The Death of a Myth?

[ed. - hardly, the shadow-side everybody knew was there but must remain secret until too late]

by Sean Gonsalves

Published on Monday, September 22, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

First, the U.S. Treasury nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold over $5 trillion in combined assets and guarantees most of the mortgages in the country -- an implicit acknowledgment by the government that the mortgage market is broken.

We've overthrown regimes and threatened others with military action for nationalizing industries. When other governments do it, it's evidence of their evil, socialist heart. When our government does it, it's necessary.

Next came Lehman Brothers filing the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Then, the following day, the Federal Reserve gave an $85 billion "bridge loan" to AIG, the largest insurance company on the planet, holding over $1 trillion in assets with 100,000 employees across the globe.

What we are witnessing is what economists Douglas Diamond and Anil Kashyap call "the most remarkable period of government intervention into the financial system since the Great Depression."

At the heart of this credit crunch mess is something called "derivatives." The Initiative for Policy Dialogue [1] at Columbia University offers a good primer:

"A derivative is a financial contract whose value is linked to the price of an underlying commodity, asset, rate, index or the occurrence or magnitude of an event. The term derivative refers to how the price of these contracts is derived from the price the underlying item."

It's kinda like playing craps at the casino, where instead of gamblers betting on the dice-roller to crap-out, with derivatives, investors are betting on whether a creditor is going to go under. But instead of buying chips, the lender buys risk-insurance and makes a "swap" with a third party. If the borrower doesn't pay the loan back, the lender loses the loan but collects the insurance.

To make things even more confusing, there are different kinds of derivatives. Futures. Forwards. Swaps. Options.

Ever since Mesopotamians were writing on clay-tablets, derivatives have played a useful role. But, IPD cautions, "they also pose several dangers to the stability of financial markets and the overall economy" because they can be used "for unproductive purposes such as avoiding taxation, outflanking regulations designed to make financial markets safe and sound, and manipulating accounting rules, credit ratings and financial reports. Derivatives are also used to commit fraud and to manipulate markets."

I guess that's why Warren Buffet (in 2002, mind you), said derivatives were a "financial weapon of mass destruction." He was ridiculed at the time but now even John McCain is suggesting that people like Buffet and others tell us how to regulate the market.

According to Marketwatch, the derivatives market is somewhere around $500 trillion. No, that's not a typo. That's trillion.

To put it in perspective, Marketwatch reminds us that the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is about $15 trillion. The GDP of all nations combined is approximately $50 trillion. The total value of all the real estate in the world is estimated at $75 trillion and the total value of all the world's stocks and bonds is about $100 trillion. But there's a $500 trillion market in derivatives!

If you find this all confusing, we're in good company. Because "what we are witnessing is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid August," Bond fund giant Bill Gross told Marketwatch.

Marketwatch goes on to observe: "In short, not only Warren Buffett, but Gross, Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America's leaders can't 'figure out' the world's $516 trillion derivatives."

That's because we're talking about a "shadow banking system," in which derivatives are not just risk management tools but "a new way of creating money outside the normal central bank liquidity rules. How? Because they're private contracts between two companies or institutions."

Deregulation? Cutting taxes on the super rich? Arguing that government "hand-outs" are a "moral hazard" leading to "dependency" and welfare queendom? All of this unregulated free-market ideology that has dominated American politics and the GOP since the Reagan revolution has brought the country to its financial knees.

Could it be that in this prostrate position, enough people will recognize that the unregulated free-market myth is dead? With Wall Street being handed a government bailout by an administration that regards laissez-faire capitalism as a divine elixir, the economic reality is: socialism for the rich; capitalism for everybody else. "Compassionate conservatism" for the wealthy. "Market discipline" for the poor.

Sean Gonsalves is a columnist and news editor with the Cape Cod Times. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com [2]

Article from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/22-10

from: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/23/133349/153/556/607628

Ben Stein almost lets out the Big Secret

by Inky99

Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM PDT

Ben Stein, a man whose character and politics I find to be despicable, has a column today that I noticed on Yahoo Finance. A good buddy of mine, who stays closely abreast of these kinds of financial shenanigans, told me the other day that Ben Stein, in spite of his character flaws, had some really astute observations on this whole mess. So out of curiosity today, I clicked on the link.

