Friday, May 27, 2016
1960s Redux?
The current movements on college campuses that focus on racism, sexism, and the lack of diversity in faculty and in programs is somewhat reminiscent of the early 1960s when students who were opposed to the U.S. war in Vietnam started to ask questions about their education and about the operation and control of colleges and universities. The response of college administrators at the time was to try to bring students into the conversation and to get them involved in solving the many problems that they were protesting. At the time, these actions by college administrators would be described as a form of "repressive tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse, a political philosopher. The idea was troubling, because it required thinking about something that was positive--"tolerance"--as a new form of control. Current student activism is limited because it lacks the strong national support of an anti-war movement or a civil rights movement, and it is unclear as to whether the current movement has any 'legs." We do not see any continuation of the current social movement until there appears on the scene a modern-day Mario Savio who will call upon students "to put their bodies on the gears of the machine."
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Democracy for Dummies: America's Secret Plan for World Domination
This is a proposal that was written in the year 2000 for a book about American society. Three chapters were written at the time: Chapter One, "Epiphany in the Oval Office"; Chapter Two, "Perpetual Elections"; and Chapter Five, "Location, Location, Location: The Case for Globalization." The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was the reason that the book project ended. I felt that world events had overtaken the plan to combine political satire with a critical analysis of American Society. I believe that it is now time to present the plan for the book as written in the year 2000. Additional blogs will be added for the three chapters that I wrote in the year 2000.
Our Plan: Imagine some sort of tip-off to reporters about a secret plan, a conspiracy (if you will) that is the brainchild of the president, but mostly orchestrated by the National Security Agency and the CIA. A break-in possibly, or merely loose lips at a bar on the Hill. Tapes may be found. Or memos and fax transmissions with names disguised, code words used instead. Pictures of memoranda--real names blacked out. Photos of world leaders, handshakes, corporate CEOs with eyes covered so as to hide their identities.
We propose to write the book Democracy for Dummies-- the expose of the secret plan. Part transcript, part visual elements, mostly narrative: the overall conspiracy and the country-by-country plan for the U-S-ification and domination of the entire globe. G-L-O-B-E! God Love Our Big Empire!!! Is it fiction? Is it non-fiction? This would be up to the readers to decide. Perhaps it would be stocked in both sections. Confusing? Maybe. Controversial? Yes! Noteworthy? Definitely!
This book combines political satire with critical analysis of American society. It is a blend of fact and fiction and we expect it to be read on two levels. First, as satire, when a team of left-over Cold Warriors, policy wonks, and national security state commandos, take a harmless speech by the President and turn it into a plan for reestablishing order in the global system. On a second level, it can be read as critical analysis because the key elements of the "secret plan" are exaggerations of the "normal" aspects of the U.S. political, economic, and social systems.
Chapter One: Epiphany in the Oval Office
The PLAN appears as Revelation in the form of American Eagles, the globe, and breaking CNN news. The President and one of his top aides, meeting to prepare a routine speech to the United Nations, stumble upon a plan to reestablish world order.
Chapter Two: Perpetual Elections
A team of NSA-CIA operatives is assigned to develop strategies to implement the PLAN. They are central characters in the book, and their work is a combination of Keystone Kops and serious intelligence activities. The first step in the plan is to extend democracy around the world in the form of mind-numbing elections that give the illusion of democracy, while raising the level of boredom such that civic participation is low.
Chapter Three: The Truth is Out There
When a group of pseudo-scientists threaten to blow the whistle on an Air Force cover-up of a possible alien abduction, CNN was there. Learn how the Assistant Press Secretary spins the bogus story of "the threat from above" to invoke unifying fear (a la the Green Menace) and disband the international threat from below.
Our Plan: Imagine some sort of tip-off to reporters about a secret plan, a conspiracy (if you will) that is the brainchild of the president, but mostly orchestrated by the National Security Agency and the CIA. A break-in possibly, or merely loose lips at a bar on the Hill. Tapes may be found. Or memos and fax transmissions with names disguised, code words used instead. Pictures of memoranda--real names blacked out. Photos of world leaders, handshakes, corporate CEOs with eyes covered so as to hide their identities.
We propose to write the book Democracy for Dummies-- the expose of the secret plan. Part transcript, part visual elements, mostly narrative: the overall conspiracy and the country-by-country plan for the U-S-ification and domination of the entire globe. G-L-O-B-E! God Love Our Big Empire!!! Is it fiction? Is it non-fiction? This would be up to the readers to decide. Perhaps it would be stocked in both sections. Confusing? Maybe. Controversial? Yes! Noteworthy? Definitely!
