"This president can tell us it was someone else's fault. This president can tell us that the next four years he'll get it right, but this president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office." Mitt Romney's convention address 8/30/2012.
Like much else that Romney and Ryan said, this statement is factually wrong. Things aren't great, but we are better off than we were when the financial system was imploding with the housing market. Further, although unemployment rose after Obama was inaugurated, it fell in response to his policies--just not far enough. The problem was that his policies were too timorous, in part because Obama made attempt after mistaken attempt to compromise with the GOP minorities in both the House and the Senate: mostly the Senate, where the latter wielded its filibuster veto.
His attempts were mistaken, because Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader, had made it very clear that his party would do almost whatever it could to insure that Obama would be a one-term President.
Neither Romney, nor Ryan, nor any of the other so-called leaders in the GOP, are willing to admit it now, but they are at least as responsible for the parlous state of the nation as Obama. They blocked whatever initiatives Obama attempted to bring about a recovery of the economy their (and Clinton-Rubin's) extreme laissez-faire policies had brought to the brink.
The GOP's hypocrisy is extraordinary, so the string of falsehoods promulgated by Ryan and then Romney at the convention should not be surprising.
What I do find surprising is the lack of "message control" on the part of the most prominent participants in the Republican Convention. Only the lesser lights, like Susana Martinez and Ann Romney stayed on message: to promote Romney as their standard bearer. Aside from the disastrous "address" of Clint Eastwood, Republican stars like Chris Christie, and even Paul Ryan appeared at best lukewarm in their promotion of their putative nominee.
This leads me to wonder: perhaps Mitt isn't even the super-manager he claims, or perhaps the GOP isn't really uniting behind him, after all. Ron Paul hasn't endorsed him, Clint referred to him as "the other guy" and many others seemed to treat him as an afterthought.
Maybe, the huge financial advantage Republicans have gained from Citizens United and their billionaire "super-pacs" has made them careless. After all, Sheldon Adelson has said he'd spend "whatever it takes" to defeat Obama, so, why worry? They'll just smother the airwaves with their lies.
I hope enough people tune out their distortions, but this is a classic case of the selfish class attempting to take over what had been at best a limited democracy. If their class succeeds, the US, and the world, will look increasingly like the last, fumbling years of the western Roman Empire.
Showing posts with label the selfish class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the selfish class. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Counter-Revolution Paid For By
Scott Walker's "easy win" over old line Democrat, Tom Barrett, shows the relative effectiveness of two strategies: buying elections and media, versus organizing "the masses." Maybe there weren't enough of the masses, or there were too many Fox consumers, but buying an election worked, mass organizing didn't. Also, Tom Barrett's moderate stance of "let's reason together," didn't work. He lost this time by more than last time, before Walker slammed public sector unions and women, and students, and, and, and.
Wisconsin was a laboratory for those freed by Citizens United to spend unlimited funds in order to buy the kind of government they want: slashed services, cowed workers and slashed taxes for the wealthy.
And they won. Big.
Walker is a hero of the right. To them, he's someone who stood up to unions, who stood up to uppity women: he called their bluff and cut taxes for corporations. All the outrage, all the organizing, all the demonstrations against him and the Republican coup d'etat comes down to this: Walker won with a higher percentage of the vote than he won in 2010, before he revealed how radical he was.
The real winners are the people I've called the Selfish Class. It's not clear, yet, whether their campaign spending (seven to one versus Democrats, reportedly, 2/3 from out of state, versus 1/4 for Democrats) or the longer propaganda campaign of Fox News and snide talk radio was most important in waging the counter-revolution. Both were paid for by the same kind of people: the selfish class, whether corporate donors, or billionaires wanting to protect and expand what is theirs.
What is clear is that even if Obama ekes out a win in November (18% of Walker voters said they'd support him), it is the selfish class that really won. Walker's agenda was tailor-made by them: bash unions into impotence, humiliate women into 1950's-type subservience and cow dissidents, minorities and students into hiding. Most important: cut taxes on the wealthy to the bone.
Obama may win against Romney by piecing together a coalition of feminists, gays, minorities and enough independents impressed by his anti-terrorist cojones, but you can bet he'll be reluctant to support strengthening unions, or pushing for a real stimulus, or going after Wall Street. He may be marginally better than Romney, but he's not going to undo the counter-revolution.
There is a real divide in this country, and much of the world. The uber-rich selfish class, like Fifth-century Roman Senators, has their hangers-on and their subservient serfs, who have been taught that their heroes' good fortunes will trickle down. And there are the rest of us, who haven't yet accepted the message.
We haven't accepted it, because it isn't true: with austerity, slashed services and increasing inequality, the wealthy will prosper, but, if they prevail, we'll be driven into a centuries-long depression, just like the fifth-century Roman Empire.
Wisconsin was a laboratory for those freed by Citizens United to spend unlimited funds in order to buy the kind of government they want: slashed services, cowed workers and slashed taxes for the wealthy.
And they won. Big.
Walker is a hero of the right. To them, he's someone who stood up to unions, who stood up to uppity women: he called their bluff and cut taxes for corporations. All the outrage, all the organizing, all the demonstrations against him and the Republican coup d'etat comes down to this: Walker won with a higher percentage of the vote than he won in 2010, before he revealed how radical he was.
The real winners are the people I've called the Selfish Class. It's not clear, yet, whether their campaign spending (seven to one versus Democrats, reportedly, 2/3 from out of state, versus 1/4 for Democrats) or the longer propaganda campaign of Fox News and snide talk radio was most important in waging the counter-revolution. Both were paid for by the same kind of people: the selfish class, whether corporate donors, or billionaires wanting to protect and expand what is theirs.
What is clear is that even if Obama ekes out a win in November (18% of Walker voters said they'd support him), it is the selfish class that really won. Walker's agenda was tailor-made by them: bash unions into impotence, humiliate women into 1950's-type subservience and cow dissidents, minorities and students into hiding. Most important: cut taxes on the wealthy to the bone.
Obama may win against Romney by piecing together a coalition of feminists, gays, minorities and enough independents impressed by his anti-terrorist cojones, but you can bet he'll be reluctant to support strengthening unions, or pushing for a real stimulus, or going after Wall Street. He may be marginally better than Romney, but he's not going to undo the counter-revolution.
There is a real divide in this country, and much of the world. The uber-rich selfish class, like Fifth-century Roman Senators, has their hangers-on and their subservient serfs, who have been taught that their heroes' good fortunes will trickle down. And there are the rest of us, who haven't yet accepted the message.
We haven't accepted it, because it isn't true: with austerity, slashed services and increasing inequality, the wealthy will prosper, but, if they prevail, we'll be driven into a centuries-long depression, just like the fifth-century Roman Empire.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Is the US Over-Regulated
I never understood the problem with US regulations before, until they were described in the British Economist: Democrats want to regulate business, so that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't run so wild that it destroys society--something it almost did in 2007-8. Republicans want to regulate behavior, i.e. criminal behavior of the lower classes and minorities, and "free business from regulation." Interestingly, the center-right Economist, sees Democrats' priorities as favorably as Republicans,' but damns both--for the way Americans write their laws and consequent regulations.
One example is the Dodd-Frank bill, which is intended to regulate the finance industry to prevent a replay of the collapse in 2008 that led to the Great Recession. It attempts to cover every eventuality, and every kind of financial practice in excruciating detail--it's nearly 900 pages--before most of the actual regulations are written to implement the law. That one was a Democratic monstrosity, but Republicans have done the same kind of thing regulating abortions, for example: bills, which become laws, have become interminably long, and complex.
It may be that the complexity of American regulatory law reflects the growing complexity of our society, but it may also be that laws are so incredibly complex, because our legal system has become so--Americans are exceptionally litigious.
But there may be another reason. In this rigidifying society, Americans have to protect their status, especially their professional status. Even back in the Dark Ages of the 1970's, when I was an academic, professional jargon was necessary to prove your professional standing. I was criticized for writing scholarly articles in plain English! I knew the same was true for my colleagues in other Social Sciences, the Sciences and especially the Humanities.
Not until I had to deal with things like owning property and putting roads across streams, did I realize that government bureaucracies do the same things. I've glimpsed enough to know that corporate bureaucracies are like this, too. There are special ways of speaking or writing that are required for you to fit in. It's called protecting your ass, and everyone else's: your little fiefdom. This is becoming increasingly important as class mobility declines. People, with fewer prospects of advancement, hunker down and protect what they have.
Lawyers have some of the most arcane jargon and grammatical construction of any of the professions. Yet, it's primarily lawyers-turned-politicians who write our laws, and lawyers-turned-bureaucrats who vet the regulations written by legally trained civil servants.
Is it any wonder that the elaboration of laws, their sheer complexity, their piling on laws upon laws to regulate what one simple ordinance might do, has found its greatest flowering in the US? Judicial or managerial judgement is not to be trusted.
Sharpening class lines, and the brittleness that engenders, became pronounced in Fifth Century Rome: the US seems to be following the same trajectory. Moves to simplify laws and regulations are much needed, but probably won't happen: special interests protect themselves.
One example is the Dodd-Frank bill, which is intended to regulate the finance industry to prevent a replay of the collapse in 2008 that led to the Great Recession. It attempts to cover every eventuality, and every kind of financial practice in excruciating detail--it's nearly 900 pages--before most of the actual regulations are written to implement the law. That one was a Democratic monstrosity, but Republicans have done the same kind of thing regulating abortions, for example: bills, which become laws, have become interminably long, and complex.
It may be that the complexity of American regulatory law reflects the growing complexity of our society, but it may also be that laws are so incredibly complex, because our legal system has become so--Americans are exceptionally litigious.
But there may be another reason. In this rigidifying society, Americans have to protect their status, especially their professional status. Even back in the Dark Ages of the 1970's, when I was an academic, professional jargon was necessary to prove your professional standing. I was criticized for writing scholarly articles in plain English! I knew the same was true for my colleagues in other Social Sciences, the Sciences and especially the Humanities.
Not until I had to deal with things like owning property and putting roads across streams, did I realize that government bureaucracies do the same things. I've glimpsed enough to know that corporate bureaucracies are like this, too. There are special ways of speaking or writing that are required for you to fit in. It's called protecting your ass, and everyone else's: your little fiefdom. This is becoming increasingly important as class mobility declines. People, with fewer prospects of advancement, hunker down and protect what they have.
Lawyers have some of the most arcane jargon and grammatical construction of any of the professions. Yet, it's primarily lawyers-turned-politicians who write our laws, and lawyers-turned-bureaucrats who vet the regulations written by legally trained civil servants.
Is it any wonder that the elaboration of laws, their sheer complexity, their piling on laws upon laws to regulate what one simple ordinance might do, has found its greatest flowering in the US? Judicial or managerial judgement is not to be trusted.
Sharpening class lines, and the brittleness that engenders, became pronounced in Fifth Century Rome: the US seems to be following the same trajectory. Moves to simplify laws and regulations are much needed, but probably won't happen: special interests protect themselves.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Why the "Lost Decade?"
Social justice is a different concept for many of the people who control corporations or large fortunes. "We'll always be rich," is a common refrain among today's "Roman Senators." They not only protect themselves, but their abundant funds insure they have the best governments money can buy.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)!
The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade."
These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements.
Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene).
If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy.
In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs.
When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions.
Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession.
"Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off.
Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Obama the Cowardly Lion
I voted for Kennedy, and LBJ, with diminishing hope for Carter, and with a certain detachment for Bill. But with Barack Obama, I confess I was won over, as I had been for JFK back in early 1960.
Kennedy was far from perfect, but Obama isn't just a disappointment; he isn't just a failing President the way Carter was, he's failing the country, and it's probably because of who he is. Drew Westen's essay in the NYT is damning, with faint praise. Clearly, Westen is an admirer of the New Deal (so am I), but he sees Obama as someone who doesn't really know who he is; it changes with each person he works with; and he doesn't know how to deal with a bully.
Obama's pacific nature would have been well-suited to the situation Bush W faced in 2001. The outcome would have been very different, as it probably would if the Supremes had allowed Gore to be elected.
Westen pointed out that Obama's stories never include a real villain; anything bad is rather abstract, or in passive mode. And, he doesn't stand up to a bully, like McConnell, or Boehner; he wants to appease.
My wife, the inestimable Elizabeth Cunningham, told me long ago, "He's just like me! He wants to placate so the unpleasantness will go away. I know how to stand up to a bully, though; he doesn't."
But he also doesn't know if he's for progressive politics, although that's where he started, or if he really thinks more like Reagan. He may have been corrupted, in the moral sense, or he's just more of a chameleon than anyone knew: conservative when Republicans make everyone seem to be to his right--not a comfortable place to be--progressive when among Democrats, but never far out left.
That's why "centrism" is like a religion in the Obama White House: along with Change We Can Believe In, Obama's other great theme in the election was Unity. After health care, it's been little change, but too much effort for achieving unity when none is possible, except through a dead-pan or ambiguous surrender.
It's true that S&P blamed the GOP's obstructionism in their downgrade missive, but they're seeing only half of the picture; the other half has Obama cringing before GOP leaders. Obama enables bullies. The bullies are also incredibly destructive. They brought the US over the brink of fiscal credibility, and it's probably like the title of my long ago discarded first novel: When Wrong Ways Prevail.
The novel wasn't about the Roman Empire; it took place in modern India, and the wrong ways were personal, not economic or political. However, my non-fiction book, the Selfish Class, available onsite, details 21st Century parallels with the late Roman Empire's takeover by the wealthy and the military.
That's what seems to be happening here, now: tragically, even with Obama.
My novel, Attila, also onsite, takes place only decades before Rome's fall.
Kennedy was far from perfect, but Obama isn't just a disappointment; he isn't just a failing President the way Carter was, he's failing the country, and it's probably because of who he is. Drew Westen's essay in the NYT is damning, with faint praise. Clearly, Westen is an admirer of the New Deal (so am I), but he sees Obama as someone who doesn't really know who he is; it changes with each person he works with; and he doesn't know how to deal with a bully.
Obama's pacific nature would have been well-suited to the situation Bush W faced in 2001. The outcome would have been very different, as it probably would if the Supremes had allowed Gore to be elected.
Westen pointed out that Obama's stories never include a real villain; anything bad is rather abstract, or in passive mode. And, he doesn't stand up to a bully, like McConnell, or Boehner; he wants to appease.
My wife, the inestimable Elizabeth Cunningham, told me long ago, "He's just like me! He wants to placate so the unpleasantness will go away. I know how to stand up to a bully, though; he doesn't."
But he also doesn't know if he's for progressive politics, although that's where he started, or if he really thinks more like Reagan. He may have been corrupted, in the moral sense, or he's just more of a chameleon than anyone knew: conservative when Republicans make everyone seem to be to his right--not a comfortable place to be--progressive when among Democrats, but never far out left.
That's why "centrism" is like a religion in the Obama White House: along with Change We Can Believe In, Obama's other great theme in the election was Unity. After health care, it's been little change, but too much effort for achieving unity when none is possible, except through a dead-pan or ambiguous surrender.
It's true that S&P blamed the GOP's obstructionism in their downgrade missive, but they're seeing only half of the picture; the other half has Obama cringing before GOP leaders. Obama enables bullies. The bullies are also incredibly destructive. They brought the US over the brink of fiscal credibility, and it's probably like the title of my long ago discarded first novel: When Wrong Ways Prevail.
The novel wasn't about the Roman Empire; it took place in modern India, and the wrong ways were personal, not economic or political. However, my non-fiction book, the Selfish Class, available onsite, details 21st Century parallels with the late Roman Empire's takeover by the wealthy and the military.
That's what seems to be happening here, now: tragically, even with Obama.
My novel, Attila, also onsite, takes place only decades before Rome's fall.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Money Trumps Empire
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." On Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor's "Research Update."
Republican obstructionism on behalf of their constituency, the wealthy and selfish (cf. the Selfish Class on this site), has done what the debt-ceiling agreement narrowly averted: brought into question the financial credibility of the US Government.
This is a big deal. Whether S&P used questionable measurements, whether it acted out of its own political agenda, it still did what no one had done since the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world. A credit downgrade from AAA to AA+, unless it is quickly reversed (unlikely), will lead, first of all, to higher borrowing costs for all of us.
Take that, barely whimpering economy!
But the decision will also hasten the day when the dollar will no longer be The reserve currency. That's an even bigger deal. It could mean the beginning of the end of the American Empire, because how can the US pay for its bloated military in 120+ countries, when borrowing costs really begin to rise? It can no longer just continue to borrow and expect the rest of the world to lend to us at rock bottom rates. Of course, the US can continue to borrow, and to inflate the value of the dollar, since it still owns its own printing press (the Treasury), and supposedly controls its own reserve bank (the Fed).
But then the US would be acting like any banana republic, except that US debt far exceeds the debt of any other country, or combination of them. There is no one who could bail us out, and most economies--including the US, of course--would be driven into such a Depression that the 1930's would look like an early rehearsal.
The world economy would have good reason to collapse. If it doesn't do so, then political leaders will have finally come together to save our civilization, but, on the evidence of the last 12 years, cooperation is not a great bet.
America's fall may come a lot faster than Rome's.
Rome had terrible credit and was continually diluting (inflating) its currency. But during Rome's long expansion it was also robbing the wealth of the peoples it conquered; it paid off its debts with the proceeds: gold, other treasures, and most of all, slaves. In the US, the considerable profits of empire are pocketed not by the US government, but by private, effectively stateless, global corporations. Maybe that's why they pay so little in US taxes, even with billions in profits--profits are earned abroad. Corporations avoid declaring profits in those nations, also. It's easy to find an island/city-state with nearly zero taxes.
Republican obstructionism on behalf of their constituency, the wealthy and selfish (cf. the Selfish Class on this site), has done what the debt-ceiling agreement narrowly averted: brought into question the financial credibility of the US Government.
This is a big deal. Whether S&P used questionable measurements, whether it acted out of its own political agenda, it still did what no one had done since the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world. A credit downgrade from AAA to AA+, unless it is quickly reversed (unlikely), will lead, first of all, to higher borrowing costs for all of us.
Take that, barely whimpering economy!
But the decision will also hasten the day when the dollar will no longer be The reserve currency. That's an even bigger deal. It could mean the beginning of the end of the American Empire, because how can the US pay for its bloated military in 120+ countries, when borrowing costs really begin to rise? It can no longer just continue to borrow and expect the rest of the world to lend to us at rock bottom rates. Of course, the US can continue to borrow, and to inflate the value of the dollar, since it still owns its own printing press (the Treasury), and supposedly controls its own reserve bank (the Fed).
But then the US would be acting like any banana republic, except that US debt far exceeds the debt of any other country, or combination of them. There is no one who could bail us out, and most economies--including the US, of course--would be driven into such a Depression that the 1930's would look like an early rehearsal.
The world economy would have good reason to collapse. If it doesn't do so, then political leaders will have finally come together to save our civilization, but, on the evidence of the last 12 years, cooperation is not a great bet.
America's fall may come a lot faster than Rome's.
Rome had terrible credit and was continually diluting (inflating) its currency. But during Rome's long expansion it was also robbing the wealth of the peoples it conquered; it paid off its debts with the proceeds: gold, other treasures, and most of all, slaves. In the US, the considerable profits of empire are pocketed not by the US government, but by private, effectively stateless, global corporations. Maybe that's why they pay so little in US taxes, even with billions in profits--profits are earned abroad. Corporations avoid declaring profits in those nations, also. It's easy to find an island/city-state with nearly zero taxes.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Selling Out to the Devil
I don't believe in an actual devil, but I do believe that people sell out to the one they conjure up themselves. Anyone who saw Rupert and James Murdoch probably perjure themselves in front of the British Parliament may have had some inkling of this.
What has Rupert Murdoch, and his son, done to the so-called 'information industry?' Rupert clearly has a conservative, or simply pro-Murdoch politics, but what he's specialized in is sleaze that purports to be news, so that he can titillate and horrify and excite, and appeal to the basest of instincts, like ghouls sniffing at corpses. And at the same time, he specializes in misinforming his publics so that he can make even more money with even fewer restraints.
An honest and honorable man, captain of a huge corporation, would take responsibility, like the captain of a ship. But no, Rupert and his son deny all responsibility. Funny, how hacking into phones, and bribing for information do not seem to be limited to just one publication, News of the World, or even one country, the UK. It must have been, um, someone else, one of his employees, someone who has betrayed him. Right. Rachel Maddow pointed out parallel findings for some of Murdoch's American holdings several nights ago.
It wouldn't be fair to blame Murdoch for all the trivialization of the media, the sensationalism of it, the depraved depths to which it now sinks. But Murdoch has had a marked influence on the degradation of news, which he, and his emulators, only see as "product" that can be sold; the more gruesome, disgusting or exploitative a 'true' story, the better the 'product,' because it gains more audience.
There is another side to this sordid news: it rivets the masses' attention, so they don't even care that Rupert, and others, are ripping them off, front, right and center. And Rupert's political ideas are subtly, or not so subtly driven home: the best government is the one that leaves him, or others like him, alone to prey on everyone else.
People like Murdoch, and the leaders of banks and hedge funds, are in business to seize everyone else's wealth; like Mitt Romney, they play at being "job creators."
Republican politicians are almost all either part of this predator class, or spokesmen/women for it. Democrats are a more mixed bag: there certainly are Democratic politicians who are conscientious, and who have a sense of the interests of the voters they represent; they may even share them, or they may, at least, try to represent them. There are other 'Democrats,' unfortunately, who either are, or share the interests of the predators; in subtle or not so subtle ways, they have been bought off.
Predators: the selfish class, like the Roman Senators of fifth century Rome, is like Rupert Murdoch today.
What has Rupert Murdoch, and his son, done to the so-called 'information industry?' Rupert clearly has a conservative, or simply pro-Murdoch politics, but what he's specialized in is sleaze that purports to be news, so that he can titillate and horrify and excite, and appeal to the basest of instincts, like ghouls sniffing at corpses. And at the same time, he specializes in misinforming his publics so that he can make even more money with even fewer restraints.
An honest and honorable man, captain of a huge corporation, would take responsibility, like the captain of a ship. But no, Rupert and his son deny all responsibility. Funny, how hacking into phones, and bribing for information do not seem to be limited to just one publication, News of the World, or even one country, the UK. It must have been, um, someone else, one of his employees, someone who has betrayed him. Right. Rachel Maddow pointed out parallel findings for some of Murdoch's American holdings several nights ago.
It wouldn't be fair to blame Murdoch for all the trivialization of the media, the sensationalism of it, the depraved depths to which it now sinks. But Murdoch has had a marked influence on the degradation of news, which he, and his emulators, only see as "product" that can be sold; the more gruesome, disgusting or exploitative a 'true' story, the better the 'product,' because it gains more audience.
There is another side to this sordid news: it rivets the masses' attention, so they don't even care that Rupert, and others, are ripping them off, front, right and center. And Rupert's political ideas are subtly, or not so subtly driven home: the best government is the one that leaves him, or others like him, alone to prey on everyone else.
People like Murdoch, and the leaders of banks and hedge funds, are in business to seize everyone else's wealth; like Mitt Romney, they play at being "job creators."
Republican politicians are almost all either part of this predator class, or spokesmen/women for it. Democrats are a more mixed bag: there certainly are Democratic politicians who are conscientious, and who have a sense of the interests of the voters they represent; they may even share them, or they may, at least, try to represent them. There are other 'Democrats,' unfortunately, who either are, or share the interests of the predators; in subtle or not so subtle ways, they have been bought off.
Predators: the selfish class, like the Roman Senators of fifth century Rome, is like Rupert Murdoch today.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Democracy as Distraction
Democracy As Distraction
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)