 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Jonathan requested a clarification of so-called liberal thought on my last blog entry.I personally don't follow the term 'liberal' because I think labels limit thought. Beyond that, some of my beliefs are remarkably conservative. But we'll get to that in a minute.
I'm in full rant mode. Forgive me if my points are disorganized.
Number one, I'm a Christian and therefore fatalistic. If a terrorist attack is going to kill me, my time is up.The end of life caused by terroristattack is just as much apart of God's plan as if I was hit by acar today walking towork or dropped dead of an anuerism. Any ot the three is out of my hands, and none of them are terribly likely. I can't worry too much about any of these, because if I did, I'd be too scared to leave the house.
Secondly, the easiest way to prevent terrorism is to not colonize the rest of the world for economic profit. An inherent trait to capitalism is its need to constantly grow in order to not implode... (e.g., those who make money need to keep making more). To accomplish this, the United States (and the rest of the west) has essentially colonized the rest of the world, opening markets for trade and for production. Why did we hate communism? Because they don't buy into this idea of capitalism and open their markets to us. Americans need those new markets to keep the system growing, and they need the system to keep growing so that profits (and therefore investments) can continue. That's what makes the capitalist system go 'round.
The U.S. has been doing this for years, under the banner of being a pillar of democracy. Why did the U.S. help Agosto Pinochet overthrow the democratically elected (albeit communist) government of Chile? Pinochet led a brutal fascist dictatorship by which thousands of his countrymen were killed. Why did the U.S., the "pillar of democracy" encourage his government? Because Pinochet was "friendly to U.S. interests," meaning that he was willing to allow free trade and open markets with the U.S.
Don't think this is the truth? Another way to expand markets is through the introduction of "fictitious capital," (a.k.a. credit) by which a demand will be artifically produced so that prices and profits stay up. The average family now carries $25,000 in credit card debt, because this demand has to be produced. How much more junk do you have than what your parents had at your age? Do you need it? Any of it?
Why does military spending increase constantly? Hrm... that seems a little like an artificial demand. I read a study once that said military spending and continued cycling of that wealth constitutes 45% of the American economy!
Why not use that money on schools? Well, once a school's built and supplied, it's not likely to be destroyed by bullets and tanks. It has no built-in obselence like military goods and does not cycle the wealth as quickly.
Beyond that, you've got the point I've raised before. A more-educated populace is more likely to question the government and its motives. A more-educated populace is more likely to seek alternatives to wars and military action. A more-educated populace is more likely to be "liberal," which is one reason that conservatives are the enemy of education. A educational system based on Darwinism (IRONY OF ALL IRONIES) is exactly what the conservatives want. Those students who already have wealth are more likely to be conservative and capitalist. If wealth is allowed to be a determinant in educational achievement (the strong succeed) then system best serves the interests of conservatism because those that make it through the educational system are the least likely to question the policies that have brought them wealth.
But back to the main economic points...
Fictitious capital is a fine way to keep the economy going, but what happens when demand dries up because of overextension and overconsumption? The U.S. has to open markets for more demand, and labor markets to cheapen supplies. Luckily, all of that military spending has provided us the precise tool needed to do this.
Need examples? How about the installation of the Shah of Iran in the 1950s? His brutal (and U.S.-supported) dictatorship was finally overthrown in the late 1970s. For some reason, Iran's still pissed at the U.S. about that one... I don't understand why, I mean, American involvement only caused them 20 years of oppression so that American capitalists could profit. (sarcasm)
Afghanistan in the 1980s? Well, they may have treated their citizens like shit, and American involvement directly led to the rise of the Taliban, but at least they were fighting the Soviets (who the U.S. hated because they weren't capitalists).
Iraq in the 1980s? A brutal dictator named Saddam Hussein was very-well supported by the U.S. because he agreed to trade oil with the U.S. and fight Iran, who had pissed the U.S. off by not allowing our puppet (the Shah) to reign.
Gulf War Two? Amazingly, the story you didn't hear is that as soon as Dubya came into power, Saddam decided to trade his oil for euros and not dollars, putting the EU in a competitive advantage over the U.S. for his oil. It was at this point that the U.S. began its tough talk. Saddam was a bad guy. He deserves permanent imprisonment, for sure. But don't start thinking that his brutality was why the U.S. went in, nor WMDs. These both existed from day one, when the U.S. supported him and looked the other way because his market was open for American goods.
How about Venezuela today? Remember in 2002 when a coup overthrew the democratically-elected Chavez? Chavez had been causing the U.S. trouble by criticizing trade policy and not agreeing to trade oil (wow!) at demanded prices. A day after Chavez was out, the U.S. recognized the coup as "the legitimate government of Venezuela." I don't know what everyone's background is on coups, but they're certainly not democratically elected. Guess what? The coup failed and Chavez returned to power. For some reason, Chavez still doesn't like the U.S. and still doesn't want to trade oil at U.S.-determined prices.
Is Osama bin Laden nuts? Sure, anyone that kills for an objective is as nuts as Ted Kacyzynksi or Timothy McVeigh.
But Bush does the same thing as encouraged by his capitalist supporters. The difference between the two is that Bush is the leader of a nation-state and Osama bin Laden is not. Both kill, both profit from killing, and both are seeking to serve an objective from killing. Why is Bush better in any case? It's that nation-state thing... a phenomenon that has existed in the world for approximately 400 years. Who declared the nation-state the supreme political ideology? Or democracy? It certainly isn't mentioned in the Bible, even though it's a common belief that democracy is God's chosen ideology. It has just happened that "democratic" (quotes intended) nation-states have won the most wars lately. It's certainly easier to organize a military machine and defense strategy when the government is hegemonious over a defined territory... the very definition of a nation-state. By allowing the citizens a "voice" (which the government can choose to completely ignore at any time, even in the American "democracy") it placates their concerns and subjects them to a continued fascism.
Luckily, the horrific attacks of September 11 gave the United States a defined enemy, an a way to create an "other" which could be demonized. Everyone and everything that's bad is given the "terrorist" label, hoping to evoke the imagery of the people jumping off the towers. It's a marvelous binary that also allows the "good" and "evil" labels to be placed. Isn't this somehow assuming that our country and ideology has an allegiance or has been chosen by God as the superior? There hasn't been a chosen people that I've heard of for several thousand years.
What I don't understand about conservative thought is this: the most conservative Christians, the ones who call homosexuality an abomination and abortion a sin, look the other way when killing and human suffering is intentionally proliferated for profit. Now, let me qualify profit: it can be in terms of economic profit, spread of an ideology, or simply acquisition of political power. Amazingly, someone who kills from our side for profit is a "patriot." From the other side, he's a "terrorist."
Discourse, friends. Discourse.
A conservative Christian will point to perhaps a dozen cases where homosexuality is mentioned as being a sin. Abortion is not mentioned per se in the bible, though it is considered murder which is mentioned as a sin. So, assuming that abortion is a sin by this definition, how is warfare not murder and therefore a sin? Pro-lifers say that abortion is a sin in any case because God's intentions, beyond that murder is a sin as commanded in the bible, cannot be determined. Okay, fine.... Using that (perhaps flawed) logic.... Who are we to determine when a war is just, and who are we to determine the proper political ideology for others to follow?
How is it that people have determined that murder in war is any more excused than any other sin? I remember a verse that said that all sins are equal. Is there an appendix that I haven't read?
You could certainly argue that the teachings of Jesus Christ would be better used to justify a socialist society than a capitalist society. Did Jesus (or anyone in the bible) ever advocate profit at the expense of others? Any time there is profit, it is done at the expense of someone, which I just can't bring myself as a Christian to really be comfortable with. To me, Christianity and capitalism simply do not mix.
I hate the political system in this country for several reasons. First, the United States is too large to be the democratic republic that it tries to be. A population of 300 million people means that each vote is worth nothing. Because of the sheer size of the electorate, in order to have a successful candidacy for even a local office, you have to have a campaign fund in the millions. This automatically excludes 99.99999% of the American public from ever truly participating.
Does this mean that only the best and brightest are those that are elected to the government? Well, certainly some bright people manage to make a great deal of money and jump into the political arena. I am not an egotistical person and I find myself to be of average intelligence, but I would argue that I could talk a number of those idiots in the current government (Dubya?) under a table on just about any topic. However, this monetary requirement for successful candidacy does ensure one thing: that those elected to office are good at making money and that their primary focus in life has been to do just that. Kinda brings a capitalist for-profit bias to the government from day one.... just like the Darwinian education system that conservatives promote. It ends up being a fascist state in which the elite rules over the masses.
Do I have a solution? No, I don't, but I don't think that a democratic republic is an appropriate government for a country with this large of an electorate. The founding fathers also didn't predict the mass media that we now have and which is responsible for brain-washing so many of the electorate into choosing choice A or B, without asking why there isn't a superior choice C.
That brings me to my next point. I hate the binary forced upon us by the political party system. Either you're this, or you're that. If you believe in social programs, you're automatically pro-choice and anti-gun, etc. Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same party, but they express different opinions about trivial issues in order to win emotional votes.
Why was so much of the 2004 election about gay marriage again? We had a failing war, a president who was VERY connected to Enron, a government who was spying on political enemies (didn't Nixon get in trouble for that?), a system that was exploiting the entire rest of the world, a Medicare system that was about to go bankrupt... yet our biggest beef was whether or not a wedding can be a sausage party?
Why should I be forced to choose between two unintelligent, fascist and generally unlikeable candidates, neither of which represent anything close to half of my beliefs. There are 300 million citizens, and this is the best we've got? The creme de la crop?
No, but those in power have all of the needed machinary to stay in power indefinitely. Will there ever be a foreseeable revolution in the United States that will not result in the bloodshed of millions? That military is a pretty handy device to keep a government in power.
They continue to come to power through "legitimate" because they've got money and emotional connections. Dubya is well-versed in pulling the most powerful of all heart-strings: fear. He preaches fear when he talks of terrorists. He brings fear when he denounces gay marriage. He used fear to go to Iraq. He used fear to get re-elected. (I won't comment on what he used to get elected, but its initials are SCALIA.) Beyond that, if for some reason the system failed, don't you think that the government would seize the military to "restore order" and "save the republic"? Happened during the Civil War, which wasn't entirely about slavery.
Do you think the terror alert system will ever be at the green level for low? Just the fact that the level is always yellow or orange stirs a little bit of fear. "It could happen." But, they've also got billions of dollars spent and a fascist PATRIOT act to show that they're going to be the ones to protect you.
Nearly five years after September 11. Are we safer? Hell no, but terrorism was never really that big of a threat. We've still got tons of terrorists pissed at us, and we've spent billions on marvelous things like the "terrorist alert levels." Most Americans haven't even thought of questioning why Osama was so pissed. We say that he hates freedom, which implies that there is no way to make this mad-man happy. Hrm... could it be that he wants the middle east to be free of U.S. economic imperialism? Why does that never make the evening news?
I'm not apologizing for bin Laden. I think he deserves to rot in prison like all murderers. But I question why Bush is not included in this conversation of murderers and terrorists. Any time American citizens react to bin Laden's violence with threats of more violence and warfare, they are guilty of the same actions that he is.
How can the War on Terror end and be the end of terrorism? Stop fighting. Gradually extract the tentacles of U.S. economic interests from the rest of the world. Quit exploiting the rest of the world for profit. Is this placating the "terrorists"? Maybe, but if the U.S. hadn't been such an asshole about things in the first place, the terrorists would have never been upset. And isn't the U.S. expecting the terrorist to "roll over" to please the wishes of the U.S.?
Why did the U.S. attack Afghanistan after 9/11? Americans were (justifiably) pissed off (though it doesn't excuse their later actions) at that murder, and wanted to exact "justice." Why do the terrorists attack us? Because they're pissed of at our murder and want to exact "justice." What I don't understand is how the conservative wing of the United States, who repeatedly claims to be the Christian party and the defenders of all Christian values can be so caught up in this idiotic bloodshed.
One word: Profit. America's religion is profit. These people are not doing Christian things, and it really bothers me that they claim to be Christians.
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
--1 Timothy 6:10.
I don't often write of my political beliefs and certainly not the interplay that occurs in my mind between religion and politics. I know that most readers to this blog are not Christians and I don't expect those people to take my beliefs seriously. That's certainly fine -- to each their own. I don't claim to have a mature political outlook and honestly I try to think about politics as little as possible. Please feel free to comment, complain or otherwise discuss.
Appendix:
I do not wish to allow some straw men that I constructed to represent my political views. Some clarification:
I am pro-choice. I don't think that a bunch of old men need to tell pregnant women what to do. Old men can never truly understand that situation because they'll never be pregnant. Because it is a "gray area" (baby vs. fetus) that can only be defined using moral bases. Therefore it should be the right of those involved to use their own reflection of morals to help make that decision. It is not the business of government to enforce the moral code of others. Would I ever want to have an abortion with my spouse? Probably not. I would prefer carrying the fetus to term and having it adopted.
I am also not homophobic. I am an odd Christian who doesn't interpret every word of the bible to be God's divine truth. It was written by imperfect men and has been translated and retranslated so many times that you can't take each word literally. This has been a great source of strife between Amy and I because she takes every word (and every omission) seriously. I certainly don't believe the whole creation in 7 days thing. A message that occurs through the bible far more often than writings on homosexuality is that God is a loving and caring God. I can't bring myself to believe that he would create people that were homosexuals if it was truly a sin, because he would be cursing people to suffering from birth.
However, I don't believe that there's ever a justifiable reason to kill someone. That is repeated again and again and again and again throughout the whole thing.
I also don't believe that religion has any place in government. If we as humans are forced to live under a government, at least we shouldn't be forced to live under a certain religion of someone else's choosing. I think that "Under God," "In God We Trust," and all prayer should be removed from all mentions in the government. If the government is going to live up to the bullshit that it tells us about "freedom," then it needs to be the provider of freedom in all ways, remaining neutral in issues that the "freedom" is supposed to protect.
I hope this clarifies some things.
Posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood DJ on February 7, 2006 12:34 PM | Permalink
Share this entry:
