Haiku Politics

The census bureau released new statistics showing that the poverty rate has risen in the US to 12.7, the fourth straight year that poverty has increased.

This bears out that the current economic "recovery", and economic trends in general in the US, are mostly benefiting the wealthy elite in the United States, while for most of us the economy continues not to do particularly well.

Paul Krugman wrote on August 26 about the fact that, despite a growing GDP, most Americans don't feel very satisfied with the economy. As Krugman put it, "American families don't care about G.D.P. They care about whether jobs are available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost of living." And therein lies the crux of the matter. As long as the US continues its inexorable march towards globalization, as long as the new employment that is being created are in the form of low-income, non-unionized Wal-Mart style jobs, then we will simply see more of this trend continuing. The economic rug is being pulled out from under us; what will remain will be greater economic insecurity for most of us, lots of wealth for a few. As Krugman points out,

Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department statistics, the purchasing power of an average nonsupervisory worker's wage has fallen about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline.

Krugman further explains:

You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages. That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.)"

So while the combined compensation of the chief executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year, poverty has also increased for the fourth year in a row. What does this tell us about American capitalism?

Posted by The Haikuist at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments

The San Francisco alternative weekly, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, ran an editorial this week plaintively asking why local congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and Ellen Tauscher, as well as other Democrats, aren't joining in with Cindy Sheehan and in general not aligning themselves with the antiwar movement. The Guardian points out:

This ought to be the turning point for the Democrats, even those who originally supported or were wishy-washy about the war.

And yet, if you visit the Web site of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who is House minority leader, you'll see all sorts of statements about policy ("Pelosi Celebrates 60th Anniversary of VJ Day," "Pelosi Statement on 70th Anniversary of Social Security," and the like) but not a word about Sheehan and her vigil. Rep. George Miller, whose Seventh District includes Vacaville, has signed a letter calling on Bush to meet with Sheehan, but Pelosi is not among the 37 congressional signatories.

Despite this valid criticism, though, there is a both a kind of hopeless naivete and an illogical allegiance that underlies the Guardian editorial. The Guardian writes, "Instead of trying to sound like a hawk, Pelosi ought to get on a plane, fly down to Texas, and stand next to Sheehan with an antiwar sign...She and other leading Democrats need to listen – or the Democratic Party will suffer another series of embarrassing losses."

Telling the Democrats what they "ought to" do implies a concern for reforming what is an irredeemably unreformable party. This is the same Democratic Party whose leadership endorsed the Iraq War back in 2002, which then nominated a prowar candidate for President last year, whose party platform stated that supporting or opposing the war were equally valid positions, and whose gestapo tore down antiwar signs that a group of activists tried to erect at the party convention.

The Iraq War has been the single most important issue of the past three years. Yet, time and time again, the leadership of the Democratic Party has shown its unwillingness to take the moral high road with respect to the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi are all complicit in helping to get us into the Iraq War in the first place.

Frank Rich, in his recent column in the New York Times, does not agree with those of us on the antiwar left who want to end the occupation immediately, and is not of the same camp as the bona fide antiwar left, as represented by people like Cindy Sheehan. Instead, he seeks some kind of measured approach, perhaps endorsing a timetable for getting out or some other position that will seek to perpetuate US interests in Iraq, and which will result in a more drawn out continuation of the slaughter but which would somehow allow the US to get out of the quagmire while saving face. His is more of a practical criticism of the war than a moral one, not unlike John Kerry's position in the last election. This sort of murky, middle ground position that seeks to advance US corporate and imperialist interests is only a half-hearted approach to ending the war. But despite that, it is interesting to see that even he has strong criticism for the leadership of the Democratic Party. Rich states:

The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes. Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it's unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America's ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.

As another politician from the Vietnam era, Gary Hart, observed last week, the Democrats are too cowardly to admit they made a mistake three years ago, when fear of midterm elections drove them to surrender to the administration's rushed and manipulative Iraq-war sales pitch. So now they are compounding the original error as the same hucksters frantically try to repackage the old damaged goods.

With so much criticism being at all sides hurled at the Democratic Party, it is a wonder why it is that so many people from the antiwar side maintain an allegiance to it.

Posted by The Haikuist at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments

Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, which he later denied having done, which he then later admitted having done and apologized for it, is only the latest example of the anti-Chavez hysteria that has been coming out of Washington and elsewhere lately.

On July 20, Congressman Connie Mack of Florida sponsored an an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which called for the US to send anti-Chavez broadcasts into Venezuela. Tom Lantos, the leading Democrat in the House International Relations Committee, voiced his support for this bill by saying the following:

I commend my good friend from Florida [Republican Connie Mack] for offering this important amendment to increase the flow of objective information about the United States and world events into Venezuela. Recently, Reuters reported that Chavez had launched a new television station, Telesur, to counter what he considers to be pro-globalization bias in European and American news networks, like CNN. Chavez has also reportedly entered into a $200 million deal with China's National Space Administration to launch a satellite into orbit from which he could beam his anticipated hateful media content into homes across Latin America, the Caribbean and beyond.

As Chavez ramps up his information campaign, we should be prepared to present balanced news to the people of Venezuela so that they can be better able to make informed decisions about the activities of their government. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment of my friend from Florida.

During John Kerry's run for the Presidency, he also criticized Chavez, and criticized Bush for not opposing Chavez strongly enough.

The fact is that Chavez is the democratically elected President of a nation with one of the most democratic constitutions in the world. He has been subjected with repeated attempts at overthrowing or overturning his government, including a coup attempt (that was supported by Bush) and a recall referendum, which the constitution allows for. He survived the recall referendum with overwhelming support, in an election that was verified as democratic and free by outside observers. The U.S. constitution, by contrast, provides no mechanism for any kind of recall election of a sitting president. In Bush's case, with his sinking popularity as he continues to sink in the Iraq quagmire, it is interesting to speculate whether he would win such an election or not.

Comparing the anti-Chavez hysteria with the utter silence of the Bush administration about the human rights abuses going on in Haiti is a rather instructive exercise. Bush supported (and may have even been behind) the ouster of Haiti's former president Aristide, and as a supporter of the current regime, he conveniently looks the other way at what is going on there. What justifies this vitriol against Chavez? It would seem all out of proportion, until one considers that he has committed the crime of speaking out as an opponent of the globalization juggernaut that has been propelled by US and multinational corporate interests. Worse still, his ideas are popular, and part of a wave of left-leaning movements that have taken hold in the region. Bush cares not a whit for democracy--what he cares about is supporting US corporate interests. Unfortunately, as in so many other cases, the Democrats (including Tom Lantos) have largely signed on to the same pro-corporate, pro-globalization agenda which is so threatened by Chavez's ideas. Thus both parties in Washington have been riding the wave of anti-Chavez hysteria.

One shouldn't be too surprised that Robertson made his ridiculous, over-the-top suggestion of assassinating Chavez. Robertson is notorious for making ridiculous statements. What is more significant is the atmosphere of hostility towards Chavez that would inspire Robertson to make a statement like that in the first place.

Posted by The Haikuist at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments