RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Spectre of 1932: Will Fascism Rise Again in 2012? Print
Saturday, 31 December 2011 18:21

Sandbrooks writes: "As commentators often remark, the world picture has not been grimmer since the dark days of the mid-Seventies, when the OPEC oil shock, the rise of stagflation and the surge of nationalist terrorism cast a heavy shadow over the Western world. For the most chilling parallel, though, we should look back exactly 80 years, to the cold wintry days when 1931 gave way to 1932."

In the Italy of 1932, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, pictured with Hitler, strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya. (photo: AP)
In the Italy of 1932, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, pictured with Hitler, strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya. (photo: AP)



The Spectre of 1932: Will Fascism Rise Again in 2012?

By Dominic Sandbrook, Daily Mail UK

31 December 11

 

he dawn of a new year is usually a time of hope and ambition, of dreams for the future and thoughts of a better life. But it is a long time since many of us looked forward to the new year with such anxiety, even dread.

Here in Britain, many economists believe that by the end of 2012 we could well have slipped into a second devastating recession. The Coalition remains delicately poised; it would take only one or two resignations to provoke a wider schism and a general election.

But the real dangers lie overseas. In the Middle East, the excitement of the Arab Spring has long since curdled into sectarian tension and fears of Islamic fundamentalism. And with so many of the world's oil supplies concentrated in the Persian Gulf, British families will be keeping an anxious eye on events in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, as the eurozone slides towards disaster, the prospects for Europe have rarely been bleaker. Already the European elite have installed compliant technocratic governments in Greece and Italy, and with the markets now putting pressure on France, few observers can be optimistic that the Continent can avoid a total meltdown.

As commentators often remark, the world picture has not been grimmer since the dark days of the mid-Seventies, when the OPEC oil shock, the rise of stagflation and the surge of nationalist terrorism cast a heavy shadow over the Western world.

For the most chilling parallel, though, we should look back exactly 80 years, to the cold wintry days when 1931 gave way to 1932.

Then as now, few people saw much to mourn in the passing of the old year. It was in 1931 that the Great Depression really took hold in Europe, bringing governments to their knees and plunging tens of millions of people out of work.

Then as now, the crisis had taken years to gather momentum. After the Wall Street Crash in 1929 - just as after the banking crisis of 2008 - some observers even thought that the worst was over.

But in the summer of 1931, a wave of banking panics swept across central Europe. As the German and Austrian financial houses tottered, Britain's Labour government came under fierce market pressure to slash spending and cut benefits.

Bitterly divided, the Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald decided to resign from office - only to return immediately as the leader of an all-party Coalition known as the National Government, dominated by Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives.

Like today's Coalition, the National Government was an uneasy marriage. Sunk in self-pity and spending much of his time flirting with aristocratic hostesses, MacDonald cut a miserable and semi-detached figure. By comparison, even Nick Clegg looks a model of strong, decisive leadership.

As for the Tory leader Stanley Baldwin, he had more in common with David Cameron than we might think. A laid-back Old Harrovian, tolerant, liberal-minded and ostentatiously relaxed, Baldwin spent as much time as possible on holiday in the South of France, preferring to enjoy the Mediterranean sunshine rather than get his hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of policy.

Meanwhile, far from offering a strong and coherent Opposition, the rump Labour Party seemed doomed to irrelevance. At least its leader, the pacifist Arthur Henderson, could claim to be a man of the people, having hauled himself up by his bootstraps from his early days as a Newcastle metal worker.

Not even his greatest admirers could possibly say the same of today's adenoidal, stammering Opposition leader, the toothless Ed Miliband.

With the politicians apparently impotent in the face of the economic blizzard, many people were losing faith in parliamentary democracy. Their despair was hardly surprising: in some industrial towns of the North, Wales and Scotland, unemployment in 1932 reached a staggering 70 per cent.

With thousands more being plunged out of work every week, even the National Government estimated that one in four people were making do on a mere subsistence diet. Scurvy, rickets and tuberculosis were rife; in the slag heaps of Wigan, George Orwell saw ‘several hundred women' scrabbling ‘in the mud for hours', searching for tiny chips of coal so they could heat their homes.

Feeling betrayed by mainstream politicians, many sought more extreme alternatives. Then as now, Britain was rocked by marches and demonstrations. In October 1932, a National Hunger March in Hyde Park saw bloody clashes between protesters and mounted policemen, with 75 people being badly injured.

And while Left-wing intellectuals were drawn to the supposedly utopian promise of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin - who turned out to be a brutal tyrant - thousands of ordinary people flocked to the banners of the British Union of Fascists, founded in the autumn of 1932 by the former Labour maverick Sir Oswald Mosley.

Never before or since has the far Right commanded greater British support - a worrying reminder of the potential for economic frustration to turn into demagogic resentment.

But the most compelling parallels between 1932 and 2012 lie overseas, where the economic and political situation was, if anything, even darker.

Eighty years ago, the world was struggling to come to terms with an entirely new financial landscape. In August 1931, the system by which currencies were pegged to the value of gold had fallen apart, with market pressure forcing Britain to pull the pound off the gold standard.

Almost overnight, the system that was supposed to ensure global economic stability was gone. And as international efforts to coordinate a response collapsed, so nations across the world fell back on self-interested economic protectionism.

In August 1932, the British colonies and dominions met in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, and agreed a policy of Imperial Preference, putting high tariffs on goods from outside the Empire. International free trade was now a thing of the past; in this frightening new world, it was every man for himself.

Today's situation, of course, is even more frightening. Our equivalent of the gold standard - the misguided folly of the euro - is poised on the brink of disaster, yet the European elite refuse to let poorer Mediterranean nations like Greece and Portugal leave the eurozone, devalue their new currencies and start again.

Should the eurozone collapse, as seems perfectly likely given Greece's soaring debts, Spain's record unemployment, Italy's non-existent growth and the growing market pressure on France's ailing economy, then the consequences would be much worse than when Britain left the gold standard.

The shockwaves across Europe - which could come as early as next spring - would see banks tottering, businesses crashing and millions thrown out of work. For British firms that trade with Europe, as well as holiday companies, airports, travel firms and the City of London itself, the meltdown of the eurozone would be a catastrophe.

And as the experience of 80 years ago suggests, the political and social ramifications would be too terrible to contemplate. For in many ways, the 12 months between the end of 1931 and the beginning of 1933 were the tipping point between democracy and tyranny, the moment when the world plunged from an uneasy peace towards hatred and bloodshed.

In the East, new powers were already on the rise. At the end of 1931, Imperial Japan had already launched a staggeringly brutal invasion of China, the Japanese armies pouring into the disputed province of Manchuria in search of raw materials.

Today the boot is on the other foot, with China ploughing billions into its defence programme and establishing de facto economic colonies across Africa, bringing copper, cobalt and zinc back to the mother country.

Indeed, future historians may well look back and see the first years of the 2010s as the moment when the Chinese Empire began to strengthen its global grip.

In the Soviet Union in 1932, meanwhile, Stalin's reign of terror was intensifying. With dissent crushed by the all-powerful Communist Party, his state-sponsored collectivisation of the Ukrainian farms saw a staggering 6million die in one of the worst famines in history.

By these standards, the autocratic Vladimir Putin looks almost cuddly.

And yet we should not forget that Putin himself described the fall of the Soviet empire as one of the greatest catastrophes of the century - and that half of all Russian teenagers recently told a survey that Stalin was a wise and strong leader.

By comparison, Europe's democratic leaders look woolly and vacillating, just as they did back in 1932. Indeed, for the democratic West, this was a truly terrible year.

Democracy itself seemed to be under siege. In France, President Paul Doumer was murdered by an assassin. In Portugal, the authoritarian, ultra-Catholic dictator Antonio Salazar launched a reign of terror that would last into the Seventies. And in Italy, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya.

Eighty years on, we have no room for complacency. Although the far Right remains no more than a thuggish and eccentric minority, the elected prime ministers of Greece and Italy have already been booted out to make way for EU-approved technocrats for whom nobody has ever voted.

In the new Europe, the will of the people seems to play second fiddle to the demands of Paris and Berlin. And if the eurozone crisis intensifies, then it is no idle fantasy to imagine that Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and their Brussels allies will demand an even greater centralisation of powers, provoking nationalist outrage on the streets of Europe's capitals.

Sadly, there seems little point in looking across the Atlantic for inspiration. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover, beleaguered by rising unemployment and tumbling ratings, flailed and floundered towards election defeat.

Today, Barack Obama cuts a similarly impotent, indecisive and isolationist figure. The difference is that in 1932, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, the Democratic politician Franklin D. Roosevelt, was waiting in the wings.

Today, American voters looking for alternatives are confronted only with a bizarre gaggle of has-beens, inadequates and weirdos, otherwise known as the Republican presidential field. And to anybody who cares about the future of the Western world, the prospect of President Ron Paul or President Newt Gingrich is frankly spine-chilling.

Above all, though, the eyes of the world back in 1932 were fixed on Germany. As the Weimar Republic staggered towards oblivion, an obscure Austrian painter was setting his sights on supreme power.

With rising unemployment eating away at the bonds of democratic civility, the National Socialist Party was within touching distance of government.

And in the last days of 1932, after the technocrats and generals had failed to restore order, President Paul von Hindenburg began to contemplate the unthinkable - the prospect of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.

We all know what happened next. Indeed, by the end of 1932 the world was about to slide towards a new dark age, an age of barbarism and bloodshed on a scale that history had never known.

Eighty years on, it would be easy to sit back and reassure ourselves that the worst could never happen again. But that, of course, was what people told each other in 1932, too.

The lesson of history is that tough times often reward the desperate and dangerous, from angry demagogues to anarchists and nationalists, from seething mobs to expansionist empires.

Our world is poised on the edge of perhaps the most important 12 months for more than half a century. If our leaders provide the right leadership, then we may, perhaps, muddle through towards slow growth and gradual recovery.

But if the European elite continue to inflict needless hardship on their people; if the markets continue to erode faith in the euro; and if Western politicians waste their time in petty bickering, then we could easily slip further towards discontent and disaster.

The experience of 1932 provides a desperately valuable lesson. As a result of the decisions taken in those 12 short months, millions of people later lost their lives.

Today, on the brink of a new year that could well prove the most frightening in living memory, we can only pray that our history takes a very different path.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Will Ron Paul Become the New Ralph Nader? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14128"><span class="small">Joe Conason, The National Memo</span></a>   
Saturday, 31 December 2011 10:59

Conason writes: "Long disappointed by Obama's overly solicitous attitude toward banking, defense and national security interests - at the expense of economic justice and civil liberties - these disappointed critics find a satisfying echo in Paul's assaults on the banks, the Federal Reserve System, the military-industrial complex, and indeed the entire American super-structure, including the miserably failed war on drugs."

Ron Paul, seen here leaving an Iowa campaign event, has not ruled out a third party run should he fail to capture the GOP nomination. (photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters)
Ron Paul, seen here leaving an Iowa campaign event, has not ruled out a third party run should he fail to capture the GOP nomination. (photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters)



Will Ron Paul Become the New Ralph Nader?

By Joe Conason, The National Memo

31 December 11

 

ven as Barack Obama gradually climbs in national polls, more than a handful of the president's once-ardent admirers suddenly seem more attracted by Ron Paul. Long disappointed by Obama's overly solicitous attitude toward banking, defense and national security interests - at the expense of economic justice and civil liberties - these disappointed critics find a satisfying echo in Paul's assaults on the banks, the Federal Reserve System, the military-industrial complex, and indeed the entire American super-structure, including the miserably failed war on drugs. As a libertarian, he doesn't actually share the liberal perspective on these issues, but sometimes sounds as if he does.

For some people, perhaps, that is enough.

As a seasonal fad unlikely to persist beyond Iowa, a minor liberal flirtation with Paul wouldn't matter at all. While he has provided much entertainment over the past few weeks, scaring the Republican establishment with his anybody-but-Romney climb in the polls, he undoubtedly understands that he will not be the nominee of their party (and in calmer moments, so do they). His prescriptions for government and the economy may be misguided, to put it kindly, but his passionate support for the Bill of Rights is refreshing, especially because so many Republicans and too many Democrats are prepared to snip or even scrap that document. So is the consistency of his current stands on such issues as narcotics, marriage, and military engagement abroad. Which are only the most obvious reasons he will always be rejected by the GOP, even as his dedicated supporters occasionally win a momentary victory in a straw poll or a pseudo-convention.

But what if Paul should decide to run on the Libertarian Party ticket next year? He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and he has coyly hinted that he might do so again in 2012, with that party's leaders practically begging him to accept their nomination when the Republican primaries end. He could either defeat former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who recently announced that he has left the Republican Party to seek the Libertarian nomination - or ask Johnson, who supported Paul in 2008, to join the ticket as his vice presidential candidate. In many respects, Ron Paul for President is as much a family business as an ideological crusade, so the incentives for him to continue into November will be powerful.

For liberals who are drawn to Paul as an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, the military budget, and the wars on terrorism and drugs, that would pose a challenge. Like Ralph Nader in 2000, Paul could offer them a tempting opportunity to express their weariness with compromise and complexity; once more they could vote their conscience and voice their frustration. The moral hurdle would be much higher than with Nader, a genuine American icon who carries none of Paul's embarrassing baggage. At the very least, Nader upheld traditional progressive ideals for government, the economy and the environment - while Paul would eagerly repeal a century of advances on all those fronts, if he could.

But for those willing to overlook the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and paranoid Ron Paul newsletters - as well as their putative author's feeble, implausible, and changeable explanations for them - the Texas Congressman might claim to be an alternative to that tired-old-two-party, lesser-of-two-evils ballot choice.

That would appeal only to progressives who suffer from historical amnesia, the chronic affliction of American politics, and were thus unable to recall the consequences of Nader's third-party candidacy. One of those consequences, ironically enough, was the war in Iraq, which probably would not have occurred if Al Gore hadn't forfeited the electoral votes that Nader threw to George W. Bush. Another consequence was the abandonment of the US commitment to mitigate climate change, which dwarfs even the economic debacle of the past few years in its potential toll on humanity. A third consequence was the spike in economic inequality encouraged by Bush tax, spending, and regulatory policies - which will someday seem moderate in retrospect, if Obama loses next year to Mitt Romney with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.

The Nader supporters of 2000, a fraction of the liberal electorate, didn't get the policies they so urgently desired, of course. They didn't even get a viable Green Party or a lasting movement for change. Instead, they helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge. In the new year, we may discover whether they wish to revive that nightmare.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Frequently Asked Questions About the Iowa Caucuses Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6945"><span class="small">Will Durst, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 31 December 2011 10:42

Durst writes: "Q. How is a caucus different than a primary? A. People don't vote in a caucus. They attend. Then huddle with like minded others in designated candidate corners, but if not enough people join your posse, your group is disbanded and everybody wanders around in search of a second or third choice. So supporters who corner the breath mint and deodorant market hold a huge advantage."

Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)
Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)



Frequently Asked Questions About the Iowa Caucuses

By Will Durst, Reader Supported News

31 December 11

 

. A little help here. Exactly what are the Iowa Caucuses?

A. The Iowa Caucuses is a method of choosing a presidential nominee. Held every four years. Usually in Iowa.

Q. Why is it so important?

A. Number one in the batting order. Opening stanza of an epic poem. The recorded preamble to the Republican Nomination Symphony is over, and the citizen orchestra is about to play.

Q. What?

A. Gentlemen, start your engines.

Q. What precisely happens?

A. Nobody knows. The process is sort of like musical chairs without the chairs. And no music.

Q. How did all this get started?

A. It began with early Iowans throwing small round ruinish stones into hollowed out stumps, which were placed atop huge cast iron kettles brimming with pig entrails- then the omens interpreted by a circle of community elders wearing ceremonial necklaces of hand-carved stringed chestnuts.

Q. And when did it transform into the current method?

A. Actually, it's still pretty much the same.

Q. How is a caucus different than a primary?

A. People don't vote in a caucus. They attend. Then huddle with like minded others in designated candidate corners, but if not enough people join your posse, your group is disbanded and everybody wanders around in search of a second or third choice. So supporters who corner the breath mint and deodorant market hold a huge advantage.

Q. Might there be worse ways in choosing a candidate than picking the one with the best smelling supporters?

A. Oh yes indeed. Look at North Korea.

Q. So, you are allowed to change your vote?

A. You are encouraged to, especially Jon Huntsman supporters.

Q. My good buddy Jon. How's he doing these days?

A. Little green around the gills. Polling around 1% with a margin of error of 4%. So he could very well end up owing Iowa a couple delegates.

Q. How believable are the polls?

A . Don't bet the farm. Iowans are a fierce stubborn people. They don't call them Buckeyes or Hawkeyes or Hoosiers or whatever they call them for nothing you know.

Q. What are you saying?

A. That folks in Iowa love to confound conventional wisdom by throwing in with the underdog. Can we say Ron Paul in a squeaker?

Q. Why Iowa?

A . Why not Iowa?

Q. No, I mean why does a state that Minnesotans make fun of get to go first?

A. Who do you want to go first: Louisiana? California? Texas? American Samoa?

Q. Your point being?

A. At least Iowa is representative.

Q. Of white people.

A. In the form of a question, please.

Q. Okay, how diverse is Iowa?

A. White, white, white, white, white, white, white. Whiter than a "Justin Bieber Christmas in Norway Special." Mashed potatoes on paper plates with a side of cauliflower white.

Q. And that's representative?

A. Of Republicans.

Q. Point taken. Who can participate?

A. Anybody who pre-registers as a Republican. And brings snacks.

Q. Does it cost anything to participate?

A. Just the tiniest piece of your soul.

Q. How are caucuses better than primaries?

A. Well, they're a whole lot more fun to say. Try it in a sentence: "I slipped on the ice and broke my caucuses."

Q. What happens in Iowa on January 4th when the circus packs up and moves to New Hampshire?

A. Iowa radio stations will stop screaming about treason and hypocrisy and go back to hog futures and herbicide ads, the way God intended.

The New York Times says Emmy-nominated comedian and writer Will Durst "is quite possibly the best political satirist working in the country today." Check out the website: Redroom.com to buy his book or find out more about upcoming stand-up performances such as the finale of the XIXth annual Big Fat Year End Kiss Off Comedy Show, Jan 1. 142 Throckmorton Theatre- 142throckmortontheatre.com- Mill Valley, CA 415.383.9600

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | 2012: Where Do We Go From Here? Print
Friday, 30 December 2011 12:07

"The year 2011 has been a tough one for...our country. The recession caused by the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street continues...too many of our friends and neighbors are unemployed or underemployed or are earning less than they need to adequately support their families."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 03/11/09. (photo: WDCpix)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 03/11/09. (photo: WDCpix)



2012: Where Do We Go From Here?

By Bernie Sanders, Green Mountain Daily

30 December 11

 

want to take this opportunity to wish all Vermonters a very happy holiday season and a wonderful new year.

The year 2011 has been a tough one for Vermont and our country. The recession caused by the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street continues. While Vermont is doing better economically than much of the country, too many of our friends and neighbors are unemployed or underemployed or are earning less than they need to adequately support their families.

Further, in Vermont we have had to deal with the devastation of Hurricane Irene, which caused so much hardship for individuals and businesses. We should all be grateful for the efforts of state and local officials, first responders, the many hundreds of volunteers, and members of the National Guard who all did such an extraordinary job in the cleanup and recovery effort.
It is no secret that the people of our country are angry and frustrated with Washington and their government. They correctly perceive that we face enormous problems: a collapsing middle class, increased poverty and a growing gap between the very rich and everyone else; sky-high unemployment; 50 million Americans without health insurance; a deteriorating infrastructure; the continued loss of our manufacturing capabilities; the ongoing mortgage and student loan crises, and the planetary challenge of global warming. And on top of all of that, we have a $15 trillion dollar national debt.

The American people want action. They want their government to start representing the 99 percent, not just the top 1 percent. With that goal in mind, let me say a few words about some of the issues that I will be working on when Congress reconvenes in January.

With more than 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, 15 percent of our workforce, we must be aggressive about creating the millions of new jobs we desperately need. It is simply not acceptable that high school or college graduates are not able to find work as they try to begin their careers. It is horrific that millions of older workers, who were looking forward to secure retirements, find themselves unemployed and facing the possibility that they may never again have a job.

One of the fastest ways to create jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure - roads, bridges, railroads, airports, water systems, wastewater plants and aging schools. While we spend 2 percent of our GDP on infrastructure, China spends 9 percent and Europe spends 5 percent. We also need to make sure that Vermont and all of rural America gets the quality broadband and cell phone service that we deserve in order to be able to compete in the 21st century. When we rebuild and improve our infrastructure we not only create a significant number of jobs, we make our country more efficient and productive. I will continue to fight for a substantial federal investment in infrastructure.

Another important way to create jobs - while we protect our environment, address global warming and prevent new wars - is to transform our energy system away from foreign oil and fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In Vermont, we already lead the country in energy efficiency, but much, much more can be done. We can create many new jobs weatherizing homes and buildings while, at the same time, we cut greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money on their fuel bills. This is a win, win, win proposition. We must also be more aggressive in moving toward such job creating sustainable energy technologies as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

When we talk about the economy and jobs, we cannot forget about the need for real Wall Street reform. After all, it was the outrageous behavior of Wall Street which caused this recession in the first place. Incredibly, after we bailed out the behemoth banks that were "too big to fail," three out of the four are now even bigger than before the financial crisis. Within the next several months I will be introducing legislation which would bring fundamental change to the Federal Reserve as well as the way that largest financial institutions in this country are run.

While we focus on job creation and the economy, we cannot forget about some of the most vulnerable people in our country - the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. As chairman of the Defending Social Security Caucus, I intend to do all that I can to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the needs of our veterans.

Last but not least, this country faces a major deficit as a result of two wars that were not paid for, tax breaks for the rich, and reduced revenue because of the recession. The deficit crisis must be resolved but in a way that is fair to the middle class. As part of any deficit-reduction package, the wealthiest people in this country, many of whom are doing phenomenally well, must be asked to pay their fair share of taxes. We must also do away with the hundreds of billions in corporate loopholes that currently exist, which enable many large and profitable corporations to pay little or nothing in federal taxes.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Electorate Suffers From a PAC Attack Print
Friday, 30 December 2011 09:11

Excerpt: "'Newt Gingrich has more baggage than the airlines.' Romney is akin to 'big spending liberals.' Beware of 'smooth talking politicians.' In Iowa, after a breather for Christmas, voters are once more being deluged with attack ads 24/7 that go after whoever is leading in the polls. ... The result of this absurdity is a campaign of relentless negative attacks and consummate silliness. There are no super PAC ads calling for new policies on poverty. No ads detailing clear answers to mass unemployment."

2012 Republican campaign 30-second attack ad. (photo: Texas Tribune)
2012 Republican campaign 30-second attack ad. (photo: Texas Tribune)



Electorate Suffers From a PAC Attack

By Jesse Jackson, The Chicago Sun Times

30 December 11

 

ewt Gingrich has more baggage than the airlines." Romney is akin to "big spending liberals." Beware of "smooth talking politicians." In Iowa, after a breather for Christmas, voters are once more being deluged with attack ads 24/7 that go after whoever is leading in the polls.

The attack ads are largely funded by super PACs. These nominally independent political action committees are run by relatives or close associates of the candidates. These organizations are allowed to raise anonymous sums of unlimited amounts. And as Mitt Romney has pointed out, by law, they can’t "coordinate" with a candidate. So, they can do the dirty work while the candidates profess their innocence or impotence. "I’m not allowed to communicate with a super PAC in any way, shape or form," says Romney. "If we coordinate in any way whatsoever, we go to the big house." But he later admitted he could speak publicly against negative ads but wouldn’t, "because this is politics."

The result of this absurdity is a campaign of relentless negative attacks and consummate silliness. There are no super PAC ads calling for new policies on poverty. No ads detailing clear answers to mass unemployment. Negative ads are on the air because they work.

When Newt Gingrich complained about the barrage of negative ads unleashed by the "independent" super PAC "related to" Romney’s candidacy, Romney replied that "if you can’t stand the heat in this little kitchen, wait until the Obama Hell’s kitchen turns up the heat."

Sadly, that is probably true. We’re headed into a campaign in which dueling super PACs, funded by anonymous contributions, including millions from corporations, will spend a billion or so on ads attacking the other candidate.

And candidates will repeat, to use the technical legal term, lies that the press will be too intimidated or too impotent to correct. So, Rick Perry says that there is a war on Christianity across America. Newt Gingrich summons up Sharia law as a mortal threat and "dictatorial" judges that should be impeached or ignored at will. Mitt Romney charges that Obama wants not equal opportunity but equal results — without any conceivable evidence to support the charge.

Amidst the din, Americans will have to sort out who has any clue about what to do about the fundamental problems facing this society.

Across the country, teachers are being laid off. Preschool and afterschool programs are being cut back. Fees and tolls are going up. Buses and subways are hit with service reductions. Layoffs will reduce the number of police who keep our streets safe, the inspectors who keep our food safe. Wages are declining; mass unemployment continues. Home heating support for the elderly poor will be reduced this winter.

All these are treated as separate issues, as products of necessary "shared sacrifice" to deal with budget deficits. But in fact, they are about two fundamental questions this election should address:

Who pays for the mess? And how do we pay for it in a fashion that will put people to work and strengthen our economy for the future?

We need a big, honest and clear debate about these questions. President Obama invited it in his speech in Osawatomie, Kan. Mitt Romney burlesqued it in his "closing statement" in New Hampshire. The attack ads that are what most Americans will see of the campaign will duck it altogether.

This will be the test for citizens and for the press. Can we force the candidates to talk clearly about their vision and agenda for America? If Iowa, after many debates and weeks of attack ads, is any example, we haven’t gotten there yet.

See Also: Rev. Jesse Jackson and PDA Challenge Democratic Party

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 Next > End >>

Page 3373 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