I’m losing track of just which dictatorial measure gets signed into law exactly when, but “it is being reported that” [my college classmate] the President used the occasion of his vacation in Hawaii and New Year’s Eve to sign the massive Defense Authorization Act that authorizes indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, though he used a signing statement to quibble with restrictions on the executive’s “flexibility.”
As we enter this year of 2012, in which we will see at least three quadrennial events, to wit, a February 29th, a summer Olympic games (in London this year) and the USA Presidential election [for 2012, we get the special “Mayan prophesy of Apocalypse” for the winter solstice… but as I like to say, “not how you bet”… because, if for no other reason, no one will around to pay off on the “over”], let me just suggest that people of good will who, like me, once supported Barack Obama, take a look at this screed by Glenn Greenwald on why progressives should be paying attention to the Ron Paul candidacy. I’ll make it easy here, by saying that I would, right now, without hesitation, support Ron Paul in the general election, were he to be the Republican nominee (which he will not… every force available to bear will be brought down to see that he isn’t, even if were to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and every other primary or caucus… which he will not). Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, among candidates in either party, is actively discussing the real issues that are driving us into the ground: permanent, endless, immense wars (and concomitant defense spending), the drug wars, and a financial oligopoly deliberately mismanaging public finance to enslave the rest of us. Yes, he has other problems. A lot of other problems. But…
Barack Obama’s presidency, despite the promise of his campaign, is indistinguishable, in policy, and in some key personnel choices, from a third George W. Bush term. And I didn’t stop loathing the presidency of George W. Bush simply because the goofy faux-Texan himself is no longer in the Oval Office: it’s the policies, stupid. And say what you will, but at least most of Dubya’s most egregious totalitarian policies were one-off, ad hoc “executive decisions.” Barack “Constitutional Scholar” Obama has seen fit to codify them into statute (with significant “bipartisan consensus.”)
And there you are. My easiest 2012 prediction is for “more of same” in the area of “justice”… financial criminals (who, in terms of the human and systemic damage they cause, should rightly be classified as “terrorists”) will continue to benefit from the “look forward not backward” and “see no evil when it’s done by those in the financial sector likely to contribute to my campaign” policies… they will continue unabated. Jon Corzine already knew that his “Made Man” status would protect him, as do so many others… but meanwhile, the number of nobody schmucks picked up in various FBI stings and hyped up minor incidents which will be portrayed as terrrrrorism… will almost certainly increase, perhaps dramatically so as the election nears. A “Lehman Bros.-plus” financial meltdown also seems likely this year, though, since it should have already happened by now, it’s hard to say “inevitable” on that one. Although, inflation and unemployment statistics will continue to be made-up in ways designed to make things look better than they are… as has been the case now for decades.
Thing is, for this year, at the end of it all, I’m actually optimistic that the degree of this outrageous injustice [mostly the criminal financiers getting away scot-free] will actually piss off enough people to matter in the great scheme of things. Despite all of their incoherence, I think this is a unifying theme of the “Occupy” protestors. Frankly, at the end of the day, it matters little or not at all which of the two “different” Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/B of A /Citigroup backed major party candidates is elected President next, or even which of the two finance-sector-controlled political parties controls majorities of Congress… BUT… this could be the year that a critical mass of the populace finally realizes that the game, as now structured, is hopelessly rigged against them, and maybe the answer isn’t trying to put more money in the slot machine, bang on it, scream, and hope for something different, but to take what’s left the cup, put in the pocket, and just walk away. Our entire system is, at its core, “a faith-based initiative” after all. Could this be the year that enough people cease handing their blind faith to a system that is quite literally trying to enslave, if not imprison or outright murder them, while they are watching?
I’m hoping that is. The current system is utterly unsustainable, in just about every way. Blind faith in it will just make the inevitable crash that much worse. Will enough people just set about structuring their own lives in [self-reliant, community building] ways so that while the system collapses [and the laws of nature say it must, sooner or later, unless radically altered], a sensible “replacement” order based on human dignity, shared vaues, cooperation, self-reliance and community building (rather than Nanny State Dependence) are “the new order”? Strangely for me… I’m going to throw my lot in with the optimists on this one. At least, as I define optimism.
Alrightie then. Happy new year, everybody! Let’s make this one count.
tdog
It’s tough to sort out when I see so many thoughtful political analysts on both sides of this.
Greenwald, who does lean libertarian, doesn’t promote Paul as president but lauds him for raising fundamental issues.
Roy Edroso adds it up but reverts to the instinctual, that ANY Republican would be worse, a mantra I’ve practiced like, forever, with increasingly diminishing results.
Al Giordano, an excellent prognosticator, seems to have let his affinity to community organization cloud his perception to the point that he detests all things Greenwald, and sounds at times like an Obamabot.
And you, with your justice perspectives, essentially indicating that the presidential race doesn’t matter as much as the fact that folks are mad as hell and are only gonna get madder till some good results.
Et moi?
First, the dispassionate historian view. If Obama can drop unemployment by 0.9% by October, it parallels Reagan’s first term by moving the unemployment rate just enough, in the right direction, to restore confidence. He almost mirrors Reagan in the sunny v. malaise dept. so there’s that.
And I do think, by July, the numbers will be very positive, nearly to the level of when he took office. So the odds favor him and should grow for the first half of the year.
Yet there are key differences. Reagan challenged opponents forcefully. Obama doesn’t. Obama retains key advantages in the support of ethnic minorities and the voting majority: women.
In the GOP field, Gingrich is viewed as an emotionally volatile guy, much like McCain was. Paul frightens the hell out of the GOP establishment. And his conservative voting record (the most conservative of any Congress critter since 1935) rightfully scares the hell out of me. Santorum can sustain a good also-ran campaign only on the fundie support. Which leaves Mitt. The GOP establishment realizes they need a near moderate to have any chance.
Yet Southerners and fundies still can’t handle (1) a Mormon and (2) a Massachusettsan. Which again favors Obama. But white male Southerners and fundies won’t go for him either.
Which means?
I want Santorum out and Ron Paul challenging Mitt throughout the primaries. Not only will it keep Rove and his ilk busy committing fratricide but it will keep the foreign policy questions alive instead of this being wholly an economics campaign.
Come convention time, okay, Mitt’s more moderate and I expect he’ll be the nominee. Yet as you point out, in foreign policy, it really doesn’t matter which party’s in charge: they are both deeply ethically repugnant to me.
Worse, I actually expect the Prez/Sec’y of State under the Dems to keep playing the fear card, not unlike how Bush/Cheney did. Iran/Pakistan/Yemen/whoever will be this year’s bogeymen.
The SOLE reason to vote Dem MIGHT be social programs, though even that’s not sacrosanct, as Dems are now willing to attack Social Security, so no program is truly safe except???? Those that are women friendly. That’s the base Obama has to pander to.
So I intend, as a moral obligation, to go with a third party or write-in candidate, no matter the outcome. Mainly because SOMETIMES third party candidates draw enough support that the major parties have to move left and adopt some of the progressive populist platform, to stay viable.
I’m pretty sure we’ll have to keep going 3rd party for years to come, before the majors wise up.
But as angry as the electorate is, nobody can predict what the next Congress looks like. Most incumbents – I hope – will be vulnerable if the public stays fed up.
And I ultimately think the best path to real reform won’t occur topdown from DC. It’ll take city by city by town by town, voting to take charge of their own destinies, in complete defiance of fedhead laws. It doesn’t matter what the courts uphold. If communities start asserting they won’t be dominated by corporate rights, eventually the powers that be will yield to the wishes of the enraged rabble, solely to protect themselves.
The only way they can divert such an ongoing effort, though, is the one I fear the most: starting another World War.
Kevin:
Great to have you back, man! Go right to your penultimate paragraph, and you’ve got it! The revolution, sayeth the Great Gil Scott Heron, will be LIVE… Money won’t get to dictate what people think and want anymore, because people will pick up their chips and leave the casino because money reneged on its part of the bargain when it got just a little too greedy (the closest analogy is the Civil War riots… it wasn’t that the rabble were suffering, but that the rich could BUY THEIR WAY OUT, and then get all “in your face” about it… just like… right about now.)
And you’re right again re: the presidential (and, btw… it doesn’t matter WHICH Goldman Sachs backed candidate wins… both Romney and Obama count big finance as at least 3 or 4 of their top 5 funders… of course!); if the GOP has problems with Romney, we don’t need to get started on its feelings toward Paul!
I’ve read Roy’s piece and other criticisms of Paul [I won’t read Giordano anymore, for lots of reasons… but being an Obamabot is certainly one of them), and I gotta tell you… “social safety net” is just not doing it for me (and, btw, I don’t think he could single-handedly dismantle it, whereas in foreign policy he can make a humongous difference). That said, our social safety net is a funny thing… I understand where Paul’s coming from, even if, as a Northeastern paleo-liberal in some things, I disagree with him. But we have to realize something: we buy the poor off FOR CHEAP. It’s the middle class entitlements– and SENSE of entitlement– that’s killing us. Think about it: the net for the really poor is amazingly cheap and widespread– food stamps is a ridiculously efficient program, as is Section 8 housing, and even flat out public housing. Before Clinton ended “welfare as we know it” (see Ricky Ray Rector for the appropriate optics, btw), the AFDC program he killed was barely 1% of the federal budget. He changed JACK in a budgetary sense- but he certainly altered a lot of lives… and while it was peachy in a good economy… well, here we are. Anyway, my point is we can probably keep a social safety net under the poor so cheaply that even Ron Paul would conclude that the resultant social unrest from removing it warrants continuing the buy-off.
Where things to go to fiscal hell, of course, is in MIDDLE CLASS ENTITLEMENTS (and Medicaid, is a MIDDLE CLASS ENTITLEMENT… the beneficiaries are docs, dentists, nurses, hospital administrators, pharmacists, etc… we COULD just have public employees themselves on payroll to deliver health care services for a fraction of the price… but then, it wouldn’t be a MIDDLE CLASS ENTITLEMENT.)
And un-means-tested Social Security and Medicare already dwarf all non-defense spending… and Paul is the only candidate who would rein in defense, AND even TALKING about reining in these entitlements in a non-bullshit way.
And you nailed it in your last paragraph too: we’ve GOT to stop these bastards from starting WWIII (probably looks like Iran)… again, enough real public anger could do wonders… for years, we’ve wondered when people would take to the streets FOR ANYTHING… and now they finally have (albeit for nebulous reasons that we all understand even if not clearly articulated).