Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFascism Coming to a Court Near You
Corporate Personhood and the Roberts' Court
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Get ready.
Last year a right-wing group put together a 90-minute hit-job on Hillary Clinton, and wanted to run it on TV stations in strategic states. The Federal Election Commission ruled that the "documentary" was actually a "campaign ad" and thus fell under the restrictions on campaign spending of McCain-Feingold, and thus stopped it from airing. (Corporate contributions to campaigns have been banned repeatedly and in various ways since 1907 when Teddy Roosevelt pushed through the Tillman Act.)
Citizens United, the right-wing group, sued the Supreme Court, with right-wing hit man and former Reagan solicitor general Ted Olson as their lead lawyer.
This new case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, presents the best opportunity for the Roberts Court to use its five vote majority to totally re-write the face of politics in America, rolling us back to the pre-1907 era of the Robber Barons.
As Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker ("No More Mr. Nice Guy"): "In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
And the only way the modern Republican Party can recover their power over the next decade is to immediately clear away all impediments to unrestrained corporate participation in electoral politics. If a corporation likes a politician, they can make sure he or she is elected every time; if they become upset with a politician, they can carpet-bomb her district with a few million dollars worth of ads and politically destroy her.
And it looks like that's exactly what the Roberts Court is planning. In the Citizens United case, they asked for it to be re-argued in September of this year, going all the way back to the 1980s and re-examining the rationales for Congress to have any power to regulate corporate "free speech."
As Robert Barnes wrote in The Washington Post on June 30, 2009, "Citizens United's attorney, former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, had told the court that it should use the case to overturn the corporate spending ban the court recognized in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, as well as its decision in 2003 to uphold McCain-Feingold as constitutional."
The setup for this came in June of 2007, in the case of the Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right To Life, in which the Roberts Court ruled that the FEC couldn't prevent WRTL from running ads just because they were a corporation.
"A Moroccan cartoonist," Justice Scalia opened his opinion with his usual dramatic flair, "once defended his criticism of the Moroccan monarch (lèse majesté being a serious crime in Morocco) as follows: ‘I'm not a revolutionary, I'm just defending freedom of speech. I never said we had to change the king-no, no, no, no! But I said that some things the king is doing, I do not like. Is that a crime?'"
"Well," Scalia wrote, "in the United States (making due allowance for the fact that we have elected representatives instead of a king) it is a crime, at least if the speaker is a union or a corporation (including not-for-profit public-interest corporations)... That is the import of §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)."
The idea of Congress passing laws that limited corporate "free speech" was clearly horrifying to Scalia. He went after the 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case, in which the MCC was limited in their "free speech" in a political campaign because they were a corporation.
"This (Austin) was the only pre-McConnell case in which this Court had ever permitted the Government to restrict political speech based on the corporate identity of the speaker," he complained. "Austin upheld state restrictions on corporate independent expenditures," and, God forbid, "The statute had been modeled after the federal statute that BCRA §203 amended..."
The Austin case, Scalia concluded his opinion with four others nodding, "was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles. In my view, it was wrongly decided."
Scalia also quoted at length from opinions in the Grosjean v. American Press Co case, "holding that corporations are guaranteed the ‘freedom of speech and of the press, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,'" and from the 1986 Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal. case: "The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected"; "[c]orporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas' that the First Amendment seeks to foster."
The bottom line, for Scalia, was that, "The principle that such advocacy is ‘at the heart of the First Amendment's protection' and is ‘indispensable to decision making in a democracy' is ‘no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual."
Continuing to quote from a plurality opinion in Pacific Gas, Scalia "rejected the arguments that corporate participation ‘would exert an undue influence on the outcome of a referendum vote'; that corporations would ‘drown out other points of view' and ‘destroy the confidence of the people in the democratic process..."
He even quoted an opinion in the Grossjean case, writing that "corporations are guaranteed the ‘freedom of speech and of the press...safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'"
The Fourteenth Amendment, which says that no "person" shall be denied "equal protection of the laws," was promulgated after the Civil War to free the slaves. But corporations have long asserted that because it says "person" rather than "natural person" it included giving, in 1868 when the Amendment was ratified into law, full Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights to corporations. (Corporations are, at law, known as "artificial persons" and humans are "natural persons" - both have to have some sort of "personhood" in order to pay taxes, sue and be sued, etc.)
As Scalia wrote in his opinion in FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life: "...FECA was directed to expenditures not just by ‘individuals,' but by ‘persons,' with ‘persons' specifically defined to include ‘corporation[s].'"
Chief Justice Roberts weighed in, too, in the main decision. It's a fascinating decision to read - and search for occurrences of the word "corporation" - and here's one of Roberts' more convoluted observations in defense of corporate free speech rights:
Accepting the notion that a ban on campaign speech could also embrace issue advocacy would call into question our holding in Bellotti that the corporate identity of a speaker does not strip corporations of all free speech rights. It would be a constitutional ‘bait and switch' to conclude that corporate campaign speech may be banned in part because corporate issue advocacy is not, and then assert that corporate issue advocacy may be banned as well, pursuant to the same asserted compelling interest, through a broad conception of what constitutes the functional equivalent of campaign speech, or by relying on the inability to distinguish campaign speech from issue advocacy.
Bottom line - corporate free speech rights are Real Rights that Must Be Respected.
Justice Souter wrote a rather frightening dissent (this was a 5-4 decision, with the usual right-wing suspects on the "5" side): "Finally, it goes without saying that nothing has changed about the facts. In Justice Frankfurter's words, they demonstrate a threat to ‘the integrity of our electoral process, which for a century now Congress has repeatedly found to be imperiled by corporate, and later union, money: witness the Tillman Act, Taft-Hartley, FECA, and BCRA.
"McConnell was our latest decision vindicating clear and reasonable boundaries that Congress has drawn to limit ‘the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth,' and the decision could claim the justification of ongoing fact as well as decisional history in recognizing Congress's authority to protect the integrity of elections from the distortion of corporate and union funds.
"After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention, and the possibilities for regulating corporate and union campaign money are unclear.
"The ban on contributions will mean nothing much, now that companies and unions can save candidates the expense of advertising directly, simply by running ‘issue ads' without express advocacy, or by funneling the money through an independent corporation like Wisconsin Right To Life."
Sounding almost depressed, Souter closed his dissent with these words: "I cannot tell what the future will force upon us, but I respectfully dissent from this judgment today."
The attempt of corporations (and their lawyers, like Roberts was before ascending to a federal court) to usurp American democracy is nothing new, as David Souter well knew. Fascism has always been a threat to democracy.
In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"
Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan:
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those... With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggested that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added:
"They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."
As Wallace's President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia:
"...Out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties.... It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.... And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man...."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists that Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt brought the issue to its core:
"These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."
But, he thundered in that speech:
"Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!"
In just a few months, we may again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II. Fascism is rising in America, this time calling itself "compassionate conservatism," and "the free market" in a "flat" world. The point of its spear is "corporate personhood" and "corporate free speech rights."
The Roberts' Court's behavior - if this prediction of their goal for this fall is accurate (and it's hard to draw any other conclusion) - now eerily parallels the day in 1936 when Roosevelt said: "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
67 Comments so far
Show AllFascism: not the right stick to beat the bad guys with.
Look into any decent source on 1920's-30's political movements and you find an unbelievable welter of different varieties of 'fascism', each cobbled together ad hoc from contemporary sources and pressures, highly dependent on local structures, changing and twisting with the times. The American Heritage Dictionary of 1983 definition, in its vagueness, actually gives some hint of this, despite its faux clarity.
Far better to concentrate on the state of things now, to try to know them as they are, which is not impossible, than to brand them with some charged term connoting evil and little else.
hquain: a critique well taken; I've been guilty myself (comments yesterday at 8:41 pm and 8:57pm) of tossing out the f (fascism) word when it might have been, as you say, "Far better to concentrate on the state of things now, to try to know them as they are, which is not impossible, than to brand them with some charged term connoting evil and little else."
What concerns me at what must surely be near the end of this comments string is that neither the author nor anyone else on the string (except micki at 10:46 a.m. yesterday)has shown any disposition to "concentrate on the state of things now" when it comes to the specific issue of the constitutional status of the idea of corporate personhood and the very "now" issue of where Sonio Sotomayor might stand on this issue. Call it fascism, or purple poodleism or what you will: we stand on the brink of yet another fundamental expansion of corporate power in our society. I'm not "branding" that, I'm just saying let's the hell look at it, eyes wide open!
To restore electoral politics, restore the Fairness Doctrine and get money out of politics. Term limits for and election of the SCOTUS would also help.
You mean it gets more fascist than this? State and biz interests merged a while back, then they hired BO to run "the place" they "own."
Then BO forced We The Taxpayers to fork over $12 trillion and counting to his bosses because they've spent the last 8 years stealing anything they could get their hands on.
In the meantime, illegal spying continues, torture continues, gov secrecy increases, two illegal occupations continue, and the one thing - the one thing - the vast majority of Americans are demanding - universal health care - is off the f@#king table.
Face it - according to the parameters set by this piece, we are, like, soooo fascist already...
Yeah, I think it's all over already. "Here Lies American Republican Democracy." Read Randall Robinson's "Quitting America."
Frank 1569: As I suggested above in response to a comment about Sotomayor's prospective appointment to the court: Yes, it could get more fascistic than it presently is---if the commenter's assertion is correct that Sotormayor's rulings have favored the concept of corporate personhood. The "Roberts Court" with its narrow 5-4 margin for regressive decisions could become a 6-3 court in the same direction, if Sotomayor has the orientation that is she is asserted to have. That, plus the growing disposition of members of the U.S. Senate who are supposed to give their consent to Court nominations after due deliberation to yield to the "wishes" of the leader (President) despite any personal reservations, point in the direction of a even more fascistic government. Elevation of the "rights" of corporation---unquestioning acceptance of the demands of the executive: are these not trends that, if allowed to advance with the Court nomination and other areas of political decisions, a royal road to even more fascism than we now have? Ben Franklin said we have a republic, if we can keep it; and I think (optimistically) that we still have that republic, but we won't keep it unless we fight for it.
Well said, and sadly all too accurate. The corporations are well experienced in dictatorships since that is how they basically operate day to day, totally top down. So it comes "naturally" to them to want their chosen political figures to operate in the same fashion, cracking the whip of fascism over the whole population. Unless working people organize to resist in unions, people's grassroots organizations in all kinds of configurations, we will continue to get whipsawed by the ruling elites. In the 1960s a large array of groups rebelled, and demanded change: women, hispanics, blacks, tribal peoples, GLBT, many joined in their opposition to the US empire slaughter in SE Asia. And a central group resisting was major parts of the drafted military on the battlegrounds with many units in near mutiny. View the fine film Sir, No Sir about 1960s GI resistance. For once in my lifetime it was thrilling to see the rulers fearful of the people and their organizations. One established book about that time described it as a time when there was "an excess of democracy"---a most terrifying thought to the ruling elites.
Why are corporations granted the rights of persons, but relieved of the responsibilities of persons? Rather selective personification, I'd say...
Very selective!
The excuse is that if "artificial" persons were held responsible for their criminal behavior, their shareholders would lose money (collateral damage) resulting from lawsuits. When it comes to $$$$$$, innocent third parties get full consideration where potential collateral damage is concerned - unlike the collateral damage(deaths) inflicted upon innocent people in the war theatre.
Given the demented ideology of this country where human beings are dispensable but money is not, is it any wonder why many civilized people around the globe despise the U.S.?
As Thom Hartmann warns, the make up of the US Supreme Court will make necessary the enactment of a 28th Amendment that explicitly states that only natural born persons, not de jure ones like corporations, are entitled to 1st & 14th Amendment protections.
This is because this court is predisposed to strike down any law passed by Congress or Executive Order that will impinge upon the "corporate veil." With a constitutional amendment, the reactionary troglodytes that sit on the Supreme Court will have their grubby corporate paws tied.
Unfortunately, this is such an obscure and barely understood area of law that the majority of people glaze over when my remedy is mentioned (this site as well). The only ones who's eyes do prick up are lawyers...for they know how provocative the idea is. Add the considerable power of corporations, and unfortunately, the idea appears as non-starter for the moment.
Will somebody please name just ONE fascist country that has succeeded - that is, survived - without bringing catastrophic devastation upon itself? Corporations are NOT people - they are psychopathic artificial entities invented to avoid the rules applied to ordinary human beings. And therein lies the problem - sociopaths destroy society, civiliazation, and the rule of law, by their very nature.
"..and they told us we must "Endeavor to Persevere."
Chief Dan George, in "The Outlaw Josey Wales"
I can not remember one law that was enacted that is pro-American Citizen since LBJ . Every law enacted since LBJ that I can remember has been pro-Corporation . Every person we elect to our government must upon arrival on the job get instructions from a lobbyist . Thom as usual has described
this ugly mess with clarity .
"If a corporation likes a politician, they can make sure he or she is elected every time; if they become upset with a politician, they can carpet-bomb her district with a few million dollars worth of ads and politically destroy her. And it looks like that's exactly what the Roberts Court is planning. "
I can't believe Hartman is calling this a future scenario instead of the current electoral system.
Mordechai---
You're right, it is indecipherable (although perhaps some context might make it otherwise).
One cannot deconstruct that which has no construct. Intentionally Alice in Wonderland... But of course it is your fault, Plebe, if you cannot understand what I purposely made incomprehensible; that's why I went to college. Wanna buy my Credit Default Swaps, Chump?
-30-
I'm not a lawyer but here are a few arguments that my feeble mind came up with to question corporate personhood.
If a corporation is a legally a "person" and it's shareholders are legally "persons", wouldn't it be against the 13th amendment, (which outlawed slavery?) for shareholder persons to own a corporate person?
Before it "speaks" should a corporation have to ask it's shareholders what it should say? After they own it.
If a corporation is owned by its shareholders, and it exercises it's free speech rights to support a Republican candidate isn't it going against what it's democratic shareholders want?
The 14th amendment says it applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States".
To be naturalized you have to have a background check, be fingerprinted, demonstrate english proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history. And to be born, well you have to be born. Seems to me the 14th amendment clearly applies only to human persons.
The first amendment refers to freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition. If corporations are arguing for free speech rights, why are they not arguing for their freedom of religion. Can a corporation have a religion? Does worshiping the almighty dollar count as a religion? How would a corporate person go to church? Are they next going to be arguing for the corporate soul?
. . . and here's one of Roberts' more convoluted observations in defense of corporate free speech rights:
You don't actually have to bother reading this; it's indecipherable. I tried three times. Like I always say, the law is whatever lawyers want to tell you it is.
no rights have we won
warm water grows hotter
violence, my son
resilience, my daughter
pray choose the same side
pray come through together
still good, what betide
e'en changes in weather
From the beginning, unlike many of my friends, I had serious doubts about Barack Obama when he was campaigning for president. He talked, openly, about escalating the war in Afghanistan, and then, he voted immunity to the telecom companies for their illegal wiretapping practices.
As soon as I heard his choices to run the treasury department, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, I knew I was right to have doubts about his ability to work for "we the people." Every day, his actions become clearer -- corporations win; citizens lose. Truthfully, I have no idea how to fight these very powerful entities. I have marched/protested on several issues since the beginning of 2009, but I don't feel as if my participation made any difference. Still, I will continue to speak out when I can, and I will march, when I can.
Over the 4th of July weekend, I watched the four-part BBC documentary, The Century of the Self. Every time I think I have an idea as to the depth of injustice in this country, I discover that I am completely deluded. All of the issues connect, and it is even more frightening than I had imagined. Previously, I had seen excerpts from the film, and I had even taken note of a quote in the film by an unnamed journalist, from 1927, "A change has come over our democracy. It is called consumptionism. The American citizen's first importance to his country is now no longer that of citizen, but that of consumer."
This has been their plan all along -- to disempower us, "we the people," citizens of this country.
From Naomi Klein's book, No Logo, "The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action."
Within the past two or three years, both Naomi Wolf and Chris Hedges wrote about Fascism coming to the United States.
Oregoncharles
Helen Thomas recently said that the Obama press is the most tightly controlled in her memory, which is still sharp as a tack after 80 some years.
I have no idea how to fight these very powerful entities.
These "very powerful entities" will eventually steal everything from eveyone. This is both the first and final lesson of Obimbo. A point will eventually be reached when Americans will have to take to the streets, since, by then, the ballot boxes will be full of rattlesnakes. Will they do it, or simply lie down and perish quietly?
If the recent past is any guide The american people can be fooled all the time. The general population has been dumbed down to the point of not caring about any thing but Amerikan ideal.
Just give them a six pack and a flat screen tv.
Just put a smiley face on the flag and call it good.
If the recent past is any guide The american people can be fooled all the time. The general population has been dumbed down to the point of not caring about any thing but Amerikan ideal.
Just give them a six pack and a flat screen tv.
Just put a smiley face on the flag and call it good.
If the recent past is any guide The american people can be fooled all the time. The general population has been dumbed down to the point of not caring about any thing but Amerikan ideal.
Just give them a six pack and a flat screen tv.
Just put a smiley face on the flag and call it good.
If the recent past is any guide The american people can be fooled all the time. The general population has been dumbed down to the point of not caring about any thing but Amerikan ideal.
Just give them a six pack and a flat screen tv.
Just put a smiley face on the flag and call it good.
Nicely stated, Kay.
Well, I suppose since fascism has come to most other parts of our government / society, why should the Courts be any different? They are the chief enablers of our demise, rather than the protectors of our Constitution and individual freedoms/rights.
All of these people are sociopaths - executive, legislative and judicial branches - none of them has a conscience, nor any shame about what suffering they have wrought. If there is a hell, I'll be delighted to stoke the fire for all of them.
Whenever politicians blurt "The American people" they conveniently overlook the fundamental fact that there is no such entity.
At the very least there are two "American People": those who have the power and werewithal to buy politicians and those who have not.
When the phrase "the American People" or "National Interests" is employeed, they are only talking about themselves - the Plutocracy. The rest might as well be cockroaches.
Bring America Back !!!!....! You see, back then The Minutemen R' Us !!! Paul Revere included.
****Nowdays The Minutemen are 'CodePink' and 'The Grannies'.
Our forefathers should have made a provision that the Supreme Court could NOT contain any more than Half its membership from one political party ! When half was met, any President would be mandated to pick a JUstice from the opposing Party.===like it or not !! Sound good ?
Re TruthKnoller July 6th, 2009 11:09 am, who suggests
"Our forefathers should have made a provision that the Supreme Court could NOT contain any more than Half its membership from one political party ! When half was met, any President would be mandated to pick a JUstice from the opposing Party.===like it or not !! Sound good ?"
Maybe if we had an opposing party...
Regarding the ever-increasing clout of corporations:
If Sonia Sotomayor's past rulings are a guide, she could be joining the Roberts' contingent. She has a record of ruling on the side of corporations.
So much time is wasted on her Latina comment, when her penchant for ruling on behalf of corporations should be the focus.
micki: Well Hallelujah, it took a whole long article by Hartmann and 40-something comments for anybody to suggest that the issue of corporation personhood should be a criterion for selection of a replacement for Souter, one of the liberal "4" with the prospect, as you suggest, that the 5-4 regressive court we now have (on some issues) might become a 6-3 court with Sonio Sotomayor's addition to the ranks of Robert, et al. I agree with you that fusses about her "Latina comment" are way less relevant than her "penchant of ruling on behalf of corporations." I have yet to see this documented, but at this point I just would insist, as I have elsewhere, that Sotomayor's overall constitutional philosophy and record should be front and center of a nomination hearing, which may be the last chance we ever have as citizens to have any input on the composition of our Supreme Court before it nestles permanently into the fold of the fascistic concept of identity of government and corporation.
Can someone obtain citizenship by incorporating (LLC) under the laws of a State?
Well, unless Hartmann is way off, we can see what's coming: another piece of early twentieth century reform undone, another step back to the nineteenth century. But I'm not sure it's a bad thing. It will make corporate rule even more blatant, if there is no pretence of campaign finance law. The law is already so weak as to be virtually meaningless--good people can get into office, but will always remain so heavily outnumbered that they can be mere voices crying in the wilderness. It's probably just as well for the whole thing to be more explicit. Activists need to stop wasting so much time and money and energy on electoral politics, a thoroughly rigged game.
I think we need to go directly for the root of the problem, by outlawing corporations. If you read POCLAD's histories, you see that in the early days there WERE all the appropriate restraints on corporations, but they were able to use their increasing size and power, especially after the Civil War, to throw off these restraints one by one until now they dictate everywhere. This proves they are too dangerous to be allowed to exist at all. Any business with over 50 employees, say, should be made to divide, and the rules should be changed to revoke powers and protections granted to these "persons".
Free speech only makes sense among equals. In a political/economic hierarchy, free speech is against the public interest. It's one of those things the elites will refuse to debate.
Note that under this arrangement people who inhabit corporations are doubly represented: They are constituents in the formal system, able to vote and contact their representatives, and also have illegitimate power in the informal system of pressure politics, lobbyists, and so on.
Increasingly, the informal system, a sort of guild socialism run by money, is becoming more influential than the one described in Civics textbooks. No wonder we are cynical and pessimistic. That's not how 'it's supposed to be.'
If the court will not reverse the personhood for corporations laws, they leave open only one respectable alternative, to abolish Congress altogether and let all of us cast electronic ballots from home that decide the important questions directly.
The citizen has his authority, true, but he lacks power. As defined by C. Wright Mills, that is "the ability to make someone do something against his will."
Whatever the convoluted logic, it is clear that currently some citizens have a lot more
political influence than others. One wonders how the Roberts types reconcile that fact with the lofty rhetoric of equality in the Constitution. One man, one vote, but also one man, millions of disposable dollars taken from other men.
There is no other way to safeguard ourselves from the threat of fascism, friendly or otherwise. A true democracy spreads the political authority over all, in a layer one vote thick. Conversely, if that is not done then we continue to face the same situation deplored by Marx, who called Parliament "the executive committee of the ruling class." If wealth cannot be so neutralized, then its confiscation by revolution in pursuit of social justice remains the alternative. The wealthy would be well advised to ponder their choice here; if things get really bad they might lose everything, wealth, privilege, and life itself.
We are a patient lot but it is foolish to presume that patience is infinite.
Voting by wire is outright invitation to subversion - especially given the technological capacities of entities like the CIA...
Voting: hand count paper ballots - only!
Fusion
Excellent piece. I find it amusing in Souter's dissent that he would mention corporations and unions in the same breath. While aknowleging that there is plenty of currupt activity in unions, notably the corporate sycophant Andy Stern running the SEIU, the power of unions in all areas, including electoral politics, is miniscule compared to that of corporations.
At the risk of digressing, this is nowhere more clearly illustrated than the spectacle of unions being left to excercise their strike power only in the government public sector such as the ongoing Toronto strike that is creating enormous animosity among the would-be union allies who depend the most on city services.
Sycophants are indeed ubiquitous; as are disciples.
Good news in disguise. The worse things get, the sooner the collapse.
Why do you wish for evil? What do you really stand to gain from a collapse? Laughing at suffering rather than helping those of us who are trying to curtail the damage is unhelpful. It's no different from Rush Limbaugh saying "I hope he fails".
Contrary to your outrage at my comment, the observation by pjd412 (below) succinctly captured the rationale behind it.
To live is to suffer; that's the first rule of life. I'm certainly not laughing at suffering per se since we all suffer. I did not post what I did lightly or facetiously but in deadly earnest.
I submit too that what I posted is different from the odious Mister Limbaugh saying 'I hope he fails'. Whether Obama succeeds or fails, the same system of governance (some suggest oppression) will remain. Should society fail catastrophically, another system will arise. Will it be a better system? I don't know, all significant change can be risky. But I do know that the current system should probably go.
Revolutionary change has become increasingly difficult. Franz Borkenau, commenting on the Spanish revolution in the 1930s wrote that: "In this tremendous contrast with previous revolutions one fact is reflected. Before these latter years, counter-revolution usually depended upon the support of reactionary powers, which were technically and intellectually inferior to the forces of revolution. This has changed with the advent of fascism. Now, every revolution is likely to meet the attack of the most modern, most efficient, most ruthless machinery yet in existence. It means that the age of revolutions free to evolve according to their own laws is over."
So for better or worse I don't see any change in our corrupt governmental system until it fails utterly; and for that a lot of people who think they've got it made, not just the poor or the disenfranchised who always suffer, will have to be hurt. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but history has amply demonstrated that that's the way it seems to be. I didn't invent the way things work, I am only commenting on it. If you're unhappy with the way things are, direct your complaints to the 'creator' of your choice.
I don't think he is wishing for evil, he is just pointing our that often the conditions for a people need to reach a certain degree of intolerability before they become sufficiently motivated to organize and change things. Change will come sooner if things get intolerable sooner.
It is unfortunate that things work this way, but they do.
"Change will come sooner if things get intolerable sooner."
This is part of the essence of the Declaration of Independence.
Well said - and accurate as to the thrust of my comment. Thanks.
I suppose this is all shock-horror if you believe that our democracy works for the will of its people. Remember: Socrates was put to death in a "democracy".
But this is the cycle of things, is it not? All things succumb to entopy, beginning from a Golden Age and spirialing down through Silver and Broze before we end up, lastly, in an Iron Age.
Therefore for political systems you have an Aristocracy (or "rule by the best" - And this does not apply to money) at the top, an Oligarchy second, a Democracy third and a tyranny last. If we as a country have worn out our Democracy, the natural next step is a proto-Totalitarian state, which has been hinted at for decades now.
I believe we're currently in a soft-Totalitarian state, a plastic period of being "fattened for the kill". It won't be "brown shirts" like last time - No, everything will seem quite normal to us. We will be grateful to be ruled.
Remember: The Nazi's in Germany and the communists in Czechoslovakia BOTH came to power under a democracy.
odoco
there are already Brownshirts - in the form of the rapid militarization of civil police forces. The weaponry, the training, the mindset that that civilian population is the enemy, not the client, already exists.
When I grew up in the 60s we would not have believed that 'free speech zones' would ever be accepted in this country. Bush took it to an art form. Now, Obama carefully crafts his speeches, appearances, and even questions to project the image that all is well in La-La land - which is the hype the civilian sector must accept if force is not to be used. If the 'Left' is to survive (literally), it simply has to come together. If it doesn't, the complexion of this country and the world will continue to change in a way that almost assuredly will end in destruction and chaos.
Alternative public schools, alternative colleges and universities, similar to the ones the 'Right' was savvy enough to create 30 years ago - have to be created to project an alternative view of this situaiton.
The Right controls the military, the courts, the media, the government. The only answer is to this preponderance of misguided and anti-democratic power is to educate the populace, then slowly turn this nightmare around.
Those who believe in civil rights, human rights, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the international agreements created to enhance mankind's existence and equality on this planet - all of you who still believe in these principles - YOU / WE ARE LOSING THE BATTLE.
The ever evolving drama of a perpetual apologist and merkin like Hartmann avoids telling you that had the Democrats observed their constitutional authority, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas appointments, could have been crushed by a Democratic fillibustor long before it festered into the foul odor of fascism to which he laments.
If Hartmann wants to continue with his never ending tale of political woe, and intrigue, he ought to at least be man enough to grow some real hair on his genitalia, by pointing his finger where it belongs: the duopoly. None of the judges he names would be sitting on the court if not for the sterile Democratic Party apparatchiks who function in concert with the Republicans in all matters corporate.
Hartmann calls himself a historian, but does not understand a fundamental feature of our system which is basic: it was set up by our founders to stand as a check against extremism by one political entity or another. When this attribute is ignored, all bets are off, and fascism has carried the day long before individuals like messers Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia have the means to undercut legal precedents.
odoco
You could have made your point without demonizing the author. Do you think you embolden or fortify the progressive community by ignoring the subject matter of the articles and attacking the authors.
Here's a trip for you. Write your own article, do the research, get it published, stick your neck out in the public for full view and criticism.
And I don't mind criticism, but yours sounds more like its coming from the 'Right' than from the 'Left.'
This site does not house what you refer to as a "progressive community." CD is an umbrella for a wide variety of views falling from the authentic left, to right of center engagement like Hartmann who calls himself a progressive.
There are actually few leftists on this site; but those who do fit the characterization are visionary, prophetic, and insightful. They include regular contributors like Greenwald, Hedges, Nader, Zinn, Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Klein, Arundhati Roy, John Dear, Bill McKibben, and Bill Moyers to name the most prestigious voices not in bed with Obama's right of center agenda and war crimes policies. Certainly, there are numerous others of lesser status one could point to that fits the same mold of the left.
Conversely, the vast majority of contributors are people like Hartmann, Parry, vanden Heuvel, and Flanders, who offer their brand of Democratic apologetic ad nausea.
Your suggestion that I write articles because you don't like the nature of my critique is the same 'switch and bait' Hartmann has turned into a substantial cottage industry on behalf of himself.
Speaking truth to power is a necessary and legitimate activity that buffers us from collective tyranny. And using psychological analysis or metaphor (which you refer to demonizing) allows us to understand a guy like Bush who was a dry drunk and had the emotionally maturity of a 27 year old. Likewise, Hartmann sounds more like a 'true believer' perpetually parroting his "move the Dems to the left" but never offering a model which actually does so. As another example of his hypocrisy, he often refers to himself as an Independent on his Radio Show, and in the same breath asserts to get involved in the Democratic Party from inside. Now, if one works from inside the party, one needs to first join it. The obvious contradiction needs to be asked:if Hartmann is an Independent, why he does not follow his own advice he freely and ironically dispenses to others?
To your specific issues, I did not ignore the subject matter of the essay. Go back and reread what I actually said minus the comments that provoked your angst. Hartmann is blaming the entire fascist infiltration of the courts entirely on the Republicans without any mention to the culpability of the Democrats.
During the eight years Bush was president, the Dems routinely rubber stamped his nominations to the federal courts. In fairness, there were a handful of notable fights, maybe five or six at best over a eight year period, but hundreds of right wing judgships were essentially given carte balnche under the Dems and on behalf of Bush. Presumably, the Dems don't have the stomach for protecting our constitutional rights. Any authentic historian worth his or her salt, uses a comprehensive analysis of historic events; in other words, they do not cherry pick the historic record of fascist subterfuge, by routinely negating an entire body of primary data to draw their conclusions. (Thom is well known for this incompetence.)
I agree that all Republicans are fascists and non redeemable gruel, but the Democratic Party is moving in that direction exponentially over the last thirty years with continued sponsorship of their campaigns by corporate entities. We see this currently with each passing sellout from a fantasy called clean coal, war escalation, and numerous other issues. Few authentic Democratic members are left in the Democratic Wing, with the possible exception of Kucinich, and my congresswoman Barbra Lee who I hold in high regard and praise. Ms. Lee and Kucinich were the only two congress people who voted against the Iraq invasion in 2002. Every other Dem voted for it.
Maybe a case for a handful of other Dems who fit the mold. By and large a dying breed given corporate influence peddling.
It is also interesting to note that of the handful of Democrats like Kucinich and Lee, find themselves being repudiated and marginalized by the leadership of their own party, and considered nothing more than minor a irritant to be 'dealt' with by pushing them aside.
Hartmann's analysis (and I use that term lightly) always omits any participation (except in a few oblique examples to the Dems) and those references are never tangential to his ideology.
I suspect that your inner angst over my views has more to do with some type of hero worship than anything else regarding Hartmann's growing and vociferous legion of disciples who follow him around on various forums and provide body protection.
I also recognize that my radical ideology provides dissonance to the right of center folks like yourself in denial about their own right-of-center values tied to status quo power elites. And unlike you, I welcome your critique as an exercise in free speech, even if I don't agree with it, and find it as holding back authentic planetary transformation to sustainable options for all.
Let's start with some of your observations...
"Likewise, Hartmann sounds more like a 'true believer' perpetually parroting his "move the Dems to the left" but never offering a model which actually does so. As another example of his hypocrisy, he often refers to himself as an Independent on his Radio Show, and in the same breath asserts to get involved in the Democratic Party from inside. Now, if one works from inside the party, one needs to first join it. The obvious contradiction needs to be asked:if Hartmann is an Independent, why he does not follow his own advice he freely and ironically dispenses to others? "
Hartmann tells his audience regularly that they must get active and involved in their local party. He stresses this for ANY party, Dem, Repub, Green, etc. Is this not offering a model? As far as his own actions, he has chosen a model too....his radio show. Is that not another model? Are you saying that there can be only 1 model to promote?
"Hartmann is blaming the entire fascist infiltration of the courts entirely on the Republicans without any mention to the culpability of the Democrats."
I listen to his show each day and he is ALWAYS railing against Dems (especially Harry Reid). Without a doubt, he attributes most of our current crises to the conservatives (starting with Reagan), but you're wrong to say he doesn't critize Dems as well...perhaps he's just not placing enough of an equivilant blame on both parties for your tastes. Fair enough. But don't say that he doesn't bash Dems as well.
"It is also interesting to note that of the handful of Democrats like Kucinich and Lee, find themselves being repudiated and marginalized by the leadership of their own party, and considered nothing more than minor a irritant to be 'dealt' with by pushing them aside."
I submit to you that Hartmann was and remains a staunch supporter of Kucinich and regularly had him on his show during the latest presidential campaign. (while most other MSM types wouldn't go near Kucinich, Hartmann embraced his message and openly supported him till he dropped out)
"Hartmann's analysis (and I use that term lightly) always omits any participation (except in a few oblique examples to the Dems) and those references are never tangential to his ideology."
Again, I say that you are wrong on this completely. You continue to use words like "always" and "any" and you are simply wrong. Throwing in a left handed "oblique" doesn't cut it. You haven't listened to his show, or you choose to listen selectively.
"I suspect that your inner angst over my views has more to do with some type of hero worship than anything else regarding Hartmann's growing and vociferous legion of disciples who follow him around on various forums and provide body protection."
As for me, I have no "hero worship" for Hartmann. (only for my father, do I reserve that mantle). But I enjoy his intelligent insight, humour, and rigourous debates with many, many conservatives that he has on his show. His books "Screwed", "What would Jefferson Do?" are a good read for any American who wants a sharper understanding of history and politics. By the way, "body protection"? When has Hartmann needed to be protected from physical harm? I didn't know he was threatened.
So there is my critique as asked for. I belive you and I share many of the same views re: today's politics and politicians. As for your self identification as a "radical", I say good on ya! However, your points about TH are patently specious and without much validity.
If you think Harry Reid is a major player in the flip flopping of Obama's ever waffaling promises, then nothing will convince you otherwise.
A critique against Reid is nothing more than fluff. A symbol for Hartmann to take refuge from the charge apologist. The day he takes his campaign against Obama and his right of center ideology, is the day your argument will hold water and not before.
I see that you're continuing on your course to slime every prominent Progressive writer whose articles appear on CD. As with Greider, you've failed again with Hartmann.
Your own qualifications as historian must be pretty shaky. You're deliberately ignoring the fact that Bill Frist, the Senate Majority leader at the time of the confirmaitons of Roberts and Alito, threatened to change the 60-vote rule for breaking filibusters if the democrats attempted to block those nominations.
q
Hartmann slimes himself without any help from me.
And as far as qualifications go, Hartmann never graduated from an accredited college even though his bio asserts that he is a psychotherapist. In all fairness, I believe he has completed a couple of correspondence courses in herbs. His bio also mentions a PHD from Brantridge in the UK in homeopathy (I assume another correspondence course) but when I googled it, the only mention was this:
http://online.degree.net/archive/index.php/t-1585.html
I met him once during a conference in Germany with his mentor Herr Muller. Herr Muller offered uncommon wisdom during that event.
As far as my qualifications, they include a MTS in Historical Theology from the Pacific School of Religion (I currently have an essay on their website), a M.A. in Depth Psychology from the California Institute in Integral Studies, and B.A. in English Literature; currently I am finishing another Masters in Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine. I also volunteer in a free clinic without compensation serving homeless populations in the Bay area.
What exactly are your qualification besides leaving droppings wherever you go along with your unabashed hatred for anyone who does not pay homage to you?
I have a Masters in Enlgish Literature from Georgia State - an accredited university. I'm afraid that I have no bullshit degrees.
Whatever the particulars of your educational background (which I did not request), your original ad hominem attack on Hartmann's article has no merit and reeks of pettiness.
By the way, I notice that you have no response to my point about republicans threatening to change the rules on the dems.
q
Sorry, typo. It's "English," not "Enlgish."
q
Only you can decided if your educational background is bullshit or if your comments reek of conceit. Just do the best you can, it is all we can ask of the handicapped.
The people were warned that Roberts was a Fascist before he was placed on the Bench by Dictator Bush. Dont forget we still have a nasty five calling themselves Judges. They are merely pawns for the rightwing neo-nazis.
They will continue to rule for the corrupt, because they are corrupt.
Can we please have an exam that all Presidential candidates have to pass before they can declare their candidacy?
It must have questions about the constitution, History and Democracy.
They get one shot to pass it, and can not ever become a candidate again if they fail. Let true scholars write this exam and administer it.
It might make our democracy more democratic, and prevent the insiders to continue to get into positions of power and ruin the world.
Well the fascists already run everything. Fat chance the exam will happen, huh. My bad.
Love
Zero
I hear ya, zero, but the "exam that all Presidential candidates have to pass before they can declare their candidacy" should be a psychological exam. In particular, the exam should ferret out the strength of the individual's denial mechanisms, capacity for cognitive dissonance and pathological lying, and narcissistic tendencies.
My guess is that the Usual Suspects, past and present, would score off the chart.
I'm being facetious, but obviously the problem isn't that candidates are ignorant of history and civics. Some politicians really ARE dumb, but look at the incumbent-- he'd probably pass your civics and history exams with flying colors.
And he's a proud tyrant and war criminal.
The problem isn't his "smarts".
· Yr Obd't Servant
That is True, thanks, OS - perhaps we can devise another mechanism to put a damper on the fascist - It will at least stop the Reagans and the Ws from climbing through their shit. Georgie (sr)was a half ass decent man, even though he was very much part of the system.
Love
Zero
Remembering of course that Bush senior was responsible for the invasion of Panama and the deaths of a few thousand civilians in order to arrest/kidnap Noriega for no longer toeing the US line. Remember too that Mister Bush was CIA director and given our history no CIA director can be a decent man - not even a 'half ass decent man'.
A lot of wannabe El Supremos are busily working up the ladder right now from school boards, zoning boards of adjustment, and town councils. That's the best place to halt their careers before they accrue too much power. Look for pathological neediness, a sense of entitlement, and insincerity.
Children of privilege like Shrub, who can purchase an express ticket around the minor leagues, are tougher to stop, but the same danger signs are there. If it weren't for obscene amounts of money and all the friendly media it can buy, Shrub would never have passed the laugh test.
But, but, but.....this is Amerika, Home of the Free.
Most assuredly Thom, you are mistaken.
Our flag and our motives are unstained and PURE. And shall ever remain so.
(sarcasm, obviously)
Ever since the Santa Clara Co. vs. Southern Pacific Railroad corporation in 1886, corporations have been granted in law the same rights as an individual citizen. Recently it has become clear that now corporations have MORE rights than individuals.
So everyone should go incorporate themselves to level the playing field, because individual rights do not matter to justices like Roberts and Scalia. Roberts in particular is a dispicable justice.
Only individual "natural persons", eligible to vote should be legally allowed to contribute money to political campaigns or to politicians.
A political-economic oligarchy has taken over the United States of America
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14226