

This is a true story. A couple of years ago, I saw a little trailer on CNN that the Doomsday Clock was being
advanced several minutes, meaning that the world is closer to nuclear annihilation. I wanted to find out why.
Nothing was said that I am aware of on the networks. I looked at CNN, ABC, CBS news websites and found
only a little. I started searching outside the country. I found a little more in the Toronto Globe & Mail website.
Finally, my Google search took me to a lengthy article about this story on China ’s news website (translated into
English). I read it, and it was quite critical of President Bush, and said his policies were a primary reason for
the clock being advanced. I was very skeptical of this story, which purported to have been an explanation of
the reasons as posted on the University of Chicago ’s website. The University of Chicago is where the
Doomsday Clock resides.

Not satisfied, I went to the University of Chicago ’s website. There, I found the Nobel scientists’ explanation
why they had advanced the clock. To my shock, I found that the China news was totally faithful to their paper,
and in fact was practically word for word their account. I was very sad to learn that I had to go to China to get a
fulsome story in the news about a world defining event here in the United States .

But it made clear that mainstream media will not always be our best source. I know and know of several people
who regularly surf the net abroad for more balanced news.

How do the think tanks and foundations fit into the picture?

For this section, I have borrowed heavily but have also written some of this. The borrowed part is in blue.

Right wing think tanks have experienced a phenomenal growth in funding and influence since the Reagan years.
It is estimated that they have received as much as $10 billion in gifts from wealthy industrialists and philanthropic
foundations in the last ten years to advance a free market conservative agenda. The money is used for their
operating expenses, book and magazine publishing, grants to academics to write position papers, and flooding
the media with TV appearances, advertising, letters to politicians, and mailing of op-eds and position papers to
the media. They are often quoted in reportage and opinion pieces without being characterized as to their political
opinions.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

“They describe themselves as “A non-profit educational organization supporting American military, diplomatic,
and moral leadership.” Take out the word “moral” and substitute “domination” for “leadership”, and you have
a fair description of what PNAC is about. Funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife
Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation, PNAC was founded in 1997 by William Kristol. Among the
signers of its Statement of Principles are Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula Dobriansky,
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz—all leading hawks in the Bush
Administration.”

PNAC finds its home in the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC . It is backed with billions of
dollars of funding. The American Enterprise Institute has received donations of $32 million dollars from a
single contributor, Richard Mellon Scaife.

The head of PNAC is William Kristol, editor of the conservative paper, the Weekly Standard, and son of
the founder of the Institute, Irving Kristol, a Strauss devotee. This Institute and other similar think tanks send
speakers far and wide to influence American thinking. They are hailed as experts on the cable talk shows on all
cable networks, sometimes pitted in debate against a counter thinker, and sometimes as a lone expert on a given
subject.

Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public
sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting
on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order
to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

The American Enterprise for Public Policy Research

The AEI describes itself as "dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom—limited
government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national
defense." In practice its members have done much to undermine freedom. Its members have supported the
expansion of government power through the PATRIOT act and supported an increase in corporate power at
the expense of consumers and responsible government. It published Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism,
which holds that African American culture is patholgical and that white racism is a logical response to it.
Its ideas about foreign policy and national defense resemble those of PNAC, not surprising when one considers
the overlap of AEI and PNAC Fellows and scholars. Both PNAC founder William Kristol and his father Irving
have been part of AE; other AEI conservatives and neoconservatives who support PNAC positions are Dick
Cheney's wife Lynne Cheney, Thomas Donnelly, David Frum, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Newt Gingrich, Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Richard Perle. Among its financial supporters are the Bechtel Foundation,
the Lilly Endowment, the Bradley Foundation, and the Howard Pew Freedom Trust.

This is not the only think tank which fosters PNAC thinking. I offer three brief descriptions for your review.

Heritage Foundation

With a mission similar to AEI, “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles
of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national
defense,” Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors of Coors Beer and Paul Weyrich. It
boasted that 65% of Reagan's policies came out of its massive Mandate for Leadership document, presented
to Attorney General Ed Meese a week after Reagan's election. Today it claims George W. Bush's policies are
“straight out of the Heritage play book." Well-funded by the Coors Foundation and the Sarah Scaife
Foundation, it has also received corporate funding from General Motors, Ford Motors, Proctor and Gambel,
Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, the Reader’s Digest Association, Mobil Oil, and Smith Kline
Corporation. It was commissioned by Bush to screen potential appointees for right wing political correctness.

Center for Security Policy (CSP)

Frank Gaffney’s CSP was founded to be the “Domino’s Pizza of the policy business:, that is, to respond
quickly with right wing responses to policy issues. It’s long been considered the “nerve center of the Star Wars
lobby.” They’ve helped Cold Warriors from the Reagan years form an influential community which has regained
power in the Bush 43 administration. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have drawn heavily on CSP members
for staffing top offices in the administration, among them, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith,
Secretary of the Air Force James Roche and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle.

The Bradley Foundation

“The Bradley Foundation was set up to commemorate the brothers Lynde and Harry Bradley who had
established a business in Milwaukee in 1903. It grew to become the Allen-Bradley Company. When Allen-Bradley
was acquired by Rockwell International Corporation in 1985 a significant proportion of the proceeds was used to
set up the Bradley Foundation. It stands for economic and political freedom. The Bradley Foundation is rich,
powerful and a leading funder of neo-conservative thinkers. Some call it the patron saint of hawkish causes;
thanks to the generosity it shows to neo-conservative causes.

It was for a long time a funder of what became the John M Olin Center for Strategic Studies (now funded by
the Olin Foundation) at Harvard University, which was until 2000 run by Samuel P Huntington, author of the
famous (and infamous) book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. It provided the
money to set up the Project for the New American Century and has funded it with regular injections of funds
ever since.”

Now there are think tanks to divide churches.

We have the frightened middle of our country, dismayed by calls for gay marriage, and unbidden expositions
of anatomy at football games. They are prepared to accept anyone who will purge us of filth. A strong leader
is what they want, and understandably so.

But there are forces in the Christian right intent on the domination and splitting of the Methodist, Presbyterian,
Episcopalian and Catholic churches. These splits are being forged not just by fundamentalist Christians,
but also by powerful political and money interests, to undermine the integrity of these churches. Funding is
from Richard Mellon Scaife, the same fellow who funded the Arkansas Project. I can’t find my source for
that right now.

All of these divisions, many of these beliefs, are operating against the will of the people, to undermine the
fabric of the democracy itself. But it is subtle and permeates us.

The Politics of Division

Here is where the genius of Karl Rove comes in. He understands this. He knows our fears and strengths and
weaknesses. He knows how to create and exploit division. He can tear us all asunder, one against the other.
It makes him a winner, but we all lose.

What to Do?

Citizenship isn’t for sissies. Freedom is a right, but it is not guaranteed. Today, we have to be our own
watchdogs, and who has the time? This is a big part of our dilemma.

Join. Meet. Organize. Talk. Vote! Don’t let others including me tell you who to vote for. Think for
yourself. Don’t accept pablum. Insist on steak.

I watch a lot of cable news – at least two hours a night. When you do that, it gets easier to see the patterns.
When you watch a news talk program, notice the group the speaker belongs to. You then have a good idea of
the agenda. Is it Frank Gaffney? Bill Kristol? William Bennett (another PNAC). Think.

Alternative Press

Many sources of real information are marginalized. The internet is one independent source, but many
understandably are reluctant to trust a website with no physical address, no face to confront, and no
identifiable source. I count myself among them.

One must take time to find reliable websites which unearth true stories about what is really happening.
Conspiracy theory is not what this is about. This is real life.

I have used Google and its first page on PNAC as a launching source for part of what I have written. I have
come to use TomPaine.com as a source also, since it is favorably mentioned by people I respect, and even
gets decent mention in the mainstream media. I recommend their articles both archived and current on PNAC.
Learn. Try to learn.

Action is the only answer to this. Unless you too believe that Thomas Hobbes is right, and we all must fight
each other – now the reds and the blues— now all against the world. You must tell others. If you find it of
value, share this paper with your friends and loved ones, as I am doing with you.

How to Find Resources?

Go to Google. Look up PNAC. Go to TomPaine.com. Go to Common Cause. Find sources both left and
right, and think for yourself. If you are really brave, go to Air America , 1360 AM.

For moderate views by religious people go to Sojourners—www.sojo.com. I heard a moderate speaker from
them and he made a lot of sense.

Don’t Give Up

Be an American. Stand up. Don’t let this change us.

A Few Final Thoughts

Nearly 200 years ago, a Frenchman named Alexis de Toqueville came over to observe us and our fledgling
democracy. He thought we were great. He thought we had it figured out. He was quite complimentary.

This year, a French philosopher, Bernard Henri Levi, has come to do the same thing. His observation is not
quite the same. In his view, as stated in an interview on C-Span, the United States is becoming a totalitarian
state.

Let’s make him wrong.