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/
@Indigo: Not Nader, and not Perot…
I should have been more clear; losers are instantly forgotten by the winners. Not necessarily by the public, of course, Ron Paul and Nader got votes every time they ran. I do not believe losers influence the winners of the elections they run in. Any appearance of that is, I think, something that was coincidentally in the interest of the winner (or his backers) anyway.
Livestreamer Tim Pools story of unconstitutional searches, beatings, charges and detention over the years:
https://plus.google.com/114090905694962986317/posts/dYsQC54ufVy
@Indigo: To this end, if you think polarization is part of the problem today, I find it rather doubtful that more polarization is the solution.
But I do not think polarization is the problem; I think two parties is pretty much the natural outcome of a winner-take-all system (which is what our politics represent, in that only one party can be President, or represent a district. Two parties can represent a State in the Senate, but in any given election only one Senator is elected (I’m pretty sure that is true of all States).
In a market place where customers can buy any of a number of products, so winners can co-exist, the medium term natural outcome is a log scale division of the market; typically a ladder of 3 to 7 providers. Longer term, the result also tends toward a binary choice (Coke or Pepsi), and eventually because some management dope slips up and bets the company on a bad idea, a monopoly. “New Coke” almost did that to CocaCola, for example.
I do not think polarization is the problem, I think it is a symptom. I think corporate money influencing politicians to double deal us is the problem. I think the failure of voting to correct that problem has led to more vociferous and ideological demands from both sides to try and coerce their politicians into listening to them; to no avail. It is the equivalent of a frustrated parent that has lost control of their child being reduce to yelling commands: “NO!” “STOP!” “PUT — THAT — DOWN! NOW!”
(An apt analogy, because like such parents, we get to this point by never doing anything to punish the unruly, namely betrayal by a politician, as Mike has pointed out: They get our vote regardless of what they do, because the other party is always the greater of evils.)
The polarization is an attempt at clarity when allowing some healthy leeway has been repeatedly abused.
Get the money out of politics, and the motivation to abuse the powers of their office will vanish with it, and I think so will much of the polarization we see.
Great link woosty!
@tony
> And since Ross Perot, the self-funded billionaire
I would argue that a large part of the reason why there haven’t been more 3rd party candidates is because of the Democrats.
After Naderites switched to Gore in 2000, Nader got blamed for taking votes from Gore. The very notion of a third party candidate became toxic to the entire left-leaning end of the political spectrum. I was told to my face by lefties that I was the reason why Bush was in office.
Now Nader wasn’t trying to win in 2000, he was trying to get 5% of the popular vote to qualify for federal matching funds the following season. He could have run an effective campaign in 2004 if some many Democratic voters weren’t scared off.
Perot was self-funded, but in a less quantifiable sense, his business background gave him perceived legitimacy. There are public funding mechanisms in place for candidates that get 5% of the vote in a federal election, but it looks like, since Citizens United, this may unfortunately be a moot point.
Another reason why there haven’t been more 3rd party candidates is that it is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to get on a ballot. Because Democrats and Republicans write the rules, they collude to lock out other parties. They do this by requiring exorbitant filing fees, or by using lawyers to get 3rd party candidates kicked off the ballot, or by passing statutes that require 3rd party candidates to collect as many as 10x more signatures than major party candidates, just to get listed.
You allude to these facts, but none of this bears on my suggestion that 3rd party candidates can force issues into the spotlight. Yes, its hard to get on the ballot if you’re a 3rd party candidate, but once there, it is possible to have an effect.
Lastly, I would point out that in the US, we have had many different parties in the past. We haven’t always had only Democrats and Republicans. The reason we have these two particular parties at this point in time is that, at different points in history, people changed their voting behavior. The Democratic and Republican parties themselves are both evidence that this type of change is possible. To this end, if you think polarization is part of the problem today, I find it rather doubtful that more polarization is the solution.
> Bill Clinton is a superb politician
Yes, and he was successful because he was a centrist. Here’s a historical article about Perot’s role as an irritant:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-29/news/mn-28533_1_clinton-budget
And — let me note that I’m no big fan of Clinton — I would suggest that Perot’s business credentials are what got many of Newt’s caucus on board.
> Losers are instantly forgotten
Not Nader, and not Perot…
>A plausible solution will have a plausible and executable beginning
Did you see my earlier post above, where I advocated voting for yourself as a write-in? Scroll up and give it a look. I outline a modest program for what amounts to a self-help course. People need a simple way to demonstrate to themselves that their voting behavior is problemmatic, and they need a feedback mechanism to re-inforce such perceptions among eachother. My proposal above is geared towards such ends.
Tony C.
1, January 13, 2013 at 1:57 pm
@Woosty: My point is that our perception of what is and is not “unfair” is essentially not itself subject to rational definition because it is an emotional reaction; we know what is and is not unfair when we see it (usually, except in hypotheticals designed to be in the gray margins).
—————
yes, I agree. the “Golden Rule’ forces us to look at fairness from the ‘other’ persons perspective….it takes greed and a few other things out of the perspective equation, IMO, and allows for more rational and dare I say, a path from the emotional to rational understanding…
“It’s not conservatism, not rational, not adult,” Edwards tells Bill. ”
[vimeo http://www
w=400&h=300]
http://billmoyers.com/segment/mickey-edwards-on-how-conservatives-have-lost-their-way/
Swarthmore,
Colin Powell is a little slow if he is just figuring out that his party has a vein of intolerance in it!
@Mike: he Golden Rule is not an attempt to define fairness and never was.
On the contrary, I think it is, because I know a bit about evolutionary psychology and the primacy of “fairness” in the biology of our thinking. As they say, even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being tripped over; they will forgive you for the latter but not the former; because they too have a rudimentary sense of what is fair. Shall you now tell me what I think?
As for Confucius, Chaos is easy to argue against, a perfect argument is not necessary. Any argument that calls for order instead of chaos is good enough, any argument that calls for a peaceful society instead of free-for-all war and killing is good enough.
You really don’t get that, do you? Or is it that you are so reverent of some ancient dead philosophers that you cannot help but ascribe infallibility to their thinking?
@Mike: What you see as anger is not anger, it is frustration at well meaning people wasting their time and encouraging others to waste their time in the same fruitless pursuit of tilting at windmills.
Tony,
The Golden Rule is not an attempt to define fairness and never was. Confucius promulgated it as a response to the Chaos of war that took place in what was to become China. It’s not about fairness, it is about establishing a peaceful society. You really don’t get it do you?
@Indigo: And since Ross Perot, the self-funded billionaire (and while I was a consultant, my employer for about six months, well before his run)?
The difficulty and expense of mounting a third party candidacy is enormous; and it can really only be undertaken by people or organizations that can risk at least tens or as much as hundreds of millions of dollars. Ross Perot is an example of a failed attempt, not a success. The modern rule in politics is that once you win, as Dick Cheney said, “we can’t be bound by things we had to say to win the election.”
Bill Clinton is a superb politician, and I think once he won, Perot was the furthest thing from his mind; a lucky break for him that split the Republican vote. Clinton acted in the interest of his wealthy constituents in balancing the budget. Chronic budget deficits cause debt and debt causes inflation, because we end up printing the money we need to make the payments.
If somebody believes that a third party is the route to saving the country, they need a plausibly compelling way to inspire the populace to raise a hundred million or so dollars, recruit a hundred thousand volunteers, and steal 40 million voters from the existing parties (1/3 of the total number of voters in 2012) in order to have a fighting chance.
Losers are instantly forgotten. The elected do not heed them; they laugh at them for spitting into the wind. Even though our lives may be at stake, to politicians this is a game, the winners do not adopt the loser’s game plan, they stick with their own.
A plausible solution will have a plausible and executable beginning. It has to be something that can snowball from modest beginnings, on its successes, into a force that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
I would be happy to see somebody design a party that meets even a compromised version of my ideology and then just get that implemented in a city council in some town that is split 50/50 like the country, prove to me the new party can recruit 1/3 of 250,000 voters, equally from either party (so it doesn’t just split one party into two factions, like the Tea Party or Ross Perot did), and I might believe there is something there.
Gene,
I hadn’t, but should have realized that the GR is not some namby-pamby make nice everyone formulation that some take it to be. What it is is the elegant basis of a most sophisticated philosophical starting point. This is why when Hillel the Elder stated it he added that “all the rest is commentary”. For him, it was the details that needed to be honed. I think some have it confused with “turn the other cheek”, which is not only a very different concept, but one I find untenable.
@bill
National Propaganda Radio? Don’t hold your breath…
Voting for Obama, Cuomo, or Mrs. Clinton will only extend the rule of
oligarchs who support the wholesale killing of thousands or millions of people who live in countries which have assets the oligarchs covet.
When will the NPR wake up and realize that the lesser of two evils is still evil?
@tony
> Advocating for a third party is unrealistic.
Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote. Granted, that didn’t translate into any electoral votes, but I would argue that Perot was a large part of the reason why Bill Clinton made it a priority to balance the federal budget.
Third party candidates can put issues on the table that the major parties won’t go near. The effect may be difficult to quantify, but the influence is there.
@Woosty: My point is that our perception of what is and is not “unfair” is essentially not itself subject to rational definition because it is an emotional reaction; we know what is and is not unfair when we see it (usually, except in hypotheticals designed to be in the gray margins).
For example, say a young mother of three accidentally kills a pedestrian. The Bible says “a life for a life,” which at first sounds fair, but do we think it is fair to put her to death for her moment of inattention? Typically we do not, sometimes we find her guilty of manslaughter and she serves probation instead of jail so she can continue to work and care for her kids.
The Golden Rule is an attempt to define fairness, and IMO it does not always work. Let us phrase it as: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Now presume, due to a string of violent bank robberies, I am an undercover armed guard in a bank, pretending to be a patron, and sure enough, an armed robbery begins. I can shoot the robber. He doesn’t know I can. I certainly would not want the robber to shoot me. So should I do unto him as I would have him do unto me, specifically, leave him unshot?
No, I should shoot him and defend those I believe he is about to hurt; he is brandishing a weapon. Is it “fair” to shoot him? Most of us say yes, it is fair, he is the one that took the risk and instigated the incident, he owns the responsibility for whatever happens to him. But I am (in this hypothetical) definitely not adhering to the Golden Rule, I am going to do unto another what I believe he is willing to do unto others in order to stop him; not what I would want him to do unto me.
The surprise I think comes for people who think there really is no difference between Democrats & Republicans. Once he was elected no Republican would disagree with Boy Blunder in any meaningful way. If he wanted nation damaging tax cuts all Republicans wanted them. If he wanted an unfunded, wildly out of control Medicare Rx plan all Republicans wanted one, if he wanted a pointless stupid war in Iraq . . . well you get the picture. Now that W is not the great daddy in charge you hear them try to claim they never liked him much don’t you know.
Democrats actually have principles that they are willing to buck their leadership on. There is no doubt that any of the last 4 Dem candidates (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) would be better than the GOP alternative. That each would have failed to live up to the standard we hope for has a lot to do with how insane a large number of voters have gotten and how many Dem elected officials don’t just fall in line like their GOP colleagues do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/colin-powell-gop_n_2467768.html Collin Powell comments that there is a”dark vein of intolerance” in parts of the GOP. Ron Paul belonged to that part.