Total Pageviews

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Rights of the Children of Ham

This past week has been eventful, to say the least, from activists massed in New York protesting something regarding Wall Street to further rumbles in Greece portending the collapse of Europe's dream of unity to the latest blow against al-Qaida when an aptly named Hellfire missile met Anwar al-Awlaki halfway and sent him on his merry way to discover in person the truth of stories of paradise and dozens of virgins. It is the latter topic that forms the burden of my song, for matters economic are harder to understand.

After a few days of quiet exultation, the dissenting voices began to be heard questioning the legality of executing al Awlaki. Amid the liberal voices was an unlikely protester in the person of Dick Cheney, demanding that the President recant his criticisms of Bush Administration policies. Perhaps nothing spurred me to think this over quite as much as our former vice president; it's usually a safe bet that we will be on opposite sides of near any argument. And as I listened to the debate, a sense of disquiet stole over me. True, there was much questioning of the legality of the strike, which executed an American citizen without trial or due process. And therein for me, lies the dilemma. I fully appreciate the concerns of the liberals, but inherent in their dissent is a suggestion that trial and due process should be extended only to American citizens but foreign nationals who we have identified as enemies may be eliminated by any means necessary.

To be fair to my liberal brethren they likely are not comfortable with our actions against non-citizens but must choose their battles with care, given the general mood in America. Public opinion is firmly in favor of muscular response to any perceived enemies and such niggling problems as lack of evidence and reasonable doubt are blithely brushed aside in favor of security over freedom. I've argued before that we need to heed the maxim that forsaking liberty for security oft leaves one with neither, but this is beyond pragmatic arguments. The overriding issue for me is moral: do we have the right to execute, without trial, anyone who we declare to be our enemy? Does it really matter if that person is an American citizen or not? From a narrow constitutional focus, the citizenship question is paramount, but the wider question should be if those guarantees of due process are meant only for those born within these blessed shores. We are not bound to uphold the rights of any foreign nationals against their treatment by their own government, but when their freedom and liberty are held forfeit by us, our actions should be constrained by the same constitutional fetters that protect citizens. It is no coincidence that any resident of the US enjoys all civil rights as an American. But when fear blinds us, we are happy to pretend that those rights are complimentary, to be withdrawn at our pleasure in the name of national security.

If, as I argue, non-Americans in the so called "war on terror" should enjoy the same protections as US citizens, one would argue that we would be hobbling ourselves and depriving ourselves of any chance of striking at our enemies as they plan attacks upon us. Some, including Christopher Hitchens argue along those lines basically that since al-Awlaki is evil and our enemy, actively engaged in attacking us we have the right to execute him, be he a citizen of USA or not. But this is a false argument, because it conflates two different issues; I do not gainsay the evil or enmity of al Awlaki, but that is no justification for executing anyone. But al Awlaki's engagement in attacking us is a very different matter - this is specific, concrete action that opens him to retaliation or even preemption. But what  I would prefer to see would be a clear policy declared by the government of who they perceive as enemies, what actions constitute a threat to America, and how the US government would respond. Transparency has been sorely lacking in government response to terrorism for the past ten years. Advocates of this secrecy might argue that we cannot reveal our knowledge to our enemies. But it is unlikely that bin Laden or al Awlaki expected anything but death from us, and President Bush was fairly clear that he intended to "get bin Laden, dead or alive". We do not have to reveal our powers, but it would be in everyone's interest if we tried these terrorists in-absentia if not in person. Once we have a conviction against them, their killing is simply an execution of sanctioned punishment. And if we cannot obtain a conviction of a terrorist when they're not even available to mount their own defense, then we really need to re-think our policies and ask ourselves if we know who our enemies really are. But most importantly, as a nation, we need to ask if we know what our policy truly is and once we declare our policy, are we comfortable with the ramifications. I cannot state for sure what policies I would support or oppose, but knowing those policies would be the first step along the path of decision.