Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Those who’ve read my comments here through the last two Presidential elections, know that I supported and voted for Barack Obama twice. Yet President Obama has been a disappointment to me throughout his Administration. His continuing support of what I consider extra-Constitutional intelligence gathering is a terrible thing. That Guantanamo Bay is still functioning is a continuing human rights violation. The continued American troop presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan is as disgraceful as the reasons that caused us to be there in the first place. Bradley Manning is an American hero that this country is illegally torturing with this President’s approval. The entire issue of the rising deficit and of a mythical “Fiscal Cliff” is one the President gives credit to, thus making it seem real to the public, while those decrying it merely are using it as a means of destroying America’s already frayed “social safety net”. The escape from criminal prosecution of the Bush Administration for War Crimes time has passed. The financial titans who collapsed our economy with their fraudulent manipulations will not be brought to justice, only become wealthier. The continuance of prosecuting the “War on Drugs” after we’ve seen marvelous public initiatives legalizing marijuana at State Levels, is a cruel hoax that destroys the lives of people in the name of protecting the citizenry. Need I go on to make the point of how disappointing this Administration has been? It would take tens of thousands of more words to do so, but then in this erudite group of those readers of this blog, it would be unnecessary, because so many here could do it on their own and perhaps better than I can.
Where I get confused at times here is in the continuing surprise that is expressed with each new violation of our rights, with each new foreign incursion and with the continued militarization of this country as it “goosesteps” towards the creation of an Empire. I get confused because I fail to understand why people who know better, would think that someone else as President could prevent all of these atrocious occurrences. This confusion is re-enforced by the fact that this blog has continually presented evidence that this country is no longer, if indeed it has been, under the aegis of our beloved Constitution. Leading the evidence presented here was Jonathan Turley’s blog post ”10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free”. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/ As our esteemed proprietor followed up this post was selected as one of the top ten articles in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section for 2012. At the end of this piece I will give links to my own guest blogs which have also reinforced the idea that we are no longer the country of freedom that our establishment claims we represent. Thus comes my somewhat confused question as to why would we the denizens of this blog think that barring action by the people, that our President, or any other governmental officials could single-highhandedly return us to the ideals of our constitution.
My working for and voting for President Obama had nothing to do with a belief that he could effect anywhere near the change that is needed to make this country free, to level the economic playing field, or finally end our march for world hegemony. I firmly believe that this country is ruled by a Plutocratic Corporatocracy and this has at least been the case since the assassination of JFK. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
What I wrote about in that guest blog was the JFK murder represented a turning point where the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex assumed control of U.S. foreign affairs and sent the chilling message to all future Presidents that they ought not to interfere with the will of this group in foreign matters. Richard Nixon believed himself to be a foreign policy expert par excellence and demanded to run his own foreign policy and he too was removed from office, albeit less violently, but in my opinion with the same complicity from those who disposed of JFK. As I wrote succinctly about Richard Nixon in the guest blog linked above:
“Nixon further escalates Viet Nam War. He names Poppy Bush Ambassador to China despite lack of qualification. Nixon/Kissinger cut “Experts” out of Foreign Policy and negotiate détente with China, decried by Defense/CIA/”Experts who are all “Cold Warriors”. “Plumbers” unit formed in White House, members all tied to CIA and Poppy Bush. Amateurishly bungled Watergate Burglary performed by intelligence professionals. Nixon reelected but Watergate becomes big deal. Bob Woodward, with past CIA ties, begins investigation with Carl Bernstein. Woodward gains information from “Deep Throat” that is damning. John Dean, who also has ties to Poppy Bush blabs to Congress. Andrew Jaworski, an old friend of Poppy Bush, becomes Special Prosecutor after Cox fired. Poppy Bush becomes head of Republican Party. Poppy Bush advises Nixon to resign for the good of the Party. Gerald Ford becomes President and surprises Poppy Bush by not naming Poppy Bush Vice President. Ford pardons Nixon before full charges are brought and so many details lost as the investigation stops.”
I believe the full story is that Nixon overstepped the foreign policy limits of the Presidency, drawn in the sand by JFK’s murder and was removed as punishment. President Obama when he ran in 2008 mad the promise that he would abolish Guantanamo Bay, via Presidential Decree, during his first day in office. I have no reason to doubt he believed this, but I think that after the election when he was being briefed by the Foreign Policy/Military/Intelligence establishment he was given the message as to just how far he could go and today Guantanamo still thrives, we still have troops in Iraq and are still prosecuting a war in Afghanistan. We also see a steady barrage of pressure to attack Iran and intervene in Syria. As we already have done in Libya. Our defense budget is already larger than the defense budgets of all the countries in the rest of the world combined and with all our supposed economic woes nobody with any power dares to question it remaining so high.
Prior to Obama’s 2008 election our economic system was trashed and a hasty bi-partisan coalition backed the moves of our Federal Reserve head, our Treasury Secretary and our putative President to bail out these huge Investment Banks with a blank check. Pro forma efforts at investigation were made, enough details coming out to show that the crisis was the result of their own mismanagement and of indeed outright fraud. Not only were there no major prosecutions, but in fact many responsible for the crisis received even larger bonuses the following years. It’s true that Bernie Madoff was sent to jail for what will be his life, but then Bernie Madoff preyed upon the same class of people who caused the banking crisis. The plain truth is we are powerless when it comes to the Plutocrats of the world and only those who attempt to take from them are the ones who suffer.
While I’ve only scratched the surface above of the President’s impotency in the face of the interlocking power of the Plutocratic class intertwined with the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex, almost all who will read this are already there with their own insights. This devolves into two questions then which I will attempt to answer. The first is of course why did I even bother to support President Obama if I think he lacks the power to change anything substantive?
My answer is simply that I refuse to give up hope that we the people can rise up and make a difference. While I believe we are ruled by a Plutocracy, I also believe that this Plutocracy is not a homogeneous group. There are insatiable egos in play and there is disagreement in how to manage us “the people”. For purposes of ease let me break that up into two groups, although the reality I think is far more diverse. The first group can be called the “let them eat cake” group and they could care less about the lives of us peasants as long as we continue to serve them well. The second group are those that believe in “noblesse oblige” and believe in their power, yet feel that they owe something, though not that much, to the teeming masses yearning to breathe free. Each National election is a reflection between these two theories of social control. In the election past Romney represented the “eat cake” group, while Obama represented the “noblesse oblige” group. Since I refuse to give up hope that we can find a way to overthrow this Plutocracy, for now I must support the “noblesse oblige” group to minimize the effects of the pain being inflicted upon the people.
The second question is what I think can be done to change things. The answer in my mind is so broad that I would have to write a manifesto, which I’m not yet prepared to do. Here then are my ten suggestions for how we can regain our freedom done schematically and in random order.
- Organize opposition to both parties from the ground up by forming a third party willing to build over the span of years and not needing the immediate gratification of instant success.
- Understand that ideology is the enemy of equitable solutions and that humanity’s ills are those of a psychological rather than political basis.
- Do everything in our power to maintain internet freedom, since it has become the only remaining source of information untainted by propaganda (if you look diligently enough).
- Educate people as to the reality of their desperate situations.
- Educate people about how they have been manipulated by mythology and propaganda.
- Stop believing in leaders no matter how attractive and start believing in our own competence.
- Protest injustice wherever you encounter it.
- Understand that you must convince people of your cause, before you can advance your cause.
- Examine your own prejudices and expunge them
- Treat other human beings as you would have yourself treated.
Those are my ten as counter point to the ten ways we are no longer free. What are yours? First though let me give my own “political” views succinctly:
Every human being shall have the right to adequate: Food; Water; Shelter; Clothing; Free Education and the means to find meaningful occupations. They should have freedom of speech, thought and movement. This is what needs to be accomplished for the Human Race to evolve to its full potential. The mechanisms for this should be developed pragmatically, not through political philosophy. The sociopaths, the psychopaths and the narcissists must somehow be segregated from the rest of humanity, or at least denied meaningful power.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/17/democracy-in-america-what-does-it-mean/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/10/selling-out-middle-class-america/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/27/murder-at-kent-state/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/13/manipulated-america-one-theory-of-how-they-control-us/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/american-dream-not-american-reality/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/30/portents-of-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/07/mythology-and-the-new-feudalism/
Gene H.
1, January 13, 2013 at 12:03 pm
“We do not seek the golden rule, we seek fair treatment.”
You do know what the Golden Rule is, don’t you Tony? It’s a statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity. Philosophically, the entire notion of justice is based upon it. It is inherently both personal and societal in that it is a reciprocal relationship between one’s self and others that involves both sides equally.
——————-
the ‘Golden Rule’ is a possible (and not always) shield against the need for seeking ‘Justice’….even waaaaaay back the Bible warned against dealing with ‘Justice’. Fairness is not always a given any more than doing unto others as you would like them to do unto you is. More than Justice, more than Fairness, the important issue is ‘Understanding’. It is important to understand that when you are dealing with fearful people….they will be blind in their dealings. It is important to understand when you are dealing with brutes, they are apt to hurt you before they would bother to be ‘fair’. It is important to understand when you are dealing with greed….greedy sorts have crooked scales also making things utterly ‘unfair’.
Systems are ultimately prone to be unjust because they are made up of all sorts of people….who see things with their own particular faults and wants and fears, despite initial intent. Our ‘Justice’ system is a product of many interpretations of language and so it has evolved ito a dangerous and self-serving place. It is a system that can not even act until a harm is done….itself a big, unthinking, self-serving, brute.
Donald, Charles Blow makes some excellent points. I follow him on twitter and usually agree with him.
Lakesha,
I don’t care who is president….so long as they follow the constitution ….. And quit the special interest grabs….
Charles M. Blow has an eye-opening graph here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/opinion/revolutionary-language.html
It supports Lakesha’s comment in my opinion.
OS,
Ever since special interest groups try and force Court Accountability you have statistics and numbers that move dockets rather than justice….. In my honest opinion….
Yall just can’t stand that a black man is president. He did it two times. Yall just need to get over it and live with that fact. He better then any president we had in our history.
Darren gets it. Anyone who doesn’t think prosecutors engage in punitive prosecutions just to grab headlines and get reelected or maybe become a judge one day, just doesn’t understand how the system works.
Anonymous has weighed in on the Sandy Hook incident and how the media whores are falling over each other for face time on camera, the Constitution be damned. Facts and statistics are bothersome things, and should not get in the way of a juicy story. Basic journalism rule: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
@Gene: I believe the Golden Rule is a good rule for 95% of the population, which is why it can be used as a proxy for “justice,” just as Newton’s laws of gravity suffice to accurately send a probe to Pluto, we do not need to take Einstein’s relativity into account at all in order to do that. This does not mean Newton’s laws are entirely accurate, just that they are close enough to the truth for all practical purposes. So is the Golden Rule. But I still maintain that our evolutionary psychology is rooted in the detection of “fairness” that we see in our cousin species, and it is that psychology that gives rise to both the Golden Rule and our basic sense of “justice.”
For a hypothetical of the difference, presume a man kills his adulterous wife, and truly believes by his religion that was a justifiable action. When we put him to death, we know we do it against his will. We also know that if we truly believed we justifiably killed somebody, that we should not be put to death, either. They way we would like to be treated is to not be punished for a justifiable killing. So we are not treating him as we would like to be treated. There is no way we are following the Golden Rule by putting this man to death; instead we think “justice” (or fairness) is somehow independent of our personal feelings and convictions, it was wrong of him to kill for this reason and it is fair to punish him for breaking that law. On the other hand, we will excuse killing in self-defense, and we will not use the death penalty for an accidental killing, like manslaughter or a traffic accident.
@Mike: since the alternative you offer seem hopeless.
You have no idea what alternative I offer, you misremember our previous conversation: You rejected anything I had to offer sight unseen.
On the contrary, you offer a solution that I believe is entirely hopeless. Advocating for a third party is unrealistic. If you think Obama was sincere but cowed by the Military / Industrial complex, why would a new third party be any less cowed?
How, precisely, would this third party be different enough from the many existing parties (Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Constitutional, etc) to gain any traction? What novel new ideology do you propose that can reliably capture 61 Senators and a House majority and force through a fundamentally liberal-progressive agenda?
I do not dismiss these because they are YOUR points, I dismiss all calls for action that I believe are fundamentally not executable. I sympathize with your goals, and with your distress, but the answer is not to wish for things that cannot be.
Tony,
There is a palpable undercurrent of anger in your comments towards me today. I didn’t know you cared.
“We do not seek the golden rule, we seek fair treatment.”
You do know what the Golden Rule is, don’t you Tony? It’s a statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity. Philosophically, the entire notion of justice is based upon it. It is inherently both personal and societal in that it is a reciprocal relationship between one’s self and others that involves both sides equally.
Michelle says that he disappointed her several times this past month. Hey, he is getting old.
May I give a reframe of your #10 golden rule:
Treat others as THEY would have you treat them, if you choose.
This means that you don’t assume that they would like to treated as YOU would like to be treated. You actually ask them what they want and then give it to then, if you choose.
Old Nurse,
If you think about it either formulation arrives at the same place.
Mike S.,
Disappointed? Why?
It has been my experience over the last 50 some years that change comes very slowly when one is dealing with the voting public.
The trick is to keep the conversation going and allow it to explore every side-path that pops up.
People have to align ideas to the experience of their culture and there are many, many cultural differences within the boundaries of this nation.
Look how long it took for women to gain the vote; for slaves to gain full personhood; for children to be barred from the sweatshops.
This country has always, always been controlled by those who worship money … changing that is a very real culture shock. Make no mistake … that is the change that is afoot and the resistance to that change is mammoth.
@Mike: From [the golden rule] comes the basis of almost all humanistic philosophies of positive social behavior.
I don’t think so; the golden rule is a misguided formulation of our native tribal instincts, and from THOSE spring the philosophies of positive social behavior. We are evolved to live in tribes, and we are evolved to understand “fair treatment.” The perception of “fairness” is emotional and not even limited to humans; other pack-oriented mammals demonstrably understand it and practice it, without language, without philosophy, and with very limited rational capability. The golden rule promotes a definition of “fairness” that mistakenly, for the sake of brevity, personalizes it.
We do not seek the golden rule, we seek fair treatment. The fundamental objection of Republicans and Libertarians is they think it is unfair to be coerced by a government; the fundamental objection of liberal progressives is they think it is unfair to be coerced by corporations.
We all seek relief from unfair treatment, including coercion and exploitation. We just define them differently.
Tony,
Get back to me when you figure out what “the golden rule” actually connotes.
@Mike: but you failed to respond with your own solutions which I was soliciting.
I offered to detail such a solution in the past, you angrily rejected it out of hand without even knowing what it was, as coming from a Ron Paul supporter. Why should I think this time would be any different? You are incapable of treating any suggestion from me on its merits, on the grounds that I supported Ron Paul on some rather narrow Constitutional points and you think that by association he was a racist. Remember that?
For those who think that our federal politicians take a personal interest in their individual constituents, here is where their loyalties truly are:
“The second question is what I think can be done to change things. The answer in my mind is so broad that I would have to write a manifesto, which I’m not yet prepared to do. Here then are my ten suggestions for how we can regain our freedom done schematically and in random order.”
“Those are my ten as counter point to the ten ways we are no longer free. What are yours?”
Tony,
Well you certainly had little use for my ten points, but you failed to respond with your own solutions which I was soliciting. I stated that I wasn’t ready to write a manifesto. Each of the ten points I raised were schematic and there is enough thought behind them that to fully elucidate it would require at least another blog article to fully articulate. I could defend each and every one of your rather tepid and dyspeptic refutations, but truly I think your rant was more a product of your long harbored resentment of the fact that I made light of your support of Ron Paul. As we went round and around again last year you were willing to ignore Mr. Paul’s racism, bigotry, economic insanity and religious fanaticism simply because of his views about foreign wars and torture. I wasn’t willing to be as charitable as you and since his economic policies would directly affect me and many millions of others wasn’t willing to promote that man’s stature any further. My suggestions may well be vapid in your and others eyes, but at least I put them out there, since the alternative you offer seem hopeless. If you would like to give solutions a shot then go ahead, otherwise I’ll not engage is dealing with your dyspepsia further.
“The golden rule presumes a uniformity of morality and regard for others that does not exist in reality.”
Too bad your dogmatic atheism prevents you from seeing that the “golden rule”, absent of theology represents the essence of a philosophy of social interaction. From it comes the basis of almost all humanistic philosophies of positive social behavior. It was promulgated first by Confucius (hardly a theocrat), then by The Buddha (another non-theocrat) then by the Hellenism, Judaism and finally Christianity via Jewish Pharisee philosophy. In essence it is not about religion, but you evidently don’t get it. As far as my “dogmatism” goes, what is dogmatic about?:
“First though let me give my own “political” views succinctly:
Every human being shall have the right to adequate: Food; Water; Shelter; Clothing; Free Education and the means to find meaningful occupations. They should have freedom of speech, thought and movement. This is what needs to be accomplished for the Human Race to evolve to its full potential. The mechanisms for this should be developed pragmatically, not through political philosophy. The sociopaths, the psychopaths and the narcissists must somehow be segregated from the rest of humanity, or at least denied meaningful power.”
Tony,
Even though there is much we agree on you at times can be the most dogged of the regulars in pushing your ideas. Were I willing to go for a comment record for this post then I would continue to engage you since you never know when to quit, but frankly I really was interested in other people’s views on how to change things, not is boosting my own ego by trying to demolish someone.
In truth the response to this blog in terms of relating to where I was going has mostly been disappointing to me, but some seem to get it. For those who haven’t, my apologies for not making my points clear enough and not elaborating more.
@tony
This occurred to me:
Voting behavior has a minimal impact on policy in large part because it is primarily a means of legitimating the power structure from which both parties derive their influence. The current power structure prevents citizens from effectively lobbying Congress, replaces dignified work with automation, uses higher education to turn students into indentured servants, and provides no viable means to halt the post-911 erosion of civil liberties. Leadership is not a viable means to enact social change because belief in political leadership is itself a tool used to enforce conformity. Conformists don’t bring about social change.
An alternative to 3rd party voting, which is often denigrated as “throwing your vote away” is to use voting as a means to coordinate the attitudes of the disaffected — that is, to use the existing electoral system for a purpose other than installing an individual in office. Such an alternate use of voting would be to vote for yourself as a write in candidate coupled with the determined advocacy of this same tactic.
The advantages of such a voting tactic are multi-faceted:
1. Focuses on individual initiative rather than rely on some external organization for efficacy
2. If enough people participate, will create a spectacle that the media can’t spin.
3. Lets disaffected voters know how many others like them are out there as a pre-requisite for more organized behavior
4. Gives voters the choice to vote for what they believe in rather than against what they fear
5. Non-violent
6. Inexpensive
7. Able to distinguish the angry voting abstainers from the apathetic non-voters
It is important to the success of such a tactic that participants vote for themselves and not a third-party candidate as a “protest vote.” The objective is to create a numerical anomaly in the election results that neither the media nor the political establishment can spin by creating a disparity between the number of ballots cast and the number of votes leading candidates receive. The purpose is to refuse to legitimize a corrupt system.
If a prospective participant is afraid of becoming a “spoiler” and tipping the election in favor of “the other side,” then, first and foremost, advocacy of this tactic should be directed towards non-voters who don’t vote for major parties anyway.
Also, keep in mind another way of interpreting how close our elections have become:
In 2000, the Florida recount was triggered by statute because less than 0.5% of votes separated Bush from Gore. If one denies that the election was rigged, one must then accept that an election settled by less than the statistical margin of error by definition says nothing about voter preference. An election so close might as well be settled by chance.
A statistically-significant degree of participation in such an action would be 5% of the popular vote, as this is what is required for federal election matching funds. This could be the youth vote. The purpose is to create a numerical “black hole” that the nation will have to examine, both in terms of voter preferences and with respect to the integrity of the voting system overall.
If you’re like most voters, then you believe polarization is a problem in contemporary American politics. Voting for Democrats and Republicans will only lead to more polarization, and is not a viable solution. At some point, citizens are going to have to take just a little bit of a risk and change their behavior. Anybody who looks towards the risks taken by protesters in the Arab Spring should consider engaging with this more modest risk.
MikeS.,
I’m going to make it personal by commenting … Great stirring of the pot! 😉
Tony C.,
If you are watching Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States on Showtime, Mondays @8:00pm, I would be interested in your opinion of the material. I believe tomorrow’s presentation is “Bush and Clinton”.
“Mike S,
You know some folks just like to make it personal…. If you can’t debate on the facts or your argument is subject to different conclusions based on the same data…. Attack the person….. With more hyperbole….”
AY,
How true.