"It’s the hardest vote I've taken;" so said Al Franken of his vote for Obama's tax deal with Republicans. Franken explains his vote by declaring in a post on Huffington Post that "This isn't a great deal by any stretch of the imagination. But I got into this line of work because I wanted to stand up for Minnesota families trying to put food on the table and build a better life for their kids. And, for them, the only thing worse than a bad deal would be no deal at all. That's why I voted yes yesterday -- and why I will continue my fight for economic policies that create jobs, address our deficit problem, and build new opportunities for Minnesota." I find thus mea culpa disingenuous, shallow, and short sighted.
Disingenuous, because he would have us believe that those who voted against the Deal did not face the same fundamental issue of deciding between the immediate and the momentous. Does he really believe that Bernie Sanders, who made the role of excessive wealth in producing our current situation so clear in his eight hour filibuster, did not face the same situation?
Shallow, because Franken apparently believes that his job as a progressive is to pass laws for the benefit of the people. That belief leads directly to beltway politics in which the decisions, indeed the debate, is the province of a few elected "representatives." To the contrary, the job of a progressive is to educate and inform his constituency so that they can be the force he or she brings to the national legislature and so that when push comes to shove, as in this case between the wealthy and the rest of us, the people are prepared to fight. Had Franken done what Sanders has done his whole political life, namely meet with small groups of constituents not just at election time but routinely and in that context listened acutely and intelligently putting what he knew to be the case in Washington together with what his people knew to be the case at home and, in discussion, had offered a synthesis to be considered with those of his constituents, had he done these things, as Bernie has, he would not have to indulge in such childish angst. I have watched videos of Bernie interacting with small groups of his constituents. I have watched him conducting a high school class in civics which consisted largely of listening to their answers to questions he posed and responding to questions they posed. Bernie sees the job of the politician as including a large commitment to create an informed, comprehending constituency and listening carefully and intelligently to them. These are things that, I suspect, have never occurred to Al Franken. They are however essential to an effective progressive candidate. In progressivism the people are the power, not money. It is therefore incumbent upon progressive politicians to develop the best informed, most comprehending, constituency possible so that when push comes to shove, when you have to decide between immediate benefits and long-term disaster your people understand and are with you. People will sacrifice the immediate for the future if the alternatives and consequences are clearly laid out. The people who accepted FDR's leadership were not afraid to occupy General Motors' plants in a massive sit down strike. Their wives brought food to them despite the threats from General Motors. Earlier than that workers had to confront hired thugs in the Pullman strike and were machine-gunned in their tents in the Colorado miners' strike.
Finally, Franken's defense that he voted for the Deal so hungry people would continue to have food and shelter, if not a job, is even in this context, short sighted. Did he explain to his people that the social security tax, Franken disingenuously refers to it as a payroll tax, was a first step to weaken social security by depriving it of revenue and was intended to condition people to this process? Did he remind them that ever since LBJ used it to fund the Vietnam War they have let government raid their Social Security fund and that Congress had not seen fit to protect these funds by prohibiting their use for other purpose? We now have billions of dollars in IOUs that Congress now says there is no money to repay. Again, by continuing the Bush tax cuts we are transferring even more money to the wealthy. Did Franken lay out the enormity of the debt that this generation is imposing on those very children he seemed so concerned for?
In short, sacrifice, big time, is going to be necessary if the people are to wrest control of America from the wealthy. Due to technology and corporate and political takeover, the wealthy are deeply entrenched in our society. They control the production and distribution of our national product. They control our means of communication. They are heavily in the business of defining life for our citizens. It reminds one of the military's complaint about the difficulty of fighting insurgents because they are so thoroughly integrated into their society. Think of corporations as huge multidimensional insurgents focused on overthrowing our democracy and what we face becomes clearer. The insidious power of these proponents of privilege make it clear why progressives have a primary duty to educate, to communicate and to listen so that the people and the leadership progressively become one.
I have used Bernie Sanders as something of a paradigm of what a progressive politician should look like in our search for more of the same. However, I am conscious of the fact the Sanders functions in a small state with many small towns and it may be said that large states and major cities may not be susceptible to this level of citizen involvement.
To such concerns I would point out that large cities have realized Bernie's style of progressive politics. In the 1960s Saul Alinsky, using collegial and intensive involvement with Chicago's primarily Black poor people was able to develop organizational structures that empowered these people to better their lot through effective political measures. This was done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. A second way for progressive politicians to emulate Bernie's approach in the context of larger jurisdictions is by focused television or radio engagement. FDR did this on a national scale with his Fireside Chats in which he conveyed to ordinary people the state of things and what was being done. I remember, as a young teenager, our family sitting around our Majestic radio listing to these chats. Everybody respected Roosevelt and knew he would have something of substance to say. Again, you may have noticed that television evangelists are able to accrue a substantial audience by the intimacy they convey over television. That same intimacy can be conveyed over radio. I member (old people are forever uttering that phrase) when the soap opera "Ma Perkins" had a favorite character eliminated. There was massive outrage and mourning. These things demonstrate that we can create the intimacy necessary for politicians and people to work together in a joint effort to educate and improve a world that we have let technology dominate. Progressives need to investigate the use of public access channels on their local television cable stations. They need to investigate low power television, which can provide well-targeted, cheap broadcasting to local communities. Religious groups and now corporations are actively scooping there up. Why have we not seen Amy Goodman, Al Franken, Ralph Nader and other progressives pushing an effort to acquire some of these licenses for progressive purposes? I think the answer is that we are too focused on issues and candidates to focus on the people. We can create an environment for progressive, people-powered, politics to flourish. Where is the organized, MoveOn-like effort to do this?
Bob Newhard
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
On Rescuing Hostages
President Obama would have us believe that the best he could do in dealing with Republican's on extending the Bush tax cuts was to save the paltry middle class tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits historically granted when unemployment reached 7.2% which were being held hostage by the Republican concern for the wealthiest one tenth of one percent and their estate tax. This is so putrid with pusillanimity it stinks. Paul Krugman has an excellent analysis of Obama's game plying in an article that can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10krugman.html?pagewanted=print
However, I want to consider the undeclared ramifications and implications of this sickening fiasco.
To begin with, the real hostage was not the existing middle class, grievous though their situation is, the real hostage is our democracy. If we let the wealthy of this country continue to call the political tune we will loose the democracy that was born 234 years ago and which so many have fought to preserve from those who would destroy it. As a class, the wealthy of this country and their corporate institutions have made it abundantly clear that they do not want a democracy. They want an oligarchic plutocracy and their religious constituency wants a theocracy. They have suborned every democratic institution we have from our legislature, to the presidency to the Supreme Court. They have corrupted our societal communications and the national dialogue our democracy requires. This is the enemy Lincoln feared; the enemy from within. We are down to our last line of defense; the people in whom democracy ultimately puts its trust. There is no "reaching out" to those who are corrupting our national dialogue with fear and innuendo, who suborn our government with bribes and political payoffs, who divert vast sums from our national productivity to their own satiated ends. This enemy must be put in the searchlight of truth and justice so that its repellent selfishness is clear to all.
The duplicity and manipulativeness of Obama's rescue of the middle class becomes glaringly apparent when we consider that he knew from the day he began to campaign for President that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire during his term in office, if he won. Presumably he knew this was a monstrous gift to the wealthy, which was denying adequate education to the majority of American children, which adversely affected a broad range of government services required by the increasing homeless and jobless population, created by the financial shenanigans of this same wealthy class and, above all, is exacerbating a rapidly increasing wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us that is now threatening the continued existence of our democracy. I repeat, he knew these things going in. This being the case, where was the effort to raise the public consciousness of the seriousness of the threat posed by the excessively rich and the degree to which these tax cuts had contributed to it. Where was the connection between the wealthy recipients of these tax cuts and their financial institutions that created our current "Great Recession?" Where was the effort to use his bully pulpit and oratorical gifts to redress the long standing rule of wealth rather than people in this country? This tax issue was pregnant with all sorts of political potential to greatly improve our society and the quality of life within it. Why was it so tragically wasted?
I think the answer can initially be found in Bill Clinton's administration and the advent of his Democratic Leadership Council. With this came the political notion, that one could win more political battles by "out Republicanizing" the Republicans. Why, one might ask, would Democrats think that winning legislative battles and elections by emulating Republicans be even considered as a strategy. The answer, I believe, is that Democrats had been so often out of power since the Reagan Revolution, that they would do anything, even out-Republican the Republicans, to obtain political power. In brief, an obsession with politcs rather than with the welfare of the people overtook the Democratic Party and, in so doing, rendered it spineless.
I also believe that Clinton came to believe that money was more important than people in getting elected and staying in power. Money could buy television commercials, which politicians found more effective overall than speaking to and mingling with many groups at many places. Jim Hightower in one of his books recounts an episode in which a young congressional candidate, with a very active support group, was invited by the Democratic Party to Washington D. C. along with a number of other promising candidates for orientation and help in developing their campaigns. At the gathering he was introduced to a number of PAC leaders and lobbyists. The group of candidates was told that these were the people they needed to get to know because they provided the money for extensive television ads, etc. They were there, in short, to enable match making between candidates and lobbyists. The young candidate protested that these were the people and this was the process, namely beltway politics, which he and his campaign were opposed to. He was immediately counted out. His primary opponent who had lost to the Republican in the two previous elections received the funding, won the primary and again lost to the Republican. Obama, in my opinion, bought into this Clintonesque, DLC, beltway-centered Democratic politics.
Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to initiate a 50 state rejuvenation of the
Democratic Party structure. This would have done much to distribute Party power and resources more widely. He was vigorously opposed by Rahm Emanuel. One of the first things Obama did was appoint Emanuel as his chief of staff and remove Dean from his chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.
Obama is but one of many who would call themselves Democrats, but who were at best powder-blue dogs.
However, things may be changing. With Nancy Pelosi's refusal to let Obama's tax deal come to the House floor and Bernie Sanders' filibuster challenge not only to Obama's tax deal, but more importantly to the destructive role of excessive wealth in this society, we may have discovered the long-sought political nexus for a Progressive challenge to the Democratic-Republican political duopoly of wealth. Now is the time, I believe, for Progressives to speak out and demand not only government of by and for the people, but that progressive leadership become as bold and energetic as Pelosi and Sanders in their attack on wealth and privilege. Ralph Nader has called for a Progressive candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. Let us end this nightmare of rampant plutocracy and, as Howard Dean urged, return America to its people. Let us rise up and free the hostages. Perhaps we are responding to Denis Kucinich's plea in the 2008 Presidential campaign, "Wake up America, Wake up." Nancy and Bernie may be our alarm clocks.
Bob Newhard
However, I want to consider the undeclared ramifications and implications of this sickening fiasco.
To begin with, the real hostage was not the existing middle class, grievous though their situation is, the real hostage is our democracy. If we let the wealthy of this country continue to call the political tune we will loose the democracy that was born 234 years ago and which so many have fought to preserve from those who would destroy it. As a class, the wealthy of this country and their corporate institutions have made it abundantly clear that they do not want a democracy. They want an oligarchic plutocracy and their religious constituency wants a theocracy. They have suborned every democratic institution we have from our legislature, to the presidency to the Supreme Court. They have corrupted our societal communications and the national dialogue our democracy requires. This is the enemy Lincoln feared; the enemy from within. We are down to our last line of defense; the people in whom democracy ultimately puts its trust. There is no "reaching out" to those who are corrupting our national dialogue with fear and innuendo, who suborn our government with bribes and political payoffs, who divert vast sums from our national productivity to their own satiated ends. This enemy must be put in the searchlight of truth and justice so that its repellent selfishness is clear to all.
