Who is to Blame?

Our democracy is in a state of crisis. Where does the problem lie? Here is a listing of the players starting with #10, the least to blame, and ending with #1, the most to blame.

10. The Liberal Media. I didn't know there was any, until I started listening to Democracy Now. It stirred memories from my childhood in the 60s, when we had real liberals, with whom it was difficult to argue: Hubert Humphrey, Bobby Kennedy, LBJ.

9. Large Corporations and Big Business. Corporate money dominates our political system, but yet I am going to say that this is not the fault of the large Corporations. Our businessmen and women have the duty to make a profit for their company. If they do not, they go bankrupt and everybody involved is hurt. The nation as a whole is hurt. Business is, of course, much more than a game. However, it can be compared in that businesses compete to win according to rules. Their duty is to follow the rules, but it is not their place to make those rules. If blocking in the back is a legal part of the game, then any serious competitor will block in the back. Todays rules are such that large businesses have to invest in politics. Walmart had no full-time representative in Washington until 1999. That all changed when they decided they would like to go in to the banking business and were blocked by congress under the influence of the banking industry lobby. Almost immediately, Walmart's Political Action Committee became one of the largest PACs in America (read Robert Reich, Supercapitalism, chapter 4). Who can blame them?

8. The Mainstream Media, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR. I think this is what the right refers to as the liberal media? I'm not sure.

Once there were large newspapers, and everybody argued over what the newspaper said. Most people disagreed in one way or another with the newspapers, but at least everybody was arguing over the same things. Then there was ABC, NBC, and CBS, Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and that other guy. Here again, everybody knew that television wasn't giving the whole story, but everybody was arguing over the same thing. Today, everybody listens to whoever they agree with and don't even know what other people have to say. But this isn't really the fault of the news media. Or is it?

The mainstream media attempts to present all sides, and as a result they don't present any side. This is because of the gulf that has developed between the left and the right, as the right-wing has moved progressively more to the right over the last 20 years. We're moving to a system where every political party has its own media, which I have seen work quite well in Europe. The problem is that there is no media for American liberals, and their points of view are not being articulated nationally.

7. The Democratic party. The democratic party used to be a liberal party: help for the elderly, the children, the working class, the sick, the environment. Today it is the wimp party. The Democratic Party fought for Social Security, health care for all, the working class, equality, the minimum wage, and government intervention in the economy in order to avoid recessions. Today, we have a president liberal at heart, who has repudiated liberalism in public. His health care plan was written to appease large corporations, his energy program is based on tax incentives for large corporations, and instead of talking about the 8 million who lost their jobs in 2008-2009, he is focused on getting re-elected by raising 2 billion dollars from large corporations. He has apparently abandoned the small donors that won him the election last time. I'm not sure whether it is good politics, but it is surely bad for the Democratic Party and it is bad for the United States of America.

6. The Right-Wing Media. The right-wing media is part and parcel of the current Republican party. It has taken the lead in making politics a yearly, year-around form of entertainment. Its goal is to win elections for candidates supporting their right-wing ideology, and to make money for themselves while at it. It substitutes indoctrination for information. They are the marketing arm of the party. They are a threat to democracy, and liberals who don't realize this are fast asleep.

xx. The political parties. Let's be clear about one thing. It's not true that they are the same. They have never been more different. Let's look at them separately.

5. The Republican party. The Republican Party has become something quite new in American history. It sees itself as the instrument of a larger anti-government movement defined by think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation and disseminated by Fox News and right-wing radio. Membership in the Republican Party requires adherence to the details of Republican Party strategy. When Newt Gingrich criticized the Medicare provisions of his party's budget proposal, he was immediately chastised by the right-wing media and pushed to renounce his statements. The party has forced near 100% party unity in congress over the last two years. The Democrats have voted with a high degree of unity, but this is only by crafting bills to appeal to the far right of the Democratic Party (e.g. Obamacare)

The Party functions in a corporate manner with a product being first produced and then marketed. The production and marketing teams are brilliant in terms of their ability to sell the merchandise, but for the consumer, the American conservative, I think the product is poor. It doesn't take the country where the conservative American wants it to go.

A Democrat should be in favor of an active government engaged in ensuring the well-being of the citizens. A Republican should be in favor of a limited government which safeguards private initiative. What we have is a government which stifles both private initiative and effective government action, whether it be Democratic or Republican.

This presidential election period is going to be very interesting. Huntsman and Romney, for different reasons, are not in conformity with the right-wing propaganda machine. It may be that one of them will get the nomination. That would make me feel better about the American citizen.

4. Conservatives. Limited government as an ideological orientation, doesn't concern me. But the right-wing propaganda machine is not committed to effectual government. Only strong government can make the citizen free from government interference. If politics is taken over by profit-based media and funded by powerful big business interests, then government will serve those causes. Our government needs reform. The Republican party can only further true conservative values by becoming a party of true reform.

3. The wealthy class. If big business, per se, is not to blame, I feel quite the opposite about the wealthy class which has been created by big business. The role of big money in our system is insulting and is what, to a large degree, fuels this blog. While there are many exceptions, the general pattern is that our wealthiest citizens are driven by greed. Today, the top 1% of Americans are making close to 25% of total income in the country. You would think they would be thankful and generous, and all they think about is how to squeeze more billions out of the system. Take social security. Some time in the next 50 years, social security is going to need to increase revenue or cut benefits. This problem can be solved either by 1) working class Americans taking a bit less than they've been promised, or by 2) making people at the wealthy end of the scale pay a tiny bit more. To the wealthy, this is unacceptable, which is why you periodically hear talk of some sort of a crisis. The wealthy are maneuvering to avoid helping out those who have worked all their lives in their mines, in their factories, on family farms and in their offices. In the long term, their disregard for the welfare of all will lead to their own downfall.

2. Liberals. Liberals have been sleep-walking since the 60s. No major liberal program has been legislated since the 60s and liberals have stood by while the news has become dominated by forces bent on undoing the liberal pillars of our society. Today, they have little means of getting their message out. It's true that it is hard to be passionate when the liberal you elected president is selling out. Or maybe Obama's wimpishness is just typical of all liberals. (Read Sally Kohn's article entitled: "Liberals Pride Themselves on Being Tolerant. Are They Really Just Suckers."http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-pride-themselves-on-being-tolerant-are-they-really-just-suckers/2011/04/13/AFhsTZjD_story.html

1. The American citizen. Not many years ago, maybe 20 years ago, (I'm getting old!), I remember thinking that the American citizen was quite remarkable in his ability to sort through all the nonsense of competing claims and to make decisions based on independent deliberation. Today, I am disheartened. I don't see it happening. It is a very difficult time for the American citizen. Where do you get the truth?

But I do have a couple of thoughts. a) The notion that politics is a sport and that you are rooting for one side to win has to be rejected. Its not just about winning. You have to get the facts right in the same way you do for any other major life decision. b) You need to know and trust the morality of the salesman pitching a certain policy. He should be interested in all points of view, not just selling one because it is profitable to him. If the salesman of an idea makes money from pitching that idea, is funded by private interests, if he lives in Washington year-round, if he has made large sums of money in the politics business and if he won't tell you whether any of the above things are true, then you should not be investing in his product.

Sally Kohn on What is Wrong With Our Economy

I just discovered the writing of Sally Kohn, founder of the Liberal think tank: the Movement Vision Lab.

When I went to read one of her articles on line, a picture of a smiling face was presented with the question: "Do you own an oil company?" Why would that make me giggle? (I shouldn't laugh, because it sounded like it was mocking people with modest lifestyles who vote Republican.) Democracy Now a few weeks ago played this activist folk song entitled something like: "God Help Us, the President Is An Oil Man."

As for what is wrong with the economy, you can read Sally Kohn's op-ed piece in USA Today, May 24: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-24-Dont-believe-national-debt-hype_n.htm#

A few highlights.

1) 8 million people lost their jobs during the last year of the Bush administration and the first few months of the Obama administration. No substantial progress has been made at putting these people back to work.

2) It is tragically misplaced to even contemplate tax cuts for large American business.

Why? Large American Industry is sitting on record levels of capital, which is not being invested to create jobs. Why? Because the American consumer is broke and is not buying anything. American corporations are using their tax-break money to invest in infrastructure, or just saving it for the time when their customers will start spending again.

Conclusion. Tax cuts need to be directed at the consumer. If the consumer is empowered to spend more, industry will be able to do what they already want to do: expand.

3) It is tragically misplaced to be reducing government spending at this time.

Why? Because cutting government spending directly reduces consumer spending. Not to mention that the government is itself a very important consumer.

4) It is tragically misplaced to be obsessed with the deficit and to see a Democratic president obsessing over the deficit with all these people unemployed.

Why? First of all, the biggest cause of the deficit (other than the Bush tax cuts) is that 8 million people stopped paying taxes three years ago, and started depending on the government programs set up to give them temporary support, thereby causing the government to spend more.

Why? Because our deficit, while a big, long-term problem, is not a major problem in the short-term. Sally Kohn provides some perspective. The American government has a debt-to-income ratio of 1-to-1. That means that what we owe is equal to what we take in during one year. The debt-to-income ratio of IBM is 2-1, Dupont 3-1, Boeing 4-1, Caterpillar 14-1. (I won't mention JP Morgan Chase which is at 50-1, because they are too big to fail.)

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Taxes need to be cut immediately on the American consumer. This is in the interest of American business large and small.

2) Republican economic policy is driven by an ideological obsession, hatred for government, which is counter to the interests of American business.

Another outstanding Sally Kohn article is from April 15, entitled: "Liberals Pride Themselves on Being Tolerant. Are They Really Just Suckers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-pride-themselves-on-being-tolerant-are-they-really-just-suckers/2011/04/13/AFhsTZjD_story.html

Of course, I think this is a great article because it seems to say just what I am thinking. In fact, a future blog ruminating in my mind is entitled: "Why Liberals Repeatedly get their Butts Kicked In Debates With Right-Wingers."

Tea Party in Action in Missouri

In April, two University of Missouri professors, Judy Ancel and Don Giljum, were asked to resign in response to a right-wing smear campaign depicting them as liberal radicals and advocates of violence. Giljum, an adjunct professor who had worked for 27 years as business agent for the International Operating Engineers Union, was fired by the union one week before his retirement. The course being taught by the professors was the history of the American labor movement and the specific lesson attacked by the right-wingers was the historical causes of violence in confrontations between labor and management. The truth was that both professors had been very explicit in their condemnation of violence.

This is not an isolated incident. It has become common practice of the radical right-wing to concoct proof for some of their most far-fetched positions. In this case, the slander was directed at the labor movement and was timed to support an attempt in the state legislature to diminish the legal rights of labor, as has already been done in Wisconsin and Ohio. The people involved in concocting the Missouri video were the same people who slandered ACORN, leading to a weird bill about to be passed in Ohio making it difficult for poor people to vote. And remember the video of Shirley Sherrod, temporarily fired by Obama for sounding like a racist? That was made to support the comments of race-baiter Glenn Beck that black people hate America. NPR and Planned Parenthood have also been targeted by these undercover videos.

Here's the story from Missouri. In April, the website BigGovernment.com, run by right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart, posted footage of the labor relations class being taught by Ancel and Giljum. The courses were video-taped by the university so that the two professors could work together with students at the two campuses. On the Big Government video, the professors make a number of statements appearing to back the use of violence in the struggle for labor rights. Judy Ancel of the University of Missouri-Kansas City is presented saying: "Violence is a tactic, and it's to be used when it's appropriate." Don Giljum is quoted saying: "We've had a very violent history, with violent protests in certain instances, strategically played out, and for certain purposes that industrial sabotage doesn't have its place. I think it certainly does."

In fact, the video had been spliced and edited to twist their words. When you watch the videotaped class, you learn that Ancel was actually quoting another person. The following words by Giljum were edited out: "I'm not sure that, as a tactic today, the type of violence or reaction to the violence we had back then would be called for here. I think it would do more harm than good."

The truth has come out, at least enough for the two professors to have their jobs back. But that doesn't mean the right wing won't continue to repeat the same lies. The notion of a university world infested with left-wing activists and allied with an immensely powerful and devious labor world is very important to their ends.

Here are the names of the people involved in this slanderous operation. A student at the St. Louis campus, Philip Christofanelli, was the founder of an organization called Young Americans for Liberty and is affiliated with the Tea Party. It is believed that Christofanelli passed the video on to James O'Keefe, the maker of the undercover videos targeting ACORN, NPR and Planned Parenthood. The spliced and edited video was then posted on BigGovernment.com, the website of Andrew Breitbart, who is currently facing a lawsuit from Shirley Sherrod who he slandered and whose career he ruined.

On April 18, Breitbart had appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, declaring, "We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers." It appears that Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

Breitbart's website went so far as to provide contact information for Ancel and Giljum who received a flurry of threatening e-mails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone.

From Breitbart's website, the slander was passed on by Right-wing talk show host and co-founder of the the St. Louis Tea Party, Dana Loesch, who drew Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder into helping her exploit the situation. Here is what Kinder says on Loesch's radio program:

KINDER: What would be the reaction from the mainstream media, lame stream media, if we had a Tea Party leader out there-

LOESCH: Oh, right.

KINDER: -advocating violence-

LOESCH: Right.

KINDER: -and preaching violence to impressionable young minds? They sit around matter-of-factly- you can hear this on the two videos that are up on Big Government.com., you can see it-matter of factly discussing violent overthrow of the capitalist order or the existing order, the workers taking to the streets and committing violent acts of industrial sabotage. And the speaker, Don Giljum, is the business agent for the International Operating Engineers Union that works at Ameren UE. This is a matter of grave seriousness."

From the right-wing media, the slander was picked up and repeated by the St. Louis Post and a Columbia, Missouri paper.

Finally, the university is barraged with upset citizens, death threats are directed at the victims of the slander, who find their jobs threatened, and in the case of Giljum, he ends his job of 27 years at his labor union by being fired.

There are some bright spots. The university made a forceful defense of their professors and re-hired them. The students in the class responded very actively, defending their professors, denying the lies and also decrying the fact that they also were being slandered. Also, the slander does not seem to have hit any national media outlet.

For further details, you can click the links below:

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/5/18/andrew_breitbarts_electronic_brownshirts

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/17/getting_wise_to_breitbarts_lies_missouri