The Two-Party/Class System: Jefferson Unintentionally Got it Right

When the US was in its seminal political stage, it had to deal with the idea of the two party system. George Washington famously warned against partisan politics forming after he left office. Yet, Washington was basically a Federalist on the side of Hamilton and Adams who believed in a strong central government to help the nation grow through the promotion of the banking and merchant class. Thomas Jefferson was the leader in opposition and thereby became the champion of the Democrat-Republican party. Many founding fathers, especially on the Federalist side worried about the idea of political parties because it would divide and stagnate the country. Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists were initially opposed to political factions as well, but they saw no other way to gain political power than to organize as a cohesive party and attack the staunch federalists. In a letter to Henry Lee in 1824 Jefferson wrote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Although Jefferson may have struggled with his own aristocratic desire for power and moral inconsistencies, what he wrote to Henry Lee is inspiring to those who wish to oppose the consolidation of power by the few. In modern American politics nearly all tend to agree that authority in the hands of the few is the antithesis to democracy and liberty, but the questions that arise next is where the schism occurs. To be clear, I do not mean the schism between modern American politicians, which is mostly just a distraction. Nearly every member of our federal and state governments are in one political party, the business and corporate party. The menial arguments over the "role of government" taken up by these people is merely a facade to gather more political power and wealth for their own benefit. The issues they debate are of little consequence to those who fund their campaigns and actually write legislation. These are mostly social issues and the "culture war" that has the mainstream media in a frenzy.

There is a real divide among the people without power. In modern American politics, the working class American appears to be in two ideological camps, one that thinks government has too much control and should allow free enterprise to guide the economy, and the other camp blames corporate power which funds our elected officials causing them to represent corporate interests above the people's interests. These camps are referred to as right and left respectively in American political semantics. I think most people on the right will concede that corporations have too much power over politicians, but the divide comes when the ideology of the right says that government should absolutely leave businesses alone. They should not support business nor limit business. Sounds like a reasonable argument up front. The issue I take is that the nature of capitalism in a democratic society in an ostensible fashion inevitably leads to monopoly, consolidation of power, and money thrown into the political system in such an obscene way that it becomes virtual Fascism. That is where we are now. Our system was designed with checks and balances that mean absolutely nothing when a small amount of very wealthy people lobby and throw money at every check and balance. Corporations send lobbyists to write the laws for legislatures, they contribute money to elect judges to benefit corporate interests, and they offer regulators jobs with huge salaries at their companies after they deregulate for them. (see Meredith Attwell Baker joining the Comcast lobbying team after she led the approval of the Comcast/NBC merger as FCC commissioner. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/)

Once deconstructed, the divide in American political thought among the masses is only symptomatic. The true divide is between the people who on large think they live in a democracy with mild corruption, and the people who actually have a voice who are the corporate leaders of GE, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton, Bank of America, Walmart, Lockheed and Martin, etc. The working class may get scraps from the table on issues that no corporation has an interest in, but on policies that would favor the American public that come into conflict with corporate interests you can be certain that the policies will either be counter to the public's interests and desires, or an extremely diluted version of what the public wants (i.e last year's federal healthcare reform). Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right. To use his words to reiterate my point there are really two parties that matter in America right now, "1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests." Most politicians today, Democrat and Republican, are in the former party. Whereas the public is overwhelmingly in the latter, but with very little power/wealth. Whether Jefferson knew it or not, he was talking about a bourgeois and a proletariat party. anti-federalist southerners at the time were surprisingly egalitarian in their economic theories (equality for white men at least). The capitalist ventures of merchants and bankers were despised as perverting liberty by consolidating political power by means of economic dominance.

It doesn't matter if it is a government holding all political and economic power like that of the anxious Middle Eastern dictators, or if a select few corporations control all power, the results are devastating for the people.

Sexual Equality and American Foreign Policy

Why has the gay rights movement taken so long to provide the LGBT community with equal rights? I believe there are many reasons for this, but one that is often unnoticed is US foreign policy. It is true that homosexual acceptance in this country faces the obstacle of the religious right, aggressive masculinity, and the American tradition of sexual repression. Yet, other groups seeking political rights and the freedom of state repression throughout our history did not encounter such a long and arduous movement. In comparison to ethnic minorities, there is a huge difference, which is the physical aspect. You can clearly tell if someone is a racial minority, but aside from openly deviant people in the LGBT community, it is impossible to point out someone's sexuality just by looking at them. Certainly that is a huge difference because if you're a racial minority you cannot hide that and you will may face harsh discrimination. For many sexual minorities, they can hide the fact that they are a sexual minority from their family, peers, and community, and even more tragically from themselves. This creates psychological results that can be just as damaging as being open and physically discriminated against. The surge in suicides for sexual minorities demonstrates this idea.

Sexual minorities have always been with us, and in America they are now more out in the open than ever. They recently won the right to serve openly in the military. African Americans won equal military rights in the 1940s (This is of course merely legal equality because there are still institutional forces that discriminate against homosexuals and blacks in the military. For one, the percentage of minorities serving the military as opposed to whites really highlights how we are not even close to economic equality in terms of race, but I'm strictly talking legal equality). The next step in many LBGT minds is marriage equality. There have been big strides in the last ten years, but the process is still very slow compared to other civil rights movements.

A contributing factor is that there is no foreign policy incentive for the American government to grant equality for the LBGT community. The Civil Rights Act was in part adopted by our government as a Cold War policy. The pressure African Americans were putting on the US government was an embarrassment to America in the international community. Especially with African and Asian leaders. In 1954 when Nixon was Vice President and on a tour of Asia he described an incident where an Indian legislator “derived an unfavorable impression of America because he visited a city in which he got on a bus and the bus driver made him move to the back of the bus because his skin was not white.” This was an utter embarrassment to American officials, and there are many cases like that. Although, not the sole reason for black civil rights, it certainly played a role in the US government's push forward for civil rights. Lyndon Johnson, who signed the civil rights act as President, was against the act while he was in congress. He was not a benevolent sympathizer for civil rights. It was politically a good move domestically as well as foreign for support of the US Cold War agenda.

Is there any foreign policy reason why the US government should give equal rights for the LGBT community? There is no homosexual country (although, many ignorant Americans would say France, or some other European country without a stick its ass is a “homosexual country.” Irony not intended.) Further, the parts of the world that the US is trying to grab into its sphere of influence is not very tolerant of sexual minorities either. A few years ago the Iranian president assured us that there were no homosexuals in his country, to which a friend of mine retorted “because you stoned all of them to death.” Any cursory look at current US foreign policy would show that we are in somewhat of a cold war with Iran over the influence in the Middle East. Iran is not alone in the stoning of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia, our biggest financial ally in the region not only holds contempt for sexual minorities, but has the worst track record for its treatment of women. There is no international embarrassment for our treatment of homosexuals because the battle for gender and sexual equality is international. I'm not saying the US government will only grant equality for the LGBT community if it tries to take resources from a country that is completely accepting of all sexualities, but I do think without that incentive the battle in the US for equal rights will be long and arduous still. The bright side is that on the state level over the last several years sexuality rights are leaving the bigots behind. The problem here is for LGBT people living in the bible belt. That is why we need to continue to push, not only our governments, but our communities, and schools to accept and welcome all types of people into our lives. The Civil Rights Act in itself did not end discrimination and prejudice in our country, it still haunts us, but despite some of the rhetoric going around we are much less hateful than we were in the 1950s, and as long as we communicate with one another and work LGBT issues into our national consciousness we will continue to grow as a species and be able to transform hate into love while we continue the struggle for economic and political equality for all.

Join me in Humanity

The truth about the uprisings in the Middle East is that no one knows what is going to happen. That is the most exciting part of it all. We can all have out hopes and dreams or cynical comments of what might happen, but the fact is we are living in a time that no one could have predicted, and no one should predict. Let the pieces fall into place, support love and struggle over violence and oppression, and wait. I know it feels like something must be done now, but we should understand that those in power wish to be “careful” about this because they have a lot of economic interests. Now I know that sounds economically determinist, but I defend it by looking at the facts. There is an enormous amount of money to be made on the addiction we so aggressively consume called oil. Those in political position are in debt to those in economic power to protect that interest, regardless of humanity. Sure, there may be a few oil execs that have a sliver of humanity and want the brutality to end in Libya. Yet, their main priority is to keep oil prices stable for them to manipulate, not a bunch of Muslim peasants. I had NPR on last night on my way home from work. NPR is supposedly a liberal radio station. They are moderate at best. The program I listened to outlined the effects these uprisings will have on the oil industry and the US economy. It was a disgusting discussion that sanitized a genocide into economic terms. Do I blame NPR? Partly. But I blame every American, every human being, that watches this and does not do anything. It is not hard to stand in front of a capitol building in the US and demand that your government takes action against a brutal dictator. We will not get shot at from helicopters. We actually have that right and we need to express it at least to force our government to give stern warnings and make statements to condemn our oil addiction and its leading to supporting disgusting dictators in the world.

Our “leaders” will not do it unless we demand they do it. That is really all we can do, but it is something we can easily do. I was at a rally for Libya yesterday and it was disheartening how small the turnout was. Especially since Austin has a sizable Arab community. But that shouldn't even matter. If you are human you should be outraged at what is going on. Everyone I speak to IS outraged, but why don't they rally? It's not like when people don't vote. I get why people don't vote. They see they have two choices that are both rich coccksuckers who do not give a shit about them. But to join a rally is so much easier. You come you speak your mind and you get to voice your anger. It's a lovely and therapeutic experience, especially if you are deeply disturbed by what is happening. No more living in fear and apathy. We need to rise up and demand an end to violence, an end to propaganda, an end to exploiting people for profit, an end to anti-intelligence , and an end to injustice and inequality. Please join me. I will be there no matter what. I will shout and rally and protest until humanity is cherished for what it is.

Egypt: An Inspiration for my Generation

As the Egyptian revolution enters its 17^th day, I'd like to take a moment and reflect on how big of a deal this will be to my generation. So far, this is the most inspirational global event that I have been around to experience. Although I struggle with the double edged sword of modern technology and getting lost in social networks, I see the internet here as absolutely good. It's well documented that the scope of this revolution has its roots in the internet. Many following the events may be familiar with the name Asmaa Mahfouz. On January 18^th she posted a video that inspired many young Egyptians to come out on the 25^th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgjIgMdsEuk

Yet, Asmaa Mahfouz was not the sole source of the inspiration. In fact these protests were being organized for over a year on the internet, which was the safest place to conduct any ani-government plans in the Mubarak police state. Yes, this was in large part organized by the youth, but if you look at videos from the ground at Tahrir Square you see people of all ages, men, women, labor movements, Muslims and Christians united. Even today over 1,000 lawyers and doctors came out in support of the strikes and protests. (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/10/headlines#1) It is not just a bunch of angry young people who cannot find jobs. Many ignorant westerners are portraying this historic moment to be that way. Fortunately, they are wrong.

Mubarak's announcement that he will not resign, and the regime will be defiant against democracy seems to have ignited more anger among protests as well as more attention from the west. It seemed that the media was getting tired of this story as our oscillating government focused its attention on business interests in America. The Obama administration/Corporate owners of America need to face the fact that the Middle East is starting to embrace democracy and peacefully fight western dominance of their resources and propped up dictators. Main point here is that they are doing it in a rather sophisticated and peaceful fashion. This poses a threat to American power interests who use anti-American religious extremists as a convenient excuse to dominate middle eastern politics for our corporate and strategic purposes. But if the voice of Islamic extremism is drowned out by a more rational and inspirational youth movement, it will be increasingly more difficult for our government to justify our brutal foreign policies. That is why you see all of this talk of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though they are a small player in what is really happening in Egypt.

What I fear more than religious groups taking over Egypt (which I don't think will happen) is the prospect of the US installing another oppressive regime and ignoring the democratic energy that has fueled this unprecedented revolution. There is talk that Mubarak and Sueliman need to stay in power until September to keep the country stable. I don't understand that logic. First of all, how can we believe that these brutal torturers need to stay for stability, while they are the ones causing all of the violence and instability during these protests. Secondly, it is degrading to the people protesting who have kept Tahrir Square in good shape, cleaning up after Mubarak backed thugs tried to trash the place. It's insulting to the courageous people in Egypt, and it's insulting to the rest of our intelligence to claim that Egypt needs Mubarak's regime to stay a little while longer to maintain “stability.”

In Line with US Foreign Policy Joe Biden Says Mubarak is not a Dictator

Yesterday Joe Biden stated that he did not think that President Mubarak of Egypt was a dictator. He proceeded to explain how Mubarak has been a good ally to US interests in the region:

Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator.

Based on this, the Vice President's definition of a dictator is predicated on compliance with US interests. The US government backing true dictators that consent to helping US business and strategic concerns is not a new revelation. You can go back throughout US history to find this sort of thing. For instance, it is common knowledge by historians now that the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile by Augusto Pinochet was backed and some even argue led by the US. Pinochet turned out to be a brutal dictator. Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973. The list of support for dictatorships is long. Here is a website I found that posts a good portion of these dictators:

http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/history-of-us-backed-dictators-redux/

Most infamous and infuriating of these in many people's minds is Saddam Hussein. Wikileaks cables that were released recently suggest that the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait only to turn our back on the dictator using it as a catalyst to micromanage the region for the next 20 years. We see the results today.

Ron Paul actually had the courage to bring this up in congress this week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JANYT8FCik&feature=player_embedded

Although I disagree with Paul on most domestic issues, he is a champion of exposing US atrocities abroad. Representative Kucinich is more to my liking as an overall politician, and these are the two eccentric US politicians that come to mind. Now, Joe Biden may be notorious for saying stupid things, but what he said here is exactly in line with the US foreign policy stance for decades. Paul and Kucinic are marked as loonies or radicals for their dissidence. Meanwhile, the President has sidestepped his way with much prowess to encourage dissidence, but to not upset his ally Mubarak who also happens to be a brutal dictator that is being challenged by a wave of protests in Egypt. My hope is that Egypt and the other Middle East countries that are going through revolution right now do not get trapped by US style imperialism. That imperialism shows up as privitization of resources, backing dictators that systematically kill dissidents, and horrid sectionalism. That imperialism is what creates terrorists. Not religion. Not a hate for freedom. It is the western stranglehold on that region that has produced the terrorist ideology we see today. As long as a few people profit from this we cannot rely on our government to do anything to stop it.

Investing in Education in Corporate Owned America

Last night the President spoke of investing in America's future. As an American I don't care. As a global citizen I am terrified. For politicians, investing in our future means that they are investing in the growth and consolidation of the giant corporations that have our elected leaders in their pockets. This means more foreign conflict, aggressive economic sanctions against third world people that do not comply with American privatization, and more unregulated destruction to the environment. That last one is caused by the industry that profited the most last year, big oil. I will address that in a moment, but first one thing Mr. Obama said really stood out to everyone was his sputnik reference. He stated:

"Half a century ago, the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik. We had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

This is quite true. The Cold War brought tons of money to the universities in order to beat Soviet technology and create more advanced weapons. Our university’s and likewise our economy flourished. Investing in higher education and government projects like NASA certainly played a large role. My issue with the President's reference here is that this will not happen again. Not only because it is impossible to get any significant change through our inept political process, but also because using artless patterns in history for making important policies today is frustratingly short sighted. Indeed the Cold War competition motivated the government to invest in these programs, which in turn created jobs and a new class of intelligent Americans, but this is not 1957. This is 2011, and corporate America has its grip on every decision of the government especially in education and scientific innovation.

The most promising new industry that we should invest in is green energy. I cringe when I say “new” because green energy has been trying to make a revolution in America since the 1970s. To give you an idea of how much progress we have made take a look at this clip:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

(Note: I know it's a comedy show and all that, but honestly who doesn't agree that the Daily Show is a better source of news than anything else on cable?)

The most striking point is at the end of the clip. Richard Nixon set a goal of getting America off foreign oil by 1980, and since then each administration has set more timid goals when it comes to energy. Why? Because the oil companies make more money than any other industry in the world (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/).

We can't invest in America in the same way we invested in the 1950s and 1960s when more and more money is thrown at our politicians by greedy companies seeking less rules and more profits by any means necessary. Those means include starving third world countries, assassinating foreign leaders that get in the way (see CIA assassinations in Latin America and overthrow of the Shah of Iran). They also include destroying the air, forests, and oceans.

The investment in education starting in 1957 was a major success at creating the critical thinkers and mass student movements of the 1960s and 70s. Since then, as colleges privatized and demanded more and more money from students and focused their resources in financial and business arenas, straying from social sciences, we have become an apathetic and politically unaware nation. My generation fails to question any of this treachery by corporate America, and our universities backed by our corporately owned government have played a major role. This is outlined wonderfully in an article by Terence Ball entitled The Politics of Social Science. He states:

“Survey researchers discovered that most Americans are politically ill informed, inactive, and apathetic. By “traditional” democratic lights, this was cause for considerable alarm. Yet, according to the newly emergent “elite theory” of democracy, it is widespread political participation that poses the greatest danger to democracy. Fortunately, an antidote is readily available. That antidote is apathy. Widespread apathy allows well educated and affluent “democratic elites” to have a disproportionate say in the shaping of political possibilities.”

In other words, a government controlled by corporate money (which many define as fascism) is not interested in critical thinkers capable of changing the world. It wants universities to produce obedient workers in the financial and service sectors, not innovators that will challenge the energy giants. They don't want critical thinkers that criticize the way our economic system works. The corporate owners that control the politicians (less than 1% of the population) are the ones that benefit enormously from that system, while the rest of us are given less education, lower paying jobs, pathetic benefits, and longer hours of work. Meanwhile, we are told by the mainstream media that we should feel bad for complaining, and that if we are not rich then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The president's sputnik reference was a nice poetic display, something Mr. Obama is great at, but it is nothing more than theater. It is the false idea that our government has our interests in mind and that it is not motivated by the pistols to their heads held by big oil, the banks, insurance companies, and all the rest.

The Business Puppet President We Can Believe In

Every time President Obama makes a new appointment to his staff, particularly the economic staff, the left is outraged and puzzled at this clear breach of his campaign promise to change how Washington works and to punish those responsible for the financial disaster. The newest array of such appointments are as follows: William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt is going to be chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Immelt’s appointment has come under scrutiny just as many of the others. He’ll retain his position at the helm of GE, creating a potential conflict of interest. As one of the nation’s largest corporations, GE has a variety of business and issues before the federal government, including media mergers, military sales, environmental cleanup, and a $16.1 billion bailout in 2008. While Immelt is being introduced to us by Obama as someone who can create jobs, the United Electrical Workers Union says GE has closed 29 plants in the United States in the past two years, laying off around 3,000 workers.

This is not surprising to me at all. His business friendly appointees were never surprising to me. It seems to me that the people that voted for Obama fall into these categories: Group A thought he would create a magical world of love, peace and flowers. Group B voted for him because he was a democrat and they compulsively vote for that party no matter what. Group C did not want someone as dumb and out of her mind batshit crazy one heartattack away from the Presidency. And group D, which is the group I fall under was the group that thought maybe this guy will actually enact some of the change he promises. Group D really got the bare minimum of what we expected. An eventual and painful repeal of DADT, the most watered down, nearly insulting piece of health care reform, watered down financial reform, a timid stimulus that was almost half tax cuts and didn't help to create sustained growth, and the list of mediocre achievements goes on.

The Obama supporters say give him a break he's done a lot with the Republicans saying no to everything. I agree, the right made it hard for him to accomplish anything meaningful. But this is not an excuse for his staff appointments. His business oriented staff is a slap in the face to all that voted for him, and there is no excuse. There is only explanation: Both parties are made up of businessmen and lawyers, or puppets of such men. No one represents the working class, that is the overwhelming majority of the people. Whether you are a republican or a democrat, if you belive in public services or not, you are NOT being represented by anyone that has your interests in mind. Democrats ally with businesses to make regulation rig the game for whichever lobbyists spend more money. Republicans do the same, but then try to lower taxes for the wealthy too. It is a giant club of businessmen that 99% of the people are not in. We have corporate owners, and for us to be shocked by Obama's appointees is unbelievable. We shouldn't be shocked or surprised, we should be outraged that this is still going on. Outraged that we are still accepting these chains, even willfully putting them on and locking them, while our corporate icons drag us from one side of the town to the other, stealing back any of the scraps they gave us that we desperately clasp. I believe that the disparity of wealth in our world is a perfect example of this. I welcome argument and calls for hyperbole.

The Death of Postmodernism?

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

Fascinating article that has a lot of truth about our culture, but I disagree with its premise. Here is my terse response:

I don't think postmodernism is in any way dead. I think there is truth in the idea that our culture is constantly engulfed in activity that ultimately creates banality and conformist consumers, but this doesn't signal a new philosophical movement. In fact, I think this is rather the result of postmodernism, not a rejection of it. If we live in a world where the pervading philosophy is one of individual perception and subjective understanding superseding any cohesive reality, then it makes sense that it would lead to a society of bland artistic consumption, narcissism, and political apathy. A bright spot in postmodernism (one of few that I see) is that since it has teamed up with technology, we now more than ever are able to connect and feel empathy with human beings on the other side of the world. That inclusive attitude has the potential to bring us together and eliminate mass violence and conflict more than any other philosophy/technological period in history.