Democracy vs Authoritarianism

Those of us who think that doing our politics inside the Democratic Party need to have a discussion about Capitalism and the way it intersects with democratic processes. When the one percent of the people control as much wealth as the other ninety-nine percent the ability of that one percent to effect the democratic process is immense. Here's what one Democratic Socialist has to say - Bernie Sanders take on global democracy is worth reading. Tell me what you think.

One of the great crises facing the global community today is that democracy, the right of ordinary people to control their own lives, is on the defensive while authoritarianism is growing stronger.

And at its root is the fact that a handful of incredibly wealthy people are exerting enormous economic and political power over the planet. Unbelievably, in the global economy today, the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, and a handful of billionaires own more than the bottom half of people around the world — that’s 3.7 billion people.

That is the reality.

People in our own country, and around the world, are angry and betrayed, and they feel that nobody is listening to their pain.

And one of the results of that reality is that in Europe, in Russia, in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere we are seeing movements led by demagogues who exploit people’s fears, prejudices and grievances to achieve and hold on to power.

Next week, Donald Trump is set to welcome one of those leaders into the White House: Hungary’s far-right authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.

Now, I have always found it very strange that Trump has such a hard time getting along with leaders of the world’s major democracies but feels very comfortable with authoritarians like Orbán, Putin, Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro and Mohammad bin Salman.

But the truth is, while they all differ in some respects, they share a number of key attributes: hostility toward democratic norms, antagonism toward a free press, intolerance toward ethnic and religious minorities, and a belief that government should benefit their own selfish financial interests.

This trend certainly did not begin with Trump, but there’s no question that authoritarian leaders around the world have drawn inspiration from the fact that the leader of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy seems to delight in shattering democratic norms.

Other authoritarian states are much farther along this kleptocratic process. In Russia, it is impossible to tell where the decisions of government end and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his circle of oligarchs begin. They operate as one unit. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, there is no debate about separation because the natural resources of the state, valued at trillions of dollars, belong to the Saudi royal family. In Hungary, far-right authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán is openly allied with Putin in Russia. In China, an inner circle led by Xi Jinping has steadily consolidated power, clamping down on domestic political freedom while it aggressively promotes a version of authoritarian capitalism abroad.

So the question is: Where do we go from here?

To effectively oppose right-wing authoritarianism, we cannot simply go back to the failed status quo of the last several decades. In order to fight this trend, we need to strengthen the global coalition of progressive democrats.

While authoritarians promote division and hatred, we promote unity, inclusion, and an agenda based on economic, social, racial, and environmental justice.

The people of the world must come together to end the absurdity of rich and multinational corporations stashing over $21 trillion in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and then demanding that their respective governments impose an austerity agenda on their working families.

It is not acceptable that the fossil fuel industry continues to make huge profits while their carbon emissions destroy the planet for our children and grandchildren.

It is not acceptable that a handful of multinational media giants, owned by a small number of billionaires, largely control the flow of information on the planet.

It is not acceptable that trade policies that benefit large multinational corporations and encourage a race to the bottom hurt working people throughout the world as they are written out of public view.

It is not acceptable that, with the Cold War long behind us, countries around the world spend over $1 trillion a year on weapons of destruction, while millions of children die of easily treatable diseases.

In order to effectively combat the rise of the international authoritarian axis, we need a global progressive movement that mobilizes behind a vision of shared prosperity, security and dignity for all people and that addresses the massive inequality that exists, not only in wealth but in political power as well.

Such a movement must be willing to think creatively and boldly about the world that we would like to see.

We must take the opportunity to reconceptualize a genuinely progressive global community based on human solidarity, that recognizes that every person on this planet shares a common humanity, that we all want our children to grow up healthy, to have a good education, have decent jobs, drink clean water, breathe clean air, and live in peace.

Our job is to reach out to those in every corner of the world who share these values and who are fighting for a better world.

In a time of exploding wealth and technology, we have the potential to create a decent life for all people. Our job is to build on our common humanity and do everything that we can to oppose all of the forces, whether unaccountable government power or unaccountable corporate power, who try to divide us up and set us against each other.

We know that those forces work together across borders. We must do the same.

Thank you for reading.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders 

Likable Politicians? Are only men included?

Have you noticed that only the men among the the twenty-two Democrats running for President are described as likable? Claire Bond Potter in a New York Times Sunday Opinion piece reminds us that Hillary Clinton was branded as the unlikable one when she ran against a known womanizer and liar, Donald Trump. The theory being that only men are likable when running for President of The United States. She may be on to something.

I have searched my memory for instances where the news media have praised Kamila Harris or Elizabeth Warren for their likableness. We praise Joe Biden for his cheerful demeanor and Pete Buttigieg for his smile, but call Ms. Harris hard to know and call Ms. Warren to academic. Why do you suppose we see female politicians as less likable that their male counterparts? Looking back at my own reactions there have been several times when I said things like, “Warren seems to be the smartest one running, but she’s too much the professor to be electable” or Harris seems distant. Why do you suppose we have those negative opinions about women politicians and not their male counterparts?

If I’m honest with myself, I have to admit to suffering the same cultural bias that kept women out of politics for most of U.S. history. The culture says men can be strong and assertive, but we are only beginning to give women permission to have and be praised for those same traits.

If you are a man, you might want to spend some time rethinking political choices in light of the possible male bias we bring to choosing. I’m sure, that in my case, I didn’t give Warren, Harris or Klobuchar the chance to make their case and since my first choice is one of those “likable” males, I
should probably re-evaluate before it’s to late.

As a parting thought, why do we think our politicians should be appealing or likable? Isn’t their expertise and ability to work with others much more important than their likability?

Can Nuclear Power Save the World?

Richland High School Insignia

An Opinion Piece in the New York Times Sunday April 7th, 2019,(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html), would lead us to believe that nuclear power plants can save us from the difficult problem of transforming out power supply for carbon neutrality. The authors suggest that we can mass produce nuclear power plants cheaply and make them save enough that we can live next to them without problems. I'm sure that's possible, but (and there's always a but), If we can why haven't we?

My theory about that is that the authors didn't take Capitalism's insatiable quest for increased profits. If they build multiple plants, all alike, the buyers will expect that by plant number three or four there should some discounting of the price? That's why each plant is a new untried and more expensive plant than the last. The authors point to France and Sweden, both democratic socialist countries, as examples. Governments in those countries don't think that putting their electrical grid in the hands of Capitalists is the cheap way to go. Let's not believe that the forces of capitalist America will save us from the ravages of climate change unless we are willing to allow their profits to multiply at the same time.

That; however, isn't the most important oversight in this piece. The authors seem to think that radioactive waste, the byproduct of nuclear reactors, is a small and not very dangerous item. "Americas total from 60 years would fit in a Walmart - and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools". I would suggest they tell that to the folks at Hanford, Washington who have been trying to clean up the residue of seventy years of waste from only four reactors. Like others, the authors hope that future technological advance will keep us from being buried in our own radioactive effluvia.

Who's a Racist?

This certainly is!

I talked to some folks from a "Patriot Group" today. They didn't want to give me the actual name of their group, but they assured me that they were not White Nationalists or racists of any kind; Only Patriots and they came with flags and tee shirts with MAGA (make America great again) and Trump for President on them. Of course I believed them since who would lie about a thing like that?

Previously, when I met folks like these I admit to a little prejudging. In my "left leaning mind" flag wavers with Trump paraphernalia are automatically shunted into the white racist category (since I am convinced of Trump's racism). It turns out, according to these folks, that you can look like a racist, vote racist, and approve of racist acts without actually being a racist person. I'm of two minds about this; on one hand if you don't perform racist acts yourself, you might skate by as a non-racist; however, if you approve of those who act and talk racist, most of us would probably judge you to be at least a fellow traveler.

When tasked with the differences between approving of racists and being one the reasoning seemed to that since I proclaim myself free of racism that's all the proof needed. The dictionary defines Racism as: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior, I don't think it's possible to approve of racists and their acts without tarring yourself with a racist brush.

The NFL and Slavery

The National Football League has a problem. It seems to think it lives in Pre-Emansipation America. Someone should let them know that professional football players aren't slaves. The idea that the league can dictate how and where players can think and speak to the issues of the day is hard to fathom.

I have heard the excuses - it's about patriotism - or it disrespects the flag. I don't buy it.

Patriotism is defined as love for or devotion to one's country. Where is protesting wrongs done to the countries citizens unpatriotic? How is kneeling, as in prayer, disrespectful? These young men are in the best traditions of this country. They ask us to remember the wrongs done and work to be better citizens.

Many of these young men are brown and they choose to protest the wrongs done to other brown citizens. That's why the league and others think they have the power and the need to silence their protests. Let me remind you being brown is not a crime and doesn't negate citizenship.

Thoughts and Prayers?

Eighteen school shootings in 44 days? Malthus would be proud - We've solved the problem of population excess without resort to birth control or (god forbid) abstinence. Just hand every troubled teen and psychotic adult an assault rifle and "Bob's your Uncle" all population problems are solved.

Seriously folks, does anyone have any ideas that don't involve belief in the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? I sure don't. In my lifetime (70+ years) we have gone from a belief that the US Constitution gave permission for police and national guards to have weapons of war and that you and I could be trusted with hunting arms to thinking that any idiot could brandish any weapon he or she could afford.

We all know the results. More than thirty thousand casualties each year in an undeclared war against ourselves. So far we know one thing for certain, thoughts and prayers are not a solution. We also are pretty certain that letting more people walk around with guns will not cut the number of deaths, nor will letting anyone who can afford to own an assault rifle or a gun with a silencer.

Some solutions, like better mental health care, would certainly work, but will we decide to pay for it? We can see from the example of other nations that gun buybacks and restrictions on gun licensing and purchases reduce gun deaths greatly. These are ideas that we must implement if we want to get beyond the thoughts and prayers solution.

Lots of folks worry that if we don't all have guns "only outlaws will have them". That might be the case, except that there are more police and national guard than there are violent criminals by a wide margin. Others are more afraid of their own government and want to guard against them. Maybe they are out to get you, but you must remember that in a democracy you and I are the government.

If we are the government let's act like it and solve the gun violence problem before the next occasion for "thoughts and prayers"

More about Capitalism?

What we've discovered about American Capitalists is their penchant for buying politicians. The politicians don't try to hide the fact that they have been bought and of course capitalists are prone to brag about the things and the people they own. The Koch Brothers, for example, pledged $889 Million during the 2016 election cycle according to the NY Times. The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell had to pass because their donors wanted it.

The bill will of course profit the capitalist class by allow them to pay less of the cost of governing and
public infrastructure.

How much less? The shortfall  is estimated to be over a Trillion Dollars in the next ten years.
Of course capitalists need roads and bridges as much as you and I do so can you guess who is expected to take
care of the shortfall? You, me, and our children, that's who. Yes, our children because that trillion dollar shortfall
will be paid for by government borrowing that you and I will pay back with interest. How long do you think it will 
take the us to pay that back? It will be left for our children for sure.

Guess who we borrow from? Capitalist bankers who have extra to lend because they don't pay it out in taxes, 
that's who. It almost seems like a scam, doesn't it? The people who have the most pay less and those with less 
pay more.