Chris Hedges just says it.

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Chris Hedges just says it.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #132631
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Chris Hedges: America’s Fate — Oligarchy or Autocracy
    September 27, 2021

    The competing systems of power are divided between alternatives which widen the social and political divide — and increase potential for violent conflict.

    By Chris Hedges
    ScheerPost.com

    The competing systems of power in the United States are divided between oligarchy and autocracy. There are no other alternatives. Neither are pleasant. Each have peculiar and distasteful characteristics. Each pays lip service to the fictions of democracy and constitutional rights. And each exacerbates the widening social and political divide and the potential for violent conflict.

    The oligarchs from the establishment Republican Party — figures such as Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, George and Jeb Bush and Bill Kristol — have joined forces with the oligarchs in the Democratic Party to defy the autocrats in the new Republican Party who have coalesced in cult-like fashion around Donald Trump or, if he does not run again for president, his inevitable Frankensteinian doppelgänger.

    (Original illustration by Mr. Fish)

    The alliance of Republican and Democratic oligarchs exposes the burlesque that characterized the old two-party system, where the ruling parties fought over what Sigmund Freud called the “narcissism of minor differences” but were united on all the major structural issues including massive defense spending, free trade deals, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, the endless wars, government surveillance, the money-saturated election process, neoliberalism, austerity, deindustrialization, militarized police and the world’s largest prison system.

    The liberal class, fearing autocracy, has thrown in its lot with the oligarchs, discrediting and rendering impotent the causes and issues it claims to champion. The bankruptcy of the liberal class is important, for it effectively turns liberal democratic values into the empty platitudes those who embrace autocracy condemn and despise.

    So, for example, censorship is wrong, unless the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are censored, or Donald Trump is banished from social media. Conspiracy theories are wrong, unless those theories, such as the Steele dossier and Russiagate, can be used to damage the autocrat. The misuse of the legal system and law enforcement agencies to carry out personal vendettas are wrong, unless those vendettas are directed at the autocrat and those who support him. Giant tech monopolies and their monolithic social media platforms are wrong, unless those monopolies use their algorithms, control of information and campaign contributions to ensure the election of the oligarch’s anointed presidential candidate, Joe Biden.

    The perfidy of the oligarchs, masked by the calls for civility, tolerance and respect for human rights, often out does that of the autocracy. The Trump administration, for example, expelled 444,000 asylum seekers under Title 42, a law that permits the immediate expulsion of those who potentially pose a public health risk and denies the expelled migrants the right to make a case to stay in the U.S. before an immigration judge.

    Please Support Our Fall Fund Drive!

    The Biden administration not only embraced the Trump order in the name of fighting the pandemic, but has thrown out more than 690,000 asylum seekers since taking office in January. The Biden administration, on the heels of another monster hurricane triggered at least in part by climate change, has opened up 80 million acres for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and boasted that the sale will produce 1.12 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. It has bombed Syria and Iraq, and on the way out the door in Afghanistan murdered 10 civilians, including seven children, in a drone strike.

    It has ended three pandemic relief programs, cutting off benefits under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance that were given to 5.1 million people who worked as freelancers, in the gig economy or as caregivers. An additional 3.8 million people who received assistance from the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation for the long term unemployed have also lost access to their benefits. They join the 2.6 million people who no longer receive the $300 weekly supplement and are struggling to cope with a $1,200 drop in their monthly earnings.

    Biden’s campaign talk of raising the minimum wage, forgiving student debt, immigration reform, and making housing a human right has been forgotten. At the same time, the Democratic leadership, proponents of a new cold war with China and Russia, has authorized provocative military maneuvers along Russia’s borders and in the South China Sea and speeded up production of its long-range B-21 Raider stealth bomber.

    The Power Elite

    Joe Biden campaigning for president in Tampa, Florida, Oct. 29, 2020. (Adam Schultz, Biden for President, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

    Oligarchs come from the traditional nexus of elite schools, inherited money, the military and corporations, those C. Wright Mills calls the “power elite.” “Material success,” Mills notes, “is their sole basis of authority.”

    The word oligarchy is derived from the Greek word “oligos” meaning “a few” and it is the oligos that sees power and wealth as its birthright, which they pass on to their family and children, as exemplified by George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. The word “autocracy” is derived from the Greek word “auto” meaning “self,” as in one who rules by himself.

    In decayed democracies the battle for power is always, as Aristotle points out, between these two despotic forces, although if there is a serious threat of socialism or left-wing radicalism, as was true in the Weimar Republic, the oligarchs forge an uncomfortable alliance with the autocrat and his henchmen to crush it.

    This is why the donor class and hierarchy of the Democratic Party sabotaged the candidacy of Bernie Sanders (although on the political spectrum Sanders is not a radical) and publicly stated, as the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein did, that should Sanders get the nominee they would support Trump. The alliance between the oligarchs and the autocrats gives birth to fascism, in our case a Christianized fascism.

    The oligarchs embrace a faux morality of woke culture and identity politics, which is anti-politics, to give themselves the veneer of liberalism, or at least the veneer of an enlightened oligarchy. The oligarchs have no genuine ideology. Their single-minded goal is the amassing of wealth, hence the obscene amounts of money accrued by oligarchs such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos and the staggering sums of profit made by corporations that have, essentially, orchestrated a legal tax boycott, forcing the state to raise most of its revenues from massive government deficits, now totaling $3 trillion, and disproportionally taxing the working and middle classes.

    Oligarchies, which spew saccharine pieties and platitudes, engage in lies that are often far more destructive to the public than the lies of a narcissist autocrat. Yet, the absence of an ideology among the oligarchs gives to oligarchic rule a flexibility lacking in autocratic forms of power. Because there is no blind loyalty to an ideology or a leader there is room in an oligarchy for limited reform, moderation and those who seek to slow or put a brake on the most egregious forms of injustice and inequality.

    Adulation of the Autocrat

    Jan. 6, 2021: President Donald Trump speaking to supporters in Washington. (Voice of America, Wikimedia Commons)

    An autocracy, however, is not pliable. It burns out these last remnants of humanism. It is based solely on adulation of the autocrat, no matter how absurd, and the fear of offending him. This is why politicians such as Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence, at least until he refused to invalidate the election results, humiliated themselves abjectly and repeatedly at the feet of Trump. Pence’s unforgiveable sin of certifying the election results instantly turned him into a traitor. One sin against an autocrat is one sin too many. Trump supporters stormed the capital on Jan. 6 shouting “hang Mike Pence.” As Cosimo de’ Medici remarked, “we are nowhere commanded to forgive our friends.”

    The political and economic disempowerment that is the consequence of oligarchy infantilizes a population, which in desperation gravitates to a demagogue who promises prosperity and a restoration of a lost golden age, moral renewal based on “traditional” values and vengeance against those scapegoated for the nation’s decline.

    The Biden’s administration’s refusal to address the deep structural inequities that plague the country is already ominous. In the latest Harvard/Harris poll Trump has overtaken Biden in approval ratings, with Biden falling to 46 percent and Trump rising to 48 percent. Add to this the report by the University of Chicago Project on Security & Threats that found that 9 percent of Americans believe the “use of force is justified to restore Donald J. Trump to the presidency.” More than a fourth of adults agree, in varying degrees, the study found, that, “the 2020 election was stolen, and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.” The polling indicates that 8.1 percent — 21 million Americans — share both these beliefs. Anywhere from 15 million to 28 million adults would apparently support the violent overthrow of the Biden administration to restore Trump to the presidency.

    “The insurrectionist movement is more mainstream, cross-party, and more complex than many people might like to think, which does not bode well for the 2022 mid-term elections, or for that matter, the 2024 Presidential election,” the authors of the Chicago report write.

    Fear is the Glue

    Police photos of Grigori Zinoviev after his arrest in 1934. (Wikimedia Commons)

    Fear is the glue that holds an autocratic regime in place. Convictions can change. Fear does not. The more despotic an autocratic regime becomes, the more it resorts to censorship, coercion, force and terror to cope with its endemic and often irrational paranoia. Autocracies, for this reason, inevitably embrace fanaticism. Those who serve the autocracy engage in ever more extreme acts against those the autocrat demonizes, seeking the autocrat’s approval and the advancement of their careers.

    Revenge against real or perceived enemies is the autocrat’s single-minded goal. The autocrat takes sadistic pleasure in the torment and humiliation of his enemies, as Trump did when he watched the mob storm the capital on Jan. 6, or, in a more extreme form, as Joseph Stalin did when he doubled over in laughter as his underlings acted out the desperate pleading for his life by the condemned Grigori Zinoviev, once one of the most influential figures in the Soviet leadership and the chairman of the Communist International, on the way to his execution in 1936.

    Autocratic leaders, as Joachim Fest writes, are often “demonic nonentities.”

    “Rather than the qualities which raised him from the masses, it was those qualities he shared with them and of which he was a representative example that laid the foundation for his success,” Fest wrote of Adolf Hitler, words that could apply to Trump. “He was the incarnation of the average, ‘the man who lent the masses his voice and through whom the masses spoke.’ In him the masses encountered themselves.”

    The autocrat, who celebrates a grotesque hyper-masculinity, projects an aura of omnipotence. He demands obsequious fawning and total obedience. Loyalty is more important than competence. Lies and truth are irrelevant. The statements of the autocrat, which can in short spaces of time be contradictory, cater exclusively to the transient emotional needs of his followers. There is no attempt to be logical or consistent. There is no attempt to reach out to opponents. Rather, there is a constant stoking of antagonisms that steadily widens the social, political and cultural divides. Reality is sacrificed for fantasy. Those who question the fantasy are branded as irredeemable enemies.

    “Anyone who wants to rule men first tries to humiliate them, to trick them out of their rights and their capacity for resistance, until they are as powerless before him as animals,” wrote Elias Canetti in Crowds and Power of the autocrat.

    “He uses them like animals and, even if he does not tell them so, in himself he always knows quite clearly that they mean just as little to him; when he speaks to his intimates, he will call them sheep or cattle. His ultimate aim is to incorporate them into himself and to suck the substance out of them. What remains of them afterwards does not matter to him. The worse he has treated them, the more he despises them. When they are no more use at all, he disposes of them as he does excrement, simply seeing to it that they do not poison the air of his house.”

    It is, ironically, the oligarchs who build the institutions of oppression, the militarized police, the dysfunctional courts, the raft of anti-terrorism laws used against dissidents, ruling through executive orders rather than the legislative process, wholesale surveillance and the promulgation of laws that overturn the most basic Constitutional rights by judicial fiat.

    Thus, the Supreme Court rules that corporations have the right to pump unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns because it is a form of free speech, and because corporations have the constitutional right to petition the government. The oligarchs do not use these mechanisms of oppression with the same ferocity as the autocrats. They employ them fitfully and therefore often ineffectually. But they create the physical and legal systems of oppression so that an autocrat, with the flick of a switch, can establish a de facto dictatorship.

    The autocrat oversees a naked kleptocracy in place of the hidden kleptocracy of the oligarchs. But it is debatable whether the more refined kleptocracy of the oligarchs is any worse than the crude and open kleptocracy of the autocrat. The autocrat’s attraction is that as he fleeces the public, he entertains the crowd. He orchestrates engaging spectacles. He gives vent, often through vulgarity, to the widespread hatred of the ruling elites. He provides a host of phantom enemies, usually the weak and the vulnerable, who are rendered nonpersons. His followers are given license to attack these enemies, including the feckless liberals and intellectuals who are a pathetic appendage to the oligarchic class. Autocracies, unlike oligarchies, make for engaging political theater.

    We must defy the oligarchs as well as the autocrats. If we replicate the cowardice of the liberal class, if we sell out to the oligarchs as a way to blunt the rise of autocracy, we will discredit the core values of a civil society and fuel the very autocracy we seek to defeat. Despotism, in all its forms, is dangerous. If we achieve nothing else in the fight against the oligarchs and the autocrats, we will at least salvage our dignity and integrity.

    Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor and NPR. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show “On Contact.”

    This column is from Scheerpost, for which Chris Hedges writes a regular column. Click here to sign up for email alerts.

    #132657
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    A lot there to unpack, and I didn’t read the entire thing yet, cuz it immediately sparked wonder. Again. Wonder at how Trump has managed to make otherwise sensible, intelligent people lose their minds. A wonder at the bizarre stubbornness apparent in some leftists who simply can’t even contemplate the possibility that Trump is just guilty, full stop. He’s just guilty of what he’s been accused off, full stop, and that it’s a Trumpian/GOP talking point to distract and confuse us all by making this into a “deep state” affair.

    Hedges writes:

    So, for example, censorship is wrong, unless the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are censored, or Donald Trump is banished from social media. Conspiracy theories are wrong, unless those theories, such as the Steele dossier and Russiagate, can be used to damage the autocrat. The misuse of the legal system and law enforcement agencies to carry out personal vendettas are wrong, unless those vendettas are directed at the autocrat and those who support him. Giant tech monopolies and their monolithic social media platforms are wrong, unless those monopolies use their algorithms, control of information and campaign contributions to ensure the election of the oligarch’s anointed presidential candidate, Joe Biden.

    1. What censorship, regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop? And what was the rationale behind any investigation into that laptop? If Russiagate was all supposedly an invention of “oligarchs,” what was Trump’s attempt to plant evidence on Biden’s son, while Trump was president? And Trump was banished from two or three social media platforms because he repeatedly broke their rules, literally fomented violence, radically increased death threats against other Americans, and spread dangerous lies about Covid and the election. He was actually coddled and pampered far too long and kept on those platforms long after he should have been banned.

    2. The Steele Dossier wasn’t a conspiracy theory. It was a collection of data on Trump, none of which has been disproven, evah, and the only “conspiracy theory” in that case is the one that claims it was the reason for the Mueller investigation. It wasn’t. It was a less than minor piece of the puzzle, with the main spark being Trump’s own personnel, like George Papadopoulos, and his own actions, which freaked out intelligence officials. The real conspiracy theory is the one that claims all of these Republicans, career officials, diplomats, intel agencies from around the world, and reporters from around the world, managed to meet in a room and try to bring down Trump. And Hedges, among others, fails to deal with the fact that Mueller held back on multiple fronts, like investigating Trump’s finances and financial ties, which would have sunk him. If there was this international cabal of “oligarchs” trying to bring him down, why hold back?

    3. Hedges provides zero proof that any agency or agency personnel carried out a “personnel vendetta” against Trump. He just throws it out there as a part of larger generalized accusation of hypocrisy in the section quoted. There’s no evidence that any of that happened, though we do know for a fact, and Trump told us repeatedly in public, that he constantly went after his enemies.

    4. Now, the last part may be the most absurd accusation of all. That Big Tech supposedly used its powers to appoint Biden. In reality, study after study has shown that those algorithms favor right-wing narratives, including far-right conspiracy theories to this day about Covid and the Election. And Big Tech despises “socialism” and leftists in general. Try to set up a news feed on your phone and see how rarely actual leftists show up.

    In short, Hedges, in the above section, makes bad assumption after bad assumption, without any factual foundation or logic to support them, and . . . well, to say the least, I find this disappointing.

    The suggestion is — as it is with the Greenwalds and company — that all the investigations into Trump were/are bogus, and just one more example of the Establishment lashing out against its perceived threats. Knowingly or unknowingly, they echo Trump/GOP bogus, obviously self-serving talking points.

    #132658
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Not so quick follow up:

    This “oligarchs against autocrats” is a bizarre formulation, and I honestly don’t see how it clarifies the current situation at all. I actually think it obscures it.

    It also radically overstates the degree of “cooperation” between the two major parties, at least in this instance. Hedges can’t name more than a handful of Republicans who’ve joined forces to battle Trump, because that’s all there is. I guess the quality of “oligarchs” and their coercive powers must be really slipping these days, when things are so lopsided in that regard. As in, Trump’s support within the GOP is astonishingly high, especially given all the crap he’s done, including attempting a coup.

    And one would think that anyone who said “That’s wrong!” wouldn’t be immediately cast under the sinister umbrella of “oligarch.” Instead, they might, oh, just perhaps, be applauded? If for no other reason than the old “stopped clock is correct twice a day” rationale?

    Seriously, why does it always have to be this Manichean battle with guys like Hedges in the Trump era? Paradoxically, they’ve radically oversimplified things and fail to use the most direct KISS method possible. Oversimplified in grouping (as deep-staters) anyone who works to hold Trump accountable, while repeatedly missing the most obvious elephant in the room: Trump and the GOP are just guilty of doing all the shit they’ve been accused of doing, and there is no international plot to bring him down.

    IMO, Hedges and his niche peers are applying “either/or” doctrine to “both/and” situations.

    As in, yeah, the Dems suck. And, yeah, our country is ruled by the super-rich, by the capitalist system, etc. etc. But there is absolutely zero logic in leaping to the assumption that any of that means the following:

    All the investigations into Trump supposedly served the interests of the Power Elite, so that was the only reason they occurred. Not because Trump committed illegal, sadistic, corrupt acts on a regular basis, before, during and after his president . . . but simply because the “oligarchs” wanted to crush him.

