It May Be Too Late

 The defeat of Donald Trump in his re-election bid by Joe Biden is a welcomed and necessary first victory in the coming battle to try and restore democratic rule in the United States, but it is not a sufficient one. Trump, and the now cult-like Republican Party are but symptoms of a far greater decay in US institutions and political culture over the last 40 years.  It is the culmination of an elite, primarily conservative backlash that began with the goal to fight the New Deal programs of the Democratic Party under Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The New Deal project attempted, and was largely successful at, redressing the excesses of capitalist greed that had sunk the country into the Great Depression, and gave substantial consideration to the concerns of workers.  The New Deal compact met with a good deal of success, but the coalitions that sustained it began to fray as the country squandered treasure and blood through the Johnson administration and the Vietnam war.   The Republican Party also seized on the fallout from the civil rights struggle of the 60’s and 70s to shift the political power balance in the American South, giving the right-wing and Republicans opportunities to continue to chip away at New Deal programs and consensus. 

The conservative backlash rapidly accelerated under the Reagan administration as unions were viciously attacked and regulations on finance capital and corporations were steadily reduced or eliminated entirely.  It was during the Reagan years that the positive correlation between wages and productivity growth was finally ruptured.  From that point on, further productivity growth did not end up in worker’s paychecks but was funneled ever upward to the corporate bosses and the owners of capital.  As a consequence, wage growth has been remarkably flat over the last 30 years. 

Up to this point much of the impetus had come from the right, with the Republican Party the primary moving force for such deregulation and union busting.  However, after the political defeats of the Reagan era, the Democratic Party, led primarily by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (the so-called New Democrats) embarked on a significant tack to the right and began seeking a substantial amount of corporate and financial industry funding to finance their campaigns and political activities.  While this strategy led to some electoral successes, this courting of corporate donors did not come without a price.  The banks, Wall Street firms and major corporations providing this largesse did not do it out of altruistic intentions, but, like good capitalists, for return on investment, and returns they received.  This included the eventual repeal of the Glass - Steagall act which had placed a fire wall between commercial and private banking, continuing cuts to corporate taxes, the effective ending of “welfare as we know it,” as well as other financial services deregulation.  All this had the effect of further distancing the Democratic Party leadership from the interests of their principal New Deal constituency, that being, primarily, working people. 

The deregulation frenzy and attacks on any government regulations also fueled a media consolidation bonanza.  Large media outlets were now in fewer and fewer hands, and with the ending of any substantive regulation of their content in the context of public service, they could now use their media platforms basically as profit making ventures alone.  This further removed the needs and concerns of working people from public and political discourse and simply allowed for more rapid escalation of corporate control of the economy and political system.  As the “gloves came off,” and labor was left more and more impotent,  the corporate class could increasingly do as it pleased, and of course it pleased to enrich itself above all else.  With no other opposing forces in place, income inequality accelerated to where, at present, it is at a level above even that present prior to the Great Depression.  The almost total lack of financial regulations and controls led eventually to the fraud and speculation in mortgage-backed financial derivatives and so-called “consolidated debt obligations” (CDOs) that brought on the Financial Crisis of late 2007 (The Great Recession), just prior to the start of the first Obama administration.  It’s worth remembering that at the time millions of Americans were facing mortgage foreclosure and the loss of their homes due to massive bank fraud, speculation and malfeasance.  Also recall that Obama had been elected with the aid of substantial grass-roots coalitions expecting “Change We can Believe In.” 

What did Obama do?  He effectively neutered these movements and brought in a cabinet made up largely of bankers and Wall Street retreads.  Notable among these were Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a former Goldman Sachs official (and protege of another Clinton era Wall Street icon, Robert Rubin), and Lawrence Summers, a neoliberal banking industry favorite.  The rest is history. The banks were bailed-out with the government providing essentially a 12 trillion dollar blank check, and millions of American homeowners were left adrift and lost their homes. To add insult to injury, when the dust had settled scarcely a single financial figure had faced prosecution or any meaningful accountability. This further abandonment of working class Americans, including a significant fraction of Black homeowners, by a Democratic administration further eroded the remaining Democratic coalition and, by Obama’s second term, had set the stage for majority Republican control of Congress.  By this time America’s political democracy essentially comprised two wings of a single Party, the Corporate Party if you will.  While there are indeed significant differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties, these are principally regarding social and cultural issues, not political ones.  Politically, they are both strongly capitalist parties.  Democratic Party “politics” by this point was not really politics at all, but the identity politics epitomized by the famous Clintonian “triangulation,” focusing on social and cultural issues to try and carve out just enough of a majority to maintain electoral control, while not diverting a smidgen from their primarily capitalist political program. 

The voices and interests of working people had been increasingly marginalized from the democratic process. Income inequality continued to explode and a virtual oligarchy was now in place.  Both Parties are beholden to wealthy, largely corporate interests, and a steady plague of economic stagnation and misery for the masses had descended on the country.  Manufacturing jobs had long ago been shipped overseas, wages were effectively flat or dropping in real terms and a majority of the country were virtually living from paycheck to paycheck.  Add to this the inability to find good-paying jobs and the more affordable health care they may come with, left large numbers of Americans with no health insurance, no savings and no prospects for maintaining a middle class existence.  Also, because of media consolidation and corporate control, the plight of this “forgotten” working class America is not prominently discussed in elite media.  By the end of Obama’s second term these stark economic conditions provided a fertile field for a fascistic populism to take root.  This is the circumstance that Donald Trump and the Republican Party were able to cultivate and effectively exploit. As with most fascist movements they were also able to appeal to the deeply-rooted racism still endemic in the country. This coalition of disaffected white Americans, Christian fundamentalists, racists and nativists, and more “traditional” Republican elites was able to narrowly defeat the now sufficiently decimated Democratic coalition, represented by Hillary Clinton.  

Now, after four disastrous years of Donald Trump has the Democratic Party leadership learned any of the necessary lessons sketched above to avoid a repeat of this process as we move forward with the Biden administration?  The initial signals are not very encouraging.  The Republican Party has moved so far right that many of its key constituents are openly fascistic. They no longer even hold any pretense to respecting a true democratic process.  They seek power for themselves only, and are not willing to consider that others outside their tribe are even Americans. They see no reason to respect the rights of anyone who does not swear fealty to their ideology.  All others are enemies, to be bullied, or scapegoated. After four years of Trump this conditioning is now strongly entrenched in perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of the population, judging from recent vote totals in the 2020 election. By any reckoning this is a frightening proposition. This conditioning is evident in Trump’s refusal to accept the results of any election he does not win, and his rhetoric around “legal” and “illegal” votes.  This should be understood that, in the mind of Trump and perhaps a majority of Republicans, “legal” votes are those for Trump, votes for Biden are, by definition, illegal.  Also, in the recent election Republicans supported Trump even more consistently than they did four years ago, and this was after catastrophic mismanagement of a global pandemic.  Biden and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party sank huge resources into trying to sway white, so-called “suburban” Republicans.  This was a fools errand, as the numbers indicated that there was no substantial flip of such voters to the Biden ticket.  By contrast, multi-racial coalitions and organizing, epitomized by the spectacular work of Black-led movements like Black Lives Matter, energized voting constituencies in many cities, arguably providing the key votes to elect Biden.  Accommodation or attempted bipartisanship with the Republican leadership is a dead end as well.  There can be no accommodation at this point that would result in any significant shift away from the corporate friendly, small government policies that have exploded income equality and impoverished half the population. Conditions would simply continue to deteriorate, further fueling a fascist populism.

