As masterful as President Obama's health care speech was, he operates in a nation that is increasingly losing the capacity to govern itself. The blurt of the loutish South Carolina Republican congressman, calling the president a liar, something I have never heard in listening to presidential addresses before that body since JFK...well, that's the least of the problem.
Health care reform foundered on the vicious lies of a well-organized minority and, apparently, the simple-mindedness of the American people (all manipulated by the health industries' hundreds of millions of lobbying dollars). The side dish was the ongoing hyperventilation over the president's citizenship or lack thereof. Then came the hysteria over his "indoctrination" of schoolchildren from a harmless speech (two other presidents have done this, with no controversy). All this from a minority of nuts -- and their reactionary masters -- who nonetheless dominated the television from which most Americans get their "news." This is how we spent our summer. One would never know who won the election last fall.
Think of all we're not discussing. Not even thinking about as a nation.
1. Afghanistan. Parallels with Vietnam have been easy ammo in the foreign policy debates of the past 40 years, but they stick more and more here. A central government that controls less and less of the country, is corrupt and lacks legitimacy. An open-ended military commitment with Stanley McChrystal sounding more and more like William Westmoreland. Reluctant allies. An insurgency that keeps growing. Unfortunately, this situation is even more troubled, with religious extremism, tribalism and a nuclear-armed Pakistan thrown in. Which leads to...
2. The cost of empire. China is happy to watch America bankrupt itself being the world's policeman. Things are less salutary here at home, where our infrastructure, economy or society are not positioned to compete effectively in the 21st century. Military spending is approaching Cold War highs in dollar terms; our last exporting triumph is selling arms to the world, and our military is far, far overstretched. Considering how many young people have no other opportunity awaiting them but enlistment, this might not seem so bad -- just keep increasing the force. Except we're trillions of dollars in debt to the world, including nations who are geopolitical competitors or adversaries. Those flashpoints will only grow in a world destabilized by climate change and diminishing resources, especially oil. It's not sustainable. Which brings us to...
3. What else can we do? Alliances and containment that worked so well in the Cold War are far less effective today. Afghanistan is ripping apart NATO, or worse -- making it irrelevant. Yet can we afford to do what a bankrupt Britain did in 1968, when it made its famous pullback "east of Suez," marking the true end of empire and world power? Then the U.S. was there as superpower: an economic colossus, still ahead of national peak oil, our finances sparkling and middle class strong. Now might our money be better spent on such things as port security, covert operations, a strong Navy and effective work with allies and allies of convenience? Fortress America was wrong the first time. Is it a better approach, properly configured, now? (Our NATO "allies" would crap their pants if they really had to shoulder some real burdens). Would we, as a consequence, be willing to build a nation that is less dependent on oil -- for much of our military has become a petro police force and merely inflames the likes of Iran. Could we isolate radical Islam? And could we encourage/force Israel to make a just peace with the Palestinians? I don't know, but we're not discussing this.
4. The coming socio-economic crackup. Americans ended the past decade with lower median household income than in 1999. This is the first time this has happened in modern American history. And this was not a decade of depression, but rather one dominated by the "boom" from unfettered "free-market" ideology: deregulation, offshoring, tax cuts for the wealthiest, no (real) taxes paid by corporations, etc. The result is a poorer nation -- deeply in debt well before Obama was sworn in -- a hollowed-out economy and millions who will not enjoy a better life than their parents. Can we make the educational, infrastructure and economic changes -- including renegotiating bad trade agreements -- to turn this around? Or is the crackup baked in the cake, with unpredictable consequences.
Self-government begins to die, of course, when a nation's elites become enervated and corrupt. That's certainly happening with the unprecedented corporate control over public policy -- and at the worst possible time. Of course, some Framers were in the pocket of the slave economy but hardly all, and even among these were Madison and Jefferson. The Progressives counted among their most effective members the most bitter of rivals: Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. We have nothing like that independence, (small r) republican vigor or selflessness today. Today's status quo has made the elites richer than God -- why would they seek to dismantle it?
But the death is also accompanied by ignorance and apathy among the people. Here the media, especially electronic news-o-tainment but also the press, are considerably to blame. So, too, is the lack of instruction in civics and history in our schools. The sickness goes deeper. The complexity of our challenges, the size of the nation, the power of the moneyed elites -- all make this experiment brought forth by our fathers more at risk than ever.
What the Afghans want is capitalism. Teach a man to fish, and all that. Set every man-jack of them up with his own Orange Julius stand, I say.
You might ask who would buy the product if everyone owned his own business, or how most of them could afford regular patronage of the novelty beverage market, much less up-front franchise costs. Fair questions.
A World Bank loan (backed by the United States) would take care of the seed money. Occupying troops (U.S. and NATO -- currently numbering in excess of 100,000) would provide a captive market.
In the event of troop reductions, the Afghans could let-off a little bomb or two, to bring them back. A sample media release by the Taliban:
Dearest Infidels,
We deeply regret the necessity of our recent actions, but third-quarter sales are weak. We demand that you take immediate steps to improve revenue...also that you stop meddling in the affairs of Muslim nations, etc.
For a limited time, a complimentary plate of buttered eggs is included with every purchase: large, soft creamy clots, like Roedean schoolgirls, yum.
...Oh yes, almost forgot: "Allahu akbar".
Fondly yours,
The Taliban
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | September 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Obama's explicit promise - that by changing our tone we would change our nation - has failed. The large crackpot minority rules by sheer force of decibel and spittle. The media dutifully and evenhandedly report the "debate". It just happens to take place between the utterly unhinged and whoever happens to be the latest Democratic president.
There is no rescue in this imperial crack-up. We kept organizing ourselves around the most plausible enemy. Over here, The Evil Empire. Over there, Islamo-fascism. Yet the most potent enemy was here at home, where liberalism had ruined everything by giving black people too many rights.
That's why our economic elites are so comforting. In our white skin, we find not only kinship but purpose. We can return to a better time by imagining ourselves stalwart and engaged, a nation of yeoman farmers (as it were) pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps without government handouts. Now, if we just keep those damnable liberal hands off our Medicare.
Posted by: soleri | September 11, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Soleri's comments are interesting, in light of a statistic I read today in the Friday, September 11th issue of The State Press, ASU's campus newspaper.
The statistic appeared in an article entitled "ASU attracting record number of Hispanic Scholars", and included a quote from James Rund, Senior Vice-President of University Initiatives, who had just mentioned that many of ASU's National Hispanic Scholars are Arizona Natives:
"Hispanics make up about 50 percent of school-aged children in Arizona."
If true, what does such a statistic bode for the future of Arizona politics: not merely with respect to the issue of immigration reform and policy, but in terms of Arizona's political development? Hispanics are demographically more likely to vote Democratic, as are young voters.
In the time it takes these children to mature (a decade or so) we may see remarkable changes in Arizona's political dynamic.
One wonders, also, about the results of similar demographic changes in certain other parts of the country. Could we actually witness the beginning of a "blue revolution" changing the face of American politics?
How will neo-convervatives respond to this, as they inevitably must if they wish to preserve their political viability? Will they shift to the left, or is it more likely that media and academic campaigns to condition the political thinking of the population will incorporate changes intended to target the sensibilities and biases of Hispanic youth, perhaps attempting to link cultural identification (e.g., appeals to religion since many Hispanics are Roman Catholic) to broader Republican political platforms? Will this be enough?
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | September 11, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Speaking of national debates we're not having, single-payer healthcare is one of them: once again, political pressure (brought by powerful economic forces) has all but removed it from the table of debate.
Physicians For A National Health Program has an excellent review of legislation proposed by Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (Similar legislation has been introduced by Rep. John Conyers, with the difference that the program would be administered federally instead of by the states.)
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/27/sen-bernie-sanders-introduces-single-payer-bill/
What is the future of democracy in a country where the terms of debate have been hijacked by credulous and ignorant individuals afraid to let the president address schoolchildren, much less to let adults debate real healthcare reform?
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | September 11, 2009 at 06:53 PM