    If Trump had been able to invent the perfect defense, he couldn’t have come up with a better one than the one handed to him on a silver platter by Hedges and company.

    #132659
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Just read the rest of it. It gets a lot better as he goes.

    Astute commentary on autocracy, which has always been a strength of Hedges. One of the best journalists on the subject, ever, in fact.

    It’s actually almost strong enough to make up for what came before it. But, this part may be at the heart of his mistaken assumptions:

    We must defy the oligarchs as well as the autocrats. If we replicate the cowardice of the liberal class, if we sell out to the oligarchs as a way to blunt the rise of autocracy, we will discredit the core values of a civil society and fuel the very autocracy we seek to defeat.

    I think this is a false choice, and I think it’s also foundational to his desire to all but dismiss investigations into Trump. It’s just not an either/or thing. It’s not ever “If you support the various investigations into Trump, you sell out to the oligarchs!” It’s self-evidently not. We can defy oligarchs and autocrats, and hold them all accountable. In fact, the fear of appearing to support oligarchy, if that fear provokes our dismissal of trying to hold Trump accountable, is a victory for oligarchy, flat out.

    Hedges seems to forget that people can be both (oligarch and autocrat), and our system make it even likely for them to coexist. He also seems to forget that the vast majority of those in power who support, defend, and protect Trump are oligarchs and plutocrats.

    Thanks for posting the article, Zooey.

    #132694
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    It’s actually almost strong enough to make up for what came before it. But, this part may be at the heart of his mistaken assumptions:

    We must defy the oligarchs as well as the autocrats. If we replicate the cowardice of the liberal class, if we sell out to the oligarchs as a way to blunt the rise of autocracy, we will discredit the core values of a civil society and fuel the very autocracy we seek to defeat.

    I think this is a false choice, and I think it’s also foundational to his desire to all but dismiss investigations into Trump. It’s just not an either/or thing. It’s not ever “If you support the various investigations into Trump, you sell out to the oligarchs!” It’s self-evidently not. We can defy oligarchs and autocrats, and hold them all accountable. In fact, the fear of appearing to support oligarchy, if that fear provokes our dismissal of trying to hold Trump accountable, is a victory for oligarchy, flat out.

    That was the assertion that made me scratch my head, too. I can sort of see how weakening autocracy means tilting the balance of power towards the oligarchy, but there is no way around that in the short term. And like you said, you can fight both at the same time. In any event, autocracy is worse than oligarchy. Far, far worse. And Hedges even admits that himself when he says that their lack of ideology makes tends to make them less vigilant against some autonomy accidentally leaking out to the masses.

    As far as the Steele dossier, Hunter’s laptop, and Trump’s ban from Twitter, I think his point was not so much that those things are invalid (though he might think that, I dunno), but that the libruls automatically line up behind these things along party lines. And their loyalty to VBNMW is loyalty to the oligarchy, even if they think it isn’t.

    Personally, I have no real opinion on the laptop and the dossier. I know there are people on the Left – including Matt Taibbi – who think the Russiagate stuff was total baloney. And there are those who see an establishment-led shutdown of the Biden thing. And one thing is for sure, the Steele dossier has direct links to Hillary Clinton. Whether it’s all factually solid or not, I have no idea. Like you said, there has been no concrete refutation of it (that I’ve seen, anyway), but it was oligarchical muckrucking at its finest, no matter what else may be true. I don’t go to any lengths to pursue the truth behind these kinds of scandals because I don’t really care about them. Their exact level of “truthiness” is irrelevant, imo, to the Big Picture Systemic Rot & Corruption that is ruining the planet and everybody’s lives.

    I am more inclined than you are to agree with the oligarchy/autocracy paradigm than you are. The oligarchy did not want Trump, and didn’t take him as a serious threat, partly because Trump never really meant to be a serious threat himself. He wanted the spotlight, not the White House. Of course there are GOP types lining up behind him, but that’s because being on his team is their least-bad choice. The MAGA crowd has the GOP by the balls right now, and people in that party are more inclined to stand with Trump (his supporters, really) than to throw away their careers by crossing him. There is ample evidence that the GOP leaders hate the guy, and wish the problem would go away. But until they can completely fix elections, they still have to get enough votes to maintain power, and their supply of voters is dwindling as it is, without pissing off MAGA.

    #132695
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Good response to my far too many responses, Zooey.

