RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Janet Yellen: A Woman Atop the Fed Print
Wednesday, 09 October 2013 14:03

Cassidy writes: "It isn't exactly news that President Obama will be nominating Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve."

Janet Yellen has been tapped to lead the Federal Reserve. (photo: Mark Lennihan/AP)
Janet Yellen has been tapped to lead the Federal Reserve. (photo: Mark Lennihan/AP)


Janet Yellen: A Woman Atop the Fed

By John Cassidy, The New Yorker

09 October 13

 

t isn't exactly news that President Obama will be nominating Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve. (The official announcement will take place on Wednesday afternoon.) Since Larry Summers withdrew his name from contention last month, Yellen has been the prohibitive favorite to get the job. A former professor of economics at Berkeley, she has extensive experience at the Fed: since 2010, she's been Bernanke's deputy as its vice-chair.

In the coming days, there will be much more to say about Yellen's economic beliefs, her approach to monetary policy, and the challenges she will face in taking over from Bernanke next February. (Earlier this year, when her name surfaced as a serious candidate, I took a quick look at her background.) For now, though, let's dwell for a moment on the fact that she will be the first woman to lead the Fed. Indeed, if you don't count Russia as part of the West, she will be the first woman to head a central bank in any big Western nation.

That matters in a number of ways.

Continue Reading: Janet Yellen: A Woman Atop the Fed

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Cheney and Other War Criminals Toast Each Other Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23847"><span class="small">Joan Walsh, Salon</span></a>   
Wednesday, 09 October 2013 13:30

Walsh writes: "Our tax dollars keep Cheney alive, on the best healthcare government money can buy, while his political inheritors shut down the government to stop the uninsured from getting help."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, 10/06/11. (photo: AP)
Former Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, 10/06/11. (photo: AP)


Cheney and Other War Criminals Toast Each Other

By Joan Walsh, Salon

09 October 13

 

A night at the Plaza for Dick Cheney and friends reminds us that Democrats just don't play as rough as the GOP does

alk about torture.

As the nation is dragged toward a debt-ceiling crisis by a band of radical Republicans determined to invalidate laws they don't like but don't have the power to repeal, party elders got together for a lighthearted roast of accused war criminal Dick Cheney in New York Tuesday night. The ad in Commentary read:

He was White House chief of staff. He was House minority whip. He was secretary of defense. He was vice president of the United States. Now … he will be the main course.

Ben Smith at BuzzFeed has the exclusive details. Read them.

Apparently guests shared details of the off-the-record gala, which featured humor from Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Mukasey and spoiled nepotista (and party wrecker) Liz Cheney, who wants to be the first Wyoming senator who's actually from Virginia. There were lighthearted waterboarding jokes, and someone - reportedly Sen. Joe Lieberman - rocked the house by saying "something to the effect that it's nice that we're all here at the Plaza instead of in cages after some war crimes trial," one of Smith's sources told him.

If only.

At least a couple of people have a conscience buried under all their money, because they told Smith they thought some of the jokes were inappropriate. "There were some waterboarding jokes that were really tasteless," one said. "I can see the case for enhanced interrogation techniques after Sept. 11 but I can't really endorse sitting there drinking wine and fancy dinner at the Plaza laughing uproariously about it."

But judging from the uproarious laughter reported, most attendees didn't have a problem with it.

I found my blood boiling after reading Smith's piece. Our tax dollars keep Cheney alive, on the best healthcare government money can buy, while his political inheritors shut down the government to stop the uninsured from getting help. Doctors keep trying, and failing, to give Cheney a working heart; instead, he seems to be kept alive by spite.

The former vice president and his neocon buddies couldn't get together to reminisce about their war service, because they all ducked the military - Cheney most famously with five deferments during the Vietnam War (which of course he supported). In fact, that's their hallmark: You might be a neocon if … you never met a war you didn't like, and never met one you would fight in, either. Instead, at the roast, they mocked a man who did serve, Gen. Colin Powell.

And while right-wing nut bags rail against President Obama for running up the deficit, let's remember it was Cheney who drove that deficit with tax cuts for his wealthy friends and two wars of choice, famously telling his minion, George W. Bush, that "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter."

In fact, Reagan showed Cheney something else: that a president could break the law, as in Iran-Contra, and get away with it. My friend Charlie Pierce at Esquire has long argued that our current political hostage situation goes back to the Democrats' failure to do more to punish Iran-Contra lawbreakers. And in fact, the guy "who functioned as lookout and getaway driver for the Iran-Contra crooks," in Pierce's words, former Attorney General Ed Meese, is apparently still a key player in the right-wing ignore-the-law thug syndicate, helping craft the Tea Party strategy to shut down the government to abolish Obamacare. The Reagan undead are still with us.

