Robert A Bows: Fascism American-Style: How to Hold Them Accountable

Fascism American-Style: How to Hold Them Accountable

By Robert A Bows article link

November 5, 2010 | OpEdNews

"Of course we will have fascism in America but we will call it democracy." --Huey Long

"Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them." --Jean-Paul Sartre

"Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

The masters of the electronic voting machines have spoken

Preliminary analysis of exit polls (for senatorial and gubernatorial races) reported immediately after voting ended compared with the announced vote results show a statistically significant shift in favor of Republican candidates, the odds of which are about a million to one. [1]

This electronic theft is nothing new, but in the aftermath of this year's Supreme Court (5 to 4) decision giving the green light to unlimited campaign contributions, the blatancy is impressive. The strategy is simple: leverage the bottomless slush fund of corporate dollars and flood the nation's airwaves and mailboxes to twist enough minds to tighten the electoral races, so that those who control the software to the electronic voting machines can create the illusion of right-wing electoral success.

It's time to consider what can be done to drop the curtain on this charade and the policies that result from this illegitimate elevation of corporate shills to executive, legislative, and judicial office.

The American brand of fascism

There are as many varieties of fascism as there are examples, beginning with Germany (Hitler) and Italy (Mussolini) during the period leading up to and including WWII, followed by Cuba (Batista), Spain (Franco), Paraguay ( Stroessner), Nicaragua (Somoza), and Chile (Pinochet), et al.

The brand of fascism currently practiced in the United States by European and North American financiers and bankers--who control a major portion of the world's money supply, as well as the dominant military and intelligence apparatuses--has commonalities with many of its predecessors as well as a few important differences.

Commonalities include: control over the state by unelected persons ("the hidden government," as Teddy Roosevelt called them) or persons whose election is predetermined (through control of the currency, media, and voting process); use of intelligence and security forces to suppress opposition; abrogation of constitutional guarantees and international legal conventions; the justification of torture; and false flag events used to justify imperialism, to name a few.

As so eloquently expressed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials following World War II, we must hold such behavior accountable:

If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

We are now prepared to invoke these rules of criminal conduct and align the crimes of U.S. fascism with the indictments at Nuremberg:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace (9-11, WMDs, etc.)

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)

3. War crimes (Abu Ghraib, recent WikiLeaks, and attacks on civilians)

4. Crimes against humanity (massive Iraqi and Afghani civilian deaths and torture, plus ongoing state-sanctioned terrorism: 9-11, Gulf, 2008 economic contraction and refusal to replenish the money supply; sabotage of property and contract law [mortgage crisis])

But it is the differences between the American brand of fascism and previous iterations--particularly the illusion of choice and dissent (what social theorist Herbert Marcuse called "repressive desublimation")--that confuse many people into believing that the U.S. is simply a republic with democratic processes gone awry. This has led a range of critics to describe the situation as "inverted totalitarianism," "participatory fascism," "corporatism," or just "monopoly capitalism."

While each of these descriptions applies to a degree, the partial truths to which they call attention unnecessarily obscure the simple nature of the beast. Perhaps it is the erroneous notion that fascism equals Nazism (actually, the term originally referred to Mussolini's regime) that compels otherwise analytical people to deny what is going on here ("good Germans," all). But lack of intellectual rigor is no excuse to mislabel the ruthless abuses to which the world is being subjected. As Orwell so eloquently taught us, the price of removing, destroying, or distorting words and their meanings is that we lose our ability to know what freedom is.

Consider how one of our own presidents defined fascism:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. --Franklin D. Roosevelt [2]

Gone are the abstract notions of the state as an embodiment of some ethnic or racial or historical ideal (our rulers are multicultural, at least at the level of government employees and the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; the upper echelons of our intelligence services are another story); instead, the state is simply a catalyst for corporate policy. Today's corporate state makes no attempt to legitimize itself even theoretically, as the Italian syndicalists did, by pretending that collective bargaining takes place between management and labor. Premeditated expansion and contraction of the currency is used to steal assets (the fruits of our labor) at fire sale prices. In the U.S., earnings per share for the stockholders and the maintenance of power by the financial elites are the main objectives implemented by illegal means through the so-called "legal" state.

Everything, including the ecology and sustainability of the planet and its inhabitants, is sacrificed to the Almighty Dollar and for profit therein. Oddly, those aligned in this lockstep greedy march often see themselves as religious, or even spiritual! Perhaps they do not understand that Judeo-Christian tradition does not support the idolatry of money (currency) or commodities, such as gold or silver.

It's easy to miss this point, given the disinformation spread by so-called religious leaders; regardless, you may recall that Moses had to break and restore the Israelites' covenant with G-d because of some tribal members who, in his absence, manufactured and worshipped the Golden Calf; and Jesus reiterated this principle when he said, "You cannot worship God and mammon." The lack of self-awareness over such misplaced obeisance (regardless of the religion to which they may or may not subscribe) renders our materialistic brethren oblivious to the immoral nature of their own behavior.

What to do?

Irrespective of the origins of their debilitation, these fascists, who place money and corporate interests above people, must be held accountable for their crimes, however daunting the task may be of facing up to a monolithic and morally blind cartel that controls most of the currency and guns on our planet . Even the most corrupt and devolved regimes come to an end. But the hour is late; so, how to hasten a new organizational paradigm?

Such was the question for Carol Brouillet, when she invited a dozen or so fellow activists to a retreat following the "Deep Politics Conference" in Santa Cruz, California, in May 2010. Brouillet explains:

"I hoped that the retreat would give us more time to think deeply about the roots of the problems that humanity faces today, and generate insights on how we could individually and collectively empower ourselves to assist in the conscious evolution necessary for us to survive, grow, mature, and thrive, in alignment with our spirits, which yearn for truth, beauty, peace, justice, health, not only for ourselves, but for all people and all life forms."

As one might expect, the debate was heated, but the group was comprised of enough veteran organizers, some going back to the Free Speech Movement and the Vietnam War in the "60's, that a solution was hammered out. As it happened, they chose to model their appeal on the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The Details of Accountability

Even though most of those assembled recognize that the current regime (the money cartel or so-called New World Order) has totally abrogated the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and that the social contract has been broken, the group decided in hopes of eventual accountability-- such as took place with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa to compile a list of grievances, as the signers of the Declaration did over 234 years ago. The group also offers solutions aimed at building alternative forms of organization that will be the framework for a sustainable and just world, to supplant the current system when it collapses from the weight of its intrinsic contradictions and lies (which, as Jefferson put it, run contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God").

The result is the Declaration of Accountability, in which the group declares, much like the document upon which it is modeled, "the causes which impel them to the separation." In addition to the grievances listed in the Declaration, the Problems and Proposed Solution section includes "Financial Accountability," "Electoral Accountability," "Media Accountability," "Corporate Accountability," "Legal Accountability and the Rule of Law," "9-11 Accountability," "Gulf Accountability," etc.).

Like those who have survived the continuing holocausts and war crimes around the globe, the group hopes to keep alive the collective memory of the ongoing crimes against humanity until such time that the perpetrators are brought to justice. According to Brouillet:

"I believe by signing the Declaration of Accountability, we are asserting people power over the abusive tyranny of corporations, illegitimate institutions, the deceptions and lies that for too long have paralyzed and confused people, and we consciously enable and empower ourselves to challenge the Era of Impunity and launch a new era of responsibility, in which we reclaim our future and manifest our dreams and hopes for a better world."

The group formally launched its website this October, with a list of prominent individual and organizational signers. As the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson.

Be a witness for accountability.

[1] Josh Mitteldorf, "The Scoop on Election Theft 2010," OpEdNews.com, 11/3/10, .

[2] Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Appendix A: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws," The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, Part 2, Supplement, Papers Relating to the Temporary National Economic Committee (Jun., 1942), pp. 119-128, and "Anti-Monopoly," Time magazine, May 9, 1938.

About the author:

Robert Bows is a television producer/writer/director, playwright, theatre reviewer, political economist, instructional designer, yogi, metaphysician, and pseudonymous author of www.SolomonsProof.com and Solomon's Proof: A Psycho-Spiritual Journey to World Consciousness . He participated in the "Deep Politics Conference" referenced in the article and is one of the drafters of the Declaration of Accountability, as well as one of the editors documenting ongoing abuses.

