A Glimpse into the Conservative Mind: Michael Scheuer and the Desire for Another Terrorist Attack on America

Maybe you read about it at Crooks and Liars (which has the video), maybe you heard about last night on The Daily Show. Here’s what Michael Scheuer told Glenn Beck, crazy meets crazy, on Tuesday:

The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it’s going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It’s an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Insane. On so many levels.

First, who exactly desires the praise of Europeans? Obama? I’m sure he wants Europe to like him — and to like America (and what’s wrong with that? isn’t in America’s best interests to have Europe as an ally? — but it’s crazy to suggest that somehow “these politicians” (and again, who?) — are driven primarily by a concern for Europe.

Second, who are “the media” and “the Europeans”? Are all media the same? Does “the media” include Politico, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal, three leading media outlets that also happen to lean to the right? And is Europe just some monolith of monotony? Crazy on both counts.

Third — okay, I was just putting it off, here’s the key point — what the %#@&?

You know, sometimes you just have to thank whatever god or gods you happen to believe in, or, if no god, just thank you lucky stars, when a conservative comes out and tells it like it is.

Because isn’t that what Scheuer did?

Now, look, I’m not saying all conservatives are hoping for a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. I hope that most aren’t — and I’m sure the more sane among them aren’t.

But what’s clear is that conservatives like Scheuer — and there are many of them (neocons, mostly, but not only), — promote a Cheney-esque national security agenda that is, at its core, violent.

Consider how Scheuer put it: “with as much violence as necessary.” What does that mean? It means, presumably, an agressive, warmongering foreign policy and an agressive, repressive domestic policy. It means war abroad but also a trampling of the Constitution at home. It means an executive branch, and a president specifically, liberated from any and all checks and balances. It means domestic surveillance without checks. It means torture. It means, essentially, a police state. Actually, what it means is fascism (and I don’t use that word lightly). And you’d be correct to find in Scheuer’s words the very justification for oppression that has underpinned authoritarian and totalitarian regimes throughout history: An enemy is upon us; therefore, we crack down.

The problem is, try as they might, these conservatives can’t get what they want just by scaring up an enemy. 9/11 provided the basis for the Bush Administration’s crackdown, but, alas, 9/11 has receded into memory, and, well, Americans still cherish their liberties.

So what Scheuer and his ilk need, if they are to be successful in achieving their fascistic aims, is not just another attack but a major attack, an attack with “a major weapon” — a nuclear attack, a biological or chemical attack, something much bigger than 9/11, something that would scare the people into submission.

This is clearly what they think they need, and — yes, thank you — Scheuer admitted it. It’s rare to get such a far-reaching glimpse into the conservative mind.

And it is possible that, in the event of such an attack, the people would willingly give up their liberties and allow a fascistic cabal to rule them. Something as massive as a nuclear attack would surely turn America upside-down. I wouldn’t put it past them.

I don’t know, though. Sometimes I’m optimistic about the indomitable spirit of the American people — the spirit that was on display throughout Obama’s presidential campaign and on election night, sometimes not so much. It could go either way.

But back to the point at hand: Conservatives (and Republicans generally) claim that liberals (and Democrats) are weak on national security, that their policies weaken America and open her up to attack. And yet, conservatives, not liberals, are openly wishing for another attack. Which begs the question: Do these conservatives actually want to protect Americans, or, rather, do they simply want power, the unified, fascistic power of a police state?

I’ll go with the latter.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)