With our state on the brink of financial collapse, we find a couple of the most compelling political contests in memory. As usual, to sort out the issues involved in these races, we’re presented a distorted mush of non-information.
One might expect that with the gravity of the issues we face statewide, as well as nationally, these candidates might offer up something for real consideration…but so far, nothing.
Nationally, the Republican Party is breaking away from the network of old, white guys. Aside from Sarah Palin, on a national level, the party proudly touts the arrival on the scene of young, attractive, successful women, such as Michele Bachmann (Minnesota), Michelle Malkin (highly-touted political blogger), Nikki Haley (Georgia), along with author-columnist, and FoxNews perennials Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. So in California, they’re showcasing two of the new breed.
Both women are well-spoken, independent businesswomen…both from the world of technology. Carly Fiorina, former head of Hewlett Packard, opposes the incumbent Barbara Boxer for Senate, while Meg Whitman is running for governor. Both, of course, tout their business experience and credentials as evidence of political acumen. We are not sure that this translates; but aside from that, both come with curious baggage.
Fiorina, know as “Chainsaw Carly” (for “outsourcing” thousands of jobs), after turning H/P into the largest computer manufacturer in the world, was forced out in 2005 by H/P board of directors, amid controversy that she stood “more for Carly than for HP.” It will be interesting to see how far she can get on the “jobs” issue in the face of her own record.
Whitman, on the other hand, is not only a political unknown, but she presents a record of disinterest in politics, not bothering to vote for some twenty-eight years. Her most note-worthy characteristic is a titanic temper. Beyond well-documented tantrums of screaming and throwing things, in 2007 she “woman-handled” a subordinate to the tune of a $200,000 “confidential” settlement. That’s some “push!”
It would be interesting to see how Ms. Whitman’s patience might hold up confronting the muddle of the California Constitution, as well as a disinterested electorate and do-nothing legislature. Politics is, after all, the art of making the impossible come to life. We have just seen what a truly dynamic “outsider” might accomplish in seven years with Governor Schwarzenegger.
The contrast between these two women and their Democratic opponents is striking. Barbara Boxer is probably known as thoroughly as anyone in the senate. Long a lightening rod for the right wing, she is a steadfast voice for the left. An outspoken critic of our current war posture, Boxer is not afraid to step forward behind her convictions. Right-wingers and Republicans relish in loathing her; but with California’s strong “blue” tilt it would appear unlikely that Fiorina could mount a serious challenge. Still, with her sizable fortune committed to the effort, and an even more surprising victory by Scott Brown in Massachusetts, anything could happen.
Also running for governor, Jerry Brown, is just about as far from Whitman as we might imagine. Brown comes from a family long-connect to California politics.His father, "Pat", was a 2-term governor, while sister, Kathleen, is a former state treasurer and former strong candidate for governor. Brown is clearly a committed, public servant, having held a string of prominent public positions, including governor, Secretary of State, mayor (Oakland) and Attorney General. As well as anyone, he knows the ins and outs of state politics, and is "grandfathered" out of the two-term restriction. In a 40-year career under the scrutiny of public life, he has no significant scandals or flaps to exploit. Aside from being called “Governor Moonbeam”, in all of those years and positions, the only raps that emerge against him appear to be (ironically) that while governor he sat on a $5 Billion dollar budget surplus, (okay), and that he was instrumental in passage of a measure to seal gubernatorial records for 50 years… well this is a troubling position.
At any rate, with Whitman’s sizable war chest and her commitment to “bare-knuckles” campaigning, here also, anything is possible.
Still, the campaign features no substantive messages from any of these camps. Instead, all we’ve gotten so far is mud-slinging. It’s likely that this will persist to the end. The sad truth is that it’s almost certain that if a candidate proposed a program that would solve our state’s (or country’s) problems, the voters would reject it. We are accustomed to being told we can have all that we want without paying for it. Even in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, prominent Republicans continue to insist that government can increase revenue by cutting taxes. We don’t imagine that they actually believe this canard; but we acknowledge that they believe it has a decent chance to get them elected. At times that seems to be all that Republican candidates and politicians care about.
A substantive breakthrough in these contests would be refreshing, but let's not be too quick to condemn---we get the kind of government that we demand.
From the Boulder (Co) desk of correspondent William Jellick:
'Eight years of Bush and Cheney created an insidious, pervasive rot throughout the government—a rot so severe that it prevented the government from carrying out its most basic functions and, as we have now seen, could not be easily undone by a new administration. The pro-oil, anti-regulatory culture, agenda, and ideology relentlessly advanced by Cheney and others in the Bush administration unquestionably led to the catastrophe that now threatens to destroy the environment and economy of America’s Gulf Coast—Cheney’s Katrina.'
These guys had one agenda - clear the regulatory decks to make as much money as possible.
....and here's the article that backs up that claim.
ed. note: you may need to copy/paste this link to your browser to get it up.
also,
Never thought I'd live to see the day... (David) Stockman, Reagan's OMB director, slams the Republican party in this NYT op-ed today. Lays blame for our current economic mess on 40 years of Republicanism - starting with Nixon's decision to move off the gold standard - which he was encouraged to do by none other than the high-priest of the 'free-market-as-panacea-to-everything' religion - Milton Friedman (Keith - I remember you railing about the worthlessness of our money 15 years ago).
Of course, it's also a slam at what he considers Democratic economic policy, implying that Republicans have morphed into their own enemy as deficit-deaf entitlement-drunks. But trying to unwind the problem with his medication, at this point in time, would certainly kill the patient - if you believe Krugman, Stiglitz - and of course, Keynes - who point to Hoover's devastating policy to enact fiscal discipline in the early 30's as putting the word 'great' into what might have merely been a 'severe' depression.
'...it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.' ...Stockman
Only last week it looked like we were on the verge of re-regulating the industry. Then Senator Byrd dies; political dynamics of the senate change; Republicans shift their votes and the “super-majority” is lost. Is this any way to run a government? We’re back to square one.
Check this scenario:
Joe Thompson buys an old house---a fixer-upper, really a “tear-downer”, for $85,000. He hires an unscrupulous contractor who for $50,000 gives the place a good “cosmetic” facelift. Next he hires a property assessor, known to be somewhat less than thorough. This gleaming, remodeled house is “appraised” at a cool $275,000. Joe can’t really sell the place because any decent inspector would look beneath the façade; so he takes up residence and two months later there’s a mysterious fire that burns the place to the ground. The insurance company pays off and Joe doubles his “investment” until someone in the fire department asks too many questions.
So what does Joe end up with, and what do we call this? We call it arson and fraud; Joe gets 8 to 20, with parole after 5. Joe defrauded an insurance company.
Scenario 2:
McNulty and Smith run a commercial bank and control pension funds for large manufacturing firms. With assets of nine billion dollars, and real estate on a run, they sell mortgages to anyone who comes along: “You can’t lose money on real estate; Just sign here for the loan---don’t worry about paying it off; you can sell the house in a year and make a big profit.” M&S makes a cool commission on each of the mortgage transactions.
Then they hire an unscrupulous rating agency, Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitches. They pay one of these “highly-respected” companies to rate these securities AAA, bundle large quantities into “Mortgage-based Securities” and sell them (“dispose” of them) on the international market. Oh, they get a nice commission on that sale also.
This all looks like a pretty smooth operation. But it gets better. The executive board at M&S knows very well that these loans aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. So they “short” the securities, or the firms who bought them, sit back and wait. The inevitable occurs: the bottom falls out of the real estate market; values tumble; M&S complete their transactions, buying back the investments at a small fraction of what they sold them for.
Meanwhile, millions of struggling “home-owners” all over the country are thrown into financial turmoil. “Buying into the American Dream” has become a nightmare. Unsuspecting pensioners all over the world lose their life savings.
So what does M&S get for this piece of work and what do we call it? We call it “banking” and the managers at M&S become wealthy beyond the dreams of Avarice. The financial losses of millions of little people end up lining the pockets and mansions of these few fat-cats. We also call it “Shorting the American dream.”
No, my friends, this is not a “hypothetical” scenario. This is the way our bankers operate. Look into the report on Magnetar’s operation that hit the news in the past month.
Is this “legal?” Yes. Who pays for the losses of the big banks? We add that to the national debt. Can’t we put a stop to this? Apparently not. For the last year, the industry has been pouring a million dollars a day(!) into lobbying congress to keep the door open for this kind of scheme. And the Republican Party is not going to sit back and let the government impose new rules on the industry without a fight. You can bet that enough Democratic legislators are also scooping up chunks of this cash to keep them from moving the Rep’s aside.
Write to your congressmen; look into their voting.
A generation ago, the nation watched as flap after flap, misstep after misstep washed off President Reagan. In his second term, with advancing Alzheimer’s, the man was no more coherent than George W. Bush. He was, however, adored by Republicans, and he bamboozled us with “credit card prosperity.” Reagan acquired the cognomen, the “Teflon” president. Nothing stuck.
President Obama, entrusted to protect us and reverse the tides of dispute and chaos, is under siege. Can he operate under such duress? Is he doing his job? Is he really under fire? Robbinsense thinks not.
Suppose: A nameless president contracts to a foreign oil producer for a difficult project, a company with a history of accidents without satisfactory resolution, of poor safety and quality control. A year later this president announces support of renewed drilling in off-shore and eco-sensitive sites. Suppose: Above project subsequently goes ballistic and because of safety precautions below international standards, begins spewing an ocean of oil into the ocean. Unnamed president claims the contractor is on top of the situation, and eleven days pass before he appears to survey the damage. Suppose that the feckless contractor had contributed heavily to this president’s campaign… What would we expect the response of the “environmental” community to be---the response of the left-wing punditry to such a petro-president? If it were George W. Bush, the howl would be deafening. But the contractor was, of course, BP, and the un-named president, Obama.
BP spent $15.9 Million in 2009 on lobbying. What does it get for this “access?” In 2005 an explosion at its Texas City refinery killed 15 and sent 43,000 fleeing to the safety of shelters. The Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board concluded this was caused by “company deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation”, including several cost-cutting measures. A $50 Million fine, in face of $17.2 Billion profit in 2007, was less than a slap on the wrist…murder, even manslaughter charges: all dropped.
In 2006 The Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into two massive BP oil spills in Alaska caused by corroded pipes. The danger was apparent to all, but the “corporate” decision was made to let the pipes fail and pay the fine, which would be less expensive than fixing the pipes. The proposed, massive investigation would reach well into the boardrooms of the London-based corporation, but the Bush administration dropped the prosecution in favor of a $20 Million fine and a misdemeanor charge. The list of prominent names on the BP lobby panel is a virtual who’s who of the last three administrations. BP has been one of the largest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon for several years.
This impropriety, leading to disaster, is but one of many problems that we find with conduct of this administration. Our wars continue: drugs (Reagan), Afghanistan (Bush, with complicity from congress), Iraq (Bush under false pretense), terror (Bush, orchestrated by a demagogic fear campaign), Pakistan (Bush/Obama).
Mr. Obama has largely adopted the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as his own. In Afghanistan we still have over 100,000 troops behind President Karzai, heading an egregiously corrupt government with little public support. We’re dumping $12 Billion per month into this futile effort, ensuring the enmity of their people and the fertility of the country as a matrix for terrorism. We’ve now had more than a thousand American troops killed in that country, plus 4000 civilians killed by our military forces, innocents with no connection to 9/11 or ill intent to our safety. This does not include the thousands killed by their own people for collaborating with our pipe-dream efforts. Does anyone know what our objective is there? Are we trying to turn Afghanistan into a Western style democracy? Those people have their own culture and institutions to sort out. Our interference adds to their litany of woes.
Our military’s own report on a February Predator attack which killed between 21 and 27 civilians found the bombing crew negligent. The 3-man crew, which consists of a pilot, a camera man and a liaison officer, ignored evidence that the group of SUVs was carrying civilians. The attack was broken off when women and children wearing brightly-colored garments were seen fleeing the vehicles. Can we allow trigger-happy, “gentleman-pilots”, comfortably sitting in a building in Las Vegas, to be killing people on the other side of the world---out of zeal? How soon do these “soldiers” become inured to killing and lose contact with the consequences of their action. This is no more than an arcade video-game to them.
In a speech in Kabul, President Obama actually stated: “The USA does not quit once we start on something…” What the bloody #$%&* does that mean? Is Mr. Obama too young to remember Mogadishu, Beirut, Vietnam? Our country does not quit on its politically-driven misadventures until our political will is out-flanked by personal and community sacrifice borne by our apathetic population. A mere 0.5% of that population directly supports our government’s wars, while the other 99.5% conduct daily affairs as though we live in Wonderland. Our president has not asked us to “pony up” to support this mess with a surtax, has not spoken of a draft to bring more than this tiny fraction of our public to task. This is all business as usual---Bush Lite.
In the mid nineties President Clinton, a political centrist, adopted the Republican agenda. Among other things, he balanced the budget and initiated welfare reform. He also pushed an anti-crime agenda that would make any Republican proud, expanding the scope of the war on drugs and imposing mandatory sentencing guidelines. He signed a bill declaring convicted felons disqualified for public housing or any public assistance, which likely set the battle against recidivism back a generation.
