The only consistant theme throughout Romney's presidential candidacy has been his unwitting descent into irony. He argues vehemently that he is a fiscal conservative who will get the country's fiscal house in order and that he will stop borrowing money from China. He argues that the pending debt crisis is not merely an economic issue, but a moral one, for we should not saddle our children with the debts of our generation. On the other hand, it is apparently perfectly moral to slash public funding, which creates the jobs and opportunities of today, in order to perpetuate some anti-tax, pro-growth pledge.
First of all, public spending does create jobs. After the stimulus bill was passed, the trend of job losses was reversed. No, the economy did not make an abrupt about-face and grow at a rate above 3% of GDP, but that is a wholly unrealistic expectation. I get the feeling that there were no possible gains that would have been high enough to satisfy the unbridled rage of the conservative right. Obama was dealt a terrible hand, managed to keep the ship afloat for four years, and now has the difficult task of convincing voters that it would have been much worse had he not acted.
And it would have been. This is not a "blame-Bush" argument, although there is much that he should be blamed for. What I ask is that people view the Obama presidency and the Obama economy in light of what occurred before. When the economy is shedding jobs at record rates, the housing market collapses, and the global credit and banking industries utterly fail, how can one president rectify the situation in only four years? The only possible answer when the private sector fails is for the public sector to step in and insure that the system doesn't fall apart completely.
Here's the thing: Mitt Romney has fulfilled this role of financial savior many times in the past - in fact, it's what he has built his fortune upon. His fortune, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, is built almost entirely upon debt. Instead of running on this expertise, however, Romney is hamstrung by the radical right to pledge not to increase taxes or the debt. If Romney wanted to run an honest candidacy based upon his real experience, he would highlight how he has successfully used public funds and debt to turn around failed enterprises. He borrowed hundreds of millions to right the Salt Lake City Olympics, used millions of dollars as governor of Massachusetts, and skillfully used leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital.
But that is not what he is running on. The image that Romney is running on is a lie, albeit a very hazy one. Any time that an issue is staked out clearly, Romney shakes his Etch-A-Sketch one more time and shifts his position. He should run on his experience with leveraging debt, but he is afraid to alienate a base that refuses to listen to basic tenets of economics, biology, physics, or philosophy. Instead, he has adopted a message that offers no solutions, only criticisms.
Remember this: it is always easier to critique than it is to offer your own, better solutions. Obama came into a country that was failing on nearly every account. Health care costs were skyrocketing (yes, before Obamacare), public education was failing, the private sector economy self-imploded, and I don't even need to mention our abysmal foreign policy. Four years later, the country has not descended into socialism, is not being run by a radical Muslim, and Christmas is still very much alive. The hyperbolic commercials about "1000 years of darkness" and "not being able to survive 4 more years of an Obama presidency" are way off. Obama has not made things worse, he has just been unable to live up to the unreasonably high expectations he set for himself.
The bottom line is that when the United States can borrow money for less than the rate of inflation, this is free money. It is not a debt crisis. Lendors are literally giving us free money, because the United States is the driver of the world economy. It is in their best interest to keep the US afloat, because without us, their economies would also fail. They are also betting that we will eventually grow our way out of this crisis, and they are giving us the money to use. Romney could have ran on a platform of sensible debt management, and argued that his business experience uniquely qualified him for the position. Instead, he is running a campaign solely of criticism and generalities, and I see no reason to believe things would improve under his stewardship. If he is not going to use the free money that is being provided to the federal government, I do not want him in the White House.
Mr, Romney, you are wrong. We do need more firemen, police officers, teachers, and other public employees. Those are jobs, just like any private sector position. And those jobs are created by public funds. So don't try to convince me of your myopic view of the nation, where John Galtian millionaires create every last bit of fortune that they have out of thin air. The answer is clear: borrow money, at the absurdly low rates it is being offered, and hire public sector workers. I find it appalling that we would cut education and social welfare funds in the name of some self-imposed fiscal cliff. That is a moral choice, and it affects our kids. Perhaps if they stay uneducated, then they will buy this big lie that the neo-cons are offering. Maybe they're just playing the long game. I don't see any other way that their policies or politics make sense.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Elmer Fudd Politics
I am sick and tired of hearing over and over again that Obama is the most divisive president in American history. Like most things for which he is blamed, Obama holds little responsibility for the divisiveness in American politics but makes an easy and convenient scapegoat. The reality is that the electorate is more divided than it has been since the Civil War, because it is more profitable and politically convenient to sow the seeds of derision than it is to govern.
It is always easier to disagree with someone than it is to offer a better alternative, and this has been the weapon of choice of the GOP since 2010, when the Tea Party revolution hit Washington. In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader (who bears a striking resemblence to a turtle), came up with this whopper: "Our top priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president." The top priority was not bipartisanship, nor was it entitlement reform, regulatory reform, foreign policy, education reform, or anything that is useful. To McConnell, the idea of Obama is so terrible and terrifying that there is nothing more important or pressing than to deny him a second term.
Indeed, here's McConnell on bipartisanship: "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off those proposals. Because we thought - correctly, I think - that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To offer a course of complete non-cooperation as the best course for the American people is insulting. Politicians campaign over and over again (as Obama did in 2008) that they will change the tone in Washington, focus less on partisan bickering, and discuss the "real issues." How can we have a real discussion when one side threatens every bill with fillibuster, and refuses to even get its "fingerprints" on any policy proposal? Perhaps we would have had improved legislation from this failed Congress if Republicans had been willing to work their ideas into a Democratic plan. Presenting a bill as bipartisan does not mean there wasn't disagreement, it just means that the call to action is stronger than ideological ties.
Few people have been as critical of President Obama as Rush Limbaugh, whose fire and brimstone doomsday speeches border on madness. To Limbaugh, anyone, literally anyone, would make a better president than Obama in his second term. As he put it, "We are voting against Obama, Mitt Romney might as well be Elmer Fudd." Elmer Fudd is so incompetant that he can't catch a rabbit he has been hunting for decades, yet, according to Rush, he would do a better job of running this country than Obama. I'd turn his comment around and say that I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd as president than Mitt Romney, because I think that incompetance would be a better alternative than wilfully destroying the social safety net.
I don't support Obama on everything that he is done, and I think that he has screwed up in a number of places. For many people, their reality today is not as rosy as it was four years ago, due to the recession and painful recovery. But - and this is a huge but - he was handed a situation that was impossible to solve in only four years. When the stock market crashed in 2008, housing prices came crashing down, incomes fell, and millions lost their jobs. Obama naively set himself higher expectations than he could possible hope to accomplish in one term, yet that is a sin nearly every politician is guilty of. Mitt's purposeful mendacity is on a completely different plane than Obama's failed campaign promises.
The saddest thing of it all is that the GOP's chosen course of Elmer Fudd politics has succeeded. America's two party system consists of a center-right Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that crowd out any hope for a substantive policy discussion. Obama has bent so far to the right in an attempt to appease his detractors that he has alienated a good portion of his supporters. Compared to Bush, Obama has drilled for more oil, coal, and natural gas, assessed fewer EPA fines, continued No Child Left Behind's accountability measures, championed charter schools, kept Guantanamo open, stayed in Afghanistan, and extended the Bush tax cuts for all wage brackets. Whatever his secret intentions may be, Obama's record shows him to be anything but the radical socialist that conservative pundits make him out to be.
Of course, after slandering him for being a socialist, fascist, atheist, anti-American, Muslim, the talking heads turn around and call him divisive too. And that's why I watch Fox News: the incredible irony of it all.
It is always easier to disagree with someone than it is to offer a better alternative, and this has been the weapon of choice of the GOP since 2010, when the Tea Party revolution hit Washington. In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader (who bears a striking resemblence to a turtle), came up with this whopper: "Our top priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president." The top priority was not bipartisanship, nor was it entitlement reform, regulatory reform, foreign policy, education reform, or anything that is useful. To McConnell, the idea of Obama is so terrible and terrifying that there is nothing more important or pressing than to deny him a second term.
Indeed, here's McConnell on bipartisanship: "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off those proposals. Because we thought - correctly, I think - that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."
To offer a course of complete non-cooperation as the best course for the American people is insulting. Politicians campaign over and over again (as Obama did in 2008) that they will change the tone in Washington, focus less on partisan bickering, and discuss the "real issues." How can we have a real discussion when one side threatens every bill with fillibuster, and refuses to even get its "fingerprints" on any policy proposal? Perhaps we would have had improved legislation from this failed Congress if Republicans had been willing to work their ideas into a Democratic plan. Presenting a bill as bipartisan does not mean there wasn't disagreement, it just means that the call to action is stronger than ideological ties.
Few people have been as critical of President Obama as Rush Limbaugh, whose fire and brimstone doomsday speeches border on madness. To Limbaugh, anyone, literally anyone, would make a better president than Obama in his second term. As he put it, "We are voting against Obama, Mitt Romney might as well be Elmer Fudd." Elmer Fudd is so incompetant that he can't catch a rabbit he has been hunting for decades, yet, according to Rush, he would do a better job of running this country than Obama. I'd turn his comment around and say that I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd as president than Mitt Romney, because I think that incompetance would be a better alternative than wilfully destroying the social safety net.
I don't support Obama on everything that he is done, and I think that he has screwed up in a number of places. For many people, their reality today is not as rosy as it was four years ago, due to the recession and painful recovery. But - and this is a huge but - he was handed a situation that was impossible to solve in only four years. When the stock market crashed in 2008, housing prices came crashing down, incomes fell, and millions lost their jobs. Obama naively set himself higher expectations than he could possible hope to accomplish in one term, yet that is a sin nearly every politician is guilty of. Mitt's purposeful mendacity is on a completely different plane than Obama's failed campaign promises.
The saddest thing of it all is that the GOP's chosen course of Elmer Fudd politics has succeeded. America's two party system consists of a center-right Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that crowd out any hope for a substantive policy discussion. Obama has bent so far to the right in an attempt to appease his detractors that he has alienated a good portion of his supporters. Compared to Bush, Obama has drilled for more oil, coal, and natural gas, assessed fewer EPA fines, continued No Child Left Behind's accountability measures, championed charter schools, kept Guantanamo open, stayed in Afghanistan, and extended the Bush tax cuts for all wage brackets. Whatever his secret intentions may be, Obama's record shows him to be anything but the radical socialist that conservative pundits make him out to be.
Of course, after slandering him for being a socialist, fascist, atheist, anti-American, Muslim, the talking heads turn around and call him divisive too. And that's why I watch Fox News: the incredible irony of it all.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Society is More Than Just its Economy
I was having a discussion with a few of my good friends a while back, and I asked "Why don't we have a presidential candidate running a campaign on social issues?" They responded with the same old logic that has been dictating the political discussion for a long time, "It's the economy, stupid." It's true that this election is largely a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy and a debate on the proper role of government in regulating and stimulating the economy, but it is not true that the economy is the only thing that is going on. For many people, other issues like abortion, gay rights, woman's rights, civil rights, immigration reform, voting rights, foreign policy, campaign financing, free speech, internet freedom, and so on are equally as important as Obama's stewardship of the American economy. I find it insulting, as they trumpet time and time again, that these issues are nothing but a "distraction" from the "real" issue, which is always: creating jobs, and growing the economy.
I'm sure many of you saw the video of the veteran who got the chance to sit down with Romney at a campaign stop in a diner. He asked a simple question: if Romney would support same-sex marriage. Romney flat-out declined, and the veteran told reporters after the exchange that he definitely wouldn't vote for Romney. When pressed on why, he said "Because I'm gay, that's why." He went on to say that he didn't see the difference between his loving relationship and that of any other two individuals, and to think that his civil rights were being infringed upon after his years of service to this country is unjust. To say that same-sex marriage is just a "distraction" from the "real" issues facing this country is a disservice to all of those people who just want to same privileges afforded to heterosexual couples to be extended to all couples. My argument for gay marriage has always been simple: Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not own the concept of marriage. Jews get married, Muslims get married, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans get married, and they don't have to double-check with Christian leaders if it is fine by them. Hell, even nihilists, pedophiles, and murderers can get married, and those acts are sinful according to the Bible. So why the special prohibition against homosexual marriage? It isn't wasting political capital to talk about this issue, and it has literally zero effect on the economy, so don't tell me that now is not the time. Don't just kick the can down the road, address the issue.
Another issue I would like to have an open debate about is the DREAM act. To me, it seems like a pretty simple idea: If you were brought here through no choice of your own, if you did not get in trouble, completed high school, and decided to serve your country or pursue your dreams in higher education, the United States has a vested interest in helping you do so. It is not a costly program, it does not open the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants, and it provides amnesty to people who, although here illegally, did not choose to be here. There are two principles of American society that I think apply here. One is that "All people are created equal" and have the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not include a clause that says "only if you were born on American soil, or if your parents did not commit a crime." The crime of the parents should not indict the virtue of the child. The second principle is enshrined on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,/ Send these, the homeless, tempest toss'd to me,/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door." I'm not sure that Romney's policy of "self-deportation" is in keeping with this sentiment.
I don't think that Obama is on the right side of all social issues, and I think he's gone the wrong way on some foreign policy questions, such as drone strikes, execution of American citizens abroad, or expansion of privacy invasions. But I do think that he is more closely aligned with my vision of a just and free society than what Romney is advocating for. Social issues matter to me, because they are the issues on which the government plays a clear role. The debates on the proper role of government in promoting economic growth are a never-ending quagmire, and it is difficult to wade through the muck to get an idea of who knows what they are talking about. I want a society where everyone can marry the love of their life, where good residents can become good citizens, and where discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity, or creed is expressly prohibited by law. I have seen Obama make moves in the right direction down these paths, and I hope that a second term will make further gains. I fear that a Romney presidency would be socially as well as economically regressive, and that confirms my support for Obama in November.
I'm sure many of you saw the video of the veteran who got the chance to sit down with Romney at a campaign stop in a diner. He asked a simple question: if Romney would support same-sex marriage. Romney flat-out declined, and the veteran told reporters after the exchange that he definitely wouldn't vote for Romney. When pressed on why, he said "Because I'm gay, that's why." He went on to say that he didn't see the difference between his loving relationship and that of any other two individuals, and to think that his civil rights were being infringed upon after his years of service to this country is unjust. To say that same-sex marriage is just a "distraction" from the "real" issues facing this country is a disservice to all of those people who just want to same privileges afforded to heterosexual couples to be extended to all couples. My argument for gay marriage has always been simple: Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not own the concept of marriage. Jews get married, Muslims get married, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans get married, and they don't have to double-check with Christian leaders if it is fine by them. Hell, even nihilists, pedophiles, and murderers can get married, and those acts are sinful according to the Bible. So why the special prohibition against homosexual marriage? It isn't wasting political capital to talk about this issue, and it has literally zero effect on the economy, so don't tell me that now is not the time. Don't just kick the can down the road, address the issue.
Another issue I would like to have an open debate about is the DREAM act. To me, it seems like a pretty simple idea: If you were brought here through no choice of your own, if you did not get in trouble, completed high school, and decided to serve your country or pursue your dreams in higher education, the United States has a vested interest in helping you do so. It is not a costly program, it does not open the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants, and it provides amnesty to people who, although here illegally, did not choose to be here. There are two principles of American society that I think apply here. One is that "All people are created equal" and have the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not include a clause that says "only if you were born on American soil, or if your parents did not commit a crime." The crime of the parents should not indict the virtue of the child. The second principle is enshrined on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,/ Send these, the homeless, tempest toss'd to me,/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door." I'm not sure that Romney's policy of "self-deportation" is in keeping with this sentiment.
I don't think that Obama is on the right side of all social issues, and I think he's gone the wrong way on some foreign policy questions, such as drone strikes, execution of American citizens abroad, or expansion of privacy invasions. But I do think that he is more closely aligned with my vision of a just and free society than what Romney is advocating for. Social issues matter to me, because they are the issues on which the government plays a clear role. The debates on the proper role of government in promoting economic growth are a never-ending quagmire, and it is difficult to wade through the muck to get an idea of who knows what they are talking about. I want a society where everyone can marry the love of their life, where good residents can become good citizens, and where discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity, or creed is expressly prohibited by law. I have seen Obama make moves in the right direction down these paths, and I hope that a second term will make further gains. I fear that a Romney presidency would be socially as well as economically regressive, and that confirms my support for Obama in November.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
DNC, Grow a Spine
While I may disagree with the GOP on most policy issues, I have to give them a great deal of credit for one thing: their political strength and solidarity. The Dems, on the other hand, splinter and bicker about the correct route forward, and often lose the political battle through their divisiveness. Then, whether or not it is a fair criticism, the Democrats are blasted in the media for being ineffective, divided, and for not leading the country forward. Paul Ryan, in his speech at the RNC, repeated the ability of conservatives to lead, and I have to agree with him. When the Republican party comes up with a new talking point or policy position, it is astonishing how quickly they can rally the whole of their base behind it. Two examples I'd like to use to illustrate this point are Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and the sudden panic about deficit reduction. Republicans have historically opposed raising taxes; indeed, Reagan and George HW Bush ran on pledges of lowering taxes. Remember Bush's campaign slogan: "Read my lips. No new taxes,"? The difference between Republicans 20 years ago and today is that, when confronted with the reality of balancing a budge and running a country, they used to raise taxes. Reagan raised taxes over 10 times after initially lowering them, because he realized that the growth that may be stimulated through tax cuts does not compensate for the lost revenue. The elder Bush also reversed his campaign pledge and raised taxes when confronted with the realities of government. Today however, an unelected radical, Grover Norquist, has the Republican party held hostage to some pledge that most people think is naive at best, sinister at worst. What Norquist has on his side are big monied interests that will put huge resources into elections to insure that Republicans who reneg on the pledge will not be reelected. But the public message is that "We can't raise taxes on job creators. Ever. Under no circumstance." The point is that the party was able to rally behind a single message, and Democrats cannot compete with that sort of solidarity. Similarly with the debt panic, which is really a rather new thing. Since the Tea Party revolution 2 years ago, it has suddenly become impossibly urgent to reduce the debt, and do so now. This is a remarkable departure from past Republican positions, who freely racked up deficits because, as Dick Cheney once said "The deficit doesn't matter." Apparently it only becomes an issue under a Democratic president. Regardless, the Republican party has demonstrated a remarkable agility in rallying behind a new talking point.
In contrast, Democrats can't agree on anything, and the latest, most embarrassing example occurred during the DNC last week. After being blasted by conservative commentators for not proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and for not praising God in their convention platform, Democrats scripted a change to the party platform. The convention president, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, proposed an amendment to the DNC platform that would include mentions of God in the faith section, and include a nod to Israel in the foreign policy. The method of amendment was by a vocal vote, in which a two-thirds majority would be needed for ratification. He asked once, and the yeas and nays were nearly equal. That should have been the end of it. There was no super majority to ratify the amendment, and thus it should have been dropped. Instead, he asked again if there should be an amendment to the party platform. For a second time, the yeas and nays almost perfectly counterbalanced each other. But again, the DNC leaders refused to yield. Instead, he asked a third time, received exactly the same response and then claimed "in the opinion of the chair" that there was the requisite super majority needed to ratify the amendment. What a bunch of BS. If anything, the nays grew in intensity as the question was repeated. Perhaps most disturbing about it all was that the ratification was pre-scripted on the teleprompter, so Villaraigosa knew exactly what to say after the vote was taken. It was the most awkward and slimy moment of the DNC convention, bar none.
Here's the thinking of the DNC heads: "Oh crap, the Republicans have the religious vote locked down, and we can't appear weak on Israel, so we better do something quick." They tried it, and the Democratic base voted it down. To try to save face, they stole a page from Romney-Ryan's book and just flat out lied. It's downright embarrassing, and anyone who believes that our political parties are not run by special interests should take notice. It doesn't matter what the average person really wants, because both parties only pay attention to special interests and talking heads on television and try to run damage control. The stupidest thing about it all is that it won't sway a single voter over to the Democrat side in November. Look, the Christian Right is a united front, and simply amending your party platform to include a mention of God isn't going to change any of that. Whether or not your party's platform more closely corresponds to Christian teachings is irrelevant, apparently. The sides are dug in, and all that the Dems have done is piss off a whole bunch of their constituents. Furthermore, I really liked the language that the DNC had on faith without any explicit mention of God because there should not be a specific endorsement of any religion in a political party platform. Instead, they wrote: "We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country."
That paragraph doesn't take anything away from Christianity, but it also doesn't privilege it above other faiths. What is does do is respect the rights of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other person of faith as equally protected and valid. What the DNC did was slimy and embarrassing, and goes against their own principles of inclusion and "one person, one vote." If they had a backbone, they would have accepted the amendment as dead, and defended that action in the media. They could argue that they don't endorse one faith above any other, and that all faithful individuals have a place within their party. They could argue that, as a democratic institution, they believe that the voice of the people is the guiding force of their party. What we have instead is just a farce. You didn't win any votes with this decision, and you probably lost a lot more than you'll gain. Great job, morons.
In contrast, Democrats can't agree on anything, and the latest, most embarrassing example occurred during the DNC last week. After being blasted by conservative commentators for not proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and for not praising God in their convention platform, Democrats scripted a change to the party platform. The convention president, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, proposed an amendment to the DNC platform that would include mentions of God in the faith section, and include a nod to Israel in the foreign policy. The method of amendment was by a vocal vote, in which a two-thirds majority would be needed for ratification. He asked once, and the yeas and nays were nearly equal. That should have been the end of it. There was no super majority to ratify the amendment, and thus it should have been dropped. Instead, he asked again if there should be an amendment to the party platform. For a second time, the yeas and nays almost perfectly counterbalanced each other. But again, the DNC leaders refused to yield. Instead, he asked a third time, received exactly the same response and then claimed "in the opinion of the chair" that there was the requisite super majority needed to ratify the amendment. What a bunch of BS. If anything, the nays grew in intensity as the question was repeated. Perhaps most disturbing about it all was that the ratification was pre-scripted on the teleprompter, so Villaraigosa knew exactly what to say after the vote was taken. It was the most awkward and slimy moment of the DNC convention, bar none.
Here's the thinking of the DNC heads: "Oh crap, the Republicans have the religious vote locked down, and we can't appear weak on Israel, so we better do something quick." They tried it, and the Democratic base voted it down. To try to save face, they stole a page from Romney-Ryan's book and just flat out lied. It's downright embarrassing, and anyone who believes that our political parties are not run by special interests should take notice. It doesn't matter what the average person really wants, because both parties only pay attention to special interests and talking heads on television and try to run damage control. The stupidest thing about it all is that it won't sway a single voter over to the Democrat side in November. Look, the Christian Right is a united front, and simply amending your party platform to include a mention of God isn't going to change any of that. Whether or not your party's platform more closely corresponds to Christian teachings is irrelevant, apparently. The sides are dug in, and all that the Dems have done is piss off a whole bunch of their constituents. Furthermore, I really liked the language that the DNC had on faith without any explicit mention of God because there should not be a specific endorsement of any religion in a political party platform. Instead, they wrote: "We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country."
That paragraph doesn't take anything away from Christianity, but it also doesn't privilege it above other faiths. What is does do is respect the rights of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other person of faith as equally protected and valid. What the DNC did was slimy and embarrassing, and goes against their own principles of inclusion and "one person, one vote." If they had a backbone, they would have accepted the amendment as dead, and defended that action in the media. They could argue that they don't endorse one faith above any other, and that all faithful individuals have a place within their party. They could argue that, as a democratic institution, they believe that the voice of the people is the guiding force of their party. What we have instead is just a farce. You didn't win any votes with this decision, and you probably lost a lot more than you'll gain. Great job, morons.
Friday, September 7, 2012
There is no Silver Bullet
I've argued a lot for a more progressive tax code in order to save this country from our debt crisis, because I've always felt that a flat tax is not a fair tax, and that to take more from those who can least afford it is not the way to get our fiscal house back in order. In response, I hear time and time again that taxes on "job creators" will stifle innovation, lose millions of jobs, and wreck our economy. The silver bullet that they propose instead is one that has been tried time and time again, and has failed to deliver each time. Lowering taxes on the wealthy does not drive the economy, it does not provide for the poor, and it sure as hell does not equate to prosperity for everyone. Our top marginal tax rates, whether personal income, corporate income, or capital gains are at the lowest levels they have been since the 1930's. How low is low enough? When will the magic of tax breaks cast its spell?
In response to a debt reduction plan that defies arithmetic, democrats proposed a plan offering a balanced approach to debt reduction. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, democrats argued, would be the best way to continue providing necessary services to those in need while bringing our finances back from the brink of insolvency. Let me remind you of a moment from the republican debates a few months back. When asked if they would accept 10 dollars of spending cuts for 1 dollar of revenue increases, each and every prospective republican candidate refused the offer. These candidates don't negotiate, they stonewall. Again I ask, how low is low enough? Why have we not seen results from tax cuts? I can see the effects these revenue cuts have taken all across Oregon, my home state. Schools are cutting teachers and cramming more children into classrooms badly in need of repair, roads and bridges are going years without adequate repair, and policemen and firemen are losing their jobs. Food assistance for the starving is underfunded, care for the elderly and the disabled is being cut, all in hope that somehow, sometime, the economy will boom, and everything can be paid for again. This is not a reasonable approach to deficit reduction, it is placing the burden of Wall Streets failure upon the backs of those who had no part in its crash.
Look, when the government employs people, that's not throwing tax dollars away, that's putting tax dollars back into the economy. Teachers, firemen, police officers, social workers, and government employees are consumers, just like any person from the private sector. Every dollar spent on a teacher is a dollar invested in the next generation, and a dollar that will get spent in the market, or reinvested by the teacher. Government jobs are real jobs, held by real people, and they have a real impact for millions of middle and low class people across America. To those who proclaim that we are robbing our children of their futures by overspending, and in the same breath advocate for deeper spending cuts for education, I say: how dare you. Education is the key to one's future. If we forget that, it won't be a fiscal deficit we have to worry about, but a knowledge deficit. When the next generation of Americans grows up, it is our duty to have provided them with the skills they will need to succeed in that work force. Austerity fails to do so.
Whenever a plan is advertised as "good for the economy," I wonder, for whom is it really good? Government jobs are primarily filled by individuals in the middle and lower classes, and cutting government jobs most acutely affects those who can least afford it. On the other hand, financial analysts argue that if their taxes are cut further, GDP will surely rise. Well, GDP growth is at best a crude measurement of the health of the economy. If the richest tenth of our population is doing great, GDP will rise, regardless of the conditions felt by the other 90% of citizens. Lowering the highest marginal tax rates and relaxing financial regulations will just further entrench money in financial centers, but won't bring any relief to struggling counties in the Mississippi delta, in the Appalachians, or in rural middle-America towns. They simply won't see the prosperity come raining down, and if they do, it will be a trickle. With an eye to the future, and with a plan that will immediately create jobs, the government should boost infrastructure and education spending that will lower unemployment and bring us out of this depression. Yes, there are cuts to be made, and government waste to be reduced. But we cannot rob this next generation of the infrastructure and education that we enjoyed, simply because our financial institutions became "too big to fail." That would be economically unsound, and morally unjust.
In response to a debt reduction plan that defies arithmetic, democrats proposed a plan offering a balanced approach to debt reduction. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, democrats argued, would be the best way to continue providing necessary services to those in need while bringing our finances back from the brink of insolvency. Let me remind you of a moment from the republican debates a few months back. When asked if they would accept 10 dollars of spending cuts for 1 dollar of revenue increases, each and every prospective republican candidate refused the offer. These candidates don't negotiate, they stonewall. Again I ask, how low is low enough? Why have we not seen results from tax cuts? I can see the effects these revenue cuts have taken all across Oregon, my home state. Schools are cutting teachers and cramming more children into classrooms badly in need of repair, roads and bridges are going years without adequate repair, and policemen and firemen are losing their jobs. Food assistance for the starving is underfunded, care for the elderly and the disabled is being cut, all in hope that somehow, sometime, the economy will boom, and everything can be paid for again. This is not a reasonable approach to deficit reduction, it is placing the burden of Wall Streets failure upon the backs of those who had no part in its crash.
Look, when the government employs people, that's not throwing tax dollars away, that's putting tax dollars back into the economy. Teachers, firemen, police officers, social workers, and government employees are consumers, just like any person from the private sector. Every dollar spent on a teacher is a dollar invested in the next generation, and a dollar that will get spent in the market, or reinvested by the teacher. Government jobs are real jobs, held by real people, and they have a real impact for millions of middle and low class people across America. To those who proclaim that we are robbing our children of their futures by overspending, and in the same breath advocate for deeper spending cuts for education, I say: how dare you. Education is the key to one's future. If we forget that, it won't be a fiscal deficit we have to worry about, but a knowledge deficit. When the next generation of Americans grows up, it is our duty to have provided them with the skills they will need to succeed in that work force. Austerity fails to do so.
Whenever a plan is advertised as "good for the economy," I wonder, for whom is it really good? Government jobs are primarily filled by individuals in the middle and lower classes, and cutting government jobs most acutely affects those who can least afford it. On the other hand, financial analysts argue that if their taxes are cut further, GDP will surely rise. Well, GDP growth is at best a crude measurement of the health of the economy. If the richest tenth of our population is doing great, GDP will rise, regardless of the conditions felt by the other 90% of citizens. Lowering the highest marginal tax rates and relaxing financial regulations will just further entrench money in financial centers, but won't bring any relief to struggling counties in the Mississippi delta, in the Appalachians, or in rural middle-America towns. They simply won't see the prosperity come raining down, and if they do, it will be a trickle. With an eye to the future, and with a plan that will immediately create jobs, the government should boost infrastructure and education spending that will lower unemployment and bring us out of this depression. Yes, there are cuts to be made, and government waste to be reduced. But we cannot rob this next generation of the infrastructure and education that we enjoyed, simply because our financial institutions became "too big to fail." That would be economically unsound, and morally unjust.
Monday, September 3, 2012
False Equality
I am always surprised at the rhetorical lengths politicians will go to in order to promote a policy, but this "We Built It" crap is nonsense. The worst of it all, is that Republicans play the victim and argue that there is equally hyperbolic and offensive attacks from the other side. It isn't even close. Yes, the Democrats have launched offensive advertisements, and Democratic politicians have painted pictures of Romney as callous, uncaring, immoral, etc. I could not agree with you more on that point: many Democrats and Liberals are lying bastards, who will say anything to get their way. I despise those sorts of people, who manipulate the facts and distort reality in order to promote a policy. There are many instances where unions have distorted facts and lied in order to influence a policy change. That is wrong, and I agree with you. I only hope you can grant me the same outrage when I point it out in your own rhetoric, and illuminate the falsehoods you are perpetuating.
Please, take a second and really think about what words you are chanting, wearing on your shirts, displaying proudly online. Think if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe what you are saying and accept the implications of the statement. To chant "We Built It" is to imply that the other party does not support the same thing. The president's statement, "You Didn't Build That," was simply not about small businesses, or about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, or about demonizing success. That is absolutely false, and bears no relation to reality. Why would the president demonize success? He is very successful, ultra-competitive, and is running an election campaign - why would he deliberately demonize any demographic, especially one so prominent as "successful people." Success is such an amorphous term anyway. There is no single definition of a successful person; I'm sure President Obama considers himself successful. What do you even mean by that, "demonizing success?" Do you really think Barack Obama hates achievement, and wants all of America to, I don't even know what, be welfare slaves? If you mean the kind of achievement that I would better characterize as capitalist rapaciousness, then I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism. Not everyone rates success or achievement solely through one's (offshore) bank account or one's trust fund, in fact, most people will never enjoy the security of said trust fund, or savings account.
That is not to say that having a savings account, working hard, or achieving is wrong, or evil, or immoral. I am not saying that at all. Perhaps my greatest dream in life is owning a house, starting a family, having a stable, respectable job. I believe that was what the American dream was all about in the first place. In my mind, a society that can provide a reasonable and sustainable path to that dream is the greatest society that we can have in place. And I believe that nearly every liberal, democrat, even most socialists would agree that providing a route to such success is a function of a good government. I recognize there are radical elements out there who would do away with the notion of private property in all, and I disagree with those individuals. The president does too. He is not an anarchist, or a radical Muslim jihadist, who is the product of some half-century old communist scheme to elect a radical president at this precise moment. The whole birther thing is an entirely different story - who the fuck cares? What does it matter, in his policy, if he is born in Kenya? But I'll have to leave that issue for another day.
It isn't a false equality of rhetoric at all. One side says the other is unamerican, unpatriotic, atheist, muslim anarchist, communist, etc, and the other says the other are greedy bastards, who do not want to share the wealth. How can you honestly equate the two? Greed, need I remind all your Christian conservatives out there, is a sin. In fact, if I remember correctly, greed and avarice are some of the seven deadly sins. It isn't unamerican to decry greed and avarice, it is at the very center of our moral fabric. Don't pretend for an instant that Mitt Romney is not a greedy man. Why do you need $250 million dollars? And you think only paying 13% on your taxes is somehow a fair rate, and that a more progressive tax code would somehow destroy innovation and wreak havoc on the entire economy. The man has amassed a fortune amounting to a quarter of a billion dollars; do you really think he would not have been pretty damn successful with a 20% tax rate, or, God forbid, something a little bit higher than a janitor pays? If you raise taxes on the wealthy, why would they just say "to hell with it all" and stop working entirely? From the party of individual achievement in the face of obstacles, arguing that a higher tax rate would crush peoples urge to strive smacks of utter bullshit. I thought that the poor should rise up themselves, even though times are tough. But when the wealthy are asked to pay a bit more, suddenly it becomes impossible to achieve in a harder tax climate.
And finally, look around you as you chant "We Built It." How many objects and services that you enjoy every day did you really build? With your bare hands, with no help from the government in any shape or form. Did you, for instance, build the Tampa convention center, or the roads to get there; did you lay the cable for the electrical infrastructure; did you fight, and die in battle, to protect your liberty to chant those words; or did the government play some role. If you started a business, who educated your employees? Do they drive on streets to get to work, or take public transportation? You didn't build that. Did you settle the town you grew up in, or did the government build up that city, invest millions of dollars and countless hours of union and public manpower to build it? You didn't build that. Think about it, there is honestly no way you can disagree with the role the government plays in a good society. I don't want to destroy society when I say that there should be a more progressive tax code, I want to raise the funds necessary to keep those roads maintained, and keep those schools open, and keep those teachers employed. Don't be a lemming, and accept some terrible talking point as your political mantra. Please, just take a second, and just think about it.
Please, take a second and really think about what words you are chanting, wearing on your shirts, displaying proudly online. Think if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe what you are saying and accept the implications of the statement. To chant "We Built It" is to imply that the other party does not support the same thing. The president's statement, "You Didn't Build That," was simply not about small businesses, or about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, or about demonizing success. That is absolutely false, and bears no relation to reality. Why would the president demonize success? He is very successful, ultra-competitive, and is running an election campaign - why would he deliberately demonize any demographic, especially one so prominent as "successful people." Success is such an amorphous term anyway. There is no single definition of a successful person; I'm sure President Obama considers himself successful. What do you even mean by that, "demonizing success?" Do you really think Barack Obama hates achievement, and wants all of America to, I don't even know what, be welfare slaves? If you mean the kind of achievement that I would better characterize as capitalist rapaciousness, then I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism. Not everyone rates success or achievement solely through one's (offshore) bank account or one's trust fund, in fact, most people will never enjoy the security of said trust fund, or savings account.
That is not to say that having a savings account, working hard, or achieving is wrong, or evil, or immoral. I am not saying that at all. Perhaps my greatest dream in life is owning a house, starting a family, having a stable, respectable job. I believe that was what the American dream was all about in the first place. In my mind, a society that can provide a reasonable and sustainable path to that dream is the greatest society that we can have in place. And I believe that nearly every liberal, democrat, even most socialists would agree that providing a route to such success is a function of a good government. I recognize there are radical elements out there who would do away with the notion of private property in all, and I disagree with those individuals. The president does too. He is not an anarchist, or a radical Muslim jihadist, who is the product of some half-century old communist scheme to elect a radical president at this precise moment. The whole birther thing is an entirely different story - who the fuck cares? What does it matter, in his policy, if he is born in Kenya? But I'll have to leave that issue for another day.
It isn't a false equality of rhetoric at all. One side says the other is unamerican, unpatriotic, atheist, muslim anarchist, communist, etc, and the other says the other are greedy bastards, who do not want to share the wealth. How can you honestly equate the two? Greed, need I remind all your Christian conservatives out there, is a sin. In fact, if I remember correctly, greed and avarice are some of the seven deadly sins. It isn't unamerican to decry greed and avarice, it is at the very center of our moral fabric. Don't pretend for an instant that Mitt Romney is not a greedy man. Why do you need $250 million dollars? And you think only paying 13% on your taxes is somehow a fair rate, and that a more progressive tax code would somehow destroy innovation and wreak havoc on the entire economy. The man has amassed a fortune amounting to a quarter of a billion dollars; do you really think he would not have been pretty damn successful with a 20% tax rate, or, God forbid, something a little bit higher than a janitor pays? If you raise taxes on the wealthy, why would they just say "to hell with it all" and stop working entirely? From the party of individual achievement in the face of obstacles, arguing that a higher tax rate would crush peoples urge to strive smacks of utter bullshit. I thought that the poor should rise up themselves, even though times are tough. But when the wealthy are asked to pay a bit more, suddenly it becomes impossible to achieve in a harder tax climate.
And finally, look around you as you chant "We Built It." How many objects and services that you enjoy every day did you really build? With your bare hands, with no help from the government in any shape or form. Did you, for instance, build the Tampa convention center, or the roads to get there; did you lay the cable for the electrical infrastructure; did you fight, and die in battle, to protect your liberty to chant those words; or did the government play some role. If you started a business, who educated your employees? Do they drive on streets to get to work, or take public transportation? You didn't build that. Did you settle the town you grew up in, or did the government build up that city, invest millions of dollars and countless hours of union and public manpower to build it? You didn't build that. Think about it, there is honestly no way you can disagree with the role the government plays in a good society. I don't want to destroy society when I say that there should be a more progressive tax code, I want to raise the funds necessary to keep those roads maintained, and keep those schools open, and keep those teachers employed. Don't be a lemming, and accept some terrible talking point as your political mantra. Please, just take a second, and just think about it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Dinesh D'Souza is an idiot.
I'm not sure how many of you have heard about Dinesh D'Souza's new movie, 2016: Obama's America, but it looks like a piece of jingoistic garbage to me. After hearing that it is setting box office records for documentaries, I decided I had to check out the trailer. Here's what I found:
"Obama has a dream, a dream from his father: that the sins of colonialism be set right, and America be downsized... America has a dream, from our founding fathers: that together, we must protect liberty, and America must grow, so with it, liberty grows."
Whenever I hear statements like this, about how America is some bellwether of liberty, my first reaction is always confusion. Dinesh D'Souza is a very successful man; he's been a writer and intellectual for many years, he's a Dartmouth graduate, and currently heads Kings College in New York. For someone with that storied of an academic career, making such a sensational and ahistorical comment is perplexing. The way I see it, either D'Souza is ignorant of American imperial history, or he's maliciously misrepresenting the facts in order to elect Romney. Because I don't like to pin evil motives on people without good evidence, I'm going to opt for the other possibility, that D'Souza is an idiot.
Just off the top of my head, here's a brief history of how when America grows, so with it, liberty grows:
1492: White people "find" America. Within decades, a once glorious civilization is reduced to less that 10% of its former size. The extent of disease and famine ravishing the native communities cannot be fully known, but most historians estimate that untold millions of indigenous people lost their lives in a very short period of time. Using alcohol and unfair bargaining techniques, settlers systematically rob native peoples of their lands. Contract after contract is signed with the United States, and each is subsequently broken by "the land of the free." This theft of land comes to a head under Andrew Jackson, the man who I consider to be the most reprehensible president of all time, who made a name for himself killing natives in order to drive them away from valuable farmland in the south. (Doesn't that sound a lot like "protecting American interests?" The same rationalizations are around today) I'm sure you are familiar with the Cherokee nation's Trail of Tears, a grueling march in which many suffered and perish. And to even think of glorifying General Custer and his "brave" last stand. Custer provoked violence, and got himself into a stupid situation. I cannot do the tragic history of American indigenous peoples true justice, but if you are unfamiliar with the extent of our nation's actions, a little research will be sobering.
Remember how glorified the battle of the Alamo was made out to be in school? Why do you think the Mexican army was attacking the Alamo in the first place? Because they hate "American exceptionalism?" Absolutely not. The lone star republic robbed the Mexican government of hundreds of square miles of land, upon which lived many Mexicans and indigenous peoples. The Texans basically just declared that a vast swath of land was their right, and then proceded to kill and rob the owners of that land. So much for America's sacred property rights.
Beyond the actions of a rogue state like Texas (who wants to take responsibility for Texans, anyway?), America has been far from a liberating force in Mexico. From sacking cities to stealing Arizona, New Mexico, California, and more, America has been the exact opposite of liberators. Even in the 20th century, American naval vessels were bombarding coastal towns in the Gulf of Mexico to dissuade the Mexican government from impeding American trade. What harbingers of peace and liberty.
But Manifest Destiny was not enough for America. After the frontier was closed, and we had taken all the land we could from Mexico, Spain, France, England, and millions of indigenous peoples, we had to turn our sights abroad. Why do native Hawaiian's resent so many white tourists? Because they represent the conquest over a once-free people. We have holdings in Guam, in the Philippines, in the US Virgin islands, in Puerto Rico, in Cuba, in nearly every island group in the Caribbean and South Pacific. Do you think that we gained those lands because the natives invited us to liberate them? America was an imperial nation, plain and simple. Anyone who tells you different either does not know their history, or is purposefully distorting the facts. There is no gray area.
In WWI, America passed the Alien and Sedition acts, perhaps the least free laws that have ever been on the books. Speaking out against the war effort, or even just making anti-American proclamations, was enough to get you jailed. In the case of Saccho and Vanzetti, it got them hung. The sheer amount of propaganda that was released in order to stir up a desire for war is staggering - it reeks of fascism. As a nation, we declared an official stance of neutrality only to continue selling arms to both sides of the war. Today I read that America's arms sales have skyrocketed, to over $66 billion per year, by far the highest in the world. Some things never change, do they? The most pressing reason we entered the war was that the side we were most heavily invested in, the British especially, were losing. We needed to hedge our financial bets. Think of it in terms of a bailout: the British war profits were "too big to fail."
In WWII, America acted astonished when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but there is insurmountable evidence that the White House had been repeatedly warned of Japanese aggression. Because of our colonial holdings in the Pacific ocean, Japan was cut off from valuable resources like oil, steel, and rubber, all vital to an industrializing economy. The Japanese made clear that they were being hemmed in by ABCD, or the Americans, British, Chinese, and Dutch. They claimed that the colonial powers represented an existential threat to their nation and, after repeated warnings, attacked America. It was then, and only then, that we entered the war in Europe. We did nothing when the Alsace-Lorrain was conquered, nor when France was pummeled, nor when Eastern Europe was decimated. Once again, it was only when American economic interests were threatened that we took action.
After WWII, having secured our place as one of the two largest world powers, we quickly antagonized the other. The Soviet Union was a terrible regime also, but was it really so much worse than America? Think back on the Cold War, how often did Communists attack Americans? When were we, unprovoked, threatened with invasion or bombing? Then consider all of the times we enacted a policy of intervention, citing fears of a "domino effect" or worrying about "regional stability?" The Cuban missile crisis was provoked by the Bay of Pigs boondoggle, the Korean war was never declared and never ended, Vietnam is a tragedy of epic proportions, and the even more extensive bombing of Laos and other Southeast Asian nations is appalling. And at home, McCarthyism, Red scares, and xenophobia is the name of the game. Thousands of artists, playwrights, musicians, academicians, and regular citizens were rounded up on charges of sedition. So much for free speech, I suppose.
I can't write an article on American imperialism without mentioning NAFTA and our continued rape of everything else in the Western hemisphere. NAFTA is free trade only by name, and is prejudiced against those who can least afford it. Low-income people, especially from Mexico, resent this agreement because it has done nothing to improve their prospects. The profits are all being bled back to wealthy individuals in the United States. The history of CIA interference in Central and South America is disgusting, and much of it is still classified and unknown. We have overthrown and opposed many popularly elected leaders in the last 50 or 60 years, and replaced them with brutal dictators and imposed regimes that are more friendly to American economic expansion. I'm no expert on this part of history, but what I have read is truly horrifying. We have become the agents of oppression and have opposed the popular will of millions of peoples only to more thickly line our pocket books.
I won't even get into the last 20 years of our history, except for one comment. I have never understood how pre-emptively striking another nation is morally defensible. How does the need to protect one nation's interests supercede the sovereignty of the other? To millions of people, Americans do not represent liberty, equality, or brotherhood, but rather guns, bombs, and civil unrest. Mission accomplished.
Now, I'd like to repeat: I did no extra research for this blog post, but simply wrote down what I could remember about America's bloody past in this world. If you want to know where I am drawing most heavily from, check out Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States of America," Kenneth Davis's "Don't Know Much About History," and James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me." They lay out, in much more extensive detail, exactly how despicable our nation's past has been.
So, Mr D'Souza, as America has grown, has liberty grown?
"Obama has a dream, a dream from his father: that the sins of colonialism be set right, and America be downsized... America has a dream, from our founding fathers: that together, we must protect liberty, and America must grow, so with it, liberty grows."
Whenever I hear statements like this, about how America is some bellwether of liberty, my first reaction is always confusion. Dinesh D'Souza is a very successful man; he's been a writer and intellectual for many years, he's a Dartmouth graduate, and currently heads Kings College in New York. For someone with that storied of an academic career, making such a sensational and ahistorical comment is perplexing. The way I see it, either D'Souza is ignorant of American imperial history, or he's maliciously misrepresenting the facts in order to elect Romney. Because I don't like to pin evil motives on people without good evidence, I'm going to opt for the other possibility, that D'Souza is an idiot.
Just off the top of my head, here's a brief history of how when America grows, so with it, liberty grows:
1492: White people "find" America. Within decades, a once glorious civilization is reduced to less that 10% of its former size. The extent of disease and famine ravishing the native communities cannot be fully known, but most historians estimate that untold millions of indigenous people lost their lives in a very short period of time. Using alcohol and unfair bargaining techniques, settlers systematically rob native peoples of their lands. Contract after contract is signed with the United States, and each is subsequently broken by "the land of the free." This theft of land comes to a head under Andrew Jackson, the man who I consider to be the most reprehensible president of all time, who made a name for himself killing natives in order to drive them away from valuable farmland in the south. (Doesn't that sound a lot like "protecting American interests?" The same rationalizations are around today) I'm sure you are familiar with the Cherokee nation's Trail of Tears, a grueling march in which many suffered and perish. And to even think of glorifying General Custer and his "brave" last stand. Custer provoked violence, and got himself into a stupid situation. I cannot do the tragic history of American indigenous peoples true justice, but if you are unfamiliar with the extent of our nation's actions, a little research will be sobering.
Remember how glorified the battle of the Alamo was made out to be in school? Why do you think the Mexican army was attacking the Alamo in the first place? Because they hate "American exceptionalism?" Absolutely not. The lone star republic robbed the Mexican government of hundreds of square miles of land, upon which lived many Mexicans and indigenous peoples. The Texans basically just declared that a vast swath of land was their right, and then proceded to kill and rob the owners of that land. So much for America's sacred property rights.
Beyond the actions of a rogue state like Texas (who wants to take responsibility for Texans, anyway?), America has been far from a liberating force in Mexico. From sacking cities to stealing Arizona, New Mexico, California, and more, America has been the exact opposite of liberators. Even in the 20th century, American naval vessels were bombarding coastal towns in the Gulf of Mexico to dissuade the Mexican government from impeding American trade. What harbingers of peace and liberty.
But Manifest Destiny was not enough for America. After the frontier was closed, and we had taken all the land we could from Mexico, Spain, France, England, and millions of indigenous peoples, we had to turn our sights abroad. Why do native Hawaiian's resent so many white tourists? Because they represent the conquest over a once-free people. We have holdings in Guam, in the Philippines, in the US Virgin islands, in Puerto Rico, in Cuba, in nearly every island group in the Caribbean and South Pacific. Do you think that we gained those lands because the natives invited us to liberate them? America was an imperial nation, plain and simple. Anyone who tells you different either does not know their history, or is purposefully distorting the facts. There is no gray area.
In WWI, America passed the Alien and Sedition acts, perhaps the least free laws that have ever been on the books. Speaking out against the war effort, or even just making anti-American proclamations, was enough to get you jailed. In the case of Saccho and Vanzetti, it got them hung. The sheer amount of propaganda that was released in order to stir up a desire for war is staggering - it reeks of fascism. As a nation, we declared an official stance of neutrality only to continue selling arms to both sides of the war. Today I read that America's arms sales have skyrocketed, to over $66 billion per year, by far the highest in the world. Some things never change, do they? The most pressing reason we entered the war was that the side we were most heavily invested in, the British especially, were losing. We needed to hedge our financial bets. Think of it in terms of a bailout: the British war profits were "too big to fail."
In WWII, America acted astonished when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but there is insurmountable evidence that the White House had been repeatedly warned of Japanese aggression. Because of our colonial holdings in the Pacific ocean, Japan was cut off from valuable resources like oil, steel, and rubber, all vital to an industrializing economy. The Japanese made clear that they were being hemmed in by ABCD, or the Americans, British, Chinese, and Dutch. They claimed that the colonial powers represented an existential threat to their nation and, after repeated warnings, attacked America. It was then, and only then, that we entered the war in Europe. We did nothing when the Alsace-Lorrain was conquered, nor when France was pummeled, nor when Eastern Europe was decimated. Once again, it was only when American economic interests were threatened that we took action.
After WWII, having secured our place as one of the two largest world powers, we quickly antagonized the other. The Soviet Union was a terrible regime also, but was it really so much worse than America? Think back on the Cold War, how often did Communists attack Americans? When were we, unprovoked, threatened with invasion or bombing? Then consider all of the times we enacted a policy of intervention, citing fears of a "domino effect" or worrying about "regional stability?" The Cuban missile crisis was provoked by the Bay of Pigs boondoggle, the Korean war was never declared and never ended, Vietnam is a tragedy of epic proportions, and the even more extensive bombing of Laos and other Southeast Asian nations is appalling. And at home, McCarthyism, Red scares, and xenophobia is the name of the game. Thousands of artists, playwrights, musicians, academicians, and regular citizens were rounded up on charges of sedition. So much for free speech, I suppose.
I can't write an article on American imperialism without mentioning NAFTA and our continued rape of everything else in the Western hemisphere. NAFTA is free trade only by name, and is prejudiced against those who can least afford it. Low-income people, especially from Mexico, resent this agreement because it has done nothing to improve their prospects. The profits are all being bled back to wealthy individuals in the United States. The history of CIA interference in Central and South America is disgusting, and much of it is still classified and unknown. We have overthrown and opposed many popularly elected leaders in the last 50 or 60 years, and replaced them with brutal dictators and imposed regimes that are more friendly to American economic expansion. I'm no expert on this part of history, but what I have read is truly horrifying. We have become the agents of oppression and have opposed the popular will of millions of peoples only to more thickly line our pocket books.
I won't even get into the last 20 years of our history, except for one comment. I have never understood how pre-emptively striking another nation is morally defensible. How does the need to protect one nation's interests supercede the sovereignty of the other? To millions of people, Americans do not represent liberty, equality, or brotherhood, but rather guns, bombs, and civil unrest. Mission accomplished.
Now, I'd like to repeat: I did no extra research for this blog post, but simply wrote down what I could remember about America's bloody past in this world. If you want to know where I am drawing most heavily from, check out Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States of America," Kenneth Davis's "Don't Know Much About History," and James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me." They lay out, in much more extensive detail, exactly how despicable our nation's past has been.
So, Mr D'Souza, as America has grown, has liberty grown?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)