The Face of the New GOP

This article provides interesting background on Ryan: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158010/paul-ryan-republicans-thinker?rel=emailNation. Apparently, his idea of "fiscal responsibility" is to advocate for another great transfer of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top. Among the ideas of this acolyte of Ayn Rand:

• Reduce tax rates, eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest, and abolish the corporate tax, the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. (The average tax cut for the top 1 percent of the population (with incomes over $633,000) would be $280,000. The richest one-tenth of one percent, who had incomes over $2.9 million in 2009, would pocket $1.7 million a year in tax breaks.
• Unravel employer-based healthcare plans by eliminating the tax credit.  
• Eliminate traditional Medicare and cut Medicaid.
• Cut $100 billion out of "non-security discretionary spending" this year - requiring cuts of 20 percent in everything from the FBI to cancer research, Pell grants for students, Head Start and grants to public school districts.

It appears "compassionate conservativism" has died a natural death and is being replaced by Social Darwinism and survival of the richest.

State of the Union

Yesterday, I happened to catch most of the Republican response to the SOTU speech. One thing I found fascinating was the series of myths that continued to be utilized as if they were unquestionable truths. The first was the rather obvious, and reported, reference to the cost of the healthcare reform package -- which appears to actually cut the deficit, not increase it. But the much more important mythology revolves around an ideology that continues to be promoted as if it is received truth -- essentially that government is the problem and markets the solution. Even after the latest financial crisis, and the fact that unemployment and foreclosures remain high, there appears to be a general belief among conservatives (and unfortunately a more center-right post-mid term election Obama administration) that we must now deal with the deficit and long term debt over working to stimulate the economy in any way. This belief, which stands in stark contradiction to sensible analysis of the causes of the crisis including financial deregulation, poor risk management and lack of effective oversight, essentially argues that more of the same will save us. It is backed by two rather absurd assumptions: 1. The stimulus did nothing to help the recovery, but rather hindered it (an argument completely unsupported by any credible economists) and 2. Somehow the crisis accelerated under Obama. The rewriting of history is a popular modern political strategy for both parties, but conservatives have come to assume a public that has the memory of Leonard in the 2000 movie Memento. And they seem right. Ryan appeared to argue last night that Obama took a small financial mess and made it into a full-blown crisis, a ridiculous claim that stretches the edges of credulity, if similar arguments haven't been used effectively for years. Remember that surplus we had when Bush entered office; that never happened. Remember those weapons of mass destruction we never found -- well we went in there to spread democracy and freedom anyway.

The most troubling aspect of the new common sense to me is the complete lack of empirical evidence to support their claims. Economic research tends to show that government intervention, while it may lower profitability and technological advancement in the short run (in some cases), tends to reduce inequality, lessen the magnitude and frequency of financial crises and lead to more robust and sustained growth. That is exactly the case in the BRIC countries today -- and the model used by not only China but the four tigers to grow rapidly over the past decades (irrespective of their financial crisis of 1997-8). It is also worth noting that it was the model employed by the United States, with the federal government subsidizing new technology and strategic goods, placing barriers to trade that helped these nascent ("or infant") industries grow and helped maintain comparative advantages to this day in international trade arrangements. While America has always been fearful of the dangers of excessive government power (as they should be), there is also the fear of excessive corporate and financial market power that should now be thought of in a similar light. Is tyranny of the market really that different than the tyranny of a crazy King who doesn't care much for a colony across an ocean? Can we really trust those ideas and people that got us into this mess to get us out, particularly if they plan to just give us more of the same? When (if ever) will a real populist movement emerge to challenge this myopic view?

Investment Just Another Name for Spending to GOP

In preparation for the State of the Union address, Republicans showed up on the Sunday talk shows to warn that they seek cuts in all areas of the economy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/us/politics/24union.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print. "Investment" in silly luxuries like education, infrastructure and technology is just a democratic trick to try to help those who are unemployed, underemployed or working for meager wages (i.e., the lazy and "illegal immigrants"). Obviously in these difficult times of soaring corporate profits and growing wealth at the top, it is still unfathomable to either raise taxes on the richest Americans or seek to stimulate the economy through approaches that worked for the better part of 30 years, until the stagflation crisis of the 70s. The underanalyzed (at least outside of academia) language games of conservatives have altered political debate in this country away from even a modicum of reason or sanity; continuing unabated by truth, an even cursory understanding of economics or a reasonable discussion of the growing underclass in America. "Social justice" is just another word for "socialism," (as is government stimulus spending or tax hikes), talking about race is "race baiting," talking about social class is engaging in "class warfare," all democrats are "tax and spend" addicts and the deficits they continuously accumulate while they are in the White House become magically based on the policies of those who inherit them. Now "investment," one of the pillars of neoliberal discourse for the past 30 years, is a bad word itself and many Republicans are seriously considering letting states go bankrupt. When will the madness end? Maybe when they outlaw the democratic party itself and can simply spew their destructive policies with no resistance at all.

So That Explains It?

News that astronomer signs are misaligned by as much as a month (due to "wobble" in the earth) has sent people into identity crises that rival that following news the earth was not the center of the universe and that Liberace was gay: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/113100139.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU. Tauruses are trying to be less aggressive and not as impressive in bed, Scorpios less vindictive and Virgos less accommodating. People who have long wondered why daily horoscopes have not led them along the path to success and fortune are reading a paragraph down, hoping happiness is just around the corner. Historians are now trying to determine if this explains the Reagan presidency and the continued success of boy bands. Lawsuits against the Psychic Discovery Network are being filed at record levels, though they have hired the leading global warming doubter PR firm to challenge the new theory.

Sparking Uprising?

It is still unclear whether the shooting of Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was politically motivated, but it is clear that the increasingly bellicose rantings of conservative leaders and popular culture personalities could be leading the country along a very dangerous course. Impassioned political discourse has always been part of the American experience and it often leads to more healthy manifestations of democratic participation and debate. Yet one wonders if we are on the verge of a return to the political violence of the 60s, where assassinations and massive violence confronted attempts to alter American politics. Today, tea party candidates and personalities like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are capitalizing on popular discontent in ways that could have dangerous implications.

Some examples from a New York Times article today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print):

- Sarah Palin's infamous "cross hairs" map that included gun targets focused on a number of close races, including that of Giffords
- Sharron Angle speaking of "domestic enemies" in the Congress and "Second Amendment remedies"
- Rick Barber using a political ad to "gather your armies"
- Michael Steele saying he hoped to send Nancy Pelosi to the "firing line" last year
- Glenn Beck claims that Obama faced an assassination attempt

The general discourse of socialism, tyranny and fascism employed by the right since Obama's run to the presidency are clearly absurd exaggerations of a President who many on the left see as essentially a centrist. But the larger issue is whether it is irresponsible to use rhetoric that could incite violence for political ends. The harm principle Supreme Court decision against "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" showed us that there are limits to freedom of speech. Several decision since fortified this position, including the Scheneck case establishing the clear and present danger precedent and the more recent hate speech legislation. Political discourse on both ends of the political spectrum should I believe be held to two standards: 1) Does not incite violence and 2) Has some semblance of truth attached to it. The latter is particularly necessary in political advertising, the largely unregulated sphere where manipulation, lies and fear mongering reign supreme -- often helping to decide elections. The public must hold politicians responsible for the ramifications of their words and demand a more reasoned, though not necessarily civil, level of dialogue. Civility is too often used as a cynical ploy to cut off real debate, as was the case post-911, but some responsibility to what we say and what it means does seem a reasonable demand.

