Media, Abuse, and Groping for Dollars

MSNBC, CNN and the network nightly news anchors and commentators for weeks could not stop talking about all the politicians, men of power and celebrities who have groped, assaulted, or raped women over the years. It had started awhile back in Hollywood with Bill Cosby’s now all but forgotten drugging and raping many women over his career. The latest flurry of revelations began with the belated exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s decades old practice of using his power as a movie producer to subjugate vulnerable young actresses and take carnal advantage of them.

Roy Moore with Pistol_NBC News

Twice Removed “Judge” Roy Moore.   Photo: NBC News

Then it was deranged Alabama politician, “Judge Roy Moore,” well, twice removed from the bench Roy Moore. His career of stalking, groping, and attempting to seduce underage girls apparently spanned decades. Numerous accusations about Donald Trump’s exploiting his celebrity to make rude advances to pretty women had surfaced during the 2 016 presidential campaign. “Access Hollywood” had videotaped his bragging about the behavior. It want viral, for a while. Occasionally, as cases of other politicians and celebrities are exposed, someone asks, what about that long list of victims who complained of Donald Trump’s exploiting his celebrity status to grope women, and even bragging about it on camara?

Well, the congenital liar has vehemently denied it all, calling all sixteen or so women “liars.” Apparently, that is enough to establish the innocence of a narcissistic sociopath of sufficient celebrity or authority. In cases of accusation of sexual abuse of women or girls by men, especially men of power or fame, the accuser is assumed guilty of maligning the reputation of a good man, until proven otherwise, in which case, “she wanted it.”

Is the media attention overdone? Well, yes and no. The media over-reported in that the interest was to some extent prurient. I noticed that on MSNBC, CNN, and every nightly news program I watched during this time, virtually no mention was made of the struggles in Bonn to move the agenda of climate action forward at the United Nations conference in the face of the singular Trumpist resistance. That was surely under-reported. Salacious reporting does drive viewership to some extent. Sensationalism Trumped global crisis. At the same time, significant and valuable cultural and political commentary has emerged from the sexual abuse scandals. Maybe some executives, politicians, and celebrities will think twice now. Maybe.

The list goes on. Now even Al Franken, stands accused of inappropriately touching a female reporter on a USO tour while still a comedian, and spinning crass riffs in the writers room of Saturday Night Live. Franken’s case is a bit different; he is the only one to have fully admitted the facts and apologized for his behavior. The apology seemed sincere and his victim accepted it. Now, Senator Elisabeth Warren and others have proposed a permanent bipartisan ethics committee to investigate sexual harassment accusations in the Congress.

Charlie Rose, famed television interviewer, has had his contracts cancelled and has lost his shows with CBS and PBS, after several women accused him of sexual abuse. Some folks were quite shocked, since they viewed the articulate interrogator as a paragon of virtue. After all, he was so talented at throwing softballs at world leaders and celebrities. The quick corporate response indicates a cultural change. But the deeper question is, why now, why so many revelations so fast?

Well, the answer is not so difficult. Women and girls have suffered sexual abuse for decades, without recourse, in the U.S. Whether in the corporate office, senate chambers, television studio, Olympic Games locker room, or even at home, victims consistently suffered disbelief and denial all that time. The Women’s Liberation movement had never really reached that level of oppression. Silence was the fruit of “blaming the victim,” as well as disbelief and denial. I suspect the Harvey Weinstein case broke the ice in a way, especially with Bill Cosby’s track record as context. So many people in Weinstein’s company and in the industry knew of Weinstein’s behavior, that his equivocating and dissociating fell on deaf ears. A groundswell of courage among victims slowly began, then became contagious.

a-pink-knitted-beanie-known-as-the-pussy-hat-became-a-symbol-of-solidarity-among-protestors-knitting-parties-organized-in-the-weeks-before-the-march

Diverse members of the Women’s March, Washington, DC, donning their “Pussy Hats.” Photo: Reuters.

