I was honored when you asked me to join in
celebrating
Howard Zinn's life and legacy.
I was also surprised. I am a
journalist, not a historian.
The difference between a journalist and an
historian is that the historian knows the difference. George Bernard
Shaw once complained that journalists are seemingly unable to
discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of
civilization. In fact, some epic history can start out as a minor
incident. A young man named Paris ran off with a beautiful woman who was
married to someone else, and the civilization of Troy began to unwind.
A
middle-aged black seamstress, riding in a Montgomery bus, had tired
feet, and an ugly social order began to collapse. A night guard at an
office complex in Washington D.C. found masking tape on a doorjamb, and
the presidency of Richard Nixon began to unwind.
What journalist,
writing on deadline, could have imagined the walloping kick that Rosa
Park's tired feet would give to Jim Crow? What pundit could have
fantasized that a third-rate burglary on a dark night could change the
course of politics?
The historian's work is to help us disentangle the
wreck of the Schwinn from cataclysm. Howard famously helped us see how
big change can start with small acts.
We honor his memory. We honor him, for Howard championed grassroots
social change and famously chronicled its story as played out over the
course of our nation's history. More, those stirring sagas have inspired
and continue to inspire countless people to go out and make a
difference. The last time we met, I told him that the stories in A
People's History of the United States remind me of the fellow who turned
the corner just as a big fight broke out down the block.
Rushing up to
an onlooker he shouted, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone get in
it?" For Howard, democracy was one big public fight and everyone should
plunge into it. That's the only way, he said, for everyday folks to get
justice - by fighting for it.
I have in my desk at home a copy of the commencement address Howard gave
at Spelman College in 2005.
He was chairman of the history department
there when he was fired in 1963 over his involvement in civil rights. He
had not been back for 43 years, and he seemed delighted to return for
commencement. He spoke poignantly of his friendship with one of his
former students, Alice Walker, the daughter of tenant farmers in Georgia
who made her way to Spelman and went on to become the famous writer.
Howard delighted in quoting one of her first
published poems that had touched his own life:
It is true
I've always loved
the daring ones
like the black young man
who tried crash
all barriers
at once,
wanted to swim
at a white/beach (in Alabama)
Nude.
That was Howard Zinn; he loved the daring ones, and was daring himself.
One month before his death he finished his last book, The Bomb. Once
again he was wrestling with his experience as a B-17 bombardier during
World War II, especially his last mission in 1945 on a raid to take out
German garrisons in the French town of Royan. For the first time the
Eighth Air Force used napalm, which burst into liquid fire on the
ground, killing hundreds of civilians.
He wrote,
"I remember distinctly
seeing the bombs explode in the town, flaring like matches struck in the
fog. I was completely unaware of the human chaos below."
Twenty years
later he returned to Royan to study the effects of the raid and
concluded there had been no military necessity for the bombing; everyone
knew the war was almost over (it ended three weeks later) and this
attack did nothing to affect the outcome.
His grief over having been a
cog in a deadly machine no doubt confirmed his belief in small acts of
rebellion, which mean, as Howard writes in the final words of the book,
"acting on what we feel and think, here, now, for human flesh and sense,
against the abstractions of duty and obedience."
His friend and long-time colleague writes in the foreword that,
"Shifting
historical focus from the wealthy and powerful to the ordinary person
was perhaps his greatest act of rebellion and incitement."
It seems he never forget the experience of
growing up in a working class neighborhood in New York. In that spirit,
let's begin with some everyday people.
When she heard the news, Connie Brasel cried like a baby.
For years she had worked at minimum-wage jobs, until 17 years ago, when
she was hired by the Whirlpool refrigerator factory in Evansville,
Indiana. She was making $ 18.44 an hour when Whirlpool announced earlier
this year that it was closing the operation and moving it to Mexico. She
wept.
I'm sure many of the other eleven hundred workers who lost their
jobs wept too; they had seen their ticket to the middle class snatched
from their hands. The company defended its decision by claiming high
costs, underused capacity, and the need to stay competitive.
Those
excuses didn't console Connie Brasel.
"I was becoming part of something
bigger than me," she told Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times.
"Whirlpool was the best thing that ever happened to me."
She was not only sad, she was mad.
"They didn't get world-class quality
because they had the best managers. They got world-class quality because
of the United States and because of their workers."
Among those workers were Natalie Ford, her husband and her son; all
three lost their jobs.
"It's devastating," she told the Times. Her
father had worked at Whirlpool before them. Now, "There aren't any jobs
here. How is this community going to survive?"
And what about the country?
Between 2001 and 2008, about 40,000 US
manufacturing plants closed. Six million factory jobs have disappeared
over the past dozen years, representing one in three manufacturing jobs.
Natalie Ford said to the Times what many of us are wondering:
"I don't
know how without any good-paying jobs here in the United States people
are going to pay for their health care, put their children through
school."
Now, if Connie Brasel and Natalie Ford lived in South Carolina, they
might have been lucky enough to get a job with the new BMW plant that
recently opened there and advertised that the company would hire one
thousand workers.
Among the applicants?
According to the Washington
Post,
"a former manager of a major distribution center for Target; a
consultant who oversaw construction projects in four western states; a
supervisor at a plastics recycling firm. Some held college degrees and
resumes in other fields where they made more money."
They will be paid
$15 an hour - about half of what BMW workers earn in Germany
In polite circles, among our political and financial classes, this is
known as "the free market at work." No, it's "wage repression," and it's
been happening in our country since around 1980.
I must invoke some
statistics here, knowing that statistics can glaze the eyes; but if
indeed it's the mark of a truly educated person to be deeply moved by
statistics, as I once read, surely this truly educated audience will be
moved by the recent analysis of tax data by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
They found that from 1950 through 1980, the
share of all income in America going to everyone but the rich increased
from 64 percent to 65 percent. Because the nation's economy was growing
handsomely, the average income for 9 out of l0 Americans was growing,
too - from $17,719 to $30,941. That's a 75 percent increase in income in
constant 2008 dollars.
But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow
handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefited. The line
flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that
$30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income
of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years.
That's wage repression.
Another story in the Times caught my eye a few weeks the one about
Connie Brasel and Natalie Ford. The headline read: "Industries Find
Surging Profits in Deeper Cuts." Nelson Schwartz reported that despite
falling motorcycle sales, Harley-Davidson profits are soaring - with a
second quarter profit of $71 million, more than triple what it earned
the previous year.
Yet Harley-Davidson has announced plans to cut
fourteen hundred to sixteen hundred more jobs by the end of next year;
this on top of the 2000 job cut last year.
The story note:
"This seeming contradiction - falling sales and rising
profits - is one reason the mood on Wall Street is so much more buoyant
than in households, where pessimism runs deep and unemployment shows few
signs of easing."
There you see the two Americas. A buoyant Wall Street; a doleful Main
Street. The Connie Brasels and Natalie Fords - left to sink or swim on
their own. There were no bailouts for them.
Meanwhile, Matt Krantz reports in USA TODAY that,
"Cash is gushing into
company's coffers as they report what's shaping up to be a
third-consecutive quarter of sharp earning increases. But instead of
spending on the typical things, such as expanding and hiring people,
companies are mostly pocketing the money or stuffing it under their
mattresses."
And what are their plans for this money?
Again, the
Washington Post:
… Sitting on these unprecedented levels of cash, U.S. companies are
buying back their own stock in droves. So far this year, firms have
announced they will purchase $273 billion of their own shares, more than
five times as much compared with this time last year… But the rise in
buybacks signals that many companies are still hesitant to spend their
cash on the job-generating activities that could produce economic
growth.
That's how financial capitalism works today: Conserving cash rather than
bolstering hiring and production; investing in their own shares to prop
up their share prices and make their stock more attractive to Wall
Street. To hell with everyone else.
Hear the chief economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Ethan Harris,
who told the Times:
"There's no question that there is an income shift
going on in the economy. Companies are squeezing their labor costs to
build profits."
Or the chief economist for Credit Suisse in New York, Neal Soss.
As
companies have wrung more savings out of their work forces, causing
wages and salaries barely to budge from recession lows,
"profits have
staged a vigorous recovery, jumping 40 percent between late 2008 and the
first quarter of 2010."
Just this morning the New York Times reports that the private equity
business is roaring back:
"While it remains difficult to get a mortgage
to buy a home or to get a loan to fund a small business, yield-starved
investors are creating a robust market for corporate bonds and loans."
If this were a functioning democracy, our financial institutions would
be helping everyday Americans and businesses get the mortgages and loans
- the capital - they need to keep going; they're not, even as the
financiers are reaping robust awards.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But he's run off with all the
toys.
Late in August I clipped another story from the Wall Street Journal.
Above an op-ed piece by Robert Frank the headline asked:
"Do the Rich
Need the Rest of America?"
The author didn't seem ambivalent about the
answer.
He wrote that as stocks have boomed,
"the wealthy bounced back.
And while the Main Street economy" [where the Connie Brasels and Natalie
Fords and most Americans live] "was wracked by high unemployment and the
real-estate crash, the wealthy - whose financial fates were more tied to
capital markets than jobs and houses - picked themselves up, brushed
themselves off, and started buying luxury goods again."
Citing the work of Michael Lind, at the Economic Growth Program of the
New American Foundation, the article went on to describe how the
super-rich earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas
consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do
with the rest of America,
"while relying entirely or almost entirely on
immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country."
Right at that point I remembered another story that I had filed away
three years ago, also from the Wall Street Journal.
The reporter Ianthe
Jeanne Dugan described how the private equity firm Blackstone Group
swooped down on a travel reservation company in Colorado, bought it,
laid off 841 employees, and recouped its entire investment in just seven
months, one of the quickest returns on capital ever for such a deal.
Blackstone made a killing while those workers were left to sift through
the debris.
They sold their homes, took part-time jobs making sandwiches
and coffee, and lost their health insurance.
That fall, Blackstone's chief executive, Stephen Schwarzman, reportedly
worth over $5 billion, rented a luxurious resort in Jamaica to celebrate
the marriage of his son. According to the Guardian News, the Montego Bay
facility alone cost $50,000, plus thousands more to sleep 130 guests.
There were drinks on the beach, dancers and a steel band, marshmallows
around the fire, and then, the following day, an opulent wedding banquet
with champagne and a jazz band and fireworks display that alone cost
$12,500.
Earlier in the year Schwarzman had rented out the Park Avenue
Armory in New York (near his 35-room apartment) to celebrate his 60th
birthday at a cost of $3 million. So? It's his money, isn't it? Yes, but
consider this: The stratospheric income of private-equity partners is
taxed at only 15 percent - less than the rate paid, say, by a middle
class family.
When Congress considered raising the rate on their
Midas-like compensation, the financial titans flooded Washington with
armed mercenaries - armed, that is, with hard, cold cash - and brought
the "debate" to an end faster than it had taken Schwartzman to fire 841
workers. The financial class had won another round in the exploitation
of working people who, if they are lucky enough to have jobs, are paying
a higher tax rate than the super-rich.
So the answer to the question: "Do the Rich Need the Rest of America?"
is as stark as it is ominous: Many don't.
As they form their own
financial culture increasingly separated from the fate of everyone else,
it is hardly surprising, Frank and Lind concluded,
"that so many of
them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure
and the social programs that help the majority of the American people."
You would think the rich might care, if not from empathy, then from
reading history.
Ultimately gross inequality can be fatal to
civilization. In his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed, the Pulitzer Prize-winning anthropologist Jared Diamond writes
about how governing elites throughout history isolate and delude
themselves until it is too late. He reminds us that the change people
inflict on their environment is one of the main factors in the decline
of earlier societies.
For example: the Mayan natives on the Yucatan
peninsula who suffered as their forest disappeared, their soil eroded,
and their water supply deteriorated. Chronic warfare further exhausted
dwindling resources. Although Mayan kings could see their forests
vanishing and their hills eroding, they were able to insulate themselves
from the rest of society.
By extracting wealth from commoners, they
could remain well-fed while everyone else was slowly starving. Realizing
too late that they could not reverse their deteriorating environment,
they became casualties of their own privilege. Any society contains a
built-in blueprint for failure, Diamond warns, if elites insulate
themselves from the consequences of their decisions, separated from the
common life of the country.
Yet the isolation continues - and is celebrated. When Howard came down
to New York last December for what would be my last interview with him,
I showed him this document published in the spring of 2005 by the Wall
Street giant Citigroup, setting forth an "Equity Strategy" under the
title (I'm not making this up) "Revisiting
Plutonomy - The Rich Getting Richer."
Now, most people know what plutocracy is: the rule of the rich,
political power controlled by the wealthy. Plutocracy is not an American
word and wasn't meant to become an American phenomenon - some of our
founders deplored what they called "the veneration of wealth."
But
plutocracy is here, and a pumped up Citigroup even boasted of coining a
variation on the word "plutonomy", which describes an economic system
where the privileged few make sure the rich get richer and that
government helps them do it.
Five years ago Citigroup decided the time
had come to "bang the drum on plutonomy."
And bang they did.
Here are some excerpts from the document "Revisiting Plutonomy":
"Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by
market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper… [and] take
an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years."
"…the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the United States - the
plutonomists in our parlance - have benefited disproportionately from
the recent productivity surged in the US… [and] from globalization and
the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor."
"…[and they] are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years.
Because the dynamics of plutonomy are still intact."
I'll repeat that:
"The dynamics of plutonomy are still intact."
That was
the case before the Great Collapse of 2008, and it's the case today, two
years after the catastrophe. But the plutonomists are doing just fine.
Even better in some cases, thanks to our bailout of the big banks.
As for the rest of the country, listen to this summary in The Economist
- no Marxist journal - of a study by Pew Research:
More than half of all workers today have experienced a spell of
unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go
part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six
months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the
wealth of the average household.
Nearly six in ten Americans have
canceled or cut back on holidays. About a fifth say their mortgages are
underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in
with their parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children
to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter
say it will be lower.
For many Americans the great recession has been
the sharpest trauma since The Second World War, wiping out jobs, wealth
and hope itself.
Let that sink in:
For millions of garden-variety Americans, the audacity
of hope has been replaced by a paucity of hope.
Time for a confession.
The legendary correspondent Edward R. Murrow told
his generation of journalists that bias is okay as long as you don't try
to hide it.
Here is mine:
Plutocracy and democracy don't mix. Plutocracy
too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the
highest bidder.
Socrates said to understand a thing, you must first name it. The name
for what's happening to our political system is corruption - a deep,
systemic corruption. I urge you to seek out the recent edition of
Harper's Magazine.
The former editor Roger D. Hodge brilliantly dissects
how democracy has gone on sale in America. Ideally, he writes, our
ballots purport to be expressions of political will, which we hope and
pray will be translated into legislative and executive action by our
pretended representatives. But voting is the beginning of civil virtue,
not its end, and the focus of real power is elsewhere.
Voters still
"matter" of course, but only as raw material to be shaped by the actual
form of political influence - money.
The article is excerpted from Hodge's new book, The Mendacity of Hope.
In it he describes how America's founding generation especially feared
the kind of corruption that occurs when the private ends of a narrow
faction succeed in capturing the engines of government. James Madison
and many of his contemporaries knew this kind of corruption could
consume the republic.
Looking at history a tragic lens, they thought the
life cycle of republics - their degeneration into anarchy, monarchy, or
oligarchy - was inescapable. And they attempted to erect safeguards
against it, hoping to prevent private and narrow personal interests from
overriding those of the general public.
They failed. Hardly a century passed after the ringing propositions of
1776 than America was engulfed in the gross materialism and political
corruption of the First Gilded Age, when Big Money bought the government
right out from under the voters.
In their magisterial work on The Growth
of the American Republic, the historians Morrison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg describe how in that era,
"privilege controlled politics,"
and "the purchase of votes, the corruption of election officials, the
bribing of legislatures, the lobbying of special bills, and the flagrant
disregard of laws" threatened the very foundations of the country.
I doubt you'll be surprised to learn that this "degenerate and unlovely
age" - as one historian described it - served to inspire Karl Rove, the
man said to be 'George W. Bush's brain' and now a mover and shaker of the
money tree for the corporate-conservative complex (more on that, later.)
The extraordinary coupling of private and political power toward the
close of the 19th century - the First Gilded Age - captured Rove's
interest, especially the role of Mark Hanna, the Ohio operative who
became the first modern political fund-raiser.
David von Drehle wrote
("Washington Post, July 24, 1999) that,
"as a tenacious student of
political history, Rove had dug so deeply into the McKinley era that he
had become "the swami of McKinley mania."
Rove denied it to the writer
Ron Susskind, who then went on to talk to old colleagues of Rove dating
back 25 years, one of whom said:
"Some kids want to grow up to be
president, Karl wanted to grow up to be Mark Hanna. We'd talk about it
all the time. We'd say, 'Jesus, Karl, what kind of kid wants to grow up
to be Mark Hanna?"
"There are two things that are important in politics," Hanna said. "The
first is money and I can't remember what the second one is."
He had
become rich as a business man in Ohio,
"the characteristic American
capitalist of the Gilded Age" (Columbia Encyclopedia).
He was famously
depicted by one cartoonist as "Dollar Mark," the prototype of
plutocracy.
Hanna tapped the banks, the insurance companies, the
railroads and the other industrial trusts of the late 1800s for all the
money it took to make William McKinley governor of Ohio and then
President of the United States. McKinley was the perfect conduit for
Hanna's connivance and their largesse - one of those politicians with a
talent for emitting banalities as though they were recently discovered
truth.
Hanna raised,
"an unprecedented amount of money [the biggest check
came from the oil baron John Rockefeller) and ran a sophisticated,
hardball campaign that got McKinley to the White House, "where he
governed negligently in the interests of big business," wrote Jacob
Weisberg in "Slate".
(November 2, 2005)
His opponent in the l896 election
was the Democrat-Populist candidate, William Jennings Bryan, whose base
consisted of aroused populists - the remnant of the People's Party - who
were outraged at the rapacity and shenanigans of the monopolies, trusts,
and corporations that were running roughshod over ordinary Americans.
Because Bryan threatened those big economic interests he was able to
raise only one-tenth the money that Mark Hanna raised for McKinley, and
he lost: Money in politics is an old story.
Karl Rove would have learned from his study of Hanna the principles of
plutonomy.