The only plausible path forward for the Democratic Party is to, effectively, rebuild a multi-racial New Deal coalition.  This means it must refocus its politics around the needs and conditions of working people. It must, in short, go back to real politics. It must address and reverse the structural and regulatory conditions that give free rein to capital and marginalize labor.  It must reestablish regulatory and tax policy that dramatically reduces the influence of money on the political system.  It must reassert public control and regulation over the banking and financial sectors.  It must end legal impunity for the ruling elite and wealthy, and eliminate the enormous racial disparities present in the justice system. It must drastically reduce military expenditures and redirect such resources to human needs.  These are by no means simple tasks but the evidence from polling as well as the recent election suggests that these are primarily majority-supported goals, and with the proper leadership it is entirely possible to organize a broad coalition around the long-ignored needs of working people, of all backgrounds.  More specific programs that show broad public support along these lines include, Medicare for All, student loan debt forgiveness and loan reform, free higher education, the $15 dollar an hour (or higher!) minimum wage, strengthening of unions and labor laws, financial transaction taxes and readjustment to a much fairer and more progressive taxation policy, such that extreme wealth accumulation is strongly limited.   

Are Democratic Party leaders onboard with such a program?  The answer at present would appear to be almost certainly not.  Leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, even with the smoke still settling from the election, were “punching left,” blaming the progressive wing of the Party for the very poor performance of down-ballot candidates. The Democrats will lose seats in the House when all the votes are counted, for example.  However, as is typical these days, Pelosi has it completely backwards.  Progressive candidates strongly outperformed milquetoast moderates and centrists in the Party who are perceived as standing with the status quo, or worse, for nothing at all.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was catastrophic in his leadership of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and all of the centrist candidates he chose and threw boat loads of money at were defeated handily.  The huge amount of funds that the DSCC essentially set on fire could have supported more progressive candidates, or at least a mix of such.  Moreover, it is more than four years since the absolute debacle that ushered in Trump and nearly ushered in an authoritarian government, and still, there has been no serious reckoning by Democratic Party leaders of their failures in that process.  This is completely unacceptable.  There must be accountability moving forward or any hope of a return to true democracy is doomed.  There does appear to be some recognition that working class needs must be addressed, as Biden has publicly called for supporting some of the above working class agenda. For this the Party largely has Bernie Sanders and his movement to thank. Typically, the leadership has been dismissive of Sanders’s importance in this, and it would be disastrous to further alienate the progressive wing of the Party.  A strong signal that the Party is serious and that there would be some accountability moving forward would be for both Pelosi and Schumer to step down from their leadership positions.  It’s time for new blood.  If these two had any self awareness, they would realize that this would be in the interests of building the coalition needed to defeat the present day Republican fascists, and moving away from the unsustainable status quo.  But, I wouldn’t count on this kind of introspection from either one.  

In addition to securing the White House, the Democrats now also have a chance to take a majority in the Senate if they can win the Georgia runoff polls.  In the midst of a pandemic, and with polling suggesting +70% approval for Medicare for All, it would seem a no-brainer for the Democrats to shift behind this position strongly and run on this, as well as other working class issues, in the Georgia elections. I think we will be able to judge the likelihood of future Democratic success by the outcomes in Georgia. If the Democrats center a strong working class agenda for these elections, then they have a strong chance to win the Senate.  That would be a good sign that there is some hope.  If they run away from Medicare for All, for example, and lose the runoffs, then I think we can expect too much incrementalism, effectively reinforcing the status quo.  If that happens, it will be too late, and the stage will be set for mid-term losses under Biden, and then the chances of a competent, Trump-like authoritarian sweeping to power in 2024 will become frighteningly real.  There really is not much time left.

Our Cherished Freedoms

Americans are among the most propagandized populace in the world.  If you are one of the many whose initial reaction to this statement is, “are you kidding? Not me! Not in this free country!” I would argue that it simply proves the point.  Americans are so successfully indoctrinated that for many people, they don’t even know it, indeed, they can’t even conceive of the possibility. This indoctrination takes many forms. Among the most pervasive is a near-complete perversion of much of the language of political and social discourse.  Key terms have been so thoroughly abused that they have virtually become devoid of meaning.  Perhaps no word has been so debased as “freedom.”  Here in the “land of the free,” we bask in it, glorify it, heck, we even eat it with our “hamberders.” 

So what are some of the freedoms that Americans are so uniquely endowed with among so-called wealthy and democratic nations?  Let’s just enumerate some of the many actual freedoms that Americans presently enjoy: 

1) The freedom to endure the only for-profit health care system in the industrial world.  This cherished freedom grants you some of the following related freedoms.  The freedom to pay the highest drug prices among comparable nations.  The freedom to lose your health care when you become unemployed.  The freedom to find health care completely unaffordable if you should happen to lose your job.  The freedom to go bankrupt due to exorbitant health care costs, or the denial of treatment coverage by your insurance company.   The freedom to see many of your fellow citizens unnecessarily die due to their lack of health insurance coverage.  The freedom to contribute to the obscene, multimillion dollar compensations of insurance company executives, whose companies literally make a profit by denying health care coverage to their enrollees.  Just think how much more these freedoms are cherished when a 100-year pandemic rolls around!

2) The freedom to live in a society with a decreasing life expectancy.

3) The freedom to work 2 or more jobs and still be one or two paychecks from destitution.  This benefit also comes with added freedoms.  The freedom to not have to worry about building up any savings. The freedom to lose your job if you get sick, because you have no sick leave.  The freedom to not have to worry about where to go for vacations, because you have no paid leave.  The freedom to work for a $7.25 an hour starvation wage.  The freedom to have your labor taxed at a higher rate than income resulting from a financial transaction (a so-called capital gain).  The freedom to pay higher taxes than the company you might work for (some of which pay no US Federal income taxes).  Tough to beat that last one!

4) The freedom to go into perpetual debt in order to obtain a higher education.  The freedom to pay outrageous interest rates on that debt.  

5) The freedom to see your children struggle more and expect less out of life than you did.  

6) The freedom to choose from a few, or in some cases, even a single cable/internet/phone provider, because 28 years after the break-up of AT&T, the telecommunications industry is still, effectively, monopolistic.

7) The freedom to pay among the highest rates for such telecommunications services (often with poorer service), than most so-called developed countries.    

8) The freedom to stand in line for hours in order to vote, in the so-called "bastion of democracy."

9) The freedom to be shot dead by fellow citizens armed with military-style weapons.

and

10) After a year and a half, multi-billion dollar electoral shit-show, the freedom to vote for Tweedle-dumb or Tweedle-dumbest. 

Truly, what more freedoms could one wish for?

The New Feudalism

The United States descent into fascism has been ongoing for some time now, but the pace is quickening and a profound reckoning cannot now be that far off.  Our political, economic and social institutions have devolved into something that American political theorist Sheldon Wolin referred to as inverted totalitarianism.  In such a situation there remain some trappings of democratic process, but they are effectively managed via corporate control of the economic and political system. There is the appearance of democracy, but scratch the surface and one finds that all real power now resides with a wealthy, corporate, oligarchic elite that control, at least indirectly, most of the institutions of power in the society.  An important aspect of this is that politics has become, paradoxically, apolitical. An example being the "stage-managed" media events that pass for elections every four years.  In these media "superbowls" personalities are voted on, but never actual political alternatives to the status quo. 

In terms of the daily economic life for most people, there has been, more or less, the re-establishment of a feudal order, but simply with new Lords of the Manor.  Of course, our society now has many more technical advances than, for example, those present in medieval Europe, but from a social and political viewpoint the distribution of power and wealth is eerily similar to that of medieval feudalism.  The masses of people are effectively serfs, but now with cellphones to distract them.  Although some are still buoyed by the promise of religious salvation, many are either truly anesthetized--with alcohol and drugs--or engage in other forms of self-destructive virtual sedation, with addiction to gambling, games, and various forms of media entertainments replacing a functioning social support system. In such conditions, any serious challenges to the prevailing conditions become very difficult to organize.  Sadly, for many citizens, anything is better than facing the empty existence afforded to most people as servants of our new corporate Lords.

This process has only accelerated further with the advent of a Trump administration bent on pillaging what remains of the public commons.  This President, and more broadly the Republican Party, are not fit to govern, because they have no interest in actual governance that would benefit the nation as a whole. Their only interests are selfish. They desire power for its own sake, and to use it to enrich themselves and force their cult-like beliefs on anyone who will not worship them.  They are willing to acknowledge as genuine Americans only themselves, their fellow travelers and any willing sycophants.  All others are not "true" Americans, and are treated as the enemy other.  They are literally at war with their enemies, as is clearly evident from watching just one evening's worth of the lies, distortions and vicious propaganda on their "State Media” outlet, Fox News.

These cultists of the self treat all others, their self-professed enemies, as simply means to their own ends, and not as ends in themselves.  Empathy for others is completely absent.  While the current Republican Party is but an extreme example, and Trump the most glaring symptom, sadly, these same values are now endemic within many of our political, cultural and economic institutions.  We are taught to worship an economic system, oligarchic capitalism, that glorifies the accumulation of wealth and things above all else, and that is also inexorably destroying the natural environment that sustains life.  As Wolin warned, the political system is now controlled, effectively owned, by those who benefit most from and enforce this economic system. At this point the only proper moral response to this culture of self-idolatry is complete, non-violent, non-cooperation.  To actively participate, and pretend that things are "normal," and that the status quo is somehow desirable and sustainable, is now simply complicity with evil.

The Bombing of Hospitals is Not Self Defense

It seems that almost every US government official is proud of boasting that there is "no daylight" between the United States and Israel.  Meaning that, effectively, Israeli policy is US policy.  A sane, rational person might think that when such Israeli policy includes the massive, indiscriminate shelling and bombing of densely populated urban environments, such as Israel is now undertaking in the Gaza strip, that US officials might want to rethink their unquestioned support, and even more so when such brazen violations of international law are enabled and facilitated by massive US military and political aid. Perhaps when Israel repeatedly targets UN refugee shelters, killing children in their sleep amongst others, even after UN officials repeatedly inform the Israeli military of the precise GPS coordinates of these structures, surely then there must be some weakening of the almost fanatical US support?  Hospitals, what about the bombing of hospitals, surely that must induce at least the tiniest bit of self-reflection, maybe an iota of doubt then starts to creep into the mind?  Still nothing?  When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remarks about Palestinian's use of their "telegenically dead," to "attack" Israel, perhaps that might suggest to President Obama and other senior US officials that it would be worth considering putting some daylight between themselves and Israeli policy?  But apparently not. Official US support for Israel has now reached the level of idolatry. Consider the following question, is there any action or policy that Israel could carry out that would lead to a reconsideration of absolute US support?  Sadly, there does not seem to be any.  We would, rightly, consider such unthinking fanaticism problematic when exhibited by official enemies, but apparently for "exceptional" Americans it's just fine. To the extent that we do not find this shocking is a profound indictment of our moral and political culture. If the United States wants to maintain any legitimate moral standing in the world, then it needs to work to put an immediate end to the Israeli assault on Gaza.

The Rule of Men

There is now a vast distance between the actions carried out by the United States government and the often ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by its leaders to describe and justify these actions, and which is spoon-fed to the citizenry like so much pablum by a largely ignorant and subservient corporate press.  Call it a "reality gap."  There is, on the one hand, the real world of causes and effects that is readily evident to those who are more often than not on the receiving end of the actions of our government, and then there are the hollow, dissembling, ludicrous, deceitful, false "official pronouncements" from US government leaders and their spokes-people.  While it is true that such a dynamic is not new, the scale of the "gap" is at epic proportions, and perhaps accounts for a measure of the contempt with which US government officials are generally viewed by their own citizens these days.  As one gauge of this contempt consider these abysmal approval ratings!  Trust begins with the truth.

A major myth around which such rhetorical deceit orbits is the notion of the rule of law.   It goes something like this, the United States is the exemplar of a nation in which the rule of law operates.  It is the governments and systems of official enemies that are corrupt and problematic, and they should look to the US to see how it should be done. Indeed, this is one of the foundational myths of "American Exceptionalism," and is virtually axiomatic amongst officials at the higher levels of government and the corporate press as well.  The reality, when judged by deeds rather than words is, however, very different from such official myths.  Consider the recent example of Director of National Intelligence (try to suppress the oymoronic giggles) James Clapper's less than honest testimony before Congress. If Attorney General Eric Holder and indeed President Obama held even an inkling of a notion that the rule of law was vital to the proper functioning of a democracy, were truly committed to a fair and equitable enforcement of the law, and had any intention to actually honor their oaths to defend the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, then the Department of Justice would right now be investigating, and probably should already have indicted, Mr. Clapper for perjury before the United States Congress.  The evidence against Clapper is not only substantial (indeed, overwhelming), and public, but he has virtually admitted to it publicly as well.  Such perjury is a felony offense, and arguably should be since it strikes at the very heart of real democracy, as it is not possible for the people to know what their government is doing, and hence grant the consent of the governed, if its officials routinely lie to their elected representatives.

Not only does Clapper apparently not face any criminal prosecution, he has remarkably been allowed to "apologize" in written statements to Congressional officials, and seemingly is still strongly supported by his ultimate boss, President Obama.  Moreover, this story of evident perjury by a high national security official has gotten remarkably little press scrutiny.  Rather, our free, "adversarial" press appears much more interested in the whereabouts of courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden, or whether a conscientious, independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald should be investigated for "aiding and abetting" Snowden.  This latter charge is so preposterous, so ludicrous, that for the question to even be posed to Greenwald by a mainstream journalist does much to reveal the sorry state of the corporate US press.   If you haven't seen it, this video of "media star" David Gregory's accusatory questioning and Glenn Greenwald's devastating tear-down of Gregory reveals just about all you need to know about the current state of US journalism, and is well worth a look.

