Showing posts with label FDR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FDR. Show all posts

Saturday, May 30, 2015

A few more lessons from Bernie Sanders' run for President

I don't disagree with Jeb Lund on the positivity of Sen. Bernie Sanders' run for President, but there's a bit more to say here.

First, about being the right-looking "blowdried" candidate with a red tie: yes, true, alas. But let's not swoon over Bernie just because he "doesn't give a f--k" about his image. Let's swoon over him because he does give a f--k about the right things. And he actually proposes good legislation: on the minimum wage; regulating the Wall Street fraudsters; and on and on.

I mean, image is a terrible thing nowadays. The Republicans' version of the perfect-image candidate is Ben Carson: a black identity politician whose positions are indistinguishable from anybody else's (insofar as he has stated positions on anything). His bona fides are that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps despite being black and poor, can't stand his fellow African-American Barack Obama, and most importantly, rails against Obamacare. Beyond that, Ben Carson is a cipher... or an empty suit. He doesn't have many policy ideas because, as is blindingly obvious -- and this only adds to his appeal among Republicans -- it never occurred to him to run for President until quite recently, at the urging of Republicans who were out to prove they didn't distrust black people... as long as they believed all the "right" things.  

Second, Bernie's humble economic station is a good thing nowadays; but a politician's wealth or privileged background was not always a predictor of his political leanings or his performance in office. FDR, an all-time top 3 U.S. President and blueblood patrician, proved that. What Roosevelt had was a sense of old-money, old-fashioned noblesse oblige. With the recent departure of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the closest things we have to old money in U.S. politics today are Jeb Bush and Donald Trump.  

In fact, running for President today -- the GOP presidential nomination, that is -- is not a result of a candidate's wealth and privilege, necessarily, it is a path to wealth and privilege: as a FOX contributor / talk radio host / author / highly-paid guest speaker. Never before was political loserdom a path to anything but a ticket to retirement.  Now with enough Super PAC money and a favorable audience with Sheldon Anderson, a nominee can be plucked from political obscurity and made a front-runner, with his guaranteed payday at the end, whatever the result.

Third, there's something different about a Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader running for the Democratic nomination, knowing he's going to lose, in the hopes of nudging (or embarrassing) the eventual nominee to move slightly to the Left, and the gaggle of Republican candidates trying to outrun each other to the Right, eastward beyond the horizon.  Because many Democratic voters would be uncomfortable with a Bernie Sanders as a nominee -- "too liberal!" -- whereas, no matter who gets nominated by the GOP, most Republican voters will be dissatisfied -- "he's not conservative enough" -- or even bestow the worst insult imaginable -- "he's a RINO."  

Most Republicans probably don't stop to think why there's no equivalent of the "RINO" label among Democrats. (I wish there were). But if they did, they might realize that we Democrats are a pretty diverse bunch who can't even agree among ourselves what a true Democrat is. On the Republican side, talk radio settled that issue at least 15 years ago; and the media masters of the GOP police their ideological purity mercilessly...even at the expense of losing elections. (Which I grudgingly give them credit for; although they have convinced themselves that they speak for America's "Silent Majority," and when they lose, it is thanks to George Soros and the Lib'rul Media conspiracy, not their ideology). 


By Jeb Lund
May 27, 2015 | Guardian

Sunday, March 17, 2013

The morality of capitalism v. redistribution

Where to begin with the question "Is capitalism moral"? Let's start with the title. Kind of a loaded question. Anyway let's be precise. Pearlstein is really discussing political economy, i.e. how our laws and governance influence commerce and the general welfare. Pearlstein means to debate the role that government should play in the economy. 

To start, Pearlstein correctly notes that, "For most of the past 30 years, the world has been moving in the direction of markets," and yet increasingly over that same period we have "stagnant incomes, gaping inequality, a string of crippling financial crises and 20-somethings still living in their parents’ basements."

Thus Republicans have pivoted, Pearlstein says, to focusing on capitalism's moral superiority because they certainly can't make a prima facie case for capitalism's benefits. Unfortunately, Pearlstein takes their bait and tries to analyze, more or less objectively, which side -- the "free-market capitalists" or the "redistributionists" -- is indeed morally superior, and the flaws with each.

The truth, as with most things, is muddled and complicated.  But I want to lay down a few markers. First, very few liberals/progressives/Democrats insist on having this "moral" debate. Why? Because we liberals are outcome-based. By contrast, conservatives and free-marketeers believe that one's moral principles should determine the rules of the game, and if one's moral principles are sound, then ipso facto, the results will take care of themselves. More precisely, conservatives believe that economic results are morality-free; only our political economics must be morally sound.

Let's admit though that his whole debate has been predicated by recent shitty economic outcomes. For a liberal, a more appropriate question would be to ask: whose political economy is the most responsible for the shitty state of today's economy?  True liberals would be even more precise: what specific policies have led us to these terrible outcomes? Conservatives would obviously like to dodge this question, and instead talk in philosophical or moral abstractions, parables and anecdotes, because the facts -- the results -- of their 30 years of neo-liberal rule do not support the morality of their political economy.

Second marker: to quote Paul Rosenberg: "economics used to be called 'political economy', because the great classical economists never lost sight of the fact that economics was a thoroughly political activity, not something outside of the life of a political community." In other words, economics never, ever, ever happens in a political vacuum. Thus, the notion that, in some ideal country, the free-market capitalism of Adam Smith hums and churns along for the betterment of all, unfettered by and independent of government, is naive and silly. Government has a role to play, it sets the rules of the economic game, we all know that.  To what extent government is involved is a matter of degrees. 

Again, liberals believe that government's role should be evidence- or outcomes-based, i.e. tweaked according to the outcomes achieved, whereas conservatives believe that outcomes, like people, should take care of themselves. What's important for them is to set up a system of rigid, unchanging moral conditions under which people operate.

Third marker: noting the terrible results of recent deregulation, privatization-outsourcing and tax cutting is not the same as saying "capitalism is bad." Conservatives and perhaps Pearlstein would like to provoke us liberals into saying that. It's not necessary, or rather, it's an academic argument rather than a real one, since we have not had a "free-market" system for a very long time, if ever. Indeed the U.S. Government has been "meddling" in the economy for a very long time, just in different ways and to varying degrees. 

The recent political-economic bag is mixed: just as union membership has been plummeting, charter schools have been blooming, taxes on the One Percent were being cut, and regulations on Too Big To Fail banks were being torn down, so was USG spending on the military-industrial complex going through the roof (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Department of Homeland Security apparatus), not to mention Dubya's tremendous addition to the Medicare entitlement -- altogether resulting in a 91 percent increase in our national debt from 2002-2009. 

To be sure, we also had the Great Recession from 2007-2009 that is almost entirely to blame for our persistently high unemployment and deficits since then. This begs the question: what political-economic philosophy was more responsible for the Great Recession? Because we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if it weren't for the Great Recession. You could skip all the junk I wrote above and below, and if you answer this one question correctly, then you are nearly at the truth....


But anyway, back to Pearlstein. He critiques liberals because "they have yet to articulate the moral principles with which to determine how far the evening-up [redistribution] should go -- not just with education but with child care, health care, nutrition, after-school and summer programs, training, and a host of other social services."  There are two big problems with where Pearlstein is going with this.

First, his critique is simply untrue. Liberals have laid out their moral principles, most eloquently in President Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech that included the "freedom from want," and then in President Johnson's "Great Society" initiatives in the 1960s.  


In fact, our moral calculus is much easier to understand than conservatives'. We believe that, in the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world, nobody should go hungry, uneducated or without health care. Furthermore, we believe that our nation's children, elderly and disabled deserve special care and protection, including additional food, medical and housing assistance. This is pretty easy to understand, and to verify. Can a child perform well in school relative to his peers? Does a person go hungry or malnourished? Does a child have a roof over his head? And so on. Depending on the answer, we have a moral obligation to do something. It couldn't be easier to understand.

Second problem: Pearlstein asks liberals to lay out: 1) our moral principles [check]; but also, unfairly, 2) a formula for government redistribution that is clear and will work forever and ever, amen. That's just childishly naive, I'm sorry. Pearlstein needs to get real. First, he ignores political reality that demands compromise. Nobody gets his way all the time, 100%. And let's just remind ourselves why this matters: if tomorrow President Obama would say that a "fair share" of taxes on the One Percent was, say, 30 percent, then this would be all anybody could talk about. Conservatives and their armies in think tanks, cable and talk radio would parse and mince it to death for weeks and months. When in fact it's all relative; and liberals don't care what the number is, as long as it generates sufficient revenues and ensures economic growth. (But historically, until the 1980s, the top marginal rate didn't fall below 70%).  At the end of his essay, Pearlstein admits as much:

Moral philosophers since Adam Smith have understood that free-market economies are not theoretical constructs -- they are embedded in different political, cultural and social contexts that significantly affect how they operate. If there can be no pure free market, then it follows that there cannot be only one neutral or morally correct distribution of market income.

Second, Pearlstein fails to acknowledge that liberals, unlike conservatives, think and act according to feedback loops: from problem/result --> intervention --> result/problem, and so on. Therefore, without observations of actual events, we cannot tell you what will be a fair and equitable taxation rate 5, 10 or 50 years from now, or a fair distribution of wealth. We won't even hazard a guess. 

Such tolerance for uncertainty drives doctrinaire conservatives to conniption. But that's a fundamental difference between us.  Therefore, a real liberal would start with our current and projected expenditures and sources of revenue and go from there; he wouldn't start the analysis with, "Well, it's just plain unfair and immoral for somebody to pay more than x percent of his gross income in taxes."  And besides, if that is my "moral" conviction, then how in the world can we debate that? We'd start at an impasse.

Pearlstein does argue that the distribution of economic rewards will shift over time, but liberals already know this:

[T]he way markets distribute rewards is neither divinely determined nor purely the result of the “invisible hand.” It is determined by laws, regulations, technology, norms of behavior, power relationships, and the ways that labor and financial markets operate and interact. These arrangements change over time and can dramatically affect market outcomes and incomes.

Pearlstein's next critique of liberals is that they "have been able to create a welfare state only by addicting a middle-class majority to government subsidies -- subsidies that now can be financed only by taking more and more money from the rich." 

Do I really need to cite statistics about tax and income inequality and the disappearing U.S. middle class?  If so, read thisthisthisthis and this. And don't even get me started about the $29 trillion bank bailouts, that primarily went to save financial markets in which the top One Percent owns 42 percent of all financial wealth, and the top 20 percent owns about 90 percent. The TBTF bank bailouts clearly demonstrate who is really "addicted" to Big Government and to what degree! 

Overall, although Pearlstein leans conservative, he touches on most of the important questions. The main take-aways from our debate are these:

  • Pure capitalism (or socialism, for that matter) has never existed anywhere, nor can it;
  • We are only worried about rising deficits and redistribution payments because of the Great Recession that in turn resulted from financial deregulation that conservatives support, even to this day;
  • Liberals should never feel obligated to justify the morality of their political economy, when if fact we are much clearer on this than conservatives who claim to care about the poor just as much as we do, yet have no idea how to remedy persistent poverty;
  • Liberals should not fall into conservatives' trap of naming "ideal" marginal tax rates, debt:GDP ratios, or anything of the kind, because 1) it's unwise tactically, in a political system that demands compromise, and 2) the correct answers will change over time.

A final note on political-economic morality: Pearlstein doesn't mention it but I will: conservatives' economic morality depends on personal pain and suffering. They firmly believe that pain teaches us lessons and can be personally redeeming; therefore, for redistributionist Big Government to deny a person the pain that he "deserves" is to deny him the chance to learn and improve himself.  

There is also a religious conservative variant of this belief: even if one's suffering wasn't caused by one's poor decisions, it may still be part of God's plan for that person; therefore, for redistributionist Big Government to prevent that pain and suffering is to interfere with God's plan for that person. Moreover, government assistance to a suffering person denies true Christians the opportunity to curry favor with God by performing charitable works for that suffering person. 

I hope I don't have to explain how sick and twisted such moral reasoning is, much less why it cannot be the basis for our country's political economy....

Finally, a note on redistribution. I will take the liberty here of quoting myself at length:

[L]et's recall for a minute what the U.S. Government -- any government from the dawn of human civilization -- actually does, in pure basics: it collects taxes from the people how it sees fit, and then spends that money how it wants. It does not, for example, say, "Mr. David Koch, since you contributed 0.01 percent of federal income tax revenues in FY 2011, we are allocating 0.01 percent of the FY 2012 federal budget to you."  

Since our government doesn't do this -- since no government has ever done this, ever -- then by definitionwhat our government does is redistribute wealth.  Moreover, sooner or later all government spending ends up in private hands -- just not necessarily (and not usually) in the hands that gave it its money in the first place.  If that's not redistribution then I don't know what is.

By Steven Pearlstein
March 15, 2013 | Washington Post

Friday, December 14, 2012

Ames: Sordid, bloody history of 'right to work'

I'm posting this in full because Mark Ames gives us a great history lesson. Most Americans are ignorant of their own history. They take for granted and don't know things like where the 8-hour workday and a ban on child labor came from. These things came from Progressives and Democrats. 

Likewise, we don't know how many innocent workers and their wives and children were murdered for trying to organize. Those company-sponsored massacres of innocent people with machine guns and tear gas in the first three decades of the 20th century don't make it into our elementary school textbooks.  

So git yerselves edumacated and think twice before you nod your head absently in support of innocuous-sounding, anti-American poison like "right-to-work" laws. We owe a debt of gratitude to our grandparents and great-grandparents who fought and died to protect unions and build the large, stable U.S. middle class that was the envy of the world through the 1970s. We owe it to them not to throw away their hard-fought gains that gave us the good life we enjoyed.


By Mark Ames
December 12, 2012 | NSFW CORP

"From now on, white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs."
— Vance Muse, founder of the "right to work" anti-labor campaign

The Michigan GOP apparently blindsided everyone with the union-busting "right to work" laws they just rammed through the state. Certainly my labor friends were caught off-guard tactically by the Republicans’ speed and choice of battleground.

For most of the county, though, the confusion has to do with what "right to work laws" are and why they’re so bad. You can see it written on the faces of the morning cable news hosts on CNN and even MSNBC — trying to pretend like they know what "right-to-work" laws actually mean, flummoxed by the brazen Orwellian neologism of the phrase and sweating over the possibility that they might have to explain it. Lucky for them, and for most of the media establishment (and for the Koch brothers), few people even know what questions to ask about "right to work laws." All they know — kinda — is that they’re bad for unions, and that those unions seem to know exactly how bad things are about to get.

Today, in most of America, unions have it bad. And part of the reason it’s bad is because we no longer know how to organize. Imagine trying to organize workers in your call center or warehouse, or your software gaming firm or your human rights NGO, as they’re doing at Amnesty International. The pressures against you — from worker cynicism and colleagues’ fear of losing their jobs, to personal relations with your boss and superiors, the bills you have to pay, and simple questions like "how do I organize" and "how do I know I won’t be screwed" — not to mention the inevitable appearance of company snitches, provocateurs, and just run-of-the-mill assholes and idiots... I’m not even talking here about your company’s ability to fire you, demote you, abolish your department, slash your pay, pretty much whatever the Hell they want ever since Reagan busted the air traffic controller’s union... This is the lot of American labor organizers in 2012 , except for in a few remaining pockets of America where union power and memory is still strong and tightly woven into the local cultural DNA.

Michigan is one of those places, which is why crushing labor power there would be as inspiring to the rightwing oligarchs who just got creamed at the polls as, say, the rise of the Tea Party was in early 2009.

So yesterday, as Michigan Republicans pushed the bill into law, labor groups converged on the capital in Lansing. According to the BBC, "police in riot gear used tear gas to control tensions among a crowd [outside the Michigan statehouse] of more than 10,000 protesters." For a lot of (once)-middle-class Americans, it’s hard to reconcile that level of anger with something as dull-sounding as "right to work laws."

"Austerity measures" are easier to fear: "austerity" is meant to sound scary and sadomasochistic. But "right to work" sounds dreary and almost redundant, like "right to pay bills."

That’s until you start to understand the history of the "right to work" movement, the racist human hagfish who brought "right to work" into our lexicon and made it happen, and the far-right fascist oligarchs who made it worth their while. Once you meet a few of these cretins — specifically, Vance Muse, the Karl Rove-meets-David Duke brains behind the whole "Right-to-Work" movement whom I’ll introduce you to a little later in this piece — you’ll understand why those thousands who converged on Lansing were acting like their state legislators just invited Count Dracula into everyone’s homes.

In terms of understanding what just happened, it would help if we were back in the 1940s and 50s, when most liberals and establishment media used — and understood — the antonym, "union security" — a descriptive phrase for the New Deal labor laws which finally gave union organizers a fighting chance, and saw the percentage of unionized workers in the US soar from single digits in the early 1930s to around 35% of the workforce by the mid-late 1940s.

The "right-to-work" movement to destroy labor unions began almost as soon as FDR passed the Wagner Act in the mid-1930s, which gave labor organizers "union security" as the old euphemism went and should still go. Again, you have to understand the historical context: Until the Wagner Act passed, when it came to workers’ rights, America in the 1930s was about half a century or more behind the rest of the West — child labor wasn’t even outlawed here until 1938.

But nothing compared to the endless massacres and murders of American labor organizers, massacres that are all but censored from the official history of this country. Maybe you’ve heard something about the Ludlow Massacre of the families of mine workers at Rockefeller’s mines in Colorado in 1913 — but you probably don’t know many of the details, like how Rockefeller’s private armed goons patrolled the miners’ miserable tent cities in an armored car with a mounted machine gun, spraying the tents and terrorizing the strikers, who demanded such radical concessions as "enforcement of Colorado’s laws," the eight hour work week, and pay for time spent working. Or how the terrorized women and children in the embattled tent city dug a giant makeshift bunker pit beneath one of the larger tents to hide out from the bullets — only to have Colorado National Guardsmen douse the tents with kerosene and light them on fire while the miners’ families were sleeping, then shoot some of those who ran out, killing over a dozen children, scores of workers and their wives, and ending with the arrests of hundreds of miners.

