One of the problems of challenging conservative dogma is that, as a preface, you're forced to repeat the obvious, just to inoculate yourself from undeserved ad hominem attacks. So here goes.
9/11 was a terrible tragedy for our nation, for the victims and their families and friends, and generally for the cause of freedom and peace around the world. The perpetrators deserve our condemnation and our punishment. Nothing excuses their murderous actions.
But, like it or not, several things explain why there actions are possible. And, even in America, even with a conservative government, sometimes we are part of the explanation. Whether we like it or not.
Here is someone named Paul Sperry, doing the one thing with 9/11 that dishonors the victims the most; turning their tragedy into political ammunition for the right, especially as part of their ongoing attacks on higher education. All because some professors on some college campuses are daring to suggest that we, the people of this country, and some of our leaders, may have inadvertently contributed to the first terrible world tragedy of the 21st century.
Once again, conservatism dies on contact with the truth.
Because, whether Mr. Sperry wants to acknowledge it or not, the fact is that our actions did in fact contribute to the events on that terrible day.
We hired Osama bin Laden and his followers as our official proxies in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We abandoned both him and his followers once they were no longer useful to us. And then allowed his hatred of all things American to fester, to metastasize into a desire to manipulate the nation that abandoned him through murder of the innocents.
And he knew that he could do it. Because, like it or not, he understands Americans better than many Americans understand themselves. He know that conservative Americans, and their leaders, are nothing more than hammers that see every problem as a nail. And he knew that he could manipulate that tendency to accomplish his ultimate goal: to get America to turn on itself and, potentially, self-destruct.
And we have, indeed, turned on ourselves.
We have transformed ourselves into a police state, with little dissent and even unbridled enthusiasm, We fought a war based on false pretenses, one that cost trillions of dollars and, far worse, thousands of brave and noble young lives. And, on top of that, we still do business with the Saudis, the people who breed the brand of Islam that rises up to kill us. All because our "leaders" can't wean themselves off of the oil money that pays for their careers, and costs us our nation and its ideals.
Osama may be dead, but he may have already won, unless we can somehow learn that our propensity for trying to manipulate world events comes back to bite us almost every time. To say nothing of our propensity for being manipulated. Trust me: there are Muslims who have learned that lesson of 9/11 very well, and who even now are planning to destroy us with what they have learned.
We can only turn all of this around by staring it in face in the first place. Even if that results in a national rebuke (say, next November) of American conservatism, which is what the Paul Sperrys of the world are really afraid of. We might as well begin on college campuses. That's where the next generation of Americans is beginning its adulthood. Maybe the lessons they learn will help to re-make America in the image of its founders, and not in the image of Mr. Sperry, who represents the worst sort of 9/11 deniers.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wall Street Afraid Of Republicans?
It's true. Nothing illustrates how lost the GOP is more than this does, either.
Nothing Illustrates Our Gun Insanity More Than This Does
Owing money to the gun dealer who sold the ammunition that killed your child. Disgusting.
Thankfully, They Failed
Republicans, that is, in trying to sabatoge a global climate deal. And now, Obama has another legacy item, and the world perhaps has a cleaner, brighter future.
Is "American Exceptionalism" All It's Cracked Up To Be?
American exceptionalism. It's the new, Obama-age battle-cry of American conservatism. It was the foundation of their attack on Obama's earliest efforts to launch health care reform. America should be celebrated, in their minds, for the fact that it doesn't offer free, universal access to health care, unlike every other industrialized society in the world. That makes us different from the rest of the world, and therefore, for that reason alone, makes us better than the rest of the world.
Even though health care is more expensive than it is anywhere else in the world.
Even though Americans have to leave the country just to get treatment and medicines that are routinely available in other countries.
Even though tens of millions of Americans have no access to health care at all.
Even though medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies.
Just doesn't matter. If anything, all of the above proves just how exceptional we are.
Not prosperous. Not happy. Not optimistic. Just exceptional.
That exceptional status is cold comfort to millions of Americans who can only dream of living in a country where the economic problems that crush so many people simply don't exist. Not to the extent that they exist here, anyway.
Like Norway, recently voted the world's best country for the 12th year in a row.
Or Germany, a social democracy with more billionaires than every European country but one.
The conditions in these countries have a very simple explanation. In Europe, even in a county like Germany with a very conservative government, people are completely unafraid of a very simple word.
Socialism.
Socialism is associated in this country with top-down societies where power is concentrated in the hands of a privileged few. Hmmm ... guess than means America under 30 years of Republican politics must be a socialist country. After all, their policies are why things they way they are here.
But what if socialism really means something else?
What if socialism is simply the idea that society is more prosperous and more dynamic if the wealth of nations is more evenly shared among the peoples of the nations that produce it? And remember, Adam Smith called it "The Wealth of Nations," not "The Wealth of a Handful of Kleptocrats."
What if socialism simply meant "We're all in this together, we all produce the fruits of our labors together, we should share them in a way that promotes the individual interests not just of a few individuals, but every individual."
What would be so bad about that? It works everywhere around the world. Everywhere but America, where it's never been tried. Not in the country that could more easily afford it than any other.
Because, remember, its all about the exceptional, folks. Without being exceptional, we're not really Americans.
Maybe it's time we start asking who this "exceptionalism" really benefits. And then, start electing more people like this one.
Wouldn't that be a pretty exceptional thing for the New Year? I think so.
Even though health care is more expensive than it is anywhere else in the world.
Even though Americans have to leave the country just to get treatment and medicines that are routinely available in other countries.
Even though tens of millions of Americans have no access to health care at all.
Even though medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies.
Just doesn't matter. If anything, all of the above proves just how exceptional we are.
Not prosperous. Not happy. Not optimistic. Just exceptional.
That exceptional status is cold comfort to millions of Americans who can only dream of living in a country where the economic problems that crush so many people simply don't exist. Not to the extent that they exist here, anyway.
Like Norway, recently voted the world's best country for the 12th year in a row.
Or Germany, a social democracy with more billionaires than every European country but one.
The conditions in these countries have a very simple explanation. In Europe, even in a county like Germany with a very conservative government, people are completely unafraid of a very simple word.
Socialism.
Socialism is associated in this country with top-down societies where power is concentrated in the hands of a privileged few. Hmmm ... guess than means America under 30 years of Republican politics must be a socialist country. After all, their policies are why things they way they are here.
But what if socialism really means something else?
What if socialism is simply the idea that society is more prosperous and more dynamic if the wealth of nations is more evenly shared among the peoples of the nations that produce it? And remember, Adam Smith called it "The Wealth of Nations," not "The Wealth of a Handful of Kleptocrats."
What if socialism simply meant "We're all in this together, we all produce the fruits of our labors together, we should share them in a way that promotes the individual interests not just of a few individuals, but every individual."
What would be so bad about that? It works everywhere around the world. Everywhere but America, where it's never been tried. Not in the country that could more easily afford it than any other.
Because, remember, its all about the exceptional, folks. Without being exceptional, we're not really Americans.
Maybe it's time we start asking who this "exceptionalism" really benefits. And then, start electing more people like this one.
Wouldn't that be a pretty exceptional thing for the New Year? I think so.
Maybe This Is What It Takes To Raise Taxes On The Rich
That is to say, rich people coming forward and asking for it.
The Affordability Of Immigration
It more than pays for itself. When are we all going to wake up to that fact?
Maybe Bernie Sanders WOULD Be A Successful President ...
... if he can win the support of a Liberty University graduate.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
By All Means, Put A Price Tag On Progressive Values
One of my greatest frustrations over the years with the course of Democratic campaigns is the manner in which they treat the issue of taxes. They have allowed Republicans to turn what Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly described as the price for civilization into a partisan weapon, as if the market-place Confidence Fairy was all that was needed to grant them the things they want the government to provide, from M1 Abrams tanks to vaginal wands. Or, for that matter, as though paying for all of the things all of us need with debt instead of cash was somehow a more "conservative" way of financing the national government.
A big part of the problem is that Democrats have allowed Republicans to talk in not-so-glittering generalities, linking "taxes" and "tax increases" on "wasteful spending" and "social programs." The reality is that 80 cents of every tax dollars goes to pay for three things; Social Security (including Medicare), defense spending, and interest on the national debt. In other words, three of the most sacred cows there are when it comes to the U.S. budget. By the time you get thought most of the remaining 20 cents, past things like education and transportation spending (again, broadly supported) you're down to maybe a penny or so for those awful "social programs." And some of those, like unemployment insurance, are things that people can't do without in tough times.