    ;>)

    To walk things back a bit: I actually do see a useful space for that oligarchy/autocracy paradigm. It also reminds me a lot of what happened in Germany, where conservative oligarchs put Hitler in power, thinking they could control him. That obviously failed. But what a lot of people forget is this: eventually, German oligarchs and Hitler the autocrat made peace of a kind, and they coexisted, and the oligarchs made massive fortunes with Hitler’s help and blessing . . . until, etc. As in, for the most part, they weren’t in opposition. Exceptions, and so on. But for the most part.

    Back to Hedges’ point regarding our current situation. I’m probably misreading him (and others), but I get the sense that he’s setting up the opposition like this:

    Dem/Oligarchs versus GOP/Autocrats — with, as you say he notes, the autocrats being worse. To me, this ignores the massive influence of billionaires/corporate America on the GOP and Trump, and paints a limited narrative which the GOP also tries to paint . . . a kind of Wall Street versus Main Street thingy, with the evil corporate Dems versus the god-fearing main-streeter Republicans. Hedges and company obviously don’t buy into much of the GOP narrative, and they do see the Trumpified GOP as lining up with autocracy. But I often get the impression that they’re more pissed off at corporate Dems than GOP autocrats. And, again, I think they forget that the GOP is controlled by oligarchs (and plutocrats) too. It’s not a Dem-only toxin. Both/and.

    Again, I may be misreading them. But my sense is that this dichotomy influences their push to be dismissive of stuff like Russiagate, Ukraine, even the ongoing coup, and to basically suggest (or say openly) that none of the investigations into Trump, past, present, and future, are legit cuz they’re just oligarchical machinations.

    More later . . . Your thoughts?

    #132696
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Yeah, the oligarchs control both parties. Or they DID, until Trump brought the Autocratic impulse to bear on the GOP. Now the GOP is controlled by an autocrat, but imo the oligarchs are still there, biding their time. Guys like McConnell and Graham will do whatever they have to do to hold and increase power, even if it means kissing Trump’s ring. They would prefer not to. Trump is a spiteful and vindictive Rodney Dangerfield bursting into the country club. They hate his manners and lack of class. But as the Goldman Sachs fathead said, they would rather sail with an loutish autocrat than with Bernie Sanders, who would decrease their power and wealth by a tiny amount.

    I also think it’s pretty clear that the Democrats, and the oligarchs they represent, are of the same mind. For the most part, anyway.

    There are a few of the old money country club types who think giving the peasants a slight break is more desirable than putting up with Rodney Dangerfield, though. They would like to be rid of him, and return to business-as-usual.

    Here is David Brooks from yesterday chiming in on this:

    OPINION
    DAVID BROOKS

    This Is Why We Need to Spend $4 Trillion
    Sept. 30, 2021

    The New York Times

    I’ve spent the last few weeks in a controlled fury — and I’m not normally a fury kind of guy. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and others are trying to pass arguably the most consequential legislative package in a generation, and what did I sense in my recent travels across five states? The same thing I sense in my social media feed and on the various media “most viewed” lists.

    Indifference.

    Have we given up on the idea that policy can change history? Have we lost faith in our ability to reverse, or even be alarmed by, national decline? More and more I hear people accepting the idea that America is not as energetic and youthful as it used to be.

    I can practically hear the spirits of our ancestors crying out — the ones who had a core faith that this would forever be the greatest nation on the planet, the New Jerusalem, the last best hope of earth.

    My ancestors were aspiring immigrants and understood where the beating heart of the nation resided: with the working class and the middle class, the ones depicted by Willa Cather, James Agee, Ralph Ellison, or in “The Honeymooners,” “The Best Years of Our Lives” and “On the Waterfront.” There was a time when the phrase “the common man” was a source of pride and a high compliment.

    Over the past few decades there has been a redistribution of dignity — upward. From Reagan through Romney, the Republicans valorized entrepreneurs, C.E.O.s and Wall Street. The Democratic Party became dominated by the creative class, who attended competitive colleges, moved to affluent metro areas, married each other and ladled advantages onto their kids so they could leap even further ahead.

    There was a bipartisan embrace of a culture of individualism, which opens up a lot of space for people with resources and social support, but means loneliness and abandonment for people without. Four years of college became the definition of the good life, which left roughly two-thirds of the country out.

    And so came the crisis that Biden was elected to address — the poisonous combination of elite insularity and vicious populist resentment.

    Read again Robert Kagan’s foreboding Washington Post essay on how close we are to a democratic disaster. He’s talking about a group of people so enraged by a lack of respect that they are willing to risk death by Covid if they get to stick a middle finger in the air against those who they think look down on them. They are willing to torch our institutions because they are so resentful against the people who run them.

    The Democratic spending bills are economic packages that serve moral and cultural purposes. They should be measured by their cultural impact, not merely by some wonky analysis. In real, tangible ways, they would redistribute dignity back downward. They would support hundreds of thousands of jobs for home health care workers, child care workers, construction workers, metal workers, supply chain workers. They would ease the indignity millions of parents face having to raise their children in poverty.

    Look at the list of states that, according to a recent analysis of White House estimates by CNBC, could be among those getting the most money per capita from the infrastructure bill. A lot of them are places where Trumpian resentment is burning hot: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota.

    Biden had it exactly right when he told a La Crosse, Wis., audience, “The jobs that are going to be created here — largely, it’s going to be those for blue-collar workers, the majority of whom will not have to have a college degree to have those jobs.”

    In normal times I’d argue that many of the programs in these packages may be ineffective. I’m a lot more worried about debt than progressives seem to be. But we’re a nation enduring a national rupture, and the most violent parts of it may still be yet to come.

    These packages say to the struggling parents and the warehouse workers: I see you. Your work has dignity. You are paving your way. You are at the center of our national vision.

    This is how you fortify a compelling moral identity, which is what all of us need if we’re going to be able to look in the mirror with self-respect. This is the cultural transformation that good policy can sometimes achieve. Statecraft is soulcraft.

    These measures would not solve our problems, obviously. In many large Western nations, there are vast tectonic forces concentrating wealth in the affluent metro areas and leaving vast swaths of the countryside behind. We don’t yet know how to do the sort of regional development that reverses this trend.

    But we can make it clear that we value people’s choices. For years there was almost an officially approved life: Get a B.A., move to those places where capital and jobs are congregating, even if it means leaving your community, roots and extended family.

    Those were not desired or realistic options for millions of people. These packages, on the other hand, say: We support the choices you have made, in the places where you have chosen to live.

    That fundamental respect is the key scarcity in America right now.

    #132704
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Zooey,

    That’s a surprisingly good article by Brooks. With the exception of a coupla places here and there, it could have been written by Thomas Frank. Perceptive, realistic, and empathetic.

    Over the past few decades there has been a redistribution of dignity — upward. From Reagan through Romney, the Republicans valorized entrepreneurs, C.E.O.s and Wall Street. The Democratic Party became dominated by the creative class, who attended competitive colleges, moved to affluent metro areas, married each other and ladled advantages onto their kids so they could leap even further ahead.

    We’ve talked about it before, but if the Dems had gone with FDR 2.0, at least, instead of choosing to be Republican Lite (from roughly the early 1970s on), not only would this country be far better off, but (ironically) the Dems would pretty much own the electorate. No way is there a majority of voters who choose Reagan/Thatcher/Chicago School over a true working-class party, which the Dems could have been. If they had 100% rejected neoliberalism, and updated and expanded the New Deal to max out on serious inclusion, they’d all but ensure electoral dominance for a generation or more.

    But they’d rather the status quo win than a truly progressive party/platform. That’s unconscionable, morally and ethically, and stupid politically. Stupid, not just because they could have dominated electorally, but because their rotten choices helped set the table for the Trumps and the rise of the autocrats who may well make it impossible for Dems to win in all but the bluest of the blue.

    What could have been, etc. etc.

    #132706
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Yeah, I would say Brooks – with that perspective – gets classified with the old school GOP types, along with Bill Kristol and the Lincoln Project types, Lynn Cheney, and a handful of others, who have some principles of decorum, as deluded as they are about the destructiveness and injustice inherent in their policies. They want linen, silver, and expensive wine at the table whereas Trump doesn’t care, as long as the shit’s free. They at least see Trump as a blight on the soul of the nation, and feel compelled to say, “No.” I think McConnell, Graham, Rubio et al are just cynics. They see it, too, but they just don’t give a fuck about the “soul of the nation” dishwater. Trump has more power than they do at the moment, though, so they aren’t going to cross him. It’s worth noting that the GOP who have stood up to Trump don’t really have anything to lose. Cheney is the only one he can go after, and I don’t think Wyoming is going to flip against her for some Trump wannabe type.

    In my view, you’re right about FDR 2.0, but what happened is that Reagan made that unpopular, so the Democrats were getting beat. And from a position of weakness, they were in no position to push back against the policies that consolidated money, power, and politics, or they would simply be cut off from the Big Money, and totally wiped out. So Clinton sold the party out, and that was the end of that. Clinton made turned the Democrats into Republicans, and FDR 2.0 never had a chance.

    Now…after the great Trickle Down Swindle, Sanders saw an opportunity for his message to take hold, but he’s ONE guy. And the entire Dem establishment went after him, as you know. The window for FDR 2.0 is wider than it has been since LBJ, I suppose, but it would take a skilled and charismatic politician to seize that opportunity. I momentarily hoped Obama would be that guy, but we all saw through opensecrets.org where his money was coming from in 2007, and that was that. Biden is a middle manager type, hardly a guy to lead the charge into progressive change, and the Dems will now probably get smoked in 22 and 24 because their bench is completely empty. It’s there for the taking… President Sanders with support of Congress would have marginalized the GOP for a decade or more, but as Nancy Pelosi said, Democrats don’t want that.

    “The country NEEDS a strong Republican Party.”

    #132718
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    “The country NEEDS a strong Republican Party.”

    This is really stupid. The Dems advocate for the continuation of the party determined to destroy the Dems.

    A bit of a sidetrack here, but it’s related. How do you view the terms themselves? Oligarchs and oligarchy, plutocrats and plutocracy?

    I’ve always thought (like Hedges) of Oligarchy as Rule by the Few, and plutocracy as Rule by the Rich. It’s more complicated than that, of course. And under capitalism, there’s just not an instance of the few ruling the roost without also being rich. So, they’re perhaps oligarchs and plutocrats? Which also raises more questions.

    Is a politician with temporary power over this or that part of government an “oligarch,” or does she or he have to have lasting power over things? Are the oligarchs the folks behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the pols? Or the pols themselves? Are McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, McCarthy, et al “oligarchs?” Or their donors? Both/and? The whole sad lot of them?

    And what would constitute a “plutocrat” these days? In the past, one would likely say the Vanderbilts and the Astors, but maybe not plain old rich people without direct power over events . . . or the desire to control those events, etc.

    I haven’t done any serious research on the matter, but I think 99% of the folks in Congress are millionaires many times over, with some in the 9-figure realm. But they have 10-figure, 11-figure, and 12-figure folks backing/controlling them.

    Anyway, what’s your take on who’s what and why, and is it absurd, in your opinion, for me to even ask such questions?

    ;>)

    #132769
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Good question, Billy. I have never really thought about it. I guess that there are differences, technically, but I kind of see the whole thing as a systemic blob anyway. The oligarchs and the plutocrats are allies, and in most cases, have the same objectives and goals, and they interact/communicate/party with each other all the time. They all have different roles, and different personal agendas, but they’re in the club, and we’re not. Was Rush Limbaugh an oligarch? He didn’t have the same kind of power as a Senator, but he was part of that class, and advanced its agenda.

    Basically, I guess I’m thinking they are all part of the ruling class. The difference, I suppose, is where their base of power lies, and how stable that basis is.

    #132793
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Speaking of all the above. You’ve likely already seen this, but just in case:

    The Pandora Papers:

    Pandora Papers

    From their “About the Project” page:

    The Pandora Papers investigation lays bare the global entanglement of political power and secretive offshore finance.

    Based upon the most expansive leak of tax haven files in history, the investigation reveals the secret deals and hidden assets of more than 330 politicians and high-level public officials in more than 90 countries and territories, including 35 country leaders. Ambassadors, mayors and ministers, presidential advisers, generals and a central bank governor appear in the files.

    The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a nonprofit newsroom and network of journalists centered in Washington, D.C., obtained more than 11.9 million financial records, containing 2.94 terabytes of confidential information from 14 offshore service providers, enterprises that set up and manage shell companies and trusts in tax havens around the globe.

    The files reveal secret offshore holdings of more than 130 billionaires from 45 countries including 46 Russian oligarchs. In 2021, according to Forbes, 100 of the billionaires had a collective fortune of more than $600 billion. Other clients include bankers, big political donors, arms dealers, international criminals, pop stars, spy chiefs and sporting giants.

    ICIJ shared the files with 150 media partners, launching the broadest collaboration in journalism history.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.