Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Politics’ Category

The Second Bill of Rights

Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

Read more

Looking Over the Mountaintop

“I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!” – 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr.

King’s “Mountaintop” speech was prophetic on many levels. It was his last speech and he seemed eerily aware of his own impending assassination the following day. It was also a prophecy for the future of America. Somehow King clearly saw our future and knew this day would come. I have great pride as an American that is has. I wish that Martin Luther King was here to see it but perhaps he really did see it all those years ago.

Millions of Americans woke up Wednesday morning to a new country – one where skin color no longer mattered to the majority. Colin Powell cried. A three star general. Yes, it was that important. Every person of color, not just in America, but around the world can lift their head a little higher and be a little more self confident knowing that Barack Obama has blazed a trail for them that 40 years ago would have been unthinkable.

Of course, this presidential race was about more than skin color, it was about “content of character” as King hoped one day it would be. But there is still much work ahead. The struggle is not over. As John F. Kennedy once said, “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

God, I’m happy to be alive at this moment in history.

American Stories, American Solutions

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

Underdog Psychology

David Brooks as psychologist? He wrote a great opinion piece for the New York Times today ((Source: Thinking About Obama)) on the psychology of Barack Obama. Brooks is certainly conservative but he is always level-headed and critical – that’s why I like his editorials. I suppose in his logical, dispassionate analytics he finds Obama a kindred spirit. Of course, by the end of the article he raises his elephant flag but up to that point he gives a fair and cogent psychological analysis.

I’ve read both of Obama’s books and admire his story. Even now, campaigning against an American hero that casts a long shadow, Obama’s back story is still very compelling. It’s not compelling in the way McCain’s biography is compelling but it is a story – in many ways – of what it means to be an American. His history is not heroic or glorious but it is remarkable nevertheless. He began life as an underdog and through perseverance and determination he slowly made his way to where he is today. I believe a dispassionate, skeptical leader is what America needs right now. Like Brooks says in his article, Obama doesn’t need us … we need him.

Why I am a Liberal

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” – by Emma Lazarus (on the plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty)

Today is Blog Action Day ’08 – a day when bloggers around the world decide to write about one topic – poverty. Lately, I’ve been finding myself having to explain to my more conservative friends why I am a liberal. As much as I hate labels, it appears that this one fits. There are a few ideological reasons for believing one approach is better than another. Here are two …

On Welfare
In America, we currently have two welfare systems – social and corporate. A common argument against liberalism is the social welfare system. The argument goes that giving to the poor will encourage them to remain in poverty so that they can continue getting free money. There is probably much merit in this argument but I have been lucky enough in my life to not have to stand in line for food stamps to feed my children. Of course, we also have corporate welfare. In fact, we have just seen a great example of this in the latest banking bailout. We’re giving the banking industry $700,000,000,000. That’s enough money to start our own space program and build a fleet of 45 space shuttles. Looked at another way, it’s enough money to feed the poor around the world for the next 100 years. I only wish there was a check box when I filed my taxes every year that asked me if I would rather give money to big business or to the poor. Of course, most people would check “give to the poor”. That is one reason I am considered liberal – if my money is going to be redistributed, I would much rather it be redistributed to poor people rather than rich people.

On Healthcare
We have a amazing healthcare system in the United States. It has kept me healthy and even saved my life once. I’ve been lucky enough to have excellent healthcare and insurance either free or very cheap. There are a lot of people that do not have this option. Because the rest of us have our family physician we don’t have to spend hours in a waiting in the ER for a doctor to see our sick child. It’s a problem that is out of sight, out of mind. The number one reason Americans file for bankruptcy is healthcare costs. Those same people who are currently against a subsidized healthcare system may feel differently if they are diagnosed with cancer someday only to find their insurance company drop them. This happens all too often. Call me liberal, but I would rather my tax dollars go to build an affordable healthcare system rather than those same dollars going to subsidize large pharmaceutical companies.

Sources:
“Who Pays the Most Taxes?”
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

McCain’s Keating 5 History

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

A Third Way?

“While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business.” – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Fascists opposed what they believed to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a “third way” between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.

Other than nationalization of certain industries, private property was allowed, but property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state. For example, “an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable.” According to historian Tibor Ivan Berend, dirigisme was an inherent aspect of fascist economies. The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7:

“The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation,” then goes on to say in article 9 that: “State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management.”

Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote “superior” individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.”

Fascists were most vocal in their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Some fascists, particularly Nazis, considered finance capitalism a “parasitic” “Jewish conspiracy”. Nevertheless, fascists also opposed Marxism and independent trade unions.

According to sociologist Stanislav Andreski, fascist economics “foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic system of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalization, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attempts at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority).” Politics professor Stephen Haseler credits fascism with providing a model of economic planning for social democracy.

In Nazi economic planning, in place of ordinary profit incentive to guide the economy, investment was guided through regulation to accord to the needs of the State. The profit incentive for business owners was retained, though greatly modified through various profit-fixing schemes: “Fixing of profits, not their suppression, was the official policy of the Nazi party.” However the function of profit in automatically guiding allocation of investment and unconsciously directing the course of the economy was replaced with economic planning by Nazi government agencies.

Quoted from Wikipedia. Also, see another article here.

Interesting History

After seeing that the U.S. is on the verge of a financial collapse I decided to see what it was like this time 10 years ago. I entered the job market at a time of unparalleled financial prosperity. It’s changed a bit since then. Here are some interesting stats*:

  • When Clinton left office in 2000, there was a budget surplus of $237 billion, the largest surplus ever
  • America had paid down $363 billion in debt over the last three years of Clinton’s presidency, the largest debt pay-down ever
  • Under the Clinton’s budget, the debt held by the public would have been eliminated by 2012

Of course, this all changed. How soon we forget. Another fact that Republicans seem to have forgotten is the debate on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996. Back then, Republicans were worried about how this act would impact individual liberties (they seemed to have lost their way on this issue). From the CNN archives:

“It may put Republicans in an awkward position,” he said, in a reference to the watering down of the anti-terrorism bill last spring before it reached Clinton’s desk. “They have to decide between the NRA and the FBI. I hope they choose the FBI.”

Speaking of terrorism at home and abroad, Clinton told the Disabled American Veterans: “This is a challenge we can and will meet. It may well be the most significant security challenge of the 21st century to the people of the United States and to civilized people everywhere.”

Somewhere, somehow Republicans have been brainwashed into believing that their party is the party of small government and national security. Yet, under Bush we’ve had the largest increase in the federal government since FDR. Can you imagine a time when Republicans would water down an anti-terrorism bill because of concerns about civil liberties? My, how things have changes under Bush and his cronies. We now are in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, an irresponsible, unnecessary war in a country that does not want us there. Jobs are being moved to India and China faster than they can setup sweatshops. The dollar is becoming ever more inflated and unemployment is at a 10 year high. I think we can see what the consolidation of power in the Executive Branch has done to America.

Another “small government” Republican (McCain) today announced that he proposes creating a new government agency to handle this financial crisis. Is he serious? How could anyone be on the fence in this election? It’s unimaginable that there are people that want another 8 years of this.

Sources: National Archives and cnn.com.