Yet Another Postmortem Look at Election 2010

Once upon a time, so the story goes, a well-meaning, civic-minded citizen offered to provide a ride to the polls for an elderly woman who found it hard to get around. She politely declined, saying, "I never vote. It just encourages 'em."

If ever an election justified that lady's attitude, it was the one just past. Even veteran political observer Tom Englehardt called it the most dispiriting election of his lifetime. The candidates and their corporate backers spent over four billion dollars on this campaign – and for what? What difference will the results make in your life or mine? What will change? Will people now find jobs? Will the wars end? Will global warming be reversed? Will any real problems even be addressed?

The chief lesson of this election – and, for the matter, all the ones preceding it, at least in my lifetime – should be that if you really want change, don't vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans, whether they're called "blue dogs" or "tea partiers" or anything else.

According to another story, Ralph Nader's father was once asked if he thought the nation needed a third party. He said he thought it needed a second party. He was right. For at least a half century now, America has had one political party, the Corporate Party, with "Republicans" and "Democrats" representing two factions that differ hardly at all but that provide the illusion of "choice" come election day.

Is it even possible to change a system so badly broken? Probably not. But certainly not without first eliminating the legalized bribery that buys our "elected" officials. How do we do that? Better folk than I have tried to figure out a way, without much success.

Not cheerful thoughts, I know. But this election has left me, like Tom Englehardt, quite dispirited. So, as Edward R. Murrow used to say: Good night, and good luck.

On Understanding America and Americans

The following are the words of historian Ray Raphael. They deserve a wide audience....

Americans, from the beginning, were both bullies and democrats. Despite the hesitancy of elites, most patriots at the time of our nation's birth believed that ordinary people were entitled to rule themselves and fully capable of doing so. They also believed they had the right, and even the obligation, to impose their will on people whom they deemed inferior. These two core beliefs are key to understanding American history and the American character, and we do an injustice to ourselves and our nation when we pretend otherwise.

-- Founding Myths, pp. 244-45

WE WRITE THE LAWS

(As performed by the CEO Chorus, with apologies to Barry Manilow)

We’ve been alive forever,
And we wrote the very first law.
We put the rules and the penalties together,
We’re Big Business, and we write the laws.

We write the laws that make the whole world pay.
And we get richer nearly every day.
Of prison bars we have no fear because
We write the laws, we write the laws.

Our profits must keep growing,
So we've got our own place in your home.
We set the rates on the money that you’re owing,
And on top of that, we can still tap your phone!

We write the laws that make the whole world pay.
And we get richer nearly every day.
Of prison bars we have no fear because
We write the laws, we write the laws.

We’re Big Business, and we write the laws!

Israel Claims to Be Above the Law

The title of this post links to a story on The Real News Network regarding the Israeli attack on the ships trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Here is a brief quote from that story....

The Israeli deputy foreign minister is Danny Ayalon. He works under Avigdor Lieberman. According to him, it doesn't matter that the operation took place in international waters, because Israel is above international law. In response to the fact that Israel couldn't declare international waters as its own closed military zone, he said, "These accusations have no basis in reality nor in legality. Our judgments and needs overbear any other. The decision to stop the flotilla was the right one." [emphasis added]

It's neither new nor surprising for a nation to disregard international law. But as far as I know, only two nations publicly claim that international law does not apply to them: Israel and the USA. This may be worth thinking about for a few minutes during the weeks between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July....

Whatever Happened to "We the People"?

One of the most dismaying aspects of the year-long battle over health care reform, at least for me, has been the growing realization that more and more Americans are opposed -- noisily, angrily, violently opposed -- to having any of their tax dollars spent to benefit anyone but themselves.

Health care? Why should I pay someone else's doctor and hospital bills? Education? Why should I pay for someone else's kids to go to school? Housing? Why should I pay for someone else's grandparents to have a place to live?

Bottom line? If you can't afford it, you have no right to it. If you're broke, get a job. If you're poor, you deserve it.

More and more frequently, and more and more openly, I hear people saying such things. And this dismays me, not only because the ideas behind these words are ethically abominable, but also because they are un-American.

The republic created by the Constitution in 1789 was far from perfect, and we should never forget that it was created by an elite ruling class who were strongly opposed to democracy. And yet ... And yet, the preamble to that Constitution was written in the third person plural: "We the people of the United States ..." And although by "people" they may have meant free, white, property-owning males over the age of 21 ... still, they said "We."

All through the 221 years of our history since then, we have (mostly) expanded the notion of who is included in the "people" of the United States. But lately, it seems, the "we" has dropped out. Now it's "I" and "me" and especially "my" -- "my" tax-dollars, "my" freedom to do as I please, "my" right not to be offended by anyone or anything. Whatever happened to "we"?

Four of our fifty states use the word "commonwealth" in their official public documents. It's an old-fashioned word, and it describes an even more old-fashioned idea: the notion that there is even such a thing as the "common weal" -- the common welfare, the public good, the benefit of all.

But there was such a thing, or at least the idea of such a thing. It never existed, of course, and never will exist. But it has been, from time to time at least, a goal -- something we aspired to, an idea and an ideal we valued. Whatever happened to "we"?

Who Are You Calling a Judeo-Christian, Pal?

A reader of my local newspaper, in today's "Feedback" column, objected to the use of the term "Judeo-Christian roots" in a previous story. "I am a Christian," this reader wrote, "and I resent the fact that I am called a 'dash Christian.' That is a misnomer."

The editor patiently explained that, as a matter of history, Judaism and Christianity share certain basic principles that, whether one agrees with them or not, do underlie the dominant political and economic values of American life. It should not have been necessary to point out, though the editor did so as well, that the term "Judeo-Christian" was not meant to apply to the reader's personal faith.

It seems to me symptomatic of the self-centered culture we live in that the reader understood the term individually, not collectively, and asserted that "I am a Christian."

I should like to explain to the reader, perhaps not so patiently, that, as a matter of history, Christianity did arise out of Judaism; which means that if you claim to be a Christian, you are adhering to a faith that has, at least partially, a Judaic origin.

And if you are one of today's "literalist" Christians, whose religion involves nothing more than "accepting Jesus into your mind and heart," it should not be necessary to remind you that your "personal Lord and Savior," as you call him, was a Jew.