FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG SITE

OCCUPY REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

OCCUPY THE ROAD TO POTUS

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Monday, November 5, 2012

Why a Romney Presidency May Be Worse Than You Think



Election 2012  

Why a Romney Presidency May Be Worse Than You Think

War with Iran. An ultra-conservative Supreme Court. Death to Social Security. Romney could be an epic disaster.


A few moderates and liberals have lately taken to arguing that, you know, maybe a Romney presidency wouldn’t be too bad. He might turn out to be more moderate, or at least pragmatic, than he’s acted in the campaign so far. He might make a point of reaching out to Democrats in Congress. Republicans might regain their trust of Keynesian economics and actually do things to boost the economy out of naked political self-interest, instead of sabotaging the economy out of same.

I am not really convinced! Mitt Romney will be working with a Congress full of Republicans and his Cabinet and administration will be full of Republican political appointees, and that adds up to disaster, especially with the current, insane Republican Party.

As it’s the spooookiest time of the year, it seems appropriate to ask: What’s the Romney presidency worst-case scenario? If Mitt Romney turns out to be exactly the severe conservative he says he is, what can we expect?

War

Obviously we’re bombing Iran. They might be spinning some uranium around in a mountain, and we can’t let that continue. As Wired recently reported, bombing Iran isn’t actually as easy as it sounds. If we want to do it right, it’ll take a massive strike against Iran’s ability to launch a counterattack on Israel or Kuwait, followed by the much more massive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And of course war with Iran leads to a worldwide oil shock, probably.

But why stop with a preemptive airstrike? The actual worst-case scenario, in terms of loss of life and possibly world-destroying consequences, would be a nuclear strike on Iran. I’d hope that would be off the table even in the event of “Defense Secretary John Bolton.” But you never know, regime change might become popular again. A ground force in Iran might suddenly become urgently necessary! The idiot Bush-era foreign policy experts might suddenly decide that it wouldn’t be that hard to invade and occupy. The Iranian people would probably greet us as liberators! That same weird bloodthirsty hysteria that gripped the political elite in 2002-2003 might return, especially if Iran successfully sinks an American ship or blows up a plane or a helicopter during our totally righteous strike on their nuclear facilities — or, god forbid, if there’s a terrorist attack in the U.S. that can be credibly blamed on Hezbollah. Under the standard proposed for an invasion by Gen. Shinseki prior to the Iraq war, we’d need a good 1.4 million troops to properly invade Iran. Of course, Romney’s Pentagon and White House will be stocked with exactly the sort of people who ignored Gen. Shinseki prior to Iraq, so it’d probably only be a couple hundred thousand. But basically mass, widespread death and terror would result, just like Iraq only much, much more so.

Remember: John Bolton isn’t just being kept around for show. Romney actually listens to the guy. Romney’s selection of moderate Robert Zoellick for his transition team led to so much howling from the hawks that his mouthpiece is basically promising Zoellick won’t have an important role in a Romney administration. But we can expect a big job for Dan Senor, the man who instantly went from unqualified idiot political hack appointee to Respected Foreign Policy Expert the day Bush sent him to lie on behalf of the disastrously incompetent provisional government in post-invasion Iraq.

Let’s also not forget that former longtime CIA spook Cofer Black — who was vice chairman of Blackwater for three years — is Romney’s “envoy to the dark side.” Black was at the CIA while plans for extraordinary rendition were drawn up and the fact that he was at Blackwater at all should tell you what sort of principles the guy has.

The National Journal also says Michael “Warrantless Surveillance” Hayden could be the director of national intelligence or homeland security secretary in a Romney administration, so we have that to look forward to, too. (Also, Mitt will bring back torture. He will bring it back so hard.)

Also, from Jennifer Rubin: “Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, is frequently mentioned for the secretary of state job.” Ah yes, a wonderful option if you want some “bipartisan credibility” for your plan to wage endless global war forever.

The Courts

Jonathan Bernstein sums it up:
If Romney wins the presidency and holds it for eight years, he very likely would replace not only moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy (born in 1936) with someone closer to Alito, but he also would probably have the chance to replace either Ginsburg (born in 1933) or Stephen Breyer (1938). On the other hand, if Obama wins, it’s possible that he could wind up replacing at least one conservative justice, perhaps Kennedy or Antonin Scalia (also 1936).
Scalia is obviously not going to purposefully allow a Democrat to replace him, but he’s quite old, and he may not have a choice. (Not that I’m wishing Antonin Scalia anything but the best!) Ginsburg is even older, and it’s extremely unlikely that she’d remain in place through two terms of Mitt Romney.

Basically one more conservative vote means the effective end of Roe v. Wade and the Commerce Clause. Replacing Breyer and Ginsburg with conservatives would possibly mean the end of the entire New Deal regulatory state. Three Romney appointees would mean conservative control of the Court for decades.

And there is every reason to suspect that Romney will pick judges who’ll vote like Scalia. That is the sort of person Republicans appoint now, while Democrats appoint squishy mainstream moderate liberals that they imagine everyone will be fine with. (And if Republicans control the Senate during a Romney presidency, haha, sorry, we’re going back to 1896.)

That’s just the Supreme Court. Reagan’s lower court judges profoundly changed American politics, and they continue to do so today. George W. Bush appointed more circuit and appeals court judges than Clinton, and so far Obama is on track to have appointed the fewest since Ford. These judges have a tremendous amount of power, and they will use it to strengthen the power of corporations at the expense of individuals, the environment, and communities every step of the way. (Plus, obviously, on criminal justice they will be universally pro-prosecutor and basically ensure that our horribly broken system keeps systematically locking up as many young black men as possible.)

The Environment

It’s not like President Obama will actually manage to avert catastrophic climate change in his second term, considering the many barriers to the sort of action required to actually help the problem, but it is safe to say that Romney will do less.

The EPA’s new fuel efficiency standards probably wouldn’t end up surviving. And the EPA certainly won’t be regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act in a Romney administration. And no more investment in clean, renewable energy sources. And Keystone’s getting built (probably either way, actually). Basically instead of half-measures that won’t come close to addressing the problem, we will get actively harmful policies, most likely.

The Federal Budget

If you hate the deficit, you will … probably ignore those professed beliefs as you defend a president who spends ever more on defense and also slashes taxes, primarily on rich people. Just like the last Republican president! And their Messiah, Ronald Reagan.

If you hate government spending on social programs, you’ll find stuff to like: Unlike Bush, with his squishy “compassionate conservative” aisle-crossing education and healthcare initiatives, Romney will cheerfully eliminate “Obamacare” and destroy Medicaid by handing it to states that plan to spend as little money on it as possible.

And of course there will be this fiscal cliff issue. The can will be kicked, in the event of a Romney victory, to the next Congress, so that the Romney administration can implement its grand deficit reduction plan. It’s plausible that a Romney victory would lead to Senate Democrats showing more spine on “entitlements” than they are willing to while a Democrat is in the White House, but it’s also possible that they’ll be desperate to appear bipartisan. So: Social Security retirement age raised, most definitely, and lord only knows what happens to Medicare.

Eventually the new equivalent of the Ryan plan will pass. It will just be a matter of time.

The Economy

It will continue to suck! Horribly! For everyone!

In conclusion: We’ll be at war and pretty soon there won’t be any more Medicare or Social Security plus the rich will keep getting richer and abortion will be illegal in most of the country. Happy Halloween!

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Sunday, November 4, 2012

5 Disturbing Signs Romney Would Steer Us to Towards a Capitalist Dictatorship



Election 2012  

The lies and activities of Mitt's campaign show a contempt for democracy itself.

 
 
The mainstream media and even Democrats have been slow to call Mitt Romney's deliberate falsehoods "lies." But after just calling them what they are, it is also important to analyze their meaning. Lies on Romney's scale do not simply show contempt for the intelligence of American voters. They show contempt for democracy, and display some of the features of capitalist dictatorship of a sort that was common in the late twentieth century. Mohammad Reza Pahlevi in Iran, Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, Park Hung Chee in South Korea and P.W. Boetha in South Africa are examples of this form of government. Capitalist dictatorship has declined around the world in favor of capitalist parliamentarism, in part because of the rising power of middle and working classes in the global South.

Capitalist dictatorship has many similarities to fascism, but differs from it in lionizing not the workers of the nation but the entrepreneurs of the nation. Fascism seeks a mixed economy, whereas capitalist dictatorship privileges the corporate sector and attacks the non-military public sector. But both try to subsume class conflict under a hyper-nationalism. Both glorify military strength and pick fights with other countries to whip up nationalist fervor. Both disallow unions, collective bargaining and workers' strikes. Both typically privilege one ethnic group within the nation, marking it as superior and setting up a racial hierarchy.

One big difference between capitalist democracy (as in contemporary Germany and France) and capitalist dictatorship is the willingness of the business classes to play by the rules of democratic elections, to allow a free, fair and transparent contest, to acknowledge the rights of unions, and to respect the universal franchise. Businessmen in such a society share a civic ethic that sees these goods as necessary for a well ordered society, and therefore as ultimately good for business. They may also be afraid of the social disruptions (as in France) that would attend any attempt to whittle away workers' rights. Attempts to limit the franchise, to ban unions, and to manipulate the electorate with bald-faced lies are all signs of a barracuda business class that secretly seeks its class interests above all others in society, and which is not afraid of workers and middle classes because the latter are apolitical, apathetic and disorganized.
Sound familiar?

1. Romney's contempt for the democratic process is demonstrated in his preference for the Big Lie. In order to scare workers in Toledo, Ohio, into voting for him, he alleged that President Obama was arranging for Chrysler's Jeep production to be shifted to China. Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne sent an email to all employees refuting Romney: "I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China..." He pointed out that Jeep production in the US has tripled since 2009. Romney's political ad containing this sheer falsehood, is blanketing Ohio.

2. Romney backs Koch-brother-funded attempts to bust public unions, as in Wisconsin, even though that effort has run into trouble with Wisconsin courts.

3. Romney supports Koch-brother-funded attempts to suppress voting, typically through state legislatures requiring voter identification documents at polling booths. Such identification often costs money, so that it is a stealth poll tax. It also requires, for non-drivers, a trip to a state office and bureaucratic runarounds. Voter i.d. requirements hit the poor, Latinos, African-Americans and urban people who use public transit hardest, i.e., mostly voters for the Democratic Party. In some states, the courts are questioning the laws. But in many states they are now entrenched. Limiting the franchise was a key tactic for Apartheid South Africa's government under Boetha, which was run as a capitalist dictatorship on behalf of the white Cape Town business classes.

4. Romney's devotion to increasing military spending and his rattling of sabers at Russia, China, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (aren't we up to about half the world now?) are typical of the militarism of capitalist dictatorship. His repeated pledges to defer to the wishes of the officer corps with regard to whether to end the Afghanistan war suggests a certain amount of Bonapartism, where the business classes bring in the generals to make key decisions. The problem for small authoritarian business classes is that they are in competition for resources with the much larger middle and working classes and in a parliamentary system they risk being outvoted. In order to suppress the latter's claims on resources and deflect any tendency to vote along class interests, the business classes in this system pose as defenders of the nation, thus hiding class conflict and legitimating the diversion of resources to arms manufacturers and other corporations. Nationalism, militarism and war, along with voter suppression, can even the playing field for the rich.

5. The Romney campaign's remarks about "Anglo-Saxons" better understanding allies like Britain, and its support for the racist Arizona immigration and profiling law show a preference for racial hierarchy, with "Anglo-Saxons" at the top. Again, many capitalist dictatorships privilege a dominant ethnicity, as with Apartheid South Africa or discrimination against native Chileans by the Pinochet regime in Chile. Fostering racism is a way of dividing and ruling the middle and working classes, of binding a segment of them to the dominant business classes.
Obviously, the Romney version is capitalist dictatorship lite. But its strong resemblance to the full form of that sort of polity is highly disturbing. While these tendencies have existed on the Republican Right for some time, the sheer level of contempt for democracy as demonstrated in the Big Lies, the exaltation of war, the racial profiling, and the new extent of attempts at voter suppression and union-busting all indicate a sharp veering toward authoritarianism.


Juan Ricardo Cole, a blogger and essayist, is the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan.