Surrey On Top

I took notice of the caption to an article in last week’s N.Y. Times that read “Oakland Police Clash with Fringe Protestors.” I accept the Times description. Since its inception the people in this movement appear to have taken care to keep its actions non violent. With this many people involved there are bound to be instances of confrontation between demonstrations and the authorities, namely police.
 
I’m certain that at this moment most right wingers would quarrel with the word “fringe” and
would like to portray the O.W.S. people as violent rabble. It’s only a matter of time, probably little at that, before the deep thinkers on the right hire some flunkies to do real damage and give this movement a bad name. Remember Andrew Breithbart and James O’Keefe who planned and carried out the assassination of Acorn? These folks are rarin’ to go and this one is too deliciously obvious for them to pass up. Of course they’d be hiring people to commit crimes.  But if they do it in the right state, let’s say Arizona, they should have no problem.
 
O.W.S. has yet to identify itself with the Democratic Party whose high ranking members, the president for example, have not publicly supported the movement. The objects of these protests are not exclusively Republican, John Corzine is exhibit A. But honest Democratic Congressional votes, not those for sale when needed for special occasions, tend to comply less with Wall Street interests than the votes of Republicans. In this context it’s no secret which party has the higher ratio of good guys to bad guys.
 
The right wing, much of which unknowingly suffers as do the protestors from the misdeeds of corporate America, has been quite vocal in its disapproval of O.W.S. If they keep it up as I think they will, these people never admit having been wrong*, they will eventually drive the movement’s votes to the Democrats. In that case we can look forward to something really inventive in voter restriction.
 
 
*Alternate lyric; being in love with yourself means never having to say you’re sorry.

We're Number One

On June 4, 2009 Barck Obama gave a major speech from Cairo, his first to the International Community, which was met with overwhelming approval by his audience. He had been president for a little over 4 months and his health care plans had yet to become public. This was the first chance for Republicans, who had been frothing at the mouth since his election, to strike. They criticized him for being too friendly to foreigners, to whom he happened to be speaking, and worst of all, never once mentioning “American exceptionalism.” My reaction was that virtually telling the rest of the world how much better your country is than theirs is not a way to win friends and influence people.

On the business of American exceptionalism, if we’re judged solely by our barons of finance and the system that allows them to operate as they do, we are a Third World nation dressed in First World clothing. In terms of equality of income, on a list of forty one nations we rank thirty eighth. Not surprisingly our poverty rating is in the same vicinity.

Educationally we’re low on the totem pole of industrialized nations in spite of the fact that we rank second in per capita expenditures. Why are we getting less for our buck? We are experiencing an ideological fight started by those who believe the world was created a few thousand years ago in a week. They demand that these notions be taught in science classes as alternative to what we know of our world. As I see it the integrity an entire educational system reflecting this kind of thinking is suspect. And why is college tuition so expensive that so many students enter adulthood heavily in debt. The institutions involved are subsidized by the government to the extent that donations are tax deductable. Have any serious colleges gone out of business lately? The last I heard they were still singing the fight song at good ol’ Oral Roberts.

We have the world’s highest per capita medical expenses and yet we are well down the list in life expectancy and other pertinent categories. The role of insurance companies has been discussed at length. But the fact that our doctors, not general practitioners but specialists, are paid considerably more than those in other nations has not. There is clearly price fixing in our medical profession, which is as it should be in my opinion. Price should not be a consideration in selecting a doctor. But should the medical profession have the only voice in fixing prices? I think not.   

Still the United States, by virtue of its education and research, was at the world’s cutting edge in the technology of the 20th Century, useful stuff like science, medicine, transportation and communication. We also helped out big in World War II.  But American exceptionalism has become a thing of the past. The appropriate question now concerns what we’ve done lately.

Early and Often

The night before the l994 Republican sweep of both Houses of Congress, Mary Matalin in a CNN interview said that her party was well organized and would win big. She was right on both counts. The host responded by suggesting that a low turnout would benefit Republicans, a logical assumption with which Ms Matalin strongly disagreed, evidence of the then current sanctity of a high voter turnout.

My how things have changed! Now newly elected Tea Party sponsored governors and state legislators are openly attempting to discourage disenfranchised and minority voters, people who tend to vote Democratic, with unprecedented and unfair voter ID requirements. The pretext for this is alleged voter fraud which, from what’s been proved, is in the low single digits in even in the most populous voting districts.

An increased voter turnout, while not a certainty, is a likely consequence of Occupy Wall Street. Some previous voters in this group may choose to abstain given the results produced by the current crop of office holders. But the people now in the streets are young, bright and, above all concerned. I don’t see many of them sitting out Election Day. The fact that the criticism is coming from the political right, i.e. Fox News, strongly suggests the direction of the movement. Given a choice between Obama, Romney and a third party candidate I see the president coming off with a majority, the size being the only question.

Right wing criticism of OWS has made so many different disparaging connections that it’s hard to keep track of them. The only one with a superficial resemblance is with the hippie’s of the “60s and early ‘70s whose main cause was opposition to the Vietnam War. Of course there were others. Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army, whatever it stood for? But it was opposition to the war that gave the movement respectability. If you question this just think   “domino theory”

Those protests slowed and stopped in tandem with the Vietnam War. Today’s OWS people are victims of a system tailored to the benefit of corporate bandits that has left them with bleak prospects, possibly for a lifetime. The system and the thieves won’t be going away on their own any time soon. Neither will the victims.

Wall Street to Main Street

My last letter, in late September, dealt with the lack of media coverage of the current anti Wall Street movement. Since that time the bulk of news coverage has dealt with two subjects. One is the Republican Presidential debates to which I say that any subject involving reference to Herman Cain as a potential president is absurd by definition. The other is the move front and center by “Occupy Wall Street.” It is a development of such potentially monumental proportions that I’ve been hesitant to comment on it, other than to wish the participants the best.

That was until last night when I heard Michael Moore advising the protestors not to limit their demands to financial reform, but to go for the whole ball of wax in correcting the nation’s ills. I disagree, not with his opinion on these subjects of course, but with this tactic. The new crowd has a powerful single issue, particularly as more people realize that they are among the 99% who don’t benefit from the status quo. Try arguing gun control with someone as upset as you, but who insists on a person’s right to carry a gun into a bar from which he might not be allowed to drive home .You’ve lost him right off the bat. There’s even a plank in the Tea Party platform condemning Wall Street for the TARP bailout, conveniently blaming Democratic support in Congress. This reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that President George W. Bush requested and set it up during the last four months of his administration.

Critics accuse these people of advocating redistribution of wealth. But every change in our fiscal structure does just that. As time passes, even the time between now and the election, more voters will realize that for the past thirty years wealth has been redistributed in the direction of those who need it least. Simple arithmetic says that the redistribution should be reversed. The question is how much? Is it too much to ask the very richest Americans, whose annual income exceeds what most of us consider commensurate with a high life style, to pay higher taxes on only their excess income. The answer depends on the size of that marginal increase, but clearly something beyond single digits

The same people speak of this new movement as socialistic and it may be; but no more so than laws that were enacted as a consequence of the Great Depression and served us well until they were repealed when America began to feel good about itself. Too good! The hair of the dog may be OK for an occasional hangover, but this one is now a binge that has lasted too long. There’s a time for the bartender to eighty six the worst drunks and that time is now.

The Street

Unless you’re one of those bleeding heart liberals who tune in to MSNBC, you may not know that there have been hundreds of people literally on the street, Wall Street, peacefully protesting what they consider the wrongs being committed by the lords inside those proximate hallowed halls. The press in general has paid scant, if any, attention, including that left wing bastion, the New York Times which covered it on page 18 of Thursday’s edition under “Local” news. The contrast in media coverage between this and Tea Party demonstrations is striking. Suspicious minds might even conclude that the media as a whole are biased to the right rather than left, as the Philistines claim.
 
There is visual evidence of police misconduct, something well short of the Rodney King episode, but still inappropriate and unwarranted. Minor beatings and pepper sprayings of individuals to whom a particular cop may have taken a dislike have been recorded. The commissioner of the city’s Police Department, in support of his troops, has criticized the protestors for “tumultuous conduct.” Heavens! I just hope they didn’t use obscenities.
 
