Schmorell grave - Jim Forest flickr

The vast majority of Americans support the extra judicial killings of people with drones.  This is not surprising at all since there was great support for going after protestors during the 1960s, Japanese internment during WWII, black segregation and slavery, Native American slaughter and relocation and on and on.

Just as there was great support for Japanese military atrocities in Japan and Nazi atrocities in Germany during Hitler’s time and Generalissimo Francisco Franco in Spain and Stalin in the USSR. Not just out of fear but also because people there were doing OK under these regimes.

And now the extreme right in Greece is becoming more and more popular and Stalin is gaining popularity again as a hero in Russia.

Germany has strict and harsh laws against denial  of the Holocaust and  tribute to Hitler but I wonder how long this would last should they find themselves in the same situation that led to his rise initially.  And how many would dare to speak out such as these young people did.

Liselotte Furst-Ramdohr, already a widow at the age of 29 following her husband’s death on the Russian front, was introduced to the White Rose group by her friend, Alexander Schmorell.

“I can still see Alex today as he told me about it,” says Furst-Ramdohr, now a spry 99-year-old. “He never said the word ‘resistance’, he just said that the war was dreadful, with the battles and so many people dying, and that Hitler was a megalomaniac, and so they had to do something.”

Schmorell and his friends Christoph Probst and Hans Scholl had started writing leaflets encouraging Germans to join them in resisting the Nazi regime.

With the help of a small group of collaborators, they distributed the leaflets to addresses selected at random from the phone book.

Furst-Ramdohr says the group couldn’t understand how the German people had been so easily led into supporting the Nazi Party and its ideology.

“They must have been able to tell how bad things were, it was ridiculous,” she says. – BBC Website

They distributed pamphlets all over the area including to the University of Munich.  Where they were spotted by a caretaker who call the Gestapo who came and took them away.

There was a trial with a quick verdict followed even quicker by an execution in the courtyard by guillotine. Now The White Rose are considered heroes and have a monument. But as Furst-Ramdohr says ….

Since the end of the war, the members of the White Rose have become celebrated figures, as German society has searched for positive role models from the Nazi period.

But Furst-Ramdohr doesn’t like it. “At the time, they’d have had us all executed,” she says of the majority of her compatriots. - BBC Website

Such as those who were killed here at Kent State or Jackson State are considered heroes…or were.

We haven’t had any execution here yet of protestors but the silence of those in LA concerning the LAPD, the attacks on OWS and the imprisonment of Bradly Manning  with very little outcry except some on the political left – leaves me to wonder.  As to why the German people of time supported Hitler and hist actions actively and even passively ? Here is one explanation.

A well-respected German historian has a radical new theory to explain a nagging question: Why did average Germans so heartily support the Nazis and Third Reich? Hitler, says Goetz Aly, was a “feel good dictator,” a leader who not only made Germans feel important, but also made sure they were well cared-for by the state.
To do so, he gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his 12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also — in great contrast to World War I — particularly pampered soldiers and their families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a “warm-hearted” protector, says Aly, author of the new book “Hitler’s People’s State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism” [TC: I cannot find it on U.S. Amazon, try this German link] and currently a guest lecturer at the University of Frankfurt. They were only too happy to overlook the Third Reich’s unsavory, murderous side.
Financing such home front “happiness” was not simple and Hitler essentially achieved it by robbing and murdering others, Aly claims. Jews. Slave laborers. Conquered lands. All offered tremendous opportunities for plunder, and the Nazis exploited it fully, he says.

Sound familiar ?  Bread and Circuses works every time.  Which could explain why so many here are pretty OK with the status quo. As long as they themselves are well taken care of and are doing OK, that’s all that matters, regardless of how the rest are doing.

And as for those who are just waiting for the system to implode, you might want to remember The White Rose.

Religion and politics have gone hand in hand in the western world for as long as one can historically count. Indeed the Religious leaders of Israel were also the political leaders of the time, so it’s not surprise that when Rome fell leaving a political vacuum, the early Christian church took up the role.

What I think is too often missed is that the story of Jesus was as much political as it was religious. Maybe even more so. As an atheist this view makes perfect sense to me since the shrouding of political rhetoric in religious terms was quite common at the time. One could more easily speak aloud religiously when to criticize the politics could get you very dead very quickly.  In the middle east at that time speaking out against Rome would make you a galley slave if you were lucky. Much worse if you were not.

I had given up on religion by the time I was 18 or so. But when I first heard Murray Head’s Jesus Christ Superstar my reaction was that this is a very different approach. After I bought the album and listened to it and the lyrics, the message there in seemed more a call to appose Rome and the current Jewish leadership of the time than a purely religious one. No wonder the leadership wanted him out of the way.

Murray Head’s interpretation of this was quite evident.

This message was also not lost on the Roman slaves,  where they used the teachings as a call to resist Rome.  The early black Christian church rallied for the same reasons.

Which brings up the total irony of this. That the story of Jesus was as much about throwing off the chains of Roman repression and the Jewish leaders who supported them, as it was about religion.  But since then the Religious followings that came afterwards were some of the most repressive and horrendously tyrannical the western world has ever known. The Christian Church aligning itself time and again with dictators, despots  and oppressors of the worst kind.

Food Riots - flickr

This one of the better interviews with Orlov that I have listened to. With Jay Taylor, he goes more into what is happening now  and why things are not rosy the way the MSM likes to paint them.

For one you simply cannot apply the logic and solutions of the 1930s to today because as as Dmitry says it’s a totally different world today.  In the 30s we still had oil coming out of our ears and nation states were autonomous. But these days that is not the case. We import the majority of our oil and there is no longer financial autonomy. What effects one, now effects all.

He also makes the point that the banks cannot function with a contracting economy. Which is what we are experiencing now and will increase. And that food price/availability is the key reason to nearly all revolutions. Including the Arab Spring.

So here is the interview. Sorry I cannot imbed.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/07/interview-on-voice-america.html

I know there are those who still think the system can be salvaged and repaired, so go ahead and fill you boots. If it it amuses you to do so.

Laurel and Hardy - flickr

This is kind of a continuation of the previous blog I did but more of a comparison and I will freely admit from my perspective as a Baby Boomer.  I was fascinated by the article in the New Yorker on Spoiled Children by Elizabeth Kolbert. When I was growing up, spoiling your children was frowned upon. Even for grandparents to do so was considered bad form.

My father had his degree in psychology. Not clinical but analytical  psychology. He was also known as a second generation Finn, his parents coming from Finland. My mother likes to tell of how when asked by a friend if he was going to use child psychology when raising his children, his response was, “I’m not going to mess my children up with that junk, they’re going to be raises like Finns”

Well not quite actually.  We were raised pretty much like most of his generation raised their kids. In a typical middle class fashion.   My father was strict but not authoritarian but we were left pretty much to our own devices. More and more as we got older. An interview with Elizabeth Kolbert about this is downloadable here.  (It starts at 13 minutes into the show)

We were encouraged to explore and we did. We were encouraged to become self reliant. I and my brothers  and sisters would find our own amusements (I am the oldest of 5). We were lucky in the we lived in the country and had a lot of area to amuse ourselves.  In one instance when I as around 4-5 I was playing in a empty field next to our first house with one of my brothers. There was another field next to it and I decided to explore that as well.  I saw that a storm was coming and that I was closer to a neighbors house than ours so I took my brother there. The lady called my father who came to get us. I do not remember him being the least bit angry, just kind of surprised and a bit embarrassed.

We learned responsibility by doing chores around the house. Washing dishes and sweeping the floor and of course cleaning our rooms. After my father passed away,  doing laundry as well. And for me, fixing whatever needed to be fixed.  But even before that I remember helping my father when he modified a part of the house and had concrete poured on for a floor of what was to become a new room. I was there with him leveling it out. I was only 8 or so at the time.   My parents helped and guided when necessary but only when necessary.

And to my knowledge this was the case for nearly everyone I knew. There were no “Helicopter Parents” . Like this net humor says, we left in the morning and returned before dark and most of the time no one knew exactly where we were.   Farm kids knew how to drive tractors by the time they were 12 and I do not remember any of them ever getting injured.

We climbed trees, took a long excursion of the West Side of Cleveland with my cousin in search of balsa wood airplanes that nearly drove my grandmother ’round the bend.  Played in any creek that had water, rode down steep hills and built club houses and forts out of what ever wood we could find.

