Modern Fascism

Thirty-five years: the judge split the difference for Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Defense lawyers asked for 20, the prosecution asked for 60-90.

Now we know: if we happen upon the government acting illegally, or immorally, we must shut our eyes, because that's the Government. They can do no wrong--unless, according to the GOP, they spend too much on frivolous things like Food Stamps.

But Security? Never ask. Don't even look! If you work for Government, however, you better look--at your fellow employees to insure a colleague doesn't become another Manning or Snowden.

There was a time, when we pointed derisively at the USSR, because they had secret police and the Gulag. Everyone there was expected to report on everyone else, and the primitive censorship, fear and constant monitoring was effective, for a while, in suppressing popular interests--or rationality--in favor of the Communist Party elite. It was woefully inefficient, not least because there was no free flow of information.

The new American system of dictatorship is much more sophisticated, so sophisticated that if there wasn't someone like Bradley Manning or Ed Snowden spilling out the secrets of what the Government is really doing, no one would really know for sure that they were being manipulated and controlled surreptitiously. Now we know: what Government tells the compliant media is becoming as reliable as Pravda or Izvestia. And that's on top of having a militarized police and the most prisoners per capita, suffering the harshest treatment.

In the late Roman Empire, there was an extreme concentration of wealth held by the Senatorial class, similar to today's inequality. The Senators also controlled the civil imperial government. The military was a separate entity, increasingly drawn from the "barbarians" they were continually fighting. Social and political control was more fragmented. Misinformation and fantasy was rampant. The Emperor had an army of informers, but was mostly concerned with court and elite intrigue. The Senators held life and death powers over their serfs--and exercised it freely. The cities were in chaos, just like Detroit, but, worse than bankruptcy, corrupt gangs ran them.

Are we headed in that direction? One party of the duopoly can't even raise taxes in Texas on highly profitable oil companies to keep their roads paved, roads largely destroyed by heavy oil company truck traffic. The other party appears to be made up of those who can be bought, but are less reliable for corporate interests, punctuated by a few honest souls.

But when a putatively liberal President presides over record deportations, record whistleblower prosecutions, covert killing and an apparently out of control surveillance state, you wonder: when did we lose our democracy? Most of the press and public don't seem to care. What we have in democracy's stead is overlapping institutions, including Government departments, corporations (including media), the military-security industry and the extremely wealthy, attempting to coordinate and strengthen their control:

We could call it "modern Fascism."

The Fiscal Slope

It really isn't a cliff; most people don't pay taxes in January; Congress will have time to fix things after the first of the year and has often written tax and spending bills that are retroactive.

One of the advantages of delay is that a "tax increase" on Dec. 31st, i.e. not extending Bush tax cuts, becomes an opportunity for "tax cuts" on January 1st. The Obama/Democratic program of maintaining the lower tax rates for the middle class, becomes "tax cuts" in January. The higher rates, for those with incomes over $250,000, does not become a tax increase: it would simply remain as part of the agreement reached between Congress and the President, as part of the bargain to cut the deficit and debt. The Republican House agreed to this as the fall-back position for cutting the deficit.

This whole "cut the deficit" mania came from the Tea Party caucus in the House: it's miss-timed. The Great Recession has driven most of the current deficit by stimulus and aid to people in distress, and collecting less revenue because fewer people are working.

The whole mechanism of government spending more in a recession in order to ameliorate misery, despite revenue shortfalls, was an innovation of the New Deal. It's not surprising that reactionary Republicans want to repeal the practice.

Consider what would have happened if we'd adopted the balanced budget amendment long advocated by "fiscal conservatives": as revenue went down in the financial collapse of 2008, government would have been required either to raise taxes on those still working, and/or to cut expenditures--on food stamps, schools and everything else, even Defense. The result would have been an ever deeper, broader and self-reinforcing hole in the economy and mass misery. Today we'd still be in a deep depression with no way to dig ourselves out. We'd be in worse shape than Europe.

Once we've spent enough to create jobs (and hopefully to restructure the economy), then is the time to raise taxes on those who currently can't afford it, or to find other ways to balance the books: now is not that time; the economy is still too fragile and too many people are still out of work.

However, to avoid the so-called cliff, to begin to reduce the deficits in ways the nation can afford, raising taxes on high income earners makes sense. They do not "create jobs," from their rising incomes. The corporations they own will hire when there is demand for the goods and services they produce. Not before. High-income earners have garnered almost all the increased wealth since the start of the Great Recession: they are largely sitting on it, or investing it elsewhere.

The Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the wealthy is like the Roman Senate in 476 refusing to raise their taxes to pay the Ostrogoth palace guard. That action precipitated the "fall of Rome."

Timorous Democrats

Republicans appear, with the help of Cato, Fox "News" and Limbaugh, to have created a whole new (fictional) world, one in which austerity and government lay offs create jobs, in which governments never create jobs, but "job creators" like Willard Romney do. It's an ideological system dependent on economic theories already proved more effective at amassing deficits, not jobs: the Laffer Curve and supply side fiscal policy. They state that taxes should be cut (even more) on the wealthy, and raised for everyone else, to stimulate the "job creators" already flush with cash, while gutting government services to those in need--to get them back to work!

Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.

Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.

In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.

Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.

The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.

Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.

Game Over O' Canada!

The Tar Sands in Alberta: Now that the US pipeline is delayed, Robert Redford, at a Toronto Film Festival, exhorted his Canadian colleagues to save Canada, by stopping the Canadian government from permitting a western pipeline route, over the Rockies and the Cascades, through British Columbia's pristine wilderness and an unspoiled coast, to export the dirty oil to China.

Maybe he was wasting his breath. Canada may be more liberal than the US in some ways, but its parliamentary Federal government has been more thoroughly taken over by Karl Rove's type of conservatives than, so far, in the US: both chambers are controlled by absolute Conservative majorities. The Prime Minister closely controls the majority, even vets every public statement made by his Ministers.

And who paid for the Conservatives? Western (Canadian) oil interests (probably also the Kochs, etc.), the interests turning swathes of Alberta's boreal forest into a wasteland, while they mine and cook the tar sands.

The tar sands will still be piped out. Capitalism will hang us all, even after a hard-fought, much touted victory by environmental groups, spearheaded by Bill McKibben's 350.org, to persuade Obama to stop the XL Keystone pipeline from being built from the tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Obama, under pressure, put off a decision till 2013. Republicans will probably yell that Obama gave American jobs to Canadians.

But the real point is: that tar sand oil is going to be developed, no matter what Obama decides, or climate scientists say. It was James Hansen, formerly NASA's top climatologist, who said that if the tar sands are exploited (the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's oil, but much, much dirtier) that for the climate it's "game over."

I hope I'm wrong, but unless there is a massive popular protest in Canada, that physically blocks the westward pipeline, James Hansen may prove prescient. We already see climate change all around us. In the US northeast, there was both freakish weather, including over a foot-deep snowstorm in October with thunder and lightning, and trees turning color later, or curling up brown weeks too early. We've had too much rain, while Texas was literally burning up with drought this summer. Violent storms and tornadoes became more frequent, and hurricanes strengthen more easily.

There is no conspiracy of scientists pushing global warming theory so that governments will be forced to become more socialistic. The money is all on the denialist side, as it is in Canada.

Protests in Canada are just as violently repressed as in the US, and their Prime Minister, Harper, is a fundamentalist Christian. This is what the US will look like if Republicans win both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

The environmental disaster caused by the Roman Empire (Mediterranean deforestation and desertification) will look miniscule compared to the destruction of our benign and livable global climate, unless, somehow, the tar sands exploitation is stopped.

Dodging the Bullet

At least the Democrats on the super-committee didn't cave to the intransigence of the Republican members.

The Republicans claimed that they proposed a compromise, in which they offered tax/revenue increases of $300 billion over 10 years, in addition to their demands to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but their proposal was misleading. It was no compromise, because they also demanded tax cuts totaling many times the $300 billion, by lowering the top income tax rate to 28%.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to buy the Republican line: neither side was willing to compromise. That wasn't true. The Democrats and Obama offered cuts to Medicare that were too large and were offset by tax increases (on the top income earners) that were too small.

It's a good thing that Republicans rejected the Democrats' compromise proposals as too much of a tax increase, and it's a surprise blessing that the Democrats didn't counter with even more capitulation to the Republican agenda of slash, burn and fill the pockets of the super-rich. Perhaps, finally, Democrats are getting the message that you can't compromise with ideological absolutists, who are bent on destroying virtually all programs that benefit anyone but our modern day Roman Senators.

Republicans have become the equivalent of fifth century panegyrists; they sang the praises of the Roman Senators: they had pillaged through politics, instead of legions. Now, we have Republican Congressmen and Senators who yawp about "job creators," even though they're not "creating" jobs. Entrepreneurs and/or corporations do not "create" jobs, they hire people when there is demand for whatever it is they're selling--usually not their creation, either. With the exception of someone like Steve Jobs, most inventors have had their creations ripped off by "entrepreneurs," and haven't profited from their genius. Capitalism rewards people who know how to make money, not people who know how to make things, or think original ideas.

In the fifth century the 1% controlled even more of the wealth: there was much less of it to control. They didn't create wealth; they sequestered it in gold or land. The 1% today can't possibly spend their earnings, nor can they find worthwhile investments in developed nations; they can speculate--hence the wild gyrations of the stock market--and they can invest in developing nations like China, or increasingly, in nations like Vietnam or the Philippines. When they invest in factories, or partnerships in these countries, or service industries like tech assistance in India, they may be hiring, but not in the US.

If they create demand, it isn't here; they are sequestering the wealth, just like the Roman Senators, and just like them, they can't see that the end is coming, because their dominance is unsustainable.

Fairer income distribution, what Republicans label "Socialism," would energize the economy, stimulate demand and wipe out unemployment--and most of the deficit. So, workers should be paid more and executives a lot less.

How would we accomplish that?

Empire or Republic?

--the crippling costs of a defense policy that makes global hegemony a mindless imperative. Salon, 8/13/11: "The Pentagon's New China War Plan."

Congressman Chris Gibson, R, NY, comment: "America is a republic, not an empire."

The Pentagon, it appears, is an independent entity that throws its weight around. It is much like the field army of the later Roman Empire, which operated independently of the Emperor. The major difference: the field army enthroned and dethroned Emperors; the Pentagon only controls the President.

Just Foreign Policy News notes that on Pentagon spending, the President is to the right of conservative Republican Senator Coburn. Obama's Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, is insisting now that any cuts to his budget beyond the $420 billion already passed in the budget-ceiling agreement will "hollow out" the military. He and his underlings are also attempting to persuade Iraqis that we should keep 10,000+ troops in Iraq after the end of the year, when they're all scheduled to leave, as per Bush's negotiated settlement. Iraqis are resistant, as well they should be.

Senators like Coburn and Congressmen like Gibson may be very conservative and even pro-military (Gibson was a Colonel, and served 4 tours in Iraq), but their positions on the military budget are getting closer to anti-war Democrats: spending has to be cut, and the military should bear the brunt of it. Coburn apparently approves of a cut of a trillion dollars to defense, which is what the fall-back position of the debt-ceiling agreement will call for if the "super committee" fails to reach agreement on cuts.

This "new China war policy?" It appears that our military is moving to protect their perceived global hegemony. Cuts to troop strength in the Middle East are matched by naval and air force deployments to places like Guam and Diego Garcia. One observer commented on the buildup of those two island bases: twin anchors for maintaining global supremacy. Further, the military appears intent on picking a fight with China. It sees China's new assertiveness, especially in the South China Sea, as a threat. Why? Perhaps China would be a threat if it muscled in on the eastern Pacific rim, or the Caribbean, but do we have to protect the Communist Vietnamese from the Communist Chinese?

The military thinks in military/strategic terms, but doesn't appear to consider their economic impact, nor their political/psychological impact, either. All they see is the global map: land masses, sea lanes, communications routes, resources and potential threats to "their" people, which includes global corporations and US clients, regardless of how corrupt or exploitative they may be.

The military is oblivious to their effect upon the US, but some American conservatives are beginning to get it: the military will drive us into bankruptcy if it gets its way, bending Obama and Panetta before it.