Saturday, June 20, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Secession
This topic is chosen because it illustrates the potentially disastrous results which may come from the poor state of public discourse in America.
It disturbed me no end during last year's election that the media spent more time making fun of Gov. Sarah Palin's considerable shortcomings than over the fact your husband is a security risk. Why was so little said about the whole idea of electing a potential President(that's what a Vice-President is supposed to be)who sleeps with the enemy, literally. Her husband, John Palin , is a member of the Alaska Independence Party and she herself gave the welcome to one of their conventions. Don't people know all secessionist movements are organized treason?
Perhaps not, since according to a recent opinion poll, 48 per cent of Texas Republicans approve of walking out on the Union for the second time, which leads to the question, why are they Republicans? Don't they know the first and foremost principle of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln , a real conservative, the real reason for the Civil War in the first place. It is, after all, right in the Pledge of Allegiance: "one nation, indivisible". When you marry the United States of America by joining the Union there is no divorce, no annulment. Don't people understand that?
Certain states now legally require high school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Why should they if the governor of Texas is publicly courting secessionist voters to improve his chances in next year's primary? Indeed, how is it that in Texas, at least , a sitting governor actually believes he can improve his chances in the next primary by toying with treason? I have nothing but sympathy for the high school student in Florida who was thrown out of class for refusing to cite the Pledge of Allegiance, defying Florida state law. The courts subsequently ruled that, while the teacher had no right to throw him out of class, the state had the right to require reciting the Pledge, a perfect example of the travesties of justice possible in today's America , where people and states never have to confont the conseequences of what they say they believe in.
There is no good reason to require anyone to say the Pledge of Allegiance when there is no evidence anyone is required to obey it. The governor of Texas, Mark Perry, courts it for political reasons, as Palin does for hers, yet the only time the mainstream media disapproves is when the Hawaii Independence movement stages a prolonged sit-in at a historic Hawaiian palace. Talk of media bias, not to mention open racism!
So, let's really talk about secession.
THE CASE AGAINST SECESSION
The indivisibility of the Union, not the freeing of the slaves,was the purpose of the Civil War. That we don't seem to know this tells you our public schools have done a job on us in the miseducation department.
Lincoln insisted on this principle because the first law of democracy is majority rule. If the minority can simply walk out and form a separate nation anytime they're sick of the majority, you don't have a nation. You don't have rule of law, because it can be overriden by secession. Nothing can be accomplished, without universal consensus, because the dissidents can walk out on the country and take vital parts with them.
Lincoln apparently based his principle on his reading of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution,which forbids states from joining any other confederation or entering into treaties on their own, Also, his understanding of the ratification process and his common sense told him joining the United States is a permanent commitment.
Most of all, some 400,000 Americans, including Lincoln himself, gave their lives for this principle. Did they die for nothing? Is it o.k. to let them die for nothing, while contemporary Americans play political football with treason, while fretting over whether our dead troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying for nothing? Does time make American lives less valuable?
THE CASE FOR SECESSION
We might as well talk about it, since the governor of Texas is facing neither impeachment nor charges of treason for having said he's open to it as a possibility. What reasons can there be for advocating secession?
1. Lincoln's principle implies a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence. Does it not say we have a right, even a duty, to break away from any entity promoting a long string of abuses?
True, both Lincoln and Obama would say, what abuses? Slavery was immoral, and Lincoln, in one of his most infamous statements, said he 'd be wiling to keep all slaves in chains, if that would have kept the Union together. Obama keeps pointing out he's just trying to fit a colossal fix left to him by the previous president, along with a whole series of congenital problems, like health care and the environment, neglected by generations of Presidents and Congresses. To the extent to which there are abuses, these are the abuses and now, when he's trying to fix them, is not the time to walk out on the Union.
Still, rigidly believing in "one nation, indivisible" does imply the following.....
2. You're prepared to accept a situation in which never again does Congress have to actually declare war in order to have one. Remember, the last time Congress actually declared war was the only good example, in my opinion, of where it shouldn't have had to: right after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. None of our five undeclared wars since then, including the two now in progress, ever had that kind of justification.
If you are not prepared to simply accept this situation, you have a case for secession.
3. If you believe in Lincoln's principle, then it's your duty to accept the Patriot Act, the new passport laws, the eavesdropping on both your mail and e-mail, the whole idea that national security justifies anything the government says is necessary, even things you can't do for your own personal security.
If you can't accept this, then you have a case for secession.
4. If you believe in Lincoln's principle, you accept the government can and should enfore the prejudices of those who got them elected, at the expense of the basic liberties of others. This was at the core of the South's problem with the Civil War: it maintained African-Americans were not human beings, the South had a right to own them, and the federal government was abusing their "property rights". It is interesting that to this day, almost all talk of secession, except for Hawaii, is on the right. None of the six states which have already legalized gay marriage, for example, is seriously proposing secession, should any attempt be made to circumvent their laws.
We never hear talk of secession over war or human rights. No state has ever proposed secession to improve the environment, secure universal health care, or pursue cleaner and cheaper energy sources. Secession is almost exclusively the province of right-wingers who think the mere existence of taxes is an abuse, discrimination against whomever they can't stand is both their right and something the government must enforce for them, and having to live with a black president is too much to ask of them.
Why is that? If you are left -wing you might find it more reassuring that the left is more patriotic than the right, except it raises the question of whether the right is more principled than the left? Is the left prepared to see none of its goals ever achieved because we have to share the country with those who don't want these goals achieved, and our commitment to Lincoln's principle forbids us to break up the country and form one of our own no matter how things get?
I believe in Lincoln's principle, but sometimes, I think it asks too much of reasonable and decent people.
It disturbed me no end during last year's election that the media spent more time making fun of Gov. Sarah Palin's considerable shortcomings than over the fact your husband is a security risk. Why was so little said about the whole idea of electing a potential President(that's what a Vice-President is supposed to be)who sleeps with the enemy, literally. Her husband, John Palin , is a member of the Alaska Independence Party and she herself gave the welcome to one of their conventions. Don't people know all secessionist movements are organized treason?
Perhaps not, since according to a recent opinion poll, 48 per cent of Texas Republicans approve of walking out on the Union for the second time, which leads to the question, why are they Republicans? Don't they know the first and foremost principle of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln , a real conservative, the real reason for the Civil War in the first place. It is, after all, right in the Pledge of Allegiance: "one nation, indivisible". When you marry the United States of America by joining the Union there is no divorce, no annulment. Don't people understand that?
Certain states now legally require high school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Why should they if the governor of Texas is publicly courting secessionist voters to improve his chances in next year's primary? Indeed, how is it that in Texas, at least , a sitting governor actually believes he can improve his chances in the next primary by toying with treason? I have nothing but sympathy for the high school student in Florida who was thrown out of class for refusing to cite the Pledge of Allegiance, defying Florida state law. The courts subsequently ruled that, while the teacher had no right to throw him out of class, the state had the right to require reciting the Pledge, a perfect example of the travesties of justice possible in today's America , where people and states never have to confont the conseequences of what they say they believe in.
There is no good reason to require anyone to say the Pledge of Allegiance when there is no evidence anyone is required to obey it. The governor of Texas, Mark Perry, courts it for political reasons, as Palin does for hers, yet the only time the mainstream media disapproves is when the Hawaii Independence movement stages a prolonged sit-in at a historic Hawaiian palace. Talk of media bias, not to mention open racism!
So, let's really talk about secession.
THE CASE AGAINST SECESSION
The indivisibility of the Union, not the freeing of the slaves,was the purpose of the Civil War. That we don't seem to know this tells you our public schools have done a job on us in the miseducation department.
Lincoln insisted on this principle because the first law of democracy is majority rule. If the minority can simply walk out and form a separate nation anytime they're sick of the majority, you don't have a nation. You don't have rule of law, because it can be overriden by secession. Nothing can be accomplished, without universal consensus, because the dissidents can walk out on the country and take vital parts with them.
Lincoln apparently based his principle on his reading of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution,which forbids states from joining any other confederation or entering into treaties on their own, Also, his understanding of the ratification process and his common sense told him joining the United States is a permanent commitment.
Most of all, some 400,000 Americans, including Lincoln himself, gave their lives for this principle. Did they die for nothing? Is it o.k. to let them die for nothing, while contemporary Americans play political football with treason, while fretting over whether our dead troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying for nothing? Does time make American lives less valuable?
THE CASE FOR SECESSION
We might as well talk about it, since the governor of Texas is facing neither impeachment nor charges of treason for having said he's open to it as a possibility. What reasons can there be for advocating secession?
1. Lincoln's principle implies a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence. Does it not say we have a right, even a duty, to break away from any entity promoting a long string of abuses?
True, both Lincoln and Obama would say, what abuses? Slavery was immoral, and Lincoln, in one of his most infamous statements, said he 'd be wiling to keep all slaves in chains, if that would have kept the Union together. Obama keeps pointing out he's just trying to fit a colossal fix left to him by the previous president, along with a whole series of congenital problems, like health care and the environment, neglected by generations of Presidents and Congresses. To the extent to which there are abuses, these are the abuses and now, when he's trying to fix them, is not the time to walk out on the Union.
Still, rigidly believing in "one nation, indivisible" does imply the following.....
2. You're prepared to accept a situation in which never again does Congress have to actually declare war in order to have one. Remember, the last time Congress actually declared war was the only good example, in my opinion, of where it shouldn't have had to: right after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. None of our five undeclared wars since then, including the two now in progress, ever had that kind of justification.
If you are not prepared to simply accept this situation, you have a case for secession.
3. If you believe in Lincoln's principle, then it's your duty to accept the Patriot Act, the new passport laws, the eavesdropping on both your mail and e-mail, the whole idea that national security justifies anything the government says is necessary, even things you can't do for your own personal security.
If you can't accept this, then you have a case for secession.
4. If you believe in Lincoln's principle, you accept the government can and should enfore the prejudices of those who got them elected, at the expense of the basic liberties of others. This was at the core of the South's problem with the Civil War: it maintained African-Americans were not human beings, the South had a right to own them, and the federal government was abusing their "property rights". It is interesting that to this day, almost all talk of secession, except for Hawaii, is on the right. None of the six states which have already legalized gay marriage, for example, is seriously proposing secession, should any attempt be made to circumvent their laws.
We never hear talk of secession over war or human rights. No state has ever proposed secession to improve the environment, secure universal health care, or pursue cleaner and cheaper energy sources. Secession is almost exclusively the province of right-wingers who think the mere existence of taxes is an abuse, discrimination against whomever they can't stand is both their right and something the government must enforce for them, and having to live with a black president is too much to ask of them.
Why is that? If you are left -wing you might find it more reassuring that the left is more patriotic than the right, except it raises the question of whether the right is more principled than the left? Is the left prepared to see none of its goals ever achieved because we have to share the country with those who don't want these goals achieved, and our commitment to Lincoln's principle forbids us to break up the country and form one of our own no matter how things get?
I believe in Lincoln's principle, but sometimes, I think it asks too much of reasonable and decent people.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Conservatism
So what then is conservatism? Are there not real conservatives on the right? Isn' it unfair to lump then all together in one category?
To the last question, the answer is, yes, of course, it's unfair, but that is what the mainstream media already does. If no one is considered a fascist, it's the same as viewing everyone on the right as a fascist. The mainstream media today acknowledges no meaningful difference between fascism and conservatism. That's a huge problem because there is a big difference between the two.
Start with the name. The root of conservatism is conserve. What is a conservative trying to conserve? For starters, our freedom, our rule of law, our traditions, some of them, certain fundamentals of our society. Keeping these things in mind ask yourself the following....
1. Wouldn't a more conservative America be up in arms over the fact that Congress has not used its authority to declare war on anybody since Dec. 9, 1941, that we have fought five wars over 68 years. at a cost of approximately 100,000 American lives and an indetermine number of Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan lives, all without the declaration of war required of Congress by our Constitution.
Is our Constitution a joke? Real conservatives would say no, and if real conservatives were anything more than an increasingly minor element in the population, they'd be raising hell about this and we would be hearing from them,not from the fascists, bigots and reactionaries who increasingly dominate the Republican Party.
