A decade of denial

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stood out over the 9/11 weekend--among the various civic nine-eleven observances and rote reflection-making for the tragedy's tenth anniversary--to rub salt, not in a national wound, but to smart the festering hubris of a select group of leaders. This swollen lesion belongs to the elected- and appointed officials who believed they could parlay nine eleven's moments of nation-wide panic and sustained uncertainty into decades of political advantage.

Mind the spittle in the reaction from neocon zealots and pundits. Judging from their rabid responses, the post-nine eleven fallout unfolded in way that merits absolutely no criticism. How dare you, Mr. Krugman, tamper our sanctimonious revery.

Former War Secretary... that is, Secrtary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went so far as to tweet canceling his subscription to the Times. "[R]epugnant..." he sniffed in objection to Krugman's piece. All very telling reactions from people who heaved and cheered the loudest for our military to invade a country that was a bystander when New York City and the Pentagon were attacked. Not a whisper or wince of regret for the one hundred thousand-plus Iraqi civillian fatalities; our dead, maimed and tormented soldiers; 'renditioning' and torturing innocent civilians; our nation's reputation worldwide, a tattoo-quality disgrace. Really, Mr. Rumsfeld, you certainly know 'repugnant' when you see it.

The indifference shown by Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the global catastrophe they set in motion, illustrates the dual-sided dimension of shame. One side is the regret, or at the very least second thoughts, felt by a person with a developed moral sense. He apologizes profusely for accidentally shooting his friend during a hunting trip, for instance.

The other side to shame is that of a deeply wounded dignity. Usually the unfortunate soul who, as a child, endures mistreatment or outright physical harm, receives the message from the tormentor what the debased value of his or her dignity is. Later on in life the person has one of two choices: engage the memory of the assaulted dignity or pretend that it never happened.

For the pretenders it's a life-long commitment to keep that memory locked away. To serve that effort, the denier may commit some act of hostility or torment against another person who does not deserve such mistreatment. Further, the pretender fails or refuses to acknowledge the impact his or her hurtful actions have upon other people. Otherwise the tormentor risks rousing his or her own memory of suffering.

Paul Krugman advocated the shame of a healthy, engaged conscience. Such an awareness does not indulge in games of pretend or denial. By writing about our nation's severe shortcomings, he reminded his detractors of their own pummeled dignities--and, inevitably it seems, they excoriated him for that.

Voters' zero-sum faceoff with wealthy campaign donors

(Article first published as Voters' Zero-Sum Faceoff with Wealthy Campaign Donors on Blogcritics.)

It's a national pastime for voters to badmouth any given elected official from the comfort of their disengaged and isolated perches. While most citizens gripe about politicians or "the system" for operating beyond their influence--do any voters understand the "how" and "why" when elite interests wield far greater force?

Recently I received emails from two members of Congress informing me of an important fund raising deadline. Periodically during any given election cycle the Federal Election Commission requires candidates and political action committees alike to report their fund raising results. The donation appeals sent to my inbox represented the exact same party-related political action committee. Each letter urged a contribution before the Aug. 31 deadline, to meet a specified fund raising goal. Doing so would enable said pac a show of party strength or, as one letter boldly stated, "to take this fight to" the opposing party in each district.

Such letters--perhaps one of hundreds that get mailed out each month--do not mean much in and of themselves. As a cog in the machinery of mega-dollars campaign financing, however, the letters represent a failure on the part of vote-eligible citizens. The shortcoming is twofold: first is the well-known indifference of that 40 per cent of voters who opt not to show up at the polls every election; second, and perhaps more crucial, is the group of voters who do participate, but take little notice of how candidates finance their campaigns or who contributes to them.

At this point, voters find themselves on the losing end of the bargain known as representative democracy. It adds up to a zero-sum faceoff with wealthy donors. Why? Because voters have not shown the initiative nor interest that offsets a campaign's need for large dollar donations; the kind of contributions that finance the television ads produced to manipulate under informed citizens. Also on the campaign tab is the army of pollsters and analysts--sifting surveys and focus groups for a candidate's penny ante political advantage.

The way torrents of cash saturate political campaigns, the most accountability can hope to achieve is talking-point status. What often looks like wilful passivity of on the part of voters enables a breach between what the electorate intends and what the highest bids for influence actually achieve.

Here lies the influence gap that privileges corporations and monied interests over everyone else. If you don't believe this gap is a meaningful factor in the poor representation we endure today, let's have a look at an interview snippet quoting Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) in his district's newspaper, The Birmingham News. The occasion for the Dec. 8, 2010 conversation was his appointment as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated," the congressman pontificated, "and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

Who can deny that the banks have been well represented by Rep. Bachus's persuasion? Given the generosity they have shown his campaign budget, who could expect the chairman to raise a fuss about trifles like preditory lending and robo-signing? When the committee he chairs isn't busy attempting to dismantle the modest transparency requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is marking time while the usual suspects from the financial services continue on, business as usual.

This nation is three years into a financial calamity that anyone has yet to see the end of. Home foreclosures and chronic employment continue to not only eat away at our national solvency, but also undermine the mutual full faith and credit Americans once possessed.

If this state of affairs received serious consideration, blunt honesty would require us to admit that we have the kind of government we deserve. As we have yet to produce a voter turnout that demands fair, unbiased representation, we, the people, will continue sending the likes of Spencer Bachus to Washington every election.

Indifference has already exacted a harrowing price in the diminished quality of life most of us must cope with. So, consider this question a modest proposal: if it's within the electorate's capacity to avoid selecting convicted felons or pederasts for public office, why not strive to restore our leadership's accountability to the greater whole of this country?

Begin by paying attention to the who, what, why and how of governing. Special interests already deploy a battalion of lobbyists and insiders with the right access to elected officials, so voters will have to exert an equally coordinated and engaged effort. Then they will be in a position to avoid candidates who've sold away their decision making responsibility--and, instead, support candidates who are accountable to all citizens.

The limb that dare not speak its name

As her orbit in the world of pop music gained altitude, I took notice of an archly costumed female figure stalking throuh her music videos. What I would describe as a conspicuously concealed personal identity, her various appearances smothered in eyeliner, platinum-blonde wigs and sex object-shiny costumes. Her image was more a cipher than singer; conveying more 'sync' than 'lip'.

Besides the mindless mass adoration her singles and videos churned up, I found it troubling that a performer would go to such trouble to banish nearly all uniquely identifying charicteristics. The gawk-seeking, chameleon quality of her public appearances aroused in me a suspicion as to what exactly she could be hiding or attempting to deflect attention from?

One day it finally struck me--how prominently the bridge of her nose stood out from her face. Given Stefani Germanotta's Italian ancestry, her acquiline feature should surprise no one--though it does deviate from the prevailing WASP ideal (without which rhinoplasty would have no talisman).

She has asserted never having submitted to the scalpel on priciple that plastic surgery promotes insecurity. The photos accompanying the April 1, 2011 Harper's Bazaar feature display what appear as protrusions of bone at her cheeks and from either corner of her forehead. What intrigue she summons when stating the newly sprung bones (obviously the prosthetic magic of a make up artist) are her own--indeed fitting the angular thrust of her own Roman nose. Yes, there's promoting insecurity and then there's hemming said insecurity with all manner of visual gimmicks (who wouldn't fancy a meat dress?). Falling short of shocking, her wardrobe only manages to flout already-trampled middle class senses.

Irony swings every which way for this mediocre talent with the stand-out face. The more outrage or shock she attempts to compel, the louder the protest against her own ordinariness.

Voters promise no ballots for CEO-funded campaigns

It's how the headline should have read. Instead the CNN article heading rolled out this way: 100+ CEOs promise no campaign donations.

How encouraging it is to hear from the likes of Warren Buffet and Eric Schultz about taxes and the distorting influence of wealth upon our political system. A couple of ultra-wealthy business types speak out on behalf of the rest of us. Will elected officials take heed how the middle- and working classes are getting the shaft? It is doubtful as voters have yet to speak a language that candidates for public office can understand.

Unemployment stands at anywhere from 15 to 25 million. If a class of (eligible) voters who previously had no reason to pay attention to government decision making, perhaps unemployment and the great economic setback of our lifetime will have to worsen before they rouse from indifference.

This is the very demographic at whom the multi-million dollar TV campaign ads are aimed; those manipulative talking points and absurd slogans. Who pays for these ads? This crucial question leads the discussion to the moneyed interests who enjoy purchasing their place at the table while the 98% remainder of voters are left scratching their heads, 'Hey i thought i voted for change,' and they most certainly expected change. But they did not notice their candidate accepting boatloads of bundled contributions from the top 2%.

What will it take to remind voters of their own responsibilities as citizens in our democratic republic: to stay informed; to continually engage elected officials as well as one another? Understanding the influence gap between voters and their representatives may impress upon Americans how their votes succumb to the force of large check writers pulling strings behind the scenes. The language candidates for election would undrstand require a significant consensus of voters willing to enforce the following terms: to vote only for candidates who refuse any donation greater than $200 per individual per year. As of yet, that determination by voters has to be self-realized.

An American shadow: citizen projection and government dereliction

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Article first published as An American Shadow: Citizen Projection and Government Dereliction on Blogcritics.)

Speaking to representatives of Future Farmers of America in July 1988, President Ronald Reagan took a moment to remind his listeners of the ten most dangerous words in the English language: "Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

Decades earlier near the beginning of his political career Reagan recorded a speech on a vinyl LP excoriating socialized medicine for what he claimed as the gradualist aim of controlling citizens' lives. He went so far as to predict that the government would end up coercing doctors as to where they could or couldn't practice medicine. Even though Reagan called it "one of the traditional methods of imposing statism," he does not mention a single example when a government eventually trampled upon the freedoms of its citizens.

Like other Cold War red-baiting alarmists, Reagan fueled the hysteria of the U.S. succumbing to Stalinist repression; also doing his share to popularize the projection of inhuman, monolithic qualities onto government--an impulse that's wildly popular till today. Perhaps because of these uncertain times people are apt to carry heaps of anxiety and need somewhere or something to unload upon. Given the jobs crisis, crumbling infrastructure and America's loss of prestige world-wide--these days our government is a fish-in-a-barrel shot.

Capitalizing on the anti-government appeal, a significant number of Republicans running for office will season their campaigns with "small government" or "limited government" slogans. Apart from promises about lower taxes, stripping the social safety net or uncaging the "free market", there aren't many specifics about how less government would improve the quality of life for the whole republic.

Regarding the whole republic, the problems we face have little or nothing to do with big government or small government. What afflicts our politics is an influence gap that continually thwarts the will of voters. The gap owes much to the 40% of eligible voters who don't vote in each election as well as a general unwillingness of voters to build a consensus to solve our most pressing problems. Into said gap, moneyed interests (petrolium, financial services and defense industry to name a few) have driven their Hummer-sized policy agendas (war and industry deregulation); an effort that has looted not only the federal budget but also skimmed off the value of middle class labor--all in service to the endless gain of share holders, industry captains and their direct reports.

And all the while their right wing water carriers work to spread antipathy and mistrust between voters and government. They have employed all manner of fear mongering slogans about tyranny and threats to the so-called free market. Conjuring a despotic straw man, they urge that he stands at the threshold of seizing your rifles and relocating you to FEMA-operated death camps. Such apocalyptic talk has had the effect of eroding the bond of accountability between the government and citizens; what should have prevented much of the public- and private sector malfeasance we've seen over the last 30 years.

What voters too often forget or fail to understand is the influence they wield when working in concert. If the 2008 economic meltdown has anything to teach us, it must be how interlinked or mutually dependent our occupational and financial destinies are. Why not accept and utilize that interdependence toward its greatest electoral advantage? As the group granting the "consent of the governed" we insult the purpose of our republic to continue rolling over in deference to wealthy interests.