THAT RIPPING, TEARING SOUND
"It will take a lot more time to understand the full implications of what happened in America on November 8. But one outcome is already clear: Half of Americans are convinced their country is on a steadier path, and the other half are filled with fear and despair about its future. Half think they have avoided catastrophe; the other half know they have collided with it head-on."
Laila Lalani
THE NATION 11/28/2016
Had the other side won, this statement would still be true. Our country is really The Divided States. Despite the obvious sameness shared by all human beings, the American people are divided into two oppositional camps. Not since the Civil War have we witnessed such division. We are beyond mere disagreement over public policy. We are at a fighting point about what our nation stands for, and what our leadership needs do about it. Although we all must eat, drink, sleep and die--though we all want to raise happy families and live with dignity and respect--we are sundered as a people between two absolute opposites, with no room, even in this vast land, for the twain to meet. Peaceful co-existence is impossible.
Any thoughtful person knows that all-or-nothing attitudes are deadly to free societies. What are we to do? Some Californians entertain the fantasy of secession, just as some Texans did four years ago. But we are the United States, no matter how divided we might be within our borders. There is no escape. We have to deal with each other.
Since the election was roughly equal (the losers, as we all know, actually got more votes) some cautionary compromise on the part of the winners would be welcome. But no one expects compromise. How do we partially privatize Social Security? Or build half a wall? Ban some abortions? Is climate change half real, and half hoax? The list goes on: Obamacare, torture, money in politics, marijuana, guns, voting laws...we disagree on so many vital social, economic, and political issues. Compromise is not going to happen because each side is, for better or worse, thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of its beliefs.
Compromise is a boring, uncomfortable process, which leaves neither side satisfied. However, it is essential to governing a free society. Governing on a daily basis requires unceasing compromise. This is the duty that "We the People" took on when we decided to dispense with the Divine Right of Kings. It is a grown-up decision, and as adults know, nobody gets his own way all the time. The nature of maturity is acceptance of the mundane necessity of compromise.
Yet no one expects compromise. In the first place, the winning side won everything, under the laws: House, Senate, and Presidency. The Supreme Court will soon be irrevocably in its grasp. The losing side has some justified claims of foul play, but these claims will be ignored. We would like to look for generosity from the winners, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nor should we expect the losers (who represent the actual majority, and who still hold some potent resources) to grovel in hopes of mercy. Had the election gone the other way, the situation would be the same. If the winners are seeking to govern effectively, they must extend the peace offerings, and there is no evidence that they will do any such thing.
The losers might seek solace in the fact that, despite the pledges of party and national unity since the election, the wining side is led by people who loathe and mistrust one another. This is a false hope. The personalities will jockey for power within their own ranks, but none will ally with the other side. Whoever ultimately comes out on top will be more powerful than anyone was before. Whoever gains complete power over the winners will not be considerate of the losers.
The losers must dig in and fight. The fight had better be non-violent, because the winning side has many guns, and the police. And history proves that non-violence is actually effective in bringing about positive social change, while in most cases violence merely changes despots. The victors will romp. But if we would preserve anything of freedom for the future--not necessarily the next election cycle, but for some time in the dim, unforeseen future--we dare not surrender. We are in for a long fight, and we need to be ready and willing to take beating after beating and still get back up.
Long ago, in the polis of Athens, democracy was invented for only one reason: none of the warlords could gain absolute power. Finally tired of fighting, and seeing no side could really win, they decided to let people govern themselves. By people, they meant warlords and their male relatives and friends. But for mankind to make progress, people have to start somewhere. We are still in the growing and learning process. As Barack Obama reminds us, the line of history is not straight. But the struggle for a freer, fairer history cannot stop.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Thursday, December 13, 2012
TEA PARTY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." Franz Kafka
Rod Serling's prophetic "Twilight Zone", still tremendously popular half-a-century after its prime time, reminds us now what we were reminded then: there are stranger things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Our eyes are opened to realities we thought we had neatly stowed. "A Stop at Willoughby", aired in 1960 during the first season, looked at the frustrations of the modern corporate individual and the impossibility of escape into a simpler, serener, stabler yesteryear. In 2012, mass movements, notably the Tea Party, have been demonstrably determined to move the entire country back to a halcyon past. Tea Partiers, extolling the individual, have substituted a collective for an individualist solution to the troubles of modernity, but the result is the same.