See what I just did? I got rid of all of the empty rhetoric about "waste, fraud, and abuse," and actually turned the federal tax-and-spend debate into something that uses numbers everybody can understand. It's not such an original idea: Ronald Reagan did something like this during his first year in office, in an attempt to illustrate the damage done to the U.S. dollar by inflation (and to sell specious tax cuts that did far more damage to the dollar than inflation ever did). And it played a role in redefining the discussion about federal spending that persists to this day.
Why can't Democrats do the same thing? Well, as it turns out, maybe they can, as Bernie Sanders showed during the most recent Democratic presidential debate. Sanders was attacked by Hillary Clinton for proposing a plan that she claimed would require an unaffordable hike on middle-class taxes. It was classic Bill-and-Hillary rhetoric: out-GOP the GOP when it comes to protecting the middle class on taxes. But Bernie turned the tables on her rather cleverly:
And here's where it could get really interesting. What if you paired that kitchen-table analysis with something that wasn't a middle-class tax hike, like a tax on derivatives or a reduction of corporate subsides. What capitalist takes pride in taking money from the government? Only in America. Let's see how much pride the GOP takes in that form of American exceptionalism.
This isn't brain surgery (except, perhaps, to Ben Carson). This is so easy. All that's needed is a Democrat who's willing to pick up the rhetorical baton Bernie provided and run with it. And it wouldn't hurt if the DNC stopped scheduling debates for nights when nobody is watching, in an effort to protect Hillary from her own mistakes. Memo to Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You've got a good product. Find a better way to market it.
A big part of the problem is that Democrats have allowed Republicans to talk in not-so-glittering generalities, linking "taxes" and "tax increases" on "wasteful spending" and "social programs." The reality is that 80 cents of every tax dollars goes to pay for three things; Social Security (including Medicare), defense spending, and interest on the national debt. In other words, three of the most sacred cows there are when it comes to the U.S. budget. By the time you get thought most of the remaining 20 cents, past things like education and transportation spending (again, broadly supported) you're down to maybe a penny or so for those awful "social programs." And some of those, like unemployment insurance, are things that people can't do without in tough times.
See what I just did? I got rid of all of the empty rhetoric about "waste, fraud, and abuse," and actually turned the federal tax-and-spend debate into something that uses numbers everybody can understand. It's not such an original idea: Ronald Reagan did something like this during his first year in office, in an attempt to illustrate the damage done to the U.S. dollar by inflation (and to sell specious tax cuts that did far more damage to the dollar than inflation ever did). And it played a role in redefining the discussion about federal spending that persists to this day.
Why can't Democrats do the same thing? Well, as it turns out, maybe they can, as Bernie Sanders showed during the most recent Democratic presidential debate. Sanders was attacked by Hillary Clinton for proposing a plan that she claimed would require an unaffordable hike on middle-class taxes. It was classic Bill-and-Hillary rhetoric: out-GOP the GOP when it comes to protecting the middle class on taxes. But Bernie turned the tables on her rather cleverly:
Now, when Secretary Clinton says, “I’m not going raise taxes on the middle class,” let me tell you what she is saying. She is disagreeing with FDR on Social Security, LBJ on Medicare and with the vast majority of progressive Democrats in the House and the Senate, who today are fighting to end the disgrace of the United States being the only major country on Earth that doesn’t provide paid family and medical leave.
What the legislation is is $1.61 a week. Now, you can say that’s a tax on the middle class. It will provide three months paid family and medical leave for the working families of this country. I think, Secretary Clinton, $1.61 a week is a pretty good investment.See what Bernie did? He did what I did a few minutes ago. He costed out his thinking in a way that gave the American people a kitchen-table view of the cost of his proposal. $1.61 a week. Not even the cost of busfare.
And here's where it could get really interesting. What if you paired that kitchen-table analysis with something that wasn't a middle-class tax hike, like a tax on derivatives or a reduction of corporate subsides. What capitalist takes pride in taking money from the government? Only in America. Let's see how much pride the GOP takes in that form of American exceptionalism.
This isn't brain surgery (except, perhaps, to Ben Carson). This is so easy. All that's needed is a Democrat who's willing to pick up the rhetorical baton Bernie provided and run with it. And it wouldn't hurt if the DNC stopped scheduling debates for nights when nobody is watching, in an effort to protect Hillary from her own mistakes. Memo to Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You've got a good product. Find a better way to market it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)