With the advent of the Bush 2 Regime, and especially since 9/11/01, the cloak of militarism has settled ever more firmly on America’s shoulders, wrapping itself tightly around the national psyche. The painful emotions born on that fateful September day were the initial fuel for this rampant mood of aggression, igniting a legitimate urge to strike back and defeat those who had attacked us. Skillfully manipulating the fear and outrage of that dark hour, however, the Bush administration quickly inflated the War on Terror to embrace preemptive strikes on nations that one day might pose a threat or might give weapons to terrorists. The besieged and occupied Iraq is, of course, the primary example of this recipe for never-ending war, but murmured threats now include Syria, Iran, and anyone else who might get in our way.
On the news shows and from the punditry, we hear constantly about “the enemy” and what this omnipresent force might do to us if given half a chance. We are kept in a state of continual vigilance by the administration’s spokespeople, always reminded of our need to destroy those who are “evil” and attack them “there” rather than “here”. The increasingly lucrative, mega-billion dollar defense industry, using some of its war-profiteering loot, saturates our media with slick ads about how it is helping us “defeat the enemy” with its cutting-edge technology. And meanwhile, a larger and larger share of our hard-earned tax dollars is going to the bloated defense department budget for building increasingly lethal weaponry, for creating the exorbitant and non-functional anti-missile system, for maintaining over 700 military and intelligence bases worldwide, for developing a new, improved form of bunker-busting nuclear weapon that can be used in combat situations, and for meticulously planning the military and technological mastery of space. Summing up this grim martial reality in one succinct image, Doonesbury’s Garry Trudeau has depicted George W. Bush, since early in his first term, as the garish helmet of a conquering Roman emperor-general.
What is called for, and what the Democrats should make into a clear, bold platform for America’s future, is a new paradigm for national security. Rather than the hyper-militarism and monomaniacal focus on terrorism of George Bush, let us create a secure America that doesn’t feed the fires of terrorism and hatred but instead reconnects with America’s creativity, abundance, and generosity. As Katrina vanden Heuval said in a recent speech at the Take Back America conference: “We want an America that is less warrior and preacher and more architect and builder.” Let us significantly trim our swollen military expenditures and pour some of these liberated resources into creating the many industries that will move us toward energy independence, thus mitigating our need for multiple military bases in the world’s oil rich regions, and, simultaneously, taking the biggest thorn out of our relationship with the Muslim world. The Democratic vision of a secure nation could be one where the economy is strong and not mired in debt, where foreign aid to combat poverty and illness is unstinting and generous, where industries are being developed on the cutting edge of science and renewable energy that move us away from our dependence on foreign oil and the terrorist threat, while moving us toward a cleaner, healthier, and economically sound future. In this vision, we work collaboratively, both at home and abroad, on the problems of poverty, disease, scarce resources, and environmental degradation with a moral clarity that will regain our respect in the world. This is a far-sighted and astute national security strategy and one infinitely more effective than the current administration’s attempts at bullying and beating the rest of the world into submission.
The hyper-militarism of the Bush administration represents a virulent descent into unrestrained machismo, with little mitigating sensitivity, empathy or compassion. This unbalanced attitude can be seen not only in its aggressive foreign policy, but in the administration’s increasingly hostile attitude to policies that help the suffering and vulnerable members of society, as exemplified by the recent bankruptcy bill, the parsimonious amount of aid going to address global poverty and illness, and the largely unaddressed issue of the increasing number of those without health insurance.
University of California linguistics and cognitive science professor George Lakoff suggests that a strict father morality is the prevailing theme of today’s conservatives, whereas a nurturant parent (mother) morality is the prevailing theme of liberals. In an ideal world, these two polarities, although focusing on different priorities, would work well together in a sort of balanced “marriage”, like two complementary halves completing the whole. What is necessary to maintain this balance, however, is that each half contain within itself a bit of the other, just as the yin and yang symbol of cosmic balance portrays each side as having a small circle of the other within itself. Likewise, the work of Carl Jung describes the male psyche as containing an inner feminine element (the anima) and the female psyche containing an inner masculine element (the animus). In our modern political climate, however, the two partisan polarities, conservative and liberal, have taken a dramatic turn into dysfunction, with the more paternal element of the conservatives moving into the domain of the excessive and unrestrained masculine energy of the abusive spouse and the more nurturant or maternal element natural to liberals demonstrating the paralysis and fear of the abused spouse. Each is in danger of totally losing its connection with that counterbalancing element of the other within itself.
The abusive spouse is generally a master at keeping his mate on the defensive. She is rarely given the time to respond coherently before another unexpected attack comes for which she must rally anew. Any criticism of the abuser is deflected by an often irrelevant, vicious, and frequently dishonest criticism of his victim, which has the added benefit (for the abuser) of diminishing the victim’s confidence and clarity of thought. The abuser is never held accountable for any mistakes or lies. It is his abused spouse who is always seen to be at fault and who is always trying to become more acceptable, a state she can never reach. Moreover, the abused spouse becomes very good at tiptoeing around anything that might launch the abuser into another attack, often to the point where she is barely able to express her true self without fear of reprisal.
There are many examples of this process going on between Republicans and Democrats and between Republicans and the media, which has also become increasingly fearful of angering the administration and muzzling itself to avoid conflict. The pattern of the GOP engaging in vicious criticism, often dishonest, that puts either Democrats or the media on the defensive and keeps the spotlight off of Republican misdeeds is incontrovertible. The damage done by the deceitful Swift Boat Veterans, the focus on the CBS memos that eclipsed the real story of Bush’s absence from his National Guard service, the Newsweek flap in which the Bush administration blamed the magazine for 17 deaths that resulted from anti-American riots, and even the recent stir about Howard Dean’s criticism of the GOP all have this in common: each was a blatant attempt by the GOP scream machine to put either the Democrats or the media on the defensive and to deflect all attention from mistakes, misdeeds, or crimes that this Republican administration does not want people to look at.
The solution to this very dysfunctional imbalance is for the Democrats and the media to reclaim that fragment of the “other” buried within, that small circle of yang within the yin. Both must find within themselves the ability to bully, to put off balance with sharp criticism, and to constantly put their Republican abusers on the defensive. When Republicans criticize something Howard Dean has said, which is usually just a less than tactful statement of a truth the GOP wishes to avoid, Democrats should NEVER agree with the criticism and, with head hanging down, humbly try to do better next time, just like the abused spouse. They must STAY ON MESSAGE, reiterate the essence of what Governor Dean has said, albeit in a more diplomatic and politically correct form, but nonetheless keeping the GOP on the defensive about their misbegotten policies, rather than facilitating them in their ploy to make Howard Dean the story.
It is clear to many that the excessive militarism of this administration, with its torture camps, its bullying tactics, and its abusive attitude toward its enemies, both political and foreign, must be restrained. In the international arena, foreign nations are already creating new alliances to counter the perceived threat of America’s push toward global hegemony. In the domestic arena, if both the Democrats and the media can increasingly engage their inner aggression and courage, it would totally shift the current unbalanced energy dynamic. A bit of yin energy might even bloom amidst the killing fields of Republican dominance. And when the Democrats find their true voice and let it ring out loud and clear, unintimidated by the local bullies, one of the questions they might ask the American people is this: do you want your country to be an autocratic planetary thug that pours all its resources into military prowess while its much-vaunted democracy withers under the strain of imperialism, or do you want to reclaim the intent of the founding fathers and harness your creative might and your bold enterprising spirit to make a more fruitful, healthy, freedom-loving nation in a peaceful world?
The astrological context for this increase in militarism in the US during the past few years is readily apparent with an examination of the aspects to both US Mars and progressed US Mars, the planet of energy, action, and, of course, war. From 2001 through 2004, Pluto waxed ever closer to its opposition to US Mars, intensifying not only a focused aggression (war) but a general mood of militarism and of power struggle with ferocious enemies. Although this transit is waning, Pluto will return to within 26 minutes of US Mars in September 2005, and so its irritable and edgy mood, though lessened, will persist until then.
In addition, progressed US Midheaven has been quincunx progressed US Mars during 2004 through early 2005. This, too, is now waning, but progressed US Mars remains stationary at 18Libra42, enabling its militant tone to continue in the background until it successfully starts its retrograde motion in 2009. It is worth noting that in January 2005, during the Jupiter station exactly on progressed US Mars, American militarism experienced a fleeting triumphal (Jupiter) moment with the elections in Iraq.
