The Right’s Tough

The political and religious right are assuredly the tough guys of U.S. politics – tough, that is, in several invidious and immoral senses of the term. Consider these definitions: “characterized by severity or uncompromising determination . . . very hard to influence: stubborn . . . marked by absence of softness or sentimentality . . . strong and prone to violence.“ In other words, intransigent, brutish ideologues. Their slogan might well be, “Tough luck, losers.”

Despite occasional setbacks, they also seem to have the right stuff when it comes to advancing their political agenda. Rarely have so many gone so far on so little substance – they are so wrong about everything. And rarely have so many been so ineffectual in response to right-wing political bullying. (That’s right, I’m talking about us timid wimps on the political left of center.)

So the right has, over the past 30 years or so, been tough and, probably as a result, generally successful in shifting the U.S. political spectrum way-far to the right. Seismically. Meanwhile, progressive values have been left behind. Just look at the trajectory of the abortion issue: From this vantage point it looks as if a woman’s right to choose is more precarious than at any time since Roe v. Wade. What a travesty of “freedom and justice for all”! More on that in a moment.

So here we are at another crisis point in the endless conflict between left and right, which likely has its roots in human nature. And I can’t help, once again, asking the obvious question: Why is the left in this country so impotent in the face of impending political ruination? Why are we forgetting, or ignoring, the sordid and violent history of right-wing movements? I don’t need to remind you what George Santayana said of people who ignore the past.

Don’t you think it’s shocking how quickly the right recovered from the election debacle of 2008? Just three short years ago Americans were sick of the Bush wrecking-crew ordeal and the McCain-Palin embarrassment. The once proud and vainglorious right looked to be in disarray, down for the count. But overnight, it seems, they shook off the cobwebs, sprung back to their feet, and now they’re again marching in familiar lockstep to martial music and redoubling their efforts to batter down the flimsy barricades protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms. All the while too many on the left are acting as if we’re just engaged in politics as usual. But what I’m seeing is a well-coordinated right-wing power grab playing out once again right in our collective face. And so far, like our calm, cool and collected president, our responses have been far too composed and accommodating.

Case in point: Where is the pushback against the phony “voter-fraud-prevention” legislation Republicans are enacting in at least 17 states? Seems like something along the lines of the prompt and massive reaction to the Komen Foundation’s politically motivated defunding of Planned Parenthood is in order and overdue. Now we hear that the Obama justice department is, at long last, taking “a close look” at all the new restrictions and onerous requirements, only by now it may be too too late. One possible result of their procrastination is that Obama loses the state of Florida and possibly the election. How did the Republicans ever get this far with voter suppression without triggering widespread, vocal opposition?

Dominance of the Religionists

It’s impossible to understand the actions of the political right in the U.S. without also understanding the dominant role played by the religious right. Thus we are treated to the sorry spectacle of Republican presidential candidates pandering to the ignorant fundagelicals, who virtually own the party because of their highly motivated, disproportionate participation in the primaries. Alienate the fundies and your candidacy is doomed. Which explains why Mitt Romney disingenuously disavows almost all the sensible positions he formerly held, and more credible candidates such as Jon Huntsman are long gone.

In my previous column I promised a more detailed look at the “sins” of the religious righteous in the U.S. My goal here will be to make a case that fundamentalist religions are harmful to individuals and a major factor in the pervasive right-wing threat to our rights and freedoms. So let me start this project by turning the tables on the religious righteous, who always assert, without evidence – because there is none – that morality depends upon belief in a god. One obviously harmful implication of this position is the widespread perception that nonbelievers like me and most of my friends cannot be trusted. That sentiment, of course, is easily proven to be stupidly false, just one more instance of unthinking religious bigotry. Still, surveys show that it is the position held by a majority of Americans. This is nothing new or unique: many stupid forms of bigotry have been staples of religion for centuries. And make no mistake about it: this is a religious nation where too many people of faith are easily persuaded to believe ridiculous falsehoods.

Now I am going to suggest that religions – especially the more fundamentalist protestant sects and much of institutional Catholicism – have little or nothing to do with morality, at least not as it is widely understood and practiced among enlightened people in most First World countries in the 21st Century. To understand this we need look no further than the fundies’ absurd and harmful views about sexuality, notably birth control, abortion, pre-marital intercourse, homosexuality, and stem cell research.

Now I submit that genuine and rational morality finds little or no common ground with archaic religious views on sexuality that are based on faith in the alleged words of an ancient, punitive god and not on meaningful, 21st Century, real-world values. The fundies are all about compliance with dogma, i.e., their interpretations of selected passages in an ancient holy book of dubious authenticity. Quite simply, they have once again painted themselves into the proverbial corner by claiming that their holy book is the infallible word of the perfect and all-powerful creator of the universe and therefore literally true in every particular. Their apologetics thus become an exercise in rationalization and verbal contortions to justify obvious absurdities and contradictions.

