Three weeks ago the public got what could be a preview of the violence that may break out in the Congressional election season of 2010. On September 12 the body of fifty-one year-old Bill Sparkman was discovered hanging in a Kentucky cemetery. Jerry Weaver, who found Sparkman's body while visiting some family graves, recounted that "The only thing he had on was a pair of socks. And they had duct-taped his hands, his wrists. He had duct tape over his eyes, and they gagged him with a red rag or something." There was also something written across his chest. Weaver didn't take time to read it, but it was later revealed that what had been written was the word "FED". It has also been revealed that Sparkman was a part-time federal employee supplementing his income by working for the Census Bureau.
Although it is tempting to jump to conclusions about Sparkman's death and say that he was clearly killed by anti-government right wingers (many of whom attach bizarre conspiracies to the census), it should be noted that the investigation is ongoing. Just as men who murder their wives often try to make the death look like it happened during a burglary or home intrusion, Sparkman may have had personal enemies who killed him for their own reasons, but felt that they could deflect suspicion by making his death appear to be the result of anti-government nuts. But if the investigation concludes that Sparkman's killers were motivated by his employment in the Census Bureau then we are all in very deep trouble.
Since the beginning of the town hall controversies in August pundits have been trying to explain the rage against the Democrat's healthcare reform proposals. Particularly strange is the fact that so many of the people who were rallying against reform and disrupting the meetings were lower middle class citizens, many of whom lacked insurance coverage. The ruckus has mystified liberals both here and in Europe, where universal healthcare systems much more radical than anything being considered in America are the norm.
What is happening in the United States now is no more or less than fascism. And what we're seeing is the endgame, not the beginning. The beginning was when two disparate movements - the big business corporate elite and elements of the white lower middle class with radical views on religion and race - converged with each other in the Republican Party and entered the political mainstream in 1994. As the game has entered each new phase the tactics of the right wing movement have changed in ever more extreme directions. The mid-term elections of 1994 that brought sizable GOP majorities to both houses of Congress were legitimate political victories. The Republicans may have been running a campaign that appealed to less noble instincts of the electorate, but there were no major allegations of vote fraud during them and whatever else one may say, the victories they won were clearly legal. For six years the GOP then clung to power, periodically losing seats to the Democrats but never suffering the kind of electoral thrashing that they had so successfully masterminded. But the machine wasn't yet ready for the more complicated task of swinging a presidential race in its favor, and in 1996 it just could not overcome the improving economy and the incompetence of Bob Dole as a candidate, which gave the hated Bill Clinton another four years in office.
The 2000 elections saw the right wing resort to extralegal means on a scale not seen in American politics in decades. By now the conservative media had built itself into a force truly to be reckoned with. Taking advantage of increasing voter apathy (that election season it was in vogue for Generation Xers sitting on their laptops in Starbucks to pontificate about how there was really no difference left between the political parties and candidates any longer) and Al Gore's poorly managed campaign, the 2000 election saw the disenfranchisement of legitimate black voters, strange electoral shenanigans in Florida and a Supreme Court decision that left Gore with little choice but to concede defeat. In 2002 the Republicans hit the Democrats so hard on national security issues that for many years it seemed to have left deep psychological scars on the party's leadership, and in 2004 they played the national security card again. It is a testament to the strength and discipline of the right wing movement and its media machine that it somehow found a way to paint John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, as a coward who had failed in combat and betrayed his own men, while at the same time brushing aside the fact that George W. Bush was a draft dodger who was incapable of even finishing the requirements of his National Guard service. Again in the 2004 election vote fraud and voter disenfranchisement helped bring him to victory.
Unfortunately for the GOP, the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election gave their electoral machine a set of challenges it was not up to. By 2006 the public was fed up with the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, along with the wars, corruption and incompetence that had become their hallmark. And as much as they tried in 2008, the political fortunes had turned too badly in favor of the Democrats and John McCain was too incompetent a candidate to inspire much confidence. But do not be fooled by Obama's seemingly effortless victory. All of the tools arrayed against Al Gore and John Kerry like disenfranchisement, vote fraud and other manipulation - not to mention racism - were used against Obama. The difference was that the political/media machine just wasn't strong enough to pull these things off on the scale necessary to swing the election to McCain.
This has been the evolution of the right wing movement's toolkit for capturing and maintaining power. From deceptive but legal tactics they switched to fraudulent means when those proved no longer effective. And now that fraud isn't enough they are resorting to intimidation, with the threat of violence hanging over the heads of those they target. They have effectively used this tool to hamper the movement towards healthcare reform. It seems increasingly likely that even if a "reform" bill is passed through Congress, it will not include a public option, and whatever cosmetic improvements it may make towards regulating the insurance companies, it will be offset by giveaways to the industry. The right wingers will have learned that intimidation works. And if Bill Sparkman really was killed by conservative fanatics, his death will only mark the beginning of America’s descent into war and ruin.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Partisan Divide (Part Three)
This past week President Obama was given a firsthand look at his own illegitimacy when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted out “You lie!” during the president’s healthcare address to a joint session of Congress. Obama’s supposed deception was his claim that illegal immigrants would be ineligible for government benefits under the Democratic healthcare reform plan(s). That claim – borne out by the various pieces of legislation currently before the House – is not borne out in the world of conservative media, which was presumably the audience that Wilson was really aiming his outburst at. His formerly unthinkable act of rudeness was condemned by both Republicans and Democrats and Wilson subsequently apologized.
It is very likely that Wilson’s comment was premeditated, and thus he presumably knew that he would be forced to issue an apology. Yet while some Republicans went through the motions of condemning him the right wing media and the rank and file of the conservative movement – the same members of the so-called “Tea Party” coalition who marched on Washington DC today – have been busy trying to elevate the man into a folk hero.
The saddest part of this affair is that Barack Obama still doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the enemy he’s up against. This is nothing short of amazing when you consider that this fracas has been going on ever since he became a serious contender in the presidential race. His clueless behavior makes me wonder if he was actually present for his own election campaign, where he was subjected to distortions, racism and partisan attacks to a degree unheard of in living memory. It is almost as if our president believes the media hype that surrounded his campaign, much of which predicted a new era of bipartisanship and gave many people the strange idea that simply his election alone would cure everything.
A recent article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek bemoaned how American politics has atrophied to the point where the system is incapable of doing anything substantial without a crisis to motivate it:
“…Faced with the distinct possibility of an economic depression, Congress, the administration, and the Fed all worked together and brought stability to the system. In a crisis, they responded. Why? Precisely because it was a crisis.”
“There is something about America—the system, the government, the people—that allows us to react to a crisis with astonishing speed. Think of Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11. Whatever one may think of the Bush administration's later strategy, in the weeks after 9/11 both parties came together and put in place important policies—getting international cooperation in making counterterrorism a top priority, improving safety on airplanes and in airports, tracking terrorists and their money, chasing Al Qaeda. These actions have helped to keep terrorists on the run and continue to make it difficult to plan and execute spectacular attacks.”
“Now, to see the weakness of the American system, consider the past week or two and the debacle of the health-care debate. It is demonstrably clear that the U.S. health-care system is on an unsustainable path. If current trends continue—and there is no indication that they won't—health care will consume 40 percent of the national economy by 2050. The problem is that this is a slow and steady decline, producing no crisis, no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11. As a result, we seem incapable of grappling with it seriously.”
Zakaria is quite right, and the state of American politics in the twenty-first century has in certain ways come to resemble the state of American politics in the decade of “peace” before the Civil War (we’ll put the word “peace” in quotation marks since that period saw dozens of men killed while fighting in “Bleeding Kansas”, not to mention the abortive uprising of John Brown). During the 1850’s the slavery issue produced stagnation in the American system because slavery touched so many issues, and each issue that it touched became red hot with partisan hostility. It affected questions of foreign relations, interstate commerce, state’s rights and many others. As the years passed the extremists on both sides started to have more and more sway. The compromise laws of 1850, which tackled the free state/slave state issue, were the last gasp of true bipartisanship on the problem.
Now in 2009 there is not one single issue that polarizes us, but many, each of which add up to an overwhelming whole. Any issue that has been touched by the “culture wars” of the past two decades – even an issue that should be purely scientific, like global warming – is now too hot to handle unless there’s a crisis to motivate. Small changes become difficult and big changes become impossible. Bush learned that when he failed to retool Social Security during his second term and Obama is learning it with his continuing failure to make the case for true reform to the healthcare system.
It was the secession of eleven states and the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 – the greatest internal crisis in American history – that finally spurred America to act on the slavery issue. What keeps me awake at night now is the fear that today it will take another such crisis before we Americans are ready to again take such decisive action against our problems.
It is very likely that Wilson’s comment was premeditated, and thus he presumably knew that he would be forced to issue an apology. Yet while some Republicans went through the motions of condemning him the right wing media and the rank and file of the conservative movement – the same members of the so-called “Tea Party” coalition who marched on Washington DC today – have been busy trying to elevate the man into a folk hero.
The saddest part of this affair is that Barack Obama still doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the enemy he’s up against. This is nothing short of amazing when you consider that this fracas has been going on ever since he became a serious contender in the presidential race. His clueless behavior makes me wonder if he was actually present for his own election campaign, where he was subjected to distortions, racism and partisan attacks to a degree unheard of in living memory. It is almost as if our president believes the media hype that surrounded his campaign, much of which predicted a new era of bipartisanship and gave many people the strange idea that simply his election alone would cure everything.
A recent article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek bemoaned how American politics has atrophied to the point where the system is incapable of doing anything substantial without a crisis to motivate it:
“…Faced with the distinct possibility of an economic depression, Congress, the administration, and the Fed all worked together and brought stability to the system. In a crisis, they responded. Why? Precisely because it was a crisis.”
“There is something about America—the system, the government, the people—that allows us to react to a crisis with astonishing speed. Think of Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11. Whatever one may think of the Bush administration's later strategy, in the weeks after 9/11 both parties came together and put in place important policies—getting international cooperation in making counterterrorism a top priority, improving safety on airplanes and in airports, tracking terrorists and their money, chasing Al Qaeda. These actions have helped to keep terrorists on the run and continue to make it difficult to plan and execute spectacular attacks.”
“Now, to see the weakness of the American system, consider the past week or two and the debacle of the health-care debate. It is demonstrably clear that the U.S. health-care system is on an unsustainable path. If current trends continue—and there is no indication that they won't—health care will consume 40 percent of the national economy by 2050. The problem is that this is a slow and steady decline, producing no crisis, no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11. As a result, we seem incapable of grappling with it seriously.”
Zakaria is quite right, and the state of American politics in the twenty-first century has in certain ways come to resemble the state of American politics in the decade of “peace” before the Civil War (we’ll put the word “peace” in quotation marks since that period saw dozens of men killed while fighting in “Bleeding Kansas”, not to mention the abortive uprising of John Brown). During the 1850’s the slavery issue produced stagnation in the American system because slavery touched so many issues, and each issue that it touched became red hot with partisan hostility. It affected questions of foreign relations, interstate commerce, state’s rights and many others. As the years passed the extremists on both sides started to have more and more sway. The compromise laws of 1850, which tackled the free state/slave state issue, were the last gasp of true bipartisanship on the problem.
Now in 2009 there is not one single issue that polarizes us, but many, each of which add up to an overwhelming whole. Any issue that has been touched by the “culture wars” of the past two decades – even an issue that should be purely scientific, like global warming – is now too hot to handle unless there’s a crisis to motivate. Small changes become difficult and big changes become impossible. Bush learned that when he failed to retool Social Security during his second term and Obama is learning it with his continuing failure to make the case for true reform to the healthcare system.
It was the secession of eleven states and the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 – the greatest internal crisis in American history – that finally spurred America to act on the slavery issue. What keeps me awake at night now is the fear that today it will take another such crisis before we Americans are ready to again take such decisive action against our problems.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Partisan Divide (Part Two)
Decades from now, after most of us are long dead, a new generation of historians will find itself reshuffling the ranks of America’s best and worst presidents. This is a periodic ritual for scholars, who re-evaluate rankings as new research is devoted to older presidents and newer presidents leave office with a legacy yet to be determined. Since we don’t know what presidents will come after Obama or how talented they will actually be, we cannot say for certain that George W. Bush will be considered the worst or even one of the worst American presidents. But, based on what many historians are already saying about Bush II, it is not unreasonable to assume that he may very well get that dishonor, all other things remaining equal.
The reason is that as president George W. Bush possessed the same liabilities of many of those now considered America’s worst leaders, while at the same time possessing few of their positive attributes. Ulysses S. Grant, one of the most revered generals in American history, served two terms as president and is ranked near the bottom of the list because he was so openly tolerant of corruption in his own administration. Warren G. Harding allowed his cronies to loot the country and run his administration. Richard Nixon abused the power of the executive office. Jimmy Carter found himself completely in over his head, faced with problems that he and his administration were simply too incompetent and too impotent to do anything about. Lyndon Johnson embroiled the United States in a senseless and unwinnable foreign war (in all fairness, Johnson rarely makes the list of the ten worst, but he could consistently have been ranked among the ten best if it wasn’t for Vietnam).
Each of these men’s mistakes were also made by President Bush, but unlike many of these men Bush’s presidency has no visibly redeeming characteristics that revisionist historians are likely to latch onto. Unlike Nixon, Bush does not have any great diplomatic victories to buoy his record like the opening of Red China. Unlike Johnson, Bush does not have a Great Society program or landmark civil rights legislation. Nor does Bush’s past or probable future offer any benefits to his legacy. Unlike Grant he has had no brilliant military career to save his reputation, and unlike Carter it’s unlikely that Bush will have a successful and admired post-presidency.
A healthy, mature democratic system can sometimes – usually by accident – produce a leader as unfit to rule as George W. Bush was. But only in a system in deep crisis can a man like Bush hold high office as long as he was able to. No single man has done more to lay the foundation for a second American Civil War than Bush has, and if such a war does come to pass those future historians working on the lists of best and worst presidents will surely place much of the blame for it on his shoulders, just as they place much of the blame for the original American Civil War on presidents that came before Abraham Lincoln.
What Bush did was to open the door for political violence – from both liberals and conservatives – to escape into American society. He did this by continuing what the GOP had started with the 1994 mid-term elections, which brought Republican dominance to both houses of Congress. Remember my last post, where I explained how 1994 marked a shift in conservative culture where power was transferred from the old conservative elites (who recognized the legitimacy of the liberal elites as political actors) to a new generation that did not recognize Bill Clinton as legitimate, and also did not recognize the liberal elites as legitimate governing partners.
After a deceivingly amiable period of bipartisanship early in his presidency (mostly pursued in order to move his massive tax cuts through Congress), the White House and GOP settled into the now familiar political strategy of ruling through division. The master brain behind this was, of course, Karl Rove, and his ruthless skill came very near to tearing apart the social fabric of the nation. The Rove strategy threw out the idea that successful governance required a broad electoral mandate, substituting it for a tyranny of the slimmest majority. President Bush did not need to win huge victories in the popular vote and Electoral College (he didn’t even need to win the popular vote, as the 2000 election demonstrated) to govern and advance his agenda. Nor did Congress necessarily need a huge GOP majority. They could get by with a majority that would allow legislation to be passed on a party line vote (except when the pesky Democrats filibustered). Large electoral victories were nice to have but not required.
The Rove strategy deliberately made Americans perceive themselves as existing in one of two distinctive groups. If you were a conservative, you were made to feel like you were in a struggle of Christianity versus godless heathenism, of patriot versus cowardly appeaser, of American versus foreign invaders and threats, of the pure and divine heartland versus the evil and godless cities on the east and west coasts. If you were a liberal you felt like you were in struggle of enlightenment versus religious fanaticism, of patriot versus militarist, of social harmony versus racism and xenophobia, and of big city progressiveness versus small town intolerance.
We all know that conservatives bought into this mentality (it first reached political maturity with the 1994 election) in increasing numbers through the Bush years, and liberals deride them for it. What liberals will not admit is that they bought into it as well because they came to believe the bullshit about there really being two Americas. They began to believe that “red state” conservative voters really were a bunch of redneck, inbred Jesus freaks – exactly as Rove intended. Their derision therefore reinforced the original message that liberals from the coasts looked down on conservative, religious small towners.
At the same time, the conservative elites themselves were continuing to rob the liberal elites of their legitimacy. There is no better illustration of this than the way that the media was used against Democrats. Conservative media outlets (books, radio and Fox News on television) went on the attack, and the 2002 mid-term elections were particularly ugly as the right wing attacked on national security issues. Democrats had not exactly been obstructionists when it came to the War on Terror. They had overwhelmingly supported the Afghan War. Many had voted for the PATRIOT Act. Many still were willing to support the upcoming Iraq War. This did not matter to Karl Rove’s political apparatus, and the Democrats became the recipients of truly vicious political attacks, and received an electoral pounding that they still haven’t recovered from psychologically.
Nations that slip into revolution and civil war usually do so in one of two ways. In the first way there is a broad popular uprising against the ruling elites. In the second way the ruling elites turn on each other, fracturing the country as happened in both the American Revolution and the first American Civil War. It should worry us then that both trends seem to be occurring in modern America. A large number of conservatives no longer view liberals as legitimate political actors, and a large number of liberals no longer view conservatives as legitimate political actors. At the same time, conservative and liberal elites are turning against each other as well.
The coming violence will likely be initiated by the right wing of American politics, but George W. Bush’s poisonous legacy cuts both ways. Had John McCain won the presidency there is little doubt in my mind that I would still be writing this blog, sounding alarm bells about left wing militarism instead of right wing fascism.
The reason is that as president George W. Bush possessed the same liabilities of many of those now considered America’s worst leaders, while at the same time possessing few of their positive attributes. Ulysses S. Grant, one of the most revered generals in American history, served two terms as president and is ranked near the bottom of the list because he was so openly tolerant of corruption in his own administration. Warren G. Harding allowed his cronies to loot the country and run his administration. Richard Nixon abused the power of the executive office. Jimmy Carter found himself completely in over his head, faced with problems that he and his administration were simply too incompetent and too impotent to do anything about. Lyndon Johnson embroiled the United States in a senseless and unwinnable foreign war (in all fairness, Johnson rarely makes the list of the ten worst, but he could consistently have been ranked among the ten best if it wasn’t for Vietnam).
Each of these men’s mistakes were also made by President Bush, but unlike many of these men Bush’s presidency has no visibly redeeming characteristics that revisionist historians are likely to latch onto. Unlike Nixon, Bush does not have any great diplomatic victories to buoy his record like the opening of Red China. Unlike Johnson, Bush does not have a Great Society program or landmark civil rights legislation. Nor does Bush’s past or probable future offer any benefits to his legacy. Unlike Grant he has had no brilliant military career to save his reputation, and unlike Carter it’s unlikely that Bush will have a successful and admired post-presidency.
A healthy, mature democratic system can sometimes – usually by accident – produce a leader as unfit to rule as George W. Bush was. But only in a system in deep crisis can a man like Bush hold high office as long as he was able to. No single man has done more to lay the foundation for a second American Civil War than Bush has, and if such a war does come to pass those future historians working on the lists of best and worst presidents will surely place much of the blame for it on his shoulders, just as they place much of the blame for the original American Civil War on presidents that came before Abraham Lincoln.
What Bush did was to open the door for political violence – from both liberals and conservatives – to escape into American society. He did this by continuing what the GOP had started with the 1994 mid-term elections, which brought Republican dominance to both houses of Congress. Remember my last post, where I explained how 1994 marked a shift in conservative culture where power was transferred from the old conservative elites (who recognized the legitimacy of the liberal elites as political actors) to a new generation that did not recognize Bill Clinton as legitimate, and also did not recognize the liberal elites as legitimate governing partners.
After a deceivingly amiable period of bipartisanship early in his presidency (mostly pursued in order to move his massive tax cuts through Congress), the White House and GOP settled into the now familiar political strategy of ruling through division. The master brain behind this was, of course, Karl Rove, and his ruthless skill came very near to tearing apart the social fabric of the nation. The Rove strategy threw out the idea that successful governance required a broad electoral mandate, substituting it for a tyranny of the slimmest majority. President Bush did not need to win huge victories in the popular vote and Electoral College (he didn’t even need to win the popular vote, as the 2000 election demonstrated) to govern and advance his agenda. Nor did Congress necessarily need a huge GOP majority. They could get by with a majority that would allow legislation to be passed on a party line vote (except when the pesky Democrats filibustered). Large electoral victories were nice to have but not required.
The Rove strategy deliberately made Americans perceive themselves as existing in one of two distinctive groups. If you were a conservative, you were made to feel like you were in a struggle of Christianity versus godless heathenism, of patriot versus cowardly appeaser, of American versus foreign invaders and threats, of the pure and divine heartland versus the evil and godless cities on the east and west coasts. If you were a liberal you felt like you were in struggle of enlightenment versus religious fanaticism, of patriot versus militarist, of social harmony versus racism and xenophobia, and of big city progressiveness versus small town intolerance.
We all know that conservatives bought into this mentality (it first reached political maturity with the 1994 election) in increasing numbers through the Bush years, and liberals deride them for it. What liberals will not admit is that they bought into it as well because they came to believe the bullshit about there really being two Americas. They began to believe that “red state” conservative voters really were a bunch of redneck, inbred Jesus freaks – exactly as Rove intended. Their derision therefore reinforced the original message that liberals from the coasts looked down on conservative, religious small towners.
At the same time, the conservative elites themselves were continuing to rob the liberal elites of their legitimacy. There is no better illustration of this than the way that the media was used against Democrats. Conservative media outlets (books, radio and Fox News on television) went on the attack, and the 2002 mid-term elections were particularly ugly as the right wing attacked on national security issues. Democrats had not exactly been obstructionists when it came to the War on Terror. They had overwhelmingly supported the Afghan War. Many had voted for the PATRIOT Act. Many still were willing to support the upcoming Iraq War. This did not matter to Karl Rove’s political apparatus, and the Democrats became the recipients of truly vicious political attacks, and received an electoral pounding that they still haven’t recovered from psychologically.
Nations that slip into revolution and civil war usually do so in one of two ways. In the first way there is a broad popular uprising against the ruling elites. In the second way the ruling elites turn on each other, fracturing the country as happened in both the American Revolution and the first American Civil War. It should worry us then that both trends seem to be occurring in modern America. A large number of conservatives no longer view liberals as legitimate political actors, and a large number of liberals no longer view conservatives as legitimate political actors. At the same time, conservative and liberal elites are turning against each other as well.
The coming violence will likely be initiated by the right wing of American politics, but George W. Bush’s poisonous legacy cuts both ways. Had John McCain won the presidency there is little doubt in my mind that I would still be writing this blog, sounding alarm bells about left wing militarism instead of right wing fascism.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Partisan Divide (Part One)
During the 2008 election campaign Barack Obama was often made out to be an heir to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. His humble origins and his amazing oratory skills were compared favorably to those of Lincoln. It was hoped that Obama would end the Iraq war, win the Afghan one, restore America’s economy and fix the environment. It was also greatly hoped that he would heal the partisan divide that had opened up during the George W. Bush years, the one which pitted red state against blue state.
Heal the partisan divide?
If healing the partisan divide is something that Obama is supposed to do, then comparing him to Abraham Lincoln is perverse. No American president before Lincoln or after Lincoln has created more of a partisan divide than Lincoln himself managed to do. We complain in modern times that America is divided into red states and blue states, but for the moment that divide is purely political. Lincoln’s presidency literally resulted in the physical division of the country. The idea of living under his rule was so odious that seven states seceded before he was even inaugurated. Nor did Lincoln ever actually heal that divide. He closed it with military force. He may have healed it had he lived to see the end of his second term in office, but that is a question for historians. The fact is that even in the states that remained in the Union his conduct of the war and the extralegal means by which he waged it created no end of controversy.
Regrettably the direction that America is moving in politically does indeed indicate that President Obama may indeed be the heir to Lincoln’s legacy. Like Lincoln, there is a segment of the nation which does not consider the current president to have any legitimacy as a leader.
What we are seeing now is the final unraveling of the Cold War consensus on the conduct of American politics. Partisanship is as old as the republic, but after World War II it subsided to levels that would have astounded those living in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Republicans and Democrats fought election battles against each other and squabbled over various issues, but even when the country found itself bitterly divided over questions likes race rights and the Vietnam War the political elites still maintained civil relations with each other in tackling the problems. My father once told me that at the height of the youth rebellion in the late 1960’s there were many people who expected there to be a second American Revolution. That it did not come to pass probably has much to do with the fact that none of America’s elites had any real interest in tearing down the system. They respected each other’s legitimacy, even when many citizens did not, and could thus meet the challenge in a reasonably unified manner.
The process by which these elites began to strip each other of that legitimacy began in the 80’s, but it wasn’t until 1994 that it truly exploded onto the national scene when the Republicans gained control of Congress after a long reign of Democratic dominance. This was a type of partisanship that was frighteningly in-your-face to observers who had not previously seen such political feuds in their lifetimes. The new face of the GOP still embodied many of the old conservative political beliefs, but unlike the old timers they had no shame in getting cocky about it. They were confident – even arrogant – and they were against abortion, taxes, gun control, homosexuality and the removal of Christian symbols and ideas from public life. In this they were supported by a newly reorganized base of religiously conservative voters who liked to claim that values were at the front of their agenda. And they hated Bill Clinton. Oh how they did hate him.
What Bill Clinton actually did to deserve all the vitriol that was aimed at him has confused observers both here and around the world. As far as presidents go he was hardly the liberal monster that the right wing made him out to be. Yes he raised taxes, but even after he did so the top marginal rate was still nowhere near where it had been for much of the Cold War period. And he made deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility – normally a conservative concern – centerpiece of his economic strategy. He spoke the language of universal healthcare and labor rights, but he also supported NAFTA. He cut the size of the military, but he continued America’s commitment to her NATO allies, to her Asian allies and to her (unofficial) ally Israel, not to mention followed the first Bush Administration’s hardline containment policies against Iraq. In short, Bill Clinton was a centrist politician who leaned left at times and right at others, and America’s elites continued to prosper under his rule.
So why demonize him and attempt to drive him from office? Those who could not understand this failed to grasp the reason because they failed to see that the underlying politics of American conservatism had changed. The new GOP simply did not see Bill Clinton as a legitimate ruler, and the gentlemen’s agreements that had been prevalent for so many years were not going to be honored by the new right wing movement. America’s elites (and by elites I do not simply mean just wealthy businessmen, but also intellectuals, media professionals and those in government) were themselves divided, with more centrist and left-leaning members happy with Clinton and the right-leaning members unhappy to have given up any economic ground. The right-wing philosophy of illegitimacy was passed on to the rank and file in the movement where it became fixed in a tangible form on Clinton’s personal failings. Clinton was a liar, a draft dodger, a drug user, a flower child of the 60’s and a womanizer. His support for abortion and gay rights further riled up the conservative rank and file, and the support he enjoyed from America’s black community did not sit well with the racism (both outright and latent) that many of those in the movement still harbored.
With a conservative elite who wanted to persecute Clinton for economic reasons pulling the strings on a conservative rank and file who wanted to persecute him for his liberal image, moral failings and racial progressiveness, an entire right wing industry of radio, book publishing and (later) cable TV was born. The result was six years of partisan fighting, investigations and recriminations that culminated in the national embarrassment of a sitting president impeached for crimes stemming from one of Clinton’s sordid sexual relationships.
And then came the presidency of George W. Bush. But that will be a subject for my next post.
Heal the partisan divide?
If healing the partisan divide is something that Obama is supposed to do, then comparing him to Abraham Lincoln is perverse. No American president before Lincoln or after Lincoln has created more of a partisan divide than Lincoln himself managed to do. We complain in modern times that America is divided into red states and blue states, but for the moment that divide is purely political. Lincoln’s presidency literally resulted in the physical division of the country. The idea of living under his rule was so odious that seven states seceded before he was even inaugurated. Nor did Lincoln ever actually heal that divide. He closed it with military force. He may have healed it had he lived to see the end of his second term in office, but that is a question for historians. The fact is that even in the states that remained in the Union his conduct of the war and the extralegal means by which he waged it created no end of controversy.
Regrettably the direction that America is moving in politically does indeed indicate that President Obama may indeed be the heir to Lincoln’s legacy. Like Lincoln, there is a segment of the nation which does not consider the current president to have any legitimacy as a leader.