Having backed down on Iran-Contra, let's remember, Democrats saw their next president impeached after a sexual witch hunt. Then they saw Al Gore denied the White House by the right-leaning Supreme Court (Reagan appointee Scalia wrote the decision), after a vote recount in Miami was shut down by preppy GOP thugs in the famous "Brooks Brothers riot." After that, Democrats compromised with Bush on tax cuts for the rich, an education reform bill that promised but didn't deliver adequate funding. Most famously, a majority authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

When America had turned against the war, and the people who lied us into it, and Democrats took back the House of Representatives in 2006, Nancy Pelosi immediately took impeachment off the table. Likewise Barack Obama said "we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards," when asked after the 2008 election whether he planned to investigate - not do anything about it, just investigate - possible criminal acts of the Bush administration. (To be fair I should note that Obama has continued many Bush-Cheney national security policies.) Taking impeachment off the table may well have been the "right" thing to do for the country, but looking back, don't you wish Democrats occasionally put the fear of God into their Republican opponents? Because they don't have any.

People are down on Canada lately for giving us Ted Cruz, but let's be fair to Canada and remember Cheney doesn't feel welcome there. Last year he had to back out of an event in Toronto because of fears it was too "dangerous" for him, the National Post reported. "He felt that in Canada the risk of violent protest was simply too high," said the event promoter who had booked Cheney. The year before, the former vice president wound up trapped in a fancy club in Vancouver for seven hours after allegedly violent protesters amassed outside.

Not in New York. At the Plaza, the men who mired us in endless war while giving tax breaks to themselves and their plutocrat cronies drank wine and laughed about the good times.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Koch Brothers' 'Samson Option' Print
Wednesday, 09 October 2013 12:30

Parry writes: "The fiscal crisis in Washington is not simply a threat to economic and government stability, as serious as that is. It is a premeditated scheme to carve out a new constitutional structure that gives the Koch Brothers and other right-wing billionaires the power to void the democratic process."

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)
Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)


The Koch Brothers' 'Samson Option'

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

09 October 13

 

he Koch Brothers and other right-wing billionaires who provoked the government shutdown and now are angling for an even more devastating credit default see themselves as the people who deserve to rule the United States without interference from lesser citizens, especially those with darker-colored skin.

Their "masters of the universe" world view is that they or their daddies or their daddies' daddies were the ones who "built America" and, thus, it's their right to tear down the remarkable edifice of U.S. law, politics and economics created over the past two-plus centuries — if the country's less-deserving inhabitants insist on raising taxes on the rich to fund programs benefiting the poor and the middle class.

That is what we're watching now, what might be called the Koch Brothers' "Samson Option," pulling down the temple to destroy their enemies even if doing so is also destructive to them and their fortunes.

Charles and David Koch and other right-wing billionaires and near-billionaires are blind with anger after wasting millions of dollars on Mitt Romney, Karl Rove and the Republican Party in a failed attempt to defeat Barack Obama, the Democrats and health-care reform. These were the guys who smirked knowingly when Romney sneered at "the 47 percent" of Americans who receive some government help; they got snappish when Obama called them "fat cats"; they demanded the honorific title of "job creators."

Then, they had to sit in their plush party rooms waiting to celebrate Romney's victory only to be frustrated by a coalition of voters led by African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and young urban whites who are comfortable in a more diverse country.

Despite all the money and electoral tricks, the Koch Brothers and friends failed to block the reelection of the first African-American president; they watched the Democrats defy the odds and retain the Senate; and they barely managed to hold onto a slender Republican House "majority" through aggressive gerrymandering and other anti-democratic anomalies that overcame the GOP's loss in the popular vote of about 1½ million ballots.

To make matters worse, these rich white guys had to listen to endless commentary about the coming demographic changes and the need for Republicans to improve their image with racial and ethnic minorities. Through a blinding rage, the Right's billionaires plotted revenge.

Plotting Obama's Downfall

Of course, many pragmatic rich folk understand how the extraordinary U.S. system - built by the sweat and ingenuity of countless "average Americans" and protected by the blood of heroic common citizens - has made their fortunes possible. These patriotic multi-millionaires cringe at the spectacle of a U.S. government shutdown and panic at the thought of defaulting on U.S. debt.

