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.
No comments:
Post a Comment