Obama and the Democrats have come sweeping in. Now what? All those fundamental liberal democratic rights which we have been fighting to maintain throughout these past dark years of GOP dominance are now suddenly in much less danger. A good portion of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have already been promised to be rolled back.

Obama and the Democrats have already agreed to the following policies:

• Prevent the militarization of outer space.
• Prudent withdrawal from Iraq
• Expand public service opportunities
• United States Public Service Academy
• Carbon Tax
• Ease Transition to Single-Payer Health Insurance
• Legalize and Fund Stem Cell Research
• Protect NASA funding for basic research
• Close Gitmo and End Torture
• End Warrant-less Wiretapping
• Repeal PATRIOT Act
• Repeal Bush’s cuts on the Estate Tax and upper tax brackets
• Re-regulate the financial markets
• Limit the power of lobbyists and special interests
• Government transparency
• Protect Abortion Rights
• Class-based, not race-based, Affirmative Action
• Negotiate international environmental agreements (but not Kyoto,
  unfortunately)

Should we continue to rail about the same old stuff? Or just sit back and hope everything turns out ok without public scrutiny? Absolutely not.

I have compiled a list of issues which activists should pursue, some of which are taken from Charlie Stross’s list. However, my list is systematically ranked by priority. We want to prioritize issues of high utility, attainability, and obscurity. Feel free to add your own issues and rank them accordingly, or critique this ranking method.
—————
U = Utility (1-10)
A = Attainability (1-10)
O = Obscurity (1-10)

—————

Prizes for Technology Commons (U=9 A=6 O=8) 23

Competition and rewarding innovation are the bedrocks of technological advancement under capitalism. However, some urgent areas are in need of a boost, such as fuel efficiency, biotechnology, alternative energy, and space technology. There have already been successful prizes through NASA and DARPA for robot cars and space elevators, why not ramp up and extend this idea? The X Prize Foundation is another good example of such an endeavor. Unfortunately, all of these competitions did not require the resulting technological breakthroughs to be open to all through the Public Domain, despite the public funding. Why not start a billion dollar prize for energy efficient motors, instead of paying vastly more down the road to bailout our environment?

We must create a similar prize for Cultured Meat, considering that the UN shows that the meat industry is more harmful on the environment than all of our cars put together. (PETA already made a million dollar prize, but it is not nearly enough, and doesn’t specify Public Domain)

Georgist Land Value Taxes (U=8 A=5 O=9) 22

The property tax is a crucial policy for boosting innovation and preventing land from going to waste, but it needs to be a tax upon the land itself and not improvements. As property taxes now stand, they discourage land improvement. A georgist land value tax would make hoarding land in unproductive ways unprofitable, thus boosting the efficiency of land distribution. It also limits the amount of hardship rent places on labor and productivity, and allows for a collective benefit from land, which is a common resource. This policy would likely entail increasing the proportion of taxation coming from property taxes and lowering all other taxes.

Tax breaks for PC vendors who distribute Open Source software (U=5 A=8 O=9) 22

Open Source software is the vanguard of the new revolutionary decentralized mode of production which will characterize post-scarcity society. The sooner it becomes the dominant platform for desktop users, in addition to its current stronghold in the server sector, then the sooner this new model will become more broadly understood. This will in turn decrease transaction costs and technology costs making society more productive, since we will have even better software than before, yet pay no money for the software itself.

Stronger Overtime Laws (U=8 A=7 O=6) 21

A good combination with the Basic Income. As productivity increases, we should all share in the fruits by reduced labor. After our first really massive boost in productivity, the Industrial Revolution, the US enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. Yet, despite all the massive productivity improvements since then, there have been no further reductions in the workweek.

Basic Income (U=10 A=3 O=8) 21

The single highest-utility government policy that could be enacted. A Basic Income helps promote a post-scarcity society. It invigorates civil society and frees us from wage slavery. Along with any other policies which combat wage slavery, this would also serve to incentivize the automation of menial tasks, which will help free us from dehumanizing toil in the long run. It also obsoletes the current pay-as-you go Social Security set up and removes the perverse incentives created by need-based welfare. It could be paid for through some of the other policies recommended here which cut spending or boost tax revenue, along with the money that otherwise would have been spent on needs-based welfare and Social Security. All citizens over the age of 18 and all immigrants who have resided in the US for longer than 18 years should receive the Basic Income.(Obscurity increasing as the Palin “spread the wealth” issue fades from memory)

Intellectual Property Tax (U=9 A=3 O=8) 20

All revenues from Intellectual Property must pay a fee to register with the government, and then must pay a flat tax upon all revenue from that intellectual property. If the government is going to defend one’s state-sponsored monopoly, one must expect to pay for this privilege. Clearly this would change copyrights from an opt-out to an opt-in system. Also, this must be coupled with Intellectual Property reform to get rid of ridiculous “business method” patents, algorithm patents, obvious patents, and other such abuses of the system.

Boost Estate Tax (U=7 A=6 O=6) 19

Estate taxes prevent the inter-generational centralization of wealth. Taxes are horrible, but if someone has to be taxed, rich dead people are surely at the top of the list. Even Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, recognizes this. There was a time when there were whole countries controlled by a class that existed purely through inherited wealth, rather than productive activity. This was known as the aristocracy. Let it remain in the dustbin of history. This requires going further than just repealing Bush’s cuts.

Stop Subsidizing Unsustainable Agriculture (U=9 A=3 O=6) 18

The subsidized corn industry in the US is harming the economies of other countries, resulting in food crises, and diverting the use of perfectly good food towards the production of horribly unsustainable “biofuels.” Furthermore, it is keeping unhealthy fast foods at artificially low prices since most of it contains corn syrup or corn-fed animal products. It is shameful that we use our political power around the world to force open markets abroad, and yet subsidize our agriculture at home resulting in food riots abroad and the destruction of foreign economies.

Ethical Consumerism in Government (U=7 A=5 O=5) 17

The government has enormous buying power and virtually a monopsony in some markets. Why not use this power to mandate strict energy efficiency standards and promote sustainable modes of production? All newly purchased government vehicles, even aircraft, should meet very strict fuel standards. All government computers should use Open Source software and all government agencies should release all information in open formats. Strong human rights standards for employees must be met for all government suppliers and contractors. Healthier foods in all publicly owned facilities is also urgent.

Cut Military Spending (U=8 A=5 O=3) 16

The United States accounts for 50% of all military expenditure, and most of it goes toward bloated and useless programs like SDI. Attaining significant cuts in the most blatantly unnecessary programs is quite feasible. Yet, these expenses could be cut in half, freeing up enormous amounts of money for social programs and infrastructure which are currently decaying from lack of funding. The attainability on this issue is variable though, depending on how much cuts are desired.

Single-Payer Healthcare Insurance System (U=9 A=5 O=2) 16

The collective bargaining power of government can reduce medical costs considerably and also immensely reduce the paperwork mess that is the US medical system. Canada has proved vastly superior to us in both those respects, and is considered to actually be saving money through their system. By taking profit out of the equation, this will this stop insurance companies from denying coverage for any reason or no reason at all. For those who wish to use private supplemental health insurance, such as for cosmetic surgery, that would still be possible. A single payer system will also encourage preventative treatment, since it would save the government money. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Progressive Taxes (U=5 A=4 O=5) 14

The poor and middle class should pay a lower percent of their incomes to the government than the rich. This is already true formally, to some extent, but it has been formally eroded through the years. Yet, informally, it is widely known that there are numerous legal loopholes such as stock appreciation and offshore accounts which the rich take advantage of to avoid taxes. Warren Buffet noted that his receptionist paid 30% of her income as taxes, while he only pays 17% even without tax shelters.

Speculation Tax (U=5 A=7 O=3) 15

Day traders and hedge funds can play all sorts of games with stocks and ignore any sort of value investment strategies, by buying stocks only to dump them immediately. This causes all sorts of financial havok and can even ruin smaller companies. Creating a speculation tax would encourage long-term investing and tax the externalities caused by speculation. It would only need to be set at a rate below 1% in order to achieve the desired effects and generate a considerable revenue. This type of tax is often called the Tobin Tax, in honor of James Tobin, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who has advocated for it.

Accounting for Externalities (U=4 A=7 O=4) 15

The most-discussed untaxed externality is currently CO2. Many have proposed a Carbon Tax, or more convoluted schemes that amount to the same thing. A Carbon Tax would be a great idea, and Obama has actually agreed to this, but there are many other examples. Simple policies like taxing plastic bags, say a nickel a bag, could cut down immensely on the unsustainable packaging that is used. If a single-payer healthcare system is enacted, “sin taxes” upon cigarettes would be seen as more justifiable, and other taxes upon alcohol and so forth could be considered. If marijuana was legalized, the same could be true for that.

Prosecute White Collar Criminals (U=6 A=5 O=4) 15

All predatory lenders, insider traders, fraudsters, corrupt bureaucrats, and those who improperly funneled bailout money should be put on trial and imprisoned.

The End of Poverty (U=10 A=2 O=2) 14

Cost-effective and decentralized solutions for eliminating extreme poverty like vitamins, iodized salt, condoms, and mosquito nets are at the top of the list for those interested in alleviating extreme poverty and suffering. Other good ideas like the LifeStraw are being put forth. The Democrats actually have talked about this and consulted with Jeffrey Sachs and other experts. Furthermore, there is tons of non-profit attention given to this. Yet, considering the low commitment to previous “Millenium Goals” perhaps more activist prodding is required, though compared with other goals, which can indirectly aid this goal, activist resources might be best utilized elsewhere.

Corporate Taxes (U=6 A=4 O=3) 13

As reported here, “A 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 61% of American corporations, including 39% of large companies, paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. Last year, corporations shouldered just 14.4% of the total U.S. tax burden, compared with about 50% in 1940.”

Corporations receive personhood and limited liability protections, and those privileges necessitate they take on the responsibilities of a person. Namely, they must pay taxes. I imagine closing these loopholes would be difficult.

Legalize Pot (U=5 A=5 O=3) 13

The time has come. The war on pot is a horrible waste of resources, prison space, border patrol, and so forth. Let it become a regulated industry like tobacco that can generate taxes and legal economic activity, as opposed to breeding an outlaw culture. Considering the low but increasing attainability, I think this is more of a long term goal.

Prosecute War Criminals (U=4 A=3 O=2) 9

All warmongers and torturers should be put on trial and imprisoned. This includes Bush. If we don’t… talk about a Moral Hazard. It would be worse than Ford’s pardon of Nixon. Yet, the amount of persistent pressure needed, in light of strong special interests pushing the other way, is immense. Perhaps other policies which attack the root of special interest power would be more effective.

Gay Marriage (U=3 A=5 O=0) 8

Homosexual couples should be allowed to have all the same rights, but honestly, this issue is used as a wedge by Republicans to scare voters away from all liberal causes, and Karl Rove and company have been amazingly effective at doing just that. This issue will likely resolve itself as time goes by, and trying to speed it up while there are significant segments of the population with archaic beliefs only endangers all the more fundamental issues such as the ones listed above.

————

We certainly still need to keep tabs on the policies which the Democrats have already agreed to, and perhaps the next good project would be to calculate the likelihood each of these Democrat promises will be kept, and the amount of pressure that needs to be consistently maintained. Given limited activist resources, knowing this information is urgent.

———

(02/11/2010) UPDATE:

Seems the Democrats predictably didn’t keep their word on their promises, but to a much larger extent than I had imagined. Here is a recap:

Filed under : Democracy, Politics

0 Comment »

Public service is crucially important. One theory for why we have rampant political apathy nowadays is because people do not feel socially invested. It is a well-known human quirk that the more effort we put into something, the more of an interest we have in seeing it succeed.

This is even true of relationships. For instance, psychologists will tell you if you want someone to fall in love with you, rather than giving them gifts, you should have them do things for you. This will make them feel more invested in your well-being.

The same principle applies to politics. It is claimed that the WW2 generation felt highly socially invested since they put their lives on the line for the nation, and I think this argument holds some water. People nowadays receive many benefits from the state, such as security, freedom, a social safety net, etc, but they take this for granted since they do not feel socially invested. It isn’t “their” system, since they didn’t have any part in building it up or holding it together, so why should they care what happens to it?

Obama’s plan to tie public service to college grants would go a long way to helping this problem, and will increase public service and make college more accessible at the same time. He is also looking to increase funding for AmeriCorps, increase the volunteer military force, and double the size of the Peace Corps. McCain claims to have similar plans, but is more ambiguous about them. Even more important than Obama’s support for new public service policies is his consistent championing of public service and political involvement through both word and deed, as opposed to borderline contempt for dreaded community organizing.

This even used to be a theme of former Republican candidates. Though, they mainly saw volunteerism as a way to reduce government social programs, and indeed it can be effective for that purpose. Nevertheless, Bush Sr’s surprisingly eloquent “thousand points of light” speech was in this same spirit that Obama is tapping into, just with less of an invitation to engage in the political arena. The decentralized power of thousands of individuals giving back to society can be truly awe-inspiring, and this seems to be recognized by a substantial number of people regardless of political persuasion. Unfortunately, since volunteers aren’t paid they are often looked down upon in our hypercapitalist society as unprofessional. Nevertheless, civil society has always played an vital role in democratic societies, and in the US moreso than anywhere.

I would go further than Obama and McCain. I would assert that mandatory public service is a perfectly legitimate extension of the Social Contract, and that we should implement such a program in exchange for free higher education. This would make it so everyone is on level footing and nobody will feel like they are falling behind by giving back to society. Mandatory military service is already common in places such as Norway and Israel, however, I am proposing something more broad than just military service. The types of service could range from programs like AmeriCorps to the Military and would last for a year or two. As a bonus, this would also make the draft an even more remote possibility.

There is a group called Service Nation which is currently promoting this more radical idea. Both John McCain and Barack Obama spoke at their recent Service Nation Summit last Friday. The group is co-chaired by Caroline Kennedy and has many Democrats like Tom Daschle affiliated. Yet, it also has right-wingers like Michael Bloomberg, Rick Warren, and Neil Bush.

Here’s McCain’s speech:

Here’s Obama’s speech:

Filed under : Democracy, Politics

1 Comment »

This post will be more personal than others on EmbraceUnity – Edward and I have often written in a collective voice, and I want it to be made clear that this in no way reflects the opinions of Edward or EmbraceUnity in general.

In the past few months it has become increasingly clear to me that my dedication to socialism in general and Marxism in particular (historical materialism to be really particular) is unfounded. Furthermore, any sort of compromise position such as social democracy, state capitalism, or corporatism all seem to be misguided as well. The primary focus of my politics has always been personal liberty – a freedom both political and economic in nature. However, I have always felt that political freedom, while important, pales in comparison to economic freedom - if one is economically free it almost naturally follows that one is politically free. From the time I was sixteen until very recently it seemed that the best way to achieve economic freedom was non-violent anarchist socialism.

This idea is so alien to me now that I can barely remember the reasons for why I chose this system. I vaguely recall that I postulated that the only type of economic freedom that matters was relative economic freedom. If one was more free than another, then there really wasn’t true freedom, especially if someone came about their wealth in ways that primarily involved luck – inheritance, for instance.

I now believe I was wrong. Without a central authority (a board of economic planners), socialism cannot work on a large scale, and large scales make possible incredible advances in technology. Anarchist socialism is out when it comes to bettering the human condition. And examples of the failures of planned economies are endless and I have grown tired of making excuses for them. In the end, the USSR was an experiment in socialism that failed for many reasons, but fundamentally there was one deficiency in the system, that being there was no effective way to gauge what and how much was needed to be produced (here I borrow from the Austrian School). There were far too many surpluses and shortages that went on for far too long, which to me is unacceptable for two reasons. First, it is a huge waste of resources and time. Second, and more importantly, it caused a large amount of suffering in people. The free market, on the other (invisible) hand, naturally fixes surpluses and shortages – people still suffer in a free market, it is definitely true, but one would have to be willfully ignorant of the facts to suggest that there is less suffering under a planned economy.

I also dislike state socialism in principle. There is an underlying assumption in it that the economic planners somehow know better what people will need and want than the people themselves. To me, this idea is extremely elitist and classist – the two things that drove me away from capitalism in the first place. Under a free market, people have a mechanism to rebuff the controllers, and that is simply not paying for the good. If a monopoly exists on the good, at least there doesn’t have to be in principle - a different firm could theoretically pop up. Under a planned economy, nothing of the sort exists; people would have to turn to the black market which can subject them to punishment by the controllers. A monopoly under capitalism is better than a monopoly under state socialism. People, then, are more free under a free market, even if there are differing degrees of freedom between the people, at least in theory. Even in theory, under state socialism there is no economic freedom.

But why does this dissuade me from welfare systems or state capitalism? Once you have accepted the free market, you have accepted the idea of the existence of private property. I have often searched for some ontological proof of the existence of private property and have found none. However, I now accept that private property does exist in some form simply because it needs to exist for a free market to exist, which I have decided is better for the welfare of the people than a planned economy. Consider it an utilitarian argument. Private property now in existence, any sort of redistribution of the property via the state is simply theft, which undermines the market. Some thefts need to occur for a market to function - taxes need to be collected for a government to exist in order to punish lawbreakers without bias (after all, if it were up to private businesses to punish lawbreakers they would simply punish people that affected the business the most, which would result in a loss of competition and a loss of what makes free markets extremely beneficial. Anarcho-capitalism is just as foolish as anarcho-socialism). However, when a government decides that a wealthy person “will not miss the money more than a poor person will benefit from it,” the government is stating that it cares not that people, through their individual economic actions, have affectively decided the wealth of every person; that the government knows better than its people. This is no better than the elistism and classism of state socialism and no better than theft from the wealthy.

I will try to stay away from the tired argument that the wealthy are mostly the suppliers of goods and are the most productive citizens, but hey, they are much more productive than the wealthy under state socialism, if only by the virtue that their money has grown by investing in businesses that are productive and are supplying the wants of the people.

I won’t touch on the issue of the Federal Reserve at this time, but I do have much to say about it.

 I do, however, still consider myself to be a transhumanist. I feel that the free market is the only way to develop technology – a truly free market devoid of intellectual property laws and trade secrets (more on intellectual property law being a barrier to innovation later). And, when scarcity is abolished, there will be no need of capitalism or socialism – both imperfect systems as they still both lead to great suffering.

Until then, I am going to pick the lesser of the two evils.

Filed under : Economics, Politics

0 Comment »

In a surprising showing of spine, the US House narrowly rejected a new appropriations bill that would have provided 162 billion dollars more for the war. Hopefully we can put that money to much better use. With the amount of money spent on the immoral war in Iraq the United States could have set up a guaranteed minimum income system. Maybe the Democrats will finally take a stand against the war, or maybe even impeach our criminal president.

Or, more likely, they will do nothing and sit back quietly while the nation slides towards militarism, corporatism, and theocracy. It is up to those of us interested in social justice to build a progressive movement that transcends the election cycles. Don’t expect the politicians to do anything without us forcing them.

Filed under : Politics

1 Comment »

The current scheme for financial aid for college goes something like this: if you or your family make less than x amount, the government will give you x amount of money to pay for college. Even the most leftist of economists will tell you that handing money to people creates disincentives to work, but the idea is that the people going to college will eventually do something good for the state economically – nurses, lawyers, etc. At the risk of sounding libertarian, I will say that what this has done has crowded the field enormously and many people with college degrees will still be ditch-diggers. Not only that, but because grants rarely cover all college expenses, they will be ditch-diggers with a mound of debt. What the system has done, then, is worsen the problem for some of the poor of America.

The solution is not the free market one – to lower the amount of college demanded by removing grants (effectively raising the price); it is the loans that do most of the damage anyway. Despite its faults, this system does allow the less affluent to close out the class gap, the reason being grants. The free market would see a much larger percentage of school being paid with loans than there are now. A better way than free market? Compulsory service (“draft”).

A prerequisite for public colleges and universities ought to be 2-4 years of service to the United Nations, Peace Corps, other national or international public service, or if the applicant chooses, the military. I mention this last option for three reasons: one, it would be much easier for politicians to pitch the program to Americans if the military is included, two, in a legitimate and responsible democracy, the military is a perfectly acceptable form of public service, and three, the current system that the military has is very similar to this new program. This system will pay for four years of college in full to any public college or university.

The positive effects of this new program would be enormous. Not only will there be less college demanded (it would weed out those that don’t care enough about education to devote a few years of their life to public service), meaning more jobs available for recent graduates, but it would strengthen international opinion of America if more of its citizens devoted some time to international relations and aid efforts. It would also do much to negate a lot of the nationalism and aversion to the U.N. that American citizens have (if a reader is unsure that that is a bad thing, I encourage him or her to read the very first post of this blog detailing the principles on which this blog is based). The military will often meet its target rates of recruitment, delighting neoconservatives and hawks.

Of course, without this being mandatory for anyone wishing to attend a public school, the poor would be disproportionately affected. That is why anyone wishing to attend a state college or university must “join up” – all but the most disabled can contribute in a meaningful way.

Of course, this raises the question, “How will we pay for this?” I am working on exact figures, but I’m sure this program would not be light. This is the part where it does not look so rosy, as it never does when looking for money. A higher estate tax is an option. Legalizing and taxing things such as marijuana, prostitution, and online gambling can bring a large amount of revenue. An option that I personally dislike but could prove beneficial is removing welfare benefits for college aid adults – I am unsure if this would significantly raise crime rates, however, and this again hurts the poor and minorities disproportionately. All is not bleak, however. The services rendered to the U.N. could pay off our debt to the organization, and, in time, a deal could be struck with the United Nations to pay us for those that serve. The richest nation on Earth can certainly find a way for this to work.

A post at a later date will follow with estimated figures.

Filed under : Economics, Education, Politics

4 Comments »

Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig, who has done some amazing activist work as a lawyer toward reforming intellectual property laws and the founder of Creative Commons. He is also the founder of the Free Culture movement.

Lessig has now expanded his horizons and is starting a new movement: the Change Congress Movement. His goal is to rid congress of the corruption caused by our broken money-based political system. This noble goal would go a long way to changing a fundamental problem that has been stifling all hopes of real progress.

Filed under : Democracy, Open Source, Politics

0 Comment »

In the 1980s, the Savings and Loan Crisis hit our nation. John Kenneth Galbraith called it, “the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time.” It cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars because of immoral and illegal activity by financial corporations, and the result was the most massive corporate bailout in history. In the end, our government handed over 120 billion dollars to the corporate criminals who orchestrated this financial disaster and their creditors, a despicable form of corporate welfare.

Most don’t remember that John McCain was one of the Keating Five, and a key player in the Savings and Loan Crisis. McCain’s senatorial campaign was funded hundreds of thousands of dollars by Charles Keating, an ultra-rich and ultra-conservative banker who ran the largest Savings and Loan Association, Lincoln Savings. As a result of misguided deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry, corporate fraud in this industry skyrocketed. Keating’s organization was able to single-handedly defraud people, mostly the elderly, of billions of dollars. Thanks to his good friend John McCain and other friends in congress, he was able to evade investigation and generally skirt the law. Thanks to further corruption of our legislative branch, Keating’s organization alone was bailed out to the tune of 3 billion dollars.

We can look to the culture of corruption built by people like McCain as the direct cause of our current financial crisis that we are now in the midst of, the eerily similar Subprime Mortgage Crisis.

Granted, I do commend McCain for working with Russell Feingold on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, however this law is very limited and I remain thoroughly unconvinced of his commitment to battling corruption. Does anyone honestly feel hopeful that John McCain, a key player in fomenting the biggest financial corruption scandal in US history, would make any substantive progress in combating the fraud that has been continuously causing so much damage? Indeed, it is more than likely he would perpetuate, if not worsen, the current situation.

Filed under : Politics

1 Comment »

Here are some excellent examples of political propaganda.

The thing is, Obama is actively pushing for involvement of the body politic in the political process, and seeking to create a real political culture in the United States. Thus, it is our duty to make damn sure he upholds these principles that he so eloquently speaks of. That said, I am inspired by Senator Obama.

Obama – Yes We Can

I am not so inspired by McCain.

McCain

Filed under : Politics

0 Comment »

In the event of emergency rule declared by George W Bush at the end of his term, leading to a refusal to relinquish power, my immediate reaction would be one of outrage. Without hesitation, I would go to Starbucks and rant about how bad the situation has become.

While sipping my $5.99 latte, I would use the Starbucks WiFi hotspot to email all my e-friends about the urgent need for more coffee shop meetups. I would then go home, pour a glass of organic soymilk, and valiantly blog about the virtues of democratic governance and the need to maintain the civil liberties that had been constitutionally guaranteed for over two hundred years.

As I meticulously document all 452 legal justifications for impeachment, I would sporadically shop on urbanoutfitters.com to find good consumer merchandise with which to display my authenticity as a true member of the anti-establishment. Seeing my anti-dictatorship Facebook group swell, I may decide to create a humorous YouTube video that sends a powerful message to the thousands of other petty bourgeois politicos inspiring them to make YouTube videos of their own, set to Green Day’s best-selling album American Idiot.

Looking around the country, I begin to wonder why Bush has no serious challenges to his power, despite the near unanimous hatred of him. However, with no more Democrats who will pretend to support progressive policies, I will be driven toward anomic behavior such as writing melodramatic poetry.

While sitting in my armchair watching Keith Olbermann, it would dawn on me… it is all my fault. Eventually social tension, famine, overpopulation, biowarfare, the militarization of space, and global warming will overtake the planet and consume most of humanity. From the wreckage, there will arise clans of subterranean mutants led by cannibalistic warlords who will fight in vain over the scraps of the dying wasteland once called Earth.

At the last minute, a lone group of eccentric technophilic billionaires will escape to outer space in a self-sustaining capsule, but megalomaniacal in-fighting among them seemingly seals the extinction of the human race. Just then, an AI saves the day.

Filed under : Politics, Satire

4 Comments »

Is the US an Empire? Should it be?

Long before the US could even fathom being the sole world superpower, Thomas Jefferson coined the term “Empire of Liberty” to describe his vision for the United States.

I have attempted to understand Jefferson’s motivations for this. Considering the way power functions in human civilization, it seems that imperialism was nearly unavoidable, and perhaps Jefferson recognized this in a very sober fashion.

He noticed the great potential for a more free and peaceful world under representative democracy. Now this form of government has become the most prevalent in the world, and much of the credit is due to the United States. The US involvement in World War 1 and 2 could be construed as defending representative democracy, even if economic and security reasons were the biggest motivator.

Yet, the imperial urge persists, as it has, for millennia. World conquest is not a new idea. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler have all tried it. This disregard for the sovereignty of others tends to extend inward as well, towards ever greater percentages of the domestic population. Yet, populations are not always passive observers, but at the right moment, with the proper communication and organizational techniques, they can become a revolutionary force. Such a force formed in the American colonies in the late 18th century.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson recognized the foolishness to jumping to revolution too hastily.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”

However, he also knew how quickly a government could become corrupted, and that is why he spoke of revolution as a duty whenever the government strays too far from its principles.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Yet, that same revolutionary force can easily become corrupted as well. Indeed, when Jefferson became President, he said the following:

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

This clearly proves that he understood that centralization of power is the root of most political problems.

I think he also understood that the way the constitution was set up made it harder to corrupt than previous systems. The checks and balances conceived by Montesquieu really are somewhat effective.

So how does contemporary US imperialism fit into this? Now that the US is the world’s only superpower, and it spends more on its military than nearly every other country on earth combined, I think it is time once more to reassess our motivations.

One of the rationales for building this empire was to make things better for the world, and I would argue this has indeed happened. If one looks at death tolls, it seems apparent that the true heirs to centralized holders of power such as Genghis Khan and Napoleon were the Nazis and Soviets who were probably responsible for over 100 million deaths each.

Technology has vastly increased the capacity for killing, yet the US has not killed comparable numbers of people to those other empires.  When the US death toll is added up (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, proxy wars, WW1, WW2 war crimes, etc) it is still significantly less.

Does this mean we should be satisfied that the US only killed tens of millions? Should we just sit back and be content with this? Only eggheads care about multi-syllabic words like decentralization, right? Truly believing in things like democracy and freedom is for children, right?

I recently came across an article from the Hoover Institution titled the Intellectual Roots of America-Bashing, which was the most serious conservative attempt which I have found to refute Hardt & Negri, Wallerstein, and Chomsky.

This article does not actually refute these scholars, it refutes an interpretation of them which is easy to succumb to: that the US is categorically worse than other nations.

When one reads a book like Chomsky’s Failed States, it tends to make principled people infuriated at the government. It certainly had that effect on me when I checked it out from my public library.

The real reason it is so infuriating is the hypocrisy of the government more than anything else.

Often when one reads history, one hears about horrible things that happen while the population remains blissfully ignorant. Rarely does one experience feeling like one of the deluded themselves.

That is what is so shocking about the book, and although it mostly focuses on the United States, I never got the impression that Chomsky felt the US was categorically worse than other empires, just way more similar than one would like.

“…the United States is very much like other powerful states, pursuing the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors to the accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its exceptional dedication to the highest values” (Chomsky, Failed States pg 203)

At the same time, there are virtues of the US, as Chomsky agrees. One of the main virtues is evidenced simply by the existence of books like Failed States. Free speech really does exist. If feeling like one of the deluded is rare, having books that spell it out for you easily accessible from government-run libraries is nearly unheard of.

“After all, the United States was the first modern (more or less) democratic society and has been a model for others ever since. And in many dimensions crucial for authentic democracy – protection of freedom of speech, for example – it has become a leader among the societies of the world.” (Chomsky, Failed States pg 205)

That is what is extra frustrating about recurring attempts to repeal civil liberties and the derision toward international law (the creation of which, catalyzed by the US, was one of the greatest accomplishments in world history)

If one takes a sober Jeffersonian perspective, things like US nationalism and militarism are necessary to promote when the time calls for it. I would argue though that there have been no serious threats to US hegemony since World War 2. As scholars such as Wallerstein and Hardt & Negri have shown, the main motivation behind post-WW2 American foreign policy has been to protect the transnational economic system which has created the current elite class.

Even if one does think that it is sound policy to overthrow democracies and prop up dictators whenever it suits short term interests, those who support the US’s need to remain powerful usually support it because of the principles that the US supposedly stands for or at least to achieve outcomes which are superior to the alternatives.

I would argue that some have become so wrapped up in the short term empire-building that they completely forget the Liberty part of it. Power becomes an end in and of itself, rather than a means to improve the world.

Thus, I call on all supporters of the American Empire to shed politically correct dialogue. Without mincing words, defend why you support the empire.

Filed under : Democracy, Politics

1 Comment »