America’s False Divide

“According to polls, most Americans think the nation is more divided than it’s been since the Civil War. And these divides are getting worse…”

Really? Exactly what divides America? Well, there are polls and there are polls. In November 2016, a Gallup poll suggested shortly after Trump’s election that 77% of the people perceived the nation as divided. Certainly, if you watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, the traditional networks, or participate in social media, you can easily get that impression. Conflict makes the news. Certainly, the nation is going through some major changes, some of which produce more denial than contemplation. That tends to escalate the ‘blame game.’

Nostalgia for imagined “good old days” leads many to wish to “Make America Great Again.” Generational losses of income and status breed fear, resentment and anger. Trump has deftly exploited such fears and resentments, inciting anger and even violence among his base of mostly working and former middle-class white males and some of the women who love them.

We hear formerly politically incorrect expressions of racism, sexism, and xenophobia uttered more openly now in public and semi-public arenas. However, it seems clear that many of the voters who put Obama in office also voted for Trump. That may seem crazy, but it was a complex electoral dynamic that would take many pages just to describe no less explain.

Institutional Divisions by Racism

Did we really become that divided between presidents? Well, of course, the big political division between Obama Democrats and the racist Republican Congress of his second term has grown wider and wider, resulting in unprecedented partisan practices that border on violating at least the spirit of the Constitution.

Is it really that the American people are so divided, or is the actual division between the growing power of the corporate state in conflict with the public interest in seeking a safer more livable world for the American people? Establishment Democrats like to treat Trump as an anomaly, an outlier so bizarre that he does not fit into the standard assortment of political positions.

To be sure, Trump’s impulses are weird and vastly ignorant of national norms of the political process, civil behavior, and the constitutional constraints on his pretentions to unlimited personal power. He blatantly exposes his racism, misogyny, and narcissism in daily Tweets. But is that so different from the perverse behavior of those old white men on the Senate Judiciary Committee who dismiss the entirely credible story of Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford as they did decades before with Anita Hill?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley speaks as Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington

Chuck Grassley ~  HuffPost

Political operative Brett Kavanagh would surely guarantee a plutocratic majority on the Supreme Court. He represents the same culture of elitist white male entitlement to power embodied in Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsay Graham. For Trump, it is a matter of protection from prosecution even more than plutocracy; for the senators, it is a matter of achieving the corporatist goals of their PACs to dominate the federal government by executive action as well as voter suppression.

Plutocratic Unity and the Veil of Division

Trump’s policy choices – however dangerous in international relations for example – fit well with the notion that his presidency is the logical extension of the trends of the corporate state over several decades, whichever party was in power. The cooperation of Senate Democrats in the unconstitutional Republican wars of choice, just like the bailouts for Wall Street criminals of 2008, but not for their victims, reflects the unity of the plutocrats that underlies and belies surface “party differences.”

One might even conclude that the great divide today is between the people and a federal government that now almost entirely serves the interest of corporate elites and the super-rich. Despite the distortions of demagoguery, the trends now deeply entrenched in the corporate state run counter to some of the most basic of American values.

Because of the dominance of corporate money in national politics, federal elected officials are less and less connected to the people they are supposed to represent. The “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision and the injection of blatant representatives of corporate polluters as executives in the EPA along with sweeping executive orders unwind decades of gradual improvement in modest environmental protections. Abandoning our commitment to the international agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities, like many other actions, runs counter to the interests of the public in safety, security; others constrain the ability of average Americans to earn a decent living.

The demagoguery, confusion, anger, and resentment run high and as usual in such situations, a charlatan who Michael Moore terms a master of performance art. Trump deftly turned that resentment toward scapegoating vulnerable minority populations, including refugees, in order to energize the base of those who resent their losses of status and income under the policies of the same corporate state he serves. The falsely generated divisions among the people conceal a much deeper divide.

No, the real division in America is between the plutocrats and the people.

To Vote or Not to Vote: Is That Really the Question?

No, it’s another false dilemma. In the U.S., we are obsessed with two beliefs. One is the idea that the world can be changed and/or everything can be made right again if we only vote in the right politician as president. This contributes to the corporate-media driven “horse race” mentality that buries the issues under the personalities and blunders of the candidates. Well, Obama proved many such idealists (optimists) wrong. The second idea that many have come to believe is that to vote is to accede to a rigged system that oppresses us and only pretends to give us a choice. These pessimists find the political process entirely futile. Optimists and pessimists are both fatalists – they assume that our fate is sealed. Partial truths coexist with outright illusions. The illusions tend to dominate.

Let’s take the current example of the Bernie-Hillary dilemma and the brace of buffoons in the Republican Clown Car. One position I’ve heard expressed on social media recently goes something like this: Don’t vote at all; it’s a betrayal of your independence and freedom since they are all liars and crooks and none of them will act in our interests; anyway, the system is rigged. Well, even that extreme statement is a partial truth. But is it something we should act on, or refuse to act on? Absolutes are always illusions.

Socialism, Centrism, and the Clown Car Entering the Arena from the Far Right

Of course, politicians usually frame their messages to avoid offending as many constituents as possible and play to voters’ hopes and fears to curry our favor. They also try to steer clear of any statement that would offend their large contributors. They even sometimes give weak criticisms of, for example, Wall Street financial manipulators. However, they know that the Wall Street money in their campaign coffers is secured by private commitments of support. But that is also a matter of degree. Messages change over time, for either good or bad reasons. A genuine change of heart is to be commended for its honesty, if that is what has actually happened. The label, “flip-flop” has been applied ruthlessly, sometimes with a strong basis – think Mitt – and sometimes without justification. But it is not always easy to measure.

Hillary has changed her messages quite a lot over time. Is that a case of genuine evolution or merely a history of pandering to political fashion? The debate over that continues. Hillary supporters affirm the former; Bernie supporters suspect the latter. Tea Partiers “know in their hearts” the absolute truth, evidence be damned, literally. Parenthetically, Republican attacks on the pseudo-issues of Benghazi and her email server are pure smokescreen and demagogic attempts to smear her – one has even admitted so publicly. But Hillary’s coming to her currently – and equivocally – more “progressive” positions on several issues was so slow and tentative that it makes one wonder. How much of it was her “feeling the Bern” on her left?

Bernie, on the other hand, has been an eminently consistent politician for decades. His independence is characteristically Vermonter. That alone, of course, is an important factor in drawing the crowds despite a virtual mass-media blackout. (And, like them or not, he actually advocates specific programs meant to directly address massive growing inequality and the takeover of politics by the super rich, whose corporations own the media.) After all, we Americans love an underdog and we are so tired of the slick consultant primed-and-scripted candidacies. This alone makes Bernie refreshing. We get the clear impression that the Bernie you see is the Bernie you will get. Yet, nobody is without flaws. Progressives wonder about his seeming ambiguity over gun control – Vermont hunting interests – and his seeming ambiguity over Israel-Palestine – American Israel lobby. Well, two out of dozens is not so bad.

Messaging and Performance

The performance of Barack Obama, like that of so many others who gain office on high sounding promises, has not achieved much of the “change we can believe in.” Of course, he was ultimately stifled by the racist Republican Congress, leaving us to wonder what he might have accomplished. Like so many, I was initially taken by his eloquent oratory. But early on in his candidacy I saw figures showing where his big-money donations were coming from. That’s when I began to worry that he would be too beholden to the financial elites to act fully in the Nation’s economic interest. Sure enough, he appointed all the usual suspects from the financial elite, which had dominated the Clinton and Bush incumbencies. These were the guys serving the interests of Goldman Sacks and the other elite financial institutions that have been hell-bent on ruling the nation with their casino capitalism. It was their policy recommendations Bill Clinton had enacted, leading eventually, with Bush-Cheney help, to the collapse of the Wall Street casino in 2008. So, Hillary’s close corporate ties and the people she hires to run her campaign give one pause. Her “Third-Way” international interventionist tendencies demonstrated while Secretary of State, are a great concern too. So, who is one to vote for in an imperfect world? Or, should we bother?

Changing messaging to first gain the radical right and the Republican nomination then trying to appeal to the general electorate may have been the major factor that did in Mitt Romney. His father was not terribly inspiring, but he was believable more or less. The Donald’s “charm,” strange as it is, stems from his blatant exposure of the brash fact of “who he is” while demonstrating total lack of self-reflection. His aggressive denial of any fact he wants to hide about his questionable business practices is accepted out of public ignorance. Along with Carly Fiorina, he might be termed a “successful” failure. It would be pointless to go through the RCC (Republican Clown Car) to elucidate the paucity of serious intellect or realism on the campaign trail – it is sort of obvious. So, it is understandable that some would be so disgusted by the whole charade that usually makes the outcome of elections pretty much the same no matter who is elected. Style aside, that’s pretty much what happened in the Bush-Obama sequence, at least in the areas of endless war and endless subsidizing and covering for the financial elites.

Take What You Can Get and Demand More

So, this is where hopeful realism ‘trumps’ optimism and pessimism. Our reality is truly grave. Yet, while still breathing we can have some glimmer of hope. However, hope is delusional without action. So, I must vote (among other things), if only to write in Ralph Nader, who would do more to clean up the mess than anyone, if not assassinated first. As Chris Hedges has put it, “I fight fascism not because I will win, but because it is fascism.”

No president will be able to do much, no less all, of what is needed absent a massive transformation of congress. Real change must rise up from the people in a mass peaceful social movement for rescuing the planet and defending the greatest victims of the tyranny of wealth and the corporate state. But no small opportunity for any bit of progress should be dismissed. I will vote for the imperfect over the straight-up total disaster, in hopes that some benefit will accrue to the people and planet, rather than give up or knuckle under to the two-party party of plutocracy.

How to Create a Corporate State and Destroy the Planet

Ever wonder why President Obama insists that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” (TPP) be “fast-tracked” through Congress? Why does its content have to be kept secret from the Congress and the American people? Yes, members of Congress may view its drafts in a secure room but are not allowed to even take notes away with them. Under “Fast Track,” a bill cannot be debated or amended; it must simply be voted “up or down.” That in itself certainly lacks transparency and severely constrains the democratic process. If something is kept secret from me, I have to assume that it contains something I would object to if I knew what it was – probably something that would hurt me too. Secrecy has been a primary tool of tyranny across cultures and time. In the hands of powerful elites, secrecy is almost always a means to increase or maintain unjustified power. For a further motivational clue in this case, you could look at the composition of the group negotiating the treaty. This TPP thing is being written by corporate lobbyists and lawyers, with token representatives of labor or environmental groups. What gives? Okay, so it is pretty obvious that this so-called “free trade” agreement is being written in the interests of trans-national corporations that dominate international trade. Not surprising, of course. But this one reaches far beyond the administration merely pandering to the political interests of corporations. It is a question of national sovereignty – whether nations or corporations will have sovereignty over fundamental elements of political authority. NAFTA was only the beginning. We have no direct knowledge other than those initial drafts of chapters obtained and published by WikiLeaks. They alone are scary enough. Apparently, provisions in its 29 chapters allow mega-corporations to override national, state, and local laws on environment, worker safety, and even carbon emissions policies. It is easy for the uninformed to read paranoia into a claim that the corporations are taking control of the federal (and state) governments. But that is what has happened with other “trade agreements” that allow corporations to sue governments in corporate controlled tribunals for non-compliance, NAFTA being a prime example. Under such provisions, corporations can override national sovereignty; as a result, we are increasingly living in a “corporate state.” Corporate Profit Trumps Mitigating Climate Chaos In the case of the TPP, someone is chasing us whether we are paranoid or not. “TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable.”[1] Once governments and their laws are subordinated to international corporate tribunals, well, it is “game over” for national sovereignty over the things that matter to real people. Any national or local effort to uphold standards of environmental protection, labor safety, or efforts to constrain carbon emissions to avoid climate catastrophe will be denied by international corporate tribunals. Naomi Kline describes an obvious case of corporate interests subordinating local economic and planetary climate mitigation needs. An attempted project to bring an advanced Italian solar panel manufacturing operation to Ontario, Canada, would have boosted local employment. It also would have contributed to the necessary conversion of regional energy production to renewable energy. But under the threat of World Trade Organization rules that treat any preference for local manufacturing as a violation of “free trade,” the company withdrew its plans.[2] Ironically, the net gain in carbon emissions reduction by adopting renewable energy production can be wiped out by the carbon emissions of international shipping. For effective carbon emissions reduction, manufacturing of renewable energy technologies must occur near their location where they are to be installed. Indeed, for effective emissions control international trade must itself be curtailed. Consider, for example, almost half of China’s carbon emissions come from manufacture for export. In addition, all those giant container ships emit large quantities of carbon. Local and regional production of a wide variety of products must replace mega-corporate driven remote manufacture for international trade, if carbon emissions reduction is to reach meaningful levels to constrain global warming to livable limits. In this and many other ways, corporate “free trade” ideology expressed in international trade laws is trumping attempts to mitigate climate disruption. It is thereby threatening to wreak havoc on human populations around the world. The ideologies of unrestricted growth and profligate wasteful consumerism support this destructive economic model. The legal elevation of corporate profits over public policy directly increases the power of corporations have been building over governments and their people. It thereby establishes legal corporate sovereignty over all other authority in the world and prevents necessary social action to address the approaching climate catastrophe. Who benefits? Only the international mega-corporations do, at the expense of everyone. A Partially Exposed Coup d’état No wonder they want to keep it all a big secret until the TPP is passed by Congress. No wonder they want to restrict Congress from debating the pros and cons of the content of the bill and prohibit amendments. A coup d’état to overthrow a government is usually exercised in secret, without negotiation. And no wonder. The TPP usurps the public interest in key areas that affect the lives of everyone: environmental protections, labor practices and safety standards, intellectual property, and more broadly, the economic ‘rules of the game.’ We tend to think of revolutions in terms of rebellious generals and their troops storming the presidential palace in a “banana republic.” But today, an unprecedented corporate revolution is occurring in the form of international laws that give the mega-corporations sovereignty over everything. The secrecy of these negotiations includes the propaganda smokescreen that implies that it is just about “leveling the playing field” of trade rules. But only a few of the twenty nine chapters are about trade. What has been leaked so far, thanks to Wikileaks, indicates something far more odious. Much of the document deals with ways to assure corporate sovereignty over national interests by sanctifying profits above the interests of people – the public interest. In fact, it is about how the mega-corporations will rule both governments and the people around the world. The irony is that the secretly negotiated TPP deal by and for the corporations is intended to pass congress without discussion or public knowledge, masquerading as an economic benefit for the nation. And it is to be voted on to circumvent the already seriously damaged democratic process. It is an international treaty passed by congress and the governments of other major trading nations. Any attempt to change it would have to be approved by all the nations that signed it. Get ready to live under a corporate-police state, or join the effort to stop it now. Otherwise, game over for saving even a shred of democracy. __________ 1 Dave Johnson, “Stop Calling the TPP a Trade Agreement – It isn’t.” Reader Supported News. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30426-stop-calling-the-tpp-a-trade-agreement-it-isnt. 2 Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Chapter 2.

