maandag 28 april 2014

De Mainstream Pers 201


Boston – Als je geld hebt en passie voor de politiek, kun je sinds vorige week in de VS een stuk makkelijker je invloed laten gelden. Het Hooggerechtshof heeft een streep gehaald door het maximumbedrag van negentigduizend euro dat iemand voor een bepaalde verkiezing aan een partij kan schenken…
De uitspraak van het Hooggerechtshof betekent mogelijk nog meer invloed voor de rijken, maar ook, hoopt David Brooks, een conservatieve commentator van The New York Times, meer geld voor de politieke partijen, nu de omweg via de Super PACs niet meer nodig is. Daarmee komt het geld terecht bij organisaties die minder extreme standpunten zullen innemen dan menige actiegroep. Dat kan de Amerikaanse politiek wel gebruiken.
Bas den Hond. De Groene Amsterdammer. 9 april 2014
In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as 'natural persons,' i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.
The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and 'bundling' of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy.
Greg Palast. Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections. 21 januari 2010.



American democracy is under assault.

In one super-PAC alone, Karl Rove and the Enron grifter Ed Gillespie, have assembled $200 million from big polluters and Wall Street moguls to buy the 2012 election.

Two of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, pledged $130 million to elect candidates who favor unrestrained corporate profiteering.

The senators and congressmen they fund and elect are not representing the United States—they are representing Koch and its oil industry cronies, Big Pharma, and the Wall Street banksters currently mounting a hostile takeover of our government.

I have no problem characterizing these corporate-centric super-PACs as treasonous.  We are now in a free fall toward old-fashioned oligarchy; noxious, thieving and tyrannical.

The most corporate-friendly Supreme Court since the Gilded Age had declared in its notorious Citizens United decision that corporations are people and that money is speech. Those who have the most money now have the loudest voices in our democracy while poor Americans are mute.

And the money is talking; in 97 percent of federal elections over the past two decades, the best-funded candidates were victorious.

America, the world’s proud template for democracy and a robust middle class, is now listing toward oligarchy and corporate kleptocracy.

America today is looking more and more like a colonial economy, with a system increasingly tilted toward enriching the wealthy 1 percent and serving the mercantile needs of multinational corporations with little allegiance to our country.

These radical forces already dominate the national press…

This is the first time in American history that corporate and media interests have been so clearly and so perilously aligned.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A Hostile Takeover of Our Country Treasonous, noxious, thieving, tyrannical. 26 oktober 2012


'Pro-Israel Policy groups such as AIPAC work with unlimited funding to divert US policy in the region (Middle East)' 
Jack Straw, Member of Parliament and former Foreign Secretary of the British Labor Party

'The United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its nuclear program' 

Sheldon Adelson, biggest donor to the Republican Party and major fundraiser for pro-Israel political action committees, speech at Yeshiva University, New York City, October 22, 2013…

How Israel’s Political Action Committees Control the US Congress and Prepare War with Iran.

The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) uses its financial firepower to dictate Congressional policy on the Middle East and to ensure that the US Congress and Senate do not stray one iota from serving Israel ’s interests. The Zionist instrument used in the purchase of elected officials in the US is the political action committee (PAC).

Thanks to a 2010 US Supreme Court decision, Super PACs-linked to Israel spend enormous sums to elect or destroy candidates – depending on the candidate’s political work on behalf of Israel . As long as these funds do not go directly to the candidate, these Super PACs do not have to reveal how much they spend or how it is spent. Conservative estimates of ZPC- linked direct and indirect funds to US legislators run close to $100 million dollars over the past 30-year. The ZPC channels these funds to legislative leaders and members of Congressional committees dealing with foreign policy, especially sub-committee chairpersons dealing with the Middle East . Unsurprisingly, the largest Congressional recipients of ZPC money are those who have aggressively promoted Israel ’s hard-line policies. Elsewhere around the world, such large scale payoffs for legislative votes would be considered blatant bribery and subject to felony prosecution­ and imprisonment for both parties. In the US , the purchase and sale of a politician’s vote is called ‘lobbying’ and is legal and open. The legislative branch of the US government has come to resemble a high-price brothel or white slavers’ auction – but with the lives of thousands at stake.


President Obama raised $1.1 billion for his reelection effort. Politieke kandidaten in de VS kunnen niet zonder steun van de zionisten gekozen worden.


The ZPC has purchased the alliance of US Congress people and Senators on a massive scale: Of 435 members of the US House of Representatives (sic), 219 have received payments from the ZPC in exchange for their votes on behalf of the state of Israel . Corruption is even more rampant among the 100 US Senators, 94 of whom have accepted pro-Israel PAC and Super PAC money for their loyalty to Israel . The ZPC showers money on both Republicans and Democrats, thus securing incredible (in this era of Congressional deadlock), near unanimous (‘bipartisan’) votes in favor of the ‘Jewish State’, including its war crimes, like the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon as well as the annual $3 billion dollar plus US tax-payer tribute to Tel Aviv. At least 50 US Senators have each collected between $100 thousand and $1 million in ZPC money over the past decades . In exchange, they have voted for over $100 billion in tribute payments to Israel ... in addition to other ‘services and payments’. The members of the US Congress are cheaper: 25 legislators have received between $238,000 and $50,000, while the rest got peanuts. Regardless of the amount, the net result is the same: Congressional member pick up their script from their Zionist mentors in the PACs, Super PACs and AIPAC and back all of Israel ’s wars in the Middle East and promote US aggression on behalf of Israel .
Professor James Petras. Israel Buys the US Congress: Sabotaging the US-Iran Peace Negotiations. 2 november 2013

What you need to know about the latest disastrous Supreme Court decision.

That clanging sound you hear is the Supreme Court, hammering the final nails into democracy’s casket. With Wednesday’s decision in McCutcheon versus FEC, the court has crossed the line protecting the last vestige of campaign finance reform, and making it official: Rule by the rich is now unfettered. Plutocracy’s moment has arrived. How Campaign Money Has Hijacked Our Congress

With Congressional representatives already spending four hours a day on 'call time' (cold-calling donors to plead for campaign funds), and another hour on 'strategic outreach' (meetings with donors), while spending only one to two hours on the work we’re paying them to do, the McCutcheon decision is sure to usher in more time on fundraising. After all, this is a system of bad incentives, where whoever spends more money wins nine out of ten elections. With more money spent on the 2012 election than any previous election in history, the 113th Congress is also the least productive Congress in history.

And how is our current batch of elected telemarketers choosing to spend their time? Fundraising, mostly. Even when they seem to be legislating, Congress is often fundraising.
Calvin F. Exoo. The Supreme Court Just Destroyed Our Democracy in Favor of the Plutocrats. 2 april 2014


SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: What I think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. You all have the freedom to write what you want to write. Donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give. This was—remember, all this goes back to this bizarre McCain-Feingold bill that was passed that has distorted the political process in ways that no one—no one who voted for it ever believed in. Some of us understood what was going to happen. And when you—it’s pushing all this money outside the party structure into all these other various forms. And I’m all for freedom. Congratulations.

AMY GOODMAN: House Speaker John Boehner. Senator Sanders, your response?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, my response is that Boehner is right, in a sense. He’s talking about freedom for a few hundred of the wealthiest people in this country. If you go up to the average person and say, 'Guess what! We’ve given you more freedom. Previously, you could only spend $125,000 in direct contributions to candidates; now you have the freedom to spend $4 or $5 million.' People will look at you like you are crazy. This is freedom for a handful of the wealthiest people in this country to undermine American democracy and to buy elections. That is, to my mind, not what democracy is supposed to be about.
And let me add this, Amy, because I think a lot of people, you know, have concerns about the economy, healthcare, the environment. They say, "Well, this is really not all that important." They’re wrong. Understand what these folks want, most of the people who are contributing, the billionaires who are contributing into the political process. Take a look at what the Koch brothers’ agenda is about. It is to end Social Security—privatize it, cut it—end Medicare as we know it, end Medicaid, cut federal aid to education, do away with the Environmental Protection Agency so these guys can pollute and pollute and pollute. This is a decision that will impact every American’s life, giving more power to the very, very wealthy and, in my view, moving this country away from a democratic form of society into an oligarchic form of society… Boehner talks about freedom for billionaires to be able to buy elections. Our job is to say to these billionaires, 'Sorry, you’re not going to buy elections.' Everybody in this country, whether you have a lot of money or not, should have the opportunity to run for office.
Senator Bernie Sanders. Sen. Bernie Sanders: Supreme Court Undermines Democracy by Allowing Billionaires to 'Buy Elections.' 3 april 2014

Aan de hand van de informatie die ter zake kundige Amerikanen verstrekken naar aanleiding van het vonnis van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof, is het onthullend om nog eens de beweringen van Bas den Hond in De Groene Amsterdammer te lezen, een weekblad dat doorgaat voor kritisch. Den Hond, 'US correspondent and science journalist,' stelt dat 
Als je geld hebt en passie voor de politiek, kun je sinds vorige week in de VS een stuk makkelijker je invloed laten gelden.
Het woord 'passie' is opmerkelijk. 'Passie' is volgens het woordenboek, in dit verband, een 'hartstochtelijke liefhebberij,' of een 'hartstocht,' dan wel een 'hartstochtelijke liefde.' Hier handelt het evenwel niet om een of andere hobby of een 'hartstocht' voor bijvoorbeeld voetbal, maar gaat het om de vernietiging van de democratie, zoals onder andere Kennedy, Petras en Sanders duidelijk maken.
Ook de formulering 'Als je geld hebt' is een verkeerde voorstelling van zaken, want het betreft hier niet de doorsnee burger, maar miljonairs en miljardairs die politieke kandidaten kopen of naar huis sturen, en dat feit moet zelfs Bas den Hond zich hebben gerealiseerd, aangezien hij schreef dat het het gaat om een 'maximumbedrag van negentigduizend euro dat iemand voor een bepaalde verkiezing aan een partij kan schenken.' Foutief is eveneens de bewering dat de rijken 'sinds vorige week' kunnen bepalen wie gekozen wordt. Dat kan al jaren, zoals ik hierboven heb duidelijk gemaakt. Bovendien is al jarenlang algemeen bekend dat de Amerikaanse verkiezingen door en door gecorrumpeerd zijn, al was het maar vanwege het feit dat de rijken politici kopen. Zo schreef bijvoorbeeld de voormalige staatssecretaris Europese Zaken en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Ben Knapen, als NRC-columnist begin mei 2009 dat ‘Wall Street… praktisch voor elke senatorcampagne’ betaalde en ‘kortom, het centrum van financiële, politieke en ideologische zwaartekracht’ was. Het is niet verbazingwekkend dat dankzij het zogeheten democratisch bestel 1 procent van de allerrijksten in de VS ongeveer 40 procent van alle rijkdommen van het land in bezit heeft.  Anders gesteld: 'Since mid-2009, some 95 percent of all US income gains have gone to the top 1 percent.' Dat is dus in de periode van economische neergang, die begon na de kredietcrisis, waardoor al jarenlang wordt bezuinigd, niet op de rijke elite maar op de meerderheid van de bevolking. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0105/Income-inequality-Does-wider-gap-between-rich-and-poor-threaten-capitalism 


Gap between US rich and poor reaches record width... 

America's top 1 percent of earners control 19.3 percent of total household income, a gap wider even than in 1927... the top 10 percent of US households controlled 50.4 percent of total income in 2012, the highest figures seen since 1917, the tail-end of the prosperous Progressive Era... other data found that the top 1 percent saw their incomes recover by a respectable 31.4 percent during 2009 and 2012. That's 95 percent of the total gain recognized in the US. The bottom 99 percent had to content themselves with growth of only 0.4 percent.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130910/gap-between-us-rich-and-poor-reaches-record-widt


The greatest demonstration of inequality is most evident in the income generated by not the top one percent, though, but by the sliver of the US population that makes more than 99.9 percent of the country. According to the firm’s research, the top 0.1 percent of Americans earned around $6,373,782 during that same 12-month span — or around 206 times what the average family in the US earned.
The ‘top one percent’ might be the primary target of the masses' ire and envy, but it's actually the top 0.1 percent who are grabbing a bigger slice of wealth,” Matt Krantz wrote for USA Today this week.
Of course, even that small chunk of the population has an even more exclusive group to be jealous of: according to the group’s report, the top 0.01 percent of the nation’s top-earning households brought in more than $30 million apiece in 2012 — or around one thousand times what the average American earned.
Samenvattend: in de eerste zin van Bas den Hond's opiniestuk in De Groene Amsterdammer staan drie eenvoudig aantoonbare fouten. Dat zijn er nogal veel. Hoe kan dat? Dat komt omdat deze mainstream-journalist naar de volgende conclusie toe werkte:
De uitspraak van het Hooggerechtshof betekent mogelijk nog meer invloed voor de rijken, maar ook, hoopt David Brooks, een conservatieve commentator van The New York Times, meer geld voor de politieke partijen, nu de omweg via de Super PACs niet meer nodig is. Daarmee komt het geld terecht bij organisaties die minder extreme standpunten zullen innemen dan menige actiegroep. Dat kan de Amerikaanse politiek wel gebruiken.
De uitspraak van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof betreffende het financieren van politici betekent dus volgens Den Hond 'mogelijk nog meer invloed,' maar dit staat niet vast, zoals het woord 'mogelijk' aangeeft, terwijl er ook nog eens een positieve kant aanzit die 'de Amerikaanse politiek wel [kan] gebruiken.' Daarmee suggereert de mainstream-opiniemaker als zou het niet zeker zijn dat de 'de rijken' gebruik zullen maken van hun 'passie' voor de politiek om hun 'invloed' te laten gelden, om de terminologie te gebruiken van deze propagandist in De Groene Amsterdammer. Een dergelijke veronderstelling is zo absurd dat het lijkt alsof Bas den Hond niet van deze wereld is. Zelfs vier van de negen rechters van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof gingen van het tegendeel uit; de uitspraak werd met de kleinst mogelijke meerderheid aangenomen. Het alles behalve radicale persbureau Reuters berichtte op 2 april 2014 dan ook:
Supreme Court's rejection of U.S. campaign funding limits opens door for big-money donors.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a key pillar of federal campaign finance law by allowing donors to give money to as many political candidates, parties and committees as they wish.
In the latest in a series of decisions by the high court that have given big-money donors more influence in U.S. elections, the justices rejected the overall limits on how much individuals can donate during a federal two-year election cycle.
Wat Bas den Hond in De Groene Amsterdammer probeert te suggereren is dat de VS wel degelijk een democratie is, waarvan de ‘kracht’ en ‘vitaliteit’ bewonderenswaardig zijn, zoals Geert Mak, oud-medewerker van De Groene Amsterdammer, in zijn boek Reizen zonder John (2012) met grote stelligheid beweert. Daarbij gaan deze trouwe exponenten van Hoflands 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder voorbij aan het simpele feit dat meer dan 40 procent van de Amerikaanse kiesgerechtigden al een halve eeuw niet meer stemt omdat de inwoners van de VS allang beseffen dat hun land geen democratie is, maar een plutocratie, de heerschappij van de rijken, de economische elite die politici koopt om haar belangen te dienen. Dit alles gesanctioneerd door ondermeer de leden van de Senaat, van wie meer dan de helft miljonair is. Maar omdat De Groene Amsterdammer de schijn van democratie in de VS hoog wil houden, mag Bas den Hond vanuit Boston beweren dat dankzij de uitspraak van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof 'meer geld voor de politieke partijen, nu de omweg via de Super PACs niet meer nodig is,' waardoor 'het geld terecht [komt] bij organisaties die minder extreme standpunten zullen innemen dan menige actiegroep.' Degene die mij kan uitleggen wat Bas den Hond hiermee bedoelt, krijgt van mij een boek over de VS van een Amerikaanse auteur toe gestuurd. Ik wacht af. Hij kan ook zelf reageren, maar tot nu toe heeft Den Hond mij nooit een reactie gegeven, want de 'politiek-literaire elite' haat discussie. Het poldermodel staat dit niet toe. De Hollandse intelligentsia, of beter, dat wat ervoor doorgaat, is sinds de opkomst van het neoliberalisme, midden jaren zeventig, in toenemende mate gecorrumpeerd geraakt. Maandag 28 april 2014 meldde Trouw, de krant waarvan Bas den Hond correspondent is, op de voorpagina:

'Poetin lijkt zijn eigen propaganda te geloven.'

Dat is brutaal: de Trouw-propagandisten laten een vanwege belastingontduiking en fraude veroordeelde Russische miljardair president Poetin van propaganda betichten. Waarschijnlijk denkt de redactie van de mainstream-krant dat door een ander van propaganda te laten beschuldigen, niemand op het idee komt dat zijzelf propaganda bedrijft. Maar helaas voor mijn collega's: 'you cannot fool all the people all the time.' Ik vrees dan ook dat de Trouw-journalisten in hun eigen propaganda zijn gaan geloven.


De verdachte bron van Trouw, Michail Chodorkovski, die net als Al Capone wegens belastingfraude achter tralies verdween. De voormalige NRC-correspondente in Moskou, Laura Starink, schreef in 2005 na een bezoek aan Rusland in haar krant:

De meeste intellectuelen die ik spreek steunen Chodorkovski. Als ik vraagtekens plaats bij zijn illegale handel en wandel, zegt iemand: 'Luister, iedereen die de laatste 15 jaar in Rusland heeft gewoond en gewerkt, heeft de wet overtreden en kan op elk moment gearresteerd worden.' Een vriendin formuleert het zo: 'Wij hebben allemaal boter op ons hoofd. Daarom begrijpen wij Chodorkovski zo goed.'


Het feit dat juist Chodorkovski als bron wordt opgevoerd en zijn uitspraak als kop op de voorpagina wordt gepubliceerd zegt meer over de corrupte journalistiek van Trouw dan over Poetin. Later meer. 


The United States as a Plutocracy

A plutocracy is a system of rule by people of wealth, which describes our situation far more accurately than the term democracy. We have been an Empire ruled as a plutocracy since our founding. Hear my video commentary on American Plutocracy and the transition to Deep Democracy.
White Men of the Propertied Class

The U.S. Constitution was written by white men predominantly of the propertied class. For their time, the steps they took were heroic and progressive. They brought an end to hereditary monarchy and introduced the separation of church and state to end theocracy — both exceptional accomplishments for their time. The original Constitution, however, enshrined the power of white males of property in the institutions of a plutocracy, a system of rule by people of wealth. It specifically sanctioned slavery and gave no rights to women, Native Americans, or people of color.

An Empire Ruled as a Plutocracy

Have you ever wondered how extreme inequality in the United States is or how fast it is growing? The website Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality is a great resource.
The real story of the United States is that of an empire ruled as a plutocracy that has resisted demands from ordinary people for recognition of their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness with often violent means.
The story that those who wrote the U.S. Constitution acted out of a passionate belief in the right of every person to life, liberty, and justice for all and gave us governing institutions that embody the highest expression of these democratic ideals is a leading example of an Empire fiction. As is characteristic of such fictions, it clouds our ability to see and thus to reach for unrealized possibilities of Earth Community well within our means.  
“To save the democracy we thought we had, we must take democracy to where it’s never been.”
Every bit of the land our nation occupies, from that of the original thirteen colonies, to that acquired during the Westward expansion, was taken by force and deceit from Native Americans who were empoverished as a result and whose treaty rights continue to be ignored with alarming regularity. It took a civil war to amend the Constitution to prohibit slavery and continued struggle to extend the vote to people of color. African Americans suffer the consequences of the enslavement of their ancestors to this day. Women, even white women of property, didn’t get the vote until 1920 and remain significantly under represented in political office. Even now we have no assurance that every vote will be properly recorded and counted.

Creating the Democracy We Never Had

Our curent economy is accurately described by investment advisors and marketing consultants as a "plutonomy," a combination of the terms "plutocracy" and "economy." It refers to an economy in which income growth is confined to those at the top of the wealth pyramid. They use the concept as a guide to framing profitable investment and marketing strategies. 
The is the mirror opposite of economic democracy, which is an essential foundation of political democracy, both foundational to the Living Democracy of Earth Community.
Bringing democracy to these United States, begins with a new story that acknowledges we have never had it. In the words of Frances Moore Lappe, “To save the democracy we thought we had, we must take democracy to where it’s never been.”
Michael Brenner

GET UPDATES FROM MICHAEL BRENNER

Plutocracy in America

Posted: 04/01/2013 12:30 pm

Plutocracy literally means rule by the rich. "Rule" can have various shades of meaning: those who exercise the authority of public office are wealthy; their wealth explains why they hold that office; they exercise that authority in the interests of the rich; they have the primary influence over who holds those offices and the actions they take. These aspects of "plutocracy" are not exclusive. Government of the rich and for the rich need not be run directly by the rich. Also, in some exceptional circumstances rich individuals who hold powerful positions may govern in the interests of the many, e.g. Franklin Roosevelt.
The United States today qualifies as a plutocracy -- on a number of grounds. Let's look at some striking bits of evidence. Gross income redistribution upwards in the hierarchy has been a feature of American society for the past decades. The familiar statistics tell us that nearly 80 percent of the national wealth generated since 1973 has gone to the upper 2 percent, 65 percent to the upper 1 percent. Estimates as to the rise in real income for salaried workers over the past 40 years range from 0 percent to 28 percent. In that period, real GDP has risen by 110 percent -- it has more than doubled. To put it somewhat differently, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 8X more than those in the 60 percentile after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007; 10X those in lower percentiles. In short, the overwhelming fraction of all the wealth created over two generations has gone to those at the very top of the income pyramid. That pattern has been markedly accelerated since the financial crisis hit in 2008. Between 2000 and 2012, the real net worth of 90 percent of Americans has declined by 25 percent.
Theoretically, there is the possibility that this change is due to structural economic features operating nationally and internationally. That argument won't wash, though, for three reasons. First, there is no reason to think that such a process has accelerated over the past five years during which disparities have widened at a faster rate. Second, other countries (some even more enmeshed in the world economy) have seen nothing like the drastic phenomenon occurring in the United States. Third, the readiness of the country's political class to ignore what has been happening, and the absence of remedial action that could have been taken, in themselves are clear indicators of who shapes thinking and determines public policy. In addition, several significant governmental actions have been taken that directly favor the moneyed interests.
The latter include the dismantling of the apparatus to regulate financial activities specifically and big business generally. Runaway exploitation of the system by predatory banks was made possible by the Clinton "reforms" of the 1990s and the lax application of those rules that still prevailed. Attorney General Eric Holder just a few weeks ago went so far as to admit that the Department of Justice's decisions on when to bring criminal charges against the biggest financial institutions will depend not on the question of legal violations alone but would include the hypothetical effects on economic stability of their prosecution. Earlier, Holder had extended blanket immunity to Bank of America and other mortgage lenders for their apparent criminality in forging, robo-signing, foreclosure documents on millions of home owners. In brief, equal protection and application of the law has been suspended. That is plutocracy.
Moreover, the extreme of a regulatory culture that, in effect, turns public officials into tame accessories to financial abuse emerged in stark relief at the Levin Committee hearings on JPMorgan Chase's 'London Whale" scandal. Morgan officials stated baldly that they chose not to inform the Controller of the Currency about discrepancies in trading accounts, without the slightest regard that they might be breaking the law, in the conviction that it was Morgan's privilege not to do so. Senior regulators explained that they did not see it as their job to monitor compliance or to check whether claims made by their Morgan counterparts were correct. They also accepted abusive treatment, e.g. being called "stupid" to their face by senior Morgan executives. That's plutocracy at work. The Senate Finance Committee hearing drew only three senators -- yet another sign of plutocracy at work. When mega-banks make illicit profits by money laundering for drug cartels and get off with a slap on the wrist, as has HSBC and others, that too is plutocracy.
When the system of law that is meant to order the workings of society without reference to ascriptive persons is made malleable in the hands of officials to serve the preferred interests of some, it ceases to be a neutral instrument for the common good. In today's society, it is becoming the instrument of a plutocracy.
There are myriad other examples of complicity between legislators or regulators, on the one hand, and special business interests on the other. EPA judgments that are reversed under the combined pressure of the commercial interests affected and beholden politicians is one. The government's decision not to seek the power to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over the price of drugs paid for with public funds is another. Tolerance for the concealment of offshore profits in the tens of billions is a third. Relaxed interpretations of the tax laws by the IRS to the advantage of high income persons can be added to the list. So, too, can the give-away to sole source contractors of the tens of billions squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of such direct assists to big business and the wealthy is endless. The point is that government, at all levels, serves particular selfish interests no matter who holds high positions. While there is some difference between Republicans and Democrats on this score, it has narrowed on most major items to the point that the fundamental properties of the biased system are so entrenched as to be impervious to electoral outcomes. The most revealing experience that we have of that harsh reality is the Obama administration's strategic decision to allow Wall Street to determine how and by whom the financial crisis would be handled.
Systemic biases are the most crucial factor is creating and maintaining plutocratic orientations of government. They are confirmed, and reinforced, by the identities and identifications of the persons who actually hold high elected office. Our leaders are nearly all rich by any reasonable standard. Most are very rich. Those who weren't have aspired to become so and have succeeded. The Clintons are the striking case in point. That aspiration is evinced in how they conduct themselves in office. Congress, for its part, is composed of two rich men/women's clubs. In many cases, personal wealth helped win them their offices. In many others, they knit ties with lobbies that provided the necessary funds. Whether they are "bought off" in some sense or other, they surely are often coopted. The most insidious aspect of cooptation is to see the world from the vantage point of the advantaged and special economic interests.
The devolution of the Democratic Party from being the representative of ordinary people to being just "another bunch of guys" is a telling commentary on how American politics has degenerated into a plutocracy. The party's rolling over to accommodate the interests of the wealthy has been a theme of the past four years. From the Obama White House to the halls of Congress, party leaders (and most followers) have conceded the dominance of conservative ideas about macro-economic strategy (the austerity dogma), about retaining largely untouched the for-profit health care "non-system," about bailing out the big financial players as the expense of everyone else and the economy's stability, about degrading Social Security and Medicare. The last item is the most egregious -- and revealing -- of our plutocratic ways and means. For it entails a combination of intellectual deceit, blatant massaging of the numbers, and disregard for the human consequences in a time of growing distress for tens of millions. In other words, there is no way to conceal or spin the trade-offs made, who was being hurt and who would continue to enjoy the advantages of skewed fiscal policies.
Perhaps the most extraordinary achievement of the plutocracy's financial wing has been to win acceptance from the country's entire political class that its largely speculative activities are normal. Indeed, they are credited with being the economy's principal engine of growth. It follows that their well-being is crucial to the well-being of the national economy and, therefore, they should be given privileged treatment. How this was accomplished is the subject of a later commentary.


1 opmerking:

Anoniem zei

Check out this interview.
Ali blames the whitehouse politics, sticks to Blackhouse :)
Met, tamelijk uitzonderlijk, Sly Stone die over een geweldige muzikale verbeeldingskracht beschikt, maar is niet erg coherent als hij z'n mond open doet, niet altijd even geweldig uit de hoek komt en soms dan juist weer wel! De interviews met Frank Zappa zijn natuurlijk vermaard, maar deze mag er ook zijn! Ali and Sly
En ik denk dat Ali deze quote van Zappa wel kon waarderen: "Politics is the entertainment branch of industry"
De Katrina flood moest nog komen...
What's new... The scale of things.

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...