Dec 28, 2018

December 26, 2018: Our Intrepid Disgustus, Swallowed a Rat, Trembling on Twitter



On Christmas Eve, our intrepid Disgustus was found deep in the bowels of the White House twitting out the message: “So alone, so sad...”

It is quite fitting that Disgustus should so find himself: alone with his cheeseburger, his wife and children having long since fled the residence seeking asylum elsewhere; for the culmination of a half century of Boomer Vandalism is reaching its predictable crescendo.

Gone now are his chief advisers, for the adults have left the room. First it was national security adviser H.R. McMaster then, in recent weeks, John Kelly and now Defense Secretary 'Mad Dog' Mattis, all military generals, all competent at management, all of at least a modicum strategic thinking, all adults and now all gone.

Disgustus now has no one around him with the expertise, experience or understanding about how a government operates and, as the skein of governance begins to unravel, there is now no one to step in and manage the crisis.

So now we have a government shut down. It is ostensibly over a dispute about building a damn wall on the Mexican border but it is about much more than that. Eight hundred thousand employees are now either on furlough or working and not being paid, among them TSA officers who stand guard at our airports and traffic control agents manning the control towers.

The imbroglio began as the Congress, still under ReSCUMlickan control, passed by a wide margin and with bipartisan support, spending bills that would fund the government until February giving the new Congress a few weeks to negotiate a resolution over the damned wall. Disgustus had signed on to the proposals promising to sign the legislation. Then Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter stepped in condemning the 'president' for caving in to the Democrats—overlooking the cooperation of the ReSCUMlickan members of Congress who signed on to the measures—with Coulter—ever the 'praying mantis' awaiting to strike (1), declaring that if tRUMP didn't veto the measure his presidency would be a joke, it would be over.

Disgustus, trembling took to twitting from his toilet, that he would not sign the legislation and so several agencies of the federal government have now run out of money, among them the Coast Guard, the Transportation Safety Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Food and Drug Administration. How this action is going to make us safer in a fight over safety has not yet penetrated the dense skull of our breathtakingly ignorant chief executive.

The nation has devoured a rat., In yet another act of vandalism, perpetrated by the “Generation of Swine”, the nation now finds itself in yet another shutdown. I make this charge because tRUMP's support, fewer and full of labor, is becoming ever more white, and ever more aged. Disgustus from the beginning has represented and increasingly represents the last gasp of the “Generation of Swine”; and, as the rat moves through the bowels of the body politic, it is finding ever more toxic means of devouring its host.

As we bid a fair adieu to 2018, let's take stock of the half century that the cancer that is the American Conservative Movement has had upon the republic.

We are now as far from 1968—that year in which the consensus forged by the New Deal came under frontal assault by the acolytes of Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand—as we were then from the end of the First World War. From 1918, to 1968, the country had moved from horse drawn artillery and the model T Ford to sending men to the moon; from rural to urban America. From hardscrabble hardship of the working classes to a large and controlling middle class. But the next fifty years gave us a space program reduced to low altitude circling of the earth, and an assault on the middle class that now threatens the very foundation of the republic. As the top one percent absconds with the wealth generated by labor, the country increasingly represents societies held together by potentates in control of the military. So serious has it become that even the validity of our elections are becoming increasingly questionable as the nation careens down the the scale toward a bona fide banana republic.

I have written extensively about this in these columns, pointing out the importance of a large and controlling middle class as necessary for the function of a true republic. It is an idea as old as Aristotle for a middle class acts as a buffer between the political extremes, forcing the moderation and compromise necessary to a republic. (2)

And now the cancer is spreading to a global scale as the Boomers, driving the conservative movement, have taken us out of global agreements on climate change, forced a withdrawal of the United States from arms agreements with Russia and Iran, and declared war on every major international institution from the United Nations to N.A.T.O., to trade agreements. While it is true that there comes a time when adjustments in these arrangements need to be made, an all out frontal assault upon institutions that have kept the peace for nearly a century is beyond ill-advised, it is needlessly reckless.

Disgustus represents the last hurrah of a generation of vandals. His appeal does not lie in his interpersonal skills, it lies in his lack of them. The 'Swine” love him because he is the ultimate boar. He never fails to satisfy the generational impulse to stick its thumb in the eye of authority. They love him precisely because he's a horse's ass; because he can be relied upon, when arriving at a formal function, to piss in the fireplace.

A half century ago we stood sure-footed and foursquare, astride the world ready to explore the universe. Today we find ourselves deeply paranoid; huddled alone with one hand trebling on twitter and the other holding a badly abused cheeseburger.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

_____________________

  1. For previous treatment of Coulter see: September 30, 2007: I Stink Therefore I Am, Polythene Ann, False Pearls Before Real Swine”, also September 20, 2015: “See The Old Hag, Dressed In Conservative Drag, The Damage Done”: for Limbaugh: June 18, 2015:The Great Boar, Losing His Squeal, Better For It”, among others.
  2. See, for instance: September 14, 2015: To Sustain A Republic, Wealth Must Be Distributed, The Middle Class Must Have Wealth”.

December 23, 2018: Question of Credibility, First Person Singular, The Worst Generation



The Conservative movement, best represented by our Caesar Disgustus, has gone from the dictum 'with malice toward all and charity for none, to from malice toward all and charity for me”.

                 ----from The Quotations of Chairman Joe

A half century ago, the nation faced down the prospect of a Nixon presidency beginning the downward spiral leading to the end of the American Century. So began a movement whose essence is best distilled by how John Kennedy once characterized Nixon: “ With malice toward all and charity for none”. Now, under the tutelage of our Caesar Disgustus it has brazenly morphed into what it always would become, first person singular; now reading “with malice toward all and charity for me”.

From the moment he first stood on the national stage, Disgustus has always been about 'me'. Always bragging about his wealth and prowess, using the best words and the best people circling about him. He talks about 'his' army and protests that the economy would somehow tumble like a house cards if he weren't here to hold it up. Like some god—like some Sun King—Disgustus seeks adulation, not so secretly harboring—as in his off-the-cuff remarks to the North Korean Dictator—the longing of a nation on its knees genuflecting before him, happily basking in his reflected light.

It's the illusion of central position run amok. All of us suffer from this delusion, it is the product of viewing the universe through these two eyes. It's just that Disgustus, as sometimes an entire nation, can greatly exaggerate it. It's what happens when one is never taught to see through the eyes of the 'other', that is, to fall into—or in tRUMP's case—never reach adolescence let alone maturity.