Bringing Out the Dead

Obama announced yesterday that he is naming William Daley as his new Chief of Staff and will announce today that Gene Sperling will become the head of the National Economic Council. Daley previously served as Commerce Secretary under bill Clinton and was key in orchestrating NAFTA. Sperling worked at NEC in the past and was instrumental in passage of the Financial Modernization Act of 1999 -- that many blame as a key factor in the 2007 financial crisis (as it repealed large portions of the Glass-Steagal Act that helped stabilize banking during the Great Depression). Both of these Clinton-era figures are thus heavily implicated in policies that many would agree augured the troubles to come in the financial sector and broader economy.

Both also appear to be big friends of business. Daley has spent the past seven years working for J. P. Morgan, after several other stints with other large corporations. In a December 2009 op-ed for the Washington Post, Daley wrote that top Democrats need to "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans—and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan." And the Chamber of Commerce, which gave 93% of its campaign contributions to Republicans, heralded the choice.

So what happened to the Obama of two years ago, who turned his back on the DLC and defeated their candidate (Clinton) in stunning fashion? He appears to have gone the way of so many other democrats -- suffering a setback and quickly disavowing all that he proclaimed to believe in. What worries me the most is what happened the last time we brought political veterans out of retirement to run the country ...

ESP?

ESP has generally sat alongside UFO sightings, flouridation, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, life on Mars and the like, as the ranting of lunatics. That was until now, as a respected Psychological journal is planning to publish a paper that claims ESP does in fact exist. Daryl J. Bem, a ienowned emeritus professor at Cornell, has been testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen for over 10 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?pagewanted=print. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects who were tested by, among other things, categorizing pictures and finding pornographic images they couldn't see. Like much of the work in randomized social science research, the methods are open to major questions. Just because kids find pornographic images they can't see at a rate of 53% versus 50% does not really indicate any strong ability to see into the future. Nor does reversing the order of a classic memory test by finding that students had much better success at memorizing words they later studied. This sort of silliness would probably be completely ignored, but for the respect these experiments hold in general. For example, in the increasingly popular world of cognitive science, subjects are hooked up to machines that look at their brain activity while they are offered various stimuli -- after which major claims are sometimes made about what this says about human nature; without acknowledging that experiments are about as realistic as reality based TV. In any case, maybe ESP does exist. If you have it, feel free to email me with the winning lottery numbers for the next draw.

Payoff is Sweet

The House of Representatives will change hands today and already Republicans are getting ready to pay back their corporate sponsors (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/46995.html). First a quick look at the numbers. Candidates spent a whopping $4.2 billion on campaign TV ads alone (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327814/Mid-term-Elections-2010-Politicians-spent-4-2bn-adverts.html) in this midterm election. Outside groups increased their spending from $16 million in 2006 to over $80 last year (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/groups-spending-elections-dwarfs-parties/). And the Chamber of Commerce spent $31.7 million dollars, with 93 percent going to Republicans. On top of all this, unreported contributions have climbed precipitously based on the Citizens vs. The United States Supreme Court decision. Now Republicans are going to offer their payback, just as they did when Bush II entered office as the first corporate-sponsored President in history. Darrell Issa, the incoming chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent out letters to 150 trade associations, companies and think tanks asking what federal regulation is hurting economic growth.

Issa is apparently troubled by expanded oversight in areas including  food production, energy production, and finance. "Is there something that we can do to try to ease that [regulatory] burden and stimulate job creation?" said an Issa spokesperson. "Is there a consistent practice or regulation that hurts jobs? Until you have all the facts, you really can't make a lot of determinations and judgments." The irony, of course, is that profits are up and companies are doing okay -- they're just not hiring workers. And given the environmental and financial crises that persist to this day, is it really wise to turn the clock back and give corporations more carte blanche to do as they please? I suppose when they are flipping the bill for your election/reelection it does.

In economic terms, moral hazard refers to a situation where individuals or groups act less responsibly because they are covered for losses. A classic example would be buying insurance on a new bike that pays 100% if the bike is stolen. The person with that insurance is less likely to take steps to protect that bike from theft, given that there is no cost to replacing it except time. I believe we have a moral hazard problem today that is systemic. Corporations spend money to ensure that they are not held culpable for their behavior: through lobbying and campaign financing, lining the court with friends of business, influencing the public sphere (media) and all levels of education from Kindergarten to the University and even running for office. With all of these protections in place, the financial sector even feels comfortable handing out huge bonuses in the middle of a financial crisis and spending gads of money to ensure that no regulation is put into place to protect against collapse in the future. And yet people continue to believe government is the problem. Hmm . . .

Economic Arguments Against Small Government

I often write in this blog about the social justice and empirical arguments against the "small government" discourse. I thought I would add a few economic insights that support the claim that we need a strong government in some instances to deal with market imperfections. Three that are well-known in economic circles are the issue of externalities, market power and asymmetries of information and power.

Externalities are a key issue in economics, as they are benefits and costs not accounted for in the pricing system of supply and demand. Common externalities include pollution, health and inequality/poverty. The market does not account for these externalities and thus generally is unable to properly deal with them. As regards the most important externality today -- pollution and global warming -- some economists argue technology and science will save us from the long term effects of carbon emissions and the cutting down of forests. Yet the acceleration in environmental degradation appears to be beyond the power of science alone to handle the looming crisis. Government intervention is thus necessary to regulate market activity and ensure that these negative externatilities are accounted for. There are also positive externalities associated with public goods like education. If we privatize these goods, market interests often undermine the positive side effects of those institutions. We already see this in education with the diminution of civics education, physical education and the humanities -- all undermining the broader goals of education to spread freedom and democracy.

The second issue is market power and it is governments alone that can regulate industries to ensure the monopolies, oligopolies and cartels don't form that raise prices above their natural levels. It is clear that market power has again concentrated across the globe with the rise of multinational corporations and the inability of current global governance to regulate them. Corporations were once given their charters by states with an explicit clause that they must serve the public good. Without government intervention to ensure that corporations (like Microsoft), or groups of corporations (like the gas companies) don't gain too much power thus raising prices, cutting production and, often, cutting jobs. Market power leads to excessive profits without the concommitant economic benefits for the nation or society at large.

Finally is the issue of asymmetries of power and information. The first relates to issue discussed above, with excessive power not only undermining the market for goods but democracy itself. We see that today with lobbying and campaign financing, where the interests of huge corporations and industries like the financial sector working to undermine the will and interests of the people. But asymmetries of knowledge can be just as important -- as consumers are left without sufficient information to make wise choices and have any say in the decisions that affect their lives.

All three of these issues fundamentally undermine the argument for limited government intervention. Regulation, oversight and enforcement are all important aspects of ensuring that corporate interests don't trump those of the public at large. Yet beyond that, without government intervention, externalities, market power and asymmetries also undermine the effectiveness of markets themselves, undercutting economic efficiency and economic growth. What surprises me the most is the disingenuous nature of economic debates in the West today that fail to account for these three economic issues and their huge role in the financial crisis we continue to be mired in. A more honest accounting of the truth of the global market economy today might lead to more sensible economic policies that can restore some sanity to policy debate and action.

Tween Queens

Some of us remember the age when kids should be seen but not heard, or maybe even not seen that much. Youth was to be lived freely, spending hours outside with friends, hiding in the kitchen or upstairs as parents had the parties and went out. Those bygone days are long gone, with kids increasingly dominating parents lives from the moment of inception. Parachute parents, soccer moms and the many other monikers used to describe middle-class and rich parents today all conjure images of overplanned youth, living vicariously through kids, play dates, harassment of teachers that borders on assault, educational videos and software and, of course, fashion that can start in infancy. Many have decried the way we have deified youth in popular culture and the press, but we seem to be further going along the path of acceptance that every year of our lives moves us away from the apogee of youth and naivete. Yet the deification of youth has certainly turned toward the absurd in recent years. From boy and girl bands to teenager fashion lines to megastars like Hannah Montana, we have entered a parallel universe where teens and even preteens are becoming the biggest market for popular culture. Of particular concern is recent trends in film, television and commercials to show youth as the ones with all the wisdom and savvy and doltish parents led along the path of enlightenment by said tween sages (think Definitely Maybe among so many). Now the tween market has decided to label some of these young girls as fashion icons, who in some cases are starting their own lines: http://www.salon.com/life/fashion/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/12/22/elle_fanning_tween_fashionista&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2528Premium%2529_7_30_110. What does this say about our culture? One obvious thing is the idea that innocence and youth are the apogee of existence, and that aging is the process of moving away from perfection. That is obviously an old trend, but it's interesting to consider how this aligns with the sexualization and aforementioned push to make these kids grow up to fast. Is youth preferable because of the lack of responsibility and marring effects of experience or simply because they are less cynical and their bodies don't sag yet? Another related trend is the anti-intellectualism so endemic to American culture. All you need to know about the world is available to kids of 11 or 12, even before they've experienced it (in the case of Definitely Maybe, love and romance). So what use is school or education? Third, is the idea that youth is sellable, like everything else in the universe. Kids are a huge market and the idea that one should enjoy that youth has been largely supplanted by two trends: marketers desire to sell them cool (which usually means acting older and more cynical then kids would otherwise be) and an education system that makes it clear their futures are riding on getting the appropriate grades and test scores to succeed economically as adults. I wonder if the loss of childhood bodes poorly for the future of democracy, as these kids are brought into the adult world so early they never have access to the idealism and creativity that often serve as the foundation of hope in a better world. If the kids are indoctrinated into the new world order before they even know who they are, is there any "them" that exists outside that social structure?

On a completely unrelated note, I think it might be time to retire the "What would * do?" trope. It was funny for a little while mocking the "what would Jesus do?" movement, but it really has just become a phrase that, like "thinking outside the box," actually demonstrates the lack of creativity of the one using it. RIP WW*D, I hope.

Oped Objectivity?

Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he is adding an opinion section to his financial news organization: http://www.salon.com/news/michael_bloomberg/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/21/bloomberg_opinions. This opinion section will apparently offer only "ideology-free, empirically-based editorial positions about the pressing issues of our time." And what do "ideology-free" editorials look like? Bloomberg news editor in chief Matt Winkler argues they are "based on a sensibility that attempts at least to understand what are all the facts that we're dealing with when we bring our wisdom to an issue ... to look at things as they are and then to come up with a solution to make them better. It's a realistic approach." A realistic approach is what editorials try to do in general, isn't it? And as Bloomberg himself has made clear by touting his educational achievements based on flawed statistics and simply making state tests easier (the national NAEP scores in New York City are actual flat over his tyrannical stewardship of the NYBOE), facts and empirical evidence can be skewed to say just about anything we want them to say.

The deeper problem with the idea of "ideology-free" opinions is there adherence to a positivistic perspective that continues to dominate American research and epistemology today. By pretending at an objectivity that is impossible, it gives the imprimatur or reality without much to back up that claim. Beyond the ability of numbers to be manipulated is the ideology invoked in a "realistic" or "pragmatic" approach to policy and reform. Both signify an underlying cynicism of the possibility of radical change and an unspoken adherence to the status quo. At most, pragmatic policy advocates call for slow, incremental change -- even when the situation is dire. And though Bloomberg is certainly not the classic conservative -- as he is liberal on social issues, has occasionally raised taxes on the rich and sees a much more active role for the government in legislating healthy behavior -- he is, at bottom, a capitalist who is supportive of Wall Street, anti-union, pro-trade and bases his governing style on a mixture of tyrannical fiat (or bullying individuals or groups to his will -- as with the police, fireman, teachers union and city council on term limits) and scientifically-based efficiency, that tends to eliminate the human element from the equation. 

Many point to Bloomberg as a model example of how to run a big city effectively, but that certainly depends on who you talk to. Rents continue to rise even as the non-Wall Street workforce of New York City suffers. He undertook an ambitious redevelopment plan for the city, with many of those plans left undone as the financial crisis hit. He has, in my estimation, worsened the education system in NYC (with some minor improvements to his credit) and created a general political climate that undermines the rather vibrant democracy that has always defined New York. And some of his bad decisions appear to relate to an immutable hubris that he is above political games and essentially right about everything (because he is rich enough not to be encumbered by special interests or ulterior motives). On the surface, there seems to be some merit in the ability of a billionaire politician to stay above the political fray and enticements of public office, but what is missing in this narrative is the biases that tend to come with being a billionaire to begin with.

Bloomberg believes he can run the government like a business, a now commonly held belief among most conservatives, and many centrists and liberals. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that private and public organizations have different aims, different strengths and weaknesses and different stakeholders. Where efficiency might be the main goal of private enterprise, other concerns influence decision-making in the public sphere -- for example positive and negative externalities and concerns about the common good. People and numbers are not the same thing and we can see on a global scale what the cost of business models of governance look like -- increased poverty, increased inequality, lack of accountability, major asymmetries in power and decision-making and environmental and health crises that seem without solution. "Objective" and "ideology-free" opinions sound wonderful on the surface, particularly in these partisan times, yet what is lost? A deeper structural analysis of problems and new, creative solutions. Moving beyond the what is to the what can and what should be. Any nod to utopian notions of a better, more just world. And too often the human element that should be at the center of any public policy decision.

Population Trends Favor GOP

The U.S. Census Bureau released findings today that show an expected shift away from Democratic strongholds in the Northeast and Midwest to warmer states including Florida, Texas and Arizona. The big winner is GOP stronghold Texas, which will gain 4 seats. Florida will add two and South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah and Nevada will each gain one. The losers include New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2) and Illinois, Mass., Michigan, Missouri and Iowa (1 each). Califronia broke even for the first time since 1920. The shift is amplified by the fact GOP governors reside over GOP state legislatures in six of the eight states that will draw new district lines for the 2012 election. So after a short-lived hope that we might be experiencing a political realignment away from the 30 years of conservative rule, it appears likely that they will solidify their hold on the House in the next election. As to the 2012 presidential campaign, the electoral college changes do not appear to be sufficient to affect Obama's chances of reelection, though things will most certainly change in the next two years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513727657644.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection

Fluoridation Conspiracy?

