Back online? Good. I hope my OT reflections, which do contain some foreign policy opinion mixed in with things domestic, grant a soapbox here:
Some things have been crossing my mind in recent weeks and over the last few hours, I decided to write them down because they seem important to consider. Before you read further, you probably should set aside a good half hour to contemplate my long-winded appeal.
With the elections complete, and visions of CNN commentators fresh in my head, I must admit I like investigative reporters much better than the Nightly News from Greg Gossip & Sam Speculation.
Some examples:
>>Palast, who now reports for the Guardian and Observer in London, as well as the BBC, distinguishes himself from many other advocacy journalists both left and right with his near obsession with documentary evidence--memos, correspondence, e-mail, briefing reports and raw data, much of it stamped confidential--and his painstaking research methods.
-Eric Zorn
Chicago Tribune
gregpalast.com
And playing 11/9 and 11/14 at the AFI Film Festival in Hollywood, 11/6 and 11/8 at the Ft. Lauderdale International Film Festival and on 11/23 at the NY International Film Festival at the Palms Resort in Las Vegas, comes this painful to accept documentary:
gregpalast.com
You can see some of the clips here.
I know there are political partisans who, considering the outcome, may say: "winning, by all means necessary, is okie-dokie." But anyone who views this documentary, and does not get past their partisanship and take umbrage at what is clearly nothing less than the theft of the election, can only be something more than partisans. They become accessories after the fact and display a traitorous intent towards the concepts and principles of the representative democracy that once was the United States.
Viewing the clips that show the staff aides of Republican Congressmen from other states participating in a mob intimidation moment that helped shut down local Florida recounts jarred me, considering the travel coordination necessary to produce such a brazen visible testament to our entire political system.
The documentary also, viewed in its entirety, painstakingly lays out a process by which sufficient numbers of voters were removed from the registration rolls in violation of their voting rights, and makes a strong case that this, by itself, spelled the difference in the election outcome, without even considering chads and the other problems with the Florida vote.
I don't doubt that some will say "it's over", "the final arbiter, the Supreme Court, settled it", and "get over it, your guy lost."
I'd reply "Gore was not 'my guy'. Indeed, his attempt at a limited recount had political motives that proved inept, because a full recount at the outset could have preserved his victory even without corrections of the machinations this documentary describes."
Well before that election, I had grown disillusioned with both major parties precisely because of problems like these, which send the message that winning is everything, no matter what Constitutional rights are violated, no matter what ethics are ignored, no matter how you and I voted. I became a small 'i' independent as the only course to keep my name clean of any complicity in such acts.
I'm sure I'll also hear the inevitable comparisons to past dirty politics, like the Daley machine voting turnout in Chicago in the Kennedy/Nixon contest. As a lifelong student of US history, however, I'd encourage folks to review the vote totals elsewhere, which indicate that the election was already won, and the Chicago vote changed nothing. More important, that type of logic suggests both wrongs equal a right, the right to negate our democratic republic and your vote. There is no such right.
Given a choice between political corruption and political ineptness, I'd choose neither. But given the facts as presented, I'm left with a different choice. Is my president the one that won the popular vote and the Electoral College vote (Gore)? Or is my President the one the final arbiters chose by a 5-4 vote because the law says they are the final arbiers in all things legal?
Tough question. Both choices argue that we respect one Constitutional mandate and ignore the other. Inevitably, this permits folks to choose whatever suits their partisan preferences.
But I'm not trying to change the past. Instead, I'm challenging US citizens to compel changes in our political parties in an effort to change the present, so that we may avoid repeating past corruptions in the future.
Is that Pollyanna of me? Does that reek of Don Quixote tilting at windmills? Or is the reality of a nation of laws, of democratic principles, of freedom and rights of citizens worth much more than getting 'our guy' a win? Again, as a student of history, I don't welcome the outcome of free and strong nations whose citizens responded with apathy and indifference, or with assent, to the erosion of law and rights for the sake of political expediency. My challenge is to work together so we can avoid that certain road to ruin.
And why am I making this challenge now, post-election, nearly two years later? Because it has all just been repeated, pretty close to the way I predicted it would. Not act for act, but via a fresh set of manipulations worthy of Macchiavelli. We're simply falling for new tricks from old carnies.
You'll hear the verdicts Wednesday by the mass media pundits. "Bush makes the difference in key races as Republicans gain control of Congress". "Voters voice support for Bush agenda". All the while ignoring the razor thin differences between majority and minority support in the office of President, and in the Senate & House balances.
Viewed across the board, such an even split as has occurred since 2000, has no historical precedent. And the shifts that occurred Tuesday don't even qualify as a tremor, never mind the earthquake that pundits will be proclaiming. Close examination should reveal that most decisions were based on state-by-state issues and judgments of specific candidates, rather than any national issue.
The reality is that most incumbents prevailed. Out of more than 500 races for Congress and governorships, there were surprise outcomes in half a dozen. There's little that dismays me with this outcome; indeed, it provides one strong possibility that I consider to be cause for hope, the hope that citizens will relearn an old lesson about concentration of too much power in one party, albeit relearning this the hard way.
The greater dismay came from the processes that got us to this result, because they proved so predictable... and so corrupt.
I predicted 2 months ago that the suffering stockmarket would be rallied by the Fourth branch of government, the Federal Reserve Board, in pursuit of a positive GOP outcome in Congressional elections. This has occurred. In fact, at the last meeting of the Fed, they took the rare step of publicly revealing the board's vote on a further prime rate cut, which displayed the lack of consensus on the 'no' vote. This rare public exhibition suggested the board was shifting closer to a 'yes' vote, and most analysts view the source of the recent market rally to be pricing in the expectation of that 'yes' vote coming at the Fed meeting today, one day after the election.
Simultaneously, this Administration pulled back its imminent war rhetoric, as that was stimulating oil price rises that dampened the stock market.
Not that this election should indicate an end to the rally, though it may provide a period of pullback before the rally resumes. Ending the rally right here would prove too politically transparent and even I'm not cynical enough to believe the Fed will act so brazenly. More likely, they'll provide a 1/4 pt prime rate cut now and save the next for a month or two to spur the rally further, covering their politically motivated tracks.
But the governors of the Fed recognize three realities.
1) the US economy remains at serious risk, as well as the world economy.
2) with these two rate cuts, they will be left without much ammunition to prop up the ailing market afterward.
3) the longer term concern for the US economy is staving off deflation and to accomplish that, the value of the US dollar must fall.
Thus, any remaining Fed machinations impacting the markets positively is limited to the nearterm - from 1 to 3 months. The only other government inspired market rally possibilities arise from increased government spending or going to war (and the latter achieves both).
Going to war is a tricky business for market investors, because it impacts oil prices, which has a major impact on the prices of all delivered goods and services. If the last Middle East war proves a repeatable guide, the market could decline during the preparatory war phase, and rally during the actual war. However, as most military analysts estimate a war against such a weak opponent as Iraq is likely to be concluded within a few weeks, this also grants room for a limited rally at best.
Moving beyond market possibilities to what should concern a broader citizenry, consider the economic realities that we're facing:
1) Marketwise, despite a 2+ year decline, most stocks remain historically overvalued by any standard used and history indicates a post-bubble decline requires a drop to undervalued levels before a final bottom arrives.
2) Most domestic indicators are bleak: manufacturing, consumer confidence, and much more, including earnings and spending projections for many major companies.
3) Last year's tricks can't be replicated. Zero interest auto loans stimulated more sales for one year, but what can stimulate similar new demand to buy another brand-new car one year later? A lot of industries suppling car components and materials likely will see similar demand declines.
4) Housing prices are likely at or near a peak, due to low interest rates on mortgage. The pending prime rate cuts might stimulate a housing purchase spurt once again, but as previously pointed out, the ammunition to continue that game is nearly gone.
5) Government spending has increased by leaps and bounds under this Administration, mostly spent on the 'War on Terror' and the pending new bureaucracy of Homeland Defense, and the pending Middle East War. When the full costs of all this are finally recognized and tabulated to produce horrendous budget deficit and national debt projections, government spending will have to be cut, ending further economic stimulation.
6) Coupling that last point with projections for the nearing retirement of baby boomers, crisises in funding of Social Security and health care, and the decimated 401Ks, IRAs and pension plans caused by the market decline, all within 6 to 10 years, one has to wonder how a government deeply mired in fresh debts on top of old can possibly fund any rescue initiatives.
