While I do not doubt that our political system, like all political systems, is rife with examples of policies being bent to boost business. In most of what Lee said, I can thus agree.
Can that be weighed morally as a 'bad' thing? The first rule of politics and biology is self-preservation, and if our politicians represent a capitalistic system, is it bad to grant government dollars that sustain and promote capitalism?
However, profit motive is not all that is behind policy, though it likely is a majority position. Having a fresh 'bogeyman' is also good psychology that aids in controlling the masses. If there's not a real war, it's a War on Drugs. It keeps the mob focused on anyone-but-the rich-and-their-politicians, which is an obvious safety valve. In times of military crisis, the Congress & country historically unite around the Prez we were all just carping about yesterday.
As well, world occurrences and popular opinions interject as well, so it is too simplistic to suggest money alone is the root cause of all decision-making.
And then there's this from Lee's statement: >>Suddenly we conveniently had the WTC disaster, we have a whole new excuse now to get things going again and will use it as much as possible.<<
Even though I think Lee may have misspoke in that first clause, I can't be sure. But in or out of the context of his larger opinion, there is not, in my mind, anything that could be construed as a convenience, with the WTC attack.
Convenient in that we gained a common enemy to unite popular opinion against, therefore, spending more? No, not even that. The government, as we learned in the Gulf War, is perfectly capable of creating foes with strong popular support, but without the massive losses of life and property.
So, other than a bit of oversimplification and the unfortunate use of the word 'convenient', Lee's point is well-made. But, as Kruschev said: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge where there is no river." |
