www.crisispapers.org
Ernest Partridge's Blog
February 26, 2005
An All-Star Staff for "The Anti-FOX:" Progressive News TV.
Let’s face it: the progressive counter-revolution is going nowhere unless and until it gains a conspicuous presence on TV. Cable TV will do quite well, at least for a start.
Earlier, many of us had hoped that Al Gore would be the catalyst. Unfortunately, but his not-quite-ready IndTV (due to debut this summer) looks to be only marginally political.
But don’t despair; there may soon be some spectacular breakouts. There is a rumor about on the progressive internet that George Soros and Warren Buffet, along with a few other liberal tycoons, might be about to launch a progressive cable channel. After reading the enthusiastic speculation recently posted at The Democratic Underground, one can only hope that it is true.If so, then the debut of the Anti-FOX simply can’t be too soon.
Just think of the line-up of celebrities and talent available for such an enterprise! Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Peter Arnett, Eason Jordon, and many more who were all fired for the unforgivable offense of truth-telling. Then there are others, still at work at mainstream TV, but standing on thinning ice. Keith Olberman comes immediately to mind. And finally, there are noteworthy individuals who are personae non gratae on the networks and cable: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Dan Rather, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (what the hell, the last two are the ex POTUSes). And we’ve not even mentioned all those progressive show-biz celebs.
Perhaps one of the most important consequences of the progressive Anti-FOX channel would be the emergence of a “safety net” for the muzzled staffs of the uniformly-right-wing channels. As Donahue, Banfield, Arnett and Jordan can testify, when one is tossed out of one of these organizations (e.g., CNN and MSNBC) one is effectively tossed out of the profession. But suppose that these and other “punished” talents were hired by the Anti-FOX channel. This would mitigate the threat to the personnel at the other channels, who might then be willing to exercise more journalistic integrity and independence.
So please, Mr. Soros et al, get with it and put the Anti-FOX on the air, the sooner the better. There is no weapon for the progressive counter-revolution that is more urgently needed in the struggle to restore our democracy, and to reinstate the good name of our republic before the community of nations.
The Darkening “Gray Lady”The editors of The New York Times complain that bloggers, lacking the experience, traditions and professional integrity of legitimate journalists, should refrain from “muddying the waters” and leave the reporting and interpreting to the pros.
My reply to the New York Times can be stated in a very few words:Whitewater
Wen Ho Lee
Headline: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices
Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote” (November 12, 2001)
Jason Blair
Judith Miller, Ahmed Chalabi and the WMDs
Phoney-baloney, in each and every case.Even more significant, perhaps, is the “Legitimate Press” as the watchdog that didn’t bark.
For example, what has The New York Times told us about:Bush’s AWOL from the Texan Air National Guard
Bush’s insider- trading of Harken stocks,
Bush’s business dealings with the Bin Laden family?
Bush’s drug use, and the Texas court’s judgment of “community service”?
The falsehood of the smears against Al Gore (“Inventing the internet,” etc.).
The lies of Colin Powell before the UN Security Council, February, 2002
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
The listening device worn by Bush during the 2004 debates.
Gannon/GeckertAll this from “the flagship of American Journalism.”
Even so, “Truth crushed to earth, will rise again.”
As it did in the “Committees of Correspondence” during the American Revolution, and in the Soviet Union in “Samizdat.”
And so today, finding no other outlet, Truth must apparently “rise” out of the internet – amidst, admittedly and regretfully, tons of trash.
Defend Liberalism, not “Liberalism.”
As anticipated, some visitors to The Smirking Chimp took exception to my proposal that progressives “shed the soiled garment” of the word “liberalism,” while steadfastly defending the political program heretofore referred to by that label.
Two typical complaints:I don't think that liberals should apologize for being liberals. I also don't think that it would be very difficult to redeem the term if liberals made any effort to do so.
Hey, I totally do my part to reclaim the word ''liberal''. When someone calls me one, I say, ''Yes, that's right. I'm an admirer of FDR and Harry Truman and JFK and George McGovern, and I don't have to hang my head when I say it.''With due respect to my critics, it appears that they have fallen victim to “word-magic” – as have we all, more or less. One of the primary objectives of critical thinking is to minimize that victimization as much as possible. In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to “battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
We begin by understanding that the association of words with their referents is arbitrary. Quoting Juliet once again, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Accordingly, on the one hand there is the word “liberal,” and on the other there is a body of political convictions, liberalism, that has heretofore been referred to by that word “liberal.”
But now, due to a relentless campaign by The Right, the word “liberalism” has been unjustly stained with connotations of “bleeding heart,” “elitism,” and even “treason.” And every time someone proudly announces to the world, “I am a liberal and proud of it!” those connotations accompany the label.
Perhaps this is why Bernie Sanders, the admirable Independent Congressman, recently told his Vermont constituent Thom Hartmann, “I am not a liberal, I am a progressive.” If so, it was a wise decision.
Face it: to the average citizen today, “Liberalism” no longer means what it once meant. Yet the body of beliefs and policies once referred to when FDR, Adlai Stevenson, JFK, and others called themselves “liberals” – these beliefs and policies are as valid and urgently relevant as ever. So lets protect them by awarding them a new name: “progressivism.” Be assured that if we do so, “liberalism” (in the original sense) will “smell as sweet.”
And so, to reply to my critic, I too don't think that liberals should apologize for being liberals. But they should discard a label that causes them much more harm than benefit.
“Words,” as Thomas Hobbes noted, “are wise mens’ counters; they are the money of fools.”
The "Count Every Vote Act." Good, but Not Good Enough.
Senators Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton have introduced the “Count Every Vote Act of 2005.” Prospects of passage are slim.
The chief features of the act are the following:The voting system shall produce an individual voter-verifiable paper record of the vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the vote is cast.
The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the voter-verifiable paper records before the permanent voter-verified paper record is preserved...Very good! – a giant step in the right direction.
But even if this is enacted, we’re not yet safe at home.
For in addition (a) there must be safeguards in place in the compilation of votes (e.g., statewide level). In the 2004 election, 80% of votes were compiled by Diebold and ES&S, and it is here, I strongly suspect, that Election 2004 was, for the most part, stolen.
(b) It is not enough to require paper record of each vote. There must also be assured access to this paper record in the event a contested election or a recount. Consider, for example, the case of the optical scan ballots in Florida in the past election. If, as appears likely, the Florida optical scan totals were rigged, this could be determined by a manual counting of those ballots. But Glenda Wood, Jeb Bush's Secretary of State, will not allow access to those ballots.
(c) The very notion of a privatized voting system is anathema to democracy. It should be abolished. Also, the involvement of voting administrators (e.g. Kathryn Harris and Ken Blackwell) in partisan politics should be forbidden.
(d) Violations of voting laws (e.g., the Voting Rights Act) should be vigorously prosecuted. If they had been in 2000, 2002 and 2004, Harris, Blackwell, and numerous Diebold employees would now be in prison or under indictment.
(f) There must be less hesitation to void corrupted elections and order new elections, under scrupulous supervision. Were this done in the past three elections, there is no doubt that Gore would have taken the Presidency in 2000, the Democrats the Congress in 2002, and that a Democrat would now be President (presumably a re-elected Al Gore).
February 17, 2005
A Warning from Easter Island
UCLA Geographer, Jared Diamond, is the author of the best selling book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In a lecture last month at the San Diego Natural History Museum, Dr. Diamond explained how the Polynesian society on Easter Island collapsed when all the trees on that once-heavily forested island were cut down.
Diamond then asked: "what do you think the Easter Islander ... said as he was chopping down that last tree? ... I wonder if he said, 'never fear, technology will solve our problems, we'll find a substitute for wood.' Or perhaps he said, 'your environmental models are untested, we need more research. Action would be premature. You are fear mongers.' Or perhaps he said, 'this is my tree and this is my land, and I'll do with it as I please I'm here to maximize a profit. Get the big government of the chiefs off my back'
"Maybe it was one of those three things [that caused] the collapse of Easter Island society."
Petroleum is the primary energy source upon which industrialized society depends. It now appears nearly certain that sometime in the next decade, world oil production will "peak," after which the price of oil, and hence almost all other commodities, will rise sharply. When the energy required to extract the oil approaches the amount of energy contained in the oil, industrial civilization will collapse, resulting in the death of billions of human beings. (See my "The Oil Trap").
Unless the industrialized nations embark immediately upon a massive and sustained effort to reduce oil consumption and to develop the "next" source of energy.
This is not the policy of those Texas "oil-men," Bush and Cheney. Instead, their "solution" is to invade foreign countries and to seize their oil. If successful, it can only postpone the inevitable catastrophe. And there is every indication that the Bush-Cheney "solution" will not succeed.
And why won't they face the hard facts and respond appropriately to the catastrophic threat immediately before us?Listen closely, and you may find that they are sounding very much like Prof. Diamond's Easter Islander, hacking away at that last tree.
The Judicial Conundrum
There is a great deal of concern that after the Bush-Cheney regime leaves office, their legacy will include a Supreme Court and a Federal Judiciary that are overwhelmingly right-wing-regressive. (I refuse to call them "conservative").
Will there be no remedy for this?
Here's a thought: Just suppose that, at long last, it is proven that the Presidency and the Congress were "stolen" in 2000, 2002, and 2004, by voting fraud, accomplished through the secret ("proprietary") source codes and the paperless e-voting machines, owned and programmed by GOP suppoters.
Might not a "counter-revolutionary" Congress and administration then enact and enforce legislation that would decree that the Bush-Cheney administration was illegitimate, and thus the judicial appointments of that administration null and void?
The courts, of course, would attempt to over-rule such legislation, after which all Hell would break loose.
Admittedly, this sounds like a fantasy. But consider: who could have imagined just four years ago that we would be experiencing the political nightmare that we find today. And today's conditions are just a snapshot along a road that will probably lead to still worse horrors ahead.
In any case, we're in for a rough ride!
"Scandal?" What "Scandal?"
In an excellent article severely critical of the Bush administration and the media, Paul Craig Roberts writes:
The conservative media will never recover from its role as Chief Sycophant for the Bush administration. Journalists who demanded that Clinton be held accountable for a minor sex scandal (Monica Lewinsky) and a minor financial scandal (Whitewater) now serve as apologists and propagandists for the Bush administration's major war scandals. (EP italics)
Similarly, Peter Dizikes writes: "Here are 34 scandals from the first four years of George W. Bush's presidency -- every one of them worse than Whitewater."
Even Robert Kennedy Jr. falls into the trap: "Sleazy scoundrels ... make the endlessly broadcast Clinton-Whitewater scandal look like a Sunday-school romp, yet they are invisible in the press."
And on and on. How often do you, dear reader, encounter the coupling of "whitewater" and "scandal"? I can tell you that I flinch every time that I see it -- all too often, as it happens.
So once again, let's set this straight (and everyone repeat after me): There Was No "Whitewater Scandal!"
After eight years, over 50 million dollars, and the labor of an army of lawyers and investigators, Ken Starr and his minions could find no wrongdoing whatever in Bill and Hillary Clinton's losing Whitewater investment.
And yet today, the press, including friends and supporters of the Clintons, just can't get that exoneration into their heads. "Whitewater scandal" has become a "meme" -- a mind-virus that just cannot be dispatched, no matter how much light is shed on it.
And that's just one of a myriad of political word-tricks at large in the public discourse that cloud our judgment.
Now don't get me started on "compassionate conservatism."
The California Purge.
Three years ago, California Governor Gray Davis was hot on the trail of The Great Enron Robbery, that cost California electric rate-payers billions of dollars.
And we all know what happened to Gray Davis. And the Enron suit? Disappeared without a trace.
California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, led the successful effort to decertify the paperless Diebold voting machines in California, and in addition instructed the Attorney General to file civil and criminal charges against the Diebold Corporation.
A week ago (February 5), Shelley resigned, amidst charges of "misconduct," none serious enough to merit a criminal indictment. Governor Schwartznegger appointed Republican Assemblyman Bruce McPherson to succeed Shelley.
No further word of the charges against Diebold or the future of e-voting in California elections.
Coincidences?We report, you decide.
Kristin Breitweiser for Congress!
On December 7, 1993, Dennis McCarthy boarded the Long Island Railroad in lower Manhattan for his usual commute to his home in Mineola Long Island.
This time, he didn't make it. He was murdered along with five others by a crazed gunman, Colin Ferguson. McCarthy's son, Kevin, was severely wounded in the shooting.
McCarthy's wife, Carolyn, was not a typical grieving widow. She was angry, and determined to act. A lifelong Republican, she announced in 1996 that she would run as a Democrat against Daniel Frisa, an opponent to the assault weapons ban.
She won the election in 1996, and every election since.
Carolyn McCarthy's story inevitably brings to mind Kristen Breitweiser, the articulate and indomitable 9/11 widow who, along with the other "Jersey Girls," has been a major force behind the investigations of the World Trade Center attack, much to the irritation and chagrin of the Bush regime.
Last week I learned that Ms. Breitweiser also happens to own a law degree from Seton Hall University.
This splendid lady must not now fade from public life. Surely she should follow the lead of Carolyn McCarthy and run for Congress as a Democrat even, perhaps, for the Senate, should Frank Lautenberg (as is likely) choose not to run again in 2008.
At the time of the WTC attack, Ms. Breitweiser was a Republican. But what the Hell, nobody's perfect! Besides, there is ample reason to suppose, in view of her recent encounter with Republicans, that she has re-evaluated her politics.
Kristin Breitweiser for Congress!Provided, of course, they don't use the Diebold, ES&S or Sequoia paperless e-voting machines in New Jersey. For if they do, Ms. Breitweiser would be wasting her time by running for Congress.
February 1, 2005
A postscript to my reprised essay, “Creationism and the Devolution of the Intellect.”
The persistent fundamentalist opposition to the Theory of Evolution, despite overwhelming evidence and the universal acceptance by all life scientists, reminds me of similar dogmatic resistance to Galileo’s scientific advances.
In his monumental History of Western Philosophy, W. T. Jones describes Galileo’s encounter with his colleagues at the University of Padua.
Jones writes:When invited by Galileo to look through the newly invented telescope and see for themselves the satellites of Jupiter, they refused. They knew that Jupiter could not have satellites; hence what Galileo reported that we saw could only be witchcraft or sleight of hand. After all, the whole universe demonstrated again and again the importance that God has assigned the number seven. It was therefore sacrilegious and against all reason to suppose that there could be more than seven heavenly bodies.
The Paduan Philosophers’ thus argued:
There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head.... From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven. Moreover, these [alleged] satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore can exercise no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist. Besides, [from the earliest times, men] have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them after the seven planets. Now, if we increase the number of the planets, this whole and beautiful system falls to the ground.
Plus ça change, plus la même chose!
(W. T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Second Edition, Vol. 3, Harcourt Brace and World, 1969, p. 101).
Some Enduring Wisdom from Will Pitt. (No, not that Will Pitt).
In November 18, 1777, William Pitt wrote the following letter to the House of Lords. It was titled, “An English Plea For Peace With The American Colonies.”
My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty from the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you CANNOT conquer America. What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much. You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still more extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow; traffic and barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country: your efforts are forever vain and impotent-doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies, to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms! Never! Never! Never!Are the Iraqi “insurgents” all that different from our patriot forebears?
(Thanks to Allen L. Roland for bringing this quotation to our attention).
January 2, 2005
BUMPER STICKER: “Better ten thousands die, than George Bush admit a mistake.”
A SYLLOGISM
a. “Democratic countries do not wage aggressive wars.” (George W. Bush)
b. The US is waging an aggressive war in Iraq.
_________________________________________________________
c. Ergo: The US is not a democracy.
ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew, 5:9)
So, shouldn’t faithful Christians be reluctant to endorse and be involved in a warfare?
Not at all, says Rev. Jerry Falwell. In fact, “God is Pro-War.”The good Reverend instructs us:
Christians have struggled with the issue of war for centuries. Before Jesus arrived on he scene, all good people wrestled with war and the existence of evil. Thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the subject...
Many present-day pacifists hold Jesus as their example for unvarying peace. But they ignore the full revelation concerning Jesus pictured in the book of Revelation 19, where He is depicted bearing a “sharp sword” and smiting nations, ruling them with “a rod of iron.”
Moreover, the Song of Victory in Exodus15 hails God as a God of war: “... The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” And, as the verses [in Ecclesiastes] that open this column indicate, there is indeed a time for war.
God actually strengthened individuals for war, including Moses, Joshua and many of the Old Testament judges who demonstrated great faith in battle. And God destroyed many armies challenging the Israelites. I Chronicles 14:15 describes God striking down the Philistines.Read the column and you will find that in support of the “warrior God,” Falwell cites the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation. There is no citation from the Gospels, or from the Epistles that follow. Small wonder. I doubt that there is a recorded word from the mouth of Jesus that sanctions war. (In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” But this is a prophecy of hard times ahead – not a call for his followers to lift up their swords). Quite the contrary, Jesus instructs us to “love our enemies,” (Matthew 5:44), to “turn the other cheek” and to “resist not evil.” (Matthew 5:39).
The Old Testament is quite another story, for it is soaked with the blood of the unfortunate tribes -- the citizens of Jericho, the Philistines and the Midianites -- that stood in the way of the conquering “armies of The Lord.” As for the book of Revelations – the ravings of the madman of Patmos – Falwell and his Rapturite brethren interpret that book as a prophecy that The Lord, in his infinite love and mercy, will soon cast into eternal damnation and torment, every human soul who ever lived, except those very few who happen to share Jerry Falwell’s religious convictions.
To Falwell and his literalist ilk, there is One God, of one mind, who wrote (through various prophets) every inerrant word of the Bible. So if we have trouble reconciling a God who sanctions the parental execution of disobedient children (Deut. 21:18), the stoning non-virginal brides (Deut. 22:13), or those who work on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2) – a God who also commands the genocidal slaughter of whole cities and tribes – with the loving and forgiving God described in the Gospels, well that merely proves, as St. Paul counsels, that “the wisdom of God” appears as foolishness to us mere mortals. (I Cor. 1:21).
There is another view of The Bible, shared by most historians and biblical scholars (all of whom are, of course, condemned to be thrown into the fiery pit of Hell). According to this perspective, The Bible is not, strictly speaking “a book” – it is an anthology of books written over the span of about 800 years, by unknown or little-known authors, and distorted by numerous translations and editings. Instead of giving us a unified code of morality, these books portray a maturation of morality, through historical ages, from a savage tribalism and constraining legalism of the Old Testament, evolving, among the minor prophets late in the Old Testament and into the New Testament, into an ethic of pacifism, humility, compassion and universal inclusiveness. Jesus of Nazareth spoke of this moral maturation when, as in The Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly said: “It hath been said...., but I say unto you....” (See for yourself: its in Matthew, Ch. 5).
That moral evolution as depicted through the books of The Bible is itself an inspiring moral lesson, though not of the sort that the fundamentalists recognize and endorse. But because these books contain a wide spectrum of moral messages, those who regard each verse as equally infallible, while unperturbed by flat-out inconsistency, can find therein “scriptural justification” for all sorts of abominable beliefs – for example, the belief that “God is pro-war.”
Though I am confident that Rev. Falwell would have no inclination to follow the advice of this sinner and agnostic, I would still urge him, and those persuaded by his worship of a "warrior God," to contemplate two passages of scripture, one from the Old Testament, and the other from the New Testament.He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.”Micah, 4:3-5
Note above: “... every one in the name of his god,” and the implied message of religious toleration.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and yet took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink.
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Matthew, 25:34-46
If, as the fundamentalists believe (and I do not), each soul in the hereafter must appeal for its salvation before the throne of the Almighty, I’d venture that the Reverends Falwell, Robertson, Sheldon, and their kind will be quite amazed and horrified when they are directed to “the left hand” and reminded: “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”
PostScript: Quoth the Reverend Falwell:
Some reading this column will surely ask, “Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, ‘Thou shalt not kill?’”
Actually, no; it says: “Thou shalt not commit murder.”Sorry, Rev., but my Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13). (Same with the King James and the Revised Standard translations). Falwell reputedly preaches that every word in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Is he “improving upon” God’s “inerrant word” here?
The Furriners Get it Right
The latest [global Market Insite] poll found that more than two thirds of European and Canadian consumers have had a negative change in their view of the United States as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the last three years. Nearly half believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control oil supplies, while only 15 percent believed it was related to terrorism.
Nearly two thirds of European and Canadian consumers also said they believe U.S. foreign policy is guided primarily by self-interest and empire-building, while only 17 percent believe that the defense of freedom and democracy is its guiding principle.
Half of the entire sample said they distrusted U.S. companies, at least in part because of the U.S. foreign policy. Seventy-nine percent said they distrusted the U.S. government for the same reason, while 39 percent said they distrusted the American public.
Are Cut-Throat Competitors, Cutting Their Own Throats?
Those of you who have seen the “Buy Blue” lists, (e.g., at “Donkey Rising”) may have noticed that a disproportionate number of gasoline companies, consumer electronics chains, hotels and restaurants contribute heavily to the Republicans.
What are they thinking? Don’t they realize that by supporting Bush and his policies, they’ve booked passage on the Titanic?
Here’s why. As we well know, Bushenomics is “reverse Robin-Hoodism:” it takes from the poor (and the middle class) and gives to the rich. For example, over the past four years, the median family income has dropped by some $1500, as the costs of medical care, insurance, gasoline, and other basic necessities have risen. At the same time, consumer debt has also risen.
This can’t go on. Sooner or later, and most likely sooner, consumer debt will “max out,” and as disposable cash moves out of the pockets of the masses and into the portfolios and offshore accounts of the super-rich, the economy must slow down – and quite possible cascade down into a depression.
As payments for necessities – food, shelter, clothing, heating, health care – must be met, luxuries will be foregone. Families will “wait one more year” before buying another car, and that car may have to be purchased from a used-car lot. Vacations will be cancelled or downgraded. There will be fewer “nights out” and fewer purchases of electronic gadgets. (See my “Flunking Economics 101").
The problem is compounded by the falling value of the dollar, brought on by Bush’s massive federal deficits. As the dollar drops, the cost of imported goods (which means most electronic and computer components) rises.
And so, the first industries to be effected by an economic slowdown, will be those aforementioned gasoline, consumer electronic, hotel, entertainment and restaurant industries.
Somehow, in their short-sighted greed for still more tax breaks for the wealthy or their craving for de-regulation (or whatever else may have motivated their contributions to the Republicans), these GOP fat-cats seem to have forgotten a simple but inescapable economic law: there can be no sales without buyers. And a public with increasing debt and decreasing disposable income is less able to purchase "dispensable" good and services.
Is all that too complicated for these business geniuses to understand?
If all this theory will not persuade, history repeatedly teaches us that short sighted class warfare of the rich against the masses works to the disadvantage of all. Under Clinton, stock prices tripled, as the federal budget eventually produced surpluses and the dollar held its value. Under Bush stock prices have been stagnant, federal deficits have soared, and the dollar is falling.
More generally, Arthur Blaustein asks, "are Republicans better economic managers than Democrats?" The answer:Guess which president since World War II did best on these eight most generally accepted measures of good management of the nation's economy. You can choose among six Republicans — Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bushes 41 and 43 — and five Democrats — Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Clinton. Which president produced:
1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The highest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The highest growth in hourly wages?
6. The lowest misery index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?The answers are:
1-Truman; 2-Clinton; 3-Johnson; 4-Kennedy; 5-Johnson; 6-Truman; 7-Truman; 8-Clinton. In other words, Democratic presidents trounced Republicans eight out of eight. If this isn't enough to destroy the perception that the economy has performed better under Republicans, then let's include stock market performance under Democrats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average during the 20th century rose an average of 7.3% a year under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it jumped 10.3%, a whopping 41% gain for investors. During George W. Bush's first three years as president, the stock market declined 4%."
"It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better [economic] record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans). What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent)." (See also Mark Hulbert: Pop quiz on the markets: Which is better, GOP or Democrats?, CBS.MarketWatch.com, November 13, 2002).
Why is this? Put simply, it appears that the Democrats’ policy is to feed the golden goose. The Republicans, on the other hand, prefer to cook it. In other words, the Democrats, by looking after the needs and interest of the producers of wealth – workers, educators, researchers -- nourish the economy. Republicans starve the economy by exploiting it.
Even if, as the progressives complain, the Republicans and The Right are deaf to appeals to compassion and economic justice, one would suppose that they might be moved by appeals to their self interest, and that they would support the party which, as history confirms, best serves that self-interest.
Apparently not.
But then, the Bush team no longer claims to be “reality based.”