Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
This Is a Test... (And Too Many Americans Are Failing)
We’re being tested. Republican politicians and pundits are busy testing the American public, trying to assess how ignorant and distracted we are. While they already have a pretty good idea, they’re determined to get a precise reading. Testing is vitally important to these people because, if the United States is to be turned into a plutocracy, our collective ignorance is an absolute necessity. 
Republicans are aware that most of us don’t pay attention to stuff like history, government, and public policy. They’re aware that basic facts and principles tend to elude us. Some of that stuff is trivial, some isn’t. Many don’t know that the population of the U.S. is almost 312 million, or that we have 535 congressmen and senators, or that women weren’t allowed to vote until 1920, or that state legislatures, rather than citizens, chose our U.S. senators until 1913 (with passage of the 17th amendment). Some of this stuff is trivial, some isn’t.
Republicans already know that many middle and lower middle-class Americans don’t want to raise taxes on the rich because they’ve been conditioned to believe such a move represents the redistribution of wealth, and smacks of socialism or communism. Despite the fact that Barack Obama would have been considered a “Rockefeller Republican” in 1974, people can still get away with referring to him as a “socialist.” That’s because we’re being tested.
Although many people (including billionaire Warren Buffet) think it’s eminently fair to raise taxes on the rich, many still oppose it. You ask people (I’m speaking of regular working people) if they think taxes on the rich should be raised, and a significant percentage will say no. But when you ask if they think taxes on the rich should be lowered, they will also say no.
Apparently, they believe the tax structure is perfect, and that the rich are paying exactly what they should be paying. But when you ask what that amount is—when you ask them to cite the highest tax rate—they can’t. They haven’t a clue what it is. They don’t realize that, at 35-percent, the marginal rate is the lowest it’s been in many decades, and that to be taxed at the maximum, you have to earn more than $379,150. And that’s why we’re being tested.
We all remember, some time ago, hearing about that Tea Party delegate holding up a placard with the words, “Keep the government out of my Medicare!” While the irony and ignorance revealed in those words were gist for much nighttime talk-show hilarity, they were also terrifying. That bizarre message revealed that we have people out there who approve of and depend upon government programs, but have no idea the government provides them.
I have a friend who describes himself as a “libertarian independent,” and who believes that there’s a good chance the 1969 moon landing was, in fact, a hoax. Although he considers himself a genuine patriot, he hates the government and believes that virtually every elected official in Washington is a liar and a thief.
During a phone conversation, I pulled a prank on him. Knowing how suspicious he was of political intrigue, I invented the story that the U.S. government had a secret plan to take us off the dollar, and put us on the yuan, China’s unit of currency. I told him the plan was supposed to be top secret, but word had leaked out. He became instantly energized by this news. He was simultaneously outraged, inflamed, excited and utterly focused, as it reinforced every suspicion he’d ever had.
But when I confessed that I’d just made it up in order to demonstrate how gullible he was, the prank backfired. Instead of taking a moment to step back and re-assess his personal biases, he said it didn’t matter that I’d made it up, because “it’s something that probably is being considered anyway.” We’re all being tested.
76 Comments so far
Show AllWe should consider the consequences of failing this test.
CD had a Bill Moyer's interview the other day, in which both David Stockman and Gretchen Mortgensen said that the finance sector meltdown of 2008 was just the beginning. Americans were 'tested' in 2008 and we have failed that test, and Stockman and Mortgensen, two fairly mainstream economic voices, were basically admitting that the cost of failing that test will be another meltdown in a few years, much bigger than 2008 and potentially catastrophic. This echoes what I've read in much more 'radical' economic blogs, like Automatic Earth, but I was very surprised to hear both of these maintream voices admit it as well.
Although he never renders an opinion on magnitude, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has on at least two occassions observed that we will have serial meltdowns every 5 to 7 years.
This is consistent with the pre-New Deal US economy wherein every decade from 1800 to 1930 the US economy experienced meltdowns of varying degrees that redistributed wealth. Prior to the 1929 crash they were called "panics"...the "panic of 1873...1907", etc.
What Dimon calls a serial meltdown, I would call the culmination of a highly successful business plan by the banks.
Unethical? Certainly. Illegal? Possibly. Lucrative? Absolutely.
Those dastardly Republicans again!
Testing us, are they? I won't have it!
