How Some Good Can Still Come Of It
9/11, that is.
So far that is decidedly not the case. As others have pointed out, (especially in the most excellent Stirling Newberry’s “Birthday for the Banana Republicans” post and thread), in addition to the tragedy of lives directly lost and the repercussions from that, there is the rocket boost that 9/11 gave to the neocon agenda.
Still, as hard as it may be to see now, or even imagine, it’s conceivable to me that somewhere down the road we will look back at this period as the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism. It’s possible that we are already involved in forming the collective awareness necessary to become members of a community of nations that truly aligns our national identity and democratic goals with the emergent multi-polar world economy.
Other nations have adjusted to the loss of empire. We can too.
It won’t be easy—we can already see that. Even before 9/11, like post WWI Germans, many were deep into regret and reaction over having “lost” Viet Nam. And Republicans had also figured out by the mid-seventies that white males, and many women too, could be mobilized by appeals to the vague and not so vague sense of dislocation and lost privilege that came with the success of the civil rights and women’s equality movements. That’s how we got Ronald Reagan.
Mostly on the strength of his personality—well that and the whole Sister Soljah thing--Bill Clinton brought an interlude of calm. Of course the prosperity delivered by the explosion of information age technology, low prices made possible by cheap global labor, cheap oil and the relentless expansion of personal debt helped too. But it didn’t help enough to prevent the neocons from turning their defeat at the polls in 2000 into capturing the White House anyway.
Then Osama came along to help the neocons hold on to the White House and every other branch of the national government. Maybe that will change some this November. Maybe not.
Either way, our politics will remain way out of alignment with global reality. Whatever happens in the mid-term elections, the misalignment is beyond fixing just by the return of “balanced” government where one party doesn’t control all the branches of the federal government. I’m sorry Sydney Blumenthal, but George Bush is more the symptom than the cause of the problem. There are many reasons for that, but one is that so much power has shifted from government and people's organizations like unions to corporations.
The neocons are not pure ideologues detached from the economic powers that be, they are an expression of that power. As much as some may want to believe otherwise, either in the DLC or the Wellstone wing of the Democratic Party, corporations do control both major political parties. That is going to have to be dealt with for social progress to resume.
Does that mean corporations must be “abolished”? Not necessarily. But for sure the forces that were able to moderate and restrain their worst behaviors during the 20th century are now lost and must be reconstituted in some fashion. That will require an international/multi-national effort, if only because global reach is essential to the power than corporations now possess.
To come at it another way, just as good Germans couldn’t “fix” German fascism all by themselves, good citizens of the US can’t fix the soft fascism of the Christian Taliban/neocon/multi-national corporate alliance all by ourselves either. Another example: it took intervention from the North to end both chattel slavery in the 19th century and de jure segregation in the 20th century in the South. (In the 21st century , of course, de facto segregation remains dominant in the North and the South.)
So, let’s not mourn. Let’s organize. September 12, 2006 is a fine day to be thinking about new, trans-national organizations that mobilize the power of the people.
A better world is possible. A better world is necessary. A better world is already happening.
I could not agree more. Other nations must stand up and detach from USA in its present guise and show an alternative path -- climate change action, international criminal court, effective anti-terror policing, refusal to participate in wars of aggression, etc. Hopefully this can be done without off-puttingly hostile anti-Americanism so that Americans will not hide in isolationism or aggression, but simply resolve to be a part of an emerging world as it is.
global citizen
September 12, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean corporations must be “abolished”?
I don't think anyone would say corporations need to be abolished...but they shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to buy our politicians.
I agree on another point...Bush isn't the cause he is a symptom. But even while Bush isn't the cause he and his neocon administration are BY FAR the worst offenders and are laying the groundwork for exponentially more damage to occur. It will result in the people losing what little control we have over public servants who are supposed to be serving us...but they are definitely good whores who make great money serving their corporate pimps.
September 12, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happens in the mid-term elections, the misalignment is beyond fixing just by the return of “balanced” government where one party doesn’t control all the branches of the federal government.
Balanced government should include the integration of political and economic institutions, where the objective of economic growth is aligned with the objectives of social justice and equity.
