"I'm goin' where the water tastes like wine....you've got a home, long as I've got mine."
Canned Heat: "Goin' Up the Country."
In 2020, "OK, Boomer," is an ongoing insult (friendly, I believe) that young folks use on each other when they believe their peers are acting stodgy, grumpy, old. Well, we of the Post-War Baby Boom have gotten old. And again, people are talking about "my generation." As our parents, the WWII or "Greatest" generation, passes on, we are turning into the same old codgers we made fun of in our youth. We know now that young people, having gotten to the point where they believe they know everything, have yet to learn that history repeats itself. They will learn. Hoping they will learn more easily than we did, we old boomers of the "Woodstock" generation" need to share our memories and growing pains, even though the youth of today, like ourselves when we were young, will probably not pay attention. It doesn't matter. We need to share.
Being born in 1948, I emphasize the older boomers, personally influenced by the War in Vietnam and the civil rights movement, who have more in common with War Babies and even people born late in the Depression than with younger boomers. Events of those dramatic year forced many Americans to question our country's ethical, economic, political, and social balance, leading to fundamental confrontations that made people of all ages at the least extremely uncomfortable. Of course relationships get complicated when we consider younger and older relatives of people directly involved in those intense events. Still, personally, "my generation" refers to people born roughly between 1937 and 1955.
In the sixties and seventies, as we of the Woodstock generation became adults, we did "as best we could" what people do, what we always had intended to do: took responsibility as citizens of our society. Early on, we gave up the goal of "going where the water tastes like wine." This line from "Goin' Up the Country," Canned Heat's song featured in the Woodstock movie, was a nice fantasy which did not square with reality, and we knew it, or learned it. Overdoses (including Alan Wilson, the writer of those lines) along with drug-induced psychotic behavior rather quickly taught us that a transcendent state through chemicals was no answer to mankind's problems. Besides, being human, we wanted to accomplish something. With maturity most of us learned to moderate or abstain. It was not always easy, and those who could not perished.
In this respect we are like our parents' generation, who liked to alter their realities with alcohol and nicotine; we simply added to it. The negative effects of our elders' drugs of choice had become frighteningly obvious by the time we were coming of age. As members of the greatest generation morphed from youthful, jubilant victors in WWII into people with jobs and families approaching middle age, they discovered the difficulties of moderating or eliminating these activities. Since parents naturally want their children to avoid their mistakes, they were discomfited to watch their children add other chemicals to the mix. Along with drugs, large numbers of young people took part in protests against war, poverty, prejudice, pollution, political corruption, crooked business, and a lot more of society's ills. Many parents wondered if their children were in a drug-addled frenzy to destroy our society--a society young people had grown up in, for the most part comfortably.
The elites took a gamble and retaliated against those protests with brute force. Older Americans were largely silent, and some actually favored using the big stick. Not that the oldsters approved of the conditions youngsters were protesting--they doubted there was much anybody could do about it.
They knew that destruction of property would be ineffective. And there was always the ugly shroud of communism to frighten anybody who believed in democracy. What about tuning in, turning on, dropping out? Who would get the work done? Did anybody ever tell the younger generation about the process of getting something to eat? Were Americans spending hard-earned, easily-taken tax dollars to send kids to college just to destroy our civilization? How had America's youths strayed so far from their American heritage? Drugs were a handy explanation.
With time, boomers matured and turned off the drugs, at least constant over-consumption--or tried to. The Woodstock generation began to assume its responsibilities in society, following generations past. Actually knowing the process of getting food after all, we went to work. Many of us took seriously the sacred notion of rugged individualism and tried to avoid, or at least soften, the top-down corporate party line. Some were fairly successful, meaning they earned their living and kept their dignity without going mad. Some were so successful they became corporate titans themselves. And we learned in the real world, water tastes different from wine.
Another line from the Canned Heat song was "you've got a home, long as I've got mine." From hippies in Haight-Ashbury across the continent to revelers at Woodstock, the notion that we shared a common fate and should share the solutions was a strong sentiment in our youthful culture, and it united us for a while. The concept of the human family is still with us, though considerably diluted with reality. But within most of us aging rugged individualists is a core that still shares a universal desire for a better world.
The quest for a just, equitable world is not the sole province of any generation. Thoughtful people throughout history have sought this goal. But in the 1950's and 1960's mass media made Americans aware that the ideals our country professed were not being met. Being Americans, having the energy and comparative social freedom to do so, we boomers took action. Some of our actions were inconvenient. Others were destructive. Angry reactions from older generations allowed the power structure to commit harsh repression in the name of preserving America. Still, Americans of all ages were forced to look at the severe social and economic problems our country faced, and the injustices our country committed.
We who grew up in the years after WWII were the first to be innately aware of our comfortable circumstances, of the world's plenty. The two or three generations before us were too busy with WWI, the Depression, and WWII to notice just how good the world had gotten at producing all human needs. Boomers saw that Earth was, or could be, a place of plenty for everyone. On a planet so provident, humans might simply stop fighting and enjoy life. At the same time our parents, who had survived the privations of depression and war, emphasized the value of work, of each doing his or her part. The old people felt in their hearts that children should be seen and not heard.
The old people of those times slipped their mortal coils, and the greatest generation, having lived long lives in greater numbers than ever before, are passing too. That leaves us boomers in the position of having briefly inherited the earth before we pass it on to younger people, who make fun of us for being old. Some of us still desire to pass on a world that is pleasant, or at least habitable. Though we
did what we could, our goal of a world free from fear and want, where everyone enjoys freedom of speech and religion, is still our of reach.
The greatest generation hoped to leave us a world that reaches those goals, and fell short. The main factor behind their failure was human nature. We all need the basic necessities, and we all like some comforts. People need to raise families and get by in whatever cultures they find themselves in, without undue harassment. The daily needs of survival take large amounts of time and energy--virtually everything everybody had, until machines lifted some of the burden. The problem, as everyone knows, is one of management of production and distribution, and while we all have differing opinions concerning how human production should be distributed, the fact is that today, as always, a few have incredible riches while many have barely enough to survive. The legacy of a just and equitable society is not ours to leave. While we can hope for progress, our time is short, and we will leave our heirs a lot of poverty and injustice. We need to leave our experiences, and the lessons we have learned, that they might have a chance to build a world that is more just and equal than the one they'll be getting from us.
Not all boomers want to make the world a better place for everyone. We are many, and we are human. Some grew up mean and hostile. Some grew up greedy. We all needed to figure out how to take care of ourselves. We turned out to be not so different from our parents. A just, equal, provident society is what most humans desire, to live in and to leave behind. In society, as within ourselves, we all seek balance. And we're not there yet.
We boomers, having reached old age (though not as old as I used to think it was) are now subjects of ridicule to young people. This is what young people do. It's a rite of passage. Our responsibility is to understand. Our privilege is to be understanding. To Generation X, the Millennials, and Generation Y, we can bestow our experience, our education, and our continuing hopes and fears. They can use what we have acquired as guidelines to avoid some of our mistakes. Or they can sneer "OK, Boomer," and go on their ways. Their reactions are not our business. Ours is to bequeath something of value whether they value it or not. We are still a long way from the society many of us sought when we were young, but is still a worthwhile goal. Some day humanity may achieve culture that is free from want, free from fear, where people can speak their minds and practice their faiths--where people can honestly say "You've got a home, long as I've got mine"
Friday, January 24, 2020
Friday, October 20, 2017
HOOK, LINE AND SINKER
"American fascists claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective is to capture political power so that using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
Henry Wallace, U.S. Vice President (1941-1945)
Democratic republics are hard institutions to maintain, given nature's variables and human nature. The price requires persistence, patience, and boring compromises, even for people who "know" they are absolutely right. Stressful times can be aggravated by a constant barrage of information from electronic media. Sometimes the stress seems overwhelming, and people can be tempted to let strongmen who make a good pitch take over, even in America. The survival of the United States as a functioning democratic republic for over two centuries attests to the solidity of our country's foundation, and to the willingness of we the people to do the hard, dull work of maintaining it, trying to rectify mistakes, trying to make society more inclusive.
Each threat to government of, by, and for the people could have ended the experiment, but in every case people did what was needed to keep, even expand, our freedom. We are in the midst of another such challenge, with our free society on the line. Corporate and government power are merging. The conflict now is between various personalities involved in the ongoing coup. They will fight each other to the bitter end, because first prize is absolute power, and there are no booby prizes. No matter who wins, following the "odd man out" rule, common people are among the odd. So far we have always made it through, which is encouraging. Still, the current threat is genuine.
The authoritarian playbook never changes. Keep people confused and fearful, willing to trust a ruling clique to get them through the crisis of the day. Keep them unaware, because "ignorance is strength." Convince them that resistance is hopeless, that the top-down order is "the way it is." No matter who wins the power struggle at the top, the plebes stay outside. We will be allowed to watch some of the more entertaining episodes in the struggle--the drama is a distraction. Decisions important to us will be made by whomever wins the insiders' struggle. We will be allowed to validate the results in the voting booth, because after all, we live in a "democracy."
Unification of government with big business is Mussolini's definition of fascism. Some fascistic rulers allow more dissenters to run free (for a time) than others. It depends on whether the corporate state can maintain its power with overwhelming domination of communication and entertainment. If the rubes stay quiet, there is no need for expensive political prisons. On the other hand, there would be little to inhibit an American Gulag--it would make the rulers seem more powerful, and "God is power." We already have a huge prison system. The odd arrest in the middle of the night has shown to be effective at keeping the neighbors quiet...reducing thoughtcrime.
Before Americans accept our own Gulag, ongoing occurrences of thoughtcrime must be cut down substantially. Otherwise vaporizations and disappearances only prod people into asking difficult questions. Abject poverty being effective at stifling dissent, current efforts to eliminate healthcare and social security, at the same time reducing taxes for the rich, are right on schedule. The desperately poor are unable to organize rebellion or protest, or even to think clearly at all. Cuts in public education are another manifestation of an ongoing effort to eliminate critical thinking in the society, ignorance among the plebeians being the source of the patricians' strength. The combination of economic inequality and mass propaganda can effectively eliminate social thought among the masses. Since people who believe they are free are more easily enslaved, "freedom is slavery." Many commoners have been convinced that all these assaults on the social safety net are actually in their best interests, and having taken the bait, they are being reeled in. They are not bothered with having to think. But they are also fish on the land.
We who continue committing thoughtcrime live in times that are beyond exciting, they are downright scary. There is a strong temptation to give up, to simply withdraw. Some of us no doubt already have. Those of us who have not probably cannot (short of a stay in Room 101). It is tempting to believe the situation may not be all that bad. But the evidence is obvious, when we are not distracted by the sideshow that is the struggle for supremacy among the elites. When the drama is played out we will know, in no uncertain terms, who is in charge. For those of us who have dared to commit thoughtcrime, the scene could turn ugly. We might not need to undergo torture in the Ministry of Love, but we will be buried in an avalanche of alternative facts to the point where we lose our bearings. With everybody around us seeming to believe the corporate doublethink, we could seriously doubt our perceptions of reality, at which time the rulers own us and we might as well learn to love Big Brother.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
HARD TIMES AHEAD
"When this circuit learns your job, what are you going to do?"
Marshall McLuhan
THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared."
George Orwell
1984
We know the jobs are not coming back.
First they went to Third World sweatshops, now they are being done by robots, which never complain, which are not paid--slaves requiring neither food nor whipping. Assembly lines, road crews, even food service and farms--are now highly automated, with no end in sight. Already more humans need work than are needed to do work, producing what we can buy. Ongoing debates are held about competition for jobs--between countries, between states, between cities. This competition means that no matter what strategies are used, somebody winds up unemployed--no matter how low the rich peoples' taxes are, no matter how many regulations are ended, no matter how long and hard the workday. As this trend proceeds, humanity has arrived at a crossroads. We could enter a future in which we are freed from grueling labour, freed to create, to express ourselves, to interact and build a world of peace and comfort--to play, and benefit from the inspiration that play provides. Or we could live in a science fiction dystopia: a tiny few owning everything, trying to keep a slightly larger support group from getting it, while the overwhelming majority of mankind has nothing to do and is dependent for subsistence on whatever the owners feel inclined to spare.
Missing from the future is anything like the social framework we have gotten used to: a society in which goods and services are bought by people who work to produce them, who buy them with money they earn from working. We are nearing the logical conclusion of five centuries of mechanization, a time when everything people need will be mechanically produced. People will not be needed to work for a living. They will still need a living. Who gets what they need will depend on who is in charge.
We now live in a global village, as Marshall McLuhan observed half a century ago. We are all dependent on each other--a discommoding concept to many of us who were born and raised in cultural adulation of the "rugged individualist"--steeped in the notion that humanity progresses to the extent that individuals are left alone by society and its "hideous offshoot," government. While individualism is desirable in many ways, while few of us would do without it, individualism, like any other human trait, can have harmful results when left unchecked. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, creative, inventive, persevering individuals gave way to shrewd, greedy, relentless ones, whose greed came to dominate the world. "Individuals" (the single humans who can not be divided into smaller groups) gave way to "capital"--individuals who made their way to the "head" of organizations--invariably by ruthless means. Capitalists use their resources to satisfy their greed, which like any addiction, can never be satisfied. Since capitalists' profits prevent paying workers enough to buy back all they can produce, surpluses build up, workers are no longer needed, and unemployment rises. The capitalists solve this problem with war, whereby surplus production is blown up, along with unneeded workers.
Socialism arose in reaction to individualism's perversion into capitalism. If rugged individualism leads to such misery, then society must retake control. This solution then proceeded to recreate the problem, as the heads of the "socialist" states quickly became crueler and more power-mad than the capitalists had considered, up till then. If we have learned anything of value in the century of chaos involving those actions and reactions, it is that individuals and societies are quite interdependent, each becoming oppressive and destructive when "thinking people" are left out of the plans. The elusive yet desirable goal is to balance the needs of society with the aspirations of individuals. While we all have differing opinions regarding where the balance is, and these opinions will change depending on circumstances, a healthy respect for both individuals and society as a whole is apparently necessary for general human satisfaction. People instinctively think, and humanity is better off when more people do think, and trade their thoughts. Our civilization is not founded on the limited thinking that improves the processes of making and distributing goods and services. Rather, productivity is a result of unlimited and unimpeded human thought. But within the strict zone of production for compensation, thinking people get in the way. In the end, thought becomes a criminal act. To both capitalist and socialist ruling elites, working people are problems to be solved, and workers who think make the problems worse. Both types of rulers are firm believers that "Ignorance is Strength."
Whenever society comes under the control of a small clique, individuals no longer matter...in fact, they turn troublesome. God becomes power, war consumes surplus production, and humanity ceases to progress. But production and distribution nonetheless become more efficient, increasing the obscene wealth of a few. Or we could use the immense productive capacity of automation to reap a world of plenty for all. We may still have a choice, but it appears we will not have it for long. The jobs are not coming back. Time to commit thoughtcrime?
Marshall McLuhan
THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared."
George Orwell
1984
We know the jobs are not coming back.
First they went to Third World sweatshops, now they are being done by robots, which never complain, which are not paid--slaves requiring neither food nor whipping. Assembly lines, road crews, even food service and farms--are now highly automated, with no end in sight. Already more humans need work than are needed to do work, producing what we can buy. Ongoing debates are held about competition for jobs--between countries, between states, between cities. This competition means that no matter what strategies are used, somebody winds up unemployed--no matter how low the rich peoples' taxes are, no matter how many regulations are ended, no matter how long and hard the workday. As this trend proceeds, humanity has arrived at a crossroads. We could enter a future in which we are freed from grueling labour, freed to create, to express ourselves, to interact and build a world of peace and comfort--to play, and benefit from the inspiration that play provides. Or we could live in a science fiction dystopia: a tiny few owning everything, trying to keep a slightly larger support group from getting it, while the overwhelming majority of mankind has nothing to do and is dependent for subsistence on whatever the owners feel inclined to spare.
Missing from the future is anything like the social framework we have gotten used to: a society in which goods and services are bought by people who work to produce them, who buy them with money they earn from working. We are nearing the logical conclusion of five centuries of mechanization, a time when everything people need will be mechanically produced. People will not be needed to work for a living. They will still need a living. Who gets what they need will depend on who is in charge.
We now live in a global village, as Marshall McLuhan observed half a century ago. We are all dependent on each other--a discommoding concept to many of us who were born and raised in cultural adulation of the "rugged individualist"--steeped in the notion that humanity progresses to the extent that individuals are left alone by society and its "hideous offshoot," government. While individualism is desirable in many ways, while few of us would do without it, individualism, like any other human trait, can have harmful results when left unchecked. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, creative, inventive, persevering individuals gave way to shrewd, greedy, relentless ones, whose greed came to dominate the world. "Individuals" (the single humans who can not be divided into smaller groups) gave way to "capital"--individuals who made their way to the "head" of organizations--invariably by ruthless means. Capitalists use their resources to satisfy their greed, which like any addiction, can never be satisfied. Since capitalists' profits prevent paying workers enough to buy back all they can produce, surpluses build up, workers are no longer needed, and unemployment rises. The capitalists solve this problem with war, whereby surplus production is blown up, along with unneeded workers.
Socialism arose in reaction to individualism's perversion into capitalism. If rugged individualism leads to such misery, then society must retake control. This solution then proceeded to recreate the problem, as the heads of the "socialist" states quickly became crueler and more power-mad than the capitalists had considered, up till then. If we have learned anything of value in the century of chaos involving those actions and reactions, it is that individuals and societies are quite interdependent, each becoming oppressive and destructive when "thinking people" are left out of the plans. The elusive yet desirable goal is to balance the needs of society with the aspirations of individuals. While we all have differing opinions regarding where the balance is, and these opinions will change depending on circumstances, a healthy respect for both individuals and society as a whole is apparently necessary for general human satisfaction. People instinctively think, and humanity is better off when more people do think, and trade their thoughts. Our civilization is not founded on the limited thinking that improves the processes of making and distributing goods and services. Rather, productivity is a result of unlimited and unimpeded human thought. But within the strict zone of production for compensation, thinking people get in the way. In the end, thought becomes a criminal act. To both capitalist and socialist ruling elites, working people are problems to be solved, and workers who think make the problems worse. Both types of rulers are firm believers that "Ignorance is Strength."
Whenever society comes under the control of a small clique, individuals no longer matter...in fact, they turn troublesome. God becomes power, war consumes surplus production, and humanity ceases to progress. But production and distribution nonetheless become more efficient, increasing the obscene wealth of a few. Or we could use the immense productive capacity of automation to reap a world of plenty for all. We may still have a choice, but it appears we will not have it for long. The jobs are not coming back. Time to commit thoughtcrime?