2. In a conservative-dominated America someone would be pointing out that only sociopaths really believe national security justifies anything the government chooses to do. Personal security has no such legal protection
In Illinois, where I live, if a person is across the street from your home, threatening you with bodily harm, you cannot take your gun outside, shoot the loudmouth, and claim it was self-defense. You have to call the police first. Yet, our government, in the name of national security, claims the right to do everyone from tapping your e-mail to interning Americans on the basis of their race, national origin, religion or all of the above, all in the name of national security? In a really conservative America, wouldn't real conservatives be leading the charge to stop all this?
In a real America the answer would be yes, because the real conservative answer to the preceding issue is a government has no more right to do literally anything for national security than an individual citizen does. because the protection of the individual citizen's rights is one of the reasons this particular society exists. America exists for a reason and a real conservative is one who cares what that reason is.
Now in liberalism it is kind of a open question how far the government can and cannot go on national security, but in fascism this is an utterly closed question? The answer, as Dick Chaney keeps reminding us, is anything and everything is, in fact, justified, because the preservation of the United States of America supersedes any discussion of why we want to preserve it. This is the problem.
The philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand despised all things left-wing, because laissez-faire capitalism was indispensible to her idea of the perfect order, yet she refused to associate with the American Right, because she predicted the right-wing would destroy the country faster than the left. This is partly because she saw, coming from Russia, how married the right-wing was to unfairness as a principle, how obsessed it was with the "right people" being in charge, refusing to accept that there's no such thing as the "better class", that people had to prove they were better out there in the competitive world and having done so, should not be burdened any further because they weren't of the so-called "right" class, "right" race, "right" gender, "right" sexual orientation or anything else that the individual's success has already proved irrelevant.
Even worse, she came to realize fascism appeals naturally to people who actually believe in an all-powerful, anthropomorphic God, people who never stop to think it might be a mortal sin to want anything in the universe to have absolute power, as well as a colossal illusion to think absolute power actually exists, any more than absolute zero. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those who think God's an exception don't even correctly read their scriptures. Six of the 10 Commandments begin with the immortal words, "Thou shalt not". Notice the Bible does not follow the American tradition, putting it in the positive: "Know your limits". If you need to believe your god has no limits eventually you will believe the same about your government and in the name of national security go along with anything: torture, genocide, whatever.
You will also never understand that while you can have dialogue and debate with real conservatives, you can't have that with fascists. The Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Ann Coulters of America will not debate you, because having a different point of view automatically makes you a threat in their book. Debating real conservatives is one thing. Debating fascists was proved pointless back in 1938 at Munich. You will not get a better result simply because this is America.
To the last question, the answer is, yes, of course, it's unfair, but that is what the mainstream media already does. If no one is considered a fascist, it's the same as viewing everyone on the right as a fascist. The mainstream media today acknowledges no meaningful difference between fascism and conservatism. That's a huge problem because there is a big difference between the two.
Start with the name. The root of conservatism is conserve. What is a conservative trying to conserve? For starters, our freedom, our rule of law, our traditions, some of them, certain fundamentals of our society. Keeping these things in mind ask yourself the following....
1. Wouldn't a more conservative America be up in arms over the fact that Congress has not used its authority to declare war on anybody since Dec. 9, 1941, that we have fought five wars over 68 years. at a cost of approximately 100,000 American lives and an indetermine number of Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan lives, all without the declaration of war required of Congress by our Constitution.
Is our Constitution a joke? Real conservatives would say no, and if real conservatives were anything more than an increasingly minor element in the population, they'd be raising hell about this and we would be hearing from them,not from the fascists, bigots and reactionaries who increasingly dominate the Republican Party.
2. In a conservative-dominated America someone would be pointing out that only sociopaths really believe national security justifies anything the government chooses to do. Personal security has no such legal protection
In Illinois, where I live, if a person is across the street from your home, threatening you with bodily harm, you cannot take your gun outside, shoot the loudmouth, and claim it was self-defense. You have to call the police first. Yet, our government, in the name of national security, claims the right to do everyone from tapping your e-mail to interning Americans on the basis of their race, national origin, religion or all of the above, all in the name of national security? In a really conservative America, wouldn't real conservatives be leading the charge to stop all this?
In a real America the answer would be yes, because the real conservative answer to the preceding issue is a government has no more right to do literally anything for national security than an individual citizen does. because the protection of the individual citizen's rights is one of the reasons this particular society exists. America exists for a reason and a real conservative is one who cares what that reason is.
Now in liberalism it is kind of a open question how far the government can and cannot go on national security, but in fascism this is an utterly closed question? The answer, as Dick Chaney keeps reminding us, is anything and everything is, in fact, justified, because the preservation of the United States of America supersedes any discussion of why we want to preserve it. This is the problem.
The philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand despised all things left-wing, because laissez-faire capitalism was indispensible to her idea of the perfect order, yet she refused to associate with the American Right, because she predicted the right-wing would destroy the country faster than the left. This is partly because she saw, coming from Russia, how married the right-wing was to unfairness as a principle, how obsessed it was with the "right people" being in charge, refusing to accept that there's no such thing as the "better class", that people had to prove they were better out there in the competitive world and having done so, should not be burdened any further because they weren't of the so-called "right" class, "right" race, "right" gender, "right" sexual orientation or anything else that the individual's success has already proved irrelevant.
Even worse, she came to realize fascism appeals naturally to people who actually believe in an all-powerful, anthropomorphic God, people who never stop to think it might be a mortal sin to want anything in the universe to have absolute power, as well as a colossal illusion to think absolute power actually exists, any more than absolute zero. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those who think God's an exception don't even correctly read their scriptures. Six of the 10 Commandments begin with the immortal words, "Thou shalt not". Notice the Bible does not follow the American tradition, putting it in the positive: "Know your limits". If you need to believe your god has no limits eventually you will believe the same about your government and in the name of national security go along with anything: torture, genocide, whatever.
You will also never understand that while you can have dialogue and debate with real conservatives, you can't have that with fascists. The Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Ann Coulters of America will not debate you, because having a different point of view automatically makes you a threat in their book. Debating real conservatives is one thing. Debating fascists was proved pointless back in 1938 at Munich. You will not get a better result simply because this is America.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
THOUGHTS AT LARGE
This was the name of a famous column by Sydney J. Harris, a famous columnist for the Chicago Daily News, who thought one newspaper column should be devoted to reason and analytical thinking. I want to open up some thoughts now on the underlying topics of the news.
FASCISM
For years, it has been dismissed by the mainstream media as just one epithet hurled by left-wingers at right-wingers. It is, however, the actual name of an actual political ideology and the system installed to implement. It is not to be confused with conservatism, although it usually is. It is far more popular than generally conceded; indeed, there are millions of fascists in this country, who generally claim to be conservatives, but are not. It is sometimes seen in left-wing circles where it can be especially vicious.
What is fascism? Some define it as corporate control of society, but that's not a reliable definition, because, as German corporations learned during the Third Reich, the fascist tail can and frequently does, wage the dog. Some assume that fascism is always racist, but in Mussolini's Italy, Jews could be and were members of the Fascist Party up until 1939. Fascism as a system requires an all-powerful government, but as an ideology it can do quite well without actually being in power.
So what is fascism?
1. Belief in omnipotent rule by one class, one group, one nation or group of nations, one sector of society based on the idea that this one entity alone is responsible for civilization and its survival and triumph trumps all other considerations, including universal rights for all, justice, even human decency.
2. The assumption that the perservation of the ruling group, the special group, and all things essential to it is absolutely necessary for the sake of civilization. In today's common language, belief that some things are too big to fail.
3. Belief in Manicheanism, also known as "Us vs Them", the idea that either you're with the special group or automatically against them, that there is no middle ground, intolerance is a virtue, fairness and open mindedness are weaknesses, and life is about exterminating or caging your enemies, not making friends of them or trying to win them over to your point of view.
At this point, let's back up a minute. Am I saying the original TARP, last fall's massive bailout, was an example of galloping fascism, not creeping socialism? Yes, because the goals of socialism include spreading the wealth and with it the opportunities for all people to advance., and also, because fascism reserves the right to dump capitalism when it's not achieving the goals of fascism, which George W. Bush did in this case. In capitalism, there is no such thing as anything too big to fail. Failure is to success what death is to life. The capitalist solution was to let the global financial system collapse last September, on the assumption that something better would have emerged from the wreckage. Indeed, the banking system was deemed too big to fail, because without Wall Street, American hegemony ceases to exist and without American hegemony, the special class loses its hegemony. The door to a new world order which means to work for everyone opens.
Is President Obama a fascist? No way, although he is not completely without fascist influences himself. Notice the drastic difference between the handling of the auto industry and the banking system. Almost every argument made for letting GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy could be made about most of the financial services system, but it wasn't because the auto industry is no longer deemed necessary to the survival of the fascist system, but the financial services industry still is. In short, a stockbroker is a more needed worker than an autoworker. Our ruling class doesn't mind having an auto industry controlled by Japan, Germany and Italy, but it does mind having one dominated by labor unions. So, now, back to what is fascism?
4. Equality is not considered a principle, but part of the problem. Society is not supposed to work for everyone. Some people are not needed. Some people are not needed. Some people don't matter.
In regard to Point 3, bear in mind the eventual elimination of labor unions is an essential goal of fascism. People do not have rights. They only have options, but there are limits even to those because....
5. There is no room for disagreement, or for standing up for your rights under fascism(see Point 3).
6. Fascism is macho male-dominated, obssessed with obtaining and holding on to power, believes totally that the ends justify the means-what else would-hence the current debate over torture, and the willingness of some to use the death penalty against those who haven't killed anybody. What is normally called sociopathology, the mindset of people without a conscience, is always considered strength in fascism. Compassion is always derided as weakness. Hate and anger are always valued more in a fascist society.
7. Fascism is better described as corporate management of society by those corporations which are part of the special class. After all, if corporations really ruled America, GM and Chrysler would not have had to go into bankruptcy.
Now, you can have fascism without racism, but it is hard to have fascism without any prejudices at all, because fascism is the favorite ideaology of those who believe if no one is out to get them they must be doing something wrong.
This would not be so bad if fascism didn't also believe that bigotry, the institutionized form of prejudice, is the government's duty to promote, instead of being the ultimate evil to eliminate from any society that works for all its citizens. This is why we continue to argue over such things as gay marriage. In a truly socialist America, the elimination of all kinds of bigotry is a requirement of citizenship. In a truly conservative America, the fight would be over whether to have marriage licenses in the first place. If government can dictate anything involving your private life at home and you don't mind, then you're neither a socialist nor a conservative You are a fascist and millions of Americans are.
Am I saying the Republican Party is, for all practical purposes, the fascist party of America? Yes, although I repeat you can find fascist ways even in supposedly liberal groups and institutions. Is fascism to some extent already part of the American way of life? Yes, and has been for decades. What separates America from the world is the failure of fascists to achieve their No.1 objective, absolute power in this country. As a result, fascism is usually going two steps forward and one back. When I was a kid, there was Selective Service, a far more evil form of fascism than the national conscription systems many countries still have, because it was based on the assumption that only some had to serve the country, not all, and the government got to pick and choose. Obviously, we've progressed since then, but, now, there's TARP.
The next time you see nonviolent demonstrators crusading in the streets for some cause, remember they're part of the reason fascists have never been able to obtain absolute power in America. So are labor unions. Remember also, because many liberals never want to, that the two biggest forms of fascism ever allowed in this country, chattel slavery and Jim Crow, were ultimately brought down by a civil war and a protest movement which fought in both the courts and the streets.
By the way, consider this. Although Benito Mussolini, of Italy, is considered by textbooks the founding father of fascism, the principles of fascism can be summed up in one line of the Dred Scott decision, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court: "A Negro has no rights a white man is duty-bound to respect." Substitute "Jew" for "Negro" and "Aryan" for "white man" and you get Nazism, the most extreme, German form of fascism. Substitute "misfit", "oddball", "dissenter", "malcontent", for "Negro" and "society" or "the state" for "white man" and you have fascism. Substitute "capitalist" for "Negro" and "the masses" for "white man" and you have communism. Think about it.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)