“The basic goal of labor will not change. It is—as it has always been, and I am sure always will be—to better the standards of life for all who work for wages and to seek dignity for all Americans.” George Meany
“Looks like this time I’m gonna get to stay.
I’m a union man now all the way.” J.R. Robertson, “King Harvest Has Surely Come”
It is heartening to see union members marching in solidarity with the Wall Street Occupiers. It seems like a mighty long time since unions have taken initiative in any popular mass movement. Organized labor did not start this protest, but union people quickly got involved, although there was no defined program, although it was unclear how it would turn out, although there were no sides chosen, besides a small number of protesters against the Wall Street behemoth. Coming in on the side of the obvious underdogs, when labor could have hidden behind the excuse that this was not their fight, foretells a welcome inclusive spirit in the labor ranks, and a willingness to actually engage in the class warfare that, like it or not, is being waged against all workers.
By joining this struggle, unions can reclaim George Meany’s declared creed of labor’s “basic goal.” The original protesters are mostly poor, unemployed, counter-culture types, and labor leaders could have taken a superior attitude and ignored them. But by standing with these marginal people (dismal prospects for union membership), labor once again stands for “dignity for all Americans,” and not only with words. And by taking this stand, the labor movement regains its standing in the national dialogue.
In recent years organized labor has been an object of lament, of ridicule, or both. And while labor’s demise is principally due to constant attacks by big business in partnership with big government, we must admit that working men and women have been co-operative enablers of their own downfall. In recent history we see changes in attitudes and actions among the workers, which led to events that were clearly contrary to labor’s enlightened self-interest.
Meany himself violated his creed on several occasions, among the most critical being his support for the Vietnam War, and his backing Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972. Thus began a rift among working people that has lasted to this very day. The corporate world has been quick to seize this opportunity to divide and conquer. The rift was wide enough to elect Ronald Reagan, who soon afterward put organized labor into a retreat that became a rout. Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers and was cheered by many in the working class. Reagan, as head of the Screen Actors’ Guild, was known by the House Un-American Activities Committee as “Informant T-10”, which suggests the assault on labor unions goes back at least as far as the end of WWII.
Working Americans, be they actors, carpenters, or whatever, are patriotic, so it comes as no surprise that labor unions would want to co-operate with their own elected government. Beginning in WWII, when all were fighting a common enemy, labor made many concessions to keep production going at maximum output. Many workers no doubt expected the era of co-operation to continue. This presented an opportunity for the masters of capital to cripple labor and gain control of the government, and they were not about to let the opportunity pass. And the corporate elite kept up the assault, dividing and conquering, little by little, until in 2011 we find ourselves living in a corporate state, which is the essence of fascism.
That the unions, (what is left of them) have chosen sides in Occupy Wall Street, is a sign that working Americans are waking up to reality. And having played defense over the last thirty years or more, labor is now recognizing that the best defense is a good offense. By siding with people who are not union members in good standing, unions are once again embracing the inclusiveness that can produce solidarity, which is labor’s main strength.
Rightly or wrongly, unions have long been perceived as being agents for the prosperity of their clients: dues paying members. Nothing wrong with this, of course—it is what workers have a right to expect in return for their dues. But this tack has led to a perception of unions as labor procurement enterprises, existing solely for profit. And as businesses, unions do not have the strike as an effective tool for better wages and conditions. Businesses are expected to increase their profits by selling better products, more products, or cheaper products—not for taking their products off the market. Do that, and another business will step in. Strikes, to be effective, depend on sympathy from the general public, and this is possible only if most of the public sees its interests and that of labor unions as one and the same.
Polls consistently show most American workers would join a union if they could. Most support a modern, healthy infrastructure, progressive taxation, a social safety net that provides for all, especially in bad times. But what American workers want is not forthcoming from the top down. “Dignity for all Americans” will be acquired only if all Americans demand it. And labor unions, by taking the initiative in the Wall Street protests, are showing a priceless leadership quality in the struggle that is upon us. It must be a peaceful struggle, and labor unions have experience in conducting peaceful struggles, and winning.
Solidarity.
#27
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
AS THE COUP SOLIDIFIES
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history…. There is a tiny splinter group of… a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower would no doubt be shocked at the changes in the political climate over the half century since he was president. Now the splinter group controlled by the Koch Brothers has become the influential Tea Party, which has enthralled and bullied many politicians into trying to do exactly what Ike said would never be done. They may be stupid — indeed, concerning a functioning modern society, they are abysmally so—but they are persistent. And their persistence has brought them to a position of power in this country where they are about to get what they want, despite the continuing popularity of the programs Ike mentioned. Do we find such a scenario in a democracy?
Barack Obama (thought by many to be President of the United States) is no socialist, having proven he can and will work with the moneyed minority, while allowing the commoners to share in the general prosperity, for the good of all. But the Tea Party, and the politicians who represent them, are having none of this. Disdaining compromise, they will rule for the exclusive benefit of their wealthy directors. The well-being of workers, the poor, sick, old (anyone without political pull) is beneath consideration. Average Tea Partiers, like everyone else who must work for a living, will suffer, though apparently they do not care at the moment. And as the coup hardens its authoritarian power, it will not matter whether Tea Partiers start to care. Resistance will be not only futile, but also very ill-advised.
Despite protests, Wisconsin’s governor and legislature have blitzed the rights of public employees to organize and bargain collectively. In Michigan, the governor can now abolish any local government he deems ineffectual, and replace elected officials with apparatchiks who will carry out his edicts. In liberal California, Republicans refuse to allow an initiative that would raise taxes to go before the voters. Congressmen, facing anger from constituents about their attempts to eliminate social security and medicare, simply stop holding town meetings. The tale lengthens of anti-democratic measures in state after state, and the people are powerless to stop it. Of course, the opposition can challenge in court, but the Supreme Court, with a standing five-to-four majority, holds that all corporations are created equal, and makes no distinction between free speech and bribery. Control of information means control of opinion, and the Court has guaranteed that those who can finance political campaigns can expect big payoffs.
Thus far, overlooking the ravages to the environment and the steadily deteriorating general standard of living, we have avoided any situation approaching 1984. But the benign nature of the coup relies on its ability to easily overcome resistance, on Big Brother’s ability to reduce the chocolate ration, soon afterward to be praised for raising it. If the coup must get ugly, machinery is available for mass arrests, surveillance, and disappearances. Our prison system is a Gulag at the ready, and though the prisons are overcrowded by current standards, many more people can be stuffed inside in an “emergency.”
Obama was unable to close the Guantanamo prison, and the military oversees hundreds of potential Guantanamos at bases around the world. Though Obama has ended “extraordinary renditions” (an admirable euphemism for kidnapping people, then taking them secretly to foreign countries to be tortured) who doubts that somewhere in the hidden bureaucracy, plans to revive the process can be implemented on short notice? The government claims the prerogative to arrest or kill anyone it declares an “enemy combatant,” and the Obama administration is as willing as Bush’s to exercise it, as the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen attests. As to disappearance—what about Bradley Manning’s constitutionally guaranteed “speedy and public trial?” We must remember that torture works… not to obtain accurate information, but to extract confessions. And the proponents of “enhanced interrogation” know this. Americans, like anyone else, would stop complaining and protesting very quickly, once a few of their friends, relatives, co-workers, associates, start to disappear, only to return, broken, humiliated, convicted. Or if they fail to return.
While dissent remains ineffective, as were the protests against the Iraq invasion and against Wisconsin’s anti-union laws, the coup will remain reasonably mild. But should a truly unified and organized popular resistance emerge, the power elite has the means to deal with dissent in the old-fashioned way. Already brutal measures are being taken against peaceful protesters on Wall Street, and we shall see how these events play out. Yet organized popular resistance is the only effective way to stop this coup and reclaim effective democratic government. Times that are fun to read about are never pleasant to live in.
