OUR HOMEGROWN COUP
“Fascism should be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power.” Mussolini
Coup d’etat usually connotes a military takeover in Latin America, Africa, or some other place where citizens are novices at democratic governance. That a coup might be occurring in the United States is hard to fathom, for a number of reasons, most of which boil down to “It can’t happen here.” This belief is somewhat hubristic on Americans’ part, because it can. Our founders, only too aware that it could, placed safeguards into our Law of the Land. But safeguards can always be avoided, or sidestepped, if people become complacent. Though Mussolini was on the losing side of WWII, he gets credit for understanding the nuts and bolts of fascism, knowing that capitalism and democracy are not necessarily compatible. And while the capitalist economic system and the political system called democracy have co-existed in the United States almost since our country’s beginning, it has been a shaky co-existence. Currently, it appears that the country’s economic rulers are engaged in an all-out takeover of the political system, to install an autocracy that will suit corporate priorities better than democracy can. The morbidly feeble economy is the equivalent of burning the Reichstag. As long as the economic crisis endures, people will be fearful, and fear, combined with complacency, can topple democracy. In statehouses all over the country, rightwing governments are replacing democratic processes with top-down orders, regardless of the democratic governments they are sworn to uphold. Over and over, the economy is cited as an excuse for drastic measures, such as destroying unions and gutting social safety nets to pay for millionaires’ tax breaks. Though polls consistently show public disapproval of these policies, they happen anyway. Do such things occur in a democratic republic?
At the national level, one-half of our political elite, the Republican party, marches in lockstep to thwart new public works projects, which are not only needed to repair our antiquated infrastructure, but which we know stimulate buying through higher employment, which encourages investment, leading to increased government revenues. Their party line holds that government does nothing useful, that tax reductions for the richest among us are America’s only hope for increasing employment, that elimination of the “nanny state” will lead to a new millennium of freedom and prosperity for all. History disproves the party line, at least regarding the last Great Depression, which we all say we want to avoid reliving. Republicans counter historical reminders with louder and more frequent repetitions of the party line. What is strangely frightening is that no Republicans, at any governmental level, have expressed even the slightest willingness to compromise with the other side, even with polls showing over and again that some sort of compromise is what the American people want. Republican politicians are not afraid of public opinion, nor do they seem to be worried about the upcoming elections, as politicians in a democracy would be. Limitless campaign contributions, legalized by the corporate-friendly Supreme Court, are expected to change the polls when needed. In order to keep up the appearance of democracy, the “Tea Party Patriots” (intellectual heirs to the know-nothings and the lunatic fringe), with their hatred of Barack Obama, are ideally situated to facilitate a coup. They fanatically believe their myth of a grassroots popular movement, although their promoters are known to be a small coterie of extremely wealthy corporate tycoons. Having no interest in bothersome dissent, these tycoons will rule absolutely. Decisions will be made in the boardrooms, and the masses will be expected to conform. Although this end may not be what individual Tea Partiers have in mind, their backers feel supremely confident that they can use them to achieve their corporate objectives. So far their confidence has been justified. Close Republican wins are treated as overwhelming landslides, with the losers vanquished entirely. In democracies, the victors work with the opposition, well aware that come next election, they could be trading places. Such commonplace doings of democracy are not happening anymore.
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are trying to work with the other side under the old-fashioned, democratic ground rules. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the old ways no longer work, that the right wing is taking its marching orders from the top-down, in an authoritarian, CEO-driven management style. The stated goal is a return to those halcyon days when robber barons could extract the last ounce of wealth from the land and the workers, with no responsibility to clean up the messes they made. Over the past century, the robber barons have been relentlessly seeking to regain the absolute control of government they once had, to reinstate a government that exists only to protect and increase corporate profits. They will exercise tighter control this time. Mussolini would probably call this fascism.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
GROVER NORQUIST AND MCLINTOCK
“My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed carry permit. Because that person doesn’t need the goddam government for anything.”
Grover Norquist
McLintock had the makings of a fairly good western, but John Wayne insisted on preaching his hard right philosophy throughout. Apparently the scenery and the plot were no guarantee that the audience would get it: self-made rugged individualist builds empire and gets the girl (she even lets him spank her), while government regulators and do-gooders make complete fools of themselves. Grover Norquist was seven years old when the movie came out—a very impressionable age for a boy. At the same age, my hero was Davy Crockett (the Fess Parker Davy), which reveals my age. Boys will be boys, but eventually we grow up.
Right?
John Wayne’s character, McLintock, fits Norquist’s ideal citizen. Ruling a huge patch of Western desert by strength of character, he talks, acts, and shoots straight. He has a town named after him, and his word is law. Concerning education, in his world riding, roping, branding, and of course shooting, are all a man need know. All these skills can be taught and learned at home. The existence of the outside world is a matter of useless and pointless knowledge, and it interferes with a man’s doing what needs to be done. Science, beyond making whisky and bullets, and mathematics past counting head of cattle, are equally unnecessary. As a concession to the modern world, Norquist recommends an IRA, since many people nowadays outlive their productive years and should prepare for that day, without asking the government for help. Equally modern is the concealed carry permit, which no one in McLintock’s halcyon days needed, since everyone went openly armed as a matter of course.
Government is the problem, having brought in farmers who want to squat on McLintock’s open range, unaware of the impossibility of farming at six thousand feet. How McClintock knows the elevation is never discussed, but government surveyors probably had something to do with it. McLintock hires workers and pays them what they earn. No unions or minimum wage laws interfere with the personal contracts between boss and employee. And of course the boss is fair. He’s John Wayne.
We know McLlintock is a movie, and we hope Grover Norquist does too. Still, the movie character and Norquist’s ideal citizen are strikingly similar. And the similarities can be disturbing when we recall that Grover Norquist exercises considerable influence over how the “goddam government” actually governs. He is influential because he holds important posts on several political action committees, organizations that distribute campaign funds to mostly Republican politicians. He has demanded, and he has gotten, them all to pledge not to vote to increase taxes in any way, or under any circumstances, with the oft-repeated goal of “starving the beast.” We need to remember, though, that Norquist does not dole out his own money. He distributes it on behalf of corporate donors, who are very much interested in maintaining strong, right wing government to serve the interests of plutocracy.
Norquist knows this.
Americans value independence, and whenever possible, we aspire to the ideal of honest pay in return for honest work. Concerning Norquist’s ideal, we would love that total freedom. But we live in a real world, one in which all of us are inter-connected to each other always. Not even Western ranchers can escape the global village, and in such a situation a social contract makes life livable for us all. Even self-employed rugged individualists need to use roads, sewers, and electrical grids. And if we’re all out there getting into constant gunfights, business can suffer.
Life is not a movie. We run into enormous hazards when we seek to live otherwise, be it western, romance, musical, drama, whatever. Movies are entertaining, fun to watch, because they are removed from reality. Why would we want to watch our own lives? Obviously, there is no way of knowing whether Grover Norquist really imagines himself as McLintock or any other movie hero. But his ideal citizen does resemble a stock movie character, and John Wayne’s character fits the bill. Outside of Hollywood, Norquist has managed to strongarm virtually half the nation’s political elite (the Republican Party) into backing his vision. Republicans have to toe the party line according to Norquist, whether or not they really believe it. And if the ideal ever does collide with reality, which is looking more and more possible, then America is in for a lot of pain. Just as John Wayne’s proselytizing detracted from the quality of his movie, so Norquist’s insistence on Republicans’ obedience to him invalidates his argument. An iconic American, an ideal citizen, would lead by example, needing neither to preach nor coerce.
Grover Norquist has up till now been relatively hidden from public scrutiny, but this is all changing. In a democracy, shedding light is always beneficial.
Grover Norquist
McLintock had the makings of a fairly good western, but John Wayne insisted on preaching his hard right philosophy throughout. Apparently the scenery and the plot were no guarantee that the audience would get it: self-made rugged individualist builds empire and gets the girl (she even lets him spank her), while government regulators and do-gooders make complete fools of themselves. Grover Norquist was seven years old when the movie came out—a very impressionable age for a boy. At the same age, my hero was Davy Crockett (the Fess Parker Davy), which reveals my age. Boys will be boys, but eventually we grow up.
Right?
John Wayne’s character, McLintock, fits Norquist’s ideal citizen. Ruling a huge patch of Western desert by strength of character, he talks, acts, and shoots straight. He has a town named after him, and his word is law. Concerning education, in his world riding, roping, branding, and of course shooting, are all a man need know. All these skills can be taught and learned at home. The existence of the outside world is a matter of useless and pointless knowledge, and it interferes with a man’s doing what needs to be done. Science, beyond making whisky and bullets, and mathematics past counting head of cattle, are equally unnecessary. As a concession to the modern world, Norquist recommends an IRA, since many people nowadays outlive their productive years and should prepare for that day, without asking the government for help. Equally modern is the concealed carry permit, which no one in McLintock’s halcyon days needed, since everyone went openly armed as a matter of course.
Government is the problem, having brought in farmers who want to squat on McLintock’s open range, unaware of the impossibility of farming at six thousand feet. How McClintock knows the elevation is never discussed, but government surveyors probably had something to do with it. McLintock hires workers and pays them what they earn. No unions or minimum wage laws interfere with the personal contracts between boss and employee. And of course the boss is fair. He’s John Wayne.
We know McLlintock is a movie, and we hope Grover Norquist does too. Still, the movie character and Norquist’s ideal citizen are strikingly similar. And the similarities can be disturbing when we recall that Grover Norquist exercises considerable influence over how the “goddam government” actually governs. He is influential because he holds important posts on several political action committees, organizations that distribute campaign funds to mostly Republican politicians. He has demanded, and he has gotten, them all to pledge not to vote to increase taxes in any way, or under any circumstances, with the oft-repeated goal of “starving the beast.” We need to remember, though, that Norquist does not dole out his own money. He distributes it on behalf of corporate donors, who are very much interested in maintaining strong, right wing government to serve the interests of plutocracy.
Norquist knows this.
Americans value independence, and whenever possible, we aspire to the ideal of honest pay in return for honest work. Concerning Norquist’s ideal, we would love that total freedom. But we live in a real world, one in which all of us are inter-connected to each other always. Not even Western ranchers can escape the global village, and in such a situation a social contract makes life livable for us all. Even self-employed rugged individualists need to use roads, sewers, and electrical grids. And if we’re all out there getting into constant gunfights, business can suffer.
Life is not a movie. We run into enormous hazards when we seek to live otherwise, be it western, romance, musical, drama, whatever. Movies are entertaining, fun to watch, because they are removed from reality. Why would we want to watch our own lives? Obviously, there is no way of knowing whether Grover Norquist really imagines himself as McLintock or any other movie hero. But his ideal citizen does resemble a stock movie character, and John Wayne’s character fits the bill. Outside of Hollywood, Norquist has managed to strongarm virtually half the nation’s political elite (the Republican Party) into backing his vision. Republicans have to toe the party line according to Norquist, whether or not they really believe it. And if the ideal ever does collide with reality, which is looking more and more possible, then America is in for a lot of pain. Just as John Wayne’s proselytizing detracted from the quality of his movie, so Norquist’s insistence on Republicans’ obedience to him invalidates his argument. An iconic American, an ideal citizen, would lead by example, needing neither to preach nor coerce.
Grover Norquist has up till now been relatively hidden from public scrutiny, but this is all changing. In a democracy, shedding light is always beneficial.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
SHAKY GROUND “
SHAKY GROUND
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—“ Declaration of Independence
In reality, few humans believe the aforementioned “truths” are “self-evident”. That we live in a place and time blessed with majorities who are even slightly committed to implementing these truths and protecting these rights, is an unusually fortunate circumstance. Just as we can view a peaceful natural landscape and ignore the blizzards, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, and countless other natural disasters—not to mention scientific evidence of eventual planetary destruction—so we tend to see our current political system: democratic republic, with guaranteed rights and freedoms, as permanent. But bucolic natural scenes are threatened by unperceived natural forces. And our stable democracy is on very shaky ground. There is a difference: while we can, in some small ways, make preparations to lessen the damage done by nature’s extremes, humanity is powerless about what nature will do. Our social contract is entirely man-made.
History shows that concepts such as “created equal” and “unalienable rights” are recent additions to human consciousness. The Declaration of Independence was the first attempt to legalize these concepts, based on philosophical explorations by John Locke about a century before. Farther back, prophets and philosophers here and there broached the subjects, among others having to do with kindness, decency, and brotherhood. While the teachings of these highly advanced people have been influential over the long term, most human history is full of tales of cruel greed and lust for power.
Farmers and other producers of useful things have been robbed, beaten, and killed, their women raped, their children enslaved, by gangs with weapons. This gross economic system has been practiced in every corner of the earth where mankind has advanced beyond the Paleolithic state, to this very day. By whatever name: piracy, feudalism, capitalism, communism, and so forth, the basic methods are the same: organized armed robbery. Men formed larger societies than tribal unions to prevent their being robbed and subjugated. Larger societies learned quickly they could rob and subjugate their neighbours. And just as early, they certainly learnt to rob their own people, who also learnt to rob each other. Under the leadership of various dukes and kings, organizational piracy evolved into modern warfare, disguised as national interest. Still, the means and ends were the same as they had always been.
Despite the incessant carnage, humanity made material progress, and intellectual progress as well. In different times and places, some highly conscious men and women, aware of the terrors inherent in business as usual, would voice their misgivings, and their concepts of peaceful and productive alternatives. Sometimes their thoughts got written down, for others to think about later. But among the general human population, the way things had always been were the way they would always be. Just as the Roman throngs cheered wildly when Caesar paraded foreign royals in cages, so do women and children of present day pirates celebrate their men’s captives and booty. The idea that “this could happen to me” seems not to have penetrated too deeply into human consciousness. “Do unto others” apparently still means “do it to them first.”
Yet here in North America, we find ourselves living where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” represent our national aspirations, if not our actual policies. Here these rights are still held to be the rationale for our nation’s existence. In Western Europe (where these rights were first recommended), and in a few countries elsewhere, the principles of our Declaration are practiced, or at least attempted. Humanity has made progress over ten or eleven generations. But as slavery, colonialism, and the decimation of indigenous populations prove, even in these fortunate places, the practice has been far from perfect. We dare take nothing for granted.
There are always wars gong on. Corporate control over our daily lives increases constantly. Many people lead hungry, sick, meaningless existences. Infrastructure crumbles as we watch. All these realities seriously detract from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There may be good explanations for all this. But it does prove that the “truths we hold self-evident” are not that true. It means that our nation is failing to uphold the very reason for its existence. Nazi thugs at Kristallnacht…Stalin’s goons sacking rural villages to find hidden sacks of grain…hoods hired to beat and shoot union strikers in the U.S.A.—to the victims, reasons mean little.
What we now deem atrocities were once daily facts of life. We live on a thin film of fertile dirt, ever moving, prone to wind, rain, heat, and freeze, regardless how beautiful it looks at a particular moment. So is our social system prone to all manner of attack, robbery, and brutality. If we do not want these things to happen, we are strongly advised to watch and work to prevent them. The progress we have made is not guaranteed. Our Creator may have endowed us with unalienable rights, but our fellows can, and do, take them away.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—“ Declaration of Independence
In reality, few humans believe the aforementioned “truths” are “self-evident”. That we live in a place and time blessed with majorities who are even slightly committed to implementing these truths and protecting these rights, is an unusually fortunate circumstance. Just as we can view a peaceful natural landscape and ignore the blizzards, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, and countless other natural disasters—not to mention scientific evidence of eventual planetary destruction—so we tend to see our current political system: democratic republic, with guaranteed rights and freedoms, as permanent. But bucolic natural scenes are threatened by unperceived natural forces. And our stable democracy is on very shaky ground. There is a difference: while we can, in some small ways, make preparations to lessen the damage done by nature’s extremes, humanity is powerless about what nature will do. Our social contract is entirely man-made.
History shows that concepts such as “created equal” and “unalienable rights” are recent additions to human consciousness. The Declaration of Independence was the first attempt to legalize these concepts, based on philosophical explorations by John Locke about a century before. Farther back, prophets and philosophers here and there broached the subjects, among others having to do with kindness, decency, and brotherhood. While the teachings of these highly advanced people have been influential over the long term, most human history is full of tales of cruel greed and lust for power.
Farmers and other producers of useful things have been robbed, beaten, and killed, their women raped, their children enslaved, by gangs with weapons. This gross economic system has been practiced in every corner of the earth where mankind has advanced beyond the Paleolithic state, to this very day. By whatever name: piracy, feudalism, capitalism, communism, and so forth, the basic methods are the same: organized armed robbery. Men formed larger societies than tribal unions to prevent their being robbed and subjugated. Larger societies learned quickly they could rob and subjugate their neighbours. And just as early, they certainly learnt to rob their own people, who also learnt to rob each other. Under the leadership of various dukes and kings, organizational piracy evolved into modern warfare, disguised as national interest. Still, the means and ends were the same as they had always been.
Despite the incessant carnage, humanity made material progress, and intellectual progress as well. In different times and places, some highly conscious men and women, aware of the terrors inherent in business as usual, would voice their misgivings, and their concepts of peaceful and productive alternatives. Sometimes their thoughts got written down, for others to think about later. But among the general human population, the way things had always been were the way they would always be. Just as the Roman throngs cheered wildly when Caesar paraded foreign royals in cages, so do women and children of present day pirates celebrate their men’s captives and booty. The idea that “this could happen to me” seems not to have penetrated too deeply into human consciousness. “Do unto others” apparently still means “do it to them first.”
Yet here in North America, we find ourselves living where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” represent our national aspirations, if not our actual policies. Here these rights are still held to be the rationale for our nation’s existence. In Western Europe (where these rights were first recommended), and in a few countries elsewhere, the principles of our Declaration are practiced, or at least attempted. Humanity has made progress over ten or eleven generations. But as slavery, colonialism, and the decimation of indigenous populations prove, even in these fortunate places, the practice has been far from perfect. We dare take nothing for granted.
There are always wars gong on. Corporate control over our daily lives increases constantly. Many people lead hungry, sick, meaningless existences. Infrastructure crumbles as we watch. All these realities seriously detract from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There may be good explanations for all this. But it does prove that the “truths we hold self-evident” are not that true. It means that our nation is failing to uphold the very reason for its existence. Nazi thugs at Kristallnacht…Stalin’s goons sacking rural villages to find hidden sacks of grain…hoods hired to beat and shoot union strikers in the U.S.A.—to the victims, reasons mean little.
What we now deem atrocities were once daily facts of life. We live on a thin film of fertile dirt, ever moving, prone to wind, rain, heat, and freeze, regardless how beautiful it looks at a particular moment. So is our social system prone to all manner of attack, robbery, and brutality. If we do not want these things to happen, we are strongly advised to watch and work to prevent them. The progress we have made is not guaranteed. Our Creator may have endowed us with unalienable rights, but our fellows can, and do, take them away.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
#22--WAR AND PEACE TOGETHER
“The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”
George Orwell, 1984
We “got” Osama BinLaden. Can we get out of Afghanistan now? There are teasing hints that we might, but we have been told of “light at the end of the tunnel” before. And as Libya proves, there is always another war. The military-industrial complex is indifferent to location—as long as it occurs elsewhere than the United States, lest Americans learn firsthand of war’s realities. It was a military operation that got BinLaden. And those heroes: smart, confident, competent, fit, hale and hardy, made it look easy. We forget the vain decade of slaughter and horror that preceded our moment of triumph. And just as the splendid Hollywood war on Grenada quickly neutralized our bad taste about Vietnam, we can once more believe that military operations will solve any problem. A state of war is so firmly embedded in our infrastructure, economy and national character that it cannot be removed without radical surgery. Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex apparently went unheeded—at least by anyone in a position to make a difference: the ruling brains of the inner party. Despite Barack Obama’s sincerity about removing American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will need to work to ensure the blessings of peace.
Another look at the foundations of the modern industrial state can be useful, though we risk exhuming Marxist thought from the memory hole. Human ingenuity toward increasing productivity while reducing workload seems boundless. Over time, the quantity of goods and services increases while the labour needed to produce them decreases. Supply always outpaces demand, demand signifying not want or need, but the ability of people to buy what is produced industrially. Since the Industrial Revolution hit its stride about a century ago, there have always been enough of the necessities, and many of the luxuries, to go around, and this is truer now than it was then. Society’s problem is to adequately distribute what is produced. As always happens, the supply of goods and services reaches a level that cannot be quickly consumed, causing those who control the supply to reduce production, which reduces workers. Since the unemployed consume less than those with jobs, the trend continues, until—actually we have never seen what would happen, because long before the inevitable conclusion, society ceases to extol the wonders of rugged individualism, and seeks instead some collective solutions.
Our race’s trials and errors over the last century have revealed some possible solutions to this ongoing difficulty of balancing production and consumption to the general benefit. The most logical solution would be to reduce work hours and increase wages, allowing more workers to buy what they produce. This method is enormously unpopular with those in control, however, because it reduces profits short-term, and in the long term people with more free time tend to become educated enough to question authority. Another solution is to find other work for people to do. Since humans are far more destructive of their environment than bears or feral hogs (and there are billions more of us), we can employ each other to maintain a livable environment. However, resistance to this solution reaches deep into human nature. We all have our preferences for public works. Schools, sewers, police, transport, energy…the list is endless. Not only can we argue over what is important, we can also disagree over what it should cost, and who pays. Besides, has the situation really reached problem stage yet? Couldn’t we put off any action until, say, next budget year?
Then there is war. As a public works project it is ideal. It blows up surplus production, employs many people (with the added bonus of high turnover) and holds out the tantalizing promise of a conclusive ending. Most importantly, in the mass communication age, it has an almost universal acceptance rate. We have no time for debate, and protests are easily ignored. If the leaders declare war, then to arms. In hindsight, some wars seem to have been fought under false pretenses. But dare we take the chance? Better to fight a wrong war than to not fight the right one.
Sticking with Orwell, in modern warfare only a small number of people actually fight (another result of industrialization), leaving the majority apparently unburdened. But we all do pay, starting by spending borrowed money. In the half-century since Eisenhower’s warning, how much progress and plenty might we be enjoying if we had not borrowed trillions of dollars for nearly uninterrupted war? Although most citizens of Oceania (and Eurasia and Eastasia too) do live better than the ones in Orwell’s horror story, many of us are far from comfortable, despite higher industrial productivity. And news headlines show virtually every government official claiming to be appalled at the public debt, to the point where paying it off requires drastic cuts in spending, throwing more of us into poverty. How much lower would the debt be if we had no wars? Most modern humans know about war’s horror and futility, and public figures everywhere deplore it, yet wars go on, a daily fact of life.
War is peace.
George Orwell, 1984
We “got” Osama BinLaden. Can we get out of Afghanistan now? There are teasing hints that we might, but we have been told of “light at the end of the tunnel” before. And as Libya proves, there is always another war. The military-industrial complex is indifferent to location—as long as it occurs elsewhere than the United States, lest Americans learn firsthand of war’s realities. It was a military operation that got BinLaden. And those heroes: smart, confident, competent, fit, hale and hardy, made it look easy. We forget the vain decade of slaughter and horror that preceded our moment of triumph. And just as the splendid Hollywood war on Grenada quickly neutralized our bad taste about Vietnam, we can once more believe that military operations will solve any problem. A state of war is so firmly embedded in our infrastructure, economy and national character that it cannot be removed without radical surgery. Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex apparently went unheeded—at least by anyone in a position to make a difference: the ruling brains of the inner party. Despite Barack Obama’s sincerity about removing American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will need to work to ensure the blessings of peace.
Another look at the foundations of the modern industrial state can be useful, though we risk exhuming Marxist thought from the memory hole. Human ingenuity toward increasing productivity while reducing workload seems boundless. Over time, the quantity of goods and services increases while the labour needed to produce them decreases. Supply always outpaces demand, demand signifying not want or need, but the ability of people to buy what is produced industrially. Since the Industrial Revolution hit its stride about a century ago, there have always been enough of the necessities, and many of the luxuries, to go around, and this is truer now than it was then. Society’s problem is to adequately distribute what is produced. As always happens, the supply of goods and services reaches a level that cannot be quickly consumed, causing those who control the supply to reduce production, which reduces workers. Since the unemployed consume less than those with jobs, the trend continues, until—actually we have never seen what would happen, because long before the inevitable conclusion, society ceases to extol the wonders of rugged individualism, and seeks instead some collective solutions.
Our race’s trials and errors over the last century have revealed some possible solutions to this ongoing difficulty of balancing production and consumption to the general benefit. The most logical solution would be to reduce work hours and increase wages, allowing more workers to buy what they produce. This method is enormously unpopular with those in control, however, because it reduces profits short-term, and in the long term people with more free time tend to become educated enough to question authority. Another solution is to find other work for people to do. Since humans are far more destructive of their environment than bears or feral hogs (and there are billions more of us), we can employ each other to maintain a livable environment. However, resistance to this solution reaches deep into human nature. We all have our preferences for public works. Schools, sewers, police, transport, energy…the list is endless. Not only can we argue over what is important, we can also disagree over what it should cost, and who pays. Besides, has the situation really reached problem stage yet? Couldn’t we put off any action until, say, next budget year?
Then there is war. As a public works project it is ideal. It blows up surplus production, employs many people (with the added bonus of high turnover) and holds out the tantalizing promise of a conclusive ending. Most importantly, in the mass communication age, it has an almost universal acceptance rate. We have no time for debate, and protests are easily ignored. If the leaders declare war, then to arms. In hindsight, some wars seem to have been fought under false pretenses. But dare we take the chance? Better to fight a wrong war than to not fight the right one.
Sticking with Orwell, in modern warfare only a small number of people actually fight (another result of industrialization), leaving the majority apparently unburdened. But we all do pay, starting by spending borrowed money. In the half-century since Eisenhower’s warning, how much progress and plenty might we be enjoying if we had not borrowed trillions of dollars for nearly uninterrupted war? Although most citizens of Oceania (and Eurasia and Eastasia too) do live better than the ones in Orwell’s horror story, many of us are far from comfortable, despite higher industrial productivity. And news headlines show virtually every government official claiming to be appalled at the public debt, to the point where paying it off requires drastic cuts in spending, throwing more of us into poverty. How much lower would the debt be if we had no wars? Most modern humans know about war’s horror and futility, and public figures everywhere deplore it, yet wars go on, a daily fact of life.
War is peace.
Friday, May 13, 2011
STATES' RIGHTS ORIGINAL INTENT
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Amendment X
I had the privilege of attending a rally honouring a doctor and her lawyer husband, who were about to surrender at the Federal Courthouse to begin serving five years each for distributing medical marijuana. Though distributing marijuana for medical purposes is legal under California law, federal laws make no distinction between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana…it’s illegal. Since our country is a union, the short and simple rule holds hat no state can violate federal law. Most of the time, simple rules are the easiest to follow, hence the best. This time, the simplicity is complicated by the fact that two good people, who have done no harm, are now doing hard time.
The law is not allowed to question whether any harm was done. Many of the participants at the rally claimed that marijuana had actually saved their lives. Still, federal law was broken, so those claims are of no consequence. If the citizens have problems with the law, the theory goes that they may tell their representatives to change the law. But Congress is not about to do that.
Therefore the good doctor and the good lawyer are in prison.
The Constitution was enacted, with its Bill of Rights, partly to assure that people who do no harm stay out of jail. We know that our institutions are human ones, like all others on earth, and that we’re not living a fairy tale. We’re not perfect. This excuse cannot be convincing to the good people who are in jail, however, nor does it hold for thoughtful citizens who are interested in seeing our system perform in reality the way it’s supposed to in theory. Amendment X has been scrutinized a lot lately, in respect to federal laws that have nothing to do with marijuana. Other people have issues with newly enacted federal laws. Can states opt out? We got the answer in 1865: no. But study of the ninth and tenth amendments reveal some of the founders’ attitudes that could be relevant today. Medical marijuana appears to be a justified use of States’ Rights.
We can, of course, make windy arguments about what is legal under the Bill of Rights. But the plain English of the ninth and tenth is quite straightforward, and it reveals nothing that allows the national government to restrict lifestyle choices. In fact, Nine and Ten, like One through Eight, severely restrict the national government’s ability to prohibit basic personal freedoms. Marijuana prohibition has been enacted under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. The federal government can regulate products traded between the states—including marijuana. But within a state, where is the federal authority to limit personal use of anything?
Number IX obviously expands the rights of the people beyond those few listed in the Bill of Rights. And number X clearly restricts federal powers to those listed. No matter how broadly we interpret Constitutional powers, there still is no foundation for federal criminalization of a product used strictly within a state. Amendments One through Eight list certain basic rights. But Nine and Ten assure us that those rights are not the only ones, and that the federal government cannot deny rights simply because the Constitution’s framers did not happen to mention them.
Historically, the issue of States’ Rights usually dealt with slavery, and after the Civil War, with segregation and racial discrimination. It has been decided in Congress, the courts, and general public opinion, that states do not have the power to withhold from their citizens any of the basic rights listed in the Constitution. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments made sure that these basic rights were guaranteed nationwide to everyone. Those rights not mentioned in the Constitution are left to the states, and if the states do not act upon them, individuals retain them.
Excepting the sixteenth (income tax) and the twenty-fifth (presidential succession) all the constitutional amendments enhance citizen power or basic rights. The founders knew they could not think of everything, so they provided for the growth of freedom in the future. A restrictive amendment, Number XVIII (prohibition) was repealed by Number XXI. Substitute “cannabis” for “intoxicating liquors” in these amendments, and the marijuana issue solves itself. And lest we forget, even during prohibition, doctors were allowed to prescribe medicinal alcohol. States are now free to make their own liquor laws.
The Supreme Court, in “Gonzales vs. Raich,” (2005) ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause grants power to the federal government to override the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and even contradict several of their own recent states’ rights cases, so that the Bush Justice Department could legally ride roughshod over sick people. The Obama administration has indicated it will ignore personal use in states where medical marijuana is legal, but profiteering will be prosecuted. The Supreme Court’s decision is obviously wrong, and it needs to reverse its own opinion. Or Congress needs to legislate for the reality that not only do states have the right to legalize marijuana, medically or otherwise, but that Americans generally favour decriminalization, by steadily increasing numbers.
Medical marijuana remains in chaotic limbo because no politician wants to be accused by his opponents of being “soft on drugs.” But everyone knows the War on Drugs has failed. Still, sick people are harassed and bullied, and a doctor and a lawyer, among others who have harmed nobody, must do hard time. A decent society, a free society, does not incarcerate people who cause no harm. We pride ourselves on being a society of “laws, not men.” But since men make laws, and men make mistakes, we must vigilantly find and repeal bad laws. If we cannot do that, we can no longer honestly call ourselves free.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Amendment X
I had the privilege of attending a rally honouring a doctor and her lawyer husband, who were about to surrender at the Federal Courthouse to begin serving five years each for distributing medical marijuana. Though distributing marijuana for medical purposes is legal under California law, federal laws make no distinction between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana…it’s illegal. Since our country is a union, the short and simple rule holds hat no state can violate federal law. Most of the time, simple rules are the easiest to follow, hence the best. This time, the simplicity is complicated by the fact that two good people, who have done no harm, are now doing hard time.
The law is not allowed to question whether any harm was done. Many of the participants at the rally claimed that marijuana had actually saved their lives. Still, federal law was broken, so those claims are of no consequence. If the citizens have problems with the law, the theory goes that they may tell their representatives to change the law. But Congress is not about to do that.
Therefore the good doctor and the good lawyer are in prison.
The Constitution was enacted, with its Bill of Rights, partly to assure that people who do no harm stay out of jail. We know that our institutions are human ones, like all others on earth, and that we’re not living a fairy tale. We’re not perfect. This excuse cannot be convincing to the good people who are in jail, however, nor does it hold for thoughtful citizens who are interested in seeing our system perform in reality the way it’s supposed to in theory. Amendment X has been scrutinized a lot lately, in respect to federal laws that have nothing to do with marijuana. Other people have issues with newly enacted federal laws. Can states opt out? We got the answer in 1865: no. But study of the ninth and tenth amendments reveal some of the founders’ attitudes that could be relevant today. Medical marijuana appears to be a justified use of States’ Rights.
We can, of course, make windy arguments about what is legal under the Bill of Rights. But the plain English of the ninth and tenth is quite straightforward, and it reveals nothing that allows the national government to restrict lifestyle choices. In fact, Nine and Ten, like One through Eight, severely restrict the national government’s ability to prohibit basic personal freedoms. Marijuana prohibition has been enacted under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. The federal government can regulate products traded between the states—including marijuana. But within a state, where is the federal authority to limit personal use of anything?
Number IX obviously expands the rights of the people beyond those few listed in the Bill of Rights. And number X clearly restricts federal powers to those listed. No matter how broadly we interpret Constitutional powers, there still is no foundation for federal criminalization of a product used strictly within a state. Amendments One through Eight list certain basic rights. But Nine and Ten assure us that those rights are not the only ones, and that the federal government cannot deny rights simply because the Constitution’s framers did not happen to mention them.
Historically, the issue of States’ Rights usually dealt with slavery, and after the Civil War, with segregation and racial discrimination. It has been decided in Congress, the courts, and general public opinion, that states do not have the power to withhold from their citizens any of the basic rights listed in the Constitution. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments made sure that these basic rights were guaranteed nationwide to everyone. Those rights not mentioned in the Constitution are left to the states, and if the states do not act upon them, individuals retain them.
Excepting the sixteenth (income tax) and the twenty-fifth (presidential succession) all the constitutional amendments enhance citizen power or basic rights. The founders knew they could not think of everything, so they provided for the growth of freedom in the future. A restrictive amendment, Number XVIII (prohibition) was repealed by Number XXI. Substitute “cannabis” for “intoxicating liquors” in these amendments, and the marijuana issue solves itself. And lest we forget, even during prohibition, doctors were allowed to prescribe medicinal alcohol. States are now free to make their own liquor laws.
The Supreme Court, in “Gonzales vs. Raich,” (2005) ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause grants power to the federal government to override the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and even contradict several of their own recent states’ rights cases, so that the Bush Justice Department could legally ride roughshod over sick people. The Obama administration has indicated it will ignore personal use in states where medical marijuana is legal, but profiteering will be prosecuted. The Supreme Court’s decision is obviously wrong, and it needs to reverse its own opinion. Or Congress needs to legislate for the reality that not only do states have the right to legalize marijuana, medically or otherwise, but that Americans generally favour decriminalization, by steadily increasing numbers.
Medical marijuana remains in chaotic limbo because no politician wants to be accused by his opponents of being “soft on drugs.” But everyone knows the War on Drugs has failed. Still, sick people are harassed and bullied, and a doctor and a lawyer, among others who have harmed nobody, must do hard time. A decent society, a free society, does not incarcerate people who cause no harm. We pride ourselves on being a society of “laws, not men.” But since men make laws, and men make mistakes, we must vigilantly find and repeal bad laws. If we cannot do that, we can no longer honestly call ourselves free.
Friday, May 6, 2011
MAMMON WORSHIP
“One thing about the current generation of conservatives: Getting mugged by reality hasn’t changed the way they look at the world.”
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“So be it.”
John Boehner
Has capitalism become a religion? If so, is this a sign that, according to Eric Hoffer in THE TRUE BELIEVER, “its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident?” The gospel of free enterprise, put forth by Saints Ayn, Ronald and Milton, has attracted many true believers who seem to put free enterprise principles above the practical workings of economics. High priests Rush and Grover (and their countless minions), despite the enormous prosperity of a few and stagnation and impoverishment for everyone else, preach the doctrine that “government is the problem” with unquenched fire. The stronger the evidence that marketplace magic is not working very well for most of us, the more fervently do the faithful servants of Mammon cling to their belief in capitalism’s triumphant goodness. With their complete disdain of government in any form comes joyful reverence for avarice. According to these true believers, we are left with only six deadly sins, greed now being credited as the sole source of human progress, perhaps the single human virtue. Therefore, those who profit from their greed should be allowed to keep all their gains lest they be discouraged from getting more, which would throw all mankind into a new darkness. The leap of faith required to believe this dogma is a long one, but this presents no handicap to those who believe.
Some of Mammon’s faithful hold to the hardcore conviction that even a kind thought toward those less fortunate will stop progress dead in its tracks. Then there are those who feel rich people can share with others if they want to. But under no circumstances, no matter how great the need, should the wealthy be compelled, especially through taxes, to share the wealth, because after all taxes are for government, and government is always the problem. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he may. But if he does not, the poor must endure or die. Free people in a democracy are free to starve, but they are not allowed to use their democracy to provide for those in need, if those who possess a surfeit refuse to share.
This is a tough creed to swallow.
It is understood that need is a subjective emotion. Some people are aware that they need very little to be happy, but who are they to force their Thoeauvian simplicity on everyone else? Who is to say that material comforts and pleasures are not the just rewards of a job well done? But for one man to need many mansions, several yachts and planes, many cars, warehouses full of expensive clothes and jewels galore (not to mention pockets stuffed full of politicians) is a bit of a stretch, for most of us who do not have all that. And if the same rich man can look at millions who live in squalor, hunger and privation, and say these people have all they need, credibility fails completely.
The servants of greed are left with a religious conviction to stand on, a conviction holding that human greed, for all its resultant hardships, dislocations, warfare and suffering, is the only source of human progress. Obviously, we can understand why a mega-rich empire builder would spout such a creed. But why should anyone else believe it? The rest of us are expected by the adherents of this faith to endure any amount of hardship for the benefit of the few who have it all, believing that if we let their selfishness run rampant, some day all humanity will be materially better off. Again, this creed is tough to swallow.
In this capitalistic religion, there is no nirvana to look forward to. No heaven with its pearly gates and streets paved with gold, no celestial virgins waiting to reward us in afterlife for enduring this vale of tears. There is only faith in a better economic life for our descendants, someday, maybe. We must accept our poverty, disease, and injustice, live with our misery. . .and BELIEVE! If free enterprise depends on blind faith, then its practical advantages are no longer obvious. Under this creed, commonsense solutions to everyday problems are now sins. Unfettered greed has become the highest virtue. Adults ought to know better. Most of us do.
Historically, unbridled capitalism always concentrates too much wealth in the hands of too few people, and productivity always exceeds consumption. With consumers spending too little, surplus production backs up. Workers are fired and privation becomes widespread. Private charity is overwhelmed. Practical solutions to this problem include government spending on public works to increase employment so people will buy things again. Some wealth must be redistributed to maintain balanced prosperity and social stability, which benefits rich, poor, and those in-between. Free enterprise, constructively regulated and shared by all, is an effective tool for society’s improvement and human progress. But the people it serves must make it serve. Like fire, capitalism makes a bad master.
And greed is still not a virtue.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“So be it.”
John Boehner
Has capitalism become a religion? If so, is this a sign that, according to Eric Hoffer in THE TRUE BELIEVER, “its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident?” The gospel of free enterprise, put forth by Saints Ayn, Ronald and Milton, has attracted many true believers who seem to put free enterprise principles above the practical workings of economics. High priests Rush and Grover (and their countless minions), despite the enormous prosperity of a few and stagnation and impoverishment for everyone else, preach the doctrine that “government is the problem” with unquenched fire. The stronger the evidence that marketplace magic is not working very well for most of us, the more fervently do the faithful servants of Mammon cling to their belief in capitalism’s triumphant goodness. With their complete disdain of government in any form comes joyful reverence for avarice. According to these true believers, we are left with only six deadly sins, greed now being credited as the sole source of human progress, perhaps the single human virtue. Therefore, those who profit from their greed should be allowed to keep all their gains lest they be discouraged from getting more, which would throw all mankind into a new darkness. The leap of faith required to believe this dogma is a long one, but this presents no handicap to those who believe.
Some of Mammon’s faithful hold to the hardcore conviction that even a kind thought toward those less fortunate will stop progress dead in its tracks. Then there are those who feel rich people can share with others if they want to. But under no circumstances, no matter how great the need, should the wealthy be compelled, especially through taxes, to share the wealth, because after all taxes are for government, and government is always the problem. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he may. But if he does not, the poor must endure or die. Free people in a democracy are free to starve, but they are not allowed to use their democracy to provide for those in need, if those who possess a surfeit refuse to share.
This is a tough creed to swallow.
It is understood that need is a subjective emotion. Some people are aware that they need very little to be happy, but who are they to force their Thoeauvian simplicity on everyone else? Who is to say that material comforts and pleasures are not the just rewards of a job well done? But for one man to need many mansions, several yachts and planes, many cars, warehouses full of expensive clothes and jewels galore (not to mention pockets stuffed full of politicians) is a bit of a stretch, for most of us who do not have all that. And if the same rich man can look at millions who live in squalor, hunger and privation, and say these people have all they need, credibility fails completely.
The servants of greed are left with a religious conviction to stand on, a conviction holding that human greed, for all its resultant hardships, dislocations, warfare and suffering, is the only source of human progress. Obviously, we can understand why a mega-rich empire builder would spout such a creed. But why should anyone else believe it? The rest of us are expected by the adherents of this faith to endure any amount of hardship for the benefit of the few who have it all, believing that if we let their selfishness run rampant, some day all humanity will be materially better off. Again, this creed is tough to swallow.
In this capitalistic religion, there is no nirvana to look forward to. No heaven with its pearly gates and streets paved with gold, no celestial virgins waiting to reward us in afterlife for enduring this vale of tears. There is only faith in a better economic life for our descendants, someday, maybe. We must accept our poverty, disease, and injustice, live with our misery. . .and BELIEVE! If free enterprise depends on blind faith, then its practical advantages are no longer obvious. Under this creed, commonsense solutions to everyday problems are now sins. Unfettered greed has become the highest virtue. Adults ought to know better. Most of us do.
Historically, unbridled capitalism always concentrates too much wealth in the hands of too few people, and productivity always exceeds consumption. With consumers spending too little, surplus production backs up. Workers are fired and privation becomes widespread. Private charity is overwhelmed. Practical solutions to this problem include government spending on public works to increase employment so people will buy things again. Some wealth must be redistributed to maintain balanced prosperity and social stability, which benefits rich, poor, and those in-between. Free enterprise, constructively regulated and shared by all, is an effective tool for society’s improvement and human progress. But the people it serves must make it serve. Like fire, capitalism makes a bad master.
And greed is still not a virtue.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
COUP D'ETAT, U.S.A.
COUP D’ETAT, U.S.A.
“We are Wall Street: It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable….Go ahead and take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: we’re going to take yours….We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive.”
E-mail circulating on Wall Street, reported in FINANCIAL TIMES
Resembling sophisticated Huns or Vandals, the barons of industry and finance sneer about doing “God’s work” as they sit like Smaug the dragon atop mountains of plunder, and smugly acquire more at everyone else’s expense. Having grown accustomed to getting their way, all the way, under the last presidential administration, they have no intention of sharing or compromising now. Barack Obama, to any impartial observer, is not a socialist. He would be a “liberal Republican” by definition forty years ago, when there really were such things. He has tried vainly to compromise with current Republicans, who have moved far to the right of the canonized Ronald Reagan, and now prefer to obliterate the national government, rather than make any deals with Democrats. Centering in Wisconsin but extending nation-wide, the filthy rich are using the 2010 election to pull off a coup d’etat. This way they have no need to compromise. The servants of the corporate elite, egged on by the Tea Party, have staged their takeover in broad daylight, for everyone to see. Though not clever, it is bold, and it is happening, right now, in the good old land of liberty.
While the Tea Party Republicans ran for election promising more jobs, as soon as they took over they moved rapidly to shut down all opposition. Pausing only briefly to issue what corporate tax breaks they could (first things first, right?) they declared an emergency, which they claimed required drastic action to avoid total disaster. First on the list of hardship measures: to destroy public employee unions. Private company unions being already decimated, the attack would eliminate a major source of opposition to corporate supremacy. Then corporations, already given full citizenship by the Supreme Court, can use limitless funds to swamp any further opposition in a tsunami of propaganda. The servants of corporate oligarchy are then free to take advantage of whatever government machinery serves their purpose, and dismantle what might get in the way of profits. Of course, no one is forced to believe all that corporate “free speech”. But big business is awfully good at sales pitches. If it can spread its message without concerted, effective response from the opposition, there is no opposition. There will be no doubt about who rules. This is the goal of a coup.
Scott Walker did not take office in Wisconsin. He took control, CEO fashion. And typically, a CEO does not ask the underlings what they might think of policy. He tells them what he wants, and if he does not get it, he makes changes. This is the principle reason why, in a democracy, government cannot be run like a business. Walker, serving the corporate elite, has to trash the democracy. Furthermore, it is obvious that when people awaken to actually understand how adversely they will be affected by these Tea Party actions, Walker and his cronies will be sent packing. Hence the coup. If Walker can pull it off, his future in politics is rosy. If he is rebuffed, he will have proven himself a solid team player, and will prosper nonetheless.
The coup in Wisconsin has roused considerable organized opposition, from many who work for a living. This opposition has spread around the country, and many Americans who were content to live and let live have awakened to resist a real threat. A sense of worker solidarity has been revived, for the first time in quite a while, and it is being transmitted at electric speed, everywhere. If this solidarity can endure, it could be strong enough to turn back the coup—this time. But working people dare not succumb to complacency. The servants of greed will never stop attacking.
The coup in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, should leave no doubt that class warfare is ongoing, even though the working class did not start it. The corporate class will never stop seeking absolute power, and only consistent solidarity among the workers can prevent the upper class from having it. The ultra-rich will cooperate, will share, if they must, to the benefit of workers and the wealthy--all but those totally consumed by greed. But it is up to those of us not in that upper class to make them cooperate and share. The alternative, sadly, is some kind of servitude, with its accompanying penury. Eternal vigilance still being the price of liberty, we must keep watch for wherever our liberty is threatened. Sometimes the enemy is foreign. This time the threat is homegrown.
“We are Wall Street: It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable….Go ahead and take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: we’re going to take yours….We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive.”
E-mail circulating on Wall Street, reported in FINANCIAL TIMES
Resembling sophisticated Huns or Vandals, the barons of industry and finance sneer about doing “God’s work” as they sit like Smaug the dragon atop mountains of plunder, and smugly acquire more at everyone else’s expense. Having grown accustomed to getting their way, all the way, under the last presidential administration, they have no intention of sharing or compromising now. Barack Obama, to any impartial observer, is not a socialist. He would be a “liberal Republican” by definition forty years ago, when there really were such things. He has tried vainly to compromise with current Republicans, who have moved far to the right of the canonized Ronald Reagan, and now prefer to obliterate the national government, rather than make any deals with Democrats. Centering in Wisconsin but extending nation-wide, the filthy rich are using the 2010 election to pull off a coup d’etat. This way they have no need to compromise. The servants of the corporate elite, egged on by the Tea Party, have staged their takeover in broad daylight, for everyone to see. Though not clever, it is bold, and it is happening, right now, in the good old land of liberty.
While the Tea Party Republicans ran for election promising more jobs, as soon as they took over they moved rapidly to shut down all opposition. Pausing only briefly to issue what corporate tax breaks they could (first things first, right?) they declared an emergency, which they claimed required drastic action to avoid total disaster. First on the list of hardship measures: to destroy public employee unions. Private company unions being already decimated, the attack would eliminate a major source of opposition to corporate supremacy. Then corporations, already given full citizenship by the Supreme Court, can use limitless funds to swamp any further opposition in a tsunami of propaganda. The servants of corporate oligarchy are then free to take advantage of whatever government machinery serves their purpose, and dismantle what might get in the way of profits. Of course, no one is forced to believe all that corporate “free speech”. But big business is awfully good at sales pitches. If it can spread its message without concerted, effective response from the opposition, there is no opposition. There will be no doubt about who rules. This is the goal of a coup.
Scott Walker did not take office in Wisconsin. He took control, CEO fashion. And typically, a CEO does not ask the underlings what they might think of policy. He tells them what he wants, and if he does not get it, he makes changes. This is the principle reason why, in a democracy, government cannot be run like a business. Walker, serving the corporate elite, has to trash the democracy. Furthermore, it is obvious that when people awaken to actually understand how adversely they will be affected by these Tea Party actions, Walker and his cronies will be sent packing. Hence the coup. If Walker can pull it off, his future in politics is rosy. If he is rebuffed, he will have proven himself a solid team player, and will prosper nonetheless.
The coup in Wisconsin has roused considerable organized opposition, from many who work for a living. This opposition has spread around the country, and many Americans who were content to live and let live have awakened to resist a real threat. A sense of worker solidarity has been revived, for the first time in quite a while, and it is being transmitted at electric speed, everywhere. If this solidarity can endure, it could be strong enough to turn back the coup—this time. But working people dare not succumb to complacency. The servants of greed will never stop attacking.
The coup in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, should leave no doubt that class warfare is ongoing, even though the working class did not start it. The corporate class will never stop seeking absolute power, and only consistent solidarity among the workers can prevent the upper class from having it. The ultra-rich will cooperate, will share, if they must, to the benefit of workers and the wealthy--all but those totally consumed by greed. But it is up to those of us not in that upper class to make them cooperate and share. The alternative, sadly, is some kind of servitude, with its accompanying penury. Eternal vigilance still being the price of liberty, we must keep watch for wherever our liberty is threatened. Sometimes the enemy is foreign. This time the threat is homegrown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)