The US is beginning to lose the ability to govern itself. States are going close to bankrupt, because politicians can't raise taxes. The Federal government has passed some reforms, but it's too early to say whether the major compromises purchased by "producer" interests, render those reforms nugatory. Most real action appears stymied, because the opposition is no longer "loyal," it is obstructionist.
The Federal government can borrow, but it's borrowing even more than it's spending on the Empire (wars, bases all over the world, fancy and over-priced materiel), but it's not borrowing from its own people. It's borrowing from foreigners (China, oil exporters, Germany).
If, as seems likely, the huge influx of corporate cash into the mid-term elections elects "free market" fundamentalists into a legislative majority in at least one house, or a stronger blocking minority, then the current Congress will actually seem functional in comparison to what we'll face in 2011.
In order for government to work, a majority ought to be able to govern. When a small minority can block (the power to put a "hold" on any piece of legislation empowers a minority of one), and 41% can effectively control the Senate, you don't have a democracy, and you don't have an effective government.
In a previous post, I mentioned a Canadian who was unable to explain to his son why the American government didn't work. In most "representative democracies," there is accountability, because the majority creates policy. In parliamentary systems, that majority also forms the government. In the US, no one is accountable. The Democrats aren't accountable, because they can't form policy if the minority objects. The President isn't accountable, because he can't overpower the minority. The minority isn't accountable, because it isn't the government.
The only accountability appears to be to the large-scale funders of campaigns and lobbies. Since they are large-scale because they have lots of money (now completely unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision), their interests heavily tilt towards: favoring wealth, favoring already powerful institutions, and favoring the status quo from which they have profited so lavishly.
That leaves out the people, especially those who need help and protection. It also leaves out meaningful responses to real problems: climate change, military expenditures, unsustainable wars and unemployment; it opposes the interests and welfare of the majority.
One example: cut Social Security and Medicare, and/or privatize both, in order to sustain our imperial expenditures--and to enable "Finance" to prey on the elderly, too.
Something like this happened with the Roman Empire: the majority was relegated to the dole; a tiny minority cornered all the wealth. If this happens now, it won't take 400 years for the system to collapse.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Politics of Diversion
What's amazing is how well it works, especially when people are desperate and angry for completely different reasons. Diversion means, that you, as political opinion-maker, invent something to rile the boobs, so that they don't blame you when you steal them blind.
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Friday, August 20, 2010
People Don't Matter
That appears to be the predominant political economy of our day. Our unemployment rate remains high, and in fact may be much higher than the 9.5% cited by our government, but still, the movers and shakers (M's&S's) are debating how to cut the deficit.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Democratic Protest: Three Die
I own land in a remote part of the country, and make my living by farming it. I produce wheat and sometimes opium poppy. I've lived on the land all my life; it's been in the family for generations, just like our neighbors on both sides: they have lived on their land for generations.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The G-20 and the Secret Police
I'm writing from Kitchener, Ontario. I was talking to a Canadian about how our government system (doesn't) work: he was amazed.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Budget War and the War War
Paul Krugman decries the deficit hysteria, but even he doesn't make much of the connection between our turning off the streetlights (literally) and the Wars, and/or "Defense."
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Who is Barry Soetaro?
Birthers may sound crazy, when they rant about "Barry Soetaro," but it isn't just crazy; their rants have a deep political purpose.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
To the Barricades!
Unemployment is painfully high, huge numbers are unemployed long-term, and Congress struggles mightily just to pass an extension of unemployment benefits? "Conservative" Democrats (heartless perhaps) and almost all Republicans voted against. Why? Fear of the deficit.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)