And I have to admit, I am astounded by what he said. And even more by what he didn't say. The Big Question he leaves unanswered. It's seriously mind-blowing.

Here is the article:

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Credit Crisis But Were Afraid to Ask

And here is the meat of his article, which leads to the huge gaping hole which he leaves unfilled:

The crisis occurred (to greatly oversimplify) because the financial system allowed entities to place bets on whether or not those mortgages would ever be paid. You didn't have to own a mortgage to make the bets. These bets, called Credit Default Swaps, are complex. But in a nutshell, they allow someone to profit immensely - staggeringly - if large numbers of subprime mortgages are not paid off and go into default.

The profit can be wildly out of proportion to the real amount of defaults, because speculators can push down the price of instruments tied to the subprime mortgages far beyond what the real rates of loss have been. As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...)

These Credit Default Swaps have been written (as insurance is written) as private contracts. There is nil government regulation of them. Who writes these policies? Banks. Investment banks. Insurance companies. They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.

Did you see that bolded section?

In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...

Many of us have already said that, including a LOT of prominent economists like Michael Hudson. These people knew the loans they were making were bad loans. They knew the money wouldn't be paid back. Which has always bothered me -- why did they make bad loans on purpose? For short term gain? Well, yes, at least as far as some of the people involved go, like mortage agents in banks who worked on commission. But the people in charge were letting them make these loans. Why?

Now that is what leads to the real meat of what he's saying, the "Elephant in the Room", That Which Shall Remain Unspoken:

They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.

Somebody, somewhere, is blackmailing the economy. Because somebody, somewhere, is owed these TRILLIONS of dollars. And it is THEY who are holding a gun to the economy and demanding payment, and all of Wall Street, and even the Fed, cannot pay this debt.

So WHO is this Tony Soprano-like world figure? Who are these people? Why are we not identifying them, and talking to them, and negotiating with THEM, whoever they are, to keep from bankrupting the American economy in their favor?

Somebody, somewhere, is blackmailing the entire United States economy. Somebody, somewhere, has a gun to our head. And to the head of the American government.

I want to know who they are. I want them identified.

Who are they? And why are we willing to bankrupt the entire country in order to pay them off?

Somebody, somewhere, has way more power than they should have. Who?

Labels: economics, government, politics

| posted by Unknown @ 9/24/2008 02:04:00 PM

Happy Birthday, Lisa! I'm glad you were born!

Lisa's sister Nicole lead the charge in giving most excellent gifts. The Holly Hobby plate on which I put her yellow cupcakes with butter cream frosting (from scratch!) was one of the gifts in Nicole's delightful nostalgia-fest. I'll leave the rest for Lisa to blog, should she so choose.

I'm grateful for my spouse.

| posted by Unknown @ 9/08/2008 11:08:00 PM

VERY proud of my Mom!

Brief video of Paula Craig and the First Peoples ceremony to bless the relationship with the land may be seen and heard at the Dallas Morning News website http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/090508dnmettwelvehills.27714a5.html
The longer video of the ceremony later in the day is at the bottom of this post.

Oak Cliff neighborhood celebrates rebirth with Twelve Hills Nature Center
03:23 PM CDT on Friday, September 5, 2008
By ANNETTE NEVINS / Special Contributor

Paula Craig has seen North Oak Cliff go through a lot of changes in the almost 70 years she has lived there.

She has seen the name Twelve Hills represent crime and urban decay. But today, the neighborhood celebrates rebirth of the rolling terrain of her childhood stomping grounds.

A spiritual ceremony at the Twelve Hills Nature Center in North Oak Cliff was held Friday morning at dawn to commemorate the groundbreaking of a trail head.

09/05/2008

Events ranging from speeches to children shoveling dirt to American Indian ceremonies mark the groundbreaking of a trailhead entrance to the Twelve Hills Nature Center.

"This is about our community being redeemed; it's about new beginnings," said Mrs. Craig, a developmental music consultant and retired school administrator who joined neighbors in leading the charge in establishing the nature center.

The trailhead, to be finished by the end of the year, will consist of three long walls of various rolling elevations made of Texas moss boulders.

Key names in the long history of the land – from the Caddo Indians to neighborhood and civic leaders and major donors for the $230,000 trailhead project – will be engraved on boulders in the front wall.