In the second Bush term, there are three separate transits of Uranus to Mars that will bear watching as regards the timing of potential aggression. The first is Uranus opposite Bush’s natal Mars during 2005 and early 2006. The second will be Uranus square to Inaugural Mars in 2007 and early 2008. And the third, and potentially most disruptive, will be Uranus square to US Mars in 2008 and early 2009. These aspects, however, do not exist in a vacuum, and there will be many restraining influences on Bush during much of this time.
The second Bush Inaugural chart suggests that the Bush administration will be kept largely ineffectual and bogged down by the powerful Saturn influence which adversely impacts every point in the chart except Mars and Uranus. The problematic Saturn in that chart is conjunct the IC, within a 2 degree orb, an aspect that indicates feelings of failure and real despair. In the past week, transiting Saturn briefly crossed the Inaugural IC (5/31 – 6/10), and we saw Bush’s polls continue to plummet and the damaging story of the Downing Street Minutes begin to find its way into the mainstream media and the collective awareness. From February 2006 through February 2007, solar arc Saturn will be conjunct the Inaugural IC, bringing a more protracted period of failure and difficulty similar to what we have seen hounding the administration in the past week. In addition, the progressed Inaugural Midheaven will be conjunct natal Chiron for all of 2006, adding to the implication that 2006 and very early 2007 will be a very difficult time for the administration, and possibly a period when some kind of debilitating “wound” (Chiron) cripples its functioning.
The restrictive energy of Saturn that will keep Bush somewhat leashed and mired in difficulties over the next few years is also due to the transits in his own chart, as well as the progressions and natal positions in the Inaugural chart. Currently, Saturn is returning to its own place in his natal chart after just completing a square to his Midheaven. Although he managed to “win” the election with these aspects (and a Jupiter return), he has been floundering in the morass of the Iraq War, a disaster entirely of his own obsessive and incompetent making, and dealing with several Republican mutinies on the home front ever since. Beginning in September 2005, Bush will undergo Saturn crossing his Ascendant, Mercury, and Pluto on and off through early July 2006, after which it will cross his Venus through June 2007. His poll numbers are likely descend even further during this period, especially from October 2006 through June 2007.
Nonetheless, there are some moments when this administration’s more aggressive instincts may erupt. Late July through mid-September 2005 is one such interval, when Uranus returns to oppose Bush’s Mars, Jupiter returns to progressed US Mars, and tertiary progressed Inaugural Mars will be conjunct Inaugural Pluto. The Uranus/Mars influence here suggests that Bush will be more prone to sudden unilateral actions, either domestic policy initiatives or military, or be impacted by sudden events that demand a strong response. The triggering of the Inaugural Mars/Pluto conjunction suggests some kind of violence or aggressive action relating to an open or hidden enemy (Mars rules the Inaugural 7th and 12th houses). By early September, however, difficulties and overwhelming obstacles will again begin to restrain Bush when Saturn hits his Ascendant, Mercury, and Pluto and the US Node.
A second period of potentially aggressive or overassertive eruptions from the Bush administration is likely from April through early August 2007, as well as during the second half of February 2008. Uranus will be square to the Inaugural Mars, ruler of the 7th and 12th houses in the Inaugural chart, suggesting some kind of attack on the administration from secret or open enemies, possibly those he considered friends, since Uranus rules the 11th house. This will not necessarily be a military or violent event, and could instead be a political or legal attack of some kind. Bush will respond with overconfidence and may be prone to recklessness and poor judgment, due to his progressed Mars conjunct his natal Jupiter, with transiting Uranus quincunx Mars during this same timeframe. Things will go very poorly for him at least through June 23, 2007, while Saturn remains on his natal Venus. After that date, he will be far less restrained and may have more success in implementing his goals.
Perhaps the most likely planetary aspect to bring an intensification of American militarism will be the transit of Uranus square to US Mars beginning in mid-April 2008. This transit will be quite strong from April 9 through August 26, 2008, and then repeats during the first half of February 2009. Needless to say, a vicious political war is also a possibility with this aspect during an election year, but the danger of a military event should not be ruled out.. As of late November 2008, Saturn will move to station square US Mars through January 20, 2009. This indicates that whatever ferocious military or political energy has been unleashed by the Uranus transit, it is likely to be restrained or run into significant obstacles by the end of the year. Beyond February 2009, there is little to suggest that this over-macho posture that has been rampant in America with the coming of George W. Bush will continue. Hopefully, some amount of balance will be restored.
