November 2, 2018: What The Elites don't Understand, Same Ideological Elixir, Of National Sovereignty

In an essay published in The New York Times entitled “What the Left Misses About Nationalism”, John Judis duly catalogs the outrages of our Caesar Disgustus as he postures as the champion of American nationalism. He also repeats the oft-told tales of legions left behind by the globalization of the economic order brought about by liberal ideology. (1)

But one must be careful with the use of one's terms. Both modern conservatism and 'liberalism' have deep roots in the theories of classical liberal political economy dating back to Adam Smith and those that followed him. Classical liberalism well into the twentieth century championed the ideology of free markets and it's adherents stood foursquare against any combinations—including unions—that would in any way put fetters upon capital. Oh, yes, and their fetish with the marketplace was complete.

It was only in the twentieth century that 'liberalism' became associated with what was then known as 'progressive' politics, reigning in the abuses of capital. Anti-trust (although the laws were passed in the latter 19^th century, they were enforced mainly against unions until the twentieth) action, regulations and then social programs were introduced tentatively under Teddy Roosevelt and became increasingly the palliative in later administrations until, by mid-century, the term 'liberal' had nearly lost its original meaning, fixed in the public mind with a brand of 'socialism' in the form of unemployment compensation, social security, medicare and medicaid, worker's compensation, and welfare.

But the 'left' as we understand the term here in the United States, had never fully divorced itself from the free market origins of it's 'ideology'. The 'left', such as it is, would always prefer deregulation if given the chance, work to welfare if pressed, and a corporate 'free market' approach to health care. It was, after all, Jimmy Carter—not Ronald Reagan—who first led the country on a campaign to deregulate industry (2). And it was 'The Left' that abandoned its own creation, organized labor, during the Carter years. An abandonment confirmed by the subsequent administrations of Clinton and Obama.

To complete the confusion, American Conservatism has re-embraced these origins calling themselves 'neo-liberal', in a radical adoption of the 'free market' ideology of Adam Smith as well as Ricardo's “Iron Law of Wages”, which dictates that wages can/should never be above the level of minimum subsistence—and, since they can only rise above this level through 'artificial' collective actions, unions must be destroyed. Capital must be free to run riot.

My point here is that the ruling elites of both the 'left' and the 'right', drinking the same ideological elixir, both adhere to the same free-market and, therefore, globalist tendency. That is why, for instance, it has made little difference to Flint, Michigan, which political party is in power.

To put this in perspective, Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 against the practice of giving tax breaks to corporations that exported jobs out of the country. Democratic administrations have come and gone; Republican administrations have come and gone. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House for two years under Clinton, two years under Obama. Likewise, the Republicans under Bush and now this idiot. Still the practice remains. Why? Because both parties are controlled by disciples of the 'free-market' imperative, both demonstrate an abhorrence to placing any fetters upon capital.

So the headline of Mr. Judis' essay should have been “What the Political Elites Miss About Nationalism”, for the malady does not infect simply the 'left'. There is, in George Wallace's memorable phrase, “not a dime's worth of difference” between the parties, from the Rockefeller Republicans to the Clinton Democrats, they are all singing from the same hymn book.

But Judis misses another and, I believe, much more important point entirely. It is well and good to repeat the litany of economic destruction left in the wake of this headlong rush to globalize the economy, but there is another important consideration. That is, one of national sovereignty. If questions of economics, including economic justice, are left to international organizations and tribunals, wherein lies the supremacy of our constitution? If such questions are increasingly made the prerogative of international agencies, what then is our republic left to decide? It is worth noting that most of the peoples on this planet have little or no such political tradition, and many of those that do have come to it only recently. In many quarters the values we hold dear are anathema. It was the prospect of unelected international tribunals with jurisdiction over the sovereign acts of elected representatives that led many of us to balk at the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

So, the question remains, why would we place the 'business' of the country into such hands? The nationalism represented so reprehensibly by Disgustus and others around the globe has, nevertheless, legitimacy and must be taken seriously.

That's why I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, because the question before us then was who would emerge as the voice of these concerns? The Russians answered that question for us, and so did both the Rescumlickan and the Democratic Parties.

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

Impeach and Imprison.

_________________

1. Judis, John B. “What the Left Misses About Nationalism” The New York Times. Tuesday, October 16, 2018: Page A23
2. Carter deregulated the transportation industry, airlines and trucking, setting off a national movement of deregulation and, in the process, making the idiot actor from California much more palatable.