Blame Conservatism For The Economic Meltdown

From today's New York Times lead editorial:

...is certainly not too soon to look beyond the current crisis to the flaws
and fallacies of the anti-regulatory ideology that has held Washington in its
grip since the Reagan years and allowed the financial excesses that are now
stressing the system to the breaking point.
Making and enforcing new rules
is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on
the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered
capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall
Street.

Yes, dear old Ronnie, so beloved by the knee-jerk conservative set, started us down the path that has lead to the current near collapse of Wall Street. The excesses of deregulation have come home to roost. Reagan also began the welfare for the rich program by gutting much of the progressivity out of our tax structure. Saint Ronnie Reagan,, indeed!

Jim

Twilight Of The Age Of Reagan

Gary Hart gets the big picture right over at Huffington:

The age of Roosevelt was replaced by the age of Reagan which itself is
coming to an end. The age of Reagan was relieved only briefly by a rare period
of peace and prosperity in the 1990s. The brief Clinton era pursued "centrism"
at the cost of blurring the fundamental principles of the 20th century
Democratic party -- a sense of national community (Roosevelt), citizen duty
(Kennedy), and equality and justice for all (Johnson). Return to the age of
Reagan, under the current administration, destroyed the security alliances
established by Truman.

But who will return us to the values of the Age Of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson? Mrs. Clinton? No. Obama? Maybe. Any Republican currently running for president? No.

Jim

The United States: A Conservative Bastion

I had a spirited exchange at dinner last evening with a younger friend who believes that the U.S. is more liberal now than it was decades ago. He pointed to more tolerance of gays and Jews to back up his argument. Unfortunately, I had to strongly disagree with him. If it is the case that there is more tolerance of certain minorities today, I do not believe that the tolerance is universal...you would not find it in Des Moines or Paducah, for example, nor do I believe that increased tolerance of minorities that you find in parts of the "blue state" areas is a result of any shift to the left in this country. I think that the tolerance that does exist in certain relatively small areas of the country has happened in spite of our overall national shift to the right over the past four decades.

The last great liberal era in the U.S. occurred almost 45 years ago, when important civil rights legislation was passed and Medicare was instituted under Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society." With the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, we embarked upon our national journey to the right. Most notably, under the "Great Communicator," Mr. Reagan, the progressive income tax structure that was in place was gutted, adding fuel to the growth of economic inequality that today is nothing short of disgraceful. Right wing Republican presidents have predominated in office since Nixon, interrupted only by Jimmy Carter's failed presidency, and Bill Clinton's eight years of "centrist" governance that was marked notably by the destruction of welfare, called "welfare reform," which threw many poor people into the streets. "Dubbya" Bush, with the complicity of Democratic lawmakers, passed yet another tax cut for the rich during his first term and tried to destroy social security during his second term. Social Security, of course, is the most important lasting liberal program remaining from F.D.R's "New Deal," which was the great liberal era previous to LBJ's "Great Society."

On the social front, right wing politicians now universally demonize "illegal" immigrants to the point where hate crimes against them are on the increase. Attempts have been made to pass a national constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a blatant attempt to actually write discrimination into our constitution for the first time in our history. A few "blue" states treat gays and lesbians better, but only one allows marriage and thirty some states have written discriminatory provisions banning gay marriage into their constitutions.

As for our stature as a respected citizen nation of the world, that has been destroyed by our illegal war and occupation of Iraq. We refuse to sign the Kyoto Agreement, the treaty that encapsulates the international movement to protect our environment. We, along with China, are the two worst polluters in the world. We have renounced the Geneva Conventions and we have engaged in the torture of detainees. We have gutted key provisions of our own constitution, removing the great habeus corpus protections that have been the hallmark of democracy and individual rights for centuries, and we are engaged in spying on our own citizens. The current president is a liar, war criminal, and a law breaker.

No, we are not "more liberal" now. We have, in fact, dangerously drifted far to the right both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. If this trend is not reversed soon, there are observers that think we could actually degenerate into a fascist state.

Who out there now running for president would reverse this shift to the right? Not Ms. Clinton, who recently voted for what is essentially another blank check that would authorize Bush to attack Iran. All of the Republicans would continue in the mold of the current president. Liberals like Kucinich or Dodd have no chance to be elected.

We live in a very conservative, backward country. I fear for the future.

Photo: Another colorful view of our "private' path trough the park.

Jim

Saint Ronald Reagan: Not!

I lived through the two terms that Mr. Reagan served in the White House. He was horrible. His tax cuts favoring the rich were obscene, especially when combined with his equally obscene military spending increases. He refused to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic while thousands contracted the disease and died. He is given credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but he did nothing tangible to bring that about. It would have happened without him. He was good at Republican bullshit - thus his moniker as "the great communicator." That's about the best thing I can say about him. Republicans revere him today. I'm glad he's gone.

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman points out how Reagan used the so-called "Southern Strategy" to effectively polarize the country along racial lines and to help get himself elected. This is the same strategy that is still in place today. That's why none of the front runners for the Republican nomination showed up at the debate in front of an African American audience. The Republicans are despicable.

From Krugman:

Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial
polarization. True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did
Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain
Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan
paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of
governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities
without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of
polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”

Nothing has changed. Giuliani and company are still doing the same thing today!

PHOTO: The roof grid of the indoor mall at Liberty Place in Philadelphia. I often go to this delightful indoor space to window shop or have lunch.

Jim

Conservatism And A Condensed History Of The U.S.

In the United States, the early 20th century brought women the right to vote, and progressive taxation meant to address the inequalities of wealth that had developed with industrialization. In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" helped the country through the great depression. The Social Security program was initiated to safeguard the elderly. In the 1960's, landmark civil rights legislation was passed, a War On Poverty was launched, and our leaders envisioned a "Great Society" and the elimination of poverty. Medicare and Medicaid were initiated to provide healthcare to our elderly and poor. Most of these accomplishments took place under what we would today call "liberal" policymakers in charge of government. We were on a roll toward a more just society.

Then, in the 1980s, came along "conservative" saint Ronald Reagan and the ascent of "conservatism" and "conservative" policymakers in charge of government. Let's see how we've been doing under Reagan and the Bushies (I & II.) First, Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy and then he racheted up defense spending. A war on entitlements aimed at the nations poorest citizens, was launched. Welfare was ended, curiously, under Clinton, but who ever accused him of being progressive anyway. Bush Junior tried as hard as he could to eliminate Social Security, but couldn't. He did manage to pass yet another huge tax cut which benefited primarily the wealthiest citizens. Our nation's neediest citizens, our 37 million poor people, have been demonized by right wing conservative zealots Rush Limbaugh and the like, and our 50 million citizens without medical insurance are left to fend for themselves. And then there's Iraq.

Now, I ask you...are we better off since "conservatives" have come to power? Can we possibly stand any more of them? No wonder Junior's approval ratings are at 30 percent.

About the photograph: In my younger, wilder days I did a fair amount of scuba diving. I enjoyed underwater photography. This shot was taken about 20 years ago in St. Croix. Dan and I spent a week at a gay men's resort there. The site is a piling supporting a pier that was used to dock cruise ships. Depth: only about 20 feet. The pier was later destroyed by a storm.

3 PM: The good news is that the sun has returned to Fire Island just in time for Bradly (our dog) and I to take a walk down to the Sunken Forest, an ancient holly tree forest that is both beautiful and spooky at the same time. The bad news is that our computer here on the island has died. I tried replacing the power supply but I couldn't get it to come back to life. RIP. So I'm stuck with a 10 year old clunker and dialup access for the time being. Russ Feingold just sent out an email about a health care bill that he and another senator will be introducing. I'll have to read more about it, but if Russ is involved it must be good.

4:20 PM: I just read online that Don Imus has hired a high powered First Amendment attorney and plans to sue CBS Radio for $40 million dollars. He'll need a magician. This is not about free speech. It's about what is appropriate over the public airwaves.