Many sociologists, historians and social commentators have observed the eternal preoccupation with youth in the United States. And, indeed, the nation has often behaved both domestically and internationally with a certain immaturity. But with Disgustus, a strain of this social retardation has gained ascendance threatening not only the republic but the planet.

So, beginning with the Inaugural Address, a Distopian view of the United States, that could best be conjured by a prepubescent boy, Disgustus openly declared that, collectively speaking, it's all about 'me'.

This hit the “Generation of Swine” like a hammer on a tuning fork. Yes!, came the collective response to the call, as the 'swine', seeing an out sized image of themselves, moved to “Make America Great Again.” The Great Boar, Donald tRUMP, singing the song of malice, became the 'swine' writ large.

An open war with anything not 'swine' followed. Voter restrictions on those not 'swine'. Budget Cuts directed at those not 'swine'. Transfer of wealth to, and removal of regulations on those who are 'swine'.

Never mind that most of those who followed him don't qualify; they see themselves as piglets who someday, with just the right combination of luck, graft and greed, they too will become a full-blown boar, just like their hero—and with all the accompanying social skills.

This attitude quickly manifests itself on the international stage where Disgustus, representing so well the world view of the 'swine', moved to withdraw from international agreements, comfort our adversaries and insult our friends; resulting in the complete destruction of American credibility.

Let's make no mistake about it. The ResCUMlickan Party, disproportionately representing white baby-boomers, introduced this behavior long before tRUMP arrived on the scene. One will recall, for instance, ReSCUMlickan Senator Tom Cotton and several other of his colleagues writing a missive to the leaders in Iran as Obama was negotiating a deal over Iran's development of nuclear weapons, telling the Iranians that the deal would not be honored when their party returns to power. Disgustus, making good on the threat, sent shock waves through the international community as the ReSCUMlickan Party demonstrated to the world that our word isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And so it is with those who struggle with us against ISIS in Syria, as Disgustus announces his withdrawal following earlier notifications that he had cut the military funding of resistance groups to the Assad regime.

A half-century ago a president fell victim to the combination of what were termed the generation gap and the credibility gap. Johnson had lost the confidence of the then emerging 'boomers' because he had repeated assurance by General William Westmoreland that the war in Vietnam was being won. On this the 'boomers' turned on Johnson and so began the long sorry tale of the impact the “Generation of Swine” has had on the nation, indeed the world.

Now the 'swine' are faced with a new generational challenge as those following begin to understand that this myopic, self-serving and totally deluded generation of Americans—indeed the worst generation, is itself nothing but a fraud. And tRUMP is the ultimate representative of the 'swine', the king-hell boar. Everything he says is a lie. Everything he does is self-serving. He, like the 'swine' literally cannot see beyond his snout, so deep in the trough is it. Disgustus has exposed what the 'swine' have always been: hypocrites. It's just that now they are wrapping themselves—for the first and, perhaps, the last time—in the flag. The question is, can Disgustus and the generation he represents be flushed from office while the republic still stands. The jury is out, the clock is ticking.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.



December 19, 2018: Acosting America, Lolita Express, Draining The Swamp.



A man is judged not only by the enemies he makes, but by the company he keeps”

                     ----from “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

It is the perverse good fortune of Alexander Acosta, Donald Trump's secretary of labor, to be part of an administration so spectacularly corrupt that it's simply impossible to give all its scandals the attention they deserve.” (1)

These are the words of Michelle Goldberg who asks incredulously “why does Alex Acosta still have a job?”

Last Wednesday,” Goldberg explains, “the Miami Herald published a blockbuster multi-part expose about how the justice system failed the victims of Jeffery Epstein, a rich, politically connected financier who appears to have abused underage girls on a near-industrial scale. The investigation, more than a year in the making, described Epstein as running a sort of child molestation pyramid scheme, in which girls—some in middle school—would be recruited to give Epstein 'messages' at his Palm Beach mansion, pressured into sex acts, then coerced into bringing him yet more girls. The Herald reported that Epstein was also suspected of trafficking girls from overseas.

What's shocking is not just the lurid details and human devastation of his alleged crimes, but the way he was able to use his money to escape serious consequences, thanks in part to Acosta, then Miami's top federal prosecutor. For reasons that are not entirely clear, Acosta took extraordinary measures to let Epstein—and other unnamed people—off the hook.

The labor secretary, whose purview includes combating human trafficking, has done nothing so far to rebut the Herald's reporting.” (2)

A labor department spokesman referred everyone to previous statements regarding the case.

As Herald journalist Julie K. Brown reported, in 2007, Epstein was facing a federal indictment that could have put him away for the rest of his life. In a deal with one of Epstein's attorneys, however, Acosta, a rising star in Republican circles, short-circuited the federal investigation, letting Epstein plead guilty to two felony prostitution charges in state court. 'Not only would Epstein server just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing F.B.I. Probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes,' wrote Brown. It was, she wrote, 'one of the most lenient deals for a serial child sex offender in history.'” (3)

What's strange is that Acosta, as Goldberg reports, once served in the Justice Department, heading the Department of Civil Rights, under George W. Bush. The question lingers like the stench coming from this White House on a foggy night: why?

We don't know,” writes Goldberg, “but one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Roberts, told The Herald that Epstein didn't just abuse her himself, he also 'lent' her out to other men. She claimed in a 2015 affidavit that she'd had sex with Prince Andrew of Britain and one of Epstein's attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, now best known for his public defenses of Trump. (Dershowitz has said Roberts lied to try to extract money from wealthy men).

Had the federal case gone forward, it could have shed an embarrassing spotlight on Epstein's many famous associates, including Bill Clinton, a frequent passenger on Epstein's private plane, nicknamed the 'Lolita Express'. (4)

Goldberg reports that during the 2016 campaign many expected tRUMP to bring up Clinton's connection with Epstein, but tRUMP demurred. “Perhaps, that's because Trump also counted Epstein as a friend, once describing him as a man who 'likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side”, explained Goldberg.

The rot runs deep. Against the blatant corruptions of the tRUMPs, commerce secretary Wilbur Ross, who is accused of swindling business associates out of 120 million dollars as well as his shady relationship with a Cypriot bank known for money-laundering, as well as the further outrages surrounding former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who held investments in private prisons even as he changed Obama policy reversing privatization. Then there's Scott Pruitt who resigned following months of ethics violations and, let's not forget Tom Price, who resigned as HHS secretary following gross misuse of public funds. Then there is Betsy DeVoss waiting her turn before the kleig lights to explain her investments in private schools while serving as secretary of education and promoting vouchers and privatization. Against this, the attempt by housing secretary Ben Carson to pilfer a mere 30,000 or so dollars for a dinette set for his office appears laughable. But, then, he did what all good evangelicals always do—blame the woman, in this case his wife.

Disgustus has “drained the swamp” alright—right into the White House. The question presents itself: Why does our orange Caesar still have a job?

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

________________

  1. Goldberg, Michelle. “Why Does Acosta Still Have a Job?” The New York Times. Tuesday, December 4, 2018. Page A26.
  2. Ibid
  3. Ibid
  4. Ibid

December 17, 2018: Not Wanted, Talent for Repulsion, Time for Tinder.



He grabs pussies. He kisses females without concern for revulsion and horror they feel for him. He grabs them in unexpected places. Does he ever experience rejection? He does not. 'Most men would get discouraged,' he says, referring to those he comes on to. 'Fortunately for her, I am not most men.'

He is Pepe Le Pew. Does he remind us of anyone else?” (1)

HE'S NOT WANTED”

wrote Frank Bruni in The New York Times.

Not at funerals, though the Bush family, to show class and respect for tradition, held their noses and made an exception.

Not in England, where they turned him into a big hideous blimp.

Not by moderate Republicans, or at least the shrinking club with a tenuous claim to that label, who pushed him away during the midterms as they fought for their survival and clung to their last shreds of self-respect.

And not by a 36 year-old Republican operative who is by most accounts the apotheosis of vanity and ambition—and who just turned down one of the most powerful roles in any administration, a job that welds you to the president's side and gives you nearly unrivaled access to his thoughts.

Nick Ayers didn't see enough upside to the welding” (2) rejecting advances by tRUMP to replace outgoing chief-of-staff John Kelly.

It has become obvious to everyone who treasures a future in Rescumlickan circles or future government that if you join this administration your reputation will be destroyed; and if you stand at the right hand of our Caesar Disgustus the stench will never leave you. He is, our Pepe Le Pew.

He is the pole cat at the barn dance. Unwelcome, yet imposed upon us. One who is met by smiles betraying gritting teeth. One whose smile emits the stench of sulfur and in whose speech can be heard the cries of the damned.

Its about how he behaves—and the predictable harvest of all that nastiness. While other presidents sought to hone the art of persuasion, he revels in his talent for repulsion: how many people he attacks (he styles this as boldness): how many people he offends (he pretties this up as authenticity): h ow many people he sends into exile. His administration doesn't have alumni so much as refugees. H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn and Reince Priebus are a dumbfounded diaspora all their own” (3)

Ayers, who was chief-of-staff to Vice President Mike Pence before being fingered by tRUMP, would normally be expected to jump at the opportunity. Other presidents in tRUMP's difficulty would have viewed such a move with suspicion, thinking that perhaps Pence and his underlings were greasing the skids, preparing for the palace coup, the coup de grace. But Disgustus, innocent of such Machiavellian machinations seemed undaunted. It should have been the president to be wary and decline. Instead it was the supplicant.

And Ayers wasn't the only one. 'Trump was left at the altar,' wrote The Washington Post's White House team. In his search for takers, maybe it's time for Tinder.

Administration officials like Steven Mnuchin and Mick Mulvaney practically put out news releases to make clear that Trump shouldn't ask them to be chief-of-staff. He has no Plan B...

It's fitting...

His wife takes public shots at him. Old friends tattle to prosecutors; new friends don't exist. (4)

This is what happens when “Ye Publick Ass” farts in church.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

_______________

  1. Op. Cit. Jennifer Boyan in The New York Times. See: February 7, 2018: Pole Cat at a Barn Dance, Without Concern, Magnitude of Disgustingness.
  2. Bruni, Frank. “The World's Most Powerful Reject” The New York Times. Wednesday, December 12, 2018: Page A27.
  3. Ibid
  4. Ibid.

December 15, 2018: Full Authoritarian, Grateful For tRUMP, Cancer Called Conservatism



If you want to understand what's happening to our country,” wrote Paul Krugman in The New York Times, “the book you really need to read is “How Democracies Die”, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt...in recent decades a number of nominally democratic nations have become de facto authoritarian, one-party states. Yet none of them have had classic military coups, with tanks in the streets.

What we've seen instead are coups of a subtler form: takeovers or intimidation of the news media, rigged elections that disenfranchise opposing voters, new rules of the game that give the ruling party overwhelming control even if it loses the popular vote, corrupted courts.

The classic example is Hungary, where Fidesz, the white nationalist governing party, has effectively taken over the bulk of the media; destroyed the independence of the judiciary; rigged voting to enfranchise supporters and disenfranchise opponents; gerrymandered electoral districts in its favor; and altered the rules so that a minority in the popular vote translates into a supermajority in the legislature.

Does a lot of this sound familiar?” (1)

The several states have been called the 'hothouse' of our republic inasmuch, it is held, that they serve as a laboratory in which various experiments in public policy can be tried before they are proposed and adopted at the national level. If this is the case, we are, as Krugman rightly points out, in deep trouble.

Let's look at Wisconsin, says Krugman.

There has been a fair amount of reporting on the power grab currently underway in Madison. Having lost every statewide office in Wisconsin last month, Republicans are using the lame-duck (2) legislative session to drastically curtail these office's power, effectively keeping rule over the state in the hands of the G.O.P.-controlled Legislature.

What has gotten less emphasis is the fact that G.O.P. Legislative control is also undemocratic. Last month Democratic candidates received 54 percent of the votes in State Assembly elections—but they ended up with only 37 percent of the seats.

In other words, Wisconsin is turning into Hungary on the Great Lakes, a state that may hold elections, but where elections don't matter, because the ruling party retains control no matter what voters do.” (2)

Similar efforts are underway in Michigan where Democrats have for years polled a higher overall vote for the state legislature but have remained in the minority. In both states, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania, Rescumlickans have maintained power by, among other things, purging the voter rolls of over 400,000 in Michigan, 300,000 in Wisconsin and similar totals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

In the meantime Gerrymandered districts drawn up by Rescumlickan legislatures have ensure Rescumlickan majorities in the congressional representation of these states, giving the G.O.P a clout that they didn't legitimately hold. In fact the Democrats got more votes in Congressional races throughout most of Obama's presidency but Rescumlickans were able to hold the house and obstruct. Likewise, in the wake of the 2016 election: The Democrats, given the popular vote and absent this chicanery, should have held the house. How different it would have been. Real hearings, real investigations.

Only by out-polling the Rescumlickans by over 8 per cent were the Democrats able to re-take the house demonstrating just how awful has been this administration.

Which is why”, concludes Krugman, “we should be grateful for Trump.” For this is a problem that predates and transcends tRUMP. The modern conservative movement is a cancer upon this republic, imposing upon us not only breathtakingly ignorant and ill-advised public policy, but threatening in the process the very legitimacy of our governmental institutions. “If he weren't so flamboyantly awful, Democrats might have won the House popular vote by only 4 or 5 points not 8.6 points. And in that case, Republicans might have maintained control.” (3)

Meanwhile Disgustus openly muses about becoming 'president for life' and envisions a state-run television network even as he threatens the broadcast licenses of those who criticize and tries to strip reporters of White House access to 'news briefings' because they have the temerity to try to ask follow up questions.

Yes, Krugman is right. It is an observation that courses through these columns in the Age of Disgustus. One of our major political parties is at war with the people. One of our major political parties is pushing the United States toward authoritarian rule; and it is only the breathtakingly incompetent and blatantly awful presence of our erstwhile Caesar that keeps us from falling into the abyss. It is, perhaps, the awful stench coming from this White House that will finally focus our attention on the rotting cancer that has metastasized in the body politic; cancer called conservatism.

Ridding ourselves of Disgustus is the necessary but not the sufficient condition; is not the end, it is only the beginning.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh.”

Impeach and Imprison.

______________

  1. Krugman, Paul. “The G.O.P. Goes Full Authoritarian” The New York Times. Tuesday, December 11, 2018. Page A26
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.

December 12, 2018: Criminal Presidency, Tits and Ass, Ought To Be No Other



In America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other”

----Thomas Paine “Common Sense”

It is very possible that the president of the United States is a criminal”, writes Charles Blow in last Monday's New York Times,“And it is very possible that his criminality aided and abetted his assumption of the position. Let that sink in. It is a profound revelation.” (1)

Indeed it is.

But the essay lead off with the charge that Disgustus paid off a porn star in order to keep his affair secret; the secrecy necessary to promote his election. Under the rules this qualifies as a campaign contribution, unreported and in violation of federal campaign finance laws. Conspiring to hide the contribution is a further violation. These are felonies, but they carry no great punishments—normally a fine and a slap on the wrist, perhaps in egregious circumstance a short stay in the stir.

It is unfortunate that right out of the box Blow would list this as the first sin among sins. In doing so he reveals and further embeds our individual and collective preoccupation with sex. We cannot afford to be mesmerized by tits and ass, for the high crimes and misdemeanors that are Donald J. Trump demand to be taken more seriously.

Blow quite rightly points next to the much more serious matter of our Disgustus negotiating to build a tRUMP tower in Moscow until election day, not mentioning, incidentally, the more damning report that went beyond mere lies to the American People, but involved offering Putin a free penthouse apartment atop the structure should he approve the construction. This charge, if true—and we can hardly doubt that it is—not only involves bribery, and therefore a violation of racketeering laws, but puts the entire relationship between Putin and Disgustus in an entirely different lite.

Then there is the obstruction of justice, his campaign ties with Russia—including over three-score contacts between campaign operatives and Russian principles and agents, and his public behaviors and lying about these contacts all of which Blow duly notes.

As noted in a previous post (2) the sins of Disgustus run deep. The New York Times published an extensive expose detailing the crimes of the tRUMPs revealing a multi-generational crime family. Tax evasion, bank fraud, dealings with organized crime, violations of equal housing provisions...

And this doesn't even begin to plumb the depths of financial chicanery embodied in his business dealings in central Asia (3), Panama and elsewhere.

All of these, pardon the pun, trump the sleazy tabloid sex scandal that he tried to desperately to conceal.

What emerges is a kind-hell criminal who has hijacked the Republican Party and parlayed the legitimacy it conferred upon him into the White House.

But, as Blow, quoting Thomas Paine, rightly points out: “In America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other”. (4)

Therein lies the challenge. As the supporters of Disgustus hold that the president cannot obstruct justice since he is the arbiter of justice, as they hold that, therefore, he cannot be indicted or put on trial, much less be impeached, the republic stands on the precipice looking into the abyss. With justice itself become subjective rather than objective the rule of law degenerates from statutory imperative to the capricious and arbitrary whims of an increasingly deranged madman.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh

Impeach and Imprison.

______________

  1. Blow, Charles M. “Surviving a Criminal Presidency” The New York Times. Monday, December 10, 2018. Page A27
  2. See. October 10, 2018: Fraud and Sham, Richly Documented Expose, Blood-sucking Vampires.
  3. See essay on tRUMP's efforts to build a tower in Baku: “August 10, 2017: Marooned in Baku,
    Giant Red Flag, Little Due Diligence” which deals with his corrupt contacts and practices.
  4. Op. Cit. Blow is here quoting Thomas Paine's “Common Sense”, a pamphlet that did much to justify the American Revolution.







December 9, 2018: Long Time Ago, Toad on a Log, Out to Sea



This week witnessed the passing of George H.W. Bush, forty first President of the United States.

It is a bit too early to assess his presidency, especially in light of what has followed, but the eulogies that accompany each President must be seen in light of the event rather than the light of history.

H.W. Or “Pappy” Bush as he was known stands now in the pantheon a much larger figure for compared to his idiot son and the clown that followed, his stature has risen since that November day in 1992 when he was summarily dismissed by the electorate.

Pappy, best known for breaking the pledge to enact “no new taxes”, because the country's finances were still hemorrhaging from the ill-advised tax cuts enacted by his predecessor is otherwise remembered for his much-fabled “thousand points of light” beckoning a “kinder, gentler America” than that left in the wake of Reagan and his draconian budget cuts. It seems like a long time ago.

It is difficult to measure the man, for although he was a one-term-er, he was limited to only four years in office by the independent challenge of Ross Perot who, gathering 20 million votes, denied Bush his second term. Clinton, who succeeded Bush, never won a majority of those voting, for Perot was to enter the race again in 1996 again skewing the results by taking votes from the conservative candidate—in this case Robert Dole.

But for all the rhetoric, all the wise public policy—as best a conservative Republican can advance wise public policy—there were darker sides to his legacy.

It was Pappy who brought along the Roger Stone's, Paul Manaforts, Karl Rove's and Lee Atwaters of this world, giving them access to the highest levels of his campaigns and political strategies. Atwater, famously, apologized to the victims of his gutter politics before he died, but the remainder—all of them brought into the adult political arena from the kindergarten of the Young Republican organization by none other than Richard Outhouse Nixon. It was Reagan and Bush who primarily resurrected their careers after the train wreck of Watergate and this legacy must be held to account.

He stooped so low, to reach so high” I have written previously, parroting U2. Willie Horton became a national figure in 1988 as Pappy, desperate to head off a much more competent Michael Dukkakis, resorted to smear and base racism. Whenever one evaluates the man, the fact is that no measure of George Bush can be made without reference to the depths he would go in order to win. He made his pact with the devil—in this case Atwater and his acolytes—and he must now forever live with it.

And, one must remember, that the man was forever lost in the eternal predicate. Bush introduced the practice of speaking in incomplete sentences, always in the predicate a practice later perfected by his son and in whose hands we now are burdened with the word salad that continually emits from the mouth, if not the ass, of our pretentious Caesar.

He did have the wisdom of not committing this nation to a long ground war in the Middle East. He did have the wisdom to assemble a real coalition in support of the war—unlike his son, whose coalition consisted in the militarily powerful Estonia, Poland, and Costa Rica. One can give him credit here if one overlooks that it was this administration—this President—who told Saddam Hussein through our ambassador to Iraq that it was a matter of no concern to this nation what Iraq did with Kuwait—bringing on the crisis in the first place.

George made his mistakes. They all do. But he was man enough to own most of them.

At his funeral the likes of James Baker and the younger George, our 43rd president, spoke about the man and his times. Sitting in the front pew on the isle sat our Caesar Disgustus, scowling like some kind of irritated toad on a drifting log. The contrast could not have been more stark.

Meanwhile, on Facebook, memes appeared mocking our Disgustus, some showing fireworks and celebrations the time comes when the country learns that our current Caesar will have passed. I posted that indeed there will be dancing in the streets, suggesting that when his time comes his body will not be brought from tRUMP tower or Mar-a-lago to Washington to lie in state, but instead will be retrieved from his solitary confinement in a federal or state prison to be loaded on the next garbage scow heading from New York City out to sea.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.










December 7, 2018: Change the Constitution, Free Your Mind Instead, Beyond the Ramparts


"You say you'll change the constitution
well, you know
we all want to change your head
you tell me it's the institution
well, you know
you better free your mind instead."
                            ----John Lennon "Revolution"

It has become commonplace, in the wake of the electoral outrages of 2000 and 2016 to call for a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college. 

All the usual arguments are brought to bear.  Yes, North and South Dakota with populations of 1.8 million between them have twice as many senators than California with 40 million people.  And, since the College is comprised of each state choosing the number of electors equal to the number of representatives and senators that they have in Congress, this gives undue weight to those rural expanses, mostly in the largely white rural plains and mountain states.  

Secondly, it is rightly pointed out, the College was created in order to not only provide a buffer between the raw vote and the office of the president--with some holding that the College was intended to be a deliberative body designed to cast a final judgement upon the choice of the people, but it was also created as a sop to the slave states who, under the "three fifths" provision of the constitution gave those states electoral weight equal to three-fifths of the slave population (each man declared to count as 3/5ths vote) even though they couldn't vote.  This had the effect of giving Virginia a near monopoly of the presidency in the early formative years of the republic despite the state lagging behind both New York and Pennsylvania in white male population.  The college was an inducement for the slave states to join the union and, by this reasoning, was part of the 'original sin' of the republic, the remnants of which should be abolished.

That's all well and good, but I see a few problems with the proposal. 

First, it is unlikely that the small states would give up what little leverage they now have in nominating and electing the president and vice-president.  Since it would take a supermajority in the Senate to send the amendment to the several states, it is unlikely that the proposal will see the light of day. 

Secondly, it is troublesome that this proposal should emerge in the waning years of the political dominance of the 'Generation of Swine".  As has been made clear in many entries in these columns, the record of America's worst generation has not been stellar when it comes to governance.  Indeed the Swine have made a pig's breakfast of governance.  For this reason alone, any attempts to amend the constitution must await the passing of the swine.

Third, and most importantly, it is short-sighted of liberals and Democrats to rush to judgement here. 
In an essay published in The New York Times, Michael Tomasky rightly points out that the Democrats need a rural strategy.  (1)

In the last election, Tomasky points out, "Democratic Senate candidates got 45 million votes, and Republicans just 33 million (57 to 42 per cent).  Yet Republicans will gain perhaps three seats.(They gained two).  This, concluded Tomasky, "is not a democracy". (2)

Of course it isn't.  It was never intended to be.

I remember my high school government teacher asking the assembled, "are we a democracy/"  Of course the class nodded that yes, indeed we are. 

"No we aren't" he chided us, pointing out that we are a republic, not a democracy.  That the first term has nearly fallen out of use and that if we use it at all we quickly use the second interchangeably, only ads to the confusion. 

A republic, Mr. Heifje, pointed out, is a form of representative democracy.  The closest we come to a 'democratic' governance are the New England town hall meetings where people vote directly, meetings best parodied on Bob Newhart's "Newhart", a sitcom situated in a Vermont village.  This form of governance is impractical in larger political jurisdictions, the nation simply cannot meet en masse to attend committee meetings, draw up legislation, much less vote on a proposal.  So the founders gave us a structure in which the public would speak and act through their representatives. 

What they gave us was both representative (the House) individually, and representative (the Senate) collectively through our states.  Until the late 19th century, the state legislatures, dawn from the people would elect the State's Senators.  This was far from infallible.  For instance, in 1858, Lincoln narrowly won the popular vote, but lost to Douglas in the legislature leaving Lincoln to go back home and run for president while Douglass went  back to the Senate. 

The electoral college was created because the constitution was created and authorized on the authority of the then various state governments.  And, as previously observed, it served as an inducement for the various states--especially the small ones--to join the union. 

Yes, it is true that Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh won a slim majority of the senate representing a rather pronounced minority of the voters.  It is also true that before long about 40 per cent of the electorate will control about 60-65 per cent of the senate. 

But when Jefferson, who was in Paris representing the Republic as Ambassador when the Constitution was written, returned from Europe he asked his friend John Adams why they had created the Senate.  Adams, poured his tea from his cup to his saucer and blew on it, demonstrating a method for cooling the beverage.  The founders, who had met at Philadelphia in response to Shay's Rebellion, understood the passions of the mob, and it was to cool these passions that they created the Senate--a republican, not a democratic institution--as well as the electoral college.  It would take three election cycles to have all members of the senate account to their constituency, a term that transcends the house by three fold and transcends even the terms of the presidency.  Likewise, the electoral college, another sieve through which the passions of the people would have to pass before they could be felt. 

While there are many problems with this arrangement, it is worth noting that it has generally worked.  Where it has failed is best demonstrated by the failures of the last two time the college has been at odds with the popular vote, a failure in which the body has failed to deliberate. 

All this aside, for every Dakota that the conservatives can claim, the liberals at present can claim a Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Delaware.  The disparity in geographical expression, if not entirely in population must be weighed in totality. 

Nevertheless, disparity exists. 

But before we rush to judgement perhaps it is wise to consider Tomasky's claim that the Democrats need a rural strategy.  And why not?  Was it not the Democratic Party that gave us Rural Electrification, price supports, soil banks, the Farm Home administration, irrigation and land management programs?  Was it not the Democrats who saved the farmers--especially in the plains of Kansas and Oklahoma--from the ravages of the Dust Bowl?   The Democrats have a long and noble history in rural America. 

Further, the Electoral College, has the salutary effect of forcing the Democratic Party into the countryside.  It is becoming increasingly apparent (as the Obama Administration so vividly demonstrated) that while you can win national elections relying on so-called 'blue' states--that is, those states largely located along the coasts and in parts of the Midwest, it is not enough to govern.  In order to effectively govern the nation, a political party must represent nearly all of it.  This is a principle further demonstrated in the reverse by the current ReSCUMlickan party, which because it is not interested in governance--indeed seeks to dismantle the administrative state, it is wholly uninterested in expanding its base--seeking instead to devise ways and means of limiting participation at the polls in order to cling to power.  They can hold the office but cannot govern but, since they are seeking only to dismantle government, geographical expansion does not have high priority. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Democrats--if they are to salvage governance and thereby save the Republic--to do the arduous work of venturing out beyond the ramparts.

Perhaps the answer isn't to change the institution, but to change our heads instead.  Perhaps the answer is to sally forth once again into rural America and reclaim--like we must do with our industrial and commercial workers--or rightful heritage.  It is time for the Democrats to cast off their recent infatuation with Wall Street and return once again to the people who depend upon them.  I suspect that they will be greeted as newly found friends.

As for the proposals to amend the Constitution, perhaps, after the passage of the swine, the Constitution could be amended so that the electoral college would meet in the nation's capitol instead of in the several states to cast their ballots; an amendment that would duly charge the electors to act as a deliberative body.  Perhaps in this way, we could have prevented the current catastrophe.

"An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison.

__________________

(1). Tomasky, Michael. "Democrats Need a Rural Strategy".  The New York Times. Thursday,
                       November 8, 2018.  Page A23
(2). Ibid.













December 5, 2018: Feeding on Fear, Art of the Deal, Aping Greatness



"The only thing Mr. Trump has is fear itself."
       ----Jennifer Finney Boylan writing in "The New York Times".

Our Caesar Disgustus is, to use the terminology of Senator Elizabeth Warren, a 'swamp monster'.  He is a swamp monster who feeds on fear.

The political arts are normally, and best practiced, by discerning what it is that concerns the public, what it is that causes the greatest anxiety, what it is they fear the most and addressing the problem.  It is a necessary tactic not only in order to insure domestic tranquility but also to make certain that all relevant parties are at the table.  It is not enough to comfort the comfortable, one must also comfort the afflicted. 

But in the hands of our Caesar Disgustus the proposition has been turned on its head.  Not only does 'The Donald" comfort the comfortable, but afflicts the afflicted he does so with a mendacity unbecoming a leader of a great country. 

In an essay published in The New York Times, Jennifer Boylan draws attention to this malady by comparing our Disgustus with the much venerated Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

"It was Roosevelt, of course, who, in his first inaugural address, said the 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'  That remarkable speech, delivered before Congress (Actually, it was delivered to the nation from the Capitol steps at his inauguration) on March 4, 133, outlined the strategy with which Roosevelt would combat the Great Depression; its hope was to inspire, to bring people together and above all, to reassure the nation that we would 'revive and prosper.'

"The primary obstacle to this restoration was not economics but fear: 'nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses need efforts to convert retreat into advance.'  A key strategy for conquering that fear, he went on, is speaking with candor: 'This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.'

If you wanted to imagine the presidency of Mr. Trump in a nutshell, take all of the generousness and wisdom in Roosevelt's address and do the opposite. The only thing Mr. Trump has is fear itself." (1)

We find our Disgustus aping greatness.  One recalls, during his campaign for the presidency, his much bally-hoed  journey to Gettysburg.  Following in the footsteps of Lincoln he delivered not a vision for the future or even a justification; instead he shit out what was quickly dubbed his "Grievanceburg Address".  

Then came the inauguration.  His speech was not about the future, but a vision of a dystopian America with boarded up storefronts and the masses huddling around burn barrels.  America as a modern "Hooverville".  Always employing 'over the top' hyperbole, always exaggerating, always lying. 

There is no buoyancy in this administration; and for good reason.  There are reasons the nation has found Disgustus, well disgusting.  Foremost is his total lack of credibility, a currency the value of which our intrepid Caesar has no appreciation, because he has no comprehension. 

One simply cannot on a rare good day speak in constant superlatives and on mostly bad days tell outright lies.  Doing so erodes credibility and our incredulous Caesar--it has long been apparent--has none.

He cannot address the nation honestly and the country recoils.  Disgustus, significantly, has not gained the approval of half the population during his entire candidacy or presidency.  Instead we find him holed up in his castle, alone with his cheeseburger, clinging tenaciously to the 30 or so percent who can be persuaded to believe anything, protecting his ragged remnants like Scrooge protecting his money bags.  The parallel is striking.  Afraid that someone might take them he desperately clings to his support which, while significant, is not expansive.  By hording his political capital he fails to invest it, much as Scrooge kept his coins in a vault.  Consequently, the country has not moved forward.  Administration has been hollowed out, while the nation threatens to withdraw from our international obligations. 

All of this desperation is exaggerated by what we deeply suspect is an ongoing intergenerational criminal organization that will become legally vulnerable once he is removed from office.  Disgustus knows that once the shield of the presidency is removed he and his family face stiff prison time.  Now he finds himself with the support of only those who feed on the red meat of fear.  A downward spiral results wherein survival politically and legally depends on ginning up the base high enough to ensure that when he is impeached he will not be convicted.  And so, the lies multiply as his supporters become increasingly addicted to the adrenalin rush of fear and Disgustus becomes increasingly reliant upon that reaction.

This is what happens when one without vision, much less without conscience, is elevated to the highest office in the land.  As Disgustus circles the drain of ambition he threatens to drag the republic down with him.  The time will be shortly at hand when he will need credibility, when his denials will be credible.  But his credibility has long since been 'twitted' away; for he has never understood what Roosevelt understood--that a leader has to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. 

Disgustus, ever the coward, could never face the truth.

"An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison.


___________

(1). Boylan, Jennifer Finney. "A Monster Who Feeds On Fear" The New York Times. Thursday,
                    November 29, 2018.  Page A27

December 1, 2018: Counting our Blessings, Always About Caesar, Just Ask Him


"When the nation gathered at Thanksgiving and counted its blessings, Caesar Disgustus was not among them"
                        ---from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

On Thanksgiving Day, our Caesar Disgustus was asked by a reporter what did he have to be most thankful for.  His reply was all the great things he did for the country.

It is always about Caesar. Just ask him.

Completely blind to how he is viewed by  others; completely unable to see through the eyes of 'the other'; our Caesar Disgustus is the very definition of immaturity.  Immaturity bordering on infantilism, hence the giant balloon that took flight in London at his last visit.  The people see him as he is, 'Le Infante Terrible, turning the White House into an adult day care center.

Disgustus views humility and modesty as weakness, in their place substituting bravado, braggadocio and more than a little bombast.  Bombast bordering on buffoonery, making a mockery of his office and becoming the laughingstock of the civilized world.

It's all about tRUMP.  Just ask him.  Running for president was all about tRUMP, an effort to promote his brand, a marketing gimmick to keep his failing television show on the air.  An effort that ran amok, ending with his coronation and with it the glare of the Klieg lights. 

It remains to be seen just where this promotional stratagem become national nightmare will lead.  I suggest that it will lead to a constitutional crisis.

As the new year approaches and with it the report of Robert Mueller on his investigations, indictments of several principle members of the administration, and the much-demanded REAL investigations by the congress into the corruption of this administration that we will soon be entangled in impeachment proceedings.

Vladimir Putin is getting quite a return on his investments.  Sowing discord in the western alliances, working behind the scenes to win the Brexit vote, elevating tRUMP to the presidency and all the international instability that this has produced, has left the west divided, uncertain, and confused.  With the United States deep into a constitutional crisis, with the west divided and the alliances under great strain, Putin is posed to move into the Baltic States, Ukraine and Georgia.  It is no secret that Putin's goals are to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, he has set the table to do precisely that.

And Disgustus, blinded by his own image, has served to be the most useful idiot.  We have only to await the drama provided by our drama Queen to play itself out.

"An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison.




Nov 26, 2018

November 27, 2018: Goodbye Daily Kos, Sin of 'Bothsiderism', Ideological Straight-jacket


I made the mistake on “Daily Kos”, the internet's self-described greatest liberal political blog, of posting my comments earlier this month about what the elites don't understand about nationalism. I had evidently violated the sensibilities of several subscribers by coming to the defense of the nation-state, and of the editors for rightly pointing out that the Democrats share a measure of guilt for betraying the middle class.  Accordingly, I was taken to task for failure to recognize the evident evils of nationalism by several readers but, more tellingly, banned for two weeks from the site accused by the editors of being guilty of “bothsiderism”. After waiting two weeks, during which I was unable to respond to a storm of criticism I was finally able to post this response:

The reaction to my last post is most disappointing.  Evidently,  I had wrongly assumed that references to Caesar Disgustus’ misuse of nationalism and the hail of criticism that it has brought down upon his head would have dismissed the critique that I had not given sufficient notice of the evils of nationalism in the twentieth century.  My error. 

However, my central point went entirely unheard.  That is, if one declares war upon the nation-state by stripping it of it’s police powers then what entity will regulate the global economic markets?  Given that roughly half of the world’s 50 largest economies are not nation-states but corporations this is problematic, and if it is left to them to fill the void, I am sure that even the most rabid advocate of ‘free trade’ would soon see the error.  Secondly, and most importantly, the question still stands: what is then left for our elected representatives to then decide?   This is hardly a conservative position, it is one underscored by Naiomi Kline in her treatment of how the international community addressed the end of Apartheid in South Africa, in effect, stripping the new government of the power to decide questions of wealth distribution.  This is similar to what we imposed upon Iraq in the aftermath of war—that is, putting in their constitution the terms forbidding the nationalization of the oil fields.  Corporations are notoriously anti-democratic, and the TPP and other treaties fostered by both Democratic and Republican administrations have placed increasing power into the hands of not only corporate America but the international cartels.  

Further, to underscore the point, not only did Carter begin deregulation but it was under Carter that, among other things, ceilings on interest rates charged for consumer loans and credit cards were effectively eliminated.  Yes, the steps were necessary because of the hyperinflation of the late ’70s but there were no sunset provisions to the changes and neither party has made an attempt to remedy the situation since.  The interest rates currently charged on credit cards would have earlier brought a prosecution.

I do not need to be lectured about the virtuous as opposed to the vicious cycle.  Robert Reich would be the first to point to the dangers I’ve highlighted here and admit that both parties have walked away from the middle class. 

Lastly, it is disheartening to be accused of “bothsiderism”, as if there are only two sides to any issue in the first place.  Any major issue has more than one side, and every side has some measure of legitimacy.  I evidently made the mistake of venturing beyond boilerplate by calling in this liberal Democratic forum that the Democracy and Liberalism recognize the plight and come to the defense once again of the middle classes they created.  My mistake.  I mistook the ramparts for the forum. “

Lastly, to a wag calling himself, appropriately, 'empty vessel', who accused me of having willful blinders by failing to genuflect before the internationalists by paying due attention to the crimes of nations, I responded accordingly:

I am speaking here of the elites of both parties walking away from the middle class by sacrificing the national economic interests in the name of an ideological imperative—namely classical liberalism which both sides, in the end, adhere to.  Failure to recognize and compensate for the dislocations of the ‘new world order’, puts everything gained at risk.  

It was Tip O’Neil, as House Speaker under Reagan who decided to challenge Republicans on social issues rather than economic ones allowing the conservatives to savage the entire structure of progressive taxation.  The results were wholly predictable and by the decade’s end conservative writer Kevin Phillips—author of Nixon’s Southern Strategy—was writing books detailing the effects of the changes in the tax code on the middle class and excoriating Reagan for the damage done.  What is lost in this is that the gains by minorities, and those left behind, are put at risk in the resulting backlash.  

It is worth noting that the revolt transcends the entire domestic political spectrum from Bernie to Donald and that the money wasn’t about to back tRUMP until the revolt on the ‘left’ occurred.  The battle in 2016 was over who would lead the populist revolt and the Dems, in an act of inspired political stupidity, surrendered the field to the forces of darkness. 

What I’m saying here is that ignoring economics is putting all our advances and maybe all our freedoms at risk.  Without a large, pervasive and controlling middle class, we have no republic. It’s an idea as old as Aristotle.  Waging war on the nation-state in the absence of a realistic alternative creates not only political instability but quickly leads—it should by now be obvious—to a ‘race to the bottom’ as labor is forced to compete with the rest of the world. 

The problem isn’t the state, it is that the state, in the instance of the United States,  is increasingly in service of an exploitive ideological imperative which threatens its republican institutions.  
It is worth remembering that the Greeks fashioned democracy as a political means of reigning in on the oligarchs which were then in control of the polity.  The Greeks understood that maldistribution of wealth was the cause behind the tyranny and that to remedy it required a redistribution thereof.  A greater liberty, relatively speaking, emerged.  To put it another way, when a society becomes an oligarchy, the money will buy power (currently the case here) and, failing that remedy will seize it using the military.   This is what characterizes a banana republic and has undermined the development of representative governments in Latin America and throughout the world.  It also leads to a rather pronounced tyranny. 

One cannot speak of political freedom in the absence of the economic dynamics within any society.  Jefferson understood this as did Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Adams and the Lee’s of Virginia.  The issue I’m addressing is to this central point.  Both parties have ignored and, indeed, have waged war on the middle class.  This not only creates economic hardship but threatens the very foundation of the republic.  

So this is how the fuck, in your terms, I raise the subject.  I am not ignorant.  I know well the history of humanity.  My point is that like any human invention, be it technical, political or merely social, the state is a neutral proposition which can be used for good or ill.  The founders were well aware of this.  Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that failure to form a union would, in modern terminology, quickly lead to the balkanization of North America with thirteen republics, thirteen armies, thirteen foreign policies quickly leading to European intrigue and a quick end to the experiment.  Washington’s Farewell Address, was about such concerns because the European powers were still at our back door—Spain in Florida, France in the Mississippi River basin, the English in Canada.  Failure to establish a viable political expression (nation-state) and maintain its frontiers would quickly lead to its demise.  

Finally, Jefferson’s point that whatever human rights one chooses to postulate cannot be defended outside of the state: “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted...” reads the Declaration of Independence”.  This is not an argument for anarchy.  This is an argument for national identity, the recognition of which both at home and abroad is necessary for not only the establishment but the protection of these rights. 

So talk to me again about willful blinders.” 

This will end my relationship with Daily Kos, for I have no interest in discussing public policy within a straight-jacket of ideological imperative. I have no interest in singing hymns.

November 26, 2018: Boston Tea Party, Anti-Trust, Birth To Revolution



The Boston Tea Party was not about taxes; it was about monopoly.”

                                     -----from The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

It transpires that there is a good reason we in the United States are bone ignorant about the degree to which our economy is becoming monopolized. Around 1981, the Federal Trade Commission stopped collecting data on the concentration of various industries. (1)

David Leonhardt, writing in The New York Times, points out that there has always been a strong strain of anti-monopoly sentiment coursing throughout American History. Indeed, as he rightly points out, the Boston Tea Party, a fabled event in our collective consciousness, was a revolt not against taxes but against the newly granted monopoly authorized by Parliament to the East India Tea Company. That the revolt has been presented by our schoolmasters as a tax revolt is a transparent besmirching of the historical record by those who rightly fear a populist revolt against entrenched privilege.

America was born as a 'nation of farmers and small-town entrepreneurs', writes Leonhardt, citing the historian Richard Hofstadter who described Americans as "'anti-authoritarian, egalitarian and competitive.' Hostility to corporate bigness animated Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the labor movement, Granger movement, progressive movement and more” (2)

It is from the well of this deep American tradition that reformers have gathered and organized to employ government to reign in on the abuses of the marketplace and the oligarchies it inevitably produces.

The question has been asked in these columns and elsewhere: why haven't we adequately addressed the current obscenity wherein a handful of Americans have as much personal wealth as half the country? The answer is that it isn't that we aren't aware of it, it is that we have been stripped of our ability—much as many state governments are now being stripped of the ability to measure and report on environmental damage—to measure and report on it. This leaves the critics with the ability to call attention to the problem, but only vaguely.

When Obama was elected, the Justice Department announced that it was about to further monitor the number of hate crimes committed annually. The Rescumlickans cried foul and squashed the effort. The slack was taken up by the Southern Poverty Law Center which now collects such data, and it is now the principle source of information, not the Department of Justice, to which one turns in order to understand the seriousness and the extent of the problem.

As with the Southern Poverty Law Center on hate crimes, an organization called the Open Markets Institute has begun gathering data on the level of the monopolization of the American economy. Citing mergers, and network effects wherein one is basically forced to use a service—think Microsoft or Facebook—the institute has produced a graph which, according to Leonhardt, if anything understates the problem.

The chart doesn't cover the entire economy, it is a preliminary report covering 25 industries. The markets of all but four have, in the last 11-16 years, have become decidedly more concentrated. For instance two companies which controlled in the early 2000's roughly 42% of the Home Improvement market, controls 80 percent of that market today. In shipbuilding the control of the two largest companies went from about 23% up to around 61%; the two largest companies dominating the Private Prison market jumped from 19-53%. And so it goes.

Previously, in our history, we would have long since seen a vigorous anti-trust action taken by the Federal Government enforcing laws that have been on the books since the first Gilded Age, laws that were passed in the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century

Previously, this has not been a partisan issue as both parties, and several third parties, have rallied to the cause. The Republicans passed the original anti-trust laws and enforced them under T.R. The Democrats immediately picked up the 'big stick' and enforced the law with greater vigor under Wilson a century ago. The law was enforced throughout most of the twentieth century, with even Nixon completing a successful prosecution of AT&T begun under the Johnson Administration. Then came the actor from California enabled by a Democratic Congress that would not confront the Republicans on economic issues.

Today it is not a partisan issue either as both parties, Democratic and Republican blithely ignore the law as capital continues, unimpeded, to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands.

As noted earlier in these columns, this constitutes a threat for such concentrations kill not only the entrepreneurial spirit but the very republic that depends upon this spirit to ensure a certain egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity. In its absence, one is presented with an oligopoly—wealth concentrated in few hands—with controls the polity much as they control the markets from which they spring. This is a principle as old as Aristotle who was, in a word, present at the creation of Democracy. It is why the Athenians formed a Democracy in the first place. It is, therefore, not only right and just to discuss the redistribution of wealth but to do so as a democratic principle in defense of the Republic. To oppose redistribution is, therefore, not only undemocratic and a threat to the republic, it is Un-American.

If you are in doubt, consult the patriots who converged in Boston Harbor and set spark to revolution; a revolution that, in turn, gave birth to a republic.

___________________

  1. See Leonhardt, David. “The Monopolization of America” The New York Times. Monday, November 26, 2018. Page A23.
  2. Ibid.