Delusions of Democrats Continue: Denying Bernie

Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness
~ George Orwell

Vermont is a rather independent state. Its outspoken independent senator, Bernie Sanders, is the only politician I know of who has been able to attain office without prostituting himself to the powerful. His independence extends beyond party affiliation. It is not just that he is a registered independent; he is viscerally independent of party politics and corporate influence. The political class will try to silence Bernie’s challenges to the politics-as-usual of the corporate state, but how effective will they be?

Most Democrats can be described as “Corporate Democrats” since their financing comes mostly from corporate campaign contributions and is reflected in their voting. Whatever their “liberal” rhetoric, they vote primarily in the corporate economic interest. That includes their support for military adventurism around the world, cutting public investment in health, education, and viable employment and maintaining the corporate strangle-hold on the American political system. Their “liberal values” usually do not extend beyond rhetorical abstractions. Their automatic affiliation with Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency reflects the same corporate affiliations she and her husband have built and maintained over decades. It is the source of their wealth and political power. In that sense, Bernie Sanders is a consummate outsider, challenging the prevailing orthodoxy of the pseudo-liberal Democratic Party.

Killing Democracy…or Not

From the perspective of the political class, Bernie’s battle for the Democratic nomination will be a naïve uphill battle, as difficult as the agents of corporate power can make it. All the powers that be will continue to oppose him, mostly by trying to keep him out of any public debate. The corporate media will continue to ignore him as much as they can or dismiss him as a quaint crazy. He will get no support from corporate donors – indeed, he does not want any. He wants the support of the public.

When Bernie gains significant public attention, we will begin to see a new wave of “red-baiting” not unlike that of the era of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. After all, he is an independent “democratic socialist.” But the word “socialist” has lost a lot of its fear mongering power as American political structure has moved closer to total corporate control – what used to be called fascism. The “Deep State” of integrated political and economic elites [1] has reached such an extreme level of oligarchy, that Sheldon Wolin’s description of its “inverted totalitarianism” [2] is right on the mark.

But despite being an unknown to much of the population, the initial response to the announcement of his candidacy was a robust set of small donations. Regular citizens who hear what he has to say agree with most of his positions. But what Bernie stands for, the “liberal” political class gives only vague lip service to and acts in quite opposite ways. Classic liberalism is dead, but progressive ideas are not.

The decline and fall of actual political liberalism since the surge of the liberal economic reforms of the New Deal during the Great Depression of the 1930s is well documented. [3] The “Reagan Revolution” and the blatantly racist denial of the legitimacy of Barrack Obama’s presidency by the “Congress of No” have pretty much finished the job. Obama’s prodigious rhetorical skills allowed him to fully exploit national progressive sentiments. With a moderately progressive congress, Obama might have been a liberal-centrist president. But with the extremely reactionary congress seated, he vainly attempted to appease those Radical Regressive Republicans he should have recognized as his enemies. Even Obama’s embarrassingly naïve attempts to compromise with the extreme Republicans were summarily denigrated. Bill Clinton’s destruction of welfare programs for the poor had been facilitated by corporate Democrats as well as Republicans. The corporate takeover of the Congress of the United States of America is nearly complete as Barrack Obama carries forth the Bush neo-conservative imperial agenda of endless wars and Hillary attempts to step in and continue the neo-conservative project in pseudo-liberal clothing. But then there is Bernie.

Save the Planet, Save Democracy

Bernie Sanders is one of a small number of senators who openly acknowledge the urgency of taking action to curtail climate disruption. He also takes several other blatantly “progressive” positions. While some talk obliquely about inequality having gone too far, Bernie simply states that the billionaire class has bought the political process and must be stopped.

It is not surprising that the powerful corporate media try their best to ignore Bernie Sanders in hopes that he might thereby go away. But social media may be a route for frustrated Americans to express their support for policies in the public interest instead of the special interests of the corporate state. We must wonder how much latent progressivism can be found within the Democratic political machine and might creep into the convention. Mainline Democrats don’t know what to do about Bernie. He resonates with rank and file Democrats. That is because he is an viable spokesman for the interests of the American people.

Bernie Sanders is an articulate outspoken critic of the powerful corporate, financial, and military interests that try to frame the politics of fear and the policies of the power elite as if they were in the public interest – but are not. Even if he is elected there may not be enough members of congress voting in the public interest to move the nation away from the brink of climate catastrophe and social-economic collapse. Whatever the odds, Bernie Sanders seems the last great hope for a presidency that serves the public interest. If you are worried about Bernie’s chances, consider the dangerous business-as-usual alternatives.
_________
1 See Bill Moyers interview with Mike Lofgren, a 28-year veteran staffer with the powerful House and Senate Budget Committees on the “invisible labyrinth of power” where “elected and unelected figures collude to protect and serve powerful vested interests. http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/. See also, Lofgren’s book, The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless and the Middle class Got Shafted. New York: Penguin Books, 2013.
2 Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy, Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
3 See Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class, (New York: Nation Books, 2010) for a fiery denunciation of the hypocrisy of those politicians who still call themselves “liberal” and use liberal rhetoric while representing the interests of the power elites against the interests of ordinary citizens. Historian Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009) provides detailed documentation of the decades-long campaign by the titans of industry to destroy the liberal agenda of the New Deal. They won.

Delusions of Democrats: Ending Obamania

It’s hard to give up on an ideal.  But the “Change We Can Believe In” has faded, even as the illusion we had hoped it was not.  The American electorate has always had a problem with distinguishing rhetoric from action.  Of course, Obama’s efforts, such as they have been, have also been thwarted at every turn by the blatantly racist Republican congress.  Great speeches, but regular capitulation prior to negotiation became his modus operandi where tough negotiations were called for.

Foolish Faith

The old Liberal Class of politicians who fought for human values and the rights of hard working Americans of all colors in a dynamic congress, is dead.  The dominant politicos of the Democratic Party are agents of their corporate benefactors, even if slightly less so than their Republican colleagues.  They vote to stay elected and the corporations pay to see that happen.

But many progressively minded people with good will and the desire to see a better America just can’t let go of the idea that if we can just get more Democrats elected, then liberty and kindness will prevail across the land.  They want to believe in Obama’s ‘liberal agenda’ and they want to have good reason to fight for Hillary so they will not have wasted their hard political work and resources.   But it is just not working.

Most claims about what President Obama has achieved miss the point when it comes to what really matters to the nation and planet at this point in history.

Illusions of Accomplishment

It’s all about political misconceptions of success and failure.  A blogger recently posted 14 “objective facts” that he offered as proof that the country is doing well under Obama’s leadership.  (See “14 Facts About the Obama Presidency that Most People Don’t Know,” jeff61b.hubpages.com )  Each one cites a source and appears quite descriptive.  But wait; there’s more.  Let me briefly explain each one.

1. “63 straight months of economic expansion.”  The Fed buying up hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt from the Big Banks has driven up stock prices and mergers, since little of those vast sums has trickled down into the real economy.  Most “economic expansion” is in the pockets of the 1% of the 1%.  It is not being invested  in economic  production.

2.  “the longest period of private sector job creation in American History.”  Sure it’s taken a long time to create any jobs; the corporations have sat on their huge stash of cash because weak demand due to unemployment and underemployment made them afraid to invest that cash in production.  So, most of the job creation that has happened is minimum wage service jobs below the poverty line.

3.   “Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 5.9%”  Despite the fact that the government statistics have way underestimated unemployment for decades, look at the quality of the jobs — most new jobs do not carry a living wage.  The real level of unemployment has been at least double that reported by the government.  See ShadowStats.com

4.  “The stock market continues to set new records…”  Well, the ‘funny money’ has to be put somewhere.  Instead of investing the vast sums of bailout money and no-interest loans from the Fed, the Big Banks have busily bought up each other and continued their derivative Ponzi schemes.  The inflated valuation of stocks has resulted from new money, not new productivity.  It’s not a good indicator of a healthy economy under these conditions.

5.  “The federal budget deficit is shrinking…”  Of course.  The government is shrinking, except for spending non-existent money on military adventures.  Since the Fed has brought down interest rates so low, the interest on the debt is much smaller.  And since the Congress-of-No continues to cut expenditures on desperately needed infrastructure repairs and conversion to renewable energy systems, spending has come down to match the reductions in tax on the most wealthy persons and corporations.  The nation and earth systems are collapsing together.

6.  “Under President Obama, spending has increased only 1.4% annually…”  Certainly, the Congress-of-No has prevented some of the necessary investments in renewable energy and other infrastructure that would have created many jobs.  But I fail to see that as an accomplishment for Obama.   It’s an achievement for the neo-liberal economists who want to do away with the public sector entirely.  He keeps diddling with whether to approve the disastrous Keystone XL pipeline to accelerate carbon emissions even further while failing to push hard to replace fossil-fueled energy production with renewable systems.

7.  For most Americans “income taxes are lower…”   Basically, since incomes are down, so are taxes.  But whatever the rates [kinda complicated; some up, some down, but from what base?] the rich and the corporations are still stealing the nation blind with the tax dodges congress has allowed them.  We need to return to the progressive tax system that accompanied the prosperity of the 1950s.

8.  “Our dependence on foreign oil has shrunk due to record domestic oil production…”  Another faux accomplishment.  Fracking is destroying water supplies all around the country while it generates a  short-term surge of production.   So, like excess coal, it is exported, adding to the carbon available for emission, further exacerbating global warming.   We need to reduce our dependence on ALL oil..   Obama has been on the wrong side of that one.

9.; 10; 11.  The Affordable Care Act:  “…more Americans have health insurance…”  “added years to the life of Medicare.”  “slowest rate of increase in healthcare costs since 1960…”  Obama’s signature accomplishment may have been the elimination of pre-existing conditions dodge by the insurance companies.  But, despite the fact that the majority of Americans wanted it, he cut off any discussion of single-payor universal health care from the start.   Real reform would have made Medicare permanently solvent.  The U.S. is the only modern industrial nation without universal national health care.  We spend  much more  and get worse outcomes..

12.  “‘..we have fewer people in war zones…than any time since 2002”   Well, looks like not for long…  The use of drones and assassination programs belies such arbitrary claims.

13.  “Zero successful attacks by al Qaeda on U.S. soil since Obama became president.”  Neither Cheney nor Obama can claim victory in the “war on terror.”  The U.S. fossil-fueled empire has created far more “terrorists” (most of whom see themselves as freedom fighters defending against invaders) than our military has killed — not counting innocent civilians.  In any case, the scattering of al Qaeda occurred across administrations.  Obama can, however, claim bin Laden’s assassination.  The lack of attacks on U.S. Soil is mostly due to lack of capability or interest — still a danger, however.

14.  “We…deport more illegal immigrants than ever before.” Yes, and with reckless disregard for human rights, even of those children seeking asylum from murderous thugs in Honduras and elsewhere.  Has Obama done anything to mitigate the forcing of Mexican farmers off their land by flooding Mexico with cheap subsidized GMO corn?  No, but he’s busy working on trade agreements worse than NAFTA in Asia, which will further damage the environment as well as worker safety and rights.

Eyes Wide Open

So, would the Republicans do worse?  Of course.  But that does not make bad good.  And Hillary?  Another servant of the financial elite, just like Barack and the rest of the gang in Washington.  Lipstick on a pig does not make bacon.  And its very hard to find organic bacon.

Chaotic Convergence

In the New Age idea of “harmonic convergence,” there are a few “power centers” around the world. Near the beautiful cliffs surrounding Sedona, AZ, for example, people are said to experience converging forces of spiritual energy. But another convergence is taking place and it has nothing to do with stunning red-rock landscapes or mystical feelings of harmony. Far from it. Instead, I have noticed an extraordinary set of outwardly unrelated indicators of increasingly chaotic societal trends in the U.S.A., cascading throughout the world. And they appear to be converging.

