What Is To Be Done?*

I despair the politics of this era, the lies and distortions that impel it, the money that drives it. Mitt Romney is its perfect symbol; Paul Ryan is the embodiment of its deceptive promises of reaction snake-oil.

The Economist asks, 'Who, really, is Mitt Romney?' I doubt he can answer, except: he's determined to win the Presidency; he has no goal, other than winning it. He's been both a moderate liberal as governor of Massachusetts, and an "extreme conservative," (his own words), while running for President, even after winning the nomination. He was pro-choice, and now, he'll run on a Republican platform in which even rape and incest are not exempt from its absolute ban. He insists, after Akin's blooper, that he'd allow abortion for either reason, but who knows whether he would, or could, given his party.

Romney even threatens a Gold Commission to investigate returning to the Gold Standard--presumably to mollify Ron Paul supporters.

Then Senator, George McGovern, wrote an awful forward to The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: McGovern touted the Khmer Rouge as a beacon! If Mitt is able to buy the Presidency--that's what it would be, a purchase, costing several billion dollars--then the Dark Age could be upon us: the Roman Senators of old couldn't match the callous disregard the elite bear today for the rest of us. Romney would cut services (Food Stamps, Medicaid) for the desperate and cut taxes for his (lightly taxed) class of multimillionaires and billionaires. He'd also increase Defense spending, possibly for fighting another war: Iran, probably, although he'd also start a trade war with China the day he's inaugurated.

Romney appears to have chosen "extreme conservative" over moderate liberal, although he's still claiming he lives in Massachusetts (there is a question whether he did, when he filed taxes and voted in Massachusetts, claiming residence in his son's basement, a possible felony). But Romney still resists political, as well as geographic, definition.

His party tries to rally natives against immigrants, whites against blacks, men against women--its absolutist anti-abortion position is only a small part of that--but all is subsumed in the general war against all who are not owners of significant capital.

Capital is the contemporary version of the gold, land and slaves controlled by Roman Senators in the fourth and fifth centuries. Unlike the wealth of old, however, capital is expandable, and radical. Roman Senators could do only a small fraction of the damage that can be done, is already being done, by our contemporary elites, from eviscerating the safety net, environmental pollution and impoverishing the non-rich, to global warming, global immiseration and buying this election.

Can sanity stop them? Even the sitting President, Obama, doesn't have the money to beat back their misinformation, smears, and outright lies: example, their claim that Obama is reviving welfare.

What is to be done?

*Lenin used the same title.

Reaction and Sharing--Romney, et al

Reactionary means someone whose politics could be characterized as "an action in a reverse direction or manner." Our whole politics is reactionary!

Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.

The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.

Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.

Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."

People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.

That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.

They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.

But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.