In the end, anywhere from several dozen to 200 were left dead. We don’t know exactly — and there hasn’t been much effort on the part of our culture to find out. This "we don’t know the death toll" marks just about all of the many killings and massacres of labor organizers and strikers in the pre-New Deal era.

The same goes with the West Virginia mine wars: whether the massacre of tent city workers in 1913 by coal miner thugs firing from armored trains passing through the tent cities, or the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921, when the company raised the largest private standing army in the US, and attacked strikers with gas shells fired from artillery and dropped from bombers. President Harding followed that up by sending in federal troops and the US Air Force led by Brig. General Billy Mitchell, and when it was over, the miners’ unionization drive was dead. Along with well over 100 workers and family members — again, the exact number is "in dispute" as they say.

The "Red Scare" of 1919-20 was aimed at breaking labor unions, and specifically at equating union security — the "closed shop" where unionized companies and factories could require all workers to pay dues to the unions since they all benefited from union contracts — with Bolshevism. In contrast stood the "open shop"—where union membership was merely a "choice" strongly discouraged by employers — with "Americanism." In fact that’s what they called "right to work" back then: the "American Plan."

The Palmer Raids of those years (where J. Edgar Hoover first distinguished himself) resulted in tens of thousands of Americans illegally rounded up, beaten, tortured, imprisoned without any due process, and deported by the thousands, citizens included. Big business coordinated their PR offensive with the Palmer Raids by labeling anti-union open shop laws "American Plan."

After the 1929 crash, that euphemism became associated in people’s minds with the brutal pre-New Deal culture. So corporate America went back to their PR flaks to brand "open shop" with a new, less toxic-sounding euphemism. The phrase they came up with was "right to work," as if they were actually empowering workers with "individual liberty" by going after their unions.

History shows us what’s at stake here, and how far big business was willing to go to keep "right to work" or "American Plan" the national standard. Big business in America regarded the rest of the population and its labor pool much the same way colonial powers viewed the local Natives — as inherently hostile, alien savages whose purpose was to enrich their masters, and who must not be given even the slightest concessions, such as child labor laws, lest it put ideas in their heads about "rights"...

It was in this atmosphere that the ACLU really began as a defender of labor rights, when the ACLU equated civil liberties and Constitutional liberties with union organizing rights. Contrast that with today’s ACLU, which supports Citizens United and corporate "free speech" in exchange for massive donations from tobacco firms and the Koch brothers, while focusing on high-profile culture war cases at the expense of labor.

By 1930, labor unions were practically dead, considered a relic of the past by the media and academic elites. The Great Depression changed all that, in part because unlike today, back then Americans had no food stamps, no unemployment insurance, no state pensions, and of course, no child labor laws and no labor protections to speak of — all the things labor unions are responsible for giving us today.

From the Ford Motors massacre in Michigan in 1932, which left four workers killed and up to 50 wounded — through the Chicago Memorial Day Massacre of striking Republic Steel workers in 1937, in which company thugs and cops killed 10 peaceful marchers nearly all of whom were shot in the back, and wounded 60 more, billyclubbing the wounded as they crouched in the dirt — America was a savage and violent place to work if you weren’t rich.

Hearings were held in the Senate, and the LaFollette Committee Report discovered that corporations not only operated armies of spies in the tens of thousands, but that "Republic Steel Corporation [responsible for the 1937 massacre] has a uniformed police force of nearly 400 men whom it was equipped not only with revolvers, rifles, and shotguns, but also with more tear and sickening gas and gas equipment than has been purchased...by any law-enforcement body, local, State or Federal in the country.  It has loosed its guards, thus armed, to shoot down citizens on the streets and highways," the Senate report observed.

That was the arsenal controlled by just a single steel company.

FDR leveled the workplace playing field some with the Wagner Act, for the first time making union security (closed shop) a reality. Labor union power and membership soared, as did wages and benefits; America suddenly had Social Security and unemployment insurance, child labor laws, a minimum wage, five day/40 hour work week, and within a few years, a powerful middle class.

To big business plutocrats, the New Deal labor laws represented a sort of political Holocaust that they never forgot or forgave. They lost their full spectrum political dominance over their workers and over the political and judicial direction of the country, and all that essentially because FDR brought to an end America’s "open shop" culture and empowered unions with "closed shop" union security.

But business vowed that one day it would have its revenge. And that revenge would be "right to work" laws.

A report I found dating back to 1962 by Group Research, Inc — one of those left-liberal outfits back in the days before the left was defunded — dated big business’ first use of this new "right to work" to 1935, when the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association lobbied against FDR’s pro-labor Wagner Act, telling the New York Times, "men have an inalienable right to work, free from coercion..."

That’s an interesting coincidence, because Mitt Romney’s dad, George Romney, owed his success to the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, which hired him as a top lobbyist in 1939. It was from that job that Romney eventually took over his own Michigan automobile firm, AMC, took over Michigan as governor (where he oversaw the bloodiest inner city riots of 1967), told America he’d been brainwashed in Vietnam, denounced supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment as "moral perverts" and homosexuals, and yes, gifted the world with his vulture capitalist son, Willard M. Romney, or "Mitt The Impaled" as we call him here at the NSFWCORP headquarters.

But I digress. And there’s a reason I digress. Because I’ve been putting off introducing you to Vance Muse, the real brains behind the "right to work" movement that’s still plaguing Americans to this day.

Vance Muse was a racist political operative and lobbyist from the state of Texas — the native habitat for all America’s vermin —as Satanically vile as "Turd Blossom" Rove, a racist smear-peddler like Andrew Breitbart, only without Breitbart’s degenerate heart and fondness for blow.

Here is a description of Vance Muse, creator of the "right to work" movement, from a book by an old celebrated journalist, Stetson Kennedy, the reporter who famously went undercover inside the KKK and wrote a tell-all in the 40’s:

"The man Muse is quite a character. He is six foot four, wears a ten-gallon hat, but generally reserves his cowboy boots for trips Nawth. Now over fifty [this is published in 1946—M.A.], Muse has been professionally engaged in reactionary enterprises for more than a quarter of a century."

Among Vance Muse’s "reactionary enterprises": He lobbied against women’s suffrage, against the child-labor amendment, against the 8-hour workday, and in 1936, Muse engineered the first split in the South’s Democratic Party by peeling off the segregationists and racists from the New Deal party, a political maneuver that eventually led to Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and at last a Republican right-wing takeover of the South, and with it, the collapse of the old New Deal coalition. Which worked out fine for Vance Muse, since he was a covert Republican himself, serving "for years" as the Republican Party state treasurer in Texas.

That first attempt at splitting the Democratic party by peeling away the Southern segregationist-fascists took place in 1936, when Georgia’s brutal white supremacist governor, Eugene Talmadge, organized a "grassroots" convention with Vance Muse’s help. To stir up anti-FDR and anti-New Deal hate in the South, Vance Muse used photographs he acquired showing First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt being escorted by two African-American professors at Howard University. Muse used that photo to stir up the white supremacists in Georgia, he leaked it to as many newspapers as he could, and he even brandished it around a Senate hearing he was called before in 1936. Those hearings revealed that the anti-FDR "convention" that Vance Muse put on, through his "Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution"— which featured guests of honor like Gerald L K Smith, America’s leading anti-Semite and godfather to the modern American Nazi movement — was financed not only by Confederate sponsors like Texan Will Clayton, owner of the world’s largest cotton broker, but also reactionary northeast Republican money: the DuPont brothers, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, Alfred Sloan of General Motors... That unholy alliance of Northeastern and Confederate plutocrat money financed the first serious attempt at splitting the Southern Democrats off by exploiting white supremacism, all in order to break labor power and return to the world before the New Deal — and to the open shop.

Incidentally, Vance Muse’s northern donors — DuPont, Pew, Sloan — were the same core investors in (and board directors of) the first modern libertarian think-tanks of the 40s and 50s, including the Foundation for Economic Education. DuPont, Pew and Sloan funds also seeded the American careers of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, among others. In other words, Vance Muse’s funders built the first layer of the libertarian nomenklatura that Charles Koch later took control of — no surprise, since Koch outfits are credited with making the Michigan "right to work" law possible.

...Getting back to Vance Muse: In 1936, he incorporated in Texas another union-busting outfit called the "Christian American Association" which was closely associated with the Texas Ku Klux Klan as well as the American Legion, a far-right veterans’ group used to bust up unions and terrorize minorities and suspected Communists. It was this same Christian American Association which launched the "right to work" anti-union campaign using that very same euphemism.

Dartmouth professor Marc Dixon, writing in the Journal of Policy History, summed it up like this:

The modern Right-to-Work movement and political mobilization championing this slogan...was spearheaded by the Christian American Association out of Houston in the early 1940s.

Initially, Vance Muse set the association up to create a sort of fundamentalist Christian KKK outfit to undermine FDR’s 1936 election. In 1941, he saw an editorial in the Dallas Morning News calling for Texas to pass an open shop amendment called "Right-To Work" to its state constitution.

Dixon writes:

"After traveling to Dallas and consulting with the editor, Muse was encouraged to use and promote the idea of Right-to-Work. This became their [Christian American’s] primary cause and they campaigned extensively for Right-to-Work legislation throughout the country, and especially in Texas."

Vance Muse’s fellow traveler in Texas union-busting fascism was a local big business outfit called the "Fight for Free Enterprise" and together, the two of groups passed laws outlawing picketing by striking workers and making it easy for anyone to accuse picketing workers of inciting violence, open shop "Right-to-Work" laws, and they even pushed for a Nazi-like law that would force union organizers to wear "identifying head gear (red for the CIO and gray for the AFL)."

Even as millions of Americans were fighting fascism overseas, Vance Muse in his ten-gallon hat bragged to his Confederate plutocrats about the passage of Texas’ anti-picketing bill, saying it would "keep the color line drawn in our social affairs."  In 1944, he told the Houston Post that so-called "Eleanor Clubs," named in honor of the First Lady, were a "RED RADICAL scheme to organize negro maids, cooks and nurses in order to have a Communist informer in every Southern home."

Muse’s sister and partner in Christian American, Ida Darden, agreed with her brother, telling the Antioch Review she worried that the Eleanor Clubs...

...stood for "$15 a week salary for all nigger house help, Sundays off, no washing, and no cleaning upstairs." As an afterthought, she added,"My nigger maid wouldn’t dare sit down in the same room with me unless she sat on the floor at my feet!"

Allowing herself to go still further, the little lady went on to say, "Christian Americans can’t afford to be anti-Semitic, but we know where we stand on the Jews, all right. It doesn’t pay us to work with Winrod, Smith, Coughlin, and those others up North; they’re too outspoken and would get us into trouble...You’d be surprised how many important corporations support our work."
Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy

Indeed. That, again, from the sister and partner in the outfit that created the modern Right-To-Work movement which, decades later, just steamrolled over Michigan.

A March 10, 1945 article in the Sunday Morning Star in Delaware reported on Vance Muse’s outfit, as its first "Right-To-Work" successes started to get national attention:

"Union groups throughout the country are asking [for] an investigation of the Christian American Association which has been pushing anti-labor bills in many state legislators. Anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic literature has also been attributed to the Christian Americans."

In fact, their anti-Catholic literature was so strident that they were all but chased out of Louisiana.

But in Texas it worked: That year, 1945, Vance Muse’s Christian American Association successfully lobbied for Texas’ "Right-To-Work" law thanks to a brilliant smear campaign run by Muse himself: He arranged for a woman called Ruth Koenig, who claimed to be the head of an alleged Texas Communist Party, to testify before the Texas legislature on the Right-to-Work law. Naturally the Communist testified against the law – and thanks to that testimony Muse’s Christian American Association was able to label any Texas lawmaker opposed to Right-to-Work as a Communist. Flyers were printed up warning state residents about "Communists in the Legislature," listing their names, linking them to Koenig with the header: "Where She Leads Us, We Will Follow."

Until that day, Texas was on its way to becoming a strong union state, according to Dartmouth’s Prof. Dixon, outpacing other states in the South thanks largely to successful organizing by the CIO.  After passage of the Right-to-Work law...well, look at Texas today. It’s libertarian Hell, Koch Industries paradise, home to Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Just how they like it.

The transition to our time has been seamless. Charles Koch’s father, Fred Koch, made his name in right-wing politics as one of the leaders of the Kansas Right-to-Work movement. The fight in Kansas was more bitter and protracted than in Texas — Kansas had a strong tradition of populism and farmer socialism — but in 1958, they succeeded and the law passed. That same year, Fred Koch co-founded the crypto-fascist John Birch Society with eleven other industrialists, the most powerful grassroots libertarian outfit of the postwar era until his son Charles raised libertarianism to an entirely new level.

Among other things, the John Birch Society taught that President Eisenhower was a conscious active Communist agent taking orders from Moscow; that the Civil Rights movement was a Communist conspiracy and Martin Luther King took direct orders from Moscow; and that the world was controlled by a group of conspiratorial insiders known as the Illuminati; and that America is "a republic, not a democracy."

Politically, its goal was the same as Vance Muse’s: reversing "the whole new-deal march toward state socialism" and expunging "the disease of collectivism," in the words of Bircher leader Robert Welch. In other words: union-busting, stripping government benefits and eliminating taxes on the rich. (To understand why Fred Koch and the Bircher libertarians hated Ike so much, imagine today a Republican like Eisenhower who raised the top marginal tax rate to 91%, who poured massive government investments into building roads and schools, who publicly declared his support for Social Security and denounced any Republican who opposed it — you get the point.)

The founder of the National Right To Work Committee in the mid-1950s, Reed Larson, came from Fred and Charles Koch’s base in Wichita, Kansas — headquarters of Koch Industries. Fred Koch teamed up with Reed Larson to pass Kansas’ Right-to-Work law, and Reed Larson’s "National Right to Work Committee" intertwined itself with Fred Koch’s John Birch Society.

And that sordid history of Right-to-Work, that seamless historical thread running straight out of Vance Muse’s putrid little brain right through all of the shock and misery on display in Lansing, Michigan today — that’s what’s the matter with Kansas. Dorothy’s wrong, folks: we’re all stuck in Kansas, and no one’s safe, no matter which state you live in.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

FDR v. Obama, or, Balls v. 'bipartisanship'


I would love for Obama to be more like FDR.  But this pretty much says it all, says why Obama is not up to the historical challenges set before him:

Like Obama, Roosevelt was assailed by Republicans during his first re-election. But old black-and-white film clips show a man who relished taking on his opponents, those he described as "the old enemies of peace, business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering".

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today," [FDR] said to cheers in 1936.

"They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred."

The rich and powerful may have hated him, but the masses loved him FDR. He won his first re-election in a landslide [46 out of the then 48 states].

If I haven't made it clear enough, here is former U.S. ambassador William Vanden Heuvel on FDR:

"When you have a political force opposing you, whose object is to destroy you, then you have to fight hard. Roosevelt fought hard and was elected four times as president."

They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.  Jesus, imagine if Obama acknowledged that truism today!  He'd be branded as some kind of Angry Black Extremist, for sure.  But nobody could say it wasn't the truth!  That's Obama's idiotic dilemma: he can't admit, or can't bring himself to admit, that millions of Americans hate his guts because of who he is and what he stands for.  There is nothing,absolutely nothing, he can do to win them over or even calm their hysterical hatred of him. By contrast, FDR didn't have a problem admitting it.  FDR knew a coalition of the Evils and Stupids were out to murder him, politically.  He just had optimism and faith that they were in the minority.  His confidence and optimism bulldozed over them.  God, how we need an FDR today!


By Kristen Saloomey
October 20, 2012 | Al Jazeera

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Sirota: Busting myths about Great Depression

And after you read this, check out this more detailed analysis by Sirota, including U.S. Census data: "The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History."

 

 

Busting myths that FDR prolonged Great Depression

By David Sirota

January 5, 2009  |  BillingsGazette.com

 

If you're like me, you sometimes find yourself speechless when confronted with abject insanity.

 

If you're like me, for instance, you were dumbfounded when "Forrest Gump" beat out "Pulp Fiction" for best picture; when HBO's "The Sopranos" received more accolades than "The Wire"; and when George W. Bush insisted that Iraqi airplanes were about to drop WMDs on American cities.

 

So if you're like me, you probably understand why I was momentarily tongue-tied last week after running face-first into conservatives' newest (and most ridiculous) talking point - the one designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package.

 

During a Christmas Eve appearance on Fox News, I pointed out that most mainstream economists believe the government must boost the economy with deficit spending. That's when conservative pundit Monica Crowley said we should instead limit such spending because President Franklin Roosevelt's "massive government intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression." Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett eagerly concurred, saying "historians pretty much agree on that."

 

Of course, I had recently heard snippets of this silly argument - right-wing pundits are repeating it everywhere these days. But I had never heard it articulated in such preposterous terms, so my initial reaction was paralysis - the mouth-agape, deer-in-the-headlights kind. Only after collecting myself did I say that such assertions about the New Deal were absurd. But then I was laughed at - as if it was hilarious to say that the New Deal did anything but exacerbate the Depression.

 

Afterward, suffering pangs of self-doubt, I wondered whether I and most of the country are the crazy ones. Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?"

 

Ummm ... no.

 

New Deal revisionism


Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

 

You can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

 

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" - its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

 

Nope.

 

Financial system rehab


According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

 

OK. If the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians - do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

 

Again, no.

 

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

 

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week - the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.