Unwanted Pregnancy? The Religious Right Says That’s Tough

There is no force in American religion more consequential than abortion, which could well be the single most divisive issue in American society. Opposition to abortion, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, is overwhelmingly based on belief in a particular anthropomorphic, supernatural, multiple-personality deity for which there is no valid empirical evidence. Therefore, absent a compelling secular, humanitarian justification, abortion should never be restricted, at least not prior to a certain point of fetal development. After that point, I’ll concede that some compromise may be in order, if only because feelings about “murdering unborn babies” run so high that reasonable restrictions may be the only way to preserve fragile, nonviolent coexistence between groups holding opposing views. With that gun to my head, I can accept restrictions similar to those in Europe while always insisting on the primacy of the woman’s physical and mental health. But the idea that a zygote (from conception through day four), a blastocyst (days four to 14) or an embryo (two weeks through eight weeks) is a “person” is a religious prejudice that should not be imposed on any woman against her will.

The reason for this is straightforward: religious beliefs are human creations, not revelations from on high, and beliefs vary widely among and even within various religions. And let us not overlook the megamillions of people worldwide who hold no beliefs or idiosyncratic beliefs. To restrict any person’s rights based on faith in unproven supernatural forces must be seen for what it is, a form of tyranny. Personal choices – especially of such life-altering magnitude as to whether or not to have a child – should not be restricted without a compelling secular justification.

Any genuine, rational morality must embrace the concept of “First, do no harm.” Avoiding unnecessary harm and suffering simply must be a central moral tenet; and yet if you look at fundagelical Christianity and Catholic doctrine vis-a-vis sexuality, you find little or no benefit but lots of harm. Again I call your attention to the right’s relentless efforts to ruin women’s lives by forcing them to give birth to children they’re not ready to raise and support; and to their attempts to ban birth control; and to their opposition to using fetal stem cells for research purposes; and to their persecution of gays. I could go on, but it should be apparent, in the case of abortion, that they place the welfare of a clump of cells above the interests of fully invested human beings. (As the old joke goes, fundamentalists believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Only it’s not exactly a joke.)

It’s fair and reasonable to ask, “Who is hurt by an abortion?” Certainly not the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. It has no memories, no fears, no hopes and dreams, no investment in its life, no consciousness. An abortion changes nothing from the fetus’s subjective standpoint, whereas being forced to give birth to an unwanted child can destroy a woman’s life. The harm-versus-benefit ratio seems clear enough.

So why do the religious righteous oppose abortion? For religious reasons only. They are convinced beyond reason that their chosen god puts a soul in every microscopic, single-celled zygote at the moment of conception and that said god will be mightily pissed if anyone tampers with his little creations. Never mind that something like 60 percent of all conceptions fail because the ensouled zygote doesn’t become properly implanted in the uterus.

I anticipate logic-chopping arguments from pro-lifers along these lines: “So if it’s okay for a mother to terminate the life of her fetus, why not allow her to kill her infant child?”

The simplest answer is that morality and law regularly necessitate making distinctions, drawing lines; and, in fact, humans are very good at that. It is clearly to our advantage to embrace a sanctity-of-human-life ethic that includes all living persons. Still, if I were forced to make a “Sophie’s Choice” between the life of a mother and her infant child, I would unhesitatingly choose to save the mother, who is ever so much more invested and connected, even though she would most likely sacrifice her own life to save her child. Fortunately, we rarely have to make such choices, and I see nothing wrong with imposing the same penalty for murdering an infant as for murdering an adult.

But if a pro-lifer irritated me with their sanctimony, I would turn snarky and point out that their almighty god, as recorded in their inerrant and perfect holy book, not only condones, but commands, infanticide. Of course their leading apologists have no problem rationalizing genocide and infanticide.

Okay, I know I have ventured into dangerous territory, and I hasten to say I speak only for myself. But let me be clear: I think the religious right’s and the Catholic Church’s positions on almost all sexual issues are profoundly immoral, exacerbating rather than ameliorating human suffering. It’s not my place to question the nuanced, socially calibrated euphemisms employed by pro-choice organizations, who have been fighting these battles on a national stage for a long time. Yet I’m suggesting that the recent Komen experience suggests there is a useful role for uncompromising, un-nuanced, rational smackdowns of right-wing Christian misogyny. We’re right about these issues, and we have to stop letting the theocrats frame and dictate the terms of the debate. Abortion is a safe and reasonable choice for many women. It is not immoral.

To be continued.

Love Thy Neighbor (Yeah, Right!)

“Turn, turn, my wheel! This earthen jar
A touch can make, a touch can mar;
And shall it to the Potter say,
What makest thou? Thou hast no hand?
As men who think to understand
A world by their Creator planned,
Who wiser is than they.” 

Keramos (The Potter’s Song), Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882)

 

God’s plans, God’s ways, some clerics and laymen say are mysteries and beyond finding out. God is a mystery. Life is a mystery. Many world religions, Christian, Jewish, Buddhism, and countless other good societies preach that God’s Potter’s hand is ever present and shaping our lives. It is a divine plan, many will tell you and is and has been predestined and ordained from before the beginning of time. We should not question the ways of the Almighty because it is His will, we are told. And we are but His witnesses. Yet in all our ongoing experiential journey as we human creatures live and trod upon this old globe, often we become bewildered as collective deer in the headlights, not knowing where we are or where we are going. We, some of us, do the best we can to grasp meaning from our very existence. Yet as thinking creatures how can we not question the rationale of many historical events written in stone, some in blood that many attempt to explain away as part of God’s plan? All the bones and curls fixed silently in the dust and clay of time once were men and women. These were strewn about the planet over the eons of war and dissonance and deliberate genocidal acts of those in temporary power at a point in time. And the seeker of truth in us all seems to fire the eternal questions, “What are we doing? Why must there be so much suffering? Why should the powerful at any given time in history be able to oppress and cause hurt to the meek and defenseless? Can we stop the madness and disregard for our fellow man? Is might right?” And if truly we are created in God’s image, isn’t our trait to question, to reason a manifestation of His greatest gift of all: Free will?

It has been said that human nature is such that man has little empathy for his neighbor. Instead of following the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, man seems to care little about the welfare of his neighbor, his fellow man. As long as you are happy, well-fed, employed, and feel at peace with your environment, why fret about your neighbor and his well-being? Mind your own business we are told often. Even humans as early as Cain asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” 

 

So goes the thinking when mass extinctions of humanity happen at the hand of those in power who cause the deaths of thousands and millions of their own kind. Witness Adolf Hitler and his extermination of the Jews, say, about 7 million during the Holocaust. If you were Jewish your politics was definitely wrong during the Third Reich, and you were tattooed with a number and sent off to death camps like Auschwitz to be gassed and incinerated. 

 

But just when you thought Hitler and the Nazis were good at mass production of death, enter Stalin. Joseph Stalin was much more prolific in the killing of his fellow man, his Russian neighbors to the tune of over 30 million of them during his infamous Purge. Those he suspected of their wrong allegiances and political correctness, he snuffed out like any efficient dictator would. But the witnesses of such mass murder and extinctions seemed to see the unaffected countrymen of Germany and Russia going about their lives with a business-as-usual attitude. As long as German and Russian citizens were not persecuted or their families tortured or killed, they had little to no perceptible interest in the goings-on any more than a Wildebeest does as his neighbor is being eaten alive by a Lion. 

 

Those immune from the ongoing carnage, persecution, or financial destruction of their neighbors seemed to look the other way out of fear, perhaps, or out of lack of empathy for other people who lived just down the block. So it is in America today with more interest focused on the Super Bowl than the plight of neighbors who lost their jobs, and have had to take to living in their cars.

 

Empathy. Even the very word has a hollow sound. It is a word used rarely by most humans who live in America and other major nations and societies about the planet. Making money is the name of the game nowadays. Survival is paramount. And if there’s not enough to go around, guess who gets the hamburger? This phenomenon of me-ism lives even in the bosoms of those who already have more than they could ever use or want. Yes, they seem to want it all when giving up a little could change the planet. So goes it with those rich taxpayers in America who cringe at the thought of having higher taxes levied upon them even though they would go on living in luxury while thousands, perhaps millions of soul might be spared. Recently Warren Buffet 2nd richest man in America said that he believed the rich should be taxed more.    Warren Buffett on Taxes Imagine that.

Richest man in America, Bill Gates, ditto:  

 

It is sad that many of the buzzwords and talking points of survival seem to hinge on many perceived absolutes that we parrot back and forth to our fellow man. And the word “Empathy” is never used when discussing the problem of illegal immigration, for example. Why not? Well, there are rules, laws, you know, about coming to America, and if you are illegal, well, you are deemed to be a second-class human who does not mind breaking our laws. You are an undesirable. Illegals, it is argued, sap our tax dollars to pay for the education, medical care, and welfare of you, your family and other groups of non-Americans who have no right to those funds. So it is further argued. And so it goes. You couldn’t call it caring about your fellow man, of course. So much for Christian charity. No wonder Jesus preached at length about how you were supposed to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Or “If a man bids you go with him a mile, go with him two.” The parable of the Good Samaritan seems to curdle the blood of most Christian Capitalists nowadays where you are told to emulate giving, giving, and more giving of the bounties you have gathered in your own life to those fellow humans beaten and battered and lying in a ditch along the road. Perhaps caring about the welfare of your neighbor is the most arduous exercise one can ever take on. Maybe that is why Jesus spent so much time preaching to the masses about giving instead of taking. And whose theme of most of the parables he taught to the masses was about love and giving, not showing contempt and scorn for your neighbor.

 

In studying the gaggle of Republican candidates for president, it is obvious that they are all hat and no cattle when it comes to showing charity for those masses of voters they are trying to fool into voting for them next November. For all their smiles and “trust me” body signals and parables they tell they are out to gut programs that help the common man, the working man. It’s no secret. It is posted all over the Internet, their beliefs, their feelings about and lack of empathy for their fellow man. It shows up as red flags in their voting records and in their stated beliefs that we all have the same opportunities here in America and should just go out, start a company, and get rich. And forget about government help. Of any kind. Just vote for me so I can get on the government dole. While you go out and beat the bushes for a job in the Free Market. And, oh yeah, good luck.

 

Newt Gingrich is for privatization of government programs not to make government more efficient as he contends, but so corporations can rake off big profits off the top as commissions and eventually charge more as Americans forget what they gave away. Newt said he would love to see Social Security atrophy from lack of funding so that it would wither and die on the vine. Newt is looking out for us. Not.

 

Rick Perry wants to privatize everything. He said that Social Security is unconstitutional. As governor of Texas he tried to force feed schoolgirls in Texas a vaccine to prevent uterine cancer. Only thing was, before he was headed off at the pass, Perry was exposed as having a personal interest in the vaccine and the company that produced it. Funny how he was not impeached, but then where you gonna get a vote from Texans that would challenge Perry. And don’t it beat all, this bully ‘em style of thinking comes from a man who advocated that his own state of Texas secede from the Union. Scary. Don’t think Perry is too empathetic about seeing his neighbor prosper or win.

 

Romney smooth out says he thinks government sucks but then vacillates on key points and changes colors like a Galveston Bay flounder to dance better to the tune at hand whatever it morphs into being at any given time. And the more he blends in the more nothing comes out of his mouth. His voting record is clear on helping his fellow man. He wants government to stop having to fund people programs so the “Free Market” can take care of people. Yeah, right. Guess that’s why AARP is so adamantly against privatizing Social Security. His being born a millionaire thanks to his automaker mogul daddy does not seem to register. He thinks all Americans have the same opportunity for success that he did, I’m afraid.

 

Ron Paul. Now here is a paradox of human values and ideas. His head is good on many issues, such as bringing our troops home from foreign soil and to stop borrowing and spending on nation-building. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a good one, Dr. Paul. After all America is an open society, right? But he votes no on every bill about raising minimum wage that winds its way through the halls of Congress. He voted twice for the $2 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich. Sarcastically Dr. Paul berates people for wanting government to help them in any way. He chastises them for thinking that government is supposed to take care of them from “cradle-to-grave.” He makes it sound like a sin for a single mother to get some SCHIPS government assistance to help pay for her child’s healthcare and to make it more affordable.

 

Many more points could and should be made about those who are running for public office and have no inclination in helping Americans who live in the greatest military and financial power the world has ever seen. First, by endless borrowing on perpetual wars of invasion, America has borrowed and spent its future down the toilet forever, it seems. The spending went to the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned us to beware of as it became enmeshed with those in power in Washington. So we not only ran out of money we are in the hole a cool $15 Trillion with no end in sight as to the ongoing borrowing deficits necessary to keep America afloat. Many newsletters on finance send out ominous warnings about doomsday scenarios in the near future. Inflation due to our wanton and indiscriminate printing of more dollars is about to hit America like a giant tsunami. 

 

Obama’s president’s commission on debt reduction got a goose egg for their efforts to reduce spending. It is clear that a combination of raising taxes on the rich cutting spending on people programs for the poor and working man would help us from free falling further, but no one is willing to do that. Grover Norquist has brow-beaten all Congressmen to vow to not raise taxes period. And the Republicans went along with it. They are scared not to.

 

So here we sit as a collective nation, a world all made of the same clay, wondering what we can do to correct the results of a world and nations gone mad with spending money and becoming the biggest debtor nation in history. There is not much empathy for one’s fellow man in these times. It seems to be a world of every man for himself. Of Dog eat Dog. We should have known. We should have turned off the TV and looked into the destruction of America by a thousand cuts. We simply could not force ourselves to believe that Man’s avarice and lack of caring for his neighbor is such a primary driving force in the hearts of humans. 

Prayer in Public Schools Is Always Undemocratic, Unconstitutional, Rude and a Form of Bullying - Here's How to Discourage It

If the Muslims had a far larger presence in America, which they or some other non-Christian sect might have at some time in the future, Christians and secularists alike would battle any legislative efforts to institute bowing to Mecca on prayer rugs and required Muslim incantation recitals several times daily during the school day. Attempts to allow "voluntary" prayers in public schools, even if requested by a majority of students, should be rejected as equally offensive.

Some of us are losing faith, not in faith (we long ago dismissed that as a preposterous concept), but in reason, at least as a tool for communicating with religious fundamentalists. This is particularly so concerning the unrelenting assault on the principle of church/state separation. While violations take many forms, one of the most common is seen in attempts to reintroduce prayers in public schools.

In towns, cities and states across the land, secularists must engage in a never-ending struggle with theists to stop their efforts to inject prayer rituals in sporting events, graduation ceremonies and other assemblies and in classrooms. True believers, often-undereducated Right Wing Republicans, can’t seem to get that the 1st Amendment establishment clause originally and at present separates church and state functions. This provision has worked well for more than two centuries. It has benefited not only secularists but also the religious freedoms of believers.