In the classic Stanley Kubrick spoof Dr. Stranglove, a mad general believes the Russians are contaminating our water to take over America. Fluoridation conspiracy theories have been around for decades, but what about a real threat to our water? One might remember the film Erin Brockavich, based on the true story of a woman that helped stop PG&E to pay more than $330 million to the families in Hinkley, California that had suffered through high cancer rates and other sicknesses. One would think after such a find, the EPA would test water to determine if Cromium-6 was present. But of course rationality has little to do with government regulation, particularly when big money and large corporations have a stake in the regulation. And so a just completed study by the non-profit Envionrmental Working Group found that 31 states have levels of the carcinagen that are dangerous to humans: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/20/carcinogen-found-in-31-of-35-cities-water-supply. Even drinking bottled water might not be safe as much of it is not properly filtered. Examples like this only amplify the need for the revaluation of values I mentioned in post below: a way to force corporations to measure their bottom line versus the social costs of their actions. On a more positive note, a week after the bill seemed dead, the Senate passed the first major food safety legislation since the Great Depression (arguably another victory for Obama): http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/food-safety/134447-in-sunday-evening-surprise-senate-passes-food-safety-bill-by-unanimous-consent?tmpl=component&print=1&page=.

DADT Finally Over ... Missile Treaty Might Die as Well

A piece of good news emerged today as Obama finally came through -- ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and hopefully putting a first nail in the coffin of the final form of acceptable discrimination in America. While Gay Marriage is still not legal in most of the country, this might be the start to ending the absurd anti-constitutional double standard when it comes to sexuality. Unfortunately, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConell appears to be ready to take out his anger at the decision by working to undermine the latest arms treaty with Russia: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20start.html. McConnel following the Republican penchant for going against perceived wisdom -- in this case that of the administration and nation's military leaders -- claims it could inhibit development of missile defense and that eight months was not enough time for adequate debate. This appears as disingenuous as arguments against global warming, but the truth has little to do with conservative orthodoxy these days.

What's at Stake?

As I contemplate the Republican victory in the election last month, it occurred to me what is at stake in a broader sense. I have often spoke of the environmental damage, of increased inequality, of growing poverty and of the possibility of America falling further behind its competitors to the East and West. In a broader sense, what is at stake is the moral and ethical foundation of our very society. Republican rule over the past 40 years has led to a profound revaluation of values that has placed the individual at the center of social and economic life. After the Great Depression, the government and community took center stage and led to a period of increased civic responsibility, government intervention, regulation and a sense that the common good trumped the interests of the power elites. This story, of course, simplifies history, but it was clear, as Kenneth Galbraith among many noted, that governments could work toward reflecting the interests of the common good.

Since LBJ's Great Society, there has been constant pressure to reign in the size of government, to undermine the Keynesian goal of full employment and to deregulate the economy. At it's heart, neoliberal ideology is founded on the principle that the common good is best met by allowing individuals to act in their own interest without the influence of the government. Citizenship was rearticulated in consumption-oriented framing and attacks on the Nation-State and Welfare State sought to undermine the role of the government in regulation, ameliorating the deleterious effects of the market economy and ensuring relatively fair allocation of the costs and benefits of society. Thus ensued a period of privatization, dismantling of the social safety net, a shift from a focus on unemployment to low inflation, an anti-union and anti-labor stance, a backlash against feminism and civic rights legislation and a major change in tax laws that has resulted in one of the greatest transfers of wealth toward the top in history.

The new common sense is premised on the efficiency of markets and the relative ineptitude of government. It harkens back to the invisible hand of Smith without any reference to economic theory since the 70s, which has highlighted the flaws in this argument -- from asymmetries in power and access to knowledge, to barriers to entry for new firms, to market power and imperfect pricing mechanisms. While economists have recognized the necessity for government regulation of markets, conservatives have pushed for just the opposite, and have largely succeeded in establishing a society where corporations are responsible to no one but their shareholders. Yet history has consistently shown that government intervention not only protects citizens from the excesses of corporations, but tends to lead to more economic stability and growth. Even today, with the new realities of global competition, countries like China, India, South Korea, Malaysia and Brazil have all benefited from strong government oversight and planning of economic development -- while others that either embraced or were forced to accept neoliberal models of development have seen increased poverty, lower or negative growth and a general decline in sovereignty and quality of life.

So when I think of what is at stake, I believe it is the future of the globe and quality of life of its inhabitants. Are we to establish international bodies that can temper the excesses of the market system? Are we to find ways to more equitably allocate the costs and benefits of society (through a return to progressive income taxation and a stronger, more just legal system)? Are we to find ways to align corporate and social interests? Can we create a new ideology that places social responsibility alongside individual interest? Can a renaissance of democracy undermine the power of corporations to largely control public discourse and policy? Our collective futures are at stake, and I only hope that citizens wake up to the direness of the current situation before it is too late.

Extra Extra . . . Don't Read All About It

A Bloomberg poll on the eve of the election found that two-thirds of likely voters believed that, under Obama and the Democrats, middle-class taxes had gone up, the economy had shrunk, the billions to bailout banks were forever lost, that illegal immigration had skyrocketed and that the healthcare bill would increase the deficit. The truth ... 1. Taxes are lower for 95% of U.S. Citizens, 2. The economy has been growing for five straight quarters (though minimally) 3. Most of the TARP money has been paid back 4. The number of illegal immigrants has fallen precipitously (by over 1,000,000) and 5. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the healthcare bill will actually LOWER the deficit.

So what is the problem? Is it merely an ignorant, apathetic citizenry that's not paying attention? Is it Obama and the Congress failing to get the message out on their successes? Is it a media that has abrogated its responsibility to report the truth to the public? Is it the unprecedented hundreds of millions spent on this election cycle by corporations and Wall Street to ensure their interests are protected? Or is it a combination of all of these? I believe the truth is the last. People appear to be bamboozled by a power structure that always has them looking in the wrong place for the answers. From the right wing demagogues on the radio and television waves to fear mongering attack ads to a mainstream media even more feckless than the Democratic party, the truth has become too inconvenient for the power structure to abide. And one of the worst education systems in the developed world, backed by a media culture that celebrates stupidity and anti-intellectualism with the aplomb of Jerry Lewis fans, has created a populace that can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

What can be done? There are certainly no short term solutions to this problem, but it certainly points to the need for alternative news sources that can reach the masses, for real improvements in the education system that go far beyond constant testing and a focus on basic skills, community organizations that help inform local citizens of the truth and charismatic leaders that hold steadfast to their ideals, rather than being swayed by cynical management of image and popular opinion. At it's heart, the real issue is one that Clinton once argued for (even as he is one of the primary architects of turning the Democratic party to the right on the issues that really mattered) -- to get people to think. We live in a world where knowledge is more readily available than at any time in history, but people must seek out information less tied to particular ideological positions and scavenge through the piles of bullshit to find the truths that would lead them away from a party interested only in supporting a status quo that hurts the average citizen more and more every day. At a deeper level, we need a revaluation of values that fundamentally questions the ethics that dominate decision-making in the U.S. and world today. 

Some good news . . .

A new poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows that Obama holds an early lead over all Republican contenders in his presumed bid for reelection in 2012: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/12/new-nbcwsj-poll-obama-would-beat-palin-other-potential-challengers-2012. On a particularly positive note for those of us who are sanguine of a return to sanity, Obama would beat Palin 55 to 33 percent in a head-to-head match-up. Obama also holds a 7 point lead over Mitt Romney and a 20 point lead over a generic Republican candidate. One only hopes that Obama reads the papers and recognizes that he does not have to abandon his base to appease the Americans who just flipped the house.

Facts Are Stupid Things

Reagan once offered this line and beyond absurd adherence to Reaganomics and trickle down economics, this appears to be another legacy he has left to the party he helped build. Two stories today offer further proof of the Republican dislike of facts and arguments that don't fit their corporate-sponsored ideology. In the first, we learn that Fox News execs informed anchors that they should not mention global warming trends without immediately acknowledging the oil-company sponsored research that questions these claims (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004). This came after an anchor had the gall to note that this decade is set to be the warmest on record. We recently learned that Fox reporters were also told to use "government option" instead of "public option" when covering the healthcare reform debate last year, based on research that the former phrase was less popular with the masses (remember the tollling bell "death tax" strategy?). The second story regards the ongoing debates about the fiscal crisis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/financial-crisis-panel-wall-street_n_796839.html?view=print. Apparently the four Republicans on the commission to determine the root causes of the crash have decided that government, not Wall Street, is solely to blame for the housing bubble that led to the fall of the house of Lehman and the global financial crisis we are still living through today. CDOs and Credit Default Swaps, or predatory lending practices, apparently had nothing to do with the problem; it's just the Community Reinvestment Act myth that the government forced lenders to give out crappy loans -- which they then sold in secondary markets where they were bundled together and sold again, with insurance from AIG to back these crappy derivatives up if they happened to fail, which seemed unlikely given the AAA ratings they received. And of course it wasn't AIGs faul that they then sold insurance on these instruments/derivatives not once but up to ten times, or that Lehman and Goldman were selling CDOs to customers while buying the insurance and betting against them at the same time. No it has to be the governments fault because in Republican la la land, government is good for, huh, absolutely nothing, say it again. That's true, except when they are using the government to offer corporate welfare, pay off their corrupt benefactors or to legislate morality. Facts are, I suppose, stupid things -- unless one wants to save the country from the bloating plutocracy that seem intent on destroying us all in their ceaseless pursuit of more money than they could ever spend in 10 lifetimes.

The Will to Act

In an interesting article in the November 25, 2010 New York Review of Books "The Way Out of the Slump," Paul Krugman and Robin Wells review three recent books from leading economists. The point of the article is that many economists recognize what is necessary to fix the domestic and global economies (or at least return to the growth of a few years ago, as "fix" holds broader connotations), but seem to lack the will to actually advocate for those positions. Among the obvious necessities at present is another Keynesian fiscal stimulus package. While it might not be politically realistic at the moment, it's hard to believe that Americans will readily accept 10 percent unemployment in the medium to long run (particularly when 10% really means closer to 16-20%). We also need to regulate banking/investment firms that continue to take huge risks, undermine the public good to line their own pockets, pay out huge bonus packages to CEOs who are essentially criminal in their disregard for the ramification of their actions (both to the economy and their own companies) and find ways to make companies spend and invest again. As I mentioned a few days ago, American corporations just had their most profitable quarter ever, but they have not started hiring new employees or investing.

The lack of political will to act is backed by the lack of will of experts to advocate for the necessary steps to actually start the economy growing again. Instead, they continue to focus on the threat of inflation (when the real threat is deflation) and on austerity measures that will only make matters worse. The same can be said of the global economy, which needs fundamental change to address growing poverty and inequality in the developed and developing world. The bankruptcy of ideas in the world today needs to be address or I fear we stand on the precipice of major global economic disaster.

Who America Voted For and What We're Getting

So Republicans will soon take over the house and use that position to enact their policy agenda. After the tax cut deal with Obama, two troubling perils loom in the future. The first is that the temporary payroll tax reduction (from 6.2 to 4.2%), which reduces revenue to Social Security and will cost the government $120 billion, might become permanent: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/08/republicans-casually-agree-theyll-never-allow-payroll-tax-cut-to-rise-again.  The recent trend to make tax cuts temporary and then call any attempt to return rates to their former levels a "tax raise" has been very effective at continuously lowering the overall tax rates in the U.S., and undermining the progressive nature of taxation. So the dream of destroying Social Security now appears within reach.

The second peril relates to state budget shortfalls: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/12/07/secret-gop-plan-push-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-and-smash-unions. It appears the GOP is planning to stop providing funds to states facing growing debt and deficit burdens. This could cause states to declare bankrupcy, and thus destroy the public employee unions.

In a broader sense, I must again ask what the long term goals of the party are? Without social security, an increasingly large percentage of our elderly would fall into poverty. With states in bankruptcy, the U.S. would fall further behind in the global markets many of them covet. If we continue to increase the gap between rich and poor, social unrest and poverty will only increase, making our streets less safe. If we continue to ignore the cost of environmental neglect, the planet could someday become uninhabitable. And if we don't regulate banks and investment firms, we continue to allow sociopathic personalities to hold inordinate sway over the economic and political worlds.  In the end, it appears the Republican party has become the apocalyptic party -- willing to destroy the country in pursuit of an agenda they don't themselves seem to really believe in.

So the bankruptcy of their ideas could ultimately bankrupt America, and in the process go a long way to make the position of the average citizen in the globe even worse.

Obama/Bush Tax Cuts Extended

One of the signature elements of Obama's campaign for change was to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which exacerbated a 30-year trend toward increased income inequality. However, along with a much less ambitious healthcare bill, concessions on the relief and recovery bill that received no Republican votes, escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the inability to pass substantive financial and banking reform, Obama has again relented -- showing that change was merely a strategy for election, not a call to arms for the administration once it reached office. 

There were early signs of commitment to the rhetoric, but the just passed election seems to have dissolved all of his resolve and we now find ourselves with yet another Democratic president largely capitulating to Republican ideology: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923_pf.html. Apparently, this is the latest installation in what has become one-way bipartisanship: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607123_pf.html, with Democrats folding to Republican demands even when they are in the majority while Republicans make few or no concessions under any circumstances. Maybe it should be renamed as biRepublicanism -- a nod to the Clinton years and continued Democratic fecklessness. Income inequality not only brings up questions of morality and justice, it leads to economic inefficiencies and undermines democracy. Essentially we have set up a system here and globally where economic growth and profits are largely allocated to those at the top as unemployment increases, poverty and quality of life worsen, wages remain stagnant or fall, people in developing countries suffer or die prematurely and policymakers simply reflect the interests of these elites. As Stiglitz and Krugman among many have so aptly argued, this inequality undermines the economy and creates havoc that could see even worse systemic collapse in the future. If you haven't already, I highly recommend the documentary Inside Job to give you further insight into the crash and what was behind it. In any case, let's break down the numbers on income inequality in America today (more to come in future postings):

• Top 1 percent of income earners made 8% of total income in 1980 and 16% in 2004. The numbers are even higher today 
• Top 20 percent control 80% of wealth. Here are the number in 2001. They are much worse today
  
  Top 01%  -  33.4% 
  Next 09%  - 38.1%
  Next 10%  - 12.9%
  Next 20%  - 11.3%
  Middle 20% - 3.9%
  Bottom 40% - .3%
• Between 1972 and 2001, real wages grew overall, but were relatively flat for the average worker. Productivity and profits increased, so where did the money go?

