Hillary or Barack, Dragon Slayer for the Left? Don’t Count On It.

If you expect either Democratic Presidential candidate to suddenly morph into a hero of the left, once he or she occupies the White House, you are in for a major disappointment. Despite the rhetoric —both Hillary and Barack have bemoaned the outsourcing of jobs via so-called free trade agreements (forget that each supported free trade legislation)— the Democratic Leadership Council still holds sway within the Party, and it continues to use its power to enforce a conservative taint on the Party. It’s a shame, but true— while you will never see the Republican Party going left to gain liberal support, the Democratic Party has done the equivalent: they have abandoned the Democratic Party as the party of the people, in favor of the Democratic Party as a corporate-friendly, companionable enabler of Republican crimes and misdemeanors. Rather than building a plan to educate the American people, or forming liberal think tanks to re-frame the issues to reflect liberal values and world view, or to influence the media, smartly and slowly, as did the Republicans beginning thirty years ago, the Dems decided to cave: “Oh gosh, I’m not winning—guess I’ve gotta drop my values for the sake of being popular and getting along.”

I am not the first person to notice the problem. But some of us continue to be in denial about it and continue to imagine the Party is on our side. Some of us are plainly ga-ga over the candidates, deliriously cheering them on the campaign trail. Fine. I understand. But to those progressive, liberal Democrats who find themselves in love with a candidate, I respectfully ask you to pay attention. For example, the next time the Party comes to you for support, look closely at their literature and the tale it tells, such as the following tale:

Awhile back, I received fund-raising literature from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including a letter from Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the current Chair of the Committee. I had never heard of the Congressman, so I looked up his voting record. Interestingly, he recently voted Yes with the GOP and contrary to the Democratic position on the Peru Trade Agreement, the U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement, the USA Patriot Act Re-authorization, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Based on those votes, I felt it was safe to conclude Van Hollen was a conservative Democrat. And this is the person who was chosen to be Chair of the DCCC! (Bizarrely, conservative Democrats are referred to in the media as “centrist.” I say No. Centrist is Thomas Jefferson and all those who represent government of, by, and for the people, not corporations. That’s our center, our soul.)

So there you are. Now I had information to help me judge the survey. For example, this promising question appeared in Part V: “How aggressively should Democrats investigate potentially illegal and unconstitutional actions by the Bush Administration?” Regardless, nowhere in the entire survey was I given the impeachment option.

Part IV of the survey inquired about priorities for the Democratic Party. Glaringly absent were such choices as restoring the civil liberties lost under the Bush administration—habeas corpus, due process law, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution—the restoration of human rights to detainees and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the banning of kidnapping and torture by the CIA. In fact, none of these things were mentioned in the survey at all.

Also, the Party did not appear to think outside the right-wing, neo-con box, given the above and given the way the survey framed its questions. For example, under part IV, terrorism was framed as a major issue, but military spending was not, nor the budget for the military at the expense of funding for infrastructure; then the question of 9/11 was framed as if I should buy into, or had already bought, the conclusions of the “bipartisan” 9/11 Commission, as opposed to providing an option of an independent and thorough investigation of 9/11, one where all are sworn in and must testify in public and where all testimony is done in public and included in the record, unlike what was done by the Commission—secret testimony by Bush and Cheney, without transcripts, and no public scrutiny.

The question, “Which of the following would strengthen our nation’s economy?” came in Part VII of the survey. There, tax “relief,” a conservative frame, is an option, as opposed to an option that would recognize the reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and expenditures for the Iraq war were, in part, the cause of the massive Bush deficit. Nowhere are we given the option of a tax on the top 3% of the wealthy population and/or an end to the occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of Iraq by multinational contractors and corporations.

Then, in Part XI on health care, the survey failed to give us the option of choosing a single-payer system of health care, making Medicare available to all. Instead, all options assumed the inclusion of the insurance industry, providing only government assistance to buy into industry plans. I don’t know about you, but this tells me the Democratic Party is committed to industry, not to citizens.

This opinion survey was clearly an instrument of propaganda and manipulation, designed more to steer the survey-taker away from thinking and toward the donation than to elicit an opinion. Certainly, it reflected some of my concerns but ignored, underplayed, or mis-framed my most urgent concerns.

The survey did tell one truth about today’s political climate. It corroborated my sense that the Democrats have lost not only their moral compass but have abandoned their promise to protect and defend the Constitution. Otherwise, the survey would not have had to ask what’s to be done about Bush Administration crimes—impeachment hearings would already be underway, habeas corpus and civil liberty would already have been restored. As it is, the Democratic-controlled Congress’ failure to act on these issues has left the Constitutional wrongs in place, and we are supposed to be reassured by the short shrift given them in the survey.