James Daly plays Gart Williams, a high-powered Madison Avenue executive harassed by his boss at work and his wife at home. Napping on the train back to the suburbs at night, he hears the conductor announcing "Willoughby." Upon awakening, he finds it is daylight, summertime, and...1880. The train starts moving, he awakens again, having returned to winter, 1960, nighttime. He asks another conductor about "Willoughby", only to be told there is no such stop on this line. As the pressure increases from all sides, as he gets no respite at work or at home, Williams again naps on the train, and again wakes up in Willoughby, in a summer past. He learns a little more, but he stays on the train, which returns him to modern times. His situation grows more hectic desperate. At his wits' end, he makes up his mind that next time--he stops at Willoughby.
He does. In the sleepy summertime, with the band playing on the stand, he meets a couple of boys who have been fishing. Tomorrow, he will join them. He walks happily into his new life. The scene fades to a snow bank by the railroad track, in 1960, where the authorities are picking up the body of Gart Williams, who jumped off the train. Willoughby is the name of the undertaker, into whose hearse they load the corpse.
Serling protested the fast pace and high pressure that some people succumb to in modern times, how people can be driven to suicide. There is a simple lesson here: we all need to take it easy. But two generations later, we live in a world that is obsessed with material acquisition, one that celebrates high pressure and derides the "whiners" who are unable to keep up the pace. Some of those who cheer the breakneck temper of modernity would take us back to a time before government began to interfere with the ability of the successful to really trample on everyone else. The Tea Party Patriots, the politicians who exploit them and the billionaires who finance them, have set us a goal of marching boldly into the future by going back to the past, by jettisoning all the social policies and programs that America and all other industrialized countries have adopted, starting around the 1880's. The ambitions of this mass movement resemble a collective Willoughby. Anyone who knows night and winter happen--in short, reasonable people--can see that what this movement seeks is self-destruction.
The Tea Partiers of the new millennium are a far cry from traditional conservatives. Not too long ago (say, the 1960's), conservatives were for maintaining the status quo. Believing society to be mostly in good shape, they felt it unwise to change too much, too quickly. Some change is desirable, even conservatives would agree, but changes should come slowly, only after proving they are really needed, and they will actually work. In contrast, liberals would advocate for the changes they think are needed, believing we can always make adjustments as we go along. In this respect conservatives and liberals differ only in degree. There is always room for honest disagreement and compromise. Modern "conservatives" actually detest the present. They would destroy every government function save the military and police, and compel the whole society to return to the nineteenth century, forcefully if necessary. Then (and only then) do they believe we can proceed into a future of health, wealth, and happiness. Lacking a clear explanation from the Tea Partiers as to what they seek, we are free to conclude that Serling's "Willoughby" aptly describes their goal.
Many flaws are evident in any actual Willoughby of 1880. The times were simpler, lacking the automobiles, radio, and television of the mid-twentieth century--certainly missing the computers and electronic gadgets of the twenty-first. Yet the Tea Partiers make no proposals to rid our planet of modern inventions. They would free us from the social, political, and economic changes of the modern age. They want a return to a time of low taxes and freewheeling capitalism, when each of us could theoretically ascend to celestial heights or descend into deep misery, depending on our ability and drive. With opportunity for material improvements universal, there was no need for government handouts or taxpayer giveaways. A man earned what he got and kept it. Life, they believe, was ideal.
The fishing might not be so good, though, with raw sewage and industrial waste going straight into streams. But with the twelve-hour day and six-day week, fishing might be more fantasy than experience. Still, without TV, movies, computer games and the like, there was less to do. There were books, and kids did learn to read--those who did not avail themselves of the "opportunity" to go into factory work at six years old. Concerning opportunity, we know the plutocrats who owned the country rigged the game so they and theirs had more "good old equal opportunity" than everyone else. There were no intrusive government regulations trying to give commoners a chance to improve their lot. The list: epidemics, pollution, corruption, Jim Crow, ongoing colonial wars--goes on. The point is that 1880 had its own troubles, and we cannot trade the problems we have now for those we solved then, even if we desperately want to.
The emotion of nostalgia is part of human nature, necessary in its place. Tearing down the social contract because some of us think we were better off without it is a psychotic proposition. Even without a boss as sadistic as Mr. Misrell, or a spouse as coldly ambitious as Jane Williams, the stress of living can torment even the sturdiest souls. Desperation to simplify is perfectly understandable. We can resolve to take life easier, to smell the flowers, to think. We can encourage others to do these things. We cannot get rid of bullying bosses and grasping family members by stealing Social Security for Wall Street, by turning Medicare into a cheap coupon exchange. We might improve our individual lives by realizing we all face the same challenges, and treat our fellow humans accordingly. We cannot turn back time.
Gart Williams, a man alone, gave up the fight and jumped to Willoughby. America at the start of the third millenniuim has many isolated individuals, trying to live in a corporate-dominated world We all have a rough time. Some people have banded together in a vain attempt to bring us back to halcyon days. In the process they have allied themselves with the very corporate interests that have made their lives so impossibly complicated. In terms of society, a stop at Willoughby comes down to collective suicide.