Contrast the treatment afforded "power-broker" Clapper to that served up to anyone of lowlier station who actually attempts to honor their oath to the Constitution and attempts to shine some light on administration wrong-doing and corruption.  Edward Snowden has virtually been tried and sentenced in the media, with senior Congressional officials calling him, ridiculously, a traitor, and his courageous whistle-blowing treason.  In further contempt for the rule of law, his asylum rights under international law have been severely curtailed by the United States and his passport was summarily revoked.  In an even more egregious display of lawlessness the lone superpower and "rule of law exemplar" conspired with its allies to have the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales diverted and forced to land in Austria under the incorrect suspicion that Snowden was onboard.  Apparently, this was yet another "triumph" of US espionage.   I ask you to consider the response of the United States, the howls that would erupt from both government officials and their fawning press lackeys, if Air Force One were refused entry to some ostensibly friendly nation's airspace and required to land before proceeding onward.  It would be treated as nothing less than an act of war!  The shrieks of protest would be unrelenting.  But when the United States organizes nothing less than the air piracy of another nation's president, well, that's just fine and proper.  The double standard and imperial hubris is simply breathtaking!  But this is standard fare for American Exceptionalism.  Richard Nixon was famously chastised for arguing that, "if the President does it, then it's legal," however, this is one of the guiding premises of US officials on the world stage, if the United States does it, then, it has to be legal, by definition. 

An interesting, related behavior from US government officials is their categorical insistence that Snowden is not a dissident, or a political refugee, and that he thus has no valid asylum claims.  No specifics are discussed, no evidence given to support such vacuous assertions. But that's the beauty, none are required, you see, the United States is simply the best, at everything, and the moral leader amongst nations, so, again, by definition, there cannot be dissidents in the United States.  Most US officials internalize such attitudes, and so, they can repeat such absurdities without even batting an eye.  In the real world however, one need only consider the horrendous persecution and treatment of Private Bradley Manning to know that Snowden has extremely valid political asylum claims.

Guilty until proven innocent, posthumously

You might think you know what the word "militant" means. After all, US mainstream media outlets use this word with almost the same frequency as that now almost meaningless appellation "terrorist." But you would probably be wrong, because the Obama administration has thrown a little twist into the definition. Now we have learned that to be classified as a "militant," all you need to be is a "military age" male, and to be unfortunate enough to be blown-up in a US drone strike. You see, this is ostensibly why administration tallies of civilians killed in such strikes seem almost preposterously low. It's because the administration basically asserts that anyone (military-aged male) killed in a drone strike is a militant! The argument, such as it is, goes something like this, "... well, anyone in the vicinity of a place we are considering hitting must be up to no good..." It's ironic, deeply troubling, and sad all at the same time that this was also essentially the justification given by George Zimmerman for his stalking and eventual killing of Trayvon Martin. That these policies are being implemented by the administration of the first African American US President makes it even that much sadder.

Recall that it's not even required to know who is actually present when such a strike is conducted. So-called "signature" strikes just require there be some signature of terrorist activity. As for what that signature activity might actually be you would likely have to have access to the classified justifications and procedures. Good luck with that. So, the folks carrying out this policy likely don't even know the names and faces of who might be in the cross-hairs, but rest assured they are all "militants." Remember that these strikes are taking place far from what most of us would even remotely consider a conventional battlefield. It must be heady indeed to possess such god-like powers, to know exactly who the bad guys are, and that it's justifiable to kill them. No arrests, no interrogations, no criminal charges, no trials needed, just "administrative due process." But rest assured, apparently if some solid evidence appears after the fact, that is, posthumously, to demonstrate a victim's innocence then the "militant" appellation may be removed. Who could possibly claim that we are not a merciful people?

To my mind this was perhaps the most astonishing revelation brought to light by a recent New York Times piece whose primary story line concerned the existence of a "kill list" run right out of the White House, with Obama personally signing off on all such strikes. Again, you'll be comforted to know that a rigorous procedure is in place. First a "nomination" process is conducted where a potential target is put forward for possible addition to the list. Kind of gives a cruel twist to the term nomination! But then the torturing of language is a key symptom of the authoritarian mind at work. And of course we are told that the minimizing of civilian casualties is a paramount consideration. I guess it helps when you can simply redefine what it means to be a "militant" or "civilian," and you have a largely compliant media that will be more than happy to play along.

If you somehow think that the above is consistent with democratic governance in general and the US Constitution in particular, then perhaps it's time for a civics refresher course. The Obama administration has asserted that anyone, including American citizens, can be targeted for such extrajudicial killing. In a related expansion of such powers, indefinite detention by the military of designated persons, within the United States proper, was recently codified within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation passed by Congress. When challenged with a lawsuit in the name of a number of journalists and activists, and litigated with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at a hearing to establish standing of the plaintiffs, administration lawyers could not give assurances that even normal journalistic activities or straight political speech would not run afoul of the vague and overreaching language in the NDAA. If that is not thoroughly inconsistent with the 1st Amendment, then the Amendment has effectively been rendered worthless.

The way to highlight the extreme nature of these policies is to ask how US leaders would react if foreign governments or official enemies were to adopt similar policies vis a vis US civilians. Imagine the howls, the shrieks, the blood curdling screams if some other country were to treat US citizens in such a way! The criticisms and condemnations would be unrelenting. US leaders were quick, and correct, in absolutely condemning Al Qaeda suggestions that somehow US citizens killed in the 9/11 attacks were "not innocent," and in some way also militants. Why would US leaders even remotely consider adopting such an eerily similar policy, arguing that anyone in the vicinity of a strike is also "not innocent," a militant. It's very simple, if we wouldn't want our citizens so labelled, then we have no right to condemn others to such an immoral policy.

The Enduring Power of Our Moral Example?

I suppose one should expect a certain level of nationalistic chest-beating and jingoism in your typical State of the Union address, and on that score President Obama certainly didn't disappoint in his recent speech. But really, "... the enduring power of our moral example.." Obama used this odious, over-the-top phrase of pure propaganda in his efforts to convince us that "America is back." Back from what, one is tempted to ask. Are you kidding me?

Now, when I was growing up one of the lessons I learned was that showing a bit of humility is always a better choice than outright bragging about ones perceived greatness, or even worse, ones perceived moral rectitude. Who ever brags about their moral rectitude?

These are the kinds of statements and thinking that enable the United States to routinely perpetrate on the global stage the same kind of destructive and immoral acts for which we regularly condemn other nations. So, what could Obama be referring to?

The moral example of a nation where upwards of 50 million of its citizens lack regular access to health care?

The moral example of a nation where many of its citizens must make the choice between getting access to health care or financial ruin?

The moral example of a nation with almost 1/4 of its children living in poverty or economic distress?

The moral example of a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world?

The moral example of a nation that still routinely employs the death penalty?

The moral example of a nation that illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed a country (Iraq) on the basis of fabricated pretexts (weapons of mass destruction, and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda)?

The moral example of a nation that has claimed the right to unilaterally kill virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, that it deems a "terrorist," including its own citizens, without judicial review?

The moral example of a nation that routinely kills innocent civilians in the exercise of the above claimed right?

The moral example of a nation that tortures, and has claimed the right to indefinitely detain essentially anyone, anywhere, including its own citizens, without judicial review?

The moral example of a nation that claims the right to unilaterally kidnap anyone, anywhere and "render" them to another country for torture and interrogation, again, without the possibility of judicial review or remedy?

Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. Now Obama and indeed many of our political leaders must know about at least some of these moral shortcomings, or you would think that they should, right? But that's the beauty of the myth of "American exceptionalism," it's axiomatic, evidence to the contrary is completely irrelevant. We are simply the best, at everything, period, by definition. So, this allows someone like President Obama to argue, when confronted with the evidence of, for example, our indiscriminate killing of civilians, that we really don't, that these drone programs are surgical and precise, and we're just getting the bad guys, and even if we do kill civilians, well, our intentions are noble and moral, so, well, it's OK. We're the best after all. That really is the level of the argument. This is an extremely dangerous, not to mention unhealthy, mindset because when you hold such views moral arguments essentially hold no weight. You are the best, you can't be wrong or immoral in your actions, by definition. This is the kind of thinking that, sadly, is far to evident in our political culture.

In Search of Our Humanity

Never has that bumper sticker saying been more true, "If you're not upset, you're not paying attention." Those in the streets with the Occupy Movements have simply been paying attention. Our political and economic systems are corrupt, dysfunctional and imploding on themselves. Nowhere is the evidence of this more stark than in the virtually complete absence of ethics and morality in the actions of our political, economic and cultural institutions. Corruption? How did that whole financial meltdown treat you? Dysfunction? How is that Congressional "super-committee" working out for you? Implosion? Virtually half of the population of the United States, arguably the richest country on the planet, is now economically insecure, meaning that while technically above the so-called poverty level, they struggle to regularly find the resources for the basics of existence; food, housing and not to mention health care. This is beyond shocking. Yet, in the face of this evidence both major political parties are pushing austerity, a further cutting back of resources, as the solution, and one of these Parties is so corrupt, immoral and self serving that it wants to further reinforce the political priorities that brought about this state of affairs, ie., further slashing of spending, and cutting taxes on the wealthy even more.

The higher up the power ladder one goes the more widespread is the moral vacuum. There is a vast chasm between how I believe most of us act and wish to act in our private lives and how the institutions of power force and mold us to act. These are ostensibly our institutions but we have completely lost control of them. The priorities and values that they have set, that they continue to set, within our political and economic systems are completely at odds with those, for example, that the overwhelming majority of us would wish to pass on to our children. We want our children to be fed and clothed, educated and cared for. We want the sick treated. We want to live in a peaceful world, to see, in the words of Bob Dylan that the "cannonballs are forever banned." And we want to see this also for our neighbors. Yet these priorities are now almost completely absent within the institutions we have constructed, particularly at the highest levels.

The levers of power are now firmly in the control of those who view human existence as a struggle to amass ever more wealth, power and control, who view their fellow humans as simply means to the end of domination and control, and not ends in themselves. This is the culture of empire. It is rooted I believe ultimately in the psychology of fear. The access routes to its institutions are carefully guarded and there are powerful incentives to not "rock the boat," or upset the status quo. Only those who are properly conditioned before hand can reach the upper echelons. You must first demonstrate your "seriousness," your ability to cast aside the ethics that you were most likely raised with, and make the tough but "pragmatic" decisions in service of empire. If you can't, your conscience gets the best of you, or you decide to act on what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature," then there is no shortage of remedies, from loss of your job, to a jail cell, or a shower of pepper spray to the face. You have to show the proper allegiance to the propagandistic symbols of control, wear your flag pin, beat your chest and rah-rah the troops, proclaim the greatness, indeed, the exceptionalism of your tribe, and never, ever, examine your own conduct and that of empire.

There is a long struggle ahead to reform our institutions and take back the levers of power to the service of humans as ends and not means. The Occupy Movement is an example of this struggle, but events over the last year have clearly shown that the struggle is indeed global. The dominant economic system of limitless capitalism has entrenched our culture of empire, and it is ultimately at the heart of our moral corruption. But so as its guiding principle is to consume, and then consume more, it will also eventually consume our own humanity, and we will have destroyed ourselves, or at least that which is best in ourselves, in the process. Redemption lies in freeing ourselves from this culture of empire, in reclaiming our collective humanity. The path has already been laid out, by those such as King and Ghandi, we simply need to find it again beneath the wreckage of our own fear. The Occupiers have found that path and we need to start walking it with them. It is the only way to a future with any real freedom.

The Time is Nigh to Occupy

Even if your only news outlets are corporate megaphones Fox News and CNN you must still be aware of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, demonstrations and organizing taking place in lower Manhattan. Indeed, the spirit of resistance appears to be spreading faster than a Texas wildfire as similar encampments have sprung up all over the country. To gain a sense of the scale you can check out Occupy Together, which is providing a collection point for access to information on the various protests that have been created, and are being created, in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

What began as a modest sized gathering in "Liberty Plaza" in lower Manhattan has steadily grown to encompass large scale mobilizations in cities across the nation. We need to nurture and foster this growth, because such direct demonstrations of real democracy are the only way the majority, all of us, will be able to exert any kind of political and economic power in what now can only be described as the Corporate Oligarchy of the United States.

If pulling a voting booth lever every 2 or 4 years remains your only participation in what passes for our democracy, then it's time to switch the TV channel to something other than Fox News or CNN. If you still need convincing, still think that vote has meaning, just consider the shape that the 2012 presidential election (as an example) is taking. It is more than a year away from the elections and one can already describe the nature of the choice that one will be confronted with upon entering the voting both. If you remain committed to self destruction then you are likely to be tempted by one of these shining examples of human thought; Mitt (corporations are people, yes, really they are) Romney, Rick (let's just pray for rain) Perry, Herman (I will stand against Sharia Law) Cain, Michelle (minimum wage, we don't need no stinking minimum wage) Bachmann. That's not the full list of Republican candidates, and I didn't even get to Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, but you get the point. So, if you can't find the intestinal fortitude to connect the arrow for one of these corporate clowns what other option do you have? Well, sadly, that "other" option is also largely a corporate clown, President Obama. Elected ostensibly to usher in "change," Obama has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the status quo. He has done more to foster cynicism and extinguish hope within his own political base than any Republican could have.

There is no meaningful choice here, "elections" in the US have largely become public relations exercises whose primary goal is a manipulation of voters so as to cynically ratify an intolerably unjust system that has abandoned the needs of the vast majority of the population in order to extract ever more profits for a privileged minority of super-rich and their lackeys.

As the election cycle gears up, billions of dollars will be spent--billions of overwhelmingly corporate dollars--to "purchase" candidates and influence the outcome. Endless hours of vacuous punditry will be spoon-fed to the population by the corporate media to convince us of the "excitement" and "importance" of the election. You see, when the outcome is so rigged in advance, the game at least has to look convincing or else too many might realize the true nature of the charade being perpetrated. And while at least theoretically a candidate might still be elected who would provide some challenge to the corporate oligarchs, their virtually bottomless electoral war chests serve to reduce those odds to a virtual impossibility. And as additional insurance against even marginally meaningful elections, those ostensible lovers of American democracy just can't wait to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

The corporate media's response to all this has been anything if not predictable, and follows the standard playbook. First, attempt to ignore the protests. What, there are protestors? What, there are problems that might actually justify protests? Second, when it becomes impossible to ignore the situation, then attempt to criticize, denigrate and dismiss the protestors and distort their message and reasons for demonstrating. Typical of the latter tactic was the abysmal performance of CNN's newest "anchor" Erin Burnett in her debut show on the network where, rather than attempt to explore the issue in an objective way, she simply attempted to mock and dismiss the protestors as "...dancing...and bongo playing...hippies..." See also Glenn Greenwald's total evisceration of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days.

But of course the corporate media doesn't get it. Consolidation of media ownership has left a handful of large multinationals in control of the news outlets from which the majority of Americans regularly get their information. Any pretense of public service has long since been eroded with the effective sedation of the regulatory responsibility of government. After all, regulations are "job killers," if we are to believe the right wing meme that is repeated endlessly, and never challenged, in the mainstream press. Public service gets in the way of profits. Can't have that. So naturally these corporate media conglomerates are just another cog in the edifice of oligarchy, and an important cog at that.

If you're one of those still harping about "liberal media bias," then it's long past time you dusted off the remote and did what's left of your brain a favor and switched off Fox News. The only bias in the corporate media is that which slavishly supports their own corporate and economic interests, which, more often than not are in direct opposition to the interests of the vast majority of citizens. The media's "celebrity" and outrageously compensated anchors are for the most part members of the same economic and political cohort as the corporate CEOs and managers that finance them, so naturally they tend to identify with the same ideology.

With the ballot boxes bought and paid for the only way to halt the slide into further plutocracy and possibly fascism is direct democratic action, like the Occupy Together movements. It is a fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporate elites recognize this, hence the several decades long war against any avenue for collective democratic action, such as unions, fairer labor practices, and enforcement of workplace safety regulations.

It increasingly appears likely that our only route to a saner, more equitable and more sustainable future is via direct democratic actions. Occupy Wall Street is leading the way. Let's get behind them and push. We are the 99 percent.

Tribute to Lonnie Johnson

Here's some more guitar music. This is "Tribute to Lonnie Johnson," another arrangement from Stefan Grossman. Lonnie Johnson was an influential blues and jazz musician from New Orleans whose career spanned from the 1920's through the blues-folk revival of the 1960's. His guitar playing was extremely influential, and he is credited by some with pioneering the rock and blues solo guitar styles that are so common today, including a lot of string bending and vibrato. This is a multi-section instrumental played in dropped-D tuning, where the low E string is lowered a full step to D. I really like the lick which closes out each section.

"Burglary Tools to Criminals"

Occasionally a right winger will go "off script" and we get a rare treat, we get a peek at what some of these folks really think, and more often than not it isn't pretty. Such is the case with this hate-fest from the pen of unrepentant fascist Matthew Vadum, and excerpted here at Talking Points Memo.

While suppression of the voting rights of their political opposition remains a persistent right wing goal--Republican "dirty tricks" prior to elections have been a commonplace, including the recent attempts to suppress and confuse Democratic voters during the recent Wisconsin recall elections--such overt anti-democratic sentiment has typically been couched in the rhetoric of trying to reduce voter fraud. But perhaps worrying that such tactics are yielding diminishing returns, we now have this vile screed from Vadum which dispenses completely with any pretense of trying to stop fraud and just gets right to the heart of the matter. Vadum has the following to say about poor people, "... registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country." And, according to Vadum, "... the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery." Well, at least he's not shy about telling us what he thinks of democracy. Apparently it's un-American to allow a certain segment of the American citizenry to vote, the "wrong" segment that is. While he's not completely explicit about who the real target of his ire is, with references to ACORN, Obama's ostensible support for welfare recipients and a quote from an NAACP official, it's not that hard to connect the dots. Not only is this a vile screed, it's a vile racist screed to boot.

In the remainder of the piece Vadum then goes on to lay out the "infamous" Cloward - Piven conspiracy. According to Vadum, this is how the poor will "... destroy the country ..." You see, a modest, reserved liberal academic (Frances Fox Piven) who has done activist work in the past in support of poor, disenfranchised communities is pulling the strings of a vast, evil, liberal conspiracy that will bring down America. This fantasy, made famous by the ravings of none other than Glenn Beck, ostensibly came within a hairs breadth of bringing down capitalist western civilization and seemingly all the good in the world to boot, and will no doubt succeed next time if we let our guard down and fall into such traps as, say, letting the poor vote. Or so Vadum would have us believe.

What a pile of excrement. Vadum's hatred of the poor is apparently only eclipsed by his hatred of poor welfare recipients. This is just classic fascist scapegoating, nothing less. Not surprisingly, the piece is shot through with distortion and hypocrisy. For example, one might be tempted to ask if Vadum harbors a similar hostility for those myriad other kinds of welfare recipients, like bank CEOs and their corporate clients who had to be rescued and bailed out with serious multi-trillion dollar welfare, or the oil company CEOs and board members whose annual take in corporate welfare is in the tens of billions of dollars. But Vadum is presumably happy to see these folks keep their voting privileges, because their redistributionist politicians are shoveling it to the "right" folks. Wing-nuts like Vadum just love to have their cake and eat it too.

Of course the majority of the poor are productive working people and are not poor by choice. Why should they not have the right to vote? They are for the most part kept poor by a system that the insipid Vadum and those of his ilk worship, that values the rights of money over the rights of human beings to a decent living. But Vadum is on the wrong side of history and knows it, and that explains much of the fear-mongering from his crowd. These folks hate democracy because it is an avenue by which the will of the majority may be implemented and some measure of economic justice ensured for all. Now that's worth voting for.

Debt Ridden? Obama and the Destruction of the Democratic Party

The current debacle over the raising, or not, of the US government's debt limit, as well as the train wreck nature of the current budget negotiations in general, is just further evidence of a political and economic system that is broken and corrupt to its core. The debt limit has been raised by Congress some 80-odd times in the last 70 years. It has been done by both major parties, rather routinely, and, perhaps in recognition of the 14th amendment (section 4) prescription that US debt's legally obligated by Congress shall not be questioned, has not been the focus of substantial partisan rancor, at least until now. We largely have brain-dead, hypocritical, corporate-boot-licking Republican ideologues and their frothing tea-party accomplices, to thank for this, but with significant assistance from an absolutely rudderless and incompetent Democratic Party that is ostensibly led by none other than the President, but which in reality is effectively leaderless.

The current hysteria about the debt (and deficit) begs some questions. 1 ) When did the Republicans become so obsessed with the debt? Was it when they were running it up faster than you can say "blank check?" Apparently not, since the bulk of the current deficit largely consists of huge war and defense-related expenditures (think Iraq and Afghanistan), massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (think Bush tax cuts), a huge prescription drug giveaway to pharmaceutical companies (yup, W again), and a dismal economy that has severely cut into tax revenues. Guess who we have to thank for all that? That's right, Republican administrations. Finally, was the deficit a concern to Republicans as the budget-busting Bush tax cuts were set to expire? Not in the slightest. And Obama, sadly, also seemed more than happy to accommodate this massive increase to the Federal debt.

The Bush administration, with it's deregulating, hands-off, gung-ho Capitalist cheer-leading happily watched as the financial system imploded under massive corruption and malfeasance, taking down the rest of the economy with it. Was the deficit then a concern as Hank Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, floated a straw-man bill before Congress to grant him (Treasury) a multi-trillion dollar blank check with which to bail out his bankster buddies? Indeed, the deficit was irrelevant when it came to bailing out the core Republican constituency of wealthy banking fat-cats (sadly a chief Democratic constituency as well). How obscene now their desire and attempts to balance the budget by slashing social and health programs for working people, seniors and children.

One of the biggest myths about the current Republican Party is that they loathe big government. They love to say it, but talk is dirt cheap, their record of deeds indicates otherwise. Republicans love big government, as long as it's "bigness" consists of distributing public money to their wealthy corporate cronies, and restricting the political power and freedoms of working people.

No, with the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, a result for which we largely have President Obama to thank, they see that they can now hold the rest of the country hostage to their professed desire to see the deficit reduced. This is just a smokescreen, and an attempt to use a manufactured debt "crisis" as a cudgel that they hope to use to eviscerate programs which they have long despised, Social Security and Medicare, for example.

While we're at it let's explode another myth that mindless, lapel-flag-wearing Republicans hold dear, that their patriotism is unassailable. Patriotism? Are you kidding me? There are many adjectives one could use to describe the budget hostage-taking currently being carried out by congressional Republicans; selfish, reckless, insane, childish. I'm sure you have your own favorites, but patriotic is almost certainly not among them. Indeed, forcing such a confrontation which has the very real possibility of doing serious harm to the financial and economic security of millions of US citizens is more treasonous than patriotic. You might think at this point that the shame of it all would eventually kick in and force an about-face, but you'd be wrong, because shame is no match for ideological fundamentalism.

If all this has you thinking about Greek tragedies, then let's consider a second question, regarding the nature of the US debt. 2) Who holds the debt of the United States? And perhaps a corollary, how is it that the US government can actually be "in debt." As it turns out, a majority of the US debt in the form of US Treasury bonds is held by US citizens and institutions. Much of it is held by private US chartered banks, specifically, the Federal Reserve banks. So, in some ways the federal deficit is debt owed to ourselves. Not all of it, perhaps 35% is held by foreign institutions, say, like the governments of Japan and China. Needless to say, the majority of those holding US bonds are and/or represent wealthy, private corporate interests. Indeed, the Federal Reserve (or Fed for short) is one of those classic government double-speak terms, kind of like the Defense Department (which used to be known by the more accurate moniker, War Department), because it's not really Federal (it is privately owned, though with some very loose governmental oversight), and it's certainly not a Reserve (of, say, money!). So, if the debt is largely a debt owed to US citizens, why didn't the government tax more substantially those wealthy interests directly, rather than issuing debt which then must also be serviced with interest payments?

Another amazing fact about the Fed is that it doesn't really have the money it lends. The Federal Reserve act of 1913 established the way in which the US monetary system is organized. The Fed, indeed, private banks generally, can simply create money as bank account entries (loans) which can then be spent, but the US government (ultimately its citizens) is essentially placed in debt for this. But that's not all, for the privilege of essentially creating "money" out of whole cloth these institutions also demand the right to charge interest payments! If this sounds like the sweetest deal you've ever heard, then you'd be close to right.

So, for example, let's look at the recent economic calamity. The financial system implosion of a few years ago was largely the result of the issuing of massive amounts of fraudulent loans by private banks and financial institutions, followed by the repackaging and sale of those loans as securities, again under corrupt and fraudulent circumstances. That is, these were loans that private banks knew would or could not be paid back, and they were packaged and sold again as vastly overvalued securities. Note that such loans (money) are created in the same way that the Fed creates money, simply as new accounting entries on their balance sheets, that is, largely out of whole cloth. After the system collapsed these same private interests (and their sponsors within government) were not held responsible, rather, they contrived to have these fraudulent loans paid back dollar for dollar at the public trough. If they weren't paid off we would all face an economic armageddon, or so we were told. This was and remains, in effect, a vast shakedown scheme whereby public tax dollars, the bulk of which are now supplied by lower and middle income Americans, were and are redistributed to wealthy private interests.

The ultimate source of "money" in our present economic system is the full faith and credit of the US government, which is finally represented by the sum total of the productive capacities of it's tax-paying citizens. The government, our government, has effectively turned this credit, our credit, over to wealthy private interests (banks, financial institutions and their corporate patrons). They can issue loans at interest, often with usurious rates, backed by our blood and sweat. Yes, in effect, banks create money out of thin air, backed in the end by our productive labor, and expect interest payments in return. While there do exist some constraints on the system (the scheme of fractional reserve lending, as it is called, limits to some extent the amount of such money creation), this is essentially what the current debt "crisis" is all about. It is about whether the productive work of the vast majority of Americans will serve their own needs (the public's needs), or those of wealthy, private, corporate interests. Indeed, in the current standoff, the Republicans are attempting to extort their demands by effectively holding hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, something which is not theirs to begin with! That's what you call chutzpah!

If the Republican's succeed in enforcing massive budget cuts, and increasingly it seems that Obama and the Democrats are more than content to proceed down this road, then we will have our answer, and many Americans will be pushed further down the path to eventual indentured servitude. Needless to say, you would be hard pressed to hear any serious discussion of the above on Fox News or most other corporate media outlets.

3) So how did we get here? That's quite a long story, so I'll stay with only relatively recent events. As summarized above, after eight years of reckless Republican rule, and the economy shattered, Obama was elected with a large majority to change things. Not only did Obama have a strong electoral mandate, he also had Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But from day one he has governed almost completely in the interests of corporate America while largely ignoring the constituency that elected him. He was faced with crippling economic circumstances upon taking office, but his appointed economic team was largely representative of those who had created, or at least enabled the financial collapse. He made the banks whole but could only manage a watered-down and anemic stimulus package completely inadequate to the economic need. And as a result he has been more or less forced to accept the Republican meme that the "stimulus" didn't work, because, well, government stimulus doesn't work. Of course, it did work, to the limited extent that it could given its size. Indeed, much of the stimulus package was a further capitulation to Republican and conservative themes, with more tax cuts and less spending. The same was true with Obama's health care plan. It is largely a Republican plan (similar to that enacted by Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts). This is an entrenched theme of the Obama presidency; while ostensibly representing the Party in opposition to Republicans he has adopted conservative views and Republican framing on almost every issue. Because of this, Republicans know that if they just protest a little louder or longer, then they will get what they want. This is glaringly obvious in the current circumstance as Obama has swallowed whole the Republican "debt crisis" meme and has in fact offered the largest spending cuts, including cuts to ostensibly core Democratic programs such as Social Security and Medicare, programs which have not created the current deficit. Is this what he was elected to do? From day one in office Obama has not led, rather, he has simply reacted to whatever circumstances arose, and these have largely been engineered by Republican and conservative desires.

Several conclusions are possible. First, that Obama is asking for and getting exactly what he wants, that he is, in effect, more or less a conservative at heart. If true, it means that essentially his entire campaign was, at best, a massive deception, and at worst, a wholesale fabrication. Second, he would like to achieve more progressive ends, but he is completely unwilling to fight for them, which, if true, begs the question, why did he want to be President to begin with? Likely there is some truth in both. He operates within constraints imposed by our current money dominated political system, but clearly Obama seems totally unwilling to upset corporate interests that fill his and his Party's campaign coffers. He seems most comfortable in doing all he can to not rock the boat. In either case, he has shown himself to be thoroughly devoid of serious leadership skills.

Indeed, the Democratic Party has largely been decimated by Obama's "leadership." Having alienated his core of support it was no surprise then that the Republicans were able to achieve gains in the Congress during the low-turnout mid-term elections. This was also aided in no small part by Obama's complete refusal to confront Republican ideas and policies in any forceful or organized way. Again, any messaging that he has attempted has largely been framed from conservative viewpoints. This only further alienates potential supporters.

So, having ignored and alienated the majority constituency within his party, he now threatens to cut core Democratic programs as part of a desire to win "bipartisan" support for a horrible budget cutting deal that will shatter the lives of many of his ostensible base constituency, and resign the country to a future of stagnation and decline? This deal is "bipartisan" only in the sense that it is exactly what conservatives have been craving, and what Obama will apparently try and force congressional Democrats to vote for against their better instincts. In reality, this deal is a suicide pill for congressional Democrats and they would be wise to oppose it with as much vigor as they can muster. Obama seems to think that in agreeing to this fools errand he will be seen as some great conciliator that saved the country? Who does Obama think is going to vote for him come November 2012, all those people whose futures--and their children's futures--he has resigned to economic misery? If so, then he and his advisers are dangerously delusional.

So where does this leave us and our future? Any hope lies in the fact that comfortable majorities of Americans actually want to see the country move in what would be accurately termed a more progressive economic direction. This includes majority support for universal health care access and a return to more progressive taxation of the rich and corporations, among other things. The conundrum is that the necessary political organizations do not exist at present to force such changes. They do not exist largely because our political institutions are essentially under the control of a wealthy, corporate oligarchy, and the vast power that such wealth controls. The Democratic Party was at one time an avenue for the interests of the working majority to be acted upon, but this is clearly no longer the case, and indeed, if Obama "succeeds" in forcing an austerity budget on the country, then that will be the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it. It is time for progressive Democrats to confront their own leadership, and force a change. If that does not succeed, then new political organizations outside of the Democratic Party must be formed. The only alternative is a bleak future.

Time to Fight the Class War

Who does Wisconsin's little "tin horn" dictator/governor, and his Party of neo-fascists think they are? First they pass huge state tax breaks for corporations, and then they use the supposed budget "deficit" that is created to try and take away the fundamental rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, a right that was not given by governments nor the robber baron oligarchs who exploited workers--and would again if permitted--with abysmally low wages, dangerous working conditions, and indeed near indentured servitude. Such rights were won with the sweat, blood and indeed lives of workers who fought back against the profit seeking corporate vultures whose only goal is to amass wealth at the expense of their fellow human beings. Does Walker believe that American workers will simply sit back and applaud as he tries to deny them rights earned over decades of labor struggle? Of course he does, for the Scott Walkers of the modern Republican party know nothing of labor history, all they know about is their political religion of unfettered corporatism. They want to take the entire country back 100 years, to the good-ole days of sweat shops, rampant poverty, company stores, Pinkerton-backed strike breakers, and 50-ish year life expectancy. Well, screw that! Wisconsin workers are right to resist this pathetic corporate toady with everything they can muster. Indeed, all of America needs to wake up and resist this relentless assault on working people and the middle class.

Make no mistake, the power grab currently being effected by the miserable Scott Walker and his band of Republican know-nothings is simply the latest salvo in a 30+ year class war that has been waged against working people by today's equivalent of the robber barons of the gilded age. Their war has been immensely successful, for them, and disastrous for the majority of Americans. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are working people. While the myth of unlimited upward mobility still seems to have a hold on many Americans, it is indeed a myth, and most people must work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The evidence of this war is all around us, if we would simply turn off our TVs long enough to weaken the grip of the mind-numbing propaganda and dumbed-down programming endlessly peddled by our corporate media. Here are just a few of the most obvious symptoms. 1) Income inequality is at record levels. Not since the pre-Depression era of the "roaring" twenties has so much of the national wealth been concentrated in so few hands. 2) Real wages of American workers have barely budged in 30 years, while, over the same period, the productivity of American workers has steadily risen. That means people have worked longer and harder for the same wage. Guess where all the productivity gains went? That's right, into the pockets of the oligarchs. There was a day when organized labor exerted more influence and productivity gains went at least partly into increased wages, but Reagan saw to the end of that. No wonder he is now deified as some kind of Capitalist saint. 3) The money of the oligarchs has completely corrupted American democracy. A Supreme Court packed with conservative activist justices concludes that corporations deserve the rights of people, and unleashes the virtually unlimited funds of the oligarchs into the electoral process. Trillions of dollars of the public trust are instantly made available once big banks and other corporate looters blow their markers at the Wall Street casino and torpedo the economy, but they are asked to bear absolutely none of the costs, not even a miserly financial transactions tax. Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are further extended, and the suddenly important budget deficits that result must be balanced, we are told, with cuts to public programs and the freezing of wages of public employees. 4) Poverty in America is at epidemic levels and indeed, 1 in 5 children, in the wealthiest nation on earth, lives at or below the poverty level. The priorities evidenced by these conditions are beyond obscene.

At present, total acceptance of the "electoral process" as the sole avenue of democratic expression is a fools errand. Both major parties are almost completely in the hip pocket of the corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. The only difference is that the Democratic Party still has a modest handful of politicians who try to represent the interests of working folks, just a few mind you, but when push comes to shove the only interests that matter, meaning in the context of actions and deeds, not words, are those of the corporate wing of the Party. The most glaring example of this is none other than President Obama. He was elected with a large turnout and broadening of the Democratic coalition, combined with a clear signal to turn away from the disastrous results of eight years of George W. Bush. The 2008 vote was clear, it was a strong call by the people for change. Obama has failed at virtually every turn to deliver anything even remotely resembling change. He followed through with the Bush Administrations bailout of the banks, he passed a health reform bill crafted to the interests of drug and insurance companies, he has largely implemented the very policies that he ran against as a candidate, two recent examples being the budget-busting extension of the "Bush" tax cuts, and the personal mandate to buy private insurance as the basis for health care "reform." Obama also bragged during the campaign that he would "walk the picket lines" with workers,

"And understand this: if American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody’s standing in their corner."

Uh huh, sure Mr. President. This would be a no-brainer, a win-win for the national Democrats, if they had any intention of really standing with working and middle class Americans. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Obama to find those comfortable shoes. So far, while there have been some supportive statements from Mr. Obama, that's typically what the Democratic base has gotten from him, lots of hot air, and little action. Indeed, Obama's credibility gap is so huge, that he faces long odds in his re-election bid. Expect to find his opponents--could there be a primary challenge--running ad after ad with direct statements from candidate Obama, only to be followed with the contradicting statement as President Obama.

Having essentially abandoned a significant fraction of the voters who elected him, these same people then decided to largely stay away from the polls at the mid-term elections. Hence we have a Republican "landslide," and an "epic shift" in the electorate according to mainstream media. This is the dilemma faced by the American voter. They vote for change, giving the Party ostensibly of working Americans a chance to govern ON BEHALF of working Americans, but once elected this Party utterly fails to do so. This triggers even larger scale disaffection with the electoral "remedy." Many Americans feel elections are useless, and they are largely right, it's a rigged game; heads and corporations win, tails and corporations win. This is why the Wisconsin protests are so important. It's long since time for a direct confrontation with the oligarchs and the politicians who support and enable them. If our elected officials won't support us, then it's time to do some politicking in the streets.