December 3, 2011 at 12:00 P.M. Recent events in Pakistan, including rallies reminiscent of events in Tehran before the seizure of the U.S. embassy in 1980, make it clear that great concern and attention to another crisis point in the world is called for. I urge the U.S. government to attempt a strategy that is more creative and humane than further "robot bombs."
Observing events surrounding the so-called "supercommittee" -- as I recovered from a mysterious fever -- I was surprised by the out-of-control irrationalism in the nation's capitol. There have always been fanatics willing to abandon pragmatism or "rational self-interest" (in Posnerian terms) for ideology, but there have rarely been social movements inspired by the total rejection of rationality in political life.
The Republican demand that all discussions begin with the extention of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is impractical and can only paralyze the process of negotiation as further economic catastrophe looms on the horizon. This feeling that the American political system is frozen -- if not broken -- because of partisanship at the expense of the national interest fuels the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement:
"The Occupy Wall Street movement that began in Zucotti Park in New York's financial district on September 17 has grown to a degree that seems to have stunned even its organizers and most ardent supporters. From the first days, most news outlets, if they deigned to cover the movement at all, ridiculed the protesters for lacking a specific political agenda or concrete demands. They were 'leaderless,' [and] 'directionless.' But less in this case has proven to be more: Occupy Wall Street's vague, open-ended character has been crucial to its success."
Michael Greenberg, "In Zucotti Park," in The New York Review of Books, November 10, 2011, at p. 12.
Here is what has been crucial to the "success" of OWS: "The Washington Post reports that in 2010 the top 1% [of Americans] made a minimum of $516,638, [per year,] with an average total wealth per person of $14 MILLION."
These very fortunate persons and not the vast majority of their countrymen -- who often experience hunger and hardship -- have received and will receive additional "stimulus funds" and more tax cuts, if the Republicans have their way. I would not mind being "stimulated" now and then with the occasional $800 BILLION giveaway.
This absurd reality illustrates Gore Vidal's contention that America has one political party -- the property party -- with two wings, Democrats and Republicans. Acceptance of Vidal's point leads to the inferrence (also "inference") that most of us are not members of the property party. Hence, we find ourselves subjected to "taxation without representation." ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
Clearly, U.S. politicians MOSTLY work for and reflect the will of this tiny group of rich people, not the welfare or interests of most of the rest of the American or global population. Governing has been described as part science and part art form. It is unwise, if this description is accurate, to straight-jacket legislators with requirements that taxes are never to rise for any reason in light of today's dynamic and volatile economic realities. The 1% do not require more legal protection, but the rest of us sure do.
Most Americans believe, falsely, that "events abroad cannot affect their lives." Amazingly, they continue to hold this belief in a post-9/11 world, perhaps as a vestige of notions of American exceptionalism. For this reason, most Americans express little interest in international news. Given our interconnected economies, however, almost all news today is "international" either in origin or effect, often in both ways.
The European financial crisis, the upheavals in the Middle East and throughout the Third World, the shifting of the world's financial center to Asia, especially Hong Kong and Tokyo, but also India -- all of this should make it clear to what extent the current global financial crisis has American origins and will have dire implications for America's future.
It is true that 40% of U.S. foreign trade is with Europe and that a credit crunch in the European Union will destroy much of that trade. Yet it is no less true that our single largest trading partner is still Latin America where the consequences of a world credit disaster will be much worse than in Europe with devastating effects on employment in the United States. The poor will once again suffer more severely than "we" do for our First World greed.
America needs to develop a Latin America policy and strategy that is not dominated by Miami's Right-wing lunatic fringe of the political spectrum that is still fighting the Cold War. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
We must take action now to avoid a catastrophe for everyone. Failure to compromise on the part of the Republicans will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire anyway. My suggestion to the GOP echoes the wisdom of a local friend: "Something is better than nothing."
We all have to move on from the era of conflict and the mood of gridlock in the capitol. A tolerant and compassionate negotiating position from the GOP would be a welcome alteration in the party's posture prior to the presidential election.
Chinese scholars have noted the growing contradictions and paralysis in America's allegedly "declining" institutions. The 200 year-old U.S. republic has been described as "sclerotic" by a thriving 5,000 year-old civilization which our political leaders are in the habit of patronizing and insulting prior to asking that same civilization and society for another $1.8 TRILLION to run our government. Ironies abound in the U.S.-China "partnership."
With all due respect to my Chinese friends, it is a bit too soon for vast historical generalization of a Spenglerian sort. America is not in terminal "decline" -- not yet -- but our politicians at this crucial moment in our history are strikingly mediocre men and women, with very few exceptions, fewer exceptions than before the anounced retirement of Barney Frank. America will miss Mr. Frank's service and articulateness. In contrast, China's political leadership has, thus far, been flawless in stewarding their nation's economy and foreign affairs.
We cannot afford stupidity or corruption in high office at this moment in America's history. We have plenty of corruption and ineptitude in Washington from both parties. We must overcome our parochialism by looking beyond short-term personal gain for a few Americans to the larger social or collective interest of many afflicted persons in our nation and the world.
We may actually have to take into consideration the welfare of the rest of the people on the planet if we are to ensure our own survival. Greed may not be in our rational self-interest, Judge Posner. Greed, as it turns out, is not "good." ("Richard Posner on Voluntary Actions and Criminal Responsibility" and "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Senator John Kerry is among the 1% of the population who would benefit from the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts. Nevertheless, Senator Kerry recognizes that more than personal considerations are involved in this discussion. We are told that it is part of the special calling of persons in the U.S. Senate to set an example when it comes to such matters. ("Is Menendez For Sale?" and "Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")
We must find a way to transcend the gridlock in Washington, D.C. by allowing legislators to develop workable solutions to complex real world problems. Raising taxes is not something any politician favors lightly. This is especially true when officials themselves happen to fall into the category of citizens who will have to pay more from their personal earnings and assets to the government. This excludes bribe money, of course, which is usually supplied in cash in dirty envelopes, as in Hudson County, New Jersey. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")
No method of "enhancing state revenues" can be taken off the table, however, as we face an unprecedented crisis of solvency. Even advocates of so-called "pledges" from politicians not to raise taxes may have second thoughts when grandma's social security check is threatened.
America's military will need replenishing -- Republicans usually like this sort of strong defense program -- as a result of multiple, costly, and prolonged military conflicts in several countries. Collectively, these struggles are probably unwinnable. In any event, "replenishing" the military will require revenue from some source.
If the problem is the word "taxes" then let us make use of President George Herbert Walker Bush's ("Bush the Greater's") euphemism "revenue enhancement measures," a good Republican pedigree for the term may help. The government needs to get money from somewhere. After all, many of our economic troubles are due to the failed policies of G.W. Bush's ("Bush the Lesser's") administration.
Liberal skepticism about the OWS movement falters when young people express understandable impatience with the luxurious brand of liberalism favored by veteran politicians who have tried to coopt their movement. With the loss of Barney Frank the lowbrows may have taken over the U.S. Congress:
" ... Slavoj Zisek implied in a speech to the protesters, [that we are seeing in America] the equivalent of Chinese repression. '[In] 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on tv and in films and in novels all stories that contain alternative realities or time travel,' Zisek declared. 'This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here, we don't think of prohibition. [More irony?] Because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It's easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.' ..."
"Protests and Power," (Editorial) in The New Republic, November 3, 2011, at p. 1. (Leon Wieseltier?)
Please try to imagine humanizing (if not ending) an oppressive and abusive capitalist system that destroys lives every day. (See Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story.")
Mr. Obama's Oprah-like "feel good" speeches are more appropriate for reelection campaigns than the current crisis in the capitol. No wonder Mr. Obama's "Disappointmints" are selling briskly in Manhattan, even more than Sara Palin's "Embarassmints." The prospect of a Newt Gingrich presidency is frightening enough without contemplating Mr. Perry as Vice President.
Mr. Obama must begin to channel his inner Lyndon B. Johnson if he is to be successful in this legislative struggle. A tough political inside game does not come easily to this president. Senator Kerry cannot fight this war for the president and neither can Hillary Clinton.
Humiliating messages have been received by the U.S. recently, both involve top secret cybersecurity defenses and presidential safety plans found in garbage cans in Australia. New York's security plans for computer defenses were found in a refuse container not far from City Hall. In other words, America is being told by "other intelligence agencies" in the world that our cybersecurity plans are "garbage." I agree with them. ("What is it like to be censored in America?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?" then "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Improvements in intelligence and computer security will also require resources, of course. This improvement, in turn, may require (dare I say it?) higher taxes. As usual, the choice comes down to reality versus rhetoric. Not to choose -- continuing to play the blame game among nations -- is to lose the opportunity to improve an already dangerous situation:
" ... the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, and the annual rate of economic growth has slipped to roughly 1 percent during the last 6 months. New crises afflict world markets while the American economy may again slide into recession after only a tepid recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression [that we owe to Bush/Cheney.]"
Jeff Madrick & Frank Portnoy, "Should Banks Be Prosecuted?," in The New York Review of Books, November 10, 2011, at p. 23.
