Ronald Reagan gave us the notion that “Government is the problem.” It’s ironic that as a notorious fiscal conservative, once in office he annihilated the budget. Many of his supporters over the years have claimed that it was an intentional ploy to undermine government---to literally bankrupt it.
Reagan not only cut taxes, but he emasculated the process. His signature action, early in his first term, was to break PATCO, the air traffic controllers union. Reagan fired striking controllers. Mandating that these controllers would never be re-hired, he threw the air traffic system into chaos for years.
Subsequently, and largely fueled by the “anti-government” sentiment which has spread like wildfire, the labor department, SEC, EPA have been gutted by Republicans. It is no surprise that they cannot function properly. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve. Greenspan, a disciple of Ayn Rand, was committed to non-regulation of all industry in this country. This is a bizarre appointment, given that the Federal Reserve’s function is regulation of our financial structure.
Prior to Reagan, government service professionals had pay scales comparable to industry. We now see government attorneys, accountants, regulators and staff with pay scales at a fraction of their private industry counterparts. Regulatory agencies, whose function it is to protect us from the excess and greed of commercial enterprise are not just undermanned, they’re like a high school team facing the NFL. Government pay scales cannot attract high caliber people. They are underfunded, they have antiquated computers, with lesser-qualified technicians. These people really are unable to stand up to industry. We are toast! In the 60s we had a ratio of one government regulator to every industry lobbyist. The ration is now about one to three.
Since the 80s, virtually all Republicans have run on the Reagan platform of cutting taxes, and telling us that government is unable to do anything. We’ve seen that when in power, they deliver government failure, just as promised. Essentially, one half of our government is committed to its own destruction.
Good government is capable of functioning effectively and accomplishing good things, but where is the voice proposing this? There’s NO voice contradicting the Republican message. Democrats fall into line at the campaign finance trough; they shrink in fear of standing up to the combined force of the Republican noise machine, backed by industry and its campaign funding.
History favors the Republican message. Beginning with the McCarthy hearings of the early ‘50s, the press has shied from confronting the right wing. Edward R. Murrow stepped forward to unseat and derail the McCarthy hearings and Joe himself. But the tradition persists. The sad truth is that we have come to believe Republican slogans after hearing them as background noise for so long. Forty years ago Vice President Spiro Agnew launched the Republican policy of undermining the press by labeling it “the liberal press”. William Saffire coined the phrase: “Nattering Nabobs of Negativism,” which Agnew made famous. We mocked Agnew, but still subscribe to his message.
Republicans became accustomed to deferential treatment. Under ("renegade") publisher Otis Chandler, The L. A. Times provided equal coverage to Pat Brown in the ’64 gubernatorial race, prompting Richard Nixon’s outrage: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.” As president, Nixon turned Agnew loose. He also directed the justice department to attack Chandler and The Times in an effort to ruin the Chandler family and the Times’ reputation. It didn’t work. Ultimately Nixon undid himself through paranoid excess.
A movement to alter this pattern must come from US. We must tell our representatives that we want good government, and that begins with campaign reform.
In March, 2010 Cesar Ulloa, a care-giver in an upscale, Calabasas (CA) nursing home, was accused by a co-worker of brutalizing several patients to the point of physical trauma, even death. Ulloa was seen leaping from a chest of drawers onto the chest of an elderly man. He had also been seen striking the head and face of a wheelchair-bound patient with the hands of another patient in an effort to promote a fistfight between the addled, helpless men.
On Apr 13, 1919, a British occupying force killed two to three thousand Indians in Ahmedabad, leading to active resistance to British rule. Mohandas Gandhi organized the resistance, using peaceful obstruction of the brutal government. Hundreds of thousands were killed in the struggle which lasted over 25 years, until the British finally retreated.
In 1955, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Montgomery (Alabama) bus boycott. This brought King to national attention in the civil rights movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and his assassination in April 1966. The hallmark of Dr. King’s movement and strategy was non-violence---passive resistance in the face of brutal and centuries-old aggression and suppression. He was pilloried by the right as a trouble-maker and “Communist.” Party lines at the time were blurred because the vestiges of segregation, most prominent in the South, were still carried by the Democratic Party. As a result of Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights policies, then the presidential campaign of George Wallace, white racists first fled the Democratic Party, then went to the welcoming arms of the Republican Party, where the still reside today.
Over the decades, committed, non-violent resistance has proven to be an effective, even galvanizing tool in promoting social change, but one that has been repulsive to our political right wing. What we see in our political culture now is a right-wing movement, led by Republicans, to undermine a progressive, social trend in response to the “conservative” movement started by Ronald Reagan and brought to its excessive demise by George W. Bush.
It would appear that the overall strategy hashed out behind closed doors in the Republican National Committee is anything but “passive resistance”. Rather than “working within the system”, or presenting a viable alternate program, their strategy is to foment noisy, even violent discord (essentially anarchy) to the extent that operation of the government is not possible. In so doing, presumably, voters will come to realize that a Democratic administration is incapable of effective leadership. Propelled by what is essentially public extortion, we will return Republicans to power, though they appear to have no credible platform, nor candidates with education, character and history of national service, merely to stop their noisy rabble from disrupting our political process.
Republican strategy appears to be the same as that of our young friend, Cesar Ulloa: conduct and promote violence and discord. Through filibuster in the senate and a sustained program of lies, deceit and manipulation directed at their small group of angry, noisy supporters, Republicans have brought our political process to a stop. While Republicans compare our Democratic president to Adolf Hitler, their noisy, gullible rabble of demonstrators is being encouraged toward violent acts directed at government officials.
Rush (Limbaugh) speaks of “Democrats planning to kill you” (“death panels” (?)) and calls the White House “the enemy camp”. Darling Sarah (Palin) posted on her Facebook site a map of the United States showing a list of House Democrats who voted for healthcare reform, with gun-site crosshairs pointing at their districts, and the comment: “Don’t Retreat, Instead---RELOAD!” RNC Chairman, Michael Steele publicly wished for house majority leader, Nancy Pelosi to appear on the “firing line.”
When brought to task, these politicians do not retreat from their attack, or make any attempt to undermine the groundswell of violence and anger that they’re fomenting. Rather than disavowing it, Palin rationalizes her comment by calling it “just a figure of speech.” We wonder if she knows what that means. “Secular-Socialistic Regime”, now a partisan favorite catch-term, is also a figure of speech, carrying connotations far beyond those that might be carried by using the usual term, “The Obama Administration.”
These techniques: fomenting anger, hostility and violence, impel a boisterous, sometimes gun-toting rabble to pursue the Republican agenda. Assembling an apparatus to disrupt government process, intimidate politicians and silence opposition voices harkens back to the Sturmabteilung (S. A.) in Nazi Germany. These groups make up what are essentially our Republican storm troopers or “brown-shirts.” Yet their provocateurs point at the president and invoke Naziesque images of socialism and dictatorship to describe his policies.
Irony extends beyond that. Our Republican darling in Texas, Governor Rick Perry, describes ex-president Bush as a “very, very excellent president”, largely because he “kept us safe”. Kept us safe from what? 9/11? Everyone but our government in denial seemed to know that was coming. ---kept us safe from foreign terrorists after 9-11? OK. But what about domestic terrorists? What is our Republican Party doing to keep us safe from domestic terrorists? They all but endorse bombings and assassination of abortion providers…they wink at right-wing wackos flying airplanes into government buildings. Gun-toting skinheads get front-row attention; they encourage people to take up arms to intimidate or kill our political leaders. How far are we from another Timothy McVeigh, killing hundreds with a truck bomb? Apparently we should only worry about foreign terrorists, while domestic terrorists are advancing the Republican agenda with its gun-slinging rhetoric.
Influenced by the right-wing noise machine, 24% of Americans now consider themselves part of the “tea party’ movement. Two-thirds of Republicans believe our clearly-centrist president is a “socialist” (an obviously pejorative term that means what?), 57% believe he’s a Muslim (so?), and one forth believe him to be the “anti-Christ”. (Evil incarnate?) This is largely generated by irresponsible and harshly partisan misinformation that is being accepted by a shockingly high percentage of our unsophisticated public. When one party is successful in casting its opposition as “evil”, rational discourse is shut down. The “other side” cannot simply be mistaken; it must be evil, selfish, racist, unpatriotic, immoral, or just stupid.
It’s easy to conclude that the Republican Party has crossed the line between loyal opposition and reckless provocation. We might think that responsible politicians would label some recent excesses as deplorable. Rather, on the floor of the senate, after Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus called for civil discourse, his fellow Ohio senator, Republican John Boehner, said Driehaus could be a “dead man” if he voted for healthcare reform. This staggers the imagination, and harkens back to fist fights on the floor of the senate in the mid-19th century.
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that with the departure of George W. Bush in 2008, there were 149 “patriot” (or militia) groups. This number has ballooned to 512 in 2009 with hard times and an African-American president. These groups, along with the “tea partiers” are almost exclusively white. “Serious” threats to members of congress have tripled from 15 in the last 3 months of 2009 to 42 in the first 3 of 2010…this supposedly fueled by anger over a healthcare bill? We think rather not. It’s fueled by bilious lies misrepresenting the nature of the legislation and the Obama administration.
To find an historical parallel, we must go back to the ‘60s when radical, left-wing groups such as the Black Panthers and the SDS (Students for Democratic Society) dominated the discussion over civil rights and the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party of the day denounced this radical fringe. Republicans now foster violent groups and fan the flames of their passion.
It’s difficult to fathom where the GOP thinks this strategy will carry them. At what point do rational, (true) patriots abandon the party, leaving it to its noisy, fringe element? In a recent development, former Republican poster-boy, Charlie Crist, governor of Florida, has abandoned the Republican Party because he won’t go along with politics of discord. He’s now running for senate as an independent.
But the alarming part of this scenario is that bolstered by the Supreme Court, the Republican Party may continue to dictate dialogue and policy even in the face of national rejection. See On the Supreme Court.
It is not, and has never been the design or intent of the editorial staff at Robbinsense to present a political screed, joining the cascade of partisan noise that dominates our national dialogue. We have made every effort to see issues from all angles. But the intensity of the political noise that’s consuming our political dialogue during what is perhaps our greatest crisis since WW II cries out for inspection.
“Politics of discord” is about the worst elements in our body politic, and it’s generated by a dysfunctional election system, driven by money. Of our two major parties, common knowledge tells us that both are guilty of the same elements of dysfunction. But to this observer, the Republican Party has taken the politics of discord to a level that threatens our nation.
Even after our financial melt-down, Republicans continue to sing the praises of the free market: lower taxes, shrink government and let the market guide us. When in power, however, rather than shrink government, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush emasculated it and expanded it to a bloated mess. Market forces are not capable of guiding us upon a path of an equitable society. Market forces, like corporations are directed by people---rich, powerful people for whom five, fifty or even a hundred million dollars is inadequate. Free-market forces have turned these people into billionaires. Our enormous economy has been commandeered by the powerful to funnel money from the poor and middle class toward themselves. Inflation-adjusted wages for the middle and lower classes are significantly down since commencement of the Republican "conservative" movement in 1981, while accumulation of wealth among the prosperous classes has skyrocketed. There’s no end to the greed.
Our last three decades have been dominated by “conservative” government and guided by a drive toward deregulation by the likes of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Alan Greenspan. Even Bill Clinton to some extent participated in the deregulation mania. These policies have brought us to the brink of financial collapse and social disintegration. The heart of our democracy lies in the middle class. But as our disparity in wealth soars and our wealthy class amasses fortunes, our middle class is sinking into poverty.
The irony of our present situation is that the voice of this sinking, angry middle class has been commandeered by the Republican Party to do its bidding, even though it advocates continuation of all that is causing this mess and intends to do nothing to change course! The Republican right wing, along with its media stars (Rush, Bill, Ann, Glenn, Sarah, etc.) direct our national course with brilliant manipulation of ignorant people through the use of lies, smoke and “defining the agenda”. Such catch-phrases as “death taxes”, “liberal media”, “death panels”, “socialism”, and now “secular-socialist regime” capture the fancy of our great middle classes, which have been softened up andconditioned for manipulation by advertising gimmickry.
For the Republicans this is not about assembling good government; it’s about causing, then denouncing bad government. This party has made an art-form of manipulating misinformed people to elect them to office from which they unravel the very structure of government. It’s about getting elected---using our stupidity against us. It’s about power and the monetary rewards of holding office in a dysfunctional system.
Evidence abounds that the Democrats are largely guilty of the same abuse of this system, but their apparatus and focus is second-rate. We may tell ourselves smugly that the politics of discord doesn’t work---Republicans will self-destruct and fall from grace. But evidence shows otherwise. During the Clinton years, senate Republicans blocked all “reasonable” nominations to the Supreme Court. This tactic continues today, leaving President Obama wary of nominating anyone left of center to the post. Republicans justify stonewalling highly-qualified nominees by pointing out that Democrats blocked or opposed the nomination of [such pathetic candidates as] Robert Bork, Anton Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers and John Roberts. This tactic has been a major success! With a combination of stonewalling in the senate and refusing to nominate decent candidates when holding the presidency, Republicans have stacked the court with political hacks. In so doing, they have the Supreme Court, one third of our government, locked up for years to come---elections notwithstanding.
The strategy to control the presidency is the same. Republicans justify a coordinated attack on President Obama by recalling the public ridicule and lament directed at George W. Bush during his eight-year tenure. But the chorus of criticism directed at President Bush was a spontaneous, grass-roots response to blatantly bad government and his embarrassing lack of grace. In contrast, Mr. Obama is an eloquent and dignified man…a centrist by any rational measure. The harsh criticism directed at Obama is not a spontaneous outcry from the people---it’s being orchestrated by the Republican Party. It’s come down to the appearance of undignified senators standing on the balcony of the capitol, waving their arms to fan the ardor of passionate protesters. (Even the Nazis refused to stoop this low. Neither Hitler’s lieutenants nor the SS had any public contact with the SA, led by Ernst Rohm. After Hitler assumed total power, he killed Rohm and disbanded the apparatus of the S. A.) Our protesters are not responding to Mr. Obama’s policy proposals or stupid remarks, they’re responding to the lies and distortions of brilliant demagoguery generated and repeated over and over from Republican Party apparatus.
It’s possible that Republicans will succeed in stymieing President Obama’s leadership to the extent that our country will wallow on for three more years. Mr. Obama seemed to have learned the lesson of his “bi-partisan effort” during the healthcare debate. We at Robbinsense suggest that he abandon gestures of bi-partisanship and move directly toward the change that we need with the resources that stand behind him. We hope that the American people will stand up and shoulder some of that load. Among other things, we must start a citizen movement to reverse “Citizens United” and get serious about campaign reform.
We still get chills when hearing Mr. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. But it appears that “…government of the people, by the people, for the people...” has perished from our land. Today we have government by Wall Street for the corporations and moneyed elite. Take a stand.
Much has been written, said and shouted recently about the resurgence of the financial services industry. It appears to have re-surfaced in much the same form that it collapsed a short 30 months ago. Profits are flowing in, the market is flowing up, and bonuses are flowing back to the same managers who brought the world-wide financial structure to near-collapse.
Much of the controversy revolves around derivatives, which have been recognized as a large component of the structural risk in the market. It seems obvious enough that this instrument, convoluted and opaque to public scrutiny, should be regulated either out of existence or at least into submission. Why has this not been done?
Derivatives may take a number of forms. In Financial Disservices, Robbinsense, Feb ’09, we briefly described a derivative as a contract for an option to buy an instrument at a future time for a given price. Since it varies with the rate of return on a separate financial instrument, it “derives” its value from the other. To explain this a little clearer, let’s use a couple of examples.
Many are familiar with the commodities market, or at least the concept of “futures”. Because farmers have a one-year production cycle and there are many variables in bringing harvest to market, a futures market developed around agriculture. In an effort to bring stability to his production, the farmer attempts to reduce the elements of chance surrounding such factors as weather and fuel costs. The farmer attempts to buy essential products such as seed, fuel, fertilizer on the “futures” market, that is, he buys a future commitment to sell these commodities at a given price. If he can then sell his harvest ahead of time on the same market, he can be assured of a certain level of profit, so long as the weather cooperates enough to bring harvest to market.
One can see why farmers (with a large contingent of congressional support) might resist regulation or change to this system. As “end users” of the product there is some justification that these “derivatives” be allowed to continue. Another example is in the airline industry. Airlines don’t sell their product in a store; they sell it usually electronically, often months in advance. As such, they quote a price and need some confidence in what fuel will cost at the time of the flight. Without this, passengers would face last-minute refunds or surcharges. Airlines buy fuel on the futures market to “hedge” their costs. As such, airlines are “end-users”.
Not surprisingly, every industry has its own stake in continuation of this system, pressing congress to exempt it from regulation. Finally, we arrive at what is presently our largest (as well as until recently, fastest-growing) industry: financial services. Well, guess what, derivatives are also an “end-product” for this industry, and it makes a ton of money on them (especially when they’re insured by the national treasury). It may not appear “logical” to you and me that the many forms of these volatile instruments should be protected for this industry, which adds nothing to our GNP, but when you consider that the “case” for continued deregulation of these instruments is accompanied by hundreds of million of lobbying money, suddenly it all makes sense.
For all intents and purposes, congress is paralyzed in the face of the blizzard of lobbyists and money thrown into this effort. This brings us back, of course, to “business as usual”.
The public is ambivalent about regulation of the financial services industry, largely because of "conditioning". In the 1950s we were led to believe that "What's good for GM is good for America." Over the last 15 years, with the "liberal" media (oh sure!) blitz to support it, we've come to actually believe that's what's good for Wall Street, or The Dow Jones Industrial Average, is good for America. Actually, what's good for the financial sector is good for corporations and our moneyed elite. This does not make it necessarily good for America, and in some cases just the opposite. The financial services industry has pumped over $2.33 Billion into lobbying since 1989; we know they get their money's worth. Goldman Sachs in 2006 (the year before the collapse) paid a whopping 10% tax on income, which is taxed as capitol gains, while their own janitors pay far more.
In the face of a "typical" decade producing 20% to 30% growth in jobs, the "aughts" generated no job growth. Essentially, we have the "Stockholm Syndrome" in play here, with our lower classes being grateful for any crumbs thrown down by this giant squid of an industry.
Leadership from the president has the potential to break up this log-jam and produce meaningful regulation...if he steps forward. Keep your eyes on the debate.
The new Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 has taken the country by storm. Everyone from Republican legislators to Major League Baseball and the NBA have denounced the law as a major affront to our freedoms, yet it is widely popular among white, middle-class citizens.
In between accusations that the Obama “Secular-Socialist Regime” will take us straight to Nazi Germany, Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of police conducting identification checks for “suspicious” people on the streets. There is word now that the Hew Hampshire legislature is planning a corresponding law to stem the flow of illegals into that state. Soon the Montpelier Patrol will be able to stop and question anyone who looks like they might be Canadian.
So what have we to do? The most obvious recourse for this law is review by the courts. But considering the notorious rightward tilt of Arizona (Goldwater country), the obvious candidate would be the Supreme Court, which has seen fit in recent times to look into elections, sports strikes and “pulling the tubes” cases on the spur of the moment. So why not address this issue?
With Justices Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas on his side, Roberts has the majority needed to push the Republican agenda down our throats even in the face of a congress stacked against them by popular vote. Hence, we do not see this court overturning Arizona SB 1070, it may be left to the Justice Department to find redress over this matter. It’s also possible that boycotts from groups and even citizens could have a great enough impact on the state economy that Arizonans may see it in a different light.
Looking back on "Citizens United": beyond events on the national scale, courts at all levels of government will be affected by this landmark decision. Most states require periodic re-election of judges. Judicial appointments become partisan positions that require campaign funding. This ruling increases exponentially the amount of money that can flow into a judicial election, even at the local level. What judge can afford to make a ruling against a powerful commercial interest when that corporation has the power to unseat him in his next election? Between 1980 and 1990 $85 Million was put into judicial elections. In the following decade it went to $200 Million. The lid is now off. This has the potential to undermine our entire legal system by putting all courts in play. Good luck.
Hi, I'm Mark Robbins and this is my blog. I enjoy writing and sharing my thoughts with others, regarding politics, music, wine, golf and news of the day. Enjoy---and hey, I hope you'll join the discussion with comments.
This is my alter-ego, Jackson Dave. He's a Robbinsense staff writer and as a young man, he sees through a broader lens. I hope you'll enjoy his columns.
Poor Mexico, The violence will never end 'til they stop the flow of drugs!
`
Newt Gingrich
"I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics."