Christians and others are free to pray all they like - but they can’t impose prayer on others - at least not yet. Hold your hat - the future lies ahead. The make up of the current Supreme Court is such that this separation tradition is not secure.

I live in Florida, where the fundamentalist mentality is very strong at state and local levels. The Florida Legislature, an overwhelmingly Republican body, is infamous for attempted church/state violations. The latest is of special note.

A Senate Bill (#0098) would authorize school boards to encourage school prayer, including sectarian prayer, “at the discretion of the student body.” The Center for Inquiry (CFI) and other national secularist groups have noted that this “mischief-making proposal to encourage students to inflict prayer on other students is unconstitutional.” Others have noted that #0098, if it enacted, would once again create conditions where "religion’s effect would be to inflame peer pressure to conform to a ritual of the Christian majority, promote bullying and exclusion, erect barriers between students, magnify differences and reward conformity."

Many secularists in other parts of the U.S. might have thought that it was well established by now that a captive audience of young, impressionable students should not be subjected to proselytization, either by authority figures or by a “class vote.” The CFI stated that, “the First Amendment places freedom of conscience above majority rule. The Supreme Court has ruled in more than 60 years of consistent decisions that prayers have no role in classrooms, graduations or school events. The Court has ruled so-called ‘student-initiated’ prayer equally inappropriate.”

And yet, the Florida Legislature is now moving toward creating a law that would ignore all these objections. Reason has little chance in the face of religious fervor or, perhaps, cynical manipulation of voters by politicians seeking political advantage.

Over a century ago, a Florida jurist wrote this in a landmark decision: “There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed.” Weiss v. District Board, 44 N.W. 967, 981 (1890).

If this legislation passes, taxpayers will be burdened not just with bad law but with the costs of defending a foolish statue that will eventually be rejected, even by the current Supremes.”

To put a halt to this legislation, a different strategy should be considered by Florida and other secularists interested in separation of church and state in general and safeguarding against pernicious school prayer rituals. How? By supporting a prayer of their own!

Normally, finding a prayer that would prove acceptable to freethinkers, atheists, infidels, heretics, apostates and the like - who, by the way, can’t even agree on what to call themselves, would be impossible. However, not so in the case of the prayer I have in mind. It comes from the Holy Book of Python, Chapter II in "The Meaning of Life" under Growth and Learning, as follows.

O Lord, ooh, You are so big, so absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying and bare-faced flattery, but You are so strong, and, well, just so super fantastic. Amen.

This prayer can be led by a headmaster, principal, teacher or student elected as prayer leader by other students. Or, best of all, it could, on important occasions, be led by a member of the Florida Legislature who voted for bill #0098, or the governor who signed the legislation that made it official.

“RESPONSIBLE CAPITALISM”, “MORAL MARKETS”, and - Goldman Sachs Bonuses

Something rather curious has been happening recently. Leading politicians, Tory, Lib Dem and Labour, have started talking about capitalism. It has happened before, but not for some time and then, referring to some particularly egregious example of corporate malfeasance, terms such as the “unacceptable face of capitalism” were used. Tory prime minister Edward Heath coined the phrase in 1973 to describe the activities of Lonrho chief executive Tiny Rowlands who had broken sanctions against the white racist Smith government of Rhodesia. Later, in 2004, Jim O’Donnell, managing director of BMW applied it to five directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, the parent company of GM Rover, who had pocketed more than £16 million, even though the company had lost £89 million. The chairman and vice chairman were accused by Martin O’Neill, chairman of the Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee, of using “financial sleight of hand” to line their own pockets and of failing to exercise good corporate governance.

Such cases, when they occurred, were regarded as aberrant, involving corrupt or avaricious individuals. They were the occasional rotten apples in a barrel that was generally good and healthy. For the most part mainstream politicians, like the mainstream media, have hardly mentioned capitalism by name. Their preferred terminology has tended to refer to the “free market”. It is worth noting that terms such as “free market” and “free world” carry a heavy ideological baggage and emotive power. Since 1945 the implication in the use of these terms is that the “western world” is free and that the freedom we enjoy is inextricable from the “free market”. Until the collapse of the communist-ruled states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the alternative to the “free world/market” was said to be loss of freedom and totalitarian tyranny. This was the constant theme of the mainstream media. It was also the theme of authoritative philosophers and economists such as Isaiah Berlin (“Four Essays on Liberty”) and Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom). So powerful was this ideological contention that its influence is still pervasive today. But things could be changing.

The current talk about capitalism is different. Now the capitalist system in Europe (including Britain) and throughout much of the western world is in the most acute crisis since the 1930s. It is no longer possible for the ruling classes of the countries most severely affected to deny its severity. When the first phase of the present crisis broke in 2007/8, some of the more perceptive Keynesians, such as Will Hutton in Britain, realized that this time it was not just another “manageable” recession like those of the early 80s and 90s, but a crisis of global proportions and potentially catastrophic dimensions which could lead to a systemic crash. Hutton is fully aware of the social implications of the crisis, as is clear from his column in the Observer on December 4. 2011: “Be sure that British civil society will not accept its grim fate as if nothing is happening. There will be organized and angry responses – and rightly. We are about to experience economic, social and political tectonic plates on the move.” It is worth quoting a little more from this article as in it he expresses a view which has recurred frequently in what he has written since 2008. “This”, he says, “is a crisis of bad capitalism….The only way forward is a good capitalism.” He concludes that “socialism, certainly as conceived and practiced over the past 100 years, is no plausible answer.” Note the qualification, which is significant -“as conceived and practiced over the past 100 years.” We will return to that later.

What has occasioned this latest discourse about capitalism? Some, like Hutton, Krugman and Stieglitz have offered serious observations about the nature and causes of the crisis and have, since its onset in 2008, argued that there would be no way out of it through imposing severe austerity measures. But others such as prime minister Cameron are simply responding to the growing public anger about the multi-millions in pay and bonuses that the bosses of an already bloated financial sector continue to award themselves as the rest of society is obliged to pay for their profligacy. 

Cameron is also discomfited by Ed Miliband’s claim to the high ground in opposing “predatory” and “irresponsible” capitalism. Actually, both Cameron’s and Miliband’s rhetoric is reactive. It is the global financial crisis, the crisis in the Eurozone, the Occupation movement worldwide and not least the extraordinary upsurge of revolutionary fervour throughout the Arab world that have thrust questions about the nature of capitalism to the forefront of public concern. In particular attention has become focused on the role of finance capitalism. But the growing ranks of its critics who are trying to understand what caused the crisis and searching for ways of overcoming the social depredations following in its wake, will find little to enlighten or reassure them in anything that Miliband and Cameron have to say.

In talking about predatory and irresponsible capitalism, Miliband challenges Cameron to do something about exorbitant rail fares and bank charges; to end the “surcharge culture” and the “rigged energy market.” These are all matters of acute public concern and it is essential to confront and face down the banks, the railway companies and the energy suppliers. But they go nowhere near getting to grips with what even its staunchest defenders are forced to admit is a crisis of capitalism.

Cameron, like Miliband, says he wants a “responsible capitalism”. He talks of a “moral capitalism”, claiming that open markets and free enterprise are “the best imaginable force for improving human wealth and happiness”….”They are an engine for progress, generating enterprise and innovation that lifts people out of poverty and gives people opportunity.” “I would go further”, he says, “Where they work properly, open markets and free enterprise can actually promote morality.”

The point of all the rhetoric about the need for “responsible capitalism” is to counter the growing sense amongst those involved in protests and occupations across Europe, the USA and elsewhere, that (in the words of the banner raised over the London occupation at St. Paul’s), “Capitalism IS Crisis.” The ongoing and deepening sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone is as far as ever from resolution. As the UK falls into the double dip recession we were confidently assured by the government would not happen, the flimsy veil of credibility covering the “necessary” deep cuts of the austerity measures, is in shreds. A minority – but a growing minority – is beginning to question the nature of a system that is so obviously dysfunctional. On the same day (January 19.) that the City of London Corporation was given the legal right to evict the Occupy London protesters from St. Paul’s churchyard, Goldman Sachs announced that they had set aside £8bn to pay its staff an average of £238,000 each. Of course, such grotesquerie causes some embarrassment, even among the millionaires of Cameron’s cabinet. This is not, they tell us, the way capitalism should be working. We are left to infer that the ever-expanding gulf between rich and poor – a gulf that is growing greater by the month as the government’s cuts drive thousands more into hopeless poverty – is either not really happening or is something that should not trouble us. When working properly, Cameron assures us, the “free market” will lift people out of poverty. When might that be? How long should the one million unemployed young people in Britain be prepared to wait?

The protesters of the Occupy movement have got it right. In effect, they – and increasingly the re-energized trade union movement and the plethora of new activists – are saying that they have had enough. They have had enough of waiting for a lugubrious bunch of professional politicians to act on their behalf. The new activism must, and likely will be informed by a far greater awareness of the true nature of capitalism. They will be aware that it is not just a matter of excesses and the behaviour of “irresponsible” capitalists and greedy bankers. There is a growing understanding that the problem with capitalism is systemic. The system as a global socio-economic formation is in crisis. Boom and bust are in the nature of capitalism; they always have been and always will be. In its latest stage – finance monopoly capitalism – the cycles of boom and bust have become ever more frequent and ever more severe. The rise to dominance of finance capital in the western world since the 1970s has been in inverse proportion to the decline of the so-called “real economy”. As the economies based on manufacturing have stagnated, the real incomes of the working populations have declined. The illusion of continued prosperity in countries like Britain and the USA has been sustained by accumulated debt fuelled by unsustainable property bubbles. Now the bubbles are bursting with greater frequency and the European countries that were most heavily dependent on banking and the construction industry, such as Ireland, are hardest hit.

In conclusion it is worth returning to Will Hutton’s claim that the crisis is with “bad capitalism” and that the only way forward is to exchange it for “good capitalism.” He argued that socialism offeres no plausible alternative but added the qualification “certainly as conceived and practiced over the past 100 years.” It is not clear if Hutton intended this to be understood as a rejection of any imaginable form of socialism as an alternative to “bad capitalism”, but it is worth taking up this argument.

It needs to be said unequivocally that Hutton is right when he says that what has been practiced as socialism over the past 100 years does not deserve the name. (There are one or two possible exceptions that space prevents us from dealing with here). The countries of “actually existing socialism” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were, despite state control of their economies, for the most part bureaucratic dictatorships in which the working class and peasantry held no actual power and in which, for the most part, the people were denied the elementary rights of freedom of speech and assembly. However one characterizes such societies, they were not socialist in anything but name.

Britain under the Labour government 0f 1945 -1951 is often described as socialist. It wasn’t. The nationalization of the “commanding heights” of the economy and the establishment of a “mixed economy” was a social democratic experiment which, in the harsh economic circumstances of the time, made considerable concession to a working population determined to redress the gross inequalities of the pre-war depression years. But it didn’t radically change the power structure. It was an example of social-democratic management of a capitalist economy. It wasn’t socialism.

If it is assumed that capitalism is incapable of resolving the contradictions with which it is so obviously riddled, the question of what is to replace it cannot be avoided. Will Hutton is right to reject what has passed for socialism over the past century. But, whatever we call it, there has to be an alternative to the present system. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of human society and the natural environment depends upon it. Consideration of what such a society might look like must be deferred to the next Letter from the UK.

Jessica Ahlquist - A 16 Year-Old Constitutional Stalwart

Can you recall a time in your youth when you stood up for a Constitutional safeguard - and won against adults who threatened your rights and the rights of others? How about a time when you just stood up to a bully, politely objected to a convention that seemed unfair or took an unpopular position? Did you ever do anything like that - and persist in doing so even when faced with opposition from peers and adults? If so, good on you. You were heroic if you did anything like this. Doing is not easy or comfortable for an educated, secure adult - let alone a teenager. Such acts take courage. Let us admire and emulate as best we can those who defend what they believe is right and all who stand on principle when the majority acts badly.

In his book "Sincerely," the recently late Andy Rooney wrote, I'd be more willing to accept religion, even if I didn't believe it, if I thought it made people nicer to each other but I don't think it does."

Religious people are sometimes very unnice when they seek to promote their beliefs in the public square. Yet, the bad behavior of some Christians often reveals the presence of a few admirable cases of heroic behavior. All who support the Constitution's protection against compulsory religion can find inspiration in instances of courageous resistance to public piety.

One case where the Christian religion utterly failed the Andy Rooney acceptance test occurred recently in Rhode Island. A 16 year-old high school sophomore named Jessica Ahlquist took exception to a prayer banner in a public school auditorium. Unfortunately, the no-so-nice Christian defenders of the prayer banner subjected Miss Ahlquist to a flood of hatred, harassment and violent threats. They were outraged by the young woman's support of the Constitutional principle of church/state separation.

You can read a full account of the case and the vitriol associated with Christian behavior at the website Friendly Atheist.

You might also want to watch a video interview about the incident and/or read the judge's ruling on the case (a resounding victory for Miss Ahlquist and the Constitution).

While the behavior of Miss Ahlquist's peers raised to be good Christians was lamentable, bad behavior by teens is not so shocking. What percentage of young people can be expected to exbibit common decency or to resist established customs? Moral courage is not the norm with insecure, conformist adolescents. But adults? We expect more. Consider what Adam Lee of Daylight Activism wrote about the Rhode Island teachers, parents, school officials and the Christian community that lashed out, threatened and ostracized the banner-protesting student: "Their obnoxious public displays of religious beliefs did not improve their moral sentiments, it only multiplied their viciousness toward those who don't wear expected marks of tribal conformity ... What the religious bullies want is to force conformity - to make everyone think and behave like they do." I'm also reminded of a commentary by Niall Shanks in "God, the Devil and Darwin" (2004): “While we in the West readily point a finger at Islamic fundamentalism, we all too readily downplay the Christian fundamentalism in our own midst. The social and political consequences of religious fundamentalism can be enormous.”

Let's draw at least two lessons from Jessica's situation and behavior: 1) Celebrate moral courage at every opportunity. A few freethinking organizations are doing exactly that for Miss Ahlquist and other young people who have taken stands against Christian assaults on the establishment clause; and 2) consider that you are never too old to do the right thing. You may not get a college scholarship (or want or need one) but, win or lose in the near term, you will almost surely feel good about doing the right thing.

Stay well.

POSTSCRIPT:

PZ Myers, who blogs at a website called "“Pharyngula” wrote the following sequel to this story:

 I had not realized how stupidly bigoted the people of Cranston, Rhode Island were becoming. After losing a fight against the Constitution, being slapped down for demanding the right to maintain a blatantly sectarian, religious prayer in a public school, they‚Äôve been threatening and persecuting Jessica Ahlquist, the atheist who was brave enough to bring the law to bear on the promotion of religious views in a school. Now a new development: the Freedom From Religion Foundation wanted to send flowers to Ahlquist: none of the florists in Cranston would do it. They had to find a florist in a more distant town to do the deed. It‚Äôs all shockingly petty and discriminatory.

PZ provided the websites for the four florists who would not deliver a bouquet to a teenage girl because she’s an atheist. These can be obtained at the site - http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/19/rhode-island-synonymous-with-bigotry/

* Twins Florist

* Floral Express

* Flowers by Santilli

* Greenwood Flower

To his credit, PZ asked that, if you contact them in order to express your displeasure, please remember to be civil.

IRAN: Obama’s Ticket to Re-Election

Iran could turn out to be Obama’s salvation (and America’s damnation).

The economy doesn’t look like it’ll uptick enough to make a dent in Obama’s favor come November. To nearly half the voters – Romney, with all his quirks and Bain baggage, seems a reasonable alternative – as it stands now ten months out. The right has begrudgingly determined to hold its nose and get behind the nominee whose only credential is electability against the despised black guy in the White House. Hate drives them into the arms of a strange bedfellow with magical underpants. (Their passion is not love of Christ, but contempt for Obama. Whose god do they really serve?)

The election-year card most Republicans didn’t expect is IRAN. If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked by Iran, energy prices would skyrocket – even if the U.S. intervenes. The conflict would escalate naturally, and John Bolton’s most exhilarating wet-dream would be transformed into more than mere fantasy – except under a Democratic president, not exactly in the original script.

Fresh military engagements tend to solidify an incumbent into power. Imagine the confusion when war-loving rightwingers observe a Democratic president using force against Iran. The assassination of Osama bin Laden has long been explained away by FOX and friends as a Bush triumph while they’ve dismissed all other Obama international successes. But Iran?

The US and Russia are two big fish about to get hooked into a situation they can’t survive. The fishermen safely onshore are Israel and China. Israel, of course, doesn’t give a damn about any other nation except itself. Even its sole benefactor is dispensable in the long-range scope of things, especially if a Democrat sits in the White House and an extreme militant rightwing prime minister calls the shots from Jerusalem. Like US Republicans, Netanyahu loathes Obama and is, in fact, in constant collusion with the American right seeing how he can somehow influence elections.

HOOKS IN THE JAWS

Once the Hormuz card is played, the dominoes fall. The US would retaliate, Iran would attempt a strike against Israel, then all hell would break loose. I’m sure the Mossad has fully rehearsed this scenario. Except for perhaps the big bear to the north.

Russia’s role following the initial stage is crucial. If they back Iran militarily, game over. And if they don’t? Game over – as for trust among allies, former and present.

“And I will turn you back, and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you forth, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them thoroughly equipped, a great assemblage with targets and shields, all of them handling swords. You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, a great horde, a mighty army.” – Ezekiel 38:4 & 15

When considering these horrifying current potentialities, the Mayan calendar doesn’t look too far off. The US would be hooked to back Israel and Russia would be hooked to back Iran. Perfect Storm.

Just when America thought it was getting untangled from the idiotic wars deliberately set by Bush and Cheney, here comes another. Except bigger. The notion to downsize defense would, of course, be off-the-table, enough to make Republicans salivate all over each other.

BARBOUR’S BLUNDER

Haley Barbour’s little misstep in Mississippi is another gift to the DNC. What was he thinking? Who ever heard of a far-right Republican governor releasing 200 or so convicted criminals on the streets to re-torment victims and possibly repeat offenses? Not to mention – in a SOUTHERN state?

Surely, there’s more to the story. It would seem Barbour had to be blackmailed, because even a come-to-Jesus moment wouldn’t have inspired him to release twenty-one murderers who could wreak vengeance.

Years ago a friend gave me a nugget of truth. He asked, “Loren, do you know the three most powerful words in the English language?”

“No,” I responded.

Bill answered, “I’VE GOT PICTURES.”

I thought about it for a second, then smiled as I recalled all the scandals where damning photos, documents or videos mysteriously came to light sealing the fate.

Someone might have an interesting video of Barbour in the governor’s mansion or elsewhere. Or maybe he yielded to temptation at an unsecure location where photos were snapped or a surveillance camera happened to be on. I just cannot imagine a conservative southern governor, tough-on-crime and former Chairman of the Republican Party, pardoning hundreds of convicts – except if one or more inmates happened to have injurious personal information with visuals as proof.

Democrats could re-take Mississippi, of all places. What a strange year.

Obama’s re-election could hinge on events overseas, not the economy or jobs. No need for an “October Surprise.” Israel could force us into a conflict they’ve been eager to launch for a long time. Iran’s nuclear arms’ ambitions may be true or false, but the point is – Israel doesn’t want to take any chances, and they’ve got to pull their big brother benefactor into the abyss to win.

But the cost of this war could be survival if Russia gets entangled.

Our only hope is that Obama will be wise enough to resist and steer us clear of an early sunset. Unfortunately, his past pattern undermines confidence.