-          Top 1% saw 87% gain ($402,306)

-          Top .1% 181% gain ($1.7 million)

-          Top .01% 497% gain ($6 million)

• CEOs to average worker salary30x in 1970 to
  116x in 90s to
  over 300x today

The Absurdity of Conservative Discourse

Missouri state treasurer Sarah Steelman, announcing her intentions to run for the Senate in 2012, made the following comment,

""We need jobs - urgently. We need to balance the budget - urgently," she said. "We have to fight if we're going to save this country for our kids and grandkids. There is no time to wait."

On the surface, this reads like a sensible soundbite. But what is she really saying? Most respectable economists agree that to stimulate the economy, we probably need another stimulus package -- though most lose the will to actually advocate for what they believe. In other words, the government has to spend a chunk of money to stimulate consumption and business investment (particularly as corporations that just had their most profitable quarter ever still refuse to hire workers). So a stimulus costs money and undermines the ability to balance the budget. Further, they want to balance the budget but make the Bush tax cuts permanent, costing the government trillions of dollars in lost revenue and further exacerbating the growing inequality between rich and poor.

To put it more simply, statement one and two stand in stark contradiction to one another. If you want to do the first, the second becomes a longer term goal. If you want to do the second, you can do little to work toward the first. Yet this sort of tautology tends to work with the American people because they don't have a basic understanding of economics. They simultaneously want  the government to intervene and hate when it does. They want lower taxes and have somehow lost faith in the progressive tax system that actually works toward the very liberty they are so inured to. And they blame the government for not fixing problems without giving them the resources to actually intervene. Thus Republicans might continue to win office working against the interests of everyone except their corporate sponsors.

The Tax Trap and Democratic Fecklessness

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) met with President Obama a few weeks ago and according to a report on ABC News reports that he is willing to work with him in the future . . . if he moves to the center or right (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/sen-mcconnell-we-can-do-business-with-obama-if-he-moves-to-center.html). So when the Republicans are in the majority, they ignore and bully Democrats and do what they want. When they are in the minority, they ignore and bully Democrats and don't let them do anything. Many might see this as a troubling trend that undermines democracy, but the strategy appears to be working and might just allow them to regain control of the House and maybe even Senate this November. How does it work? As I wrote yesterday, a lot has to do with the media playing along with their framing acumen and rhetorical devices.

Among those strategies are the following: 1. Manipulate the truth and history to its most convenient rendition then offer quotes to the media who tend to report what you say without any fact checking or context. 2. Spread fear that any change will destroy the country, even as your policies have been leading us along that path for years. 3. Rule as if by fiat, even after one of the closest elections in history, then demand more bipartisanship before rejecting any bill you disagree with. 4. Sound reasonable as you push a corporatist agenda that undermines the interests of the people -- while pretending to represent those very people from the "elites" who have little power. 5. Capitalize on anti-intellectualism by rewritting history, spreading tautologies, and using religion, jingoism and nativism (in addition to racism, sexism and nativism) to rally your base and scare the white middle and working classes.

These strategies have been effective since Reagan, with a few bumps in the road, though the election of Obama seemed to have the potential to create a political realignment in America. It has not come to pass. Why? Well the strategies above have been very effective. And on taxes, an issue at the heart of attempts to reaffirm the role of government in the economy, Republicans have been pulling the same trick for years -- pass tax cuts that are supposed to be temporary (the only way they are a real stimulus to the economy) and then complaining that any attempt to let them expire is a "tax hike." Here is McConnell on the issue, "“This is a debate on tax increases. The current level of taxes has been there almost a decade." He also told us how Obama can regain the ear of Republicans: "We're interested in cutting spending and debt. If he becomes interested in that, I think he'll find us a willing partner. He says he's for trade agreements. We'd like to ratify trade agreements. He says he is for nuclear power. We'd like to do that. He says he is for clean coal technology. We'd like to do that. I mean, there are areas where we'd ought to be able to work together for the good of the country.” So follow Clinton and become a Republican in social Democratic clothing and we'll follow your policies while allowing our attack dogs (Limbaugh, Focus on the Family, Beck, Grant, O'Reilly, Tea Party, etc.) to pound you relentlessly.

Yet it would be unfair to ignore the Democrats complicity in their own failure. Obama ran a brilliant campaign and won a resounding victory. And then he got caught in the bipartisan language games Republicans bamboozled the media with. Obama is pushing policy through without our support, even though we are the minority and will not support anything he does. As Krugman argued on his blog a couple of days ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/politics/06charity.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print), "This theory led to a strategy of playing it safe: never put forward proposals that might fail to pass, avoid highlighting the philosophical differences between the parties. There was never an appreciation of the risks of having policies too weak to do the job." The idea of not highlighting the differences between the parties is exactly the problem, and the idea that Obama might be the next "great communicator" has failed to materialize. If Democrats want to maintain power and actually get something done to change the current course of America, they need to provide an alternative narrative to America that transcends the ability of Republicans to dominate the debate and undermine their call for change.
 
P.S. An article in the New York Times today shows the lengths politicans go to raise money, including allowing corporations to donate to their chairites: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/politics/06charity.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. While this isn't implicitly bad, it is obvious another way that corporations dominate the political landscape today. 

The "Partisan" President?

This is what passes for media coverage today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090402579_pf.html. Apparently it involves listening to conservative framing and repeating it without question. Reporting from the American Political Science Association, the Washington Post seems unwilling or unable to escape the general discourse in America today. While they don't blame Obama fully for the partisanship that has ensued since his election, they put the major onus on him. For example, are quotes like this, "Obama would have been better off trying to assess what the public was prepared to accept, rather than to have acted in ways that assumed he could change it." Yet the public voted him and Democrats in in record numbers; at least by recent historical standards. He ran on hope and change and while he has done little to allay the cynicism of the public, he has certainly changed the nature of the debate: including reasserting the role of government in the economy. It is united Republican opposition to anything and everything Obama does together with the fact that "A large proportion of voters on the losing side in 2008 . . . had by election day come to regard Obama as the McCain-Palin campaign had portrayed him: as an untrustworthy leftist radical with a socialist agenda . . . There was also an undertone of racial animosity." Yet the paper refuses to really focus on this aspect of what they call a populist movement. They might want to read the recent article from the New Yorker about the Koch brothers, who have funded conservative movements for years and essentially funded the events that have moved the Tea Party to the forefront of media coverage today. This is not to say that Obama does not deserve some of the blame for the current polarization. For one, he has turned away from the rhetorical flourishes that resonated with the public after eight years of Bush. And he has taken a conciliatory, post-partisan tone, seemingly tone deaf to the new "party of no" GOP. And that same argument that the conservative "populism" is new is itself tone deaf to the past 30 years, since the rise of Reagan Republicans, who have consistently used populist rhetoric to garner the support of working class people who often suffer under their policies. Obama has accomplished an incredible amount in two years, particularly if you frame it within the post-Great Society years, but the media has turned on him and few report his record without quotes from conservatives or complaints about his tone, his radical agenda or the liberals and radicals who have turned against him. The supposition of a neutral media has always been as absurd as the idea that it is "liberal," but its irresponsible coverage since Bush was elected would be scandalous, if not criminal, but for a public that doesn't have the knowledge or care to really question them. Where is the next Edward R. Murrow to challenge this malaise?