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
RADICAL REVIVAL
"I would bet that fewer Americans have read WALDEN than have heard that Thoreau's mother did his laundry."
Jedediah Purdy
THE NATION, June 19/26, 2017
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
Henry David Thoreau
WALDEN
Thoreau, hugely influential in those times known as "the sixties", is somewhat a dud nowadays...not enough of a corporate man. Peaceful resistance? Dropping out? Hippie stuff. Practical modern folks know there is but one game in town, and it is corporate. Anybody who knows which side of the bread has the butter needs to know the company line, and that line could change tomorrow, so better pay attention. No need for radical ideas like living simply, or going to jail in a righteous cause. If you want to be a player, you've got to play the game. Shame on Thoreau, for proposing a different way of living, and more shame for showing it could be done. Well, his mommy washed his clothes, so back to the corporate ladder.
Thoreau inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to wage their peaceful (and successful) revolutions. But history shows those two were human, no better than you or me. And are we going to change the world? Of course not. Why should Gandhi or Dr. King try? The people in charge can be generous when they want to be, to those they believe can help and serve them. Serve them well, and hope for the best. Those who dissent, who drag their feet, are holding up progress, and need to abandon all hope. The defiant are insane, and we dare not forget the fates of Gandhi and King: both shot. They learned their lessons. They should have packed heat.
Research holds that Dr. King, late in his life, began to entertain the prospect of violence as a possible solution to racial inequality. We all entertain many differing thoughts throughout our lives. But the fate of black militants ought to answer that question. Early in this new millennium, the armed potential revolutionaries tend to be white and radically conservative in their outlook, in reality supporting and strengthening the corporate state. Should they decide to oppose, they play into the rulers' hands. The power structure is well-equipped to deal with violent revolt. And historically, even where violent revolutionaries have come to power, the military organization and cruelty of war replace old dictatorships with new ones. But the "here's to the new boss, same as the old boss," adage applies to peaceful revolts as well. It is human nature for those who take power to want to keep it, to increase it, by any means necessary--unless the people continuously resist.
In the corporate world (bedrock of modern society) thought comes from the top down, and every other thought, from whatever source, no matter how much sense it makes, is considered resistance, therefore not tolerated. Thinkers do not earn themselves a stay in Orwell's Room 101, but while some corporate leaders may pretend to forgive, they never forget. There are consequences. Mankind, creator of the corporation, derives benefits from this useful tool. Its organized structure makes it capable of producing and distributing abundant goods and services, as long as it works for the people who allow it to exist. For people to remain in charge of their world they must think freely and openly, which the established top down structure cannot tolerate. While it is true that in a strictly legal sense thought is not crime, it is a discouraged activity.
So powerful is the corporate state in 2017 that it can simply ignore and sweep aside "radical" thinking. Corporate leaders did pay lip service after the upheaval of the sixties (when radical ideas and observations of Thoreau and others were openly explored by leaders within the establishment) to alternative ideas: tolerance and open-mindedness; importance of individuals; community interdependence. There is none of that today. In pursuit of profit and power, the rulers now destroy the environment, bankrupt millions of people, wage endless war, and reap profits of ugly proportions (enough to buy governments wholesale) so that they are allowed to keep doing the same destructive things. Everyone knows this is happening, yet seven billions are powerless to stop or even slow down the juggernaut. In this way, corporations have actually become people: super people who never die, who are impervious to bad weather, who need not eat or drink or breathe. Yet, they can give large sums of money to individuals seeking elective office, individuals who, if elected, then owe favors to the people/corporation. Corporations wind up controlling governments--which is the definition of fascism, at least according to Mussolini, who ought to know.
The doublethink required to elevate corporations to personhood is astounding. Those who accomplish this trick need lifetimes steeped in corporate thought, which is riddled with doublethink, also defined by Orwell as "reality control." Those who can do this trick well can reach the summits of wealth, influence, and power. No wonder so many people strive to prove and improve their skills. No wonder they revive someone like Thoreau, for no other reason than to bury him again. The people in control like that...it leaves no room for dissent. The possibility that people could consciously simplify their lives gets no credence in the corporate world. People might just try it.
Jedediah Purdy
THE NATION, June 19/26, 2017
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
Henry David Thoreau
WALDEN
Thoreau, hugely influential in those times known as "the sixties", is somewhat a dud nowadays...not enough of a corporate man. Peaceful resistance? Dropping out? Hippie stuff. Practical modern folks know there is but one game in town, and it is corporate. Anybody who knows which side of the bread has the butter needs to know the company line, and that line could change tomorrow, so better pay attention. No need for radical ideas like living simply, or going to jail in a righteous cause. If you want to be a player, you've got to play the game. Shame on Thoreau, for proposing a different way of living, and more shame for showing it could be done. Well, his mommy washed his clothes, so back to the corporate ladder.
Thoreau inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to wage their peaceful (and successful) revolutions. But history shows those two were human, no better than you or me. And are we going to change the world? Of course not. Why should Gandhi or Dr. King try? The people in charge can be generous when they want to be, to those they believe can help and serve them. Serve them well, and hope for the best. Those who dissent, who drag their feet, are holding up progress, and need to abandon all hope. The defiant are insane, and we dare not forget the fates of Gandhi and King: both shot. They learned their lessons. They should have packed heat.
Research holds that Dr. King, late in his life, began to entertain the prospect of violence as a possible solution to racial inequality. We all entertain many differing thoughts throughout our lives. But the fate of black militants ought to answer that question. Early in this new millennium, the armed potential revolutionaries tend to be white and radically conservative in their outlook, in reality supporting and strengthening the corporate state. Should they decide to oppose, they play into the rulers' hands. The power structure is well-equipped to deal with violent revolt. And historically, even where violent revolutionaries have come to power, the military organization and cruelty of war replace old dictatorships with new ones. But the "here's to the new boss, same as the old boss," adage applies to peaceful revolts as well. It is human nature for those who take power to want to keep it, to increase it, by any means necessary--unless the people continuously resist.
In the corporate world (bedrock of modern society) thought comes from the top down, and every other thought, from whatever source, no matter how much sense it makes, is considered resistance, therefore not tolerated. Thinkers do not earn themselves a stay in Orwell's Room 101, but while some corporate leaders may pretend to forgive, they never forget. There are consequences. Mankind, creator of the corporation, derives benefits from this useful tool. Its organized structure makes it capable of producing and distributing abundant goods and services, as long as it works for the people who allow it to exist. For people to remain in charge of their world they must think freely and openly, which the established top down structure cannot tolerate. While it is true that in a strictly legal sense thought is not crime, it is a discouraged activity.
So powerful is the corporate state in 2017 that it can simply ignore and sweep aside "radical" thinking. Corporate leaders did pay lip service after the upheaval of the sixties (when radical ideas and observations of Thoreau and others were openly explored by leaders within the establishment) to alternative ideas: tolerance and open-mindedness; importance of individuals; community interdependence. There is none of that today. In pursuit of profit and power, the rulers now destroy the environment, bankrupt millions of people, wage endless war, and reap profits of ugly proportions (enough to buy governments wholesale) so that they are allowed to keep doing the same destructive things. Everyone knows this is happening, yet seven billions are powerless to stop or even slow down the juggernaut. In this way, corporations have actually become people: super people who never die, who are impervious to bad weather, who need not eat or drink or breathe. Yet, they can give large sums of money to individuals seeking elective office, individuals who, if elected, then owe favors to the people/corporation. Corporations wind up controlling governments--which is the definition of fascism, at least according to Mussolini, who ought to know.
The doublethink required to elevate corporations to personhood is astounding. Those who accomplish this trick need lifetimes steeped in corporate thought, which is riddled with doublethink, also defined by Orwell as "reality control." Those who can do this trick well can reach the summits of wealth, influence, and power. No wonder so many people strive to prove and improve their skills. No wonder they revive someone like Thoreau, for no other reason than to bury him again. The people in control like that...it leaves no room for dissent. The possibility that people could consciously simplify their lives gets no credence in the corporate world. People might just try it.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
ARE "CONSERVATIVES" CONSERVATIVE?
"Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order."
Barry Goldwater
Liberals have no trouble agreeing with Goldwater, whose statement expresses goals shared by anyone desiring to live in a successful society. Within this setting is room for debate and trial-and-error, room for change depending on changing circumstances, room for honest, reasonable give-and-take. Still, politics being practiced by human beings, opportunists on all sides will push beyond these widely tolerant bounds, and there is ample evidence that Goldwater's party has been led astray from his ideal by opportunists within its ranks. Functioning societies require people from all sides to respect the needs and opinions of all individuals, and the success of individuals depends on a functioning social order. The party now in control of government at the national level and in most states is determined to dismantle the social order, at the same time allowing individuals who own most of the country to acquire the rest of it. Everyone else will depend on the corporate state for whatever the state allows, under the state's supervision. Economic and social democracy will disappear, rendering political democracy a useless sideshow. In a society dominated by a corporate social order, the individual has no import whatever.
Theoretically, we will be freed to achieve our maximum potential with no restraints, but in reality we must compete in a thoroughly rigged game. Few conservatives are willing to look at how badly disfigured the modern political scene has become, and for good reason: American politics over the last half century has held that winning is the only worthwhile goal. Those who argue for honest political dialogue are scoffed at as being hopelessly naive. Politicians who want to eliminate the admittedly flawed yet popular healthcare plan we now have no longer even meet their voters to discuss the issue. They are going to do this, end of debate. Beyond that a few conservative writers have spoken out against the words and deeds of Donald Trump. A few Republican politicians have floated occasional arguments against certain policies. But overall the "conservatives" are now firmly committed to a corporate social order that seeks maximum freedom for those individuals who control the corporations, leaving the rest of us with whatever crumbs the corporate rulers choose to drop. Nothing will remain of the social order except police and military--existing only to serve those who run the corporate state. Never mind the high talk about rugged individualism and concern for the working man. The reality has become the corporate state, and the party of Goldwater means to keep it that way. Oh, well, at least they are anti-communist, and they will let everyone--even psychopaths--acquire more guns.
A large body of work (including my own) exists which tries to explain how our country arrived at this frightening place in history. A flood of information and entertainment, along with individual isolation, perceived hidden enemies, and personal helplessness--contribute to what we have today: a corporate state that is seizing total control...by Mussolini's terms, fascism. The modern Republican party has gradually surrendered the simple goal expressed by Goldwater, and taken power for the wealthy elite. Conservative principles have been abandoned.
On the liberal side, the renewed protest movement has inspired renewal of hope and energy out of defeat. If it can be sustained, the resistance could bring about positive changes, restoring a balance of individual freedom and social order. The changes will take time; the entrenched corporate state will use its vast resources to retain power (regardless of who is nominally in charge) and the supporters of the corporate state are not likely to be converted. We will be better served by efforts to keep the resistance alive, perhaps to convince non-participants that they can make a difference. In addition to fighting in court the efforts of some state government to gerrymander and to restrict voters, progressives could help themselves by getting people registered and to the polls, despite efforts by corporate politicians to rig elections. It would help too if liberals enthusiastically push initiatives like single-payer healthcare, maternity leave, job programs to rebuild infrastructure, minimum wage increase, and progressive taxation, among others--programs that not only will enhance life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but which are popular with most Americans.
It is up to liberals, who apparently are the only "conservatives" left, to restore a culture that practices Goldwater's ideals. It is no longer effective to hold the lines against further elimination of the welfare state, against strengthening the corporate state. Neither will we find any lasting success by pointing out the hazards and flaws of the cult of the personality. A well-maintained social order that protects individual freedom has virtually ceased to exist in the United States of America. If we would restore it, we must be ready to peacefully fight a long battle, with stakes as high as they are in any war.
Barry Goldwater
Liberals have no trouble agreeing with Goldwater, whose statement expresses goals shared by anyone desiring to live in a successful society. Within this setting is room for debate and trial-and-error, room for change depending on changing circumstances, room for honest, reasonable give-and-take. Still, politics being practiced by human beings, opportunists on all sides will push beyond these widely tolerant bounds, and there is ample evidence that Goldwater's party has been led astray from his ideal by opportunists within its ranks. Functioning societies require people from all sides to respect the needs and opinions of all individuals, and the success of individuals depends on a functioning social order. The party now in control of government at the national level and in most states is determined to dismantle the social order, at the same time allowing individuals who own most of the country to acquire the rest of it. Everyone else will depend on the corporate state for whatever the state allows, under the state's supervision. Economic and social democracy will disappear, rendering political democracy a useless sideshow. In a society dominated by a corporate social order, the individual has no import whatever.