What we are seeing now is the final unraveling of the Cold War consensus on the conduct of American politics. Partisanship is as old as the republic, but after World War II it subsided to levels that would have astounded those living in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Republicans and Democrats fought election battles against each other and squabbled over various issues, but even when the country found itself bitterly divided over questions likes race rights and the Vietnam War the political elites still maintained civil relations with each other in tackling the problems. My father once told me that at the height of the youth rebellion in the late 1960’s there were many people who expected there to be a second American Revolution. That it did not come to pass probably has much to do with the fact that none of America’s elites had any real interest in tearing down the system. They respected each other’s legitimacy, even when many citizens did not, and could thus meet the challenge in a reasonably unified manner.
The process by which these elites began to strip each other of that legitimacy began in the 80’s, but it wasn’t until 1994 that it truly exploded onto the national scene when the Republicans gained control of Congress after a long reign of Democratic dominance. This was a type of partisanship that was frighteningly in-your-face to observers who had not previously seen such political feuds in their lifetimes. The new face of the GOP still embodied many of the old conservative political beliefs, but unlike the old timers they had no shame in getting cocky about it. They were confident – even arrogant – and they were against abortion, taxes, gun control, homosexuality and the removal of Christian symbols and ideas from public life. In this they were supported by a newly reorganized base of religiously conservative voters who liked to claim that values were at the front of their agenda. And they hated Bill Clinton. Oh how they did hate him.
What Bill Clinton actually did to deserve all the vitriol that was aimed at him has confused observers both here and around the world. As far as presidents go he was hardly the liberal monster that the right wing made him out to be. Yes he raised taxes, but even after he did so the top marginal rate was still nowhere near where it had been for much of the Cold War period. And he made deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility – normally a conservative concern – centerpiece of his economic strategy. He spoke the language of universal healthcare and labor rights, but he also supported NAFTA. He cut the size of the military, but he continued America’s commitment to her NATO allies, to her Asian allies and to her (unofficial) ally Israel, not to mention followed the first Bush Administration’s hardline containment policies against Iraq. In short, Bill Clinton was a centrist politician who leaned left at times and right at others, and America’s elites continued to prosper under his rule.
So why demonize him and attempt to drive him from office? Those who could not understand this failed to grasp the reason because they failed to see that the underlying politics of American conservatism had changed. The new GOP simply did not see Bill Clinton as a legitimate ruler, and the gentlemen’s agreements that had been prevalent for so many years were not going to be honored by the new right wing movement. America’s elites (and by elites I do not simply mean just wealthy businessmen, but also intellectuals, media professionals and those in government) were themselves divided, with more centrist and left-leaning members happy with Clinton and the right-leaning members unhappy to have given up any economic ground. The right-wing philosophy of illegitimacy was passed on to the rank and file in the movement where it became fixed in a tangible form on Clinton’s personal failings. Clinton was a liar, a draft dodger, a drug user, a flower child of the 60’s and a womanizer. His support for abortion and gay rights further riled up the conservative rank and file, and the support he enjoyed from America’s black community did not sit well with the racism (both outright and latent) that many of those in the movement still harbored.
With a conservative elite who wanted to persecute Clinton for economic reasons pulling the strings on a conservative rank and file who wanted to persecute him for his liberal image, moral failings and racial progressiveness, an entire right wing industry of radio, book publishing and (later) cable TV was born. The result was six years of partisan fighting, investigations and recriminations that culminated in the national embarrassment of a sitting president impeached for crimes stemming from one of Clinton’s sordid sexual relationships.
And then came the presidency of George W. Bush. But that will be a subject for my next post.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Feeding the Right Wing Crocodile
In one fell swoop, the President of the United States revealed himself to be not only a fool, but also a coward.
To conservatives this is hardly news. Their ideological blinders caused them to assume this was the case even before the evidence was there to justify it. But for liberals, moderates and independents the realization represents an unpleasant awakening from the post-election euphoria that promised America would be able to wake up and live again after the dark years of the Bush Administration. Instead of the hope and change that so many of us wanted, we instead find ourselves staring into the abyss yet again.
What the Obama Administration did was to tactlessly give up the centerpiece of healthcare reform by conceding that the final legislation did not necessarily need to include a so-called “public option”, as it’s called. A public option for health insurance is basically a Trojan horse for a true single payer system that guarantees equitable access to all Americans. Once in place it can be expanded gradually until the private insurers cannot compete with the vast resources of the federal government, at which point true universal healthcare can be instituted. Without the public option this process will be stillborn, and any reform will at best temporarily patch up the healthcare system. The right wing knows this and thus has thrown everything they have into the fight.
Conceding the public option was a particularly stupid negotiating tactic due to the fact that the Republicans and their right-wing allies are not actually negotiating with the Democrats. The word negotiate by its very definition implies a give and take process, which is far from what’s actually going on. The Republicans make demands on the Democrats for concessions, which are granted in the hopes that the Republicans will concede ground as well. Instead the Republicans demand even further concessions. The proof can be seen in the extremely tepid reaction of GOP legislators to the administration’s willingness to drop the public option. Even abandoning the centerpiece of the reform plan did not rally moderate Republicans to the cause.
Obama still says that he supports a public option, but now that loose lips have let it be known that he will accept otherwise it will become exceedingly difficult for such a plan to be realized. The Blue Dog conservative Democrats have been given political cover for pulling their support from such a plan and the Republicans know their tactics have scored them an important victory. They will treat this like a shark treats blood in the water, and they won’t stop here. The tactics employed so successfully in this debate will be used on other issues of importance to them. In short, this concession was appeasement of the worst kind and those who allowed it to happen clearly have no understanding of how the modern right wing movement in this country actually works.
What is going on right now with the healthcare debate is not a trivial matter and has more relevance to the mission of this particular blog than one might surmise at first. Unless the problems of right wing militancy are addressed and contained the next three and a half years are likely to look very much like this, with an increasingly aggressive conservative movement nipping at the heels of Barack Obama, slowly wearing him and his administration into a submissive state. It is very likely that the outcome of the healthcare debate will determine whether the United States reclaims its democratic process, or whether it continues down the road to fascism and civil war.