Random Anomalies?
A recent Homeland Security report* concluded that “sovereign citizens” are perceived as a greater threat by law enforcement than are “Islamic terrorists.” Of course, it’s hard to even find an Islamic terrorist in the U.S. – racist targeting of any Muslim aside. But the Cliven Bundies are definitely out there and growing in numbers.

The extreme individualist anti-government meme has taken hold for a growing number of people. But these folks usually don’t understand the source of the dysfunctions of the governmental they hate. Of course, their hyper-libertarian ideology itself is seriously dysfunctional. It sees all problems as inherent in government itself. But in politics the biggest problem for democracy is the widespread distortion of governmental functions by the corporate imposition of money and power.

“Stand your ground” legislation and its expression in morally unjustifiable shootings point to a growing cultural need to express personal power with violence. Bizarre “open carry” imbeciles marching into restaurants with their AR-15s appear to be expressing their twisted juvenile sense of manhood. But there is more to it than that. Instability breeds fear; fear breeds hatred; hatred finds its target, even school children.

Racist Congressmen refuse to act on anything proposed by the African-American president they find inherently illegitimate and “un-American.” They even reject his proposals that originated in Republican ideas. The obsessiveness of their loathing is quite astounding, though consistent only with rabid racism and the gut urge to bring down that “Other.” There is no “post-racial America.”

Automated programmed trading at hyper-speed by powerful financial institutions obtains market information nanoseconds ahead of ordinary traders. This allows them to make pennies a trade so fast that they skim millions of dollars from the stock market every week. What is a “free market,” really? Cheating is pervasive and tolerated in U.S. business and political culture, and markets are not free.

Cities are going bankrupt and are forced to raid their retirees’ pension funds because Koch brothers funded politicians legislate to serve their rich patrons, not the public. The people are an inconvenience. Who protects the public interest? Almost nobody with any power, actually. Corruption is rampant.

The “change we can believe in” president elected on an ‘end the wars’ platform, bombs wedding parties in Afghanistan and funerals in Yemen. His lawyers draw up secret legal opinions authorizing him to assassinate American citizens along with anyone else he deems a “threat.” His drone kills a teenage American boy visiting his grandparents in Yemen. In response to disclosures about the CIA crimes, he responds, “we tortured some folks…and it’s important for us not too feel too sanctimonious in retrospect…”
Absurd levels of secret “intelligence” spy operations capture nearly all the private communications of Americans. No particular reason or authorization is needed other than the stated institutional goal of amassing full-spectrum of information about everyone. You may “have nothing to hide,” and foolishly accept it. But spying on everyone by powerful agencies whether federal or local, has ominous implications for everyone’s political freedom. The NSA director lies to Congress and is tolerated. That alone heralds an emerging totalitarian corporate state retaining only a thin veneer of democratic formality.

The Convergence
Collectively, these ostensibly uncharacteristic and unrelated trends provide a context for understanding part of where the “sovereign citizens” paranoia comes from. They seem unconnected, though each is disturbing. But are they simply anomalies? I doubt it.

The personal, the social, the economic, and the political uncertainties we experience or observe today are real, if confusing. They are exacerbated by the recognition, sometimes subliminal, that we live in a society that is increasingly unstable and violent – a bad combination. As if that were not enough, the stability of the biosphere we are part of is itself is being placed at accelerating risk by our institutions and our way of life.

We look around and find little to justify a sense of security. Many escape into the smaller worlds of their everyday lives or stupefying mass media. We see the largest institutions, whether military, corporate, financial, or governmental, and notice the growing trend. Each is expanding its own surveillance/security programs. And in all institutional sectors, the security and secrecy measures are directed at protecting those institutions’ ability to control the population – us – in some way. Why? Because we know that as they grow more irrelevant and opposed to our needs, these institutions increasingly resort to force and violence.

Yet, those hierarchical control structures are themselves engaged in increasingly chaotic reactions to environments that they cannot control. The most powerful institutions in the world were not designed to engage conditions they never anticipated. It seems clear that we need a process of non-violent “creative destruction” to transform these institutions. But what we are getting is a growing process of destruction of humanity emanating from the institutions supposedly serving the public.
______
* David Carter, et al, Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes. Report to the Office of University Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (July 2014), p. 7. Accessed at: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf

What Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy can Teach Us about Racism in America

Ignorant racism occasionally bursts onto the scene in the national media because the racists involved are unaware of the social and political impact of their blatantly racist talk. Sometimes ‘honest’ racists don’t even believe they are racists and are ignorant of the nature of their racist thinking. Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who has refused to pay his fees for grazing on BLM land – our land – and does not recognize the existence of the U.S. government, may fall into that category, with his seemingly unconsciously racist comments about black folks. Donald Sterling, the wealthy owner of the LA Clippers, on the other hand, was recorded making private racist comments that went viral; but only then did it become public that he had for decades practiced housing discrimination against Blacks and Latinos in his Los Angeles properties and that the NBA had tolerated it all those years. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar exposed the hypocrisy of public anti-racism a day or two later in his Time Magazine opinion piece on the reaction to the Sterling exposure. Then the NBA fined Sterling $2.5 million and banned him for life.

Liberal white folks don’t like to hear racist talk, but they routinely tolerate institutionalized racism. And smart “closet” racists know how to appear “politically correct” in order to avoid the uncomfortable reactions of more sensitive people, despite their racist behavior and attitudes, which are re-coded to appear to the unsuspecting ear to refer to something other than race. Some, like Sterling, talk quite differently in private and in public settings. Magic Johnson expressed hurt and disgust with that hypocrisy in an interview after the “Sterling tapes” were revealed, having been given public ‘respect’ by Sterling before his private racism directed at Magic was revealed. Sterling embraces his racism but tries to avoid the embarrassment of its expression in public. Cliven Bundy, unused to the public limelight, appeared unaware and divulged his personal thinking unfiltered, then was made partially aware by the public reaction and tried to ‘dial it back.’

But we make a big mistake if we think we can understand racism in America by assuming that “racists” are only those people who make racist statements in public. Structural institutionalized racism is alive and well in America, and it is far more important than the naïve racism of fringe isolates like Cliven Bundy, who only recognized the damage to his image when public exposure showed him his own racism. What these different cases can teach us is that personal racism can take many forms and may have different levels of self-consciousness attached to it, but it is not the essence of contemporary racism in America.

The politically correct re-coded racists are in total denial, at least publicly. By avoiding traditionally racist language, they think they are immune to the charge of being a racist, even as they harbor feelings of superiority over the Other. They think of racism as merely a matter of proper speech. But in fact these folks are the bread and butter of institutional racism in America – an endemic system of inequality whereby the racism is built into the social and economic culture and institutional practices of society. In some respects it is as widespread as ever. Many ‘liberals’ voted for Barack Obama at least in part to demonstrate their lack of racism, which in polite company allowed them to proclaim a “post-racial” America – besides Obama emulates intellectual white social liberalism, with which he charmed them.

Closet racists re-code their racism in various ways. All the attacks on Obama as being a ‘socialist,’ a Muslim, a Kenyan, by ‘birthers,’ et al, merely excuse their closeted racist belief that a black man cannot legitimately be President of the United States of America. They do all they can to explicitly not recognize him as president. Their vision is of a White-Christian Nation, not the multi-racial, multi-ethnic society that we have become. But in a twisted way, the joke is on them. This president may be a good deal smarter than Dubya, but he is as strong a supporter of the corporate-state plutocracy as any president – in that sense, he is as ‘white’ as anyone, since it is the white male who symbolically represents the status quo anti. Remember, race is a social construct – in both biology and anthropology it has failed the test as an empirically viable concept, but it is a social reality.

America’s mostly unacknowledged status as Incarceration Nation, the system of actual apartheid embodied in the increasingly corporate prison-industrial complex, with the highest number of prisoners in the world, sustains our racism. Structural racism is a set of institutional practices that produce racist outcomes of inequality whether or not the individual actors are personally racist. As Michele Alexander has so perceptively demonstrated, a New Jim Crow system of segregation – facilitated by the sustained system of residential and educational segregation and media indifference – has emerged mostly from the drug war, which incarcerates massive numbers of mostly boys and men of color – despite equivalent rates of drug use by whites – producing in effect a new caste system stigmatizing and isolating many young blacks and browns from the economy and society.
Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy are best understood as anachronisms, although Sterling’s wealth institutionalizes his personal racism. We need not be so offended by them, for their personal pathologies are not today’s real problem of racism. They are relics of an openly racist past in which racist language was merely the cultural expression of an openly self-acknowledged oppressive system. Today’s re-configured system of racial oppression and re-coded racist language pose a greater danger by their camouflage. White liberal reactions of disgust over these relics reflect a discomfort with what may be a subliminal recognition of the continued racial caste system in their imagined “post-racial America.” Where are they when white male millionaire congressmen repeatedly engage in a strategy of degradation and obstruction that no white president has ever experienced? They blame it on “party politics,” not the re-coded racism they tolerate.