Here we are.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower would no doubt be shocked at the changes in the political climate over the half century since he was president. Now the splinter group controlled by the Koch Brothers has become the influential Tea Party, which has enthralled and bullied many politicians into trying to do exactly what Ike said would never be done. They may be stupid — indeed, concerning a functioning modern society, they are abysmally so—but they are persistent. And their persistence has brought them to a position of power in this country where they are about to get what they want, despite the continuing popularity of the programs Ike mentioned. Do we find such a scenario in a democracy?
Barack Obama (thought by many to be President of the United States) is no socialist, having proven he can and will work with the moneyed minority, while allowing the commoners to share in the general prosperity, for the good of all. But the Tea Party, and the politicians who represent them, are having none of this. Disdaining compromise, they will rule for the exclusive benefit of their wealthy directors. The well-being of workers, the poor, sick, old (anyone without political pull) is beneath consideration. Average Tea Partiers, like everyone else who must work for a living, will suffer, though apparently they do not care at the moment. And as the coup hardens its authoritarian power, it will not matter whether Tea Partiers start to care. Resistance will be not only futile, but also very ill-advised.
Despite protests, Wisconsin’s governor and legislature have blitzed the rights of public employees to organize and bargain collectively. In Michigan, the governor can now abolish any local government he deems ineffectual, and replace elected officials with apparatchiks who will carry out his edicts. In liberal California, Republicans refuse to allow an initiative that would raise taxes to go before the voters. Congressmen, facing anger from constituents about their attempts to eliminate social security and medicare, simply stop holding town meetings. The tale lengthens of anti-democratic measures in state after state, and the people are powerless to stop it. Of course, the opposition can challenge in court, but the Supreme Court, with a standing five-to-four majority, holds that all corporations are created equal, and makes no distinction between free speech and bribery. Control of information means control of opinion, and the Court has guaranteed that those who can finance political campaigns can expect big payoffs.
Thus far, overlooking the ravages to the environment and the steadily deteriorating general standard of living, we have avoided any situation approaching 1984. But the benign nature of the coup relies on its ability to easily overcome resistance, on Big Brother’s ability to reduce the chocolate ration, soon afterward to be praised for raising it. If the coup must get ugly, machinery is available for mass arrests, surveillance, and disappearances. Our prison system is a Gulag at the ready, and though the prisons are overcrowded by current standards, many more people can be stuffed inside in an “emergency.”
Obama was unable to close the Guantanamo prison, and the military oversees hundreds of potential Guantanamos at bases around the world. Though Obama has ended “extraordinary renditions” (an admirable euphemism for kidnapping people, then taking them secretly to foreign countries to be tortured) who doubts that somewhere in the hidden bureaucracy, plans to revive the process can be implemented on short notice? The government claims the prerogative to arrest or kill anyone it declares an “enemy combatant,” and the Obama administration is as willing as Bush’s to exercise it, as the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen attests. As to disappearance—what about Bradley Manning’s constitutionally guaranteed “speedy and public trial?” We must remember that torture works… not to obtain accurate information, but to extract confessions. And the proponents of “enhanced interrogation” know this. Americans, like anyone else, would stop complaining and protesting very quickly, once a few of their friends, relatives, co-workers, associates, start to disappear, only to return, broken, humiliated, convicted. Or if they fail to return.
While dissent remains ineffective, as were the protests against the Iraq invasion and against Wisconsin’s anti-union laws, the coup will remain reasonably mild. But should a truly unified and organized popular resistance emerge, the power elite has the means to deal with dissent in the old-fashioned way. Already brutal measures are being taken against peaceful protesters on Wall Street, and we shall see how these events play out. Yet organized popular resistance is the only effective way to stop this coup and reclaim effective democratic government. Times that are fun to read about are never pleasant to live in.
Here we are.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
#25 -- OUR HOMEGROWN COUP
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)