For Hanna believed,
"the state of Ohio existed for property.
It had no other function…Great wealth was to be gained through monopoly,
through using the State for private ends; it was axiomatic therefore
that businessmen should run the government and run it for personal
profit."
He and McKinley therefore saw to it that first Ohio and then Washington
were,
"ruled by business…by bankers, railroads, and public utility
corporations." The United States Senate was infamous as "a millionaire's
club."
City halls, state houses and even courtrooms were bought and sold
like baubles.
Instead of enforcing the rules of fair play, government
served as valet to the plutocrats. The young journalist Henry George had
written that "an immense wedge" was being forced through American
society by "the maldistribution of wealth, status, and opportunity."
Now
inequality exploded into what the historian Clinton Rossiter described
as,
"the great train robbery of American intellectual history."
Conservatives of the day - pro-corporate apologists - hijacked the
vocabulary of Jeffersonian liberalism and turned words like "progress,"
"opportunity," and "individualism" into tools for making the plunder of
America sound like divine right.
Laissez faire ideologues and neo-cons
of the day - lovers of empire even then - hijacked
Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution and so distorted it that politicians, judges, and
publicists gleefully embraced the notion that progress emerges from the
elimination of the weak and the "survival of the fittest."
As one of the
plutocrats crowed:
"We are rich. We own America. We got it, God knows
how, but we intend to keep it."
And they have never given up. The Gilded Age returned with a vengeance
in our time.
It slipped in quietly at first, back in the early 1980s,
when Ronald Reagan began a,
"massive decades-long transfer of national
wealth to the rich."
As Roger Hodge makes clear, under Bill Clinton the
transfer was even more dramatic, as the top 10 percent captured an
ever-growing share of national income.
The trend continued under George
W. Bush - those huge tax cuts for the rich, remember, which are now
about to be extended because both parties have been bought off by the
wealthy - and by 2007 the wealthiest 10% of Americans were taking in
50?% of the national income.
Today, a fraction of people at the top
today earn more than the bottom 120 million Americans.
You will hear it said,
"Come on, this is the way the world works."
No,
it's the way the world is made to work.
This vast inequality is not the
result of Adam Smith's invisible hand; it did not just happen; it was no
accident. As Hodge drives home, it is the result of a long series of
policy decisions,
"about industry and trade, taxation and military
spending, by flesh-and-blood humans sitting in concrete-and-steel
buildings."
And those policy decisions were paid for by the less than
one percent who participate in our capitalist democracy political
contributions.
Over the past 30 years, with the complicity of
Republicans and Democrats alike, the plutocrats, or plutonomists (choose
your own poison) have used their vastly increased wealth to assure that
government does their bidding. Remember that grateful Citigroup
reference to "market-friendly governments" on the side of plutonomy?
We
had a story down in Texas for that sort of thing; the dealer in a poker
game says to the dealer,
"Now play the cards fairly, Reuben; I know what
I dealt you."
(To see just how our system was rigged by the financial,
political, and university elites, run, don't walk, to the theater
nearest you showing Charles Ferguson's new film, "Inside Job." Take a
handkerchief because you'll weep for the republic.)
Looking back, it all seems so clear that we wonder how we could have
ignored the warning signs at the time.
One of the few journalists who
did see it coming - Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post - reported that,
"business refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive
instincts in favor of joint, cooperative action in the legislative
arena."
Big business political action committees flooded the political
arena with a deluge of dollars.
They funded think tanks that churned out
study after study with results skewed to their ideology and interests.
And their political allies in the conservative movement cleverly built
alliances with the religious right - Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and
Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition - who zealously waged a cultural
holy war that camouflaged the economic assault on working people and the
middle class.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan also tried to warn us.
He said President
Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic
social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions.
Senator Moynihan was gone before the financial catastrophe on George W.
Bush's watch that paradoxically could yet fulfill Reagan's dream. The
plutocrats who soaked up all the money now say the deficits require
putting Social Security and other public services on the chopping block.
You might think that Mr. Bush today would regret having invaded Iraq on
false pretenses at a cost of more than a trillion dollars and counting,
but no, just last week he said that his biggest regret was his failure
to privatize Social Security. With over 100 Republicans of the House
having signed a pledge to do just that when the new Congress convenes,
Mr. Bush's vision may yet be realized.
Daniel Altman also saw what was coming. In his book
Neoconomy he
described a place without taxes or a social safety net, where rich and
poor live in different financial worlds.
"It's coming to America," he
wrote.
Most likely he would not have been surprised recently when
firefighters in rural Tennessee would let a home burn to the ground
because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.
That's what is coming to America.
Here we are now, on the verge of the biggest commercial transaction in
the history of American elections.
Once again the plutocracy is buying
off the system. Nearly $4 billion is being spent on the congressional
races that will be decided next week, including multi millions coming
from independent tax-exempt organizations that can collect unlimited
amounts without revealing the sources.
The organization Public Citizen
reports that just 10 groups are responsible for the bulk of the spending
by independent groups:
"A tiny number of organizations, relying on a
tiny number of corporate and fat cat contributors, are spending most of
the money on the vicious attack ads dominating the airwaves" - those are
the words of Public Citizen's president, Robert Weissman.
The Federal
Election Commission says that two years ago 97% of groups paying for
election ads disclosed the names of their donors. This year it's only
32%.
Socrates again:
To remember a thing, you must first name it.
We're
talking about slush funds.
Donors are laundering their cash through
front groups with high-falutin' names like American Crossroads. That's
one of the two slush funds controlled by Karl Rove in his ambition to
revive the era of the robber barons. Promise me you won't laugh when I
tell you that although Rove and the powerful Washington lobbyist who is
his accomplice described the first organization as "grassroots", 97% of
its initial contributions came from four billionaires. Yes: The grass
grows mighty high when the roots are fertilized with gold.
Rove, other conservative groups and the Chamber of Commerce have in fact
created a "shadow party" determined to be the real power in Washington
just like Rome's Opus Dei in Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code." In this
shadow party the plutocrats reign.
We have reached what the new chairman
of Common Cause and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls,
"the
perfect storm that threatens American democracy: an unprecedented
concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret
money, flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry
and cynical about a government that's raising its taxes, reducing its
services, and unable to get it back to work. We're losing our democracy
to a different system. It's called plutocracy."
That word again.
But Reich is right. That fraction of one percent of
Americans who now earn as much as the bottom 120 million Americans
includes the top executives of giant corporations and those Wall Street
hedge funds and private equity managers who constitute Citigroup's "plutonomy"
are buying our democracy and they're doing it in secret.
That's because early this year the five reactionary members of the
Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" with the right to
speak during elections by funding ads like those now flooding the
airwaves. It was the work of legal fabulists. Corporations are not
people; they are legal fictions, creatures of the state, born not of the
womb, not of flesh and blood.
They're not permitted to vote. They don't
bear arms (except for the nuclear bombs they can now drop on a
congressional race without anyone knowing where it came from.) Yet
thanks to five activist conservative judges they have the privilege of
"personhood" to "speak" - and not in their own voice, mind you, but as
ventriloquists, through hired puppets.
Does anyone really think that's what the authors of the First Amendment
had in mind?
Horrified by such a profound perversion, the editor of the
spunky Texas Observer, Bob Moser, got it right with his headline:
"So
long, Democracy, it's been good to know you."
You'll recall that soon after the Court's decision President Obama
raised the matter during his State of the Union speech in January.
He
said the decision would unleash a torrent of corrupting corporate money
into our political system. Sitting a few feet in front of the president,
Associate Justice Samuel Alito defiantly mouthed the words:
"Not true."
Not true? Terry Forcht knew otherwise.
He's the wealthy nursing home
executive in Kentucky one of whose establishments is being prosecuted by
Attorney General Jack Conway for allegedly covering up sexual abuse.
Conway is running for the Senate. Forcht has spent more than $l million
to defeat him. Would you believe that Forcht is the banker for one of
Karl Rove's two slush funds, American Crossroads, which has spent nearly
$30 million to defeat Democrats.
What's that, Justice Alito? Not true?
Ask Alan Grayson. He's a member of Congress.
Here's what he says:
"We're
now in a situation where a lobbyist can walk into my office…and say, "I've got five million dollars to spend and I can spend it for you or
against it."
Rove's slush funds, American Crossroads It was a Alito was
either disingenuous, naive, or deluded. He can't be in this world
without knowing he and his four fellow corporatists were giving big
donors the one thing they most want in their campaign against working
people: an unfair advantage.
Alan Grayson, for one, got it. He's a member of Congress and knows how
the world is made to work.
He recently said:
"We're now in a situation
where a lobbyist can walk into my office…and say, "I've got five million
dollars to spend and I can spend it for you or against you. Which do you
prefer?"
My friend and colleague, the writer Michael Winship, told a story this
week that illuminates the Court's coup de grace against democracy.
It
seems the incorrigible George Bernard Shaw once propositioned a fellow
dinner guest, asking if she would go to bed with him for a million
pounds (today around $1,580,178 US dollars). She agreed.
Shaw then asked
if she would do the same for ten shillings.
"What do you take me for?"
she asked angrily. "A prostitute?"
Shaw responded:
"We've established
the principle, Madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."