It is scary how this nation has bought into the neo-classical economic theory that relies on self-interested individuals making perfect choices to achieve equilibrium. Not included in the political embrace of that theory is that "all things must be equal" for the theory to translate into real world success.
That all things are not equal was shown in living color in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Republican notion that "a rising tide lifts all boats" can only be true if everyone has a boat in the first place.
Likewise, the concept that free markets promote freedom does not translate into the real world, either. Unregulated free markets promote private interests and translates into private jets and stock options. Freedom is not part of the outcome.
Why is it assumed that any political interference in free markets will result in inefficiency and monetary losses for everyone while interference in political institutions by economic actors will somehow achieve maximum welfare and equality for all interests?
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003
September 12, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let’s organize....to be thinking about new, trans-national organizations that mobilize the power of the people.
Transformations of human thought processes...whoa, I'm getting a headache when I think about how voters have voted since 2001.
A renaissance deja vu...just when these Christians and neocons want to stuff our Constitution their way.
What would be the stimulus for such an action? Especially when you consider the number of egocentric Neanderthals...who can't even evaluate illogical juxtaposed speech.
Let me take a rain check here...but generally, people's self interest must be invoked before they follow...I appreciate your comments, but I ponder what the catalyst(s) might be to stimulate their interest. Fear stimuli is the most common catalysts, which neocons have used greatly...but intellectually, when dealing with abstract concepts, people do not always grasp the relevance...and most are consumed with activities of daily living, with TV time, which limits their focus and total awareness.
September 12, 2006 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change does happen. There are unions, the Montogmery Bus boycott did take place, apartheid in South Africa ended, women got the right to vote...the list goes on. Seeds must be planted, ideas discussed, organizations created. Things take time but they have to start somewhere. Enormous preperation preceeded the Montgomery bus boycott. Some early efforts to get it going didn't work. But then, but then, the time was right. Much of what is happening now in the US, especially, is the "counter-revolution" to past gains, but still, "the arc of history bends toward justice."
September 13, 2006 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
On this point I absolutely agree:
Gosh! I hate to be so cliche driven here.... FOLLOW THE DOLLAR!
As long as there are unknowing suckers and blind sheep allowing themselves to be a small-cog in the larger wheel, to be led to the lending desk at the local banks and lending institutions, no 'power of individual' can ever be realized.
Without an expressed idea and thoughtful plan for an individual's reason(s) to (only) 'borrow to grow' their personal financial independence, it will invariably lead to "Individual Debt" that is in a form, slavery!
~OGD~
ps: In 1971 I was a not so naive 25 years old, going on 50 due to the ongoing firefight of that era . . .
Note: the above quote is an excerpt from: No, the Iran Oil Bourse is not a casus belli… by F. William Engdahl / also author of: ‘Calculating the Risk of War in Iran’
September 13, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're on the same page but here's a wee quibble.
We tend to take for granted that economic growth is a good in itself, ignoring what it can do (and demonstrably has done in our society). We have allowed it self-governance to the extent that it has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots creating a less widely prosperous and free country.
That's why I'd restate your premise. I'd like to see economic growth have as its primary objective its commitment to serve social justice and equity. That's no more onerous for corporations than, say, a student having to do volunteer work as part of the requirement for graduation or a recipient of public funds having to find some sort of job. Remarkably, during the past twenty years, shareholders themselves have exerted more and more pressure on corporations to "serve social justice and equity"...
September 14, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although you couldn't tell it from the recent Drudge invasion here, even some Republicans are bowing out of the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton vision. See the recent Washington Monthly piece by Christopher Buckley, excerpted below:
full piece at:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.buckley.html
September 14, 2006 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see economic growth have as its primary objective its commitment to serve social justice and equity.
Thank you! I agree. I was trying not to be the wild-eyed kook on the block denouncing free markets (which I'm not doing).
What got me going on the subject is the social policy project going on within the World Bank. (The WB is having computer problems, so the link isn't working right now.)
The key concept:
As you can see, social and economic policy are still resident in their own spheres even as they complement each other. For the WB, this is a miracle and I'm not unappreciative, but if policies are being made by the different "experts" from each sphere, they will still not be real-world based.
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003
September 14, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink