fearlesshistory

Typically throughout the political process, there are denunciations of the so-called “Mainstream Press.” Conspiracy theorists of every stripe (both left and right) rail against the “Bias” of “Mainstream media” and turn to “alternative” news sources. There is a problem with “alternative” news sources; peer review and fact-checking. In “mainstream media” gross misrepresentations have repercussions; for instance, what happened to Dan Rather and his faulty sources on George Bush’s military record in 2004? Mr. Rather was forced to apologize on air and was eventually ousted from CBS for his transgressions. Similarly, Jayson Blair who made up stories for the New York Times and Stephen Glass who made up stories for New Republic were dismissed from their jobs. Why? Because other journalists, historians, political scientists, and other fact-checkers used documented evidence to prove the claims made by these journalists were false. Not that the “media” should get a free pass, given that they rested on official White House press releases for much of their reportage before the invasion of Iraq, but eventually evidence did come to light by scholars and journalists which forced the major outlets to admit that they were wrong.

Fringe media, on the other hand, is beholden to no one, not even reality, documented evidence or (one would suspect) common decency. For instance, on the subject of now-infamous ACORN voter registrations, “conservative” pundit Grover Norquist writes about the “fraud” that was “facilitated” by President-elect Barack Obama. This has been one of the many theories that have circulated on “Fringe” media with endless hysteria and fear-mongering without a scrap of evidence to support it; no documents proving the complicity of ACORN - even though they were registering Democrats in Republican-controlled states - have ever come to light. Here’s the problem; in order for voter fraud to have occurred, the leadership of ACORN would have had to tried to conceal the false names, then tried to pass employees or hirelings off as “Donald Duck” or “Clark Kent” at the voting booths. In fact, as has been pointed out on NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, and dozens of other media outlets, ACORN pointed out the sketchy names to the appropriate elections officials in the various states. In fact, ACORN even highlighted the false registrations in order to facilitate investigations and eliminations by the various state agencies. ACORN is not allowed, under any circumstances, to purge any voter name from any rolls - only state agencies can do that after proper investigation; even someone who signed “I. P. Freely” or “Seymour Butts” would remain on the rolls, but would be tagged for official investigation. On the leftist side, there are still theories that Ronald Reagan set up a tentative weapons deal with the Iranians before the election to ensure that Carter would not be able to negotiate a release of the hostages before the election. The truth is that the Iranians had just come into a ton of top-notch American weaponry and were sitting pretty as the war with Iraq had not even started yet, so Iran was still in control of one of the most powerful Air Forces and Armies in the Persian Gulf, so why would they even try to make a deal with a candidate they had no idea would even win the election? Some versions of these rumors have George H. W. Bush flying in an SR-71 to Tehran to meet with the Ayatollah! Other rumors such as the “Muslim” background of Obama were started by a man who has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and yet still get play in neoconservative circles.

So why do these outlandish rumor-mongers still accrue a following of self-feeding devotees?  Two reasons; they do not undergo a true peer review; that is people who are trained investigators and documentarians who look at the news and analyze it critically. Instead they rely upon a mob mentality that supports everything unequivocally and those who criticize certain assertions (like Obama is going to turn the country Muslim/Communist/Socialist/over to terrorists) are decried as apologists, excuse-makers, or traitors to the country (or worse as “mainstream media”). Second, these pundits play to fear and use a tiny smidgen of truth to “spin” events to fit their pathos or dogma. If a person is afraid of a well-educated black man, they are unwilling to admit that the color of his skin is the reason for their unease at electing him so latch onto other, more comfortable excuses to prop up their preconceptions (he’s going to ruin the country, he’s a Liberal, he’s a radiacl Muslim, etc.) - nobody wants to admit to being racist; few people think of themselves as racist and know that such a label is “bad;” nobody identifies themselves as “bad” people. If a person is unwilling to elect a rich white man, they are equally unwilling to admit that his social status or priveleged lifestyle are the reasons they feel uncomfortable and so latch onto similar reasons not to vote for him. Same with religion (Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.), gender, sexual orientation, or other marker of “otherness” that is un-politically correct to admit to in this day and age.

In summation; “Mainstream Media” is not a dirty word nor does it automatically indicate corruption. “Bias” is an illusory trope used by pundits to split the world into two opposing viewpoints - the reality is we all have our “biases” and we all operate under those, the trick is to understand your bias and try to overcome it by listening and reading and using your mind. And, finally, the alternative to “mainstream media” is “fringe” media and there is no better example of fringe media than HERE ; is that place really where you want to get your news and ideas from?

Go forth, then and read, argue, open your mind, and think beyond the sound bites and rhetoric. Oh, and always check the sources (they have to be reputable, not Blogs, not podcasts, not transcripts of op-eds)!

QED

In the inter-connected world of finance, there is no such thing as an isolated incident. Take for example the current financial crisis, and we’ll take it from the top.

Deregulation under the Bush, the Clinton, the Bush administrations led to increased lending practices across the board (don’t pile on Fannie May and Freddie Mac, together they only account for 20% of the bad loans made, but I digress). The theory went that if a renter can become a house owner they will have made a huge leap in terms of prosperity; land values have historically gone only up, after all. Land ownership allows the homeowner to tap into “equity” in case of emergencies, at least in theory. So, loans were made to people with ever-decreasing credit qualifications, which meant that there were more people buying homes. More people buying home drove up prices for new (and existing) homes across the board. An economist wondered why people making $80,000 a year were buying $1,000,000 homes, well, this is why: market forces. Land values were further overvalued by unscrupulous assayers and realtors who earn somewhere between 4% and 7%  of a home’s price. This cost was passed on to the buyer who - more often than not - was talked into an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) with a balloon payment due in 5 to 10 years.The reasoning was that with the (magically) added stability of owning a home, the owner would be able to refinance at a better rate later on down the line for a better rate before the balloon payment took effect. This worked in theory as long as prices continued to go up. We all know now they didn’t.

With no money down, the buyer of the home was not really out any substantial loss when the home was foreclosed upon. Also, the original loan broker had already sold off the loan, so there was no reason to try to negotiate better terms. In fact, these mortgages were even bet against by investors through complicated schemes and their insurance was bundled with these risky mrotgages as well as other stocks and bonds. these were calles Synthetic or Composite derivatives as well as other names. People snapped them up because there was no way to lose, right? Wrong. As the mortgage defaults went from a trickle to a stream and are now becoming a flood (you know a Tsunami is just around the corner), those composite/synthetics began to be tainted. Nobody wanted to buy them now - why would you, only a fool would.

Concurrently, banks had increasingly less money to pay their debts, which meant that their credit ratings were going into the toilet. Investment banks, particularly, were hard hit since they do not have the deposits of members to fall back upon. Lehman Brothers was the first to fall and has arguable set the tone for Wall Street since. No money coming in means no money being loaned at ANY rate.

No money being loaned at any rate means the possibility of a farmer in, say, Brazil or Kansas, being able to purchase the seeds, fertilizer, and equipment they need to plant radishes, turnips, broccoli, watermelon, blueberries, and so forth dries up. No money to buy seeds means no money to plant seeds, which means no little seeds becoming fruits and vegetables to come to American people’s doors. The flood of food slows to a trickle, forcing prices upwards. As for why farmer can’t just grow food from the seeds of the previous year’s crop? Oh, it’s because investors - desiring ever increasing profits - have motivated seed companies to develop “hybrid” seeds that produce offspring that can not reproduce . Farmers must continually buy increasingly expensive seeds in order to remain farmers - don’t be fooled, even the “organic” produce you buy will most likely not be able to grow into a new plant. Only “heirloom” vegetables will; but can you find them at the store?

Credit trickles short circuit the consumer’s ability to get credit which means fewer cars are being bought, fewer appliances are being bought, and fewer homes are being bought. Manufacturing and construction jobs begin to dry up. More people lose their jobs, are laid off, or are victims of “downsizing.” Consumers tighten their wallets and purchase less, so the flow of money in retail slows down even more. Retail lays off and cuts jobs, delivery companies restrict their deliveries, and importers-exporters slow their purchases from overseas and to overseas.

Automotive manufacturers (of all nations), for instance, are caught in this suddenly dry spell and their thin margins of profit evaporate. A few hundred, or maybe a thousand, workers are laid off - say from a factory outside of Dayton, Ohio. The idling of that plant means that fewer components are required from sub-contractors. Automotive body paint is in less demand, the paint company lays off a few hundred people, or maybe a thousand. The small ball bearing manufacturing plant in Bucyrus, Ohio, begins to lay off a few hundred people, or a thousand. The tire manufacturers, the companies that make springs and struts, shock absorbers, gas tanks, steel, automotive glass, electronics for the on-board computer, and hundreds of other little parts, all the way down to the company that makes the little caps for valve stems on tires lays off a few hundred, or a thousand, workers.

Laid off workers begin to live on credit cards to purchase food (since that is essentially the only thing credit card companies can not seize when one inevitably declares bankruptcy) . Credit card payments fall by the wayside as consumers prioritize their needs; food, shelter, clothes, utilities, car payment, healthcare costs, credit card payment…Credit card companies owe merchants for the items people bought on those credit cards, but are not getting the revenue for those payments so the retailer (and supermarkets) go unpaid or are paid very late. Credit card companies lower the available credit across the board to minimize losses, but it is too late, those who could used their limits up ASAP.

401(k)s and IRAs are dipped into next to stave off oblivion. Less money in Wall street means corporations can borrow less money (that’s what a stock is, after all) and leads to more “downsizing” which trickles into the service industry; customer service, technical support, accounting, etc. which means normally stable jobs are being downsized and/or shipped overseas.

Unemployment rises 1% or so; 1% of 170 or 180 million = 1.7 to 1.8 million out of work and unable to make payments on their credit cards or house or car or school loans (since federal grants have consistently dried up over the past few decades). The increase in unemployment (a Socialist idea) increases, as does the applications for medicare in, say, Pittsburgh or Austin. Increased strain on the welfare infrastructure taxes the local governments who under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, local governments are responsible for medicaid and unemployment and welfare.

Financial corporations have less money and default on their debts as well. Their credit having been used to back municipal bonds which causes normally-stable bonds to look ugly and risky. Municipalities rely on their ability to borrow; from the smallest town in rural Alaska to New York City, municipalities take out loans at attractive interest rates to generate money to pay for vital necessities (because Americans want low taxes, don’t they?). Because the price of providing clean water, treating sewage, paying the garbage men, paying police and running jails, paying firemen and upkeeping police and fire equipment, paying county clerks, and city judges, and meter maids, and street sweepers, and the guys who fix the traffic lights, and guys to fill in the pot holes, and the guys (and machinery) to pave the roads, and hospitals, and colleges, and primary schools, and high schools, and to pay teachers, and to pay janitors, and…you get the picture…is expensive, city leaders have the choice of not providing one (or more) of these, or taking out loans. But the trickle of credit means they can take loans; guess what gives.

Consumer confidence trickles down to nothing, leaving investors to worry about the sales in retail store, of durable goods, of new houses, and the stock market slips further, tightening the noose. Unemployment rises meaning less jobs and more applicants. Market forces dictate that a plethora of skilled talent demands lower pay than a scarcity of skilled talent; those who are employed are hired at significantly lower wages than previously, leading to further tightening of the belt; time to prioritize the expenses.

So with millions more people out of work, and with decreasing values of land, and with increasing credit card debt, and increasing risk of loan defaults, and decreasing retirement assets, and increasing food costs, and increasing demand for social programs…

What would you do?

There has been much talk and derision from her former running mates’ aids that Sarah Palin was a lunkhead from the sticks; her lack of awareness that Africa was a continent and not a country, her inability to name the U.S. trading partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), her refusal to prepare for interviews, and her chatting with a faux French president have all made the rounds. Much of this ignorance was known, of course, before hand - or at least there was a general assumption of its existence - even among those who supported the Republican ticket. But, as it turns out, her ignorance is America’s politician’s ignorance…and we are much the poorer for it.

As I may have mentioned in “Oh History, Where Art Thou?,” Americans are terribly unaware of some of the most basic,  most fundamental, cores of the American political system, history, and world events. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute released a report in which a 33 question “Civic Literacy Test” was administered to 2500 “elected officials” with such questions as “What are the three branches of the federal government” and “name one right guaranteed by the first amendment.” The average for the exam was a stupendously-low 44%. If you have ever wondered why government seems to be broken, wonder no further.

Ah, but how did the American public fare in this test which also asked “Sputnik was the name given to the first…”  and “Name two countries that were our enemies in World War Two.”? As it turns out, a marginally better 49% (about two questions more than their elected officials).

The problem, the ISI argues, is that technical training is on the rise and civics training is on the decline. In American society, the television has replaced social and civic interaction - even watching documentaries seems to be of no help, according to the ISI. The remedy? The ISI encourages open, honest discussions about civics, rights, responsibilities, history, social matters, and other “uncomfortable” subjects that are not so easily grasped as the final score of a football game and are not so easily broken up into “good” versus “bad” or “right” versus “wrong.” Of course, this has been a fundamental problem in human societies for as long as there has been civilization. Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, was forced to drink hemlock for the crime of making his students think critically - in other words, his thoughts became dangerous.

Speaking of dangerous thoughts, you should check out the American Library Association’s list of banned books (some books may seem familiar to those in Alaska).

In short, I urge you to read, talk, argue, and - most important of all - consider that you just may be wrong, ignorant, or ill-educated. There is no shame in being ill-educated as long as you strive to expand your horizons, see things from other people’s perspectives, empathize with their points of view, and ultimately think critically about the world and the people in it.

“He said that there was one only good, namely, knowledge;and one only evil, namely, ignorance.”

~Diogenes Laertius on Socrates

QED

——————–Resources——————–

US Officials Flunk Test

Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Civic Literacy Test

American Library Association list of Banned Books (2007)

To break with the general tone of this blog for a moment in order to make an appeal to my readers.

Many of you may have been aware of the recent wild fires in California. In fact one of those fires, the “Tea Fire,” hit near the last city I lived in and harmed some people I knew. Here’s the story. Lance and Carla were recently married. She works as a manager at the comic book store and he works as a security guard at a mall down the street. They were renting a bungalow in a town called Montecito. They had received the evacuation notice and were gathering some small belongings when they noticed the fire was moving very quickly towards them. They ran for the car, but were overtaken in a flash fire and burned horribly. Somehow they managed to drive themselves to the nearest fire station where some paramedics were present (luckily) who then transported them to the nearest hospital. Their burns were so severe they were transferred to UC Irvine’s hospital and put into a medically-induced coma while their burns heal. Lance’s burns are so severe, the doctors fear he may have burns on the insides of his lungs from inhaling super-heated air. They have lost everything and because they work for small companies, they have no health insurance to cover their medical expenses. They are currently being put through the medicaid system to pay for the expenses of their medical treatment and recovery. In the mean time, some other friends started a Yahoo user group to coordinate donations of clothes, furniture, gift cards and other things they will need once they get out - they are trying to avoid taking cash donations in order to prevent Lance and Carla’s disqualification for medicaid since those monies would be considered an asset under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (this provision allows the state to confiscate savings, trusts, and other liquid assets to offset the cost of medicaid). Please check out the user group and see if you can help in any way.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/lanceandcarla/

Hopefully, we’ll all figure out a way to help Lance and Carla soon. Thank you for your patience and assistance while reading this.

The fall of the totalitarian Regime which once controlled the country left a vacuum into which three contesting provinces, or wilayets, challenged each other for dominance. Their divide widened as Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurds struggled against each other for control of the country. A civil war was raging and the external power which governed Iraq - which had actually toppled its regime and set up a tutelary government in its place - was caught spending treasure and blood while its coffers at home were slowly drained. Fanatic nationalists lashed out at everyone and anyone, calling for a jihad or “holy struggle” to displace the white invaders and set up a government which would bring back the Caliphate. Unwilling to risk open warfare in the fragile lands of what was classically known as Mesopotamia, the Western occupiers appealed to the international community through the collective of nations which had been established at the end of the World War. Those nations understood that if Iraq were to fall into chaos, the natural resources it sat upon - as well as its strategic position in the Middle East - would become a prize to extremists or even Russia.

The war to liberate Iraq did not go as quickly as the Western power had thought it would. The War in Iraq ground on for years before the Western power imposed a Constitution on Iraq and forced elections of representative bodies to give voice to the  disgruntled factions in the hopes that Democracy - or at least some semblance of it - would quell the rising violence. The leader of Iraq was chosen from amongst a coterie of Iraqis who realized the path to power was through the might of the Western army. The new leader was a puppet, in the pocket of the Western power and ill-disposed to do anything more than to take the Westerners’ money and do nothing to fix the situation in Iraq. Eventually, though, the Iraqi leader realized that no matter how many well-armed Western troops he could call upon, the people of Iraq were growing restless at the occupation and the violence. He “stood up” to the Western Power that had placed him at the head of Iraq’s government. He called for their withdrawal, called for Iraqi sovereignty, called for Iraqi people to take charge of their government and their land. He became a thorn in the Western Power’s side; they regretted putting him in power but could do aught else but bear with him. The Western power realized it needed to reach out to the tribal leaders, sheikhs, and ulemma or imams and begin building peace if this new Iraq was to be both stable and dependent upon the Western power. They succeeded and through political accords, peace was restored after years and years of fighting and civil war…for a time.

The Western power was Great Britain

The Regime was the Turkish Empire

Collective of nations: The League of Nations

The Leader was King Faysal of the Hashemites, a family which would also be installed in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Today, only Jordan still has a Hashemite on the throne.

The years: 1916-1929

Eventually, however, Great Britain re-invaded Iraq in 1941, overthrowing the very regime it had put into power. Great Britain then installed yet another regime that was more amenable to the Western power’s policies. That regime was in turn overthrown by a military coup in 1958, which opened the door to the Ba’athist coup in 1963, which was followed by an internal coup in 1968…all of which allowed Saddam Hussein to rise to power in 1979.

“It’s deja vu all over again”

-Yogi Berra

—————References—————–

British Empire: The Map Room: Middle East: Iraq

Catherwood, C. Churchill’s Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq (Perseus Publishing 2005)

Polk, W. Understanding Iraq: The Whole Sweep of Iraqi History, From Genghis Khan’s Mongols to the Ottoman Turks to the British Mandate to the American Occupation (Harper Collins, 2006)

Silverfarb, D. Britain’s Informal Empire in the Middle East: A Case Study of Iraq, 1929-1941 foreward by Majid Khadduri (Oxford University Press, 1986)

Hinckley, M. “Winner Take All: Winning the Battle of Baghdad by not Waging the Battle of Algiers” presented at the University of California, Santa Barbara, 2005

Hinckley, M. “What Went Wrong in Iraq ?” 2008 (online).

Everyone is talking about TARP - the Troubled Asset Relief Program - colloquially called “the bailout” and it totals a staggering $700,000,000,000 of American taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers, investors, and Congress have all expressed outrage over the excess that has gotten the United States (and the World) into such a giant pickle. But it is not like we haven’t done something like this before, both in terms of scale and in terms of actual events.

All throughout the 1920’s, the boom times of American manufacture and finance, the general public was systematically “re-educated” by investment firms and banks to spend, spend, spend. Prior to this period of time, the American work ethic urged working and saving up money for when you retired; there was no Social Security, pension plan, or any safety net for when you got older, so whatever you saved, that’s what you lived on. Banks, though often the target of robberies by outlaw gangs, were seen as a place to put one’s money relatively safely and from which one could draw needed funds in times of emergency.

In the 1920’s, however, the advent of new technologies, the rise of outdoor mass marketing (also known as Billboards), and the extension of credit to consumers on a large scale. The American consumer was bombarded with images of new gadgets (electric vacuum cleaners, coffee percolators, and even motorized farm equipment) that were meant to usher in a new age of prosperity and enhance the quality of life for everyone. By and large, the products did do that, but the prices were such that meager savings was often not enough to cover the expenses of a new washing machine, refrigerator, car, radio, etc. and so credit was extended from banks, usually at fairly high interest rates. The same went for the stock market; investors bought “on margin” - essentially purchasing partial shares with credit extended to cover the rest. The logic was that the amount of money that was being made would far outweigh the interest rate beign paid. When the stock market inevitably crashed, the news was dire enough that investors began to panic; their once-golden profit game had come undone and now they were unable to pay back the loans they had taken out. Faced with defaulting loans, banks were themselves unable to pay off their debts - a situation made worse when post-crash market volatility made investors jumpy. People panicked and began to withdraw their money from banks, which dried up the banks’ liquid assets and accelerated their debt defaults; collapse was inevitable.

Fast forward 80 years. American consumers have long been bombarded with exhortations to buy, buy, buy. Buy bigger, buy more of the bigger things, buy even more than your neighbor who is trying to buy more than their neighbors. Credit card offers flew fast and free, with interest rates engineered to maximize profits. Automobile manufacturers offer more bells and whistles to outsell their competition - Hummvees offered the buyer enough torque to scale a 16″ vertical wall, as if that would ever be necessary - and prices rose commensurately. Real estate investment was seen as responsible and lending to homeowners was seen as a wise move since the mortgage was backed by insurance which bet against the success of the homeowner. “Flipping” properties became a national passtime as houses were purchased, rehabilitated, and resold in a short amount of time at hugely-increased prices.

Investment in the stock market through various opaque means became the way that all municipalities kept pace with rising costs without raising taxes on its citizens. (The following is a recapitulation of a story done on NPR a week ago). A small town was faced with rising costs of educating children at their local schools. A bond issue to raise property tax was out of the question but a Canadian bank based in the Cayman islands had a great alternative; invest in “Synthetic Securities Derivatives.”Synthetic derivatives, the bank argued, would allow the school board to earn a profit on its investment and to maximize their profit, they needed to take out a loan. The loan was granted through an Irish bank and for a while, the school board reaped the benefits of an agreement so complex, its printed version was over 3″ thick. The school board was profiting 1%to 2% on its loan. Then people began to default on their home loans. Investment bank Lehman Brothers was allowed the fail, suddenly the school board was not earning any money and was actually losing money on its investment. Washington Mutual defaulted…Bear Stearns…Linens N Things…all were covered in the insurance vehicle that the school board had invested in. The school board has to default on its loans to the Irish bank. The Irish bank, having gotten in over its head by loaning way too much money was besieged by defaulters which meant it could not meet its obligations either. Their credit rating sunk and that stain on its reputation affected the variable-rate municipal bonds issued by the City of Philadelphia. Cities are normally considered safe investments because they always pay the money on time - even after Katrina, New Orleans never missed a payment - but variable rate municipal bonds were offered at a certain rate only if backed by a bank with good credit (like the Irish bank). The credit rating of the Irish bank was so bad that investors were leery of investing in the City of Philadelphia’s bonds; the protection clause kicked in at which the bank agreed to purchase the bonds, but then again, so did the fine print. Instead of 20 or 30 years to pay back the bonds, Philadelphia now has 7. And the interest rate was increased as well. The City of Philadelphia uses bond money to maintain roads and bridges, pay police and fire departments, purify water and treat sewage, and a host of other activities that allow the city to operate. With the higher burden of repayment, the city may be forced to make hard, unappealing choices.

Of course, Americans aren’t the only ones who felt the pains of the boom-bubble-bust cycle; in the 17th century, the love of Dutch middle and upper classes for tulips caused the price of these rare and beautiful flowers to skyrocket. Speculation was rampant and so was theft, deception, extensions of credit, and complex financial arrangements all with the intent of reaping huge rewards on the simple, exotic flower. Prices were so high at one point that any artistic representations of the flower were enough to cause a buying spree. Paintings, flowers, stained glass, vases, and other items depicting the flowers were soon the most expensive items in Europe. Then the bubble burst. Teh result was economic collapse the likes of which Europe had never seen….all because of an Asian flower so far from home.

In 400 years, I wonder if the “flower” of American investment (toxic mortgages and synthetic derivatives) will seem as silly and inconsequential as tulips do now.

———————–Works Cited ————————–

The history of Tulips

National Public Radio: “A Tale of Intertwined Misery “

Galbraith, J. K.  The Great Crash of 1929Houghton Mifflin Co. (1997)

Baker, L. E. “Public Sites versus Public Sights: The Progressive Response to Outdoor Advertising and the Commercialization of Public Space” in  American Quarterly 59(4) December 2007

Did you know that America is an Empire? Not in the truly “conquer and rule” kind, but an empire none the less. Beyond the fact that the United States is in control of Puerto Rico and Guam (they are “protectorates”) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (they are “territories”), the United States has perfected the art of the cultural Empire. Very few academicians, or even Neoconservative pundits, would deny - in their heart of hearts - that America is a post-colonial Empire.

America sort of lucked into becoming an Empire, to be truthful. Until World War Two, our military was pitiful and our navy aging rapidly; new ships and troop increases were alarming to Conservative members of the Senate, like Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio. Conservatives saw increased troop levels during the Great Depression as a way to militarize the working poor who would have loyalty only to the President (a kind of Praetorian Guard, if you will). World War Two may very well have turned out differently had not Pearl Harbor been attacked; though the loss of life and horrific barbarity of the surprise attack was widely mourned, it did offer the United States an unprecedented opportunity to build a modern Navy (and Army, by the way) from scratch. The majority of the ships sunk in Pearl Harbor were left-overs from World War One or even earlier, having been converted from steam engines to oil-burning engines only in the 1920’s and 30’s. Compared to the Japanese Navy, which was top-of-the-line, the American Navy, though large and well-trained, was vastly inferior technologically.

