Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Grubby Species
Nobility is a bitch, and a real seductive one at that.
I’m capable of some serious cynicism, but these days I kinda wish I had a lot more of it. I kinda wish I had born and raised in a more cynical time. Then maybe I wouldn’t get my heart broken so often.
That’s a funny thing to say about the time I grew up in, in a way. It was the era of Vietnam and Watergate, the era of police attack dogs and burning cities. My Lai, Kent State, Nixon, Watts. What’s uglier than that? And can’t one make a very compelling case that these are significantly better times today? I mean, after all, the government isn’t beating and murdering our kids on America’s streets. And while we’re still fighting wars (of course), there are a lot less casualties on either side these days. Aren’t things better?
No. They’re worse. What’s absent today from the America of my younger days is hope and understanding. Back then, everyone understood there was a struggle going on, and lots of people did just that. And they generated enormous successes, ranging from changing both racial civil rights laws and norms, to doing the same for gender equality, to demanding cleaner government, to improving the New Deal social safety net, to ending the Vietnam war, to distributing the national wealth more fairly, to changing environmental consciousness and law, and more.
It was a painful process, but one that came with an outstanding record of achievement, a record which therefore justified the sense of hope. There was solid and robust empirical evidence to prove that having high expectations for the country was not some pollyannaish exercise in naivete.
That’s all gone. It’s been replaced by something far worse than a tired stasis. And, really, when you consider the present picture in its full glory, you’re left with something beyond despair. For this is not only a story of deceit and hypocrisy, of rampant greed, of sociopathic disdain for the lives of others, but, finally, also a story of complete betrayal and the predatory exploitation of innocent people.
As in any crime story, it’s crucial to understand the who, what, when, why and how in order to unravel the true tale, and to have any hope for crime prevention and remediation in the future.
The ‘what’ of this crime scene is crucial, and so many people still don’t understand it (despite the rampant prevalence of CSI dramas all across the television dial – or perhaps because of it). It’s been said that the perfect crime is one of which the victim isn’t even cognizant. That’s all too true here. This lack of comprehension of what has been done, who did it, and why is the single most depressing feature of American politics today. How can 300 million people hallucinate so deeply all at once? Is there really that much LSD to go around? Or do we just get our drugs from the end of a cable nowadays?
There’s really only one main theme to the story of American politics in the last century (if not more), and that is the question of the distribution of wealth. This is particularly true of the last three decades, a period during which other important things – not least including wars and civil rights struggles – transpired, but were ultimately peripheral to the real story. And yet people still don’t understand this central concept and the crime committed around it.
A hundred years ago the distribution of wealth in this country looked like that of any standard issue banana republic. The rich had almost everything, and all of the rest of us barely got by, working (alongside our children) long hours in horrid conditions, for low pay, no benefits and zero respect for us as humans deserving of an equal regard for our welfare, happiness, opportunities, fortunes and basic dignity. We were ‘human resources’ (though the term was not in use until the ethos was revived in the present era), who were to be used and abused in the processing of natural resources, and discarded when our usefulness ceased. This approach to class relations within the society produced the expected result: wealthy Americans lived long and highly comfortable lives, while the rest of us resembled something nearer to characters out of Hobbes.
But then Franklin Roosevelt, easily the most transformative figure in American history, gave us a New Deal, which was quite literally that. Roosevelt and his fellow travelers in and out of government changed the essential terms of political economy in America, such that it was no longer a game entirely for the benefit of the wealthy. Mind you, those rich folks still did real well, thank you very much, and it is correctly argued that Roosevelt actually saved capitalism from capitalists – so, when it comes to FDR, we’re not talking about Leon Trotsky here. But Roosevelt’s program changed the rules of labor relations, taxation, government spending, regulation and so on, a reform that had the ultimate effect of redistributing wealth in America, so that the richest among us no longer had it all. And, in the process, this massive sea change in public policy also created a giant middle class that had not existed before, and launched an era of prosperity in this country that may have no equal across all of human history.
Which brings us to the ‘who’ of this murder mystery. They are the predatory plutocrats who hated FDR and the New Deal then, and have not stopped doing so down to this day. They despised Roosevelt so much for being “a traitor to his class” that many of them had to refer to him as “that man”, because they couldn’t bear to actually spit out his name. These people, with their infantile obsession for acquisition coming right out of some Freud 101 textbook, have never gone away. But they were marginalized during the half-century of the New Deal era. In fact, they were marginalized by the core mainstream of even the Republican Party. Dwight Eisenhower referred to them – in particular, to those who wanted to abolish Social Security twenty years after its launch – as “stupid”.
Eisenhower’s comment points to another answer to the ‘who’ question here. Plutocrats need agents to commit their crimes for them. That includes cadres of cops and soldiers who are either clueless as to their place in the scheme of things, or satisfied to be bought off for a few shekels and/or a pittance of prestige in the social hierarchy. In the contemporary context, however, it mostly means politicians. In our time these (alleged) people are little more than kabuki dancers, who job is to maintain a layered set of illusions. On top is the idea of political debate, as if there was fundamentally any difference between the two parties in America. As if Harry Reid and Barack Obama get up every day wondering how they can spend their waking hours fighting off Republican intransigencies to make life better for you and me. At the next level down is the idea of patriotism and the national interest. This facade brainwashes us to believe that while we may disagree with leaders of the other party, at least they are well meaning patriots who just happen to be wrong-headed – but right-hearted! – in their prescription for what ails the country. Finally, we have the last veil, the democracy ruse, where we are told that our government is responsive to the public will. Never mind all that corporate money washing around in the system – it doesn’t actually effect anything. It’s one person, one vote. Where your representatives are concerned, you count every bit as much as the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Almost without exception, our contemporary political class serves the function of acting out this tawdry little soap opera, this elaborate diversionary scheme. That’s why there’s so much overlap between Madison Avenue and Hollywood and Washington, America’s politicians are B-rate actors (sometimes literally), playing a role in a lame white-hat-versus-black-hat pseudo-drama filmed on a soundstage called Washington, and doing the commercials in-between as well. But it wasn’t always thus. We used to have (at least some) limits, and we used to have (at least some) politicians genuinely committed to the public interest.
