Other thoughts on the subject from John Dean as discussed by David Swanson:

John Dean, former legal counsel to Richard Nixon, is 95% recovered from a long bout of conservatism, and he doubts that many others can make the same recovery, but I don't.

Dean's published two excellent books on the Bush-Cheney administration's abuses of power. The first was "Worse Than Watergate." The new one is "Conservatives Without Conscience." The title is a play on former Senator Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," and Dean originally intended to co-write it with Goldwater.

In the new book, on pages 70 and 71, Dean lists in two columns the beliefs and characteristics of "Conservatives Without Conscience" and "Conservatives With Conscience". From my earliest memories, I have been disgusted by the very idea of conservatism, but - with the exception of one of the characteristics - I turn out to be a Conservative With Conscience. That is to say, a "Conservative With Conscience", as defined by Dean, turns out to be a progressive, a leftist, or even a - dare I say it? - liberal, or at least not in disagreement with those people.

If I were to list the characteristics of a progressive, I would add a number of things that are not in Dean's list, but I wouldn't need to change or remove the existing items. One almost gets the impression that Dean is clinging to the idea of an unshameful, non-destructive conservatism simply out of....well, conservatism. I say "almost", because there is an area in which Dean's thinking in this book clashes drastically with my own and with that of many on the left, an area in which he is still a conservative and an authoritarian. A "Conservative With Conscience" actually turns out to be a liberal without a movement, without populism, without any faith that masses of people can do anything to improve their lives.

Dean begins his book with a lengthy preface which ends with these words: "Much of what I have to report is bad news. But there is some good news, because while authoritarians have little self-awareness, a few of them, when they learn the nature of their behavior, seek to change their ways. Thus by reporting the bad and the ugly, it may do some good. At least that is my hope." Dean places his hope in actually saving members of the Bush administration from their authoritarianism, not in urging the public to force Congress to impeach them and remove them from office.

Dean stresses this point again in the final pages of the book: "It was not public opinion that forced Nixon from office....Nixon resigned 'because [Nixon's] attorney had forced the disclosure of evidence so damaging that it seemed certain he would be convicted of high crimes by the Senate.'...The reason Nixon did not go to trial was not his loss of support on Capitol Hill...but rather because he lost the support of his defenders, principally on the White House staff."

But the strength of the evidence disclosed does not dictate conviction in the Senate or even impeachment in the House or even the initiation of an investigation. Dean himself has noted elsewhere that Bush is the first president to have confessed to an impeachable offense (violation of FISA). You don't get much stronger evidence than a repeated public confession, but the current House and Senate are not prepared to act. Why? It's not, I would argue, because Cheney or Addington has failed to receive Dean's therapy. It's because - given the increased corruptness of our media and of our electoral system - there is an even greater need than there was under Nixon for millions of Americans to rise up in protest, and millions of Americans have failed to do so.