Lakes and ponds were much more fun that clean shiny pools.   We learned that giving presents felt good too. Especially if we made it ourselves. We learned that sometimes close friends leave and that is sad. We learned that sometimes we have to leave and that is also sad. Little of our lives were planned. Oh Boy/Girl Scouts and 4H maybe or a family vacation. Ours consisted of camping across Pennsylvania on the way to my grandparents outside Phillie.  We learned how to be bored and disappointed and sometimes frustrated. We learned how to share, not because our parents told us to but because it was what we did with friends and siblings and it worked.

In short we were aloud to grow up and mature.

But something happened beginning with my generation.  Either out of some resentment we had from our childhoods or fear of a more complex world, or maybe just some unrealistic expectations. I do not know. But parents began intruding on children’s lives and at the same time engaging in Affluenza. As baby boomers graduated from college and became more and more affluent, they also became more and more indulgent – with themselves and their children. Even to the point of putting up with behaviors that their parents would never have tolerated. And a group of adolescents masquerading as a political movement.

I remember beginning to hear of parents even filing law suits because their child was excluded from some group and/or event.  Or was being “picked on” at school or church or some other place.  A situation that we as children learned to deal with ourselves. With guidance only when necessary.

The kind of behavior that was depicted by Lumpy Rutherford‘s parents.   I started seeing bumper sticker’s saying “My child is an ________. At ______ School” on more and more vehicles.  In short giving praise for nearly everything for fear of hurting the egos and pride.  But risking their kids self respect.

So  we wind up with a generation of adults who expect to get their hearts desire all the time and raising children the same.   Add to this those who are overbearing and authoritarian and those who are willingly ignorant and we wind up with a pretty messed up society.

Afraid ther kids won’t get into the right school when climate change and nuclear radiation and war and inequality are much large risks to their children’s future than anything else.

My parents grew up with small pox, whooping cough,  polio, the depression and WWII. My generation measles,  chicken pox, nuclear war and Vietnam.  Nearly all of those are gone now. Somehow I think that children of the 1970s and on,  needed to be protected from their parents more than anything else and maybe we would not have Mitt Romney running for president and people who would vote for him.

Maybe we would have mature adults running this country and mature voters as well.

Hierarchy - Steve Jurvetson Flickr Creative Commons

Professor Alperovitz did a very good diary on Beyond Corporate Capitalism and alternatives as examples of public rather than private ownership and control of certain institutions and how they have worked. The main problem with this is that it still maintains the same hierarchical model of control. A model that itself does not work well for the people it’s supposed to provide services for.

And as Hotflash pointed out in one comment, those times where we have attempted to institute a cooperative model in various groups, it has not been as successful as we had hoped.   But there is a reason for this and that is because our western based culture is hierarchical in nearly all its organizations.  Where the main thrust is for the benefit of those at the top.  Even our family structure is so. Where the parents needs are ultimately the highest priority, if even by a small extent.

Our churches and volunteer  organizations and businesses – both large and small – are set up this way.  In Europe and here we fought to rid ourselves of the feudal system and monarchies only to replace them with systems patterned after the feudalism. Sometimes strikingly so.

There are throughout history organizations that were not hierarchical based, or not entirely. Such as some religious groups like the Amish and Quakers. Twelve-step groups and Native American tribes. OWS is trying this approach as well.

All of these have a commonality and that is that the groups welfare has the highest priority. Unlike our western model where personal gain and agendas take top priority. Where the ends justify the means.

The twelve step groups especially are a good example if one looks at their 12 traditions.

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority–a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service board or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

But a lot of people do not feel comfortable in these situations. Because a non-hierarchical structure requires a large amount of personal responsibility and humility.  We want someone to blame and take responsibility for us.  It’s less work. Even thought it is self destructive and ultimately destructive to the group as a whole.

But historically it is the best approach.  And attempting to create a non-hierarchical group with some hierarchical structures is non-sequitur, like a boat with holes in the keel.

This cannot be achieved at a top level by definition.  It has to be achieve at the lowest level – ourselves.

