"Money is the mother's milk of politics."
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
THIS IS ONE HAPPY FAMILY, ALL RIGHT
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life...the children; those who are in the twilight of life...the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life...the sick, the needy, and the disabled." Hubert Humphrey
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)