Openings in the walls overlooking the grasslands create a strong sense of arrival into the urban prairie.

"The center is a model for all communities," said Carolyn Perna, a neighborhood resident who prepared the design that was developed on a pro-bono basis by the landscape architectural and land planning firm of TBG Partners, where she is an associate.

The trailhead, which will provide open-air gathering and learning space for students, scout troops and others, will be the only major permanent structure at Twelve Hills.

Mrs. Craig recalls how her childhood friends would explore the rolling terrain, wiling away summer days along the creeks, where foxes still run and various species of birds make their home.

Rosemont Elementary librarian Michelle Touchet read to second-graders at the Twelve Hills Nature Center in North Oak Cliff on Wednesday. The center is hosting groundbreaking ceremonies today for a trailhead, which will be finished by the end of the year. " onclick="return clickedImage(this);" onmouseover=" this.style.cursor='hand'" height="120" width="175">

JIM MAHONEY/DMN

Rosemont Elementary librarian Michelle Touchet read to second-graders at the Twelve Hills Nature Center in North Oak Cliff on Wednesday. The center is hosting groundbreaking ceremonies today for a trailhead, which will be finished by the end of the year.

She bought her home there 40 years ago and reared her two children near the 500-unit Twelve Hills Apartments, which once were considered a great place to live.

But by the 1980s, that had drastically changed.

The apartments became a source of frequent code violation complaints and police calls. Crime worsened, tenants moved out and a federal funding plan to renovate the apartments failed.

After years of debate and discussion, the apartments were torn down in 1992 at a cost of $1.2 million. Ownership of the 20-acre tract of land reverted to the taxing entities – the city, county and school district.

In 2000, neighbors gathered to discuss the fate of the land, tucked behind St. Cecilia Catholic Church and Rosemont Elementary School.

Bebe Gomez, a Girl Scout leader and church member, spoke up when talk turned to developing the land for gated high-end housing or a driving range.

She told them the community didn't need another gate isolating their children.

"Our urban areas are growing and what we need are more outdoor spaces where everyone, especially our children, can gather in community to be at peace and learn about the resources of our land so they can take care of it for the future," Ms. Gomez said.

She struck a chord. Residents formed a nonprofit Twelve Hills Nature Center organization. They raised enough money to purchase more than five acres to create an urban oasis.

The Dallas school district purchased 10 acres to build a second campus for overcrowded Rosemont Elementary. A developer bought five acres for future homes.

Over the last eight years, scouts and volunteers have built birdhouses and cleaned the land on a regular basis. School groups visit the site for lessons about the Blackland Prairie and the environment.

"Our story is one of an underdog grassroots neighborhood community that fought for a vision," said Jennifer Touchet, a founding member of the nature center organization.

That vision is becoming reality now, and it's catching on, Mrs. Craig said.

"In our stressed world, imagine all the things you can learn from being at peace in nature," Mrs. Craig said. "It connects you with the past and points you to the future. There are tons of lessons just waiting to be taught."

Annette Nevins is a freelance writer in Plano.

jmnevins@msn.com

| posted by Unknown @ 9/08/2008 11:16:00 AM

Obama

The themes that will continue until the election is done

An acquaintance say my Facebook profile and asked "to know 3 real qualifications Obama has that qualifies him (above the local lawnman) to become President of the US - the highest position in the world. Just 3 things he has done...specifically done."

I responded:

The most difficult part of responding to your question is picking just three things. I'll choose the three which are indisputable and more than qualify him, especially in comparison to his opposition, to be the Chief Executive Facilitator of the most powerful nation in the world.

#1 he has built, funded, and remained engaged with community-based coalitions in which participants report they got a significant portion of what they needed. This is what I'm paying for when I religiously send in my taxes.

#2 he has had no choice but to become expert at operating diplomatically from a position of sympathy in the presence of opposition. As it is with other minority leaders of my acquaintance, this may be related to weathering comparisons to "the local lawnman" when you might more accurately have written "above the local graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School" but I am not qualified to speak to the origins of his skill in this area or to your background in diversity work.

#3 He says he will do what I want a president to do. What his opponents say they will do is the opposite of what I want a president to do. Even though this makes the choice between the two an obvious one it is not enough to get my vote because politicians, by design of our system, must tell you what they think you want to hear. Therefore I ignore them, in large part, beyond paying attention when a speech writer constructs a particularly satisfying bit of metaphor or compelling prose. Rather than listen to what they say I research their record and the people they owe. Overlooking a relatively small percentage of pork and wheeling and dealing I want more of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Lugar–Obama work expanding the Nunn–Lugar "cooperative threat reduction" approach regarding conventional weapons, and particularly the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, as I'm very much looking forward to the long life of www.USAspending.gov. He regularly works with Democrats, Republicans, and independents and toward things like the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (signed into law in September 2007). He also introduced S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, and introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. I want more of the same where he is concerned and not eight more years of deception and blatant "you couldn't stop me if you tried" criminality.

OK. I wasn't able to pick just three.

He responded:

"I asked for 3 REAL qualifications in Obama's life that qualify him for the most important job in the world. You gave me two things that Red Cross volunteers do for free here in Louisiana...but Obama did not do those things for free...he made a whopping $13,000 a year. The other thing you said was "He (Obama) says he will do what I want a president to do" and this is again the problem...he SAYS a lot but is an empty suit that changes his mind depending on the audience...not to mention he does not have a clus about Iran (a small country with no threat) or Russia (just let all sides hug and sit down and talk with the UN) or Packistan who he suggested we invade."

I closed:
With apologies, I am up to my ears in a new Executive Director position and need to withdraw from this exchange because it does not feel potentially fruitful. Red Cross volunteers at the organizational level Obama occupied often get paid ridiculously high salaries (remember the investigations?) and still don't get the specific, grounded results Obama did. But you'd know that if this exchange were actually dealing with the historical record. Every candidate ever to hop off the campaign truck gears her message to her audience, and every leader reserves the right to shift position when a change in circumstances dictates a change in strategy, with one recent and notable exception that is costing us lives and resources at an unprecedented rate. McCain does it. Obama does it. Regan did it. Likewise (fill in the blank). It is familiar, disingenuous demagoguery for a competitor to call his rival "an empty suit" because he changes his mind, which leads me to recognize some of the main anti-Obama points generated by the RNC campaign machine and not by the historical record. He never said Iran is a small country posing no threat, that Russia will hug and sit down with the UN, or that Pakistan requires an invasion. Good grief. Someday let's at least try to have a discussion based on what the candidates actually do/say and not what the campaign headquarters tells us to think.

-------

The Palin Choice

Posted Thursday, September 04 2008 @ 07:02 AM PDT

George Lakoff argues that the Republican choice of Palin makes total sense if you truly understand the strategy of the Republicans in this election.

The Palin Choice
The Reality of the Political Mind
by George Lakoff

This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform .

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be t aken with the utmost seriousness.

The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.

The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.

But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communicatio n, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity - not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.

And Palin, a member of Feminists For Life, is at the heart of the conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to.
At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them-all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.

Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin - the response based on realities alone - indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.
Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government.20The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.

Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain

also http://www.chopra.com/wordsfromdeepak

Obama and the Palin Effect

by Deepak Chopra

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision

Look at what she stands for:

Small town values — a nostaligic return to simpler times disguises a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don’t need to be needed.
Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.
”Reform” — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn’t fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Labels: election, obama, palin, politics

| posted by Unknown @ 9/08/2008 09:32:00 AM

Not my writing but largely expressive of my decisions about Obama

Two Countries, by Sandy Cressman

Dear Friends and Family,

I am writing to express my sad realization that the America where I was raised and educated is no more. I have watched the Republican convention for the first time. We are two countries.

I grew up believing that the United States came about as a place where religious freedom was of paramount importance, leading to separating church and state. I grew up believing that the United States was founded as a place where one is free to speak their mind and read the books of their choice. In the America I knew, patriotism meant pride in these principals, and in being a good citizen of the world. In the country I aspired to, Americans respected the environment and wildlife. In the country I aspired to, grass roots community organization and service was respected and values. In my America, we sought a peaceful world where cultural differences are respected and valued. In my America, we valued compassion, taking care of those who are born with less privilege, and where those who have much help those that have less through compassionate social programs.

This week I learned clearly of the the other America. I watched the celebration of candidates and a political culture which suggests censorship in libraries....which brings religion into politics and whose support of "faith based" initiatives as a substitute for compassionate social programs, dangerously blurring the line between government and church.

I saw a group of people chanting "USA, USA", as if our world is a football game and they were rooting for the dominant team....a group of people who confuse patriotism with nationalism, who talk of our "enemies" and of "winning". It seems that this group of people are not satisfied with the goal of the US being a good world citizen, but insist that we be a dominant bully.

I saw a group of people speak so cavalierly of drilling offshore and in Alaska, with little regard for the environmental impact. I heard them chant "drill, baby drill", as if the environment is a game. But this shouldn't have surprised me--after all, John McCain joked about bombing Iran and putting both Iranians and our soldiers once again in harm's way...singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran....

This mania for raping our coastlines to drill for oil "so that we won't have to get oil from our enemies"(said Sarah Palin) clouds the fact that the republican cooperation with oil companies killed a California mandate in the 1990's that produced very dependable electric cars-- George Bush senior moved into the White House and promptly removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed on the roof, no doubt in deference to his oil investment contacts. If you want to verify this, rent the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". You will be horrified.

I saw the other America celebrate a candidate who wants to make sure that she preserves her right to shoot wolves for sport. Do we want to leave a beautiful country and wildlife for our descendants, or is having fun with guns more important?

I saw a candidate deride and disrespect community organizers, grass roots workers for change and improvement, all the while championing "service".

I heard Huckabee object to Obama "vacationing" Europe--claiming he brought home dangerous European ideas. Family and friends, as you know, I work in Europe several times a year. My colleagues there are in disbelief that my children do NOT have free university education as theirs do; they cannot believe it when I tell them it will cost Natalie $25,000 to $40,000 A YEAR for her university education. They cannot believe that I will have to choose between preparing for retirement or paying for her education....or starting her adult life off deeply in debt. My European colleagues cannot believe that my family pays more than $7,000 per year just for health insurance, not to mention doctor's visits and prescriptions. Some of you may have an easier time with paying for education and health care than our family. But remember, you know us, we are self employed and we work our fannies off.

Yet, this other America I observed this year thinks that government providing university education and health care for all are dangerous ideas....and that we would actually have to fund these things by making sure the wealthiest Americans pay their share of taxes seems scandalous to them.

I heard Rudy Giuliani deride Barack Obama for failing to call terrorism "Islamic Terrorism". Guiliani mused that maybe Obama felt this term was not politically correct. Well, I have news for you, Giuliani, it is an offensive term and not all terrorists are Islamic. I wonder how Rudy would feel if we called all organized crime "Italian Organized Crime"....

The other America I observed this week rejects choice for women, and even suggests that abstinence-only education is the best way of dealing with teenage sex education. Ok, we have seen that abstinence-only doesn't work; but as far as choice goes, and the results of the failed idea of abstinence only education, this other America wants to cuts government programs like those that would assist the teenage mothers and their children, because, as one Republican representative stated "Government is not a philanthropic institution".

I don't want to sink into despair about this realization that we are two Americas....so after this next work trip I must take next week, you can be sure that I will be keeping up the debate and taking action. If you agree with my original vision of America, I beg you to not sit complacent. If you are in California, get on the phone or on the plane in October, talk to voters in Swing States about preserving the compassionate America that we grew up to believe in. If you are in another state, talk to people, work on getting them to vote for the Compassionate America, which has its best shot at existing under Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

So, friends and family members, I know I have never talked politics with some of you.

This is not about politics, this is about preserving the America of the founding Fathers.

With Sincere love for our country but also love for our world,

Sandy Cressman

back to Brandon...
In order to forward the message I accept the metaphor of division, "Two Countries". Beyond its use as a rhetorical device, believing this tension is a literal division is an essential precursor to dividing up the country (red and blue) and letting partisan politicians off the hook for serving Everybody involved. We are not two countries. We are always millions of individuals, and hundreds of thousands of communities, and fifty abstracted states, and innumerable ethnicities, and so much more. Both the "One Nation Under God" and the "Two Countries" tropes structurally support the avoidance of true public service which presupposes a level of complexity that makes reduction to special interest governance equivalent to treason and mandates the ongoing need for cultivating understanding.

Labels: obama, politics, repro, USA

| posted by Unknown @ 9/07/2008 10:54:00 AM