Krugman Refutes Idea that Seeking Truth about the Past Will Interfere with Moving Forward

Contrary to the eternal obfuscations of politicians who would like to claim otherwise, Truth-telling about the Past directly serves the present and future needs of democratic government and policymaking for any Nation that wants to move forward after a period when its traditions of laws and democratic accountability have been betrayed and broken.

In a brief but eloquent editorial in yesterday's (4/24) NY Times titled "Reclaiming America's Soul-Why We Can't Let the Abuses Slide," Paul Krugman--who has emerged as our nation's truth-teller in chief--directly confronts and reveals the folly of the ad nauseam arguments being made in Congress and by the Obama administration (including the President himself) suggesting that seeking the Truth about the Past will somehow interfere with Moving Forward in the Present.

Krugman puts the pin to this big balloon of rhetorical obfuscation and political hot air:

What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration's abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true - even if truth and justice came at a high price - that would arguably be a price we must pay: LAWS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ENFORCED ONLY WHEN CONVENIENT. . .

The only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.

And in response to the constantly repeated suggestion that pursuing proper investigation of potential crimes of the Bush era would be distracting to the work of the present Obama administration, Krugman offers the following rejoinder:

Would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let's be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn't be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn't be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn't be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn't, and indeed shouldn't, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job - which he's supposed to do in any case - and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don't know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

Krugman throws down the gauntlet to the Obama administration and to Congressional leaders by going to the heart of what is at stake in the ongoing struggle to reclaim America's soul.

In stressing the seriousness of the work at hand related to uncovering the truth of what happened re: authorizations of torture during the Bush era, Krugman raises the crucial question that needs to be posed to Congressional leaders and the Obama administration: Will they stand up and support the hard work of investigation and truth-telling that will be required to reclaim America's soul after the disastrous years of the Bush administration, or will they continue to obstruct this hard work?

For the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract "confessions" that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

It's hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn't, now declare that we should forget the whole era - for the sake of the country, of course.

This is perhaps the most telling point in Krugman's brief editorial. And it is now up to the People of this nation to make sure their leaders, including President Obama, understand that WE will not accept another 4 years of a government policy of burying heads in the sand to AVOID facing the Truth--in the DELUDED BELIEF that ignoring the truth is the best thing for this country.

As Krugman concludes, by showing the deceptive rhetorical strategy behind the repeated suggestion that seeking the truth of the past somehow implies vindictiveness--

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions - not out of vindictiveness, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn't about looking backward, it's about looking forward - because it's about reclaiming America's soul.

AMEN, Paul Krugman, and THANK YOU for being someone who is willing to use his public voice and authority to stand up for the truth rather than to obstruct it. Now if only more people in power would learn to follow your example.

Contrary to the eternal obfuscations of politicians who would like to claim otherwise, Truth-telling about History Serves the Needs of democratic government and policymaking in the Present if we want to move forward.

The worst thing for a democracy and a nation of laws to do is to cover up the truth of the past under the delusion that doing so will somehow benefit the future. As history has abundantly shown, such deluded thinking does more than anything to condemn a nation to the darkness of a present and future of repeated abuses of truth and government; and only a clear break with such ways of thinking and governmental practice can ever help to liberate a nation from the curse that such past practices will otherwise continue to inflict on its present and future.

History and just democratic government demand that nations hold themselves accountable for past crimes for the sake of their own--as well as humanity's--present and future. And a democratic people's authority to demand such accountability from their government is most important precisely when politicians continue to refuse to admit the need for such accountability.

Senate Republicans Declare War on Workers and Gift Detroit and Nation with Depression for the Holidays

The vote of the Senate Republicans against the auto bill yesterday can mean only one thing: After being so happy to give the wealthy financial class whatever they wanted in bailouts (hundreds of billions of dollars) for the last several months, they have refused to give workers and manufacturers--who actually make real products for the US economy--even a small $14 billion loan to survive for the next several months.

The Senate Republicans have thereby declared war on the working class, and are gifting Detroit and the nation with the real possibility of throwing us all into a monster Depression.

Thank you Senate Republicans, for proving that when it comes to wealth and class, you have remained true to your ideological colors, and would rather destroy what remains of the US manufacturing class, and throw the whole nation into Depression, than admit that your ideology has utterly failed, and has become insanely destructive.

And NOW that the Senate Republicans have given us their destructive gift for the holidays, let all in this nation note down and remember the names of all the Senators who voted against this bill, since these Senators should now be willing to accept what results over the next month from their vote.

And when the history of the coming Depression is written, it will be these names that will be remembered for precipitating it, along with the disastrous policies of the Bush administration for having made it possible, in spite of the recent failed efforts of Bush to argue for the auto loan bill. President Bush has lost even the ability to persuade his own party's Republican leaders, and this is the capping failure of his Administration, and the economic crash will be his and his party's lasting destructive legacy to the nation.

Hooverian Class War Returns: Cushioning the Banks While Refusing to Save Jobs or Require Loans to the Taxpayers who Saved the Financial System

It's amazing to see how quickly the policies of Hoover that produced the last great Depression have returned in full force to rule the ongoing decisions at Treasury and among most of the Republicans in Congress. For a little bit, we fell into the stupid hope/delusion of thinking that finally Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson had discovered historical wisdom and learned something from the past. We believed they had imbibed of the elixir of historical wisdom that brought them to reject the mistakes of Hoover in favor of a more activist government that would use its power to protect the people of this country from the harm of an economic depression produced by a government that refuses to act on behalf of the people it is sworn to protect.

But the refusal of Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush to protect the jobs of home-owners and small business-owners by requiring the Banks they so generously bailed out to use their billions of tax-payer money to provide loans to the citizens that saved them, and to the manufacturing industries (like the auto industry) that provides the anchor to the entire economy, has once again underlined the fundamental Hooverian orthodoxy that controls this administration, and only the Inauguration on January 20 will bring the destructive reign of this ideological orthodoxy to an end. Unfortunately, by then it may be too late to stem the tide of the flood of job losses that may be released by the collapse of the dam if the US auto industry is allowed to fall into bankruptcy.

While our neo-Hooverians are willing to devote billions of dollars to supporting the banks, without requiring the banks to use any of these billions of dollars to make loans to the consumers and business-owners on whom the functioning of the economy depends, these Hooverians seem completely happy, now that they have protected the banks from collapsing, to conclude that their work is done. Now it seems they believe all they have to do is sit by and watch while Congress refuses to require the banks to use their newly gifted billions (courtesy the taxpayers) to provide loans to home- and business-owners, or to the Detroit auto manufacturers, so that jobs can be protected, and products can continue to be manufactured, and people can continue to purchase what is manufactured.

Apparently these new Hooverians (including Paulson) think that it is enough to have kept the financial system from collapsing. Now they seem to believe all they need to do is stand by and watch while the spiral of economic slow-down and job loss increases in pace and size, until what began as a recession turns into another great depression.

After the stock market collapse of October 1929, there was no immediate economic collapse into depression. For almost a year after the crash of 1929, the economy and the market teetered in the kind of unsteady recession we are witnessing now. But in the absence of any clear policy direction from Hoover that emphasized the value of preserving and supporting the economy of jobs in 1930, by the second half of 1930 the entire economy began to collapse, and the stock market quickly followed as both headed into a tail-spin steadily downward for two long years from mid-1930 to mid-1932, by which time what had been a recession in 1930 had turned into a full-blown economic depression--reflected in a stock market that had lost nearly 90% of its value by 1932.

The new Hooverians, in their lack of concern or attention to making policy decisions that support the kinds of investment and loans that will maintain existing jobs (like those in the auto industry), and create new jobs (like those that could be created if banks opened their doors to major investments in alternative energy, and the government passed policies that supported such investments), are repeating the same kinds of mistakes that drove the recessionary economy of early 1930 into the depression economy of 1932.

So as you watch the decisions of the do-nothing, "let the market function" Hooverians like Paulson, and of the Republican/Hooverian party of naysayers, who would rather see the US auto industry collapse than admit the fundamental error of their market fundamentalist ideology, think of Hoover and the Republicans of 1930, who had no idea of the wreck their do-nothing market strategy was to make of the economy within two years.

If you want to see the recession of 2008, like the recession of 1930, turn into the great depression of 2010, then just stand by and allow the Hooverians to have their way with mis-ruling our economy. But if you want to avoid watching--like spectators to a nightmare--the recession of 2008 slide into the depression of 2010, your work is simple and clear: Employ the wisdom of history to help your legislators and policymakers avoid repeating the Hooverian mistakes of the past. Overrule the Hoover do-nothing strategy that would allow the Banks to sit idly by on the $700 billion cushion of protection provided them courtesy of the US taxpayer, while they refuse to use those billions to provide loans to the very citizen tax-payers who have bailed them out....

Hooverian capitalism is capitalism of, by, and for the wealthy, no matter what happens to the rest of us; This is the capitalism of the Paulson/Bush policy which freely aids the banks with billions while it outright refuses to provide relatively small bridge loans to the industries that employ a majority of middle-class working Americans. If this is not plutocratic class war, I dont know what is....

The plutocrats are always so quick to yell "class war" whenever workers challenge the right of the wealthy to use tax-payer money to feather their nests without any regulatory oversight; and yet rarely are the plutocrats ever called to account for using the power of their unregulated wealth to wage class war constantly and ruthlessly on the low and moderate-income people whose taxes they freely use to stabilize the financial system and feather the nests of wealthy CEOs, even while these same banks and CEOs refuse to use this money to do what banks are supposed to do: loan out their money to those who seek to deploy it to preserve and create jobs....

So on Tuesday we witnessed the amazing spectacle of Paulson declaring to Congress that he had full right and authority to bail out the banks while utterly refusing to admit that any of the TARP money should be used to make relatively small bridge loans to the auto companies to support their ability to continue to support manufacturing jobs....

And then we wonder why there are so few manufacturing jobs left in the United States! The financial sector and the investing elite that controls it no longer appear able to comprehend this simple logis: As there is less and less manufacturing in this country, there will be less and less real wealth standing behind and supporting their financial games on the stock market. As jobs disappear, the basis of the wealth that supports their paper stock wealth will vanish with it, and we will all finally witness the stock market follow the steady decline of jobs down and down and down as occurred in 1930 to 1932.

Fortunately, this time around, we have a new President who seems to understand the fallacies of the Hooverian ideological approach to the market. This President is taking over the White House at the beginning of the downward spiral instead of at its end. But because Obama does not take office until January 20, there is still much damage and downward momentum that can be furthered if the Bush/Hoover/Paulson policies are allowed to continue to govern the market until January 20.

Every day in which the Hoover policies of do-nothingism prevail means thousands of additional job losses, and an accelerating rhythm of economic decline, which in our accelerated market of the 21st century could potentially spiral out of control into a depressionary deceleration much more quickly than occurred in 1930. And the bankruptcy of GM, if that is allowed to happen under the charge of our Hooverians, could be the trigger that opens the floodgates of spiralling job loss that not even Obama may easily be able to control once it takes hold....

The best way to avoid this possibility is to promote policies that will not only save as many jobs as possible now, but will begin to produce new jobs (by quickly passing, even before Obama takes office, for example, major green collar jobs legislation and incentives such as those being promoted by Senator Stabenow of Michigan.)

"Preserve and Create--Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," is the policy of those who would wish to avoid repeating the 1930s-era mistakes of Hoover in 2008, and of driving the recessionary economy of 2008 into the depression of 2010.

It's not too late now, but unless we act boldly and quickly to support and create jobs, instead of allowing bad policy to destroy them, we may find ourselves within a year on an uncontrolled slide into depression.

The choice is ours--it is 1930 again, and we can either allow the Republican policies of Hoover/Bush/Paulson hold sway over our destinies, OR we can choose to laugh these policies out of government and defeat them. If we want to preserve the market for democracy, let's get about the work of driving the Hooverian policymakers out of the market so "the market" can begin to function more fairly again, for the benefit of everyday workers, home-owners and small businesses, rather than only to the benefit of the plutocrats (who could care less whether the rest of us are in a great depression by 2010, since they are well-insulated from its impacts). While we may be standing in soup-lines within a year, they will be sipping the champagne purchased with the $700 billion in taxpayer aid provided to them so the financial institutions could continue to exist even as the rest of the economy collapsed into oblivion....

In the (not so good) old days they called this kind of situation the class war of the plutocrats against the workers. Today, in the absence of any stomach for class analysis among most in the laboring classes, this situation is simply termed "greed." But since greed is presumed to be universal, the laboring classes (including white collar laborers) have disarmed themselves, and thus rendered themselves incapable of any meaningful critique of the circumstances oppressing them. And with that collapse of meaningful critique came with it the collapse of democracy, which depends on self-government, which cannot function in the absence of the tools of critique.

And like Katrina, in the absence of social critique, the depression, if it comes, will be viewed as if it were a natural disaster instead of a disaster of human manufacture that resulted from particularly bad structures of unequal power and particularly bad structures of decision-making.

Hoover has returned to Washington, and in the persons of Bush and Paulson has brought plutocratic class war with it. Now the only question that remains is: Will the people of the United States recognize, before its too late, who their oppressors are, and laugh Hoover and his policies out of the market so that the work of critique and healing can begin. Let critical laughter rain down on the nation in such abundance that policies requiring the people to serve the plutocrats are replaced by policies that require financial institutions to serve the people. What a fine and fair and truly democratic reversal of fortune that would be! And we might all yet be saved if we learn to laugh in this critical way....

The Most Stupid Idea In the World: Allow US Auto Manufacturers to Go Bankrupt

The most stupid ideas in the world continue to be peddled by free market ideologues who are suggesting that the best thing we can do for the American car industry and our economy is allow the Detroit manufacturers to go bankrupt.

After the most dramatic evidence since the 1930s of the total failure of free market fundamentalist ideology—the belief that the market should be allowed to do whatever the market does on its own, without government intervention, because that will be best for the economy—it’s amazing to still see Congress and the corporate media giving credence and air time to the junk bond ideas these market fundamentalists continue to peddle in spite of overwhelming evidence of their worthlessness and the damage they have done to the American political economy.

The only response free market ideological junk-peddlers should be getting these days is sarcastic laughter, and this especially applies to those who are arguing that the best thing we can do for the US car industry and economy is to allow the Detroit companies to go bankrupt.

Free market fundamentalism has launched us well on the way to the next great Depression, and if Congress now allows market fundamentalism to determine its decision-making about the Detroit car-makers, our political leaders will be turning the United States economy onto the surest route to the next great depression. If Congress continues to allow market fundamentalism to provide its map to the economic future, even after all evidence has proven market fundamentalism to be an ideology that has done much more direct damage to our national economy than communism ever did, we will find ourselves repeating the history of the 1930s depression in the next decade.

The surest route for US policymakers to take if they want to turn the worsening recession into a depression is to allow the Detroit auto industry, just as it is entering a period of major transformation, to go bankrupt. The bankruptcy of GM would trigger the immediate loss of millions of jobs, which would in turn accelerate the current downward spiral of job loss and economic contraction into a whirlwind the end of which could not be predicted by anyone.

This is how the recession of 1929 triggered by the stock market crash was turned into the Great Depression of the 1930s: by a market fundamentalist ideology that Hoover and Congress allowed to block decisive government action to preserve existing jobs and create new jobs to keep the economy from collapsing.

After the economy had collapsed, and Roosevelt took over in 1933, it was too late for even the most dedicated focus on job creation to have more than a limited impact on resuscitating the US economy until the production speedup of World War II jolted the economy back to life.

Fortunately, this time around, we have a new President who understands and respects history, intelligence, and the importance of job creation coming into office near the beginning of the downward spiral of job loss, instead of at its end. This means that it is still possible we could avoid repeating the mistakes of the past—BUT ONLY IF political leaders pay heed to the lessons of history and act to make sure that the spiral of job loss is not allowed to grow out of control. The surest way to allow the current job loss spiral to spin quickly out of control is to allow the US auto manufacturers to fall into bankruptcy.

While Congress has been willing to allow banks and the financial industry to be bailed out, Now—when the most important remaining manufacturing industry in the country is on the verge of failure—congressional leaders are actually allowing themselves to fall back into the stupidities of market fundamentalism, and question whether they should extend help to the anchor of the entire remaining manufacturing sector in the US. Without logic or any intelligent concern for the horrible impact the bankruptcy of the Detroit car industry would have on the loss of millions of jobs in an already spiraling downward movement of job loss, congressional leaders now seem willing to allow a major source of jobs in the US economy to disappear. And this would also, by the way, convert an already suffering regional economy in the Midwest into a disaster zone.

There could not be a worse time for Congress to fall back into the stupidities of the market fundamentalism that, by “allowing the market to be the market,” has brought us to this economic crisis in the first place. If Congress now allows stupidity and ideology to continue to rule over reason, they will allow the Detroit auto industry to fail, and they will in one fell swoop project us from a recessionary spiral into a depression-producing whirlwind.

So we must all ask and challenge our congressional leaders and the corporate media with the following question: Will they allow the stupidity of failed market ideology to rule and bring our common future to ruin, or will they laugh these stupidly shouting ideologues out of the park, and create the quiet and open space needed for thoughtful ideas and innovation to rescue us from the disastrous stupidities of the past? The choice is ours, as well as theirs. Let’s get to work—in laughing, thinking, and acting, for the sake of our common future.

Stop Bush's Pillage of the US Treasury and Tax-Payers Now!: Time for Congress to ACT to Defend the Constitution and the Economy

From The Great Crisis of 2008:

Bush & Co. can still do great damage to our nation's economy and seriously cripple its potential for recovery under an Obama administration, as Naomi Klein has argued this weekend (at the Miami Book Fair) in her excellent discussion (broadcast on BookTV) of the way the Bush administration is using the "shock" of the current financial crisis and the "bailout" to continue to loot our nation's Treasury, as their parting gift to the nation.

While President Bush is lamely attempting to use this weekend's G20 summit to warn against any major efforts at reform of the financial system, and to cover up his culpability for administering the bad policies that delivered us into this crisis, the people of the US and the rest of the world have pulled back the curtain to reveal his administration as the bad wizard that has been using the ideology of the free market to manipulate the world's political economy for the interests of the most powerful and wealthy.

And now that the world-embracing confidence game has been revealed, the Bush administration is trying to make sure--as it is forced to turn over the reigns of power--that those who next come into power will be as crippled and limited as possible in their efforts to repair the harm done by the past years of maladministration and ill-gotten gain.

Unless Congress under Pelosi and Reid IMMEDIATELY converts the next few weeks of the "lame duck" session of Congress into an EMERGENCY session dedicated to taking swift and decisive action to STOP the corrupt Bush administration's looting of our nation's economy, through a misuse of its crisis financial authority at the end of its term that parallels the misuse of its war authority at the beginning of its term, the potential an Obama administration might have for repairing the damage will quickly disappear in the next few weeks, evern before Obama enters office.

If the Obama administration is to have any ability to repair the financial and political damage of the last decades of disastrous policy, a supine Democratic-led Congress must learn how to stand up NOW to prevent any additional looting of the national Treasury by requiring that any additional Treasury funds provided to 'bail out' the bad decisions of corporations and executives be tied to strict standards of accountability and oversight, including requirements similar to those of Britain that require banks using such funds to provide loans to the citizens whose tax dollars are bailing them out.

The policy of the lame-duck Congress, if it wishes to preserve any potential for an Obama administration to repair the harms of the past, should be direct and simple, and loud and clear:

If the banks do not wish to provide loans to citizens, then the banks should not be eligible for tax-payer-funded bailouts! Britain understood this, and wrote such a requirement into the law that provided Treasury funds to British banks, but the Bush administration, which seeks to protect the privileges of unrestrained power to continue to rob tax-payers in order to make the wealthy wealthier, prefers to preach the virtues of unfettered capitalism to the G20 so it can continue to protect a corrupt financial system that robs the needy for the profit of the rich and powerful. This is how the Bush administration understands freedom and the market, and has terribly corrupted the meaning of both.

If Congress does not immediately act to stop even more harm from being done in the waning days of this corrupt administration, then this "lame duck" Democratic Congress will be guilty not only of complicity with the bad policies of the last two years, but will be responsible for selling out the Obama administration before it even takes office.

Let's hope that in the next few days Pelosi, Reid, and the entire Democratic Congress will learn the lessons of this election and pay heed to the demands of the American people for change NOW. If Pelosi, Reid, and Congress fail to act even now to put an immediate halt to the criminal corruption of the political process that continues to allow tax-payer dollars to be used to bail out the rich and powerful, without accountability or appropriate oversight, then Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Congress will be as guilty as the Bush administration for the national disaster that stems from this failure to act decisively and clearly to bring the terrible abuses of the Bush administration to an end, for once and for all.

As Klein has written in her most recent article in The Nation:

Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.

For both the Democratic Party and the incoming Obama administration, as well as the country, silence and supine inaction in the face of the continuing outrages of the Bush administration against both the nation's political economy and Constitution are no longer an option.

Either the Congress and Obama must begin to fulfill their constitutional oversight responsibilities NOW, or Obama's acceptance of the promise to "protect and defend" the Constitution on Inauguration day on January 20, 2009 may end up being as hollow as it is unachievable.

Again, to quote Naomi Klein, who wrote before the election:

This duplicity is a political opportunity. Whoever wins the election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It should be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds—not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the guarantees.

It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout process. The market won’t like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing the Bush gang their parting gift to big business—the gift that will keep on taking.

Also see Naomi Klein's articles:

The Bailout Profiteers

The Bailout: Bush's Final Pillage

McCain Denies Validity of John Lewis's Prophetic Words: Does McCain Know What He is Doing?

From TURNING POINT--The URGENCY OF NOW:

If anything else was needed as evidence that McCain and Palin seem utterly incapable of recognizing the dangers of the passions they are stirring up through the fear-mongering message of their campaign, the last week of terrorist-baiting language from the McCain campaign--even to the point of provoking hate-filled questions and howls from their own audiences when McCain dared to correct a woman who called Obama an "Arab"-- should be the final straw.

And while the corporate media are mostly too timid to call McCain and Palin out on the amazingly Orwellian specter they are raising-- of Obama as an "enemy of the country" and threat to the nation--even as the media offers apologies for McCain, and allows McCain to get away with criticizing the words of John Lewis for "going too far" (ie, for saying what needed to be said, what the media has been too timid to say), the words of Rep. John Lewis posted this weekend have hit the prophetic nail precisely on the head by naming the dangers of the passions that the McCain-Palin campaign is unleashing with its fear-mongering, terrorist-baiting rhetoric:

And while McCain himself remains obstinately unwilling to recognize or accept responsibility for the potential violence his own campaign is threatening to stoke up among crazy fringe elements in this country--through its desperate terrorist- and fear-mongering approach to the last weeks of the campaign-- Even some Republicans have been criticizing the dangerous tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. But rather than recognize the danger and renounce any further descent into this hell, McCain has chosen instead to criticize the prophetic words of warning uttered by Rep. John Lewis this past weekend--

Instead of recognizing the truth of the warning uttered by John Lewis, McCain has chosen to accuse Lewis of uttering absurd and harmful accusations against McCain!

We can find nothing more evocative of the ways the unjust kings of biblical Israel would condemn the prophets in order to justify their own oppression of their people than this kind of response from McCain: When the prophet speaks truth to power, condemn the prophet in order to cover your own injustice:

SHAME ON YOU JOHN MCCAIN AND SARAH PALIN! HAVE YOU LOST ALL SENSE OF HUMAN DECENCY?

You wish to deny that there is any justice to John Lewis's comparison of your campaign's rhetoric and tone with that of George Wallace?! Perhaps you need to take some time to refamiliarize yourselves with the kinds of language and rhetoric that Wallace and other fear-mongering and terrorist-baiting politicians of the past used to stoke up the hatred of individuals and crowds that ended up bombing and lynching blacks in the South, even as Wallace and politicians like him always denied having any such "intent..." Turning the blind eye to injustice, with a wink and a nod, has always been the way of white racist power in this country, as in many others!

But John McCain and Sarah Palin, you have been called out and warned--not only by John Lewis, but by decent and honorable Republicans in your own camp, of the potentially violent consequences of the approach you have taken--
And while you may deny you have any "intent" to stir up such violence, and we may all pray that the terrorist-mongering rhetoric of your campaign does not provoke violence, there can be no excuse for the way you and Sarah Palin are so unapologetically using the specter of terrorism in association with Obama to stir up the worst fears and passions of your followers.

Are you both truly so devoid of honor and decency as to stoop to this lowliest and most despicable of political tactics, and to refuse to reign in people in your crowds who shout such violent slogans as "kill him," and "bomb him"?!!

Any decent human being, hearing words such as these coming from an audience to which he or she is speaking, would do nothing less than immediately RENOUNCE and REJECT such sentiments and expressions! Yet only silence seemed to greet these expressions when they were uttered by people in the groups to which you and and Palin were speaking! Are you so in love with power at any cost that you have lost all sense of human decency and honor?!

I beg of you to demonstrate that you have not lost all sense of decency, by turning away from the terrible course you have taken your campaign in the last week. And please restore some basic sense of human decency and honor to your campaign by renouncing all such terrorist- and fear-mongering language for the rest of the campaign--

It's transparently clear from your speeches and ads that your campaign's fundamental goal has been to create the impression that Obama is not like most Americans, but is other, and is therefore to be suspected of all kinds of dark and shadowy things, including terrorist associations, and selfish intentions..... You seem to have studied the fear-mongering devices of the worst anti-semitic campaigns in setting up this kind of suggestive attack on Obama as the "strange Other," who is not to be trusted. Would you actually deny that this is the intent of your desperate campaign strategy? If so, then do not simply deny this is your intent, but show us you mean it by eliminating these kinds of fear-mongering tactics and rhetoric from your campaign!

And if you admit this is the intent of your campaign's strategy, can you not see how despicable and devoid of honor such a strategy is? If you need to take this kind of despicable approach to win this nation's most noble office, do you really think you deserve to hold the nation's highest Office? Is not this kind of Orwellian logic of denial and distraction precisely what has driven the Bush administration into such depths of darkness and failure? And while you seek to distance yourself from the Bush administration, every step your campaign has taken along these lines has only worked to confirm how a McCain administration would be even more desperately and darkly Orwellian, devoid of truth and honor, than the Bush administration has been!!

Power at any cost, words that deny and twist the truth at every turn of phrase, to the point where policy loses all grounding in reality, and the result is--as current reality is demonstrating--that reality itself rebels and turns against the system of lies by threatening to bring the entire false deck of cards crashing to the ground!

And to all those who listen to the words of McCain and Palin and say nothing or simply smile and let them get away with their dispicable accusations and lies, we ask: When will YOU begin to respond, and to ask, and to DEMAND that McCain and Palin respond, by asking them repeatedly, insistently, and constantly, until they respond--

"John McCain and Sarah Palin, What will it take for you to recognize the dark passions you are stoking? Will it take a bomb, or a hate-filled shot fired from a gun, before you recognize the dangerous consequences of the fire you've been playing with by constantly suggesting, over and over again, that Obama is someone who associates with, or accepts, terrorists, in the face of Obama's firm and repeated denunciations of all terrorism and terrorists?

Sarah Palin, and John McCain, What will it take for YOU to recognize the horror of what you are suggesting by this terrible and disgusting game of false association, in a political and war context that over the last eight years has constantly evoked the image of terrorists being killed?!

What kind of Orwellian game do you think you are playing by denying any respsonsibility for stoking violence by your version of the "big lie" that seeks to associate Obama with terrorists and terrorism?!

Far from being in any way outrageous or unfair, the words of Rep. John Lewis precisely hit the mark of the dangerous and violent passions your campaign has been working to stir up, whether you "intend" it to do so or not? Your personal "Intention" here is irrelevant, even if we were to believe you, since it is the FACT of the potential IMPACT of your campaign's approach and the passions it evokes that we all have to deal with. But when will YOU accept responsibility and uphold the honor and responsibility of "Country First" that you say you admire by restraining the dogs of personal violence and hatred that your campaign has been directly working to unleash.....

We at Policybusters thank John Lewis for his prophetic words, and unreservedly second them, and hope that all responsible and humane media outlets will do the same, for as Lewis concludes, "The American people deserve better."

Indeed we do deserve better! And if you--McCain and Palin--want to be treated seriously as people worthy of leading the American people, you must first recognize that we all deserve better, and reject and renounce the fear-mongering approach to politics in favor of something more honorable and decent, during the last weeks of this campaign.

Instead of rejecting and condemning Rep. Lewis's words, you should be thanking him for offering them, in prophetic warning, as the just kings of Israel thanked the prophets of old that warned them of the dangers of transgressing the laws of justice to which all nations and political leaders must ultimately be held to account--

Rep. John Lewis Responds to Increasing Hostility of McCain-Palin Campaign 10/11/2008

"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

"During another period, in the not too distant past,
there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

"As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."

*****

So which approach will your campaign take, John McCain and Sarah Palin?

--the way of the unjust leaders of the past who condemned and sought to silence their prophets?

--or the way of all just leaders, who HONORED their prophets by CHANGING THEIR WAYS in accord with prophetic words?

This is the choice before YOU and the entire nation: Will you choose justice or injustice; Orwellian obfuscation, or the prophetic truth?

The choice is yours, and the consequences are those that YOU and all the American people will have to grapple with.....

[John McCain and Sarah Palin should watch Ted Koppel's one hour review of the history of lynching in the US being broadcast this week on the DISCOVERY channel]

Who Will Pay the Bills for Iraq War and Financial Bail-Out Under the McCain/Palin Plan?: A TIME FOR QUESTIONS

From Great Crisis of 2008:

This past week, as the financial system teetered on the verge of collapse because of the Republicans' anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax laissez-faire ideology, we were offered the spectacle of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin underlining the irrationality of this Republican ideology by arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy would be both unpatriotic and harmful to the nation.

According to the Republican logic of Palin and McCain, asking the wealthy to pay more taxes (as Joe Biden proposed) "is not patriotism," but is "about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse." (And McCain said the idea of asking the wealthy to pay more taxes was "dumb.")

It must be nice for those like Palin and McCain to think such things, as the Republicans continue to uphold a policy of protecting the wealthy from taxation while the middle class and poor are burdened with the explosive growth of the national bill for fighting unnecessary wars and providing gigantic trillion-dollar bail-outs to pay for the consequences of failed Republican economic policies.

In response to these revealing comments on taxation and patriotism by Palin and McCain, the corporate media needs to be shamed into asking serious questions about the Palin/McCain-Hoover vision of tax policy and government finance, since we now know these questions will be at the center of the next administration's attention:

If taxation of the wealthy is now unpatriotic, how will the Republicans propose to pay the tremendous costs of fighting their wars and bailing out the financial system that has been brought to the brink of collapse under their watch? How will the Republican ticket of Palin/McCain pay the gigantic bill for the bail-out of the entire financial system that their own failed economic and war policies have now forced us into, as a new phase of the Republican "shock doctrine" is applied to the national economy?

And we would also like to ask the corporate media when they will begin to uphold their own patriotic duty by asking the Palin/McCain Republican ticket some fundamental questions about patriotism, taxation, and basic economics (since Palin has raised this issue for discussion, and the financial health of even the corporate media depends on the maintenance of an ordered national financial system):

--If taxation of the wealthy is now unpatriotic, how do the Republicans propose to pay for their 3 trillion-dollar war in Iraq? (Answer: continue to charge the cost to the Chinese-financed national credit card for the next generation to pay back!)

--If taxation is unpatriotic, is paying for the war in Iraq also unpatriotic? If it's unpatriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes, is it not even more unpatriotic to be placing ever greater burdens of taxation on the next generation, and on the middle and lower classes?

Republicans like Palin and McCain would like to continue to avoid any responsibility for answering questions about how they expect the nation to pay the gigantic debt-load of the failed policies the Republicans have imposed on our country. (This involves, after all, some "looking backwards," which Palin and McCain would like to avoid at all costs, for obvious reasons.) And unfortunately the corporate media often seems completely willing to allow them to continue to avoid answering questions that require some "looking backwards" in order to understand how their past beliefs and decisions would influence future policies.

According to the logic of Palin/McCain, if it is unpatriotic to ask the wealthy to pay more taxes, guess who will end up paying these gigantic expenses under another Republican administration--even as the corporate CEOs are allowed to continue to walk away with million dollar salaries for running our financial system and country into the ground!

Palin/McCain would love to continue to get away with calling taxation of the wealthy unpatriotic, even while they continue to ignore the gigantic tsunami of expenses that Republican policies have imposed on the American people.

Republicans like McCain and Palin would like to separate themselves from the Bush legacy by claiming they will now come to the rescue of the middle class they have helped to destroy, even while they would also love to continue to be seen as the ones who will protect the wealthy while the middle class and poor are burdened with the ever-growing cost of paying for the failed Republican policies of the past.

Actually, the Republicans would like to be able to get away with having no one pay for the disastrous economic policies of the past eight years, which was also Hoover's strategy after the Crash of 1929--a do-nothing strategy that drove an economy in crisis into a great economic depression:

As John Kenneth Galbraith noted in his book The Great Crash 1929,

"In November of 1929, Mr. Hoover announced a cut in taxes ... [while he] asked business firms to keep up their capital investment and to maintain wages ... [both measures that] were largely without effect....

And, like McCain in the first debate, the Hoover policy insisted that there should be a major cut in government expenditures, to go along with the tax cuts....

As Galbraith summarizes, this combined commitment to tax cuts and decreasing government expenditures amounted to a fundamental rejection of the use of fiscal policy, and thus

"amounted precisely to a rejection of all affirmative government economic policy," and a disavowal of "all the available steps to check deflation and depression."

And it was this "triumph of dogma over thought" that turned the economic crisis of 1929-30 into the decade-long great depression of the 1930s (Galbraith, pp. 182-186).

In October 2008 the American nation faces a clear choice between a Democratic candidate who at least acknowledges and understands that the policies of the past have failed, and that we need a fundamentally new approach to things (even if he cannot yet be clear about what that approach will be (even Roosevelt was not clear about what he would do until AFTER he took office in 1933), and a Republican candidate who, up until a week or so ago, was still declaring--like the Bush/Hoover administrations--that the "fundamentals of the US economy were sound," and who would solve this crisis by applying the depression-creating policies of the Hoover administration: tax cuts and decreases in government spending.

And of course the Republicans rely on the silence of the corporate media and the stupidity of half of the American public to get them into office again in the face of their continuing commitment to burdening the middle class with the bills of failed policies favoring the superwealthy.

Why are the corporate media not asking the most fundamental questions about failed Republican economic policy? These media corporations (even FOX News) should recognize that the failure of the US and global financial system will also bring about the bankruptcy of much of the corporate media structure (while their CEOs walk away with whatever remains)??!!

It is precisely the corporate media's silence and lack of critical attention to the fundamentally irrational and unsustainable approach of Republicans to taxation, regulation, and economic policy that has allowed the country to fall into this mess, and even now--as things fall apart-- the corporate media continues to ignore the many ways the Palin/McCain team would simply like to continue this same absurd economy-killing set of Hooverian policies toward national finance and taxation!

When will the corporate media begin to challenge the way Republican policy is fundamentally undermining the future of this country and of their own corporate jobs and future?!--along with the ability of the vast majority of the people of this country to live decent lives?!! When will the media begin to challenge directly the fundamental lack of patriotism in Republican policies that continue to destroy the foundations that support national finance and economy?

What is more unpatriotic than a national media that continues to pass over the ways Republican policy has destroyed our national economy during the last eight years?

And so we need to challenge and shame the corporate media into asking these critical questions by challenging those in the corporate media: If you care at all about patriotism, why aren't you asking these kinds of critical questions of the Republicans, to make clear to the American public how utterly absurd is so much of what the McCain/Palin ticket is offering to the American public?!! If Palin/McCain think that taxing the wealthy is unpatriotic even in the face of this gigantic meltdown, what principles will guide another Republican administration when they are elected?!!

At a time when the entire economy of the nation and the globe is teetering on the edge of the abyss, the U.S. media continues to be facile and stupid in the face of the destructive irrationality of ideas and policy that the Republican candidates, and often also the Democratic party (since Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary under Clinton and now apparently an Obama advisor, is almost just as bad as the Republicans!) continue to dish out to us.

