Archive for the Politics Category

Post Thanksgiving Update 1: Israel, Gaza, UN

Posted in Israel-Palestine, News, Politics, USA with tags , , on November 30, 2012 by Z

While I was occupied with the thanksgiving holiday (or more accurately while I was occupied at work instead of having a thanksgiving holiday) the usual suspects went at it over Gaza.  Better bloggers than I have already addressed this in more or less the same way I would have; check out my blogroll if you’re curious.  VastLeft and Chris Floyd  would be good places to start.  Even so, I feel it necessary to chime in.  Criticizing Israeli policy is not for the weak of stomach in the US, where the slightest suggestion that maybe Israel shouldn’t be bulldozing Palestinian homes or might want to consider not defying world opinion and UN resolutions regarding illegal settlements can get one branded an anti-Semite.  I, however, have been shacking up with one of the chosen people for 12 years and fear no reprisal.  To anyone gearing up to play the “Israel has a right to defend itself” card, I present this map:

There are two possibilities here: Either offense really is the best defense, or this isn’t ‘defense’ at all.  If the Palestinians are as dangerous to the integrity of Israel as Netanyahu suggests, then they clearly aren’t very good at it.  HuffPost (Yeah, I’m not a fan either, but they have the most recent count I could find) claims the following as of 11/19: 87 Palestinians killed (50 of them civilians), 720 wounded vs. 3 Israelis killed and “dozens” wounded.  Seriously, who holds the power here?  Since when does the right to self defense encompass this kind of aggression against a densely populated, blockaded region?  The recent UN decision to recognize Palestine as a state, opposed by only nine nations including the US, obviously, seems to show the direction of world opinion.  Apparently, I’m not the only one noticing this stuff.  Whether it actually changes the behavior of the Israeli right on the ground is another question.  To be clear, I’m not trying to sweep the significance of Hamas rocket attacks under the rug here, but responsibility is not a zero sum game.  There’s plenty to go around, and the vast disparity in power and influence between Israel and Hamas suggests that the bulk of it ought not be placed on the weaker party.

Professor Sergio Pergola over at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has done some work on Israeli and Palestinian demographics that addresses one of the more common views of the whole mess.  He breaks it down like this: Israel has three major objectives: First, be a democratic society, second, remain a Jewish society and third, retain the occupied territories.  Here’s the issue: they can only really have two.  In order to keep the occupied territories (West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza), Israel must give up either democracy or its Jewish character.  At the moment, it appears to have opted to off democracy, as in order to protect its traditional Jewish character it must operate in the manner of an apartheid system by excluding – and often confining – Palestinians.  Were it to include them, it could no longer claim to be a ‘Jewish’ society due to the resulting demographic shift.  Pergola doesn’t take a strong position regarding what should be done, but I think it’s pretty clear that releasing the occupied territories is the way to go, now that everyone seems to have abandoned the one state solution.  The Israeli right, however, has opted to keep up the apartheid model.

One final note: Pergola, deep in demographer mode, appears to have missed something ominous: the central issue he’s identified is remarkably similar to the racist paranoia of certain American pundits.  Remember the O’Reillys of the world bemoaning the alleged loss of “white America” after the election?  (Relax, Bill.  It’s right where you left it, on the right hand counter next to the kill list and the predator drone owner’s manual).  Is this not reminiscent of retrograde blood and soil nationalism?  We really ought to have left this behind by now, yes?

Three’s a Crowd

Posted in Elections, News, Politics, USA with tags , on October 18, 2012 by Z

In case anyone blinked and missed the mainstream news coverage of this, Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala were arrested outside of the 2nd Obama – Romney debate.  While they were officially grabbed for “blocking traffic,” the charge may as well have been “being in a third party.”  I’m reminded of the Bush-Gore debate in 2000 at UMass, Boston.  I was student there at the time (way back in my undergraduate days) and was offered a chance to “win” one of the set-aside-for-students tickets.  I passed, as I was already at the breaking point with the dems over a number of things (GATT, NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Madeleine Albright’s horrific take on Iraqi children, etc.).  One of my fellow students did get his hands on a ticket, however, and did something great.  He gave it to Ralph Nader.  This is what happened.  Kind of feels like we’ve been on an exercise bike for 12 years, doesn’t it?  Actually, forget that.  An exercise bike stays where it is.  We’re going in reverse.

The Hipster Presidents?

Posted in Elections, Politics, USA, Web Satire Round Up with tags , on October 3, 2012 by Z

The Hipster presidentStatus: Whoa!

I stumbled on these last week.  It seemed appropriate to put them here, now that I’ve officially registered to vote before this, the first election since I moved (and, apparently, the most important election in the history of time).  My presence far from any polling place will now be properly noted on election day.  Unless I go third party again.  We’ll see.

Bad Faith 2012: Compact Summary of a Campaign

Posted in Elections, Media, Politics, USA with tags , , on August 6, 2012 by Z

<iframe width=”480″ height=”360″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/rBRLJ_kVjeQ” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Marx marks the spot.

Obromneycare, Dead Peasants and the Limits of Liberal Imagination

Posted in Capitalism, Economy, News, Politics, USA with tags , , on July 3, 2012 by Z

Obromneycare

 The Supreme Court has reached a decision.  Obromneycare + individual mandate have emerged from their rather cushy gauntlet intact.  How?  The penalty for the uninsured has been classified as a tax.  (See Correntewire for an excellent summary of Roberts’ legal gymnastics).  Discussion of Obromneycare’s constitutionality or lack thereof has been covered quite well elsewhere, so I’m going to do something else.  First, a brief summary of my own experience with the individual mandate in Massachusetts, where we’ve been living with the Romneycare to which Obama has attached his “Ob”:

For a while, I was covered by a subsidized plan because neither of my jobs offered insurance and my annual income was just under the cutoff point (300% of the federal poverty level).  Then I finished graduate school and moved to full time at one job, gaining insurance through my employer.  The tanking economy took a toll on that employer, which led to a reduction in my hours – which caused me to lose full time status – which allowed human resources to decree that I was no longer entitled to full time benefits – which meant my insurance was no more.  Luckily, I was able to keep three of my original five days a week at that job, and still had weekends at my other job, giving me a patchwork full time schedule, but no benefits.  I couldn’t go back on the subsidized plan, because my income was now too high.  At the same time, the cheapest available private plan that satisfied Romneycare’s holy writ cost more than double what I’d paid for the subsidized plan, and nearly double what I’d paid through my employer.  Obviously, I couldn’t afford it, and even if I could, I’d never have been able to pay the outrageous deductible if I had needed any care.  I then found that the penalty (properly called a penalty and not a tax here in Massachusetts) was lower than the cost of the cheapest plan and thanked the stormin’ mormon that I would be allowed to not buy a terrible, useless and expensive product, but could simply pay an arbitrary fine for the privilege of living with no health insurance.  Thanks, Mitt!  When tax time rolled around, I dutifully filled out my state return, waiting anxiously to see the outcome of the still relatively new healthcare schedule that would determine the extent of my fine.  I was surprised.  A handy chart through which I was obliged to search until I found the entry under my zip code informed me of what the state deemed an affordable payment for health insurance for my income group in my area.  The schedule I was filling out then spilled the beans: because the cost of the cheapest available plan exceeded the state’s notion of an affordable payment in my zip code at my income, I was off the hook.  No penalty.  Of course, I was still without insurance.

What lessons can we extract from my experience?  First of all, Romneycare, touted as “universal” by both Romney (that is, past-Romney.  Present-Romney has sworn to slay the beast he now retroactively did not spawn.) and current Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is anything but.  Large groups of people throughout the state are deemed unable to afford the most affordable plans produced by the vaunted private sector, but are not sufficiently impoverished to warrant the attention of the state.  My situation is not unusual.  Depending on the overtime, I’m quite firmly in the 32-35k range, and the mixing and matching of part time positions is not at all strange in this era of underemployment.  It’s worth pointing out that Commonwealth Care, the group of subsidized plans here in Massachusetts, is available to a larger income group than Medicaid will be nationally under the ACA, meaning that even more people nationally than in Massachusetts will slip through the middle and be uninsured despite the new law.  In short, there’s nothing ‘universal’ about any of this.  There’s really no need to discuss the difference between care and insurance, as anyone interested in this issue is already aware of the health insurance industry’s apparent business model (“Find a way not to pay”).  The horrific deductibles many of the Romneycare spawned plans feature make the plans themselves so insubstantial, they serve no recognizable purpose other than fulfilling the minimum requirements necessary to avoid the penalty.  When I had to look into these “plans” a few years back, I found that some of them didn’t even offer prescription drug coverage, though it looks like that, at least, has been (partially) corrected.  If you’d like to see for yourself, just head over to the MA HealthConnector and shop around.  Have fun.  In effect, what the Massachusetts reform has accomplished is to establish a requirement that enables health insurance providers to sell bad products to a captive market.  At the same time, it allows those (like me) with whom private business would rather not deal to go without.  Private insurers therefore have free reign to sell barely there insurance to whatever groups of consumers they feel comfortable selling to, and leave the rest of us out to dry.

By creating a captive market, the ACA (like Romneycare) will basically carve out a fiefdom for the health insurance industry.  Purchasing terrible coverage under threat of a penalty (or tax) with no coverage amounts to nothing more than a legal obligation to fork cash over to an unaccountable private entity.  It’s downright feudal.  Which brings us to…

 

Dead Peasants

 While working on my master’s degree in a field in which I would later fail to find work, I developed an interest in agrarian history, which led me to the work of historian Thomas Bisson.  One of Bisson’s lesser known works is a book called Tormented Voices: Power, Crisis and Humanity in Rural Catalonia, 1140-1200.  The book was inspired by and largely based on research from a collection of peasant complaints regarding uncustomary abuse, violence and seizure of property and possessions.  Bisson frames the complaints within a narrative of the attempted expansion of seigniorial authority by local lords.  Within many of the complaints themselves, one can see the origins of some modern practices, including what has been called “Dead peasant insurance,” a practice in which a company will take out an insurance policy on the life of an employee.  Bisson makes several references to a woman named Ermessen who complained that she and her husband were forced to pay their lord 5 sous because their son had died.  This has nothing to do with health insurance (it’s really more about life insurance), but it does get at the diseased frame of mind we’re dealing with.  “Dead Pesants” is also a great title.  Bisson’s lords and knights set about trying to impose new fees, fines, dues, etc. on their peasants and used violence and systematic humiliation to force compliance.  The peasants complained to the Count of Barcelona (and later, the King of Aragon) hoping something might be done about their local lords.  Eventually, the King did take action, though this action occurred in the context of an ongoing struggle between royal and local authority, so how much weight the peasant’s complaints had is uncertain.  In any case, there is a clear parallel between the neo-feudal concept of dead peasant insurance and the neo-feudal health insurance dues now owed to the likes of Lord Aetna and the Holy Order of the Blue Cross & Shield.  Unlike in 12th century Catalonia, however, the current seigniorial overreach of the health insurance industry is not being done behind the back of a royal authority that might one day oppose it.  It is instead the result of collusion with that authority.  The ACA represents official sanction for the private management (and profit) of (and from) a properly public function.  It is legitimized neo-feudal rentier capitalism.

