The Populist Press Weblog

-Comrade Jack

Today’s enlightened rant is sponsored by Paul Krguman of the New York Times, as seen here. This observer has noticed this trend of madness that has become more and more acceptable in the ever more homogenized American infotainment/media/news(?)/crap sector. However, what this observer missed was how the recent right-wing lunatic murderers of abortion doctor George Tiller and the white supremacist shooting up the holocaust museum, show how right the Department of Homeland security was in a recent report. Jack did notice the report, and at the time and without much attention, believed it to be an over-exaggeration made by a department Jack never liked in the first place (mostly because of its connections with America’s dumbest president). It seems that all the critics of this report have some explaining to do. Jack feel a little humbled, and I’m sure the offended teabaggers and RNC flaks would if they weren’t so deluded by our media’s maniac machine.

Jack doesn’t blame the right wing for being upset by Obama winning the election, he would feel more than a little peeved if old man McCain had won. What he is bothered by is how more than a few folks on the right end of the American political spectrum have given in to what appears to be a media feed madness/temper tantrum. Obama is not the Antichrist, and no one should have to argue against that. A 3% tax hike is not “oppression”, and makes anyone who would claim it look like a douche (as in, try explaining to a Chinese factory worker that you’re being oppressed by a minor tax increase).

Perhaps most disturbing to Jack, is the idea that Obama is a Marxist. To anyone who will, (and they will) claim that Obama is a Marxist, please be prepared to defend your point based on Marxist principle (site actual Marxist theorists or you will be ignored). If you don’t think you can do that, it explains why you are not qualified to offer an opinion on who is or is not a Marxist. Let me clue you in on a basic fact ignored by almost every single person in North America. Government control is not socialism, per se. Socialism is direct democratic control of the economy. As the decisions of the Fed are not democratic, it is not a socialist body. Obama is a social democrat, a capitalist who believes in a social safety net and Keynesian economic theory. End point.

To return from Jack’s ideological rant tangent, what Krugman has shown us is that there is a serious problem in the lunatic right today. Unlike the American lunatic left, which today is mostly pacifistic and narcissistic (see Jack’s last rant), there is a tiny fragment of the right that is not only fanatically crazy, but homicidal at that. It is receiving serious ideological support from a large segment of the media that seems to have completely lost its mind. Jack would like to take this moment to speak to all Americans and ask for people to calm the f*ck down.

Bush nor Obama is the END OF THE WORLD. Put your guns back in their lockers, and try not to treat your fellow Americans like something you just scraped of your shoe.

It is posts like this one that have me worried about the state of American democracy. Over thirty years of anti-government hysteria seems to have made Americans forget the point of us rebelling from the crown. What started out as a somewhat justified argument against a government too reliant on Keynesian economic tactics, has become an argument against democratic governance itself.

What was developed as a means to combat tyranny by affording a measure of control to citizens is now seen as the enemy of the citizenry. Cynical Americans rightly angry by abuses of power have reacted not by attempting to right American democratic institutions, but by eliminating them at every turn. Becoming less active in government and actively supporting measures and candidates who designs place more of the responsibility for the common welfare to business interests, who without evidence, are sighted as being more efficient in the tasks of the people. Never mind that businesses are, by the very nature, not in any way beholden to the public good. In practice, it has been shown again and again, that businesses pursue business interests, not public ones.

This belief is not necessarily partisan, and is shared by political gradations between the left and right. The major difference between the two sides lies in where they will accept some government control. Anarchists on the left are tolerant of government intervention in the form of a social safety net and domestic concerns such as labor and the environment, where the rightward libertarians will eschew government involvement except in defense, and imperial military escapades. However, this is not so much a support of democratic governance, but rather a placid support for government policies that they appreciate. When it comes to civic participation both sides are too often focused on their own narrow interests and personal politics.

The last point is of vital importance. Despite their often political leanings, both groups are more involved in a narcissistic individualism that is hostile to the idea of democratic governance. Anarchists abandon society and form walled off collectives, and libertarians only involve themselves in politics to advance policies that limit and de-legitimize the very idea of democracy. The former, although often compassionate at least in theory, do not realize that they do a disservice to their democratic principles by isolating themselves (even when they believe they are being inclusive). The latter, although they have an almost religious interest in the founding fathers, are openly hostile to the civic element of democracy, that they savage whenever possible.

Libertarians, who are viciously capitalist to a point of compassion-less zeal, seem to look past the many, of what they would decry today as needless government interventions, that their beloved forefathers pioneered. America did not just pioneer the modern democratic state, but “big government” interventions such as the police, firefighters, libraries, schools, hospitals, roads, prisons, etc. They also are unable to understand that the modern world is very different than the one the founders lived in. What other political movement would chose Ron Paul as their public face, a man who has not put forward a single political policy that hasn’t already been implemented before the 1830’s.

