The Orwellian Right loves to claim that income tax cuts, especially for the rich, make the rich pay more, and such cuts even bring in more revenue. It's a counter-intuitive claim but the Right makes it all the time. However, if you scratch your head wondering about such claims, then your intuition is right. The claim is untrue. It's the only way to sell irresponsible tax cuts which bring home the bacon to the rich, the only constituency the Right cares about, and secretly sabotaging the US Treasury.
To convince the ever-gullible True Believers on the Right, the Orwellian Right disinformation industry has a history of grotesque dishonesty. The Orwellian Right so wants to convince us tax cuts create revenue booms, they routinely include revenue from other presidents, and even have included revenue from other tax hikes. The Right claims there was a revenue boom after the so-called JFK tax cuts LBJ pushed in 1964... thru 1969. They just don't mention the three tax HIKES during that period. In the Reagan years the Orwellian Right swept under the rug two massive tax hikes in 1982 and 1983 and counted that revenue as "proof" the 1981 tax cuts brought in massive amounts of revenue. Yes, that's what they want us to believe. And if there were deficits they lie and blame Democrats for spending the bounty. But there was no revenue boom. In constant, inflation-controlled dollars, even with these tax hikes, Reagan's revenue only increased about 13.5% over his eight years.
If we're to go on a Snipe Hunt looking for such revenue booms we need to look at the specific tax being cut and then look for growth in that area. Since most of the Right's favorite tax cuts are cuts in the federal income tax, it would be unfair to look for revenue in other areas like FICA or corporate taxes. We should at income tax revenues.
But since we're looking at revenue effects over time, there are two variables at work here... inflation which is easy to correct for, and % of GDP, that is the size of the economy these revenues represent. That's a topic for another time.
Here's a look at Bush individual income tax revenues compared to Clinton's last year (FY00) correcting for inflation.
Numbers are from Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE of the US Historical Budget Tables.
Since this source does NOT correct for inflation in this chart, I used the inflation calculator at
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm to convert to constant 2005 dollars in billions.
Using constant 2005 dollars means revenue from years before the target year will inflate in value, those after will deflate. Column one is the fiscal year. Column 2 is income tax revenue in CURRENT dollars collected that year. Column 3 is revenue in billions of 2005 CONSTANT dollars. It could be argued that FY01 is Clinton's last year since the fiscal year began when Clinton was still in office. But Bush's 2001 EGGTRA tax cut was retroactive to Jan 1, 2001.
2000 1004.462 = 1139.206 Clinton's last year.
2001 994.339 = 1096.524
2002 858.345 = 931.822
2003 793.699 = 842.442
2004 808.959 = 836.370
2005 927.222 = 927.222
2006 1043.908 = 1011.285
2007 1163.472 = 1095.899
2008 1145.747 = 1039.299
If my math is correct, what we see is that even after eight years, at the end of Bush's term income tax rates were cut so irresponsibly those income tax revenues NEVER AGAIN EXCEEDED CLINTON'S LAST YEAR. I'm sure some readers will see 8 years of declining income tax revenues as "proof" tax cuts create revenue booms.
But then some people will believe anything.
ulTRAX
revised 10-13-12
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, September 17, 2012
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Time For A Budget SURPLUS Amendment
Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). It's a cynical political ploy by the GOP. It leaves them free to pass all the irresponsible cut taxes they want while handcuffing the Democrats from restoring taxes to responsible levels or even raising them if needed.
The BBA is part of the GOP's larger strategy to sabotage the finances of government, to create massive deficits/debt hoping an eventual fiscal crisis will undermine signature Democratic safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As if that wasn't bad enough, it leaves the matter of the national debt unresolved… setting in cement the theft by our generation of some now $15 trillion from future tax payers… and by that I mean our kids and grand kids. The interest alone last FY was over $450 billion and $2.9 TRILLION was pissed away on interest during the Bush years alone.
We need to stop playing these budget games. Both Democrats and the GOP use the unified budget to conceal internal borrowing from the trust funds to make the real deficit look smaller. It's the on-budget deficit that gives us the true picture.
What is needed is a no games On-Budget SURPLUS Amendment to restrain both reckless spending AND reckless tax cuts by all sides and force them to finally pay down our enormous debt which now is about $16 trillion dollars.
The task ahead is daunting. Even if we ran an annual $500 billion surplus, something that didn't even happen in the best Clinton years, it would take us now some 32 years to pay down the debt. That neither political party sees the moral outrage in this situation is a damning indictment against our morally bankrupt and intellectually braindead political system.
ulTRAX
updated 9-17-12
The BBA is part of the GOP's larger strategy to sabotage the finances of government, to create massive deficits/debt hoping an eventual fiscal crisis will undermine signature Democratic safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As if that wasn't bad enough, it leaves the matter of the national debt unresolved… setting in cement the theft by our generation of some now $15 trillion from future tax payers… and by that I mean our kids and grand kids. The interest alone last FY was over $450 billion and $2.9 TRILLION was pissed away on interest during the Bush years alone.
We need to stop playing these budget games. Both Democrats and the GOP use the unified budget to conceal internal borrowing from the trust funds to make the real deficit look smaller. It's the on-budget deficit that gives us the true picture.
What is needed is a no games On-Budget SURPLUS Amendment to restrain both reckless spending AND reckless tax cuts by all sides and force them to finally pay down our enormous debt which now is about $16 trillion dollars.
The task ahead is daunting. Even if we ran an annual $500 billion surplus, something that didn't even happen in the best Clinton years, it would take us now some 32 years to pay down the debt. That neither political party sees the moral outrage in this situation is a damning indictment against our morally bankrupt and intellectually braindead political system.
ulTRAX
updated 9-17-12
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
So Where's That Conservative Nirvana?
These past 30 years the rich, corporations, and Wall Street have gotten just about EVERYTHING they wanted… tax cuts for the filthy rich and big reductions on capital gains taxes... the destruction of most unions... free trade deal to exploit cheap and slave labor overseas... corporate welfare... two wars fought on the credit card... the deregulation of banks, mass media, and commodities. They sabotaged government revenue with irresponsible tax cuts and Free Trade sabotaged the industrial base of America. Their privatization efforts in Iraq milked taxpayers for $100k+ a year private contractor jobs that our military should have been doing for a fifth that. They encouraged us to place our life savings in the hands of sociopathic predators on Wall Street whose greed and hubris was so great they didn't just bring down their own banks, they brought down our entire economy... almost the world's.
ALL THE EVIDENCE IS NOW IN, and it’s these conservative/neo-liberal policies have proven to be a DISASTER. At least some neo-libs like Clinton now have some regrets about free trade and deregulation. Clinton got us to a balanced budget only to have it quickly sabotaged by Bush to prevent debt paydown. Do you ever hear ANY regrets from the far Right or the crazed Tea Baggers for supporting policies that created more debt and brought the economy down?
Above was just the beginning of the Right's proposed insanity. The Tea Party sociopaths in Congress are now demanding policies even MORE insane than the above. Grover Norquist on 60 Minutes last Sunday again went on record his goal is to shrink the federal government down to about 8% of GDP. That means the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and just about all of the social safety net plus those regulatory agencies that protect us from the more malignant aspects of capitalism. Quite literally it's the rolling back of the 20th Century.
The Right has shown they are willing to become fiscal terrorists threatening to blow up the system if they are not allowed to inflict even MORE damage. They are blind to the fact that they have gotten most of what they wanted these past 30 years and there's still no Conservative Nirvana, that is except for the rich. They blame their failures on not being extreme enough. And these lunatics are saying they can be trusted to fix our system?
If anyone should be reforming our system, it's those whose instincts were sound in OPPOSING all of the above insanity… people on the LEFT.
updated 10-14-12
ulTRAX
ALL THE EVIDENCE IS NOW IN, and it’s these conservative/neo-liberal policies have proven to be a DISASTER. At least some neo-libs like Clinton now have some regrets about free trade and deregulation. Clinton got us to a balanced budget only to have it quickly sabotaged by Bush to prevent debt paydown. Do you ever hear ANY regrets from the far Right or the crazed Tea Baggers for supporting policies that created more debt and brought the economy down?
Above was just the beginning of the Right's proposed insanity. The Tea Party sociopaths in Congress are now demanding policies even MORE insane than the above. Grover Norquist on 60 Minutes last Sunday again went on record his goal is to shrink the federal government down to about 8% of GDP. That means the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and just about all of the social safety net plus those regulatory agencies that protect us from the more malignant aspects of capitalism. Quite literally it's the rolling back of the 20th Century.
The Right has shown they are willing to become fiscal terrorists threatening to blow up the system if they are not allowed to inflict even MORE damage. They are blind to the fact that they have gotten most of what they wanted these past 30 years and there's still no Conservative Nirvana, that is except for the rich. They blame their failures on not being extreme enough. And these lunatics are saying they can be trusted to fix our system?
If anyone should be reforming our system, it's those whose instincts were sound in OPPOSING all of the above insanity… people on the LEFT.
updated 10-14-12
ulTRAX
Monday, November 07, 2011
It's Time For An ANTI-NORQUIST PATRIOT PLEDGE!!!
The Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge is the lynchpin that holds the GOP's fiscally irresponsible GOP policies together. It's time the Democrats target this pledge by demanding they sign a counter pledge similar to the below:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I seek. While in office my primary obligation is to those I represent and to the People of the United States.
I further affirm that I will not let commitments, oaths, or pledges made to others restrict my ability to arrive at the best policy decisions or come before my sworn obligations stated above.
Signed___________________
revised 10-15-12
ulTRAX
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I seek. While in office my primary obligation is to those I represent and to the People of the United States.
I further affirm that I will not let commitments, oaths, or pledges made to others restrict my ability to arrive at the best policy decisions or come before my sworn obligations stated above.
Signed___________________
revised 10-15-12
ulTRAX
Friday, October 28, 2011
A Proposal For An Occupy Wall Street Manifesto
The term traitor has both legal and moral definitions. In the moral sense, we hold the following to be TRAITORS to the United States and its People.
1: Politicians in BOTH parties who passed irresponsible tax cuts with the deliberate intent of creating massive debt as a backdoor way to undermine our social safety net. This has not just created massive interest payments... almost $3 trillion alone in the Bush years, stolen from trillions from our children, but also sabotaged government's ability to respond to emergencies.
2: Politicians in BOTH parties who put ideology over common sense and passed free trade which exported our jobs and undermined our economy and standard of living to benefit a few corporate investors. This has not only undermined our defense industry but is now crippling our economic recovery.
3: Politicians in BOTH parties who permitted advanced technology transfers to Red China and have allowed the US to become financially indebted to the Red Chinese who now have the power to destabilize the US. In a mere 15 years we have undermined our own economy and created a powerful economic and military rival.
4: Politicians in BOTH parties who deregulated the banks and commodity sectors letting the greedy predators run wild to prey on homeowners, small investors, and our retirement funds. They have robbed our youth of a future. They sabotaged the productive parts of our economy and allowed it to be replaced with irresponsible speculation and gambling. Like in 1929 this ultimately crashed the entire economy.
5: Politicians in BOTH parties who bailed out Wall Street predators and thieves without massively reforming our economic system so the Crash Of 2008 could never happen again.
6: Politicians in BOTH parties who refused to bring these predators and thieves to justice and allowed them to keep wealth they stole from the rest of us.
7: Politicians in BOTH parties who have refused to try to free us being held hostage to foreign oil from a hostile region of the world.
8: Politicians in BOTH parties who for political gain got the US bogged down in illegal wars of aggression... weakening our military and economy while undermining US credibility around the world, then passed the bill on to our children.
If our ENEMIES had done this to our nation, all real patriots would have declared war on these traitors long ago. Our goal is to REVERSE THE ABOVE and see that those who did this to our nations are either punished in elections or by the law!!
1: Politicians in BOTH parties who passed irresponsible tax cuts with the deliberate intent of creating massive debt as a backdoor way to undermine our social safety net. This has not just created massive interest payments... almost $3 trillion alone in the Bush years, stolen from trillions from our children, but also sabotaged government's ability to respond to emergencies.
2: Politicians in BOTH parties who put ideology over common sense and passed free trade which exported our jobs and undermined our economy and standard of living to benefit a few corporate investors. This has not only undermined our defense industry but is now crippling our economic recovery.
3: Politicians in BOTH parties who permitted advanced technology transfers to Red China and have allowed the US to become financially indebted to the Red Chinese who now have the power to destabilize the US. In a mere 15 years we have undermined our own economy and created a powerful economic and military rival.
4: Politicians in BOTH parties who deregulated the banks and commodity sectors letting the greedy predators run wild to prey on homeowners, small investors, and our retirement funds. They have robbed our youth of a future. They sabotaged the productive parts of our economy and allowed it to be replaced with irresponsible speculation and gambling. Like in 1929 this ultimately crashed the entire economy.
5: Politicians in BOTH parties who bailed out Wall Street predators and thieves without massively reforming our economic system so the Crash Of 2008 could never happen again.
6: Politicians in BOTH parties who refused to bring these predators and thieves to justice and allowed them to keep wealth they stole from the rest of us.
7: Politicians in BOTH parties who have refused to try to free us being held hostage to foreign oil from a hostile region of the world.
8: Politicians in BOTH parties who for political gain got the US bogged down in illegal wars of aggression... weakening our military and economy while undermining US credibility around the world, then passed the bill on to our children.
If our ENEMIES had done this to our nation, all real patriots would have declared war on these traitors long ago. Our goal is to REVERSE THE ABOVE and see that those who did this to our nations are either punished in elections or by the law!!
Friday, July 29, 2011
IS STARVE THE BEAST TREASON?
Just what is Grover Norquist's strategy of "Starve The Beast"? It was once a fringe far Right wing strategy to use fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon. The GOP would rack up debt with irresponsible tax cuts and reckless spending to benefit their wealthy and corporate constituency. And and when the political pendulum shifted and the Democrats took power, that new debt would restrain them.
Eventually this fiscal irresponsibility would create a financial crisis where the GOP could go in for the kill and go after Democratic programs they knew could never get voters to weaken or kill through the ballot box.
Starve The Beast is now the mainstream in the GOP with the vast majority of GOP representatives and senators having signed Grover Norquist's pledge to pursue this strategy.
Given Starve The Beast calls for the willful sabotaging of government revenues and the creation of massive debt, it is a deliberate attack on the fiscal health of government and affects government's ability deal with emergencies.
At what point does this strategy cross the line into treason? Has it already?
Eventually this fiscal irresponsibility would create a financial crisis where the GOP could go in for the kill and go after Democratic programs they knew could never get voters to weaken or kill through the ballot box.
Starve The Beast is now the mainstream in the GOP with the vast majority of GOP representatives and senators having signed Grover Norquist's pledge to pursue this strategy.
Given Starve The Beast calls for the willful sabotaging of government revenues and the creation of massive debt, it is a deliberate attack on the fiscal health of government and affects government's ability deal with emergencies.
At what point does this strategy cross the line into treason? Has it already?
Monday, June 20, 2011
Proof Reagan's Tax Cuts FAILED As A Stimulus?
Last week Limbaugh was again spouting the Right's nonsense that tax cuts are some magic bullet for the economy as if the evidence wasn't in from the Bush2 years. Tax cuts them failed to either stimulate the economy or inoculate the economy against recession. We might have avoided that mistake if we just went back and learned from an earlier example... the era of Voodoo Economics.
In February 1981 the Reagan admin wrote of their new economic plan
Source... you'll have to construct your own tables here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
As for the actual job creation numbers under Reagan?
FOX says "Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986."
source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
That's it? Even when Fox gives Reagan an extra YEAR, Reagan could not meet his own job creation prediction of 13 million new jobs by 1986 (Jan 86) and was 3.5 MILLION jobs off.
I don't know where FOX got it's 9.5 million new jobs number but at the BLS site http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls you can also run the job numbers.
In February 1981 when that White House reported predicted 13 million new jobs by 1986... the total workforce was estimated to be 108,242,000. In January 1986 the number was 116,682,000.
Where Reagan predicted 13 million jobs... it looks like a mere 8.4 million were created. That's 4.6 MILLION off Reagan's prediction.
Reagonomics was a utter failure yet the Orwellian Right has erased this failure from the minds of GOPers just as they are busy erasing the Bush2 failures.
So why would someone want to deliberately the public believe in a FAILED policy?
Because the REAL intent of these irresponsible tax cuts was NEVER economic stimulus but a reason the far Right can never admit to... to sabotage government revenues and drive up debt hoping to eventually bring us to the point we are at now... where the Right hopes to drive a stake in the heart of all those New Deal and great Society programs they've always loathed. To preserve this strategy the Orwellian Right has rewritten history and turned irresponsible tax cuts not just into a shining success but into a religion. They know fully well facts really don't stand a chance when the Right wing faithful inoculate themselves against them.
ulTRAX
In February 1981 the Reagan admin wrote of their new economic plan
The program we have developed will break that cycle of negative expectations. It will revitalize economic growth, renew optimism and confidence, and rekindle the Nation's entrepreneurial instincts and creativity.In reality, just 5 months later, the economy sank into what was then the worst recession since the 30's. Unemployment hit a peak of 10.8% by December 1982... higher than it was under Obama. The unemployment rate remained over 8% for nearly 2 years, from March 82 through January 84.
The benefits to the average American will be striking. Inflation—which is now at double digit rates—will be cut in half by 1986. The American economy will produce 13 MILLION NEW JOBS by 1986, nearly 3 million more than if the status quo in government policy were to prevail. The economy itself should break out of its anemic growth patterns to a much more robust growth trend of 4 to 5 percent a year. These positive results will be accomplished simultaneously with reducing tax burdens, increasing private saving, and raising the living standard of the American family.
Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43427
Source... you'll have to construct your own tables here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
As for the actual job creation numbers under Reagan?
FOX says "Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986."
source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
That's it? Even when Fox gives Reagan an extra YEAR, Reagan could not meet his own job creation prediction of 13 million new jobs by 1986 (Jan 86) and was 3.5 MILLION jobs off.
I don't know where FOX got it's 9.5 million new jobs number but at the BLS site http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls you can also run the job numbers.
In February 1981 when that White House reported predicted 13 million new jobs by 1986... the total workforce was estimated to be 108,242,000. In January 1986 the number was 116,682,000.
Where Reagan predicted 13 million jobs... it looks like a mere 8.4 million were created. That's 4.6 MILLION off Reagan's prediction.
Reagonomics was a utter failure yet the Orwellian Right has erased this failure from the minds of GOPers just as they are busy erasing the Bush2 failures.
So why would someone want to deliberately the public believe in a FAILED policy?
Because the REAL intent of these irresponsible tax cuts was NEVER economic stimulus but a reason the far Right can never admit to... to sabotage government revenues and drive up debt hoping to eventually bring us to the point we are at now... where the Right hopes to drive a stake in the heart of all those New Deal and great Society programs they've always loathed. To preserve this strategy the Orwellian Right has rewritten history and turned irresponsible tax cuts not just into a shining success but into a religion. They know fully well facts really don't stand a chance when the Right wing faithful inoculate themselves against them.
ulTRAX
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Tax Code And The Citizens United Decision
I assume most of us are troubled by the USSC Citizens United decision. While I’m all in favor of an amendment to clarify that constitutionally a person can only be a NATURAL person not an artificial one, the bar to passing a constitutional amendment is ridiculously high and could take years to pass… if ever.
But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?
What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?
Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.
Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.
Currently a proposal floated by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen does NOT include this approach. You can read their proposal here: http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969
I urge you to contact Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341.
But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?
What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?
Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.
Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.
Currently a proposal floated by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen does NOT include this approach. You can read their proposal here: http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969
I urge you to contact Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Reforming The Anti-democratic US Senate
Contrary to what many believe, the US is not a democracy. And even with a representative government and a constitution, if democratic principles are at the heart of a republic, one could argue the US is not even a republic. Elections 2000 and 2016 again proved that a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed upon our nation. In the Senate, a mere 17% of the population gets 52% of the seats. A president and Senate representing a minority of the population can pack the federal judiciary changing US law forever and enter the US into unwise international treaties. This is insane. Our system violates our founding principle that government derives its JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed.
Our system is not just anti-democratic, it is so absurdly reform proof system that it has set in cement the politics of 1787. In all our history, not ONE of the 27 ratified amendments to the Constitution has in any way changed the anti-democratic nature of our Constitution. Aside from our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system which I’d argue is incapable of measuring the proverbial Will Of The People, the political side of our government only further distorts the public will. I believe this distortion is so pervasive the Constitution and our electoral systems shape public opinion more than the other way around. With all the current dysfunctionality evident in government today, why do we still subscribe to the notion we mere mortals dare not touch what the Framers intended?
The core problem on the political side is the concept of state suffrage… the idea that entities called states deserve equal representation with the People... and those states, regardless of population, deserve an equal vote. At the Constitutional Convention, the small population and slave states insisted this anti-democratic concept be written into the fabric of the Constitution as a condition of ratification. On the legislative side, the larger states would receive more representation in the House but state suffrage was embodied in the Senate where each state, regardless of population, received two senators.
This arrangement made sense in 1787 because they looked at politics through a prism that only STATES mattered. After all, it was those fiercely independent states which were negotiating for that “more perfect union” with each other. However, when one looks at how any individual CITIZEN is represented in our Constitution, a more disturbing picture of our system emerges.
When the Constitution was written the ratio between the largest and smallest population states, Virginia and Delaware respectively, was about 12.6:1. That ratio now between California and Wyoming is about 69:1.
While there aer adjustments in the House with states losing or gaining seats, the Senate formula is absolutely frozen. Delaware in 1787, and Wyoming now, each get their two Senators. And since there are no protections in the Constitution against such demographic trends, each state will get their two senators regardless if the ratio becomes 100:1 or 1,000:1. Today the Senate has become perhaps the most anti-democratic and most dysfunctional legislative body on the planet.
Let’s be more precise: states are not represented by two senators, the PEOPLE of each state are represented by two Senators. This was made more evident with the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913. It permitted for the first time direct popular elections for each state’s senators. Any citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming now has nearly 70X the influence in the Senate than any citizen in California. What’s wrong with this picture? Such vote weighting/dilution schemes are ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.
We’ve been brought up to believe that this Senate/House arrangement is fair because any given citizen in, say, California, is somehow represented by ALL their state delegation. In reality, no citizen votes for ALL the representatives of their state as one does for a Senator. Citizens can vote for only ONE Representative and only ONE represents any given citizen… not their entire state delegation of 53 Representatives.
One might think that solving the problem of the anti-democratic Senate might require a constitutional amendment… a formula that itself is bizarre. It requires a high bar of ¾ of the states to ratify, but since 1820, the ¾ smallest states that could ratify any amendment have contained LESS than 50% of the population! In fact, the 12 smallest states that could thwart any amendment today represent a mere 4% of the population and it might be as low as 2%, a slim majority in those states. However, it’s not just a matter that the small states would object to any such amendment, it’s that the Constitution has an enormous poison pill which protects the Senate against all attempts to reform it short of a Constitutional Convention.
Article V includes this language "...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This situation is so bizarre than one proposal to get around this insurmountable roadblock suggested the extraordinary measure to break up the larger states to create 75 states.
I believe that proposal is unlikely to gain any support. American identity is too tied to state residence. Short of a Constitutional Convention I don’t see ANY way to make the Senate more democratic… except possibly through the backdoor.
Under the Article 1, Section 5 each house is free to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings” as well as be the judge of the “qualifications” of their own members.
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
When in the Constitution the requirements for votes in either body are mentioned, say to override a presidential veto, we see language such as: If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
While implied, I can find no specific mention that the total vote MUST represent a single vote for each senator or representative… only some ratio is given. Is there an opening here?
But what about Article 5 which states “...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Suffrage is merely the right to vote and this section seems to imply that all senate votes should weigh the same. But is there an opening here too?
Until some high profile voting rights cases in the 1960’s, the concept of popular suffrage in US history never guaranteed one person one vote. Sadly, those court cases which established this principle did NOT apply to the Constitution itself which remains the last bastion of vote weighting/dilution schemes in the US. That citizens in the large states quietly accept this situation is a tribute to our secular religion that teaches, ours is the best political system in the world. And despite the fact citizens have suffrage, given our federal structure the weight of representation behind each vote varies by state. A citizen in WY has about a 70x "bigger" vote in the Senate and amendment process.
Given this legal context where the representational "weight" of individual suffrage varies by state, why has the concept of state suffrage remained sacrosanct? Can the concept of state suffrage be modified in ways we’ve not yet thought of to CORRECT the undemocratic nature of the Senate? While it’s politically improbable, could the rules of the Senate be rewritten so the vote of each Senator is weighted to represent 1/2 of their state’s total population? The population numbers would come from US Census annual state population estimates. In this corrective vote weighting scheme each state would technically retain equal suffrage to vote.
We now have FOUR Justices on the Supreme Court, three under Trump, ratified by Senators representing less than 50% of the US population. Weighting each Senators vote by population would ensure NO LAW or political nominee could pass the Senate without the approval of those who represent the MAJORITY of the US population.
As I wrote years ago the currents of antidemocratic government are insidious.
ulTRAX
modified 2-28-21
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama MUST Go For McCain Jugular
John McCain will, of course attack Senator Obama’s strengths. If the attack gets traction, what does Obama have left to sway the undecided?
To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.
Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.
Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...
The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.
What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.
By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.
Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.
ulTRAX
8-27-08
To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.
Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.
Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...
The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.
What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.
By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.
Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.
ulTRAX
8-27-08
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Iraq: So They Will Not Die In Vain part 2
Part One of this series can be found here.
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
Thoughts On The 2ed Amendment
As a gun owner for nearly 30 years I listened with great interest some of the discussion of the Second Amendment during the Supreme Court hearings on March 18th.
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
Friday, March 23, 2007
Iraq: So They Will Not Have Died In Vain...
As with the Vietnam War, the supporters and apologists of Bush’s Iraq debacle have resurrected the tired old arguments that any “early withdrawal” would make a mockery of those in the military who have already sacrificed their lives. In their mind, the only way to honor those sacrifices is to sacrifice more lives and treasure to fulfill the mission. As put by a soldier who wrote an article posted at the conservative Townhall web site:
The above arguments might be seen as logical providing a war is just… where we were attacked first or our national security was truly in jeopardy. Yet I also don’t doubt that even in an unjust war rooted in greed, foolishness, ideological hubris or insanity… such volunteer soldiers such as the author of that Townhall piece may be True Believers. As such they may be predisposed towards a virulent form of patriotic nationalism and uncritical of their national leaders.
But as we all should have learned from WWII, a soldier’s choice to be blind to the obvious lies and delusions of their leaders is never noble and may, in fact, be criminal under international law. The author of this Townhall piece also demonstrates his ideological blinders when he fails to recognized the other possible ways the US could have encouraged democracy in the mid-east, should that ever have been a real goal, WITHOUT an illegal war.
One way was for the US to show the virtues of democracy by actually modeling democracy ourselves. Surely, it’s not lost on even the non-democratic world that in 2000 Bush was originally REJECTED by the People. There was no popular cry for his irresponsible tax cuts, stacking the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologies, or his Son Of Star Wars missile defense. Bush was imposed upon our nation by an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. That Bush refuses to call for the abolition of the EC alone calls into question his commitment to democracy and exposes Bush’s pretenses for his war. Even if we were a truly democratic nation, surely we could have worked with our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms rather than rush to an illegal war or aggression.
Bush’s claims to promote democracy in the mid-east as a way of reducing anti-American hostility can also be exposed as a red herring when we refuse to take more concrete steps to reduce the proven causes for such hostility. We could have forced a fair peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but instead Bush pursued a petulant policy of humiliating the Palestinian people… first by refusing to deal with Arafat then refusing to recognize the elected Hamas government. Bush could have showed true leadership by entering into a Peace & Reconciliation process with all those we’ve wronged in the mid-east. But Bush preferred to portray us as complete victims, shielding the American People from the true cost of our 60-year policy of oil first. Surely those who have been the victims of our policies are not blind to those costs.
And so Bush’s War now begins its 5th year… and the virulent forms of what passes for patriotism on the Right live on. Faced with the reality of US soldiers losing their lives, the peace movement finds the “die in vain” argument difficult to respond to. One response offered by Cindy Sheehan is that the best way to insure that a soldier’s sacrifice was not in vain is to insure no others would died in that immoral war. It’s an interesting argument but I believe misses the mark.
What both sides seem to miss is this simple truth:if a war is unjust or illegal then even if that war is successful, then ALL the deaths and injuries of all the GIs, combatants, and civilians were in vain since the war was unnecessary to begin with.
There is but one way that those sacrifices of our soldiers will not have been in vain… and that is that Bush’s War finally forces us as a nation to deal with what got us into this needless war to begin with. At some point, We The People must confront and break free of the pathological patriotism that feeds such US imperialistic wars. We The People need to confront and break free of those cultural and institutional predilections that make us so susceptible to manipulation by intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders, and their subservient minions in Congress and the media.
Once We The People clean house, bring our own criminal leaders to justice, finally reform this nation’s dysfunctional political institutions, and make peace with those we’ve wronged, perhaps only THEN will those soldiers’ lives truly not have been lost in vain.
revised 3-29-07
5-28-08
ulTRAX
In order to secure the American people, democracy had to be spread to the region because democratic governments are far less prone to going to war and they are far less prone to internal strife and violence. The process couldn't help but be messy, but it was necessary. Obviously, I don't know how this experiment works out, but you do. If Iraq is a democratic nation now, or if Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Kuwait, or one of the others has become democratic, then the war was worth it. However, if we pulled out because we lost too many soldiers and got out in an act of political expediency, then I did die in vain.
The above arguments might be seen as logical providing a war is just… where we were attacked first or our national security was truly in jeopardy. Yet I also don’t doubt that even in an unjust war rooted in greed, foolishness, ideological hubris or insanity… such volunteer soldiers such as the author of that Townhall piece may be True Believers. As such they may be predisposed towards a virulent form of patriotic nationalism and uncritical of their national leaders.
But as we all should have learned from WWII, a soldier’s choice to be blind to the obvious lies and delusions of their leaders is never noble and may, in fact, be criminal under international law. The author of this Townhall piece also demonstrates his ideological blinders when he fails to recognized the other possible ways the US could have encouraged democracy in the mid-east, should that ever have been a real goal, WITHOUT an illegal war.
One way was for the US to show the virtues of democracy by actually modeling democracy ourselves. Surely, it’s not lost on even the non-democratic world that in 2000 Bush was originally REJECTED by the People. There was no popular cry for his irresponsible tax cuts, stacking the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologies, or his Son Of Star Wars missile defense. Bush was imposed upon our nation by an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. That Bush refuses to call for the abolition of the EC alone calls into question his commitment to democracy and exposes Bush’s pretenses for his war. Even if we were a truly democratic nation, surely we could have worked with our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms rather than rush to an illegal war or aggression.
Bush’s claims to promote democracy in the mid-east as a way of reducing anti-American hostility can also be exposed as a red herring when we refuse to take more concrete steps to reduce the proven causes for such hostility. We could have forced a fair peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but instead Bush pursued a petulant policy of humiliating the Palestinian people… first by refusing to deal with Arafat then refusing to recognize the elected Hamas government. Bush could have showed true leadership by entering into a Peace & Reconciliation process with all those we’ve wronged in the mid-east. But Bush preferred to portray us as complete victims, shielding the American People from the true cost of our 60-year policy of oil first. Surely those who have been the victims of our policies are not blind to those costs.
And so Bush’s War now begins its 5th year… and the virulent forms of what passes for patriotism on the Right live on. Faced with the reality of US soldiers losing their lives, the peace movement finds the “die in vain” argument difficult to respond to. One response offered by Cindy Sheehan is that the best way to insure that a soldier’s sacrifice was not in vain is to insure no others would died in that immoral war. It’s an interesting argument but I believe misses the mark.
What both sides seem to miss is this simple truth:if a war is unjust or illegal then even if that war is successful, then ALL the deaths and injuries of all the GIs, combatants, and civilians were in vain since the war was unnecessary to begin with.
There is but one way that those sacrifices of our soldiers will not have been in vain… and that is that Bush’s War finally forces us as a nation to deal with what got us into this needless war to begin with. At some point, We The People must confront and break free of the pathological patriotism that feeds such US imperialistic wars. We The People need to confront and break free of those cultural and institutional predilections that make us so susceptible to manipulation by intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders, and their subservient minions in Congress and the media.
Once We The People clean house, bring our own criminal leaders to justice, finally reform this nation’s dysfunctional political institutions, and make peace with those we’ve wronged, perhaps only THEN will those soldiers’ lives truly not have been lost in vain.
revised 3-29-07
5-28-08
ulTRAX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)