Did these measures bring political capital to the Clinton Administration from the right? Absolutely not! For stealing their agenda they hated Clinton all the more, becoming more obstreperous, more obstructionist. They impeached him over lying about a personal indiscretion. But Republicans have no problem with a Republican president lying to drag our country into war, killing hundreds of thousands, destroying national treasure and disrupting international relations for perhaps a generation.
So what has Mr. Obama done to incur Republican wrath? Liberal? What a laugh! The man is a measured and calculating conservative. Republican wars continue. Republican bailouts continue. Gitmo still operates. We have not unconditionally renounced torture. The “Patriot Act” still looms over our liberties, while contributing little or nothing to national security. Speaking of national security, Obama has publicly stated that he will do nothing to prevent those placed on our “terror watch list” (under provisions of “The Patriot Act”), from acquiring hand guns, assault rifles---anything they want. Financial reform is only emerging now, under a cautious banner, filtered by an administration manned by Goldman Sachs alums.
Healthcare reform, supported by the insurance industry, has been passed. But it’s a shell, with no public option. In a slap to women, Mr. Obama signed a bill denying public funds for abortion services. The prescription drug bill, driven down congress’s throat by Republicans, and mandating that all drugs be purchased by Medicare at full retail price, is still in place, draining $80 Billion per year from the budget. On the environmental front, the government has moved to suspend the moratorium on whale hunting. He has opened the door to new drilling in sensitive areas (whoops!) and a new generation of nuclear reactors.
And the continuing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? The president’s finger prints are all over it. Considering that the right-wing noise machine has its slur campaign amped to over-boost on everything from the Obama legitimacy to bail-out programs initiated by a Republican administration, how can they pass this up?
The easy answer is that Republicans support our wars under any pretense and support the continuation of war. And oil? “Drill, baby drill.” Do you think they’re going to start pursuing alternate energy technology? The Republicans have no intention to attack the president over substantive issues. There is practically no substantive issue that currently runs counter to right-wing agenda. Republicans are not motivated by issues. They are motivated by slogans!: “socialist”, “death panels”, “Hitler”, “death taxes”, “communist”, “birther” claims, “secular/socialist regime”, “big spending”, “liberal media”, blah, blah, blah. Now they’re back to “spending” (which they always worry about when a Democrat is in office). Where were the "tea partiers" when President Bush was running up $8 - $900 Billion annual deficits during times of prosperity, prying into our bedrooms and depriving us of our liberties with bogus claims of national threats?
Obviously, there are many issues on which the president is vulnerable. Only in the past couple of weeks have the media begun to examine the apparent dearth of “leadership” from the president over the crisis in the gulf. Whether this is a real failure on his part, or only one of perception may be a matter of “politics”. But it’s only “leadership” that is being examined…no mention of culpability. Mr. Obama’s gift as an inspiring orator and visionary has carried him to the Whitehouse, but his lack of inspiring “leadership” is also becoming apparent. The irony in this matter is that Mr. Obama appears to be the flip-side of Mr. Bush. While “W” had no oratorical skill and little poise in public, it would be ingenuous not to note that he was an inspired “leader”. [The problem with Mr. Bush’s leadership was that at almost every turn, he led us in the wrong direction.]
So why is Mr. Obama getting a free ride on the continuing mess over which he is actively presiding? The irony here is that his agenda is being driven by the Republicans and the right wing. In a brilliant campaign of demagoguery and hysteria, the right has stolen the political agenda and defused the left. While the right-wing’s issues are at the front of the Obama agenda, they hammer him over inconsequential, non-substantive silliness.
We can only guess at the “policy” that lies in Mr. Obama’s heart. But he is afraid to confront the political storm of belligerence, scorn, outrage that would result from pursuing real change. The right keeps the left off balance with claims that are preposterous beyond bothering to refute. This noisy rabble sees the president as an alien usurper, intent on imposing a socialist one-world regime. What hole did these people emerge from? We suspect that the great majority of them consist of Republican racists, intolerant of being led by a Democratic black man. But the campaign serves to prevent the left from initiating an attack on Mr. Obama over substantive issues. The left doesn’t want to add fuel to the fire that’s already cooking their man. The agenda remains in the right-wing court. On substantive issues, President Obama is the new “Teflon President”.
This country needs the kind of change promised by candidate Obama. Each of the candidates in the 2008 election guaranteed what our president is afraid to attempt. Are we really only positioning for re-election? Can we only expect one year of governance from a president in a first term, followed by 2 ½ years of a (possible) second term before he is “lame ducked” out? Do we go rudderless for 5½ out of each eight years? Healthcare reform or not, Robbinsense has taken off the gloves. We still rate the President’s performance a solid D.
Four years of dreaming into one sentence, uttered over a tiny loudspeaker, above a cramped baseball field, on a busy street where cars rushed past and a moment stood still.
It was a quick breath for the student who announced it, but a lasting prayer for the baseball player who would live it.
On this brilliant Thursday afternoon in West Hills, for the first time this season, senior John Sikorra left the Chaminade High dugout and walked haltingly toward home plate. His father was on his arm. A shining Easton bat and weathered Easton tee were at his side.
Sikorra is blind, but he knew the way. He had spent years dreaming of the way.
The horror of a rare, fatal, neurodegenerative disorder known as Batten disease had taken his sight as a child, and slowly taken many of his cognitive skills since, yet no demon could steal his love of baseball.
Sikorra spent his first three years at Chaminade hoping someone would ask him to join the team. He couldn't swing at a pitched ball, or catch a batted one, but years of listening to Vin Scully and his beloved Dodgers helped him understand the thwack of a bat and the pop of the leather.
He couldn't always communicate, but he could always high-five, and for three years he longed to have someone on the other end of that boyish slap, until last fall he met second-year baseball Coach Frank Mutz at a school retreat.
“I met a kid that loved and lived for baseball,” Mutz recalled. “I thought to myself, this is the kind of kid I want on my team.”
So Sikorra became an Eagle. He was given a uniform and a locker and joined the team in the dugout for the home games, his father or longtime aide Cody Miller sitting next to him providing play-by-play.
So inspirational was his huge smile, soon he was named captain. So real was his presence, the Eagles won their first 13 games at home when he was there and vaulted to No. 1 in the Southern Section Division 2 rankings.
“He's always smiling — I mean, always smiling — and that smile makes us stronger,” said senior Ryan Kramer.
How excited was Sikorra? He couldn't really tell his teammates, so he showed them, three times suffering seizures during exciting moments, like when the Eagles scored three runs in the bottom of the seventh and final inning to defeat Corona Centennial.
“There is not supposed to be any connection between excitement and the seizures,” said his father, Joe. “But I'm not so sure of that. John really, really loves to be here.”
He loves it so much that after one seizure, he took a 45-minute nap on the bullpen mound and returned to the bench to finish the game.
“He never quits, he never stops fighting,” said teammate Brando Tessar.
As his functioning has declined, his fight has increased, and his popularity at Chaminade has soared, the blond-haired kid being voted homecoming king and a member of the prom court. In these final days of his organized schooling — he tells his parents that attending class is becoming too difficult — there was really only one thing missing.
He was finally part of a team, but he needed a varsity letter to make it real. Yet to earn a varsity letter, he needed to participate in at least one official play.
So for the final regular-season home game against Alemany High, the Mission League championship game, Mutz offered to give up an out so Sikorra could bat.
“He deserved that letter as much anybody,” Mutz said. “Giving up that out was the least we could do to get it for him.”
Those who still believe in the goodness of high school sports can guess what happened next. Randy Thompson, the Alemany coach, refused the offer, saying that if Chaminade gave up an out, his team would also give up an out.
“Some things are bigger than baseball,” said Thompson.
Finally, to make it simple, the coaches agreed that Sikorra would simply be the first hitter of the afternoon, batting with Chaminade in the field, then the regular game would begin.
“Now batting, number 15, John Sikorra.”
As they approached home plate to a standing ovation, a father whispered to a son: “Swing away, have fun, do your best,” Joe said.
The ball was teed up, Joe stepped away, John stepped in and . . . boom .
The kid pounded it, ripped it, hammered it, the solidly hit ball rolling toward third base, and off they ran, father and son, hand in hand, flying around the bases, dancing together from the dugout darkness through the early summer light.
“Don't stop, don't stop, don't stop,” Joe repeated.
John didn't. His tongue sticking out of his mouth like Michael Jordan, he crossed home plate amid a tiny stadium overflowing with tears and shouts and love.
Chaminade later lost the actual game, 1-0, but not really.
“Today, both teams won in the game of life,” said Lori, John's mother.
Late Thursday night, his fading memory again betraying him, John peppered his mother for a replay.
“How far did I hit it? How far did I run?” he continually asked her, two questions, one answer.
Clear to anyone who witnessed the one career at-bat of the great John Sikorra. Forever and ever, amen.
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."
