>We should discourage, not encourage more oil and gas drilling and tar sands mining. "All of the above" (Obama's energy policy) will contribute significantly to a destroyed climate--is already. Only renewable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources deserve subsidies--unless we want to force our grandchildren to live in enclosed artificial climates, or not live at all.
It would make a good science fiction story: Rich people and their dependents living in huge domed villages and towns, while poor people try to survive outside of them.
Isn't this really what's in store for us if billionaires like the oil-soaked Kochs get to 'realize their investments' in all those fossil fuels heating up the planet?
Think about the trillions invested in oil/gas reserves, in the new fracking technology and in the mushrooming gas and oil leases. Big money is driven to realize high returns on its investments. That's why they're willing to spend many millions to get their way with governments and why it's so important to buy up Congress and even the Presidency. Think of all that money as small, additional investments to secure and realize profits from their very large holdings in oil, gas, tar sands, shale oil reserves and in the equipment and infrastructure (like the XL pipeline) to bring those substances to market.
Control by the few extremely wealthy means rising inequality, surveillance of everyone, militarized police, a large military, huge prison populations and growing numbers of surplus people, some of whom can be counted upon to do any dirty work the very rich need. Desperation is useful.
Not all of the extremely rich will admit it, but it's likely that most believe that anyone who doesn't have money has only himself to blame: obviously inferior, the undeserving poor.
In the late Roman Empire, the Senatorial class believed they deserved to lord it over everyone else, and they did, sometimes quite brutally. It was legal for a master to kill his slave, and it was legal for him to whip his serfs to death--and rape them, too, male or female. Senators also avoided paying most taxes.
Does the above read like an extreme version of what radical conservatives are trying to buy with their Tea Party millions? No, now we're too civilized: we imprison all those who challenge existing social arrangements, who cause chaos, violence and insecurity: whipping is for Singapore.
We don't have slaves and serfs--it's cheaper to exploit immigrants without rights, and then cut wages for anyone with a job, while demanding more and more work for the same wage. Why can they do this? They've destroyed most union jobs, weakened unions, traded away our manufacturing base, then plundered the economy through Wall Street, throwing millions out of work; they've also bought government stalemate. High unemployment and cutting off benefits is to the billionaires' advantage: desperate people are more easily controlled.
It's happening, now!
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Whee! Ain't This Fun!
Guvmint shut down, so we won't have to pay no taxes no more. Guvmint shut down so we don't have to have no guvmint health care. So, poor folks can still die when they're no longer useful. And enterprising people--like us--can still buy the finest healthcare in the world.
You'll see. Everybody will be better off without guvmint--except for keeping gangs in the keeps and off the streets, if you know what I mean, while smart folk in the suites can make off with the green.
The Tea Party represents two elements: racists, who want to prove that a black man should never be President, and 'those people' should stay in their place; and predators, who want all government out of the way, so they can make off with ALL the wealth everyone else produces. The second element funds the first, of course, and primes it on what to say.
So, every day that the government is shut down, and we notice the things that can go wrong when it's not doing its job, the more the Tea Party/Republicans will lose credibility--except with the racist and vengeful 20%. The predators don't lose: they make out like the bandits they are.
The extremism of people like Ted Cruz is not unlike the Taliban and al Qaeda in its nihilism. It's hard to know what a zealot like Cruz or Mullah Mohammed really believe. Cruz gets others to believe, for example, that the Affordable Care Act is going to unleash the apocalypse, although it's an almost Republican attempt at providing universal health care (even Mexico precedes us), so that people won't be in perpetual fear of the illness that loses them their job, their insurance and drives them into bankruptcy. Cruz and the Republican crazies in the House are absolutely determined to stop this potentially extremely popular program from ever happening. They fear its effects: already, in one day, the website insurance exchanges have had far more traffic and demand than either opponents or proponents predicted, with the predictable screw ups giving opponents something to exploit.
Tea Party funders want people desperate, not secure. Consciously or not, they have encouraged the progressive impoverishment of the middle class, because anxious employees will work harder. They won't dare challenge elite rip-offs.
Capital buys technology and dis-employs, but also enables world-wide use of the cheapest labor--and even creates it, since global competition drives down wages--and weakens all those other things self-respecting business leaders despise, like unions.
Affordable Care could actually begin to change that dynamic: it would give employees greater independence: they wouldn't have to fear losing their insurance, possibly their lives, if they changed jobs.
This has to be stopped--says Cruz--and especially, the people behind him. In Rome, these same people, the predatory Senatorial class, drove the Empire bankrupt--and most soon lost everything themselves. And so did almost everyone else: Rome was reduced to a village.
You'll see. Everybody will be better off without guvmint--except for keeping gangs in the keeps and off the streets, if you know what I mean, while smart folk in the suites can make off with the green.
The Tea Party represents two elements: racists, who want to prove that a black man should never be President, and 'those people' should stay in their place; and predators, who want all government out of the way, so they can make off with ALL the wealth everyone else produces. The second element funds the first, of course, and primes it on what to say.
So, every day that the government is shut down, and we notice the things that can go wrong when it's not doing its job, the more the Tea Party/Republicans will lose credibility--except with the racist and vengeful 20%. The predators don't lose: they make out like the bandits they are.
The extremism of people like Ted Cruz is not unlike the Taliban and al Qaeda in its nihilism. It's hard to know what a zealot like Cruz or Mullah Mohammed really believe. Cruz gets others to believe, for example, that the Affordable Care Act is going to unleash the apocalypse, although it's an almost Republican attempt at providing universal health care (even Mexico precedes us), so that people won't be in perpetual fear of the illness that loses them their job, their insurance and drives them into bankruptcy. Cruz and the Republican crazies in the House are absolutely determined to stop this potentially extremely popular program from ever happening. They fear its effects: already, in one day, the website insurance exchanges have had far more traffic and demand than either opponents or proponents predicted, with the predictable screw ups giving opponents something to exploit.
Tea Party funders want people desperate, not secure. Consciously or not, they have encouraged the progressive impoverishment of the middle class, because anxious employees will work harder. They won't dare challenge elite rip-offs.
Capital buys technology and dis-employs, but also enables world-wide use of the cheapest labor--and even creates it, since global competition drives down wages--and weakens all those other things self-respecting business leaders despise, like unions.
Affordable Care could actually begin to change that dynamic: it would give employees greater independence: they wouldn't have to fear losing their insurance, possibly their lives, if they changed jobs.
This has to be stopped--says Cruz--and especially, the people behind him. In Rome, these same people, the predatory Senatorial class, drove the Empire bankrupt--and most soon lost everything themselves. And so did almost everyone else: Rome was reduced to a village.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Why "Conservatives" Insist on Cuts
Cutting government programs across the board, heedless of their impact, appears to be intentional on the part of Tea Party Republicans in Congress. At best, some of them may acknowledge that more unemployment isn't good, but all claim that the need to cut government is of much greater importance.
What macroeconomists like Paul Krugman, and liberal policy wonks like Robert Reich ignore is that radical conservatives have a radical agenda, which is why they don't care about precipitating more recession. In their simple worldview, any government that does more than maintain order, protect property and defend our borders is doing too much. In some of their rhetoric, doing more seems to be equivalent to doing the Devil's work.
The mass of people mobilized as Tea Partiers are largely motivated by an unformulated libertarian ideology pre-figured by Ayn Rand, but are also bolstered by American mythology of the frontier; Don't Tread On Me flags have been prominent in Tea Party demos, for example, along with the faux Revolutionary War costumes. Radical conservatives tend to be white, non-urban and older, they appear to subscribe to the idea that everyone is out for themselves, and everyone should be left to sink or swim.
Given such a worldview, cutting Head Start, Mental Health, etc. and furloughing thousands of Federal and State workers is seen as a first victory, not as an economic disaster. That's why compromise with these folks is virtually impossible as Democrats and Obama are discovering. Further, Boehner realizes that he'll only keep his Speakership if he goes along with them, not with Democrats or Obama, or common sense.
What has made the Tea Party, or radical conservative libertarianism, a viable political movement is the money behind it. Why do billionaires like the Koch brothers invest hundreds of millions in the conservative movement? It's to their interest to dismantle government, not only to cut their own tax bills, or their regulatory headaches. It's to their advantage to disarm all the protections that citizens gained through the Progressive movement, the New Deal and the Great Society.
Once people are no longer protected by government, by entities like the National Labor Relations Board (rendered nearly toothless, already), employees will be helpless when facing their employers; small landowners will be helpless confronting corporations and minorities and immigrants will be unable to claim any rights.
Rank and file radical conservatives don't realize that "Freedom" doesn't mean their freedom; it means freedom for corporations and "job creators," aka the wealthy, and the oppression and exploitation of everyone else.
That's what happened at the end of the Roman Empire, when Senators took all the wealth and power, and reduced everyone else to serfdom or slavery.
It's already happening here: Americans have lost most rights they'd won as employees: they work longer hours, are paid less and can be fired almost at will. And all of us are losing our civil rights.
What macroeconomists like Paul Krugman, and liberal policy wonks like Robert Reich ignore is that radical conservatives have a radical agenda, which is why they don't care about precipitating more recession. In their simple worldview, any government that does more than maintain order, protect property and defend our borders is doing too much. In some of their rhetoric, doing more seems to be equivalent to doing the Devil's work.
The mass of people mobilized as Tea Partiers are largely motivated by an unformulated libertarian ideology pre-figured by Ayn Rand, but are also bolstered by American mythology of the frontier; Don't Tread On Me flags have been prominent in Tea Party demos, for example, along with the faux Revolutionary War costumes. Radical conservatives tend to be white, non-urban and older, they appear to subscribe to the idea that everyone is out for themselves, and everyone should be left to sink or swim.
Given such a worldview, cutting Head Start, Mental Health, etc. and furloughing thousands of Federal and State workers is seen as a first victory, not as an economic disaster. That's why compromise with these folks is virtually impossible as Democrats and Obama are discovering. Further, Boehner realizes that he'll only keep his Speakership if he goes along with them, not with Democrats or Obama, or common sense.
What has made the Tea Party, or radical conservative libertarianism, a viable political movement is the money behind it. Why do billionaires like the Koch brothers invest hundreds of millions in the conservative movement? It's to their interest to dismantle government, not only to cut their own tax bills, or their regulatory headaches. It's to their advantage to disarm all the protections that citizens gained through the Progressive movement, the New Deal and the Great Society.
Once people are no longer protected by government, by entities like the National Labor Relations Board (rendered nearly toothless, already), employees will be helpless when facing their employers; small landowners will be helpless confronting corporations and minorities and immigrants will be unable to claim any rights.
Rank and file radical conservatives don't realize that "Freedom" doesn't mean their freedom; it means freedom for corporations and "job creators," aka the wealthy, and the oppression and exploitation of everyone else.
That's what happened at the end of the Roman Empire, when Senators took all the wealth and power, and reduced everyone else to serfdom or slavery.
It's already happening here: Americans have lost most rights they'd won as employees: they work longer hours, are paid less and can be fired almost at will. And all of us are losing our civil rights.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Gold and the Sequester
Paul Krugman, liberal Nobel Economist, points to a huge increase in the corporate share of the economy since President Reagan: from 4-5% to 10% currently, except in the troughs of downturns. In addition, corporations aren't spending this doubled share: they're saving it.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Are We Trapped?
Republicans support the wealthy, the CEO's, the corporations; the worker is chopped liver. But Democrats are afraid: of the wealthy, the CEO's and the corporations--and enough are bought off, too.
Our two party system has been described as a duopoly, and when you look at the Obama/McConnell/Reid/Boehner compromise over "the fiscal cliff," you see that it is.
Remaining on the right, are the angry Tea Partiers, who distrust government in all its forms, though they're not unwilling to rip it off. Remaining on the left are forlorn progressives, who yearn for a government they can trust: they see one that's only protecting the "One Percent."
Both fringes attempt to push government more to their liking, but the duopoly has other plans: it's owned by the corporations: the banks, oil companies, media and more.
The anger among Tea Partiers is genuine, but the billionaire lobby, from astro-turf roots to media campaigns, to think tank creations, contrives its targets.
Anger on the left is at least as real, but its targets are scattered. Their anger focuses on exploitation, of, by and for the corporations, but also on government and military-style repression: they have little money behind them.
We don't have a Fourth Amendment any longer: unlawful search and seizure has been pushed aside by Terrorism and Drugs. All a local prosecutor, or enforcement officer, need do is to record everyone within electronic reach. Soon, I predict, all they'll have to do is apply to the NSA, or whatever Federal entity has become the repository, to access phone, email and Internet files on anyone "of interest." That's why everyone's online (and cloud) records are being recorded in the massive surveillance program initiated by the NSA. The justification: to intercept any terrorists before they act.
Stalin gained power by controlling information about everyone; people need to wrest that power back. And this is an issue where both fringes could/should collaborate. Tea Partiers hate the idea of government surveillance as much as lefties.
Unless "the fringes" can come together in resistance, there is no escape. Republicans and Democrats are equally implicated in the Surveillance State. Democratic Senator Feinstein and President Obama are as much a part of it as Bush II, Cheney and Senator McCain. The renewal--and strengthening--of the NDAA in December demonstrates this.
In the Fifth Century Empire, Roman Senators and German generals collaborated in controlling and repressing the humiliores.
With powers of surveillance and manipulation of information greater than Stalin ever dreamed of, the modern American state soon will leave no room for real dissent. That could be its downfall, just like the Stalinist state before it.
Like the USSR's failed New Lands wheat projects, the US plunges into fracking, oil sands and nuclear, while the rest of the world pushes ahead with solar, wind and bio-fuel alternatives.
We'll decline, driven by government-corporate induced blindness. Others will rise--if there is any livable environment left.
Our two party system has been described as a duopoly, and when you look at the Obama/McConnell/Reid/Boehner compromise over "the fiscal cliff," you see that it is.
Remaining on the right, are the angry Tea Partiers, who distrust government in all its forms, though they're not unwilling to rip it off. Remaining on the left are forlorn progressives, who yearn for a government they can trust: they see one that's only protecting the "One Percent."
Both fringes attempt to push government more to their liking, but the duopoly has other plans: it's owned by the corporations: the banks, oil companies, media and more.
The anger among Tea Partiers is genuine, but the billionaire lobby, from astro-turf roots to media campaigns, to think tank creations, contrives its targets.
Anger on the left is at least as real, but its targets are scattered. Their anger focuses on exploitation, of, by and for the corporations, but also on government and military-style repression: they have little money behind them.
We don't have a Fourth Amendment any longer: unlawful search and seizure has been pushed aside by Terrorism and Drugs. All a local prosecutor, or enforcement officer, need do is to record everyone within electronic reach. Soon, I predict, all they'll have to do is apply to the NSA, or whatever Federal entity has become the repository, to access phone, email and Internet files on anyone "of interest." That's why everyone's online (and cloud) records are being recorded in the massive surveillance program initiated by the NSA. The justification: to intercept any terrorists before they act.
Stalin gained power by controlling information about everyone; people need to wrest that power back. And this is an issue where both fringes could/should collaborate. Tea Partiers hate the idea of government surveillance as much as lefties.
Unless "the fringes" can come together in resistance, there is no escape. Republicans and Democrats are equally implicated in the Surveillance State. Democratic Senator Feinstein and President Obama are as much a part of it as Bush II, Cheney and Senator McCain. The renewal--and strengthening--of the NDAA in December demonstrates this.
In the Fifth Century Empire, Roman Senators and German generals collaborated in controlling and repressing the humiliores.
With powers of surveillance and manipulation of information greater than Stalin ever dreamed of, the modern American state soon will leave no room for real dissent. That could be its downfall, just like the Stalinist state before it.
Like the USSR's failed New Lands wheat projects, the US plunges into fracking, oil sands and nuclear, while the rest of the world pushes ahead with solar, wind and bio-fuel alternatives.
We'll decline, driven by government-corporate induced blindness. Others will rise--if there is any livable environment left.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
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."
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."
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Romney-Ryan Can Win by Losing
It's more likely Romney won't win the Presidency, having named Paul Ryan. Ryan defines Romney, clarifies that he's not some "compassionate conservative," as W pretended to be--until he was elected.
But winning appears to be less important than changing the conversation.
Radical reactionaries won't meet the fate they did with Goldwater in 1964. Then, conservatives had neither think-tank brainpower, nor the financial power unleashed by Citizens United. Goldwater went down hard, because Democrats/progressives dominated the conversation.
It wasn't until Reagan that conservatives gained a second chance, but they won only a toehold.
The reactionary, Ayn Randian ideas of Paul Ryan are far more extreme than Reagan ever dared. They represent an aspiration to turn American political society back to the Robber Barons, before not only the New Society (Medicare-Medicaid), New Deal (Social Security, fair wages, labor union power), but even before the Anti-Trust Progressive era, when governments began to regulate and tax corporate and personal excess.
If Democrats/progressives/liberals/labor are able to get the word out, a slim majority of voters in "contested battleground states" will probably vote for Obama, and maybe even for a Democratic Congress and Senate.
That's a big if, since Ryan's name has drawn over $3 million to Republican coffers in just two days. Self-interested moneybags will mobilize to send much more--not just to the GOP, but to the so-called super-pacs, to spend on bile against Obama, or anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (I wrote Attila's autobiography, which you can buy here: http://www.amazon.com/Attila-Told-his-Scribes-ebook/dp/B00855M90G).
Still, there are ways incumbent Presidents can get the word out. But the election is only part of the story, perhaps the least likely part. Ryan is important even if he and Romney don't win: the right wing will have succeeded in shifting the conversation far to the right in their favor.
The great failure of Goldwater was that LBJ's landslide shifted political ideals and policy leftward. But with millions to billions of dollars mobilized against Obama and Democrats by Ryan's candidacy, Obama and even other Democrats might still win, but the election will probably be close.
So, the ideas put forward by Ryan and the Tea Party, will not only NOT remain unthinkable, they will become The Alternative, if nearly half the electorate supports Romney-Ryan-Republicans.
Romney has never, until now, allowed himself to be defined in policy terms: he's run away from his one signal accomplishment as Massachusetts Governor (Romneycare), but by naming Ryan, he becomes dependent upon the Tea Party and its radical corporate base: addled activists subsidized by Robber Barons.
So, today's equivalent of Fifth Century Roman Senators will attempt to control virtually all levels of government--and, of course, their own serfs. That's why they're willing to spend (100's of) millions of dollars against Obama.
But winning appears to be less important than changing the conversation.
Radical reactionaries won't meet the fate they did with Goldwater in 1964. Then, conservatives had neither think-tank brainpower, nor the financial power unleashed by Citizens United. Goldwater went down hard, because Democrats/progressives dominated the conversation.
It wasn't until Reagan that conservatives gained a second chance, but they won only a toehold.
The reactionary, Ayn Randian ideas of Paul Ryan are far more extreme than Reagan ever dared. They represent an aspiration to turn American political society back to the Robber Barons, before not only the New Society (Medicare-Medicaid), New Deal (Social Security, fair wages, labor union power), but even before the Anti-Trust Progressive era, when governments began to regulate and tax corporate and personal excess.
If Democrats/progressives/liberals/labor are able to get the word out, a slim majority of voters in "contested battleground states" will probably vote for Obama, and maybe even for a Democratic Congress and Senate.
That's a big if, since Ryan's name has drawn over $3 million to Republican coffers in just two days. Self-interested moneybags will mobilize to send much more--not just to the GOP, but to the so-called super-pacs, to spend on bile against Obama, or anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (I wrote Attila's autobiography, which you can buy here: http://www.amazon.com/Attila-Told-his-Scribes-ebook/dp/B00855M90G).
Still, there are ways incumbent Presidents can get the word out. But the election is only part of the story, perhaps the least likely part. Ryan is important even if he and Romney don't win: the right wing will have succeeded in shifting the conversation far to the right in their favor.
The great failure of Goldwater was that LBJ's landslide shifted political ideals and policy leftward. But with millions to billions of dollars mobilized against Obama and Democrats by Ryan's candidacy, Obama and even other Democrats might still win, but the election will probably be close.
So, the ideas put forward by Ryan and the Tea Party, will not only NOT remain unthinkable, they will become The Alternative, if nearly half the electorate supports Romney-Ryan-Republicans.
Romney has never, until now, allowed himself to be defined in policy terms: he's run away from his one signal accomplishment as Massachusetts Governor (Romneycare), but by naming Ryan, he becomes dependent upon the Tea Party and its radical corporate base: addled activists subsidized by Robber Barons.
So, today's equivalent of Fifth Century Roman Senators will attempt to control virtually all levels of government--and, of course, their own serfs. That's why they're willing to spend (100's of) millions of dollars against Obama.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Congress and Obama
Sabotage the US Constitution
Obama is going to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that he earlier threatened to veto.
He didn't threaten a veto, because the NDAA declared the whole world at war, including within US borders. His threat wasn't because the NDAA authorized indefinite detention by the military of anyone even suspected of terrorism, even US citizens in the US. It wasn’t because, the NDAA might permit here in the US the kind of assassination carried out against US-Yemeni Anwar al-Awlaki, gunned down by a drone in Yemen.
No, the President threatened a veto because the act presumed to tell him that he had to detain through the military by default, instead of through the CIA and FBI: it was a process thing.
Well, Congress found a way around that little disagreement, but all appear agreed, that the President, at least, should have absolute power in the truly GLOBAL war on terror.
Obama will sign this; the former professor of Constitutional Law will sign it! Whatever happened to right to a lawyer, right to a trial, habeas corpus, the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall ….. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" This is especially true in capital cases. People must be indicted by a Grand Jury, if they are to "be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime."
But since the whole world is within the battlefield, well, Constitutional rights pfff, who needs them? Said Senator Lindsay Graham of detainees, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer." Huffpo 11/29/11.
Thought that just applied to swarthy guys with black beards or heavy five-o'clock shadow? Think again: the enemy isn't specifically described; it could be anyone, if somehow they are suspected--not proven--to be a terrorist threat. Then, there is one hearing, before military officers, but no trial. You could be put away in Guantanamo, or one of the other hell-holes our boys (and girls) have devised--in places like Afghanistan, or converted top security prisons here--and left there for the rest of your life--with no recourse.
Doctor Manette in Tale of Two Cities,, lost his mind during his indefinite detention in the Bastille. That’s the kind of thing that's made legal by the NDAA that Obama now says he will sign.
Roman Emperors held powers that were even more arbitrary, but they couldn't effectively wield them far beyond Rome or, later, Ravenna. Obama could carry out this new writ in any corner of the world.
Except, political analysts say, he's really signing it to forestall Republican criticism that he's soft on terrorism. Right.
He still might use it, even against peaceful Occupiers, or Tea Partiers. Who can say no? Congress gave him the power. And think what could come next: think of President Gingrich with this power!
He didn't threaten a veto, because the NDAA declared the whole world at war, including within US borders. His threat wasn't because the NDAA authorized indefinite detention by the military of anyone even suspected of terrorism, even US citizens in the US. It wasn’t because, the NDAA might permit here in the US the kind of assassination carried out against US-Yemeni Anwar al-Awlaki, gunned down by a drone in Yemen.
No, the President threatened a veto because the act presumed to tell him that he had to detain through the military by default, instead of through the CIA and FBI: it was a process thing.
Well, Congress found a way around that little disagreement, but all appear agreed, that the President, at least, should have absolute power in the truly GLOBAL war on terror.
Obama will sign this; the former professor of Constitutional Law will sign it! Whatever happened to right to a lawyer, right to a trial, habeas corpus, the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall ….. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" This is especially true in capital cases. People must be indicted by a Grand Jury, if they are to "be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime."
But since the whole world is within the battlefield, well, Constitutional rights pfff, who needs them? Said Senator Lindsay Graham of detainees, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer." Huffpo 11/29/11.
Thought that just applied to swarthy guys with black beards or heavy five-o'clock shadow? Think again: the enemy isn't specifically described; it could be anyone, if somehow they are suspected--not proven--to be a terrorist threat. Then, there is one hearing, before military officers, but no trial. You could be put away in Guantanamo, or one of the other hell-holes our boys (and girls) have devised--in places like Afghanistan, or converted top security prisons here--and left there for the rest of your life--with no recourse.
Doctor Manette in Tale of Two Cities,, lost his mind during his indefinite detention in the Bastille. That’s the kind of thing that's made legal by the NDAA that Obama now says he will sign.
Roman Emperors held powers that were even more arbitrary, but they couldn't effectively wield them far beyond Rome or, later, Ravenna. Obama could carry out this new writ in any corner of the world.
Except, political analysts say, he's really signing it to forestall Republican criticism that he's soft on terrorism. Right.
He still might use it, even against peaceful Occupiers, or Tea Partiers. Who can say no? Congress gave him the power. And think what could come next: think of President Gingrich with this power!
Monday, April 18, 2011
Stories Win Nations
"Job creators" are being unfairly attacked, their money stolen from them: there are only two kinds of people in the world, producers and users, or parasites.
Parasites control governments everywhere and legally steal from producers, through taxes: governments are intrinsically parasitic. Governments produce nothing; they suck blood out of those who do. If there were no governments, merely security forces to protect property, then free enterprise would truly flourish.
That's why conservatives support tax cuts for the wealthy, and cuts in services for everyone else; they tell each other the above story: it all makes sense. Ayn Rand makes heroes of supposed producers, and villains of anyone who doesn't "produce." Roman Senators thought like that.
The villains are ordinary people, especially those who have the temerity to think they should be paid decently; they support unions because they're greedy and lazy. Roman elites felt that way about slaves. Also, governments unfairly penalize producers by caving into the mob--like weak Roman Emperors.
Unions, of course, are just gangsters, gangs to rip off the honest man's sweat, for which he worked so hard--on his telephone all day! That's why union busting, even with baseball bats and armed guards, is justified.
Paul Ryan is a Randist, apparently. It's likely Ron and Rand Paul are, too. And many tea partiers. Ayn Rand's story (above) doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't matter, it's a framework for the emerging GOP worldview; it makes emotional sense to them.
What doesn't make sense? First, if all but the few are producers, then, workers contribute nothing? What if the mighty entrepreneur hoards his money, pays his workers peanuts, and demands police repression to keep wages down? What if every hero entrepreneur acts likewise, in this perfect Randian world? Who will have the money to buy goods and services? Luxury markets do not a mass-market make. Secondly, if there is no government, who will provide collective goods like roads, rules of the market, standard measures, let alone security for everyone? (Governments do produce quite a lot, actually). Third, would everyone else agree to live in misery because they don't sit behind an Executive desk?
It doesn't matter to radical conservatives whether their arguments make sense. What matters is the story. It's surprising how persuasive it is to people whose interests are diametrically opposed.
The basic problem that progressives face is: they don't have a compelling story, not anymore. Progressives did have a story, a very compelling one, in the 1930's. It has been waning in strength ever since. The Great Recession didn't revive it, nor did Obama. Big business media won't revive it; it's "anti-business."
A spellbinding movie or novel might create a new story, or revive the old one--union solidarity defeats oppressive bosses; slaves rebel against cruel masters (Spartacus lost). Progressives need a story, badly, or we'll plunge headlong into something far worse than Rome's fall in 476.
Parasites control governments everywhere and legally steal from producers, through taxes: governments are intrinsically parasitic. Governments produce nothing; they suck blood out of those who do. If there were no governments, merely security forces to protect property, then free enterprise would truly flourish.
That's why conservatives support tax cuts for the wealthy, and cuts in services for everyone else; they tell each other the above story: it all makes sense. Ayn Rand makes heroes of supposed producers, and villains of anyone who doesn't "produce." Roman Senators thought like that.
The villains are ordinary people, especially those who have the temerity to think they should be paid decently; they support unions because they're greedy and lazy. Roman elites felt that way about slaves. Also, governments unfairly penalize producers by caving into the mob--like weak Roman Emperors.
Unions, of course, are just gangsters, gangs to rip off the honest man's sweat, for which he worked so hard--on his telephone all day! That's why union busting, even with baseball bats and armed guards, is justified.
Paul Ryan is a Randist, apparently. It's likely Ron and Rand Paul are, too. And many tea partiers. Ayn Rand's story (above) doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't matter, it's a framework for the emerging GOP worldview; it makes emotional sense to them.
What doesn't make sense? First, if all but the few are producers, then, workers contribute nothing? What if the mighty entrepreneur hoards his money, pays his workers peanuts, and demands police repression to keep wages down? What if every hero entrepreneur acts likewise, in this perfect Randian world? Who will have the money to buy goods and services? Luxury markets do not a mass-market make. Secondly, if there is no government, who will provide collective goods like roads, rules of the market, standard measures, let alone security for everyone? (Governments do produce quite a lot, actually). Third, would everyone else agree to live in misery because they don't sit behind an Executive desk?
It doesn't matter to radical conservatives whether their arguments make sense. What matters is the story. It's surprising how persuasive it is to people whose interests are diametrically opposed.
The basic problem that progressives face is: they don't have a compelling story, not anymore. Progressives did have a story, a very compelling one, in the 1930's. It has been waning in strength ever since. The Great Recession didn't revive it, nor did Obama. Big business media won't revive it; it's "anti-business."
A spellbinding movie or novel might create a new story, or revive the old one--union solidarity defeats oppressive bosses; slaves rebel against cruel masters (Spartacus lost). Progressives need a story, badly, or we'll plunge headlong into something far worse than Rome's fall in 476.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Political False Advertising
Radical Republicans won elections by claiming that they would create jobs. People in the US either fear losing their jobs, or don't have them at all (about 16% when "discouraged workers" and part-time workers are counted). Therefore, people thought they were voting rationally. But despite their rhetoric, the radical Republicans had a very different agenda: not job creation at all.
Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't.
In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs.
How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws.
How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them.
The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably.
Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's.
Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments.
Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't.
In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs.
How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws.
How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them.
The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably.
Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's.
Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Strange (Congressional) Bedfellows
I called my newly elected Tea Party Congressman, today. I was surprised to discover: we share at least one important idea. If you're going to cut the government's budget, look to the Pentagon. "Yes," said his aide, "the Congressman has been thinking defense should\ be cut."
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Elections and Anger
"Quick, I want a list of all the incumbents, so I can vote against them!" the voter told me, at the election "in-take" table in our rural-ex-urban Town Hall.
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Anarchism 2010-style
They don't wear black masks, and they don't trash police cars. They go to rallies and hold up signs against Obamacare, or Guvmint, or claim Obama is a Muslim. Yes, the Tea Party.
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Coup in Ecuador, in US?
Will Obama say 'No!' to Ecuador's generals? A coup is unfolding at this moment. In April last year, Obama said "I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments," in the hemisphere. That was at an OAS meeting. However, in June last year, his State Department didn't condemn the coup in Honduras, so it went forward. The ousted elected President could not return, and the subsequent election was carefully controlled by the pro-business coup leaders.
Is this how big business will get rid of the surge of social democracy in Latin America? One coup at a time. My family in Venezuela would be happy at the prospect, but even there, Chavez has significantly reduced inequality; he's still popular.
Simultaneously, corporations are trying to buy US elections: funding groups like Rove's Crossroads, pumping millions into the tea party, or like the Koch brothers, directly funding tea party insurgents and radical conservative Republicans.
There is a common theme to these corporate-friendly actions: corporations and their owners want to eliminate regulations. They want to be able to pollute, without having to pay costs they impose on society. They want to gamble with free taxpayer money; they want to terrorize illegal aliens--and employees, more generally--so workers are desperate enough to work for near-subsistence wages. They also want to be free to ship jobs and processes overseas without having to pay the costs of their leaving. They even want to continue tax subsidies for doing so!
In places like Ecuador and Honduras, they want governments they can buy, not ones that try to serve their peoples' interests. As my Venezuelan uncle enjoyed pointing out: it's much more difficult to buy off a democratic government--the executive, the legislators, the judges--than a dictatorship, where you deal with one guy, or a small group.
Corporate interests, or pro-corporate conservatives have already gained electoral power in Britain, Canada, Germany and France. African and Asian countries are venues for conflict, over resources, not religion. China and India are major players, while Japan stagnates.
What also seems to be emerging is a bent toward authoritarianism. You see it in Russia and China. Developing countries emulate China. It isn't the "Communism" that's imitated: it's the authoritarian politics and the hybrid command/market economics China invented.
You see the same authoritarian leanings even in the US, even with Obama; he's continued Bush's Security State, and has barely held the military at bay on Afghanistan.
What will happen if the radical conservatives win? More severe economic crises yet, and even greater immiseration of most of the people: it makes them docile workers. Dictators would, too.
The few would be on their way to achieving the kind of dominance held by Roman Senators just before Rome's fall in 476.
Is this how big business will get rid of the surge of social democracy in Latin America? One coup at a time. My family in Venezuela would be happy at the prospect, but even there, Chavez has significantly reduced inequality; he's still popular.
Simultaneously, corporations are trying to buy US elections: funding groups like Rove's Crossroads, pumping millions into the tea party, or like the Koch brothers, directly funding tea party insurgents and radical conservative Republicans.
There is a common theme to these corporate-friendly actions: corporations and their owners want to eliminate regulations. They want to be able to pollute, without having to pay costs they impose on society. They want to gamble with free taxpayer money; they want to terrorize illegal aliens--and employees, more generally--so workers are desperate enough to work for near-subsistence wages. They also want to be free to ship jobs and processes overseas without having to pay the costs of their leaving. They even want to continue tax subsidies for doing so!
In places like Ecuador and Honduras, they want governments they can buy, not ones that try to serve their peoples' interests. As my Venezuelan uncle enjoyed pointing out: it's much more difficult to buy off a democratic government--the executive, the legislators, the judges--than a dictatorship, where you deal with one guy, or a small group.
Corporate interests, or pro-corporate conservatives have already gained electoral power in Britain, Canada, Germany and France. African and Asian countries are venues for conflict, over resources, not religion. China and India are major players, while Japan stagnates.
What also seems to be emerging is a bent toward authoritarianism. You see it in Russia and China. Developing countries emulate China. It isn't the "Communism" that's imitated: it's the authoritarian politics and the hybrid command/market economics China invented.
You see the same authoritarian leanings even in the US, even with Obama; he's continued Bush's Security State, and has barely held the military at bay on Afghanistan.
What will happen if the radical conservatives win? More severe economic crises yet, and even greater immiseration of most of the people: it makes them docile workers. Dictators would, too.
The few would be on their way to achieving the kind of dominance held by Roman Senators just before Rome's fall in 476.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Global Disease?