None of these guys, neither Congressman Van Hollen, Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton, are going to rescue us —or the Democratic Party from itself— to say nothing of slaying the neo-con dragon of death and destruction that grips our world today. It is discouraging—however, it is not hopeless. Humbly, I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Perhaps one has to start with one’s own thinking, to start thinking outside the box, and then... insist your representatives do the same. Send them your vision.

My vision includes the following:

• De-funding of unilateral wars of aggression and occupation by the United States
• A trend away from privatization toward community values and responsibility (government of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations)
• A trend away from the power of the military industrial complex (cut budget)
• Public financing of elections
• FCC must require all media outlets to provide free advertising for Presidential candidates. (the air waves belong to the People)
• Paper ballots and the banning of electronic voting machines
• Election fraud and trickery prosecuted
• Single-payer health system
• Protecting people from governmental authoritarianism, i.e., surveillance of American citizens, harassment and oppressive measures which sacrifice our civil liberty and privacy.
• National Public Broadcasting returned to the public and removed of its corporate influences. WE MUST HAVE A NON-CORPORATE MEDIA SOURCE.
• Restoration of regulation as a means of holding corporations to ethical and community norms.
• An end to the notion of corporations as “persons.”
• Restoration of protections for American workers: the right to organize unions must be protected; corporations who outsource jobs should have a severe tax penalty and be required to pay foreign employees the same as their American counterparts.
• End NAFTA AND CAFTA, or, at least enforce Fair Trade Agreements.

Perhaps it is also possible to be the hero you wish to see in the world. For shy people like me, that’s quite a challenge. But maybe it’s time to go there, not like dragon slayers but —mixing metaphors here— like drops of water on stone, being so persistent that finally a hole appears in that stone. (I hope it doesn’t take that long!) All I’m saying is that even if one’s heroism is barely noticed, eventually the job will get done.

Hillary or Barack, Dragon Slayer for the Left? Don’t Count On It.

If you expect either Democratic Presidential candidate to suddenly morph into a hero of the left, once he or she occupies the White House, you are in for a major disappointment. Despite the rhetoric —both Hillary and Barack have bemoaned the outsourcing of jobs via so-called free trade agreements (forget that each supported free trade legislation)— the Democratic Leadership Council still holds sway within the Party, and it continues to use its power to enforce a conservative taint on the Party. It’s a shame, but true— while you will never see the Republican Party going left to gain liberal support, the Democratic Party has done the equivalent: they have abandoned the Democratic Party as the party of the people, in favor of the Democratic Party as a corporate-friendly, companionable enabler of Republican crimes and misdemeanors. Rather than building a plan to educate the American people, or forming liberal think tanks to re-frame the issues to reflect liberal values and world view, or to influence the media, smartly and slowly, as did the Republicans beginning thirty years ago, the Dems decided to cave: “Oh gosh, I’m not winning—guess I’ve gotta drop my values for the sake of being popular and getting along.”

I am not the first person to notice the problem. But some of us continue to be in denial about it and continue to imagine the Party is on our side. Some of us are plainly ga-ga over the candidates, deliriously cheering them on the campaign trail. Fine. I understand. But to those progressive, liberal Democrats who find themselves in love with a candidate, I respectfully ask you to pay attention. For example, the next time the Party comes to you for support, look closely at their literature and the tale it tells, such as the following tale:

Awhile back, I received fundraising literature from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including a letter from Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the current Chair of the Committee. I had never heard of the Congressman, so I looked up his voting record. Interestingly, he recently voted Yes with the GOP and contrary to the Democratic position on the Peru Trade Agreement, the U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement, the USA Patriot Act Re-authorization, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Based on those votes, I felt it was safe to conclude Van Hollen was a conservative Democrat. And this is the person who was chosen to be Chair of the DCCC! (Bizarrely, conservative Democrats are referred to in the media as “centrist.” I say No. Centrist is Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. FDR, and all those who represent government of, by, and for the people, not corporations. That’s our center, our soul.)

So there you are. Now I had information to help me judge the survey. For example, this promising question appeared in Part V: “How aggressively should Democrats investigate potentially illegal and unconstitutional actions by the Bush Administration?” Regardless, nowhere in the entire survey was I given the impeachment option.

Part IV of the survey inquired about priorities for the Democratic Party. Glaringly absent were such choices as restoring the civil liberties lost under the Bush administration—habeas corpus, due process law, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution—the restoration of human rights to detainees and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the banning of kidnapping and torture by the CIA. In fact, none of these things were mentioned in the survey at all.

Also, the Party did not appear to think outside the right-wing, neo-con box, given the above and given the way the survey framed its questions. For example, under part IV, terrorism was framed as a major issue, but military spending was not, nor the budget for the military at the expense of funding for infrastructure; then the question of 9/11 was framed as if I should buy into, or had already bought, the conclusions of the “bipartisan” 9/11 Commission, as opposed to providing an option of an independent and thorough investigation of 9/11, one where all are sworn in and must testify in public and where all testimony is done in public and included in the record, unlike what was done by the Commission—secret testimony by Bush and Cheney, without transcripts, and no public scrutiny.

The question, “Which of the following would strengthen our nation’s economy?” came in Part VII of the survey. There, tax “relief,” a conservative frame, is an option, as opposed to an option that would recognize the reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and expenditures for the Iraq war were, in part, the cause of the massive Bush deficit. Nowhere are we given the option of a tax on the top 3% of the wealthy population and/or an end to the occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of Iraq by multinational contractors and corporations.

Then, in Part XI on healthcare, the survey failed to give us the option of choosing a single-payer system of healthcare, making Medicare available to all. Instead, all options assumed the inclusion of the insurance industry, providing only government assistance to buy into industry plans. I don’t know about you, but this tells me the Democratic Party is committed to industry, not to citizens.

This opinion survey was clearly an instrument of propaganda and manipulation, designed more to steer the survey-taker away from thinking and toward the donation than to elicit an opinion. Certainly, it reflected some of my concerns but ignored, underplayed, or misframed my most urgent concerns.

The survey did tell one truth about today’s political climate. It corroborated my sense that the Democrats have lost not only their moral compass but have abandoned their promise to protect and defend the Constitution. Otherwise, the survey would not have had to ask what’s to be done about Bush Administration crimes—impeachment hearings would already be underway, habeas corpus and civil liberty would already have been restored. As it is, the Democratic-controlled Congress’ failure to act on these issues has left the Constitutional wrongs in place, and we are supposed to be reassured by the short shrift given them in the survey.

None of these guys, neither Congressman Van Hollen, Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton, are going to rescue us —or the Democratic Party from itself— to say nothing of slaying the neo-con dragon of death and destruction that grips our world today. It is discouraging—however, it is not hopeless. Humbly, I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Perhaps one has to start with one’s own thinking, to start thinking outside the box, and then... insist your representatives do the same. Send them your vision.

My vision includes the following:

• De-funding of unilateral wars of aggression and occupation by the United States
• A trend away from privatization toward community values and responsibility (government of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations)
• A trend away from the power of the military industrial complex (cut budget)
• Public financing of elections
• FCC must require all media outlets to provide free advertising for Presidential candidates. (the air waves belong to the People)
• Paper ballots and the banning of electronic voting machines
• Election fraud and trickery prosecuted
• Single-payer health system
• Protecting people from governmental authoritarianism, i.e., surveillance of American citizens, harassment and oppressive measures which sacrifice our civil liberty and privacy.
• National Public Broadcasting returned to the public and removed of its corporate influences. WE MUST HAVE A NON-CORPORATE MEDIA SOURCE.
• Restoration of regulation as a means of holding corporations to ethical and community norms.
• An end to the notion of corporations as “persons.”
• Restoration of protections for American workers: the right to organize unions must be protected; corporations who outsource jobs should have a severe tax penalty and be required to pay foreign employees the same as their American counterparts.
• End NAFTA AND CAFTA, or, at least enforce Fair Trade Agreements.

Perhaps it is also possible to be the hero you wish to see in the world. For shy people like me, that’s quite a challenge. But maybe it’s time to go there, not like dragon slayers but —mixing metaphors here— like drops of water on stone, being so persistent that finally a hole appears in that stone. (I hope it doesn’t take that long!) All I’m saying is that even if one’s heroism is barely noticed, eventually the job will get done.

To Scrutinize

It is grinding unbearable to witness the continuing dishonoring of the rule of law, of the Constitution, of the principle of the separation of powers, and all the other lies and crimes of the Bush Administration, where Bush and Cheney are not held to account. There must be scrutiny, accusation, sanction or punishment —impeachment— otherwise how can we call ourselves a democratic republic?

One person, alone, cannot stop the fascism that has overtaken our nation. However, to act as witness, for truth, is one way one person can do the job those in power have failed to do. To do art, to fix the truth in time is to scrutinize, to accuse, to sanction and to punish; it is to hold another accountable, to impeach.


Scrutinize the two sides of the President’s face...which side is the real George W. Bush?

If James Dobson Had His Way...

Let's-Be-Fair Capitalism

When my mother, a new-deal Democrat turned living-on-Social-Security conservative in her old age, was still alive, I understood my visits to her to be an interruption in her addiction to Rush Limbaugh. My mother’s world-view had shifted far from the one she had back when she enlightened me in the 1950’s about the errors of the McCarthy hearings, loyalty oaths and the like. Sadly, so deeply had her world-view changed, she had become someone who rejected much of my own life —my life style, spirit and politics— simply because I represented the liberal she heard vilified on a daily, even hourly, basis. Ultimately, I found it difficult to be around her.

If my mother were alive today, I’m sure her days would be informed by the steady influence of Fox News as well, her companionable gift from the Republican Party in alliance with Rupurt Murdock, the FCC and the corporate heads that control the media. Access to her chosen version of “free speech” would be easy, whether she would be sitting at home or driving in her car.

Now, being a liberal, I am the last person to begrudge another person the right to whatever entertainment they wish to choose, however full of lies, bigotry, misinformation, and anti-democratic ideology it may be. The choices made by people like my mother matter little to me, as long as I am also free in my own choices. This would be the democratic way. But here’s the rub: in this nation, liberals do not have the same freedom as conservatives to choose media programming that reflects their political orientation. Liberal voices do not have the same freedom to be heard, to speech —not even close— compared to the generous opportunities granted to conservatives. For example, I do not have a major news network on television acting as a daily conduit of Democratic-Party talking points, issues and concerns, nor can I turn to a liberal station in my car while driving.

As for NPR, despite right-wing screaming points to the contrary, it is in no way “liberal media.” The most I can hope for there is a balance between the extreme on the right and a position moderately left of center. Rarely, do you hear anything on NPR from any group as far to the left as the American Enterprise Institute is far to the right.

I know of only one voice in the corporate media that speaks for me—Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. But that is only one among the dozens of conservative, mainstream news anchors and talking heads.

My city, San Diego, did have a wide-range of liberal talk on Air America Radio for a couple of years at 1360 AM, though with a weak signal. But now Clear Channel has killed this lonesome, solitary voice of the left and replaced it with sports programming and a stronger signal. So there goes my neighborhood.

San Diego is effectively behind a Berlin Wall of political speech. Liberal speech has been censored. That I am “free” to go online to download whatever radio programs I wish to is no consolation; since I cannot afford a high speed connection, it takes an hour and a half for my downloads, and I have to stay in one room to listen. Is this “equal protection under the law,” or even simple equality? Is it freedom, and whose freedom is it?

Consider this: the other side of the coin of conspiracy is naiveté.

A reporter I spoke to said I should complain to the FCC. Hello? The Republican-packed FCC, headed by Republican ideologue Kevin Martin, the very Kevin Martin who has just passed a ruling allowing FURTHER consolidation of the media, so that the media will be even more corporate-dominated, with news even more corporate-influenced and owned than it is right now?

Trust me. If the powers-that-be (conservatives) wanted a radio program to survive, it would. They would make sure it had a good signal; they would hire a top-notch sales force and get the job done. They would fund it. Don't be naive. Think about it. Think about Clear Channel and what it is. Think about San Diego and who owns it.

Barack Obama talks about change. The nice thing about this abstraction is that the listener can project her personal hopes and dreams onto it and come away feeling satisfied. And I am no different.

My hope would be to see in our near future an enlightened rejection of “laissez faire” capitalism —the fundamental ill of our society and world—in favor of an economic system that recognizes greed and power-lust as counter-productive, as a threat to freedom for all, as even a threat to capitalism itself. I would like to call it, “Let’s-Be-Fair” capitalism. And this healthy, democratic version of our economy would, at its core, re-institute and enforce regulation of corporations, while working to reverse the current priorities —profits before people— so that, instead, people would have priority over profits. And by “people” I do not mean corporations. In Let’s-Be-Fair capitalism, corporations would not be given equal rights as “persons;” only human persons could be described as legal persons. It simply would not be fair to pit the interests of whole uber-corporations against individual, human persons. It is not fair now; it would not be fair then.

In my dream for our future, Clear Channel would not be allowed to dominate the publicly-owned air waves; that company would be broken up to make way for a more democratic balance of ownership. In my dream for our future, the Fairness Doctrine would return, perhaps with different rules, where somehow a balance of liberal and conservative talk-radio stations would be made possible.

Right now, corporations have all the freedom—corporations and conservatives. This cannot go on forever.

But hoping and dreaming are not going to do the trick.

Among the reasons Fox “News” is able to thrive, despite its egregious excesses of speech, would be that liberals and progressives tend to be a tolerant bunch—we value toleration of others’ rights. That is the reason we, unlike our counterparts in the conservative camp, are not inclined to call advertisers to complain, nor demand the disappearance of such voices, nor encourage Congressional censure of the hate speech emanating from Fox and the likes of Limbaugh. Instead, we simply move on.

This tolerance is changing. We have had enough.

As St. Augustine said: Hope has two daughters, Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to make them better.

—L.R.M.