Alright, this should be the last time that anyone should have to listen to the tortured ravings of right-wingers spewing forth about their patriotic love of America. All the self-styled leaders of conservadom at present; Limbaugh, Beck, Kristol, Drudge (pick your poison), have been literally dancing with glee about Chicago's failed bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. All these mental midgets (and many others), were literally beside themselves with rapture that America's entry to host the Games was rejected. We get it guys (and gals), deep down you just apparently really despise America, so let's not hear ever again a single word about your patriotic fervor. Not one single word, ever!
It's actually really sad when you consider that this is about the only thing the rabid right has to puff out its chest about, the Olympics, a sporting event. It's really quite pathetic. Just consider a couple of their recent ravings. Weekly Standard editor John McCormack, who apparently routinely walks around in some alternative universe devoid of reality, crowed, "As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed..." Keep in mind that this drivel is from the editor of the very same paper that cheered and beat the drums for Bush's illegal invasion and domination of Iraq! Iraq, as in, another nation. Second, what does supporting your nation's one bid to host the Olympics have to do with undermining relationships with its allies?? Oh, that's right, nothing! It's hard to imagine how anyone could concoct a more ridiculous utterance. McCormack wouldn't know reality if it was a bat that someone used to beat him over the head. Then we have this headline from Matt Drudge, "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED." Only in the tiny mind of Matt Drudge could a small, insular, idiosyncratic clique of old men (the IOC) be confused with the WORLD. Apparently this entire wing-nut crowd is functioning in the few-neuron regime.
As most sanguine commentators have noted, the single most important factor in the decision to award the games to Rio is that the Games have never been hosted in a South American country. Sorry folks, no World rejection of Obama, no undermining of relationships with allies. South America never had Olympics, Rio in South America, get it? I didn't think so.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Failure to Learn
The hubris knows no bounds. The United States is now approaching eight years of its Afghanistan adventure, with a thoroughly predictable outcome. Defeat. The Taliban were so easily "defeated" initially because, as indigenous forces are wont to do, they simply melted back into the country-side, and decided to bide their time, to fight another day. Six years of waiting and gathering strength, coupled with six years of American neglect and incompetence have now provided the conditions where the Taliban feel they will be able to reassert control over much of the country. What did the United States do with it's initial "victory?" Did it turn the bulk of its aid to Afghanistan to economic and social development for that desperately poor country, to win the support of the population? Did it support the nascent democratic organizations and institutions that had existed before the Taliban, to empower these groups to lead the political and economic development of the country? No, the United States did none of these things. The bulk of its aid remains military assistance. It installed a corrupt government, and did nothing to reduce the influence of warlords and militias on average Afghanis. It routinely resorted to massive firepower, including indiscriminate air-strikes, when engaging Taliban militants, with the predictable killing of many innocent Afghan civilians. The latter has done much to turn the population against the American project and is a veritable recruiting boon to the Taliban. One would be hard-pressed to devise a more counterproductive strategy.
While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.
However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."
So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?
While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.
However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."
So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
"No Matter What Your Purpose Is..."
What happens when the cops are the criminals? What happens when lawless cops with truncheons, mace, tear-gas, hobnailed boots, and "less-lethal ammunition" decide that you are no longer allowed to simply walk the streets of your own campus? This is what happens. Welcome to the Police State known as the University of Pittsburgh campus.
The only criminals evident in this video are the "rioting police," whose Chief apparently decided that he had the authority to suspend the US constitution, and, by fiat, to deny the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The segments of the video where the police commands are being broadcast are truly chilling. Where is the option for redress of grievances as it is declared that, "The Chief of Police has declared this an unlawful assembly." By what authority does the Chief of Police suspend the highest law in the land, and deny people the right to peacefully walk freely about? Then, "no matter what your purpose, you must disperse..." One can only guess at what the phrase, "other police action," is meant to suggest. No doubt a baton to the head, a taser dart to the chest or a rubber bullet to the back. This is the most chilling type of arbitrary authority imaginable, and would be unthinkable in a true democracy.
Is it really necessary for black-clad stormtroopers to invade the peaceful University of Pittsburgh campus, and attack students just walking and gathering? True, the G-20 summit is taking place in Pittsburgh, but that gives Police the right to riot and attack innocent citizens? The behavior of these cops is simply appalling, but who does one turn to when the cops are the criminals? What justice will these common thugs face?
The only criminals evident in this video are the "rioting police," whose Chief apparently decided that he had the authority to suspend the US constitution, and, by fiat, to deny the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The segments of the video where the police commands are being broadcast are truly chilling. Where is the option for redress of grievances as it is declared that, "The Chief of Police has declared this an unlawful assembly." By what authority does the Chief of Police suspend the highest law in the land, and deny people the right to peacefully walk freely about? Then, "no matter what your purpose, you must disperse..." One can only guess at what the phrase, "other police action," is meant to suggest. No doubt a baton to the head, a taser dart to the chest or a rubber bullet to the back. This is the most chilling type of arbitrary authority imaginable, and would be unthinkable in a true democracy.
Is it really necessary for black-clad stormtroopers to invade the peaceful University of Pittsburgh campus, and attack students just walking and gathering? True, the G-20 summit is taking place in Pittsburgh, but that gives Police the right to riot and attack innocent citizens? The behavior of these cops is simply appalling, but who does one turn to when the cops are the criminals? What justice will these common thugs face?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
With Friends Like That...
It's so easy to beat up on the poor. The latest skirmish in the ongoing class war of the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless is the targeting of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for the apparent misconduct of some of its employees evident in videos created as part of what might accurately be called a right-wing "sting" operation, the apparent goal of which was to smear the organization and attempt to bring about some type of legal sanction against it. While at face value the conduct evidenced by some of the ACORN employees is indeed reprehensible, one should be mindful that these videos were apparently created and edited with the explicit aim of casting the organization in the worst possible light. One should also keep in mind that there were numerous similar attempts to "entrap" ACORN workers, and indeed at several sites the sting operators apparently found little joy. For a little more balance and perspective than you are likely to find on Fox News, see ACORN head Bertha Lewis's response to the recent firestorm of criticism.
While the right-wing architects of these efforts would probably have been pleased with a general smearing of the reputation of ACORN, they were no doubt giddy upon learning that the Senate, by an 83-7 vote, had moved to bar further government grants to ACORN. And now their glee must have truly turned to wing-nut rapture as the House has similarly voted, this time 345-75, to bar federal funding to the organization. Wow, it's really quite remarkable, here is a small, non-profit organization that, as Glenn Greenwald points out, has perhaps been the recipient of a total of about 50 million federal dollars over the last 15 years, and, without any of its employees having been accused of a crime in a court of law, has apparently already been tried and convicted by the same governing Parties in Congress that have been the perpetrators and enablers of truly epic illegality over the last eight years. The CEOs of KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater (now Xe), to name just a few of the corporate pirates in charge of our government, must be laughing all the way to their banks stuffed with ill-gotten billions and billions of federal no-bid contracts. Those who now sit in judgement of ACORN are the same Parties who were happy to funnel trillions of dollars of federal funds to their client, "too big to fail," Wall Street banks in order to make whole the lost bets they made with other peoples money. The chutzpah and sanctimony here are truly off the Richter scale.
The attack on the poor, and its accompanying hypocrisy is truly bipartisan. Republicans have long sought to cripple ACORN because it's actually been successful in promoting democracy. That is, in helping to enfranchise poor and minority communities, constituencies which tend to vote reliably for Democrats. Apparently Republicans are only for promoting democracy when it can be used as a pretext to enable an illegal, immoral war. Meanwhile, you really don't want to be a friend of the Democrats, do you? Just look how you're treated. ACORN was successful in registering millions of new voters, a majority of whom likely voted for Democratic candidates in the last election, but the instant there are some potentially damaging allegations brought against the group, no matter the circumstances, the Democratic leadership is more than happy to throw ACORN under the proverbial bus. As the saying goes, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.
The entire episode just further reinforces the failure of our now corporate-controlled government. Groups that aid constituencies which the Federal government has long abandoned must scratch and claw for the most meager of support, whereas corporate oligarchs are feted like kings, and wealthy corporations can look forward to the next round of no-bid, socialism-for-the-rich contracts, all at taxpayer expense. Torturers can admit their crimes, indeed brag about them, but not a peep is heard from the leadership of either corporate Party. It is a sorry spectacle indeed.
While the right-wing architects of these efforts would probably have been pleased with a general smearing of the reputation of ACORN, they were no doubt giddy upon learning that the Senate, by an 83-7 vote, had moved to bar further government grants to ACORN. And now their glee must have truly turned to wing-nut rapture as the House has similarly voted, this time 345-75, to bar federal funding to the organization. Wow, it's really quite remarkable, here is a small, non-profit organization that, as Glenn Greenwald points out, has perhaps been the recipient of a total of about 50 million federal dollars over the last 15 years, and, without any of its employees having been accused of a crime in a court of law, has apparently already been tried and convicted by the same governing Parties in Congress that have been the perpetrators and enablers of truly epic illegality over the last eight years. The CEOs of KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater (now Xe), to name just a few of the corporate pirates in charge of our government, must be laughing all the way to their banks stuffed with ill-gotten billions and billions of federal no-bid contracts. Those who now sit in judgement of ACORN are the same Parties who were happy to funnel trillions of dollars of federal funds to their client, "too big to fail," Wall Street banks in order to make whole the lost bets they made with other peoples money. The chutzpah and sanctimony here are truly off the Richter scale.