War, in essence, jump started the American Empire; military spending (what Eisenhower would later dub the “Military-Industrial Complex”) was born and with it, lucrative military contracts, increased mining, manufacture, agriculture, and technical research (computers, code breaking, the Manhattan Project).  By the end of World War Two, the United States accounted for 50% of the world’s manufacturing capacity, with Canada a close-ish second at about 11%. The wealth generated by selling arms to the Russians and British (as well as the few French troops left) allowed the United States to acquire the majority of the world’s gold reserves as well; Britain was so cash-strapped they issued IOUs to the American government that were to be paid back over the next 100 years. American money did not sit in our coffers, however. The Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe was a brilliant move both economically and politically. Economically,  the plan was really loans with provisions that allowed the United States to strongly influence politics in post-war Europe (for instance, any country receiving Marshal Plan aid must purge Communists from their political systems). The interest rate on the loans was very, very small even compared to relatively-low home loans. But, the amounts lent were so large, that Germany is still paying the United States back for Marshal Plan Debt. In 1956 when the French and British conspired to take land away from Egypt and remove Gamal Abd al-Nasser from power, it was American threats to make the loans come due decades earlier that eventually reigned in the two former world powers; neither could afford to have to pay back the loans, no matter what their pretensions and former glory dictated (Charles DeGaulle once said “France is not France without glory!”).

Politically, the loans allowed Europe to rebuild; in the wake of the massive, almost total devastation of World War Two, there was very little money and very little productive power (Almost all the trees in Germany today began life after World War Two). By loaning the money to the governments of European countries, the American government ensured that not only would Europe be rebuilt, but that it would become a profitable investment for American companies. American companies invested in rebuilding Europe and were paid (through round-about means) by the very money the American government had loaned to Europe. This generated jobs (and taxes) at home which drove the prosperity of the late 1940’s and 1950’s.

Politically, the United States, particularly Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, had realized that the trouble with Europe was that it was too fragmented, too nationalistic and that - if nothing was done about it - there would be another World War. Also, weak, fragmented nations fell easily to the advancing Soviet political influence, particularly in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Poland. By 1949, the United States had forged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with almost every Western European country participating (Western Germany was precluded from joining NATO by the British and French for almost a decade; when the French temporarily left NATO it was more over the inclusion of Germany than almost any other reason). As the head of the financial West and the military West, the United States became the prime exporter of almost everything, from refrigerators to Coca Cola and Rock and Roll.

But it was not through the barrel of a gun or the might of her armies that the United States became an Empire (though, to be sure, it definitely helped to keep the Soviet Union in check), but the might of her culture. Ideas of “popular culture” filtered into Europe and were adopted much to the chagrin of traditional Europeans who thought such popular drivel would ruin their “high” culture of classical music, representative art, and “pure” languages (the French have a mechanism by which new words are put into Francophile terms rather than transliterations of new words, for example a “computer” isofficially called an “ordinateur,” but “computer” is used more frequently). Elvis Presley, James Dean, Jerry Lewis, David Hasselhoff, McDonald’s, Buick, Hershey’s chocolate, Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola were the physical manifestations of American cultural hegemony. Culturally, American insisitence on multinationalism began to change European perceptions. By the 1990’s, when Europeans enthusiastically backed the American initiative to intervene in Kosovo, even former radicals in the German parliament and former anti-American Communists in the Italian government sang the praises of international cooperation.

Under the protection of the United States’ military and economic power, Europeans were able to develop social programs, political methods, and a reputation for negotiation - essentially playing the “good cop” to America’s “bad cop.” Europeans eventually came to see themselves not primarily as Germans, or spanish, or Dutch, but as Europeans, as American foreign policy makers had always desired; a unified Europe would be a bastion against the Soviet Union and would ensure that another European-based war would never be possible again. As European nations developed in the half-century or so since the end of World War Two, they began to exert pressure back along the system, toward the United States. Mostly, it came in the form of allowing economic protections for French farmers, or for British beef, or for German automakers.

September 11th, 2001, was a moment when the United States had again (I would argue) “lucked” into a chance to expand the cultural Empire even further. The reprehensible, cowardly, horrific act galvanized the world. In Japan, popular sentiment rose to the point that there was serious consideration of altering the pacifistic nature of their constitution. Iran, long time “nemesis” of the United States, called for a day of mourning for those New Yorkers who had died; President Khateimi sent condolences to the President of the United States and offered any aid they could render in apprehending the criminals (a promise that would be kept during the invasion of Afghanistan a short while later). NATO forces participated in the Afghanistan campaign.

World sentiment began to turn against the United States with the saber rattling and later invasion of Iraq. German officials were dubious about claims of secret meetings between the Iraq regime and al-Qaeda operatives. The French government  found assertions of mobile biological warfare labs spurious.Of course, matters were not helped much by Donald Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe” remark. Anti-American sentiment has been gaining ground, making allies in the strangest of places all over Europe. Islamic extremists found common cause with hard left radical groups in European society, such as the remnants of the Red Army Faction. Even moderate Europeans found Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and “extraordinary rendition” distasteful. The American “coalition of the willing”dwindles from34 participating countries in 2003 to a mere handful (even Britain pulled troops out, leaving mostly Eastern European troops to assist American troops in Iraq; Poland and Georgia most notably maintain troops in Iraq, but mostly because they want to keep America on their good side as Russia seems to be determined to reconstruct the Soviet Union). 2007 marked a nadir in American diplomatic and cultural strength; a retreat of America’s Empire, as it were.

Will the election of Barack Obama revive the dwindling American Empire? Maybe; the world certainly seems willing to listen to a “new direction” in American foreign policy. World leaders have taken it upon themselves to call Obama and offer suggestions and advice. Spain’s Zapatera, Britain’s Gordon Brown, Germany’s Merkel, and even Iran’s Ahmedinijad and Russia’s Medvedev have all written or called Obama to offer their perspective upon the world. This kind of sea change in the perception of the United States is an unusual one; the 2000 and 2004 elections, for instance, were not as hotly anticipated by other country’s citizens as the 2008 race. To many non-Americans, it was a test of American democracy and of American ideals more than the person of Barack Obama - could the United States live up to multi-ethnic propaganda it had been preaching to Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, the Balkans, and the Middle East? Al Ahram, Egypt’s main daily newspaper put it this way:

“It is understandable why Kenyans should identify so closely with Obama, but what is it that draws the underdogs of this world to such a suave and sophisticated politician? His resonant, melodic voice is heard as the voice of the voiceless, or so the toiling masses of Africa, Asia and the Americas believe. Obama’s genius is that he appeals to the well-heeled liberals in Western nations as much as the penniless peasants of impoverished nations, the teaming millions eking out a meagre existence. They are indignant and yet expectant and he fulfils their aspirations vicariously, inspires their hopes.”