Bottom line: all this, except for the current revelatory contagion, has gone on for a long time. Men of power have used that power to take advantage of subordinate women, sometimes men, and even vulnerable children just about everywhere. Sexual abuse is the abuse of power. The “political correctness” of women’s rights built up over the past four decades, so maligned by Trump and his misogynist base, set the scene for the wellspring of courage of many victims to tell their stories in a new context of recognition and acknowledgement of their victimhood. The massive participation of men and women together in the Women’s March also demonstrated the underlying cultural change that Trumpery cannot stop.

None of these men, from the Kennedys and Bushes to Al Franken and Charlie Rose, (even, I dare say, the disturbed pistol-waving Roy Moore) are merely one-dimensional characters. Even the late Hugh Hefner, despite his exploitation of “Bunnies” and subjects of centerfolds, contributed to civil rights and to the protection of abandoned and exploited street children. Life is complex. But the ability of the powerful to exploit or abuse the dependent and the vulnerable is a simple matter of differential power. Failure of others to deal with the culprits results from the mistaken, often unconscious, cultural illusion of might making right. That is why Trump has gotten away with so much … so far. After all, to his politically blind base, he can do no wrong. Vigilance remains, as always, the price of attaining freedom and realizing human values.

The Politics of Disinfotainment: Anything But Real Issues

The 1960s and 1970s were the peak years for a small magazine called “The Realist,” published and edited by Paul Krassner. It was filled with hilariously funny satire on the absurdities of American politics, economics, and culture. Along with Krassner, contributors included the likes of Lenny Bruce, Ken Kesey, Woody Allen, and Mort Sahl, among other respected writers. Cutting-edge comedy was merged with the most caustic of satirical social criticism. The one thing that stuck with me more than anything else Krassner wrote was his construction of the neologism, “disinfotainment.” That term always comes to mind, of course, when I think of contemporary politics. “Distract, misinform, and entertain the people, so we won’t have to talk about the real issues that matter to them and are a threat to us,” think the politicians who serve the plutocrats. Oh, so here we go again, now for the 2016 electoral season…

Candidates or Issues, Policy or Entertainment

If we are going to talk about actual ISSUES, we might have to deal with Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Most of the issues Bernie raises are those he has fought for over the decades he has been in politics. To the dismay of the Corporate-Democrat politicians and the party’s national committee, Bernie’s issues poll exceptionally well with the majority of the American people. Break up the Big Banks. Make the corporations pay their fair share of taxes on their income, including on the revenue they hide overseas. Establish free university tuition in all state institutions. Expand social security instead of pretending it is in trouble and has to be reduced. Move from Obama Care to real universal health care. Vote down those international trade agreements that give up national sovereignty over labor, health, and environmental protections. Etc.

But the corporate media, being the disinformation ministry of the corporatocracy, does not want to directly deal with these issues. It is so easy to promote disinformation through entertainment – disinfotainment. So, they mock Bernie Sanders and characterize him as “out of the mainstream,” and as unable to win the nomination or the election, and therefore irrelevant. Never mind that Bernie’s issues pole so well with the majority of Americans. Instead, the media focus on Hillary, her Bengazi and email troubles – trumped up by the Republican Right as they are – and take seriously her vague and ambiguous “policy” statements that dance around the issues about which Bernie talks so directly.

But, of course, for the corporate media politics is supposed to be all about personalities and the “horse race” between “mainstream” (corporate approved) candidates. For the corporate mass media, something or someone is “politically impossible” if he/she/it reaches outside the corporate-approved idea box. For the network and cable news and Sunday talk shows, the focus is whether The Donald’s trash-talk is as trashy as his hair, whether the billionaire is an “outsider,” and who might be able to challenge his captivation of some disgruntled Americans. I almost gagged when I watched Chuck Todd pander to Trump on his private jet, as he asked Trump about his draconian Walled-America Hispanic-exodus racist immigration “policy.” If we want to know something about a candidate’s actual policy plans –what s/he might actually do – we may have to step back, put our thinking caps on and also demand answers to real policy questions. If the people make it clear enough that someone who really does talk about the critical issues of our time IS RELEVANT, how will that play out in the “mainstream” corporate media’s political coverage?