Jim

Debunking Conservativism

Fire Island, NY, 6:30 AM: Today I'm going to start debunking conservatism, which has way too much legitimacy thanks to years and years of right wing talking heads, like Rush Limbaugh, fat cat right wing pundits like George Will, and crackpot conservative "icons," like Bill Buckley.

Actually, conservatism, with its extreme hatred of government, ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history. It is a philosophy that has been tried before, and doesn't work. One need only look at U.S. history, taking note of the horrible excesses of greed and criminality (robber barons, child labor, etc.) that took place in the nineteenth century and which gave rise to movements which demanded proactive government involvement in order to curb political, economic, and social injustices. In the 20Th century, government intervened most effectively during the great depression to help ameliorate the suffering of millions, and during the latter half of the century with civil rights legislation addressing racial discrimination.

Conservatives say that they favor small or limited government. Actually, they hate government. They would like to shrink or eliminate government, except, of course, when they need government to help them further their sometimes nutty agenda. The most recent prime example of this was the Terry Schiavo case, when conservatives wanted the federal government to intervene in a private family medical matter. Conservatives need government to help them interfere with a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, and they need government to help them prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying and thereby obtaining the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals have. So, sometimes they need and may even like big government. They want it both ways.

The fact is, even though in recent decades we've seen the erosion of some of the socio-economic gains society has made under the onslaught of conservatives starting with Ronald Reagan, we are not going to roll back the clock to the mid-nineteenth century, and return to the excesses and injustices of those times. I believe that the tide may be turning. George Bush, with his melding of Christian conservatism and government, has actually removed the veil of legitimacy from conservatism. Everyone can now see what conservatives are really up to and it's not terribly popular, is it?

The photo dates from 1983 - Dan and Jim in Mexico (sorry about the image quality - it must have been a cheap camera!)

10:30 AM: Bradley (our dog) and I just got back from a 90 minute walk to the (Fire Island) Pines, the next town to the East. We walked down on the beach and back through the "meat rack." It's a beautiful day here on the island, although we may get some rain later. I picked up the replacement power supply for my non-functioning desktop computer earlier this morning. So now I'll try to install it and see if I can get the computer to work once more.

Jim

How Politically Left Or Right Are You?

Click on the above title link and take the quiz to find out. (Thanks for the link, Kirk!) Are you on the left end of the political spectrum with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, or are you over there on the right with Reagan? I scored a 4, which puts me pretty far over on the left. I wonder what I answered wrong? I wanted a perfect score on the left. Take the quiz and you'll see what I mean.

This time of the year I love to visit Fire Island, where we have a second home. In the Spring I buy lots of bird seed and keep the feeder full when I can be there. I took this photo of a female Cardinal a couple of weeks ago.

Here are a few random thoughts for today. John McCain says that we don't need additional gun control measures because the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. He's wrong on both counts. That's not what the Constitution says, and we do need measures designed to prevent unbalanced individuals from obtaining guns. Maybe we ought to require a psychological checkup before selling someone a handgun. We require vision tests before issuing driver's licenses, so why not? Why does a 23 year old student need a powerful handgun? Shouldn't someone ask him? We don't sell alcohol to intoxicated individuals, so why do we sell guns to unbalanced people?

I read that the Democrats are likely to extend most or all of Bush's tax cuts, which heavily favor the rich. That's not great. We finally get a Democratic congress, and they're going to lay down in the face of the obscene inequities of Bush's economic policy. No matter that we continue to incur debt that will saddle future generations. I'd like to return to the pre-Reagan tax rates, which were truly progressive. If we did that we could probably solve the Social Security and Medicare funding challenges, and begin to reverse the ever growing inequality between the rich and the poor in this country. Republican economic policy has Social Darwinist underpinnings: "Let them eat cake." Their newest "rising star," Fred Thompson, is a "supply-side economics" advocate. Wasn't that debunked? Here we go further back into the dark ages.

Jim