by David Remer   Political News & Analysis  (Dec. 19, 2003)

 Last night on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Republican jugular was exposed. Chris Matthews repeatedly asked Peggy Noonan, a most eloquent conservative spokesperson and top media champion for President Bush, a question which she simply could not answer. Recent polls were being discussed, specifically the bump in the President's ratings after the capture of Saddam Hussein. All was looking good for the President, when Chris Matthews took note of the fact that 52% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

It has been unequivocally established that there in is no evidence at all that links Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and the other panelists agreed. Peggy Noonan took exception and Chris Matthews asked Noonan whether she believed Hussein was responsible. She gave an evasive answer; Matthews asked again; another evasive answer; and 3 or 4 more times Matthews tried to get Noonan to state the fact. She couldn't. And in not being able to admit the fact in public for reasons outlined below, and by evading and redirecting the subject numerous times, she appeared to be a person without credibility, without honesty, and this she did on prime time TV.

This is the jugular of the Bush Administration. The polls showing more than half of Americans are still misinformed by the President and the Vice President as to the absence of any connection between Hussein and 9/11 and therefore, they are interpreting the capture of Hussein as a victory over the terrorists who caused 9/11. Hence, the bump in the polls.

If the opposition spends its money and expertise in educating the public on the facts, in very much the same manner as Matthews did for his audience with Noonan, support for the President will drop like a stone. Why? Because upon learning the facts and accepting the truth, they will be embarrassed for having been so gullible and have only the President to blame for the embarrassment. Then, they will have to ask why the body bags and tens of billions of tax dollars were spent in a, go it alone if need be, invasion into Iraq? Finally, they will have to ask how much safer would we be had we spent those military lives and monies going after the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11.

The enjoyment by the Bush Administration of their bump in the polls is a direct result of a lie held by half of the American people. A lie deftly designed by this Administration and one it has spent virtually no effort to rectify in the minds of the American people. The Bush Administration will have to answer the question in the debates, 'Was Hussein responsible for the 9/11 attacks?' If he tells the truth, those 52% will feel duped. If he lies, every person who holds facts and evidence to be the cornerstones of reality will pounce upon the President as a liar and a cheat.

Ralph Nader's testing of the waters may not be as absurd as it first seemed. Ralph Nader is almost always ahead of the curve when it comes to exposing government's pulling the wool over the eyes of the people. He knows he cannot win, but, if he can expose the deceipt, he can seriously impair the President's reelection bid. The Green Party and Democratic Party should also follow that lead if defeating this President is the first goal.

The Washington Post notes in an article yesterday entitled, White House Web Scrubbing, that the Administration has been observed scrubbing former statements which no longer look good, accurate, or truthful. This won't make a dent in the public's awareness simply because it is not newsworthy enough to permeate the media.

It will be impossible for the President to avoid the no win answer to the Iraq - 9/11 link, unless he avoids debate altogether. I would not be surprised if that is in fact the strategy the President follows. He will probably state as President he has not the time for politics, he has a country to run. This President is shrewd and politically saavy, and must avoid having to answer for the misunderstanding by the American public which he fostered and nursed for political gain.

11:23:14 PM  Google It!  -Comments, Replys?-  trackback []

by David Remer  -  Political News & Analysis

We usually associate one party government with fascism, authoritarianism, or fantasy utopia wherein all persons are healthy, happy, and equal in all ways that matter. In a democracy however, it is very possible to have a one party government which does not meet any of the above criteria. We are witnessing it now in large part. A one party government is not necessarily a cause for alarm about our democracy. Today, however, the stage is set for a potential threat to our democracy as great as that witnessed by the Civil War.

The U.S. currently has a Republican President and a Republican majority in both the houses of Congress, though by a slim margin in the Senate. It is only the slim margin in the Senate which still permits filibuster power by the Democrats, and the split Supreme Court with equal liberal and conservative Justices and one swing Justice who votes on either side depending on the issue, which prevents the U.S. from factually being a one party government. This is not historically unique in the U.S. however; during periods in the 20th century when Democrats constituted a near one party government, the Democratic Party itself was healthily diverse with its own conservative, centrist, and liberal wings of the party.

Beginning with the Reagan years and accelerating through the Clinton years, a polarization has taken place between the Conservatives and Liberals. This polarization has resulted in large part with the loss of the more liberal wing of the Republican Party and the conservative wing of Democratic Party. In addition, there has been a growth in two minor parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, as well as a significant growth in what is termed Independent voters who do not constitute a party at all. To the Green Party many ultra liberals who abandoned the Democratic Party have migrated. And to the Libertarian Party some of the ultra conservatives who abandoned the Republican Party have migrated.

The current state of all this migration has resulted in roughly 1/3 of registered voters being Democrat, 1/3 being Republican, and 1/3 falling into the Libertarian, Green, third party, and Independent camps. Also, it has left the Democratic Party with little more than very liberal and somewhat liberal makeup. And similarly this has left the Republican Party with little more than somewhat conservative and very conservative supporters. One other significant group of citizens should be mentioned here, namely, the disaffected non-voters who for a variety of reasons do not participate in the political process. This non-voters group is rapidly approaching equal numbers with all registered voters. But for the purpose of examining one party vs. multiple party government, they are relatively of little consequence save for their growing numbers.

Thus, when it comes to elections, the U.S. has only two predominant parties vying for office, the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans. And issues such as abortion, socialized programs like public education, health insurance, and social security, regulation of industries and business, foreign affairs, and wealth distribution or accrual through taxation have become very polarized issues between the two parties. This polarization between two such equally represented parties sets the stage for a scenario which could constitute a very real threat American democracy.

Whether Democrat or Republican, one party domination in the executive and legislative branches of government will represent the views, and satisfy the requirements of government, by little more than 1/3 of the citizenry of the nation. This is not majority rule. Currently, the Republican Party fails to satisfy the expectations of government by almost all Democrats, all Greens, most Libertarians, a significant portion of independent voters and a significant number of non-voters. The situation would be the same today if the Democrats held control of government instead of Republicans. This fact alone however is insufficient to result in a threat to democracy. Two other components are required to convert this situation into a threat to democracy

The first is sustained one party domination for a period of 8 or more years, Should the Iraq situation improve, even modestly by summer of 2004, and should the economy show improvement, even if only marginally, the Republicans may easily hold control of government for an additional 4 years. This is significant, because the tension and frustration level by non-Republicans will swell. Partisanship will become ever more vitriolic, and bitter. With a minority party ruling for another presidential election cycle, the fear of no end to such one party rule will manifest itself in a host of ways all to the detriment of unseating the ruling party.

The Democratic Party will incur internal dissent as competing views and strategies for overcoming in the next election cycle reach a fevered pitch. Contributions and affiliation with the Democratic Party will drop off as more and more citizens view the Democratic Party as ineffective and even obstructionist. While this may result in growing defections to third parties and independent voter status, the effect will only entrench the Republican hold on government in following election cycles. Thus the ability through the democratic election process to unseat a minority ruling party will diminish.

The second and final component required to constitute a real threat to democracy in our land is for government through action or inaction, to cause, or be held responsible for, a serious blow to the quality of life of a large minority of citizens outside the party holding power. It does not take a crystal ball to recognize a myriad of situations, economic, international, or domestic which could bring this about. Following are only a few examples. North Korean escalation of nuclear militarism. Outbreak of U.S. developed biological weapon like the anthrax released not long ago. Prolonged escalation and growth of terrorism. Growth of the American anarchist movement. Failure by the American system to successfully make the transition away from manufacturing. Attempts by the U.S., EU, Russia or China to militarize responses to changes in economic trading inequities. A series of serious terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. Or something as simple as the growth of a black market based on identity theft from citizen’s mailboxes all across America.

With a one party government which we already have in large part and are likely to continue for another 4 years, and any events like those listed above, we could generate the kind of patriotic movement by unrepresented Americans who demand revolution to take down the one party unresponsive government in the hopes of installing one which will be far more representative and responsive to majority demands and needs. Since the electoral process will be unable to change the one party system, only one option will be left to those demanding change. That option may only be that chosen by the colonialists to throw off the yoke of the British one King system of rule.

The stage is set. November of 2004 will tell if the one party actors remain on that stage. And all that remains for a revolutionary demise of our democracy will be an ill fated event that demonstrates to a large minority of citizens that the one party system has failed and will continue to fail generations to come, if citizens do not take action to alter the course of a minority one party rule in America. The British regarded the colonialist activists as terrorists. American history judged them great patriots. No doubt, if this play is presented as written above, the activists will be called both, and the polarization in America will be devastating until resolution is brought forth.

10:51:41 AM  Google It!  -Comments, Replys?-  trackback []

by David R. Remer   Political News & Analysis

Secrecy in government is antithetical to democracy. Our Constitution carefully attempts to make government employee’s actions, from the President on down, accountable to the people, or their elected representatives. Yet, in this complicated world where evil intentions are planned and executed in secret, our government must have secrecy as a tool to be used to fend off harm planned for American citizens, both at home and abroad. Thus, the issue of secrecy in government is not whether our democracy should permit it or not; the issue is how much secrecy and how much oversight?

In the headlines this week is a BBC article entitled 'Justice denied’ at Guantanamo. This article raises the issue of whether the Supreme Court of our land should review the legality of holding 100’s of individuals, incommunicado and indefinitely, without being charged with any crimes, without judicial review of the justification for their being jailed, without legal representation, and without speedy trial and determination of their fate. U.S. law permits such events to take place during times of war. Currently, the detention is legal. But, as our history shows many times over, legal does not mean right, nor does legal mean that a law conforms to the checks and balances designed into our Constitution.

The recent issue of leaks allegedly from the Whitehouse, exposing a CIA undercover operative as a means of obtaining political retribution, seriously raises the stakes in the issue of government secrecy. For if the serious leaks like this now occur, the argument will and is being made that secrecy must be even more secret. That is to say, that even fewer representatives of the people, if any, should have access to what is secret. If this argument is acted upon, the government will become less accountable to the people for its actions and pose a serious undermining of the Constitution of the U.S.

In the 103rd Congress, a study was done on secrecy in government, and the PDF summary of that document is highly recommended reading for all voters in America. In the summary, our representatives conclude,

The best way to ensure that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced overall.

The Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) was signed into law on July 4, 1964, by President L.B. Johnson. A short and easily read history of the FOIA through 1996 was issued by the Society of Professional Journalists. Following is an excerpt of great importance to the subject of government secrecy:

The act had only one day to go before dying of presidential neglect in the form of a pocket veto.

Hardly an auspicious beginning for a law that spawned parallel "sunshine laws" in all 50 states. A law that has served as a model for nations around the world trying to make government more accessible and accountable to their citizens. A law that set out to make manifest the Jeffersonian principle of an informed citizenry.

Thirty years later, the friends of FOIA in official Washington remain few and far between and the complaints familiar: The FOIA is an unwelcome drain on scarce resources. It is overused by prisoners and aliens to overtax the system. It is abused by lawyers to circumvent court discovery rules. It is employed by businesses to gain unfair advantage over competitors. It is exploited by journalists to invade personal privacy and endanger national security.

Those complaints aside, the FOIA has compelled federal agencies to yield millions of documents relating to government operations and performance. Every week, a news organization, scholar or public-interest group somewhere reports information of significance to public health or safety or good governance - based on material gleaned from FOIA requests.

The history of the FOIA reveals an interesting political fact regarding secrecy in government. A Democrat signed the bill into law. In the link above it is reported that the FOIA

worked more fitfully and slowly during the 1980s, when administration policy confounded much of the act’s intentions.

Then, in October of 1993, President Clinton issued a memo to department and agency heads mandating a new attitude toward the FOIA. "The act is a vital part of the participatory system of government," Clinton said to the officials. "I am committed to enhancing its effectiveness in my administration."

At the same time, Attorney General Janet Reno reversed a Department of Justice policy established in 1981. She said that the department no longer would defend an agency’s denial of an FOIA request merely because there was a "substantial legal basis" for doing so.

Today, again under a Republican administration, Eweek reports on the Privacy Threat Index (PTI) stating: "Used to track the growing threat to privacy from expanding government surveillance, the PTI level currently is at orange--or "high"--because of ongoing invasive search techniques used by the government." Concluding Eweek’s article is the following statement: "When government employees are able to cloak their work in secrecy, the threat not only to privacy but also to civil rights must be made a top priority."

Under President Bush’s administration, The Patriot Act, and it’s proposed enhancement Patriot Act II, reflect a greater role for secrecy in government, less accountability by the people’s representatives, and therefore, a greater potential threat to American liberties. With secrecy comes abuse of power. What is the one thing all perpetrators of crime seek? Keeping their identity secret, is the answer. Under the Patriot Act, government employees are to varying degrees free to pursue the application of the powers of their office while cloaking their identity and their actions with the Patriot Act. Already journalists are uncovering alleged abuses of the Patriot Act by government officials. CBS News reports in an article entitled Patriot Act Abuses Seen,

Over the six-month period that ended in June, the Justice Department's inspector general found 34 complaints of rights violations that appeared credible, reports The New York Times. Some of the charges have yet to be fully investigated. Not all the complaints concerned physical abuse.

The report has been provided to Congress and will soon be publicly released. The complaints concern the way the Justice Department has enforced the 2001 Patriot Act, a law passed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks that granted wider powers to federal law enforcement officers to conduct surveillance and detain immigrants.

An 2600 News article reporting a photographer’s tale of abuse under the Patriot Act provides an eloquent example of how abuse of the Act can take place. Whether one believes the photographer’s account or not, his story highlights perfectly how safeguards against such abuse are needed. For if his account is true, the powers of the Patriot Act provide the means for abusers to conceal their abuses. It is no safeguard that the Inspector General for the Justice Department, charged with investigating abuses of the Patriot Act, is employed by the very Justice Department that exercises the powers of the Patriot Act. The potential for cover up of abuse constitutes a real threat to civil liberties of American citizens.

The threats posed by growing secrecy in our government may be very long-lived. The war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks and which spawned the Patriot Act, is one that the U.S. will be fighting for decades. The root causes of terrorism like fundamentalism, patriotism, a global marketplace for small arms and explosive devices, poverty, lack of education and sustainable living standards, will not be quickly or easily eradicated if they ever are. Therefore, the war on terrorism is one we will be engaged in for at least the next generation or two of young Americans. Therefore, the threats and potential for abuses of our liberties and civil rights enjoyed prior to 9/11, shall be with us for decades.

Americans are divided on this issue. Many feel that some liberty lost is a small price to pay in the prevention of catastrophic lethal and maiming attacks upon American citizens. Others feel that life is inherently dangerous, driving vehicles, walking the neighborhood, spending time in a hospital, or visiting a local convenience store at the wrong time while a robbery commences. These may argue that there never can be such a level of security as to protect Americans from harm and that the threat of abuse toward, and loss of, civil liberties, constitutes as great a threat upon their sense of security in America as terrorist acts do for those willing to sacrifice freedom.

If history since the signing of the Freedom of Information Act is any indication, those who vote on this issue alone, and who fear terrorists will likely want to vote Republican. Those who fear abuse of power and threat to American freedoms and civil liberties will likely want to vote Democratic or Green. There is no question secrecy can enhance police power. There is also no question that secrecy is the most sought after goal of those who would circumvent laws and abuse power. It is an issue Americans may want to consider in the voting booths in November of 2004.

10:35:08 AM    -Comments, Replys?-  trackback []

by David Remer   Political News & Analysis

I received an email regarding a news item I posted elsewhere, entitled Chinese Girl's Toil Brings Pain, Not Riches. The story reflects inequities between standards in the work force in the U.S. and the plight of Chinese workers. The email claimed we should start making plans for war with China to free those people under that horrible Communist system.

Absent a history of the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. and rise of the super capitalists from the close of the Civil War through to the stock market crash of 1929, it is easy to view the oncoming interaction between the U.S. and China in such black and white simplistic terms as exemplified by the author of that email. Absent an understanding of the cultural and demographic differences between the U.S. and China, it is possible to view China now and in the future as a greater threat than the USSR during the post WWII era. Should a President today, or in the future, fall prey to such ignorance, the world as we know it may be lost.

China has over 1 billion people, more than 3 times the U.S. population. Just a few decades ago, China was largely agricultural with 100's of millions of self sustaining farms and villages. Life expectancy was far lower than in the U.S., life was hard and the monetary system did not even reach the majority of those self sustaining farms. In just 60 years China has come from virtual medieval standards of living into the 20th century. This kind of growth in the U.S. was accomplished through sweatshops in the garment district that spanned decades. Through sharecropping labor that just met subsistence living standards. The U.S. brutalized children in the labor force, breaking their backs and their spirits during the industrial age of the North and in the coal mines of the South.

This history was all part of the transition in the U.S. from an agriculturally based economy to an industrial based economy. Such a history of industrialization was not unique to America. Great Britain and most of the modern free European nations on the west side of the iron curtain experienced similar exploitation of the work force in their transition to an industrial economy.

While it is heartbreaking to read of child labor in China especially through the eyes of a young girl, we must not forget that our own prosperity and burgeoning middle class with comfortable 41.2 hour work weeks and two cars, home, DVD players and PC's, resulted from moving the agricultural workers into industrial jobs and using labor as a cheap consumable to grow the capitalist enterprises that would employ ever more and more farm workers in the cities. It is just such a transition that is taking place in China but at an accelerated rate, since, they have almost a magnitude of order more people to move from the farm into productive industrial and technological positions than the U.S. had during its industrial growth period.

China has no other option but to make this transition from agricultural to industrial/technological economy. Millions of Chinese were starving a little more than a decade ago. China faced another revolution and civil war had it not laid plans to move the people in China into the 21st century with all of the benefits that a modern economy can offer. The people of China are demanding more freedom, more prosperity, and more security. China's government has made believers of its people and for the most part, the people have faith and trust in their government to guide their nation into the 21st Century world marketplace. It is difficult, but, the Chinese people are seeing more democracy in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. And more democracy is promised. They are seeing more jobs and money is becoming common place even in many rural villages.

It is a mistake, a very great and grave mistake, for Americans to superimpose their current worker and work place values on China as it experiences the same transition today that the U.S. has now placed deep in its history books. There is no question, that current trade imbalances between the U.S. and many nations undergoing this transition from agriculture to industrial and technological economies are hurting the job growth in America and forcing the U.S. to give up its hold on manufacturing for the world marketplace. To politicize and base foreign policy on the negative trade imbalances in America is easy game for politicians. It is seductively easy for politicians to use the trade imbalances as a means of creating the illusion of predatorial third world nations and painting American workers as victims. Such an illusion will not however lead to any solution for American workers. The third world’s only resource to enter the global marketplace and the 21st Century is cheap labor. They must exploit it or cease to exist economically.

Further, if such an illusion is used to create a hostile foreign policy toward China, which has a well developed nuclear arsenal and is eyeing military objectives in space, a new era of nuclear brinkmanship will inevitably result; one which the world may not survive. Americans must make intelligent choices at the ballot box in November of 2004 and beyond. And American political leaders must yield manufacturing to other growing countries since, we can no longer be competitive in that arena. The U.S. must make its own transition from manufacturing to technology, innovation, and services which can be marketed globally.

It is one thing for the American people to elect political pundits who have no experience in government or Hollywood stars with lots of money to be Governor of California. The world will survive a poor choice there. It is quite another issue should the American people so cavalierly vote in a President with a similar lack of credentials. The world, including the U.S., may not survive it.

3:47:29 AM  Google It!  -Comments, Replys?-  trackback []