More to the point, I don't think it matters what we think at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QSzIUVlowU&feature=g-hist&context=G282a539AHTx8P8AAdAA
By putting US taxpayers on the hook for $16 trillion in bankster bailouts and enabling the too-big-to-fail banks to keep gowing, Obama has created the perfect environment for serial meltdowns, each one bigger than its predecessors and each one costing US taxpayers more than the previous meltdowns.
The GOP is putting its clowns on display to assure that Obama gets a second term and continues to enact more GOP legislation than any GOP president ever hAS.
Yep
I fear that is all too true.
C'mon $16 trillion as of what day?? I ask because the major banks have been on life support (in the way of the Fed window being wide open at 0% that's ZER0% interest since 2009) if the flow of freshly printed cash stopped for a second the banks would deflate and blow away in less than 24hrs!!!
>^^<
Our future is dismal, the present is a close second.
For the past four years whenever I remind Obamabots that Obama is further to the right than Nixon was, they never tell me I am wrong, they just get very edgy. Today Nixon and other "Rockefeller Republicans" that the author refers to would be considered too liberal to be nominated by the Democrats and would be considered borderline traitors by the GOP.
War is Peace
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Fascism is Freedom (slight change from Orwell's)
Those of us who rise and think beyond politics are the real winners. Vote whoever you want and then do what you can to change both from yourself and with building coalitions with others. Never let anyone put you down for choosing to work with others. It takes both self confidence and team confidence to bring forth a spiritual victory. Turn off your TV and start succeeding.
As Thomas Frank used to say, "Failure is not an option. It's mandatory". Yep, the left has long bought into the rightwing reactionary mentality of "failing to succeed". The classists who lie about being "progressive" only to show their rightwing chutzpah want us to stay divided and powerless. To them, uniting, voting, and progressing are a threat to their shady political business. By the way, long time no see.
Yup, I finally figured out that there IS a difference between the Demagogs and the Repugnants. The Dems won't tell us the truth and the Repugs just outright lie.
I never wanted that to be the difference between the Ds and Rs. Too bad fate made it so.
Fate?
I was thinking fate in terms of the Democratic Party from FDR to Obama although I wonder what FDR would have been like without the rise of Huey Long prior to assassination.
"long time no see."
I usually read more than post nowadays. My work has been heavy and I am lucky to get as much as 3 times a week to read and catch up. Blogs themselves have become irrelevant and with some people grouping themselves and playing include/exclude, I didn't feel like posting much. I couldn't care less what anyone says about me although I thank those who are nice and disregard rude replies. Going to social gatherings and actually working on trying to change things is actually better than sitting and blowing off hot on the forums. At my age, I am used to working within my limits and contributing even if I don't get a thanks. The younger ones or those starting out will feel pained at first but time and words of encouragement and gratitude should help them out. The key to success is confidence. Anyone can be rude and dismiss my efforts all they want to but I know who I am and am confident with myself and those who I can work and communicate with. I leave you with a poem written by an unknown author:
"When things go wrong as they sometimes will;
When the road you're trudging seems all uphill;
When the funds are low, and the debts are high
And you want to smile, but have to sigh;
When care is pressing you down a bit-
Rest if you must, but do not quit.
Success is failure turned inside out;
The silver tint of the clouds of doubt;
And you can never tell how close you are
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit-
It's when things go wrong that you must not quit."
"Don't Quit," Author Unknown
Thanks Stan and that's quite a lot of spunk you got there. I might get there if I can apply what I learned from all the books on eastern psychology and martial arts for the mind. I dunno. By the way, sorry to hear about work getting too hard on you and good luck.
Another superficial fluff piece. This is just plain propaganda aimed at the uninformed rank and file D party folks.
Your "choice": Obamney. Don't like it? Too f-fin bad. That's winner takes all, duopoly, BigMoney, Media Cartel orchestrated Democracy Inc.
This guy is not qualified to write articles on matters he clearly knows little about. CD shows a very bad side, apparently as defenders of the duopoly status quo, by posting this pap.
socialist:
........He did pretty good until the last 3 paragraphs. Give him a break. Like the rest of us, he has a lot to learn.
So, the US really is going to adopt the yuan?
I thought the last 3 paragraphs were pretty good.
IMHO if he had just replaced 'Republican' with 'our political leaders' it would have been a pretty good article.
Amen, socialist ! Glad to see you again. Long time no see.
Please explain where he is defending the Democrats?
And before you call me a "shill", I am MUCH more left than you!
Ever wonder why the rest of the developed world is more "democratic" than the USA? One reason is the form of government. The rest of the developed world operates under parliamentary systems, usually with proportional representation. Such forms of government have to operate by consensus. Our's doesn't. The American government now represents no one but the rich and the corporations. The rich get rich the way Mitt Romney got worth a quarter of a billion dollars. He didn't produce anything. He didn't invent anything. He destroyed jobs instead of creating them. (here in the US anyway, China and Mexico is another matter). Someone actually determined that the US is the most war like developed nation on Earth. We've been "throwing our weight around" for the last century at least. We started out building an "American Empire" back in 1898. Spanish-American war. World War 1. World War 2 (FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking us) the Korean War. Vietnam War. Gulf War 1. Gulf War 2 (Iraq & Afghanistan) We've also fought a number of small conflicts. We spend nearly half of all money spent world wide on "defense". And the Republicans would like to increase that further. As Ron Paul has pointed out, we have military bases in 130 countries. The world's largest Navy. The world's most powerful Air Force. And while we don't have the world largest Army, in combat effectiveness we're #1. The President of the United States of America is our "Warlord". If we had elected Hillary Clinton, she'd be our first "Warlady". Or if McCain had gotten elected in 2008 and then died in office, we'd have Sarah Palin, Warlady of the United States of America... Now that would be "scary"!
Lock 'n load - the Ruskies are coming over the North Pole. I can see 'em from my house.
Funny thing, though, that our Founders and Framers were deeply suspicious of political parties and corporate influence. They thought they took care of those things, but also warned us to be forever vigilant to protect what they had begun. That's where we really failed - all of us.
I think you missed his point. In the Parliamentary systems of rest of the world, political parties are stronger and tend to actually promote a distinct ideology and propose creative solutions. And when there are elections, you have the choice of at least a half-dozen different ones. And, most importantly, in the rest of the civilized world, there is no such thing as the idiotic USAn concept of "bipartisanship". When a party or coalition of parties (which due to some idiotic "tradition" is not allowed in Canada) has a majority of the seats, they are consensually given the freedom to pursue their full agenda, with very little need to "compromise". And, if any disagreement arises over the majority party's ability to maintain consensus, a no-confidence vote is cast, and elections are held within a month - none of this preposterous year-long ridiculous TV circus run by The Rich.
The hoary, antiquated, powdered-wig-aristocrat-written US constitution needs to be resigned to the tumbrils, and a new democratic republic established, through worker-revolutionary means.
Wealthy, aristocratic, power-hungry, land stealing speculators, like Washington, and wealthy merchants, like Hancock, and slave owners, like Jefferson, and various hustlers and self-promoters, like Franklin, created exactly the document that would serve their purposes. It insured that they would have all of the power, and it contained a few noble sounding words that would lull and pacify the working class people and get them to do the actual fighting against the British, and the labor to build fortunes for the few.
If you look just at the lives of those four men - Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, and Franklin - is it any wonder that we are today still ruled by the same type of people, exploiting and destroying everything while mouthing noble sounding words? It is the peculiar derangement of the United States - what people say is supposed to be more important than what they do, and financial success is presumed to equal virtue. So, Jefferson tells Lewis to tell the native peoples he encounters that "we have no interest in land" when in private exchanges land stealing was ALL they talked about. So, Jefferson writes "all men are created equal" yet continues to own slaves.
People who admire the Constitution have fallen for the ruse, and talk of "restoring" something or other, or speak glowingly about the supposed glorious :ideals" of the "founding fathers." The next thing you know, they are promoting a white supremacist and extreme right winger for president - to "restore America's glorious past."
Agreed except two minor issues: I believe the fighting against the British was over, or appeared to be, and there was little need to pacify the working class (and little evidence of language that does so). From an excellent history written a hundred years ago:
http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/simons/
"The work of imposing the constitution upon the country was further lightened by the fact that at least three fourths of those who would to-day constitute the electorate were then disfranchised. Moreover, the disfranchised ones were just those who were almost unanimous against the constitution. Property qualificatons shut our the working class of the cities and the debtors of the back country. Out of a population of 3,000,000 not more than 120,000 were entitled to even vote for those who were to constitute the state conventions that were to consider the constitution."
Even then, it took quite some time for the required number of states to pass it, even after they insisted on the "bill of rights." Simons' chapter on the framing of the constitution ends with this sentence: "It also should not blind us to the fact that there was nothing particularly sacred about the origin of this government which should render any attempt to change it sacrilegious."
But from my observations, that is indeed our persistent blind spot.
Very good commentary and much appreciated.
I recently read, and can recommend "The Shoemaker And The Tea Party: Memory And The American Revolution" by Alfred Fabian Young.
Very quickly after the British left, working class people were excluded from political meetings, often lost their homes to the first wave of real estate developers, led by John Hancock, their trade organizations were broken up, they were denied the vote, and they were not given their pay for their service in the war, and the promise of land in exchange for service was not kept.
One interesting fact - the public reading of the Declaration of Independence was discouraged or even banned, "lest the rabble get ideas." Sam Adams was of that sentiment.
I agree wholeheartedly with the line of thought that both you and pjd above are proposing. I've found it bafflingly self-defeating how many liberals might loathe the state of current politics, but at the same time seem to think that it's somehow disconnected from having an opaque and antiquated Constitution almost relentlessly hostile to the aims they claim to have.
"...if the United States is to be turned into a plutocracy..."
IF???? Where does David Macaray live?
We have been a plutocracy for decades! We are now an inverted totalitarian state, as well! (read Sheldon S. Wolin's Democracy Incorporated).
Republicans AND Democrats are tools of the Corporate/Wall Street/Militarist Ruling Class. I wish CD would stop posting articles which place the blame only on Republicans. The Corporate United States could not have happened without the full, willing complicity of Democrats as well.
I agree, all one need do is read that book, read some Chris Hedges and Bill Quigley (even the late Howard Zinn). Of course there are many more
"Where does this David Macaray live??" He lives in a cave on a remote island, and gets all his information from outdated National Geographic magazines.
But he's quite right about the aggressive disinformation that the Repugs have become so successful at, and that the far right has managed to brainwash heartland Americans into voting against their own interests. The Dems stumble along and try their best to keep up, but they haven't had a strategy in a generation or two.
The modern American corporate state really blossomed since the Reagan "revolution". Prior to that, there was a dialectic between the elites and the populist movements, with both Republican and Democratic presidents trying to referee and maintain an even keel.
Everything that culminated in the Citizens United "free hand" to the corporate purchasing of our democracy was spelled out in detail in Lewis Powell's secret memo to the US Chamber of Commerce in 1971. He was then appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court and battled with his conservative colleague, appointed at the same time, William Rehnquist. As a died-in-the-wool conservative, Rehnquist fought off corporatist Powell's attempts to grant 1st Amendment protections to corporations. But the Chamber, following Powell's gameplan, raised billions to take control of the media, the think tanks, the schools (from grade school through post-graduate), and the lobby offices in DC. And Powell was able to assemble enough majorities to implement his notion that "especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change".
Powell proposed a multi-generational strategy to implant this message in the American mind: "The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom…It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people." It worked with stunning success, and the Dems were just trying not to get left out of the payola pie.
"...if the United States is to be turned into a plutocracy..."
A little late with that one, aren't you, David?
The real test, IMO, is how long before the people realize we have NO Government in the true sense. How long before people realize a name is only a name and that the government is no longer "our government" or a tool of a democratic people living together and running the country for the benefit of the people, but rather, it has been captured by big business and is run for the benefit of making money and controlling the people for the profits and exploitation of big business. What was our government is now operated by Wall Street for the One Percent aka International Elite, Washington merely the big house on the plantation.
The worldwide moneyed elite continue upping their control and the milking of the people and they wonder how long we will passively accept the false notion that we have a government. How long can they run this country as a money making business and control the people for this end and still have people see it as "their" government. We have no government, we have owners like cattle and we will be herded into which ever corral the elite have chosen. When our usefulness has passed, we will be disenfranchised into homelessness as our kids move through the same meat grinder.
If we allow it.
The United States of America is a plutocracy. (rule by the rich) Consider this: All of those Republicans you saw when the debates started were at least millionaires. Mitt Romney is worth something like a quarter of a billion dollars. Sarah Palin is a millionaire. Our local representative here in Muskegon, Michigan is a millionaire. Our governor Rick Snyder is a multimillionaire. The average net worth of a member of Congress is a million dollars. So we are effectively governed by millionaires. Members of the 1% if you will. People who are "loyal" to their own class. So why does anyone believe that "any" of these people actually "represent" us 99%? They don't! They represent their own class. They have to try to convince us that they are doing something for us in order to get elected, but when they are, they vote in laws that benefit their own economic class. So as you see, the United States of America is not a "republic", a "democracy", but a "plutocracy". A country governed by the rich for the rich, governed by elected people who serve the rich, are rich, and exist for the benefit of the rich. The rest of us? We're just the serfs who serve the rich. Fight and die in wars for the benefit of the rich. Then because the Republicans are becoming aware that we might "wake up" someday from our delusions that our votes actually mean something, now wish to make it so that only those more likely to vote Republican (the party of the 1%) are allowed to vote. That's what "voter ID" is all about. As Joseph Goebbels said, "Tell a big enough lie long enough and the fools will believe it." He'd be proud of today's Republicans.
These people are not merely running things for the benefit of the OnePercent, they spend the taxpayers money as their own. They invent reasons to use their businesses. No child left behind was about money for testing , money for the Bush family. It is not just about laws that benefit them but business that benefits them. Our money used for their lives. Plutocracy is less involved than that.
He'd be equally proud of the democrats, independents and others, with few exceptions...considering the indistinguishable differences from one high-priced/highly paid puppet to the next...and the politics of oppression and exploitation so well learned and insidiously manifested here in the United States of Atrocities.
Too bad it has taken till 'the point of no return', it would seem, for people to even begin seeing the extent of our predicament. Sad that so many will suffer and wonder through the worst that is yet to come, but will still never see all the way past whatever dogmatic religious or political views have influenced their perception that somebody else is always to blame...some other country is the problem...if we could just elect the right president...if people would just vote better. There are and will continue to be so many ways used to try to deny that our democracy is not just horribly impaired...but very dead....in fact, was never really alive.
It will be hard for many to understand and fully accept that the bulk of the suffering of the entire world has been caused by the tiny fraction of the population spending so much of its time and money attempting to convince us otherwise...the very part of the population so many Americans have been induced to envy and aspire to be like.
I'm hoping the current tides will eventually sweep us to a new perception...one based on kindness and compassion...absent of greed and money worshiping, fear-mongering and war...especially absent of democrats and republicans.
What about the Dems? Is this to say they're not testing us? I hate these posted articles that subtlety perpetuate the myth there is a difference in the the 2 parties.
Saying we wish the Dems had firmer "leftist" principles is one thing, but pretending there's ZERO difference between the parties is silly. One of the parties is/was seeking higher taxes for the rich, looking to strengthen the NLRB, and bolstering the Dept. of Labor. That party is the Democrats.
Are they perfect? No. Are they in many ways a monumental disappointment? Yes, very much so. But are they superior to the Republicans in social-economic progressivism? Of course they are. Let's not get carried away here.
You probably do not even realize that you just made the other poster's point for them.
No one says there is "zero difference" between the two parties. Politicians from the two parties say different things, for example, and have a different group of deluded followers. No one is expecting Democrats to be "perfect."
The Democrats are "seeking higher taxes for the rich, looking to strengthen the NLRB, and bolstering the Dept. of Labor?" That sounds swell. When does it actually start happening? Oh, right, I know - once the Republicans stop their obstructionism. or once everyone agrees with you that the Democrats are sufficiently superior to the other party to warrant supporting them. In other words - never.
Haven't you noticed the appointments of Mark Pearce and Craig Becker to the NLBR, or Hilda Solis to the DOL, and her efforts in bringing criminal (criminal, not civil!) charges against SoCal carwash owners who had been systematically screwing over immigrant employees? When you say, "When does it actually start happening?" you make me wonder if you've been paying attention. And don't make it sound like Republican "obstructionism" is some minor annoyance. It's a government-buster.
You have to be kidding. This is your evidence? Let's not even go there on immigrant rights - yet another blatantly broken promise by this administration.
The Obama administration has seriously betrayed immigrants and Labor. No supporter of either could possibly claim otherwise.
You're spot on, Two America's. The differences are illusion--verbal sparring on issues that are non-issues. Democrats had their chance to raise taxes. Did they? No. If there is a difference, it's that Republicans are taking us on the fast track to poverty, and the Dems want to milk us for as long as possible. Everything else is just rhetoric.
Of course there's a difference. The Dems won't tell us the truth and the Repubs just outright lie.
Macaray made ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of the Democrats - except to make the comment, and not at all a Democrat-flattering comment, that Obama would be to a Rockefeller Republican if it were the 1970's. What the hell are you talking about?
You are exactly the kind of person Macaray was talking about. Do YOU know what the top marginal tax rate is, and what it was in 1960? Do you even know what "marginal tax rate" even means???