Sara Robinson recently posted an article at the Campaign for America’s Future website that is of particular relevance to this question. The thrust of her argument is that, based on some widely accepted criteria (in this case, the work of historian Robert Paxton), the United States has already passed the first two phases in which industrial nations turn fascist. We are now in the third phase, the point where there is probably no return. The third phase succeeds if the traditional conservative elites form a successful alliance with the rank and file in the burgeoning fascist movement, essentially using them as goon squads to disrupt the democratic process and intimidate the opposition. Which is precisely what is happening with the increasingly raucous town hall events. Concerned citizens my ass. These are not spontaneous demonstrations, they are being organized with the help and financing of corporate America and the right-wing media. And Obama’s concession on the public option has proved to them that their tactics work. He blinked because of artificial pressure created by them.
Winston Churchill once characterized an appeaser as someone “who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The likely failure of true healthcare reform may save our grandmothers from the “death committees” that will supposedly be created by the legislation, but millions of Americans with inadequate or no insurance coverage have been fed to the right wing crocodile. The beast will digest them and then start hovering at the water’s edge looking for more. The Obama Administration, and in fact progressives everywhere, are now looking down a road where there are only two turns they can take. They can turn right (pardon the pun) and let the conservatives finish steamrolling them on the healthcare issue, in which case the end result will almost certainly be an out and out fascist movement with a strong possibility of civil war. Or they can turn left and fight fervently for the principals they believe in by holding their ground and telling these right wing goons that they are not afraid of them. Such a course of action does not guarantee success and still holds the possibility for civil war, but it is certainly better than the alternative which would guarantee failure of the progressive movement and the American system of governance.
To conservatives this is hardly news. Their ideological blinders caused them to assume this was the case even before the evidence was there to justify it. But for liberals, moderates and independents the realization represents an unpleasant awakening from the post-election euphoria that promised America would be able to wake up and live again after the dark years of the Bush Administration. Instead of the hope and change that so many of us wanted, we instead find ourselves staring into the abyss yet again.
What the Obama Administration did was to tactlessly give up the centerpiece of healthcare reform by conceding that the final legislation did not necessarily need to include a so-called “public option”, as it’s called. A public option for health insurance is basically a Trojan horse for a true single payer system that guarantees equitable access to all Americans. Once in place it can be expanded gradually until the private insurers cannot compete with the vast resources of the federal government, at which point true universal healthcare can be instituted. Without the public option this process will be stillborn, and any reform will at best temporarily patch up the healthcare system. The right wing knows this and thus has thrown everything they have into the fight.
Conceding the public option was a particularly stupid negotiating tactic due to the fact that the Republicans and their right-wing allies are not actually negotiating with the Democrats. The word negotiate by its very definition implies a give and take process, which is far from what’s actually going on. The Republicans make demands on the Democrats for concessions, which are granted in the hopes that the Republicans will concede ground as well. Instead the Republicans demand even further concessions. The proof can be seen in the extremely tepid reaction of GOP legislators to the administration’s willingness to drop the public option. Even abandoning the centerpiece of the reform plan did not rally moderate Republicans to the cause.
Obama still says that he supports a public option, but now that loose lips have let it be known that he will accept otherwise it will become exceedingly difficult for such a plan to be realized. The Blue Dog conservative Democrats have been given political cover for pulling their support from such a plan and the Republicans know their tactics have scored them an important victory. They will treat this like a shark treats blood in the water, and they won’t stop here. The tactics employed so successfully in this debate will be used on other issues of importance to them. In short, this concession was appeasement of the worst kind and those who allowed it to happen clearly have no understanding of how the modern right wing movement in this country actually works.
What is going on right now with the healthcare debate is not a trivial matter and has more relevance to the mission of this particular blog than one might surmise at first. Unless the problems of right wing militancy are addressed and contained the next three and a half years are likely to look very much like this, with an increasingly aggressive conservative movement nipping at the heels of Barack Obama, slowly wearing him and his administration into a submissive state. It is very likely that the outcome of the healthcare debate will determine whether the United States reclaims its democratic process, or whether it continues down the road to fascism and civil war.
Sara Robinson recently posted an article at the Campaign for America’s Future website that is of particular relevance to this question. The thrust of her argument is that, based on some widely accepted criteria (in this case, the work of historian Robert Paxton), the United States has already passed the first two phases in which industrial nations turn fascist. We are now in the third phase, the point where there is probably no return. The third phase succeeds if the traditional conservative elites form a successful alliance with the rank and file in the burgeoning fascist movement, essentially using them as goon squads to disrupt the democratic process and intimidate the opposition. Which is precisely what is happening with the increasingly raucous town hall events. Concerned citizens my ass. These are not spontaneous demonstrations, they are being organized with the help and financing of corporate America and the right-wing media. And Obama’s concession on the public option has proved to them that their tactics work. He blinked because of artificial pressure created by them.
Winston Churchill once characterized an appeaser as someone “who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The likely failure of true healthcare reform may save our grandmothers from the “death committees” that will supposedly be created by the legislation, but millions of Americans with inadequate or no insurance coverage have been fed to the right wing crocodile. The beast will digest them and then start hovering at the water’s edge looking for more. The Obama Administration, and in fact progressives everywhere, are now looking down a road where there are only two turns they can take. They can turn right (pardon the pun) and let the conservatives finish steamrolling them on the healthcare issue, in which case the end result will almost certainly be an out and out fascist movement with a strong possibility of civil war. Or they can turn left and fight fervently for the principals they believe in by holding their ground and telling these right wing goons that they are not afraid of them. Such a course of action does not guarantee success and still holds the possibility for civil war, but it is certainly better than the alternative which would guarantee failure of the progressive movement and the American system of governance.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Civil War: Can It Happen Here (Again)?
In the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, a single mortar was fired into the air at Charleston, South Carolina. The shell soared up into the sky, its trajectory visible because of a glowing red fuse. Then it arced down again and harmlessly exploded over Fort Sumter, a United States Army outpost in the middle of Charleston harbor. That the shell did not kill or maim any of the fort’s inhabitants was of no importance. This was simply a signal shot to communicate an order to the rebel batteries that for months had been training the fort in their gun sights. Within a very short time they were pouring fire into Fort Sumter, slowly breaking the facility apart as its commanding officer, Major Robert Anderson, huddled under cover with his troops.
Only at daybreak did Anderson start to return fire, but the situation was grim. He knew his ability to hold the fort was limited by circumstances. The fort itself was unfinished, and Anderson did not have enough artillery batteries of his own to counter the rebel attack. As it was, his manpower was actually so limited that he did not even have enough troops to properly man the guns that he did have. Even if the fort’s structure could withstand the barrage, even if his men could repel the Confederate amphibious assault that was expected, the fort could not hold out for long without outside assistance – his men only had a few days worth of food left. On April 13 he surrendered his fort and his men to the rebels.
So began the American Civil War. In a conflict full of ironies big and small, one of the most obvious that day had been the presence of the rebel commander in Charleston, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, a West Point man who until recently had been an officer in the United States Army. Major Anderson was a West Point man too – in fact, he had once been an instructor of artillery there. Beauregard had once been one of his pupils – so skilled was he in fact, that Anderson had Beauregard stay on as his assistant for a time after he graduated.
The story of the American Civil War and how it began were once taught in every American school. Every schoolboy knew what happened at Fort Sumter.
I’m sure that the story of Fort Sumter is still taught in every American school – or at least, it’s still supposed to be. God only knows how many of our chronically overworked and underpaid public school teachers actually teach it now. Even if it is still being taught, it’s clearly not registering with American students, as study after study has found the average American citizen to be shockingly ignorant of their own history. The old adage has become so cliché that it pains me to repeat it here, but it has always been said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I don’t necessarily agree with that statement. I would probably modify it by saying that those who forget history avoid repeating it only through good luck. And for the past one hundred and forty-some years, Americans have avoided making the same mistakes that led to the events at Fort Sumter, despite ups and downs and periods of internal unrest. And certainly it could never happen again. Right?
For me, this project has been a long time in development. I remember being eighteen years old and first realizing that I was seeing ominous storm clouds very distant on the horizon. It was early 2001 and George W. Bush was at the time ineffectually bumbling through his first months in the Oval Office. In the years that have passed since then I have seen those storm clouds grow darker. Sometimes they have appeared to recede, but never permanently. The clouds are now overhead. The storm is not yet ready to start, but a few raindrops have started to fall.
Civil War Watch is a one-man effort on my part. In the weeks and months that follow I will publish articles analyzing recent developments in our country and their potential implications. I will write speculative pieces on how the second American Civil War may start, how it could play out and how it could impact all of our lives. I will examine military developments here and abroad, trends in modern warfare (particularly guerilla war) and examine the history of the first Civil War, not to mention the civil wars of other nations that might offer parallels to our own developing situation.
I thank all my readers for their patronage of this blog and look forward to discussing these matters with you soon.
Only at daybreak did Anderson start to return fire, but the situation was grim. He knew his ability to hold the fort was limited by circumstances. The fort itself was unfinished, and Anderson did not have enough artillery batteries of his own to counter the rebel attack. As it was, his manpower was actually so limited that he did not even have enough troops to properly man the guns that he did have. Even if the fort’s structure could withstand the barrage, even if his men could repel the Confederate amphibious assault that was expected, the fort could not hold out for long without outside assistance – his men only had a few days worth of food left. On April 13 he surrendered his fort and his men to the rebels.
So began the American Civil War. In a conflict full of ironies big and small, one of the most obvious that day had been the presence of the rebel commander in Charleston, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, a West Point man who until recently had been an officer in the United States Army. Major Anderson was a West Point man too – in fact, he had once been an instructor of artillery there. Beauregard had once been one of his pupils – so skilled was he in fact, that Anderson had Beauregard stay on as his assistant for a time after he graduated.
The story of the American Civil War and how it began were once taught in every American school. Every schoolboy knew what happened at Fort Sumter.
I’m sure that the story of Fort Sumter is still taught in every American school – or at least, it’s still supposed to be. God only knows how many of our chronically overworked and underpaid public school teachers actually teach it now. Even if it is still being taught, it’s clearly not registering with American students, as study after study has found the average American citizen to be shockingly ignorant of their own history. The old adage has become so cliché that it pains me to repeat it here, but it has always been said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I don’t necessarily agree with that statement. I would probably modify it by saying that those who forget history avoid repeating it only through good luck. And for the past one hundred and forty-some years, Americans have avoided making the same mistakes that led to the events at Fort Sumter, despite ups and downs and periods of internal unrest. And certainly it could never happen again. Right?
For me, this project has been a long time in development. I remember being eighteen years old and first realizing that I was seeing ominous storm clouds very distant on the horizon. It was early 2001 and George W. Bush was at the time ineffectually bumbling through his first months in the Oval Office. In the years that have passed since then I have seen those storm clouds grow darker. Sometimes they have appeared to recede, but never permanently. The clouds are now overhead. The storm is not yet ready to start, but a few raindrops have started to fall.
Civil War Watch is a one-man effort on my part. In the weeks and months that follow I will publish articles analyzing recent developments in our country and their potential implications. I will write speculative pieces on how the second American Civil War may start, how it could play out and how it could impact all of our lives. I will examine military developments here and abroad, trends in modern warfare (particularly guerilla war) and examine the history of the first Civil War, not to mention the civil wars of other nations that might offer parallels to our own developing situation.
I thank all my readers for their patronage of this blog and look forward to discussing these matters with you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)