FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

DEDICATED TO OCCUPY AND THE ECONOMIC REVOLUTION

OCCUPY THE MARKETPLACE

FOLLOW ME ON FACEBOOK

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Thursday, October 1, 2009

We the People The Radical Middle & The Loss of the Commons





We the People

• We the People by Thom Hartmann and Neil Cohn •

We the People Book

America faces its greatest threat since the Civil War. The worst fears of the Founders are being realized, as powerful corporate interests have taken over our culture and representative government. We the People now face a fundamental choice: take back our country ... or do nothing, and become victims of tyranny and empire.

In We the People: A Call to Take Back America, Thom Hartmann (the acclaimed author of Unequal Protection and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight) tells a compelling story — of how a government of, by, and for the people has been replaced by corporate domination. Through brilliant analysis and Neil Cohn ‘s imaginative illustrations, this fully graphic book illuminates the central dynamics of American politics.

He reveals the forgotten history of the Founders’ intent and the devious way that corporations came to possess “human” rights. He explains what the Boston Tea Party actually was, how the events of the 19th century’s “Second American Revolution” resemble today’s administration, and how “corporatists” disguised as conservatives are looting assets from We the People’s common ownership through privatization schemes.

Most importantly, the book issues a call to action from citizens who want to restore true democracy, and liberty and justice... for all.

We the People - Cover


We the People
The Radical Middle & The Loss of the Commons

We also have two online excerpts in PDF form available. Just click on the one you want to read to view it.

  1. The Radical Middle
  2. The Loss of the Commons

(You must have the free Adobe Reader software to view PDF files.)

If you would like to download the PDF file to save on your computer, we have two versions of each available, low resolution, for fast download (good for a dialup connection), and high resolution, good for printing (broadband connection recommended):

  1. The Radical Middle
  2. The Loss of the Commons

The Radical Middle


...A Time to Restore Democracy








Take Back America from Whom and for What?



GOP Rep. Trent Franks Calls Obama "An Enemy Of Humanity"

First Posted: 09-29-09 09:43 AM | Updated: 09-29-09 11:31 PM

A Republican member of the House of Representatives accused President Barack Obama of being "an enemy of humanity" during a conservative values forum this past weekend.

In a speech Saturday before the How to Take Back America conference, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) made comments that went far beyond the limits of traditional White House criticism. At one point, Franks demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to prove his constitutional eligibility to hold office. The bluntest charge, however, centered on the president's position on abortion, which the congressman derided as "insane" and godless.

WATCH:


"Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries," said Frank. "Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."

A Franks spokeswoman clarified that he was referring only to the president's position on abortion.

Bethany Haley said the congressman was referring to "unborn humanity" and should have clarified his statement. She also said that Franks meant to say that Obama's abortion-related policies have no place in government, rather than that Obama has no place in government.

"He was just referring to the way President Obama has set himself up as the most pro-abortion president in America's history," Haley said.

The video, which went largely unnoticed before being passed along to the Huffington Post by People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch, is the latest in a line of extraordinarily blunt and personal attacks on the president by his Republican critics.

It is also one of the sharpest jabs taken at Obama on cultural issues by a sitting member of Congress. Much of the conservative angst with the president to date has centered on matters of government spending, health care, and judicial nominees -- the logical extension of the White House and Congress's intense focus on those three issues. But it is also, in some ways, a reflection of the extent to which religious conservatism has been marginalized in recent months.

"Rep. Trent Franks' remarks at the How to Take Back America Conference show a stunning lack of respect for our president and the office of the presidency itself," said Michael B. Keegan, President of People For the American Way in a statement. "Rep. Franks is following the lead of Glenn Beck, but he's a member of Congress, not a talk show host, and he should act like one. Americans, and especially members of Congress, should be able to disagree passionately about politics without making wild and irresponsible accusations."