White Picket Fence (photo: kaiyen/flickr)

I am a white male. I grew up in a rural part of NE Ohio that was nearly all white middle class. Both my parents had college degrees and both worked in professional fields. My knowledge of and experience with those who are blue collar was limited to my aunt and uncle on my father’s side of the family and a few friends.

After my father passed away,  my mother moved us down to South West Florida, which at that time was a mix of Northern transplants and Florida natives IE those born there.  Nearly all of which were white and most middle to upper middle class. We mostly shared the same world views and ideals.

There were Blacks and Seminoles in the area but I only recall meeting a few Seminole kids in school and I do not remember seeing many (if any) Blacks downtown. It was – as far as I could see – a white world.  At least that part of it. I had no negative experience with any other culture as I had little experience with any other culture. But this also meant that I could not easily relate what it would be like to be part of any other culture. I have no way of knowing what it is like to be of any other culture, to have their world view or attitudes.

My family went to the local Lutheran church – my father’s religion, though he himself did not practice it. This was largely symbolic as I never believed any of it and was later to learn that my parents did not either. It was completely white middle class.  Both of my parents were also in Europe during WWII and brought a lot of their experience there and attitudes with them. My mother also spent a good deal of her youth over seas as well, and conveyed this to us.

This is my background.  Add to this that I have had in interest in radio and and electronics which lead me at an early age to listening to international Short Wave Broadcasts and Amateur Radio. Where in my favorite thing is to be able to talk with people in other countries.  As an aside most of them refer to you as “my friend” and express more passion in the conversation than I get from talking with most American Ham Radio operators.

So when I read posts from David Seaton, I can relate easily from where he is coming from. Like his latest post.

This combination of technical and commercial perfection combined with a lack of elementary common sense is what makes him the perfect metaphor for America today… with the rest of the world tagging along.

And the subject of Pam Spaulding’s front page post.

Chad Nance who is a freelance journalist in Winston-Salem and is covering the election here in NC, recorded the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter confirming that she believes that Amendment One’s destiny is not only to save marriage, it apparently also has something to do with white power preservation. (!)

Which runs along the same lines as what Alngela Merkel expressed a few years ago concerning Germany’s attempts at a multicultural society.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has courted growing anti-immigrant opinion in Germany by claiming the country’s attempts to create a multicultural society have “utterly failed”.

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily “side by side” did not work.

She said the onus was on immigrants to do more to integrate into German society.

“This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Her remarks will stir a debate about immigration in a country which is home to around 4 million Muslims.

Last week, Horst Seehofer, the premier of Bavaria and a member of the Christian Social Union – part of Merkel’s ruling coalition – called for a halt to Turkish and Arabic immigration.

All speaking to a single thread – a similar view, that of the white Anglo Saxon cultural world view which is especially prominent here. A view that Chris Hedges has expressed is bound to destroy those who hold on to it.  One not of American exceptionalism, but of white exceptionalism.

When the most basic elements that sustain life are reduced to a cash product, life has no intrinsic value. The extinguishing of “primitive” societies, those that were defined by animism and mysticism, those that celebrated ambiguity and mystery, those that respected the centrality of the human imagination, removed the only ideological counterweight to a self-devouring capitalist ideology. Those who held on to pre-modern beliefs, such as Native Americans, who structured themselves around a communal life and self-sacrifice rather than hoarding and wage exploitation, could not be accommodated within the ethic of capitalist exploitation, the cult of the self and the lust for imperial expansion. The prosaic was pitted against the allegorical. And as we race toward the collapse of the planet’s ecosystem we must restore this older vision of life if we are to survive.

The war on the Native Americans, like the wars waged by colonialists around the globe, was waged to eradicate not only a people but a competing ethic. The older form of human community was antithetical and hostile to capitalism, the primacy of the technological state and the demands of empire. This struggle between belief systems was not lost on Marx. “The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx” is a series of observations derived from Marx’s reading of works by historians and anthropologists. He took notes about the traditions, practices, social structure, economic systems and beliefs of numerous indigenous cultures targeted for destruction. Marx noted arcane details about the formation of Native American society, but also that “lands [were] owned by the tribes in common, while tenement-houses [were] owned jointly by their occupants.” He wrote of the Aztecs, “Commune tenure of lands; Life in large households composed of a number of related families.” He went on, “… reasons for believing they practiced communism in living in the household.” Native Americans, especially the Iroquois, provided the governing model for the union of the American colonies, and also proved vital to Marx and Engel’s vision of communism.

Marx, though he placed a naive faith in the power of the state to create his workers’ utopia and discounted important social and cultural forces outside of economics, was acutely aware that something essential to human dignity and independence had been lost with the destruction of pre-modern societies. The Iroquois Council of the Gens, where Indians came together to be heard as ancient Athenians did, was, Marx noted, a “democratic assembly where every adult male and female member had a voice upon all questions brought before it.” Marx lauded the active participation of women in tribal affairs, writing, “The women [were] allowed to express their wishes and opinions through an orator of their own election. Decision given by the Council. Unanimity was a fundamental law of its action among the Iroquois.” European women on the Continent and in the colonies had no equivalent power.

This ethic that dates back to the Holy Wars and Crusades. That white Anglo Saxon protestant world views should trump all else is destroying the planet. A belief what we here and Europe to a lesser extent is keeping us culturally, socially and even scientifically back in the late 19th century at best. Getting past this arrogant, self righteous view is paramount to any chance at advancing and the trick is to do it with humility.

Here is the problem we face though.  It is very, very difficult for someone to come up with ideas and/or solutions to problems for situations of which they have no personal experience. It takes someone with immense empathy and insight to do so. It’s the main reason why AA and other 12step groups have been successful where the  medical and psychological fraternity has not.

It’s the reason why I can no more relate to what it is like being a poor Black or even a poor white is like in this country or anywhere else, as much as I would like to.  Why Bill W. said in founding AA, “I need another Alcoholic” someone who knows what it’s like that can relate.  And why economists have no more a clue as to help main street than the local barber does to fix a BMW.  It’s where too many on the left fall flat.

And it’s why any and all attempts of forcing other groups and cultures into adopting our ways of thinking and our world views and repressing and treating them as some how inferior to us and vice versa is not just morally wrong, but also destructive to them and to us.

We need to learn how to accept people as they are first. To work on understanding where they are coming from. Then helping people to help themselves but only when asked.  Sometimes the most difficult thing to do is to NOT stick our noses in where they are not wanted.  After all we might just learn something from them in the process.

70's Suburbia

Luke: A certain point of view?
Obi-Wan: Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. Anakin was a good friend. When I first met him, your father was already a great pilot. But I was amazed how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong.

A lot of what is true depends on how we view our selves, others and the world. Our perceptions as it were.  First off, please read CraneStation’s current diary.

There now.  A lot has been said and written about the disappearance of the Middle Class. But just who are the middle class ?

When I grew up my family was considered middle class. As were our milk man and mail man and most doctors and lawyers and low level engineers and police and blue collar factory workers and small businessman and on and on. We drove American made autos and lived in your typical neighborhoods.

The rich were those who were those who were CEOs and bank owners and Wall Street speculators and such.  Over the years, however this has changed but the perceptions and points of view of who is and is not middle class has become obscured.  It does not fit the reality we now have. Even though those I mentioned above still view themselves pretty much the same, the incomes of those in these areas has diverged significantly.

Who do we ourselves consider rich ?  Who middle class ?  I consider now anyone who makes over 150k a year rich but as has been noted a number of times, those in that income bracket do not. Not only that but where one is located has a large amount to do with that as well.

Here in Cleveland my retirement income makes me comfortably middle class but in NYC I would be considered lower middle of lower class. Or in areas of LA or Denver.

The incomes of the so called professionals and white collar workers have gone up markedly sine the 1970s, where as the incomes of the trades and blue collar and civil servants has not but most of these white collar professionals consider themselves middle class. So when THEY speak of middle class, they are referring to themselves and those like them, NOT those under them.

Income gaps.

My perception is that those who make over 150k a year and have stock portfolios to be rich. But they would not. And again in certain areas of the country they would not be viewed as such.   So who is right ?

I guess it depends on your point of view.

Workers in New York – Flicker Common License

A lot has been written about capitalism, especially our recent variation on it. Often referred to as Corporatism. The good and the bad. Little has been written on the emotional and psychological aspects of it except as cheer leading.  For some reason there is a tremendous disconnect between  the sociological and psychological aspects of our capitalistic society and the capitalistic system itself.