The Cult of Personality and the Avoidance of Issues

It’s time to get over the cult of personality in American politics. Look what happened with Obama’s perpetuation of Bush’s perpetual war. Sure, the racist congress kept the Black President from doing some moderately ‘liberal’ things, by denying his legitimacy in office and just saying no to everything. But Obama did perpetuate the neo-con model of world domination and the Wall Street model of plutocracy. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! That’s where it is taking Hillary too.

No, Bernie is not our savior. But at least he has been consistently a fighter for the rights of citizens rather than the privileges of the corporations and their wealthy elites. Nor can he make the change we need, alone. If the Senate and House are not turned around, he probably could not get much more done in the public interest than Obama has, but at least he will have tried. Ultimately, it is not about any of these political “personalities,” it is about the issues that nobody but Bernie among the “candidates” of either party has consistently faced. It is indeed a ramshackle world we live in. Without breaking the corporate monopoly on politics in the form of the Repugnicrat two-part party monolith, change we can benefit from will not happen. But change we cannot live with will happen. That change will be climate chaos making economic and social chaos inevitable as it becomes impossible for large numbers of people around the world to survive where they now live, here as well as elsewhere. Mother Nature does not negotiate with special interests.

New Reality and Urgent Necessity

At minimum, Bernie is providing a great service. His candidacy embodies a wake-up call for the people to recognize that the “lesser evil” will neither get us a fair society or a livable planet. Politics as usual — and Hillary is just that as agent for her super-rich backers — has become the road to ruin. Special-interest politics will never lead to taking the steps necessary to avoid climate chaos and societal collapse. Even someone like Bernie Sanders being elected president would not assure climate security. Massive international cooperation of a kind hard to imagine in today’s political climate is necessary, but unlikely. The U.S. must be not only a key player in such a worldwide effort; it must be a primary contributor of technology and implementation resources for massive climate action.

Nobody can say for sure who “cannot” win the presidential nomination, though the pundits pretend to; Bernie Sanders can, and he might or might not. Grave and urgent planetary and national circumstances constitute a new reality not recognized by business-as-usual establishment politics. But if Bernie does win the nomination, the rockier road will be the Repugnicrats’ attempts to destroy him with the kinds of disinfotainment they are so good at. It is not about the personalities, it’s about survival. The American people are already beginning to recognize that fact well before the two wings of the political elite are willing to acknowledge it.

Capitalist Culture and the American Worker

We are a Capitalist Culture. The entire course of the industrial era has been driven by capital investment in technologies and materials that together have increased economic production. In the U.S. – contrary to corporate folklore – much of that capital investment has been made by the government, often at the behest of business. Infrastructure was the primary focus. The federally funded railways were a major factor in the expansion of the West. The Interstate Highway System started by President Eisenhower, virtually guaranteed post-WWII economic growth and indirectly subsidized the boom in the automobile industry. The early years of NASA saw major new technological inventions and aerospace accomplishments by a government-funded mission-driven enterprise. Advances in the aviation industry, largely publicly regulated then, benefited greatly from those developments. Numerous aerospace corporations grew rich on government “cost-plus” contracts, all the while praising “free market capitalism” and “free enterprise.”

The allies had won World War II supported by U.S. government investment in rapid invention and deployment of new (mostly military) products, also generating full employment. The war economy produced many jobs after politically powerful capitalists forced unemployment-inducing cutbacks in the initially successful New Deal. Investment in productive assets is the driving force behind all economic development. Government investment of public capital – paid for by our taxes – has driven much of the growth of the U.S. economy. U.S. business has been a prime beneficiary of public investments over the nation’s entire history.

Corporate Capital and American Culture
Americans have come to believe that economic development has resulted only from the combination of private capital and personal invention. It is an unquestioned cultural assumption. Why? Because Big Corporate Capital now controls most cultural communication in the U.S.A. The interests of the biggest corporations dominate the content communicated in the mass media — also controlled by Big Corporate Capital. Corporate ideology is expressed in a variety of ways by twisting the ideas that would normally express core American values. The mass media implicitly support corporate agendas rather than the public interest, while sounding like they defend core American values.

A classic case of corporate capitalist culture distorting cultural values were the efforts of groups like the John Birch Society in the 1950s. Like the Birch Society, today’s Koch brothers’ front groups work to get “right to work” laws passed in most states. Who would not agree that everyone has a right to work? It is virtually a universal cultural value, closely tied to “American individualism.” However, the “right” of one person to work in a particular unionized factory or office – without joining the union or paying union dues – is not quite the same thing.

When a union negotiates with management for a living wage or safe working conditions, all wage workers in that business benefit from that negotiation. For a worker to have the “right” to not pay union dues or a fee for the cost of the negotiations that benefit him, that worker becomes a “free rider.” He or she benefits from the success of the group but refuses to pay his/her share of the costs of that benefit. Any one worker has a “right” to not contribute to the efforts of a united group of workers to achieve a living wage. But in that case, s/he should not expect to reap the rewards of that effort. Such blatant exploitation of the efforts of others is the height of hypocrisy. It is also a direct attack on the rights of all other workers to effectively bargain for reasonable wages.

Sure, one could point to some cases where a union has gained unjustified power. Unions, like any other organization, when they grow too big and powerful, tend to act in the bureaucratic interest, not in members’ interests. The teamsters under the ‘union boss’ Jimmy Hoffa come to mind as such as case . A man like Hoffa was rather similar to the likes of a Jamie Diamond or the CEOs of several other financial corporations today, who have ruthlessly exploited their positions as heads of their institutions. The main difference is that nobody had qualms about prosecuting corrupt union leaders. However, corrupt “Banksters” today seem immune to all but the mildest disparagement, no less jail time. Instead, we hear “nobody could have predicted the financial crisis,” when many non-corporate economists did just that as well as point out the corrupt nature of the behavior of the financial elite.

American Values: Minimum Wage and a Living Wage
Recent surveys make clear the American public’s view that workers should be paid at least enough to subsist – it is called a “living wage.” If you work full time, you ought to be able to pay rent and buy food, clothing, and shelter, the basics. Yet over the past several decades more and more jobs are at or near, even below in some cases, the woefully inadequate “minimum wage.” The power of corporations over the political culture coincided with the corporate takeover of the congress and many state legislatures. Wage theft is rampant in situations such as the fast food industry where workers’ power to defend themselves against abuse is at or near zero. That, of course, is where wages are extremely low and the supply of workers is much greater than the demand.

The pure apologists for capitalist culture even argue that there should be no minimum wage, so that the magical “invisible hand” of a “free market” in labor can find the “true value” of any particular job. In a civilized society, one would think, no job should be valued at less than is needed for survival. Yet many executives who have the opportunity to do so, pay starvation wages. I know small business owners who insist on paying their workers a living wage, even for unskilled jobs, when they could pay only minimum wages. But these are entrepreneurs who have consciences; they believe in the American values of fairness and mutual loyalty of employer and employee.

One retired business owner told me with great confidence that raising the minimum wage would be counter productive for low wage workers. They would simply have to spend extra on more expensive fast food because their higher wages would drive up prices. Others claim that raising the minimum wage would destroy their businesses, because their customers would not pay the difference. Most critics of a livable minimum wage claim it would be a damper on the economy. Yet in every instance where the minimum wage was raised significantly, unemployment went down as the local economy was stimulated by the increased demand.  The additional income is mostly spent on necessities in the local economy.

Conscientious employers have proven the living-wage critics wrong time and again. Their businesses typically thrive, both because of the better mutual loyalty between employer and worker, and because the business just runs smother and is usually more responsive to customers as well because the owner has a better attitude about everyone. The public knows that the employment system in the U.S. is rigged to squeeze the workers and disempower them. That is why a new movement for economic fairness and justice is growing. At the same time, growing numbers of low-wage workers are recognizing that the only way they can break out of the trap they are in is to organize themselves and protest en mass. Despite continuing massive corporate propaganda, unions may be on the rise again.

Outsourcing America, or Reviving Our Economy
In the current situation of a continuing “wage recession,” we observe corporations sitting on vast quantities of cash. They hesitate to invest it in production, since low wages have driven demand for basic products so low. Everyone knows that a low-wage worker must spend every dollar s/he is paid just to survive. Production depends on demand. Corporations send capital overseas to reduce production costs and attempt to sell cheaper goods to workers here who cannot afford them. A shrinking middle class trying to survive on unsustainable poverty wages cannot maintain high levels of consumption. The rich can only buy so many mansions and yachts. The super wealthy corporate elites park their riches in financial instruments that contribute little to the real economy that would otherwise need workers at livable wages.

It is time to reassess the entire framework of the dying American economy. Narrow short-term corporate interests are destroying the potential for capital to be invested in creating many needed jobs in this country. The nation needs to do much work in areas that serve the public interest – such as energy efficiency – providing livable wages in the process. A massive investment of existing capital in converting the carbon economy to self-sustaining energy production and conservation would require many jobs. The fossil fuel industry cannot and will not provide such jobs – they are in the public interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.

The so-called free market is anything but free. Capital has been put to many uses that cost society far more than their value to society and now even threaten our survival. Capital enables and empowers social action. Only a realignment of the role of capital in the new economy can make a livable society possible.

Money Is Not Speech

What is money? What is speech? We take these concepts for granted and operate as if we know what they are, but do we, really? More importantly, does the Supreme Court understand the relationship between money and speech? Apparently not, or more likely, the Court is in denial about that relationship, for entirely political reasons.

“Money talks.” What does that mean? If money talks, what can it say? Of course, nobody has ever heard money actually speak. It is just a figure of speech to say that money talks – meaning of course that using money exercises power. In our times, money has become the most important factor in determining who gets to speak publicly and what s/he gets to say.

Money and power

Money is not any particular form of communication — or is it? We all acknowledge that money is a medium of exchange for valuing goods and services. So, as we all know, money has power. Is speech a “service”? Certainly, money can “buy” speech. One has only to listen to congressional speeches to know that! Money can be used to control material objects and even to control the behavior of people — including some speech. Why? Money represents value in the abstract and therefore can be used as a form of social, political, and of course economic power. Because everyone agrees to use money as an abstract symbol of value, it becomes inherently valuable in itself. Money contains the power to buy almost anything, including speech. But, of course, “money can’t buy me love.” Some human values may appear to be monetized, but what is bought or sold is really something else. So, such exchanges degrade the human value.

Money communicates value and therefore power over something — almost anything it is applied to. Money symbolizes power and when applied, it exercises power. But does it represent ideas, like language does, or are ideas just one of the things money can exercise power over? What does money communicate — power or ideas, or both?

Money Talks

Clearly, in the industrial world money can be and is used to produce mass communication. That has been enabled by technology. In the days of the founding of the republic, speeches were made in the town hall at face-to-face debates. The power of one’s voice and the persuasiveness of one’s ideas, not a microphone or transmission to other cities, made the difference. Newspapers were entirely local. No radio, no television, no Internet.

Today, political speech is widely distributed. But the speaker or his ‘sponsor’ must pay for the use of the technology required for mass communication. Speech is no longer free, at least if you want to be heard by many. A lot of money is needed to produce mass communication, marketing, etc. Sure, we still have political rallies, but the candidate is usually preaching to the choir. Such staged exercises are covered by the mass media as “political events.” When did you last attend a real face-to-face debate of issues of national importance?

Until it is applied to communication, money is merely abstract economic power — that alone can be a major influence over public policy. But money can used to censor speech and control who gets to be heard. The power of money is used to control the content or the channels of communication in society. Public speech depends on expensive technology to extend the power of ideas beyond the human voice in a face-to-face debate. Speech is no longer free.

Democracy Walks

Money is the exact means used by the corporate elites to control the political discourse, such as it is, in the U.S. today. They use their nearly unlimited economic power to frame so called “public debate.” Our constitutional right to “free speech” contemplated individuals speaking to groups of people in open political discourse. Nobody needed even so much as a microphone or other economic means to extend the reach of their communication.

Corporations are not persons, another cruel joke by the Corporate Court. The founding fathers worried over the potential of corporations to influence politics, even in the eighteenth century. Like Adam Smith, they recognized the potential that even early corporations had to manipulate otherwise free markets. The Supreme Court, with the greatest corporate bias ever, has merely enhanced the existing undue power of corporations over the American people.

Corporate propagandists try to conflate corporations with “the American People.” They are trying very hard to destroy “net neutrality” so that they can profit by controlling the flow and content of Internet communication. The corporate elites already control the content and distribution of ideas on television and the other mass media. We need freedom of speech for persons — over all media. The extended “management” of all public communication by the power elites will consolidate control of speech by the corporate state.

Yes, money is not speech. But the unlimited application of money to control political speech is the death knell of democracy.

Science and Our Sanity: We Need the One to Keep the Other

The world has become so complex these days that it is often hard to find solid ground to stand on. The barrage of all kinds of claims to the truth is unrelenting. Not only arguments of fact and complex detail, but subtle and not so subtle images of glory or destruction compete for our attention. Every manner of powerful interests attempts to influence our emotions as a way to get to our intellect. Images often have more emotional impact and exert more power than words do.

We are bombarded with, in Carl Sagan’s words, “pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.” Some especially egregious congressional apologists for ‘climate denial’ come to mind. But it is when we recognize propaganda and weigh it against the available evidence that we can retain our sanity and make reasoned decisions.

Marketing Democracy
Propaganda is everywhere. Marketing is its most pervasive form of ‘communication.’ Unfortunately, marketing is in part based on some fairly solid scientific evidence of how human beings can be influenced. Also unfortunately, the science of marketing has invaded the political arena in some very powerful ways. Nothing is off limits in the art and science of political persuasion. On top of that, the power of persuasion is exercised in extremely lopsided ways because of the accelerated impact of money on access to the channels of mass communications.

When money talks, democracy walks. When communication is controlled by a hierarchy of elites, democratic political deliberation is not on the agenda and is nearly impossible. Any debate that occurs is framed in the ideological terms chosen by the power elites. After all, they own the channels of mass communication. As U.S. society reaches unparalleled levels of hierarchy, communication is more and more controlled by the increasingly powerful plutocracy. No amount of ‘democratic’ formality can change that. Sheldon Wolin calls this “Managed Democracy,” with democratic appearing social formations which are actually controlled by the corporate state.

The congress has become the paid agent of the corporate elite. The cultural acceptance of directly observable political corruption never ceases to amaze. The pandering to corporate interests by both the congress and the Supreme Court is nearly grotesque. The president’s actions seem bounded by his obeisance to the Wall Street bankers who got him elected. It’s all such a tidy package.

The so-called ‘debate’ over the reality of anthropogenic climate chaos demonstrates the power of marketing over the power of facts. What is demonstrable scientific fact becomes politically debated by the crude application of pseudoscience and superstition. On top of that, crass rhetorical tricks and media filtration of information suppress even the most urgent real-world crisis. Interestingly, the recent surge of climate disruption all over the world, but especially in the U.S., has placed powerfully experienced facts right in the face of propaganda. When disruptive climate events become a personal experience, no amount of Koch brothers’ propaganda can override the factuality of damage to one’s farm, business, or household.

Science and Sanity
The powerful fossil-fuel corporate lobby will force congressional inaction and manipulate state legislators as long as it can. The petroleum-industrial-congressional complex would squeeze the last possible profits out of the petro-industrial era before being forced to change by the power of facts. If allowed, it would continue its insane course until the consequences bring down not just the whole economy, but threaten the survival of humanity. However, the evidence is now overwhelming and ordinary people can understand direct evidence of danger to them and their families. Threats to survival stimulate very sane responses, like paying attention to the science of climate change.

Years ago, Carl Sagan deplored the “decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media,” which constricts any meaning into 10 second sound bites. The result has been the blurring of facts with vague impressions and imagery, shaped for emotional impact rather than conveyance of information. Sanity may yet be saved by the direct experience of people. Although the U.S. education system has been ‘dumbed down’ for generations, the native intelligence of people cannot be overridden by propaganda in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Science shall prevail, and if it does soon enough, our sanity may yet survive.

The Liberal Conservative and the Conservative Liberal

Political labels along the supposed continuum from left to right have always been problematic for me. As a professor long ago explained to us naïve freshmen in an introductory political science class in college, if you move far enough to the left, you end up on the right and if you move far enough to the right, you end up on the left. Where does that leave the average American? Where, exactly is the middle?

Most people I know hold a mix of views on different issues, yet define themselves as firmly Liberal or Conservative. Yet, in the politicized corporate-controlled mass media, most “commentators” (pundits and propagandists) play the issues to stimulate fear of the Other, thus causing cultural conflict by appealing to whatever fear-driven image or stereotyped value or belief can be used to serve the interests of the corporate state. That usually involves exploiting social stressors such as race, immigration, gay marriage, unemployment, some caricature of “the undeserving poor,” or presumed threats of “terrorism,” crime, or some other source of fear, to gain political favor by portraying one candidate as more ‘righteous’ or likely to ‘protect’ us in some way.

But what are the real issues that concern Americans most? Independent scientific survey results often diverge from poll results funded by candidates. Conservative and liberal Americans agree on more than power elites want us to know.

What are the issues? Mostly human-scale concerns about fairness and getting by in a moderate reasonably way, and being left alone by the powers that be. Ralph Nader argues in his new book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, that liberals and conservatives must unite against the corporate state to bring it down and establish a viable ecological economy and democratic society where people’s everyday concerns are addressed and the world is kept intact so we can live normal lives.

Social conservatives often decry undue corporate interference in government even as they argue for smaller government. Well, government certainly would be smaller without all that corporate pork, massive tax dodging, and subsidies. Liberals want social justice, mostly around issues of human rights, employment, healthcare, and environment. If various minorities and demonized Others were not scapegoated by the corporate media, then justice would be far more easily served. If we actually had a ‘free market’ among local small entrepreneurs and businesses oriented to local production of needed products instead of generating mass consumption of outsourced products in response to manufactured needs, and vast waste of resources on futile wars of empire, we could have lots of jobs and the economy could support health care for all, just like the Europeans and many others routinely afford.

As things stand, the American commonwealth is being rapidly drained of real wealth by the manipulation of the debt-based economy to generate phantom wealth among those who control the financial system. Both conservative and liberal citizens – I’m not talking about politicians here, just real people – do not like the centralization of everything, the unfettered ascendance of power elites, and the failure of government to respond to the people’s needs rather than the corporate oligarchy’s demands.

So, maybe Nader is right. It seems that the only way the American people can overcome the power of the corporate state to impose its own agenda while claiming it is enacting ours, is to unite behind our own values and needs and take down the forces that will, if allowed, destroy what is left of the republic and the biosphere upon which we all depend. Then we can go on and have our debates of left and right politics if we must.

But maybe conservatives would have to stop watching Fox News’ racist Obama-demonizing sniping sessions and liberals would have to stop watching MSNBC pundits defend every corporate-driven Obama policy as if it reflects the needs of the people instead of the demands of the oligarchs who fund the politics of both conservative and liberal politicians.

The politics of social division serves only the interests of corporate oligarchy. The interests of the American people will only be served by the people ourselves, if we can overcome the propagandists who seek to divide and conquer us.