Amos's River of Justice

Category: U.S. Politics

  • Justice is a Choice

    I’ve changed my tune on Ukraine. What made the difference? We live in an us-or-them world in which people are eventually forced to take sides. This is not only true of Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is never anything more than a waiting game there will always be places in the world where conflict is possible and where political leaders feel they must protect their interests. Unfortunately, the last four posts illustrate how this can derail the conversation. The us-or-them world won’t change unless we change it, and if we want to change it we have to continue the conversation.

    How does change happen? I’ve begun to think that on a certain level it’s simply a choice. However, before we can choose, the choices must be discovered and described. One of the most basic choices would be peace and prosperity—peace is a choice, not a happy accident. The basis of peace and prosperity is justice. What does justice look like? That remains to be discovered, but we could start by describing what injustice looks like.

    Reformers always base their ideas on historical models. The model for our age was constructed from the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas have even influenced the world’s main religions. The first step in investigating our choices would be to question these ideas and the structure of inequality they have created. I’ve argued that the creation of this structure was no mistake; it was deliberate. Yet every reformer accepts it as a basis for society.

    That discussion could go on for years, but I’m trying to stay with the idea of choice. As an example I’ll use my theory that inequality begins with the subjugation of women. Even though oppression is personal to the oppressed, on a policy level it is impersonal and utilitarian. The oppression of women is the foundation of a particular social and political organization. This may not be very encouraging, but it could also indicate that the oppression of women is not an unchanging, inescapable fact of human existence. It’s part of a specific cultural construct.

    In my opinion it would be a mistake to assume from this that women must change the system single-handedly. I don’t think that’s how it works. While there are plenty of women today who speak out against patriarchy, I suspect that women as a group are no threat to the status quo. What does this say about our culture, or about women
or about change? There have been woman-centered communities in the past. Is human nature different today? How about the female gender? Maybe the world suffers from a lack of female role models and archetypes and we just need a female priesthood and a system of goddess worship. Again, I don’t think so.

    My model is Minoa. Some will object to this on grounds that we don’t have enough information about the way the Minoans lived. However we do have archaeological evidence that they prospered for at least 3,000 years, and their city was never fortified. The adjective normally used to describe Minoan civilization is ‘confident’. By the way, those arguing for a return to goddess worship also admit that they know nothing about it. Yet the same people—the ones I’m familiar with are university professors—accept the idea of human sacrifice.

    Others might object to my using Minoa as a model because I reject goddess worship. Maybe they remember reading somewhere that Minoa did indeed have goddess worship. This requires more discussion as well, but apparently this belief is due to Jane Ellen Harrison’s influence on the interpretation of Minoan artifacts. I intend to discuss this later also, but I’ll say that although Harrison claimed to be revealing ancient Greek religion, her books are categorized today as Hermetic philosophy. Harrison was a colleague of Charles Darwin. And it is no dark conspiracy that our science is hermetic. It’s descended from the Rosicrucians by way of the Royal Society.

    As long as I seem to be making an outline of the conversation, I’ll also mention that Protestant Christianity is heavily influenced by Hermeticism. I once thought that if you found a system with elements of magic and the occult, it must be a pre-Christian, or non-Christian system. That’s not true. Protestantism is indebted to mystical and occult beliefs. In fact, elements of the occult can be found in all religions. The same goes for our form of democracy. For this reason, I would argue that Christianity can’t be excluded from the conversation. In fact, it seems it would be impossible to carry on an American conversation about the past, the present, or the future, without acknowledging the influence of the church.

    But I’ve gone off the track again. I wanted to talk about choice. I’ve said that I don’t think justice is imposed single-handedly on a society by oppressed people, or by anyone else for that matter. I think it’s a choice made at a cultural level. It’s possible that theology would have a place in this process, but I’m afraid our theology has become inseperable from utilitarian elements.

    In support of the idea that people must choose justice, here is an interesting fact about Minoa. The Minoans were aware that their way of life was coming to an end and they didn’t resist. Maybe they understood that if some members of a society choose to take advantage of others just because they are able to do so, the good times are over and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

  • Stratfor’s Second Quarter Forecast 2014

    Stratfor's Second Quarter Forecast 2014.

  • United States to Russia: Do as We Say, Not as We Do

    U.S. involvement in Ukraine is counterproductive because it pushes all the wrong buttons for Russia, especially now that relations between Putin and President Obama are at an all-time low.
    “From Moscow’s point of view, any form of direct U.S. involvement in Ukrainian security operations could grow over time into stronger assistance, possibly including U.S. troops on the ground.” ((Possible U.S. Involvement in Ukraine Could Heighten Tensions. Geopolitical Diary, Stratfor Global Intelligence. April 25, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/possible-us-involvement-ukraine-could-heighten-tensions))

    However, the Russians are convinced that the latest operation by Ukrainian security forces is evidence of U.S. military assistance. On Thursday, Ukrainian forces stormed several Russian separatist checkpoints in Slovyansk, killing five separatists and one police officer. Similar to a previous operation on April 15, the Ukrainians withdrew suddenly, reportedly after receiving intelligence of an increased risk of Russian troops crossing the border. However this time the Ukrainian personnel were better prepared and had more professional gear, such as body armor and small arms equipped with high-end reflexive fire sights. For the Russians, such a drastic improvement can only mean direct U.S. involvement, specifically through the U.S. security firm, Greystone.

    Their evidence is circumstantial and the Ukrainians have been denying similar claims for some time, but on Wednesday the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister didn’t help matters when he said, “Each day we receive [dozens of tips] on how to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We even conducted consultations with American experts, which
have decades of experience on combatting terrorism and they said that we are conducting a good anti-terrorist policy.” [backref name=“Possible U.S. Involvement Could Heighten Tensions”]

    If the United States really wants a diplomatic solution, this is not the way to go about it.

  • Putin Must Restore Harmony in Ukraine

    The situation in Ukraine has alternated between rhythm and discord. The music began when Ukraine decided to pursue an Association Agreement with the EU. The first discordant note sounded when the Ukrainian president was told that he must end relations with Russia. His decision not to sign the AA resulted in local protests, which culminated in Victoria Nuland’s phone call. In retrospect, this phone call was probably misleading. Unfortunately, it’s given credence to Putin’s focus on the United States. Conflict between Russia and the United States is certainly safer for Putin in the short term than conflict with the EU. However, he seems to be using the U.S. to avoid dialogue with his closer neighbors. In my opinion, Putin is on the line to respond appropriately to Keiv’s latest attempts to restore harmony.

    Ukraine’s leaders have responded to his concerns in two ways: by addressing the radical right, and by indicating a willingness to discuss the federalization of Ukraine. These things should have the potential to end the crisis, but at this time the pro-Russian groups in Eastern Ukraine are out of step. Regardless of whether Russia is supporting them, if Putin fails to call them to order he is at fault.

    Some are now saying that the United States’ presence in Poland is part of the problem. However, the American strategy has clearly been defensive so far. The administration probably wants to demonstrate support for Central Europe, as has been stated. The reason: if these countries believe they have been left on their own to face Russia, they might decide they have no choice but to make peace with Putin. NATO can’t handle Central Europe’s requests for help because NATO is cash-poor and divided. Therefore, the United States has to take up some of the slack. [ref]From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence. March 25, 2014. available:http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/estonia-azerbaijan-american-strategy-after-ukraine?topics=286[/ref]

    All things considered, it’s difficult to make the case that this is another Cold War as some on the Left would like us to believe. It’s not a conflict between the United States and Russia, except perhaps for purposes of propaganda. The U.S. has clearly been playing a supporting role to the EU and Obama’s continuing restraint supports this view. Harsh retaliation has been ruled out because it would damage the EU as much as Russia.

    No one is forgetting that Russian security was threatened, but Russia is not under threat from the United States at this time. Putin must work with his neighbors in the EU and Ukraine. Perhaps he believes his focus on the U.S. will win support for his personal agenda. Too bad Obama hasn’t taken his bait.

    It’s Putin’s turn to strike a chord. He should end this.

  • American Interests in Ukraine

    I’m reading George Friedman’s “A Forecast for the 21st Century”. So far, it’s reinforced something I’ve read between the lines in analyses of past administrations.  The world’s governments don’t act irrationally.  Our current administration is no exception.  A 2012 article on stratfor.com helps to explain the U.S. behavior.  Perhaps it even explains Harper’s panel discussion on the EU in which representatives of the UK, the United States and France expressed concern about Germany’s power.  It certainly provides a different slant on so-called American imperialism. While America’s actions might appear as evidence of an offensive strategy, they are primarily defensive. U.S. foreign policy is the result of unheard-of power combined with fear.  I’m not qualified to answer the question of whether the level of fear is grounded in reality in any particular circumstance, but after reading this article, you can decide whether it is justified in the case of Ukraine.

    Largely due to the rise of competition with Russia’s role as supplier of Europe’s natural gas, Russia is trying to create strong buffers in Central and Eastern Europe.  She hasn’t been hugely successful, but her cause has been helped by decreasing military budgets in the EU.

    The wavering of NATO’s focus on Central Europe has added to NATO’s problems, for example in Afghanistan. In addition, France has supported military coalitions in places not strictly of interest to NATO, such as Libya.  

    For the past ten years, NATO has easily contained Russia militarily, while the EU contained her economically, but since the Greek economic crisis of 2010 the EU has had fewer resources.  Russia, on the other hand, has a $600 billion surplus from energy sales and $500 billion in reserves.  

    By 2012, the Russians had increased their troop presence near Estonia.  They had an agreement with Belarus to deploy troops there in a wartime scenario, and they had deployed S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems in Kaliningrad. They also had plans to deploy the Iskander missile system there.  

    Russia has also been buying assets at the end of the energy supply chain in Europe, which will give it more leverage in the foreign policies of European states.  In this case however, Russia is in need of European investment, which will increase EU leverage over Russia. 

    These facts provide some of the background for Russia’s current involvement in Ukraine, which is tremendously important to her strategic plans.  Russian influence in Ukraine would integrate Russia into Europe, but it would also allow Russia to truly challenge Europe.  

    In view of Germany’s rising power in the EU, this writer believes–or he did in 2012–that a German-Russian condominium is a possibility.  Germany has always been conflicted between Atlantic Europe to the West and land-bound, autocratic Europe to the East.  A subtle turn by Germany toward Moscow would be a serious matter.  

    Europe is very much in play. Its future as an economic, political and moral powerhouse is not written in advance — as was smugly assumed a few years ago. The EU debt crisis is only the beginning of the story, with geopolitical aftershocks that will only become apparent over time.[ref]Global Affairs, Stratfor.com, May 23, 2012. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/europes-russia-factor#ixzz2vCJdWzhd[/ref]

  • From Thomas Hobbes to John Locke: Putting Ayn Rand Through Her Paces

    The question of morality in political and economic systems has been brought into the national conversation by Paul Ryan, a follower of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand’s definition of morality is the morality of rational self-interest. She argued that rational and ethical egoism should be the guiding principle of morality, and she defined egoism as the virtue of selfishness. Morality, she said, is based in the needs of man’s survival, and ethical altruism is incompatible with the requirements of morality. Individual rights should be pre-eminent and laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that can protect them.

    Perhaps those who interviewed the young Ayn Rand on their talk shows were fooled by the fact that she was simply a novelist. Maybe they thought that if her ideas were simply made known to the public, the public would see through them. That could explain why they offered no substantial challenge to Rand’s claims.  I suspect they have helped to ensure Rand’s continuing influence. You might want to watch her interviews again with this in mind. She was interviewed by: Mike Wallace ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y)); Tom Snyder ((Ayn Rand and Tom Snyder, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFKnfN4bfk)); James Day ((Ayn Rand and James Day, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Zv8VpKmE)); and Phil Donahue ((Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q)).

    It is revealing that Rand herself chose to talk about right and wrong, good and evil, and it is therefore appropriate that the Catholic Church has been one of her main critics.  However, Rand had another purpose besides the promotion of her definition of morality. She claimed her views represented the ultimate truth about America, and she posed as a patriot when all the while she was working to redefine who and what America is. It is therefore appropriate that President Obama chose to enter the debate, stating that her ideas do not define who we are. ((Brinkley, Douglas, Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview. Rolling Stone Politics, Nov. 8, 2012. Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025))

    What do we mean when we talk about morality?

    The following definition of morality is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    “It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.”

    America’s definition of morality, on the other hand, will require more discussion. [intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]We have seen[/intlink] that the creators of the secular foundation for morality had no intention of creating a new code of behavior. Their task was to develop a new basis for the old code. This was necessary because the moral authority of the church had been destroyed in the Protestant Reformation.

    The Church’s morality is based on natural law theory. Natural Law theories assume any rational person can know the kinds of actions that are prohibited, required, discouraged, encouraged, and allowed.  The theological version of natural law, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, assumes that God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons.  The secular version of natural law, attributed first to Thomas Hobbes, assumes that natural reason allows all persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. These are not empirical claims about morality but claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by ‘morality’ when it is used normatively.((Gert, Bernard, “The Definition of Morality”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/>.))

    Ayn Rand claimed to have dispensed with all previous rational arguments for morality with her critique of Emmanuel Kant. However, of the moral philosophers who contributed to America’s form of government, Kant’s ideas were probably the easiest to refute. Kant, by the way, was not a natural law philosopher.

    Theories of Morality in Perspective

    According to Bernard Gert, the term ‘morality’ is used in two ways: descriptively or normatively. Descriptive codes of conduct are put forth by a society or some other group such as a religion, or by an individual for her own behavior.  On the other hand, the assumption behind a normative code of conduct is that all rational persons would agree to it, given specified conditions.

    A descriptive morality might appear to be a normative system within small homogeneous societies. However, in large societies not all members accept the same code of conduct. A natural response to this problem is to switch attention from groups to individuals. However, when individuals propose a moral code, they imply that their guide to behavior should be universally adopted, or at least accepted by everyone in their group.

    When an individual claims that morality prohibits or requires a given action, the term ‘morality’ is ambiguous. It is not clear if she refers to a guide to behavior put forward by a society; a guide that is put forward by a group; a guide that a person regards as overriding and wants adopted by everyone in her group; or a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. But when she refers to her own morality, she invariably speaks normatively. I believe this is how Rand meant her ideas to be understood.

    When the term ‘morality’ is used descriptively, the proposed code of behavior has no implications for individuals not belonging to that group.  A person who accepts a normative definition of morality, however, commits herself to that code of behavior. For this reason, there are serious disagreements about which normative definition to accept.

    The Reformers Compared

    Thomas Hobbes’s remedy for the chaos of the Reformation was to establish a new basis for the old morality–not to create a new morality. He thought that “If higher laws are not equated with intangible goods like virtue, wisdom, and salvation, then the ills of civilization can be avoided and mankind can enjoy enduring civil peace.” Hobbes identified the same human traits as Ayn Rand, but while Hobbes considered them regrettable, Rand arbitrarily called them moral. This is typical of Rand’s thought, but it is also evidence of a continuing ‘[intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]process of forgetting[/intlink]’, which was already evident during the Enlightenment.

    Hobbes insisted that there is no utmost aim or greatest good as put forth by the ‘old moral philosophers,’ Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Rand insisted there is in deed an utmost aim, survival. Further, the individual’s moral purpose is his own happiness. Finally, according to her fictional hero, John Galt, human perfection is ‘an unbreached rationality’. ((The Ultimate Philosopher, Ayn Rand on Human Perfection. Available: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/03/ayn-rand-on-human-perfection.html)) While Hobbes lamented that human nature is restlessly striving for power after power that has no end and therefore no happiness or perfection, Rand considered such striving to be a virtue.

    “Hobbes presented the materialist account of man as a creature of appetites and aversions: seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, and desiring power after power. The materialist account supports the view that no natural end for man really exists, only the ceaseless motion of a complex machine. The materialist account also strengthens the case against the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of man as a rational and social animal naturally suited by language and friendship to live in a political community. Hobbes’s model shows that human beings are selfish, competitive, and anti-social and that they are rational only insofar as reason serves the selfish passions. The logical conclusion was [his] ‘state of nature’ teaching, which describes the anarchical condition of individuals without an artificial social contract and a coercive sovereign to hold them together.” (Leviathan, Part I, as summarized in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Of course, Ayn Rand thought selfish striving was moral and that it should be given free reign.  Now back to Hobbes:

    “The mechanical model of man, however, [was] not sufficient to refute classical natural law. Hobbes develops a second argument based on moral experience, showing that human beings are motivated not only by pleasure and power but also by vanity–a false estimate of one’s superiority to others. In historical writings, Hobbes shows how the passion of vanity has undermined traditional political authority where kings have relied on higher law to gain obedience from the people. The defect of this arrangement is that traditional higher law doctrines are easily exploited by vain and ambitious men who claim superiority to the sovereign because of privileged knowledge of divine, natural, and common law. Hobbes’s account of the English Civil War (1642-60) in Behemoth illustrates the problem: King Charles I was overthrown by Puritan clergymen, democratic Parliamentarians, and lawyers of the common law who sought recognition for their superior knowledge of higher law yet who could not agree among themselves about whose doctrine was right, producing sectarian wars that reduced English society to the anarchic state of nature.”

    By contrast, Ayn Rand thought she could determine who among her acquaintances deserved her love.

    Today, Hobbes is notorious as an atheist materialist and advocate for absolute monarchy over constitutional government, but he was a major influence behind the natural rights principles of modern liberalism that became the middle-class materialist view of morality. Still, he would have disagreed with later thinkers who advocated constitutional limits on state power because he thought the sovereign’s absolute and arbitrary power was the only way to keep people in line. The movement to limit the scope of government to the protection of rights led away from Hobbes’s absolute monarchy and toward constitutionally limited government. This movement was led by Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, and the Federalist. ((Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/>.))

    Ayn Rand in the Real World

    The limited government debate should be taking place in the context of this evolution from Absolutism to limited government. In a more specific sense, the discussion of Ayn Rand’s ideas should be carried on within another context. Because of her support for both Big Oil and Israel, a tendency she shares with Paul Ryan as well as the neoconservatives who emerged from RAND Corporation, it seems reasonable to compare her ideas and influence with theirs.

    The RAND Corporation used positivism to develop ideas similar to Rand’s. Ayn Rand was motivated by personal experience with Marxism; RAND Corporation was motivated by a perceived need to defend against the Soviet threat to the United States. Also, both efforts aimed at redefining America: Ayn Rand wanted to promote unfettered capitalism; RAND Corporation wanted to promote American imperialism. Their methods differed, but the effects on the body politic were complementary.

    RAND Corporation

    “At its most basic, Kenneth Arrow’s work (at RAND) demonstrated in formal terms–that is, in mathematical expression–that collective rational group decisions are logically impossible. Arrow’s paradox, or Arrow’s impossibility theorem, as it came to be called, presented an unshakable mathematical argument that destroyed the academic validity of most kinds of social compact. Arrow utilized his findings to concoct a value system based on economics that destroyed the Marxist notion of a collective will. To achieve this result, Arrow freely borrowed elements of positivist philosophy, such as its concern for axiomization, universally objective scientific truth, and the belief that social processes can be reduced to interaction between individuals.

    “Arrow assumed that individuals were rational, that they had consistent preferences that they sought to maximize for their own selfish benefit. Arrow also assumed that reason, as he defined it, was not culturally relative but identical in all human beings, who act according to the same rules of logic.

    “Furthermore, Arrow assumed the objectivity of science–that its laws are universal and that there aren’t two different sets of choices for capitalist and Communist societies, as some economists had theorized before World War II…[He] posited the individual as the ultimate arbiter of decision, using the phrase ‘consumers‘ sovereignty‘ to signal individual preference as the basic building block of any economic system.

    “Arrow’s impossibility theorem, then, lay a theoretical foundation for universal scientific objectivity, individualism and ‘rational choice‘ while undermining Marxism, totalitarianism, and the idealistic democracy. Simply put, he posited that immutable, incontrovertible science tells us the collective is nothing, the individual is all.”((Abell, Alex. Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire. Harcourt, Inc. Orlando Austin New York San Diego London. 2008))

    Note that axiomization was also a concern of Ayn Rand.

    Paul Ryan

    As for clues to Paul Ryan’s intentions behind his proposed privatization of Social Security, Israel would be the place to look.

    About fifty years ago, a certain Ja’akov Levinson, the head of Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, took over Histadrut’s retirement funds…

    “During the recession of 1965-66, these pension and provident funds, which were previously managed by various organs of the Histadrut, were brought under one roof. The immediate purpose was to boost the ailing finances of companies such as Solel Boneh, Koor, and Teus, which were hurt by the slowdown. The plan was backed by Labour Minister of Finance, Pinchas Sapir, and the man in charge of the operation was Levinson. In a typical manoeuvre, Levinson, who had no intention of having the Histadrut executive looking over his shoulder, merged the previously separate funds into a separate pool named Gmool, which he then turned into a department of his bank, far from the peering eyes of the Histadrut Controller. Gmool’s deal with the government was sweet and simple. Half of its funds had to be kept in government bonds. The other half was earmarked for investment and subsidized credit, with the interest rate financed by the government’s development budget. The beauty of the deal was that the precise allocation of these funds was up to Gmool’s managers to decide – that is, for Levinson. In this way, Levinson crafted for himself an enormous leverage, far greater than any of his competitors, and one which he quickly put into use. The mechanism worked more or less as follows. Workers and employers would make monthly contributions to Gmool. After putting half of these in government bonds, the rest was up for discretionary investments. Of that half, part would be earmarked for buying new stocks issued by Hapoalim and its subsidiaries; this part provided Levinson with ‘free money’ (since Gmool had no ability to exercise ‘control’) as well as a powerful vehicle for manipulating stock prices (since it enabled him to control both supply and demand). The other part would be invested in, or lent to Histadrut companies; in order to get these loans and investments, however, the companies had to mortgage their assets to Hapoalim, open their books to Levinson’s peering eyes, and accept his representatives as director on their boards.” ((Nitzan, Jonathan and Shimshon Bichler. The global Political Economy of Israel. Pluto Press, London, Sterling. 2002))

    You might say that both of these examples are ancient history, that they don’t explain the Ayn Rand resurgence today, but it looks like they were merely forerunners of today’s Rand-inspired injustice. It is likely that the interest in Ayn Rand today is the response of ruling corporations to Dodd-Frank. ((Reese, Frederick. Defang Dodd-Frank to Protect Wall Street Vampires: A Look at the Proposed Changes. Mint Press News. May 7, 2013. Available: http://www.mintpressnews.com/defang-dodd-frank-or-protect-wall-street-vampires-congress-to-decide/157026/)) Although Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, it hasn’t been fully implemented. The House Committee on Financial Services continues to try to overturn its regulations, in spite of the fact that the four largest U.S. banks that would be affected by it constitute half of the nations entire economy and hold more than half of the nation’s fiscal deposits. These are: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. The collapse of any one of them would have the potential to permanently compromise the nation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was created as a way to guard against this threat, but from the beginning it has been challenged by Republicans in the service of the banks.

    Most of the Republican caucus insists the 2008-2009 mortgage crisis was a fluke and therefore, they say, the banks should continue to regulate themselves. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of denial. We saw the same thing after the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1997. ((Roger Lowenstein. Long Term Capital Management: It’s a Short Term Memory. The New York Times, Business. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-07ltcm.15941880.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&))

    Goldman Sachs

    I previously mentioned two firms that were top donors to Tea Party republicans, one of them being Goldman Sachs. According to one article, a managing director of Goldman Sachs is the Co-Chair of the Ayn Rand Institute. ((Martens, Pam and Russ Martens. Resurrecting Ayn Rand: Hedge Fund Money Teams up With Koch & BB&T. Wall Street On Parade: A Citizen Guide to Wall Street. Feb. 28, 2012. Available: http://wallstreetonparade.com/resurrecting-ayn-rand-hedge-fund-money-teams-up-with-koch-bbt/))

    What’s really at stake?

    This isn’t really a partisan issue, although Rand, Ryan and others try to frame it as such. It isn’t capitalism against big government at all. This is about a few powerful corporations becoming more powerful than the government. In support of this assertion, I’ll close with a strongly worded critique of Rand’s ideas in the Wall Street Journal. It seems a fitting conclusion to the discussion that Ayn Rand initiated about morality:

    “We have lost the collective spirit that led 57 capitalists to risk their lives and fortunes signing the Declaration of Independence. That’s dead. Today it’s “every man for himself” in a capitalist anarchy.

    You ask, why do we embrace our own demise like out-of-control addicts? In behavioral economics, as in classical Greek drama, Jungian psychology and cultural mythologies 
 all the battles we see “out there” are actually projections of unresolved conflicts raging deep within our own souls 
 we’re rehashing old traumas projected on the outside world as battles between our highest ideals and our darkest secrets 
 classic battles between good and evil.
    But they are conflicts buried deep in what Jung called “The Shadow,” a prison of dark secrets we cannot admit even to ourselves. In there, fierce battles are fought for the possession of our immortal souls 
 projected onto news, politics and finance, in television and films, theater, literature, history and dreams, at the dinner table and in the bedroom, “out there” we try to resolve our innermost secrets, never fully understanding how our minds are tricking us into inaction.

    And as our individual souls and our collective unconscious splits further and further apart, eventually we will collectively implode and collapse.” ((Farrell, Paul. B. Ayn Rand’s Death of the Soul of Capitalism. The Wall Street Journal, Market Watch. June 14, 2011. Available: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ayn-rands-death-of-the-soul-of-capitalism-2011-06-14?pagenumber=2))

  • Memo to the House: Extend the Debt Limit and Open the Government

    Recently, there are hopeful signs that retailers and manufacturers are pressuring Congress to end the impasse over the spending limit. [ref name=”NRF calls for Immediate End to Government Shutdown”]NRF”]NRF Call for Immediate End to Government Shutdown. October 9, 2013. Available: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nrf-calls-immediate-end-government-160000729.html;_ylt=A2KJjagM3lZSjWoAC9zQtDMD[/ref]  [ref name=”GOP Lobbyist: Business Needs to ‘Step Up’ Against the Tea Party”]Fang, Lee, GOP Lobbyist: Business Needs to ‘Step Up’ Against the Tea Party, The Nation Magazine. October 9, 2013. Available: http://www.thenation.com/blog/176578/gop-lobbyist-business-needs-step-against-tea-party[/ref] Of course if the taxpayer walkout suggested by [intlink id=”1305″ type=”post”]General HonorĂ©[/intlink] had anything to do with it, we’ll never hear it from John Boehner.  Sadly, we have yet to see evidence of his good intentions.  

    According to an Associated Press article, [ref name=”House GOP leaders seek short-term debt extension”]Associated Press. House GOP leaders seek short-term debt extension. October 10, 2013. Available: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/house-gop-leaders-seek-short-term-debt-extension.html[/ref]  Boehner is offering to increase the debt limit, but only through November 22.  In addition, he intends to hold on to the bargaining chip of the government shutdown, meaning that the decision to reopen the government will remain in the hands of a few rogue politicians and we will go through this again before the end of the year.  

    To be fair, the bit about the default came at the end of my last article. Depending on one’s level of cynicism, that post could be interpreted as a plea to avoid a default on the debt, never mind the government shutdown.  Obviously, nothing can be left to chance.  

    I agree with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew who stated that the United States should not be put in this position.  He was referring to the Republicans’ determination to hinge their spending bill on deficit reduction and cuts in government programs.  Lew also objected to the attempts by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and other GOP senators to extend the debt limit for the shortest period they can get away with.  

    “Our view is this economy would benefit from more certainty and less brinksmanship.  So the longer the period of time (for the debt extention) is, the better for the economy.”

    In my opinion the Republicans’ proposals are doubly unacceptable because of the time constraint.  The House is not scheduled to pass this bill until Friday.  That pushes a resolution into next week, assuming the Senate approves the bill.  They should be made aware that if they continue to work on a bill that merely postpones this train wreck until a later time, they are wasting precious time. 

    The outlines of a reasonable agreement are there:  Obama is willing to sign a short-term increase so that Boehner has more time to work with the Tea Party faction.  That would head off a default.  Even Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. has dropped his demands on ‘Obamacare’ and would extend the borrowing cap for four to six seeks to allow talks on a budget deal. Then, as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. said, “We need to reopen the government and pay the nation’s bills, no strings attached.”  

    I’m aware that when taxpayers forego discretionary spending it is a hardship on retailers and manufacturers, but the Republicans in the House, the Democrats in the Senate, and President Obama know how to remedy that. Our walk out should continue until Congress passes an acceptable bill as described above.  

    When the crisis has passed, we should make changes in procedure to assure this can never happen again. [ref name=”How to Solve the Debt Ceiling Crisis Forever”]Green, Joshua. How to Solve the Debt Ceiling Crisis Forever. Businessweek. October 7, 2013. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-07/how-to-solve-the-debt-ceiling-crisis-forever[/ref]

     

  • End the Government Shutdown: Fight Fire with Fire

    In the government shutdown saga, righteous indignation is appropriate. However, it is also futile.  Some people out there think the extortionists in the Republican Party are making sense. To make matters worse, it’s not clear whose side John Boehner is on.

    One of the weirdest parts of this drama is the refusal of the Speaker of the House to call a vote. Some say he could pass an emergency spending bill if he would only allow it to come to a vote.  He claims it wouldn’t work.

    Recently I asked Lieutenant General Russel L. HonorĂ©, U.S. Army, Retired, [ref name=”generalhonore.com”]Generalhonore.com[/ref] if there is some way to force a vote on a spending bill. In retrospect, his answer was painfully obvious: fight extortion with extortion.

    General HonorĂ© suggested that taxpayers do a walk out. Stop buying cars, TVs, clothing. Buy only essential food. Stay home and read to your kids. Those in charge ought to get the message…after four or five days.

    Extreme maybe, but the stakes are high. They now include a default on U.S. debt.  It’s time to call their bluff and teach the Tea Party who’s boss.

  • Obama’s Decision on Syria: Law and Order Carry the Day

    Since Obama announced he would seek Congressional approval for intervention in Syria, some have gone on to speculate whether Congress will make the “right” decision. I think this illustrates the partisan politics behind most of the arguments, pro and con. For example, those on the left are against military action, possibly because Assad is partial to their way of thinking. On the other hand, one of the groups in favor of intervention, the neo-liberals, hope Assad’s ouster will give them access to Syria’s economy.

    I appreciate Obama’s decision, and not just because I’m against further involvement in Syria. Regardless of what Congress decides, adherence to the law has its own benefits. It inspires confidence and promotes faith in the good will of a country’s leaders, both at home and abroad. In this light, it is interesting that Obama’s supposed allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have pressured him to bypass Congress–in other words, to bypass the voice of the people.

    The proper foundation of law, as understood by the ancient Romans, was discussed by Georges Dumezil:

    “Finally, we know that the institution of the fetiales, which is generally attributed to Numa (and otherwise to Ancus, his grandson and emulator), was founded to preserve peace through the strict observance of agreements and, when that was not possible, to lend to the declaration of war and to the conclusion of treaties a regulated and ritualistic character. In short, Numa’s fides is the foundation of Rome’s supreme creation, its law.” ((Dumezil, Georges. Mitra-Varuna. Trans. Derek Coltman. Urzone Inc. New York.1988.))

    The benefits of adherence to the law are not limited to foreign relations. A better understanding of the law might also help us sort out America’s domestic problems. Recently, we have seen our laws changed to suit the goals of certain leaders. These goals include the increase of presidential power, and a higher birthrate through the subjugation women. It is reasonable to assume that laws which decrease liberty and justice have no relation to ‘fides’. In future posts we’ll try to develop a better understanding of the proper foundation of law.

  • Egypt’s Coup

    Many in the media may not be representing the most authoritative interpretation of what is happening in Egypt. The following is from an article in Ahram online published by Al-Ahram Establishment, which has since 1875, published the Middle East’s oldest newspaper, The Daily Al-Ahram. ((About the Daily Ahram. Availiable: http://english.ahram.org.eg/UI/Front/Aboutus.aspx)) This article puts into perspective Obama’s support of the Brotherhood in Egypt, and the scorn his policies have received from the right.

    There has always been a certain amount of mistrust between the Saudi royal family and the brotherhood. It’s true that the Al-Saud family has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations since the time of President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 60s, but this is because they both opposed Nasser’s policy of exporting to the Arab world a socialism and Arab nationalism hostile to the West. The Islamists were useful to the Saudis in resisting Nasser, although they have always had ideological differences. Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism is a form of Salafism, which is ‘austere, puritanical, and rigorous’, while the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood movement is more flexible. The Brotherhood sought to reconcile Islamic tradition and Western political experience, while it also tried to counter socialism and Nasserism in the Arab world. While this alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood served their purpose, “…the Al-Saud family saw the activist and “republican” formula of Islam promoted by the Brotherhood as a threat to the absolute monarchy formula established in Saudi Arabia, which advocates popular obedience and prohibits revolt against the political regime.”

    Not only do the Saudis fear the challenge to their rule of the Brotherhood’s doctrine, some Saudi leaders fear an alliance of Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, which would reduce their influence. These fears came to a head when the Brotherhood came to power in Egypt and Tunisia. ((Mourad, Hicham. The Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia. Ahramonline. May 15, 2003. Available: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/4/0/71498/Opinion/0/The-Muslim-Brotherhood-and-Saudi-Arabia.aspx))

    It’s probably not news to most of you that we have been given an inaccurate picture of Egypt’s situation, but it goes deeper than that. For years we have been given an oversimplified, if not completely wrong, view of Islam. Islam is far more complex that we realize. For example, there are distinct factions that have been locked in struggle for generations, and they are represented today in Egypt. There is fundamentalist versus extremist Islam. Americans tend to confuse the two, but they differ in many ways: basically, fundamentalists want all of life to be influenced by religion, while Extremists want a puritanical system influenced by an anachronistic vision of history. Iran is fundamentalist; Wahhabism is extremist. ((Didier Chaudet, Florent Parmentier, BenoĂźt PĂ©lopidas. When Empire Meets Nationalism. Sciences Po, France, University of Geneva, Switzerland and Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA. Ashgate. 2009))  More to the point, the Muslim Brotherhood combines fundamentalism with activism and republicanism. Then there is the secular faction. The heroes of this faction include Nasser in Egypt and Kemal in Turkey. Secularism often coincides with military rule. This is the faction behind the current military coup in Egypt.  In his support for the coup, Dreyfuss has some strange bedfellows. The neocons also happen to prefer secular government in the Middle East.

    You will recall that Obama’s previous efforts to be conciliatory toward Islam have consistently resulted in accusations that he is a Muslim. The good news here is that the U.S. government’s factions are alive and well.  The bad news is that we don’t see these factions at work because of the incestuous relationship between the ‘democratic imperialists’ and the media.

    The neocon view of Islam has been disseminated by specialists such as neoconservative Stephen Schwartz and neocon followers like Bernard Lewis. They begin by making a distinction between two types of Islam: Arabic, which they reject; and European, Turkish, preferably Sufi Islam, which they represent. Yes, even as the Muslim label continues to hover over Obama, the neocons are in deed Muslims:

    “Ahmed Chalabi is a friend of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and Stephen Schwartz converted to Islam under the name Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz. He was influenced by a group who is favored by Pipes and by neocon Orientalists, the American Naqshbandi Sufis, led by Sheikh Hisham Kabbani.”[backref name=”When Empire Meets Nationalism”]

    Kabbani shares the neocons rejection of Arabic Islam. The neocons’ sufi-ness serves this agenda and allows them to assert that Islam is an individual religion chosen by individuals in a spiritual rather than political perspective, whereas Islamism (Arabic Islam, i.e. Wahhabism) is a political ideology. However, the effects of these assertions are much broader than the condemnation of Wahhabism. They have allowed the neocons to appear supportive of Islam while discounting the beliefs of the majority of Muslims.[backref name=”When Empire Meets Nationalism”]

    If we believe the media, Islam as it is practiced by the majority can’t win. On the one hand, they argue that it has always had imperialistic politics. On the other hand, economic, social and political explanations for terrorism must be rejected. Terrorism is merely evidence that dialogue is futile. The only option that remains is to conquer enemy territories regardless of what the populations of those territories want.(When Empire Meets Nationalism”)

error: Content is protected !!