That crucial difference gives us the ‘when’ to this tale. For fifty years there was a broad consensus in America around the values of the New Deal and the lessons learned from the period preceding it. That consensus began unraveling in the 1980s, and has continued to do so ever since. The essential narrative of the last thirty years is the story of the dismantling of the New Deal, and with it the broad and shared prosperity that Americans once enjoyed. This process has occurred piecemeal, because it had to, because in fact both the deal of the New Deal era and the values it personifies are highly popular with the American public.
So the ‘how’ was to lie, cheat and steal in order for the rich to redress the ‘crime’ of the New Deal and get ‘their’ money back. Trade deals that seemed on their surface plainly to be disastrous for American workers – perhaps because that is exactly what they were – were sold to us as beneficial. Union busting, a la Reagan and PATCO, was made to seem an act of necessary national toughness. And who needed unions, anyhow? Didn’t we already have good wages? Deregulation – hey, what a great idea! Let Wall Street banks do whatever they want – you know, like in the 1920s! They didn’t call ‘em “roaring” for nuthin’, pal! Tax slashing for millionaires and billionaires was another big winner. It’ll trickle-down to the rest of us when these job-creators create jobs, it won’t cost the government any revenues, and it will jump-start the economy. So what if regressives went zero for three on those claims? We have to cut taxes even more! And then there are the diversions to keep you voting for the kleptocrats at every turn, such as foreign evil-doers (Ooooohhh, Saddam! Very scary! Noriega! Plenty bad man! Castro! An athiest, for Christ’s sake!), job-stealing Mexicans (you would have wound up being a rich attorney – even though you didn’t go to law school, or even college – but some sneaky wetback crossed the border and took your job), and predatory gays who want to deflower your innocent daughter – er, well, something like that.
Really, you have to give this country credit where credit is due. No contemporary developed nation in the world can touch us where political stupidity is concerned. We’re the best at that! American exceptionalism, man! Take that, you cheese-eating European socialists! Having repudiated the rampant regressivism of the last president – a shit-kicker Texas Republican governor who made his bones frying people on death row – and having spent four years with more of precisely the same politics (except with much more niceness) from our present Social Worker-in-Chief, we are now very likely to turn again next to an even more radical version of the Bush debacle, that being the current shit-kicker Texas Republican governor, Rick Perry. I mean, it all might even have a certain entertainment value to it if Americans had any sense of irony whatsoever. Alas, that is far from the case, and this will all somehow make perfect sense to voters in 2012. The Democrat who governs like a Republican couldn’t do squat to fix the crises created by the Republicans, so we’ll need to get an even more Republican Republican in there to do it right! Far, far right.
I have to confess that I am deeply despondent about politics today, in a way I don’t remember feeling, even during the ugliest days of George W. Caligula. It was awful then, but those actions and ethics were only a natural extension of what had already been going on within the GOP for twenty years. Each successive wave of thuggish animals was uglier than the last (as continues to be the case today), from Reagan to Gingrich to Bush. The Obama presidency, on the other hand, has been crushing to the spirit, and more so because even disappointed liberals still don’t get it, thinking he’s a wimp or a lousy poker player, when in fact he is – like Clinton before him – just another kleptocrat, come to sell out not just the country, but also the ideology of liberalism and the political party which once embodied those principles. That’s quite a trifecta, really. Most horror story politicians would be satisfied just to wreck their country in the name of personal narcissism. Obama is additionally destroying a set of crucial and hard-won ideas along with a political party in the bargain.
He is the anti-FDR in every meaning of that term. FDR saved the country. Obama is burying it. FDR created the Democratic Party as we (used to) know it, once probably the most formidable political machine in American history. Obama is dragging it curbside. FDR gave America its social contract. Obama is dismantling it. FDR reveled in the hatred of the greedy thuggish scum who despised him. Obama keeps hoping they’ll like him and invite him over for a beer if only he lets them pass his limp body around the jail cell one more time. FDR was America’s greatest president. Obama is undoubtedly one of its worst.
This cuts deep, man. Perhaps I should have been used to it after eight years of Clinton (whose adoration to this day by Democrats is a thing of sad wonder and another unrelenting source of despondency) and the absolute nothingburgerness of Nancy Pelosi and crew following the 2006 election. Just the same, I’m having an “Et tu, Brute?” moment as I watch the complete sell-out of 300 million people by a handful of traitors. I’ll give Obama credit for achieving one goal, though. This is a truly bipartisan act of treason. Good for him. Working together with Republicans seems very important to this president.
Meanwhile, though, what is there to do, say and think when the avenues for seeking solutions – hell, even for just ending our suicidal tendencies – all seem to be closing up at once, and every iteration of American politics is about losing more of what matters? Like I said, it’s getting harder and harder to have hope, and even to care. I guess at some point if stupid people want to do stupid things to themselves, you gotta let them. I kinda wish the rest of us weren’t dragged down the toilet with them, though. That’s just rude.
It’s even tempting to think that a Republican sweep in 2012 would be good for the country. Since conservative prescriptions can only continue the destruction they’ve begun, perhaps this disaster could mark the repudiation of the ideology forever. ‘Course, that’s what some of us thought in 2008, and now it is only worse. Far worse. Who could have imagined that, after a decade of Bush, regressivism and disaster that two years later the right would be back with the tea party and stronger than ever? Kafka? Dali? Timothy Leary?