OpEdNews home page

Robert A Bows: Fascism American-Style: How to Hold Them Accountable

Patrick Martin: Obama, Republicans Prepare for Joint Assault on American Workers

Obama, Republicans Prepare for Joint Assault on American Workers

by Patrick Martin article link article link

November 4, 2010 | WSWS | Global Research

In back-to-back press conferences Wednesday, the day after sweeping Republican gains in the 2010 midterm election, victorious Republican Party leaders and Democratic President Barack Obama took their first tentative steps towards an open political partnership directed against the American working class.

The man who will become speaker of house in January, Ohio Republican Congressman John Boehner, made an appearance on Capitol Hill, flanked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

All three repeated bromides about listening to the American people and following their lead, although the policies they support—slashing social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, education and unemployment compensation, and further tax breaks for the rich—are overwhelmingly opposed by the population.

Boehner was conciliatory in his demeanor, calling on the Obama White House and congressional Democrats, who still control the Senate, to work together with the new Republican majority in the House for a “smaller, less costly and more accountable government in Washington, DC.”

McConnell was more belligerent, declaring, “We’ll work with the administration when we agree with it and confront it when we don’t.” But he said, “it’s clear that we’ll have to have some kind of bipartisan agreement” on spending cuts, adding, “We anticipate enough Democrats will support this to make progress.”

Barbour issued the clearest call for across-the-board cuts in spending, saying, “In state government, we’ve learned to make real cuts, and we hope that will be an example to the new Congress.”

The calls for spending restraint and “smaller” government apply only to the programs that provide assistance to working people, the sick and the elderly. No Republican congressional leader favors cuts in spending on the military or the gargantuan tax subsidies to Wall Street and the wealthy.

On the contrary, Boehner and McConnell both reiterated their support for an extension of the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy, which are due to expire December 31. An extension has been held up by the dispute between the White House, which wants to limit the cuts to those making $250,000 a year or less, and the congressional Republicans, with considerable Democratic support, who want the tax cuts continued without any income ceiling, at the cost of $800 billion.

At his press conference an hour later, President Obama made it clear that he was open to the Republican approach, pledging bipartisan cooperation to cut spending and repeatedly suggesting areas of “common ground,” such as energy policy, education and tax cuts for investment.

Obama blamed the Democratic Party rout in the election on the dismal state of the US economy, particularly the widespread concern over the lack of jobs and high unemployment. But he proposed absolutely nothing to create jobs except more tax breaks for business, while offering to listen to any measures the Republicans might propose.

In an echo of the statements of an earlier Democratic president, Bill Clinton, after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, Obama asserted his continued relevance, declaring, “no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here” and expressing his desire to sit down with Boehner and McConnell.

In a comment that is particularly significant coming on the eve of a long trip to Asia, including a G20 economic summit in South Korea, Obama said, “The most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans. In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world.”

This suggests an appeal to the Republicans to join forces for an aggressive program of economic nationalism to promote the interests of American corporations against their international rivals. A key element in the Obama administration’s campaign for “export-led” growth is to lower the wage levels of American workers so that American corporations can become more competitive in the world market.

In response to repeated questions about whether the election represented a repudiation of his administration’s policies, Obama would concede only that the US economy had so far failed to generate enough jobs for the rapidly growing number of unemployed, although he claimed to have “stabilized the economy” and produced “job growth in the private sector.” He added, “But people all across America aren’t feeling that progress. They don't see it.”

In a clear olive branch to his right-wing opponents, Obama embraced their rhetoric against “big government.” He said that in the course of his first two years in office, with crisis interventions in the banking system, the auto industry and health care, “I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.”

It is notable that neither Obama nor his Republican opponents classify government spying, wiretapping, secret prisons or assassination orders—all the trappings of a police state—as “big government.” What the Republicans demonize is the slightest government restriction on the activities of giant corporations, banks and wealthy individuals to plunder and exploit working people.

Obama pointed to the bipartisan deficit commission he appointed in March, which is to submit proposals next month for cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as possible consumption taxes on the working class.

He also touted his embrace of accelerated depreciation rules for business, so companies “get a huge tax break next year,” citing this as “an idea that business groups and Republicans I think have supported for a very long time.”

Obama concluded with a paean to the capitalist market that could have been given by newly elected Republican Senator Rand Paul, declaring, “The reason we’ve got a unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we’ve got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial, and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated.”

What “unparalleled standard of living” is Obama talking about? American workers who are facing levels of poverty, unemployment and social misery unprecedented in three-quarters of a century might respond with an impolite gesture.

The president wanted above all to reassure corporate America that he had learned his lesson from the election and would never again speak ill of Wall Street, no matter what crimes are committed by the bankers and CEOs. Citing the financial crash, the scandal of huge executive bonuses, and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, “I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy.”

This extraordinary apology to those who have wrecked the US and world economy, despoiled the environment, and destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of working people demonstrates the complete subservience of both parties and all of official Washington to the ruling financial aristocracy.

Patrick Martin is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) home page

Global Research Articles by Patrick Martin

Global Research home page

It Was the Banks

by James K. Galbraith article link

November 5, 2010 | CommonDreams

CommonDreams home page

Patrick Martin: Obama, Republicans Prepare for Joint Assault on American Workers

Paul Craig Roberts: The Impotence of Elections

The Impotence of Elections

Americans out of work, out of income, out of homes, out of hope... .

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts article link

November 4, 2010 | Global Research

In his historical novel, The Leopard, Giuseppe di Lampedusa writes that things have to change in order to remain the same. That is what happened in the US congressional elections on November 2.

Jobs offshoring, which began on a large scale with the collapse of the Soviet Union, has merged the Democrats and Republicans into one party with two names. The Soviet collapse changed attitudes in socialist India and communist China and opened those countries, with their large excess supplies of labor, to Western capital.

Pushed by Wall Street and Wal-Mart, American manufacturers moved production for US markets offshore to boost profits and shareholder earnings by utilizing cheap labor. The decline of the US manufacturing work force reduced the political power of unions and the ability of unions to finance the Democratic Party. The end result was to make the Democrats dependent on the same sources of financing as Republicans.

Prior to this development, the two parties, despite their similarities, represented different interests and served as a check on one another. The Democrats represented labor and focused on providing a social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, education, and civil rights were Democratic issues. Democrats were committed to a full employment policy and would accept some inflation to secure more employment.

The Republicans represented business. The Republicans focused on curtailing big government in all its manifestations from social welfare spending to regulation. The Republicans’ economic policy consisted of opposing federal budget deficits.

These differences resulted in political competition.

Today both parties are dependent for campaign finance on Wall Street, the military/security complex, AIPAC, the oil industry, agri-business, pharmaceuticals, and the insurance industry. Campaigns no longer consist of debates over issues. They are mud-slinging contests.

Angry voters take their anger out on incumbents, and that is what we saw in the election. Tea Party candidates defeated Republican incumbents in primaries, and Republicans defeated Democrats in the congressional elections.

Policies, however, will not change qualitatively. Quantitatively, Republicans will be more inclined to more rapidly dismantle more of the social safety net than Democrats and more inclined to finish off the remnants of civil liberties. But the powerful private oligarchs will continue to write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs. New members of Congress will quickly discover that achieving re-election requires bending to the oligarchs’ will.

This might sound harsh and pessimistic. But look at the factual record. In his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton’s foreign adventures and vowed to curtail America’s role as the policeman of the world. Once in office, Bush pursued the neoconservatives’ policy of US world hegemony via military means, occupation of countries, setting up puppet governments, and financial intervention in other countries’ elections.

Obama promised change. He vowed to close Guantanamo prison and to bring the troops home. Instead, he restarted the war in Afghanistan and started new wars in Pakistan and Yemen, while continuing Bush’s policy of threatening Iran and encircling Russia with military bases.

Americans out of work, out of income, out of homes and prospects, and out of hope for their children’s careers are angry. But the political system offers them no way of bringing about change. They can change the elected servants of the oligarchs, but they cannot change the policies or the oligarchs.

The American situation is dire. As a result of the high speed Internet, the loss of manufacturing jobs was followed by the loss of professional service jobs, such as software engineering, that were career ladders for American university graduates. The middle class has no prospects. Already, the American labor force and income distribution mimics that of a third world country, with income and wealth concentrated in a few hands at the top and most of the rest of the population employed in domestic services jobs. In recent years net new job creation has been concentrated in lowly paid occupations, such as waitresses and bartenders, ambulatory health care services, and retail clerks. The population and new entrants into the work force continue to grow more rapidly than job opportunities.

Turning this around would require more realization than exists among policymakers and a deeper crisis. Possibly it could be done by using taxation to encourage US corporations to manufacture domestically the goods and services that they sell in US markets. However, the global corporations and Wall Street would oppose this change.

The tax revenue loss from job losses, bank bailouts, stimulus programs, and the wars have caused a three-to-four-fold jump in the US budget deficit. The deficit is now too large to be financed by the trade surpluses of China, Japan, and OPEC. Consequently, the Federal Reserve is making massive purchases of Treasury and other debt. The continuation of these purchases threatens the dollar’s value and its role as reserve currency. If the dollar is perceived as losing that role, flight from dollars will devastate the remnants of Americans’ retirement incomes and the ability of the US government to finance itself.

Yet, the destructive policies continue. There is no re-regulation of the financial industry, because the financial industry will not allow it. The unaffordable wars continue, because they serve the profits of the military/security complex and promote military officers into higher ranks with more retirement pay. Elements within the government want to send US troops into Pakistan and into Yemen. War with Iran is still on the table. And China is being demonized as the cause of US economic difficulties.

Whistleblowers and critics are being suppressed. Military personnel who leak evidence of military crimes are arrested. Congressmen call for their execution. Wikileaks’ founder is in hiding, and neoconservatives write articles calling for his elimination by CIA assassination teams. Media outlets that report the leaks apparently have been threatened by Pentagon chief Robert Gates. According to Antiwar.com, on July 29 Gates “insisted that he would not rule out targeting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange or any of the myriad media outlets which reported on the leaks.” article link

The control of the oligarchs extends to the media. The Clinton administration permitted a small number of mega-corporations to concentrate the US media in a few hands. Corporate advertising executives, not journalists, control the new American media, and the value of the mega-companies depends on government broadcast licenses. The media’s interest is now united with that of the government and the oligarchs.

On top of all the other factors that have made American elections meaningless, voters cannot even get correct information from the media about the problems that they and the country face.

As the economic situation is likely to continue deteriorating, the anger will grow. But the oligarchs will direct the anger away from themselves and toward the vulnerable elements of the domestic population and “foreign enemies.”

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research home page

Paul Craig Roberts: The Impotence of Elections

Billy Wharton: Where Is Everybody? Election Money Flows In 2010 But Voters Stay Home

Where Is Everybody? Election Money Flows In 2010 But Voters Stay Home

By Billy Wharton article link

November 05, 2010 | Countercurrents

While all eyes were placed firmly on Tea Party electoral breakthroughs such as Rand Paul in Kentucky, other disturbing trends also developed behind the scenes of this round of elections. This was the first election since the Supreme Court decision that reversed the limits on corporate campaign donations by affirming corporate personhood. The money did certainly flow in 2010 and it served to shape the outcome of at least some of the elections. Ominous unnamed sources funded dozens of attack ads in contested races, Political Action Committee (PAC) funds flowed freely and the unions continued their failed strategy of footing the bill for the Democratic Party. The sheer scale of the spending combined with restrictive ballot access laws, served to further drown out independent candidates. Voters responded by staying home.

Money, Money, Money

Overall spending increased rapidly in 2010. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) reports that more than $4 billion, or the annual GDP of Mongolia, was spent on this election. The Supreme Court decision on corporate personhood seems to have had the biggest impact on outside spending. Outside spending relates to activities such as the purchases of election ads, making phone calls for candidates and other electoral activities on behalf of candidates. Spikes in outside spending normally occur during presidential years and then wane in by-elections. Until this year.

CRP tallies of outside spending show it surging in 2010 to nearly $300 million, a level equal to the heavily financed presidential election of 2008. In a reversal of 2008, Conservative concerns outspent Liberal ones by nearly two to one. Much of the Conservative money, some $32 million, was funneled through Chambers of Commerce in support of Republican candidates. Who did this spending is still unknown, as contributors evaded or delayed disclosure of their contributions.

One race that attracted serious money was the hotly contested Colorado Senate race in which Democrat Michael Bennet squeaked by Republican Ken Buck by less than 1% of the vote. Bennet spent more than $10 million on the race and received more than $1 million from a Democratic Party PAC. The outside spending was equally remarkable. Nearly $6 million was spent on advertisements opposing Bennet and another $2.4 million to support Buck. The total spending in this race amounted to around $34 million, a figure equal to the monthly GDP of Caribbean island-nation of Dominica.

Unions: The Definition of Insanity

Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity is useful when evaluating the role of unions in elections. Einstein understood insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." If you think of the trade unions as people, they are in serious need of mental counseling. They keep on doing the same thing, supporting the Democrats, with the same results, working people get screwed. This time, the strategy of the union leadership was to do this same thing again, but on a much grander scale.

Union leaders took advantage of the new rules by avoiding the annoying formality of setting up a separate fund for campaign donations. This year they spent directly from member’s dues. And, boy did they spend. The Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alone spent about $37 million in outside spending on electoral races. Union money flowed throughout the country with little affect on policy proposals – the Democrats are still firmly committed to budget cutting or in Washington-speak “restructuring entitlements.”

The folly of union electoral politics was most clearly on display in the race for Governor in New York State. Here, Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo left the heavily union-financed Working Families Party (WFP) twisting in the wind for weeks. The WFP offered their endorsement, but Cuomo refused, thereby putting the group’s ballot line in jeopardy. Cuomo eventually relented, but forced WFP officials to sign off on his proposals to cut the state budget – including cutbacks on unionized public workers! With the WFP politically neutered, Cuomo went on an embarrassing media offensive against public employees unions targeting them for concessions. Though the WFP kept its ballot access, it sold its soul and with it the last progressive cover for the trade union’s suicidal Democratic Party insider strategy.

Unintended Consequences

Things did not work out exactly as planned on Tuesday. Though big-moneyed interests did manage to shape some outcomes, the trend toward self-financed mega-rich candidates took a hit. This is not entirely negative as long as the inane notion that fueled it - that these candidates were too rich to give in to special interests – dies along with it.

The CRP reports that only 1/5 of the 58 Federal level candidates who contributed at least $500,000 to their own campaigns achieved victory. The rest faced spectacularly expensive defeats. The poster-child for this reversal was Republican Senate Candidate in Connecticut Linda McMahon. McMahon coughed up more than $46 million in profits from her wrestling empire yet still came up empty.

While self-financed narcissists were going down in flames, there were also some small signs of grassroots resistance. In New York, thousands of disaffected progressives and independents found their way to Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins. Hawkins’ vote total of more than 57,000 surpassed previous Green efforts and secured permanent ballot access for the party. Simultaneously, in Ohio, Socialist Party USA candidate for Senate Dan LaBotz captured the attention of more than 27,000 voters. Though LaBotz and the Socialists were practically starting from scratch in the state, they managed to present socialist politics in a manner that drew some amount of attention. Both Hawkins and LaBotz bucked the money trends as they ran their campaigns on the cheap and got the most out of small individual contributions.

Where is Everybody?

Despite all the money spent. Despite all the attack commercials. Despite the unrelenting reports on 24/7 political news channels, the American people still did not turn out to vote. The United States Election Project reports that the average turn out was around 41%. Heavily contested races peaked out just above 50% while other states hovered around the high 30’s. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that turnout among African-American voters was far lower than the 2008 Presidential election. Overall, for the entire country, people just stayed home.

The explanation for all this is exceedingly simple. Save the moralistic homilies about the duty of people to vote. The American people get at least one part of the problem. There are no significant choices offered at the ballot box. There is a basic agreement between the Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from budget cuts, to free trade, to military strategy and expenditures. No amount of well-financed public relations can effectively dress up this agreement as difference. The American voters know this, so they stay home.

The next step, of course, is to build that alternative. This process is likely to take place primarily outside of the electoral arena. With the Obama Deficit Commission preparing to issue a report in December that is widely expected to propose dramatic cutbacks in public programs such as Social Security and Medicare, there will be plenty of issues to organize around. Protest politics will come back to the US. Whether this reappearance will be represented in the electoral arena remains to be seen. Certainly, thanks to the Supreme Court decision on corporations, there will be powerful interests lining up to prevent such manifestations.

Billy Wharton is a writer and activist whose articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly@gmail.com

Countercurrents home page

After The Campaign Cash, The Backlash

By Brooke Jarvis article link article link article link

November 05, 2010 | YES! Magazine | Countercurrents | CommonDreams

YES! Magazine home page

Lies, Money, And The Fate Of Our Liberty

By Mary Shaw article link article link

November 05, 2010 | Countercurrents | OpEdNews

OpEdNews home page

America Is Now Officially for Sale

It's the Tea Party spirit distilled: pose as the champion of Joe America, while actually ripping him off

by Johann Hari article link article link

November 5, 2010 | The Independent/UK | CommonDreams

The Independent/UK home page

CommonDreams home page

The GOP Recipe for Keeping the Economy Down Until Election 2012

Could it be that Republicans want to keep the economy struggling through Election Day, 2012?

by Robert Reich article link article link

November 5, 2010 | Robert Reich | AlterNet

Robert Reich home page

AlterNet home page

Billy Wharton: Where Is Everybody? Election Money Flows In 2010 But Voters Stay Home

Jim Hightower: Who's That Hiding Behind the Tea Party?

Who's That Hiding Behind the Tea Party?

by: Jim Hightower article link

November 04, 2010 | t r u t h o u t

The tea party spoke! Loudly, powerfully and proudly.

But besides, "Throw the bums out," what did it say? And now that the party part is over and the nasty business of governing begins, what does it all add up to? What's its governing agenda? How does it make anything positive out of the disparate mish-mash of issue positions within its own rank and file?

And then there's the big one -- the huge, grotesque, democracy-choking monster that the party invited into the center of its own movement: corporate money. Throughout the election, tea partiers demurely averted their eyes from this ugly dude, for the monster was lavishing millions of corporate dollars on their candidates. But now, whether they meant to or not, they've ensconced it as the unrivaled, controlling power in the new Congress. What will they do as it asserts its selfish interests over theirs, devouring their ideals and their pretension that they are in control?

The media establishment insists on referring to the tea party as a "populist" movement -- but real populists fight corporate power, they don't hug it! The party certainly is a popular uprising, and a successful one, but there's nothing populist about it. Indeed, its leaders and candidates have vociferously opposed the populist ideals of egalitarianism, social justice, cooperative action and the common good.

"Shrink the Government" sounds good as a campaign cry, but its substance, as expressed by many of the most prominent teabag nominees and electees, is to kill Social Security, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, eliminate unemployment compensation, strip away the regulatory reforms on Wall Street's big banks, undo the EPA and the Education Department, extend the privileged tax breaks of super-wealthy hedge fund speculators, cut food stamps, do away with minimum wage, cripple unions, take away the pensions of public employees ... etc., etc.

That's the anti-populist agenda, one that greatly increases corporate power over the rest of us -- and one that the new Republican speaker of the House (known as "Suntan Johnnie" Boehner for his cozy ties with top corporate lobbyists) will quietly and quickly try to advance. To the dismay of most rank-and-file tea partiers, he'll advance it in their name.

For America, this was a sad campaign, containing all the gravitas, substance and forward-looking vision of a Paris Hilton event. The positive was that lots of new energy flowed into these elections. The flow mostly sprang from anger, anxiety and anti-ism (all of which are totally understandable, given our disastrous, jobless economy and the relentless undermining of our middle class).

Sadly, however, neither the confused Democrats nor the fused tea party-Republicans even addressed the economic source of the people's anger and anxiety. Dems mostly said, "Stick with us, for they're worse," and Repubs merely retorted, "We're not them."

This reduced the election to a massive, despicable blitz of TV ads consisting of lies, shameless pandering and silliness. It was America's first $4 billion election, with the likes of the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove, Dick Armey and other designers of corporate rule secretively channeling unprecedented, unconscionable (and, I believe, unconstitutional) sums of cash directly from corporate coffers to create a House majority obligated and dedicated to them.

Among the saddest results is that instead of throwing the bums out, voters in many cases threw the bums in. One example is Ron Johnson, a multimillionaire plastics manufacturer who is a knee-jerk, right-wing ideologue. He used his own fortune and nearly 3 million from out-of-state corporate front groups to run ugly and defeat Sen. Russ Feingold -- a true maverick and one of the genuinely independent and most principled voices in Washington.

The tea party says that it is rebelling against big government, just as the Sons of Liberty did in 1773, when they tossed boxes of British-owned tea from three British ships docked in Boston Harbor. But that particular act of defiance was not against the government of King George III. The ships were owned by the British East India Trading Co., a despised corporation that routinely engaged in the economic repression of the colonies.

It is the modern extension of this repressive corporate power that today's tea party groups must confront if they're going to make any real difference.

National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

Truthout home page

Jim Hightower: Who's That Hiding Behind the Tea Party?

David DeGraw: The Midterm Election Further Demonstrates The Need for Revolution

The Midterm Election Further Demonstrates The Need for Revolution

by David DeGraw article link article link

November 4, 2010 | AmpedStatus | Global Research

The Obama referendum came in and he got what he deserved. When you run on change and leave the same criminals in positions of power and don’t hold anyone accountable for obvious crimes, and allow them to continue to commit those crimes, you deserve to lose your power. This is what happens when you put Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of the economy, and support Ben Bernanke for reconfirmation as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. This is what happens when you keep Robert Gates as your Secretary of Defense and General Petraeus in charge of your wars. This is what happens when you lie to protect the interests of BP over the American people. This is what happens when you bailout Wall Street and the health care industry and sell out everyone else. This is what happens when your rhetoric is the opposite of your actions. The past two years have clearly exposed Obama as a spineless corporate puppet and he deserves to be voted out in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, most of the people who were just voted into office are just as bad, if not worse, as hard as that is to believe. This election marks the third straight time that the American public dramatically voted out the people who were in power. The fact of the matter is that these people are not voting for politicians that they like as much as they are voting against politicians they hate. Hopefully by 2012 the American public will finally understand that they must support Independent candidates and alternative political structures, and cannot vote for Democrats or Republicans, if they ever want to achieve the needed change. Both parties serve the same corporate masters. Yes, there are some differences between the two. The Democrats serve half of the top economic one percent, and the Republicans serve the other half. We have Neo-liberals to the left and Neo-cons to the right, leaving 99% of us without representation.

And the saddest part of all, the system is now so rigged via campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door that it is almost impossible for people who represent us to even get into office, let alone stay in office and enact policies that will bring change. Two politicians in Congress who actually fought for us against the Economic Elite just lost their reelection bids. Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold lost because record amounts of cash went to funding the candidates who ran against them. Even their own party’s leadership didn’t support their reelection efforts. The bottom line in this money rigged system is that you cannot run against the most powerful corporations and win. They will just pour unlimited funds into defeating you, and your own party will desert you.

The truth that many so called “Independent” news outlets will not tell you is that this government is now beyond repair. You won’t hear many calls for Revolution because even the more “Independent” news outlets are dependent on the two-party system. It is absurd that these outlets still play into the obsolete Republican versus Democrat dynamic. The only reason why they do it is because they are dependent on grants from foundations and political organizations that will not fund them unless they bow to Democrats and bash Republicans, or vice versa.

I can speak from personal experience. I’ve lost a vital grant to fund my work because I wasn’t willing to focus my attention on blaming Republicans for our problems. Our problems are a result of the two-party system. When you engage in bashing one party in favor of the other, you become a pivotal cog in the machine that is killing our country. I will not be part of the disease. The stakes are too high now. America is burning and both parties are pouring gasoline all over it.

Most Americans have only a vague understanding of the collapse that we have been set up for. If you think the past two years were bad, they were just a warm up to what is coming our way. After analyzing the policies in place and the current political environment, I can assure you that the next two years will be worse that the previous two. 52 million Americans have already been driven into poverty, 30 million are in need of work, millions of American families have been foreclosed upon and the inequality of wealth is the most severe it has ever been in the history of the United States. And this is just the beginning phase of the decline. Millions more will be added to these totals and the social safety-nets that have held our society together are breaking down. Cuts to vital social programs are going to be severe across the board.

Our paid-off government is not going to fix our problems, they are making them worse. Don’t you think it’s time for you to start representing yourself? Don’t you think it’s time for you to start defending your family’s interests?

These are questions that I’ve already asked myself and deeply considered. I made my decision and have dedicated myself to building a wide-ranging network of alliances across the political spectrum and have drafted a common ground platform that we are building off of. I’ve analyzed power politics very closely over the years. I know how the game is played and I know who our enemies are. I’m going to do everything I can to end the two-party oligopoly.

I’m not saying that you should follow me. I’m saying that it’s time for YOU to lead. It’s time for YOU to get involved. Build your own army. Once you start paying attention and put in some time to do the research, you will clearly see for yourself that both parties are working against your interests. You will also see how critical the situation is and realize that you can no longer be passive and expect to keep living a healthy and secure lifestyle. We are going to be tested in ways we have never been tested before. We cannot get away with being apolitical anymore. It’s time for us to pay attention, to become directly involved in the decision-making processes that guide our life. I know this is something that most people don’t enjoy and don’t want to do, but the consequences of our inaction will be much worse than anything we have ever experienced.

Yes, I sound extreme, but these are extreme times. I’m not going to sit quietly as our future is ripped out from under us. I will not let my family’s well being and our country’s fate be decided by short-sighted greed addicted forces that have looted the global economy and brought poverty, death and destruction throughout the world.

I see the path we are on and I intend to change it!

It is evident that the overwhelming majority of the population has become cynical and feels that it is useless to try to change things. If these people would just realize that they are the overwhelming majority and take action, we can change things. We have power in numbers. We are 99% of the population. If we organize on common ground and fight back, we will win!

David DeGraw is the founder and editor of AmpedStatus.com. He is the author of The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America, and his forthcoming book is The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III.

AmpedStatus home page

Global Research Articles by David DeGraw

Global Research home page

Our Imperial Vote

by: William J. Astore article link article link

November 03, 2010 | The Huffington Post | Truthout

The Huffington Post home page

Truthout home page

David DeGraw: The Midterm Election Further Demonstrates The Need for Revolution

Stephen Lendman: US Elections: America's Right Turn

US Elections: America's Right Turn

By Stephen Lendman article link article link

November 04, 2010 | Stephen Lendman | Countercurrents

Since the 1980s, neoliberalism dominated US politics under Democrats and Republicans. Bush I continued Reagan policies. Clinton hardened them. Bush II much more, and Obama so far matched Star Trek, going where no administration went before. Count the ways. They're manyfold, favoring business over popular interests, yet he's accused of being socialist.

On November 2, angry voters responded, shifting right despite favoring many left of center issues, a combination of outrage and angst overriding their best interests. Go figure because what they got will incense them more.

During hard times, election cycles repeat a common pattern. Angry voters throw out bums for new ones, discarding them next time around for still more, mindless of what an earlier article explained - that US democracy is fake. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Mock elections pretend to be real. The process is mere kabuki theater run by political consultants and PR wizards, supported by major media misreporting, featuring horse race issues, not real ones.

Everything is pre-scripted. Secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process. Party bosses chose candidates. Big money owns them. Key outcomes are predetermined, and cheated voters get the best democracy money can buy, each time no different than others.

Recall November 2008. Promising change after eight George Bush/Republican dominated years, Obama won the most convincing non-incumbent victory in over 50 years, sweeping Democrats to large majorities in both houses.

On election night, the mood celebrated hope for progressive change, an end to imperial wars, and a new day for America. When word came around 10PM, expectant thousands in Chicago's Grant Park erupted with chants of "yes we can," hoping Obama would deliver at a time of deepening economic duress. Two years later, disappointment, disillusion, frustration, and anger erupted over promises made, then broken, once again betting new faces will govern better than old ones. Think again.

New York Times writers took the lead reporting it, Jeff Zeleny and David Herszenhorn, for example, headlining, "Restive Voters Divide Power in Congress as GOP Surges to Control of House," saying:

They also came close in the Senate "as discontented voters, frustrated about the nation's continuing economic woes, turned sharply against President Obama just two years after catapulting him into the White House." It showed in how they "indiscriminately ousted Democratic incumbents who loyally supported Mr. Obama's agenda," decidedly anti-populist whether or not they know it.

Times writer Carl Hulse headlined "Republicans Oust(ed) Old and New Democrats Alike," throwing out babies with their bath water. It's what usually happens in hard times, especially when big money effectively manipulates minds, pushing them right, not left, that means over the cliff through planned austerity when massive stimulus and much more are needed.

Universal single-payer healthcare for one. Taking money out of politics another. Holding real elections, not fake ones. Giving Congress back what the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 mandates - the power to create money and control the value thereof, not Wall Street bankers using it to their advantage. They delivered hard times, transferring wealth from the majority to themselves. Obama and Congress support them, Republicans as guilty as Democrats.

The best Times writer Peter Baker could say was "Somewhere along the way, the apostle of change became its target, engulfed by the same currents that swept him to the White House two years ago." Instead of denouncing his shameless betrayal, he said only that he "must find a way to recalibrate with nothing less than his presidency on the line."

Shifting right, not left, is what he means, what Clinton called triangulation. Obama earlier promised austerity, more favors for business, hardline immigration policy, deficit reduction, continued imperial wars without saying it, and more for privilege, not people, buying into Reagan's "trickle down" economics, what, Bush I called "voodoo."

All a Times editorial could do say is that "voters....sent President Obama a loud message: They don't like how he's doing his job, they're even angrier at Congressional Democrats." Republicans exploited it "turning out their base....Democrats....fail(ing) to rally their own." Besides noting a shift right, hard issues weren't mentioned, instead saying "his opponents (were able) to spin and distort what Americans should see as genuine progress in very tough times."

For Wall Street, defense contractors, Big Oil, and other corporate favorites perhaps, not Main Street that drove voters for change. What's coming, however, will infuriate them, what no major media report will explain. For example:

-- greater than ever military spending;

-- expanded wars, perhaps to new theaters at a time most Americans want them ended;

-- privatizing Social Security and Medicare, letting Wall Street racketeers exploit them for profit, scamming the public at the same time;

-- privatizing public education as well as increasingly at the university level;

-- trashing labor rights;

-- hanging American workers out to dry;

-- ignoring growing millions facing foreclosure;

-- letting poverty and unemployment spiral out of control;

-- yet eliminating unemployment compensation and other social benefits, saying they're "unaffordable;" tax cuts for the rich, however, will be maintained;

-- enacting more police state laws on top of many in place; and

-- turning America darker, a reactionary direction pitting bread and butter issues against ruling elites, both parties offering bipartisan support, especially new incumbents and their leadership.

The big money backing them demands it, assuring they'll get what they bought. It's how US politics works, more than ever delivering the best democracy money can buy. As a result, American workers are on their own, out of luck, and unsupported by both parties. Democrats are no different than Republicans.

As a result, governance in America is dysfunctional. The electorate remains mindless to reality. Only grassroots activism might change things, sweeping all the bums out, electing progressive independents, reversing repressive and corporate friendly laws, as well as enacting a new constitution by national referendum, letting the electorate decide, not states or Washington.

A utopian vision? Absolutely, adopting working class France's 1968 slogan, "Be realistic, Ask for the Impossible" through collective political action, the only way "impossible" goals ever are reachable, social justice topping the list.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Countercurrents home page

Missing: A Vision Of Economic Possibility

By David Korten article link article link article link

November 04, 2010 | YES! Magazine | CommonDreams | Countercurrents

YES! Magazine home page

The Party of Organized Money

by Robert C. Koehler article link

November 4, 2010 | CommonDreams

Rich Media, Poor Democracy

by Amy Goodman article link article link

November 4, 2010 | TruthDig | CommonDreams

TruthDig home page

Democracy NOW! home page

CommonDreams home page

What Obama Can Learn from the Social Movements That Changed the World

By Ruth Rosen article link

November 4, 2010 | AlterNet

AlterNet home page

Stephen Lendman: US Elections: America's Right Turn

Patrick Martin: Republicans Win Sweeping Victory In US Congressional Election

Republicans Win Sweeping Victory In US Congressional Election

By Patrick Martin article link article link

November 3, 2010 | WSWS | CounterCurrents

With many results still being counted or too close to call, the US congressional elections have produced a sweeping victory for the Republican Party, which regained control of the House of Representatives, gaining as many as 60 seats, and cut into the Democratic margin in the Senate.

Incumbent Senate Democrats Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were defeated, and Republicans took open Senate seats in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Indiana. The Republican candidate was leading early Wednesday in the contest for Barack Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans took at least four seats from Democrats in New York, two in New Hampshire, one in New Jersey, five in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, two in Michigan, two in Indiana, three in Illinois, and two in Wisconsin, for a net gain of 26 seats in the industrial Northeast and Midwest. The Republicans also captured at least 15 Democratic-held seats in the South, including three each in Florida, Virginia and Tennessee, and two in Georgia and Mississippi.

Some longstanding congressional Democrats lost their seats, including House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt in South Carolina, Appropriations subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher in the coal-mining region of Virginia, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Republican candidates won the lion’s share of the 39 state governorships, taking control of Democratic-held statehouses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee and New Mexico, while retaining Republican-held statehouses in Florida, Texas and Georgia. The Democrats retained New York and Massachusetts and were leading in Illinois and California.

The electoral debacle is a devastating indictment of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. Two years after an overwhelming victory in the presidential election, four years after the Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate, the right-wing policies of the Democrats have created the conditions for a massive comeback by the Republicans.

The corporate-controlled media and the representatives of the two big business parties are already proclaiming that the outcome of the election demonstrates that the American people have shifted to the right, embracing the “free market” nostrums of the Republican Party and the right-wing Tea Party movement.

This contention is both stupid and ludicrous. According to these political “experts,” in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with unemployment near double-digit levels, millions facing foreclosure, and the poverty rate skyrocketing, the American people have decided that they favor eliminating unemployment compensation, cutting Social Security, closing public schools and slashing taxes for the rich.

Exit polls demonstrate that, far from a surge of popular support for the Republicans, the outcome was determined by a collapse in the vote among those who voted most heavily for Obama and the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. While young voters, those 18 to 29, comprised 18 percent of the vote in 2008, they made up only 10 percent of those who turned out at the polls on Tuesday. Those over 65 comprised 15 percent of the vote in 2008, but 24 percent of the vote in 2010.

The elderly shifted sharply against the Democratic Party in large measure because of the reactionary character of the Obama health care “reform.” Far from being a progressive measure to extend health care to the uninsured, the Obama plan was primarily a cost-cutting measure that many of the elderly regarded, quite correctly, as a threat to Medicare benefits. While 48 percent of the elderly voted Republican in 2008, this figure jumped to 58 percent in 2010, one of the largest swings among any demographic group.

The collapse of support for the Democrats was the product of two years of betrayal of the illusions promoted in the 2008 campaign. The Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 were fueled by popular hostility to the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama appealed to these sentiments in order to get elected, but once in office he continued the same militarist policies, even keeping on Pentagon chief Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and pouring another 70,000 troops into Afghanistan.

From the beginning, Obama disavowed any effort to hold Bush officials responsible for the blatant illegality of the wars, for torture and other war crimes, or for the attacks on democratic rights undertaken as part of the “war on terror.” Obama intensified domestic spying, kept the Guantanamo Bay detention camp open, backed renewal of the Patriot Act, and declared that the commander-in-chief had the right to order assassination of American citizens.

On economic policy, Obama brought in figures identified with Wall Street like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to be his chief aides. He combined solicitude for the banks with scarcely concealed indifference to the plight of the working class. Obama moved heaven and earth to continue the bailout of Wall Street begun under Bush, while rejecting any job-creation measures by the federal government and describing unemployment as merely a “lagging economic indicator.”

In the month leading up to the midterm election, the White House seemed to go out of its way to alienate the youth and workers who turned out in 2008 to vote for Obama, who ran as the candidate for “change” and ‘hope.” The administration opposed a moratorium on foreclosures despite revelations about banks fabricating documentation, lifted the ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico imposed after the BP disaster, and promoted more tax breaks for business in the name of “job-creation.”

Tuesday’s electoral rout will be bemoaned by Obama’s liberal apologists, from the editorial board of the New York Times to the Nation, who will join in blaming the American people for having “moved to the right.” In reality, the election has exposed the Democratic Party for what it is: an alliance of a part of the financial aristocracy with a privileged and complacent section of the upper middle class, a social category that includes the trade union bureaucracy.

Establishment liberalism is concerned about lifestyle issues and identity politics, but is utterly distant from the needs of the working people who are the vast majority of the population. It has moved so far to the right that the economic program of Obama and that of the incoming House Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans differs only on minor details.

Coming out of the election, Obama will renew the drive towards bipartisanship with which he began his administration, going out of his way from the moment of his election to rehabilitate a completely discredited Republican Party. All the “compromises” that he proposes will amount to acceptance of Republican demands for deeper reductions in social spending as well as further tax cuts and other concessions to corporate interests.

Republican leader Boehner declared that his new majority in the House of Representatives constitutes the “voice of the American people.” The truth is that the Republican victory sets the stage for a direct confrontation between the working class and the most reactionary sections of the American ruling elite.

In this conflict, the working class will find a way forward only through a resolute and implacable break with bankrupt liberalism and the Democratic Party and the building of a new and independent mass political movement based on a socialist program.

Copyright © 1998-2010 World Socialist Web Site

World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) home page

CounterCurrents home page

Now That The Elections Are Over, What Kind of Economy Did Americans Vote For?

by Danny Schechter article link

November 3, 2010 | Global Research

Global Research home page

Dems Take a Pounding in the Mid-Terms: Progressives Not Bold Enough, Says Caucus Leader

By Adele M. Stan article link

November 3, 2010 | AlterNet

AlterNet home page

Bloodbath; The USA Repudiates Obama, Emanuel, Bluedogs, The DLC, DNC, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd... Good Riddance!

By Rob Kall article link

November 3, 2010 | OpEdNews

OpEdNews home page

Patrick Martin: Republicans Win Sweeping Victory In US Congressional Election

Butler Shaffer: Can Liberty Be Advanced Through Violence?

Can Liberty Be Advanced Through Violence?

by Butler Shaffer article link

November 1, 2010 | LewRockwell

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

~ Albert Einstein

A Republican candidate running for Congress in Texas has set many minds and mouths atwitter with his suggestion that, should state tyranny ever become a problem in America that could not be resolved by political means, the use of violence, while "not the first option," would be "on the table." There is a deep-rooted frustration and anger among millions of Americans directed at the entirety of a political establishment that is forever employing lies, deceit, contradictory reasoning, violence, increased regulatory and taxation schemes, Federal Reserve monetary policies, wars, expanded police and surveillance powers, and other practices that advance corporate-state interests at the expense of ordinary people. Those upset with such behavior have tried resorting to the politically-acceptable means of bringing about change. They have gone to voting booths to support candidates who promise to "get the government off your backs," or "no more taxes," or to not engage in "nation-building." With but a handful of exceptions, those elected turn around and violate such promises, leaving the disenchanted voters to seek out other political saviours at the next election.

The current "Tea-Party" movement began as yet another expression of popular disaffection with our politicized society. It was, however, quickly co-opted by the same right-wing franchise of the political establishment that participated – in bipartisan efforts with its left-wing branch – in the construction of the modern empire. Just as in the 1994 Republican Party’s congressional victories, persons of libertarian sentiments will discover that dressing a Tea-Party candidate in a three-cornered hat will not change his fundamental character as a pimp for the prevailing order.

When the futility of using institutionally-approved methods for making change become increasingly evident to people, it is not surprising that many might look to violence as the only effective solution. Students of social psychology often speak of the "frustration/aggression" hypothesis, wherein a repeated interference with goal-directed activity may result in a resort of violence. As Fred Berger expressed it, where

certain segments or groups within the population are systematically exposed to these weaknesses in the ability of the legal system to provide or protect security, those subjected to such treatment come to feel "left out" of the social process, come to regard themselves as the "victims" of the social and political scheme, rather than full participants in it. . . . Such conditions tend to foster counter-violence and retaliatory disorder. . . .

In a world in which it has become evident to so many that the institutional order exists to promote the interests of the few at the expense of the more numerous, is it so remarkable that such an awareness would be responded to with anger and violence? To regard oneself as being endlessly at the mercy of increasingly malevolent forces that one is otherwise unable to control or resist, can produce a sense of hopelessness that may lead to violence directed against its perceived source.

How is one to respond to the systemic violence that is the lifeblood, the very essence, of the state? Society has always been a struggle between the "invisible hand" of a peaceful and productive order that arises, without direction, as the unintended consequence of people pursuing their own interests, and the "iron fist" of institutionally structured violence we have been conditioned to equate with "social order." I have defined "government" as "an institution of theft, predation, rape, destruction, and mass murder, the absence of which, it is said, would lead to disorder."

To understand political systems, and to learn how to protect oneself when dealing with them, one must cast aside all of the illusions and lies in which we have been trained to see them. They are defined, even by students of government, as agencies "enjoying a monopoly on the use of violence within a given territory." There is nothing, nothing, that the state ever does that does not derive from a presumed authority to employ whatever amount of deadly force its officials deem necessary – or just convenient – to achieve its ends. Contrary to the mantle of "public servant" in which they like to cloak themselves, government employees – from the president on down to janitors – insist upon their power to compel obedience by force.

The mainstream media and high-ranking government officials have been feigning righteous indignation over the city officials in Bell, California, who paid themselves gargantuan salaries – one as high as $800,000 per year, and with retirement pay nearing $1,000,000 annually. What is most upsetting to such critics, however, is not the enormity of their racket, but that these local officials failed to conform themselves to established methods for the looting of taxpayers. Like the Claude Rains police chief in the movie, Casablanca, who informs Humphrey Bogart that he is "shocked to discover gambling" going on in his business – as he receives his gambling payoff from the croupier – the town government of Bell will receive a selective criticism of its behavior. Government defense contracts; hundreds of billions of dollars in "stimulus" gifts to favored business interests; the refusal of the Federal Reserve system – or of Congress – to reveal the beneficiaries of its monetary policies, these and other politically-correct forms of looting will pass without significant comment from right-thinking people. Nor, in contrast with the Bell racket, will much be made of the fact that a current candidate for governor in California has spent $141.5 million of her own money in an effort to get elected. Why? As one who understands that people act in order to be better off after acting than they would have been otherwise, what returns does this woman expect from her investment? Who is insisting upon an explanation from her?

I have long been of the view that parents have a moral obligation to keep their children from living under tyranny. As such, how do I go about the task of helping to make their world one in which they may enjoy the conditions of peace and liberty? My experience convinces me that participation in electoral politics is more than futile: it only adds energy to the system; it confirms the central premise of all political thinking, namely: important change can occur only within the halls of government. Besides the fact that the electoral process is unavoidably rigged in favor of the status quo, it also assures that, no matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected. Voting is designed to give people the false sense that they are in control of the machinery and the policies of the state. Emma Goldman got it right when she said that "if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal."

My opposition to voting arises from the same sense as my opposition to other forms of violence. Implicit in efforts to persuade the state to act according to your preferences – whether through voting, lobbying, or threats of force – is the idea that, should you prevail, others will be compelled to abide by what you have chosen for them. Voting is anything but the peaceful alternative to violence: it is premised on the coercive machinery of the state being employed on your behalf should you prevail in amassing a greater number of people on your side than do others.

More direct forms of violence – as some suggest to be the ultimate solution to statism – is likewise inconsistent with a condition of liberty. Violence is an expression of reactive anger, born of unrequited frustration. Violence is the very essence of the state: can one expect mankind to free itself of political destructiveness by adopting its very essence?

We will not become free when the state goes away. Rather, the state will go away once we are free. "Freedom" is a very personal quality, wherein the individual enjoys a centered, integrated life, free of the conflicts and contradictions that make up our normally neurotic lives. We must learn to respect the inviolability of one another’s lives and other property interests if we are to enjoy this inner sense of being free. A need for liberty is what we have in common with one another, but we will only grasp this fact when each of us is free of the inner forces that keep us divided and in conflict.

We have conditioned our minds to think of ourselves in conflict-laden ways, be they nationalistic, religious, racial, gender, or other forms of separation. Our political masters have trained us to think of one another in "we/they," "us" against "them" categories, divisions that are – like the scapegoats upon whom we play out our conflicts – changeable to suit the political needs of the moment. The fear of unseen "communists" that helped fuel the Cold War, has morphed into the concealed "terrorists," with each serving the same purpose: to expand the power and plundering of the state. Only by our individual ending of such divisive thinking and discovering the inner sense of non-contradictory wholeness that respects the inviolability of our neighbors’ lives and interests, can we become free.

"Liberty," on the other hand, is the condition in which free men and women can live together in society. Trying to twist or manipulate unfree people into social systems – even those grounded in a verbal support of liberty – will never foster liberty. This is why the Constitution was doomed from the start: there was too much conflict and contradiction in the minds of most people to allow for the assemblage of free men and women. It is also why, once we have discovered the inner meaning of freedom, constitutions – and the governments they create – will be wholly unnecessary for a condition of liberty. This is part of the meaning of F.A. Harper’s observation that "the man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free."

How can a person whose mind and conduct is grounded in a divisive thinking that considers violence as a means to wholeness, be regarded as "free"? Free of what? Is it not evident that resort to violence can never be a means to liberty; that such methods presume a fundamental separation of interests that would reduce society to the Hobbesian dystopia of "all against all"? If a group sought to dismantle the state by violent means, is it not clear that it could accomplish such ends only by amassing coercive powers superior to the state itself; that it would have to become a super-state? And if this group were to be successful, it would dare not dismantle its own machinery, lest another group sought to recreate the previous apparatus; it would have to remain diligent in policing the thinking and actions of others who might be inclined to favor a more structured society.

One can no more advance liberty through violence than he can regain sobriety by embracing an alternative brand of alcohol. The state is a system that enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence. It is no answer to this destructive menace to introduce a competitor who employs the same means and seeks the same ends, namely, to construct society on the principle of the power to compel obedience to authority.

Albert Einstein got to the essence of the problem when he declared that "force always attracts men of low morality." I understand how being frustrated by others as we pursue interests we are entitled to pursue can generate intense feelings of anger. But it is not out of reactive rage or desperation that we can discover our individual freedom and the resultant liberty we can share with our neighbors. It is such divisiveness that keeps us enslaved to the state. We need to discover what we share with one another, namely, a respect for our individuality that can arise only from the integration of our rational and emotional energies into a focused intelligence. If mankind is to avoid the fate of being the first species to intentionally make itself extinct, we must transform our own minds, and abandon our ageless and contradictory efforts to force others to be free!

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order.

LewRockwell home page

Butler Shaffer: Can Liberty Be Advanced Through Violence?

Chris Hedges: The Phantom Left

The Phantom Left

by Chris Hedges article link article link article link

November 1, 2010 | Truthdig | OpEdNews | Truthout

The American left is a phantom. It is conjured up by the right wing to tag Barack Obama as a socialist and used by the liberal class to justify its complacency and lethargy. It diverts attention from corporate power. It perpetuates the myth of a democratic system that is influenced by the votes of citizens, political platforms and the work of legislators. It keeps the world neatly divided into a left and a right. The phantom left functions as a convenient scapegoat. The right wing blames it for moral degeneration and fiscal chaos. The liberal class uses it to call for "moderation." And while we waste our time talking nonsense, the engines of corporate power--masked, ruthless and unexamined--happily devour the state.

The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.

The phantom left took a central role on the mall this weekend in Washington. It had performed admirably for Glenn Beck, who used it in his own rally as a lightning rod to instill anger and fear. And the phantom left proved equally useful for the comics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who spoke to the crowd wearing red-white-and-blue costumes. The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights--including habeas corpus--may have been revoked, but don't get mad. Don't be shrill. Don't be like the crazies on the left.

"Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but their own?" Stewart asked. "We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is--on the brink of catastrophe--torn by polarizing hate, and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done. But the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don't is here [in Washington] or on cable TV."

The rally delivered a political message devoid of reality or content. The corruption of electoral politics by corporate funds and lobbyists, the naive belief that we can somehow vote ourselves back to democracy, was ignored for emotional catharsis. The right hates. The liberals laugh. And the country is taken hostage.

The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington's National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money.

Fox News' Beck and his allies on the far right can use hatred as a mobilizing force because there are tens of millions of Americans who have very good reason to hate. They have been betrayed by the elite who run the corporate state, by the two main political parties and by the liberal apologists, including those given public platforms on television, who keep counseling moderation as jobs disappear, wages drop and unemployment insurance runs out. As long as the liberal class speaks in the dead voice of moderation it will continue to fuel the right-wing backlash. Only when it appropriates this rage as its own, only when it stands up to established systems of power, including the Democratic Party, will we have any hope of holding off the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

Wall Street's looting of the Treasury, the curtailing of our civil liberties, the millions of fraudulent foreclosures, the long-term unemployment, the bankruptcies from medical bills, the endless wars in the Middle East and the amassing of trillions in debt that can never be repaid are pushing us toward a Hobbesian world of internal collapse. Being nice and moderate will not help. These are corporate forces that are intent on reconfiguring the United States into a system of neofeudalism. These corporate forces will not be halted by funny signs, comics dressed up like Captain America or nice words.

The liberal class wants to inhabit a political center to remain morally and politically disengaged. As long as there is a phantom left, one that is as ridiculous and stunted as the right wing, the liberal class can remain uncommitted. If the liberal class concedes that power has been wrested from us it will be forced, if it wants to act, to build movements outside the political system. This would require the liberal class to demand acts of resistance, including civil disobedience, to attempt to salvage what is left of our anemic democratic state. But this type of political activity, as costly as it is difficult, is too unpalatable to a bankrupt liberal establishment that has sold its soul to corporate interests. And so the phantom left will be with us for a long time.

Politics in America has become spectacle. It is another form of show business. The crowd in Washington, well trained by television, was conditioned to play its role before the cameras. The signs --"The Rant is Too Damn High," "Real Patriots Can Handle a Difference of Opinion" or "I Masturbate and I Vote"--reflected the hollowness of current political discourse and television's perverse epistemology. The rally spoke exclusively in the impoverished iconography and language of television. It was filled with meaningless political pieties, music and jokes. It was like any television variety program. Personalities were being sold, not political platforms. And this is what the society of spectacle is about.

The modern spectacle, as the theorist Guy Debord pointed out, is a potent tool for pacification and depoliticization. It is a "permanent opium war" which stupefies its viewers and disconnects them from the forces that control their lives. The spectacle diverts anger toward phantoms and away from the perpetrators of exploitation and injustice. It manufactures feelings of euphoria. It allows participants to confuse the spectacle itself with political action.

The celebrities from Comedy Central and the trash talk show hosts on Fox are in the same business. They are entertainers. They provide the empty, emotionally laden material that propels endless chatter back and forth on supposed left- and right-wing television programs. It is a national Punch and Judy show. But don't be fooled. It is not politics. It is entertainment. It is spectacle. All national debate on the airwaves is driven by the same empty gossip, the same absurd trivia, the same celebrity meltdowns and the same ridiculous posturing. It is presented with a different spin. But none of it is about ideas or truth. None of it is about being informed. It caters to emotions. It makes us confuse how we are made to feel with knowledge. And in the end, for those who serve up this drivel, the game is about money in the form of ratings and advertising. Beck, Colbert and Stewart all serve the same masters. And it is not us.

Chris Hedges, who writes every Monday for Truthdig, is the author of the new book “Death of the Liberal Class.”

Truthdig Columns by Chris Hedges

Truthdig home page

OpEdNews home page

Truthout home page

Chris Hedges: The Phantom Left

Shamus Cooke: Interpreting Jon Stewart's Politics

Interpreting Jon Stewart's Politics

by Shamus Cooke article link article link

November 1, 2010 | CommonDreams | Global Research

Any criticism of Jon Stewart must begin with enthusiastic praise: his Daily Show is where millions of people go for important news that is purposely ignored by the mainstream media. Consequently, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have become icons of the political Left.

During the Bush administration, their shows highlighted the lies and hypocrisies used to engage in foreign wars while destroying the civil liberties in the United States; Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondence dinner - with Bush present - will go down in history as a moment of great courage and confrontation between a satiric comedian and a war criminal.

This incident, combined with the consistent exposing of lying politicians and the biased mainstream media, have earned Stewart and Colbert deep political respect.

It's in this context that their rally in Washington, D.C. - the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear - must be viewed. Millions of people were eager to see how Stewart's and Colbert's politics would manifest themselves in a political rally. To them, the rally was not a joke. The mainstream The New York Times is correct in saying:

"...it is perhaps a measure of the volatility of American politics that a television comedy show was able to tap something deep among American voters, who turned out in the tens of thousands on Saturday to add their voices to a national political debate that some said had left them behind."

and:

"Though it was billed as a gathering for civility - a party on a sunny Saturday for people to enjoy thoughtful conversation - for participants it was a serious political affair." (October 30, 2010).

Stewart's message was not a joke either. The rally was thus far the clearest expression of his political thought. The essence his political message was conveyed by a song performed by Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow (Stewart introduced the pair's song as being in sync with the purpose of the event). The chorus of the song includes the following lyrics:

"Yelling on the left/Screaming on the right/ I'm sitting in the middle trying to live my life."

This "middle" is where Jon Stewart's politics lie, between what he sees as an unreasonable left and right-wing of the political spectrum; a theme repeated throughout the event.

Later in the rally Stewart played a video compilation of left-wing and right-wing pundits, screaming insults at their political opposites. Stewart portrays his politics as an alternative - a rational-thinking middle-ground.

To prove his moderate politics and to fend off right-wing criticism, Stewart draped American flags around the stage and had musicians perform patriotic songs, including America the Beautiful and the National Anthem.

Sadly, Stewart went overboard to prove he wasn't overly progressive, when he specifically denounced Marxists as "attempting to subvert our constitution [?] " - an example of McCarthy Red-baiting at its worse.

Stewart's rally strongly implied that instead of political conflict, everyone should join him in the reasonable political center. One of his concluding remarks was: "It's a shame we can't work together to get things done."

If only politics were that simple.

In reality, society is torn apart by economic and social inequality, dominated by giant corporations that benefit from low wages and foreign wars. These same corporations - owned by super-rich individuals - also benefit from the lies, anger, and insanity broadcast by the mainstream media. The phenomenon of scare tactics directly benefits giant corporations who want a subdued populace so they can pursue their business-friendly agenda.

Stewart does his audience a great disservice by not recognizing the profit-motive behind the right-wing fear-mongers, who are paid large salaries by corporations to divide and confuse working people. We are instead led to believe that simple "insanity" is why our mainstream media allows figures such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin to preach hate and nonsense to millions of people.

In fact, these right-wingers are given such large venues because their politics are in line with the foreign and domestic policy interests of a number of very rich people who own TV channels and other corporations.

Stewart's rally signaled - whether consciously or not - a degree of political backpedaling on his part. During the Bush Administration, Stewart and Colbert's shows were incredibly radical, given the political circumstances; they exposed lies that cut deep into the Administration's heart. It was at this time that Stewart became globally famous, as millions around the world looked to his show to challenge the false narrative broadcast by the Bush government.

The Daily Show changed considerably when Obama became President. The criticisms became more mild mannered, even as Obama continued essentially the same policies as Bush. When Obama recently appeared on Stewart's Daily Show, not one question was asked about Obama's wars, while Obama was allowed to speak endlessly about all the great things he was doing for the country, in effect papering over his complete lack of action to create jobs.

Whether he acknowledges it or not, Jon Stewart is a political figure adored by millions on the left and ruthlessly hated by those on the right. The middle-ground that Stewart would like to base his politics on survives only in his head, and in the heads of others who would like to ignore the very real conflict between giant corporations versus tens of millions of working people.

Sides must be taken in this battle. But instead, Stewart preaches from the sidelines with a message that says, "No such battle is taking place." Unfortunately for Stewart, the politicians and mainstream media that he regularly thrashes fully embrace this perspective, for their own benefit.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action. He can be reached at shamuscook@gmail.com

CommonDreams home page

Global Research home page

Let's Rally to Restore Peace

by Marjorie Cohn article link article link article link

November 1, 2010 | CommonDreams | Global Research | Truthout

Truthout home page

Jon Stewart’s Rally Repudiates Tea Party Madness

by Adele Stan article link

October 30, 2010 | AlterNet

Jon Stewart Rally: Just an Exercise in Gen X Self-Indulgence?

by Mark Ames article link article link

October 31, 2010 | eXiled Online | AlterNet

eXiled Online home page

AlterNet home page

Shamus Cooke: Interpreting Jon Stewart's Politics