"President Obama's views on reproductive rights are supported by a majority of Americans, and it is outrageous for Rep. Franks to claim that anyone who holds such views is unfit for public office and an 'enemy of humanity,'" Keegan added. "Rep. Franks, like Rep. Joe Wilson before him, owes President Obama an apology."

Republicans Have Decided to Call Anything a Democrat Ever Does or Says "Nazi"


AlterNet

The cause du jour for the Republican Party is to make as many rapid-fire comparisons between the Democrats and the Nazis as humanly possible.

The cause du jour for the Republican Party is to make as many rapid-fire comparisons between the Democrats and the Nazis as humanly possible. There're the posters altered to make the President look like Hitler, Glenn Beck's use of Nazi imagery, and the GOP's tendency to parade around pliant Holocaust survivors, who are willing to lie and convince hapless boobs that they're seconds away from being loaded onto the trains headed to New Auschwitz, located... somewhere -- probably in those FEMA camps Beck has been trying to warn us about.

Crazy, crazy stuff. Insulting and dangerous, too. Such propaganda is insulting to Holocaust survivors, some of whom are rightfully upset by the Obama-Hitler contrasting. "I saw Hitler's soldiers. I saw swastikas every day. To call Obama stupid, even criminal -- OK, that's politics. But Hitler? It's hurting to anyone no matter who is president," a Holocaust survivor told Times of the Internet.

Beyond being insulting, the comparisons are also dangerous. The Washington Independent's David Wiegel reports on this rising fear of fascism as demonstrated at the “How to Take Back America” conference in St. Louis that took place this past weekend. I highly recommend taking the whole bizarre journey yourself, but here are a few choice nuggets to wet your appetite for lunacy.

The article's protagonist is Kitty Werthmann, an 84-year-old native Austrian survivor of the Third Reich. Kitty was one of the keynote speakers at the conference.

“What would you suggest we do,” asked one activist, “if we are asked to give up our guns?”
“Don’t you dare give up your guns!” thundered Werthmann. “Never, never, never!”
“Give them back one bullet at a time!” called out another activist. The tense atmosphere melted a little bit; the room broke up with laughter.

Call the doctor. You see, Republicans are always very quick to say that liberals also altered posters of former President Bush to look like Hitler, and that liberals also drew comparisons between the Republicans and Nazis. Except, liberals were also called treasonous and threatened with arrest for doing harmless things like showing up to Bush's speeches dressed in anti-war t-shirts, or sporting anti-war bumper stickers on their cars. There were many of these kinds of stories. Meanwhile, those who show up to President Obama's rallies with loaded guns are called patriots.

For eight years, liberals protested the tyrannical actions of the Bush administration with relative restraint. I would actually argue that they did so with too much restraint. Liberals could have been more passionate and more organized. They could have walked out of school, and their jobs, and not come back until the wars ended. But they didn't. It has been said that organizing liberals is a bit like herding cats. The Democratic Party is an all-inclusive organization, which is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it leads to in fighting between the various factions and distracts from the ultimate goal.

Republicans have never had this problem. They're unified under the banner of beating "them," and the "them" this time around is President Obama. The media has criticized the tea bagger protests for being disorganized and scattered-brained, and while there are certainly a wide range of causes represented at these things, they all fall under the parent concern that Obama is a dangerous other, who wants to change America, and he must be stopped.

Back at the "How to Take Back America" conference, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who gave the conference's opening speech said, “If you look at the classic model for moving to Marxism, you look at what every Marxist organization has done, they nationalize. They redistribute wealth. They restrict gun ownership. They then go out and suppress the opposition. And then, finally, they censor the media.” So we're actually dealing with Nazi Marxists, the rarest of beasts. Nevermind that Hitler actually hated Marxism and Communism because, coincidentally, he feared them -- those Jews who came up with the whole Marxist angle.

Stoking this irrational hatred for an amorphous enemy, the Marxist Communist Socialist Nazi President Obama, in an already frenzied, heavily armed mob, is obviously not a good thing. First, it eliminates the possibility of rational conversation about some critical issues like health care and the environment. Second, it's extremely dangerous and irresponsible. If people like Kitty and Beck keep telling people Obama wants to take their guns, and he's Hitler, and he's changing America, and also there may be FEMA camps, and his health care plan is actually death panels, one of their unstable listeners is going to snap.

Of course, then Kitty and Beck will hide behind the same First Amendment rights many Republicans didn't grant liberals when they tried to protest Bush's illegal wars. This is the current state of things: Republicans protest health care for all. Democrats protest illegal wars. C'est la vie.

Digg! Share on facebook submit to reddit Bookmark on Delicious Stumble This TweetThis

See more stories tagged with: gop, obama, nazis

Allison Kilkenny is a radio host and political humorist, a fancy way of saying writer, who makes shitty world news funny. She is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, the Beast, 236.com, and Alternet.org's Wiretap Magazine. Her work has also appeared on The Nation and she is a regular guest on SIRIUS radio. She doesn't care if you're offended by anything she has written. Further articles can be found at: www.allisonkilkenny.com.

Sadly, No! Our st00pid health care system is still st00pid


From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclowikipoop:

Sadly, No! is a liberal/progressive humor site based in Germany, originally as a project of founder Seb, but since 2004 operating as a group blog, currently with American contributors. It has daily traffic between 7,000 and 15,000 visits.


Sadly, No!Sadly, No!



Oct 1

Our st00pid health care system is still st00pid


Posted at 18:02 by Brad

So:

I’ve been spending the last two months researching the ins and outs of our st00pid health care system and learning why it’s proven such a wicked beeyotch to reform. The results can be found here (Part 1) and here (Part 2). I’ve put a ton of work into this and I hope you enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Getting back to the current debate: as enjoyable as it is to whack Obama around for the tactical errors he’s made in pushing reform, we should understand that this is something that has confounded progressives since the time of Woodrow Wilson. We have a fragmented medical establishment made up of hospital chains, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who have all created fiefdoms within the system and have all staked their claim to profit from it. Without the government acting as the lead negotiator to drive down prices, this inefficient and fractured system has led to absurdly high prices for medical services that simultaneously price tens of millions of people out of the insurance market.

Combine this with the fact that nearly a century’s worth of propaganda has made universal health care seem unpalatable to the American public, and you’ve got the bizarre specter of uninsured, blue-collar workers standing outside of town hall meetings and demanding that the government not give them health care. Yes, we’re the only country where this sort of thing occurs.

What, then, needs to happen going forward? Welp, it’s pretty clear that we’re not going to get real reform — i.e., a single-payer system or a system of tightly-regulated nonprofit private insurers — with this round of legislation. Meaning, that we’re going to have to go back to the damn well again once the costs of health care truly threaten to bankrupt us. And if we’re going to be successful in getting that done, it’s going to require a long-term siege war against the status quo with strong, consistent messaging that makes it 100% clear to Americans that our system is a racket and a ripoff. As I put it in my latest AlterNet piece:

And to be fair, we Americans have a lot to be proud of: in addition to prevailing in two world wars and the Cold War, America has brought the world the cotton gin, the electric telegraph, the electric light bulb, the airplane, the moon landing, the Internet, jazz, rock ‘n’ roll, hip hop and all the world’s biggest blockbuster films.

But our health care system is not Miles Davis, Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Chevy Corvette C3. Our health care system is Kevin Federline, Waterworld and the AMC Gremlin. Our ability to spend 16 percent of our gross domestic product on health care and still leave tens of millions of people uncovered is not something the rest of the world looks upon with a mix of envy and awe. Rather, it’s something that makes them crinkle their eyebrows and say, “Dude. For real?”

And that’s what it’s gonna come down to.