This book combines political satire with critical analysis of American society. It is a blend of fact and fiction and we expect it to be read on two levels. First, as satire, when a team of left-over Cold Warriors, policy wonks, and national security state commandos, take a harmless speech by the President and turn it into a plan for reestablishing order in the global system. On a second level, it can be read as critical analysis because the key elements of the "secret plan" are exaggerations of the "normal" aspects of the U.S. political, economic, and social systems.
Chapter One: Epiphany in the Oval Office
The PLAN appears as Revelation in the form of American Eagles, the globe, and breaking CNN news. The President and one of his top aides, meeting to prepare a routine speech to the United Nations, stumble upon a plan to reestablish world order.
Chapter Two: Perpetual Elections
A team of NSA-CIA operatives is assigned to develop strategies to implement the PLAN. They are central characters in the book, and their work is a combination of Keystone Kops and serious intelligence activities. The first step in the plan is to extend democracy around the world in the form of mind-numbing elections that give the illusion of democracy, while raising the level of boredom such that civic participation is low.
Chapter Three: The Truth is Out There
When a group of pseudo-scientists threaten to blow the whistle on an Air Force cover-up of a possible alien abduction, CNN was there. Learn how the Assistant Press Secretary spins the bogus story of "the threat from above" to invoke unifying fear (a la the Green Menace) and disband the international threat from below.
Chapter Four: Bridging the Digital Divide Worldwide
Silicon swindlers cast their nets to the Third World to increase their share of the global pie. Half-baked partnerships between industry and indigenous peoples result.
Chapter Five: Location, Location. Location: The Case for Globalization
Who needs borders, or even citizens, when you have the not-so-hidden-hand of the market, multinational corporations, and the WTO. This chapter features the worlds most watched TV show "Who Wants to Have a Job?" This show brings workers and community leaders from around the world to compete in a game-show format to get a new multinational sweatshop in their town. A second feature is the "privatization workshop" run by Harvard economists and aimed at Third World political and economic leaders. The goal is to bring everyone into the neoliberal global economy.
Chapter Six: Cultural Development: Modernization theory in Living Color
The CIA-supported Congress for Cultural Freedom is resurrected from the 1950s to produce state-ordered reports on how television tastes correspond with stages of cultural development in "Maslow Meets the Boob-Tube." The relationship between media and social control are exploited to produce mono-cultural mayhem, and a distinctively American world order.
Chapter Seven: Spiritual Technology: A Digitally Enhanced, Kinder, Gentler God
Religious difference is minimized, if not entirely ignored, in modern day Western democracy. An outrageous plan to export political correctness and tolerance along with New Age truths is revealed to the President and a team of spiritual advisers at a Camp David weekend retreat, The resulting Chicken Soup for the Global Soul becomes a best seller on Oprah Winfrey's Book of the Month club.
Chapter Eight: Counter Hegemony or Hegemony Counter
Three characters introduced earlier in the book--Charlie W. Trash, Emma Golden, and Ibafemi Offolawa--return to center stage in a comic effort to subvert The Plan. Readers are left to ponder the question of who has been marginalized and who has been absorbed into the emerging social order.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Populism?
The campaigns of Sanders and Trump has led the mainstream media (msm) to a frequent use of the term "populism" to describe them--they are the "populist" candidates. But true to form, the msm are good at injecting a new idea into the media mix, but they do little to inform the audience as to the meaning of "populism." So we will give it a try.
The early moments of populism was experienced through the People's Party at the end of the nineteenth century and found expression in the twentieth century in different bases of discontent shared by different groups. Throughout the twentieth century, populist rhetoric and movements have embraced an array of moral and political crusades, beginning early in the century with the prohibitionists' war against alcohol and closed out the century with the religious Right's attacks on the amoral elites, who, it was claimed, were undermining the core values of the majority. The targets of populist attacks are superficially the same: entrenched irresponsible elites. But for the early leftist populists, elite targets were symbolized by "fat cat" and "plutocrat" labels, whereas for contemporary rightist populists, evil is represented by "cultural elites," as represented in Hollywood, the media, and governmental elites who administer the growing bureaucratic state.
The most recent examples of populism in presidential campaigns may be found in the efforts by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Pat Buchanan who managed to attack immigration, trade agreements like NAFTA, and groups like the national Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They were not treated kindly by the corporate media. Ralph Nader was dismissed as unrealistic, and Perot and Buchanan were presented as "traitors" to the interests of the privileged class that was embedded in the corporate and political worlds. Perot was given the persona of a quirky, eccentric millionaire who had nothing better to do with his time and money, while Buchanan was vilified as a crypto-racist, anti-Semite, and general all-around loose cannon. The media did little to recognize the role of economic change in these populist moments.
Populist rhetoric has been used by labor organizations, social movement leaders, and mainstream politicians to shape and mobilize public discontent. In its classic form, populist messages seek to simultaneously elevate the masses and attack the privileged for their undeserved rewards. But the rhetoric of economic grievances and the defense of small farmers, wage earners, and small business owners were usually not aimed at the overthrow of capitalism, but called for a fair share of the fruits of workers' productive labor. As a noted historian of populist movements Michael Kazin has stated: "Early populist critiques of American society attempted to build new bonds among people by returning to the core beliefs of the new American nation--rule by the people, reward for hard work and diligence, and faith in God."
As history illustrates, the American populist tradition has been both a powerful and ambivalent instrument for reform. Many real or aspiring leaders have picked up the populist instrument hoping to play a tune powerful enough to stir the sleeping masses into sweeping away corrupt elites. The power of that tradition rests in its roots in the early American experience, stressing the dignity of the common man and a rejection of the "foreign" influences of aristocracy and elitism. The ambivalence associated with the populist tradition stems from its majoritarian beliefs, reflected in its support for direct participatory democracy. The majoritarian emphasis does not sit well with members of religious or ethnic groups that are numerically small and therefore feel that their interests will be ignored by the usually white and Christian majority. The majoritarian emphasis also does not sit well with "privileged leftists" who support populist ideology but whose education and credentialed-class privileges make them wary of "marching with the people."
The early moments of populism was experienced through the People's Party at the end of the nineteenth century and found expression in the twentieth century in different bases of discontent shared by different groups. Throughout the twentieth century, populist rhetoric and movements have embraced an array of moral and political crusades, beginning early in the century with the prohibitionists' war against alcohol and closed out the century with the religious Right's attacks on the amoral elites, who, it was claimed, were undermining the core values of the majority. The targets of populist attacks are superficially the same: entrenched irresponsible elites. But for the early leftist populists, elite targets were symbolized by "fat cat" and "plutocrat" labels, whereas for contemporary rightist populists, evil is represented by "cultural elites," as represented in Hollywood, the media, and governmental elites who administer the growing bureaucratic state.
The most recent examples of populism in presidential campaigns may be found in the efforts by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Pat Buchanan who managed to attack immigration, trade agreements like NAFTA, and groups like the national Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They were not treated kindly by the corporate media. Ralph Nader was dismissed as unrealistic, and Perot and Buchanan were presented as "traitors" to the interests of the privileged class that was embedded in the corporate and political worlds. Perot was given the persona of a quirky, eccentric millionaire who had nothing better to do with his time and money, while Buchanan was vilified as a crypto-racist, anti-Semite, and general all-around loose cannon. The media did little to recognize the role of economic change in these populist moments.
Populist rhetoric has been used by labor organizations, social movement leaders, and mainstream politicians to shape and mobilize public discontent. In its classic form, populist messages seek to simultaneously elevate the masses and attack the privileged for their undeserved rewards. But the rhetoric of economic grievances and the defense of small farmers, wage earners, and small business owners were usually not aimed at the overthrow of capitalism, but called for a fair share of the fruits of workers' productive labor. As a noted historian of populist movements Michael Kazin has stated: "Early populist critiques of American society attempted to build new bonds among people by returning to the core beliefs of the new American nation--rule by the people, reward for hard work and diligence, and faith in God."
As history illustrates, the American populist tradition has been both a powerful and ambivalent instrument for reform. Many real or aspiring leaders have picked up the populist instrument hoping to play a tune powerful enough to stir the sleeping masses into sweeping away corrupt elites. The power of that tradition rests in its roots in the early American experience, stressing the dignity of the common man and a rejection of the "foreign" influences of aristocracy and elitism. The ambivalence associated with the populist tradition stems from its majoritarian beliefs, reflected in its support for direct participatory democracy. The majoritarian emphasis does not sit well with members of religious or ethnic groups that are numerically small and therefore feel that their interests will be ignored by the usually white and Christian majority. The majoritarian emphasis also does not sit well with "privileged leftists" who support populist ideology but whose education and credentialed-class privileges make them wary of "marching with the people."
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Free Hard Drugs
In the spirit of the new openness on "soft" drugs and the Colorado experiment, we would like to revive an old proposal we once made about hard drugs. Since the attempt to fight the "war on drugs" on the supply side has not worked, we propose to make hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, or whatever, to be made available free to all users. There would be Federally funded and operated drug centers where any user could obtain as much of a drug as they wish with no time limit. The objective of the plan is to make it very clear to users that they can speed up their most certain deaths with little or no collateral damage. This should result in a decline in most anti-social behavior that is used to support a drug habit (e.g. theft, robbery) and the life style of an addict will not be hampered. The creation of Drug Centers in most large cities would be a job creator for the operation of clinics and would cost fewer tax dollars than are currently spent on the war on drugs.
Update 1/29/18: It has been a long while since posting this item and during that time the "opioid crisis" has taken over the drug crisis-centered news. Estimates of "opioid addiction" in 2016 indicate that there are 11 million "addicts" (compared to 1 million heroin users). This estimate of opioid addicts far exceeds the estimated number of persons with medical conditions that cause great pain. This suggests that opioid users/addicts are choosing to use the drug when they no longer have a medical condition that requires the pain amelioration drug. So, the bottom line for this post is to welcome the opioid addicts to our government-sponsored drug clinic where they may obtain opioids in amounts sufficient to speed up their most certain deaths. Therefore, our proposal of free drugs until "death do us part" remains in place.
Monday, February 8, 2016
War Drums and Defense Budget
This post is an early-warning feeling, but we can't shake it and so we say it. It appears to us that an increasing number of political types, in and out of Congress and the Presidential races, are sounding more bellicose in their statements about potential threats to the U.S. from other nations. The media appear to be featuring stories about possible threats from North Korea associated with claims about their nuclear developments, and the U.S.-Iran agreement on nuclear weapons. (Admission to the Nuclear Club is a very sensitive matter.) And what about those tiny islands in the South China Sea?The media are also doing high-profile stories on Russia and the evil Putin that have the strong odor of the old Cold War days. The latest concern, coming from one of the Congressional Super Hawks, is about the hidden danger of increased cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in areas related to space exploration and the hardware used for such explorations.
Our feelings may be nothing more than the Hawks and their media allies running out of threatening scenarios so they have to do the best with what they have. However, we suspect that it may be a "pre-emptive" strike against the possibility that the current attempts to awaken Americans about our economic problems may lead to efforts to make cuts in a $600 billion defense budget.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Left-Right Attacks
We have long ago concluded that extreme right-wing, left-wing attacks on each other have little to do with what is in the best interest of most Americans in the lower segment of the income distribution. These attacks have only one purpose--to dislodge the opposition and take control of a political office, an administration, or any other political unit that is in a position to distribute "goodies." The goodies mean different things to different people. For some, they are emotional feelings associated with being part of a group that is in charge (an X or Y administration or some Congress person). For others, the goodies may mean an appointment in a local, state, or federal agency. And for the "big hitters" the goodies are lucrative government contracts, with some of the money being returned to the official or the party in the form of contributions.
So, extreme left-right partisan attacks are mostly emotional nonsense for the large majority of the partisans, while those who will belly-up to the bar for the politically-linked dollar benefits sit in the background and wait for their goodies.
The only genuine critiques of this form of "cronyism" are found in the Tea Party and Occupy Movements. The former are more organized than the latter, but what they have in common is a critique of the current political system, although they often have different targets. Moreover, they have been led to believe that they have reason to fear and hate each other. What they also have in common is that they are manipulated by segments of the national political parties (Republicans and Democrats) that use them for their own purposes. But as we have predicted elsewhere, the TP and OM will one day join together. Why? They are unified in their opposition to defense spending, to business as usual when it comes to spending tax dollars, and they agree on the need for term limits. That is a good basis for a unified movement, assuming that they can smell the "bullshit" associated with most "social issues."
So, extreme left-right ideologues are "whistling past the graveyard" because they have little to offer the bottom 50-80 percent of Americans who sit on the sidelines while nothing happens to benefit them--except for the promise of a $12 an hour minimum wage, a path to citizenship, or federal social welfare benefits---which will keep them in the same places they currently occupy.
So, extreme left-right partisan attacks are mostly emotional nonsense for the large majority of the partisans, while those who will belly-up to the bar for the politically-linked dollar benefits sit in the background and wait for their goodies.
The only genuine critiques of this form of "cronyism" are found in the Tea Party and Occupy Movements. The former are more organized than the latter, but what they have in common is a critique of the current political system, although they often have different targets. Moreover, they have been led to believe that they have reason to fear and hate each other. What they also have in common is that they are manipulated by segments of the national political parties (Republicans and Democrats) that use them for their own purposes. But as we have predicted elsewhere, the TP and OM will one day join together. Why? They are unified in their opposition to defense spending, to business as usual when it comes to spending tax dollars, and they agree on the need for term limits. That is a good basis for a unified movement, assuming that they can smell the "bullshit" associated with most "social issues."
So, extreme left-right ideologues are "whistling past the graveyard" because they have little to offer the bottom 50-80 percent of Americans who sit on the sidelines while nothing happens to benefit them--except for the promise of a $12 an hour minimum wage, a path to citizenship, or federal social welfare benefits---which will keep them in the same places they currently occupy.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Class and Immigration
The United States should welcome immigrants from the Middle East who are fleeing war-torn regions or political persecution. This should be done with appropriate vetting of the claims of asylum seekers. But the issue is not whether to accept them but where they should be located after their arrival. The best locations should be where they might have the most supportive communities. Thus, they should be located in communities adjoining elite colleges and universities, and in the high income communities in cities like Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)