One thing the Occupy Movement has done.

The Occupy movement that has spread like wildfire around our country and our world is has had and will continue to cause myriad repercussions. I jotted this down while I was out last night, about what I think is one of the most important changes in an Occupied world.


What has Occupy done? It has made it acceptable to talk about our sociopolitical feelings in public. It is acceptable to express a belief in the role of government in something as broad as income distribution or as specific as protecting historical buildings (both conversations I have overheard in the past few days). Everyone wants to know everyone else's opinions. From young lovers, to friends, to a married couple who both, frankly, seemed surprised that the other person had any political beliefs whatsoever, everyone in New York City at least is, tentatively, talking politics. The beginnings of these conversations are always a bit halting, checking to make sure its ok to have 'serious' talk. Topics which half a year ago would have been almost taboo are becoming commonplace. People are beginning to believe that sharing the political, social, historical, and personal knowledge they have, maybe even forming some kind of opinion on it, is cool. This may seem like a small step, but it is a fundamental shift from a culture which has moved further and further towards embracing and encouraging ignorance. Our public spaces may be scattered, but we can begin to take them back with just a simple conversation. Functioning, populist Democracy does not require that we are all Occupiers. It does not require that we are all activists. It does require that we are able to comfortably and openly discuss our ideas. Don't look now, but conversation is making a comeback.



In other news, I'm sorry for the lack of stuff posted recently. I have made it my New Year's Resolution (wow, I must be becoming a real person) to concentrate more of my time on the blog, and I'm going to begin that a bit early. With Thanksgiving coming up, I may be too full of turkey to do much of anything, but starting next week postings will be much more frequent.

What happens with 'small' government?

One of the fundamental questions our world is finally beginning to ask is where in our society we want power to be controlled. Conservatives would have you believe that the choice we have to make is between putting power in the hands of government (your friendly neighborhood faceless bureaucrat) or keeping the power for yourself. Especially right now, with the government basically refusing to govern effectively, if at all, that choice seems pretty simple.

But, of course, that is clearly not the actual choice. America is not made up of small, family driven western towns any more. Once the government has given up power over a specific function: health care, education, law enforcement, infrastructure building, street cleaning, etc. then the power that once rested in the hands of that government (and therefore, at least by the books, in the hands of the people) is now controlled by a private corporation. These are not small mom and pop corporations. These are huge corporations interested only in the financial wellbeing of their richest shareholders. Deregulating the economy will lead to more control of the market by these gigantic corporations, not less. If its not a government bureaucrat looking over your medical records it won't be your friendly family doctor down the road, it will be an employee of that privately owned corporation. More than likely that person will live in India and make just enough to keep them over the poverty line (that's sixty five cents a day, if you're counting). Not exactly the picture of society that you had in mind?

In the end, the root of the conservative populist message is a yearning to return to the 'uncomplicated' days of the old West, where government was too far away to really do much of anything, where men could be men, women could be property, and anyone not white could basically be in constant danger of being shot/raped/enslaved. Not only is this unpalatable desire entirely impossible to recreate in a country like America, it is spread around as subterfuge, something to hide the true message and desire of the conservative elites: the desire to create (or, truly, re-create) a world where the options available for the upper 1% of society are radically different than for the rest of the populous.


So, for those true libertarians out there, or even for the strange American brand of libertarian who can somehow believe in small government everywhere except for on social issues, I urge you to stop letting the neo-conservatives steal your populous (well, questionably populous) message while pushing a deeply anti-populous platform, a platform designed to benefit only the elites. Libertarians, religiously-motivated voters, small government austerity-backers, you have every right to feel discomfort at probably having to vote for Mitt Romney. As much as we on the left might dislike Romney, I think hardcore conservatives have even more reason to despise him. He's interested in small government only to the extent of deregulating massive corporations. He talks about the debt crisis because, in the current political climate, he has to, but you can tell its not as monumental an issue to him as it is to say, Ron Paul. And he has no real stomach for any kind of legislation on social issues. Some of the most passionate movements in this country, seen in both the Tea Party and many parts of the Occupy movement, is a move towards extremely limited government and towards (less in the Occupy movement) a greater Christian influence in that limited government. The fact that there will not be a candidate whose platform really includes either of those things is a disgrace. As I said in my previous post, truly the only way we can solve this schism is to break down the two party system.

That being said, the election of one of those American Libertarians to the office of President would have the potential to be even more dangerous than Romney. There are very few examples that can be called upon in terms of comparable governments to the one they might try to envision. However, want an example of a mostly isolationist, religiously motivated government with extremely limited social programs? Just check out Muammar Gaddafi's Libya.

Herman Cain: Why we should all be worried...and ashamed

For a few weeks I have been trying to come up with a coherent response to the candidacy of Herman Cain.  I have shared that struggle with basically every news source I could get my hands on, on the right or the left. Indeed, it seemed like Herman Cain himself hardly had a coherent response to himself. This is a campaign which seemed very unwilling to be a campaign and an equally unwilling or at least woefully unprepared candidate. His campaign staff leadership is made up entirely of ex-Koch brothers employees, his advisors remain either nameless or nobodies, and his debating style can best be described as willfully ignorant.


However, Rachel Maddow's November 4th summed up this candidacy in a bold and undeniable report. Herman Cain is running not as a candidate, but as an anti-candidate. The root of Cain's message, even more than the importance of corporations, is that politics is a farce, that someone with what is clearly becoming a joke-candidicy can rise to power. Herman Cain is leading by example, running to prove that government and the people who can get elected into it are unworthy of the power bestowed onto them.

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but here's one I am beginning to believe. Herman Cain's campaign is, as Maddow labels it, a piece of performance art, albeit with quite a strict script. It is being funded and run almost singularly by the Koch brothers, two men who perhaps best express the greed and depravity of the upper 1%.  They are running Cain not, as one generally thinks of puppet candidates, as a means of giving them specific political power, but rather as a means of discrediting the entire political process and government itself and further increase the power of corporations in America.


Rachel Maddow's report can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Ze-ejTC7c . Watch it, now.


We must seize upon this moment. There is a high probability that the steps taken by the Koch brothers on behalf of Cain may be illegal as well as immoral. A full investigation should be ordered, which will no doubt uncover more problems in the billionaire brother's books. We must use this to add more fuel to the fire to try and regulate, or in many cases re-regulate, the influence that money can have in politics, be it working to get rid of corporate personhood, push for public financing of elections, or limiting the affect of lobbyists groups and PACs. But we must all allow ourselves to spend a moment being ashamed. The fact that the Cain campaign has had and, most likely, will continue to have success suggests that our fragile Democracy may be closer to what Cain's 'brothers from another mother' are after. If we are to remain a true 21st century Democracy, this trend cannot continue.

A Call for Parties in a time of Partisanship

The American political system is broken. It is clear that rather than being the fault of a particular person or persons, the structure of American politics itself has collapsed. One of the supposed strengths of the American two party system is the fact that it can never be held hostage to the confused squabbles of true multi-party democracies. We sacrifice specificity of message for responsible governance. Not only is the idea that a decision between two choices should be enough inherently un-American, it has proven to be an inadequate means of representing the varied interests of the people of this vast land. Rather working to elect politicians from parties specifically addressing the concerns of their constituents, citizens are asked to cast their vote for the people they disagree with––or fear––less than the one other option available to them. 

Of all of the problems this kind of political situation creates, one of the worst is the absolute disconnect between voters and the people they are voting for. The two party system, which strictly controls all levels of national, state, and local American politics allows for massive top-down control by party bosses in terms of choosing candidates. Launching a campaign without the backing of one of the two major parties (and thus without their money) basically necessitates one a single qualification for running for office: massive personal wealth. It should come as no surprise that the 112th Congress, filled of course with ‘independent, populist’ tea partiers, is 25% wealthier than the 111th. Citizens still vote for their representatives, but the process to even get on the ballot let alone have a chance of being elected nearly always requires insider support, personal wealth, or both

The two party system also creates a false standard of legitimacy. With Democrats and Republicans filling basically every elected office, running as a third party candidate is seen as automatically being outside of the 'mainstream' and having views that only a small fringe of society would agree with. In fact, we have seen that it is quite often more beneficial for a candidate to run as a pure independent, running on a cult of personality rather than a party manifest. For a candidate to succeed, or even be given a chance to succeed, he or she (usually he) must meet the standards of the party bosses before being presented to the people. 

The two party system also gives the government––and by nature the party bosses, the insiders, etc––the power not only to dictate policy, but to dictate the kinds of questions being asked of the government, to dictate the facts by which our world supposedly runs. For longer than my entire life, the basic debates in the halls of Washington DC have not been whether or not to pursue a neoconservative/neoliberal military driven agenda, but how best to put such an agenda in place. Not whether or not to support the exponential growth in the power of money and the one percent who control most of it, but how best to help them. These are not arguments worthy of a Democracy, and yet, until the past few years, we have simply accepted that that was the way that government was, the way our government worked. Chief among the many reasons for this is the ability of the two parties to have seemingly different agendas but to ultimately serve the same Master: the establishment, big business, the military industrial complex, the one percent. It is in the interests of every insider, Republican or Democrat, to campaign hard against their 'foe' but harder against anyone threatening their false duality. 

Both parties are beginning to be held responsible. Mistrust in every level of government is up, and while it is still important to point to specific poll numbers being low, it is clearly a general trend across all government rather than with a specific person, party, etc. People are fed up with every aspect of politics in this country. The disarray caused by the Tea Party within the Republican caucus may be matched with a similar discord among Democrats spawned by the Occupy movement (though in this cause there could and should be a reaction on the right as well). However, there is really only so much we can do within the strict confines of the status quo. The Republican party is being split in two (actually, a number of smaller groups could easily be formed out of the Republican party, but the two major groups would be the Bush/Romney/Cheney neocons and the Paul/Ryan/Bachmann libertarians-except-for-social-issues). This is a moment we must seize upon, not as Democrats hoping to score massive political points against our rival, but as Progressives pushing for greater accountability and transparency in government. After all, who knows better than us how many people have to hold their noses while they vote Democrat. I would argue that there have been few times in the history of this great land where the time was more ripe for true multi-party democracy. We must not let this moment pass. 

To anyone paying attention to the world today it is obvious that many structural changes are needed both in our society and in our politics. In many of those situations, the power to make that change lies only nominally in the hands of the people. Changes to laws, to the structures of government, to the practices of business all require at least some measure of complicit help from within those organizations (baring revolutionary action). The disintegration of the two party system does not.  Political parties are not made up of candidates, they are made up of constituents. We the people have the power to not only demand this kind of change but to actualize it. 

This is not a process that can be rushed. The system is set up to perpetually give the Republicans and Democrats power over all challengers and the party bosses will not give up their monopoly without a fight. Insiders on both groups have been and will continue to be willing to cast aside party differences not for the good of the country but for the good of the political status quo. This is also not something which can be done only by the right or by the left. We must do this not as liberals or conservatives but as the 99%, the people who, lets face it, both Democrats and Republicans would rather trick than actually help. Before we can even get to pushing for a specific agenda to be passed, we must force the actual issues to be discussed, jobs, true financial reform, civil rights, etc.. If you need any further proof, just look at the people who will be leading the tickets in the next election. Romney and Obama share more commonalities than having daddy problems. In a societal political atmosphere filled with passionate civilian arguments for libertarianism, progressivism, theocracy, and collectivization among many others, our choice will be between two centrist neoliberals. 

We can do better.