 

The Limits of Liberal Imagination

 The ACA represents the present limits of both liberal political will and imagination.  I suspect that conceptual constipation and lack of historical memory play a role in this quagmire.  Why else would the allegedly liberal wing of the democratic capitalist enterprise, the would be heirs of 1789 or at least 1776, have no better ideas than pressing for dues and rents from debt incumbent serfs, the way their old foe the feudal nobility did?  The situation would be hilariously bizarre, if it weren’t so transparent and sad.

Delusional hysteria isn’t the exclusive property of the parties Republican and Tea.  There’s just as much making the rounds amongst the Dems.  If those shaking from terror and screaming “Socialism!” in the ACA’s general direction are deluded and dead wrong (and they are), then those cheering about how it’s a step toward single payer are just as ridiculous.  By funneling cash into the pockets of insurance providers while simultaneously making them an integral part of a formally legislated healthcare plan, Obama & friends have created a barrier to single payer.  Should we ever have such a plan here in the US, it will need to be forced on a more, not less powerful insurance lobby.  It will exist despite, not because of, the ACA.  That polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor single payer really makes one wonder why the liberal imagination doesn’t seem to encompass this popular idea.  I once thought this could be explained via the usual logic regarding lobbyists and corporate money, but it’s more than that.  It’s a failure of imagination.  The ACA is the ultimate expression of a world view incapable of looking for solutions beyond the boundaries of the neoliberal consensus.  One might even argue that the individual mandate itself is an admission that American capitalism as it now exists has failed.  Private insurers have failed to achieve universal insurance in the “free” market.  The solution?  Don’t rethink markets – use the state to force people into them!  This represents an intellectual as well as a material failure, in that the initial, material failure (the existence of the uninsured, insured people denied claims) is compounded by a failure of imagination (“Private insurance didn’t work.  Try it again harder.”).  The ACA and in particular the individual mandate are at their core the self-cannibalization of American liberal capitalism.  The capitalist component is forced to eat a bit of liberty to sustain itself.  We’ve already seen this in other more obvious areas, such as the NDAA, the crackdown against the Occupy Movement, etc.  It is more and more apparent that liberals, shackled as they are to neoliberalism, will not be able to save liberty from capitalism.  Only the real left can do that.

Bad Faith 2012: They aren’t out of touch, they’re just not talking to you.

Posted in Bad Faith, Elections, Media, News, Politics, USA with tags , , , , , , on May 30, 2012 by Z

The conventional wisdom regarding both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama (according to their respective opponents in the left and right wings of the American neoliberal party with two names) is that they’re “out of touch.”  This is a very appealing explanation, especially in the case of Romney with his alien demeanor and cavalier country club financial sense (bet you how much, Mitt?).  However, there’s a better explanation.   They just aren’t talking to you.  The conversation taking place between candidates, pundits, etc. not only during election years, but all the time doesn’t require input from the American public.  It fact, it doesn’t even want it.  This conversation is about our future, but it isn’t one we’re actually invited to; it’s merely taking place where we can hear it.

 

When Mitt Romney stood in front of a crowd of his loyal followers at a palatial mansion and suggested that everyone should be able to live “like this,” many rightly pointed out that the very suggestion was absurd.  Of course it’s not possible for everyone to have a mansion with a household staff and all the ridiculous luxuries associated with that lifestyle (it’s especially impossible for the members of the household staff).  Yet, the people who pointed this out missed the point.  Mitt knows full well that not everyone can live his lifestyle (again, especially not the household staff).  So what’s the secret that renders this insane attitude comprehensible?  Simple – if you think his statement was strange, he wasn’t talking to you.  He was talking to people who can live “like this.”  He was talking to people who do have the wealth, the connections and the desire to live “like this.”  The household staff, for example, are not included when Mitt says “everyone.”  Neither are most of us.  We aren’t the people in whose interests he wants to run the country, and we don’t have what he needs to get where he wants to go.  Consider also his laughable suggestion that young people borrow money from their parents to start a business.  “Is he serious?” many asked.  Well, yes he was – he just wasn’t talking to you.  How can you tell?  Easy – because either you don’t have enough money to lend your children to enable them to take his advice, or if you’re young, your parents don’t have enough to lend to you.  Or, and this is certainly outside of Mitt’s experience, you do have the necessary capital, but don’t want to be a business owner.  If any of these things are true, Mitt wasn’t talking to you.  In Mitt land, the solution to your problems is to become a business owner.  If your class, your interests or your financial situation prevent you from doing this, Mitt doesn’t think your problems need solving.  You are a non person.

 

Barack Obama may take a slightly different approach, but offers the same result.  He’ll talk to us – I understand we’re meant to hope for change, or some such – but his policies, as noted elsewhere, are more or less the same as his predecessor’s.  Keep hoping, I guess.  The nice boss (Obama) talks to his employees while he exploits them, while the traditional boss (Romney) is content to let the rabble believe he’s talking to them.  Meanwhile, the neoliberal policy agenda marches on.

 

Public political discourse in the US remains confined to a ruling class.  This ruling class is more eclectic than it once was, as it includes both the traditional 1%er types and a class of professional politicians, but in most cases debate about policy remains firmly in the narrow neoliberal frame long laid out for us.  This is because the people participating in this debate don’t want our input.  We are allowed to fool ourselves into believing that we’re included, but the truth is that we’re spectators.  We can observe this public discourse through the mass media, but our input is neither welcomed nor necessary.  The position of the general public is not unlike that of a household servant.  The masters of the house, our employers, are arguing over how best to run their household, including how to treat us.  We are in the room, we can see and hear the discussion, but although we may convince ourselves that we’re involved, we are not.  Our access to the political process is largely coincidental at this point.  We can see it on TV, but attempting to contribute in the traditional way is a bit like yelling at game show contestants.  The folks on Wheel of Fortune can’t hear you, and neither can your political class.  Not only that, they aren’t even talking to you.

 

A Quick Word on May Day

Posted in Media, News, Politics with tags , , on May 6, 2012 by Z

As usual whenever anyone protests anything pertaining to class in the US, the blinders were on throughout the country.  I’ve seen quite a variety in crowd size estimates for the various May Day marches all over the states last week, most of them suspiciously low if half of what I see outside of professional media outlets is true.  More irritating is the realization that had I not deliberately sought out May Day related news, I might never have known anything had happened at all.  Fortunately, history is harder to derail by manipulating public discourse while actual political action is ongoing.  Both frantic denunciations and faux-oblivious silence sound eerily like a superstitous man whistling past the graveyard when they’re coming out of American “news” professionals.  Coverage or no coverage, the May Day rallies around the US (not to mention the rest of the world, where they were even bigger) show that the Occupy movement is going strong, and can organize in pretty much any city it needs to.

Of all the things that might come out of this, I hope most of all that it will put the US on a path that will bring back May Day in a country that has all but forgotten it.  Forget Labor Day.  A day to celebrate labor and the power of workers should be international.

The (Oval) Office

Posted in Elections, Politics, USA, Web Satire Round Up with tags , , , on February 13, 2012 by Z

These have been floating around the net for some time now, but I thought I’d post them anyway in case someone somehow missed them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So…. American right, tell me again why you think nations should be run like businesses?  If nothing else, these visual one liners have influenced my thinking about empire, in that the current American Empire is remarkably like The Office – a more persistently marketed knockoff of a British original.   (Quick – someone find out if Italy produced an office themed sitcom in the 50s.  If the pattern holds, it should be really funny.)

I’m sure I’ll have more to say about this primary stuff later, as Mitt “the banality of evil” Romney, Newt “the unbearable lightness of being a douchebag” Gingrich and Rick “Santorum” Santorum keep at it.  Until then, remember to …

Yes, this one is old too.  Perhaps I should have updated it to read: “Hope you don’t get executed without trial.”

In the event that I have more to put up here regarding elections, I think I’ll take a little inspiration from the last post and call it “Bad Faith 2012.”

Lesser Evilism and Bad Faith

Posted in Bad Faith, Elections, Media, Politics, Sartre, USA with tags , on January 18, 2012 by Z

Given that this corner of the web is named for Jean-Paul Sartre, I thought it would make sense to take a moment to address the ideas of the man himself.  One of Sartre’s best known and arguably most importnant concepts is that of Bad Faith.  Bad Faith is, at its core, a form of self-deception made possible by the very freedom it denies.  It is the use of freedom (freedom being inescapable) to deceive oneself into believing one is not free, and/or not responsible for a choice.  One of the favorite examples of existentialist philosophy professors is of a young man in occupied France who comes to Sartre to ask for advice: should he join the resistance, or stay at home to take care of his mother?  The young man acts as though he is earnestly seeking advice, but as Sartre points out, the young man is well aware that Sartre himself is a supporter of the resistance.  The young man therefore knows that Sartre will advise him to join the resistance.  He came seeking the advice he wanted in an effort to convince himself that his choice was not his, but Sartre’s.  Had he not wanted to join the resistance, he would have asked for the advice of a collaborator.  The young man has used his freedom to orchestrate a situation in which he can deny his freedom and his own inner knowledge that he has decieved himself.  In Dostoevsky’s Notes From Underground, the protagonist observes that all the works of man have been to convince himself that he is a man and not a piano key (ie that he is free, not determined, in his purpose).  In the case of Bad Faith, it is exactly the opposite; the individual seeks to convince himself that he is not free, but must use his freedom to do so.

If anyone reads the above and immediately thinks “Hey, that sounds a lot like the “lesser evilism” that characterizes American elections,” guess what – you’re exactly correct.  Lesser evilism, along with all the faux concern and hand wringing attached to it by the mainstream media, is a national exercise in Bad Faith.  By engaging in lesser evilism, we engage a two party duopoly that does not have our interests in mind.  This by itself is not Bad Faith; we even acknowledge the inadequacy of the two party system by noting that we seek the lesser evil.  There is no pretension that we are doing the right thing.  No, this practice becomes Bad Faith because by engaging in it, we implicitly deny that there are choices outside of the established system.  Acting on this self-imposed denial, we then throw our hands in the air and proclaim “Well, what can you do?”  We get to “admit” that the system is flawed, which only helps us convince ourselves that we have no choice but to go along.  Of course we have no choice, right?  If we did, clearly we wouldn’t choose evil at all!  We’ve constructed a national self deception by choosing to heed the advice, both explicit and implicit, of a system that offers us only evil options.  We act in Bad Faith just like Sartre’s young friend.  We use our inescapable freedom in an attempt to deny that we are free and responsible for the walking garbage for which we vote, then we refuse to admit it.  This is like asking a loan shark for financial advice, getting your legs broken when you can’t repay the loan he advised you to take, then asking him for another loan because he told you there was nowhere else to go.  Most people would easily recognize this as the behavior of a total moron, but in election years it’s “pragmatism.”  This is, of course, exactly the behavior our political elite loves to see.  How else can we maintain a plutocratic oligarchy in the skin of a representative government?

Elect the Dead

Posted in Korea, News, Politics, USA with tags on December 20, 2011 by Z

Kim Jong-Il is dead, and his son Kim Jong-Un is set to take over.  What will this mean for the hermit kingdom?  I don’t know.  What I do find interesting is this little known fact: The titular head of the North Korean state is still Kim Il-Sung, the late Kim Jong-Il’s father.  This “necrocracy” as the late Christopher Hitchens called it does give me an idea.  Maybe we should adopt a similar approach here in the states.  Our electoral system and its conjoined parties has become a mockery of even its very modest original promise.  Rather than not vote, we could all agree on a necrocratic write in.  John Brown for president.  How about it, gang?