"Dirty Secret?" Not Here

-->

“Dirty Secret?” Not Here

P. Schultz

November 18, 2013

            Well, folks, here it is, of all places in the nation’s paper of record, the New York Times. What is it? Well, finally, someone at that paper has recognized, or finally decided to publish, the “secret” that our “two” political parties are colluding to preserve the status quo.

            The headline is “Dirty Secret Lurks in the Struggle Over the Grand Bargain.” And here is one of its earliest and most important assertions: 

“That is, many Republicans are no more interested in voting to reduce Medicare and Social Security benefits than Democrats are, lest they threaten their party’s big advantage among the older voters who dominate the electorate in midterm contests like those in 2014.

“And Democrats are no more eager than Republicans, with control of both houses of Congress up for grabs, to vote for the large revenue increases that a grand bargain would entail. They do not want to limit popular but costly deductions, as Mr. Obama and past bipartisan panels, like his Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, have proposed. That is especially true for Democrats from states like California and New York where affluent voters value deductions for mortgages on first and second homes, charitable giving and state and local taxes.”

            Bottom line: We don’t actually have two political parties. Rather, we have, as some have noticed, a political class. And that political class is more concerned with keeping its power, which requires preserving the status quo as they see it, than with governing, assuming of course that “governing” means acting in the national interest or for what is called here the financial well being of the nation.

            And I love the following quote:

“It’s a lot harder than you’d think to find Republicans who’d actually want to cut entitlements, or Democrats who want to raise taxes,” said Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and now a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The only person who seems to have consistently been interested in a grand bargain is the president, and frankly I’m not even sure about him.”

            Finally, someone calling a spade a spade, although why Mr. Bernstein hesitates to include Obama in the political class is beyond me. What has he done to warrant any other opinion? Help me here because I cannot think of anything. Here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/politics/the-hidden-hurdles-to-a-fiscal-grand-bargain.html?hp&_r=0

The Blood Telegram

-->

The Blood Telegram

P. Schultz

November 15, 2013

            I am currently reading The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Forgotten Genocide, which is about the “birth” of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. Archie Blood was a US foreign service officer serving in Bangladesh who approved a telegram dissenting from US policy supporting West Pakistan and its dictator who was waging genocide on the Bengalis in East Pakistan. Nixon and Kissinger, who are described as “realists,” even as capable, competent, and shrewd “realists,” continued to support West Pakistan even after it became clear that a genocide was underway.

            Of course, as realists Nixon and Kissinger are thought to have based their foreign policy on calculation, that is, hard-headed calculations of US interests, both short and long term. Hence, it is thought and they thought that they were not blinded by less concrete considerations, such as a revulsion to deadly violence and by moral concerns.

            But here’s the thing: Their calculations – and those of other “realists” – often fail, as they did in Pakistan as its unity could not be and was not maintained, which was the goal of the Nixon/Kissinger policy, as well as of the West Pakistanis. So today there is a Bangladesh and a Pakistan, the result that Nixon/Kissinger sought to avoid and calculated they could avoid – just as they calculated that they could avoid the reunification of Vietnam under a communist government with the proper application of their “realism.”

            Now, as this happens with some frequency to “realists,” we should ask, What is motivating or controlling these “realists?” as “calculation” seems to have limited explanatory power. Some say: “ Well, perhaps it is racism that skews their vision.” This could be the case but seems an explanation both too general and too specific. A very few might say that “sin” explains their behavior but, again, this seems both too general and too specific.

            So the question recurs: What could “calculation” be hiding or obscuring? It seems hard to say and an answer would seem to require an understanding of the soul or psyche that would explain or reveal that which “calculation” hides or obscures. What passion is driving these “realists” who are so labeled and who like to think of themselves in these terms?

            Whatever it might be – or whatever combination it might be – it seems clear that “realism” is liberating. That is, to practice a “realistic” foreign policy is to liberate oneself from certain constraints, such as considerations of justice, humanity, or sin. [I can hear the chuckling now: “You want to talk about foreign policy in terms of justice, humanity, or sin? Really? That’s funny.”]

            So perhaps realists seek not the calculated use of power so much as they seek the liberated use of power, which would help explain why their calculations are so often miscalculations. They want to wield power freely and, hence, their “calculations” are actually rationalizations. It also helps to explain why the realists always want more power, either by way of technology or by way of institutions. The freest use of power requires the creation of the greatest power(s) available, technologically or politically, and preferably both.

            But doesn’t this seem quite dangerous: The greatest power used with the least restraint? Or to put this question differently: Isn’t it quite delusional, quite unrealistic to think that such a combination will work out well? “Realism,” ala’ Nixon and Kissinger, et. al., is actually extremism and more than a wee bit dangerous. Just ask the Bengalis. Or ask Machiavelli, who was the original “realist” and knew what he was doing.

Francis the "Rock Star"

Francis the “Rock Star”

P. Schultz

November 11, 2013

            Well, it is “Veterans Day” and I am a veteran, or so they tell me, so this is my day. Wish I could feel better about the day but to me it is just another one of those bullshit days, you know, one of those days where the country pretends to pay tribute to those who fight its wars, while fucking them over in other ways, such as sending them to fight in wars that are not “winnable.” Oh well, what is another 4000 or so deaths when it comes to “making the world safe for democracy?”  

            Anyway, recently an acquaintance, a recent acquaintance, described Pope Francis as “a rock star” in her house, a house occupied by a very “devout” Catholic and herself, a convert to Catholicism. And in my inimical way, I wondered: What the fuck does that mean? Francis is a “rock star?” Because when did being a “rock star” become a standard by which we judge people?

            A “rock star?” Really? Now, don’t misunderstand: I think Francis is the best thing to happen to the Catholic Church in a long, long time. In fact, we could use some of his “karma” here in the good, old US of A. For a long time now, I have been saying that we need to “trash” the White House, that is, to convert it to something else, like a place for the “homeless.” And those elected president should be required to buy a house in the D.C. area, drive themselves to “work,” and drive themselves home afterwards. Just like any other modern executive.

            But, I guess, describing Francis or any one else as a “rock star” puts them on a pedestal, as it were, you know, where we allegedly put women in the past. And I understand this all too well as I was putting Obama on a pedestal, looking at him as a “rock star,” just a relatively short time ago. And, boy, was I disappointed. From a “rock star” to just another status quo politician. One can only hope that Francis I has more to offer than Obama – and I would bet he does. But then he knew real tyranny.

Pope Francis and the Conservatives

-->

Pope Francis and the Conservatives

P. Schultz

November 10, 2013

            The NY Times published an article today entitled “Conservative U.S. Catholics Feel Left Out of Pope’s Embrace.” And while I don’t usually comment on religion herein, I cannot resist doing so about this article, or rather about the substance of the article.

            I am not only not a biblical expert but I am also quite ignorant of the Bible and especially it’s words. But from what I recall, I can’t recall Jesus talking about abortion, gays and lesbians, married or otherwise, the trinity, attending mass on Sunday, or papal infallibility. Of course, that might be because Jesus was then still Jewish and the Catholic Church was not even a twinkle in the eyes of his disciples, who were, if I remember correctly, also Jewish. I do recall something called “The Sermon on the Mount,” but that “sermon” – and I am sure that is not the word used in the Bible to describe this event – seemed to focus on other matters, such as who would inherit the earth…….and that would be the meek, as I remember it.

            Conservative Catholics as described here remind me of those politicians and political advisers, many of them Democrats, who bemoan the fact that elections often turn not on “the issues” as they define them but rather on the persona of those seeking office. Well, I guess the same thing could be said of Jesus, viz., that he ignored “the issues” and focused his “ministry” on, well, on people, real, live people and not on abstractions like “pregnant women in ‘crisis’” or those lovers deemed “deviants.”

“When a pope makes a statement off the cuff or in an interview, it’s not an infallible statement,” said Chris Baran, the president of the clinic’s board. “What he said in a statement does not change any teaching of the church that’s been around over 2,000 years.”

            This would be Chris Baran, the president of “the Pregnancy Aid Clinic in Hapeville, Ga., a Catholic-run nonprofit center where women who come for pregnancy tests are counseled against abortion,” and as an “educator” I must point out that the Catholic Church is not 2000 years old and its “teachings” – if enforcing commands disguised as absolute truth can be called “teaching” – are not 2000 years old either. Mr. Baran seems to think that “the truth” appeared whole at one moment in time, which isn’t, as I understand it, even the opinion of his church. But then, doesn’t he have to believe this to maintain and justify his “conservatism,” conservatism that is difficult to distinguish from obstinacy? Just wondering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/us/conservative-us-catholics-feel-left-out-of-the-popes-embrace.html?hp&_r=0

What are "The Issues"?

What are “The Issues?”

P. Schultz

November 7, 2013

            Here is a quote from the executive director of the Democratic Governors’ Association on Chris Christie as a potential presidential nominee in 2016.

“What’s worked for [Christie] has been to make sure that nobody talks about the issues, that people just get consumed with his personality-driven late-show entertainment,” O’Comartun said. “People will see past the bluster and the vaudeville routine that is the Chris Christie show. They’ll focus in on the issues.”

            I submit that Mr. O’Comartun is wrong in two senses: First, he is wrong in the sense he intends to send in his argument, that voters focus on issues like abortion, immigration, etc., above all else when they decide whom they will vote for. And, second, he is mistaken in thinking that Chris Christie is not, himself, a legitimate issue. What O’Camartun calls Christie’s “personality-driven late-show entertainment” is, for voters, anything but that. What Jersey voters, across the political spectrum, like about Christie is his apparent honesty or his directness. He is perceived as someone who speaks his mind, tells voters what he thinks directly, and lets them decide if they will vote for him or not.

            It is difficult for us, me included, to understand why this is appealing but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Christie is not speaking what might be called “bureaucratize” or the language of a “rationalized politics.” And as this is the language that is currently in vogue among our political class, and as that class seems to be presiding over a situation that can only be characterized as pathetic, Christie is perceived as an alternative. And of course it is difficult to convince people these days that we don’t need an alternative politics, that the status quo is worth defending.  

Political Pragmatism?

-->

Political Pragmatism?

P. Schultz

November 7, 2013

            “Leaders of the Republican establishment, alarmed by the emergence of far-right and often unpredictable Tea Party candidates, are pushing their party to rethink how it chooses nominees and advocating changes they say would result in the selection of less extreme contenders.” NY Times, today. See link below.  

Is it “pragmatic” to underwrite the status quo when plenty of evidence exists that suggests the prevailing situation is characterized by failure? And one need not endorse the methods or ends of the “extremist” Tea Party to ask and answer this question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/politics/gop-weighs-limiting-clout-of-right-wing.html?hp

Preserving the Status Quo

-->

Preserving the Status Quo

P. Schultz

November 2, 2013

            An article entitled, “Two Democrats Split On Tactics to Fight Military Assault,” in the NY Times, dated today, illustrates how our politicians help to maintain the status quo. The link to the article is below and it deals with the split between Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand over how the military should deal with accusations of sexual assault. Note should be taken that both of these senators are of the female persuasion, while male senators want nothing more than to avoid the issue altogether.

“Many male senators in both parties appear extremely reluctant to take a position on such an emotionally charged and complex legal issue. “I come down on the side that is against sexual assault,” Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said as he raced away from a reporter.”

So, apparently, when confronted with “emotionally charged and complex legal issue[s]” our male senators take a pass on them. Does this make any sense at all, especially when the males who are in charge of the our military seem able to take on these issues? So, my conclusion: They, the male senators [and probably others as well], are satisfied with the status quo and want as little change as possible in how these issues are dealt with. Hence, they pretend to be uncomfortable when dealing with this “emotionally charged and complex legal issue.” It is a pose, an act adopted in order to control, i.e., minimize, how much change will take place.

And the issue isn’t, as the article states, where the authority to deal with such accusations will take place but who should deal with them. That is, the real issue is preserving male control of these issues, which is why it has been left to these two women senators to “split” over……what exactly? As I read this article, over not much at all. So we have this “cat fight” – to use the vernacular – which is basically over nothing much, while it looks important because it involves two women with “strong opinions” in the same party. More smoke and mirrors from those elected to do the public’s business in D.C.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us/politics/2-democrats-split-on-tactics-to-fight-military-sex-assaults.html?hpw