The anger on the Tea Party right, and the frustration on the left that has energized the "Occupy” movement in cities across America, spring from similar, mostly economic, dissatisfactions. The difference is that those on the rightght have been co-opted to a set of beliefs that are actually in opposition to their own economic interests. Those involved in the “Occupy” movement, and others on the left are quite clear about where their interests lie, despite concerns by media pundits that the participants in the “Occupy” movement thus far lack a clear set of policy demands. Voters from the right vote their aspirations, rather than their reality, while the policies they support make it less likely that they (or their children) will ever achieve the economic security and self reliance to which they aspire. Led to believe that they could succeed if only government would get out of the way, they believe in “personal freedom,” but lack an understanding of the nature of freedom as defined by our Constitution.  They advocate an ideology of “personal responsibility,” rejecting the mutual responsibility required for social and national cohesion and willfully ignorant of the benefits they enjoy thanks to a social contract embodied by our government. The right demands lower taxes and ever smaller, ever more impotent government, focused narrowly on national security, administration of a harsh conception of justice (largely punishment, meted out by a for-profit prison industry), and promotion of the orderly but “unfettered” conduct of business.  Despite incongruity with a small-government

Read More...

 I didn't write this... but posted it because it is well worth reading! America's System Failure: Only a Wave of Democratic Participation Can Save This Country As welcome as it was, the removal of George W. Bush was not enough to cure what ails us. It goes to the root of our political system. by Christopher Hayes  February 3, 2010 There is a widespread consensus that the decade we've just brought to a close was singularly disastrous for the country: the list of scandals, crises and crimes is so long that events that in another context would stand out as genuine lowlights -- Enron and Arthur Andersen's collapse, the 2003 Northeast blackout, the unsolved(!) anthrax attacks -- are mere afterthoughts. We still don't have a definitive name for this era, though Paul Krugman's 2003 book The Great Unraveling captures well the sense of slow, inexorable dissolution; and the final crisis of the era, what we call the Great Recession, similarly expresses the sense that even our disasters aren't quite epic enough to be cataclysmic. But as a character in Tracy Letts's 2007 Pulitzer Prize-winning play, August: Osage County, says, "Dissipation is actually much worse than cataclysm." American progressives were the first to identify that something was deeply wrong with the direction the country was heading in and the first to provide a working hypothesis for the cause: George W. Bush. During the initial wave of antiwar mobilization, in 2002, much of the ire focused on Bush himself. But as the

Read More...

Obama’s Foreign Policy: What approach now? By Paul Crist Since taking office, President Barack Obama has had to grapple with an endless list of thorny issues, but few areas of policy are more of a minefield than foreign policy.  In the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, he faces challenges that defy solutions.  Two hundred years of history provide him with role models and approaches that should guide him through the global minefield he faces.  But who should he emulate to ensure a successful foreign policy?  What foreign policy philosophy most closely resembles his basic instinct?  Which constituencies will support, and which will oppose, the policy choices he makes?  And what are the domestic political implications of the foreign policy choices he makes? American foreign policy through the centuries has been characterized by four fundamentally different philosophies that can be traced to four great historical figures: Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson.  Hamilton favored a realist policy that included a strong national government, powerful military, and the promotion of American business and economic interests through strength and engagement.  It was Hamiltonian realism that kept George H. W. Bush from pursuing Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.  Bush Sr. was tempted by the goal of toppling the Iraqi regime, but his strong realist instinct prevailed, understanding as he did that the political and human costs were too high.  Mocked for his frequent use of the term “prudence,” Bush was, in fact expressing a Hamiltonian, clear-eyed calculation

Read More...

The more I think about this Massachusetts election outcome, the more I am concerned... but not about the Democrats.  I worry for the Republic.  I think both parties are in much deeper trouble than their leaders realize.  And that spells trouble for the Republic. Why? America has become ungovernable.  Every election is about "throwing the bums out," no matter who's in the majority.  Seems to me we have a major populist shift in attitude in the country, with no populist leadership coming from either party, because they're both in thrall to their corporate masters. Candidates talk a populist game in the heat of the campaign, but they don't govern that way (Brown rode around Massachusetts in a pickup truck to polish his populist bonafieds). The anger is growing, but is unfocused.  That anger is evidenced by the utter breakdown of civility either in the halls of Congress or in the political discourse taking place everywhere. It's reflected in the xenophobic hatred of immigrants and an uptick in violence against racial and other minorities.  The teabaggers, birthers, and the Town Hall screamers are evidence of the growing rage, but there is also a growing rage among traditionally left-leaning voters, who have not yet realized it, but they have some common cause with these so-called nut-cases on the right. Rules in the Senate, and the peculiar dynamics of how we apportion Senators and how they're elected, in particular, make it impossible for either party to effectively address the populist demands of voters. 

Read More...