It is difficult to know where to start. The democratic movements in the mid-east have spread like a virus. The most dangerous situation is in Libya, which has rapidly moved from demonstrations to a full and violent revolt. This is far too likely to result in a radical regime. The thing is that nobody can blame the people in Libya or this region for their discontent or the movements that are taking place there. If the movements are like those that toppled the Soviet Union they could be beneficial. This could result in modernization and a better economic relationship for everyone. In this regard what is taking place in America is a very poor example for us to set.
The fact is that the rich in this country have greatly increased their wealth at the expense of everyone else. The income of the rich has increase a hundred fold while the income of the middle class has remained flat. If you are talking about real wages, meaning the amount of goods and services you can purchase with your income, the wages of the middle class have actually dropped considerably. In earlier posts I said that the Republican Party’s enrich the rich schemes that did so much to create the current deficit and helped to create our current recession should result in a political disaster for the Republican Party. As a result of voter apathy and pure stupidity, however, the Republican Party was actually rewarded for blocking the Democratic Party’s efforts to get us out of this Republican recession and for telling the big lies about death panels and just about everything else. Inexplicably, the voters actually gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives and elected quite a few Republican governors.
Now drunk with power, the Republicans are mounting an all out assault on the social and economic progress this country has enjoyed for many decades. Instead of trying to deal with economic issues, the Republicans are attacking Roe v. Wade and virtually all reproductive health care for women by defunding Planned Parenthood and proposing legislation to prevent private insurance companies from funding abortions regardless of the reason for those abortions. It would be tempting to say that the Republicans are doing this in an effort to distract voters’ attention away from the Republican Party’s attack on the middle class. I think their motive is even more cynical. I think they are pandering to the right wing extremists and are firmly convinced that the majority of the voters are too inattentive or stupid to realize the threat this poses to a woman’s reproductive health.
The Republicans are every bit as arrogant when it comes to the economy. They say it is about jobs, jobs, jobs, but their focus is not on creating jobs. Instead they are trying to convince us that the deficit and the high unemployment are the caused by the same thing. And how do they want to solve the deficit problem? Their answer is to take the money out of the hides of the poor and the middle class by doing away with services and aid that help reduce the suffering caused this Republican recession, and they want do this while increasing the already outrageous incomes of the wealthy and the incomes multi-national corporations that are already raking in record profits. If President Obama is smart he will not let the Republicans define the issues. If they want to shut the government down unless their proposals to reduce the deficit are accepted, he should counter with his own proposals. He should propose eliminating subsidies for oil companies, redefining small businesses so that companies worth billions of dollars, such as the Koch brothers, are not receiving the same tax breaks and subsidies as actual small businesses. He should propose reducing farm subsidies, and cutting more of the waste out of defense spending. He should propose raising revenue by charging a royalty on the oil major oil companies are sucking out of gulf. Let the voters decide who is right and who is irresponsible based upon the alternatives offered.
Not being content to ream the middle class while enriching the rich, the Republican governors have mounted an all out attack in an effort to crush labor unions and eliminate a major source of funding for the Democratic Party. This is a coordinated effort supported by the Koch brothers and other large businesses. I am not comparing the Republicans to Hitler, but their strategy is similar to Hitler’s strategy when he said all he wanted was the Sudetenland. The Republicans are hoping that their attempts to destroy the public employee unions will be seen inconsequential by the voters. The Republicans are hoping that blue-collar workers will not realize this is only the beginning of what will be the destruction of collective bargaining, and what this will mean to those workers. If you do not think this is an effort to destroy all unions just ask yourself why the Koch brothers and other major businesses are behind it. Labor leaders know what is at stake here. It is a life and death struggle between the workers and the greedy plutocrats who want to take us back to a time when they exploited their employees with impunity. It is because of labor unions and collective bargaining that blue-collar workers were able to join the middle class. This is a very high stakes game the Republican Party is playing on behalf of its wealthy masters. If labor leaders are able to make white, male, blue-collar workers realize what is at stake, those workers will abandon the Republican Party in droves.
What the Republican Party is doing is what they are always accusing the Democratic Party of doing. The Republicans are engaging in a very brutal class war. If they want to accuse me of that here is my answer: When you steal my crops and export them then set my house on fire with predatory loans there is no question about whether I am at war. The only question is when will I fight back, and why did I wait until you stole my crops and set my house my house on fire!
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Egypt: A time of danger and hope
In terms of revolutions this one was almost bloodless. Yet there were the martyrs: the people killed, the people injured, and the people arrested. The powerful never give up their power easily. The demonstrators were well aware of the risks they were taking in openly opposing the Mubarak regime. The adrenaline flowed day and night as they stood up to the threats and uncertainties. The rejection of each of the government’s attempts to compromise increased the tension and the apprehension. The last straw for the generals of the army probably came when workers around the nation joined in the demonstrations. The implied threat of a general strike that would shut the nation down was too real and too dangerous. Mr. Mubarak had to resign. His resignation was a great victory that has empowered the people.
It is little wonder that the fall of a despot creates a feeling of euphoria and high sky-high expectations. The oppression is gone; the people are now free to chart their own course, and they are certain that this will instantly make everything better. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The problem for the Egyptian people is much greater than establishing an orderly transition of rule. The thing we must bear in mind is that King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were not deposed because they were despots; the people rose up against them because of severe economic conditions that made the despotism intolerable. Such is also the case in Egypt. Since the economic problems are far too complex to yield to solutions that are as simple or as quick as changing governments many of the grievances of the people will linger after a new government is formed. This reality places any new government in peril because it is almost impossible to make suffering people understand why the government cannot meet their high expectations or all of their demands. The most likely result of this will be disillusionment and a demand for more drastic changes.
The disillusionment of the people is fertile ground for demagogues who advocate radical changes that rarely work. The worst case scenario is the emergence of ruthless demagogues who demonize other people and nations to create enemies they can blame for all of Egypt’s problems. This would put Egypt’s honest moderates at an extreme disadvantage. It is much easier to blame Israel, the United States, and all of the capitalists of the western world than it is to deal with the real problems. It does not take Al Qaeda or radical Muslims to realize that. Creating enemies is the favorite tactic of all aspiring tyrants. Radical leaders used it during the French revolution, Russian revolution, and the revolution in Iran. It is, therefore, understandable that Israel, Saudi Arabia and other nations are viewing the events in Egypt with trepidation.
Israel is afraid of becoming a scapegoat for all of Egypt’s problems and of having to fight a powerful Egyptian army. The rulers in Saudi Arabia and the other Arab emirates are afraid that the events in Egypt will inspire popular uprisings in their own countries. This is particularly likely if the new Egyptian leaders decide to appeal to the impoverished by redistributing the wealth. The fact that the Egyptian demonstrators do not appear to be that radical is not much comfort at this point. It can take months or even years to see where the ouster of the old regime will lead. Although the demands of Egypt’s demonstrators are being met, many of those people are still in the streets. Like combat veterans, a large number of the demonstrators are not ready to give up the excitement, the feeling of being a part of momentous events, and the feeling of being the heroes of a great cause. They will find it difficult to return to the routines of their normal lives. This is particularly true of the young, the unemployed, and the ones who do not have families they have to provide for.
That the demonstrators do not seem to belong to a particular group is not unusual. It is rarely a single group that can claim the credit for toppling the old regime. This means that sundry leaders and groups find it necessary to compromise and cooperate with each other. Since it is the moderates who broker the compromises the government that initially replaces the old regime tends to be fairly moderate. It is when the accomplishments of the moderates fail to meet the high expectations of the people that the most ruthless leaders take advantage of the restless souls who are finding it difficult to return to their normal lives. With this danger in mind, I still think there is room for optimism and hope.
First of all Mr. Mubarak resigned quickly enough to prevent the establishment of a life style of strife and violence. Then there is the army. For decades it has been the real power in Egypt. There is little doubt that the generals persuaded Mr. Mubarak to resign. It is difficult to imagine a leader the army opposes gaining power anytime soon. In this regard the democracy that emerges might be limited somewhat, but that could have a stabilizing influence. I do not think the generals want to risk a costly war with Israel. The restraint shown by the demonstrators is also encouraging. It might indicate a willingness to lower their expectations if they see meaningful changes and some relief for the people suffering from the poor economy. The thing we cannot doubt is the need for some quick economic relief at the street level to convince the people that the government is moving in the right direction, and that that perception is as important as the reality. It is also important to provide worthy projects and public works that will help give the people a feeling of accomplishment.
We and every other nation concerned about the stability of this important region have every reason to want the new government of Egypt to succeed. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, we can help indirectly by enforcing the regulations of the commodities market that were designed to help stabilize and lower the price of food. In regard to direct aid, we and other nations should render what help we can, but we must avoid any appearance that we are trying to buy Egypt’s government. Egyptians are proud and capable people. So we, like the Egyptian people, must give the new government the chance to make its own way rather than reacting to expectations that might be unrealistic. The risks are great but so are the potential rewards. An unstable or aggressive Egypt is a threat to everyone. A peaceful, prosperous Egypt is a shining light and an inspiration for everyone.
In a final note, I think Mr. Obama has handled this situation rather well so far. His limited support of the demonstrators was consistent with our core values. It was the right thing to do. It was also the practical thing to do. Mr. Obama has and will continue to use whatever positive influence we have, but he is smart enough to realize we cannot control what happens. Standing in the way of people who are trying to peacefully resolve real grievances will only result in an unnecessary and damaging collision.
It is little wonder that the fall of a despot creates a feeling of euphoria and high sky-high expectations. The oppression is gone; the people are now free to chart their own course, and they are certain that this will instantly make everything better. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The problem for the Egyptian people is much greater than establishing an orderly transition of rule. The thing we must bear in mind is that King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were not deposed because they were despots; the people rose up against them because of severe economic conditions that made the despotism intolerable. Such is also the case in Egypt. Since the economic problems are far too complex to yield to solutions that are as simple or as quick as changing governments many of the grievances of the people will linger after a new government is formed. This reality places any new government in peril because it is almost impossible to make suffering people understand why the government cannot meet their high expectations or all of their demands. The most likely result of this will be disillusionment and a demand for more drastic changes.
The disillusionment of the people is fertile ground for demagogues who advocate radical changes that rarely work. The worst case scenario is the emergence of ruthless demagogues who demonize other people and nations to create enemies they can blame for all of Egypt’s problems. This would put Egypt’s honest moderates at an extreme disadvantage. It is much easier to blame Israel, the United States, and all of the capitalists of the western world than it is to deal with the real problems. It does not take Al Qaeda or radical Muslims to realize that. Creating enemies is the favorite tactic of all aspiring tyrants. Radical leaders used it during the French revolution, Russian revolution, and the revolution in Iran. It is, therefore, understandable that Israel, Saudi Arabia and other nations are viewing the events in Egypt with trepidation.
Israel is afraid of becoming a scapegoat for all of Egypt’s problems and of having to fight a powerful Egyptian army. The rulers in Saudi Arabia and the other Arab emirates are afraid that the events in Egypt will inspire popular uprisings in their own countries. This is particularly likely if the new Egyptian leaders decide to appeal to the impoverished by redistributing the wealth. The fact that the Egyptian demonstrators do not appear to be that radical is not much comfort at this point. It can take months or even years to see where the ouster of the old regime will lead. Although the demands of Egypt’s demonstrators are being met, many of those people are still in the streets. Like combat veterans, a large number of the demonstrators are not ready to give up the excitement, the feeling of being a part of momentous events, and the feeling of being the heroes of a great cause. They will find it difficult to return to the routines of their normal lives. This is particularly true of the young, the unemployed, and the ones who do not have families they have to provide for.
That the demonstrators do not seem to belong to a particular group is not unusual. It is rarely a single group that can claim the credit for toppling the old regime. This means that sundry leaders and groups find it necessary to compromise and cooperate with each other. Since it is the moderates who broker the compromises the government that initially replaces the old regime tends to be fairly moderate. It is when the accomplishments of the moderates fail to meet the high expectations of the people that the most ruthless leaders take advantage of the restless souls who are finding it difficult to return to their normal lives. With this danger in mind, I still think there is room for optimism and hope.
First of all Mr. Mubarak resigned quickly enough to prevent the establishment of a life style of strife and violence. Then there is the army. For decades it has been the real power in Egypt. There is little doubt that the generals persuaded Mr. Mubarak to resign. It is difficult to imagine a leader the army opposes gaining power anytime soon. In this regard the democracy that emerges might be limited somewhat, but that could have a stabilizing influence. I do not think the generals want to risk a costly war with Israel. The restraint shown by the demonstrators is also encouraging. It might indicate a willingness to lower their expectations if they see meaningful changes and some relief for the people suffering from the poor economy. The thing we cannot doubt is the need for some quick economic relief at the street level to convince the people that the government is moving in the right direction, and that that perception is as important as the reality. It is also important to provide worthy projects and public works that will help give the people a feeling of accomplishment.
We and every other nation concerned about the stability of this important region have every reason to want the new government of Egypt to succeed. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, we can help indirectly by enforcing the regulations of the commodities market that were designed to help stabilize and lower the price of food. In regard to direct aid, we and other nations should render what help we can, but we must avoid any appearance that we are trying to buy Egypt’s government. Egyptians are proud and capable people. So we, like the Egyptian people, must give the new government the chance to make its own way rather than reacting to expectations that might be unrealistic. The risks are great but so are the potential rewards. An unstable or aggressive Egypt is a threat to everyone. A peaceful, prosperous Egypt is a shining light and an inspiration for everyone.
In a final note, I think Mr. Obama has handled this situation rather well so far. His limited support of the demonstrators was consistent with our core values. It was the right thing to do. It was also the practical thing to do. Mr. Obama has and will continue to use whatever positive influence we have, but he is smart enough to realize we cannot control what happens. Standing in the way of people who are trying to peacefully resolve real grievances will only result in an unnecessary and damaging collision.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Egypt:
I hereby extend my sympathy and best wishes to all of the people of Egypt. The situation there is a very dangerous one that will have a great impact on the region as well as the people of Egypt. Egypt is a respected sovereign nation that, like all nations, must chart its own course. For many years now it has been a very stable nation, and a positive influence internationally. While I sincerely hope that it will be able to resolve its current problem and will continue to exert a positive influence on other nations, we must be careful about how we react to the events now taking place there. This requires a somewhat difficult balancing act on our part. It is a balancing act that requires us to help the people of that nation without infringing on Egypt’s rights as an independent, sovereign nation, or the rights of its citizens to choose their own leaders. Please bear that in mind as you read the following observations:
Mr. Mubarak has overplayed his hand. The attack of the pro-Mubarak thugs on the peaceful anti-Mubarak demonstrators has created the dangerous situation referred to above. If the violence continues or the anti-Mubarak demonstrations are suppressed the consequences will be dire. As someone who has spent a good deal of time studying mass movements and revolutions, I can tell you that the anger of a large number of anti-Mubatrak demonstrators will cause them to join the most radical and ruthless group now opposing Mubarak. In other words, the violence and/or repression will radicalize many of the heretofore, peaceful opponents of the Mubarak regime. The number of peaceful demonstrators who are radicalized will be a minority, but in a violent uprising it is invariably the most ruthless group that seizes power, and that group always represses the moderates. The best-case scenario would be for Mubarak to resign now and for an orderly transition of rule to be established. Hopefully, the Egyptian army will realize this and will act quickly bring it about.
Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised that the anti-Mubarak demonstrators have not directed more of their anger at us. If this remains the case, it offers us a much better opportunity to form good relations with the government that emerges from the crises. Doing so, however, will require us to recognize the role we have played in creating the situation that has resulted in the unrest. It is not just our support of Mubarak over the years that makes us culpable. The root cause of the unrest in Egypt is the same as the cause of unrest in many nations; it is the escalading price of food. One of the contributing factors in the spike of food prices is our failure to regulate the commodities market. Franklin Roosevelt realized that the commodities market would have a stabilizing influence on food prices, but that that market must be regulated. His solution was to forbid the selling of an amount of futures that exceeded the expected production of those commodities. When we failed to enforce that reasonable regulation and the amount of futures sold exceeded production it created an artificial shortage. This in turn put an upward pressure on the price of food.
I do not want to overstate my case here. As Dillon Ratigan has pointed out, there are other factors contributing to the price increase, but just as the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and our government’s failure to adequately regulate Wall Street and the lenders contributed to the economic meltdown we recently experienced, the unregulated commodities market has contributed to the high cost of food. This is just one more example of why our government must enforce reasonable regulations to keep Wall Street and a few wealthy individuals from satiating their greed at the expense of everyone else. It is one more example of why the Republican Party’s enrich the rich, anti-regulation philosophy is detrimental to the global economy. The misery caused by the high cost of food helps to create a breeding ground for radicals and terrorists. It is therefore in our national interest to enforce the regulation of the commodities market and to take whatever reasonable steps we can take to keep food prices from getting out of hand. The rest of the world will note what we do in this regard. We must show the people of Egypt and the rest of the world that we have conscience and a sense of fair play.
Mr. Mubarak has overplayed his hand. The attack of the pro-Mubarak thugs on the peaceful anti-Mubarak demonstrators has created the dangerous situation referred to above. If the violence continues or the anti-Mubarak demonstrations are suppressed the consequences will be dire. As someone who has spent a good deal of time studying mass movements and revolutions, I can tell you that the anger of a large number of anti-Mubatrak demonstrators will cause them to join the most radical and ruthless group now opposing Mubarak. In other words, the violence and/or repression will radicalize many of the heretofore, peaceful opponents of the Mubarak regime. The number of peaceful demonstrators who are radicalized will be a minority, but in a violent uprising it is invariably the most ruthless group that seizes power, and that group always represses the moderates. The best-case scenario would be for Mubarak to resign now and for an orderly transition of rule to be established. Hopefully, the Egyptian army will realize this and will act quickly bring it about.
Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised that the anti-Mubarak demonstrators have not directed more of their anger at us. If this remains the case, it offers us a much better opportunity to form good relations with the government that emerges from the crises. Doing so, however, will require us to recognize the role we have played in creating the situation that has resulted in the unrest. It is not just our support of Mubarak over the years that makes us culpable. The root cause of the unrest in Egypt is the same as the cause of unrest in many nations; it is the escalading price of food. One of the contributing factors in the spike of food prices is our failure to regulate the commodities market. Franklin Roosevelt realized that the commodities market would have a stabilizing influence on food prices, but that that market must be regulated. His solution was to forbid the selling of an amount of futures that exceeded the expected production of those commodities. When we failed to enforce that reasonable regulation and the amount of futures sold exceeded production it created an artificial shortage. This in turn put an upward pressure on the price of food.
I do not want to overstate my case here. As Dillon Ratigan has pointed out, there are other factors contributing to the price increase, but just as the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and our government’s failure to adequately regulate Wall Street and the lenders contributed to the economic meltdown we recently experienced, the unregulated commodities market has contributed to the high cost of food. This is just one more example of why our government must enforce reasonable regulations to keep Wall Street and a few wealthy individuals from satiating their greed at the expense of everyone else. It is one more example of why the Republican Party’s enrich the rich, anti-regulation philosophy is detrimental to the global economy. The misery caused by the high cost of food helps to create a breeding ground for radicals and terrorists. It is therefore in our national interest to enforce the regulation of the commodities market and to take whatever reasonable steps we can take to keep food prices from getting out of hand. The rest of the world will note what we do in this regard. We must show the people of Egypt and the rest of the world that we have conscience and a sense of fair play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)