As any Arab politician will tell you, it is “the street” (the poor people with nothing left to lose) that determines politics in the Arab world. The Street, it seems, also dictates European politics; tens of thousands of French, German, Polish, British, Malaysian, Indonesian, Saudi, Egyptian, and Palestinians each sat glued to their televisions awaiting the returns, each feeling a personal stake in the American elections.

The saying goes that one rarely gets a second chance to make a first impression. In the case of and American cultural Empire, this may be the proverbial “second” chance to recapture America’s reputation and legacy which had fallen into disrepair and ill-repute over the past five years. Can America do it? Yes we can.

———————-Sources—————————-

Hinckley, M. “Selling A bulwark Against the Evil Empire: how NATO Opened the World to American” unpublished 2004

Yaqub, S. Containing Arab Nationalism: The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Middle East University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Borchers, H. “Hollywood as Reeducator: The Role of Feature Films in U.S. Policies Directed at Postwar Germany” in Paedagogica Historica. 1997;33(1):301-317.

Romero, F. “The American Half-Century in Europe” in The Cultural Shuttle: The United States of/in Europe No. 57 (2004) P.71

“Dwindling allies; With Britain cutting its forces in Iraq to 2,500, the U.S. ‘coalition of the willing’ is on its last legs” (2007, October 9). Los Angeles Times, p. A.16.

Al Ahram “Dream Come True ” and “The Perfect Storm “

Historically speaking, race and racism were not normally confined to the color of a person’s skin. In ancient Rome, Africans, Near Asians, and Europeans could all be slaves, freemen, or citizens and so were not bound by color distinctions. Ancient Egyptians were ruled by Near Eastern, Nubian, and Greek Pharaohs. In fact, most skin-based racism is a fairly recent development in the entire history of Man, dating back a mere few hundred years.

In the United States, Africans were brought to plantations, farms, and houses all over the eastern sea board. In Anglo-American cities and towns, it was not unusual for these Africans to either be emancipated within about 10 or 20 years, or to purchase their own freedom. Slaves in the 17th century were more indentured servants, closer to their European counterparts, than actual “slaves” in the 18th through 19th centuries. In fact, the idea of trading in human flesh, as in capturing and treating other human beings as cattle and possessions, was disdained by 17th century English society - it was both unChristian and unCivilized.

America, however, was blessed with an abundance of prime growing land for labor-intensive, but lucrative, agricultural products such as tobacco and cotton. The labor was so intensive that there was a dire need for new labor on the American shores; indentured labor could not cover the gap - even “criminal” indentures (such as an ancestor of mine who came from the Isle of Man and was indentured for “tax evasion”) were insufficient. Eventually, profitability won out over contempt and the Royal African Company was formed in order to meet demand in the colonies. Unfortunately (as my Free Trade friends will tell you) the British government was woefully inadequate at managing the supply to meet demand. Private enterprise would eventually be the death of government-controlled slave trading, and slave trading would boom for centuries. In order to make the slave trading more profitable, and palatable, Africans were demeaned and dehumanized. Their complex social traditions were denigrated as “barbaric” and their religion was portrayed as “ignorant” and “savage.” Over time, Africans ceased to be human (in Western eyes) and were traded like cattle. The flood of slavery had truly picked up steam by the end of the 17th century and was in full swing by the early 18th century.

This turned out to be a boon for land owners who had the wherewithal to support a large, dependent population on their land. Smaller farmers were forced out by an inability to keep pace with the profits coming out of these larger plantations. Many sold their farms (which they had homesteaded and built by hand over the course of many years, by the way) and took jobs as overseers or share croppers on the large plantations, often living on the very same land they once owned. The Yeoman farmer had been replaced by the dark-skinned slave; resentment began to build. These overseers were almost always white, poor, ill-educated, and told by their white employers that blacks were the reason they lost their homes and jobs. In fact, many overseers were rewarded when slaves were recaptured and returned to the plantations. It’s easy to see how, in this environment, that Africans came to be viewed as lazy, subhuman, and worthless by their white overseers (though not by white owners, usually).

The Civil War ended with the theoretical abolition of slavery, but in reality, many African Americans were precluded from owning land, voting, and in some cases, from moving off the land they had once been slaves upon. Still, many black Americans found their way north to Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, New York, and Pittsburgh where they found better-paying work in factories, textile mills and on the docks. Though these jobs were better-paying than those agricultural ones in the South, these jobs came with their own risks and exploitations. In order to break up burgeoning Unions which demanded safer working environments, and end to child labor, and better wages, company owners (also called “Bosses”) would hire African Americans, Poles, Irish, Italians, and other ethnic strike breakers, forcing whites from northern and Western European stock to come back to work without concessions. The racial tension between all kinds of Europeans was only eclipsed by their shared disdain for African Americans (I imagine it was because it was easier to identify an African American from a distance than it was to distinguish a German from a Swede or Pole).

The South was no picnic for African Americans either; Jim Crow laws, Poll Taxes, and violently-racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and The Know Nothings which engaged in lynchings and murders. Southern share croppers were prevented from entering into unions or even assembling in places other than churches (and even then, they were subject to white racist attacks).

It wasn’t until well into the 20th century that African Americans were allowed to assemble, vote, or enter non-traditionally black colleges. Even the attempts at egalitarianism  that FDR proposed were blocked by the powerful Southern Democrat block (sometimes known as Dixiecrats) who were elected on blatantly-racist platforms; it is during the 1950’s and 60’s that Dixiecrats defected to the Republican party which itself had sided with business workers in the industrial North. The Republican party, therefore, became the party that favored the ownership class while the increasingly-liberal Democratic (usually Northern Democrats) party appealed to Unions, African Americans, and Catholics (since most Catholics were subject to similar discrimination; Irish, Italians, and Poles all were excluded from certain professions and sectors of employment). One of the most famous Dixiecrats-turned-Republican was Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who famously filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act for 24 hours and 18 minutes. He once said:

“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

He and his formerly-Dixiecrat contemporaries continued their racist agenda throughout their careers, opposing the Voting Rights Act and the establishment of Martin Luther King’s birthday as a Federal Holiday. Ironically, though Strom hated African Americans enough to keep them from enjoying equal protection under the law, they were attractive enough that he sired at least one daughter with an African American mistress.

