April 15, 2009, 7:15 a.m.
Homeland Security Seems to be Saying:
Chomsky Got It Right
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Every once in awhile it is the serendipitous confluence of two events that is the story.
Yesterday [April 14] I added the Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! interview of Noam Chomsky to the "Obama's Potential Wall Street Downfall" blog entry of April 12.
Although I didn't refer to the following passage at that time, because it did not directly relate to the topic of the entry, I found it quite startling then and more so now -- especially when watching and listening to him deliver it in the video than from this comparatively sterile transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: The whole issue of populist rage, Noam Chomsky, actually, do you think that this rage is going to boil over as the unemployment figures rise?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s very hard to predict those things. I mean, it has a potentially positive side, like it could be like the activism of the 1930s or the 1960s, which ended up making it a more civilized society in many ways, or it could be like an unfortunate precedent that quickly comes to mind. . . .
Take a look at Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the absolute peak of Western civilization, in the arts and the sciences. It was regarded as a model of democracy and so on. I mean, ten years later, it was the depths of barbarism. . . .
Now, if you listen to early Nazi propaganda . . . and you listen to talk radio in the United States . . . there’s a resemblance. And in both cases, you have a lot of demagogues appealing to people with real grievances.
Grievances aren’t invented. I mean, for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history. It’s a rich country, but real wages have stagnated or declined, working hours have shot up, benefits have gone down, and people are in real trouble and now in very real trouble after the bubble's burst. And they’re angry. And they want to know, “What happened to me? . . . I’m a hard-working, white, God-fearing American. [H]ow come this is happening to me?”
That’s pretty much the Nazi appeal. The grievances were real. And one of the possibilities is what Rush Limbaugh tells you: “Well, it’s happening to you because of those bad guys out there.” OK, in the Nazi case, it was the Jews and the Bolsheviks. Here, it’s the rich Democrats who run Wall Street and run the media and give everything away to illegal immigrants . . ..
AMY GOODMAN: And she [Sarah Palin] very much is being talked about as a leader, really, of the Republican Party.
NOAM CHOMSKY: [T]he talk radio mob went crazy over her. And one shouldn’t demean it. [T]hey describe themselves — it’s really worth listening to: “We’re fly-by country. [T]hey don’t care about us, those rich Democrats on the East Coast and the West Coast who are all . . . interested in gay rights and giving things away to illegal immigrants and so on. They don’t care about us, the hard-working, God-fearing people, so we’ve got to somehow rise up and take over and elect Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or someone like that.” . . .
[T]his kind of populist rage could boil over and could have very dangerous consequences. . . .
[W]e’re very lucky that we have never had an honest demagogue. I mean, the demagogues we’ve had are so corrupt that they never got anywhere — . . . Nixon, McCarthy, Jimmy Swaggart and others . . . were kind of destroyed by their own corruption.
But suppose we had an honest demagogue, . . . a Hitler type, who was not corrupt. [I]t could be unpleasant. There’s a background of concern and fear, tremendous fear, and searching for some answer, which they’re not getting from the establishment. “Who’s responsible for my plight?” [T]hat can be exploited. And unless there’s active, effective organizing and education, it’s dangerous.
Note that Chomsky's not saying it will happen. He's saying there's a risk. He's not saying our "honest demagogue" would be Hitler, identical to Hitler, or even similar to Hitler. He's just saying that the conditions of our economy and country bear some similarity to those in pre-Hitler Germany -- and they do.
So what's my "serendipitous confluence"?
Neither Amy Goodman nor Noam Chomsky could have known on April 3, when the interview was recorded, of a Department of Homeland Security report, issued April 7, leaked to the media, and reported yesterday, April 14.
Titled U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Assessment: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," April 7, 2009, the text is available at The Huffington Post, "Homeland Security Report Warns of Rising Right-Wing Extremism," April 14, 2009.
It essentially confirms and echos Chomsky's concerns.
There has been a rise in extremist organizations' membership. Much of their rhetoric has been consistent with Chomsky's characterizations -- including concerns about gun control and immigration. There have been efforts to recruit returning soldiers, with their military training.