The "Polarizing" President?

This is what passes for media coverage today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090402579_pf.html. Apparently it involves listening to conservative framing and repeating it without question. Reporting from the American Political Science Association, the Washington Post seems unwilling or unable to escape the general discourse in America today. While they don't blame Obama fully for the partisanship that has ensued right after his election, they put the major onus on him. For example, are quotes like this, "Obama would have been better off trying to assess what the public was prepared to accept, rather than to have acted in ways that assumed he could change it." Yet the public voted him and Democrats in in record numbers; at least by recent historical standards. He ran on hope and change and while he has little to allay the cynicism of the public, he has certainly changed the nature of the debate: including reasserting the role of government in the economy. It is united Republican opposition to anything and everything Obama does together with the fact that "A large proportion of voters on the losing side in 2008 . . . had by election day come to regard Obama as the McCain-Palin campaign had portrayed him: as an untrustworthy leftist radical with a socialist agenda . . . There was also an undertone of racial animosity." Yet the paper refuses to really focus on this aspect of what they call a populist movement. They might want to read the recent article from the New Yorker about the Koch brothers, who have funded conservative movements for years and essentially funded the events that have moved the Tea Party to the forefront of media coverage today. This is not to say that Obama does not deserve some of the blame for the current polarization. For one, he has turned away from the rhetorical flourishes that resonated with the public after eight years of Bush. And he has taken a conciliatory, post-partisan tone in much he has done that seems tone deaf to the new "party of no" GOP. And that same argument that the conservative "populism" is new is itself tone deaf to the past 30 years, since the rise of Reagan Republicans, who have consistently used populist rhetoric to garner the support of working class people who often suffer under their policies. Obama has accomplished an incredible amount in two years, particularly if you frame it within the post-Great Society years, but the media has turned on him and few report his record without quotes from conservatives or complaints about his tone, his radical agenda or the liberals and radicals who have turned against him. The supposition of a neutral media has always been as absurd as the idea that it is "liberal," but its irresponsible coverage since Bush was elected would be scandalous, if not criminal, but for a public that doesn't have the critical knowledge or care to really question them. Where is the next Edward R. Murrow to challenge this malaise?

History Rewritten Again

Republicans are at it again, rewriting inconvenient truths to serve their larger national ambitions. This time it is Mississippi's GOP governor Haley Barbour(http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/haley_barbour_race_history/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room) who wants to avoid being tagged with any of the Southern strategy history as he prepares to take on the first black president. History is clear in showing that LBJ and the Great Society support for the civil rights movement realigned the political landscape in America. The party that had once tacitly supported segregation and opposed attempts at true equality for Blacks, at least in the South, was now aligning with the civil rights movement and as LBJ purportedly said in 64, "losing the South for a generation." Barbour wants to erase this history and rewrite the move of Dixieland from democrats to Republicans as completely unrelated to White resentment at the improving conditions of Blacks across America. From the birth of the Republican Party and its support for Abolition and then Reconstruction, the South was firmly Democratic, no matter the mood of the country. That all changed with LBJ and support for Barry Goldwater as the anti-affirmative action candidate. Ever since, the GOP has been building its base on latent racism and attacks on affirmative action and any policies that were perceived to hurt White, Christian America. While Obama had some surprising victories in the new South, that racism continues to be at the heart of so much Republican campaigning. Political expediency has stepped in and it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media allows Barbour to tell his tale without any fact checking and challenge. Recent history tells us he just might get away with it ...

Cynicism & Republicans

I wrote my dissertation on cynicism and democracy and have often wrote here about the topic as well. When Obama won the election in 2008 I had hoped that it was a direct challenge to what I argued was a pervasive cynicism in American democracy. He ran on the dual messages of hope and change and that appeared to resonate with a population tired of the cynical, backward looking policies of the Bush administration. And yet two years later it appears Republicans are on the brink of winning back majorities in the House and maybe Senate: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41603.html. How have the Republicans done it?

I believe the rather obvious answer is by returning to the cynical policies that have won them power since Reagan. They run as white victims, as anti-Government, pro-business "populists," as latent (or in some cases obvious) racist, anti-Gay, xenophobic candidates playing on white male resentment at the cultural revolution of the 60s and on fear and greed. The past few weeks have shown us just the latest examples of this strategy in action, including the attacks by Focus on the Family on a very serious problem in schools: bullying (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/focus_on_the_family_dont_let_gay_activists_hijack.php), arguing that gays have underminded the "Christian" spirit of those programs, the absurd call to God and the founding fathers of Glenn Beck last week (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/08/30/pray&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110) and the continued anti-immigrant, Obama is a Muslim, Communist non-citizen discourse and so many other overt and covert nods to their White, Christian, Free Market ideology.

But this is old news and has been going on for over 30 years now. The problem I see is the media's myopic adherence to conservative discourse. Just today, John Dickerson at Slate argues that Obama is making Bush look good in some ways: http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2265539. And this follows articles in the New York Times and Washington Post in recent days that blame Obama for all that ails America. I believe this started soon after Obama entered office and has only worsened as time has gone on. While the New Yorker and some political coverage has made the salient point that Obama has kept many of his problems, is enacting the very policies he promised when he ran, and as the left has made abundantly clear (and I agree in some cases), is far more moderate than many had hoped. But what happened to those who voted for him two short years ago? Has he really been that disappointing? Did they really think he could fix all of our financial and social problems in less than two years? And do they really believe a return to the failed policies of Reagan and Bush will really somehow work this time? I, for one, hope they wake up in time. And hope is really all we have right now.

Elections for Sale

Last week we heard that Fox was giving $1,000,000 to Republicans to help win the midterm elections. Now the magnanimous folks at the Chamber of Commerce have committed to spending $75 million to support candidates who are ""supportive of the free enterprise system" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hrA5cmTXNFDiNuo6DOFLvMEC-kMQD9HNUP6G2).  Most of those candidates are, unsurprisingly, conservative Republicans. Since Obama's election, the group has spent $190 million on pro-business lobbying and elections, including helping to elect Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/19/chamber-brown-influence.

The group is claiming itself as a veritable "third party" in American politics today, now that spending caps have been lifted. One could argue instead that they are "the party" in American politics today, spending so much money directly or through its powerful members that they essentially own much of DC. Less than seven years after McCain and Feingold tried to limit the power of corporate money in politics, we are going to the other extreme. And whose cause are they supporting? The very actors who have been instrumental in the financial crisis and growing gap between rich and poor.  Democracy cannot function when the powerful can buy elections, spending so much money they shout out the voices of everyone else. This is particularly true when the media is bought by those same interests, supporting their causes most of the time. Democracy is supposed to be participatory, with everyone having a voice. But where are the voices today? The only group garnering any real interest from the media at present is, ironically, the Tea Party, a supposedly populist movement that just supports the very tired conventional wisdom that created the current mess. Where can a real opposition come from? It's hard to say when the majority party seems unable or unwilling to offer a real challenge to the corporate/conservative juggernaut. The people have to reclaim the government, just as we did at the birth of the nation.

What Good for the Goose . . .

Republican logic generally has little to do with fact or rationality. In the latest example, they are now arguing Saudi Arabia would never allow a Church to be built in Mecca: http://firedoglake.com/2010/08/21/late-night-andy-mccarthy-attempts-thought-experiment-neglects-thought-part. And what's good for one of the most repressive societies in the world is obviously good enough for America. The stupidity of the argument would be appalling, if it hasn't been at the heart of our actions post 911 -- including unconstitutional (and anti Geneva Convention) torturing, the Guantanamo Bay fiasco and detention centers in the country, the illegal war in Iraq and a whole host of other morally contemptible actions supposedly justified by the "war on terror." This latest campaign, to stop a mosque from being built too close to the World Trade Center site, continues this faulty and dangerous logic. Will we soon have a second constitution specifically for Muslims? Or why not make them wear stars on their sleeves? This is not to say that the extreme elements of Islam are not still a profound danger to the world -- just that showing conciliatory side on something as innocuous as this could create goodwill and assist those who are fighting to suppress and defeat that more radical element from within. Of course, that's merely the mad ramblings of a radical lunatic who doesn't realize we are in a clash of civilization that will define our collective future.

P.S. On a related note, the idea of the big lie appears to continue to dominate certain ranks of the GOP post-Bush. Why do 1 in 5 people believe Obama is a Muslim? Well, maybe it's all those Republicans saying so (before correcting themselves, after they get the quote in the press): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/lawmakers-who-push-the-birther.html.

Where Are You? . . . Just Check Facebook

Facebook has just launched Places a new application that allows you to check in at various places across the city: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2264492, letting anyone with access to your page know where you are. While the idea might appeal to some -- friends can quickly find you or know if you are close by and that random guy or girl you've been flirting with might just show up unannounced, one wonders if it really does anything but keep you under surveillance by parents, jealous mates, exes and anyone else who wants to spy on you (in addition to the criminals that could also take advantage of the information). Not only does it tell people where you are, but can also tell them who you're with. Isn't it easy to just text or call someone you are going to meet up with? Are the chances of a chance encounter really worth meeting back up with that stalker who hacks your page or you forgot to defriend? What do we really gain from announcing to the world everywhere we go? And how many relationships will end under the paranoid delusions of a jealous partner? In the latest attempt to completely undermine privacy, the site might actually succeed. The odd thing is how many people will openly embrace this intrusion -- I already know one friend on Facebook who must have been part of the beta version -- increasingly living their lives out loud for all to witness; in real time! It is odd for those of us that still value our privacy, but the inversion of the public and private spheres Zygmunt Bauman argued for in the End of Politics only appears to expand endlessly outward. And unlike 1984, people are openly choosing to be monitored now.

P.S. For those who want to disable this feature, the following article provides all the infomration you need to restore a modicum of privacy: http://lifehacker.com/5616395/how-to-disable-facebook-places.

Mosque Melee

The ongoing controversy of a Mosque being built by the site of the World Trade Center seems to highlight a fundamental disconnect between conservative and liberal notions of freedom. To conservatives, who tout freedom as if it was their theme alone, freedom is just another word for following their worldview blindly. They believe freedom exists for corporations, white Christians, those who have blind allegiance to the flag and media outlets that support their ideas. When it comes to gays, those who critique America, immigrants, liberal professors, Muslims and anyone who disagrees with conservative orthodoxy, freedom must be limited. This includes those who, in what some might consider a conciliatory move, want to build a mosque not at the World Trade Center site, but a few blocks away (and by the way, there already is a mosque close by). What is the real issue? Respect for the victims of 911? Or is this yet another example of realpolitik? I'm leaning toward the latter. Religious freedom is at the heart of the constitution they love, unless it disagrees with their desire to end that pesky separation of church and state, allow equality to all (the 14th amendment), give due process to all citizens or a host of other issues that contradict their worldview. What is interesting is that the framing of the issue again appears to be working. Ignorance may very well be bliss, but not to those of us that believe the constitution serves to offer all Americans access to real, positive freedom.

Be Stupid

You may have seen the 2010 Diesel advertising campaign somewhere around town, on a billboard, in a store and or in some other instantiation. It all revolves around "Being Stupid." Among its many mantras include "Smart Critiques. Stupid Creates," "Smart May Have the Answers, But Stupid Has All the Interesting Questions," "Smart Has the Plans, Stupid Has the Stories," "Smart Listens to the Head. Stupid Listens to the Heart," "Smart Says No. Stupid Says Yes," "Stupid is Trial and Error. Mostly Error," "Smart Had One Good Idea and That Idea Was Stupid," "If We Didn't Have Stupid Thoughts We'd Have No Thoughts at All," "Only the Truly Stupid Can Be Truly Brilliant" and "Smart May Have the Brains But Stupid Has the Balls." Usually it is a series of billboards that end with the "We're With Stupid." (http://www.creativeadawards.com/diesel-be-stupid-advertising-campaign)

While the ad has a certain resonance, attempting to argue for the freedom of the human spirit, creativity and a certain joi d'vivre, it also captures one of the deepest problems in America today. Essentially, do we really need advertisers to implore Americans to be stupid? Aren't we succeeding on that score without the necessity of reinforcement? A troubling trend that has developed is a firmly entrenched belief that actually thinking, critiquing, being creative outside the largely delimited scope of consumer culture and thinking outside the business language of "thinking outside the box" may actually lead to something truly radica or innovative. Wrapped around a relatively cynical veneer is the continued triumph of the conservative idea that certain knowledge is dangerous, that elites are those that are actually educated and question conventional wisdom and that accepting things as they are is a more pragmatic and realistic approach to life. This is fortified by a ahistoricity that demands short term and long term amnesia. They thus accept American exceptionalist ideology, fully believe that corporations and the market are somehow de facto superior to the government (even in the midst of the financial crisis), that the poor and minorities are to blame for their own situation (even if they work 60 hours a week) and that teachers somehow define all that is wrong with education. A deeper problem appears to revolve around a certain laziness of thinking across the political spectrum. I find many liberals as bad as conservatives at accepting party or ideological orthodoxy without any real thought or critique. The immanent critique of critical theory or perpetual deconstruction of Derrida seems like the only way to get out of the current intellectual malaise, but one wonders whether people have the will or training to actually inspect their own ideas with any rigor. In fact, schools seem to be teaching students the opposite most of the time these days (under the auspices of passing tests and keeping knowledge "neutra").

A new poll reinforces our adherence to stupidity, or maybe just not thinking at all. Apparently one in five Americans now believe that Obama is a muslim: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806913.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead. Um, he isn't! And this follows a series of misperceptions of the public in recent years, from a belief that Saddam Hussein planned 911, to the idea that it was Iraqis on the planes, that there were weapons of mass destruction there, that we later actually found them and that our mission in Iraq was to spread democracy once the other reasons proved false.