Theoretically, we will be freed to achieve our maximum potential with no restraints, but in reality we must compete in a thoroughly rigged game. Few conservatives are willing to look at how badly disfigured the modern political scene has become, and for good reason: American politics over the last half century has held that winning is the only worthwhile goal. Those who argue for honest political dialogue are scoffed at as being hopelessly naive. Politicians who want to eliminate the admittedly flawed yet popular healthcare plan we now have no longer even meet their voters to discuss the issue. They are going to do this, end of debate. Beyond that a few conservative writers have spoken out against the words and deeds of Donald Trump. A few Republican politicians have floated occasional arguments against certain policies. But overall the "conservatives" are now firmly committed to a corporate social order that seeks maximum freedom for those individuals who control the corporations, leaving the rest of us with whatever crumbs the corporate rulers choose to drop. Nothing will remain of the social order except police and military--existing only to serve those who run the corporate state. Never mind the high talk about rugged individualism and concern for the working man. The reality has become the corporate state, and the party of Goldwater means to keep it that way. Oh, well, at least they are anti-communist, and they will let everyone--even psychopaths--acquire more guns.
A large body of work (including my own) exists which tries to explain how our country arrived at this frightening place in history. A flood of information and entertainment, along with individual isolation, perceived hidden enemies, and personal helplessness--contribute to what we have today: a corporate state that is seizing total control...by Mussolini's terms, fascism. The modern Republican party has gradually surrendered the simple goal expressed by Goldwater, and taken power for the wealthy elite. Conservative principles have been abandoned.
On the liberal side, the renewed protest movement has inspired renewal of hope and energy out of defeat. If it can be sustained, the resistance could bring about positive changes, restoring a balance of individual freedom and social order. The changes will take time; the entrenched corporate state will use its vast resources to retain power (regardless of who is nominally in charge) and the supporters of the corporate state are not likely to be converted. We will be better served by efforts to keep the resistance alive, perhaps to convince non-participants that they can make a difference. In addition to fighting in court the efforts of some state government to gerrymander and to restrict voters, progressives could help themselves by getting people registered and to the polls, despite efforts by corporate politicians to rig elections. It would help too if liberals enthusiastically push initiatives like single-payer healthcare, maternity leave, job programs to rebuild infrastructure, minimum wage increase, and progressive taxation, among others--programs that not only will enhance life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but which are popular with most Americans.
It is up to liberals, who apparently are the only "conservatives" left, to restore a culture that practices Goldwater's ideals. It is no longer effective to hold the lines against further elimination of the welfare state, against strengthening the corporate state. Neither will we find any lasting success by pointing out the hazards and flaws of the cult of the personality. A well-maintained social order that protects individual freedom has virtually ceased to exist in the United States of America. If we would restore it, we must be ready to peacefully fight a long battle, with stakes as high as they are in any war.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
GO FOR BROKE
"There are other safer substitutes for a mass movement. In general, any arrangement which either discourages atomistic individuality or offers chances for action and new beginnings tends to counteract the rise and spread of mass movements."
Eric Hoffer
THE TRUE BELIEVER
Franklin Roosevelt had the foresight to involve Americans in their own recovery project. The New Deal repaired the disaster caused by unchained free-enterprise without having to resort to the authoritarian collectivism endured by Russians, Italians, and Germans. Americans overcame hard times with our democratic institutions intact because Roosevelt utilized the human desire to belong to a society greater than one. The wealthy disagreed, a right they still have (unlike Russia under the Leninists), claiming no difference between higher taxes and Gulags. Roosevelt overcame that resistance by getting people involved. The elites and their advocates learned their lesson: rugged individualism is best packaged and sold in a collective wrapper. The conservative "movement" emerged. Since the Depression it has patiently acquired power.
To the astonishment of liberals and conservatives alike, the rightwing now controls the national government and most states. Its supporters, mostly from the working class, cheerfully approve their government's effort to disband itself--at least until they are personally harmed. America is in the process of dismantling not only Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, but Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal. Millions of Americans face poverty, but at least they feel united in the process. Liberals are stuck defending a century's social progress by appealing to reason and self-interest--obviously ineffective strategies against the rightwing's libertarian togetherness. To regain the initiative, the left needs to regain its togetherness, which could be done by enthusiastically advocating bold yet popular proposals, starting with universal healthcare, to counter the Republicans' push to eliminate Obamacare.
Those who truly believe America was at its best when robber barons ruled supreme and the masses were left scrounging whatever crumbs the plutocrats had not yet grabbed, rule once more. They could never have acquired this supremacy with only their numbers. They need, and have, fervent support from millions of commoners. Understanding why average working stiffs willingly vote against their economic and social self-interests is the key for those of us who, being in the same class, want to protect those interests. The "logical" argument for dismantling government social programs is that people are freed to do great things, which will bring peace and prosperity on an undreamt scale. It sounds good, but history shows that unfettered individualism leads to primacy of the most ruthlessly avaricious, to the misery of everyone else...over and again. Movement conservatism exploits the human need to belong, even though its guiding principle is every man for himself.
Once physical survival is achieved, other human needs make themselves known, and a primary need is to belong to something greater than one. The shock of the Great Depression aroused everybody's consciousness, and the practical solutions of the New Deal brought people into a sense of shared accomplishment--followed by WWII, which united Americans solidly in common, altruistic goals. Despite the misery surrounding these events, Americans were satisfied with who they were, what they were doing, and their cooperative efforts toward the greater good.
The fifties opened the way to widespread dissatisfaction. We had our needs met, and many of our wants, but the sense of shared purpose was gone. We had the Cold War, but that was a long siege, with no resolution other than mankind's obliteration. A population of well-off, atomized rugged individualists was ripe for the appeal of mass movements. Humanity's pre-historyis a long tale of clannish pot-lucks. Individualism is fairly new. These two sides of human nature often conflict. John Kennedy tried to restore the balance by adding the New Frontier to the New Deal, but he got shot. Then events moved quickly.
The hippies brought to the culture a sense of togetherness along with the individualism of "doing your own thing." But their concepts were non-traditional, and cooperative endeavors need the vision of a future anchored in the past. The hippies having no past, they never caught on in general society. Uncomfortable times were made more so by widespread civil unrest and an unending war. George Wallace was an adroit manipulator of that subconscious desire to strive together for a future like the good old days. Then he got shot. Richard Nixon gathered Wallace's supporters, bringing together workers and plutocrats, into America's current political reality.
The Democrats were left rationally defending workable, popular government programs. Rationality is fine as far as it goes, but the Republicans kept exhorting people to recover a vague, glorious past, as a sure way to bring everyone into a healthy, wealthy future. With the occasional splendid little war to keep Americans lined up behind noble causes, the rich kept getting richer. Money buys power, and now the plutocrats control just about everything. Democrats, left in the enviable position of having nothing left to lose, might as well go for broke. Now is a glowing opportunity to push single-payer healthcare, followed by other progressive plans. If Democrats cling to corporate donors, hoping for compromise to protect a cadaverous status quo, they remain irrelevant. People will move collectively to bring about progressive change without them. We already are.
Eric Hoffer
THE TRUE BELIEVER
Franklin Roosevelt had the foresight to involve Americans in their own recovery project. The New Deal repaired the disaster caused by unchained free-enterprise without having to resort to the authoritarian collectivism endured by Russians, Italians, and Germans. Americans overcame hard times with our democratic institutions intact because Roosevelt utilized the human desire to belong to a society greater than one. The wealthy disagreed, a right they still have (unlike Russia under the Leninists), claiming no difference between higher taxes and Gulags. Roosevelt overcame that resistance by getting people involved. The elites and their advocates learned their lesson: rugged individualism is best packaged and sold in a collective wrapper. The conservative "movement" emerged. Since the Depression it has patiently acquired power.
To the astonishment of liberals and conservatives alike, the rightwing now controls the national government and most states. Its supporters, mostly from the working class, cheerfully approve their government's effort to disband itself--at least until they are personally harmed. America is in the process of dismantling not only Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, but Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal. Millions of Americans face poverty, but at least they feel united in the process. Liberals are stuck defending a century's social progress by appealing to reason and self-interest--obviously ineffective strategies against the rightwing's libertarian togetherness. To regain the initiative, the left needs to regain its togetherness, which could be done by enthusiastically advocating bold yet popular proposals, starting with universal healthcare, to counter the Republicans' push to eliminate Obamacare.
Those who truly believe America was at its best when robber barons ruled supreme and the masses were left scrounging whatever crumbs the plutocrats had not yet grabbed, rule once more. They could never have acquired this supremacy with only their numbers. They need, and have, fervent support from millions of commoners. Understanding why average working stiffs willingly vote against their economic and social self-interests is the key for those of us who, being in the same class, want to protect those interests. The "logical" argument for dismantling government social programs is that people are freed to do great things, which will bring peace and prosperity on an undreamt scale. It sounds good, but history shows that unfettered individualism leads to primacy of the most ruthlessly avaricious, to the misery of everyone else...over and again. Movement conservatism exploits the human need to belong, even though its guiding principle is every man for himself.
Once physical survival is achieved, other human needs make themselves known, and a primary need is to belong to something greater than one. The shock of the Great Depression aroused everybody's consciousness, and the practical solutions of the New Deal brought people into a sense of shared accomplishment--followed by WWII, which united Americans solidly in common, altruistic goals. Despite the misery surrounding these events, Americans were satisfied with who they were, what they were doing, and their cooperative efforts toward the greater good.
The fifties opened the way to widespread dissatisfaction. We had our needs met, and many of our wants, but the sense of shared purpose was gone. We had the Cold War, but that was a long siege, with no resolution other than mankind's obliteration. A population of well-off, atomized rugged individualists was ripe for the appeal of mass movements. Humanity's pre-historyis a long tale of clannish pot-lucks. Individualism is fairly new. These two sides of human nature often conflict. John Kennedy tried to restore the balance by adding the New Frontier to the New Deal, but he got shot. Then events moved quickly.
The hippies brought to the culture a sense of togetherness along with the individualism of "doing your own thing." But their concepts were non-traditional, and cooperative endeavors need the vision of a future anchored in the past. The hippies having no past, they never caught on in general society. Uncomfortable times were made more so by widespread civil unrest and an unending war. George Wallace was an adroit manipulator of that subconscious desire to strive together for a future like the good old days. Then he got shot. Richard Nixon gathered Wallace's supporters, bringing together workers and plutocrats, into America's current political reality.
The Democrats were left rationally defending workable, popular government programs. Rationality is fine as far as it goes, but the Republicans kept exhorting people to recover a vague, glorious past, as a sure way to bring everyone into a healthy, wealthy future. With the occasional splendid little war to keep Americans lined up behind noble causes, the rich kept getting richer. Money buys power, and now the plutocrats control just about everything. Democrats, left in the enviable position of having nothing left to lose, might as well go for broke. Now is a glowing opportunity to push single-payer healthcare, followed by other progressive plans. If Democrats cling to corporate donors, hoping for compromise to protect a cadaverous status quo, they remain irrelevant. People will move collectively to bring about progressive change without them. We already are.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
KEEP HIDING THE PEA
"With socialism still closely associated with the decades of brutality carried out in its name, public anger has few outlets for expression except nationalism and protofascism."
Naomi Klein
THE SHOCK DOCTRINE
When the movement to repeal "Obamacare" ended in a self-induced train wreck, the one-party state representing the one percent found itself in temporary limbo. In the confusion, we the people have an opportunity to get accurate damage reports. What stands out is that the goal of the one percent is to impoverish the rest of us, because people who are barely scraping by lack time and energy to think for themselves. Strictly business: there is money in Obamacare, in Medicare and Social Security accounts, in National Parks and infrastructure maintenance, among other sources. The elites do not have it and since greed, like all addictions, has no end, they want it. They have a government in place determined to get it for them, an elected government which functions on the premise that unmitigated greed is the source of all human progress. We'll see.
While the pitch directed to the Tea Partiers is freedom from the intrusive government interference of Obamacare, the core of the repeal is a massive tax cut for the rich. Since governments function only because people pay taxes, the U.S. government will be obligated to cut spending on programs that help the common people--disguised as freedom. The wealthy sincerely believe they deserve to possess everything. People are momentarily aware of the hardships this transfer will cause, and the left could take advantage of this awareness, and make an honest, enthusiastic push for nationwide single-payer healthcare. Most Americans, secretly or openly, admire and envy the Canadians. Why not flatter them sincerely with imitation? Of course, Democrats have not forgotten how Bill Clinton's healthcare proposal was cruelly battered by the right, nor have they forgotten that not a single Republican voted for Obama's plan, though it was originally a Republican program. And they cannot forget that the right is in control of the entire national government. There is no way single-payer healthcare would be adopted in the United States in 2017, which is the point: the Democrats have been backed into a corner, and have nothing to lose...nothing. Most Americans want healthcare available for all, and Democrats, presented with an opportunity to show they truly represent the ninety-nine percent, can change the country's perceptions.
The Republicans' pitch to "repeal and replace" Obamacare shows they know how popular universal healthcare is. What the owners and leaders of the Republican Party want is repeal: end government participation in healthcare and return to the "good old days" before a "Kenyan" tried ordering Americans about. The hallmark of those halcyon times (for them) was unfettered free enterprise--every man for himself. While rugged individualism sounds good in theory, it is small comfort to someone who is bankrupted by health problems over which he has little if any control. But outright repeal could have adverse effects at the polls, so the politicians for the one percent tried to hide the pea again with vague attempts to "replace." But now the nutshell has turned over, the pea is exposed, and people see the con job. Liberals have a rare opportunity to change the game.
Of course the rightwing Ministry of Truth (Madison Avenue, talk radio, cable TV news) will howl, as it does whenever people get together to promote the general welfare. Frightening cries of socialism, communism and loss of freedom are heard constantly. And there is always war. Donald Trump, suddenly "shocked" at the ongoing Syrian mayhem, responds with missiles, knowing that explosions are effective pea hiders. Next he drops the biggest non-atomic bomb ever on Afghanistan. Then he goes and trades schoolyard taunts with North Korea. Scare enough people with fear of imminent war, and those in power can do anything. The big perception problem for right wingers now is that they have complete control, and their trickle-down policies are obviously not working. Blaming the "Kenyan" is starting to wear thin. In the chaos of utter defeat, liberals momentarily have the rare upper hand, which they would be wise to play. Americans are paying close attention to actual events in greater numbers than they have in many years. They are ready for the truth.
An enthusiastic effort to bring single-payer healthcare to America will be noticed and welcomed. Why not throw in a constitutional amendment declaring corporations are not human? To do these things with the help of the Democratic Party would be helpful, but with or without the Democrats, it is time for left wingers to take the initiative. The opportunity will not last long. Trump is determined to get us into another war, and when we go to war, dissent gets suppressed. And wars last a long, long time.
Naomi Klein
THE SHOCK DOCTRINE
When the movement to repeal "Obamacare" ended in a self-induced train wreck, the one-party state representing the one percent found itself in temporary limbo. In the confusion, we the people have an opportunity to get accurate damage reports. What stands out is that the goal of the one percent is to impoverish the rest of us, because people who are barely scraping by lack time and energy to think for themselves. Strictly business: there is money in Obamacare, in Medicare and Social Security accounts, in National Parks and infrastructure maintenance, among other sources. The elites do not have it and since greed, like all addictions, has no end, they want it. They have a government in place determined to get it for them, an elected government which functions on the premise that unmitigated greed is the source of all human progress. We'll see.
While the pitch directed to the Tea Partiers is freedom from the intrusive government interference of Obamacare, the core of the repeal is a massive tax cut for the rich. Since governments function only because people pay taxes, the U.S. government will be obligated to cut spending on programs that help the common people--disguised as freedom. The wealthy sincerely believe they deserve to possess everything. People are momentarily aware of the hardships this transfer will cause, and the left could take advantage of this awareness, and make an honest, enthusiastic push for nationwide single-payer healthcare. Most Americans, secretly or openly, admire and envy the Canadians. Why not flatter them sincerely with imitation? Of course, Democrats have not forgotten how Bill Clinton's healthcare proposal was cruelly battered by the right, nor have they forgotten that not a single Republican voted for Obama's plan, though it was originally a Republican program. And they cannot forget that the right is in control of the entire national government. There is no way single-payer healthcare would be adopted in the United States in 2017, which is the point: the Democrats have been backed into a corner, and have nothing to lose...nothing. Most Americans want healthcare available for all, and Democrats, presented with an opportunity to show they truly represent the ninety-nine percent, can change the country's perceptions.
The Republicans' pitch to "repeal and replace" Obamacare shows they know how popular universal healthcare is. What the owners and leaders of the Republican Party want is repeal: end government participation in healthcare and return to the "good old days" before a "Kenyan" tried ordering Americans about. The hallmark of those halcyon times (for them) was unfettered free enterprise--every man for himself. While rugged individualism sounds good in theory, it is small comfort to someone who is bankrupted by health problems over which he has little if any control. But outright repeal could have adverse effects at the polls, so the politicians for the one percent tried to hide the pea again with vague attempts to "replace." But now the nutshell has turned over, the pea is exposed, and people see the con job. Liberals have a rare opportunity to change the game.
Of course the rightwing Ministry of Truth (Madison Avenue, talk radio, cable TV news) will howl, as it does whenever people get together to promote the general welfare. Frightening cries of socialism, communism and loss of freedom are heard constantly. And there is always war. Donald Trump, suddenly "shocked" at the ongoing Syrian mayhem, responds with missiles, knowing that explosions are effective pea hiders. Next he drops the biggest non-atomic bomb ever on Afghanistan. Then he goes and trades schoolyard taunts with North Korea. Scare enough people with fear of imminent war, and those in power can do anything. The big perception problem for right wingers now is that they have complete control, and their trickle-down policies are obviously not working. Blaming the "Kenyan" is starting to wear thin. In the chaos of utter defeat, liberals momentarily have the rare upper hand, which they would be wise to play. Americans are paying close attention to actual events in greater numbers than they have in many years. They are ready for the truth.
An enthusiastic effort to bring single-payer healthcare to America will be noticed and welcomed. Why not throw in a constitutional amendment declaring corporations are not human? To do these things with the help of the Democratic Party would be helpful, but with or without the Democrats, it is time for left wingers to take the initiative. The opportunity will not last long. Trump is determined to get us into another war, and when we go to war, dissent gets suppressed. And wars last a long, long time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)