It's not just the US that's going crazy. We have Tea Party extremists and anti-immigrant nastiness, but now even Sweden, moderate, neutral, social democratic, has elected an anti-immigrant party to parliament. There are strong anti-immigrant parties in Holland, Denmark and Norway, and similar parties in Central and Eastern Europe. France not only has the National Front, but President Sarkozy's Roma removals pander to anti-immigrant anger.
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Rich and 'Other People'
"The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving." So wrote Robert Reich on Thursday (NYT: 09/02/10).
In economic terms, this might be true, if the rich actually earn more money, but even if they do, more money might not be what motivates them. Consider David Koch, who is worth $17.5 billion. What's a few more billion, especially since his billions continue to grow, even if the unemployment rate remains at almost 10%, and the economy is mired in a stall?
Koch is funding Tea party candidates to drive the Republican Party far to the right, and the amount of money he's spending is astonishing. He isn't motivated to earn even more in a more egalitarian society. He's driven by a non-economic motive: power. He and his brother, Charles, have been funding right-wing "think-tanks" for almost a generation, but now they see their political chance: they've got boots on the ground.
What do the Koch's and other right-wingers want? They want to be able to push everyone else around; they want to control the government, rather than pay the multi-million dollar fines (for pollution) that the EPA has levied on the Koch's; they want to undo unionization; they want to reduce even seniors to servitude, by abolishing Social Security and Medicare.
It's a class thing. David went to Deerfield Academy and MIT. He knows that 'other people' just aren't of his high quality. After all, he started rich and has gotten much richer. Being part of a growing, vital economy, growing with it, that's not part of his persona; that would include all those (shudder) 'other people.'
The Roman Senators did something similar in the Fifth Century. They cornered all the gold and land, refusing to pay taxes that would have maintained the Roman roads, or funded defense against the Barbarians. They also reduced everyone else to serfdom. The only escape for peasants and the middle class from having everything taken from them by the impoverished state was for someone to protect them. Senators only protected them if they became their serfs or slaves.
Roman Senators would have been wealthier--and safer from the Barbarians--if they had paid taxes, and contributed towards other peoples' prosperity. But to do so, they would have lost their privileges and power.
They did lose them anyway, when the Barbarians took over in 476.
So, it's not economic rationalism that drives the money behind the right-wing movement, just as it isn't rational for its followers; for the latter it's emotional, even cathartic. For people like the Koch's, it's restoring their class to the driver's seat--where it belongs, you see.
Then, they can rip off the whole country, and no one will say boo. Hell, as our imperial adventures demonstrate, they can rip off the whole world!
In economic terms, this might be true, if the rich actually earn more money, but even if they do, more money might not be what motivates them. Consider David Koch, who is worth $17.5 billion. What's a few more billion, especially since his billions continue to grow, even if the unemployment rate remains at almost 10%, and the economy is mired in a stall?
Koch is funding Tea party candidates to drive the Republican Party far to the right, and the amount of money he's spending is astonishing. He isn't motivated to earn even more in a more egalitarian society. He's driven by a non-economic motive: power. He and his brother, Charles, have been funding right-wing "think-tanks" for almost a generation, but now they see their political chance: they've got boots on the ground.
What do the Koch's and other right-wingers want? They want to be able to push everyone else around; they want to control the government, rather than pay the multi-million dollar fines (for pollution) that the EPA has levied on the Koch's; they want to undo unionization; they want to reduce even seniors to servitude, by abolishing Social Security and Medicare.
It's a class thing. David went to Deerfield Academy and MIT. He knows that 'other people' just aren't of his high quality. After all, he started rich and has gotten much richer. Being part of a growing, vital economy, growing with it, that's not part of his persona; that would include all those (shudder) 'other people.'
The Roman Senators did something similar in the Fifth Century. They cornered all the gold and land, refusing to pay taxes that would have maintained the Roman roads, or funded defense against the Barbarians. They also reduced everyone else to serfdom. The only escape for peasants and the middle class from having everything taken from them by the impoverished state was for someone to protect them. Senators only protected them if they became their serfs or slaves.
Roman Senators would have been wealthier--and safer from the Barbarians--if they had paid taxes, and contributed towards other peoples' prosperity. But to do so, they would have lost their privileges and power.
They did lose them anyway, when the Barbarians took over in 476.
So, it's not economic rationalism that drives the money behind the right-wing movement, just as it isn't rational for its followers; for the latter it's emotional, even cathartic. For people like the Koch's, it's restoring their class to the driver's seat--where it belongs, you see.
Then, they can rip off the whole country, and no one will say boo. Hell, as our imperial adventures demonstrate, they can rip off the whole world!
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.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pearl Harbor, Afghanistan and the Tea Party
A film version of Pearl Harbor reminded me of how the Japanese military in 1941 controlled Japan. On the other side of the globe, the Nazis preached hate, and attacked with their apparently invincible war machine. Americans didn't want to see what was coming: it took us over two years to wake up. Both systems depended on conquest; the US was at peace.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Dirty Bargain
The Greeks didn't sign onto it: now their debt has been driven to junk bond status.
The closer you get to Wall Street, or the City of London, the more likely you are to see the bargain in action.
In 1933, FDR closed the banks. When they reopened, government had created rules that maintained financial stability until the 1970's. The result: financial crises were negligible and under control.
Beginning in the 70's, there was a sustained and successful attack against those rules, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had kept taxpayer-insured money separate from investment banking speculation. Since the 70's, we've had a series of financial crises, culminating in the 2007-8 collapse. That's no coincidence.
Unfortunately, neither W, nor Obama "took over" the banks. They revived the banks with trillions of government dollars. Now, banks are so strong they can weaken, or stymie any thoroughgoing financial reform: there will be no Glass-Steagall, and banks will be too big to fail. Governments will have to bail them out when risk-taking gets them in trouble.
In addition, the elites are able to control enough of the information people depend upon, that they have changed the conversation: it's no longer recovery, and jobs, but solvency and cutbacks. Deficit reductions and cutbacks don't come at the expense of the banksters who got us into this mess, but at the expense of the victims: the people thrown out of work, or working 60 hour weeks just to pay the bills.
And it isn't just the banksters. It's the elites generally. Health reform comes at the expense of the insured, who will see their premiums soar, even though the reform will hand providers a whole new government-subsidized market.
What are some of the elements of this "bargain?" When decision-makers propose raising a stock-transfer tax, their government's bonds will be besieged. When politicians suggest raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the needed recovery, capital flees the country.
Have you noticed that huge amounts of capital have washed up in the US? Despite Obama's stimulus, with a deficit and debt rivaling that of Greece in GDP terms, US Treasury rates are still extremely low. There has been no need to raise rates to find buyers. That's because formerly liberal leaders like Obama and Cuomo have bowed to the bargain: no new taxes on the wealthy. Republicans would never raise those taxes in the first place.
The "tea party movement" is a political expression of the media power of capital. People who are hurting--the financial system robbed them blind--are persuaded that big Government did it.
The Tea Party is Wall Street's insurance, but if a genuinely progressive movement gained power, we'd face a capital strike like the one that brought down Greece.
The financial/corporate elites, the selfish class I've written about on this site, now rule most of the world: through extortion.
The closer you get to Wall Street, or the City of London, the more likely you are to see the bargain in action.
In 1933, FDR closed the banks. When they reopened, government had created rules that maintained financial stability until the 1970's. The result: financial crises were negligible and under control.
Beginning in the 70's, there was a sustained and successful attack against those rules, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had kept taxpayer-insured money separate from investment banking speculation. Since the 70's, we've had a series of financial crises, culminating in the 2007-8 collapse. That's no coincidence.
Unfortunately, neither W, nor Obama "took over" the banks. They revived the banks with trillions of government dollars. Now, banks are so strong they can weaken, or stymie any thoroughgoing financial reform: there will be no Glass-Steagall, and banks will be too big to fail. Governments will have to bail them out when risk-taking gets them in trouble.
In addition, the elites are able to control enough of the information people depend upon, that they have changed the conversation: it's no longer recovery, and jobs, but solvency and cutbacks. Deficit reductions and cutbacks don't come at the expense of the banksters who got us into this mess, but at the expense of the victims: the people thrown out of work, or working 60 hour weeks just to pay the bills.
And it isn't just the banksters. It's the elites generally. Health reform comes at the expense of the insured, who will see their premiums soar, even though the reform will hand providers a whole new government-subsidized market.
What are some of the elements of this "bargain?" When decision-makers propose raising a stock-transfer tax, their government's bonds will be besieged. When politicians suggest raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the needed recovery, capital flees the country.
Have you noticed that huge amounts of capital have washed up in the US? Despite Obama's stimulus, with a deficit and debt rivaling that of Greece in GDP terms, US Treasury rates are still extremely low. There has been no need to raise rates to find buyers. That's because formerly liberal leaders like Obama and Cuomo have bowed to the bargain: no new taxes on the wealthy. Republicans would never raise those taxes in the first place.
The "tea party movement" is a political expression of the media power of capital. People who are hurting--the financial system robbed them blind--are persuaded that big Government did it.
The Tea Party is Wall Street's insurance, but if a genuinely progressive movement gained power, we'd face a capital strike like the one that brought down Greece.
The financial/corporate elites, the selfish class I've written about on this site, now rule most of the world: through extortion.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Angry, Not Just Tea Partiers
People are angry, and have good reason to be. But right-wing commentators and media like Fox are successfully diverting their ire. Meanwhile, would-be reformers find little support for substantive reform in policy areas in which there are substantial vested interests.
Health reform had to be limited to get past insurance company and provider interests, hence no "public option," and no negotiated Pharma prices.
Financial reform has to pass muster with banks, which are again riding roughshod over the economy: posting huge gambling profits, foreclosing on homeowners and ignoring mortgage re-negotiation programs, instituting new credit card fees, borrowing from the Fed at virtually no cost, and using the money to speculate, instead of loaning to businesses.
Republicans make the false claim that finance reform proposals will perpetuate public bailouts, so any reform must be killed. Meanwhile, Democrats are too craven to re-establish the needed boundaries between depositors and gamblers (like the repealed Glass-Steagall law), or to create a consumer protection agency that isn't answerable to the bankers first.
Why? Because banks and bankers have bought the GOP and enough of the Democrats to forestall meaningful reform.
Tea Party activists are angry, and others, too, but instead of venting their ire against the corporations exporting their jobs for profits, or against bankers, or AIG, they rant against "socialistic" Obama, Muslim, foreigner, against illegal aliens and against "those people" who don't pay income taxes (they pay as much in other taxes).
Noam Chomsky noted the similarities between the violent rhetoric of right-wing Americans and the Nazis before Hitler's takeover, and pointed out that the Nazis had only negligible support two years before they took control (through a democratic election).
The Weimar Republic was democratic, moderate and ineffectual; its reformers were pusillanimous. Nazis boasted they knew what to do. Germany's largest corporations supported them. The fascist system Nazis instituted, merged the power of the state with that of big business. The military in Nazi Germany was fused with both. Is that where we're headed?
Can moderate, centrist, half-reforms mollify enough of the people, stabilize the economy, prevent dangerous climate change, establish peace and maintain democracy? Given the violent response of the crazies, the power of the status quo institutions, and the military's interest in pursuing "the long war," it doesn't seem likely.
I take the Tea Party seriously. They may have all the facts wrong, they may be as ignorant as Sarah Palin, but they have energy. Faced with right-wing populists like Father Coughlin, FDR campaigned against "the economic royalists of our time." He won big for reform in 1936.
Our democracy needs an FDR, or Obama to become one, if it is to survive. Otherwise, we'll face the twilight of empire, like Diocletian's, more totalitarian than Hitler's, but declining nonetheless--before climate change destroys civilization as we know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)