7) Globally, the second largest economy in the world, Japan, has been in deflation mode for a decade already, with no signs of escape. Other major economies are cracking, most visibly in Brazil and other South American countries, but also in such powerhouses as Germany, which could lead the EU off the cliff. Some feel that rising consumerism in China and other Asian nations can stimulate fresh economic demand, but putting much faith in a Communist nation with a low per capita income level, an India entangled in religious and ethnic wars that include the nuke-enabled Pakistan, a Korea that may face similar reunification economy strains as Germany has, and a struggling Japan seems like a risky form of speculation to depend on. Nor does the spectre of an AIDS-decimated Africa offer anything but sadness and expense.
8) I'm sorry to heap bleaness upon bleakness, but states and municipalities now facing deficits that their Constitutions don't permit, will be forced to cut spending and raise taxes to achive required balanced budgets.
9) There's a consumer credit bubble and a shortage of savings. As economic woes mount and unemployment increases, purchases should decline while mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies rise. This could put further strain on the federal budget, chiefly due to impacts on FannieMae and FreddieMac funds for housing.
10) Exposure to excessive derivatives and bad loans to struggling South American countries has put several major US financial giants at risk of collapse, most notably JP Morgan and Citibank.
Ultimately, all these dour economic projections lead to some inescapable conclusions. The 2003 economy, nationally and worldwide, has a strong possibility of being much worse than what we have today. Historical precedent suggests the worst effects will be felt by the poorest in our nation who can least afford it. There are no easy outs, and the corporate and government bags of stimulative tricks are nearly empty.
Thus it's wise to tighten belts, set aside money for rainy days, reduce debts and prepare for coming storms. But rather than view such projections with an attitude of alarm, doom and gloom, I view it as a time that offers some major opportunities.
Going back to my original points about risks to the foundations our great democratic nation was founded on that are caused by political carnies masquerading as leaders, a period of increasing economic woes represents the best chance for citizens to wrestle back against major party abuses. Clearly, the party holding majority positions now are most at risk of feeling the vengeance of a citizenry likely to endure an economic pinch. But the time is ripe for partisans of both parties to demand reforms in political practice, and to insist upon responsive economic legislation that represents longterm economic responsibility instead of stupid shortterm market tricks.
I'm not suggesting we face a depression on the scale of the Great Depression, but I'm not ruling it out, either. Nor am I suggesting citizens are about to roll out the guillotine.
But the winds of drastic change will be blowing strong in the next two years. And my challenge to anyone, whatever their current political ideology or personal economic interest, is to review the long history of what America has been and has evolved through. What has truly advanced us and what is it about us that has created the inspiration of a shining light on the hill amid a dark world, that draws freedom seekers and visionaries to our shores?
Let us find that core that represents America at its best, shore up that foundation and protect it from the narrow interests of win-at-all-cost carnies, straighten our rudders and set sail for the vision of something greater for future generations. Not just a nation of military dominance eager to display it, that's devoid of principle and declining in freedom.
We are historically a nation of reluctant warriors, tough to best in battle, but saving battle as a last resort unless attacked. We still have a War on Terrorists to complete, which has been diverted from those who attacked us and still threaten us to a puzzling course with Iraq that seems rooted in past grievances and present half-truths than any real threat to Americans. "He can run, but he can't hide" has been replaced by "Who cares about Osama?"
I care. I want follow through. I want policies that protect and strengthen our defenses, not meaningless alerts and fresh conflicts against old tyrants that are not currently threatening us.
But more than that, I care about the precious principles and freedoms that are slipping away in the name of security, that has proven to be no safer than our previous security. I remain steadfast in my belief that it is our freedoms and principles and laws that are our greatest strengths, that provide us with the least enemies, and that advance all of humanity.
Let's not walk away from the challenge. Let's use the opportunity of tough times that weaken the political carnies to reunite as patriots marching - or dancing - for the American Dream, instead of this cheap imitation being foisted upon us by partisan charlatans advancing their own power at the expense of our own.
Thanks for considering my diatribe. Please give these matters serious thought and let's see what we can accomplish.
--Kevin Hayden |