Nothing of this restrictive nature seems to happen at Tea Party shenanigans even though many demonstrators have been pictured holding guns. Of course they weren’t loaded and there’s not a shred of evidence that the demonstrators’ conduct was tumultuous.
 
A viewer seeing both types of rallies must notice that the Tea Partiers are considerably longer in the tooth. My thinking is since they’re now getting what they’ve paid for from a system that was working, they’re obsessed with the possibility of having to pay one red cent, because changing circumstances may demand it, in order to give someone else’s offspring opportunities equivalent to what they had.
 
The battle lines have been drawn and, in my admittedly biased opinion, I think it’s the right wing that has drawn them. They may win the battle next year. But there’s no question who will win the war. It’s only a question of when.

Annie Rides Again

Back in the 1950s Al Capp, giving his reasons for allowing Daisy Mae to marry Lil Abner, mentioned a rival comic strip featuring “an orphan who spoke like the Republican platform of 1928.” Well folks; Orphan Annie has been reincarnated, and not surprisingly, in the form of the entire Republican Party. The common denominator is the claim that American business needs fewer, not more, regulations and should be left to its own devices. “Small” is the adjective of choice in referring to business. This is either a euphemism or a lie, take your pick.

The word “regulations” is being used by Annie’s disciples in a tone that makes it sound like a profanity. Regulations, rules or laws, call them what you will, have always been with us, and not necessarily to our benefit. A strong argument can be made, with which I agree, against our legal position on marijuana. On the other hand I doubt that the most fanatical libertarian would call for eliminating traffic lights.

Back in Annie’s day a grossly unequal share of the wealth resulting from unbridled laissez faire didn’t shake voters’ faith in Herbert Hoover’s promise of “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” A couple of years later, when even rich folks started jumping out of tall buildings, people realized that something was very wrong so they made rules to prevent a repeat performance.

Years later Annie made her first reincarnation in the form of a Hollywood actor and started convincing us that these rules were no longer necessary. Eventually it became evident that she was wrong again, except for folks like her Daddy Warbucks (a well chosen name) who haven’t been jumping out of buildings. In fact they’re doing quite nicely thank you.

Of course the financial community still has some regulations. Embezzlement is frowned on in courts of law and apprehended violators generally do jail time. But Daddy Warbucks and his friends have avoided the hoosegow and are now busily comparison shopping for their most practical items, members of Congress. Annie should be so proud!   

A bit of trivia: Al Capp subsequently inserted Orphan Annie type characters in Lil Abner. Daddy Warbucks was “Uncle Sawbuck” and his assistant was “Franklin Finog,” spelled backwards Gonif, Yiddish for thief.

Not To Be Spoken

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.” It’s common knowledge that these words were spoken by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.  This is hardly an unthinkable thought. I wouldn’t be surprised if throughout our history a majority of Congress has felt this way about a first term president from the opposing party.  But to my knowledge it has been an unspeakable thought for someone of this prominence who can be considered as spokesman for his political party.
 
It’s easy to see that under normal circumstances this statement could put Mr. McConnell out on a limb. After all there are legislative decisions that might conceivably benefit the nation during Obama’s tenure and, in the process, enhance his reelection prospects. The words “single and most important thing” are unequivocal as to how Republican Senators should vote in such situations if they followed instructions as they have been doing. Our history is replete with unspoken conflicts of this nature in both political parties with the nation often getting the short end of the stick.
 
But to my knowledge this candor from someone so high in our legislative hierarchy is a first of its kind. It was no slip of the tongue and raises the question of why McConnell would break precedent and run the risk of confirming doubts on the integrity of votes from members of his party. It’s one thing not to play by the rules, or at least the pretense of rules. It’s quite another to defiantly announce that you intend to break them.
 
To me the answer is that he thought he could get away with it. Subsequent events have proven him right. This leads to another question. How did he know he could publicly and blatantly flaunt President Barack Hussein Obama without adverse consequences? Need I answer this question?
 
Maybe we should be appreciative of McConnell for his honesty. My personal take, to borrow a phrase from the British, is that if this is loyal opposition I shudder to think of the alternative.