ENOUGH!!! When will the individual citizens and taxpayers who are part of the corporate media rise up against the destructive stupidity of their bosses and the policies that have been destroying our country? When will all members of the media, across the nation, get mad enough at what the Republicans are proposing to continue to do to our country, and begin to raise these fundamental questions in public, for all to hear??!!

The McCain/Palin ticket survives only because they think they can continue to get away with dishing out bullshit to the American people. When will the corporate media reveal the absurd emptiness of the Republican campaign as the bullshit it really is-- protecting the wealthiest while piling the expensive burden on generations to come of the middle class, until all but a small corporate and government elite in this country will be reduced to poverty (as in the last days of the Soviet Union)?

Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden made a clear, straight-forward and rational statement about the responsibility of ALL American citizens, including the wealthy, to take on a fair part of the burden of paying for the privilege of being a citizen of this country. Biden was making the point that the wealthy have not been asked by the Republicans or the Democrats to pay their fair share of the costs of war and failed economic policies that benefited the wealthy. (And intelligent and patriotic wealthy people like Warren Buffett would agree with Biden's point, and would favor higher rates of taxation for the wealthy.)

Paying taxes is the way we all support our country and our government. If this is unpatriotic, what does patriotism mean? And this is why we all have a stake in using our powers of citizenship to determine the character and quality of our government, since when it fails, we all end up paying the costs of this failure.

So it's high time for all people, and especially those in the corporate media, to ask the Republican candidates: if they think raising taxes on the wealthy is unpatriotic, how do they propose to pay the exploding costs of the gigantic failures of war and financial policy that their eight years of rule have imposed on the people of this country!!!?

When will the so-called "fourth estate" of the media begin to uphold its responsibility and patriotic duty by asking these basic questions of those who would have us elect them to continue to run the country into the ground by continuing the same irrational policies that have guided the Bush administration?!

If the corporate media cannot be responsible for patriotic reasons, they might at least realize they need to ask these questions for the sake of their own survival. For if there is a great crash of 2008 or 2009 (the crash of 1929 did not occur until several months after Republican Hoover took over from Republican Coolidge, on the promise of "change" that never came), employees of the corporate media will suffer right along with the rest of us.

Are We On Board a Ship of State called the Titanic?

The utter chaos of Congressional leadership in dealing with the current financial crisis (which parallels so much of what happened in 1929), along with the failure of clear Presidential leadership, seems to have placed us all on a ship of state called the Titanic. Under the direction of House Republicans, who appear to have taken control of the ship in Washington (without any knowledge of how to steer it), we now seem to be heading full steam ahead into the iceberg named Free Market Fundamentalism.

From The Great Crisis of 2008:

Politicians and talking heads in the corporate media repeatedly refer to the current crisis as the "greatest crisis since the Great Depression." This puts the cart before the horse, and confuses both history and understanding of the current crisis.

Before there was a Great Depression, there was the great financial crisis and crash of 1929, which delivered us into the Great Depression. The Great Depression was not a financial crisis. The Great Depression was the economic fallout that resulted from the failed efforts at dealing with the financial crisis that precipitated the great crash of 1929 and the continuing economic turmoil of the years that followed, which lasted until 1933 when Roosevelt replaced Hoover as President and overthrew the destructive ideology of free market fundamentalism with a more rational approach to economics and government action.

For most of his administration, Bush and his Republican party have channeled many of the failed economic policies of the Coolidge administration. Now Bush seems to be channeling Hoover by accepting the need for some kind of government intervention while failing to provide any clear and forceful leadership to his own obstructionist Party, which remains stuck in the ignorant policies of the Coolidge era and the totalizing ideology of free market fundamentalism.

In the absence of failed presidential leadership, Republican Senator Shelby and the House Republicans (now possibly aided and abetted by John McCain) are championing the very ideology of do-nothing free market fundamentalism that led us into this current crisis. And by doing so, they are leading us full steam ahead, like the Titanic, into the iceberg of a repetition of the very mistakes of inaction that drove the United States into the Great Crash of 1929.

So instead of simply repeating ad nauseum the stupid and misleading mantra that we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the media and bloggers need to be discussing these historical lessons and educating the public and our politicians (and especially the House Republicans) about the errors of economic understanding and failures of governmental policy that delivered the US and the world into the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed from this financial collapse.

No matter how much economists have emphasized that we cannot fall into such a crash today because economists understand how to avoid making the same mistakes, the best and brightest of economists cannot prevent the politics of fear and ignorance from taking charge of events in Washington in ways that prevent those who understand the historical causes of the 1929 crash and the Great Depression from acting. After all, hasn't most of the Bush administration been about rejecting all evidence of good science and historical understanding in order to obstruct governmental action on climate change and other pressing problems in favor of Republican ideology and governmental inaction?! This current crisis therefore seems to be the perfect culmination of where Bush administration policies have been leading us for the last eight years.

However smart Bernanke and Paulson may be, they cannot prevent the nation, guided by ignorance and fear, from rejecting all historical wisdom and repeating the tragic errors of the past, including those of 1929. This repetition is what now seems to be happening as the rescue plan of Paulson/Bush is being stabbed to death by House Republicans who believe that the "free market" should be allowed to magically solve the problem by itself.

But it was precisely a religious belief in the free market and doing nothing that allowed the financial crisis of 1929 to turn into the Great Crash of October and November 1929, and the Great Depression that followed.

Thus we now appear to be on a ship of state called the Titanic, without any coherent Congressional or presidential leadership, heading full steam into an iceberg called free market fundamentalism, which will most surely sink us all if it is not forcefully rejected and pushed out of the way by clear leadership and rational economic policy.

With the rebellion of the House Republicans against the Paulson plan, the parallels between our current crisis and the crisis of 1929 preceding the Great Crash are increasingly chilling (and all should brush up on this history through a reading of John Kenneth Galbraith's concise and brilliant The Great Crash 1929):

1. Throughout the 1920s, the Coolidge Administration encouraged economic policies of free market fundamentalism and "irrational exuberance" that encouraged all kinds of market speculation, amazingly similar to the last eight years of the Bush administration.

As Galbraith notes, "the Coolidge bull market was a remarkable phenomenon. The ruthlessness of its liquidation was, in its own way, equally remarkable" (109).

"Confidence did not disintegrate at once.... Through September and into October [1929], although the trend of the market was generally down, good days came with the bad" (Galbraith 92).

During the weeks immediately before the Crash, there were frequent pronouncements of continued confidence in the market, such as this one by Charles E. Mitchell, a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and a leading cheerleader of free market fundamentalism), on October 15, 1929: "The markets generally are now in a healthy condition . . . values have a sound basis in the general prosperity of our country."

And on October 22, 2 days before the beginning of the market Crash on Black Thursday, Mitchell said that market conditions were "fundamentally sound," and concluded that the whole situation "would correct itself if left alone." Even after the first big market dive on Black Thursday, Mitchell continued to utter positive words that emphasized the "fundamental soundness" of the market, stating that the "fundamentals were unimpaired" (104-105). (Perhaps John McCain and the House Republicans have been channeling Charles Mitchell!)

"The singular feature of the great crash of 1929 was that the worst continued to worsen" for an entire month, until the market had lost 50% of its value by mid-November (Galbraith 108, 135).

But somehow the historical reality of the Crash that came before the Great Depression, and helped to precipitate it, seems to be getting ignored by politicians and the media. Is this because they don't want to admit openly the similarities between the days before the crash of 1929, and our current crisis? Or is it simply because they don't understand the basic facts of this history? Is fear or ignorance governing this silence about parallels between 2008 and 1929? I suspect it is a combination of both.

But whether our politicians in DC and our corporate media are ignoring these lessons out of ignorance or fear, it is clear that public lack of understanding, as it exerts influence on politicians in Washington, is now greatly aggravating the dangers of the current crisis. To help avoid the collapse of the financial system that will surely come if free market fundamentalism is allowed to interfere with clear action, the best thing we can all do is to educate each other and demand that the media and the politicians begin to discuss and understand the dangerous parallels between our current financial crisis and the crisis of 1929.

If we want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, we must emphasize to all the one clear lesson taught by the tragic failures of leadership in 1929: FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALISM--the belief that the free market will solve a financial crisis if it is just allowed to do its thing--WILL LEAD US INTO THE ABYSS of economic collapse and a new great depression.

If the free market fundamentalism of the House Republicans is allowed to rule the day in Washington, and prevent clear action, prepare yourselves to be standing in soup lines by next year....

And lest anyone think the tragic consequences of free market fundamentalism during the crisis of 1929 are not important enough to understand today, remember that it took the United States market economy 25 years to fully recover from the Crash of 1929. Although the new policies of the Roosevelt administration and eventually World War II helped to lift the United States out of the Great Depression, it was not until 1954 that the Dow Jones recovered the level it had reached before the crash of 1929.

(And in light of Warren Buffett's recent investment in Goldman Sachs, I should note that Chapter 3 of Galbraith's book is titled "In Goldman, Sachs We Trust." Let us all hope Warren Buffett's attempt to shore up Goldman Sachs on Wednesday was not part of a repetition of the history of the past. At least we know that Buffett is NOT a free market fundamentalist, and even supports higher rates of taxation for the wealthy.)

Addendum

Galbraith (177-186) provides an excellent summary of the five characteristics of the "fundamentally unsound" economy of 1929 that made the Great Crash possible:

1. The bad distribution of income.

2. The bad corporate structure.

3. The bad banking structure.

4. The dubious state of the foreign balance.

5. The poor state of economic intelligence.

As Galbraith laconically summarizes this state of affairs, "there seems little question that in 1929 ... the economy was fundamentally unsound." And in the face of this fundamental unsoundness of the entire system, it was the "triumph of dogma over thought" that pushed this unsound system into collapse.

For a few days Bernanke and Paulson--who are at least able to think and are not controlled by dogma, and have actual expertise in economic matters--seemed to be in charge of dealing with the financial crisis. But now all the stupidities of Republican politics and ideology--which brought us to this crisis--have torpedoed the proposals of the few thinkers in the administration. And we are now once again witnessing the "triumph of dogma over thought."

This should be no surprise. The current crisis is the perfect culmination of all that the Bush administration has been leading us toward. Now the only question is: Will rationality and sanity be able to reassert itself in ways that save us from repeating the mistakes of 1929, or will the dogma of free market fundamentalism prevail, and sink us all?

Onward to the GREAT CRASH of 2008: Will Free Market Fundamentalism Defeat the Bush-Paulson Plan and Push the Market Into the Abyss?

Have the self-destructive tendencies of an unrestrained capitalist financial/political system finally pushed the system into fundamental meltdown? (Or, Is Imperial Over-reach and systemic financial corruption forcing the United States to follow the path of the Soviet Union in the 1980s?) And if so, what will emerge from the ashes?

From The Great Crisis of 2008:

We seem to be watching a Shakespearean tragedy of world-historic proportions playing itself out in this historical moment. Within this tragedy, which now seems to be catapulting us all into financial disaster and economic depression, McCain seems to have chosen to play the absurdist role of a comic actor within the larger tragic drama. But while Shakespeare's comic characters do not usually play a major role in the overarching tragic drama, McCain seems to have chosen to place himself and his sidekick Palin at the center of this emerging disaster.

We must therefore ask: Does McCain fully comprehend the role he has chosen to play? Does McCain understand that in choosing to place himself in the midst of the debate over the financial crisis in Washington, he has chosen his personal political interests over the interests of the country that he has repeatedly said he would place first?

As our nation and the world pivots on the edge of an abyss that could make the financial panic and market crash of 1929 look pale in comparison, we are being forced to witness the spectacle of John McCain's pretensions to being the savior of the nation, while he aids and abets the splinter group of House Republicans that seems determined to have us repeat the mistakes of free market ideological totalitarianism that brought us the Great Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression. the religious mantra of this ideological crowd is "the free market, limited government, and financial discipline" uber alles.

Under the guise of heading to Washington to save the nation from disaster, instead of continuing his political campaign and appearing on David Letterman's show last night, McCain (in no particular rush, and after taking time to do a full round of media interviews to announce he was 'suspending' his political campaign in order to take up the role of savior of the nation) arrived in Washington today -- to do what exactly? Did McCain rush to the White House with a commitment to helping Democrats and Republicans come to a common ground of agreement on a rescue plan? Did McCain meet with Obama to discuss how they could work together to help their two parties resolve this national crisis?

No. Rather than offering substantive assistance to a contentious meeting at the White House, where McCain could have played a constructive role by helping to lasso resistant Republicans into quick agreement on a comprehensive plan for fending off the increasing danger of a complete meltdown of the capitalist market similar to that of 1929, McCain (who has admitted his lack of economic understanding) seems to have come to Washington to aid and abet the reactionary Republican rebellion of the economically ignorant and outraged against the Bush-Paulson rescue plan.

Perhaps McCain, in the face of his declining poll numbers, recognizes that he is in the most difficult of political positions--a position that would actually require him, per his own oft-repeated words, to choose "country first" over his personal self-interest, by championing a cause that would put him at odds with a Republican base that has suddenly discovered it is the victim of a class war it has long ago stopped fighting. These Republicans, as part of a bitter awakening, are finally mad as hell, and are rising up en masse against the very plutocratic rule and policies they have twice voted into the White House.

But now, as all their political chickens are coming home to roost, these Republicans and Bush Independents have suddenly realized that they may be forced to pay the tremendous financial costs of the disastrous Republican financial, economic, and war policies that they have supported for the past eight years. Rather than accepting painful responsibility for the expense of the failed policies they supported with their votes, these folks have apparently chosen to raise a national tantrum of opposition to the one plan that might possibly save them and the nation from the ultimate consequences of these failed policies: Market Crash and Economic Depression.

Ironically, it was the Bush-Paulson plan that attempted to come to grips with, and accept some responsibility for, addressing the disastrous consequences of the failed "free market, limited government" ideology. But for those still in the grip of this totalizing ideology, who believe they possess the ultimate Truth--in defiance of the reality collapsing around them, defending this ideology to the bitter end is all that matters. For these mad Republicans, the hard truths of history learned through the experience of the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression, are of no value. And now the entire nation and world may be forced to bear the crushing costs of the ultimate failure of this ideology.

We can perhaps understand the anger and frustration of working and middle class Republicans who have suddenly realized they've been betrayed and sold down the river by a Party they believed to represent their interests. Perhaps McCain has realized all too clearly that if he chooses to work with Obama and the Democrats to champion a quick constructive deal, he will place himself at odds with the swelling Republican groundswell of people who have finally recognized that Republican plutocratic policy has sold them down the river for profit? And now this mad public is demanding its pound of flesh, and is seeking revenge on the capitalists of Wall Street who betrayed them, even if this means bringing on the next Great Depression.

And many of these very same Republicans apparently continue to hope that the Republican Party--in the person of the wealthy McCain (with at least seven houses and 13 cars)--will somehow magically change the color of its stripes, and transform itself into a party of the common working people.

While the war in Iraq and the failures after Katrina were not enough to reveal the dangers of reliance on Republican ideology and politics, apparently this financial crisis has finally been enough to raise the long-suppressed class war within the Republican Party to the surface. But unfortunately the price of this twisted discovery of class war and rejectionism in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the days of the Crash of 1929, may well be . . . the Great Crash of 2008, and a twenty-first century Great Depression.

But in the end it can hardly be surprising that our country would be brought to the brink of financial and economic collapse at the very end of an Administration that has done everything possible to undermine the financial and political stability of the nation. Is it any great surprise that the past eight years of misguided economic policies, systematic doublethink, governmental corruption, and war and terrorism-obsessed politics that have characterized the Bush administration, have brought us to the edge of this abyss?

There seems to be some kind of ironic world-historic justice working behind the scenes to direct this tragicomic drama. Onn Wednesday night we watched a President who shamelessly took us into a major and unending war on the basis of distortions and lies, and who is now broadly distrusted and even despised as the person who could not save the people of New Orleans or lead the nation in reconstructing the city after Katrina, stand up before the nation and beg it to trust that he could rescue the nation from a financial disaster that he had largely helped to create. And Thursday we witnessed his own Republican party spurn his appeal, and thus prove President Bush's utter powerlessness in the face of this crisis.

The pitiful irony of Bush's speech was only underlined by the fact that he could not bring himself to admit any responsibility for bringing on this crisis. Instead, he seemed to be displacing responsibility onto an abstract historical development, and onto the individuals and banks who took advantage of the kinds of cheap loans that his administration's policies had encouraged. Not only did he refuse to admit any responsibility for bringing the country to this extremity, but even more absurdly and tragically, Bush attempted to continue to defend the very principles of the anti-regulatory vision of the free market that has brought us to the edge of the complete collapse of the global financial and economic system, as if this collapse is simply some terrible accident of history having nothing to do with the failures of this ideology and the policies spawned by his Administration.

And now, the ultimate humiliation and ironic justice has been handed Bush as his own Party members have rejected his plan for solving the crisis by throwing the very free market ideology he championed back in his face. And with the seeming encouragement of John McCain, this totalitarian strain of the Republican party seems to be winning the battle in Washington, and may scuttle the entire Bush-Paulson plan.

As a result of this class war and rebellion from with the Republican Party, we are now beginning to face the increasingly real possibility that the capitalist financial and economic system will be pushed over the edge of the abyss by members of a Republican party that rejects the rescue plan of its own President, in the delusional belief that the same free market/ anti-regulatory ideology that has delivered us into this crisis will somehow magically rescue us from having to pay the consequences of this many years of failed policy

While major economists (including John K Galbraith) have argued that we should never have to suffer through the experience of another Great Depression because we have the technical knowledge and governmental institutions that allow us to intervene to prevent such a crisis.

But this assumes human beings will collectively act on and apply the economic knowledge we have when necessary to prevent such an eventuality. But if politicians reject this knowledge, in favor of free market fundamentalism, they will be choosing to go the way of the folks who brought us the Great Crash of 1929 by constantly repeating to themselves in the days before this crash: If we just allow the free market to work things out, all will be fine.

So, if you believe in the Free Market, and fresh grapes--
"Don't worry, be happy....."

And prepare for the Great Crash of 2008 by reading J.K. Galbraith's The Great Crash 1929.

Robert Reich's Wise Advice on the Current Crisis

Former Labor Secretary (under Clinton) Robert Reich has posted 3 excellent posts on his blog providing key perspective and suggestions for responding to the current crisis:

We tell poor nations they have to make their financial markets transparent before capital will flow to them. Now it's our turn. Lacking adequate regulation or oversight, our financial markets have become a snare and a delusion. Government only has two choices now: Either continue to bail them out, or regulate them in order to keep them honest. I vote for the latter.

Especially valuable right now--as our Congressional leaders rush like a flock of lemmings to embrace in fear whatever the Republican administration hands them, in a new application of the Shock Doctrine to our entire nation--are Reich's recommendations for the basic principles that should be incorporated into the coming Congressional "Bailout of All Bailout" Bills:

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year’s other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability...

3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers...

4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

If Congress is truly interested in being responsible to their primary obligations to the American people, instead of doing (as usual) whatever is quickest and easiest so they can get out of Washington according to schedule for their long election vacation, they will avoid passing any Blank Check Mega-Bailout Bill that does not incorporate Reich's key principles.

Indeed, if the Republican administration balks at a bill that adds these provisions, then the Democratic Congress should be committed to keeping Congress in session as long as it takes-- right up to the election, if necessary--to keep this most important of all issues front and center before all the American people for discussion as people consider who they will be voting for in this election.

In this "once-in-a-century" crisis (according to Greenspan), the future of the nation and the world depends on the details of the Mega-Bailout Bill that Congress hands to the American people and the world in the coming days. So we all should not only hope but call our Congresspeople and demand that this time our Congressional representatives put the destiny of the nation and world in front of its own petty interest in getting out of Washington as quickly as possible for another long vacation, while the world's financial system collapses around us.

If Taxation is Unpatriotic (says Palin), How will the Republicans Pay for War in Iraq and Bail-Out of the Financial System?

So this week, as the financial system is on the verge of collapse because of the Republicans' anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax laissez-faire ideology, we have the spectacle of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin underlining the irrationality of this Republican ideology by stating that raising taxes on the wealthy would be both unpatriotic and harmful.

According to the Republican logic of Sarah Palin, asking the wealthy to pay more taxes (as Joe Biden proposed) "is not patriotism," but is "about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse." (And McCain said the idea of asking the wealthy to pay more taxes was "dumb.") Nice for those like Palin and McCain to think such things, as the Republicans continue to uphold a policy of protecting the wealthy from taxation while the middle classes and poor are burdened with the gigantic growth of the national debt for war and financial bail-outs that the Republicans have imposed on our country.

In response to this statement by Palin and the Republicans, we need to ask: if taxation of the wealthy is now unpatriotic, how will the Republicans propose to pay the tremendous costs of fighting their wars and bailing out the financial system that they have brought to the verge of collapse on their watch? How will the Republican ticket of Palin/McCain pay the gigantic trillion-dollar bill of the bail-out of the entire financial system that their own failed policies have now forced us into?

And we would also like to ask the corporate media when they will begin to uphold their own patriotic duty by asking the Palin/McCain Republican ticket some fundamental questions about patriotism, taxation, and basic economics (since Palin has raised this issue for discussion, and the financial health of even the corporate media depends on the maintenance of an ordered national financial system):

If taxation of the wealthy is now unpatriotic, how do the Republicans propose to pay for the terribly expensive war they have gotten us into in Iraq? If taxation is unpatriotic, is paying for the war in Iraq also unpatriotic? If it is not patriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes, is it not even more unpatriotic to be placing more of the burden of taxation on the middle and lower classes, as unprogressive and flat tax proposals do?

It seems Republicans like Palin and McCain would like to continue to avoid any responsibility for answering the question of how the nation will now pay the gigantic debt-load of the failed policies the Republicans have imposed on our country. And according to the logic of Palin, if it is unpatriotic to impose more taxes on the wealthy, guess who will end up paying these gigantic expenses under another Republican administration-- the middle class and poor (through ever higher sales taxes and flat taxes and all the forms of taxation that hit the poor and middle class the hardest while they allow the wealthy to continue to walk away with million dollar salaries for running our financial system and country into the ground!!!)

Palin/McCain would apparently love to call taxation of the wealthy unpatriotic, even while they continue to ignore the gigantic tsunami of expenses that Republican policies have imposed on the American people, so that they can continue to protect the wealthy while the middle classes and poor are burdened with the ever-growing cost of paying for failed Republican policies.

Why are the media not asking these most fundamental of questions??!!

It is precisely the media's silence and lack of critical attention to the fundamentally irrational and absurd and unsustainable approach of Republicans to taxation, regulation, and economic policy that has allowed the country to fall into this mess, and even now, as things fall apart, the corporate media continues to ignore the ways the Palin/McCain team would simply like to continue this same absurd and country-killing set of irrational policies toward national finance and taxation!

When will the corporate media begin to challenge the utterly absurd, irrational way Republican policy is fundamentally undermining the future of this country?! and the ability of the vast majority of the people of this country to live decent lives?!! When will the media begin to challenge directly the funamental lack of patriotism in Republican policies that continue to destroy the foundations that support national finance and economy?

If asking the wealthy to pay more taxes is unpatriotic, how do the Republicans propose that the country now pay for the gigantic financial bail-outs that their own laissez-faire antiregulatory stance has now foisted upon us, if we are to save the national financial system and economy from collapsing like a house of cards?

And so we ask the corporate media: If you care at all about patriotism, why aren't you asking these kinds of critical questions of the Republicans, to make clear to the American public how utterly absurd and irrational is so much of what the Republican candidates are offering to the American public, as the principles that will guide their administration of the country if they are elected?!!

At a time when the entire economy of the nation and the globe is teetering on the edge of the abyss, the U.S. media continues to be facile and stupid in the face of the destructive irrationality of ideas and policy that the Republican candidates, and sometimes the Democratic candidates as well, are dishing out to us.

ENOUGH!!! When will the individual citizens and taxpayers who are part of the corporate media rise up against the destructive stupidity of the policies that have been destroying this country? When will these people get mad enough at what the Republicans are proposing to continue to do to our country to begin to speak up and raise these fundamental questions??!!

When will the corporate media begin to critique the absurdity of the bullshit people like Palin are throwing at us, so that they can continue to protect the wealthy, and pad their own bank accounts, while middle class folks are burdened with ever greater taxation and inflationary prices--which according to people like Palin, must (by logical deduction) be just fine, since only raising taxes on the wealthy is unpatriotic....

Democratic VP nominee Biden made a clear, straight-forward and rational statement about the responsibility of all American citizens, including the wealthy, to take on a fair part of the burden of paying for the privilege of being a citizen of this country. Biden was making the point that the wealthy have not been asked by the Republicans to pay their fair share. And wealthy people like Warren Buffett would agree with this statement. Paying taxes is the way we all support our country and our government. If this is unpatriotic, what does patriotism mean?

It's time for all people to ask the Republican candidates, if they think raising taxes on the wealthy is unpatriotic, how do they propose to pay the tremendous and quickly growing costs of the tremendous failures of war and financial policy that their eight years of rule have imposed on the people of this country!!!?

When will the fourth estate of the media begin to uphold its own patriotic duty and begin to ask these basic questions of those who would have us elect them so they can continue to run the country into the ground through the same irrational policies that have guided the Bush administration?!

COMMON SENSE--FOR A TIME OF CRISIS:

Addressed to the Citizens of the United States--A People that sacrifices its liberties to achieve security is deserving of neither, and will end up losing both:

"Without Vision, the People Perish!"

*****

ON July 4, 2006, we published a new version of "Common Sense," modeled on Tom Paine's famous appeal to citizens for action during the Revolutionary Crisis of 1776.

We previously compared Bush administration policies to those of Calvin Coolidge, and predicted they would eventually lead our country to an economic crisis similar to that which occurred at the end of the 1920s. But in doing so, we did not assume the parallels would necessarily be as dramatic as they have become over the last several weeks.

Now, more than ever, and especially in light of the lack of vision being exhibited by our current political leaders and presidential candidates, there is great need for the kind of Common Sense vision that has inspired the common citizens of this country throughout its history to rise up to demand from their elected leaders and government actions and policies worthy of the Declaration of Independence that founded this country as one where ALL people should have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

So, we publish again here the first part of this Common Sense call to ACTION, and refer readers to the full blog here.

*****

Common Sense--For a Time of Crisis:

Addressed to the Citizens of the United States: A People that sacrifices its liberties to achieve security is deserving of neither, and will end up losing both--"Without Vision, the People Perish!"

*****

[Our economic and political rulers] have failed through their own stubborness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated [their responsibility] ... They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. ... They have shown no realization that what they call free enterprise means anything but greed.

*****

We may well ask, are we in danger of a new caveman's club, of a new feudal system, of the creation of such a highly centralized industrial control that we may have to bring forth a new Declaration of Independence? (July 4, 1929)

*****

We are now providing a drab living for our own people ... If the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations, and run by perhaps a hundred men ... We are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already. (1932)

This election is not a mere shift from the ins to the outs. It means deciding the direction our Nation will take over a century to come.

*****

Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods ... [Our task] is ... distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organization to the service of the people.

This Nation asks for action, and action now ... We must act and act quickly ... We must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline.

*****

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts.... (All the above quotes are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as cited in Arthur M. Schlesinger's The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INTRODUCTION

Philadelphia, July 4, 2006

Without vision, the People perish. And democratic government dies with them--

So the founders of this nation understood, and so they established not only a constitutional government of three branches structured by checks and balances, but also insisted that the first amendment be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee that the freedom of the press and public opinion would serve as strategic institutions to allow the people to watch over government and make sure each of its branches fulfilled the responsibilities assigned it by the Constitution--to protect and defend the security, liberties, and well-being of the American people:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

But this July 4, as the people of this country approach the 2006 mid-term elections in the midst of an ill-defined and ill-fated “war on terror,” the securities and liberties that “we the people” established our system of constitutional government to protect are under threat as perhaps never before in the history of our nation:

As we have witnessed in recent days and months, the free press and the security of our fundamental human rights and civil liberties are threatened not only by an executive administration that justifies everything it does--including its attacks on the free press--in the name of prosecuting a perpetual war on terror; but also by a supine Congress that has failed to exert its proper constitutional responsibilities and powers to provide effective oversight of the executive administration in carrying out both its foreign (unsupervised practices of secret surveillance) and domestic (Katrina) responsibilities.

On top of these wrongs, we have allowed ourselves as citizens to be distracted and alienated from our own proper authority to control and direct our government, even as we have allowed private corporate interests to come to dominate the key political processes of elections and policymaking, on which the functioning of our democratic government depends.

To the wrongs of an overreaching executive office, and a supine Congress, we have thus added the evil of allowing corporate lobbyists and consultants to dominate the essential functions of our government, so that what should be the people’s government, our government—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—has become largely their government—a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Now more than ever, it is therefore important for us as individual citizens and as a nation to remember and put into practice the lesson emphasized by one of the wisest of our founders--the antislavery advocate, scientist, statesman, and philanthropist Benjamin Franklin: A People that sacrifices its liberties to achieve security is deserving of neither, and will probably end up losing both.

As a previous writer on Common Sense at the beginning of our nation’s history stated, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” Today, the dominant custom in our government has become one of corporate lobbyists and consultants dominating both the primary political functions of policymaking and the elections essential to the maintenance of a democratic constitution.

And unfortunately we, as citizens, have by our distraction and inaction largely accepted this take-over as a fait accompli. Without the assistance of any military coup, our government has, for all practical purposes, been taken over by private corporate interests, which have come to so control the framing of elections and the policymaking agenda, that “we the people” have lost effective control of our government.

It is now time for us to unite as citizens of a democratic republic to take back the reigns of government from the corporate interests now controlling them.

For if self-government is the ideal of a democratic nation, and faithful representation of our common interests as citizens by our elected politicians in Congress is the basis of a republican nation, then corporate domination of the institutions of government is the antithesis and subversion of democratic republican government.

If we want to preserve anything resembling true democratic government in the United States in the twenty-first century, we must organize across this nation to take the reigns of government back into our hands as citizens, so that corporations cannot continue to dominate the electoral and policymaking processes in the guise of acting on behalf of the interests of the citizens of this country.

This call to action is addressed to the people of the United States in the belief that we the people still have it in our capacity, if we act now, to begin again the history of this nation, to renew its proud democratic traditions, and to re-establish here in our own country a democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

For it is not by invading other countries with our military, but by remaking our own country according to the ideals of democracy, that we can most effectively influence the history of the world for the better in the twenty-first century--not only for ourselves, but for all people.

The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, and economic spoliation, declaring war against the natural rights of all humankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, in our own or any other country, is the concern of every person to whom nature has given the power of human feeling; of which humble but patriotic class, regardless of Party censure, is the Author.*

In this spirit of common human feeling, I therefore offer in the following pages a basic challenge to the American people, supported by nothing more than common facts, readily available to the public, plain arguments, and common sense in pursuit of the goal of establishing effective democratic government in these United States:

I challenge you to join together with your friends, neighbors, and colleagues across the nation to organize a powerful nation-wide movement of citizens dedicated to taking your government back from the corporate interests that are, in their short-sighted drive for unrestrained profit and wealth, driving this country and the world to ruin.

However our eyes may have been dazzled up to this point by the show of corporate interest, and our ears deceived by the pandering of corporate lobbyists; however private prejudices may have warped our political wills, or corporate interests may have darkened our political understanding, I plead with all American citizens now to open their minds and hearts to the voice of democratic political reason (not narrow party prejudice or ideology) and common sense. And if you do so as a citizen, I am sure you will begin to see what you must do in the days ahead to win your government back to the service of the common good of the citizens of this country.

Perhaps the thoughts contained in the following pages about how we, as citizens, must reclaim the reigns of government from the control of private corporate interests, are not yet wide-spread enough to shape a fundamental reform of our politics in this year's mid-term elections. Perhaps these ideas about the kind of concerted action needed by the American people to make sure our elected representatives reassert democratic control over the practices of government are not yet common enough to bring about a nation-wide transformation in policy for the common good of all the people of this nation.

But if this be so, it is my hope that these pages may serve to provoke the kind of sustained public debate about fundamental issues of democratic government that may eventually affect, over the pivotal months ahead, the kind of revolution in political understanding and vision that will allow the American people to forge the unified political sentiment needed to renew the democratic institutions of this country, and to reestablish for ourselves and our posterity a government of the people, by the people, and for the common good of all the people of this nation.

Instead of a government of and for the private interests that now dominate the country’s political agenda and law-making, we need—now more than ever—a government that will work in our common interests to establish and enforce laws (for health, safety, energy independence, and environmental protection) for the common good of all the citizens of the United States, and not just for the wealthy few or the narrow corporate interests represented by the lobbyists that pay the highest bid. Our government and the policies by which we are governed should not be up for sale to the highest bidder in our cities, our states, or in Washington, D.C.

Under the current circumstances of economic globalization, many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and will challenge the faith and principles of all who believe that humankind can best govern itself and participate in fulfilling its highest destiny through democratic means. These circumstances have already deprived many people and nations of the world of the ability to participate effectively in determining their own destiny, and have caused many to lose faith in the powers of democratic self-government.

Terrorism is only one manifestation of that loss of democratic self-governing power and faith. Whether ever greater numbers of the people of the world fall victim to this loss of democratic power and faith in the years ahead may well depend on what the citizens of the United States are able to do, or fail to do, in the months and years ahead, to renew the effective institutions of democratic governance that make the perpetuation of the democratic faith possible.

Without the democratic practice to back it up, democratic faith becomes futile, at best, and at worst becomes a delusion or cover to distract attention from the imposition of the tactics of anti-democratic, imperial force. And without the creative vision needed to renew democratic practice, our democratic faith—even in this greatly privileged nation--may fail in the years ahead. The Author dearly hopes that what follows may begin to nurture a rebirth of both democratic vision and practice among the citizens of this country.

I have nothing more to say by way of introduction, except to ask that readers will, for the time they take to consider the words that follow, suspend their familiar opinions and views, and allow their patriotic feeling, combined with (rather than opposed to) their reason, to determine the justice and validity of the arguments presented here; and that in response to their reasoned consideration and discussion of these arguments, they will decide how best to put on the true character of democratic citizens for conducting the struggle ahead.

And I would pray that all of us in this pivotal election year may, as citizens, through open and vibrant discussion of the kinds of issues raised here, learn how to enlarge our views beyond those that have for too long restrained and enslaved our political imaginations, and have thereby kept us from acting effectively as citizens to pursue our own best interests and common good as individuals and as a nation. To this democratic struggle, and to the betterment of us all as citizens and a democratic nation, I dedicate all that follows.

*Who the Author of this production is, is not important at this time, since the entire object of this writing is to focus attention on the ideas and arguments here set forward, and on their implication for the immediate future conduct of the citizens of this country during this election year, regardless of the particular party or class background of this pamphlet’s author or its readers. Yet it may be said that the author has no official role or connection with any political party, and is under no sort of party influence, public or private, beyond the influence of the patriotic “party” of democratic republican reason and principle, upon which the best traditions of government in this country were established. Such reason and principle is all the more important to emphasize today, since both our dominant political parties have been governing in ways that defy and violate this reason and its principles. It is now up to the citizens of this nation to exert their democratic authority in action, in order to bring both parties back into line with principles of reasonable and good government. It is to this most truly progressive party of citizens, wherever they live and work, that the Author truly belongs.

*****

COMMON SENSE--FOR A TIME OF CRISIS continues here.

1. An Urgent Appeal to Common Sense in Support of Democratic Government

2. Worse than George II: Corporate Control of the Reigns of Government

3. The Slippery Slope Into the War in Iraq, and the Failures of Democratic Nation-Building

4. The Distinction Between Corporate Interests and the Public Good

5. Toward a Common Sense Policy Agenda for the Common Good

6. A Progressive Common Sense Policy Agenda for the Nation

CONCLUSION: Rediscovering the Meaning of Democratic Government

Great Discussion of the Current Crisis on This Weekend's Bill Moyers on PBS

For great discussion and perspective on the sources of the current crisis, check out this weekend's Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, featuring an interview with Kevin Phillips, author of Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism--

Kevin Phillips: "What we're seeing here with the actions of the Federal Reserve Board is the people who were the arsonists--the people who pumped it all up, who blew up the bubble--are now racing to show up in firemens' hats, and say, 'We're gonna solve it, we're gonna take care of all this. Oh, and by the way we're gonna keep pumping in the gasoline that we pumped in before that made a good flame, but, you know, nobody knows that....' "

"We are on the wrong track . . . . The British were absolutely top dog in the world in 1914. Two world wars and 35 years later, they were having food rationing, the pound sterling crashed, dukes were giving guided tours of their castles because they couldn't afford to maintain them otherwise. It doesn't take long, and I'm afraid the United States is coming right into that period which marks a couple of decades coming up that are going to be very difficult...."

And don't miss Moyers' wonderful zinger of a critical commentary at the end of the show, in which he discusses the replacement of New York's dear old Yankee Stadium, opened in 1923, by the brand new gilded age "pleasure dome" for the wealthy, subsidized by taxpayers, where seats behind the dugout will cost $850, and behind home plate will cost $2500, and where more luxury sky box suites (rented for $600,000 to $850,000) will take up space for 5000 fewer seats for the common folks. As Moyers observes, this new gilded age stadium will "cast its shadow" over one of the country's poorest neighborhoods, "whose residents will watch from the outside, as suburban drivers avail themselves of 9000 new or refurbished parking spaces. Never mind all the exhaust, even though in this part of town respiratory disease is already so high they call it 'asthma alley.' "

Way to go Bill!-- Please keep your amazing commentaries and critical journalism coming! Now, more than ever in this era of corruption and crisis, we need your critical work and insights to help us stay informed.

And just as the Gilded Age of the 1920s was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, we now have to wonder: Who will fill all the expensive seats in the new gilded age Yankee Stadium in the coming decade?

KEVIN PHILLIPS
Bill Moyers sits down with former Nixon White House strategist and political and economic critic Kevin Phillips, whose latest book BAD MONEY: RECKLESS FINANCE, FAILED POLITICS, AND THE GLOBAL CRISIS OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM explores the role that the crumbling financial sector played in the now-fragile American economy.

WINNERS AND LOSERS
NEW YORK TIMES business and financial columnists Gretchen Morgenson and Floyd Norris discuss who wins and who loses in the financial turmoil.

MAJOR NEWS FLASH FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

We have an urgent news flash for the two major candidates who are asking the citizens and voters of this country to entrust them with our individual and national destinies in the most severe global crisis since the Great Depression--

NEWS FLASH for the Presidential Candidates:

THIS CRISIS IS BIGGER AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOTH OF YOU!

In spite of your continuing self-centered attacks upon each other, which indicate that you can actually get wrapped up in blaming each other for this crisis, THIS CRISIS IS MUCH BIGGER AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOTH OF YOU! And neither of you are so important or influential as to have been the source of this current crisis, so if you really want to be taken seriously, and serve some positive purpose in this current crisis, the first thing you can do is (at least) stop muddying the waters by wasting our patience and bankrupting your trustworthiness by blaming each other for the current crisis.

Playing the political blame game in the midst of the greatest crisis this country has faced since the beginning of the Great Depression only makes you both appear ridiculously trivial and unworthy of leading us through this crisis. So the minimal thing you both need to do if you want us to take you seriously as potential future leaders of our country is to put your petty egos and the political blame game behind you, so you can begin to focus attention on the real sources of our current crisis: the corrupted nature of the economic/political system that has brought us to this crisis.

Then, once you've done this minimal thing, if you really want us to take you seriously, you can show us what you've really got to offer us as citizens and voters--by showing us your analysis of the causes of this crisis and, based on your analysis, the approach you would bring to getting us out of this crisis.

ENOUGH of petty politics! ENOUGH of political bullshit! We want answers, and vision, and clear direction--NOT more of the same old petty distractions from the real crises determining our lives and futures!

In case you haven't yet heard what the heart of the American people has already been saying for a long time: We've had enough of the political bullshit, and if you really want us to take either one of you seriously enough to vote for you, it's time for you to turn off the bullshit about personalities and personal attacks and lipstick on a pig, and show us your analysis of how we've ended up in this mess and what you have to offer us in order to help us all to get out of it. It's time for you to begin to show us how you intend to lead this nation toward reconstructing out of this crisis a renewed democratic system of politics and economics that will begin to serve the interests of ALL the American people instead of the interests of only the most wealthy and powerful.

And if one or both of you cannot get over yourselves and the forms of petty politics in the midst of this crisis, then it's time for the American people to look for other candidates who will be more worthy of both the history and future of the American people and this country.

So Presidential Candidates, PAY ATTENTION to this NEWS FLASH:

It's time for you to move beyond politics as usual, or the American people will move beyond both of you.

We've had Enough, and if you can't show us you have a real alternative to the current forms of economic policy and poliltical bullshit that have gotten us into this mess, it's time for the American people to move beyond you.

THE CURRENT CRISIS IS BIGGER THAN BOTH OF YOU, WAS NOT CAUSED BY EITHER OF YOU, and the only question is whether either one of you will be able to convince us that we should really take you seriously as a presidential candidate in this time of unprecedented crisis.

We've had ENOUGH! Either show us you can move beyond political bullshit, distractions, and mudslinging, to real analysis of, and solutions to this crisis, or we will move beyond you both.

Both of you have said you embrace the politics of change; now it's time for both of you to show us that you really understand what change means.

Current Financial Crisis Unmasks the Fiction of the Laissez-faire Market

After a generation of near totalitarian rule, the ideology of the unfettered free market--which was used as a blunt weapon to weaken or destroy almost all forms of market regulation--has brought the capitalist financial system to the brink of a collapse eerily similar to the days before the great crash of October 1929.

The current crisis has forced the Fed to rediscover the need for the firm hand of market regulation and intervention to restore order and trust in a market system collapsing under the destructive weight of laissez-faire ideology. The current crisis has served to pull back the curtain of our political economy to reveal the manipulative wizard hiding behind the fiction of a laissez-faire capitalist ideology that assumes THE MARKET can function free of the structuring hand of human regulation and decency.

The current crisis has forced even President Bush (in his brief statement of Sept. 18) to admit the need for the assertion of a firm governmental hand to keep the global market system from collapsing like a house of cards. Fortunately over the last several weeks we have witnessed the arm of the federal government rediscovering its regulatory function in the midst of crisis, as it has reached out to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to orchestrate the orderly dissolution of Lehman Brothers, the effective nationalization of the global corporate insurance firm AIG, and begin to structure a new regime of regulation to try to reign in the destructive power of naked short selling in the stock market--even as Congressional leaders are now working with the administration to prepare a strategy for taking charge of over a trillion dollars of bad private debt.

Altogether, these actions are demonstrating the gravity of the current financial crisis, which is requiring the federal government to assert a comprehensive financial regulatory power in ways not demonstrated since the years of the Great Depression in order to protect and bring order to a market system teetering on the brink of collapse.

We are lucky that current leaders such as US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke seem to have learned well the historical lessons of the Great Depression, and are therefore not repeating the mistakes (of inaction) of the Coolidge and Hoover administrations that helped to precipitate the Great Crash of 1929 into the disaster of the Great Depression.

If the same kind of incompetence and corrupt leadership were in place in the Fed and the Treasury as have been in place in other parts of Bush’s executive administration, we might already be talking about the great crash of September 2008. And while we’re not yet beyond the danger of such a collapse, the Bush administration’s admission and rediscovery of the need for the strong hand of regulation to guard the market against the excesses of laissez faire totalitarianism may finally begin to turn back the tide of financial and economic disaster.

In the next few days, including another busy weekend for the Fed, we shall see whether the leaders of our government can make good use of historical wisdom and the appropriate powers of government to fulfill their duty to provide for the safety and welfare of the American people and our economy.

Fiddling While the Free Market Burns: Onward to the Great Crash of 2008

In another brilliant commentary, titled "Fiddling while Rome Burns" (Sept. 16), NPR's Daniel Schorr dissected the absurdity of so much of the current political campaign:

Rome in its decline must have been like this, glorying in its circuses and gladiators even with the Visigoths at the gates, and so now our southern cities are lashed by hurricanes and in the North great temples of capitalism crumble and our aspirants for the Presidency have been debating issues like "lipstick on a pig." The rhythm of the campaign has been disturbed by the Wall Street meltdown . . . . But never mind--the struggle over who dissed whom, who first spoke about lipstick on a pig goes merrily on--oblivious to the disasters and perils the nation faces.

Fortunately, since Schorr uttered these words, the seriousness of the developing financial crisis has finally seemed to bring the presidential debate down to real issues, although the McCain campaign's assault on all bastions of truth and evidence continues unabated....

We can at least be glad that the two men (US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke) overseeing many of the decisions guiding the government's response to the current crisis are not those running for President, nor the current President. For unlike the leaders of the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, and most of the Bush administration, both Paulson and Bernanke seem to be demonstrating they undertand the lessons of the 1929 Crash, and appreciate the supreme value of well-targeted and bold government action in a time of crisis. Let us hope they continue to demonstrate the wisdom of historical understanding, and that the rest of our federal leaders begin to restructure their thinking and policy action accordingly.

Otherwise, we may all soon be talking about the Great Crash of 2008.....

U.S. Capitalist Financial/Economic System on the Brink

While the two U.S. Presidential candidates have allowed their campaign to descend into stupidity and triviality, and the Bush administration is trying to restart a Cold War with Russia and foment another major escalation of military conflict on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the nation's financial and economic system teeters on the brink--after a second weekend of Wall Street brinksmanship to deal with the failure of two major financial firms (Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch) following last weekend's last-ditch efforts to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from complete collapse.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers, and attendant weakness of other major financial institutions, has now produced perhaps the worst U.S. financial crisis since the banking panic that faced former President Franklin Roosevelt at the beginning of his administration in March 1933.

While the economic survival of the United States and its own citizens are increasingly on the line, and the United States is in need of state-building efforts at home to address the growing poverty rates, homelessness, joblessness and suffering of our own citizens, the national political debate (as reflected by the candidates and the corporate media) seems completely disconnected from these desperate realities.

In order to pull ourselves back from the brink, the citizens of the US need to demand two things above all others from anyone who wants to be a political leader, and from anyone who asks us to support them with votes or financial contributions in the upcoming elections:

1) Clear focus, dedication, and vision for dealing creatively with the economic, health, energy, social, and infrastructure problems in our own country;

2) In order to focus on these problems at home, a clear commitment to getting out of the war-making and state-building business overseas, so that we can dedicate all our precious human and material resources to fixing the mess the Bush administration has created at home.

Instead of this kind of focus on solving our own problems and building a viable strategy to address these growing problems, in its last months in office the Bush administration seems to be trying to get us even more deeply involved in several more wars overseas (in Pakistan, in particular). And unfortunately both our leading Presidential candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties have seemed to give permission to the Bush administration by stating that they would support military incursions into Pakistan.

When will the people of the United States and its presumptive political leaders wake up to the fact that they cannot hope to address any of these deepening crises at home while continuing to expend billions of dollars fighting wars overseas?

Just like the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s through a combination of military overreach and hubris (in Afghanistan) and bad economic decision-making, the United States seems to be heading in the same direction now.

Will the United States go the way of the Soviet Union?

For obvious reasons the corporate media seems incapable of considering or discussing in a critical fashion the possibility that the capitalist system may be just as corrupt in 2008 as the Soviet Communist system was in 1988.

But the survival of any meaningfully democratic political and economic system in the West may depend on whether discussion of the corrupt forms of capitalism can not only be put on the table, but be placed at the center of the table for discussion. The capitalist system, if it wishes to survive, is now in major need of dramatic reforms if it is to adjust to the demands for change arising out of the global energy, climate, and financial crises, which will bring a tsunami of change to the world's economic and political systems one way or another.

The only question is whether capitalism will be able to transform itself in ways that strengthen democratic capacities to respond to these pressing problems, or will preside over the destruction of what remains of democratic forms, as the world descends into a chaos of violence and perpetual warfare and economic destruction through the failure of political vision and leadership in the years ahead.

Why NEW LEADERSHIP is so desperately needed in Washington

While this new report has received media attention around the rest of the world, there has been almost no notice of it by the media in the United States. This is just one of the reasons we need new leadership, new priorities, and new vision in Washington, D.C.!

Inequities are killing people on a "grand scale" reports WHO's Commission

28 August 2008 | GENEVA -- A child born in a Glasgow, Scotland suburb can expect a life 28 years shorter than another living only 13 kilometres away. A girl in Lesotho is likely to live 42 years less than another in Japan. In Sweden, the risk of a woman dying during pregnancy and childbirth is 1 in 17 400; in Afghanistan, the odds are 1 in 8. Biology does not explain any of this. Instead, the differences between - and within - countries result from the social environment where people are born, live, grow, work and age.

These "social determinants of health" have been the focus of a three-year investigation by an eminent group of policy makers, academics, former heads of state and former ministers of health. Together, they comprise the World Health Organization's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Today, the Commission presents its findings to the WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan.

"(The) toxic combination of bad policies, economics, and politics is, in large measure responsible for the fact that a majority of people in the world do not enjoy the good health that is biologically possible," the Commissioners write in Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. "Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale."

"Health inequity really is a matter of life and death," said Dr Chan today while welcoming the Report and congratulating the Commission. "But health systems will not naturally gravitate towards equity. Unprecedented leadership is needed that compels all actors, including those beyond the health sector, to examine their impact on health. Primary health care, which integrates health in all of government's policies, is the best framework for doing so."

Sir Michael Marmot, Commission Chair said: “Central to the Commission’s recommendations is creating the conditions for people to be empowered, to have freedom to lead flourishing lives. Nowhere is lack of empowerment more obvious than in the plight of women in many parts of the world. Health suffers as a result. Following our recommendations would dramatically improve the health and life chances of billions of people.”

Inequities within countries

Health inequities – unfair, unjust and avoidable causes of ill health – have long been measured between countries but the Commission documents "health gradients" within countries as well. For example:

• Life expectancy for Indigenous Australian males is shorter by 17 years than all other Australian males.
• Maternal mortality is 3–4 times higher among the poor compared to the rich in Indonesia. The difference in adult mortality between least and most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK is more than 2.5 times.
• Child mortality in the slums of Nairobi is 2.5 times higher than in other parts of the city. A baby born to a Bolivian mother with no education has 10% chance of dying, while one born to a woman with at least secondary education has a 0.4% chance.
• In the United States, 886 202 deaths would have been averted between 1991 and 2000 if mortality rates between white and African Americans were equalized. (This contrasts to 176 633 lives saved in the US by medical advances in the same period.)
• In Uganda the death rate of children under 5 years in the richest fifth of households is 106 per 1000 live births but in the poorest fifth of households in Uganda it is even worse – 192 deaths per 1000 live births – that is nearly a fifth of all babies born alive to the poorest households destined to die before they reach their fifth birthday. Set this against an average death rate for under fives in high income countries of 7 deaths per 1000.

The Commission found evidence that demonstrates in general the poor are worse off than those less deprived, but they also found that the less deprived are in turn worse than those with average incomes, and so on. This slope linking income and health is the social gradient, and is seen everywhere – not just in developing countries, but all countries, including the richest. The slope may be more or less steep in different countries, but the phenomenon is universal.

Wealth is not necessarily a determinant

Economic growth is raising incomes in many countries but increasing national wealth alone does not necessarily increase national health. Without equitable distribution of benefits, national growth can even exacerbate inequities.

While there has been enormous increase in global wealth, technology and living standards in recent years, the key question is how it is used for fair distribution of services and institution-building especially in low-income countries. In 1980, the richest countries with 10% of the population had a gross national income 60 times that of the poorest countries with 10% of the world's population. After 25 years of globalization, this difference increased to 122, reports the Commission. Worse, in the last 15 years, the poorest quintile in many low-income countries have shown a declining share in national consumption.

Wealth alone does not have to determine the health of a nation's population. Some low-income countries such as Cuba, Costa Rica, China, state of Kerala in India and Sri Lanka have achieved levels of good health despite relatively low national incomes. But, the Commission points out, wealth can be wisely used. Nordic countries, for example, have followed policies that encouraged equality of benefits and services, full employment, gender equity and low levels of social exclusion. This, said the Commission, is an outstanding example of what needs to be done everywhere.

Solutions from beyond the health sector

Much of the work to redress health inequities lies beyond the health sector. According to the Commission's report, "Water-borne diseases are not caused by a lack of antibiotics but by dirty water, and by the political, social, and economic forces that fail to make clean water available to all; heart disease is caused not by a lack of coronary care units but by lives people lead, which are shaped by the environments in which they live; obesity is not caused by moral failure on the part of individuals but by the excess availability of high-fat and high-sugar foods." Consequently, the health sector – globally and nationally – needs to focus attention on addressing the root causes of inequities in health.

“We rely too much on medical interventions as a way of increasing life expectancy” explained Sir Michael. “A more effective way of increasing life expectancy and improving health would be for every government policy and programme to be assessed for its impact on health and health equity; to make health and health equity a marker for government performance.”

Recommendations

Based on this compelling evidence, the Commission makes three overarching recommendations to tackle the "corrosive effects of inequality of life chances":

• Improve daily living conditions, including the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work and age.
• Tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money and resources – the structural drivers of those conditions – globally, nationally and locally.
• Measure and understand the problem and assess the impact of action.

Recommendations for daily living

Improving daily living conditions begins at the start of life. The Commission recommends that countries set up an interagency mechanism to ensure effective collaboration and coherent policy between all sectors for early childhood development, and aim to provide early childhood services to all of their young citizens. Investing in early childhood development provides one of the best ways to reduce health inequities. Evidence shows that investment in the education of women pays for itself many times over.

Billions of people live without adequate shelter and clean water. The Commission's report pays particular attention to the increasing numbers of people who live in urban slums, and the impact of urban governance on health. The Commission joins other voices in calling for a renewed effort to ensure water, sanitation and electricity for all, as well as better urban planning to address the epidemic of chronic disease.

Health systems also have an important role to play. While the Commission report shows how the health sector can not reduce health inequities on its own, providing universal coverage and ensuring a focus on equity throughout health systems are important steps.

The report also highlights how over 100 million people are impoverished due to paying for health care – a key contributor to health inequity. The Commission thus calls for health systems to be based on principles of equity, disease prevention and health promotion with universal coverage, based on primary health care.

Distribution of resources

Enacting the recommendations of the Commission to improve daily living conditions will also require tackling the inequitable distribution of resources. This requires far-reaching and systematic action.

The report foregrounds a range of recommendations aimed at ensuring fair financing, corporate social responsibility, gender equity and better governance. These include using health equity as an indicator of government performance and overall social development, the widespread use of health equity impact assessments, ensuring that rich countries honour their commitment to provide 0.7% of their GNP as aid, strengthening legislation to prohibit discrimination by gender and improving the capacity for all groups in society to participate in policy-making with space for civil society to work unencumbered to promote and protect political and social rights. At the global level, the Commission recommends that health equity should be a core development goal and that a social determinants of health framework should be used to monitor progress.

The Commission also highlights how implementing any of the above recommendations requires measurement of the existing problem of health inequity (where in many countries adequate data does not exist) and then monitoring the impact on health equity of the proposed interventions. To do this will require firstly investing in basic vital registration systems which have seen limited progress in the last thirty years. There is also a great need for training of policy-makers, health workers and workers in other sectors to understand the need for and how to act on the social determinants of health.

While more research is needed, enough is known for policy makers to initiate action. The feasibility of action is indicated in the change that is already occurring. Egypt has shown a remarkable drop in child mortality from 235 to 33 per 1000 in 30 years. Greece and Portugal reduced their child mortality from 50 per 1000 births to levels nearly as low as Japan, Sweden, and Iceland. Cuba achieved more than 99% coverage of its child development services in 2000. But trends showing improved health are not foreordained. In fact, without attention health can decline rapidly.

Is this feasible?

The Commission has already inspired and supported action in many parts of the world. Brazil, Canada, Chile, Iran, Kenya, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and the UK have become 'country partners' on the basis of their commitment to make progress on the social determinants of health equity and are already developing policies across governments to tackle them. These examples show that change is possible through political will. There is a long way to go, but the direction is set, say the Commissioners, the path clear.

Time to DEMAND NEW LEADERSHIP and NEW POLITICS!

From URGENCY OF NOW:

"All across America something is stirring -- Change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time." (Barack Obama's Nomination Acceptance Speech, August 28, 2008)

While the pundits are for the most part missing this central call to action in Obama's speech, and Juan Williams on NPR today referred to the speech as one that will NOT be memorable (I suspect pundits said the same thing after FDR's early speeches), all Americans who are suffering and desiring a change from the failed Republican policies of the last eight years will beg to differ!

Unlike those media pundits and Republican operatives who are detached from the real sufferings of many Americans, Obama understands the roots of the demand for fundamental change, and in last night's speech finally addressed the call of many to spell out the details of the kind of change he will bring to Washington.

But, as he noted, he can't do this alone. Bringing change to Washington first requires that we make sure he is elected, and will then require that we all dig in to do the work of change, since even if Obama is elected, he will not be able to bring the change we need without the constant and firm pressure of all of us working to push progressive initiatives forward.

So its time for all of us to dig in and get to work. Obama last night provided a stirring call to action. Now we must all rise up to do the work required to get him elected, turn back all the efforts the Republicans will exert to prevent Obama's election--including lies, distortions, and interference with a fair voting process--and then get to work to transform the policy priorities of the nation. For we need not only a new politics, but also new policy for a new time....

Thank you, Barack Obama, for preserving the spirit of ML King's glorious speech 45 years ago, and for calling Americans to action in that spirit. I hope Americans will now prove themselves worthy of your faith and trust.

*****

Text of Barack Obama's Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech

"The American Promise"
Democratic Convention
Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Denver, Colorado

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest - a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia - I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land:

ENOUGH!

This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.


Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now.

*****
So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits.

What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past.

You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

The REAL Question Facing America: Will the Media and the American Republic be Humanized by the Example of Michelle Obama?

While the Media Class—with its usual flair for normalizing the most horridly racialized assumptions via blandly innocuous-sounding language—framed the drama of last night’s opening of the Democratic Convention around the question, "Will Michelle Obama be able to 'humanize' Barack Obama for the American public?", Michelle's brilliant speech not only put to shame the racialized assumptions supporting this media framing, but turned these assumptions on their head.

And by turning on their head the assumptions undergirding the media’s framing of last night’s Convention drama, Michelle Obama’s exemplary words highlighted the REAL question that this Convention and Presidential Election poses to the people of the American Republic [--and if the class of media pundits observing this Convention really wants to humanize itself and serve the interests of both its audience and the Republic, it will henceforth learn from the speech of Michelle Obama to substitute this REAL question for the horribly banal and racialized questions it otherwise seems so stupidly condemned to reproduce ad nauseum]:

Will the American public of 2008 and its media class rise to the humanizing challenge posed by the values (of family and patriotism) exemplified by the words of Michelle Obama, and thereby humanize the American republic?

If the Media Class wants to rehumanize itself and demonstrate its own true patriotism in the weeks of election coverage remaining, it will learn from the example of Michelle Obama’s words to begin confronting itself and the American public with the REAL questions that need to be asked after a decade during which our Republic--operating in defiance of law and human decency--has allowed itself to be dehumanized by a corrupt regime of excuses normalized under the administrative mask of the "war on terror."

As usual in its amazingly banal forms of racialized language, the American media class framed Michelle Obama's challenge to be that of "humanizing" her husband for the American public. This framing not only presumed that the American public perceives Barack Obama to be less than human, and therefore in need of being “humanized,” but then presumed to place the heavy burden of responsibility for rehumanizing an Obama that a racialized media and the reigning public discourse has been so responsible for dehumanizing, not on itself—but on the black woman who married the black man who presumed himself to be human enough to deserve the right of every citizen to run for this nation’s highest office.

This framing trope, which attempted to make the black wife of a black man responsible for “humanizing” her husband, dipped back into the ocean of racialized powers of discourse and politics going back to slavery times, and itself speaks deeply to how much re-humanizing and de-racializing of the media and our Republic is still needed today--all the more so in an era that so often and so blandly presumes itself—against all evidence to the contrary—to have achieved a level of human consciousness “beyond race and racism.”

Apart from the offensive absurdity of all the racialized assumptions inherent in the media class's framing of the drama of Michelle's challenge during the first night of the Democratic Convention, the presumptive stance taken by media pundits toward Michelle, as if they assumed that they could define and prescribe for Michelle what she was supposed to do with her speech, was made all the more absurd by the brilliance with which the humanizing spirit of Michelle Obama's words posed the real challenge of this election quite differently: Will the media class and the American people rise to the challenge of humanizing itself posed by the exemplary words of Michelle Obama last night?

While so much of last night’s TV coverage by the pundits of CNN, MSNBC, and even PBS, continued to be grounded in the same old clichéd framing that has managed to make this most exciting of election campaigns sound boring over the last seven months, Michelle's speech embodied the ennobling power and inspiration of the humanizing passion evoked by Teddy Kennedy's words, and reemphasized the reality underlying Kennedy's proclamation that what is now being presented to the American people in this Election is the most profound of choices:

A choice between a continuation of the destructive politics of racial and class division that has defined the past, and has been reexaggerated by the policies of the current administration, or a turn to a new politics that can begin to embody in policy and practice the hope inspired by the words of Martin Luther King uttered 45 years ago in Washington, D.C.

The REAL Question is: Has eight years of lies and corrupt administration been enough to wake more than half of the American people up to the horrible future into which we are heading without a change, or has it merely reinforced the worst tendencies and assumptions of American power and discourse, and hardened them under the guise of fear and the self-justifying rhetoric of a self-defensive war on terror?

This election, with all that is so immediately at stake for the Republic and the world in the four years ahead, may well determine whether the ennobling hope and dream of a just and equal American Republic, embodied in words by Martin Luther King, Jr., 45 years ago this Thursday, will remain merely a fading dream, or begin to be embodied in the policies and practices of a democratically renewed American Republic. Let us hope, at least, that in the days ahead, both the American public and its Media class will prove itself worthy of the ennobling gift presented to us all by Michelle Obama’s exemplary words last night. For it is not Barack Obama who needs to be humanized for the American public (since he has already shown himself to be abundantly human), but the American media and its public that needs to be humanized for the sake of the future of the American Republic and the rest of the world.

And if the words of Michelle Obama last night are any indication of the role she would play as “first lady” of this Republic, we can be sure of one thing: Our Republic would be deeply ennobled and humanized by her presence at the helm of this Nation’s ship of state.

So the real question is not about what Michelle Obama will do to "humanize" her husband, but what WE will do in the weeks ahead, culminating on November 4, to give ourselves and our country the opportunity to be humanized by the experience of living in a nation that embraces the challenges of making the DREAM real, over the misleading comforts of living in the mire of fear and self-deluding presumptions of totalizing power that have been fueling our so-called “war on terror.”

Such fear and self-delusion, if allowed to control us, will enslave us all to an ever more monstrously self-defeating police state that devotes our national resources to running away from, rather than embracing, the humanizing courage and creativity needed to meet the tremendous challenges of the twenty-first century. As guidance in the right direction, the words of Michelle Obama exemplify the humanizing courage and dedication our country so deeply needs for inspiration.

I hope our political work and choices in the weeks ahead will prove ourselves and our country worthy of the gift of Michelle's humanizing example and faith, as manifest last night. And I hope that for the remainder of this election campaign the Media class will substitute the humanizing insight and vision of her perspectives for the dehumanizing and blinding perspectives of the present.

Get the Progressive Perspective on the Democratic Convention

Streaming Live, During the Day, from the Democratic Convention [See schedule of events below; If embed is not working, you may access the web broadcast directly by clicking on this link:


Event Schedule from Progressive Central, at the
Central Presbyterian Church
1660 Sherman St.
Denver, CO 80203

PROGRAM SCHEDULE (all times listed are Mountain time)

SUNDAY NIGHT, AUGUST 24: PDAs "Progressive Welcome to Denver"

8:00 - 10:00 PM: Community, speeches, and music. Hosted by Mimi Kennedy, PDA Advisory Board Chair. Featuring Rep. Barbara Lee (CA), Co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and PDA Advisory Board member; John Nichols, Washington correspondent, The Nation; Tom Hayden, author, activist; Jim Zogby, Arab American Institute and DNC member; Jim Hightower, journalist and PDA Advisory Board member: PDA-endorsed Healthcare NOT Warfare candidate Joan Fitz-Gerald. Music by Dan Reed.

MONDAY AUGUST 25: HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE

--MORNING SCHEDULE

9:00 - 11:00 AM: Tabling and networking
9:40 - 9:50 PM: Jared Polis, Colorado 2nd Congressional District Congressional Candidate
9:50 - 10:00 AM: Bill Moyer, Backbone Campaign and friends.
10:00 AM - 10:30 AM: Stephen Zunes, Middle Eastern scholar and journalist.
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series-- Healthcare, Aids, and Africa
Moderated by author and The Nation journalist John Nichols with Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. John Conyers, House Judiciary Committee Chair, and Richard Kim.

AFTERNOON SCHEDULE

12:30 - 1:00 PM: Lunch
1:00 - 3:45 PM: PDA Panels--Healthcare NOT Warfare
Moderated by John Nichols.
1:00 - 2:05 PM: Healthcare Panel:
Rep. John Conyers, sponsor HR 676; Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign co-chairs Norman Solomon, author and PDA Advisory Board member and Donna Smith, star of SiCKO and founder of American Patients United; Dr. Rocky White, single payer Denver healthcare advocate, Geri Jenkins, RN, CNA/NNOC, Jim Hightower.
2:10 - 3:15 PM: NOT Warfare Panel:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Co-chair CPC and PDA Advisory Board member; Norman Solomon; Kathleen Snyder, Gold Star Mom; Ann Wright, retired United States Army colonel and retired official of the U.S. State Department; and a representative from Iraq Veterans Against the War.
3:15 - 3:45: Q & A
3:45 - 4:00: Housekeeping and Closing Comments: Tim Carpenter
4:15 - 5:15 PM: Community Conversation on healthcare, moderated by "Be the Change."

TUESDAY, AUGUST 26: MEDIA REFORM AND CLEAN, FAIR, TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS

MORNING SCHEDULE

9:00 - 11:00 AM: Tabling and networking
9:45 - 9:55 AM: Governor Don Siegelman
10:00 - 10:30 AM: STEAL BACK YOUR VOTE with Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series - Out of Iraq
Moderated by John Nichols with Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA), Co-chair Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Jim McDermott, (WA), and Tom Hayden.

AFTERNOON SCHEDULE

12:30 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:15 PM: PDA Panel--Media Reform:
Moderated by Jeff Cohen, author, and founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting; with John Nichols; Laura Flanders, journalist, Nation Radio and Grit TV; Shireen Mitchell, Digital Sistas; Maeve Conran, Associate News Dir. KGNU Community Radio Denver/Boulder, Chris Rabb, Afro-Netizen.
2:30 - 3:45 PM: PDA Panel--Clean, Fair, Transparent Elections:
Mimi Kennedy, moderator; with Steve Rosenfeld author and election integrity activist; John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action, founder of the National Voting Rights
Institute, and PDA Advisory Board member; Bob Edgar, Common Cause; Harvie Branscomb, Colorado election protection advocate; Brad Friedman, Bradblog.
3:45 - 4:00 PM: Housekeeping and Closing comments: Tim Carpenter

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27: ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND GLOBAL WARMING

MORNING SCHEDULE

9:00 - 11:00 AM: Tabling and networking
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series-- Immigration Reform and Economic Justice
John Nichols, Moderator; with Rep. Jim McGovern (MA), PDA Advisory Board member; and Bob Moser, contributing writer to The Nation.

AFTERNOON SCHEDULE

12:30 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:15 PM: PDA Panel--Economic Justice/Ending Poverty:
John Nichols, Moderator; Rep. Barbara Lee; Rep. Jim McGovern; David Sirota, author, journalist; Lori Wallach, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch; Carmen Rhodes, Executive Director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center.
2:30 - 3:45 PM: PDA Panel--Global Warming:
Norman Solomon, Moderator; with Medea Benjamin Founding Director Global Exchange, Founder of Code Pink and PDA Advisory Board member; Nancy La Placa, Energy Consultant with Bardwell Consulting Ltd.: Majora Carter, Sustainable South Bronx Director; Dr. Trenberth, IPCC Scientist:
3:45 - 4:00: Housekeeping and Closing Comments: Tim Carpenter

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CONGRESS AND PDA ONWARD FROM DENVER

MORNING SCHEDULE

9:00 - 11:00 AM: Tabling and networking
10:00 - 10:30 AM: Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"
10:35 -10:50 AM: Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc, United for Peace and Justice
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series - Restoring and Maintaining our Constitutional Rights
Moderated by John Nichols with Rep. Robert Wexler (FL), Rep. Keith Ellison and Victor Navasky, publisher emeritus of The Nation.

AFTERNOON SCHEDULE

12:30 - 1:00 PM Lunch
1:00 - 2:15 PM: PDA Panel--Constitutional Law and Congress: John Nichols moderator; with Rep. Keith Ellison, Steve Cobble, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and PDA Advisory board member; Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator United for Peace and Justice; Jamie Raskin, Maryland State Senator, Law Professor at American University, and author.
2:45 - 3:45: PDA Panel--PDA Onward from Denver, Building the Progressive Movement, Working the Inside/Outside Strategy:
Mimi Kennedy, moderator; Steve Cobble; Tim Carpenter PDA National Director; Laura Bonham, PDA Communications Coordinator; Jodie Evans, CodePink founder and PDA Advisory Board member.
3:45 - 4:00: Housekeeping and Concluding Remarks: Tim Carpenter

An Open Appeal to President Bush: Less than Eight Months to Avoid a Legacy of Infamy

From History of the Present:

News flash: President Bush is surprised at the tone of Scott McClellan's book! What a surprise this is (not!)--

Last August, in my open letter to President Bush on this blog, I appealed to President Bush to come clean with the American people, and to begin to correct the harm he has done. I appealed to him to turn to the truth and dramatically change his policies on war and global warming to do whatever he could to save some shred of a positive legacy for himself and his administration. But true to form he has utterly refused to change course, or to admit the terrible harm his administration has done to this country and the world.

Instead, President Bush has continued to insist on the same old policies and approach, in ways that have confirmed his intention, seemingly, to become the worst President in the history of the United States.

So be it. And now the truth is already, even before the end of his administration, beginning to reveal itself--from sources within the administration now rebelling against the ways they were used to disseminate lies and betray the American people.

Finally the real bottom-line of the Bush administration--which we have long suspected, and have been catching glimpses of from other sources--is beginning to be revealed. A few of those like Scott McClellan, formerly inside the administration, have finally realized they have more to lose by going down in infamy with the Bush administration, than by fessing up to all the ways they allowed themselves to be used to lie to the American people while they played their infamous parts in the administration.

While we cannot forgive McClellan's failure to speak truth to power in a more timely way that would have allowed us to unmask the workings of the administration in time to prevent it from doing some of the harm it has done over the last several years, we can certainly commend him and all like him who realize it is NOW in their interest and the interests of the American people to cut their losses and speak the truth about what they have been part of.

For history will remember, and will convict--even if the law does not--all those who have been willing parts of the conspiracy of silence that allowed this administration to perpetrate its offenses against the constitutional rights of all Americans, while bringing shame and condemnation upon this entire nation in the eyes of the rest of the world.

THE LEAST that all who were part of this administration can now do is to imitate Scott McClellan, and confess what they know about what really happened so that we all can learn the truth about this administration as quickly as possible, and begin to turn to the work of correcting the great harm done to the Constitution, this Nation, and the world, before it is too late.

So we now call on all who have been part of this Administration, to follow the brave example of Scott McClellan, and to come clean on all the ways this administration has manipulated reality through propaganda and worse, to achieve its ends of power--by treating the American people as if we were the enemy that needed to be manipulated into allowing the administration to act out its war on the world.

Since Bush is now making broad comparisons to WWII and the war against Hitler, he should realize that historical references to Hitler work both ways, and require responsibility from him: While he may not have gone as far as Hitler to commit the level of crimes against humanity that led to the Holocaust, yet by coercing the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq, he has been the cause of the deaths of more than 4000 American soldiers, and of tens of thousands of life-disabling injuries, and of the wreckage of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives--and all for what, exactly?!

And so, as this disastrous administration declines into history, I write this second open letter to President Bush, as a last appeal to President Bush to do something NOW to salvage some shard of respect for his historical legacy:

Dear President Bush--

Historical legacy is a tricky thing. While you may have wished to use lies and deception in the name of building up your historical legacy through war, History is not so easily manipulated, and the truth will eventually come out. Just as saving one life is the equivalent of saving a world, you must at some point realize that all the lives you have brought to an unnecessary end are the equivalent of many thousands of worlds destroyed.

Lives wasted, worlds destroyed, and all the while your war has distracted us from deploying our resources to address the real problems that face humanity in the battle to save us all from the ravages of global warming. This will be the destructive legacy of your Presidency, Mr. Bush, which will make the memory of your administration one of infamy to all future generations--unless you do something NOW to alter your fate.

Your only chance now of avoiding this legacy of Infamy, Mr. Bush, is to follow the example of Scott McClellan, and come clean with the American people about what your administration has done, so we can all immediately begin to work together to heal the great harm your administration has done to this country and the world.

If you want to help to repair some portion of the harm you have done, you can still change your ways, and turn to the truth. But you now have less than eight months left to begin to repair some of the harm you have done. How you will be remembered is indeed up to you. Will you choose to continue down your path of infamy, or will you do what is necessary to become part of the healing and work of repair? The choice is up to you.

But one way or another, history will reveal the truth of what your administration has done, whether you wish it to or not. And if we are forced to discover the truth of what you've done without your help, the depth of the infamy with which you are remembered will only deepen as ever more of the truth is revealed--as we are already beginning to see.

You don't have much time left, Mr. Bush, to avoid going down in history as the most infamous of American Presidents. However, if you now turn to the truth, and become honest with the American people about what you've done, you can perhaps avoid this fate. The choice is up to you. I hope you'll make the right choice, and begin to help the American people repair the harm your administration has done. History, and the whole world, is watching, and will judge your legacy--based not only on the truth of what you have done, but also on all that you have not done.

But if you choose to continue along your current path, know that your refusal to admit the truth and to begin to help us all repair the damage of the last eight years, will be the final testament and seal on your legacy of infamy, which in the years to come will be revealed for all the world to see. If this is how you would choose to be remembered, the best we can say is: May God have mercy on your poor soul.

"There's a Pattern Emerging Here": Or, How the Clinton Campaign Betrayed Bill's Honorific Title of "First Black President"

Who really has "a much broader base to build a winning coalition on"?

There is a clear pattern emerging from the Clinton campaign, but it's not the one Hillary Clinton wished to suggest.

Hillary's recent words underline a clear pattern in the way both the Clintons have been using race in this campaign. However poorly worded, Hillary's recent words suggest the fundamental reason the Clintons have betrayed the honorific title of "first black president" once bestowed on Bill Clinton by the great American writer Toni Morrison:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

The African-American community has clearly recognized and understood the implications of this pattern of racialized discourse, and has almost completly renounced and rejected the Clintons as a result. Results from the Indiana and North Carolina primaries this week indicate that over 90% of African-Americans voted against the Clintons.

And since the election of a Democratic President in November depends so heavily on the African-American vote, all superdelegates need to be asking, in spite of Hillary Clinton's claims to the contrary: Who really has "a much broader base to build a winning coalition on"?

Big Media Becoming More Powerful and Stupid at same time: Stop Big Media's Assault on our Democracy!

Even as Big Media is becoming more stupid in the way it frames the discussion of the most important issues for this country's future, such as Race (see previous blog posts), so that it distracts public attention from the real information and policy issues needed for democracy to function, Big Media (with the help of the Bush administration) has been growing ever more consolidated and powerful.

Big Media has thereby developed increasing capacity to control how the discussion of major issues takes place in this country.

Democratic citizens of all persuasions and parties in this country need to unite to oppose this consolidation of big corporate media power that threatens the very foundations of our democracy.

From Credo:

Stop Big Media Consolidation

Tell the Senate to reverse the FCC and prevent the media consolidation that is so damaging to our democracy.

In this very important election year, will a small handful of companies gain even more control over what we see, hear and read every day?

Click here to tell your senators and Majority Leader Reid to reverse the FCC's recent decision to allow greater media consolidation.

Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has launched an effort to reverse the FCC's decision to gut the longstanding "newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership" ban, which prohibits a local newspaper from owning TV and radio stations in the same market. Senator Dorgan has introduced a "resolution of disapproval" in the Senate to veto the FCC's decision; the resolution cleared an important committee vote last week, and is headed for a full Senate vote in upcoming days. Your voice is needed now—under Senate rules, this resolution must pass within 60 legislative days, and the clock is ticking.

We all know that democracy can't exist without an informed public—but media consolidation leads to fewer and less diverse voices in the debate, and less competition in the overall media system. When just a few companies are poised to gain control of the messages we see and hear every day, it poses a threat to the very fabric of our democratic society.

Click here to ask your Senators to support the resolution of disapproval and reverse the FCC's decision.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton, Activism Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

The Patriotism of Stupid White Men?: Lapel-Pin Patriotism vs. Responsible Citizenship

As a person of European-Mediterranean heritage, the insistently shameful stupidity of white media pundits over this past week and weekend in response to the Wright controversy has made me so sick of heart that I've been compelled to write out some basic notes (for my own sanity’s sake, if nothing else) about what distinguishes the true patriotism of democratic citizens from the false patriotism of those whom Michael Moore has so appropriately labeled "stupid white men"—who often happen to be the most privileged and powerful in our society and politics.

(This suggests a new formula for the production of stupidity: whiteness + power = stupidity; and the more power and privilege one has--especially when that power is in the media or politics--the more stupid many seem to get....)

And PLEASE NOTE: since "stupid white man" is a state of being rather than a skin color or gender, you do not need to be either light-skinned or in possession of an xy sex chromosome to fit the category of "stupid white men."

Inspiration for these notes on patriotism: The white media pundits and corporate media structure cannot seem to get enough of asking Obama about his relationship with Rev. Wright. Instead of focusing on the real problems and policy issues confronting this country, they would rather focus on white noise, repeating the same dumb questions over and over again:

Why don't you wear a flag pin, Mr. Obama?

Why would your wife ever suggest she had problems with the way this country has been run, Mr. Obama?

Why did you wait so long to renounce your pastor, Mr. Obama?

Why didn't you hold your hand over your heart that one time when saying the pledge of allegiance, Mr. Obama?

No matter how many times Mr. Obama calmly (and with a straight face I could never maintain if I were faced with such blatantly stupid questions) answers these questions, the white pundits just keep asking them over and over and over again. It's at times like these that anyone who hasn't already recognized how most of the network news shows are dominated by clueless white pundits--who seem oblivious to how ridiculously out of touch and stupid they sound to anyone who is not protected by the insular power of the corporate media hierarchy--must be either comatose or blind.

After all, you would never hear Tavis Smiley asking such stupid questions!!! To the contrary, Tavis Smiley and Bill Moyers (a couple of guys who are not stupid) were the only major media pundits I heard criticize the way this whole controversy was being presented. Over the past month, since the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, Tavis has had some of the most significant thinkers on race and politics in America appear on his show to offer critical commentary that has, without mentioning the Wright controversy, suggested the complete absurdity and vacuity of what goes for political commentary in the dominant white media.

It’s the intensity of the corporate media’s barrage of stupid questions that provides another overwhelming source of evidence--for anyone who still needs more evidence--of the fundamentally racialized power structure supported by our current media set-up.

Yesterday, for example, two major Sunday news magazines hosted by white men continued to devote a large percentage of their time on Obama to the Wright controversy, to the neglect of all the other real issues--including the need for a real conversation about racism in this country--that they could have been exploring with Obama.

Wolf Blitzer, on his two-hour Sunday program on CNN, spent almost 30 minutes on the Wright controversy. In his second segment on Wright--where his producers at least had the good sense to interview three black commentators--even after all three of his guests criticized the stupidity of the way the media has fixated on the Wright controversy, Blitzer kept right on pursuing the same line of questions on Wright, as if he had not comprehended one word of what his three guests has just told him.

I'm not a believer in conspiracies, but when you hear the same stupid questions repeated over and over again by every major media station and pundit, you begin to understand why it does not take a conspiracy theorist to emphasize the need for some kind of structural explanation of why so much of the media seems to be following the same stupid script.

And for Obama's "exclusive" Sunday interview appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert spent almost twenty of his 45 minutes of show time discussing the Wright controversy with Obama, asking the same questions we had heard twenty times over during the previous week. Obama stoically answered every question with more patience than many saints could summon, and this alone should serve as a major qualification for his presidential candidacy--since such patience and reserve will serve him well in negotiating with the toughest foreign and domestic dictators and bullies.

All of this media bullying by stupid white men compelled me to ask the patriotism question in a new way:

What distinguishes the patriotism of stupid white men from the patriotism of real democratic citizens who value the future of our beloved country?

Here are some basic answers I’ve casually noted (and I would encourage everyone to come up with a similar list, so we can all provide the corporate media and politicians some desperately needed aid in discriminating real patriotism from the easy patriotism of stupid white men throughout the remaining months of this political campaign season, and beyond--since whoever gets elected will need the strong support of real citizens to make sure our government begins to enforce policies that strengthen rather than weaken democracy. The last eight years of rule by faux patriots of both parties has terribly weakened our democracy, and four more years of such lapel-pin patriotism may do it in for good):

1) Real patriotism understands the fundamental value of criticism and critical thought, for the preservation of democratic government and policies, since without criticism of prevailing policies, we would never have seen the Revolution against the British that founded this country; we would still have slavery; and we would never have gained the semblance of democracy that we have today-- we would have fallen into dictatorship eras ago.

Faux patriotism insists that criticism is unpatriotic; thus Michelle Obama is considered unpatriotic by stupid white men because she clearly has the ability to think critically about the previous history of this country, and even dared to voice a critical opinion in public.

2) Faux patriotism believes the most important sign of patriotism is to wear an easily recognizable symbol of patriotism on one's sleeve or lapel or car--and therefore the easiest way to identify the unpatriotic is to simply note whether or not a person is conspicuously sporting a symbol like a flag, a red-white-and blue ribbon, or an "In God We Trust" license plate, etc.

Indeed, this is why the Nazis insisted that every good German sport a swastika--since this made it easy to distinguish those with loyalty to the Fuhrer from those bold or stupid enough to suggest they lacked this kind of patriotism. The easier patriotism is to sum up in a symbol, the easier it is for demagogues and tyrants to manipulate patriotism in ways that destroy democracy.

Real patriotism values the substance of how one puts into practice one's love of country and democratic citizenship, rather than the symbols one wears on one's sleeve. Real patriotism cannot be worn on one's sleeve, or demonstrated by pinning a flag to one's lapel pin. Of course, those who would prefer to rely on symbols over substance would love to make wearing a lapel pin the substance of patriotism, since this would allow them to cover up a host of actions that betray the opposite truth. And wouldn’t patriotism be oh so much easier if all it required were a shiny flag pinned obediently to the lapel every day? Then one could just ignore the difficulties of having to actually put into practice the values of democratic citizenship.

3) Faux patriotism believes it is entirely proper to mix religion and politics, in spite of some troublesome principles contained in the U.S. constitution, which attempts to draw a wall of separation between religion and politics precisely because of a long bloody history of tyrannical manipulation of religion and political power, which the founders of this country had the wisdom to reject.

But never mind the wisdom of the founders! On this issue faux patriots of the twenty-first century believe they are much wiser than the founders. These patriots seem to believe we should return to some of the grand old practices of yesteryear: If you’re going to run for political office these days, you’d better be ready to submit to religious truth tests. Not only must you be ready to submit to probes of your own religious beliefs and associations, but now you should also prepare to be held responsible for the words and beliefs of your pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams. Perhaps the next step in this progress toward religious tests will be to begin requiring the FBI to conduct background checks on every member of one’s religious congregation… (or, excuse me, are we already doing this?)

Real patriotism understands the reasons current trends toward bringing religious tests back into politics are fundamentally threatening to the future of democracy, especially when these religious tests are combined with all the other trends that indicate we are losing hold of fundamental principles of democratic liberty (such as freedom from surveillance in private spaces--What’s wrong, after all, with abolishing privacy altogether?! Now that the Soviet Union and communism are dead, why should we worry about abolishing privacy or creating a gulag system, since surely our own system of government could never fall into forms of tyranny similar to those of the Soviet system! After all, we’re all good red-blooded Americans, and we would never let that happen! Historical note: The Germans continued to believe that something like National Socialism could never take over their country, even as that very takeover was occurring in the 1930s.)

So, in sum, if you believe that patriotism can be reduced to pinning a flag to your lapel, denying the validity of any criticism of past or present problems in our country, and insisting on your right to interrogate the religious background of your political representatives, along with the beliefs of their religious leaders (and while you’re at it, of any other associations with suspect persons they might know)—you win the right to sport the stupid white man patriotism label to your heart’s content. Wear it with pride!

As for the rest of us, well, we’ll just have to settle for the harder and less conspicuous work of creating a more democratic and just Republic—the signs of which we cannot wear on our lapels or sleeves. As for me and my kin, may this latter kind of patriotism, along with great suspicion of all flag-pin wearers, flourish!

The White Republic's Bitter Pill

From Urgency of Now: Turning Point Blog--

“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”

These words were written, not by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008, but by one of the most eloquent and famous American writers of the mid-twentieth century: James Baldwin (in his 1955 collection of essays titled Notes of a Native Son). After witnessing the frenzy with which the corporate media complex manufactured a major controversy out of a few poorly-chosen words by Obama during a private fund-raiser, we're now being forced to witness the explosion of the second phase of the manufacture of the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

We've seen how the corporate media has been struggling to structure this story in ways that set Obama and Wright against each other, so that our racialized Republic’s spectator-consumers can once again be entertained by the tragic spectacle of two black men fighting against each other. As Baldwin noted in the 1950s, “One of the things that distinguishes Americans from other people is that no other people has ever been so deeply involved in the lives of black men.” Baldwin’s words are being proven all too prophetically true once again.

But the American people, not the corporate media complex, are ultimately in charge of determining how this controversy plays itself out in the current presidential campaign. There is a clear alternative path to the one the media complex is trying to lead the American people down by manufacturing a racialized spectacle that positions Obama and Wright as combatants in a mutually destructive slug fest.

To follow this alternative path, Obama and Wright can refuse and denounce this racialized set-up by the media. But more importantly, all the rest of us--who value our democratic citizenship and don't wish to have our political future dictated by the corporate media--can reject and denounce the racist spectacle that is being manufactured for our consumption and corporate profit.

As citizens rather than mere consumers, we have the power to choose a different path by refusing to participate in the production and consumption of such a racialized spectacle. And we need to be urgently asking--with Baldwin's words in mind--whether the U.S. media is not now in the process of turning itself and its public (once again) into monsters.

Citizens of this country are being invited to participate in the production of a slug fest between two black men. Instead of cooperating with this manufactured and racist media spectacle, there is another option for all citizens who care about the future of this democratic Republic: REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE in the creation of this spectacle, and direct criticism at the structural sources of power in society and the media that are working to produce this racialized spectacle.

Jeremiah Wright is part of a long tradition of critique of the injustice of specific American policies, dating back to the time of slavery. From the long biblical tradition originating with the Jewish prophets who understood the bitterness of oppression, to the ringing cries against the bitterness of slavery that founded the American tradition of social protest and provided foundation to the great twentieth-century American civil rights movement, an understanding of the "bitter" fruits of injustice and suffering has had deep roots in American culture.

Yet our national media pundits and certain politicians, seemingly "innocent" of this history, have suggested that Obama must be terribly "out of touch" with reality. Because Obama dared to state bluntly that many Americans are "bitter" about the current state of our economy and country mired in an unnecessary war draining the resources needed to address much more important issues.

Just as media pundits focused on Obama's clumsy choice-of-words while ignoring the primary emphasis of his statement in San Francisco, they also seem to ignore a fundamental message of Obama's campaign--which is rooted in the historical power of previous successful efforts at responding to the sufferings of the American people.

Faced with a government insensitive to the needs of the majority of this country's people--not to mention the billions of people of the rest of the world who will be most impacted by the effects of global climate change--and unwilling to play its proper role in altering the way we do business in the world, the very roots of the American Republic are turning bitter.

James Baldwin frequently used the word "bitter" in his essays. In doing so, he was reflecting a long tradition of American commentary that had already made "bitter" a fundamental adjective for describing the fruits of this country's unjust and racialized structures of power and privilege. In 1955 Baldwin had begun to understand both the bitterness and passion that fueled the creative drive of the civil rights revolution in the 1950s and 1960s.

But bitterness in response to injustice was certainly not a new phenomenon in the 1950s. Nor is it now. And it should therefore not be surprising that a major political candidate IN TOUCH with the suffering of the majority of the American public, should NOW use specifically this word to describe the current state of many Americans. What IS surprising is that major media outlets and punditry appear so ignorant and "innocent" of this bitterness in 2008.

This pretended "innocence" continues to reveal just how deeply rooted are the racialized structures of power in our dominant corporate media. And what remains unexamined is how profitable the production of such racialized spectacles remains in our unreconstructed Republic. If there is any justice in the universe, one positive outcome of this 2008 campaign season will be a significant breakthrough in understanding that brings the public to the kind of turning point that caused it to reject overt forms of segregation in the 1950s. But to bring about such a change in 2008, all citizens of this Republic need to utterly reject the racialized spectacle in which the corporate media complex would like to embroil us in the name of profit.

Since this media complex is driven by profit, one clear way for the American public to reject this racialized spectacle, along with all those who stand to profit from its production, is to withdraw financial support from any media sources that seek to propagate this spectacle.

If the American public clearly rejects this racialized spectacle, and turns its criticism against the structures of media power that seek to profit from the manufacture of this kind of spectacle, perhaps this Republic will yet be able to build the foundation for a better future of opportunity for all its citizens--free of the kinds of racialized inequity that will otherwise continue to reproduce inequality and injustice.

The willingness of certain political currents to label Obama "elitist" because he dared to name the disease embittering the soul of this country--along with the new attempt of the media to manufacture a black-on-black slug fest between Obama and Wright--offers the American public the opportunity for a fundamental turning in this election. Which direction the majority of the American public chooses to allow itself to be taken will determine not only the outcome of this election, but the character of the American Republic for decades to come.

After we were forced to witness the ridiculous facade of the staged ABC "debate" on April 16, we can only hope a majority of the American public will note how desperately the corporate media are attempting to distract us from our interest in discussing real issues during this campaign. If the American public allows its corporate media to continue to lead it by the nose along this absurd path of distraction, our Republic will betray its own best hope for transcending much of what has plagued its previous history.

We can only hope that enough of our fellow citizens will have the wisdom to see through this racialized spectacle being offered up to the white Republic for its titillation. And we can work to ensure that our Republic turns the tables on the media by rejecting and denouncing this spectacle in ways that demand greater accountability from our media corporations.

And wouldn't it be nice if our collective rejection of this media-produced spectacle would help to draw the entire country back to what should be the central concerns of this campaign year--regarding the future of this country and all of its people:

How will our newly chosen President work together with, and inspire, the American people to rise to the challenge of successfully tackling the major problems of global climate change, the energy crisis, increasing poverty and war that otherwise threaten to draw the entire country and world into a century of chaos?

The character of our new President will be determined by the character of our own collective action in the months ahead. And where our new President takes us will determine the conditions, for better or worse, in which we will live out our shared future.

Attacks on Obama as "Elitist" Replay Old Script that Seeks to Silence the "Uppity Black Man":

Lessons for Response from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (April 16, 1963)

“I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail")

The now raging debate over the decontextualized posting of Obama's words regarding the "bitterness" of American voters who have seen their jobs, their sources of livelihood, and their way of life continually chipped away over the last decade of Republican rule is amazing on several counts.

This media frenzy over a snippet of decontextualized words is amazing for the way it demonstrates how the politics of this campaign--even as the pundits claim they would like to begin a national "conversation about race"--can be so easily manipulated and framed by the worst kinds of media misrepresentation and pandering (by some unethical bloggers, followed by most of the media) to time-worn racialized cliches that would attempt to put the "uppity black man" back in his place for daring to critique the status quo of power and economic relations in this country.

This debate over a few decontextualized words is also amazing for the way it has helped to distract media coverage of the campaign away from the kind of substantive critique of Republican policies and their impacts on everyday people that is at the heart of Obama's campaign. This criticism of Republican policies and their bitter impact on the lives of everyday Americans was the basic context of the Obama conversation, which has now been completely silenced by the media distraction created by the unethical posting of a blogger who, without the knowledge of Obama, recorded and posted Obama’s conversation. And this blogger defends her right to do this by claiming she is a citizen-journalist, as if this label somehow frees her from the common decency and ethics that govern the behavior of other professional journalists.

This whole incident seems to have been perfectly designed to distract public debate and attention from precisely the criticisms of Republican policy that have been making the lives of many Americans so bitter over the last years. Obama has been focusing attention on the need to attack the sources of bitter impoverishment and injustice that many Americans in cities and small towns and rural areas across the country are suffering as a result of the policies of several decades that have neglected the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans in favor of the interests of the millionaires of the country!

And now, behold, we have a media spectacle that seems to have been created to suggest exactly the opposite: that Obama is an elitist who has no concern for, or understanding of, the things that have been causing Americans to suffer over the last decade. Thus does the manufactured spectacle of media coverage attempt to convert the one Presidential candidate with a background as community organizer and advocate for everyday people into an elitist. And who, we may ask, are the ones who are most likely to benefit from such distortions of the truth?

In order to deflate such manufactured distortions of reality, it would be nice if bloggers and the media would take up the challenge of serving their proper critical function in a democracy, by drawing the attention of the public back to what is really at stake in the current political campaign and this new incident of distortion. One excellent way of doing this would be to recall the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in response to similar attempts to silence and distort his message of change. King refused to be silent when he was criticized for daring to challenge the negative aspects of American reality that kept all Americans from realizing the Dream of American possibility. And King was called not simply an elitist, but an “extremist,” for advocating his message of change.

In 1963, when Dr. King was confronted by an organized group of mostly white church leaders who questioned the validity and wisdom of his nonviolent tactics for confronting racial segregation head-on in Birmingham, Alabama, King responded with his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (April 16, 1963). As we approach the 45th anniversary of this inspiring letter, we should note how it continues to ring with words and ideas prophetically relevant to any true attempt to begin a "national conversation on race."

Dr. King's Birmingham letter also reminds us how representatives of the status quo naturally seek to disguise their attempts to silence challenges to their power by representing themselves as defenders of tradition and “the people” against unwise, elitist and even extremist “outsiders” who would dare to criticize the present order of things.

King provided a clear and direct response to those who suggested that leaders of the civil rights movement were unpatriotic because they criticized the current structures of power and poverty in the country. King’s response provides a telling lesson for all who would today try to label Obama an “elitist” because he dares to suggest that the current structures of economic policy, power, and privilege are bringing bitterness to the lives of many Americans across the country (not just in Pennsylvania and Indiana).

Is it any surprise that Obama should be attacked by millionaires as an elitist at the very moment when it is becoming clear that his critical message of change is connecting with a majority of Americans?! Is it any surprise that Obama should be attacked as an elitist when it has become clear that his campaign consistently refuses to say that hard-working Americans should be asked to “wait” any longer to have their concerns and interests addressed?!

If the media really wants to contribute light rather than distracting heat to debates over what truly differentiates the presidential candidates, we challenge the media and other bloggers to draw attention to the exemplary power and lessons of King’s words for this year’s campaign. We challenge the media to use King’s words to draw attention to the real substance of what is at stake in the current election: Which candidate will be successful at redefining the character of this country? Which candidate will provide the kind of inspiration that will allow us to lead this country to a democratic future of well-being for all people?

King begins his letter by noting that his approach to change was being criticized by white church leaders as “unwise and untimely,” while he was also being painted as an “outsider coming in.” Critiques of King suggested he was not simply an “outsider,” but a very educated, well-spoken, and eloquent “outsider”—and attacked him as, in essence, a black “elitist” coming into a city like Birmingham to challenge and change the unjust structures of white power. Instead of responding directly to King’s challenge, white church leaders tried to change the subject by accusing King of being an unwise outsider who had no business involving himself in efforts to change the status quo.

This was the basic strategy of attacks directed at the entire civil rights movement throughout its insurgent history. And this remains the distracting strategy of many in power who wish to retain it by resisting change, as King noted: “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.”

In writing these words, King no doubt had in his mind the words of another deeply eloquent black civil rights and antislavery leader from the nineteenth century: In 1857, before the bloody Civil War finally abolished slavery and won a partial victory for African-American civil rights, Frederick Douglass spoke words that remain as true today as they have ever been (and I’m sure Douglass was also called an elitist for daring to criticize the system of slavery and the structures of national power that supported it):

“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. . . . If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

In the great and eloquent tradition of Douglass and the long African-American struggle for civil rights that came after him (and made King’s struggle possible), King’s response to those who would have silenced him embodied the greatness of this critical tradition of struggle, while also referencing some of the greatest wisdom from the mid-twentieth century. Without any access to books, he filled his letter from jail with references not only to the Bible and the prophets and civil rights leaders of the past, but to some of the greatest theologians and thinkers of his own era, including Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and the poet T.S. Eliot--

And King’s response to the basic claim that he was an outsider who had no business interfering with the way of things in Birmingham was cuttingly direct in order to slice through the obfuscation of attempts to divert attention from the central issue of INJUSTICE—

“I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. . . . Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

Certainly this passage from King is more relevant to understanding what is truly at stake in attempts to paint Obama as an “elitist” today: Building on prior attempts to paint Obama as an outsider with foreign roots, a strange name, and to suggest he has an “extremist” background (through tactics of excerpting decontextualized snippets of speeches from his pastor), the Clinton campaign (and then the McCain campaign, which has been delighted to follow the Clinton lead on these attacks) has avoided any mention of its privileged background (the Clintons were both educated at elite ivy league schools, and have millionaire incomes) in order to try to paint Obama as an elitist!

Instead of blindly reiterating whatever the Clinton and McCain campaigns might like to say about Obama, is it too much to hope that the media could be a bit more creative and actually develop its own critical perspective on what is happening with this manufactured and staged debate? And perhaps both the media and the Obama campaign could learn some important lessons from looking carefully at the way King responded to attempts to silence him:

1) Instead of allowing those who accused him of being unpatriotic or “extremist” to deflect him from offering direct criticisms of his country’s unjust policies, King transformed attempts to silence him into opportunities to further his critical message:

“I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

2) To calls for him and the civil rights movement to wait or slow down its push for change, King replied: “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ …This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’ We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights.”

3) And to the charge that Obama should silence any references to the “bitterness” of the experience of poverty and deprivation caused in this country by the unwise and unjust policies of the past, perhaps we can all learn something especially important from the way King responded--

Instead of turning away from such criticisms, King emphasized how the bitter experience of his “brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society,” along with the sense that “you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’," made it impossible for the civil rights movement to wait any longer. “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.” Instead of cooling his criticisms in response to such attacks upon him, King used his Birmingham letter to insist on the movement’s “legitimate and unavoidable impatience,” and the justice of its calls for immediate change:

In emphasizing the immediate necessity of the movement for change, King was not addressing this letter to the racists of the Ku Klux Klan or the White Citizen’s Council, but to the “white moderates” who by their inaction in the face of injustice showed that they were “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.” King argued that moderate whites who preferred “a negative peace [in] the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” had become a “great stumbling block” to the struggle for freedom.

King criticized moderates for believing that they could “paternalistically . . . set the timetable for another man's freedom,” and for living “by a mythical concept of time” that fundamentally misrepresented the relationship between social struggle and social change. This passage from King’s 1963 letter is worth quoting in its entirety because of its direct relevance to the campaign debates of 2008:

“I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: ‘All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.’ Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

“We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.”

4) And to the accusation that he, Rev. King, was an extremist, he replied:

“Though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’ Was not [the prophet] Amos an extremist for justice: ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.’ …So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? …Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

“I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.”

This was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1963! So if you want to attack Rev. Wright for being extremist for his criticisms of the unjust policies of the United States, you will have to attack Reverend King as well! And we must ask of all Americans, “Do you hear your own prophets, O America?! Do you understand the words of your own Declaration of Independence?!

And lest the media think that opening up a “conversation about race” can be an easy thing accomplished in a 90-minute episode of MSNBC, we should pay attention again to the words from Dr. King’s 1963 letter:

“Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

In 1963 King excoriated the lack of courage of the majority of the religious status quo, for failing to actively support the freedom and anti-poverty struggles:

“When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church… Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

“In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. …. [But instead] So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.”

But King did not end his letter from the Birmingham Jail on a note of despair. He always tried to frame his critiques within his greater message of creative challenge and critical hope. And this hope was not an unfounded hope because it was based in the history and example of the entire tradition of African-American struggle, perseverance, and victory in the face of the cruelest adversity:

“One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

May we all hope that in 2008, as this campaign progresses toward the November election, that the media will help the candidates and all of us to focus ever more directly on the real issues facing this country and the world: the threats of global warming and the savage inequalities caused by the persistent structures of poverty and war, and the dire need for change in policies that continue to reproduce structures of power so detrimental to the well-being of all humanity.

And may we hope that the media will live up to the democratic challenge of holding themselves and our candidates accountable for addressing these real issues in the campaign? Or should we give up hope and expect that the media will only continue to provide aid and comfort to the structures of power that prefer to manufacture superficial controversies in order to distract us from confronting the real issues of power that will determine the future of us all?

Dick Cheney Once Understood that an Iraq Occupation would be a "Quagmire"

THE WAR AT HOME: WHAT THE IRAQ WAR HAS COST MICHIGAN AND THE COUNTRY

MoveOn.org "Cost of War Report" Released Today

NEARLY A HALF-TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT ON AN UNWINNABLE CIVIL WAR COULD HAVE IMPROVED THE COMMUNITIES OF OUR 15TH DISTRICT IN MANY WAYS. READ THIS REPORT, SPONSORED BY MOVEON.ORG, FOR A SUMMARY OF THE EXPENSES OF THE WAR FOR OUR DISTRICT, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND THE NATION.

All of the MoveOn State Congressional District Reports being released today may be found here.

THE WAR AT HOME: WHAT THE IRAQ WAR HAS COST MICHIGAN'S 15TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Each and every day, it is becoming more evident that the Bush Administration is wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars on an endless, religious civil war that cannot be won.

On average, $275 million is spent every day on the war in Iraq—that is an average of $4,100 for every household in the United States over the course of the war. And those costs are continuing to rise with no end in sight.

Last month, Congress voted for an additional $100 billion in spending. That makes the total funding appropriated for the war in Iraq so far $456 billion. The cost to Michigan taxpayers alone is $12.12 billion. And taxpayers in the 15th congressional district alone are paying $872 million for the Iraq war. The money being spent in Iraq could be used to improve the lives of Americans instead of putting them at risk. Congress must act quickly to rein in this reckless president and bring an end to this war.

With the costs of the war expected to ultimately double, taxpayers in Michigan cannot afford another $872 million to keep our troops stuck in an unwinnable civil war in Iraq—especially when our communities are paying such a heavy price.

Impact on The Community
· The cost to Michigan taxpayers alone is $12.12 billion.
· Taxpayers in the 15th congressional district are paying $872 million for the Iraq war.

Trade Offs for Michigan's 15th District

Currently, 47 million Americans lack health insurance, Head Start is underfunded, college tuition is skyrocketing, our homeland is not secure with only one out of every 20 port containers getting inspected and our bridges and roads are aging. The $872 million being spent on the unwinnable civil war in Iraq should be put to better use for American taxpayers where we need it most—in our own backyard, fixing our aging bridges and roads or improving the lives of our residents.

What Citizens of Michigan's 15th District Could Have Gotten Instead:

· Health care coverage for 299,733 people—or 596,091 kids, or
· Head Start for 130,745 additional kids, or
· 12,163 new elementary school teachers, or
· 94,662 scholarships to make college more affordable, or
· Renewable electricity for 1,225,718 homes, or
· 7,030 affordable housing units, or
· 18,857 public safety officers to keep the streets safe

Promises Broken

President Bush Told Us the War Would Cost $50 billion...
In late 2002, President Bush's Budget Director estimated that the cost of the war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. When Bush's chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, publicly estimated that the war in Iraq might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was fired. [New York Times, 12/31/02; Time Magazine, 12/23/02]
·
Nine Times That Amount Has Already Been Spent...
With Congress' recent vote for an additional $100 billion in war spending, Congress has so far appropriated more than $450 billion for the war in Iraq. [National Priorities Project, 8/07]
·
Ultimately, the War In Iraq May Cost Twenty Times What We Were Told...
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the war in Iraq could ultimately cost twice as much as what has already been spent—more than $1 trillion. [Boston Globe, 8/1/07]
·
Failed Policies
Despite High Costs and Lost Lives, We Remain in an Unwinnable Religious Civil War...
According to the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, "... the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict...." [Baltimore Sun, 2/3/07]
·
A quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. The report concluded, "Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a civil war,' including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence and population displacements." [Sun Sentinel, 3/15/07]
·
Colin Powell, Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joints Chiefs said of the Iraq war: "It is a civil war." [Meet the Press, 6/10/07]
·
· NBC News has branded the Iraq conflict a civil war. [Reuters, 11/27/06]

The Cost of War Has Been Dramatically Increasing and Hurting Communities...
Annual costs have risen every year since the war began. Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations for the Iraq War are almost twice as much as what they were three years ago in FY2004 and 2.5 times more than the costs in FY2003. [Congressional Research Service, 3/14/07]
·
The Iraq war has diverted U.S. government funding away from homeland security efforts (an estimated 9 percent of our FY2007 national security budget) and toward the war in Iraq (21 percent of the FY2007 budget). [Center for American Progress, 7/27/07]
·
The War in Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe At Home...
In July, the National Intelligence Estimate reported that al Qaeda will try to tap its allies and resources in Iraq in its efforts to exact another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The report concluded: "We assess that its association with [al Qaeda in Iraq] helps al Qaeda to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks." [CNN, 7/17/07]
·
A National Intelligence Estimate report released last September found that the war in Iraq has become a "cause célèbre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better. The report concluded: "If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."[Associated Press, 9/26/06]

Former Military Generals Believe War is a Failure...
Retired Major General John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq from August 2002 to June 2005, called the war a "failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps." [Associated Press, 5/25/07]
·
Retired Lieutenant General William Odom on the Iraq War: "The worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." [Pasadena Star News, 10/22/06]
·
Retired four-star Marine General Joseph Hoar, the former head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) which includes the Iraq theater of operations, urged a full pull-out of U.S. forces from Iraq. Hoar: "In the Marines, we say, 'When you're in a hole, stop digging.'" [UPI, 1/19/07]
·
The War's Cost in Each Michigan District:

1st $607 million
2nd $759 million
3rd $818 million
4th $695 million
5th $706 million
6th $729 million
7th $804 million
8th $935 million
9th $1.16 billion
10th $938 million
11th $1.05 billion
12th $833 million
13th $555 million
14th $642 million
15th $872 million
Total $12.12 billion

Data Sources for this Report

Unless otherwise indicated, the figures provided for the cost of the war for each district and specific tradeoffs are all from the National Priorities Project, available on the web here. The cost of war is based on an analysis of the legislation in which Congress has allocated money for war so far and research by the Congressional Research Service which has access to Department of Defense financial reports. The trade-offs are based on average cost per unit information for each state. More detailed information on the sources and the calculations of the averages can be obtained here.

If you wish to join efforts to bring the troops and the money back home where they belong, consider attending one of the local vigils to end the war being organized around the country for August 28. Information on the Ann Arbor event may be found here.

Even Cheney Knew the Truth about an Iraq Occupation in 1994: What Happened to the Truth When He Became VP?

What caused Dick Cheney to become such a denier and suppressor of the Truth about an Iraq Occupation and the costs it would inflict on American soldiers and families when he became VP?

Does Becoming a VP tranform you into a liar?

Watch Cheney declare the Truth about an Iraq Occupation in this clip posted on UTube from 1994, at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

(If this UTube clip is not working when you try, come back to it later--it may be getting crashed right now because MOVEON.org just sent out information about it--the link may not be able to handle all the traffic. While you're waiting, you can check out the other clips below).

On how we got into this mess in Iraq, see also this video clip Preview from the Sundance Film Festival winner, "No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq--the Inside Story from the Ultimate Insiders"--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGPp-WhgEXE

For PBS NOW's coverage of the film, see (2 parts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jk4kJG1Sg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XlEoiqX2U