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." Franz Kafka
Rod Serling's prophetic "Twilight Zone", still tremendously popular half-a-century after its prime time, reminds us now what we were reminded then: there are stranger things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Our eyes are opened to realities we thought we had neatly stowed. "A Stop at Willoughby", aired in 1960 during the first season, looked at the frustrations of the modern corporate individual and the impossibility of escape into a simpler, serener, stabler yesteryear. In 2012, mass movements, notably the Tea Party, have been demonstrably determined to move the entire country back to a halcyon past. Tea Partiers, extolling the individual, have substituted a collective for an individualist solution to the troubles of modernity, but the result is the same.
James Daly plays Gart Williams, a high-powered Madison Avenue executive harassed by his boss at work and his wife at home. Napping on the train back to the suburbs at night, he hears the conductor announcing "Willoughby." Upon awakening, he finds it is daylight, summertime, and...1880. The train starts moving, he awakens again, having returned to winter, 1960, nighttime. He asks another conductor about "Willoughby", only to be told there is no such stop on this line. As the pressure increases from all sides, as he gets no respite at work or at home, Williams again naps on the train, and again wakes up in Willoughby, in a summer past. He learns a little more, but he stays on the train, which returns him to modern times. His situation grows more hectic desperate. At his wits' end, he makes up his mind that next time--he stops at Willoughby.
He does. In the sleepy summertime, with the band playing on the stand, he meets a couple of boys who have been fishing. Tomorrow, he will join them. He walks happily into his new life. The scene fades to a snow bank by the railroad track, in 1960, where the authorities are picking up the body of Gart Williams, who jumped off the train. Willoughby is the name of the undertaker, into whose hearse they load the corpse.
Serling protested the fast pace and high pressure that some people succumb to in modern times, how people can be driven to suicide. There is a simple lesson here: we all need to take it easy. But two generations later, we live in a world that is obsessed with material acquisition, one that celebrates high pressure and derides the "whiners" who are unable to keep up the pace. Some of those who cheer the breakneck temper of modernity would take us back to a time before government began to interfere with the ability of the successful to really trample on everyone else. The Tea Party Patriots, the politicians who exploit them and the billionaires who finance them, have set us a goal of marching boldly into the future by going back to the past, by jettisoning all the social policies and programs that America and all other industrialized countries have adopted, starting around the 1880's. The ambitions of this mass movement resemble a collective Willoughby. Anyone who knows night and winter happen--in short, reasonable people--can see that what this movement seeks is self-destruction.
The Tea Partiers of the new millennium are a far cry from traditional conservatives. Not too long ago (say, the 1960's), conservatives were for maintaining the status quo. Believing society to be mostly in good shape, they felt it unwise to change too much, too quickly. Some change is desirable, even conservatives would agree, but changes should come slowly, only after proving they are really needed, and they will actually work. In contrast, liberals would advocate for the changes they think are needed, believing we can always make adjustments as we go along. In this respect conservatives and liberals differ only in degree. There is always room for honest disagreement and compromise. Modern "conservatives" actually detest the present. They would destroy every government function save the military and police, and compel the whole society to return to the nineteenth century, forcefully if necessary. Then (and only then) do they believe we can proceed into a future of health, wealth, and happiness. Lacking a clear explanation from the Tea Partiers as to what they seek, we are free to conclude that Serling's "Willoughby" aptly describes their goal.
Many flaws are evident in any actual Willoughby of 1880. The times were simpler, lacking the automobiles, radio, and television of the mid-twentieth century--certainly missing the computers and electronic gadgets of the twenty-first. Yet the Tea Partiers make no proposals to rid our planet of modern inventions. They would free us from the social, political, and economic changes of the modern age. They want a return to a time of low taxes and freewheeling capitalism, when each of us could theoretically ascend to celestial heights or descend into deep misery, depending on our ability and drive. With opportunity for material improvements universal, there was no need for government handouts or taxpayer giveaways. A man earned what he got and kept it. Life, they believe, was ideal.
The fishing might not be so good, though, with raw sewage and industrial waste going straight into streams. But with the twelve-hour day and six-day week, fishing might be more fantasy than experience. Still, without TV, movies, computer games and the like, there was less to do. There were books, and kids did learn to read--those who did not avail themselves of the "opportunity" to go into factory work at six years old. Concerning opportunity, we know the plutocrats who owned the country rigged the game so they and theirs had more "good old equal opportunity" than everyone else. There were no intrusive government regulations trying to give commoners a chance to improve their lot. The list: epidemics, pollution, corruption, Jim Crow, ongoing colonial wars--goes on. The point is that 1880 had its own troubles, and we cannot trade the problems we have now for those we solved then, even if we desperately want to.
The emotion of nostalgia is part of human nature, necessary in its place. Tearing down the social contract because some of us think we were better off without it is a psychotic proposition. Even without a boss as sadistic as Mr. Misrell, or a spouse as coldly ambitious as Jane Williams, the stress of living can torment even the sturdiest souls. Desperation to simplify is perfectly understandable. We can resolve to take life easier, to smell the flowers, to think. We can encourage others to do these things. We cannot get rid of bullying bosses and grasping family members by stealing Social Security for Wall Street, by turning Medicare into a cheap coupon exchange. We might improve our individual lives by realizing we all face the same challenges, and treat our fellow humans accordingly. We cannot turn back time.
Gart Williams, a man alone, gave up the fight and jumped to Willoughby. America at the start of the third millenniuim has many isolated individuals, trying to live in a corporate-dominated world We all have a rough time. Some people have banded together in a vain attempt to bring us back to halcyon days. In the process they have allied themselves with the very corporate interests that have made their lives so impossibly complicated. In terms of society, a stop at Willoughby comes down to collective suicide.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
BEFORE WE GLOAT
Rachel Maddow has revived her show's"GOP in Exile" segment. It is entertaining, but liberals and progressives are not entitled to gloat about the 2012 election. We are understandably relieved: Social Security, Medicare, Planned Parenthood, even Sesame Street (among other popular government programs) will be preserved. The losing side made no bones about taking them out. Though we get a sigh of relief, we had better forego hubris. This is not a matter of "getting down to their level" or practicing the Golden Rule. In reality the election results were, overall, decisive and pleasant for left-wingers, but still very close. Overconfidence will persuade many liberals to relax their guard, which we dare not do.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
The right wing lost this battle, but it won the one before. While gloating over their 2010 victory, the winners pushed through many draconian measures designed to solidify their power. The result was an aroused popular resistance, which after two years of hard work, proved successful. But the right was defeated, not vanquished. It is still represented by a wealthy, organized, ruthless political machine. Judging from the many calls for secession and assassination, the citizens who form the base for this machine are angrier than ever before. Their hatred for Barack Obama and liberal "socialists" is undiminished, and likely to stay that way. They are already gearing up for the next battle, and their determination to win is the greater for having lost this one. The winners (this time) would preserve and expand the safety net, the social contract that depends on functioning government. The losing side would terminate it, even though many of its members directly benefit from that same social contract. They are not only voting against their enlightened self-interests, they are voting against their obvious self-interests. What they expect in return is suspicious if it can even be discerned, but no one can deny that anyone wiling to sacrifice what benefits him directly is a formidable opponent. Probably the only point that liberals and conservatives agree on is that a victory for the other side means the end of America as we know and love it. The difficulties of finding any common ground appear overwhelming.
The side that can get a few more of its partisans to vote wins. The rightwing has an advantage in that its partisans are more enthusiastic than liberals. Despite the Big Lie, liberals tend to be practical, broad-minded, thoughtful--seeking to improve a society which they basically support. Reasonable arguments do not build mass movements. Right wingers tend to be frustrated, confused, angry--distrustful of changes in the world at large yet ready to take radical measures to "restore" America to its lost greatness. These true believers are led by a cynical coterie of wealthy opportunists and their sycophants, who believe they can control the angry masses they lead. Whether they actually can, time will tell. But they are ready with the finances needed to keep the base agitated. Their coup nearly succeeded two years ago. They are not about to give up after one loss. This is why they often win.
In recent elections, results have been decisive, though the numbers have been close. Nationwide, voters are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats got the bigger half this year. Republican power brokers are well aware that another election looms ahead, and they are preparing for it now. They have a huge advantage in available money, courtesy of the Supreme Court The Tea Party patriots who form the nucleus of the right wing still hate Obama, and the plutocrats who control the Republican Party will invest heavily to keep that hate strong. Liberals, on the other hand, seeking practical solutions to complex problems, lack that scorched-earth fervor, that fearlessness of risk, that make the right wingers so zealous. Liberals will need to compensate with hard work and resolve, to see the long fight through. We cannot afford to let hubris make us lazy.
Tea Partiers might perceive the Republican Party as a party of losers, and stay away from the polls. The plutocrats who dominate the Republican Party could cut their losses and work with the Democrats. But the possibility is greater that liberals, believing they have won the good fight, will turn away from politics and get on with their generally agreeable lives. Living a good life is worthwhile, but we dare not ignore the political scene, unpleasant as it is. We did that in the seventies, and the result was the eighties. We did that in 1994, and got government shutdown and impeachment in return. We did that in 2010, with disastrous results. The opposition is digging in for the long haul. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and gloating makes us blind.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
SCAPEGOATS AND PUBLIC DECENCY
The Davis pepper-spraying incident has been settled for a cool million. And John Pike, the sprayer, is now an ex-UC Davis policeman. From a corporate standpoint, a guilty party has been punished, complainers paid off, public outrage placated, problem solved. A former policeman needs to find a new line of work. His education, training, and experience (mostly funded by taxpayers) are all down the rat hole. The important fact to everyone up and down the chain-of-command: the UCD administration, the University of California hierarchy, the politicians who lay down the rules for education and the businessmen who control the funding--is that the proper authorities have dealt with the problem. To the proper authorities, Pike's misdeed was not that he sprayed poison on citizens who were acting within their rights, but that he caused a public relations difficulty that higher-ups--way higher-ups--could not avoid addressing. Another scapegoat bites the dust.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Pike said he hoped he would not be made a scapegoat, which means he knew he was doomed as soon as the toxic dust had settled. We all know he did what he was accused of doing. And his arrogant expression while spraying that huddled mass does not help his cause. It is the arrogance of someone who knows he serves an invincible institution, an institution whose orders he was following. Of course, afterward he remembered that the invincible corporate monolith he served--the corporate state we all support and serve--never hesitates to chop off whatever parts of itself become troublesome. He could probably sense his comrades start to withdraw. Suddenly, nobody knew him.
Why did Pike spray? Humans have been trying to explain human actions for a long time, and have yet to come up with answers that satisfy everyone. Surely, any of us could have done the same, under the right circumstances. The fact is policemen do not make policy. Like soldiers, they obey orders, and when deployed to keep order dressed in military garb and carrying military gear, they will commit acts of war, even on citizens who are acting within their rights.
The problem is that our social, economic, and governing structure no longer suits the needs of many people, and trends indicate the system will desert many more of us as time goes by. Furthermore, our elected representatives are no longer responsive to our messages, forced instead to serve the business interests that fund their campaigns. We the People must make ourselves heard through other channels, and the Law of the Land assures us the right, "peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Instead of listening to the protesters' grievances, the powers that be (not only in Davis, but all over the country) sent police as soldiers to quell the disturbance. There is no delicate way to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. Still, when it happens, those at the top are ready with a routine of plausible denial, intended to put the blame on some underling whenever things go awry. This time, Pike was it.
Piling society's sins on a scapegoat is worse than merely ineffective--it allows "civilized" people to look down on "primitive" societies, and here we are, looking uncivilized. In America we teach our children not to use superior force to hurt people who make no threats, who are weak. We teach them not to harm people who are doing no harm, who are doing what they have a right to do. From the standpoint of our earliest social lessons, Pike behaved wrongly. Yet he was commanded to be there, to do what was necessary to keep order, to protect the State's property. He was doing his job, until public outrage forced his superiors to react, to deal with a problem they had not anticipated. The million-dollar settlement adds to the establishment's embarrassment. For causing legal, fiscal, and public relations problems (not for violation of moral fundamentals) Pike lost his job. Of course, there will be no criminal charges. Even today, most Americans still get a speedy and public trial, and a public trial of a UC Davis policeman would expose the guilt of everyone up the chain of command, right up to us citizens. Since we the people are still nominally in control of our government, some of us might ask some tough questions of our political leaders, which incidentally, is also our right. No, it's better from a standpoint of orderly rectitude for Pike to just lose his job and disappear.
Our social and economic problems are still rampant. There will be more protests, and now demonstrators will know their rights are to some extent protected. The next time, will police officers act more humanely, more sensibly, out of fear of being fired? Will the establishment actually try to deal effectively with the demonstrators, try to serve us all, and not only the business interests behind the scenes? Or will the powers take a harder line, attempting to frighten both police and protesters into silent obedience? Time will tell.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
PIPE DREAMS OF GROVER NORQUIST
"We just need a president who can sign the legislation that the Republican House and Senate pass. We don't need someone to think. We need someone with enough digits on one hand to hold a pen." Grover Norquist
With Norquist ordering up a trained monkey to do his bidding in the White House, we look for a denial from Republicans in vain. It appears from the general acquiescence that Norquist will be one of the powers behind the throne and Mitt Romney will be a figurehead in a corporate, top-down government of a "democracy," and Republican voters seem to have no objections. More astonishing is the lack of any interest in Norquist's cocky statement on the part of the media. The U.S. Congress, which in 2012 is registering its all-time lowest levels of public approval, is in a position to claim the total subservience of the presidential nominee for one of America's two major parties, and Grover Norquist is ready to assume the subservience of Congress. The election outcome being a dead heat so far, Norquist has reasons to be smug. The Republican power brokers can count on a base that fanatically hates Barack Obama, the sleepwalking of the media, a huge advantage of money, and plots to disenfranchise voters in key swing states. Unless Obama can find some hidden votes where they really count, Norquist could very possibly be in charge of the country.
What will a Tea Party congress and a compliant president do? The stated goal of the Republican Party is to reduce {down to virtually nothing) taxes, government spending, and regulations. Then we will all be free, in an armed and theoretically polite society, to win or lose according to our abilities. The best and brightest will rise to the top, the mediocrities and inferiors will sink below, but we will all be better off in the long run as the free market works its magic. A millennium of unforeseen plenty will commence. Not everyone agrees with this celestial vision, but with the half the likely voters willing to take the gamble, the true believers might very well take power, and we could find out, one way or another.
Tea Partiers believe that if we let the economy, sick or well, run its course, any casualties will be necessary sacrifices, and the sooner we do the dirty work, the sooner we will reach equilibrium, and we can begin to climb upward toward economic rapture. They believe that if we try to "fix" the problem with help from the "nanny state," we will never be free, never have that true lift from the real "job creators." We will create a whole segment of the population that is permanently dependent on government aid, people who would be better off dead (and the rest of us would be better off with them dead). The makers of wealth among us will be permanently crippled, leaving the whole human race in a state of weakness, poverty, and darkness. Let the losers simply die so the winners can make a world where we all live better. Thus speak the true believers. This theory has its appeal. Who among us can't think of some "losers" who should just die in a world where the natural laws are right all the time? Of course, our perspectives change when we contemplate that some people surely feel the same way toward us.
In fact, natural laws have little effect on economics, a completely man-made, inexact science, subject to constant revision. Laws of nature such as weather, tectonics, and human error, visit their horrors on communist and capitalist societies alike. To lessen these horrors, we have formed social contracts to help one another.
There is a strong temptation to experience that total freedom, of turning us all loose, independent and undependable, to do our utmost. This is the freedom of driving mountain roads at breakneck speed, knowing at any moment the end could come--or of ingesting psychedelic drugs, and seeing what's in there. These excursions in defiance of common sense are widespread--probably they keep us as a race fairly sane. These are individual adventures, and though most of us survive them, till we live on this planet, under the troposphere, eating, drinking, breathing, and associating with our fellows, who must do the same.
We know that unmitigated free enterprise has been attempted before, and carried to its logical conclusion it has only resulted in depressions or wars, of unimaginable destruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that any wars or depressions have eliminated inferior and unnecessary people from the world, our history universally records that they increase human misery. To alleviate or prevent these dreadful manmade incidences, people have sought collective remedies, through their social contracts, their governments. No manmade remedies have been thoroughly successful. But to renounce them, to turn back to systems that have been tried before and are known to fail, is the very definition of insanity. Yet Grover Norquist believes that we can avoid all the pitfalls this time. We would do well not to share his pipe dream. It could be a nationwide bummer.
With Norquist ordering up a trained monkey to do his bidding in the White House, we look for a denial from Republicans in vain. It appears from the general acquiescence that Norquist will be one of the powers behind the throne and Mitt Romney will be a figurehead in a corporate, top-down government of a "democracy," and Republican voters seem to have no objections. More astonishing is the lack of any interest in Norquist's cocky statement on the part of the media. The U.S. Congress, which in 2012 is registering its all-time lowest levels of public approval, is in a position to claim the total subservience of the presidential nominee for one of America's two major parties, and Grover Norquist is ready to assume the subservience of Congress. The election outcome being a dead heat so far, Norquist has reasons to be smug. The Republican power brokers can count on a base that fanatically hates Barack Obama, the sleepwalking of the media, a huge advantage of money, and plots to disenfranchise voters in key swing states. Unless Obama can find some hidden votes where they really count, Norquist could very possibly be in charge of the country.
What will a Tea Party congress and a compliant president do? The stated goal of the Republican Party is to reduce {down to virtually nothing) taxes, government spending, and regulations. Then we will all be free, in an armed and theoretically polite society, to win or lose according to our abilities. The best and brightest will rise to the top, the mediocrities and inferiors will sink below, but we will all be better off in the long run as the free market works its magic. A millennium of unforeseen plenty will commence. Not everyone agrees with this celestial vision, but with the half the likely voters willing to take the gamble, the true believers might very well take power, and we could find out, one way or another.
Tea Partiers believe that if we let the economy, sick or well, run its course, any casualties will be necessary sacrifices, and the sooner we do the dirty work, the sooner we will reach equilibrium, and we can begin to climb upward toward economic rapture. They believe that if we try to "fix" the problem with help from the "nanny state," we will never be free, never have that true lift from the real "job creators." We will create a whole segment of the population that is permanently dependent on government aid, people who would be better off dead (and the rest of us would be better off with them dead). The makers of wealth among us will be permanently crippled, leaving the whole human race in a state of weakness, poverty, and darkness. Let the losers simply die so the winners can make a world where we all live better. Thus speak the true believers. This theory has its appeal. Who among us can't think of some "losers" who should just die in a world where the natural laws are right all the time? Of course, our perspectives change when we contemplate that some people surely feel the same way toward us.
In fact, natural laws have little effect on economics, a completely man-made, inexact science, subject to constant revision. Laws of nature such as weather, tectonics, and human error, visit their horrors on communist and capitalist societies alike. To lessen these horrors, we have formed social contracts to help one another.
There is a strong temptation to experience that total freedom, of turning us all loose, independent and undependable, to do our utmost. This is the freedom of driving mountain roads at breakneck speed, knowing at any moment the end could come--or of ingesting psychedelic drugs, and seeing what's in there. These excursions in defiance of common sense are widespread--probably they keep us as a race fairly sane. These are individual adventures, and though most of us survive them, till we live on this planet, under the troposphere, eating, drinking, breathing, and associating with our fellows, who must do the same.
We know that unmitigated free enterprise has been attempted before, and carried to its logical conclusion it has only resulted in depressions or wars, of unimaginable destruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that any wars or depressions have eliminated inferior and unnecessary people from the world, our history universally records that they increase human misery. To alleviate or prevent these dreadful manmade incidences, people have sought collective remedies, through their social contracts, their governments. No manmade remedies have been thoroughly successful. But to renounce them, to turn back to systems that have been tried before and are known to fail, is the very definition of insanity. Yet Grover Norquist believes that we can avoid all the pitfalls this time. We would do well not to share his pipe dream. It could be a nationwide bummer.
Friday, July 27, 2012
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR GOVERNMENT
"Money is the mother's milk of politics."
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse Unruh
The difference between free speech and bribery ought to be obvious to everyone, though five-ninths of the Supreme Court seems a trifle confused. As a result of the Court's "Citizens' United" decision, our country is flooded by political money (much of it secret) which we all know is expected to buy elections. Though we try to control it, propaganda is quite effective at controlling populations, and nobody knows this better than advertisers and the corporations that employ them. Dictatorships of the past tried to eliminate public information that ran country to their creeds. Now the ones in control need only bury any opposition with overwhelming volume and output.
If a citizen donates a small amount to a political candidate, he does so because he wants to elect a candidate whose viewpoint and governing philosophy generally agree with his own. If a citizen donates a large amount, he is expecting from that politician special considerations which will benefit him financially. The exact amount that differentiates between a small, helpful donation, and one which will directly net financial rewards, varies, depending on individual politicians. But in the case of really large donations, the meaning is obvious. For over a century now, some citizens have sought to control or eliminate these huge donations. But now the Supreme Court tells us this is unconstitutional, that corporations are human and money is the same as free speech. And now, to no one's surprise, political spending, especially on the corporate side, has grown like an invasive plant.
Very wealthy individuals, and the corporations they control, can afford large political donations. To a billionaire, hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions cause less hardship than ten or twenty dollars would for average working stiffs. To them, these are investments, and the system is rigged so they always get them back. If their candidate wins, their investment realizes a quick return. If they lose, recovery takes a little longer. But economics in the U.S.A. always benefits the wealthy, and always has. Even in the depths of the New Deal, the rich made out quite well. They were made to share, but workers started buying things the rich were selling again, so they did just fine. Greed knows no limits, however, and those who succumb to its allure must have it all. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the greedy are in a better position to get it than they have been since the late nineteenth century.
Of course, it can be said that politicians could accept large donations and still vote their consciences, after Unruh's admonitions quoted above. But based on Unruh's benchmarks, quite a few politicians are in the wrong trade. And in modern times, we are no longer dealing in wine, women, and song. The offers from corporate coffers are measured in enough money to swing most elections. Political survival depends on keeping people in the boardrooms happy. A politician will fit the bill, or the moneyed interests will find someone who can.
Bribery by any other name still stinks. And the brand unleashed by the Supreme Court has already raised a foul reek, toxic to the concept of government by people. Should there be another way to spin this rank situation, it might be worth the amusement to hear it. The supporters of corporate bribery say anyone can play the game, provided they have the money. It just happens that only big business has that kind of money, and big businessmen have exhibited no interest in sharing. We have reached that Orwellian state whence all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Corporations, owning and totally consuming the media, will dominate politics without opposition, and corporate interests will run government for their sole benefit. This is the quintessence of fascism, as supported by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the proposed constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people will be passed. It is making headway, and most Americans support it. But in a corporate state, things people want are of less than minimal importance. As time goes by and the burial of all media in corporate money re-iterates the party line again and again, Americans will hear less and less of opposition. For this reason, the election of 2012 is incredibly important. The republic, which our founders warned us we must work to keep, is under direct and severe threat. About half the voters (usually, about half the people who could vote do) believe a strong corporate state is a good idea. Those who disagree need to make every effort to restore a healthy republic. Should the corporate elite, the one percent, consolidate power, those who honestly believe in government by the people will be in a terrible position. America is at a place where two roads diverge. The one we choose will make all the difference.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
THIS IS ONE HAPPY FAMILY, ALL RIGHT
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life...the children; those who are in the twilight of life...the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life...the sick, the needy, and the disabled." Hubert Humphrey
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
--In this Depression, we debate the practicality (not the morality) of public works to stimulate employment while the private marketplace has misplaced its magic. Leftists call for more New Deal projects, funded by government through borrowing and taxes on high incomes. Right-wingers claim that make-work does little to alleviate long-term unemployment, and that government must reduce spending so that a solid dollar will eventually restore confidence. Comparing a country to a family, which in hard times must cut back on spending, conservatives hold that government must do the same. Austerity seems to make sense, in a traditional family values way. But the argument is deceptively simple, so it can be used to deceive.
--The austerity position's simplicity ignores the actual concept of family. In the first place, when the family is financially strapped, does Dad get a new Cadillac? Does he get to buy new guns? While Grandma and the kids are doing without, does Dad get a new yacht? And what about Junior? He just got home from the wars, and is having problems adjusting. And then there's that teen-aged daughter, who somehow got herself in a "family way." The family analogies can go on and on. What we have here is not a hard-up family, but one with psychopathically misplaced priorities.
--People who use the "horse sense" family analogy relate to the Tea Party, still live in relative comfort, and tell other people to practice austerity. Perceiving no threat to themselves, they feel government spending only means higher taxes for useless programs. Poverty, unemployment, sickness, homelessness are things that happen to other people, other families. As to the country they compare the family to--well, their country is doing just fine. Somebody else's country (a country that elected a president who does not belong) is asking for government handouts, and might need to be cast adrift. People in the right country, the ones with "horse sense" need no government help...never did. Delusional fallacies are hard to refute with facts. The Tea Partiers' most dangerous delusion has to be that they share a love of rugged individualism with the ruling elite in America, believing the rulers will not use them to divide the workers from each other, and having done so, continue robbing everyone. History shows that in the latter nineteenth century, before Mussolini actually defined fascism as the merging of government with corporations, we had that situation in America. And those no-nonsense Americans helped the plutocrats to power, and were paid rather poorly for it.
--Using that horse sense, we turned a wilderness continent into a land of productive farms and factories, simultaneously denuding forests, polluting the sky, and turning rivers into flaming cesspools. At the same time a tiny minority hijacked most of the continent's wealth, to the country's economic and social detriment. We learned our lesson and delivered the New Deal, but in the last thirty or forty years, collective amnesia has taken hold. Ignoring the past, we are dooming ourselves to repeat it. The world is changing though, and despite the fact some of us still retain material comforts, rapid change makes emotional and mental comfort hard to find. Electronic media put us all in instant touch with everyone, allowing the world to intrude on what we thought had been a pretty nice situation. The tendency to circle the wagons and keep out the rest of the world is growing, though the world is already inside the circle. Any attempt to secure a bright future based on an unrealistic sense of the past has already failed.
--The past the Tea Partiers are seeking is that halcyon time when they felt they shared with the heads of major corporations the same values: hard work and self-reliance. Television heroes such as Jim Anderson, Ward Cleaver, and Jim Newton weren't rich, but they earned a living, just like the wholesome, no-nonsense Americans who watched them. And times were getting better. The people who did not share in the boom times: minorities, foreigners, people who were different--still received more than they deserved. But now, those who were left out are getting in, and the boom times are over. The good times, the Tea Partiers believe, cannot return until the social and economic scales are restored to what they were. Bring back prosperity by eliminating gains made by people who never really earned them anyway--how deceptively simple.
--But will the corporate heads, the tremendously wealthy, the one percent, willing give up the gains they have made since those good old days? Common sense says "No." So much for family values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)