All posts by meanderer007

Trickle-down Economics

Capitalism, Economics, Indigenous--Reconciliation, Right-wing Extremism

 

 

The Powell manifesto or memorandum set the stage for Ronald Reagan to support supply-side trickle-down economics.  Famously, Reagan said, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” That was a bedrock part of the right-wing movement that emerged in the United States. It still is very important.

 

The idea was to put in place policies, particularly tax policies, that would benefit primarily the wealthy, and then the money spent by the wealthy would trickle down to those with less wealth and all would benefit. In time.  This economic theory has since been largely discredited, except by people like Donald Trump and his friends who benefit greatly from those policies. Benefits to the wealthy are obvious. Benefits to the less wealthy are much harder to find. Naturally, people like the wealthy have been quick to find the benefits.  It is hard not to like something that benefits you.

Thanks to the vast network of right-wing organizations however, these views have been so widely promulgated that that even those who don’t benefit from them are frequently heard arguing in favor of them. People like Senko’s father The Brain Washing of my Dad.

Studs Terkel said in the 1990s, “the only thing I’ve seen trickle down is meanness.” Jeff Cohen, also interviewed by Jen Senko in the film  was a professor of Journalism at Ithaca College, and he said by that Terkel meant, the kind of Country Club cronies “looking down on the less fortunate”. Cohen said, people like Russ Limbaugh tried to get white middle-class males as angry at vulnerable groups in the film  as some people did in country clubs in the 1950s.  Terkel meant that this mean streak was what was disseminated in the 1980s.

Someone else said, “the only thing I’ve seen trickle down is the rich pissing on the middle class.” The reality was that money was taken from the middle class and given to the rich.

Ronald Reagan, we must remember, was the one who brought us the expression, “Make America Great Again,” that was later adopted by Donald Trump. Reagan advocated for a return to a simpler time, a mythic time, when white males were in control, unencumbered by worries about others such as black Americans, gay, lesbians, and when Evangelical Christians did not have to worry about catering to other religious groups such as Muslims. They could be safely ignored. Donald Trump has tried the same thing, with a lot of success.

According to Claire Connor, author of Wrapped in the Flag,

“they saw America of 1900 as the apex of when we were great as a nation. 1900. Before the income tax. Before the fed. Before any progressive legislation was considered or passed. Before child labor laws. Before women had any rights. Before women even had the right to vote.”

 

According to Connor, Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society,

“talked a lot about 1900, as this glorious time in American history, and he said, ‘there were pockets of poverty, but it was a healthy kind of poverty. Poverty free from government interference where every man understood that relief from dire want was entirely his own responsibility. Thus the blessings of liberty outweighed the poverty.”

 

Ronald Reagan, known as the Great Communicator,  said this:

“Looking back, we lived in poverty or pretty close to that all the time, but we didn’t know that at the time, because the government didn’t come around and tell us that we were poor.”

As Rick Perlstein said,

“Conservatives were all about balanced budgets. They were all about making people eat their spinach. They came up with this new theory called ‘Supply-side Economics.’ And Supply side means basically that you give money to business and that way they’ll produce more plenty that will trickle down to ordinary people. And it was what George H. W. Bush in 1980 who called this  “voodoo economics” because it sounded like magic. It was like he was promising you the candy store. He said he could lower everybody’s taxes and by doing so everybody would benefit. It was like the miracle of the loaves and fishes. In actual fact how it turned out was hurting the very working-class voters who trusted Ronald Reagan with their economic future. Of course, inequality just sky-rocketed. The rich got richer and the wages of ordinary people just stagnated.”

 

It did after all, sund like magic.  And people wanted it to be true. So they did not demand evidence. In fact, the message was so powerful that Donald Trump used the same discredited claims to sell his tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy during his first presidency and again, most recently, in the second. And once again, poor people, who were not getting the breaks, got screwed again.

Funny how that happens.

The Effects of the Powell Memo

Extremism, Polarization, Right-wing Extremism

 

The Powell memorandum impacted law, media, business, politics and education, in many ways.

The groups had meetings where issues of all kinds that were important to those on the right could be discussed. The issues ranged from fur trade commission, restricting rights of gays and lesbians and their ilk, de-regulation of businesses, gun deregulation, anti-tax, anti-immigrants, pro-lifers, evangelicals and many more.  Many of those issues are still important issues, except perhaps the fur trade. The genius of the meetings was that they provided a broad tent where all kinds of people appeared who often did not agree with each other on much, but they learned to like each and spread their respective gospels. These meetings benefited many right-wing groups.

 

Conservative think tanks exploded around the country. The Heritage Foundation was established in 1973, 2 years after the Powell memorandum was created.

One thing these groups established was balance in the media.  In other words, media need no longer be objective, as had always been the goal, now instead, media would be balanced. For example, if a newspaper wanted to cover the issue of climate change it must give an opportunity to both sides of the debate to be heard. This sounds pretty good, but it had flaws. For example, even if 99% of scientists agreed that climate change was real and was caused by activities of humans, if a media outlet wanted to report on the issue it had to give a platform for both sides. This gave far too much weight to crackpot ideas often funded by industries affected, such as the oil and gas sector. They managed to have their minority views get equal time with independent science. As a result these views received much more attention than they should have received. “Balance” really did not work well in practice.

In fact, this helped to establish the age of extremism and polarization in which we now live.

There was a large group of meetings led by Grover Norquist who founded Americans for Tax Reform and The Americans for Tax Reform Foundation to lobby governments to reduced taxes on wealthy business people and provided education opportunities for people with the right views.

When Hillary Clinton complained about “a vast right-wing conspiracy” she actually had a point. When you look at the vast number of right-wing organizations from legal foundations to media organizations, to think tanks, to advocacy groups, and many others, the network was indeed vast. Some called the Norquist Meetings the headquarters of the right-wing conspiracy. Personally, I don’t like to call this movement a conspiracy, but it was clearly a growing movement, well-funded and supported by American business interests.

The Confidential Lewis Powell Memo (1971)

Conservative, Right-wing Extremism

 

The film, The Brainwashing of My Dad, gave an extensive background on right-wing extremism in America.

During the 1960s the student movement in the US and the hippie’s movement,  had achieved remarkable changes in American and Canadian youth. I must confess I was a part of that movement in a small way. This movement was highly successful at promoting opposition to the War in Vietnam and the hippy life of freedom, drugs, sex, and rock and roll. Some of my friends were amazingly successful at this while I was a sad sack hanger on. Poor me.

The corporate elites in North America were keen on fighting back. From their point of view, backlash was in order.  They focused a lot on a memo created by a Richmond attorney who sent a confidential memo to his friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce decrying possible threats to the American free-market system by unruly mobs of miscreants. This has been called, Lewis F. Powell Jr.’s “manifesto” and it figured in prominently as the impetus behind big business lobbying in America’s money-fueled politics. Powell was a lawyer who later became a judge of the US Supreme Court.

The memo, which has become known as the “Powell Manifesto,” among other names, which he wrote before Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court and while he was still in private legal practice in Richmond Virginia.

In uncompromising words, Powell’s memorandum urged American business leaders to unite to defend their interests. As if they really needed defending. He felt that the “American economic system is under broad attack.” Powell also  wrote. “ … The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” He decried this unfortunate circumstance and begged his fellow captains of industry to resist the left-wing hordes and unwashed masses.

He pointed to causes of this malaise that included environmental groups, consumer-rights organizations like those led by Ralph Nader, and a society that he feared was headed for socialism and away from free enterprise. He was also alarmed by acts of violence against business interests which he believed were on the rise.

Jeff Cohen, a former Fox broadcaster, interviewed by Jen Senko for the film, called this memo a symbol of the backlash. As Noam Chomsky also told her, about Powell, “he claimed that the whole country was being taken over by the radical left.” Exactly what Donald Trump has been doing since at least 2024.

Powell said in the memo that American businessmen had to support efforts to get conservative professors appointed in influential universities to teach the values of American business. He said we have to establish our own research organizations to promulgate our views. As a result, a vast array of American right-wing think tanks were born  such as the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, the Center for the National Interest and many others, usually with innocuous sounding names that masked their true nature.

They also started journals and publishing houses to publish their views.

They also wanted to buy media to get out their views. This was probably the most effective part of that campaign. This led to the boom in right-wing talk radio nationally and across the country in every locale. Ultimately this led directly to the biggest media of them all—Fox News Channel.

The Powell Memo was extremely influential affecting politics, judicial law, and media and education. To a very significant extent it has helped to create our modern polarized world.  For quite some time it was the political Bible of the extreme right in America.

 

The Southern Strategy

Conservative, Right-wing Extremism

 

Nixon latched onto southern racism in particular to turn the white voters against the Democrats and in favor of the Republicans. The south had traditionally voted Democrat but that changed under Nixon’s campaigning. But whites in the south were horrified by Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legislation including the Voting Rights which had insulated the whites from losing power as a result of blacks voting against white interests. The whites wanted to maintain their hegemony as they do to this day in America. From their perspective, the less black voters the better. Sounds a lot like the modern Republicans doesn’t it?

 

In 1970 American workers upset at the anti-war protesters started beating the protesters with their hard hats as part of what rick Perlstein in the filmThe Brain Washing of my Dad, called “a marauding army.”[1] . As Perlstein said, “Rather than excoriating these essentially vigilantes, Richard Nixon invited the Peter Brennan the leader of the construction trades to the White House where Nixon was presented with a ceremonial hard hat. Nixon did not try to stop the vigilantism, he tried to use it for his own benefit. And he did that masterfully.  Again, it sounds a lot like Donald Trump.

 

In the process Nixon was creating what George Lakoff  called “conservative populism.”  He persuaded a large part of the working class “to vote against their economic interest in order to vote on the moral issues.” Just like modern Republicans do with the culture war. Of course, Conservative politicians have been doing this ever since. They could not persuade working people to vote for their platforms that obviously supported the wealthy at their expense, so he got them to vote for him on moral grounds, or what we now might call cultural grounds. This includes voting on the basis of sexual identity, anti-woke, and things like that.

That was how Nixon contributed to moving America further to the right. And Trump has joined the movement. And guess what the strategy works.

 

 

Nixon and the Politics of Division

Culture Wars, Right-wing Extremism

 

Donald Trump did not invent the cultural wars, nor was he the first right-wing politician to take advantage of them.

 

The author Rick Perlstein  was interviewed in the film The Brain Washing of my Dad in which he said “the  brilliance of Nixon was to bend a politics of deference to money and autocracy and frame it to a kind ofcultural populism.” Nixon’s idea, according to Perlstein, was “the real snobs are not the people who hire and fire, but the people who decide cultural trends.” Nixon early on, realized the importance of culture wars, though that expression was not to my knowledge used by him.

George Lakoff is the author of the book, Don’t Think of an Elephant! The Essential Guide for Progressives.  He was also interviewed in the film about Richard Nixon. In 1964 the Republican Party candidate for president, Barry Goldwater got smoked.  Lakoff said, “conservative” was a dirty word. Nixon started running for the presidency in 1967 and he knew he had a problem. How to get around the apparent despising of conservatives? How could he change the Americans who wanted to be liberals?

Specifically, he wanted to get working people to vote for him, rather than a Democrat. Many veterans saw the anti-war movement in the US as a betrayal of their service and unpatriotic to the country. Nixon was hostile to protesters. He also opposed women who were railing against societal norms that forced them to stay at home and raise children. Their movement was called. “Women’s Liberation,” and Nixon hated that too.  So did many others.

Nixon argued for traditional family values to attract working men who felt threatened by what they saw as radical feminism.  Women would try to upend their privileges and take their jobs. Which was, of course, was completely true.

Nixon capitalized on fears of whites that they would lose their hegemony to uppity blacks. He elicited fear and loathing among whites. He ran in favor of law and order, which was often a dog whistle for whites who felt most criminals were black. He latched onto white bias, often of a silent implicit kind of bias. Again, he concentrated on white fears. There is nothing quite like fear to bring out the vote.

Donald Trump used similar tactics in order to twice get elected president of the United States.  Many think those tactics were crucial to getting Trump elected both times. Winning the cultural wars can be a winning statetgy.

 

Is Israel acting with Kindness?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

A good and respected friend of mine told me that to some extent Israel has been treating Palestinians with more “kindness” than their Arab “friends”. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know that using the word “kindness” to describe Israeli actions against Palestinians is a form of obscenity.

 

Whether Israelis actions do or not meet the standard of “genocide” in international law is not really the issue. What is important is that the Israeli response to a horrific attack has also been massive, continual, and indeed horrific.

 

Hamas is also is not innocent. Their actions too might have been genocidal. No matter what they should release the hostages. Palestinians and their supporters should be demanding the hostages be released.

 

An Israeli article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz  cited a well-regarded Israeli and international scholar, Nir Hasson has said, the number of Palestinian deaths in the war is much higher than figures by Hamas Ministry of Health’s (controlled by Hamas) which put the Palestinian deaths at over 57,000. He says its much closer to 100,000 and when you include related deaths caused by starvation and disease might even surpass that number.

 

As Fareed Zakaria said “at this level of 5% of the population this may be the worst case of war time death in the twentieth century.” Even the article critiquing this analysis said the death toll is “undoubtedly catastrophic and intolerable.” Isn’t that bad enough?

 

Fareed Zakaria, always a level headed commentator not given to hyperbole has called it “staggeringly high.” According to the UN, 1.9 million of Gaza’s 2.1 million people have been displaced by that war. It is difficult to think what bad description would be excessive in the circumstances. Just as hard as trying to think how possibly the word “kindness” could apply to the actions of Israel.

 

Israeli Genocide?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

I don’t know if Israel is committing genocide or not, but it sure does look like. As the saying goes, ‘If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck maybe it’s a duck.  That’s sort of how I feel about it.

 

Most knowledgeable people say Israel has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza. At least 17,000 of those are children. Those are not Gaza fighters. 33,000 children have been injured. Many of those are now amputees. Scarred foe life.

 

What can possibly justify that? Israeli’s keep attacking hospitals, schools, residential complexes. They always say they are targeting Hamas.  But they make it clear, to attack one member of Hamas it doesn’t matter how many civilians or children are attacked too.  Is that good enough. That is reckless behavior.  Behavior of bullies. We are big and powerful and we can do it. We don’t care who gets hurt. That’s their attitude.

 

Then there is starvation which is rising precipitously. That is a direct result of Israeli policies. 50% of all children in Gaza are now suffering from severe malnutrition. And Canada and its western allies keep supporting Israel against Hamas even though it already has a massive superiority in weaponry.

 

Genocide scholar Omer Bartov claims Israelis are guilty of genocide, even though few specific statements have been made by Israeli leaders confirming a genocidal intent. First, he points out, most regimes that carry out genocide do not publicize it. Political leaders rarely make genocidal intent clear in their statements. If you look for such evidence you will never find genocide.

 

As Bartov said, “they don’t say we are carrying out genocide.”[1] Even Adolf Hitler made few such statements, he pointed out.  Leaders are almost always more circumspect than that. It is very rare that intent can be seen. It is inferred from facts on the ground. As Bartov explained, even in the case of Hitler that intent was clearly inferred from such facts even though he made few statements making it clear. There is no written order where he said, “Let’s carry out genocide.”

 

Is intent also clear in the case of Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders? Israeli supporters say the claims are ridiculous. Are they? In the case of the Israeli Minister of Defense saying they are “human animals” or “we won’t give them water.”  Or we won’t give them electricity. Such statements are incitement to his soldiers to carry out an act of genocide. The Israeli’s mobilized 300,000 reservists and sent them to Gaza and they heard what he had said. They knew what they were being called to do by their leaders. The Minster was saying to his soldiers these are not human beings, and we should not treat them like human beings.

 

For a long time Omer Bartov the genocide scholar there was insufficient evidence of genocide.  He has changed his mind on account of the accumulating evidence that is genocide.

 

Bartov also pointed out how Netanyahu recently said Israel wanted to get rid of Palestinians from Gaza and they were looking for other countries to take them in, “that is an international crime.”

 

Hamas should also release the hostages. There is not justification for their actions. It also might be genocidal. They just don’t have the claws that Israel has.

Genocide or not, the actions of Israel are horrendous. We shouldn’t be supporting that.

What is Genocide?

Genocide, War Between Israel and Hamas

Genocide scholar Omer Bartov  on a recent television show, explained that we tend to think genocide must look like it did in Nazi Germany. That is not the case. We need to look at how “genocide” is defined in international law. The Convention on Genocide defines ‘genocide” as follows:

“The intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

  • killing members of the group;
  • causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

 

As Bartov said, “it does not necessitate the killing of all the people…it is the intent to destroy the group as a group. ”This is the legal definition. Of course, as Bartov pointed out to say killing 50,000 or 100,000 Palestinians including 17,000 children is not genocide is also morally horrifying. He also said, “If you remove a group from a territory and you make it impossible for it to reconstitute itself and you do that by starving it, by bombing it, by destroying everything there, that can and in my opinion does, conform to the definition of genocide.”

 

I know that many Israelis’, many Americans, and many Canadians take the position that Israel is just defending itself after a horrific attack. There is no doubt it was a horrific attack. But even when attacked, in their defence an attacked nation must act with some constraints. It cannot do whatever it wants to do in its own defence. The Israeli’s say Hamas attacked with genocidal intent when it attacked Israel and so far it has killed about 2% of the number of people Israel has killed in this battle. Bartov said,

“The attack by Hamas was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and could be described as a genocidal attack especially when you relate it to the Hamas Charter and there is no way to argue against that. That does not mean that the country responding to it may respond it to it by carrying out crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Nor justify a massacre. A massacre does not justify a massacre. A Genocide does not justify a genocide.”

 

Bartov, also thinks it is a scandal that a country that was created by the international community as a direct consequence to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and acts of genocide is now committing those acts itself. And that is no reason for us to deny what it is doing.