Over the past few months, I've come across several articles on how progressives do not get the real appeal of consevative rhetoric. We sit and wonder how anyone not well off could vote Republican when doing so is clearly against their best economic interests. A good part of the answer is in how conservatives have coopted the issue of freedom.. Over the course of the past 30 or so years, they have defined freedom as the freedom of the market. They have convinced a significant number of people that the freedom to make and keep money is what essentially defines freedom. Add to that a few misunderstandings about freedom of religion and the right of well-regulated militias to bear arms and, voila, Republicans become the party of freedom. What can be more American than the freedom of the market and what can be more detrimental to personal freedom than a government that tries to regulate markets to even the playing field.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, people continue to believe the free market propaganda. The unregulated market is not reasonable and does not foster the well being or freedom of the majority.
There is still a chance to get this message out and then to recapture the high ground on this one. I mean whatever happened to freedom of speech, of assembly, against unreasonable search and seizure, and FDR's "added" freedoms from fear and from want. These are freedoms too and we should be proud of the role that progressive policies have in ensuring them.
For government has a clear role in protecting the freedom of its citizens. A primary function of a democratic government is to protect the less powerful from the more powerful, the minority from the tyranny of the majority. No one needs to be coerced into working in unsafe conditions, paying exorbitant prices, breathing unsafe air, drinking unsafe water, or prevented from living in a good neighborhood. No one should live in fear or want.
We may not be able to get the message out in time for the 2012 elections but we should start changing the conversation. Otherwise we may be looking at another 30 years of failed conservative policies and our continuing devolution into a plutocracy.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
SOTU 2012
President Obama's 2012 blandly populist but business friendly (lowering the corporate tax rate) State of the Union speech broke little new ground. As noted by many commentators, one of the chief drivers for the speech was to sharpen the contrast between his vision for America and that of the Republicans in preparation for the 2012 election cycle.
The President gave a summary of his administration's progress in moderating the recesssion handed us by the previous administration. He presented an optimistic assessment of the future and rehashed his now familiar vision of how America can create more jobs by concentrating on investment in new industries and education. He tapped into the currently popular themes of anger against risky bank investments, the US taxes paid by multinationals, and corporate tax loopholes and he built on the "fair deal" themes from his Kansas speech and the "Buffet rule".
About the only new ideas were the initiative for loosening the restrictions around refinancing home mortgages, his encouragement to states to make high school education mandatory until age 18 or graduation, and his request (to Harry Reid?) to scale back the Senate filibuster rule so that an up-or-down vote on judicial and other nominees would be required within 90 days.
All well and good but maybe the truest statement he made was one he clearly did not agree with. Paraphrasing the President: "I know many of you think that nothing will get done this year or maybe next year..." After 3 full years of Republican obstructionism, does he really think that anything will change? They are close to the finish line in their primary objective of making him a one-term president. Why should they do anything that will give him a "win"? With the voter suppression laws passed in Republican-controlled states, the redistricting that followed the 2010 census that has Boehner asserting that Republicans will control the House for the next decade, and the huge influx of corporate and anonymous funding made possible by SCOTUS' Citizens United decision - it's very possible that Obama will be ousted or if elected will be hamstrung by Republicans in Congress.
The only things that stand in the way of this rout are a massive turnout of the as-yet-unenergized Left and a clear strategy to counter the Republican alternative reality. Aided by unrestricted funding and the right-wing media echo machine, this view will be promoted constantly from now until election day.
There is a core of at least 30% of the electorate who will never vote for Obama or for any Democrat no matter what. There are another 5 million votes that will potentially not be cast because of the voter suppression laws currently on the books in the 14 or so states. Some independents may be wooed - especially if someone other than Romney is nominated and if Democrats can counter the distortions floating through the airwaves (see David Frum's critique) and the blog sphere - see factcheck.org's analysis of the alleged (and nonsensical) 150% increase in Medicare premiums due to "Obamacare". But in the end it will be the turnout of all of Obama's 2008 base that will be needed to secure the election. Let's do all we can and let's all show up at the polls November 6th.
The President gave a summary of his administration's progress in moderating the recesssion handed us by the previous administration. He presented an optimistic assessment of the future and rehashed his now familiar vision of how America can create more jobs by concentrating on investment in new industries and education. He tapped into the currently popular themes of anger against risky bank investments, the US taxes paid by multinationals, and corporate tax loopholes and he built on the "fair deal" themes from his Kansas speech and the "Buffet rule".
About the only new ideas were the initiative for loosening the restrictions around refinancing home mortgages, his encouragement to states to make high school education mandatory until age 18 or graduation, and his request (to Harry Reid?) to scale back the Senate filibuster rule so that an up-or-down vote on judicial and other nominees would be required within 90 days.
All well and good but maybe the truest statement he made was one he clearly did not agree with. Paraphrasing the President: "I know many of you think that nothing will get done this year or maybe next year..." After 3 full years of Republican obstructionism, does he really think that anything will change? They are close to the finish line in their primary objective of making him a one-term president. Why should they do anything that will give him a "win"? With the voter suppression laws passed in Republican-controlled states, the redistricting that followed the 2010 census that has Boehner asserting that Republicans will control the House for the next decade, and the huge influx of corporate and anonymous funding made possible by SCOTUS' Citizens United decision - it's very possible that Obama will be ousted or if elected will be hamstrung by Republicans in Congress.
The only things that stand in the way of this rout are a massive turnout of the as-yet-unenergized Left and a clear strategy to counter the Republican alternative reality. Aided by unrestricted funding and the right-wing media echo machine, this view will be promoted constantly from now until election day.
There is a core of at least 30% of the electorate who will never vote for Obama or for any Democrat no matter what. There are another 5 million votes that will potentially not be cast because of the voter suppression laws currently on the books in the 14 or so states. Some independents may be wooed - especially if someone other than Romney is nominated and if Democrats can counter the distortions floating through the airwaves (see David Frum's critique) and the blog sphere - see factcheck.org's analysis of the alleged (and nonsensical) 150% increase in Medicare premiums due to "Obamacare". But in the end it will be the turnout of all of Obama's 2008 base that will be needed to secure the election. Let's do all we can and let's all show up at the polls November 6th.
Monday, January 16, 2012
MLK Day 2012
Today as we celebrate what would have been the 83rd birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., there is an African-American in the White House and The Greatest heavyweight boxer of all time is about to turn 70.
Because of Dr. King's work and those of thousands of lesser known civil rights activists, Barack Obama was able to be elected President of the United States in 2008, something totally inconceivable at the time Martin Luther King began his efforts for social justice and peace more than 50 years ago. In 1964, MLK was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and discrimination using civil disobedience and other non-violent methods. At 35, he was the youngest person ever to receive this Peace Prize. His efforts culminated in Congress passing and President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Martin Luther King's opposition to the Vietnam War is less widely known. As he became more outspoken against the war, he lost the support of some former allies in the struggle for civil rights and his popularity among the American populace began to drop. Some credit the example of Muhammed Ali who announced his intention to resist induction in 1966 (and subsequently be stripped of his heavyweight crown) with influencing Dr. King to take this more vocal stand against the war. Muhammed Ali was and is so much more than a boxer. His former rival, George Foreman, describes Ali in words that have also been applied to Martin Luther King - a prophet, a hero, a revolutionary. Both King and Ali opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds and both were ostracized for it. In the end, history has proven them right.
Opposition to war still meets with charges of "unpatriotic" or "un-American". This will never change as long as jingoists, self-styled patriots and militarists can raise the specter of the "other" and strike fear into the minds of the citizenry. And it won't change until the military-industrial complex's money is taken out of the political system.
A more disturbing trend though is the increasing tendency to blame the victims of social injustice and inequity. Efforts to ameliorate the damaging effects of poverty and of the Great Recession are met with cries of "income redistribution" and "socialism". There is an illness, a new meanness in the body politic. As Tony Judt wrote in his 2010 book, Ill Fares the Land, “As recently as the 1970’s, the idea that the point of life was to get rich and that governments existed to facilitate this would have been ridiculed.”
Couple this with the ongoing Republican attempts to reverse gains in voting rights and this illness may become endemic and long-lasting. Do we really want a nation where corporations are granted "personhood" and the right to pour unlimited money into the coffers of politicians who will defend their interests while we deny up to 5 million of our "real" citizens the right to vote?
Martin Luther King and Muhammed Ali were true heroes. They were unafraid to speak truth to power. We should always do likewise.
And here's hoping that Obama, in a second term, will be able to fulfill the promise of hope and change that he inspired in us and in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in 2008.
Links
NPR's "Story behind the "Beyond Vietnam"
"Why I Am Opposed to War in Vietnam" [Excerpts of a Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967]
TLBC Oct 31, 2011 post on the organized Republican effort to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democratic in the next election.
George Foreman Interview (ShortList, reported in UK Daily Mirror)
Because of Dr. King's work and those of thousands of lesser known civil rights activists, Barack Obama was able to be elected President of the United States in 2008, something totally inconceivable at the time Martin Luther King began his efforts for social justice and peace more than 50 years ago. In 1964, MLK was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and discrimination using civil disobedience and other non-violent methods. At 35, he was the youngest person ever to receive this Peace Prize. His efforts culminated in Congress passing and President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Martin Luther King's opposition to the Vietnam War is less widely known. As he became more outspoken against the war, he lost the support of some former allies in the struggle for civil rights and his popularity among the American populace began to drop. Some credit the example of Muhammed Ali who announced his intention to resist induction in 1966 (and subsequently be stripped of his heavyweight crown) with influencing Dr. King to take this more vocal stand against the war. Muhammed Ali was and is so much more than a boxer. His former rival, George Foreman, describes Ali in words that have also been applied to Martin Luther King - a prophet, a hero, a revolutionary. Both King and Ali opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds and both were ostracized for it. In the end, history has proven them right.
Opposition to war still meets with charges of "unpatriotic" or "un-American". This will never change as long as jingoists, self-styled patriots and militarists can raise the specter of the "other" and strike fear into the minds of the citizenry. And it won't change until the military-industrial complex's money is taken out of the political system.
A more disturbing trend though is the increasing tendency to blame the victims of social injustice and inequity. Efforts to ameliorate the damaging effects of poverty and of the Great Recession are met with cries of "income redistribution" and "socialism". There is an illness, a new meanness in the body politic. As Tony Judt wrote in his 2010 book, Ill Fares the Land, “As recently as the 1970’s, the idea that the point of life was to get rich and that governments existed to facilitate this would have been ridiculed.”
Couple this with the ongoing Republican attempts to reverse gains in voting rights and this illness may become endemic and long-lasting. Do we really want a nation where corporations are granted "personhood" and the right to pour unlimited money into the coffers of politicians who will defend their interests while we deny up to 5 million of our "real" citizens the right to vote?
Martin Luther King and Muhammed Ali were true heroes. They were unafraid to speak truth to power. We should always do likewise.
And here's hoping that Obama, in a second term, will be able to fulfill the promise of hope and change that he inspired in us and in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in 2008.
Links
NPR's "Story behind the "Beyond Vietnam"
"Why I Am Opposed to War in Vietnam" [Excerpts of a Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967]
TLBC Oct 31, 2011 post on the organized Republican effort to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democratic in the next election.
George Foreman Interview (ShortList, reported in UK Daily Mirror)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Failed War on Drugs
The results of a 20 year study on marijuana use, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that "occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function." In other words, it's not the same as cigarettes which contain known carcinogens and lead to lung as well as heart disease. This adds yet another reason to decriminalize marijuana.
But maybe we should go beyond this relatively harmless drug and examine the decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs.
More than half of the prisoners in state and Federal prisons are there for drug offenses. Since 1980, the number of prisoners incarcerated for drugs has increased 1412%. The US, the Land of the Free, leads the world in the per capita incarceration with its more than 2 million prisoners . The savings for the country would be in the tens of billions of dollars annually - not to mention the enormous expenditure of law enforcement resources on battling drugs. All this money that could be better spent on education and improving people's lives so that they don't have to turn to drugs for escape from a sometimes harsh and brutal existence.
Decriminalization would also reduce the bias built into our legal system. The odds that you will be incarcerated for a drug offense are significantly greater if you are a person of color or poor.
It seems that hardly a week goes by without our hearing of murder and mayhem in Mexico related to the war on drugs, a failed war by any measure. Drug decriminalization would take the profit out of the narcotics trade and reduce the violence that has been all too common - especially in recent years. Economist Jeffrey Miron in a 2009 CNN commentary advocated this position. He noted that prohibition causes violence because it drives the market underground and pointed out that "violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after." Drugs could be taxed and controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco - two other potentially addictive substances.
Which brings us to addiction...drug addiction is not always a victimless crime. The toll on families can be great. The toll on the individual can be devastating. To reduce the danger of addiction, the more addictive drugs could be controlled with the issue of licenses for consumption. The goal would be preventing or curing addiction. When addiction is detected (for example, by someone applying for drugs above the licensed amount), medical assistance would be given to the addicted user. (For details on one suggested approach to achieve total decriminalization, follow the link to a 1996 report prepared by a task force in the Netherlands.)
But maybe we should go beyond this relatively harmless drug and examine the decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs.
More than half of the prisoners in state and Federal prisons are there for drug offenses. Since 1980, the number of prisoners incarcerated for drugs has increased 1412%. The US, the Land of the Free, leads the world in the per capita incarceration with its more than 2 million prisoners . The savings for the country would be in the tens of billions of dollars annually - not to mention the enormous expenditure of law enforcement resources on battling drugs. All this money that could be better spent on education and improving people's lives so that they don't have to turn to drugs for escape from a sometimes harsh and brutal existence.
Decriminalization would also reduce the bias built into our legal system. The odds that you will be incarcerated for a drug offense are significantly greater if you are a person of color or poor.
It seems that hardly a week goes by without our hearing of murder and mayhem in Mexico related to the war on drugs, a failed war by any measure. Drug decriminalization would take the profit out of the narcotics trade and reduce the violence that has been all too common - especially in recent years. Economist Jeffrey Miron in a 2009 CNN commentary advocated this position. He noted that prohibition causes violence because it drives the market underground and pointed out that "violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after." Drugs could be taxed and controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco - two other potentially addictive substances.
Which brings us to addiction...drug addiction is not always a victimless crime. The toll on families can be great. The toll on the individual can be devastating. To reduce the danger of addiction, the more addictive drugs could be controlled with the issue of licenses for consumption. The goal would be preventing or curing addiction. When addiction is detected (for example, by someone applying for drugs above the licensed amount), medical assistance would be given to the addicted user. (For details on one suggested approach to achieve total decriminalization, follow the link to a 1996 report prepared by a task force in the Netherlands.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)