It is important to understand that the America of the founding fathers was one that was only beginning to experience the birth of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The model of society that existed 200 years ago is hardly an exact model for the present. The industrial revolution has dramatically changed the family unit, and increased specialization to the point where individuals are not able to exist in modern society without relying on others to a much greater degree. The idea of the self-dependent family may have been possible when industry was nearly non-existent, but in the era of hi-tech information systems, and complex manufacturing processes it is no longer possible for families to exist as such autarkic units. Unless anarchists and libertarians wish to return to a pre-industrial society (and some do), then they will have to accept the fact that we are all reliant on each other, and democratic governance is the only instrument that is capable of sustaining such a society without economic ruin and drastic inequality.

It is still surprising to this observer how the arguments in defense of elite’s interests have become the arguments of the vox popli. Mass participation in democratic governance is the only weapon the people have against elite interests. By abandoning civic instruments for privatized control the overwhelming majority of Americans unintentionally surrender power to the very elements of government they claim to despise. Whether it is the corporations despised by anarchists or the political elites despised by libertarians.

In terms of healthcare there is no greater example of what happens when democratic governance is forsaken. Corporations make money hand over fist and secure their dominance by paying off the political elites who keep the system private. In a business of life and death, leaving such affairs to the private sector has shown that they neither care about the public interest or that they have even necessarily secured efficiency. America stands alone as one of the most inefficient and least pluralistic healthcare systems in the developed world. Americans may have the choices between healthcare providers, but this turns out to be anything but freedom, for ultimately their care is dictated by the bottom line of their provider, not in anyway by their health.

The other developed nations have realized that a public good such as health is something that must be handled collectively. The interconnected nature of modern society does not afford us the possibility to ignore our neighbors, no longer is the argument strictly moral. True, issues arising through bad personal choices such as obesity, drug use, and promiscuous sexual activity should not be born by the public, but these are precisely the issues that should be decided by the public, not the oligarchy of private wealth. The other democracies have done this, and while deciding between what should be treated and what shouldn’t has proven difficult, it has been a decision made by their respective populations. They have proven that democratic governance can not only be fair, but efficient as well. It truly is a sad day when Americans have to be instructed in why democratic governance is a good thing.

On Monday April 27th, the Florida Security Council and the International Free Press Society hosted a “Free Speech Summit” in a Delray Beach synagogue. The event was assembled to highlight the anti-Islamic views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was the featured speaker at the summit. Wilders is the subject of criminal prosecution by the Dutch government for his controversial statements about Islam, such as equating the Koran to Mein Kampf. The court of appeals in Amsterdam has judged that some of these statements may amount to inciting hatred towards Muslims; the act of inciting hatred is illegal under Dutch law. Furthermore, Wilders was barred from entering Great Britain, as a spokesman from the Home Office made clear, “The Government opposes extremism in all forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.”

In his introduction to the Free Speech Summit Wilders refers to Islam as a threat to Europe stating that Islam is , “… endangering our history, our freedom, our prosperity and our culture”. He goes on to state that “Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian political ideologue. Islam [sic] heart lies at the Quran, and the Quran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war, and submission…We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam”.

Also present was state representative of district 87 and leader of the Republican party in the Florida house, Adam Hasner. Hasner is also listed as a sponsor of the summit. From all observation this is not Hasner’s first sign of involvement with blatantly anti-Islamic elements. In 2007, he hosted a showing of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West”, for state legislators.

He has also attempted to block Florida Muslim Capital Day, sponsored by Council on American-Islamic Relations. In an e-mail he sent to several Jewish lobbyists he attempted to organize opposition to the event saying, “By now, I can’t imagine you haven’t heard about this upcoming lobbying day for Muslims in Tallahassee…Do you all intend to be part of an information campaign in opposition to it?” He has since claimed that this attempt to block the assembly was not part of an action against Muslims, but rather against the organizing group’s leader stating that the, “well-documented ties that this group’s leader has to organizations that are affiliated with terrorist groups such as Hamas”. Hasner has also gone as far as to leave the floor of the legislature during the first prayer given by an Imam, only to return as soon as the prayer ended.

Orlando, Fl. - Over 100 immigrants, workers, and students gathered on lake Eola in downtown Orlando this May Day to call for changes in United States immigration policy. The focus of the march was to call for an expedited, easier path towards citizenship and to protest what the marchers considered to be discriminatory and harsh measures being taken by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division. Under the hot Floridan sun, the assembled crowd were treated to a host of speakers assembled by organizers from the Farmworker Association of Florida, who spoke to the assembly in a combination of English, Spanish, and Creole.

The speakers ranged from religious figures, union members, immigrants, to community members. Some of the speakers present were farmworker leader Tirso Moreno of the Farmworker Association of Florida, Bishop Thomas Wenski of the Orlando Catholic Diocese, John Barriales of Orlando Peace and Justice, Joyce Hamilton Henry of the Central Florida ACLU, Bill Smiley of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, and Victor Torres of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. Topics ranged from the strong desire of immigrant peoples to become an acknowledged and respected part of American society, to the aggressive actions of ICE a branch of the department of Homeland Security formed under former President George W. Bush. Speakers reinforced concerns being echoed nationwide about that department’s indiscriminate arrests based on discriminatory assessments made by officers, workplace raids conducted without warrants, indefinite detention, and extralegal exportation.

An other topic discussed by the speakers was that of a piece of legislation currently being debated in the US legislature known as the DREAM act. The DREAM act would allow a path to citizenship to an estimated 65,000 students who were brought to the US as children, in exchange for two years of higher education or military service. A young lady identified to the crowd as Elizabeth, a potential candidate for such a program, spoke of the hardships she inherits from being brought to the USA, being unable to work while having to pay twice the tuition compared to other Florida residents. She reminded the assembled crowd that, “…we were raised here, we are Americans.”

The march was short and peaceful, around Lake Eola with virtually no interference from law enforcement or counter-protesters, the latter of which was represented by a single sign baring individual who left before the march began. Although a large crowd by the standard of Orlando area activists, it was no comparison to the May Day march three years ago in 2006. Amidst that period of anti-immigrant hysteria, the same organizers were able to galvanize well over 25,000 marchers into the streets, shutting down downtown Orlando for the duration of the event.

Such a grand difference in turnout can be explained by the dramatic change in the executive and legislative branches of US government and in the ever deepening economic recession. The high water mark of the immigration debate of 2006, and a major factor in generating the historic response of the immigrant community, was then House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner proposed legislation that among other provisions would have made undocumented immigration a felony and those assisting undocumented immigrants a subject of prosecution. It is difficult to imagine similar legislation having the same potential for passing in the current legislative climate.

While immigration remains a hot-button issue, there are signs that the fervor over immigration may be dying down. In addition to the change in the makeup of the federal government, the worsening economy has taken a particularly hard toll on undocumented immigrants. The collapse of the housing market and the attendant construction sector has harmed this segment of American society far more harshly than the documented population. According to a recent report from Pew Hispanic Center, (a project of the Pew Research Center) from 2006-2007 the income of non-documented households fell by 7.3%, where as the average for Americans was a decline of 1.3%.

It is difficult to determine at this point the exact drop off in undocumented immigration resulting from the heavy blow to the construction industry, but all indications are that immigration has decreased substantially in recent years as a direct result. The focus being moved away from immigration may turn out to be a blessing to the marchers and their supporters, as their reforms face less impassioned defense from anti-immigration elements no longer galvanized by record high immigration. What is certain is that the future efforts towards reform by those who attended the rally will not be easy task.

***************************************************************************************************
Originally published in the People’s Weekly World.

With a newly democratic congress and executive, the future is looking brighter for leftist and center-left reforms. However, unlike the united front of the Republican majority a scant few years ago, the Democratic majority is no “rubber stamp” legislature. Even the priorities of one of the greatest proponents of Democratic politicians, that of organized labor, are not guaranteed to pass.

Case in point is the Employee Free Choice Act. This piece of legislation is the at the forefront of labor’s efforts, and has been introduced into congressional debate early this March. The act has the potential for greatly increasing the ranks of American unions after thirty years of merciless attacks by business and government agencies meant to aid working people attempting to organize unions.

The Employee Free Choice Act is composed of three coordinated provisions. First, and most controversial, is the “card check” provision. Considered by labor and management to be the most important piece of the bill, the card check provision would allow a union to be formed in a work place if a 50% + 1 majority of workers sign cards stating that they wish to join a union. If the workers decide on the union via the card check, the union is recognized and can immediately go about negotiating a contract.

Business interests have spent millions of dollars attempting to convince legislators that the provision destroys worker’s access to a secret ballot election. Although this argument does not take into account several means of secret ballot access that would remain if EFCA passed, such as a decertification election (outlined in the National Labor Relations Act Section 9(e)), it has proven effective in swaying conservative democrats into opposing the legislation.

Card check is considered vital to labor, since one of the most powerful means of busting unions is in the implementation of the time between the call for a secret election to the actual election. During this time management mobilizes its many advantages, such as the ability to threaten pay reductions and outsourcing, a monopoly over worker’s time on the job, the ability to have one-on-one sessions pressuring workers against unionizing, and many other tactics that they couldn’t implement in a card-check election. With the card check provision, workers could organize without management having time to stop them or even notice their efforts. This frightens management and its allies, and they are doing whatever they can to prevent it.

The other two provisions are mandatory contract arbitration and stricter monetary penalties for breaking labor law. The mandatory contract arbitration states that if after 120 days management and labor are still in disagreement on a contract, the National Labor Relations Board will send a mediator to force an agreement between the two groups. This is considered necessary by labor, since another effective means of defeating organized workers is to simply decline to negotiate a contract. While not as controversial as the card check provision, it is also been used as an effective means of turning legislators against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Upon introduction to the senate the bill seemed to have a relatively clear path to passage. With 40 co-sponsors and an additional 4 democrats signaling support, it was believed that the vote would go down by party lines, with a mixture of support from Democrats ranging from a “yea” vote to a vote for cloture. To pass the bill would need at least 51 to vote “yea”, and an additional 10 to vote for cloture, otherwise the Republican minority and its allies could effectively kill the vote via filibustering (or the unending debate on an issue making it impossible to vote on).

It was initially believed that with Al Franken winning in Minnesota, would stand at 59 to 40 for cloture. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was the only Republican in support of EFCA, and had voted for an earlier version of the bill, would have cast the deciding vote killing the possibility of a filibuster and allowing the bill to pass. Since the introduction of the bill, Specter has since changed his stance towards both voting against the bill and against cloture as well. However, since he will now run as a democrat, he will not want to anger labor. This puts him in a precarious position, and will only increase the already pressure cooker level of lobbying he has had to face from both sides of this issue.

More disturbingly for proponents of the bill is the defection of moderate Democrats including Blanche Lincoln (D-A) who has openly signaled her opposition to the bill. Other moderate democrats have indicated that they want to see some modification of the bill, almost always focusing on the removal of the card check provision. Some of these conservative Democrats include Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). While the bill still has a possibility of passing, there is a high probability that it will be in a reformed version, most likely changing or removing card check.

Recently Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal pointed out the composition of the opposition to EFCA in his article entitled EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE IS DEAD…conservative Democrats killed it (I disagree with his title, but his points are valid!) : “[M]aybe it’s just the money. Consider the lineup of lobbyists that retail giant Wal-Mart has assembled to make its case against EFCA. According to lobbying disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate we find that Wal-Mart’s lobbyists include Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (which employs former presidential candidate John Kerry’s liaison to Congress during the 2004 campaign), a former legislative director for Rahm Emanuel, and a former assistant to Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

The real standout on Wal-Mart’s labor-issues roster, though, is D+P Creative Strategies, which wears its liberalism as proudly as last week’s tax protestors did their three-cornered hats. According to its Web site, D+P “highlights partnership, shared benefits, and a commitment to advancing social justice goals.” The disclosure form for its Wal-Mart EFCA activities lists a former assistant to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The bio of its principal, Ingrid Duran, who is also listed as a Wal-Mart lobbyist, declares that the firm’s mission is “to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic efforts in addressing the concerns of Latinos, women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities.”

The future for EFCA is far from over though, and the decision about EFCA is bound to be made within the coming weeks. Business interests have poured millions in defeating this bill, and organized labor has done its best to fight back. For the unions to attain any sort of victory from this battle it will have to marshal community support. The conservative democrats are the key focus, and only a concerted effort of letter writing and phone calls made on behalf of EFCA will allow the bill any means of their support.

-Brother Jack

It must be a good thing to be middle class, everybody seems to have their back. Wait I take that back, because everybody also seems to also be oppressing them. If you’re middle class you’re both the friend and foe of both the Republican and Democratic parties, because the other one apparently wants to eat your children. Uh, what doe middle class mean again?

Lets look it up in Jack’s Compendium of American Politicalisms and Assorted Patriotic Prognostications (in state of publishing limbo). Middle Class – Noun – The middle class is everybody that is not poor or rich. Since class does not exist in America, unlike in the barbarian wastes of Canada/Mexico (see rest of world), everybody is middle class. The middle class own small businesses or at least have a “really good idea” about setting up one. The middle class lives in apartments, houses, or are in a state of “extended camping” (see foreclosures). Terrorists want to kill the American middle class because they love freedom. You are middle class (see you – put down the dictionary retard, find a mirror).

So roughly 95% of the country, from a conservative estimate, is “middle class”. Virtually everyone in the US that doesn’t live under a bridge or in a mansion, when asked about economic standing will almost unfailingly respond with middle class. To our political ruling class this is an incredible advantage. It gives them the coveted ability to speak to all of us, without speaking to anyone at all.

It also allows a way for Americans, not just politicians, to deny that economic class plays a major role in our society. Americans have since the time of Tocqueville’s critic of our early democracy, have wanted to believe that we are the coveted classless society. That if you work hard and persevere you too can grab the American dream. The vast majority of Americans seem to believe that they are entrepreneurs destined to commercial success. We all are small businessmen/women, the other great abstraction of modern American politics, is likewise used to deny anything resembling class conflict.

The sanctification of the middle class is a compromise we make with politicians. We let them use an obviously meaningless word to obscure their political agendas and personal ambitions. In return, they kiss our collective asses and we don’t have to admit that not everyone is cut out to own a fortune 500 company by virtue of enough elbow grease. More importantly we don’t have to admit to anyone that maybe we aren’t destined for success and glory.

This is where our pride shows itself to be a fatal weakness. Our inability to admit that we are more than likely not going to set the world on fire with our brilliance leads to policies that hurt most of us. We have to admit to ourselves not that we are failures, but that statistically and logically, most of us have to be just normal. Some of us, by the cruelty of indifferent fate, are literally born to fail. When we assume that we are a meritocracy born of a majority class of winners, we spawn polices that ignore the normal and punish those unlucky to be born with deformity or poverty.

We also have to admit that economic class is not representative of self worth. Some very rich people are special in “oh my, isn’t he special” kind of way. Remember that our last president was somehow floated from failed oil company to failed oil company to the White House and was almost assassinated by a salted pretzel. On the other side of the coin, some very brilliant people toil away with the rest of us. There is a good chance you know not only someone that was a better president than our previous example, but someone who could probably be rich if they wanted to be. They just don’t apply themselves because they’re lazy or don’t care for fame and fortune or just plain unlucky, or some combination thereof.

Furthermore, worth is measured not simply in ability, but in intention. Yeah, its an obvious point, but it seems lost in the discussion on American economics. Free market capitalism doesn’t serve the inept, no matter how noble they may be. Under the “free market” ideology peddled in our country these people are dirt, provided they weren’t lucky enough to be born to a wealthy enough to support them for their entire lives. The myth of the middle class would have you believe that even though some people are untalented, unskilled and poor, they too will succeed if they try hard enough. It ignores the fact that this doesn’t happen, and we ignore this because we want it to be true. In the end, our lies about our own status fuel a system that if we were more conscious of, we would detest.

Part of being a good person, either in terms of morality or mental health, is one who is willing to challenge unconscious assumptions by bringing them to their conscious mind. The biggest moral failures of our political system are laid bare by the light of conscious criticism. All that is necessary is that we face these failures and test our political theories by not allowing them to be abstractions.

The middle class doesn’t exist. What we often mean is the term we used to use, before it became politically untouchable by those opposed by what it started to represent. That term my friends is working class. If you work for a living, whether its pushing a broom or a pencil, whether your pay is by the hour or year, you are part of this class. If anything this shows not the divisiveness that those who raise middle class banner claim it does, it shows unity. If you work for a living, you deserve a wage that can be lived upon. Yeah, people should be rewarded for accomplishment, but not at the expense of the rest of us.

So when someone asks you where you are on the economic ladder, tell them that you are part of the working class. That is if you work for a living!

*********************************************************************************************************

Originally published in Dynamic, the publication of the Young Communist League USA.

Many Americans are fed up with the bi-party tyranny of the Republicans and the Democrats. The democrats are suffering from a plague of idiotic leaders, and wimpy politicians unwilling to provide any substantive resistance to the right wing assault on what little is left of the good in our government institutions. The Republicans aren’t even worth considering other than their sheer contempt for the average American. Many of those not bound by apathy and despair have attempted to mobilize third parties, which have proven to be doomed to fail against the giants.
Its time for Socialists to band together and retake political power we once had long ago. We cannot achieve our goals by acting as radicals, for radicals are by definition a minority. We must strive to become the majority, and to do so we cannot shun the system, we must remake it from the inside. I suggest that we take a page from the Trotskyists in Britain, and revive the strategy of “entryism”. They had attempted to take over one of the major political parties to bring about a democratic socialist state.
Although, the Marxists in Britain failed to take over the Labour party, we must not let that stop us from trying to do the same here. As the famous German socialist Rosa Luxemburg said as she was thrown in prison for resisting the First World War, our choice is between socialism and barbarism. Our parties have opted for the later, one in striving to uphold it as the other refuses to stop them. This choice is now left to us, shall we coincide defeat or fight for our future?
In taking over the Democratic party we will stand both within it, as we stand outside of it. We must not be afraid to declare our socialist and humanitarian values, and our opposition to conservative tendencies in the party. The Democratic party will provide us resources, and the ability to cast our votes within the closed primaries of many states. While our voters card may carry the ‘D’ for Democrat, we will also stand as a united force of socialists and communists. We will have our own meetings, codes, tactics, and strategies. We will not be consumed by the do-nothing alliance that has for too long denied meaningful social change.
At the same time that we are independent of the party, we are also loyal Democrats. Many democrats already have our values, the only thing keeping them from announcing themselves as fellow socialists is the extremely negative connotation the word has in the United States. We reject the cancer of the so-called “real existing socialisms” of the 20th century. Our movement is that of a new era, times have changed, and we must adapt as well.
The first goal of the Phoenix faction after taking power in the democratic party is to push for European-style social programs. As Europe has opted for domestic improvement and peace, America has sacrificed its people for military hegemony that benefits the military and financial elite. Europe may not be the perfectly enlightened socialist state many of us seek, but it is certainly light years ahead of the US. As we catch up to Europe we must also be aware of, and work to end, the divide between the global north and south, and the role of our society in such context.
Its time for Americans to demand peace, universal prosperity, and social programs that lends a helping hand from those who have what they need. We must counter the selfish dogma of the Reaganite 80’s with a message of tolerance, responsibility to your fellow man, and a respect for the international community. Only through socialism can we truly achieve an American democracy that cares for its citizens, and only the great mass of Americans can make that possible.
We should also look to Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution, although not necessarily to Hugo Chavez. While Chavez has brought about some very necessary reforms to Venezuela, he has also become too much of the movement, and has brought about other problems as well. In addition to his bombastic presence, his attempts at questionable reforms to Venezuela’s democratic process are troubling. No socialist movement should rely on one person, no matter how charismatic, for socialism by sheer definition is the movement of the people.
Let us take the good from the Bolivarian revolution, and place community groups at the fore of the movement. For local government should be a participatory democracy, like the Jeffersonian town halls popular in the northeast at the beginning of the American republic. We don’t need to look farther than our own city of Orlando to see the problems caused by officials that are too out of touch with the general public. I say we start our own Jeffersonian revolution and put these incompetent fools out of their jobs as our overlords!
To win the hearts and minds of the American people we must maintain many difficult balancing acts. We must firmly denounce the system of American domestic and foreign oppression, while working within it as well. We must elevate the political discourse, encourage tolerance and unity , while lashing out viciously at the reactionary conservative movement and its elitist overlords. We must encourage peace while being ready to defend our ideals with any means necessary.
I must stress that we use violence as an absolute last resort, and only to defend ourselves from tyranny most foul. Even in these dark times for our republic, there is still hope for peaceful resolution. We must always remember the failure of those that came before us. We must remember the oppression and unjust violence that was used in the name of socialist ideals. May we never replay those heinous deeds, and may we constantly seek to uphold the good that generations of socialists have managed to establish.
Even as the United States slides into decline, there is still a tremendous potential for change. Unlike the “real existing socialisms”, we are blessed with the general prosperity gained from the economic miracle, even if its being taken away from us day by day. We have the foundations for the most just society of all time, all we have to do is lay the masonry. May the phoenix faction lead the way!

-Jack O’Spades

Hello dear readers, there is something I feel that I need to discuss with you. Many people hold misconceptions about Senator McCain. He is widely seen as being more of a maverick and more progressive than he actually is. These distortions are not held by one segment of society, but are nearly universal, affecting everyone from the lunatic right to even moderately progressive individuals. Most recently we have seen this erupt from the right wing luna-pundits, who seemed to believe that McCain was horribly progressive because he appeared on The Daily Show to often, and *gasp*, actually questioned the Republican line. He also did the unthinkable for a conservative politician by calling the amazingly dickish pastor Jerry Falwell one of the political “agents of intolerance”.

Granted for a progressive these things are amazingly refreshing to see in conservative leaders, but it certainly isn’t enough. Going on the Daily Show isn’t going to make you more progressive, just as appearing on Fox News doesn’t turn you into a complete duchebag, and everyone knows Jerry Falwell was a jackass. However, for all his maverick posturing it simply hasn’t been enough to win him the White House for the last two times he has ran. So in short order our friend McCain has completely ditched whatever claim he had to being a maverick to become what he is now, a neocon boot licker. Going so far as to prostrating himself before religious conservatives by giving the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University back in 2006.

McCain’s voting record eliminates any doubt as to his conservative credentials. He has consistently low ratings from unions and womens’ groups (rough average of about 20%), often low rankings from environmental groups, dismal ratings from peace minded organizations, and nearly consistent 0% ratings from the ACLU, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood. While he supports the neo-liberal (as in “Free Trade”, not to be interpreted as, in any way, liberal) CATO-Institute about 80% of the time, is fast friends with tax cut groups and big business lobbies (although he has made enemies among government contractors), and has a life time rating with the American Conservative Union at 83.2%. All of this information was obtained from Project Vote Smart (www.votesmart.org), an organization that is ironically supported by John Sidney McCain III himself.

Although this refreshingly available voting record has already hit the blogosphere, many on the right hemisphere of it are still choking on the “maverick” image of John McCain. Their claim, in a nutshell, is that 82.3% isn’t really that much, and that he is one of the most progressive republicans. First off, I’d challenge anyone to argue that being 82.3% dead, or 82.3% paralyzed, is not really that bad. For those of you who really don’t think that’s too bad, you may want to talk to some of our Iraq war wounded, although they’re probably still over there. If you can’t get a hold of them, you could always try it yourself, although from a moral standpoint I should probably tell you not to.

As for being one of the most progressive Republicans in the Senate today, thats not exactly a big deal. We are perhaps the most conservative nation of the advanced industrial democracies, and being the most progressive of the most conservative party in our country, in one of the (or just the) most conservative eras in our history, is that really saying anything? Uh, probably not.

McCain has accepted virtually all of Bush’s policies verbatim. If anything he is even more dangerous than Bush, who’s own effectiveness has been limited by his obvious cronyism and incompetence. McCain is replaying the same Republican political maneuvers of 2000 and 2004, which seem to be still effective. Employing his “outsider” status, the oldest, perhaps most effective American political tactic, of which issues such as being a longtime Senator never seem to offer much of a damper to. In addition, he holds the Republican ideological trump card, “stability” which is achieved both through martial action abroad and prisons at home.

It is perhaps the former where McCain is the most dangerous. He has accepted the ideological framework of “Islamo-facisim” to a tee, the basic concept of which is that Islamic militants are going to take over the world unless we bomb all Islamic countries into a fine slurry of rock an bone. The ones that we don’t bomb must have a pro-western government, regardless of how undemocratic it will be.

McCain has a multitude of ideas which will help to further strain our military and diplomatic capacity to the breaking point. In addition to wanting to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (to which he has been quoted singing to the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”) he also seems bent on re-starting the Cold War, because James Bond movies are so much better when you have those rascally Russians with their funny accents and furry hats. He has openly advocated expanding NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia, and placing missile defenses there. Such a move would infuriate Russia, and place it on the defensive, not a move that you want to make with a nuclear superpower.

In addition, McCain has also called for Russia to be removed from the Group of Eight, a relatively informal meeting of some of the world’s leading industrial and military powers. Although this is mostly a petty gesture, it is the diplomatic equivalent of the bitch slap. Considering his already threatening stance towards Russia, this will only exacerbate diplomatic problems of his own making. Granted, Russia has problems with democracy and civil liberties, but confronting them in a martial fashion will only give Russia more of an excuse to continue such practices. Furthermore, it should be remembered that Russia’s potent nuclear arsenal puts it in a powerful position, and it will not be frightened into negotiations from a military standpoint, particularly when it knows that we are already overstretched in our military capacity. We’re not even in a position to start a good ol’ fashioned proxy war.

Further “brilliant” foreign policy ideas by Mr. McCain include developing a “League of Democracies” and reviving the Office of Special Services. The first of which sounds like a brilliant plan, reminiscent of President Wilson’s League of Nations or perhaps the UN. The big difference is that the League of Democracies is not an inclusive body, it is essentially to be a forum for nations that the US believes to be democracies. Considering our track record of what we will be willing to accept as a “democracy”, such as nations ruled by one time American allies Mobutu Sese Soku and Saddam Hussein, I’m not terribly enthusiastic. It will essentially be a UN in the model of the “Coalition of the Willing”, ie. anyone willing to get on board with American hegemony. More than likely it will be used to provide the fig leaf of international support that the UN was unwilling to grant the Bush administration back in 2003, when Saddam had his magical, vanishing, anthrax warheads.

The idea of reviving the OSS, is yet another foreign policy idea from hell. The Office of Special Services was the precursor to the modern CIA. It has been considered, if it can be at all possible, even more reckless than the CIA has been. This comment has been made due to the more lax regulation that was afforded to the OSS and also to the early CIA. McCain believes that the CIA is over regulated, and that we need a “can do” intelligence organization. While I certainly do not dismiss off hand the necessity of an intelligence organization, I would argue that having yet another one would simply add to the alleged problem McCain is trying to solve. We already have the FBI, the Homeland Security Administration (AKA FBI II), the National Security Administration, and Dick Cheney, adding yet another voice to the cacophony doesn’t seem prudent. If anything it will only provide a greater ability to tailor military intelligence to fit whatever mold you want it to. CIA not being agreeable enough about telling us what we want to heat? Set up a new intelligence agency!

To conclude, McCain is NOT a maverick, he is for all intensive purposes Reagan III or W II. Although he has made some appreciated headway in issues of campaign finance reform and has taken military contractors to task, these achievements do not make up for his nonexistent social policy and militant foreign policy. He will only stay the course into America’s economic, military, and cultural ruin.

by Jack O’Spades

As I write this, I’m sitting looking over the results of Democratic conventions at: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com. I’m doing this because; A: I have no social life, B: I seem sustain myself off of the anger and cynicism inherit in politics, and C: I have no social life. The latest results are somewhat worrying to me.

Long time readers are possibly aware of my distrust of Hillary Clinton, and my strong belief that she would be slaughtered in a race against McCain. Nothing will bring out Republicans to the polls, like flies to a corpse, than the prospect of another Clinton presidency, not too mention their fear of the HRC from the early years of the Clinton administration. Although I no longer see her as she was back then, the Republicans sure do, and the left isn’t exactly thrilled about her either. Her stance on foreign policy pisses off anti-war, populists and socialists are distrustful of the possible return of Rubinomic style neoliberalism, and some in labor are fearful of more NAFTA like polices.

Although the race is still neck and neck, two things may conspire to favor the Clinton campaign: Superdelegates and the return of Michigan and Florida delegates to the nomination process. Although Hillary’s lead in superdelegates has dropped sharply in the last few weeks, she still leads Obama in their support. If this were the end of the story Obama has a good chance of besting her for the nomination, that is if he continues his winning streak through the Ohio and Texas primaries. However, there is a possibility arising that could give the Clinton campaign a crucial edge, us.

As you may recall, the national Democratic National Convention stripped Michigan and Florida of our delegates because they’re quite possibly nut cases. I don’t know how they expected us to magically force our Republican state legislature (who for some strange reason controls the primaries of both parties) into not moving our state primaries forward. Particularly, when they tacked this primary switch up to a bill that would force a paper trail into Floridian voting. What Floridian Democrat could oppose such legislation, particularly if their district has many minority supporters? It would be a major middle finger to voters who are too often the target of voter suppression.

Anyway, to get back on track, apparently the Clinton campaign is trying to find a way to get our delegates back. She won big in both states, and now apparently we are important to her. I’m sorry Mrs. Clinton, you can’t have it both ways. You choose to snub us along with every other Democrat (well except for Gravel, he counts right?), you can’t change the rules because you’re loosing. Not to mention the fact that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan! Not exactly a fair fight, huh?

Look, I don’t hate Hillary, I just don’t like her. Not to say I’m a big fan of Obama either, they’re both pretty bland politicians who speak of change with hollow words. The only major difference is that Obama at least has a chance against McCain. I’d rather have the worst excesses of the Clinton administration, which both candidates seem to represent, rather than someone who seems all too willing to continue the present course.

So with all that rage vented I can properly welcome you to the March issue of the Populist Press. This month we have some interesting articles from near and far. We also welcome Mr. Scott Tess, organizer for the Fair Trade for a Greater Orlando Coalition, as a regular contributor to the Press, with an excellent editorial on contrasting the virtues of fair trade with problems inherit to so-called “free trade”. As always we have an article by our favorite investigative journalist, Mr. Greg Palast, on McCain’s transformation into a Republican hardliner.

******************

The new issue of The Populist Press can be found at http://www.populistpress.com.

-Jack O’Spades

Do you remember civics class? Do you recall the notion of the three branches of the American government, and the importance of checks and balances? Let me review for those of you who have forgotten. The legislature (ie. the senate and the congress) draft laws, the judiciary challenges laws that are believed to be unconstitutional, and the executive (ie. the president, vice president, and their cabinet) signs laws into action and enforces them. This is the way our democracy is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, a little known change in the use of an obscure executive practice is threatening the balance of power in the US government. That practice is that of the signing statement, a practice originating with the fifth US president, James Monroe. The signing statement was originally used by the executive as a means of explaining their outlook on a particular law, and how they planned to enforce it. The statement was not recognized as an amendment or addendum to the law it referred to it was merely a statement of opinion.

As such, the signing statement was used infrequently by US presidents with only 75 made until Reagan became president, an average of about 2 per president. At that point the number of signing statements sky rocketed to 247 in the next three administrations, an increase of 325%. Our current president would increase this number to a whopping 107, just in his first term.

The increase coincided with an attempt to change the very nature of the signing statement. The practice has evolved into an attempt to alter laws as passed by the legislature. Although the last four presidents have all abused the signing statement, our current president is on a completely different level. Without a hint of shame, he has turned the signing statement into an unchallengeable line item veto. This has been done without any attempt at concealment at all.

In applying a line item veto in such a manner, the president has in effect captured the other two branches of government. He has claimed the judicial power to declare either part of, or an entire law to be unconstitutional. He also has claimed the ability to add statements onto bills, effectively giving himself the ability to declare powers or establish rules without congressional consent.

The president’s defense has been that the executive has the power to refuse to enforce measures that curtail the constitutional power of the executive branch. This is blatantly absurd, only the judiciary has the ability to declare constitutionality of laws. Otherwise, the executive would be (and currently is) able to override the powers of other branches with impunity by modifying or simply ignoring laws.

So far our president has drafted 157 signing statements, challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law (see the full list here: http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/fullist.htm). He has used the signing statement to nullify a ban against torture, to allow warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, and the ability to hold prisoners without differing to domestic or international law. This is absolutely unacceptable, and such a gross violation of constitutional cannot go unchallenged. Unfortunately, our new democratic congress seems to have adopted the motto, “lie back and take it”. They are unwilling to make the strong statement that needs to be made about this, and this sends a very dangerous precedent.

Future presidents should not have the ability to justify similar behavior on the grounds that it was accepted in this administration. Even if the next president avoids the use of the signing statement , the lack of corrective action could be fatal to our democracy. What is particularly frightening is that the democratic candidates have stated that they will use signing statements if elected (!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act). Whether they will attempt to use them in the same manner as the last four presidents remains to be seen, but their refusal to abandon the practice outright is disturbing to say the least.

The current president obviously will not back down, and he must be punished for this. This is yet another reason that the congress should seriously consider initiating impeachment proceedings. It is important to note that this is not a partisan issue, regardless of party affiliation or political alignment (except for fascists, monarchists, and other dictatorial admirers) this issue is seriously important to every American who even vaguely believes in democracy.