The 1960’s were a watershed era in the Civil Rights movement, breaking down barriers to color across the entire United States on the official level. Social resentment and hatred, however, remained entrenched and perhaps became more virulent as racist demagogues preached that the white race, American values, and even Christianity were under siege by socialist forces.

It is worthy to note that in spite of the election of Barack Obama - or perhaps because of it - racism is nowhere near ended in the United States; The Southern Poverty Law Center which keeps tabs on white supremacist groups’ activities noted that on election day there were 87 inquiries into literature from Storm Front, a neo-Nazi group’s website. The day after, there were over 2000 inquiries; the trend has not abated since then.

Southern Poverty Law Center

Strom Thurmond

History of American Racism

Underground Railroad Freedom Center

Proponents of a constitutional ban on Gay marriage echo the years gone by when arguments against interracial marriage were made, particularly in the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Loving Day , a website dedicated to information and education about interracial coupling and marriage has an excellent interactive map that shows how American attitudes became more entrenched, more anti-interracial over time before they were overturned through education and reason. Starting at 1662, the country is divided into 4 colors; red for an outright legal ban on interracial marriage, white for no law in place either way but the area was a state, gray for not a state yet, and light blue for laws allowing the legal right of interracial couples to marry.  Fastfowarding through the years shows that, especially in the 20th century, the idea of interracial couples was anathema to most Americans. It is this historical precedent that motivated Gay marriage advocates to appeal to people in the African American community. Most of the Black community in American is socially liberal but religiously conservative, especially when it comes to Gay marriage. In a letter to the Baptist Press , pastor William Shields of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Norcross, Georgia, stated the case from the evangelical Black community succinctly:

“Its apples and oranges…To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable…Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.”

Well, not so fast, my friend. From 17th through 19th century American conservative movements, particularly anti-Abolition movements, White preachers turned to Book 4 of Genesis in the Old Testament where God cursed Cain with a “mark” that would distinguish him from the chosen people. They interpreted that mark as having been born with Black skin. Did Rev. Shields know that, until the 1970’s people who were not lilly white could not be “true” members of the Church of Latter Day Saints because of the “Curse of Cain ?”Also, opponents of interracial marriage almost successfully amended the Constitution of the United States to reflect their mis-interpreted Christian views?

Fortunately for the Civil Rights movement and the general American public, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case upheld the argument that race should be no barrier to marriage.  The arguments of the “sacredness” of preserving the racial “purity” of the United States eventually found no traction in the Supreme Court and lost ground in rational, American minds. Currently, the only people espousing anti-miscegenation rhetoric are the Ku Klux Klan, white supremecists, and radical black leaders (Louis Farrakhan, for instance, still refers to white people as “devils” and finds interracial marriages offensive in the eyes of his god).

Other arguments against interracial marriage projected massive increases in divorce rates and result in more “mulatto” bastards and illegitimate children who would turn to a life of depravity. And yet, according to the 1994 Census bureau , divorce rates for Americans of all races remained relatively consistent (this includes Americans who are from interracial parents or are in interracial marriages, since they interview both white and non-white divercees). Most famously, bi-racial people have held high offices, including (very soon) the highest office in the land.

A final argument, which was loosely based on what has been called “social Darwinism,” believed that the American “race” (by which they meant Anglo-Saxon, White, and Protestant) would be forever tainted and would lag behind the rest of the civilized world in physical and mental development. This last charge is just too ridiculous to bother researching to refute; I’m sure the amount of American achievements since 1967 will speak for itself.

So now we return to the issue of Gay marriage. We see that, like interracial marriage, opponents worry about three things: 1) the disruption of the “holy” sacrament of marriage, 2) The moral and emotional damage that such marriages would do to American society in general and children in particular and 3) the idea that gay marriage would open the floodgates of other, previously taboo marriages.

First, the sacrament of marriage isn’t actually “Holy” in that, until the 15th century, marriages were usually not preformed by Priests or Ministers of the church. Traditionally, European couples who had no money to be married (they had to pay a “tithe” to the church to be married) merely exchanged vows in a civil and private affair that did not involve church or governmental officials.  Only with the advent of better record keeping and a rising nationalist identity did the crown, and then the church, decree that marriages be officiated over by a priest in order to be considered valid. (it might also surprise some Christians that many of the “sacraments” can beperformed by lay people; baptism, for example)

Second, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the children of gay couples ever grow up sexually deviant, confused, depressed, or in any way mal-adjusted. In fact, Medscape , a service of WebMD (which specializes in medically-proven and scientifically-valid medical information) , released a study saying that children of gay couples do as well as children of heterosexual couples. The only barrier that children of LGBT parents seem to face is stigmatism from other students and faculty in a school setting. But then again children who look different, sound different, have different tastes in music or clothes, or who “look funny” also are subject to harassment and stigmatization by their peers (watch the movies Heathers, 16 Candles, Back to School, Revenge of the Nerds, Napoleon Dynamite, or the television shows My So Called Life, Ugly Betty, Square Pegs)

Thirdly, this last argument is too ludicrous to even require research. Some have insinuated that if the country were to allow Gay marriage, then people would have license to marry animals or inanimate objects.  When people make irrational arguments, how does one answer rationally other than to shake one’s head in disbelief that this person doesn’t accidently drown in a bowl of soup or doesn’t get lost in an elevator.

In all logic, pro-life conservative Christians should embrace Gay marriage. According to a 2003 Pew Foundation study , there were over 500,000 children in foster homes in the United States in 2000.  17% of those children stay at least 5 years and may never be adopted into families. A further 28% of those remain in foster care from 2 to 5 years. And this doesn’t count the 3 million children who are homeless and not in the system; Children on the streets are more prone to be abused sexually, physically, and emotionally than children in stable homes (even single parent homes). They also tend to fall into drug and alcohol addiction, are exploited sexually by pedophiles and pimps, are recruited by gangs and other criminal organizations, and are more likely to die by the time they are 18 than any other demographic in the United States. Therefore, if Christians want to stop abortion on moral grounds, they should be willing to embrace Gay couples marrying and adopting children.

QED

…definitely not bliss. Ignorance, or in the case I’m about to expound upon, misunderstanding of history is ugly and prevents rational discussion by evoking emotional issues with the vague threat of dire consequences. Case in point, Republican Representative Paul Broun said this about President-designate Barack Obama:

It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Broun told the AP. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may– may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun was specifically referring to a July speech by Obama, where the then-Democratic presidential nominee said he supports a civilian force helping the military when it comes to national security: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military],” Obama said in the speech that was largely a call to national service.

Responding to those comments, Broun told the AP Monday: “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun added. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

First, let’s tackle the historic problem. Yes, Adolph Hitler was elected in a democracy, but then again, he was elected on the rhetoric of fear and blaming the problems Germany was facing on the Jews and Bolsheviks. Obama’s message was not predicated on exclusion, but rather inclusion. His acceptance speech on Nov. 4th spoke directly to those who opposed his election, stating “I may not have won your vote, but I need your help.” The whole dogma of the National Socialist party was based on designating someone (Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Bolsheviks, Gays, etc.) as an “other” within the bounds of European society in general and German society in particular. By doing so, he allowed his followers to establish a sub-national and nationalist identity within their own boundaries. Hitler called this identity the “Aryan Race” and placed it squarely atop the hierarchical structure he was building. Obama seems to have no intention of doing so and, in fact, his life history seems to be just the opposite.

As the President of the Harvard Law Review, he angered his liberal supporters by not just appointing three (3) out of four editorships to conservatives, but he actually spent time socializing with them to get to know them and understand their concerns and ideas. In Chicago, while working on the Board of Education, he was often the moderate voice, bridging rifts between Republicans and Democrats. Similarly, while running for President, he received Republican endorsements for his candidacy. Not exactly the kind of personality which seeks to divide on conquer.

On to the problem of conflating Marxism and Hitler’s ideology. They’re polar opposites. Socialism, and in particular Marxist Communism, is anathema to the ultra-conservative model that Hitler preached. Where the Marxist and Socialist model gives all persons, regardless of class or race, an equal say under the law and equal rights protected by the law, the radically-conservative Nazis believed in tiers of people, the utmost was Aryans, under that were semi-Aryans such as Indians (from the subcontinent), French, Dutch, Italians, and English (though not, interestingly, Scottish). Under that was the “other” races; Asians of all kinds. Under that were the Africans and other “mongrel” races such as Americans (Hitler felt the promise of America was watering down the racial purity of the Founding Fathers and the presence of so many Jews, Blacks, and other races proved it was worth only becoming a slave society to the Third Reich). Finally, there were the “parasites” which served no purpose for Europe; Jews, Bolsheviks (who were also conflated with Jews) and gays (as well as anyone who protested the treatment of “parasites”). In classic Marxism, the one written about in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and other works, each member of society (even the bourgeoisie, after they’d been dethroned) would be entitled to equal rights, equal compensation for their work, and equal access to work. For Mr. Broun to conflate Marxism and Hitler shows his deep, fundamental ignorance of the differences between the two and only a passing knowledge of the mechanisms employed by both political philosophies.

Now, on to further matters and glaring problems with Mr. Broun’s assessment that point to his mental and educational deficiencies. First, the idea of a civilian security force has already been implemented for a long time in American history. They are called U.S. Marshalls. They accompany the transfer of military hardware (especially nuclear missiles) because - as civilian law enforcement - they have authority to enforce federal law where the military (under the Posse Comatatus Act of 1878)  can not enforce Federal, State, or Local law in the course of executing their duties. Second, it is not just “Communists,” “Socialists,” or Hitler who have relied upon a civilian security force. During World War Two, civilian security agents (see Truman Library Online for posters and more information) ensured that war-time regulations were enforced and security violations were reported to the Law Enforcement authorities. Also, Japan has a Civilian Defense Force which helps in the event of a terrorist attack, national emergency, or other situation in order to augment the National Police force. Thirdly, Costa Rica has a civilian security force instead of an army and relies upon the national police to protect its borders while the civilian security force keeps traffic moving, ensures security in hospitals and schools, and generally upholds the law. Mr. Broun has evidently forgotten those examples.

As a final note, if Mr. Broun is concerned that the country is headed in a “Socialist” direction, why did he not call Mr. Bush “Hitler”? Karl Rove’s elections strategy and the later governing strategy (as acknowledged by Mr. Rove in an interview with Fox News) was to divide the country to more easily govern it; those who supported the President were “real” Americans while those who did not were often purged from the government (Justice Department firings, for example). Also, Mr. Bush pushed through legislation that allowed for secret, warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. This KGB-style tactic was even upheld in the Supreme Court in 2007 using Orwellian doublespeak logic; a group of citizens who suspected they were being wire tapped had to bring evidence of their concerns to the court, but they could not subpoena records because doing so would violate national security protocols. In other words, the plaintiffs had to produce documents that they could not legally obtain in order to prove the action they were victimized by was illegal. Also, let us not forget that under George W. Bush’s administration, torture, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the abrogation of international treaties resulted in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and “Extraordinary Rendition” (illegal, covert deportation of people from this and other countries to countries with no scruples about torture, the period of imprisonment being indefinite). Additionally, while under the pro-business President, subsidies to corporations via no-bid contracts bouyed Haliburton and their subsidiaries from obscure service and materials conglomerate to world-famous and incredibly rich mega corporation. The bailout plan, which is complex in its structure, purchased failing AIG (80% of whose stock is now owned by the U.S. taxpayer), WaMu, other investment banks and insurance companies, and is on the verge of loaning huge amounts of money to the Automobile industry (the so-called “big three”). Purchasing companies with government money, covert surveillance of the citizenry, internment of political prisoners in gulags  outside the reach of legal frameworks…Why wan’t Mr. Broun concerned about that?

Finally, in a fit of pique, I wish to ask Neoconservatives why they are so hysterical over the re-emergence of Hitler? When George W. Bush invaded Iraq, he likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler. He also Likened Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Hitler. He also likened Fidel Castro to Hitler. He also likened Kim Jung Il to Hitler. Bashar Assad of Syria has also been called Hitler. Now Mr. Broun (and other hysterical Neocons) have likened Obama to Hitler. Considering the acts of the previous occupant of the Oval Office, this seems like an attempt to distract the American people from what is really going on.

Oh, and to all those who spout the axiom “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.” I reply with this:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

~Pastor Martin Niemoller (supported Nazi pogroms until he, too was taken to Dachau in 1942 - fortunately for him, he survived and lived until 1984)