You need to read the report; I'm not going to repeat it all. For summaries see The Huffington Post story, linked above, and the Washington Times take, Audrey Hudson and Eli Lake, "Federal agency warns of radicals on right; 9-page report sent to police," Washington Times, April 14, 2009.
As with Chomsky's concerns, Homeland Security is not suggesting that a demagogue is on the verge of taking over, let alone one backed by armed mobs. It's merely noting, as Chomsky did, that our economic conditions, the extremists' recruiting efforts, and the rhetoric make this a legitimate concern of the Department, something worth watching carefully.
Also worth watching carefully are the rightwing extremist, Obama-hating talk show hosts and Republicans who have even said they want him (and presumably the rest of us with him) to fail. It's bad enough when they are just playing politics. Now they are also playing with fire.
For my own take on the connection between oligarchy and revolution a full year ago see, Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - I; Income Disparity & Revolution," April 12, 2008.
Ah, the far, far reaching consequences of the greed and ignorance of the Wall Street oligarchy. The price we end up paying, in this country and abroad, may be far more than global economic collapse, the trillions they have taken from the taxpayers (with the help of their friends Obama recruited to "solve" the problem), the resulting inevitable inflation, and the debt we're all leaving to our great grandchildren.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
April 15, 2008, 6:50 a.m.
Today is the fourth in a series, "Golden Rules & Revolutions." Here are the prior entries:
I - Income Disparity & Revolution, April 12, 2008
. "Series Introduction," "Increasing income disparity, despair. . .," ". . . and Revolution"
II - Golden Rules & Fascism, April 13, 2008
. "The Golden Rule," "Fascism"
III - Money and Lobbyists in Politics: Washington, April 14, 2008
# # #
Presidential Candidates and Lobbyists: McCain
Part I of this series noted not just the gap in income between the rich and the poor, but the fact that this gap is continuing to grow ever wider, and that history -- as well as the daily news -- provides ample warning that this condition often produces revolution.
Part II began the exploration of the forces that may be shaping these potentially dangerous conditions -- including the ties between business and government eerily reminiscent of the early stages of what we used to call "fascism."
Part III took us to Washington for some general descriptions of how the system works, what campaign contributors get for their money, the role of lobbyists, and a columnist's description of one case study.
Part IV deals with how the role of lobbyists extends beyond their manipulation of government into the pre-governing phase: presidential campaigns -- beginning with Senator John McCain.
_______________
Given the $2.79 billion that the special interests spend on lobbyists, as discussed in Part III, and the the millions and billions of dollars the special interests "invest" in "campaign contributions" (in state legislatures as well as Congress, and among the best investments these businesses ever make), it comes as no surprise that both lobbyists and campaign contributions also play a major role in the way we select our president.
So why begin the discussion of this issue with Senator John McCain? There are two reasons.
(1) If you haven't yet paid a lot of attention to Senator McCain, you might want to tune in to tonight's Chris Matthews' "Hardball." Here are the details from cable channel MSNBC:
"Hardball with Chris Matthews" brings its take-no-prisoners style to the college circuit once again, as the "Hardball College Tour" hosts Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., live at Villanova University, Tuesday, April 15, 5-6 p.m. ET (repeats 7-8 p.m. ET). Matthews will interview Sen. McCain on the key issues of the 2008 presidential election, including the economy and the Iraq war, with Villanova students also having the opportunity to question the candidate.
Cathy Finkler, "McCain to appear on 2008 Hardball College Tour," MSNBC Hardblogger, March 17, 2008 4:43 p.m. (Note: Since this was written a month ago you might want to confirm the details of cable channel number and times with your local listings.)
(2) Senator John McCain is the first example, not because he is the worst but because he is among the best. Senator McCain has provoked the ire of his colleagues because of his tough stands on reform of campaign finance, earmarks, and the role of Washington lobbyists. And yet . . .
[W]hen McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.
McCain's relationship with lobbyists became an issue this week after it was reported that his aides asked Vicki Iseman, a telecom lobbyist, to distance herself from his 2000 presidential campaign because it would threaten McCain's reputation for independence.
Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists," Washington Post, February 22, 2008, p. A1.
As you've been warned, when it comes to taking on big money in politics, Senator John McCain is among the best the U.S. Senate can offer. In Part V we'll look at one of the worst.
# # #
April 13, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
Today is the second in a series, "Golden Rules & Revolutions." Here's the prior entry:
I - Income Disparity & Revolution, April 12, 2008
. "Series Introduction," "Increasing income disparity, despair. . .," ". . . and Revolution"
# # #
Golden Rules & Fascism
Part I of this series noted not just the gap in income between the rich and the poor, but the fact that this gap is continuing to grow ever wider, and that history -- as well as the daily news -- provides ample warning that this condition often produces revolution. Part II begins the exploration of the forces that may be shaping these potentially dangerous conditions.
The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule used to be, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's now become -- with the help of government -- "Those who have the gold make the rules." (Or, "Do unto others as much as you can get away with without going to prison.") In today's parlance, "the Golden Rule" has become, simply, "Gold Rules." (And it might be noted, with the collapse of the dollar producing $900-an-ounce gold the saying has taken on a whole new meaning.)
As I used to say when in government, "The problem is not that the special interests violate the law. The problem is that they make the law. They don't have to violate the law." (Since that time we've had a little problem with their violating the law as well.)
In future Parts there will be more effort to figure out the details of how gold influences rules. For now, here's one way of describing the relationship between government and business that the gold has created. There is, after all, a word for it, and that word is . . .
Fascism. Whether you call it "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor," or recognize its similarities to fascism, the ties between business and government are tight -- whether in the halls of Washington, Des Moines or the City Council chambers of Iowa City.
This is not a use of the word "fascism" in its colloquial, pejorative sense -- a sort of forceful, but excessively vague, label for a person or policy you really don't like a lot. It's simply a factual, value and emotion-free, description of what's going on.
Benito Mussolini, a prominent theoretician and practitioner of fascism, described fascism as "State intervention in economic production . . . [that] may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (Rome: Ardita Publishers, 1935), pp. 135-136.
Others have noted the extent to which fascism involves "a regulated, state-integrated economic sector" and that "fascism in Italy combined elements of corporatism." And "corporatism," in turn, refers to "the promotion of the interests of private corporations [and] government over the interests of the public." [See Wikipedia's entries on Fascism and Corporatism, with numerous links to more academic sources.]
The use of tax breaks, subsidies, earmarks and TIFs -- the various forms of "corporate welfare" that put taxpayers' money into for-profit businesses -- necessarily creates a variation of "corporatism" and the "state intervention" Mussolini was writing about, and practicing.
Fascism. Isn't that pretty much what's been going on?
Tomorrow there will be some exploration of the form this takes in Washington.
# # #
April 12, 2008, 2:40 p.m.
Income Disparity & Revolution
Series Introduction. We're going to try an experiment over the course of the next week.
I haven't been blogging much during the past week or so. It's crunch time around law schools -- for professors as well as students. Seminar papers to be read, edited, and evaluated, followed by one-on-one conferences and subsequent drafts. Regular classes and make-ups. Writing final exams. Plus all the usual semester-end details and the inevitable unforeseen requests and emergencies.
But I have been thinking, collecting ideas and links to stories that, it turns out seem to be interrelated in some way to economics and politics.
In the past, this would have taken the form of a very lengthy blog entry that any follower of this blog would have needed a goodly amount of discretionary time to read.
So, what I've decided to do instead is to take the sections into which it naturally falls and parcel them out over the course of the next seven or eight days -- in a couple instances matching them to events of the day in question.
They will be titled, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series," followed by the Roman numeral of that part. That will both make it possible to read each entry in less time, and to track back (with the left hand column links) to the related, earlier entries.
Anyhow, today we start with . . .
Increasing income disparity, despair. . . I am not a conspiratorial theorist, nor am I charging that anyone truly desires to turn the United States into a third world country, in which the top 1% of super rich rule over a 90% in abject poverty. All I would observe is that what is happening -- as a result of what will be spelled out in this series -- is not that different from what would be happening if that were the goal of government officials and the ruling elite.
[F]rom the late 1980s to the mid-2000s . . . inequality increased across the country. . . . No state has seen a significant decline in inequality during this period. . . .
On average, incomes have declined by 2.5 percent among the bottom fifth of families since the late 1990s, while increasing by 9.1 percent among the top fifth.
Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 9, 2008.
And see, for Iowa data, David DeWitte, "Report finds income gap growing in Iowa," GazetteOnline, April 9, 2008, 11:40 a.m. ("The income gap between rich and poor is growing faster in Iowa than in most other states, according to a new report, which found a 49.3 percent average income growth in the wealthiest Iowa households over the past two decades. A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found the richest 20 percent of Iowa families earn 6.1 times as much as the lowest 20 percent of Iowa families by income. The ratio 20 years earlier was 4.7 times as much income for high-income families. . . . Fast-climbing pay for top corporate executives also has increased the income disparity . . ..")
. . . and Revolution. I recall reading many years ago -- where it was I would have no way of recalling now -- that there is a rough mathematical formula for predicting the point at which a growing income disparity will ultimately produce a revolution.
No, I don't think we're yet there in the United States.
But I am one of those who thinks Senator Obama was right when he said, "Lately, there has been a little, typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois who are bitter. . . . They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through." Perry Bacon Jr. and Shailagh Murray,"'Bitter' Is a Hard Pill For Obama to Swallow; He Stands by Sentiment as Clinton Pounces," Washington Post, April 13, 2008, p. A6.
As the story points out, Senators Clinton and McCain are trying to dismiss this truth -- denying that anyone's bitter, and charging that Senator Obama, who was living and working in south Chicago as a community organizer, is an "elitist."
It's reminiscent of Ben Stein's story about his visit with Warren Buffett.
Buffett, one of the nation's -- if not the world's -- wealthiest men, had just completed a study of the relative tax rates paid by his secretaries and clerks compared with his own.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. . . . “How can this be fair?” he asked . . ..
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Ben Stein, "In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning," New York Times, November 26, 2006.
Those who refuse to acknowledge what's happening in America can charge those who do with being "elitist," or fomenting "class warfare." But that does little to assuage the anger of those on the losing side of this warfare.
And when that anger is permitted to seethe long enough the news from elsewhere can serve as a reminder of the limits that ultimately come to constrain the greed of oppressive governments and the super rich elite.
Barbara J. Fraser, "As Economy Grows, Income Disparity in Latin America Widens," Catholic News Service, August 3, 2007 ("a two-day general strike in the region was called to protest government economic policies. . . . The incident was one of many around Peru in mid-July, as teachers, farmers and others took their discontent to the streets . . .. Despite six years of steady economic growth, mainly from the export of minerals such as gold and copper, most Peruvians, especially those in rural areas, say they are not feeling the benefits.")
Thu-Trang Tran, "A new peasant revolution – is China learning from its past?" Inside Asia, June 1, 2006 ("Although the Chinese government may not wish to confront nor discuss the social unrest and violence of the Cultural Revolution, it seems the government is wary of history repeating itself. The government is concerned about the simmering social tension resulting from the widening wealth gap as the giant economy powers its way to the top spot.")
Associated Press, "Egypt: American freelance photojournalist and translator detained while covering riots," International Herald Tribune, April 10, 2008 ("Thousands of Egyptians angry over high food prices and low wages have been rioting this week in Mahallah, a Nile Delta city that is home to the Middle East's largest textile factory. Rising prices have struck hard in Egypt, a U.S. ally where 40 percent of the people live in or near poverty.")
No, I don't think we need fear imminent revolution in America.
And no, I don't think the declining dollar, the $40 trillion in unfunded federal debt we're leaving to our great-grandchildren, our multi-billion-dollar negative trade balance, and recession mean we're on the precipice of third-world status.
But I do think we need to take the impact of our economy and governmental policies on ordinary Americans much more seriously than I sense our leaders and media are willing to do. Why? For starters, because I think it is the decent, just and humane thing to do.
But also for all the reasons I have laid out here and will in the rest of the series to come.
# # #