But the right-wing billionaires and their political front groups welcome the current chaos. Indeed, they began planning today's fiscal crisis as soon as their stunning defeat of last November sank in. Rather than behave as a loyal opposition, the Right started plotting soon after Obama took the oath of office a second time, as the New York Times reported:

"Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama's health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.

"Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed 'blueprint to defunding Obamacare,' signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups. It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government. …

"To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known. …

"Groups like Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are all immersed in the fight, as is Club for Growth, a business-backed nonprofit organization. Some, like Generation Opportunity and Young Americans for Liberty, both aimed at young adults, are upstarts. Heritage Action is new, too, founded in 2010 to advance the policy prescriptions of its sister group, the Heritage Foundation.

"The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been deeply involved with financing the overall effort. A group linked to the Kochs, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, disbursed more than $200 million last year to nonprofit organizations involved in the fight. Included was $5 million to Generation Opportunity, which created a buzz last month with an Internet advertisement showing a menacing Uncle Sam figure popping up between a woman's legs during a gynecological exam."

The Right also has relied on its well-financed propaganda machine to obscure for millions of Americans what is actually underway in Washington. The curtain on that was lifted briefly on Sunday with the recognition that the Democrats agreed to the budget terms demanded by House Speaker John Boehner, who then double-crossed them.

On TV interview shows, Boehner conceded that he had struck a deal with the Democrats in which the Senate would accept the lower House budget figures, which included the so-called "sequester" cuts, in exchange for passage of a continuing resolution to keep the government going.

Reneging on a Deal

As the Times reported, "the speaker acknowledged that in July he had gone to the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid … and offered to have the House pass a clean financing resolution. [Boehner's] proposal would have set spending levels $70 billion lower than Democrats wanted, but would have no contentious add-ons like changing the health-care law. Democrats accepted, but they say Mr. Boehner then reneged under pressure from Tea Party conservatives."

So, Boehner had laid out terms for a deal that the Democrats disliked but agreed to accept, only to see Boehner pocket their major concession, tack on a host of new demands including stopping health-care reform, and then berating them with the "talking point" that it was the Democrats who wouldn't negotiate.

There was also the point that House Republicans had refused for six months to appoint members of a conference committee to hammer out budget differences between the House and Senate.

If not for the powerful right-wing media which continues to repeat the "Democrats won't negotiate" mantra, the American public would have no doubt who provoked the current crisis. But what's even more significant is what this right-wing strategy means to the future of American democracy.

The position of the Koch Brothers and other right-wing plutocrats is that democracy itself is the problem. It's bad enough that they have to listen to views that they disagree with; they certainly shouldn't have to sit back and watch these lesser beings elect leaders and enact policies that involve raising taxes on the rich to provide benefits to other Americans.

While reflective of "free-market" extremism, this right-wing view also has a racial component, since the Right's billionaires have relied on Tea Party foot soldiers to fight these political wars - and many of those white populist right-wingers are attracted by neo-Confederate ideology, i.e. the supposed "rights" of states to ignore federal mandates, especially those designed to help blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.

"States' rights" have had a long and grim history in the United States, touted from the early years of the Republic as necessary to defend slavery, then leading to the Civil War and to a near-century of Jim Crow racial segregation.

After the civil rights movement of the 1960s, opportunistic Republicans, such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, saw their chance to snatch the South by playing to white resentment against integration. So, they played up their commitment to "states' rights" and were rewarded by switching the Deep South from the Democrats to the GOP.

Danger of Fair Elections

Today, however, the Right fears that the nation's demographic changes could mean that fair elections would end frequently with the selection of candidates who favor stronger federal action to address problems confronting the nation and the world, from the economic risk posed by the concentration of wealth in the top one percent to the existential threat posed by global warming.

An energetic federal government is needed to address these challenges. If the Great American Middle Class is to survive, Congress will have to raise taxes on the rich and invest that money in national infrastructure, cutting-edge research, affordable education, expanded health care and other domestic programs. If global warming is to be slowed and eventually reversed, the federal government must move quickly to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions while revamping the U.S. energy system.

But the Right wants to prevent such government activism. So, it has developed strategies to give more weight to the votes of white Republicans and less weight to the votes of blacks, Hispanics and other groups that tend to go Democratic. That's why organizations supported by the Koch Brothers and other right-wing billionaires have backed Republican efforts to impose strict voter ID laws, reduce voting hours and aggressively gerrymander congressional districts to lump Democratic votes in one while ensuring solid Republican majorities in others.

The Right is implementing a strategy as old as the southern poll tax and literacy tests for blacks, i.e. the need to negate post-Civil War amendments that guaranteed equal rights under the law and the right to vote regardless of the color of a person's skin.

Today's right-wing strategy follows the thinking of urbane conservative William F. Buckley, who explained in 1957 - when Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders were agitating for enforcement of post-Civil War provisions - that "The white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically."

Now the Buckley doctrine is being applied nationwide. But the problem for the Right is that even with all the voter suppression and shorter voting hours creating nightmarish lines especially in minority neighborhoods, the American people still reelected Barack Obama and favored Democrats over Republicans for Congress.

Thanks to gerrymandering and other anti-democratic moves, the Right still has a tenuous foothold through its control of the House and can count on the Senate GOP minority to filibuster nearly everything.

However, for the Right to have the power to implement policies of its choice, a new strategy was needed. It surfaced first in 2011 with the threat to default on the nation's debt, which coerced President Obama into accepting severe cuts in federal spending, called the "sequester."

Now, in 2013, the Republican Right has doubled down on that strategy, merging a government shutdown with an impending credit default in an effort to extort more concessions from Obama and the Democrats. But the larger goal is to create a new constitutional structure in which the Right, regardless of its minority status, gets to dictate what the federal government can and cannot do.

To make this strategy work, however, requires a readiness to play Samson and to pull down the temple on your enemies as well as yourself. That appears to be the extreme option that the Koch Brothers and their fellow right-wing billionaires have chosen. If they can't rule America, they will reduce the country to economic rubble through a fiscal crisis and a premeditated financial collapse.

Then, perhaps out of the rubble, a chastened American people will emerge to accept their subordinate position in this new plutocratic structure. In the future, they will know better than to do something that the Koch Brothers and their right-wing friends don't like.

All that stuff about a government of the people, by the people and for the people will finally have perished from the earth. [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "America's Government by Extortion."]

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Where Are the Gutsy Republicans? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Tuesday, 08 October 2013 14:40

Pierce writes: "You'll forgive me if, at the moment, I decline to believe that we will be saved from the Reign Of The Morons by unicorns, the Easter Bunny, or reasonable Republicans in either house of Congress who would gladly vote with the Democrats, if only evil castrato Speaker John Boehner would allow them to do it."

Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., works the phone in his Capitol office during his waning days in the Senate in 1996. (photo: Michael Lloyd/The Oregonian)
Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., works the phone in his Capitol office during his waning days in the Senate in 1996. (photo: Michael Lloyd/The Oregonian)


Where Are the Gutsy Republicans?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

08 October 13

 

What possible point is there in hanging your hopes of an end to the shutdown on a group of "Republican elders" in the Senate, led by John McCain, who is less relevant in Republican politics these days than Bernie Sanders is?

ou'll forgive me if, at the moment, I decline to believe that we will be saved from the Reign Of The Morons by unicorns, the Easter Bunny, or reasonable Republicans in either house of Congress who would gladly vote with the Democrats, if only evil castrato Speaker John Boehner would allow them to do it. You will also forgive me if, at the moment, I decline to believe in mermaids, the Pooka McPhillimey, or fed-up plutocrats who can find a sucker to primary Tea Party congresscritters from what passes for The Left in the Republican party these days.

But within Grand Rapids' powerful business establishment, patience is running low with Amash's ideological agenda and tactics. Some business leaders are recruiting a Republican primary challenger who they hope will serve the old-fashioned way - by working the inside game and playing nice to gain influence and solve problems for the district. They are tired of tea party governance, as exemplified by the budget fight that led to the shutdown and threatens a first-ever U.S. credit default.

Bull. Also, shit.

Even assuming the "powerful business establishment" can find a sap to take on this suicide mission, said sap would soon find the wrath of organized money and organized power bringing his world down around his earlobes. Maybe the sap can raise some coin from a local farm-equipment panjandrum, but the Kochs can buy and sell any big cheese in Grand Rapids 15 times over, and have money to spare to hire a team of assassins to kill his dog. And that's not even to mention the fact that the sap in question would immediately become Ground Zero of a bombardment from Rush and Sean and Mark and Laura and all the little Rushs, and Seans, and Marks, and Lauras in the local talk-radio universe in Michigan and around the country. This person instantly would become the RINO di tutti RINOs. Good luck finding someone dumb enough to sign up for that misery.

(And that's not even to mention that the empirical evidence that big business is "fed up with tea party governance" is passing slim. There's a lot of big hats, but very few cattle have been observed.)

That's why I believe that the whole fracas today over what Boehner told The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs yesterday is much ado about very little. The Democrats seem overjoyed at having, "Well, just bring a clean CR to the floor if you're so sure" as a talking point. Media outlets are giddy with their own "whip counts," as though being willing to talk pretty to an NBC researcher takes the same courage as getting up on the floor of the House in front of God and man and Limbaugh and vote to submarine the Speaker Of The House on behalf of the Kenyan Muslim Usurper in the White House. There aren't 20 Republicans in the House with that kind of guts. I'd be amazed if there were three.

And, what possible point is there in hanging your hopes on a group of "Republican elders" in the Senate, led by John McCain, who is less relevant in Republican politics these days than Bernie Sanders is?

No clear path to ending the impasse over spending has emerged, but in one possible deal scenario - a comprehensive agreement that also solves the problem of raising the debt limit - McCain will likely play an essential role, just as he has been in past bipartisan agreements like the immigration bill that passed the Senate last June. With a core group of House Republicans sticking together in their chamber, and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell taking a low public profile in the fight, that leaves McCain and similar-thinking GOP senators to look for a deal. It's no secret and no surprise that the Republican Party's 2008 presidential standard-bearer has been critical of the strategy of conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, of trying to use the spending bill and perhaps the debt limit as vehicles to force President Barack Obama to agree to defund or delay his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

Mother of god, this is simply adorable. The bipartisan agreement on immigration utterly collapsed, taking Marco Rubio down with it, because the people who are currently in charge of Republican policy hated it, and the people who crafted it, especially including John McCain, whom they see - and not entirely without good reason - as a superannuated show pony. Also, what "similar-thinking GOP senators"? Huckleberry J. Closetcase? Kelly Ayotte? Hell, Mitch McConnell's "low public profile' on all of this is because he's getting primaried by a wealthy nutball, and his seat is a helluva lot safer than Ayotte's is. Tom Coburn's supposed to be another "reasonable" conservative, and he's on record as saying that failing to raise the debt ceiling doesn't mean the country will default. (Eh?) I doubt seriously whether the overwhelming charisma of Senator Grumpy Grampa is enough to overcome these obstacles.

The Reign Of The Morons is many things, but one of its most obvious causes is a complete failure of political courage within the Republican party. It isn't simply a matter of the party's having created a monster that it can no longer control - although that's undeniable part of it - it also is the fact that the party lacks a substantial center of power that even is willing to risk trying. Say what you will about Victor Frankenstein. He chased his creation to the ends of the earth. Where are the Republicans who are willing to ride the ice floe?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | US Is the World Leader in Spreading Destruction and Misery Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7646"><span class="small">Noam Chomsky, AlterNet</span></a>   
Tuesday, 08 October 2013 12:16

Chomsky writes: "The recent Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? The debate is narrower than it may seem."

America's leading intellectual, Professor Noam Chomsky. (photo: MIT)
America's leading intellectual, Professor Noam Chomsky. (photo: MIT)


US Is the World Leader in Spreading Destruction and Misery

By Noam Chomsky, Alternet

08 October 13

 

Despite Obama's noble words, America has imposed vicious dictatorships and supported horrendous crime

he recent Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism?

The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality "realist" school of international relations.

Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a "transcendent purpose" that it "must defend and promote" throughout the world: "the establishment of equality in freedom."

The competing concepts "exceptionalism" and "isolationism" both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application.

One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: "What makes America different," he declared, "what makes us exceptional," is that we are dedicated to act, "with humility, but with resolve," when we detect violations somewhere.

"For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security," a role that "has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them."

The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that "granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy" may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others.

Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages.

At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that "for nearly seven decades" the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion - overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery.

To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its "transcendent purpose."

But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit "the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds." It is the transcendent purpose of America that is "reality"; the actual historical record is merely "the abuse of reality."

In short, "American exceptionalism" and "isolationism" are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively.

Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan's U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere "blunders" or "innocent naivete" can be charged with "moral equivalence" - of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny.

Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers.

Engel cites Vietnam, where, "depending on one's political persuasion," the lesson is either "avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure" - as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses.

The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there - even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama's "seven decades."

Another "political persuasion" is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens.

One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to "Rwanda-like" horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder.

That violence is a testimony to the failure "of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal" and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the "moderating influence of American forces."

Those still deluded by "abuse of reality" - that is, fact - might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal's judgment, aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide," Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response.

She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States "looked away," Power reports.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book "A Dangerous Place," he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. "utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook" to end the aggression, because "the United States wished things to turn out as they did."

And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt - as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years.

But that is mere abuse of reality.

It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons.

Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further "abuses of reality."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 Next > End >>

Page 3041 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN