Politics

America in Decline

Saturday, 06 August 2011 10:47

Excerpt: "The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy."

Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)

America in Decline

By Noam Chomsky, In These Times

06 August 11

�

"t is a common theme" that the United States, which "only a few years ago was hailed to stride the world as a colossus with unparalleled power and unmatched appeal is in decline, ominously facing the prospect of its final decay," Giacomo Chiozza writes in the current Political Science Quarterly.

The theme is indeed widely believed. And with some reason, though a number of qualifications are in order. To start with, the decline has proceeded since the high point of US power after World War II, and the remarkable triumphalism of the post-Gulf War '90s was mostly self-delusion.

Another common theme, at least among those who are not willfully blind, is that American decline is in no small measure self-inflicted. The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy.

The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests.

Corporate power's ascendancy over politics and society - by now mostly financial - has reached the point that both political organizations, which at this stage barely resemble traditional parties, are far to the right of the population on the major issues under debate.

For the public, the primary domestic concern is unemployment. Under current circumstances, that crisis can be overcome only by a significant government stimulus, well beyond the recent one, which barely matched decline in state and local spending - though even that limited initiative probably saved millions of jobs.

For financial institutions the primary concern is the deficit. Therefore, only the deficit is under discussion. A large majority of the population favor addressing the deficit by taxing the very rich (72 percent, 27 percent opposed), reports a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Cutting health programs is opposed by overwhelming majorities (69 percent Medicaid, 78 percent Medicare). The likely outcome is therefore the opposite.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed how the public would eliminate the deficit. PIPA director Steven Kull writes, "Clearly both the administration and the Republican-led House (of Representatives) are out of step with the public's values and priorities in regard to the budget."

The survey illustrates the deep divide: "The biggest difference in spending is that the public favored deep cuts in defense spending, while the administration and the House propose modest increases. The public also favored more spending on job training, education and pollution control than did either the administration or the House."

The final "compromise" - more accurately, capitulation to the far right - is the opposite throughout, and is almost certain to lead to slower growth and long-term harm to all but the rich and the corporations, which are enjoying record profits.

Not even discussed is that the deficit would be eliminated if, as economist Dean Baker has shown, the dysfunctional privatized health care system in the US were replaced by one similar to other industrial societies', which have half the per capita costs and health outcomes that are comparable or better.

The financial institutions and Big Pharma are far too powerful for such options even to be considered, though the thought seems hardly Utopian. Off the agenda for similar reasons are other economically sensible options, such as a small financial transactions tax.

Meanwhile new gifts are regularly lavished on Wall Street. The House Appropriations Committee cut the budget request for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the prime barrier against financial fraud. The Consumer Protection Agency is unlikely to survive intact.

Congress wields other weapons in its battle against future generations. Faced with Republican opposition to environmental protection, American Electric Power, a major utility, shelved "the nation's most prominent effort to capture carbon dioxide from an existing coal-burning power plant, dealing a severe blow to efforts to rein in emissions responsible for global warming," The New York Times reported.

The self-inflicted blows, while increasingly powerful, are not a recent innovation. They trace back to the 1970s, when the national political economy underwent major transformations, ending what is commonly called "the Golden Age" of (state) capitalism.

Two major elements were financialization (the shift of investor preference from industrial production to so-called FIRE: finance, insurance, real estate) and the offshoring of production. The ideological triumph of "free market doctrines," highly selective as always, administered further blows, as they were translated into deregulation, rules of corporate governance linking huge CEO rewards to short-term profit, and other such policy decisions.

The resulting concentration of wealth yielded greater political power, accelerating a vicious cycle that has led to extraordinary wealth for a fraction of 1 percent of the population, mainly CEOs of major corporations, hedge fund managers and the like, while for the large majority real incomes have virtually stagnated.

In parallel, the cost of elections skyrocketed, driving both parties even deeper into corporate pockets. What remains of political democracy has been undermined further as both parties have turned to auctioning congressional leadership positions, as political economist Thomas Ferguson outlines in the Financial Times.

"The major political parties borrowed a practice from big box retailers like Walmart, Best Buy or Target," Ferguson writes. "Uniquely among legislatures in the developed world, US congressional parties now post prices for key slots in the lawmaking process." The legislators who contribute the most funds to the party get the posts.

The result, according to Ferguson, is that debates "rely heavily on the endless repetition of a handful of slogans that have been battle-tested for their appeal to national investor blocs and interest groups that the leadership relies on for resources." The country be damned.

Before the 2007 crash for which they were largely responsible, the new post-Golden Age financial institutions had gained startling economic power, more than tripling their share of corporate profits. After the crash, a number of economists began to inquire into their function in purely economic terms. Nobel laureate Robert Solow concludes that their general impact may be negative: "The successes probably add little or nothing to the efficiency of the real economy, while the disasters transfer wealth from taxpayers to financiers."

By shredding the remnants of political democracy, the financial institutions lay the basis for carrying the lethal process forward - as long as their victims are willing to suffer in silence.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on US foreign policy. He writes a monthly column for The New York Times News Service/Syndicate.

37 comments

Debt Deal Threatens Social Security

Friday, 05 August 2011 10:50

Russ Feingold wites: "Prior to this week's debt agreement, it's been extremely difficult to cut Social Security benefits, because doing so required 60 votes to overcome an almost certain filibuster in the Senate. And rightly so - Social Security is the most successful and popular government program in the history of the United States. Yet the so-called Super Committee, which will be appointed by congressional leaders in both parties to consider additional budget cuts, will enjoy authority that no other entity or special legislative process has ever had: it will have the power to propose Social Security reductions that are guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and therefore can be adopted by a simple majority."

Former Sen. Russ Feingold. (photo: AP)

Debt Deal Threatens Social Security

By Russ Feingold, Reader Supported News

05 August 11

�

his week's deal to raise the debt ceiling should remove any doubt about the power corporate interests have over our government. The deal, hammered out by the president and Republican congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems squarely on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass.

But the deal poses a larger threat. A provision in the agreement creates an appointed "Super Committee" in Congress that could circumvent normal rules and slash cherished programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

How could this happen? Prior to this week's debt agreement, it's been extremely difficult to cut Social Security benefits, because doing so required 60 votes to overcome an almost certain filibuster in the Senate. And rightly so - Social Security is the most successful and popular government program in the history of the United States.

Yet the so-called Super Committee, which will be appointed by congressional leaders in both parties to consider additional budget cuts, will enjoy authority that no other entity or special legislative process has ever had: it will have the power to propose Social Security reductions that are guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and therefore can be adopted by a simple majority. And unlike most measures in the Senate, the Super Committee's recommendations related to Social Security will not be subject to unlimited debate - a standard protection against drastic action. Further, no amendments will be allowed. Make no mistake, those who crafted and agreed to the Super Committee were well aware of this and there can be no doubt Republicans plan to take full advantage.

So ultimately, if the Super Committee's recommendations propose cuts to Social Security, the only means to block them would be to strike down the entire Super Committee bill. But there's a dangerous trapdoor - failing to enact the overall Super Committee bill would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts that will be strongly opposed by powerful constituencies.

In short, unless congressional leaders appoint progressives willing to stand up to moneyed interests, the Super Committee will be nothing less than a chopping block for Social Security.

Here's how it would work: assuming all 6 Republican appointees support Social Security cuts, it would only take one Democratic appointee to include them in the committee's final recommendation. Once cuts to Social Security are included in that final Super Committee bill, the Senate's 47 Republicans would need just four Democrats to produce the majority needed to pass them, and unfortunately finding those four Democrats probably is not all that difficult.

And ironically, the inability to amend the Super Committee legislation will provide some senators with the perfect excuse: "I didn't like the Social Security cuts, but I had to accept them as part of the entire bill."

This means that the identity of the Democratic appointees to the Super Committee will be critical. Because sadly, there are already a handful of Democratic senators ready to take an axe to Social Security; and regrettably, some of them are well positioned to sit on the Super Committee. So it's essential that every Democrat appointed to this perverse Super Committee pledge to reject any cuts to Social Security.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi understands this, and has promised that each of the Democrats she appoints to the Super Committee will oppose entitlement benefit cuts. Democrats should urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the same commitment. America's most cherished social program must be protected.

23 comments

Dog Days of Summer

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5223">Danny Schechter, Reader Supported News</a>

Friday, 05 August 2011 10:41

Danny Schechter writes: "Personally, I think the public is mad, but also depressed by the lack of leadership and a sense they can win. Popular calls to hold Wall Street accountable have gone nowhere, as Wall Street money keeps politicians in tow and activists tweet each other into distraction. Activists rail at the president online but do little to get in his face and demand another course of action. This may change in the fall, but I am not holding my breath. It is easier, as we say, 'to talk a good game' than to play one."

President Obama pauses as he speaks at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago, 08/03/11. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)

Dog Days of Summer

By Danny Schechter, Reader Supported News

05 August 11

Reader Supported News | Perspective

�

As the Dog Days of summer approach, politicians rest before returning to the fray. The political war will continue.

ow that the debt drama is over for the moment, we can all safely retreat in what was once called the "Dog Days of Summer" and chill out if the volatile weather allows us to. We can think back to that old song, "Summer time and the living is easy," even as we all know that for millions "the living" is anything but.

The House and Senate have become ghost-like chambers because all their members, so filled with strident indignation and inflexible talking points just a week ago, are now off on their paid vacations hyping their political war stories to grandchildren.

Imbued with a sense of triumph, the Tea Party is huddling to come up with ongoing tactics to hold the system hostage, while the party leaders plan the new "Super Committee" with 12 chosen acolytes (how Biblical, that number 12!) to map the next round of fiscal blood-lettering.

All the superhero buzz in the movies and cartoons has no doubt influenced their choice of words and the pretense of the super-wisdom of a few, as a "Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction" is empanelled to become the next arena of combat with a chosen elite now dominating a factious process where an organized minority can outflank a slow moving majority.

So much for the appearance of democracy!

The lobbyists are already gearing up for the next battles, as the Times reported, "to figure out how to influence the panel to protect the programs and tax breaks from which they benefit." The military contractors and healthcare industry operatives are digging in to defend their turf.

Meanwhile, the deal did not settle any problems, and may have made them worse. The Hill newspaper reports, "The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost more points in the last two weeks than it did after the House initially failed to approve a bailout of US banks at the height of the financial crisis in 2008."

At the White House, the campaigning is set to go into overdrive with a bus tour of the devastated Midwest. Obama is saddling up to talk up the one need he has been downplaying for years - the need for jobs.

He is retooling as a born-again populist to champion the unemployed who may never find jobs again.

He is doing so in the face of new statistics that report the economy is in worse shape than it was before the recession.

Some 47 million Americans now qualify for food stamps, up 13 percent from a year earlier. Unemployment is not budging, and more and more job seekers are giving up after finding that if they have been out of work for more than six months, they can't even get interviews for what jobs there are. Youth and minority unemployment are at depression levels. The ranks of the poor rise as those still working are squeezed as never before.

And housing? Eftnews.com reports, "Dragged down by such anchors as a bulging pipeline of foreclosures and a dearth of buyers, it will be many more months - if not years - before a housing market rebound takes hold."

Yet the Commander in Chief, unlike the people who live in the region, won't have problems with the cost of gassing up the bus. His "bundlers" are already at work shaking the money tree.

Money News reports: "A just-released study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that President Obama is relying more on Wall Street to fund his re-election this year than he did in 2008, according to CNBC, which obtained an advance copy of the report."

"Obama and the DNC combined are on pace to far exceed the amounts Obama raised from Wall Street donors in 2008, both in raw dollar amounts and as a percentage of what he raises overall."

This may be why he has already thrown his progressive supporters - in the words of one dissenting Democrat - "under the bus," because he and his handlers calculate that they may not like him now, but they will vote for him in the end or fear more gains by the far right.

Some on the right are reportedly going after the "bundlers" who broke fund-raising records in the Bush Campaign, in essence, talking far right while cultivating the old money centrists.

The "experts" predict that even in this time of economic decline the political pumps will be well primed, as the election draws closer and gains steam by sucking the media oxygen out of other stories, with a press corps that loves to cover politics like sporting events - rich in polls and conflicting soundbites.

The newspapers are filled with stories about the noveau rich gobbling up luxury goods and high-priced cars.

Not everyone is hurting!

Yet an increasing number of people on all sides are reporting more dissatisfaction with all politicians.

The National Journal reports on a new poll, "The survey ... revealed a deep lack of faith among the public in Congress's ability to get things done. When it comes to important problems facing the country, only 7 percent of respondents said they have a lot of confidence that Washington could make progress over the next year and 23 percent said they have "no confidence at all."

Some liberals may finally be recognizing that their immersion in partisan politics took their eyes off the economic ball with little or no grass-roots organizing. It seems clear that as the Tea Party pushed politicians from the right, there was no counterweight or unified effort on the left.

President Obama not only betrayed the activists of the left who championed his candidacy in 2008 but, also, his own legacy as a community organizer. He created, but then de-emphasized, his "Organizing for America" initiative to activate his base for traditional inside-the-beltway horse-trading.

He gave up on the "outside game" and let the right pick it up without a fight.

Now we are hearing about all kinds of plans by organizations like MoveOn, which became more of a money-raising machine than a political movement, who are joining hands with fired Obama appointee Van Jones to build a "Save the Dream' movement and express some visible support for the unemployed and the millions losing homes and hope.

Former Vice President Al Gore is calling for a non-violent "American Spring" modeled on events in Tunisia and Egypt.

Keith Olbermann, the TV anchor who left NBC to join Gore's network Current, cautions that "First the public has to get mad."

Personally, I think the public is mad, but also depressed by the lack of leadership and a sense they can win. Popular calls to hold Wall Street accountable have gone nowhere, as Wall Street money keeps politicians in tow and activists tweet each other into distraction. Activists rail at the president online but do little to get in his face and demand another course of action.

This may change in the fall, but I am not holding my breath. It is easier, as we say, "to talk a good game" than to play one.

News Dissector Danny Schechter directed the film "Plunder - The Crime of Our Time" (PlunderTheCrimeOfOurTime.com), and writes a daily blog at newsdissector.com. You may contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

11 comments

FOCUS: America's Reactionary Feminists

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6163">Naomi Wolf, Reader Supported News</a>

Thursday, 04 August 2011 16:53

Intro: "It is obvious that the left and the media establishment in the United States cannot fully understand the popular appeal of the two Republican tigresses in the news - first Sarah Palin, and now, as she consolidates her status as a Republican presidential front-runner, Michele Bachmann. What do they have that other candidates don't - and that so many Americans seem to want?"

Rep. Michele Bachmann speaks at the Conservative Political Action conference in Washington, DC, 02/10/11. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

America's Reactionary Feminists

By Naomi Wolf, Reader Supported News

04 August 11

�

What do Palin and Bachmann have that make them so appealing to the American public?

t is obvious that the left and the media establishment in the United States cannot fully understand the popular appeal of the two Republican tigresses in the news - first Sarah Palin, and now, as she consolidates her status as a Republican presidential front-runner, Michele Bachmann. What do they have that other candidates don't - and that so many Americans seem to want?

Both Bachmann and Palin are regularly derided in the mainstream press. In Palin's case, the dominant perception is that she is an intellectual lightweight: a clip of her unable to mention a single newspaper or news magazine that she reads regularly got millions of hits on YouTube during the last presidential election.

Bachmann, on the other hand, is portrayed as being slightly unhinged. Indeed, I can attest from personal experience that to debate her is to encounter someone who is absolutely certain of facts that must exist somewhere in a parallel universe.

But it would be a mistake simply to dismiss their appeal with no effort to comprehend its source. This is especially true of Bachmann. Palin has not managed to secure the support and mentorship of the Republican Party establishment, and will continue to showcase her odd appeal as a media personality. But Bachmann, weirdly, might become president of the United States.

The Source

The nature of their attraction has to do with two strains in American thought to which the US left and media establishment are truly blind. One is the American tradition of populist demagoguery - a tradition that, in the twentieth century, included the racist Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s, the anti-Communist witch-hunter Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, and the radical Malcolm X in the 1960s. Populist leaders inspire passionate devotion, usually in people who feel (and often are) economically, politically, and culturally marginalised.

These populist movements' energy can be directed for good or ill, but demagogues in the US embrace similar tactics to fuel their rise to visibility and power. They use emotive rhetoric. They often invent shadowy networks of "elite" forces ranged against the ordinary, decent American. They create an "us versus them" scenario. And they ask their listeners to believe that they alone will restore American dignity and articulate the wishes of the unheard.

Palin and Bachmann speak this highly personal or emotional language, which even the most rock-ribbed male Republican finds difficult to emulate. In the last three decades, the US's male-dominated politics have become increasingly wonky, abstract, and professionalised. This is bad for demagoguery, but it does not inhibit the tigresses on the right, who did not come up through the "old boy's club."

As a result, Palin is free to talk about "death panels" - a wholly invented threat of President Barack Obama's health-care reform - and Bachmann can summon the spirit of McCarthy to raise the equally bizarre spectre of socialism's tentacles infiltrating the highest levels of government. Both can issue homespun appeals as "hockey moms" or "soccer moms" - precisely the type of emotionalism that more cut-and-dried professional male politicians, even (or especially) at the top of the party, cannot manage to deliver.

The second reason that Bachmann and Palin appeal to so many Americans - and this should not be underestimated, either - has to do with a serious historical misreading of feminism. Because feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was articulated via the institutions of the left - in Britain, it was often allied with the labour movement, and in the US, it was reborn in conjunction with the emergence of the New Left - there is an assumption that feminism itself must be leftist. In fact, feminism is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values - and in some ways even more so.

Freedom of Choice

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the Tea Party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in the US, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

Many of these women are socially conservative, strongly supportive of the armed forces, and religious - and yet they crave equality as strongly as any leftist vegetarian in Birkenstocks. It is blindness to this perfectly legitimate approach to feminism that keeps tripping up commentators who wish to dismiss women like Margaret Thatcher, or Muslim women, or now right-wing US women leaders, as somehow not being the "real thing."

But these women are real feminists - even if they do not share policy preferences with the already recognised "sisterhood", and even if they themselves would reject the feminist label. In the case of Palin - and especially that of Bachmann � we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.

Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries."

�

112 comments

"We Need a Non-Violent Tahrir Square"

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6649">Keith Olbermann, Countdown With Keith Olbermann/Current TV</a>

Thursday, 04 August 2011 11:29

"President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday that raises the nation's debt ceiling and cuts trillions of dollars in spending. Keith speaks with former Vice President and Current TV Chairman Al Gore about what's next for the country. Al Gore says it's time for an 'American Spring,' a non-violent movement to take back the country from the right wing."

Keith and Al Gore discuss the debt deal and a non-violent movement to reclaim our government, 08/03/11. (photo: Justin Stephens/Current TV)

"We Need a Non-Violent Tahrir Square"

By Keith Olbermann, Countdown With Keith Olbermann/Current TV

04 August 11

�

President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday that raises the nation's debt ceiling and cuts trillions of dollars in spending. Keith speaks with former Vice President and Current TV Chairman Al Gore about what's next for the country. Al Gore says it's time for an "American Spring," a non-violent movement to take back the country from the right wing.

�

Part I

�

Part II

�

93 comments

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 Next > End >>

Page 3402 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.

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.