The attack on the poor, and its accompanying hypocrisy is truly bipartisan. Republicans have long sought to cripple ACORN because it's actually been successful in promoting democracy. That is, in helping to enfranchise poor and minority communities, constituencies which tend to vote reliably for Democrats. Apparently Republicans are only for promoting democracy when it can be used as a pretext to enable an illegal, immoral war. Meanwhile, you really don't want to be a friend of the Democrats, do you? Just look how you're treated. ACORN was successful in registering millions of new voters, a majority of whom likely voted for Democratic candidates in the last election, but the instant there are some potentially damaging allegations brought against the group, no matter the circumstances, the Democratic leadership is more than happy to throw ACORN under the proverbial bus. As the saying goes, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.
The entire episode just further reinforces the failure of our now corporate-controlled government. Groups that aid constituencies which the Federal government has long abandoned must scratch and claw for the most meager of support, whereas corporate oligarchs are feted like kings, and wealthy corporations can look forward to the next round of no-bid, socialism-for-the-rich contracts, all at taxpayer expense. Torturers can admit their crimes, indeed brag about them, but not a peep is heard from the leadership of either corporate Party. It is a sorry spectacle indeed.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Because Nothing Inspires Confidence Like Failure
If you still were not quite sure who President Obama really holds closest to his heart, banksters or working folk, then this little bit of news should clear it up for you. The AP is announcing that Obama will soon reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second four year term. While the appointment requires Senate confirmation, does anyone out there really think the Senate cares for working folk more than banksters? Thus, you can rest assured that "Bailout Ben" will remain at the tiller of the Fed, dishing out taxpayer cash to his bankster buddies for the forseeable future. I don't know about you, but I'll be sleeping easy tonight, as apparently so will lots of bankers and Wall-Streeters that Obama was again so keen to appease.
I urge you to give Philip Elliott's piece a read. It's a paragon of the "professional journalism" that dominates main stream corporate media nowadays, and whose sole purpose would appear to be the servicing of the rich and powerful. After stating that Bernanke will be reappointed, Elliott then describes Bernanke's apparent accomplishments with the following glowing text, all in the first two short paragraphs, "...as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position from which he guided the economy away from its worst recession since the 1930s and, the White House hopes, toward an economic recovery critical to its legacy. Widely credited with taking aggressive action to avert an economic catastrophe after the financial meltdown last year..." Well, you get the point. If you had slept through the last few years and found yourself reading this piece you might think Ben Bernanke didn't share any of the blame for bringing on a financial disaster of epic proportions. That he wasn't "asleep at the wheel" while ostensibly Fed-regulated banks over-exposed themselves to risky economic weapons of mass destruction, like credit default swaps and other toxic mortgage-backed securities. That he didn't stand by, watch it all happen, do little, but then commit trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds to try and clean up the mess. Oh, and as for the economy being "guided" away from recession, the jury still seems to be out on that one.
As for whom is "widely crediting" Bernanke with rescuing the financial system, and from whom he "received heaps of praise..., for his handling of the crisis," well, Elliott is a little less specific on that. But fear not, Elliott assures us that Bernanke is not "without his detractors," but if you were looking for any more specific criticism, maybe even just a smidgen of the many column inches detailing Bernanke's malfeasance, then you were sure to be disappointed. So, here are a few sanguine comments from Bernanke critic Dean Baker just for fun. I guess it's just more of the "Change We Need."
I urge you to give Philip Elliott's piece a read. It's a paragon of the "professional journalism" that dominates main stream corporate media nowadays, and whose sole purpose would appear to be the servicing of the rich and powerful. After stating that Bernanke will be reappointed, Elliott then describes Bernanke's apparent accomplishments with the following glowing text, all in the first two short paragraphs, "...as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position from which he guided the economy away from its worst recession since the 1930s and, the White House hopes, toward an economic recovery critical to its legacy. Widely credited with taking aggressive action to avert an economic catastrophe after the financial meltdown last year..." Well, you get the point. If you had slept through the last few years and found yourself reading this piece you might think Ben Bernanke didn't share any of the blame for bringing on a financial disaster of epic proportions. That he wasn't "asleep at the wheel" while ostensibly Fed-regulated banks over-exposed themselves to risky economic weapons of mass destruction, like credit default swaps and other toxic mortgage-backed securities. That he didn't stand by, watch it all happen, do little, but then commit trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds to try and clean up the mess. Oh, and as for the economy being "guided" away from recession, the jury still seems to be out on that one.
As for whom is "widely crediting" Bernanke with rescuing the financial system, and from whom he "received heaps of praise..., for his handling of the crisis," well, Elliott is a little less specific on that. But fear not, Elliott assures us that Bernanke is not "without his detractors," but if you were looking for any more specific criticism, maybe even just a smidgen of the many column inches detailing Bernanke's malfeasance, then you were sure to be disappointed. So, here are a few sanguine comments from Bernanke critic Dean Baker just for fun. I guess it's just more of the "Change We Need."
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Democracy in Name Only
The American political system is completely broken. Democracy has long since been usurped by plutocracy. If you're one of those who still thinks your vote matters or that the system can still function for the average American, then you are either; 1) hopelessly uninformed. 2) completely brainwashed. 3) brain dead.
While the signs of the death of American democracy have been evident for some time, they have come into glaring focus in the last few months as the health care reform debate has taken center stage. The problems are clear to anyone with eyes to see. The United States spends much more on health care than any nation with which it likes to compare itself. Let's call these our peer nations for lack of a better term. Amongst these industrialized peers the US is virtually near the bottom in most indicators of the efficiency and efficacy of its health care system. Upwards of 50 million citizens have no access to health care. Take note, lest you think this is some irrelevant group of fellow citizens, it would be as if an entire nation somewhere between the size of France or Spain, had no access to health care. If you still remain unmoved, and, like Rush Limbaugh, would rather blame the ill or needy for their own plight, then consider the recent report on Bill Moyer's Journal about what it means to have no access to health care. In a word, it is appalling, and a national disgrace.
Spiraling health care costs are also threatening America's economic future. Indeed, health care costs have been growing at well above the inflation rate for some time, and now threaten the competitiveness of American employers, large and small. Every other of our peer nations has long since decided that all their citizens have a right to good medical care, and that this is consistent with health care being a right that accrues to all people, by virtue of their humanity, and nothing else. A comfortable majority of Americans also believe this, and wish to see a change in the way health care is delivered in this country. And yet, facing this problem for which there is near universal agreement that a change in the status quo is essential, the elected government appears powerless in the face of the minority corporate interests who are the only ones who benefit from perpetuation of the status quo. If the government cannot even adequately address an issue of such importance to all it's citizens, then what problems could it possibly solve?
The primary crisis facing American democracy is that the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) have long since stopped representing the interests of average citizens, rather, they almost exclusively govern at the whim of monied, corporate interests. There are numerous reasons for this, but several of the most relevant include; 1) These same interests fill the campaign coffers of both Parties, enabling the funding of the expensive public relations exercises that pass for political campaigns in this country. 2) A large fraction of candidates are drawn from groups of people that largely share the same interests as these corporate and wealthy constituencies. While this is especially true of Republican candidates, it is also largely true of Democrats as well. Not convinced, simply consider the US Senate, about half of whose members are millionaires, and which has an average net worth of between 8 and 9 million dollars. 3) The vast majority of media outlets that "inform" and shape American opinion are owned and controlled by corporate interests that share the same goals and ideology. This is the same corporate-owned media that "manufactures consent," and makes sure that corporate aims are always positively represented in their content. Indeed, you've probably never heard the term "manufacturing consent," one of the concepts ellucidated in the many writings of Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely cited intellectual in the world, but whose voice fellow Americans are systematically deprived of because he speaks truths which are in direct opposition to the corporate status quo. In fact, the exclusion of Chomsky from American media outlets is perhaps no better proof of his very critique of American corporate media.
Once in office the major party candidates overwhelming support a corporate agenda, but--at least this part hasn't changed yet--they still have to get elected. So how do they do it? Well, put simply, they try to talk a good game, and no one has been better at it in recent memory than our current President Barack Obama. Obama's soaring rhetoric was geared to capitalize on the deep, and justified, dissatisfaction with the Bush years. Among his principle campaign points were his promises around ending involvement in the Iraq war, as well as pushing a health care reform agenda. However, once in office it appears increasingly clear that the actions of the Obama administration do not match, or even come close, to the campaign rhetoric. And nowhere is this more clear than in his, and the Democratic Party's, efforts around health care reform.
Almost from the beginning the administration's actions have been one of attempting at all costs to placate their corporate clients in the health care and insurance industries. Obama has met with CEO's of all these entities, and on numerous occasions, and then sought to keep the records of whom was visiting the White House from public view. So much for transparency, which was supposedly going to be another hallmark of his presidency. Then came word of the "deal" reached between the White House and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, ostensibly giving them the "windfall" that the Government would not use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate the best (read lowest) price for it's consumers, that is, we the taxpayers! Funny, I thought price negotiation was a core principle of a Capitalist free market system. From the outset, the "Obama plan," as much as we know about it, was seemingly geared to take care of corporate concerns before the health care concerns of most Americans. As in, let's reform health care so as to further increase the profit margins of insurance and drug companies!
No doubt there is a wing of the Democratic Party that does not act reflexively at the beck and call of corporate interests, but this minority group has routinely been played for suckers, promised that their concerns would be acted on, but then eventually rolled by the Party "pragmatists," epitomized by Obama's choice for White House chief of staff, fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel. The same story is now playing out in the health care reform debacle, but with more devastating consequences. See the spot-on discussion by Glenn Greenwald. Indeed, it appears that the Party is more interested in appeasing Republican whack-jobs like unrepentant "deather" Chuck Grassley, who famously warned his constituents that they had every right to fear Sarah Palin's imagined "death panels," than the very people responsible for electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention returning the White House to a Democrat.
While the Democrats hold the White House and both houses of Congress with comfortable majorities, they appear remarkably "weak" in attempting to pass reform on an issue with such broad public support and importance. How can this be in a supposed democracy? Again, the "weakness" is that the interests of corporations and money carry much more weight on Capitol Hill and in the White House than the interests of average Americans. Democrats can equivocate, offering no end of laughable excuses for why they can't seem to do the people's business, but in the end the only reason that doesn't illicit chuckles is the fact that they are just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. Indeed, the present leadership in the Democratic Party appears set on maintaining political control by becoming more like the Republican Party than by expanding its appeal amongst working class and progressive constituencies. Another corrosive dynamic is that each Party seeks above all else to simply maintain its political hold on power. While such political calculating is to be expected at some level, it has completely trumped any service to the nation as a whole. Is it any wonder then that people feel completely cut off from their own government?
There is a minority that benefit from the status quo, these are the insurance and health care corporations and their clients who have made a killing out of denying care to Americans and turning treatment of the sick and infirm into a for-profit business. While they represent a minority of voters, their influence is greatly amplified by the power their money purchases on Capitol Hill, and the influence of media campaigns and exposure that they are able to fund and which corporate media allies gladly promulgate. Much of these media campaigns rely on myths and distortions regarding health care that are repeated endlessly. No doubt the support for reform and universal coverage would be greater still if not for the success of these propaganda campaigns.
So, is there any way to breach the corporate gridlock which is presently suffocating American democracy? There is no hope in the Republican Party. For many years they have been completely at the service of wealth and power. The only way they have been able to achieve occasional electoral successes is by mobilizing sufficient social conservative (think God, Guns and Gays) constituencies (themselves a minority), while politically suppressing their opponents at all turns. Even so, time, and the changing demographics of America seem set to continue to force Republicans (thankfully) into the minority. This leaves the Democratic Party or some alternative. Unless the present Party leadership can be retired or replaced with more progressive representatives, it does not appear that this dead-lock will be relieved any time soon. The elimination of corporate and special interest money from elections would be a useful step, but the well-heeled have always found a way to make their resources tell, and there is no reason to think this would not continue. The only real solution will be pressure from popular movements and demands. As Frederick Douglas famously stated, "power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will." We must never stop demanding.
While the signs of the death of American democracy have been evident for some time, they have come into glaring focus in the last few months as the health care reform debate has taken center stage. The problems are clear to anyone with eyes to see. The United States spends much more on health care than any nation with which it likes to compare itself. Let's call these our peer nations for lack of a better term. Amongst these industrialized peers the US is virtually near the bottom in most indicators of the efficiency and efficacy of its health care system. Upwards of 50 million citizens have no access to health care. Take note, lest you think this is some irrelevant group of fellow citizens, it would be as if an entire nation somewhere between the size of France or Spain, had no access to health care. If you still remain unmoved, and, like Rush Limbaugh, would rather blame the ill or needy for their own plight, then consider the recent report on Bill Moyer's Journal about what it means to have no access to health care. In a word, it is appalling, and a national disgrace.
Spiraling health care costs are also threatening America's economic future. Indeed, health care costs have been growing at well above the inflation rate for some time, and now threaten the competitiveness of American employers, large and small. Every other of our peer nations has long since decided that all their citizens have a right to good medical care, and that this is consistent with health care being a right that accrues to all people, by virtue of their humanity, and nothing else. A comfortable majority of Americans also believe this, and wish to see a change in the way health care is delivered in this country. And yet, facing this problem for which there is near universal agreement that a change in the status quo is essential, the elected government appears powerless in the face of the minority corporate interests who are the only ones who benefit from perpetuation of the status quo. If the government cannot even adequately address an issue of such importance to all it's citizens, then what problems could it possibly solve?
The primary crisis facing American democracy is that the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) have long since stopped representing the interests of average citizens, rather, they almost exclusively govern at the whim of monied, corporate interests. There are numerous reasons for this, but several of the most relevant include; 1) These same interests fill the campaign coffers of both Parties, enabling the funding of the expensive public relations exercises that pass for political campaigns in this country. 2) A large fraction of candidates are drawn from groups of people that largely share the same interests as these corporate and wealthy constituencies. While this is especially true of Republican candidates, it is also largely true of Democrats as well. Not convinced, simply consider the US Senate, about half of whose members are millionaires, and which has an average net worth of between 8 and 9 million dollars. 3) The vast majority of media outlets that "inform" and shape American opinion are owned and controlled by corporate interests that share the same goals and ideology. This is the same corporate-owned media that "manufactures consent," and makes sure that corporate aims are always positively represented in their content. Indeed, you've probably never heard the term "manufacturing consent," one of the concepts ellucidated in the many writings of Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely cited intellectual in the world, but whose voice fellow Americans are systematically deprived of because he speaks truths which are in direct opposition to the corporate status quo. In fact, the exclusion of Chomsky from American media outlets is perhaps no better proof of his very critique of American corporate media.
Once in office the major party candidates overwhelming support a corporate agenda, but--at least this part hasn't changed yet--they still have to get elected. So how do they do it? Well, put simply, they try to talk a good game, and no one has been better at it in recent memory than our current President Barack Obama. Obama's soaring rhetoric was geared to capitalize on the deep, and justified, dissatisfaction with the Bush years. Among his principle campaign points were his promises around ending involvement in the Iraq war, as well as pushing a health care reform agenda. However, once in office it appears increasingly clear that the actions of the Obama administration do not match, or even come close, to the campaign rhetoric. And nowhere is this more clear than in his, and the Democratic Party's, efforts around health care reform.
Almost from the beginning the administration's actions have been one of attempting at all costs to placate their corporate clients in the health care and insurance industries. Obama has met with CEO's of all these entities, and on numerous occasions, and then sought to keep the records of whom was visiting the White House from public view. So much for transparency, which was supposedly going to be another hallmark of his presidency. Then came word of the "deal" reached between the White House and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, ostensibly giving them the "windfall" that the Government would not use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate the best (read lowest) price for it's consumers, that is, we the taxpayers! Funny, I thought price negotiation was a core principle of a Capitalist free market system. From the outset, the "Obama plan," as much as we know about it, was seemingly geared to take care of corporate concerns before the health care concerns of most Americans. As in, let's reform health care so as to further increase the profit margins of insurance and drug companies!
No doubt there is a wing of the Democratic Party that does not act reflexively at the beck and call of corporate interests, but this minority group has routinely been played for suckers, promised that their concerns would be acted on, but then eventually rolled by the Party "pragmatists," epitomized by Obama's choice for White House chief of staff, fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel. The same story is now playing out in the health care reform debacle, but with more devastating consequences. See the spot-on discussion by Glenn Greenwald. Indeed, it appears that the Party is more interested in appeasing Republican whack-jobs like unrepentant "deather" Chuck Grassley, who famously warned his constituents that they had every right to fear Sarah Palin's imagined "death panels," than the very people responsible for electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention returning the White House to a Democrat.
While the Democrats hold the White House and both houses of Congress with comfortable majorities, they appear remarkably "weak" in attempting to pass reform on an issue with such broad public support and importance. How can this be in a supposed democracy? Again, the "weakness" is that the interests of corporations and money carry much more weight on Capitol Hill and in the White House than the interests of average Americans. Democrats can equivocate, offering no end of laughable excuses for why they can't seem to do the people's business, but in the end the only reason that doesn't illicit chuckles is the fact that they are just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. Indeed, the present leadership in the Democratic Party appears set on maintaining political control by becoming more like the Republican Party than by expanding its appeal amongst working class and progressive constituencies. Another corrosive dynamic is that each Party seeks above all else to simply maintain its political hold on power. While such political calculating is to be expected at some level, it has completely trumped any service to the nation as a whole. Is it any wonder then that people feel completely cut off from their own government?
There is a minority that benefit from the status quo, these are the insurance and health care corporations and their clients who have made a killing out of denying care to Americans and turning treatment of the sick and infirm into a for-profit business. While they represent a minority of voters, their influence is greatly amplified by the power their money purchases on Capitol Hill, and the influence of media campaigns and exposure that they are able to fund and which corporate media allies gladly promulgate. Much of these media campaigns rely on myths and distortions regarding health care that are repeated endlessly. No doubt the support for reform and universal coverage would be greater still if not for the success of these propaganda campaigns.
So, is there any way to breach the corporate gridlock which is presently suffocating American democracy? There is no hope in the Republican Party. For many years they have been completely at the service of wealth and power. The only way they have been able to achieve occasional electoral successes is by mobilizing sufficient social conservative (think God, Guns and Gays) constituencies (themselves a minority), while politically suppressing their opponents at all turns. Even so, time, and the changing demographics of America seem set to continue to force Republicans (thankfully) into the minority. This leaves the Democratic Party or some alternative. Unless the present Party leadership can be retired or replaced with more progressive representatives, it does not appear that this dead-lock will be relieved any time soon. The elimination of corporate and special interest money from elections would be a useful step, but the well-heeled have always found a way to make their resources tell, and there is no reason to think this would not continue. The only real solution will be pressure from popular movements and demands. As Frederick Douglas famously stated, "power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will." We must never stop demanding.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Welcome to Idiot America
Well, they are back. You may recall some months ago the whole "teabagger" phenomenon, a set of small-scale protests around President Obama's stimulus spending legislation and Tax Day (April 15). Groups of conservative protesters were apparently channeling the spirits of Boston's original Tea Party revolutionaries, determined to free America, from well, it' own government. Trouble was these modern day teabaggers apparently had no clue as to what the original Boston Tea Party was all about. The teabagging events were pumped up way beyond their actual impact, judging from the number of individuals actually involved. Several right wing conservative media outlets, principally Fox News, were largely to blame for the overblown media attention devoted to the whole disingenuous spectacle. For a quick review have a look at this informative and hilarious segment from the Rachel Maddow show.
Now, the teabagger "movement" appears to be coming back for round two, this time "organized" around the debate on health care reform. Protesters have disrupted several "town hall" meetings organized by Democratic members of Congress, and as with some of the teabagger events, these health care protests have quickly taken on an aggressive, threatening, and in some instances, a downright ugly tone (note the protester with swastika-emblazoned sign). As to what bringing health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it has to do with nazism, well, I'll have to leave that to the fertile imagination of readers.
And similarly with the teabaggers, this new round of conservative protests, ostensibly representing true grass roots organizing, appears to be partly spearheaded by several right wing front groups, including FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader, and newly minted global warming expert, Richard (Dick) Armey. The modus operandi of these "astro-turf" groups is to funnel conservative money into favorite right wing causes while attempting to give a veneer of grass roots respectability to the effort. In most cases the veneer turns out to be razor thin indeed.
Another unifying theme in these right wing efforts to turn back the clock is an almost unbelievable lack of substance combined with simple fabrication of facts and evidence. Put simply, these "protesters" seemingly don't have a clue about what they are actually protesting. In my previous post I discussed several classic examples of right wing dissembling on health care reform, but here is another recent example from none other than conservative darling and newly unemployed governor Sarah Palin. Remarking on her facebook page about the President's reform efforts, Palin had the following contribution to informed debate about health care;
This statement is simply despicable for its level of falsehood, idiocy and demagoguery. No one in the Administration, or anywhere else for that matter, has suggested that government bureaucrats would have anything to do with medical decisions. Indeed, the government funded Medicare program, a form of national health insurance, is amongst the most popular of government programs. There are no "death panels," arbitrating health care decisions for Medicare, only doctors. A similar circumstance exists in the national health programs of many other Nations, where only doctors are involved in patient's health care decisions. Ironically, the only place where putative "death panels" exist are in the boardrooms of private insurance companies, where corporate bureaucrats actually do make life and death decisions about health care.
No, the America that Sarah Palin apparently loves is the one where 50 million people have no easy access to health care and where people have to fight tooth and nail against corporate bureaucrats to get the care they need. The America that Sarah Palin loves is the one where almost 20,000 people die annually because of a lack of access to health care. Apparently, Sarah Palin has already passed judgment, and decided that these unfortunate souls do not have the requisite "level of productivity in society," to warrant her support. How ironic that Palin should talk about such evil when the truth is that the real evil is a for-profit health care system. Why is it that we never hear right wing mouthpieces talking about the real, documented "evils" of the present system?
Another revealing example of the tortured "logic" around some of the health care protests was provided by events at a town hall sponsored by Representative Gene Green (D-Tex). The assembled group of protesters indicated they were opposed to “... any form of socialized or government-run health care.” When subsequently asked by Representative Green how many of them were on Medicare a large fraction of hands shot up, apparently with no indication of the irony. As a friend explained it to me, "It's like they're living zombies. They are protesting the very teat they are suckling on!" If one expected more rational arguments from some Republicans in Congress then I am sorry to disappoint you. Their most recent contribution being the complete fabrication of an argument that reform would lead to euthanasia of the elderly. Talk about seeking the high ground.
So, since facts are so notably absent in any of these arguments, then what is the real basis for the opposition to health care reform, and more generally, apparently anything that President Obama has proposed? As with most things, the answers concern power and control. Privileged, wealthy, and reactionary interests--including corporate elites--see their power and position challenged and waning, and so they are fighting back with everything they can muster. The primary fuels for these right wing attacks are fear, ignorance and hate. And unfortunately, they feed upon the racism and xenophobia that is still present in America, despite right wing claims about a post-racial era.
An unfortunate and significant component in this ongoing assault on democracy is the almost complete demonization of rational thinking. Conservative talking heads, with significant corporate media support, have managed to create the now widespread cultural perception that to be smart, and indeed competent, is a bad thing, think "liberal elitist." This disturbing and dangerous state of affairs is described in Charles Pierce's recent book, "Idiot America." PZ Myers (pharyngula) has a nice review if you want to decide to give it a read. This situation is so dire that a major political party--do I need to identify it?--has essentially jettisoned the notion that it's politicians and representatives should be able to think rationally. As proof just consider that Party's recent candidate for the 2nd highest office in the land. Any Party that would work to elect a candidate with the lack of substance of a Sarah Palin does not deserve the support of rational voters. If this trend of the "dumbing down" of America is not reversed, the future will only be bleaker than the present.
Now, the teabagger "movement" appears to be coming back for round two, this time "organized" around the debate on health care reform. Protesters have disrupted several "town hall" meetings organized by Democratic members of Congress, and as with some of the teabagger events, these health care protests have quickly taken on an aggressive, threatening, and in some instances, a downright ugly tone (note the protester with swastika-emblazoned sign). As to what bringing health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it has to do with nazism, well, I'll have to leave that to the fertile imagination of readers.
And similarly with the teabaggers, this new round of conservative protests, ostensibly representing true grass roots organizing, appears to be partly spearheaded by several right wing front groups, including FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader, and newly minted global warming expert, Richard (Dick) Armey. The modus operandi of these "astro-turf" groups is to funnel conservative money into favorite right wing causes while attempting to give a veneer of grass roots respectability to the effort. In most cases the veneer turns out to be razor thin indeed.
Another unifying theme in these right wing efforts to turn back the clock is an almost unbelievable lack of substance combined with simple fabrication of facts and evidence. Put simply, these "protesters" seemingly don't have a clue about what they are actually protesting. In my previous post I discussed several classic examples of right wing dissembling on health care reform, but here is another recent example from none other than conservative darling and newly unemployed governor Sarah Palin. Remarking on her facebook page about the President's reform efforts, Palin had the following contribution to informed debate about health care;
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
This statement is simply despicable for its level of falsehood, idiocy and demagoguery. No one in the Administration, or anywhere else for that matter, has suggested that government bureaucrats would have anything to do with medical decisions. Indeed, the government funded Medicare program, a form of national health insurance, is amongst the most popular of government programs. There are no "death panels," arbitrating health care decisions for Medicare, only doctors. A similar circumstance exists in the national health programs of many other Nations, where only doctors are involved in patient's health care decisions. Ironically, the only place where putative "death panels" exist are in the boardrooms of private insurance companies, where corporate bureaucrats actually do make life and death decisions about health care.
No, the America that Sarah Palin apparently loves is the one where 50 million people have no easy access to health care and where people have to fight tooth and nail against corporate bureaucrats to get the care they need. The America that Sarah Palin loves is the one where almost 20,000 people die annually because of a lack of access to health care. Apparently, Sarah Palin has already passed judgment, and decided that these unfortunate souls do not have the requisite "level of productivity in society," to warrant her support. How ironic that Palin should talk about such evil when the truth is that the real evil is a for-profit health care system. Why is it that we never hear right wing mouthpieces talking about the real, documented "evils" of the present system?
Another revealing example of the tortured "logic" around some of the health care protests was provided by events at a town hall sponsored by Representative Gene Green (D-Tex). The assembled group of protesters indicated they were opposed to “... any form of socialized or government-run health care.” When subsequently asked by Representative Green how many of them were on Medicare a large fraction of hands shot up, apparently with no indication of the irony. As a friend explained it to me, "It's like they're living zombies. They are protesting the very teat they are suckling on!" If one expected more rational arguments from some Republicans in Congress then I am sorry to disappoint you. Their most recent contribution being the complete fabrication of an argument that reform would lead to euthanasia of the elderly. Talk about seeking the high ground.
So, since facts are so notably absent in any of these arguments, then what is the real basis for the opposition to health care reform, and more generally, apparently anything that President Obama has proposed? As with most things, the answers concern power and control. Privileged, wealthy, and reactionary interests--including corporate elites--see their power and position challenged and waning, and so they are fighting back with everything they can muster. The primary fuels for these right wing attacks are fear, ignorance and hate. And unfortunately, they feed upon the racism and xenophobia that is still present in America, despite right wing claims about a post-racial era.
An unfortunate and significant component in this ongoing assault on democracy is the almost complete demonization of rational thinking. Conservative talking heads, with significant corporate media support, have managed to create the now widespread cultural perception that to be smart, and indeed competent, is a bad thing, think "liberal elitist." This disturbing and dangerous state of affairs is described in Charles Pierce's recent book, "Idiot America." PZ Myers (pharyngula) has a nice review if you want to decide to give it a read. This situation is so dire that a major political party--do I need to identify it?--has essentially jettisoned the notion that it's politicians and representatives should be able to think rationally. As proof just consider that Party's recent candidate for the 2nd highest office in the land. Any Party that would work to elect a candidate with the lack of substance of a Sarah Palin does not deserve the support of rational voters. If this trend of the "dumbing down" of America is not reversed, the future will only be bleaker than the present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)