The duplicity and manipulativeness of Obama's rescue of the middle class becomes glaringly apparent when we consider that he knew from the day he began to campaign for President that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire during his term in office, if he won. Presumably he knew this was a monstrous gift to the wealthy, which was denying adequate education to the majority of American children, which adversely affected a broad range of government services required by the increasing homeless and jobless population, created by the financial shenanigans of this same wealthy class and, above all, is exacerbating a rapidly increasing wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us that is now threatening the continued existence of our democracy. I repeat, he knew these things going in. This being the case, where was the effort to raise the public consciousness of the seriousness of the threat posed by the excessively rich and the degree to which these tax cuts had contributed to it. Where was the connection between the wealthy recipients of these tax cuts and their financial institutions that created our current "Great Recession?" Where was the effort to use his bully pulpit and oratorical gifts to redress the long standing rule of wealth rather than people in this country? This tax issue was pregnant with all sorts of political potential to greatly improve our society and the quality of life within it. Why was it so tragically wasted?
I think the answer can initially be found in Bill Clinton's administration and the advent of his Democratic Leadership Council. With this came the political notion, that one could win more political battles by "out Republicanizing" the Republicans. Why, one might ask, would Democrats think that winning legislative battles and elections by emulating Republicans be even considered as a strategy. The answer, I believe, is that Democrats had been so often out of power since the Reagan Revolution, that they would do anything, even out-Republican the Republicans, to obtain political power. In brief, an obsession with politcs rather than with the welfare of the people overtook the Democratic Party and, in so doing, rendered it spineless.
I also believe that Clinton came to believe that money was more important than people in getting elected and staying in power. Money could buy television commercials, which politicians found more effective overall than speaking to and mingling with many groups at many places. Jim Hightower in one of his books recounts an episode in which a young congressional candidate, with a very active support group, was invited by the Democratic Party to Washington D. C. along with a number of other promising candidates for orientation and help in developing their campaigns. At the gathering he was introduced to a number of PAC leaders and lobbyists. The group of candidates was told that these were the people they needed to get to know because they provided the money for extensive television ads, etc. They were there, in short, to enable match making between candidates and lobbyists. The young candidate protested that these were the people and this was the process, namely beltway politics, which he and his campaign were opposed to. He was immediately counted out. His primary opponent who had lost to the Republican in the two previous elections received the funding, won the primary and again lost to the Republican. Obama, in my opinion, bought into this Clintonesque, DLC, beltway-centered Democratic politics.
Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to initiate a 50 state rejuvenation of the
Democratic Party structure. This would have done much to distribute Party power and resources more widely. He was vigorously opposed by Rahm Emanuel. One of the first things Obama did was appoint Emanuel as his chief of staff and remove Dean from his chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.
Obama is but one of many who would call themselves Democrats, but who were at best powder-blue dogs.
However, things may be changing. With Nancy Pelosi's refusal to let Obama's tax deal come to the House floor and Bernie Sanders' filibuster challenge not only to Obama's tax deal, but more importantly to the destructive role of excessive wealth in this society, we may have discovered the long-sought political nexus for a Progressive challenge to the Democratic-Republican political duopoly of wealth. Now is the time, I believe, for Progressives to speak out and demand not only government of by and for the people, but that progressive leadership become as bold and energetic as Pelosi and Sanders in their attack on wealth and privilege. Ralph Nader has called for a Progressive candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. Let us end this nightmare of rampant plutocracy and, as Howard Dean urged, return America to its people. Let us rise up and free the hostages. Perhaps we are responding to Denis Kucinich's plea in the 2008 Presidential campaign, "Wake up America, Wake up." Nancy and Bernie may be our alarm clocks.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Depression and War
The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place..The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place. However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place..The other day my wife Eleanor was reading a book on the psychology of decision making. The author rather gratuitously threw in the remark that Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression. World War 2 did. We all hear this remark, usually from those who prefer governance by corporations rather than governments of, by, and for the people. This remark is both true and deceptively false.
It is true that Roosevelt's policies did not bring the economy back to the exceptionally high levels preceding the 1929 crash. We should be grateful that it did not because that economy was based on the speculation that led to the depression in the first place. However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
However, his policies did bring the economy back about half way by 1935.
The argument is deceptively false because it is meant to imply that government did not bring back the economy. The economy of World War 2 was a government economy, par excellence and vitiates this old conservative argument completely.
The interesting question is, "Why does one form of government spending (war) work so much better than another (peace)?
Examining major economies victimized by the Great Depression, which was world wide, we find that war and the preparation for war, was the effective antidote to the depression. The German economy, which was far worse than ours due in part to the continuing reparations the World War 1 allies imposed, was brought back by Hitler's militarization program. The English by the need to rearm, the United States by the need to rearm, Japan came out of the Great Depression in 1932, perhaps, bcause it had been militarizing since militarism became a dominant feature of Japanese development with the Meiji Restoration of 1869. Its 1905 victory over Russia greatly enhanced its prestige, and culminated in Japan's aggressive colonialism, a hallmark of world powers at the time.
But why is war so much more effective than other efforts to reconvert from major economic downturns? Some would say that war affects everybody. This is to say that, short of war, not everybody is affected seriously by a depression. And this is to say that those least affected, the wealthy, are unwilling and not required to contribute to fight this kind of national calamity to the extent they are in war. I ask why not? The answer to that question, I believe, can be found in American economic mythology, namely, that anyone can be an economic success and if they are not it must be their own fault. My own father, a mechanic who was able to hold on to his job throughout the depression, although at meager pay, looked down on WPA workers who, by his definition, had gone on the dole. The rich have this myth working for them day and night. Poor people will blame each other for their economic plight rather than the wealthy who have caused the situation and continue to profit from it. This is the sad tale of American economic naiveté.
This line of reasoning is, I believe, prima facie evidence that it is the wealthy that insure that this level of societal effort is not launched against depressions. If we now look at some facts surrounding World War 2 that made it effective in finally ending the Great Depression the substance of this argument will be further vindicated.
For one, the federal tax rate on the wealthiest was 94%. It had even been 77% under Herbert Hover. Ronald Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28%. It is now 35% and Obama's effort to raise it to 40% is being labeled "socialist" by Republicans. One of the major reasons the 2nd World War brought back full employment was that the wealthy were required to pay their fair share of the cost of that war. This along with government planning and rationing of resources is the real meaning of World War 2 as an end to the depression. Everyone had to contribute their fair share. This is the democratic method of dealing with economic downturns once under way. Preventing or minimizing those downturns inherent in the capitalist system is a matter of vigilant, continuous regulation so that capitalism's ever present excesses are not allowed to create economic havoc.
One of the best metaphors for capitalism is fire. Capitalism should be viewed as a hazard similar to fire and should be controlled with the same diligence. Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but also like fire it is very destructive when out of control. Like fire, it must be kept away from combustible fuel, i.e. excess profits that feed a frenzy of speculation; we must have mechanisms at hand when it bursts into flame, i.e. legal fire hoses; it must be subject to constant vigilance and checked on frequently by competent watchdogs. Capitalism is not good or bad, it simply is. We need a population not subject to the blandishments of speculation, but capable of placing capitalism in a place where it can do no harm. Children have been taught the need to protect our environment and it is paying off. Similarly they need to be taught the destructiveness of uncontrolled capitalism and the need and mechanisms for controlling it.
Bob Newhard
Saturday, November 13, 2010
What Have We Learned from This
The political debacle of our recent election is and will be the subject of many explanations. That the American people could, after two short years of indecisive efforts to mitigate the damage, return to considerable power the very people responsible for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, will elicit many explanations. I want to try to put some pieces together that may offer some insight into what happened.
Politically, I found the fact that Harry Reid, a powerful and rewarding Senate Majority Leader from the small state of Nevada, was nonetheless in great jeopardy from a political unknown and a new small party. What populace would trade the benefits flowing from a powerful politician for a political unknown? The salient fact in this anomaly is that Reid never the less won, but only because of the Black and Latino vote. He got a minority of the white vote.
Another relevant observation can be found in a report by MIT economist David Autor in which he looked at the shifting employment landscape in America. He found that automation has had a far deeper impact on employment than is commonly understood, especially on the middle class. He argues that it is a prime factor in the shrinking middle class in America because the jobs it primarily eliminates are those that have traditionally been held by the middle class, e.g. manufacturing, which he notes is about as productive as it has always been except it uses robots rather than humans. Service jobs, another major category of middle class employment also are shrinking, e.g. grocery clerks replaced by automatic check-out machines. The middle class has been subject to increasing economic stress since the beginning of automation in the 1950s according to Autor.
Putting the political phenomena we have recently been experiencing together with this economic impact on the middle class suggests that white people increasingly sense a diminution of economic and political power and are in a crazy kind of rebellion. The Tea Party, predominantly middle class whites, attacks Wall Street on the one hand and big federal government, which is the only power that could possibly control Wall Street, on the other hand. The fact that the populism that usually accompanies a major economic downturn is conservative this time instead of its usual liberal expression further validates this connection between job loss and the nature of the current political chaos. In this connection Autor argues that outsourcing is a precursor to automation and will be increasingly vulnerable to automation.
The middle class has been generally regarded as the social prerequisite for democracy. In this country the middle class has, since its emergence, been predominantly white. Autor describes a hollowing out process in which professional, e.g. lawyer and managerial jobs are at the high end and low wage jobs such as gardening at the low end and the declining middle class between these two.
These two factors, Reid's political survival courtesy of two minority groups, hence the increasing importance of minorities, and an automation-driven shrinking of the middle class, may be salient factors in the political craziness we are witnessing. A socio-political craziness of this kind, rooted in the fear caused by a relentless economic process can be a very dangerous phenomenon. Think of Germany in the depths of the depression following World War I and paying its former adversaries reparations at the same time. As you see the Far Right, including the Religious Right, emphasize "tradition," i.e. family values, at the expense of the Bill of Rights, think of white retention of power.
But, unfortunately, that is not all. Autor makes it clear that we have not yet seen the full impact of automation. He describes a manufacturing plant in Japan. The plant uses robots to make robots. The plant runs in the dark 24 hours a day. Obviously "the job" is going to have to be vastly reinterpreted or a substitute found. The job has been more than a source of income for most Americans. It is and has been an easily available source of human significance. The psychological trauma of being unemployed, especially long term, will be a source of deep discontent. I read recently of a man's utter despair as he packed up the company tools he had used for 15 years, to be shipped to his company's replacement plant in China.
It is, in my judgment, incumbent on progressives to develop and vigorously promote antidotes to this impending disaster. We must not be dissuaded by accusations of socialism or social planning, generally from those who have no idea of what they are talking about. I was struck by FDR's inclusion of the word "planning" in his 1932 nomination acceptance speech. We have been so heavily indoctrinated by the Right, especially since Ronald Reagan, that many view the term as subversive.
The impact of technology on humanity, of which automation is an instance, needs to be a major focus in the development of a progressive perspective.
As I finished this article I stumbled upon an excellent article by Chris Hedges on his analysis of the fundamental message of the recent election, which sees fascism at work in the political craziness. I strongly recommend reading Chris' article titled "A Recipe for Fascism", which can be found at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_recipe_for_fascism_20101108/
Bob Newhard
Politically, I found the fact that Harry Reid, a powerful and rewarding Senate Majority Leader from the small state of Nevada, was nonetheless in great jeopardy from a political unknown and a new small party. What populace would trade the benefits flowing from a powerful politician for a political unknown? The salient fact in this anomaly is that Reid never the less won, but only because of the Black and Latino vote. He got a minority of the white vote.
Another relevant observation can be found in a report by MIT economist David Autor in which he looked at the shifting employment landscape in America. He found that automation has had a far deeper impact on employment than is commonly understood, especially on the middle class. He argues that it is a prime factor in the shrinking middle class in America because the jobs it primarily eliminates are those that have traditionally been held by the middle class, e.g. manufacturing, which he notes is about as productive as it has always been except it uses robots rather than humans. Service jobs, another major category of middle class employment also are shrinking, e.g. grocery clerks replaced by automatic check-out machines. The middle class has been subject to increasing economic stress since the beginning of automation in the 1950s according to Autor.
Putting the political phenomena we have recently been experiencing together with this economic impact on the middle class suggests that white people increasingly sense a diminution of economic and political power and are in a crazy kind of rebellion. The Tea Party, predominantly middle class whites, attacks Wall Street on the one hand and big federal government, which is the only power that could possibly control Wall Street, on the other hand. The fact that the populism that usually accompanies a major economic downturn is conservative this time instead of its usual liberal expression further validates this connection between job loss and the nature of the current political chaos. In this connection Autor argues that outsourcing is a precursor to automation and will be increasingly vulnerable to automation.
The middle class has been generally regarded as the social prerequisite for democracy. In this country the middle class has, since its emergence, been predominantly white. Autor describes a hollowing out process in which professional, e.g. lawyer and managerial jobs are at the high end and low wage jobs such as gardening at the low end and the declining middle class between these two.
These two factors, Reid's political survival courtesy of two minority groups, hence the increasing importance of minorities, and an automation-driven shrinking of the middle class, may be salient factors in the political craziness we are witnessing. A socio-political craziness of this kind, rooted in the fear caused by a relentless economic process can be a very dangerous phenomenon. Think of Germany in the depths of the depression following World War I and paying its former adversaries reparations at the same time. As you see the Far Right, including the Religious Right, emphasize "tradition," i.e. family values, at the expense of the Bill of Rights, think of white retention of power.
But, unfortunately, that is not all. Autor makes it clear that we have not yet seen the full impact of automation. He describes a manufacturing plant in Japan. The plant uses robots to make robots. The plant runs in the dark 24 hours a day. Obviously "the job" is going to have to be vastly reinterpreted or a substitute found. The job has been more than a source of income for most Americans. It is and has been an easily available source of human significance. The psychological trauma of being unemployed, especially long term, will be a source of deep discontent. I read recently of a man's utter despair as he packed up the company tools he had used for 15 years, to be shipped to his company's replacement plant in China.
It is, in my judgment, incumbent on progressives to develop and vigorously promote antidotes to this impending disaster. We must not be dissuaded by accusations of socialism or social planning, generally from those who have no idea of what they are talking about. I was struck by FDR's inclusion of the word "planning" in his 1932 nomination acceptance speech. We have been so heavily indoctrinated by the Right, especially since Ronald Reagan, that many view the term as subversive.
The impact of technology on humanity, of which automation is an instance, needs to be a major focus in the development of a progressive perspective.
As I finished this article I stumbled upon an excellent article by Chris Hedges on his analysis of the fundamental message of the recent election, which sees fascism at work in the political craziness. I strongly recommend reading Chris' article titled "A Recipe for Fascism", which can be found at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_recipe_for_fascism_20101108/
Bob Newhard
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Ecology of Capitalism
An ecologist studies the relationships between living organisms. But first he must understand the organism itself. To do this he studies its behavior patterns so that, among other things, he can determine whether those behaviors are good, bad or indifferent for his own species. Capitalism, I suggest, is in and of itself just one more of those wild beasts whose behavior patterns need to be identified and made widely known so that a democratic society can develop appropriate responses to its natural behaviors.
An initial observation will reveal that capitalism has no inherent restraints. It is a cannibal devouring its own kind as readily as other prey. It will consume resources with no regard for anything but its own appetite. Another initial observation will be that said appetite is insatiable. It will, left to its own devices, literally eat itself out of house and home. It is especially aggressive when civilization seeks to defend itself by fencing this wild beast in. It will, as Grover Norquist infamously said, drown an infant government in its bathtub.
Our ecologist of capitalism will discover additional behaviors of this wild thing. Number one perhaps is that it will seek to turn everything it captures into a profit making market and it is tenacious in this pursuit. It never stops from satiation. The occasion for this column was a recent report on how banks, having exhausted much of their traditional sources of profit are now turning to Baby Boomers and other senior citizens for the money they have squirreled away for the exigencies of old age. They are looking for ways to pry this money, which they regard as a disposable resource, loose for investment in more risky instruments than a savings account or a certificate of deposit.
It is important to understand the dimensions of this insatiability. It is the major source of the increasing triviality and shallowness of this society. In its search for markets capitalism will turn the most pressing needs of society, e.g. crime prevention, into a reality show so media corporations and advertisers can make money. It will make a video game out of the mass killing of warfare for the same purpose. In this process it will create distorting images of everything from people to history in order to more easily turn the individual's emotions into a key to unlock his purse. A Disney version of history comes to mind or Hollywood's battle of the Alamo. By this process it creates an empire of illusion, to use Chris Hedges' words, in which the emotional content of illusion trumps truth. It will change everything from clothing fashions to automobile fashions as frequently as consumers will part with their money and deliberately weaken both by planned obsolescence in order to preserve a market. It will stimulate envy and greed in order to create or enhance a market. Finally, it views government as its prime competitor and will do whatever it can to either control or destroy it, much as it would any other capitalist competitor. All these things, and vastly more, this wild beast will do if left to its own natural behaviors. It is so very obvious that this beast must be assiduously controlled lest it destroy our planet and us.
Capitalism, like any wild carnivore, has one virtue. It has energy. Human beings have a natural predilection for entropy. As a species that learned to grow things, we found the sowing of crops preferable to the risks of the hunt. We preferred to stay in one place rather than roam the unknown in search of prey. The vibrant self interest released by capitalism provides energy not unlike that which war generates and perhaps for the same basic reason. Energy, like fire, can be destructive or, if suitably controlled, can produce very useful products and services. We cannot allow ourselves to be dazzled by its occasional displays. We must be continuously cognizant of the danger it poses. We must not, as we advise small children, play with fire.
Until we as a nation begin to treat capitalism as science treats a natural organism, we will forever be its victims. Put conversely, as long as we regard capitalism ideologically, we will be its victims. A number of so-called "mixed economies" such as those of Scandinavia and much of Western Europe have, since World War II, understood this necessity. They have taken large steps to insure that capitalism serves society.
In the long run we know this planet cannot tolerate a human economy of compound growth. In the shorter term we know that capitalism's insatiable appetite will greatly, probably violently, exacerbate the competition for decreasing resources. In the immediate world we see it grossly corrupting democracies, fomenting wars and destroying the democratic process. We know we will have to develop a much better economic process if humanity is to survive.
It is high time this nation realized that the ideological approach to politics, social thinking, and most especially our economy is massively counter productive. These social functions must be based on the study of and well-being of humanity. To get people to understand this should be a major focus of the progressive agenda.
Bob Newhard
An initial observation will reveal that capitalism has no inherent restraints. It is a cannibal devouring its own kind as readily as other prey. It will consume resources with no regard for anything but its own appetite. Another initial observation will be that said appetite is insatiable. It will, left to its own devices, literally eat itself out of house and home. It is especially aggressive when civilization seeks to defend itself by fencing this wild beast in. It will, as Grover Norquist infamously said, drown an infant government in its bathtub.
Our ecologist of capitalism will discover additional behaviors of this wild thing. Number one perhaps is that it will seek to turn everything it captures into a profit making market and it is tenacious in this pursuit. It never stops from satiation. The occasion for this column was a recent report on how banks, having exhausted much of their traditional sources of profit are now turning to Baby Boomers and other senior citizens for the money they have squirreled away for the exigencies of old age. They are looking for ways to pry this money, which they regard as a disposable resource, loose for investment in more risky instruments than a savings account or a certificate of deposit.
It is important to understand the dimensions of this insatiability. It is the major source of the increasing triviality and shallowness of this society. In its search for markets capitalism will turn the most pressing needs of society, e.g. crime prevention, into a reality show so media corporations and advertisers can make money. It will make a video game out of the mass killing of warfare for the same purpose. In this process it will create distorting images of everything from people to history in order to more easily turn the individual's emotions into a key to unlock his purse. A Disney version of history comes to mind or Hollywood's battle of the Alamo. By this process it creates an empire of illusion, to use Chris Hedges' words, in which the emotional content of illusion trumps truth. It will change everything from clothing fashions to automobile fashions as frequently as consumers will part with their money and deliberately weaken both by planned obsolescence in order to preserve a market. It will stimulate envy and greed in order to create or enhance a market. Finally, it views government as its prime competitor and will do whatever it can to either control or destroy it, much as it would any other capitalist competitor. All these things, and vastly more, this wild beast will do if left to its own natural behaviors. It is so very obvious that this beast must be assiduously controlled lest it destroy our planet and us.
Capitalism, like any wild carnivore, has one virtue. It has energy. Human beings have a natural predilection for entropy. As a species that learned to grow things, we found the sowing of crops preferable to the risks of the hunt. We preferred to stay in one place rather than roam the unknown in search of prey. The vibrant self interest released by capitalism provides energy not unlike that which war generates and perhaps for the same basic reason. Energy, like fire, can be destructive or, if suitably controlled, can produce very useful products and services. We cannot allow ourselves to be dazzled by its occasional displays. We must be continuously cognizant of the danger it poses. We must not, as we advise small children, play with fire.
Until we as a nation begin to treat capitalism as science treats a natural organism, we will forever be its victims. Put conversely, as long as we regard capitalism ideologically, we will be its victims. A number of so-called "mixed economies" such as those of Scandinavia and much of Western Europe have, since World War II, understood this necessity. They have taken large steps to insure that capitalism serves society.
In the long run we know this planet cannot tolerate a human economy of compound growth. In the shorter term we know that capitalism's insatiable appetite will greatly, probably violently, exacerbate the competition for decreasing resources. In the immediate world we see it grossly corrupting democracies, fomenting wars and destroying the democratic process. We know we will have to develop a much better economic process if humanity is to survive.
It is high time this nation realized that the ideological approach to politics, social thinking, and most especially our economy is massively counter productive. These social functions must be based on the study of and well-being of humanity. To get people to understand this should be a major focus of the progressive agenda.
Bob Newhard
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Greed is more than a personal fault.
Your mother, no doubt, impressed upon you that greed was bad and, not always to your liking, that sharing was good. What happened on the way to becoming an adult where, obviously, greed is rewarded and sharing is at best, propaganda as in President H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light" surrogate for tax supported public assistance? I suggest the difference is between the small world of the family and neighbors and a world of money cut loose from the ties of the world in which humans matter most.
Greed, as a social phenomenon, has become increasingly acceptable. We have had, for example, the clichés "Greed is good" and "He who dies with the most toys wins" bandied about. Why this metamorphosis? I suspect it is a consequence of maintaining a "free market" capitalist economy. When you have saturated a market based on need, as technology has with increasing efficiency done, it is imperative that some substitute for need be found lest an economy begin to collapse for want of markets. Rapidly moving from a market of need to a market of greed is a feature of a modern affluent society.
It is not hard to see this process in action in our society. Manufacturing used to be the major segment of this country's economy. It is now finance, otherwise known as debt. In my youth the bellwether of economic activity was the price of steel. It is now consumer confidence. This is due substantially to the uncontrolled, indeed encouraged, migration of jobs to places with cheap labor, a process Karl Marx delineated over a hundred years ago. As a result, we now have a consumer economy not a production economy. Either consume or go bust!
A consumer based market offers several advantages to business. A need-based market is relatively narrow, limited by what is required to maintain basic human requirements, which do not change that much. The only way to substantially expand this market is to breed more humans. A consumer based economy driven by human desire rather than need, is, obviously, as large and variable as the human imagination and greed can make it. This being the case those profiting from markets greatly value greed and will do what they can to make it culturally acceptable. Hence the need to create a constant greed stimulus using, for example, the feeling of inferiority if one does not keep up with the Joneses. Thus greed has become an economic imperative, modifying our culture in ways destructive of society and the environment. These ways may often be subtle but none the less effective. For example, it would be interesting to know how massively the values of this society have been trivialized by the culture of constant novelty this process has created.
Greed is thus a major factor in the economy that has been developed in this country. As such, greed has become destructive of our society by focusing more resources on the frivolous at the expense of the necessary; on the desires of the few in preference to the needs of the many. This syndrome, I might point out, was the immediate cause of the French Revolution.
The need to constantly develop and promote markets is, in my judgment, a root cause of our massive over consumption. It is relatively easy to see how rampant consumerism eventuates in a cultural acceptance of greed. This market-driven, hyper-consumerism has led to the enculturation of greed. We have an economic system whose masters would make greedheads of us all. In my judgment, the problem of acculturated greed indicates that we do not yet understand the perils of affluence. "Shop 'till you drop" is more ominous than one might think.
Bob Newhard
Greed, as a social phenomenon, has become increasingly acceptable. We have had, for example, the clichés "Greed is good" and "He who dies with the most toys wins" bandied about. Why this metamorphosis? I suspect it is a consequence of maintaining a "free market" capitalist economy. When you have saturated a market based on need, as technology has with increasing efficiency done, it is imperative that some substitute for need be found lest an economy begin to collapse for want of markets. Rapidly moving from a market of need to a market of greed is a feature of a modern affluent society.
It is not hard to see this process in action in our society. Manufacturing used to be the major segment of this country's economy. It is now finance, otherwise known as debt. In my youth the bellwether of economic activity was the price of steel. It is now consumer confidence. This is due substantially to the uncontrolled, indeed encouraged, migration of jobs to places with cheap labor, a process Karl Marx delineated over a hundred years ago. As a result, we now have a consumer economy not a production economy. Either consume or go bust!
A consumer based market offers several advantages to business. A need-based market is relatively narrow, limited by what is required to maintain basic human requirements, which do not change that much. The only way to substantially expand this market is to breed more humans. A consumer based economy driven by human desire rather than need, is, obviously, as large and variable as the human imagination and greed can make it. This being the case those profiting from markets greatly value greed and will do what they can to make it culturally acceptable. Hence the need to create a constant greed stimulus using, for example, the feeling of inferiority if one does not keep up with the Joneses. Thus greed has become an economic imperative, modifying our culture in ways destructive of society and the environment. These ways may often be subtle but none the less effective. For example, it would be interesting to know how massively the values of this society have been trivialized by the culture of constant novelty this process has created.
Greed is thus a major factor in the economy that has been developed in this country. As such, greed has become destructive of our society by focusing more resources on the frivolous at the expense of the necessary; on the desires of the few in preference to the needs of the many. This syndrome, I might point out, was the immediate cause of the French Revolution.
The need to constantly develop and promote markets is, in my judgment, a root cause of our massive over consumption. It is relatively easy to see how rampant consumerism eventuates in a cultural acceptance of greed. This market-driven, hyper-consumerism has led to the enculturation of greed. We have an economic system whose masters would make greedheads of us all. In my judgment, the problem of acculturated greed indicates that we do not yet understand the perils of affluence. "Shop 'till you drop" is more ominous than one might think.
Bob Newhard
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Why We Have Had and Why We are Doomed to Endless War
For those who may think that the military does not set national policy I submit as evidence to the contrary the endless war we have had and can expect to have.
It all began with the military's determination to eliminate the kind of citizen opposition to war that the Vietnam escapade produced. The solution was to convert a citizen draft army to a volunteer-based army. The military believed, rightly it seems, that the only substantial reason for the mass objection to the Vietnam War lay in all young men being eligible for military service. (Why the resistance to the draft was so vigorous in this war but not World War II apparently was not asked.)This, obviously, included the children of the middle and wealthy classes. The concern for the casualties, both American and Vietnamese, was distinctly secondary to that of keeping one's child out of harms way. The military believes that people will never permit a return to the draft and the endangerment of their children as long as we have a paid military to do the job.
With the removal of the only major restraint on the military, it follows from the above observation that there will be no end of war until there is a return to the draft or our economy collapses entirely from the economic burden of endless war. The likelihood of people voting to restore the draft is next to nil. Therefore endless war. We have got to the place where war is no longer an instrument of policy, but policy is an instrument for the pursuit of successful war. Military domination of the government budget, and, hence, military priorities will continue to be the national priorities. In short, the United States military has finessed the country into endless war and the populace is continually diverted from understanding this by a barrage of ingenuous sentiment about troop heroism and sacrifice by our corporate media. It is doubtful that even President Eisenhower in his farewell warning about the military-industrial complex could have seen how far this duopoly of destruction would go.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in his article The Founders’Wisdom, published in the Armed Forces Journal gives a quite detailed account of what we have lost and what we can expect by abandoning the draft. The article, which I highly recommend, can be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4384885/. Colonel Yingling, for example, points out that the decision to go to war is much easier to reach with our volunteer army. There is greatly diminished opposition because people, especially the middle and upper classes, no longer need fear that their children might have to go. Congress was freed from the intense citizen pressure of concerned parents and their children and has surrendered its Constitutionally mandated responsibility to declare war. Thus, immediately after 9/11 G. W. Bush could declare "This is war." The media did not point out that only Congress, not the President, can declare war. Bush may not have even known this. However, the voluntary military has obviously cut the executive branch of government loose from the oversight of Congress, which our Constitution-based separation of powers was intended to prevent. Without the draft, citizen opposition is not felt by Congress and Congress is free to regard the interests of the defense contractors who contributed to their campaigns. Thus the absence of a draft leads to a corruption of government and a fundamental abrogation of the Constitution.
It has been argued that the Founders did not envision the need for an immediate response to a threat to the nation. Yingling points out that the Founders drew a distinction between the Amy and the Navy. They viewed the Army as a small corps of regulars to be complemented by male civilians in time of need. This way their great fear of the threat a standing army posed to citizen freedom and well being could be avoided. The navy, on the other hand, was viewed as a continuously full-complemented armed service because of the continuing need to protect commerce and, not so incidentally, because it was stationed at sea and hence not among the citizens and their civilian affairs. The distinction between the two services was so significant that they are treated in separate articles of the Constitution. Today we see one manifestation of their concern, in the ease with which military practice and technology flow to Homeland Security and thence to local police. SWAT teams are versions of military assault teams turned loose in a civilian, often neighborhood, context.
Col. Yingling asserts that there probably is no more fundamental constraint on executive power in the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances, than the restriction of habeas corpus. The Constitution declares “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Yet, under the sway of the military we have cooked up devices such as imprisoning American citizens without trial on so-called foreign soil, as if the Founders had to spell out for children that habeus corpus applied to the treatment of American citizens by the American government no matter where that treatment is applied. In brief, we have gimmicked our way around our own constitution.
To sum up, the military has been empowered to defeat our basic American rights, to ruin our economy, to gain political sway over our legislature, and to insinuate itself into the everyday fabric of our society. As an example, our own local Californian now has a weekly military supplement, as though it was as common as the sports or business section. All this has been accomplished with the willing cooperation of our corporate-controlled all-pervasive media. Until the public realizes the extent to which this nation is controlled by its military and appreciates the immense threat to our democracy that it represents, we will not even see the beginning of a return to the fundamental values of a democratic society. The enormity of such a sea change in our national ethos is elaborated on by John Feffer in his article Gorbachev of the Pentagon?, which can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/gorbachev-of-the-pentagon_b_742180.html. Feffer compares the task of bringing the Americana military under control (he like Chalmers Johnson uses the term "dismantling,") to that of Gorbachev's successful effort to break up the Soviet Union. He describes the unique talents and knowledge that Gorbachev' brought to this monumental task and why it will take someone of his caliber to break the hold of the American military. More than one civilization has collapsed under the burden of its military. May we recover our founding concern for democracy before it is too late.
Bob Newhard
P.S. A rebuttal to Yingling's article by Curtis L. Gilroy, titled Defending the all-volunteer force, may be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/04/4537015
Yingling's response to his critics, titled The All-Volunteer Force: The Debate, may be found at http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/07/the-allvolunteer-force-the-deb/
It all began with the military's determination to eliminate the kind of citizen opposition to war that the Vietnam escapade produced. The solution was to convert a citizen draft army to a volunteer-based army. The military believed, rightly it seems, that the only substantial reason for the mass objection to the Vietnam War lay in all young men being eligible for military service. (Why the resistance to the draft was so vigorous in this war but not World War II apparently was not asked.)This, obviously, included the children of the middle and wealthy classes. The concern for the casualties, both American and Vietnamese, was distinctly secondary to that of keeping one's child out of harms way. The military believes that people will never permit a return to the draft and the endangerment of their children as long as we have a paid military to do the job.
With the removal of the only major restraint on the military, it follows from the above observation that there will be no end of war until there is a return to the draft or our economy collapses entirely from the economic burden of endless war. The likelihood of people voting to restore the draft is next to nil. Therefore endless war. We have got to the place where war is no longer an instrument of policy, but policy is an instrument for the pursuit of successful war. Military domination of the government budget, and, hence, military priorities will continue to be the national priorities. In short, the United States military has finessed the country into endless war and the populace is continually diverted from understanding this by a barrage of ingenuous sentiment about troop heroism and sacrifice by our corporate media. It is doubtful that even President Eisenhower in his farewell warning about the military-industrial complex could have seen how far this duopoly of destruction would go.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in his article The Founders’Wisdom, published in the Armed Forces Journal gives a quite detailed account of what we have lost and what we can expect by abandoning the draft. The article, which I highly recommend, can be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4384885/. Colonel Yingling, for example, points out that the decision to go to war is much easier to reach with our volunteer army. There is greatly diminished opposition because people, especially the middle and upper classes, no longer need fear that their children might have to go. Congress was freed from the intense citizen pressure of concerned parents and their children and has surrendered its Constitutionally mandated responsibility to declare war. Thus, immediately after 9/11 G. W. Bush could declare "This is war." The media did not point out that only Congress, not the President, can declare war. Bush may not have even known this. However, the voluntary military has obviously cut the executive branch of government loose from the oversight of Congress, which our Constitution-based separation of powers was intended to prevent. Without the draft, citizen opposition is not felt by Congress and Congress is free to regard the interests of the defense contractors who contributed to their campaigns. Thus the absence of a draft leads to a corruption of government and a fundamental abrogation of the Constitution.
It has been argued that the Founders did not envision the need for an immediate response to a threat to the nation. Yingling points out that the Founders drew a distinction between the Amy and the Navy. They viewed the Army as a small corps of regulars to be complemented by male civilians in time of need. This way their great fear of the threat a standing army posed to citizen freedom and well being could be avoided. The navy, on the other hand, was viewed as a continuously full-complemented armed service because of the continuing need to protect commerce and, not so incidentally, because it was stationed at sea and hence not among the citizens and their civilian affairs. The distinction between the two services was so significant that they are treated in separate articles of the Constitution. Today we see one manifestation of their concern, in the ease with which military practice and technology flow to Homeland Security and thence to local police. SWAT teams are versions of military assault teams turned loose in a civilian, often neighborhood, context.
Col. Yingling asserts that there probably is no more fundamental constraint on executive power in the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances, than the restriction of habeas corpus. The Constitution declares “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Yet, under the sway of the military we have cooked up devices such as imprisoning American citizens without trial on so-called foreign soil, as if the Founders had to spell out for children that habeus corpus applied to the treatment of American citizens by the American government no matter where that treatment is applied. In brief, we have gimmicked our way around our own constitution.
To sum up, the military has been empowered to defeat our basic American rights, to ruin our economy, to gain political sway over our legislature, and to insinuate itself into the everyday fabric of our society. As an example, our own local Californian now has a weekly military supplement, as though it was as common as the sports or business section. All this has been accomplished with the willing cooperation of our corporate-controlled all-pervasive media. Until the public realizes the extent to which this nation is controlled by its military and appreciates the immense threat to our democracy that it represents, we will not even see the beginning of a return to the fundamental values of a democratic society. The enormity of such a sea change in our national ethos is elaborated on by John Feffer in his article Gorbachev of the Pentagon?, which can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/gorbachev-of-the-pentagon_b_742180.html. Feffer compares the task of bringing the Americana military under control (he like Chalmers Johnson uses the term "dismantling,") to that of Gorbachev's successful effort to break up the Soviet Union. He describes the unique talents and knowledge that Gorbachev' brought to this monumental task and why it will take someone of his caliber to break the hold of the American military. More than one civilization has collapsed under the burden of its military. May we recover our founding concern for democracy before it is too late.
Bob Newhard
P.S. A rebuttal to Yingling's article by Curtis L. Gilroy, titled Defending the all-volunteer force, may be found at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/04/4537015
Yingling's response to his critics, titled The All-Volunteer Force: The Debate, may be found at http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/07/the-allvolunteer-force-the-deb/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)