With this one decision, the Supreme Court established once and for all
that Shaw's is the only principle left in politics, as long as the price
is right.
Come now and let's visit Washington's red light district, headquarters
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the front group for the plutocracy's
prostitution of politics. The Chamber boasts it represents more than
three million businesses and approximately 300,000 members. But in
reality it has almost nothing to do with the shops and stores along your
local streets.
The Chamber's branding, as the economics journalist Zach
Carter recently wrote,
"allows them to disguise their political agenda
as a coalition of local businesses while it does dirty work for
corporate titans."
Carter reported that when the Supreme Court came down
with its infamous ruling earlier this year, the Chamber responded by
announcing a 40% boost in its political spending operations. After the
money started flowing in, the Chamber boosted its budget again by 50%.
After digging into corporate foundation tax filings and other public
records, the New York Times found that the Chamber of Commerce has,
"increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate
donors" - the plutocracy's senior ranks - "to finance much of its
legislative and political agenda."
Furthermore,
the chamber "makes no
apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors."
Indeed,
"It has
vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups
like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on
campaign ads."
Now let's connect some dots.
While knocking down nearly all limits on
corporate spending in campaigns, the Supreme Court did allow for
disclosure, which would at least tell us who's buying off the
government. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell even claimed that
"sunshine" laws would make everything okay. But after the House of
Representatives passed a bill that would require that the names of all
such donors be publicly disclosed, McConnell lined up every Republican
in the Senate to oppose it.
Hardly had the public begun to sing "Let the
Sunshine In" than McConnell & Company went tone deaf.
And when the chief
lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce was asked by an interviewer,
"Are
you guys eventually going to disclose?" the answer was a brisk: "No."
Why? Because those corporations are afraid of a public backlash. Like
bank robbers pulling a heist, they prefer to hide their "personhood"
behind sock masks.
Surely that tells us something about the nature of
what they're doing. In the words of one of the characters in Tom Stoppard's play Night and Day:
"People do terrible things to each other,
but it's worse in places where everything is kept in the dark."
That's true in politics, too.
Thus it turns out that many of the ads
being paid for secretly by anonymous donors are "false, grossly
misleading, or marred with distortions," as Greg Sargent reports in his
website "The Plum Line."
Go to Sargent's site and you'll see a partial
list of ads that illustrate the scope of the intellectual and political
fraud being perpetrated in front of our eyes. Money from secret sources
is poisoning the public mind with toxic information in order to dupe
voters into giving even more power to the powerful.
On another site - "thinkprogress.com" - you can find out how the
multibillionaire
Koch brothers
- also big oil polluters and Tea Party
supporters - are recruiting "captains of industry" to fund the
right-wing infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think
tanks and media outlets.
Now, hold on to your seats, because this can
blow away the faint-hearted: Among the right-wing luminaries who showed
up among Koch's 'secretive network of Republican donors' are two Supreme
Court Justices: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
That's right: 2 of
the 5 votes to enable the final corporate takeover of government came
from justices who were present as members of the plutocracy hatched
their schemes for doing so.
Something else is going on here, too.
The Koch brothers have contributed
significantly to efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act - the health
care reforms - from taking effect. Justice Clarence Thomas has obviously
been doing some home schooling, because his wife Virginia claims those
reforms are "unconstitutional," and has founded an organization that is
fighting to repeal them.
Her own husband on the Supreme Court may one
day be ruling on whether she's right or not ("Play the cards fair,
Reuben; I know what I dealt you.")
There's more: The organization
Virginia Thomas founded to kill those health care reforms - also a goal
of the Koch brothers, remember - got its start with a gift of half a
million dollars from an unnamed source, and is still being funded by
donors who can't be traced.
You have to wonder if some of them are
corporations that stand to benefit from favorable decisions by the
Supreme Court. Now guess the name of the one Supreme Court justice who
voted against the disclosure provision. I'm not telling, but Mrs. Thomas
can tell you - if, that is, she's willing to share the pillow talk.
This truly puzzles me. It's what I can't figure out about the
conservative mindset. The Kochs I can understand: messianic Daddy
Warbucks who can't imagine what life is like for people who aren't worth
21 billion dollars. But whatever happened to "compassionate
conservatism?"
The
Affordable Care Act - whatever its flaws - extends
health care coverage to 40 million deprived Americans who would
otherwise be uncovered. What is it about these people - the Thomases,
the secret donors, the privileged plutocrats on their side - that they
can't embrace a little social justice where it counts - among everyday
people struggling to get by in a dog-eat-dog world?
Health care coverage
could mean the difference between life and death for them. Mrs. Thomas
is obviously doing okay; she no doubts takes at least a modest salary
from that private slush fund working to undermine the health care
reforms; her own husband is a government employee covered by a federal
plan.
Why wouldn't she want people less fortunate than her to have a
little security, too?
She headquarters her organization at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, a reportedly Christian school aligned with
the Moral Majority.
-
How is it she's only about "Live and Let Live?"
-
Have
they never heard there the Old Time Religion of "Live and help live?"
-
Why would this cushioned, comfortable crowd, pious crowd resort to such
despicable tactics as using secret money to try to turn public policy
against their less fortunate neighbors, and in the process compromise
the already tattered integrity of the United States Supreme Court?
I don't get it.
You be the judge (Because if you don't, Justice Thomas will.) Time to
close the circle: Everyone knows millions of Americans are in trouble.
As Robert Reich recently summed it the state of working people: They've
lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings. Their grown children
have moved back in with them. Their state and local taxes are rising.
Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they
count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated,
and public libraries are being shut.
Why isn't government working for them?
Because it's been bought off.
It's as simple as that. And until we get clean money we're not going to
get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss
goodbye government of, by, and for the people. Welcome to the
plutocracy.
Obviously Howard Zinn would not have us leave it there. Defeat was never
his counsel. Look at this headline above one of his essays published
posthumously this fall by the Progressive magazine: DON'T DESPAIR ABOUT
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Court was lost long ago, he said - don't go there
looking for justice.
"The Constitution gave no rights to working people;
no right to work less than 12 hours a day, no right to a living wage, no
right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike,
defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won
the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced
to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment
insurance… Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest,
demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to
uphold justice."
So what are we to do about Big Money in politics buying off democracy?
I
can almost hear him throwing that question back at us:
"What are we to
do? ORGANIZE! Yes, organize-and don't count the costs."
Some people
already are. They're mobilizing. There's a rumbling in the land.
All
across the spectrum people oppose the escalating power of money in
politics. Fed-up Democrats. Disillusioned Republicans. Independents.
Greens. Even Tea Partiers, once they wake up to realize they have been
sucker-punched by their bankrollers who have no intention of sharing the
wealth.
Veteran public interest groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen are
aroused. There are the rising voices, from web-based initiatives such as
"freespeechforpeople.org" to grassroots initiatives such as "Democracy
Matters" on campuses across the country, including a chapter here at
Boston University.
"Moveon.org" is looking for a million people to fight
back in a many-pronged strategy to counter the Supreme Court decision.
What's promising in all this is that in taking on Big Money we're
talking about something more than a single issue. We're talking about a
broad-based coalition to restore American democracy - one that is trying
to be smart about the nuts-and-bolts of building a coalition,
remembering that it has a lot to do with human nature.
Some will want to
march. Some will want to petition. Some will want to engage through the
web. Some will want to go door-to-door: many gifts, but the same spirit.
A fighting spirit.
As Howard Zinn would tell us: No fight, no fun, no
results.
But here's the key: If you're fighting for a living wage, or peace, or
immigration reform, or gender equality, or the environment, or a safe
neighborhood, you are, of necessity, strongly opposed to a handful of
moneyed-interests controlling how decisions get made and policy set.
Because most Americans are attuned to principle of fair play, of not
favoring Big Money at the expense of the little guy - at the expense of
the country they love.
The legendary community organizer Ernesto Cortes
talks about the "power to preserve what we value." That's what we want
for Americans - the power to preserve what we value, both for ourselves
and on behalf of our democracy.
But let's be clear: Even with most Americans on our side, the odds are
long. We learned long ago that power and privilege never give up
anything without a struggle. Money fights hard, and it fights dirty.
Think Rove. The Chamber. The Kochs. We may lose. It all may be
impossible. But it's OK if it's impossible. Hear the former farmworker
and labor organizer Baldema Valasquez on this.
The members of his Farm
Labor Organizing Committee are a long way from the world of K Street
lobbyists. But they took on the Campbell Soup Company - and won. They
took on North Carolina growers - and won, using transnational organizing tacts that helped win Valasquez a "genius" award from the MacArthur
Foundation.
And now they're taking on no less than R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco and one of its principal financial sponsors, JPMorgan-Chase.
Some people question the wisdom of taking on such powerful interests,
but here's what Valasquez says:
"It's OK if it's impossible; it's OK!
Now I'm going to speak to you as organizers. Listen carefully. The
object is not to win. That's not the objective. The object is to do the
right and good thing.
If you decide not to do anything, because it's too
hard or too impossible, then nothing will be done, and when you're on
your death bed, you're gonna say, 'I wish I had done something.' But if
you go and do the right thing NOW, and you do it long enough 'good
things will happen-something's going to happen.'"
Shades of Howard Zinn!
