As Rich as an Argentine

At the beginning of the 20^th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4^th highest per capita GDP.  There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity.  But with the stock crash, the great depression and political turmoil throughout the century the country was forced to carry huge budget deficits and borrow money from foreign banks.  In the 1970’s Argentina’s credit rating dropped and they could no longer borrow indiscriminately.  So to finance the interest on their debt and their budget the leaders resorted to printing more of the nation’s currency.  This resulted in a steady decline in the value of the Argentine peso.  In 1975 the highest denomination was 1,000 pesos, by the end of 1976 it was 5,000 pesos.  The peso hit  10,000 in 1979 and made a huge jump in 1981 when the highest denomination was 1,000,000 pesos.  The country was going through hyperinflation.

The situation became so ridiculous that prices in grocery stores no longer had prices written, but a man in a microphone would announce the prices to the customers.  These prices would increase by the hour.  Knowing the falling value of their currency, people would spend their pay checks immediately because their money would be worthless by the end of the week.

The main cause of hyperinflation is when the money supply is increased rapidly and there is no corresponding growth in the economy or as Wikipedia puts it, “Hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services.  This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money (including currency and bank deposits), accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money.”  This description has been the U.S. economic policy for decades, but has hit dangerous levels in the past two administrations.  This past Wednesday, November 3^rd Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve made the decision to print 600 billion dollars and buy government bonds in a bid to make loans cheaper, increase spending and hopefully stimulate the economy.  People have been questioning the Fed on this decision which prompted Ben Bernanke to defend himself on questions of effectiveness and inflation.

A persons’ opinion on policy or political matters are a result of their understanding of economics.  You have to have a basic understanding of economic principles to carry through with a responsible view on policy issues.  There’s three points I would like to cover in arguing why, the reckless printing of money, is one of the most important issues facing our country today.  Nothing is made out of thin air, there are financial consequences in what we do.  As an example, take television, is it free?  No, you pay for it with higher prices on the goods and services that are advertised between programs.  Is healthcare in Europe free?  No, the constituents pay for it with high taxes or by overpaying for a $3 gallon of gas (here) for $15 (over there).  When the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air that devalues the money you receive from your employer and devalues the savings you have in the bank.  It’s a form of taxation.  Actually it’s taxation without representation.  Which is my first point.  The arbitrary printing of money by a private bank is a moral issue, a violation of rights.                

It’s funny to me when the politicians, economic advisors, and the media use terms like quantitative easing or monetizing the debt when speaking of economic policy.  Why don’t they call it for what it really is, we’re going to solve this problem by printing more money.  After 8 years of President Bush, the national debt hovered around nine trillion dollar mark.  Obama has increased that number to thirteen in two years.  They shared the banker bailout, Obama sent more resources to the war in Afghanistan, he had his stimulus package, clash for clunkers, refund checks for first time home buyers…. what tangible success has that accomplished (healthcare is going to add another huge amount)?  To pay for these programs the money was simply printed.  The Bush policies of easy credit and government spending led to the financial crisis.  To solve for this problem the current administration and the Federal Reserve decided to…. spend money at an even faster rate.  Hmmm…..   Some would argue that massive spending had to be done or the banking system would have collapsed.  But that is a fundamental law of the free markets.  Bad decisions must fail, not bailed out.  But using that same argument, if money was to be printed out of thin air than why weren’t home owners bailed out.  It would have reached a wider range of people who are having their assets devalued.  On an even larger point of view, I would argue that the government cannot stimulate the economy in so much as hinder it.  The ‘trickle down’, Keynesian economic policies, or massive government spending has never stimulated the economy (without creating an unhealthy bubble).  It didn’t work with Reagan and it didn’t work with FDR (the great depression was eventually turned when there was a mass reduction in taxes not more government spending) and it’s not working now for Obama.  But we keep doing it, because it benefits the elite banking system.  The people who have first access to the printed money can spend that money to buy real assets before that same money is devalued.

So what happens in hyperinflation?  Hyperinflation leads to the destruction of the currency, the value of the money you earn and the money you have.  This process collapses the monetary system, questions the sovereignty of a nation, and usually leads to an economic depression.  Irresponsible monetary policy is one of the biggest issues in our country today.  Consumer spending is what drives economies.  Creation of industries is what creates the resources for those consumers to spend money in the market place.  That is why the U.S. had such insane growth in the 60’s and 70’s.  We were the largest exporter in the world.  Everyone was buying what we were making, from cars, to furniture, to electronics, to household goods…  ‘Stimulation’ of the economy is a more complex problem than just printing more money.  It involves cutting spending.  Forty three cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed and half of our deficit goes to the military spending.  Support to an empire with military bases in a 170 countries and fighting a two front war.  Over 2 billion of U.S. wealth is transferred overseas each day.  China is the largest holder of our debt and the largest importer of goods.  Real ‘stimulation’ is enabling U.S. small businesses to complete on an even playing field.  Manufacturing needs to come back to the country.  Tariffs on Chinese and other countries’ goods need to be increased (FYI, China is no longer interested in the dollar now, but want hard assets instead, a sign of the times).  That valve of transferred wealth needs to stop.  NAFTA/GATT has been an enormous failure.  Small business regulations need to be cut.  Taxes need to be cut, dramatically.  The market needs to open up.  Instead, we’re taking the easy way out, the stupid way out, of just printing more money.  The devaluing of our money will lead to failure and is immoral.  Because ultimately this effects every citizen in our country and there is no vote.  As Big Worm said so eloquently to Smokey in the movie Fridays, “playing with my money is like playing with my emotions.”

I think I voted

Post election is a great time in America.  The winners can revel in their excitement and have new hope.  The losers can dread and point fingers at the failures of the new regime.  But in every cycle, no matter who wins, past or present, Republican or Democrat, the losers will always be right and the winners will have no choice but to compromise past expectations.  If you’re a Democrat in California you can count the victories in the state legislature and the executive branch… breathe a sigh of relief.  If you’re a Republican you can celebrate the federal victories in reclaiming the House.  But in the end both groups will be disappointed.  For sanity’s sake they will rationalize, they will scapegoat, and in two years get pumped up to start all over again.

But what does it mean?  People are already rationalizing the failures of the Democrats in congress and Obama as President.  A year ago progressives were angry and disappointed about the lack of leftward movement.  But I really think the emerging of the Tea Party pushed these same folks to compromise their expectations with the actual work Barry was able to accomplish.  ‘Away motivation’ is when people are motivated by a negative idea or emotion in the opposite direction. And that is exactly what the Tea Party was able to provide.  It’s sad state of affairs when that is all people have.

In the last 30 years we have seen the wealthiest 1% own 20% of the country to now close to 50%.  How did this happen?  And how did this happen so quickly.  Regan had his tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations.  Clinton destroyed future jobs with NAFTA/GATT.  He sowed the seeds of the financial crisis with the repeal of Glass Steagall.  Bush fostered the housing bubble with easy credit and deficit spending.  Now where are we?  We are a country close to bankruptcy.  Thirteen trillion in debt.  20% unemployment.  Future Social Security and Medicare obligations in the trillions.  Home owners in upside down mortgages.  Decaying public services.  A crumbling currency.  All in global economy we created with drained resources, a work force without the skills to compete, and no emerging industry.  “I use to have hope with you Barry.”  But all Mr. Obama has done is given the banks trillions of dollars of access, passed a health care bill that ultimately benefits insurance companies, and passed a financial reform bill that will regulate to hindrance, small banks.  Ultimately giving more power to the Federal Reserve (creator of the financial problem).  A corporate President.  So what can a political party do for you?  The Democratic party hides behind slogans of compassion and the Republicans retaliate with mottos of efficiency.  While they argue over the principle of who is on higher ground, the banking and the corporate elite steal away.  When the Democrats are elected into power, the banksters steal under the guise of regulations; crushing competition.  When Republicans are in office they steal with changes in the tax code.  Either way.  They constrain the marketplace for small business and discourage the American workforce with globalization.  They legalize their own criminal activity and call it capitalism to confuse the left.  Then use that confusion to mobilize the right.  All while we celebrate with our tribes, our teams, a victory with no merit.  A party victory does nothing, but a policy change can.  I believe that’s where we can have real change.  We have to step back from who we identify with and change the conversation to what we specifically need to do.  Because party affiliation just separates us.  Of course we can’t all agree on everything, but let’s work on what we can agree on.

And for a start, how about we repeal NAFTA/GATT?  Putting in tariffs on Chinese imports would be a good first step in bringing manufacturing home and creating jobs.  Reenacting Glass Steagall and auditing the Federal Reserve would create real financial reform.  Ending the wars and closing half of the military bases we have in a 170 countries would help our deficit spending (half of our national budget is military).  Voting for change is not going to come with a politician or a party… mobilizing for a change in policy might.

My name is DontTweetBlog and I approved this message.

Polarization

In response to the burgeoning Tea Party movement, many democrats and progressives organized themselves a One Nation rally.  I attended the One Nation rally at Los Angeles City College a couple of weeks back and the atmosphere was refreshing.  There was good energy and you could feel the emotion of good intentions.  The rally was smaller than I imagined and lined with union staff.  Deceiving onlookers the real turnout and participation for the event.  Though the energy was good it wasn’t nearly as vibrant or as hopeful as the “Yes we can!” presidential campaign.  Behind the loud claps and shouts of unity I sensed an underlying dejection.  A response, perhaps, to rationalizing broken promises and the hope that never materialized.

For me the rally punctuated our separation by affiliation.  Clustered into tribes.  The affiliation consumes importance.  This rally was more response than statement.  More argumentative than persuasive.  Promoting ‘us against them’.  While both rallies, Tea Party and One Nation, call for the end of the wars (see pics above).  And both rallies, Tea Party and One Nation, called for an end to NAFTA/GATT.  The affiliation precedes the common issue.  Weakening the constituency.  Strengthening singular interests.  And nothing gets done.

If it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense

I still think it’s annoying that I have to take off my shoes and belt through a security check point before I can board a plane.  I’ve thrown away toothpaste, bottled water and deodorant if it’s over 3 oz.  I think it’s bullshit that folks have subject themselves to unhealthy levels of radiation through naked body scanners.  It’s bullshit when people are racially profiled and the TSA has the power to abuse.  I know.  This is for the sake of national security.  We all have to share in this process, so some shady character can’t come in our country and blow something up.  But if that’s such a concern, that we have to go through such extreme precautions when traveling in and out of the country, isn’t it funny that there is no policy on enforcing the borders.  I mean people can come in and out country, without identifying who they are or what they are bringing in.  Why wouldn’t that said shady character avoid flying and just come through on foot.  I mean anyone can come in with 5 kilos of coke or a nuclear device through our borders, but there are 3 TSA agents asking me to empty my pockets because of the Altoids case I forgot about.

There’s two ways to look at this.  One is that the government is so inefficient and/or stupid that they haven’t figured out this gap in their strategy.  Or two is that they don’t give a shit about border enforcement, because there’s no money in it.  But there’s plenty of money in flights.  I mean, every time you board a plane, it’s a reminder of 911.  A justification of why we continue to occupy and kill innocents in two countries.  Why we need to feed the military industrial complex.  It’s also a reminder of why we still ‘need’ the Patriot Act, to keep us safe from a metaphysical threat.  So the government can do bypass probable cause and violate our basic civil liberties with no repercussions.  There’s also the emergence of new industry in the unproven science of naked body scanners, a multimillion dollar industry.  The airline industry is now ‘safe’.  Commerce may continue.  Money can be made and money talks.

There’s examples of this gap in thinking all over.  Like why is half the federal budget on military spending when the country is in the midst of a depression.  Or if the financial meltdown was created by the federal reserve, why are they know being given more power through the Financial Reform Bill.  So the federal government is either stupid or they don’t care unless there is money involved.  Either way we’re screwed.  So why would anyone put their trust in any 2,000 page legislation that they want passed?  That blows my mind.  How can anyone in his/her right mind blindly support every paragraph, every loophole of a 2,000 page document with a one page summary.   I remember Nancy Pelosi stating during the Health Care debate, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”  That’s a con man’s game.  Yet people still cry out for the government to save the country.  But can you trust them?  Is the track record reliable and who do they ultimately help?  How has any legislation the federal government passed in the last 20 years financially benefited a majority of the people in this country?  Did the bank bailout help out the folks who are in foreclosure from their homes?  Did the stimulus package create jobs or secure our infrastructure?  There is a reason that the stocks of health insurance companies skyrocketed when the Health Care Bill passed.  “But I thought the bill was a victory for the little guy…” How about the stock prices for the top 7 banks when the Financial Reform Bill passed, another killing.  Legislation that was framed for your compliance but all to benefit the powers that be.

We don’t need more government we need less.  We don’t need more regulation, we need less.  We don’t need higher taxes, we need less.  Because every time you call on the government to help you out, they have proven irresponsible.  Time and time again.  How many times do you go back to a cheating spouse?  It’s that simple.  For most part, people can take care of themselves.  I firmly believe that.  And I also believe that that expectation and thought process is empowering.  But it needs to be done on an even playing field by relieving constraints and not distributing unfair advantages.  Constraints like high taxes, or an uneven obligation of taxes.  Constraints like bureaucracy and regulation on small business, where only the extremely wealthy can find loopholes to bypass.  Advantages like bailing out bad decisions, giving out government contracts, or drilling rights…  We need less government.  We need it, because the the federal government is either too inefficient to do things right or too corrupt to look out for the average tax payer.  They cannot or will not save you.  Because, for them, if it don’t make dollars it don’t make sense.

the straw man

Once we walk away from the distraction of gossip media, sports and the new hit movie, we are left with the reality that our country is in decline.  Being in the midst of a deep recession, a depression, we are losing wars, and falling into incomprehensible levels of debt.  And so the debate begins.  And “we are the ones we have been looking for” and “Yes we can!” are mottos that can no longer distract nor have validity.  The artificial revolution is dead.  But the betrayal still lingers.  And out of the confusion of exaggerated positions there are  two voices calling out demanding a solution.  One pleads for the government to intercede and to save.  The other calls for the opposite, arguing the government’s corruption.  Demanding reduction and personal choice.  So the lines are drawn and political allegiances formed.  Identities are used as the divisive tool.  And now issues that people share and can organize around are separated by issues that disagree.  Separation by a label.  While the country falls.

everybody hates capitalism

I never went to go see the movie, Capitalism a Love Story.  I’ve seen most of Michael Moore’s movies.  I mean he has his agenda and there is stuff I don’t agree with, but for the most part I’ve liked his films.  But when I saw a clip from his movie on capitalism where he states, “capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic and un-American”,  I was insulted.  Now I wasn’t  insulted because I disagree with his opinion (which I do).  And I wasn’t insulted because I have a vested interest in capitalism.  It insulted me because that statement is so fundamentally full of shit that to try and pass that by me as a truth means that Michael Moore has a low opinion of my intelligence.  I have a problem with how this is statement is framed in a couple of ways.  First off we don’t live in capitalism.  Our society has shades of it, but our economic system is not a free market.  So Moore’s basis is wrong.  Secondly, Moore puts the onus or blame on a concept instead of the institutions, persons, and legislation directly involved.  This is highly manipulative, because if you can divert attention away from the institutions (and person, legislation..) and focus rebellion towards a concept you can motivate/justify whole groups away from the status quo to any ‘framed’ direction of thought.

We are in bad shape.  Unemployment, the foreclosure crisis, dropping sales, bankruptcies, the growing deficit….  and a lot of that has to do with special interests pushing their agenda in politics.  And that’s resulted in a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the ultra rich.  But is it because of capitalism?  Or something else?  According to wikipedia, “Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy and profit is distributed to owners who invest in business”.  Just off this definition I don’t think our economic system can labeled as capitalism.  It does not meet this set of criteria in a couple of ways.  First off the government has been ‘planning’ or manipulating the economic system through Keynesian principles since FDR (planned economy).  They dole out credit, print money (which is a form of tax and creates inflation) and go to war in tough times.  Which expands banking interests and the military industrial complex, giving these industries unfair advantage.  So this fundamentally not a free market.  Also the means of production is constrained within the private sector and manipulated by the government by regulations which kill competition.  Second, for a free market to exist profits must distributed but so must losses/liabilities.  Liabilities are stifled in a couple of ways.  One is by the concept of corporation, where the primary owner of a company can receive full benefits of compensation in good times, but limited liabilities during bad.  Because a corporation has legal identity, the corporation takes the full brunt of liabilities.  The other way is by government protection or aid.  You can see that in the bank bailouts.  These banking institutions made bad decisions during the housing boon and the government (or the taxpayer) bailed them out.  So the CEOs made money on the way up and on the way down.  You can also see that in the BP oil spill in the gulf.  BP and the government made a deal before the drilling that limited their liabilities if an accident struck.  So the disaster in the gulf protects BP and the federal/state governments (or taxpayers) have to pick up the tab.

Because of government intervention we don’t live in capitalism or a free market economic system.  Capitalism promotes individualism on an even playing field.  It promotes ingenuity and hard work.  Where peoples can profit or be liable from there actions.  Capitalism promotes democracy and a  free society.  It has survived and worked for centuries, promoting the highest standard of living to the largest amount of people.  Market forces (the invisible hand) determines the direction of the economy.  And not some authoritarian power like the government influenced by special corporate interests.  This is not capitalism.  We live in a system where corporate interests are in bed with the politicians that write the legislation that manipulates the markets.  It’s a con where the rich cannot lose and the small business interests almost impossible to win.  That’s why the government cannot save us, the system is rigged.  That’s why more legislation cannot save us, but less government and repealing past legislation can (NAFTA, re-institute Glass Steagall).  That’s why the health care reform bill is so dangerous and the supporters so naive.  That’s why this current financial reform bill was doomed to fail even before it was written (the authors are the federal reserve, Goldman, and JP Morgan…).  We are heading toward fascism.  And to label it as capitalism is misconstrued and a lie.  It’s a media talking point, a tool, to manipulate and to coerce people toward that very corporate/political amalgamation that they want to move away from.  That amalgamation that continues to grow each and everyday.  Capitalism, that which is mislabeled and scapegoated, used to misdirect.

Kind of like Springer or the WWE…

I recently read an article from Newsweek.com that caught my eye.  The article is about Sarah Palin and her relation to the Christian community.  Now I’m no fan of Sarah Palin (at all), but I am a Christian.  So I was curious on how Sarah Palin is influencing my community.  The title of the article is Saint Sarah and the headline reads, “To white evangelical women, Sarah Palin is a modern-day prophet… while remaking the religious right in her own image.”  Whoa.  That is a very bold claim.  So this woman is remaking a political party and is being followed as a prophet by an entire section of a religious group. That’s a tremendous amount of influence.  The headline caught my eye, because this was news to me and I wanted to see the evidence that would confirm such an exaggerated headline.  It nowhere near met that threshold.  The story makes huge leaps and universal statements off of little evidence.  I was offended as a member of the Christian community.  But it’s a great example of how our media today portrays the news in an irresponsible way.

The author is Lisa Miller.  The religious correspondent/expert for Newsweek.  A bold title requires bold and convincing evidence.  Where she could have started was how many people were in the religious right, how many vote, and how many support her as a modern day prophet.  What has she organized?  Has her influence carried into a movement, like the creation of a political/social organization with finance and membership?  Has she brought Christian communities or churches under her wing?  Has she been able to influence a change in policy because of said influence?  How is she reshaping the political right and who views her/how many as a modern day prophet?

This is Lisa Miller’s evidence and references;

1. The success and positive reaction at a book reading
2. A positive article written by a Christian magazine, Charisma, with a circulation of 250,000
3. Two quotes: One from a Vicki Garza a business woman from Dallas and the second, a Lynette Kittle, a mother of 4 from Colorado.

Is that enough evidence to proclaim her as a prophet to Christian women?  WTF?  And is a book and a few speeches enough to mold the conservatives in the country?  Seriously, does anyone find this kind of misrepresentation troubling?  Newsweek, c’mon now.  Making conclusions from a trusted new source with exaggerated statements is what is going on for the potential reader.  It is highly irresponsible, because it misrepresents the facts.  And when you have a public that has misinterpreted information to mobilize on, it stifles debate, creates divisiveness and crushes democracy.  Thomas Jefferson said, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

More specifically, this article does two things.  It creates fear and anger.  It paints the picture of a ‘huge’ and growing movement that loyally follow Sarah Palin.  Sarah Palin, whose main objective is to push a new version of feminism and pro-life legislation.  And then from there, secondly, it creates divisiveness.  A tribal mentality.  An us versus them.  A boogie man.  Which might not exist if not for the media constantly hyping, creating illusions, and then relating what that means for YOU.  No matter how we evolve as a society there will be differences in opinion.  But should that cause fear or a real discussion?  How is the opinion of 2 women, an article and a book reading about Sarah Palin going to affect you?  Seriously, is it that scary?  But this type of shit sells.  To write an article about a woman who has a broken political career and a disapproval rating of 53% in this country.  A woman who is obsolete.  Blow her up as bigger than she, create a movement behind her, and pick a polarizing issue.  It’s like Jerry Springer or the WWE… drama.  And drama sells.

But that’s what happens all the time in the mainstream media.  The issue of illegal immigration is about racism versus compassion or the passing of this ‘health care’ bill is about the right of someone to see a doctor.  Politics and social issues are more complicated than that.  To simplify it to that extreme is unethical.  Just like life there are no simple answers, there are many perspectives to consider, and so many routes to take.  It’s because so much of what we do is intertwined with other situations and people.  If someone loses another benefits.  Decisions are complex and need to be discussed and treated that way.  But political analysis by our media is pretty simple.  A divisive topic is chosen, the enemy is painted and the decision is framed.  Often simplistically and framed in such a way to say no threatens what you care about.  A framing of the choice.  Drama sells.  CNN, MSNBC (especially), FOX (more so), the Wall Street Journal, Time… they all do this.  They win and the public loses.

“Not only do we have a right to know, we have a duty to know what our Government is doing in our name. If there’s a criticism to be made today, it’s that the press isn’t doing enough to put the pressure on the government to provide information.”
-Walter Cronkite – 3/28/02, PB

It’s all about independent media.  Always ask why…..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://www.rawstory.com/

http://jonesreport.com/

Left Cover

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.  Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

-Carroll Quigley, who is known as being President Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote in his 1966 book “Tragedy and Hope”

So the US is going to send more drones into Pakistan.  WTF.  Obama.  Bush.  Is there a tremendous difference between the two?  Most would argue of course, any fool could see that.  Bush is conservative to Obama is progressive.  Bush is a Christian man, with strong ‘family values’ and is pro-life.  Obama supports gays in the military, gays getting married, is pro choice and is an advocate for the environment.  But besides the social ideals they try and represent, is there a significant difference?  Bush had Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama has prolonged/intensified both those wars, and we’re sending drones to bomb Pakistan (killing innocents) and there’s talk of confronting Iran.  Bush created an economic real estate bubble (over investment; under value) with endless credit and huge deficits.  Which eventually led to a recession.  And Obama solves the problem by…  giving out endless credit lines (only to the banks) and even bigger deficits.  When it comes to foreign and economic policy they are  the same.  Only the rhetoric and perception is different.

I trip out that the same people who were so anti-war during the Bush administration are so quiet now.  What’s changed?  Of course they meekly still oppose the war, but what happened to the cussing, the yelling and the emotion since Obama became president?  When Bush passed the Patriot Act people were beside themselves and when Obama renews it, only a whisper.  Seriously.  Isn’t that a trip?  Blame the Republicans for this and that, when a Democrat does the same thing… nothing.  People are just now seeing what’s up, but the response doesn’t have the same fervor.  What did Obama promise in his campaign… end the war in Iraq, diplomacy and dialogue over aggression, financial transparency, no lobbyist monies, universal healthcare with a strong public option, repeal NAFTA…. Did he pull through on any of that?  How is Obama getting away with it?  He has pacified the ‘left’.  He has left cover.

If you followed Bush’s campaign back in the day he talked a good talk too.  His main themes were a non-interventionist foreign policy, smaller government, and tax cuts.  These are all conservative philosophies, and he didn’t follow through on any of these concepts.  He got away with it the same way, but for him it was right cover.  He pacified the right, because they identified with his stance on social issues and they were constrained by their party affiliation.  Think about it.  Whichever party has the congress and/or the presidency, the legislation that is passed has a corporate philosophy and agenda.  The wars, the bailouts, the stimulus money, the health care reform serve the banking cartels, the military industrial complex, insurance companies and the energy conglomerates.  Bush and now Obama take concepts either ‘right’ or ‘left’, use the rhetoric to push an authoritarian corporate motive.  They connect by preaching a similar cultural or social message that you identify with and then you identify with that political party and that person.  The party lines are drawn over a few polarizing issues, when issues that everyone can agree with are not debated or dealt with.  So when that politician does something abhorrent or a contrived legislation passes (something you might otherwise disagree with), there is rationalization and compromise.  Because what is being argued is not only the issue, but your emotional investment into a party and your identity itself.  This is how it is framed.  And this is how pacification occurs.  By the politician.  By the party.  By your cohorts.  By the mass media.  There is no left-right paradigm.  The Democratic party has failed.  The Republicans have failed.  Which side are you on?  Either way you lose.  And the corporate party wins.

Enforcement and not distribution

Left versus right.  Totalitarian or individual.  Libertarian or authoritarian.  All labels that we might identify with.  A better question might be what should the role of government be in our lives?  Is the government supposed to distribute rights or is it supposed to enforce the rights which are ours naturally.  The constitution of this country is based on the latter.

There is danger when we expect the government to save us and we give up our rights in exchange.  When the expectation of the government is to secure our future and to secure services which are not ours inalienable, something must be taken to be given.  Emphasis of the ‘greater good’ over the individual leads to the regression of these rights.  If we work off the premise of the moral worth of an individual than communal interactions become co-operative instead of corporate or collective.

George Washington wrote, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”