Counter-Revolution Paid For By

Scott Walker's "easy win" over old line Democrat, Tom Barrett, shows the relative effectiveness of two strategies: buying elections and media, versus organizing "the masses." Maybe there weren't enough of the masses, or there were too many Fox consumers, but buying an election worked, mass organizing didn't. Also, Tom Barrett's moderate stance of "let's reason together," didn't work. He lost this time by more than last time, before Walker slammed public sector unions and women, and students, and, and, and.

Wisconsin was a laboratory for those freed by Citizens United to spend unlimited funds in order to buy the kind of government they want: slashed services, cowed workers and slashed taxes for the wealthy.

And they won. Big.

Walker is a hero of the right. To them, he's someone who stood up to unions, who stood up to uppity women: he called their bluff and cut taxes for corporations. All the outrage, all the organizing, all the demonstrations against him and the Republican coup d'etat comes down to this: Walker won with a higher percentage of the vote than he won in 2010, before he revealed how radical he was.

The real winners are the people I've called the Selfish Class. It's not clear, yet, whether their campaign spending (seven to one versus Democrats, reportedly, 2/3 from out of state, versus 1/4 for Democrats) or the longer propaganda campaign of Fox News and snide talk radio was most important in waging the counter-revolution. Both were paid for by the same kind of people: the selfish class, whether corporate donors, or billionaires wanting to protect and expand what is theirs.

What is clear is that even if Obama ekes out a win in November (18% of Walker voters said they'd support him), it is the selfish class that really won. Walker's agenda was tailor-made by them: bash unions into impotence, humiliate women into 1950's-type subservience and cow dissidents, minorities and students into hiding. Most important: cut taxes on the wealthy to the bone.

Obama may win against Romney by piecing together a coalition of feminists, gays, minorities and enough independents impressed by his anti-terrorist cojones, but you can bet he'll be reluctant to support strengthening unions, or pushing for a real stimulus, or going after Wall Street. He may be marginally better than Romney, but he's not going to undo the counter-revolution.

There is a real divide in this country, and much of the world. The uber-rich selfish class, like Fifth-century Roman Senators, has their hangers-on and their subservient serfs, who have been taught that their heroes' good fortunes will trickle down. And there are the rest of us, who haven't yet accepted the message.

We haven't accepted it, because it isn't true: with austerity, slashed services and increasing inequality, the wealthy will prosper, but, if they prevail, we'll be driven into a centuries-long depression, just like the fifth-century Roman Empire.

We'll Always Be Rich

What a wealthy man said to a plumber, working for him.

That's what's most tragic about the whole debt-ceiling "debate;" the rich are always sure they'll always have it all. The plumber was "ripped off for $40,000" by a friend of the man who said this. He was also rich.

Not all wealthy people are indifferent, or feel so entitled, or are as unfeeling and cheap, but a lot are. The debate, if you can call a one-sided shouting fest a debate, so often appeared to be based on the same assumption, but with one further step: if they're always rich, then I have to court them, because I need campaign funds if I'm going to get re-elected.

Yes, there were some Democrats (and one independent) who objected that not raising taxes on the wealthy was unfair, but most Democrats were rather circumspect with the same argument. None, not even independent Sanders, were as vehement as were the Republicans against raising taxes. Many Tea Party Republicans had actually signed a pledge never to raise taxes, and people like Boehner declared that he would not raise taxes on the "job creators." He added, that he'd never voted to raise taxes, and never would.

To get a debt-ceiling compromise, somebody had to blink; it was the Democrats. You could argue that Obama and the Democrats were the grown-ups, while the GOP was having a tantrum--and got away with it. However, Democrats didn't get such a bad deal. They gained a veto over any further cuts, by requiring that half of all cuts would have to come from the military ($750 billion), if the super-committee did not come up with an additional $1.5 trillion reduction in the deficit.

Republicans hate cutting Defense about as much as they hate raising taxes. Further, the Bush tax cuts will be expiring, reducing the deficit, and raising taxes on the rich, as well as everyone else. In addition, entitlements are protected in this second round, except for Medicare providers, and so is Medicaid and some other programs benefiting the needy.

There are enough pro-Defense Democrats on the committee to make a majority, so they will have to come up with a solution. Will there be enough Democrats to prevent that "the solution" will only cut programs that don't affect the rich? There aren't enough of them; they'll have to raise taxes somehow.

Will the rich always be rich? FDR attempted redistribution, to moderate extremes of wealth and poverty; he probably saved capitalism. Without the New Deal, we could have had a Communist or Fascist revolution. If the New Deal is turned on its head, we could have Tahrir Square, or a Fascist takeover. In Pinochet's Chile, the wealthy were happy; they were in charge again.

In Rome, the Senators drove the Empire into the hands of the barbarians, and thought, until the end: "We'll always be rich."

Their selfishness cut their throats (and almost everyone else's).

Beware Pentagon's Imperial Ambitions

An Undersecretary of Defense, Michele Flournoy, can undermine efforts by Obama and Clinton to initiate negotiations with the Taliban. She let slip on purpose that the Pentagon planned to continue Special Operations counter-terror missions in Afghanistan even after most troops withdraw in 2014, and would retain Bagram Air Base to support them.

One requirement of the Taliban, which is willing to negotiate, is that all foreign forces would leave in any final settlement.

Why does Obama countenance such self-serving, aggrandizing behavior by military spokespeople? So, now we're going to have bases and operations in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, after (most of) our troops have "left?"

Does no one in the Pentagon realize that we can't afford to garrison the world? Now we're expanding operations into Libya. While Obama may intend to limit the operation, to step back from US command to US-dominated NATO command of the Libyan intervention, it's likely the Pentagon will push for more money if Qaddafi continues to resist and his military makes mincemeat of the revolutionaries. We'll have to send in "advisors," "trainers," and weapons, of course.

Obama's rationale for intervention makes moral sense up to a point: to protect civilians. The US does have unique capabilities: to blow up Qaddafi's well-armed militias and artillery units, while never touching feet to the ground. Loyalist forces exhibit no compunction at brutalizing and massacring civilians along the way, so, literally, bombing tank units saves civilian lives.

On the other hand, what Undersecretary Flournoy demonstrates, is the Pentagon's insatiable appetite: for more bases, more operations, on into the future. Secretary Gates has made gestures towards cutting the Defense budget, but his underlings make sure that Defense's budget will keep on growing.

A dangerous world is profitable.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to worry that we'll get further drawn into Libya, and that ten years down the road we'll be holding onto bases in that country, even after we "withdraw."

However, something's happening that is cause for guarded optimism: conservative Republicans are beginning to question the unending spending lavished on the military, when they're struggling to find places to cut the Government budget. And conservative/libertarian Republicans are joining with progressive Democrats to question the Libyan adventure.

Why has it been axiomatic until now: cutting budget deficits requires slashing programs that help people who need help, while not touching the lavish Defense budget, which costs more than all other nations' defense budgets combined? Why, also, is there such muted discussion about the other side of the budget deficit: the lowered tax rates for the extremely wealthy, who not only could afford to pay more, but should, since they have gained virtually 100% of the profits from US productivity gains since 2000, and most from the gains accrued since 1980?

Just as in Rome in the 5th Century, it's the military and the super-rich who will bring us down. Maybe we shouldn't let them.