The Writing on the Wall: After the ‘Death of a President’
Historian claims we are baby steps from totalitarianism
By Brian Goodman, opinion editor
Posted on September 7, 2006

A new film, premiering at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sunday, has taken a very unique perspective on a very pertinent question: how, in light of the War on Terror and the volatile political situation at home and abroad, would the grand experiment in democracy that is the United States fare following the death of the president?

In true dramatic fashion, those connected with the film have been intentionally circumspect with the conclusions at which the film arrives. But God bless British newspapers; the Daily Mail could not stand the suspense. At their request, historian Mark Almond ran with the premise of “Death of a President,” and predicted where the United States and the world would be a few years down the road.

In October 2007, the war in Iraq has continued to burden President Bush, while the anti-war effort continued to grow. After giving a speech in a Chicago hotel, the president is shot in the stomach with a crude but lethally designed bullet fired by a sniper nearby. Within minutes, the announcement that the leader of the free world was killed was made, and the manhunt for the Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen who fired the shot was underway.

Almond’s predictions from this point are sobering believable. As per the Constitution, vice-president Cheney is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, and is quick to act. From his infamous “secure location”— soon nicknamed “Bunker One” — began to pass executive orders effectively suspending habeas corpus for citizens as well as foreigners suspected of terrorist connections. And in the name of national security, a security wall is eagerly built on both the northern and southern borders.

The terrified public, still reeling from the loss of an unpopular but powerful figurehead, embraces these moves. The rest of the world, however, was demonstratively less heartbroken by the assassination. Condolences out of Europe, while clearly expressed by the state, rang hollow with the American people. And despite similar platitudes out of the Middle East, the jubilation in the streets of Tehran and Damascus are damning in the court of American public opinion.

Therefore, when President Cheney moves to invade Syria — sold to the people by the same spinmasters who connected Saddam Hussein with Sept. 11 — there was virtually no domestic opposition. It has become clear, especially to his detractors, that President Bush was less a puppet of Dick Cheney than he was a check; with the “compassionate conservative” at rest in Arlington National Cemetery, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons populating the executive branch are let loose.

Syria was only the jump-off point. Almond theorizes that Iran’s open support for Syria will have made them the clear and declared enemy. With the American people unified behind the president and the Democrats completely marginalized, the attack quickly shifted to Tehran. Massive bombing attacks crippled the country’s infrastructure, but at a price — Iran produces a large amount of the world’s oil. Images of burning oil fields and cowering, soot-covered civilians again fill television screens, as the price of oil skyrockets and the global economy is crippled.

Having learned the lessons from Hezbollah’s war with Israel in 2006 — widely considered a proxy war between Iran and the United States — Iran is able to mount gruesomely effective counterattacks; after months of the ground war, the battle made Iraq look like basic training.

Back at home, the 2008 election is conducted in a virtual state of emergency, and a landslide for Cheney. Though still in hiding (he addressed the GOP convention by 3-D video link), his focused demeanor and displays of strength are enough to keep the people complacently behind him.

Almond’s predictions should strike fear into any freedom-loving man or women, regardless of political allegiance. The picture the historian paints of America two years from now, and only a year removed from the assassination, could be confused for any totalitarian government at any point in modern history. If — or when — a national crisis like the death of the president occurs, it takes little imagination to see Almond’s prophesy coming to fruition. It behooves us, therefore, to examine the current state of our union, the actual and potential limitations on our freedoms, and begin working for change now. By the time the catastrophe comes, it is already too late.

Brian Goodman is a senior communications major.