I think the failure of a lot of the left over the past 30 or so years has been a clear failure of consistent messaging. Bob Somerby hit on this theme recently:

For decades, almost all conservative spin has derived from two simple messages. When you get to work with such clear messaging, being a conservative pundit is the easiest job in the world:

  • Big government never did anything right.
  • Liberal elites think they’re better than you are.

Later in the week, Somerby made his own attempt to craft a more effective liberal message:

First, it would turn on some well-crafted statement of an obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will try to loot you. They’ll do it every time—till they’re stopped.

Second, it might turn on a second obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will send tribunes out to deceive you. They will lie in your faces—till they’re stopped.

And I think this is what needs to be said over and over again by Democrats, liberal pundits and political operatives. Ever since the Age of Reagan, liberals have tried to achieve their goals by co-opting the Big Moneyed Interests into playing ball (or, in the case of Rubin-era financial deregulation, letting the Big Moneyed Interests simply run the show). This is the approach that the Obama Team has taken to health care reform so far. And to be fair, it’s gotten us a lot further along in the process than Truman, Carter or Clinton ever could. The trouble is more that it isn’t fundamentally fixing the broken system. It isn’t challenging the Big Moneyed Interests. Going forward, that’s what all of us are going to need to do.

Why Getting Health Care Passed Is Insanely Difficult


AlterNet

Health & Wellness

Special interests have always worked to kill national health plans -- from the progressives' proposals during the Wilson era to Clinton's failed reforms in the 1990s.

Picture our health care system as a spider web at the top of a tall redwood tree.

Both the public and the special interests know they can't stay in the web forever, lest they be eaten. But at the same time, no one wants to be the first one to cut up their own part of the web for fear of falling to their deaths.

And herein lies the problem with current reform efforts: While our health care system threatens to bankrupt us all, it remains enormously profitable for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospital chains. Such key special interests have banded together to kill national health insurance plans time and time again, from the progressives' proposals during the Wilson era to Truman's health care plan in the 1940s to Clinton's failed reform effort in the 1990s.

At the start of his presidency, Barack Obama thought he could succeed in reforming our health care system by essentially bribing the different factions opposed to reform by promising to keep intact the inefficient portions of the system most beneficial to them. This is why we're not going to tax employee health benefits to start weaning people off the bloated and inefficient employer-based system, why we're not looking seriously at changing incentives for how doctors get paid and even why it's increasingly unlikely that we'll end up with a publicly funded health care plan to compete with private insurers.

Even with these concessions, the special interests are working behind the scenes to make sure that Congress doesn't snip out their goodies.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that the pharmaceutical industry is fighting a provision that would fund studies to compare the effectiveness of their products for different treatments. Again, consider the implications of this: The drug companies want us to continue paying them top dollar for drugs that might not even work as well as advertised.

The hospital lobby, meanwhile, is trying to kill a proposed Medicare-oversight board that would be charged with, you guessed it, trying to weed out inefficiencies in the system. Even though everyone acknowledges that our health care system is on a fiscally ruinous course, nobody wants to make the real sacrifices that would put it on a marginally more sustainable path.

All that said, it is somewhat understandable why the Obama administration has gone down the path it has taken so far.

If the current version of health care legislation passes, it will indeed provide coverage for tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and it will cap out-of-pocket expenses to ensure that far fewer people go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment. It will also bar insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and will stop insurance companies from rescinding coverage.

These are very important policy goals for progressives, and it can be argued that Obama's strategy of bribing the special interests, despite being unsustainable in the long run, has gotten us closer to attaining them than the strategy of any prior administration. As sad as it might be to admit, it could really be the best we can do for the time being.

Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone should become complacent if reform passes, since it's unlikely to do much to contain health care costs. Bringing about significant change to our health care system -- whether it comes in the form of a single-payer system or a system of tightly regulated private nonprofit insurers -- is going to require a long-term siege war against the status quo. And this means we need to have a liberal messaging machine that tells Americans in no uncertain terms that our current system is ripping them off and that better alternatives exist.