The most disheartening thing about the American political condition is the degree to which people don’t get what has happened to them, and still continues to happen, destroying the body politic. It’s as if you were staring at an x-ray of a giant tumor in your belly, and nevertheless still sat there in befuddled consternation, wondering what the hell was making you feel so ill. It’s as if you then thought to yourself, “Oh, what the hell, I guess I’ll just drink a keg or two of this here Tumor Growth Potion. Maybe that will cure me.” In the latest sign of this diagnostic idiocy, voters in Wisconsin this week had the opportunity to respond to the tumor that is their Republican governor, through the mechanism of recall elections. The results were hardly a ringing endorsement for sanity, or even self-protection from the predators for whom Scott Walker and his party (as well as most of the other party) shills. That’s really depressing.
What is most disheartening is that Americans don’t even understand the experiment they’ve been subjected to these last thirty years. They seem to get the fact that it has failed, but they don’t know what “it” is. How many people know that regressives have won more or less every single economic policy battle of the last three decades, from taxes to trade to labor relations to deregulation to privatization to subsidies and beyond? How many Americans know this? How many know, to simply choose the most obvious example (but the same logic applies across the board), that taxes are far lower in America today than they have been for almost a century? And how can they possibly reject this regressive experiment in political economy if they don’t even know that it has been conducted?
One reason they don’t know, of course, is that nobody is telling them this. Sure, there are a couple of real liberals in Congress and even a socialist senator. But the real truth is that there is absolutely no left in America today, as a serious political movement. None. Liberalism hasn’t had a real voice in America for thirty years, perhaps forty. What we have today, instead, is an insane tea party right, whom people like Eisenhower would have utterly abhorred. Then we have the ‘mainstream’ GOP, like John Boehner, who are simply yesterday’s regressive tea party revolutionaries, and who therefore look moderate only through (faux) comparison to the Michele Bachmanns and Allen Wests of this world. Then you have the so-called ‘centrist’ or moderate Democrats in Congress, who can always be relied upon to provide any non-GOP votes necessary to stuff the plutocratic stocking with Xmas gifts, not to mention the one in the White House who signs the bill a day or two later. Finally, there are the Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers of our political firmament, whose job it is to provide the image of an opposition to oligarchy and the military-industrial complex. “We’ll shut down the war as soon as we get control of Congress”, they say. Until they actually do win majorities, that is, when it becomes, “Oh, did we say that?”
And so on. Like I said, there is no one out there – and hasn’t been for over a generation – who is leading the progressive charge, or even trumpeting the liberal narrative, to counter the absurdly manifest lies of the right. Fox News only makes sense if you’re stupid. Similarly, more tax cuts for billionaires as a solution to an economy and a federal budget wrecked by tax cuts for billionaires only makes sense if no one else is out there pointing out that this particular imperial monarch is standing before us buck naked (if you catch my drift). I wouldn’t mind quite as much that my country was committing national suicide if I thought that was the intention. In fact, it’s more like murder by giving poisoned lollipops to middle-aged babies who gleefully grab for them. Hence my despondency.
If there is a small ray of hope out there, it is that more people are beginning to catch on. There has been a large spate of articles in the media lately with the theme of Obama’s complete ineptitude and insignificance as a serious political force. Liberals are by and large finally, amazingly, beginning to understand that he is not a liberal champion by any stretch of the imagination. That’s progress, at least, over reading for the last two years that Obama is a liberal or socialist or has a far-left agenda. What sickening, Orwellian, bullshit that is. Sadly, however, while commentators and the voting public are starting to recognize that Obama is not one of us, they have not yet realized the full truth, which is that he is one of them. As if somebody else picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and Bob Gates to serve in his cabinet. As if someone else decided to bail-out Wall Street while doing nothing about jobs or mortgages. As if there was another guy in the White House who tripled American forces in Afghanistan, or maintained Guantánamo in its fully operational state. This is what is, ultimately, so sickening about our current political condition. As a country, we don’t even know what it is.
If there is another slightly larger a ray of hope on the horizon, it is the premise that there is a breaking point out there somewhere. We’re seeing it in Israel (though, of course, the US media declines to cover the story), where huge swaths of the population have been on the streets protesting against – not Palestinians – but rather plutocratic plundering and the diminished lives it has left them with. We’ve seen that right across the Arab Spring countries, and in Greece and Britain.
Just the other day someone correctly noted that, “There is no excuse for violence, no excuse for looting, no excuse for thuggery, and those who are responsible must know that they will be brought to justice. I think this is about sheer criminality.” I couldn’t agree more, except that I was thinking it applies to the greedy bastard thugs whose sheer criminality, looting and – yes – violence has brought the world’s economy to its knees, rather than to the response to that on the streets of London, which was what Tory Home Secretary Theresa May meant when she made that comment. In any case, maybe we’re seeing the beginnings of the breaking point. Perhaps people are at last starting to say Basta! to impoverishment of the many in order to serve the greed of the few.
Maybe such restored political nobility will even come to America.
Maybe it isn’t the entire human species that tramples on nobility in its grubby pursuit of greed, but just Homo Sapien Americanus.
And maybe even we children of the Neanderthal can do better, if pushed hard enough.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


149 Comments so far
Show AllI'd have to agree. I am not sure the Neanderthals were less developed than current man. I am not sure skin color had anything to do with it. I think it had nothing to do with the end of the Neanderthals. I think they allowed themselves to be absorbed into obsurity and derided as subnormal.
Neanderthals were white and red headed. And I am thinking Darwin hadn't even been born before their extinction.
I amazed how hard you tried to bring it into play.
Darwin was a naturalist supreme,
spent his entire life observing biota.
Please explain this outrageous claim.
That's what I thought; you have never read Darwin's words.
Go ahead, hate humanity, but these are growing pains. A little over a century ago there was no running water in homes, no electricity and all that comes with it, and no cars. Population exploded with medical advances and mechanized agriculture. Lifestyles changed faster than individuals could comprehend. Now we know that these gifts come with a burden.
It's the bad seeds, not all of humanity.
darwin was bought and paid for by the british east india co., ..as was thomas malthus ...the psychotic more or less fascist priest whose ideas darwin used... survival of the fittest......that is not science....
I don't quite know why, but I was also emotionally overcome by Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Herzog is a great talent, but it wasn't so much his skill as a filmmaker as his ability to just get out of the way and let the paintings speak for themselves. He showed great wisdom in refraining from interpretation. Just seeing 35,000 year old paintings, the impact was terrific, like the tolling of a huge bell.
Perhaps I was shocked to find my own sense of beauty so aligned with that of such a distant ancestor. I felt honored, beyond what I deserve, by the privilege of this viewing. It's impossible to describe what I felt.
That old subtle feeling when one realizes it is a trap and how then to get out or minimize the danger or damage. That is what this coterie of psychopaths have learned to create, the trap without the least bit of evidence that it is a trap and then with the psychopaths unique ability, because he hates and/or is totally indifferent to his own species, to then finesse his prey into the trap.
I have come to accept that that is what a key problem is. The psychopaths have infested the 'body politic' and are having their devious and remorseless way with the rest of us. A slight of religion that has been and is being ingrained in the 'people' to not harm the other of our species will only lend itself to being harmed by those who don't care, are bankrupt of any moral integrity and empty of any empathy. Guess who will win out over the other?
It would be to people's advantage to identify these psychopaths and find ways to prevent their most insidious behaviors, cause if feel you can't eliminate your aggressively hostile adversaries, you lose by giving up the right to defend yourself. They don't want to save others, it isn't in their best interest.
I have written here before that if only 10% of the 7,000,000,000 people where bad criminal and evil, then that would constitute a 700,000,000 of these people. But as we are dealing with the beguiling persona of psychopaths whose wants and needs are based on material wealth, that is like the bait that will increase the above number dramatically in perverted efforts to have more, more and more to satiate their desires. Meaning that 10% is far too small a number of these most undesirable people.
Problem is today that 10 percent actually contols the agencies that should be investigating and controlling their activities. Hence the strident calls for less "regulation" in the interest of "commerce". When we awake to the fact that "commerce" does not equal a "just" society, we will have elvolved.
I'm reminded of the massacre of a roomful of nurses by a single man that occurred in the '70s or '80s. Few could understand why the nurses hadn't banded together and attacked the man.
Richard Speck, 1966.
Richard Franklin Speck (December 6, 1941 – December 5, 1991) was a mass murderer who systematically tortured, raped and murdered eight student nurses from South Chicago Community Hospital in Chicago, Illinois on July 14, 1966.
Thanks for supplying the details. Richard Stark was the name that came to mind, but these days I don't trust my brain to supply the right one.
I can't forget the name Richard Speck, if only because I still occasionally listen to SImon & Garfunkel's compelling, poignant "Seven O'Clock News/Silent Night"*.
Not to "spoil" it for anyone who's unfamiliar with it, but (per Wikipedia):
"The track consists of an overdubbing of two contrasting recordings: a simple arrangement of the Christmas carol 'Silent Night', and a simulated '7 O'Clock News' bulletin of the actual events of 3 August 1966."**
The Speck murders are referenced along with other cheerer-uppers.
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-og_MxjIrzg
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_O%27Clock_News/Silent_Night
What has us all so damn scared in the US is the creeping notion that we are now approaching a fight with our backs against the wall, something akin to how the Soviet defenders at Stalingrad must have felt, or the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto. All the US liberals seemed to buy into the idea that capitalism was some basically benign system for most, that merely needed rare tinkering with from time to time. Intellectual 'positive thinking' Bubble is now burst though, since capitalism is coming for the very liberals themselves!
Miquetoast personality type has lost all its supposed value along with the liberals' stock market portfolios crashing to the pits. The boss man simply wants to chew his liberal 'intellectuals' up like they were just mere snuff, and then spit them all out into the gutter. Ouch!
No what has all of us in a bind is trying to uphold the current marketing. You can't wave the flag and cheer the heros, at the same time ignoring the excesses that lead us there. You can't fear immigrants while allowing the corporations and businesses that hire them to get away with their business practices. You can't demonize one Abrahamic religion while sanctioning two others and their excesses at repression and apartheid. Or backs are against no wall, except Wall St.. And I am not seeing any war waged against them.
You can't call a war on "terriorism" and fail to define it. A business would never get away with that in any business plan.
What was different in the sixties is we weren't trying to fit in or profit. We weren't interested in living the same lifestyle as our parents. We didn't fear other races. The young women then didn't fear unwanted pregnancies. We wanted the opportunity to make our own choices live our own lives. And our young men faced a draft. Saturdays they faced a lottery that decided whether or not they could go on with their lives or if they had to put on a uniform and go shoot "gooks" or expatriot. Today most of our kids don't have any other jobs as a choice. They have only one choice.
How many boomers are there? I am thinking we could once again be a force to be reckoned with.
I can't be bought by Wall St., I've nothing they wish to buy. They've exploited my life and career into seeming nothingness. But thing is I still have one vote, how many like me are there? I am sure some marketing wizard knows.
We could be a demographic that could once again turn the tide. A wild card!
Well I'm a son of Boomers, and I can tell you that there are less of you than are of us, if that helps. ;)
We need a catch phrase that says in effect: I'm liberal, but I won't put up with this phony Dem-vs-Rep kabuki theater any longer. No piecemeal cause du'jour please. No movin on, I'm stayin put till a real movement arises.
"A hundred years ago the distribution of wealth in this country looked like that of any standard issue banana republic."
Ugh.
BIG flaw in an otherwise good essay.
Moronically incorrect statement born of all-to-typical Labor prejudice and ignorance of the Farmers.
One of the DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS of a "banana republic" is that nearly all of the crop land is owned by Plutocrats or Oligarchs or Foreign Corporations. This is where "banana republics" grown the effin' bananas, dangit!
100 years ago the majority of crop land in the U.S. was owned by families and other smallholders producing crops for market under their own management. The switch to mechanization was just starting to push the majority into risky debt to the banks. The Dustbowl and Farm Crisis that began the process of conversion to large agribusinesses was more than a decade away in the mid '20s.
Green means "70" or "75 years ago" not 100. Or he means "for labor" and "in the cities" not the "country".
Pretty damned big mistake to make, if you ask me.
(not that any one did ;) )
-matti.
I agree with the first half of your article, the second half has several opinions I do not agree to. I hope you do not teach your students some of these ideas. Even though a lot of forum readers agree I’ll stand as the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
I believe Obama represents a centrist president somewhat slightly left of center, probably more left than Carter and Clinton but not as left as LBJ. Though you did not say this, I have heard other use words such as Republican mole, and corporate shill. I think the criticism does not help, and appears more incorrect than correct. When I read articles such as yours, I wonder what the writer wants to happen. Should the middle class vote Republican against its own self interests?
Should its members not vote Democrat, virtually assuring a Republican victory in 2012 for the House, Senate, and president?
I don't think either of those options makes sense. People need to spend more time contacting Congress and delivering the message to Republicans stating what they stand for and not what they oppose. Presumably that means CD readers stand for health care; they stand for creating jobs before deficit reduction; they stand for increasing taxes on the rich rather than punitive spending reductions on the middle class; and that they would like to see reductions in defense spending. They need to tell Republicans about their concerns about dismantling the social programs that flowed from the New Deal. They need to stop denigrating members that work for them.
The enlightened among the CD crowd could even mention estate taxes, no tax breaks on stocks and stock options as remuneration for service, and those with some economics background might mention lowering corporate tax rates with a compensating raising of individual income tax rates and limiting deductions for high income earners. (Corporations simply pass their costs onto consumers. In the jargon of the market, they have pricing power.)
Also progressives need to learn some facts, so that they can rebut the lies that some Republicans spew day in and day out. E.g., how many in this forum know that Bush doubled the unemployment rate, doubled the government debt, and had the largest deficit since WW II. Obama did not increase the debt threefold or deficit tenfold, as I have heard from the Republican spin machine. How many know that Carter had a yearly job creation rate substantially better than Reagan's, and Carter ended his last fiscal year with the lowest debt to GDP ratio since World War II. How many know why Texas has above average job creation? Perry does not deserve credit for that. How many understand why job creation happens slowly? How many can articulate effects of the housing collapse, which began in 2006? How many can understand that main street greed, not just wall street greed and fraud, contributed to the financial collapse? How many know the role of smart growth policies in creating the housing bubble? The enemy does not reside in the Whitehouse, at least not yet. The enemy resides in an ideology and mythology used by those who wish to live in the Whitehouse.
How many have actually sat in senior management positions and ranked tasks in priority order? How many have ever made decisions in which they must choose between options that all have negative consequences, or have negotiated with somebody having intractable positions? I worry about political scientists rendering judgments, and then preaching to the converted, neither of which demonstrate a good understanding of the enormity of the economic problems faced by the current incumbent.
In short, my dear progressive friends, in view of the enormity of the problems, Obama has done a fantastic job, a job that only a few people in the US could handle. Even Reich, Krugman, and Stigliz could not handle the problem. I know it does not look that way, but remember Obama entered the Oval Office with job losses at 800,000 per month and increasing, the credit markets frozen, a debt that gave little room to maneuver, the construction industry in disarray, and the Michigan auto industry facing bankruptcy and unable to borrow to restructure. Collapse of that industry would have spread and brought down the manufacturing industry and the American economy, and likely the world's economy. Saving that industry alone, warrants two thumbs up and a second term. He entered office with two wars in full swing, and it takes time for withdrawal. Abrupt and premature withdrawals kill people.
Even FDR did not turn the Depression around before WW2. He entered office with unemployment at 25%, lowered the rate to 15%, but then it went back up to 20%. It took a national emergency of WW2 with huge deficits for several years, to turn the economy around. In short it took close to 15 years from 1929 to recover.
Unfortunately Obama does not have water wings, so I prefer to defend him rather than denigrate and poke holes, which seems most unproductive.
DERF20003 - Having read your next to last paragraph about FDR, I realized that while I remember the day Pearl Harbor was bombed, and the day FDR died, I'd never really thought about the timeline of his presidency. I was only seven when he died, and my family was very poor, aside from the fact the country was still recovering from the Depression. I'd only heard my parents talk about what FDR had done for the country. Thank you for putting this little bit of history into its proper context.
Their second-to-last paragraph exposes their agenda, it does not reflect history accurately.
1. Unemployment and the economy took a bad turn after the 1937 mistake of pulling back on the New Deal reforms when the recovery looked to be on its way. FDR did not make this change by himself as Supreme Ruler. Anti-New Deal forces in Congress and elsewhere pushed for this strongly.
2. The WWII Economy was not some sort of divergence from the New Deal, it was the New Deal on steroids! The heavy regulations on finance and industry, the heavy taxes on top and corporate incomes, the make-work programs, the wealth redistribution, the social welfare programs, the research and applications funding, all of it straight from the New Deal and Keynesian theory and FDR's positions.
I concur with both of your points. I did not intend to mislead; I found myself running out of my word allotment, and decided to concentrate on the time for recovery, not who or what caused the problems.
Hoover had a balance the budget mentality, and his policies exacerbated the garden variety recession of 29 which turned into the Great Depression. As you observe, in 37 Republican forces talked/forced FDR into less spending, which created the FDR recession of 1937. The 1930, 1937, and the WW II experience led to realization of many economists that correcting deficits in hard times can, and did, make things worse, and that deficits on steroids, as you put it, can, and did, lead to full employment. Hoover had lost 6.5 million jobs and had an average annual job decrease of 6.4% under his watch. FDR, on the other hand in his first term before 1937 increased jobs by 5.5 million for an average annual increase of 5.3%. In his second term because of factors you have mentioned job creation fell to 3.3 million for an average yearly job increase of 2.6%. During WW II, the economy created another 7.4 million jobs for an average yearly job increase of 5.2%. These figures speak volumes for targeted government spending, and strongly suggest that balancing budgets at inappropriate times can make things much worse.
To continue, though Hoover balanced the budget, because of falling employment he actually had large unplanned deficits. In Hoover's watch, GDP decreased by 50%. In FDR's first term GDP doubled, in his second term it fell slightly and then recovered. During WW2 in spite of rationing and war restrictions, the economy reached full employment and GDP doubled in FDR's third term.
Looking back at this snippet of history should inform us about several things. First the economic environment that precipitated both recessions has a lot of similarities. At the start of the Great Depression and the start of the Great Recession, the country had a relatively high Gini index, (indicating a disparity of wealth). At the start of both recessions the country had remarkably lax regulations, especially financial regulations. Both recessions started because of greed and fraud. In the twenties the stock market had become a gambling casino with extremely low margin requirements. That coupled with considerable fraud led to the crash of 29, which with people losing homes and jobs led to bank failures. In the Great Recession, the housing collapse started in 2006 and made apparent the ridiculous, and often fraudulent lending practices in mortgages and the buying and selling of derivatives. The country has had many financial institutions fail with some large ones, such as Lehman Brothers, and near failures such as AIG. This led to foreclosures, freezing of credit, with construction and manufacturing industries particularly hard hit. Apparently at this time about 60 lawsuits valued at about $200 billion exist, most of which cite fraudulent practices in the financial industry.
FDR assumed his watch after Hoover followed policies that made things worse, and the public would accept almost any solution. FDR, however, had his detractors, and in 37 he found himself in almost a no win position: increase deficits further in the face of a campaign saying he had the wrong policies or succumb to demands of Congress to tighten fiscal controls. Where have we heard that message before?
With Obama a similar dynamic has existed. Many people, however, do not hurt as they did in 1932, and Republicans had already cut and changed the Recovery Act spending in ways not recommended by Krugmann and Stiglitz. Faced with little spending money from Congress and cries that he destroys the country with deficits and debt, the public, as evidenced by the T-party movement, would not tolerate increased deficits and debt. I hope the public smartens up and stops voting against its own best interests.
Anyway, at this time, Obama faces a litany of complaints about problems, many not of his making. I concentrate on those from Republicans: wrong spending policies, failure to correct the Great Recession, outlandish deficits and debt creation, wrong foreign policy, too accommodating with foreign powers, imposing tighter financial and consumer protections, inappropriate expenditures on the environment, universal health care enactment, etc. etc. etc. Of course we now hear the false canard of increasing taxes on job creators, purposely confusing that notion with another of reducing taxes on everyone, especially the middle class. Those not paying attention to details might buy into some of this rhetorical nonsense. People have forgotten or do not know that the past three Republican presidents created $9.5 trillion of our government debt (over 2/3rds of the Fed. Gov. debt). Reagan tripled the debt, and Bush 43 doubled the debt. They implemented tax breaks for what they call job creators, creating deficits, and blaming liberal spending. St Ronnie, the high priest of economic nonsense, promulgated supply side economics with tax breaks for the rich; he and his two Republican successors, Bush41, and Bush 43 created 16.1 million jobs, 2.6 million jobs, and 1.1 million jobs, respectively for a total of 19.8 million jobs in 20 years, barely keeping up with workforce growth rates (students and immigrants enter the workforce at a rate approximating 1% of the workforce). Clinton created 22.7 million jobs in 8 years even though he removed the tax breaks for the so-called mythical job creators. Deficits and debt comes from either failing to collect revenue or spending too much. Failing to collect revenue comes from inappropriate tax rates and deductions, an inappropriate structure of the taxation regime, and a loss of jobs in the economy, or failure to create jobs in a stagnant economy.
In following St. Ronnie’s voodoo, Republicans have largely eviscerated the middle class largely created because of the New Deal and the good times following WW2 to the late seventies, about the time the saint appeared with his economic nonsense designed to kill social legislation.
DER: Well, you've given the Obama apologist club's talking points to the forum. (As the election nears, others will likely reinforce this idiocy.) 95% of those who post here are informed enough NOT to let your selected points, taken out of context and largely devoid of practical meaning, get in the way of what they know, see, and in fact already experience.
Anyone defending Obama deserves to be tied up with rotten fruits thrown at him. And that's being kind.
Nice try. Don't call me an "apologist"; call me a "supporter". Obama has nothing to apologize for. I use data, not talking points. I have seen few of my statements in print anywhere. I can, however, cite reliable sources refuting Republican claims that Obama tripled the debt or increased the deficit ten fold. I can cite CBO studies that show that the Recovery Act did what Whitehouse advisers said it would do. Both Stiglitz and Krugmann have grudgingly said the Recovery Act worked--but they both add that it should have had more spending. "Haha-- tell that to Congress," I say.
You need only look at BLS data, BEA data, and treasury data to verify all my figures after 1940. As for the Hoover and FDR comparisons, you can find some of it in government data, and some of it in books written on the Great Depression.
Do you really think I spoke out of context, or that Obama supporters speak idiocy? If so, you expose ignorance by those insinuations.
As for your 95%, perhaps you have that number correct, perhaps not. So what? Even if most people share your beliefs, perhaps you and others have it wrong. Before Copernicus theory more than 95% of the world believed in the geocentric universe. Before Columbus many people had a model of a flat world with water falling off the edge (even though the Greeks had calculated the earth's diameter centuries earlier)!. For centuries people believed heavier objects fall faster than light ones. The people of many villages often believed in witches. For centuries doctors have had bizarre theories about causes of disease and only data gathering and verification led to refutation of many of the earlier theories.
Maybe I draw false conclusions from the data I cited. If so you should explain why you think I have it wrong and stop insinuations. If you have meaningful statements, criticize my points and support your reasons.
You might start, for example, citing reputable economic studies backed by data that supports St. Ronnie's notions of trickle down economics. I have found none, but many suggesting it makes little sense.
Lowering taxes for the rich, for example, increases deficits and debt, and does not pay for itself. It has a lower multiplier than directed spending towards such things as construction of infrastructure. Since Reagan, three Republican presidents created most of the government debt in part to compensate for reduced taxes from high income tax payers. The mythical job creators did not appear. Early in Bush's watch he reversed Clinton's reinstatement of upper bracket taxes, yet he has the worst job creation record since Hoover (1.1 million net new jobs in eight years) and he created $6.1 trillion in debt, and the largest deficit on record ($1.98 trillion) These Republican presidents, even though they both reduced taxes AND increased spending did not even keep up with job creation for the growing workforce. Bush started with an unemployment rate of 4.2% and ended with an unemployment rate of 8%. Yet Republicans have the audacity to blame Obama, who inherited an economic crisis of the same order as the start of the Great Depression.
People expand businesses and create new ones to meet consumer demands not because they have more change in their pockets. Job creation requires increasing aggregate demand--one does that by government stimulus, either through the tax code or directed spending. The true job creators come from the middle class, and jobs appear to meet their consumer demands. No demand, then no new jobs. Putting extra money into pockets does little: it increases consumer demand marginally and under some conditions of low investment due to the cost of money, it can increase investment, but businesses always require consumer demand before that action will work.
I believe that many people at this site would likely accept and maybe even check my assertions about false Republican claims. I hope so.
Many complaints about Obama originate because of perceptions that he compromises too much, that some people believe he acts more like a Republican than a Democrat (or conservative versus liberal), that progressives did not get a single payer health insurance system, that unemployment remains high, etc. In some of these issues the complainers don't even look back, for example, and ask why Democrats have always failed to achieve universal health care for the country. It took seven decades and Obama did it. Obama succeeded where others failed. By looking at comparisons with other administrations one should come to the conclusion that Obama has done quite well whether we call him a liberal or conservative. Whatever the label, most thinking people appreciate that he reasons, deliberates, and does not act like members of the rabid T-Party, or Republican leaders in Congress, ready to set off a financial time bombs if they don't get their way.
I have never expected any politician to make sea changes. I want to know if things at the end of a term have improved or not. On the whole I think they have, so I will continue to support Obama and Democrats. I believe the Obama administration stopped the runaway financial train, saved the auto industry and in so doing millions of jobs, and the North American economy and perhaps the world economy, and he gave us universal health care, a substantial improvement over what the country had before he took office. I have lots of things on my wish list, but I leave that for another day, for it takes more than a day to build an empire.
As you precipitously stated, you may be 'right' about your interpretations or you may be 'wrong'. In either case, you are 'wrong' about Obama. He has sold the (real people of this) country down the river with all the slickness of the "Slickster" himself. Give up your graphs for a couple of months and read some David Ray Griffin. Until you understand what happened on 9-11, and I don't mean some half-assed opinion based on what someone else says happened -- I'm talking about doing ALL the research (starting with the 9-11 Commission Report) and reading all the available literature, your conclusions are, by definition, outdated. At best, you suffer from a crippled epistemology. At worst, you are a shill for the dark side. You seem like a highly intelligent unit, but in case you were unaware, Arab teenagers (other than being lined up as scapegoats) had nothing to do with 9-11. Cheney and operatives did. The chances that Obama does not know this are less than infinitesimal. I have not seen an independent prosecutor appointed as of yet, which means that with each passing day, the perpe"traitors" of the worst crime in American history are more likely to avoid justice. This fact alone makes Obama an accessory after the fact, and hence, by definition, a traitor. The low comedy that he and the other stepford sociopaths played in the photo-op I like to call "Get Beardy" is merely corroboration of the notion that Obama is not well meaning toward the little guy. Again, in case your news source(s) didn't get this to you, Osama Bin Laden died in December, 2001.
Please forgive me if the tone seems a little harsh, because you seem well-meaning. But to paraphrase Professor Green, you are one of the dragger-downers my friend. Time to get the sand out of your eyes.
The basic premise of this article is completely false. The cause of the economic crisis is a government that is already way too big. The nightmare of the current leviathan was started by our worst president - FDR. Take a look at this http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s and you can see that the federal government has historically spent less than 5% of the United States GDP. During the building of the most powerful economy ever seen in history, the Federal Government remained quite small and did very little to interfere in the economy. The federal reserve bank did not even exist. The average individual saw his income increase almost continually during the period up to the New Deal.
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, nor did WW II ( http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/ ):
"Let’s be blunt. If the recipe for economic recovery is putting tens of millions of people in defense plants or military marches, then having them make or drop bombs on our enemies overseas, the value of world peace is called into question. In truth, building tanks and feeding soldiers—necessary as it was to winning the war—became a crushing financial burden. We merely traded debt for unemployment. The expense of funding World War II hiked the national debt from $49 billion in 1941 to almost $260 billion in 1945. In other words, the war had only postponed the issue of recovery."
It is now well understood that the minimal interference of the government during the time from our founding to the New Deal is what enabled the incredible growth of the United States. We've even seen that cutting government works here. After Calvin Coolidge sharply cut taxes, the roaring 20's occurred ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015 ). The Heritage Foundation's Index of economic freedom ( http://www.heritage.org/index/ ) shows this quite clearly.
If you want to restore prosperity, it would be wise to see what has historically worked and what is working, around the world, now. This administration is repeating the policies of the 30s and wondering why the results they're getting are pretty much the same. The insanity of spending ourselves into national bankruptcy is one reason for my sig:
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
Someone call the village and tell them we've found their missing idiot.
So David Michael Green has finally gone all the way.
Welcome David, to the political hinterlands of America's truth-tellers.
Welcome to the desert of the real.
Staggeringly confused, habitually indoctrinated, and sympathetic.
Nobility,
Either as a spiritual goal or a level of existence, is an illusion.
It is within the integration of the "grubby" and the "noble" where we may find the truth.
The current disintegration of human society and the environment is the flowering of the longing for nobility without an honest assessment of our grubbiness. We think we can be and are more deserving than the grubs and nature is about to let us destroy our arrogant grubby selves because of our notions of superiority.
The insidiously deceitful manifestation of our arrogance
called Nationalism,
which is devoutly worshipped by republicans and democrats alike,
when coupled with the LIE of so-called "free" market capitalism,
which is also devoutly worshipped by republicans and democrats alike,
is nothing other than disdainful predation upon our own grubby selves and upon this planet.
To Hell (as is inevitable) with the notion of nobility. It is a lie.
Notions of nobility are the main cause of our disintegration.
Equal justice cannot co-exist with the lie of nobility.
So Obama is the opposite of FDR. I guess the opposite of FDR is RDF, or Real Damned Focker.
As some of you have quite eloquently invoked, the mystical core of all the world religions as well as the vast majority of indigenous historic spiritual traditions in my view hold the only solution for humanity. My own paper and book-in-progress, "Entering the Light: The Historic Socialist Project as Mystical Society," tries to make this case. Once a fully secular thinker who has taught philosophy and sociology for almost 30 years, I have become convinced that no entirely secular approach to creating a genuinely democratic socialist society can ever succeed; and I am convinced further that it is either this "awakened" mystical planetary path or certain human extinction. I also suggest you read the former Neomarxist sociology of education scholar, Philip Wexler's "Mystical Society" (2000) for an intensely stimulating preliminary foray into this core theme.
Hello, Bruce, and welcome to Commondreams!
As I came to the final pages of a new book, I noticed persons in the forum using words (and concepts) that ran parallel with my work. Words like "coalescence." My original story was written in l988 in the Florida Keys, and when I began its revision for self-publishing, the BP oil disaster struck! Gone was the Pollyanna-ish ending I'd intended for the story, a scene of human forms merging at sunset with those of dolphins just off Mallory Dock in Key West. That dream died with the tainted Gulf waters...
I didn't want to give up on this book, but I had no idea how to write another ending. A trip to Peru and time with "The Four Winds Society," lent me the necessary direction. A few insights came to me that relate directly to your post:
1. Many of us have prepared many lifetimes for this moment
2. Many of us are here, embodied, to help with the inevitable shift
3. Many of us have lived Indigenous, close-to-the-land past lifetimes and will, out of
necessity, likely access the memories of these times, and the applications they call for. (Survival will demand as much.)
4. The Shamans of Peru believe that new Light is emanating from the sun, and it will alter the DNA of mankind to bring forth the next evolution: that of Homo Luminous
The film, "What The Bleep Do We Know," showed how Buddhist monks meditating over water altered it shape. Most of the world IS water.
I believe the healing of the Earth must begin with the state of its waters.
While in Singapore/Malaysia, I met Pranic healers. The synchronicity behind this was mind-blowing, truly one of those items that I term: "behind the scenes cosmic choreography." I happened into a cool New Age shop in the Chinatown portion of Singapore just as the owner was coming through the door. She looked depressed, so I offered her a Tarot reading. She and I, both Leos, immediately clicked; and so she invited me to stay (they had a cafe there) for dinner. THAT night one of the most enlightened persons EVER to cross my path showed up with his laptop computer. HIs first name is Thorton; and to my recollection, without knowledge of the methodology used by Edgar Cayce to diagnose illnesses (Cayce saw discoloration of the aura, and the patches of darkness he then tied to dysfunction in specific organs of the body) he had amassed related data stored on his computer.
Thornton was booked to give a lecture on his findings the next day, at $600 a pop, to doctors and the psychiatric community. The genius of the work was that Thornton and his partner had compiled a database based on discoloration to the aura, and linked specific discolored patches with a variety of illnesses. They had hundreds of case examples recorded. It was impressive!
The methodology was largely that of nipping a problem in the bud, when it still existed ONLY in the body's atmosphere, and had not yet deteriorated the tissues.
The synchronicity was powerful for me. Relating what I knew of Cayce, to the data base Thornton was sharing, and linking both to Pranic (energy) healing. Later these ideas became part of the current book, impressions I impart as the potential means to heal Earth.
The ancient Zodiac, in my view, is a contemporary model that explains human differences, prototypical motivations (and the behaviors each gives rise to), and the designs of time, itself. There is a planned evolution that moves from sign to sign; and now, with the powerhouse influence Pluto transiting Capricorn, the sign of rigid controls (government-state-corporate engendered), the grip tightening on citizens' rights and benefits all across the globe, leads to rebellion. Rebellion and the sovereignty of each individual is sacred to Aquarius, which happens to be the cosmic principle next up on the wheel of time. Aquarius, the sign of Amistad, or friendship and greater tolerance, signifies a phase where respect is shown for unique human differences.
The pattern of the evolution of signs suggests that the grip MUST tighten, in order for the masses to break free. Tragic as events are playing out, I see a wisdom embedded into the mechanics of time... and believe that Homo Luminous will eventually prevail.
Best wishes, Sioux
P.S. People ARE waking up, and many of us are dedicated to the cause of expanding consciousness beyond the box that so many authoritarians defend so violently and vehemently.
Dear Siouxrose,
Thank you for your warm welcome and your many insightful connections and observations. I resonate and agree with everything you said. I've been reading/pondering at CD for quite some time, and have published some of my own pieces here. Be well...
DMG, it see where our o is using harsh language against the 'other side' now. How daring and what nerve. Could this be his becoming aware or are he and they just pulling more tricks to fool us poor old dumb shits into thinking he his making progress? Don't really know myself, all his actions certainly point to his loyalty and fealty to the rethugs instead of the party he campaigned with in 2008, and he is too well coached to go against the orders from behind the curtains.