Where there are a plethora of studies and articles on the negative aspects of the working environment,  nearly all the articles I have found on the psychological aspects of our capitalistic economies has been to tout tout great they are in relation to anything else.

There is the alienation that is quite often felt by the worker or laborer  that Marx documented.

The loss of self worth when one looses ones job or position or even business.

Loss of control over what one produces. This can have a profound effect on the person involved as noted in this episode that occurred at where I used to work. A colleague had been give a project to work on. It was not too large but was involved and he was told rather necessary. He worked on it for a couple of weeks. It nearly complete when he was informed my his manager that the upper management had decided on doing things differently and his project was no longer necessary. In essence all his work and time was for naught. He was quite upset about this.

And corporations go to great lengths to impress upon their employees these days that they are “One Bug Family” or “Part of a team” or some such with motivational sessions and psychological training etc. Only to give you the boot with out so much as a thank you when you are no longer cost effective.

Then there is a very different “feeling” that one has when when is producing something that is intended to be either give as a gift or to be used as payment in like kind to another directly than what one gets from performing the same task to be sold by someone else to person or persons unknown.  That is by acting in an altruistic manner rather than with avarice.

I could go on but there is another aspect that is too often over looked by most modern day economists and that is the behavior of most consumers.   This item from The Real News Network is a good example.

JAY: Now, in your report you said that wage deflation is actually the underlying problem, or at least one of the underlying problems of the crisis. But here wage deflation seems to be part of the objective, to actually have, you know, a more intensified wage deflation. And I guess add to that privatization. I mean, has the financial elite of Europe simply decided that, okay, we’re going to go through this “catharsis”, quote-unquote, and see what we can make of it, lower wages, and pick the bones of the welfare state, and privatize as much as possible? I mean, is that actually what the game plan is here?

FLASSBECK: Yeah, but if it is the game plan, then it’s the wrong game and they will not achieve what they get—what they want, because in the end this means faltering demand, domestic demand, in all the countries and in United States, is only due to the fact that people have again reduced dramatically their savings ratio. That cannot go on forever. People need expectations for rising income; otherwise, they will never consume as much as is needed to even—to uphold the profits that the people are expecting. So if there is a game plan, it’s the wrong one, it’s a deeply flawed game plan, because this cannot work out.Look at Japan. Japan is a classical example of falling wages for 20 years. We just have new data this week that showed us that Japan is really deflating from the wage side. So they’re deflating the wage side, and then they’re getting falling prices. Then economic policy doesn’t work anymore. This is the game plan. But it’s not by design, so to say. It’s by—more, in my view, by stupidity than design that we’re running into such an exercise.

That people do not behave in a manner that fits modern economic ideals. This austerity meme that has now become global in scope, is taken personally by a lot of people either out of necessity or because is has become the “thing to do”. And it continued long enough, will be come generational  as it will be pass along to the children and there by remaining long after the problem.  Either consciously or subconsciously. I have seen it time and again.

And I am not even going to go into the resentments than can build up over time as well.   Our capitalistic system is doomed not just from an economic standpoint and political standpoint but from a social and psychological standpoint as well.

We tend to throw around a lot of diatribe concerning conservatives these days. But lets us examine who or what we are actually dealing with. David Roberts in Grist does a pretty good break down in his current piece.

Yesterday I sketched the sort of personality type most likely to identify as conservative: those who prefer stability to change, order to complexity, familiarity to novelty, and conformity to creativity. This sort of personality type is drawn to clear lines separating in-groups from out-groups, highly aware of social hierarchies, suspicious of change, and strongly inclined toward system justification, i.e., seeing the prevailing socioeconomic regime as worthy and desirable

I often think that the actions and rhetoric of today’s conservative politicians are easier to make sense of at this level, the level of temperament and worldview, than at the level of stated principles and policy proposals. Seeing through this lens can help make sense of a lot of stuff that otherwise looks hypocritical or absurd. In particular, it can help make sense of the political fight over climate change and clean energy.

Now what sort of personality does the author attribute to today’s conservative ? Read the rest of this entry →

Robert Parry from Consortium News VIA Alternet asks whether America has become totally dysfunctional but lays a good part of the blame on the left for not giving Obama and the Democrats a pass.

On the Left, the argument is almost the polar opposite, faulting Obama for applying timid solutions to grave problems (like agreeing to water down his stimulus plan with tax cuts to get a couple of GOP votes). He also is disparaged for bending over backwards to Republicans in the unrealistic hope that they would reciprocate with some measure of bipartisanship. These Left critics say Obama should have used his “bully pulpit” aggressively to fight for his positions, whether his larger stimulus plan or a “public option” in his health-care bill, and he should have held George W. Bush and his aides accountable for war-crimes, from torturing detainees in the “war on terror” to waging aggressive war against Iraq.

Facing this barrage of criticism from all sides, Obama’s shrinking army of defenders points to the unfairness of it all. America’s first black president inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and was burdened with a federal deficit of more than $1 trillion (while Bush started with a robust economy and a budget surplus).

Then goes on to list or rather give some lame excuses for the lack of leadership such as the bogus 60 vote majority, the loss of a couple of senate seats and the intransigence of the republicans.  All of which could have been overcome, although with a good deal of effort.  Then starts point his finger at the media, the population in general and back at the left again. Even bringing up the class war being waged by the uber-rich and cheered on by the tea party right.

The dysfunction is not simply the Republicans and the Democrats, as some centrist pundits like to pontificate. It is the entirety of the system, including the pundits themselves, the national news media and the think-tank structure. It is the Right’s splurging on what amounts to information warfare and the Left’s skimping when it comes to building a counter-media infrastructure.

It is also a population that is too lazy (or too distracted) to wade through all the half-truths and disinformation to find something approximating the truth on a wide variety of topics. Many Americans either believe falsehoods or are profoundly confused by all the noise.

Class War

Another remarkable part of the American dysfunction is that at a time when – as billionaire Warren Buffett says – the rich are winning the class war, the nation’s top “populist” movement is the Tea Party, which is fighting to give the rich more money and to grant their corporations more power.

Tea Party favorites, such as Rep. Michele Bachman, actually favor taxing the working class more (by making everyone pay some income taxes) so the top income tax rates on the rich can be lowered again.

Half truths at best. What he and so many others refuse to accept or even look at are those that are benefiting from the status quo.  Those whose life is still good even while the rest of the country is slowly dying a torturous economic death.  Those who were the actual beneficiaries of the bank bail outs. The ones who have been protected at all costs all along, while the middle class and those below have been thrown under the bus.

The country is dysfunctional as he points out. But he does not understand the dynamics of a dysfunctional family.  Where those who are the most in delusion and denial are always protected from the truth by the others.  They are coddled and their abuses hidden. Even from themselves at all costs.

Those who make over 90k a year working for Microsoft and Apple and DELL. Who work in defense plants as engineers and management and as doctors and lawyers and in the financial industry as accountants. Whose 401Ks and stock portfolios must be enshrined.  Some who are part of the teabagging right or call themselves liberal – as long as their defense plants aren’t closed.   Like the so called liberals of the past who supported blacks and minorities and civil rights just as long their kids did not have to got to school with them.

The ones who must not under any circumstances feel any of the pain the rest of us feel.  The ones whose positions in the insurance industry were well taken care of by the so called health bill. Those who work nice cushy jobs in health care industry and whose salary has never been questioned.

There is a reason why those of us on the left go after the Democrats and Obama supporters who genuflect in their direction while holding onto their financial rosary beads.

The question though comes, why have we not risen up in numbers and yelled this from the roof tops ? Why has there not been some one person on the left to yells CHARGE !

I for one have a reason. A reason why I have not supported vigorously an uprising of this sort.  It’s for the very reasons state above. It’s because these people whose lives are still pretty cushy, have not felt the pain. Because in order for any movement in this direction, these are the people that need to begin to feel the pain.

And I for one would be very OK in letting the system fail to the point that these people did begin to feel some pain. I would even be open to helping it along.

Because until they begin to feel the financial pain – until they begin to hit bottom, only then is there any chance of them seeing – what we see – that the system is broken and badly in need of changing.  They have to hit bottom themselves in order to see how their behavior effects others.   For they are both the abusers and enablers of the system.