Why is this necessary, you ask? Because the health care industry has done a remarkable job of pumping decades' worth of propaganda into our public discourse, thus making anything remotely resembling universal health care unthinkable in American society.

As sociologist Paul Starr has documented, efforts to implement universal health care have been attacked as sinister plots hatched by foreign powers since the early 20th century.

When progressives were pushing for a compulsory health insurance plan during World War I, for instance, right-wing lobbying groups accused them of trying to undermine the American way of life by introducing a subversive foreign concept onto our shores. Indeed, one pamphlet at the time described universal health care as "a dangerous device, invented in Germany, announced by the German emperor from the throne the same year he started plotting and preparing to conquer the world."

And once the Soviet Union became America's No. 1 foe after World War II, of course, reformers were tarred as communist sympathizers, or worse. One particularly famous example came in the late 1940s, when Ohio Sen. Robert Taft described President Harry Truman's universal health care plan as "the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it" and even suggested that it had come straight out of the Soviet constitution.

Seen in this light, the only surprising thing about our current health care debate is that reform opponents have yet to claim that universal health care is a backdoor policy for converting America to Islam.

Nearly a century of relentless propaganda has convinced Americans that our health care system is actually the best system in the world (it isn't) and that all national health care systems are bankrupting their countries (they pay less for health care than we do). Part of this is also embedded into our cultural DNA: Americans wrongly believe that we have the world's best health care system because we like thinking of ourselves as the best at everything.

And to be fair, we Americans have a lot to be proud of: in addition to prevailing in two world wars and the Cold War, America has brought the world the cotton gin, the electric telegraph, the electric light bulb, the airplane, the moon landing, the Internet, jazz, rock 'n' roll, hip hop and all the world's biggest blockbuster films.

But our health care system is not Miles Davis, Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Chevy Corvette C3. Our health care system is Kevin Federline, Waterworld and the AMC Gremlin. Our ability to spend 16 percent of our gross domestic product on health care and still leave tens of millions of people uncovered is not something the rest of the world looks upon with a mix of envy and awe. Rather, it's something that makes them crinkle their eyebrows and say, "Dude. For real?"

But if reformers ever hope to change our basket-case health care system, they will have to repeat these simple truths over and over again to our fellow Americans until they realize that they're getting ripped off.

For, unless we collectively realize the breadth and depth of our current health care disaster, we will never be able to fundamentally change it for the better. It's going to be a long haul.


See more stories tagged with: budget, health care reform, deficit, public option

Brad Reed is a writer living in Boston. His work has previously appeared in the American Prospect Online, and he blogs frequently at Sadly, No!

According to Obama Global Capitalism Is an 'Abstraction,' Not Worth Protesting


AlterNet

Rights and Liberties

Does the president not know that these things are tied to "concrete, local, immediate issues that have an impact on people's lives"?

On the eve of the G-20 summit last week, President Barack Obama gave a long interview to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in which he said that even during his days as a community organizer in Chicago he was never a big fan of mass protests.

With the clear intention of discouraging those who might join the looming demonstrations against the G-20, Obama explained that he was always a believer that "focusing on concrete, local, immediate issues that have an impact on people's lives is what really makes a difference; and that having protests about abstractions [such] as global capitalism or something, generally is not really going to make much of a difference."

While I personally never jumped on the Obama bandwagon, such a flippant dismissal of protest by the president is disappointing nevertheless, and slightly reminiscent of how his predecessor wrote off the millions who took to the streets before the invasion of Iraq.

Post-Gazette columnist Tony Norman noted in response: "Of course, Mr. Obama's answer would be news to those who marched in countless civil rights, women's rights and anti-war demonstrations over the decades. It would also be news to those who filled stadiums to hear candidate Obama's stump speeches in 2008."

Not surprisingly, his remarks were also not well received by the protesters who had arrived in Pittsburgh.

"You have revealed the real Obama!" Clarence Thomas, a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, said during a rally demanding new jobs programs, according to the Wall Street Journal. He said the president's statement was "very, very disrespectful" to the civil rights and other social movements.

For all of his flaws, Obama is clearly an intelligent person who must have known better.

It would not have taken an incredible investigative feat to discover that the protesters descending upon Pittsburgh were doing so for very "concrete" reasons that touch their daily lives in very real ways.

They came to advocate for greater assistance for everyday people during these tough economic times, for more serious government action on global warming ahead of the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, and for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have already taken such a staggering human and financial toll.

In fact, as a general rule of thumb, most people -- whether they are diehard activists or not -- don't normally travel great distances to face ominous riot police firing rubber bullets, pepper spray and deafening sound cannons, unless they have been deeply, personally affected the issues being protested.

And given the global financial meltdown that has hit working people so hard, can anyone really say that those who critique the entire capitalist system don't have a point?

Rather than being a mere "abstraction," as Obama claimed, capitalism is an economic system that functions on a set of rules that we created, which inevitably leads to massive inequalities between the haves and have-nots and the easily avoidable deaths of millions around the world every year who simply cannot afford basic medical care or food. It rewards greed and is based on a belief that continual, limitless economic growth is not only possible, but necessary.

The planet's atmosphere and natural resources, however, are finite and being quickly exhausted by the developed world's gluttonous consumption.

In his new book, All My Bones Shake, Robert Jensen succinctly sums up our predicament: "Capitalism is fundamentally inhuman, antidemocratic and unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (though much of it of questionable value) in exchange for our souls, for our hope for progressive politics, and for the possibility of a decent future for children. Either we change or we die -- spiritually, politically, literally."

Obama's dismissal of mass nonviolent action was disingenuous for other reasons as well. Behind his desk in his Senate office, Obama prominently displayed pictures of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

In an interview last year, he explained that the portraits were there "to remind me that real results will not just come from Washington, they will come from the people." And only weeks before the G-20, during his "controversial" address to school children, the president brought up Gandhi, calling him "a real hero of mine."

Could anyone possibly argue with a straight face that King, who was killed while planning the Poor People's Campaign, would not be on the streets with those calling for economic justice? Would Gandhi not oppose the diversion of $700 billion this year from meeting people's basic needs to fund the Pentagon and the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

The interview with Obama also revealed a growing chasm between his approach to social movements and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, to whom he is widely compared.

After listening to the concerns of the legendary labor organizer and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph during a meeting, as the famous and perhaps apocryphal story goes, FDR replied: "I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."

During his presidential campaign, Obama even used this story. He told his supporters that he was just one person who could not make the changes they wanted to see by himself. Obama's final message was clear: "Make me do it."

Now that Obama is in the White House, however, he is singing a different tune. Rather than encouraging grassroots protest to help push the public debate and further a progressive legislative agenda as Roosevelt did, Obama is unfortunately publicly trying to quash pressure from the left.

As a counter to the recent mobilization of right-wing tea-baggers, it would seem that now is as good a time as ever for the president to embrace the protesters who are championing at least some of the causes that he once claimed to believe in.

Instead, Obama disgracefully sent in the militarized police -- with the National Guard on the ready -- to silence their dissent.

Digg! Share on facebook submit to reddit Bookmark on Delicious Stumble This TweetThis

See more stories tagged with: obama, protests, g-20

Eric Stoner is an adjunct professor at St. Peter's College and an editor for Waging Nonviolence. His articles have appeared in the Guardian, Mother Jones and The Nation, among other publications.

Why Right-Wing Demagogues Are Trying to Peddle Ludicrous Conspiracy Theories


AlterNet

Even before Obama was sworn in as the 44th President, the internet was seething with lurid theories exposing his alleged subversion and treachery.

Even before Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, the internet was seething with lurid conspiracy theories exposing his alleged subversion and treachery.

Among the many false claims: Obama was a secret Muslim; he was not a native U.S. citizen and his election as president should be overturned; he was a tool of the New World Order in a plot to merge the government of the United States into a North American union with Mexico and Canada.

Within hours of Obama’s inauguration, claims circulated that Obama was not really president because Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts scrambled the words as he administered the oath of office. A few days after the inauguration came a warning that Obama planned to impose martial law and collect all guns.

Many of these false claims recall those floated by right-wing conspiracy theorists in the armed citizens’ militia movement during the Clinton administration — allegations that percolated up through the media and were utilized by Republican political operatives to hobble the legislative agenda of the Democratic Party.

The conspiracy theory attacks on Clinton bogged down the entire government. Legislation became stuck in congressional committees, appointments to federal posts dwindled and positions remained unfilled, almost paralyzing some agencies and seriously hampering the federal courts.

A similar scenario is already hobbling the work of the Obama administration. The histrionics at congressional town hall meetings and conservative rallies is not simply craziness — it is part of an effective right-wing campaign based on scare tactics that have resonated throughout U.S. history among a white middle class fearful of alien ideas, people of color and immigrants.

Unable to block the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right-wing media demagogues, corporate political operatives, Christian right theocrats, and economic libertarians have targeted healthcare reform and succeeded in sidetracking the public option and single-payer proposals.

A talented environmental adviser to the Obama administration, Van Jones, was hounded into resigning Sept. 5 by a McCarthyite campaign of red-baiting and hyperbole. Support for major labor law reform has been eroding.

With a wink and a nod, right-wing apparatchiks are networking with the apocalyptic Christian right and resurgent armed militias — a volatile mix of movements awash in conspiracy theories. Scratch the surface and you find people peddling bogus conspiracy theories about liberal secular humanists, collectivist labor bosses, Muslim terrorists, Jewish cabals, homosexual child molesters and murderous abortionists.

This right-wing campaign is about scapegoating bogus targets by using conspiracy theories to distract attention from insurance companies who are the real culprits behind escalating healthcare costs.

Examples of right-wing conspiracy theories include the false claim that healthcare reform will include government bureaucrat “Death Panels” pulling the plug on grandma. Another is the claim that Obama is appointing unconstitutional project “Czars” More fraudulent conspiracy theories are being generated every week.

The core narrative of many popular conspiracy theories is that “the people” are held down by a conspiracy of wealthy secret elites manipulating a vast legion of corrupt politicians, mendacious journalists, propagandizing schoolteachers, nefarious bankers and hidden subversive cadres.

This is not an expression of a healthy political skepticism about state power or legitimate calls for reform or radical challenges to government or corporate abuses. This is an irrational anxiety that pictures the world as governed by powerful long-standing covert conspiracies of evildoers who control politics, the economy, and all of history. Scholars call this worldview “conspiracism.”

The term conspiracism, according to historian Frank P. Mintz, denotes a “belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history.” Mintz explains: “Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology.”

When conspiracism becomes a mass phenomenon, persons seeking to protect the nation from the alleged conspiracy create counter movements to halt the subversion. Historians dub them countersubversives.

The resulting right-wing populist conspiracy theories point upward toward “parasitic elites” seen as promoting collectivist and socialist schemes leading to tyranny. At the same time, the counter-subversives point downward toward the “undeserving poor” who are seen as lazy and sinful and being riled up by subversive community organizers. Sound familiar?

Right-wing demagogues reach out to this supposedly beleaguered white middle class of “producers” and encourage them to see themselves as being inexorably squeezed by parasitic traitors above and below. The rage is directed upwards against a caricature of the conspiratorial “faceless bureaucrats,” “banksters” and “plutocrats” rather than challenging an unfair economic system run on behalf of the wealthy and corporate interests. The attacks and oppression generated by this populist white rage, however, is painfully felt by people lower on the socio-economic ladder, and historically this has been people of color, immigrants and other marginalized groups.

It is this overarching counter-subversive conspiracy theory that has mobilized so many people; and the clueless Democrats have been caught unaware by the tactics of right-wing populism used successfully for the last 100 years and chronicled by dozens of authors.

The techniques for mobilizing countersubversive right-wing populists include “tools of fear”: dualism, demonization, scapegoating, and apocalyptic aggression.

When these are blended with conspiracy theories about elite and lazy parasites, the combination is toxic to democracy.

DUALISM

Dualism is simply the tendency to see the world in a binary model in which the forces of absolute good are struggling against the forces of absolute evil. This can be cast in religious or secular story lines or “narratives.”

SCAPEGOATING

Scapegoating involves wrongly stereotyping a person or group of people as sharing negative traits and blaming them for societal problems, while the primary source of the problem (if it is real) is overlooked or absolved of blame. Scapegoating can become a mass phenomenon when a social or political movement does the stereotyping. It is easier to scapegoat a group if it is first demonized.

DEMONIZATION

Demonization is a process through which people target individuals or groups as the embodiment of evil, turning individuals in scapegoated groups into an undifferentiated, faceless force threatening the idealized community. The sequence moves from denigration to dehumanization to demonization, and each step generates an increasing level of hatred of the objectified and scapegoated “Other.”

One way to demonize a target group is to claim that the scapegoated group is plotting against the public good. This often involves demagogic appeals.

CONSPIRACISM

Conspiracism frames demonized enemies “as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm.” Conspiracist thinking can move easily from the margins to the mainstream, as has happened repeatedly in the United States. Several scholars have argued that historic and contemporary conspiracism, especially the apocalyptic form, is a more widely shared worldview in the United States than in most other industrialized countries.

Conspiracism gains a mass following in times of social, cultural, economic, or political stress. The issues of immigration, demands for racial or gender equality, gay rights, power struggles between nations, wars — all can be viewed through a conspiracist lens.

Historian Richard Hofstadter established the leading analytical framework in the 1960s for studying conspiracism in public settings in his essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” He identified “the central preconception” of the paranoid style as a belief in the “existence of a vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character.”

According to Hofstadter, this was common in certain figures in the political right, and was accompanied with a “sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic” which “goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation.”

According to Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University, conspiracism attracts people because conspiracy theorists “claim to explain what others can’t. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.” There is an appealing simplicity in dividing the world sharply into good and bad and tracing “all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.”

COVER OBAMA’S BACK, BUT KICK HIS BUTT

Today, when you hear the right-wing demagogues whipping up the anti-Obama frenzy, you now know they are speaking a coded language that traces back to Social Darwinist defenses of “Free Market” capitalism and to xenophobic white supremacy. The voices of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, Dobbs and their allies are singing a new melody using old right-wing populist lyrics. The damage they can do is great even if most of these movements eventually collapse.

The centrist Democratic spinmeisters surrounding Obama have no idea how to organize a grassroots defense of healthcare reform. That’s pathetic.

These are the three R’s of civil society: Rebut, Rebuke, Re-Affirm: Rebut false and misleading statements and beliefs without name-calling; rebuke those national figures spreading misinformation; and re-affirm strong and clear arguments to defend goals and proposed programs.

That’s exactly what President Obama did on in his nationally televised address Sept. 9.

While keeping our eyes on the prize of universal, quality healthcare, we must also prevent right-wing populism as a social movement from spinning out of control. Since Obama’s inauguration, there have been nine murders tied to white supremacist ideology laced with conspiracy theories. It is already happening here.

Since centrist Democrats are selling us out, it is time for labor and community organizers to turn up the heat. We should defend Obama against the vicious and racist attacks from the reactionary political right, but we can have Obama’s back while we are kicking his butt.

Vigorous social movements pull political movements and politicians in their direction — not the other way around. We need to raise some hell in the streets and in the suites.

See more stories tagged with: obama, conspiracy theory

, senior analyst at Political Research Associates based near Boston, is editor of the recent book, Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash (South End Press), from which this article was drawn.