[Welcome James Fallows, and Host Jim White.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the article. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
How America Can Rise Again (The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2010)
In the seventh century BC, the prophet Jeremiah told the people of Israel that their difficulties of the day were justly deserved punishment for their heathen and wicked ways. He also told them, though, that they could return to their chosen status with a renewed dedication to Jehovah. Today, a jeremiad is any warning that current problems are the result of straying from previous standards, but with the promise of restoration to better times ahead if they will follow a suggested corrective course. In How America Can Rise Again, author (and former Jimmy Carter speechwriter) James Fallows explores the question of “whether America is finally going to hell”, but in the tradition of the jeremiad, he offers possibilities for overcoming the massive problems he diagnoses.
In Fallows’ introduction, we see a decaying US through fresh eyes as he returns from an extended stay in China. The worn roads and bridges as one leaves John F. Kennedy airport evoke the standard recitations of the impending demise of the US:
“When I was growing up, these bridges and roads and dams were a source of real national pride and achievement,” Stephen Flynn, the president of the Center for National Policy in Washington, who was born in 1960, told me. “My daughter was 6 when the World Trade Center towers went down, 8 when lights went off on the East Coast, 10 when a major U.S. city drowned—I saw things built, and she’s seen them fall apart.”
Fallows warns us that we’ve been here before and the US has always managed to survive. He also shrugs off the urge to warn us against “falling behind” when comparing the US to other nations and argues that this is a relatively new phenomenon in social warnings. Prior to Sputnik, he explains, the failings were in falling short of expectations, instead of falling behind the achievements of other countries. In the past, the US has survived because it “continually refreshes its connections with the rest of the world—through languages, family, education, business—in a way no other nation does, or will.” These connections depend especially on our openness to immigration, coupled with a university system that serves to attract the greatest minds from around the world.
So what are the problems we now face? Here is Fallows’ list:
The main concerns boil down to jobs, debt, military strength, and overall independence. Jobs: Will the rise of other economies mean the decline of opportunities within America, especially for the middle-class jobs that have been the country’s social glue? Debt: Will reliance on borrowed money from abroad further limit the country’s future prosperity, and its freedom of action too? The military: As wealth flows, so inevitably will armed strength. Would an ultimately weaker United States therefore risk a military showdown or intimidation from a rearmed China? And independence in the broadest sense: Would the world respect a threadbare America? Will repressive values rise with an ascendant China—and liberal values sink with a foundering United States? How much will American leaders have to kowtow?
The bright side, Fallows tells us, is that it is within American power and ability to address these concerns through policy adjustments.
But the biggest problem we face, according to Fallows, is that our government is stuck in archaic structures that belie the rest of American culture’s ability to renew itself. Fallows notes that “A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry.” Short of revolution, he sees no way of fixing these defects and shows us the fruits of partisan gerrymandering: “In a National Affairs article, ‘Who Killed California?,’ Troy Senik pointed out that 153 state or federal positions in California were at stake in the 2004 election. Not a single one changed party.”
So, Fallows’ description of our sad state is now complete: “What I have been calling ‘going to hell’ really means a failure to adapt: increasing difficulty in focusing on issues beyond the immediate news cycle, and an increasing gap between the real challenges and opportunities of the time and our attention, resources, and best efforts.”
In the best jeremiad tradition, Fallows then begins to address how America can rise again. His first offering is for “an enlightened military coup”, but, thankfully, he then states that we really can’t hope for that. Next, he proposes that “We could hope to change the basic nature of our democracy, so it fits the times as our other institutions do”, but winds up dismissing something as radical as a new Constitutional Convention when he considers the chaos that would ensue from trying to start over in our currently divided society.
That brings us down to only two final choices:
Doing more, or doing less. Trying to work with our flawed governmental system despite its uncorrectable flaws, or trying to contain the damage that system does to the rest of our society. Muddling through, or starving the beast.
Unsurprisingly, Fallows rejects “starving the beast” and sets out his prescription for “muddling through”, which consists of moving the dialog to basing our decisions on their effects 75 years into the future rather than today. Toward that end, he says, we should rebuild our infrastructure, reinvest in research and address looming environmental challenges and then America can indeed rise again.
Please welcome Mr. Fallows to our Book Salon and join in the discussion of his timely and compelling article.



141 Comments










Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome to the Lake, Mr. Fallows, and thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us. I’ll start the questions:
I see lots of public figures decrying what is wrong with our country today and a few others advocating for improvements they’d like, but it’s hard for me to identify anyone who is both pointing out major failings and providing prescriptions for their correction. Who would you cast as the Jeremiah of today’s America?
James, Welcome to the Lake.
Jim, Thank you for Hosting today’s Salon.
Thanks for your greeting; this is an “I am here” message. Now, I’ll answer your first question.
Choosing the right Jeremiah is harder than it sounds. I would like to be able to say that it is Barack Obama, in that during his 2004-2008 campaign speeches, really through his inaugural address, he was in the mode of saying: “We have lost our way, but we can re-find it.” As he has moved into the messiness of governing, it’s been harder to maintain that tone. And probably the ones who feel they are today’s Jeremiahs are… the Tea Party crowd.
To say a word more if I might: the effective jeremiad requires both a diagnosis (problem) and a prescription (proposed cure). I hope the Democrats and the Administration are able to strike the tone of an effective jeremiad, reminding people that there are big, worsening problems, but also that the solutions are within our collective reach.
Good afternoon, James, welcome to the Lake, we appreciate having you spend time with us.
DW
About those Tea Partiers. I was amused by their “Mt. Vernon” statement where they prescribe a return to conservative, small government ideas they claim our founders favored. It seems to me the ultimate small government choice then would have been monarchy and no revolution would have been needed.
[By the way, if you click on the "reply" button at the bottom of the comment to which you are responding, it will make things easier for everyone to follow the discussion.]
And I might as well say yet another word: Oddly, my one time employer Ralph Nader, for whom I worked when I was a teenager (to show how long ago that was), may be the one who has most maintained the mixed message of warning-and-encouragement that is the jeremiad at its best. His latest, weirdly charming book, ‘Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us,’ shows both of those sides of his message.
Yes, your point about the illogicality of some of the Tea Party proposals is true; but, as we all know, logic — or the pointing-out of illogic — takes you only so far in modern politics. Perhaps the most sobering finding of recent social science is the one publicized in the last week or so, showing that people of strong ideological belief respond to contrary “facts” by denial/compartmentalization, rather than in most cases altering their basic belief.
The main message I would make about the Tea Party movement is: as I tried to say in my article, there are GOOD reasons for people of all sentiments to be frustrated and angry about failure of government. But it would be nice to avoid the nihilism / tribalism now associated with the T.P. people.
Welcome, Mr. Fallows–so glad you could join us today.
With regard to your prescription for “muddling through”, it would seem that when Joe Stack flew his airplane into the Austin IRS building, that would seem to be the exact opposite. Do you see any possibility that an actual violent revolution could be brewing, and that the US might break out of its history of always correcting its problems?
Thank you! This is a welcome change from the routine of a snowbound Washington DC.
Mr. Fallows: Just wanted to say that I’ve been a big fan of your writing going back to your articles about Japan in The Atlantic — about 1990, I think.
America is failing because it has become a kleptocracy. Our elites of which you are so much a part are completely corrupt. And here I am talking about all our elites: political, governmental, financial, industrial, academic, and media. They have, taken together, failed at even basic governance, the ostensible reason for the system of wealth and privilege they enjoy. Their sole function now is to loot the country or to enable its looting. They do this for themselves and for the corporations they both control and serve.
What we get from you is a long article in which you trivialize the current anger in the country by telling us not to worry that’s always been there. You throw up China next to let us know it isn’t much of a threat. Then a few quick takes on our political system and finally the grand finale where you exhort us to just muddle through. How much more status quo could you possibly get?
What was lacking was any real analysis of our current economic and financial situation. We have lost more than 30% of manufacturing jobs since Bush came to office in 2001. 25% of mortgages are underwater. We have had an $8 trillion housing bubble blow up on us, and most of that was the result of control fraud practised by the banking industry. Not only have none of those responsible been sent to prison. There have been no indictments or investigations. And beyond that they not only retain their positions and fortunes but continue to rake in bonuses for their ongoing depredations. We have 15 million unemploye per the U-3, 25 million un- and under employed per the U-6, and a few million more that slip through the counts because they are assumed to have left the job market entirely. We have high personal debt, little credit, and substantial fears of either job or home loss. State budget shortfalls last year were in the $190 billion range and this year are expected to be at least $180 billion. Tax receipts continue to decline. Our elites, your people, continue to do nothing but stick it to ordinary Americans, and then to top it off we get your unsurprising advice to just muddle through. I am sure the lords told the serfs much the same in the Dark Ages. Appropriate I suppose since if we follow your advice that is where we are headed.
Obviously I would not endorse the Joe Stack solution as a way of dealing with our public problems! And I think it raises the same question we get whenever there is an outburst of deadline violence in America — which, unfortunately, is fairly often: Does this mean that another disturbed or deranged person has decided that the way to play out his or her drama is by slaughtering others? Or does this “mean” something more — about political, social, economic tensions building up in our society?
My bias is to think that MOST of these episodes are mainly about the disturbed person himself, from the Charles Whitman shooting 40+ plus years ago through the Alabama shootings very recently. But of course there are cases that do seem to “mean” something broader: lynchings and other instances of racial violence; killings of people involved in providing abortions; perhaps the Ft. Hood shooting; and perhaps this one too. If it means that there is increasing potential for anti-government violence, then that is something to take seriously.
As for “always” correcting our problems, there is one big exception: the Civil War.
James, What are your thoughts on today’s news that all the teachers were fired at a Rhode Island school? Will this help US education?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35562693/ns/us_news-education/
CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. – A Rhode Island school district has voted to fire all the teachers at an underperforming school.
The Central Falls School Committee voted Tuesday evening to fire every educator at Central Falls High School at the end of the school year.
It’s the only school in the tiny, impoverished city north of Providence. Only about half its students graduate, and only 7 percent of 11th-graders were proficient in math in 2009.
Thank you — and I intend this as a placeholder “thanks” message to anyone else sending individual greetings. I appreciate it!
I also really wanted to believe Obama had good prescriptions for correcting what is wrong with the country. My frustration with him is that on the issues I care most about, torture, the rule of law, ending the wars and restoring regulatory control to the financial marketplace, Obama the President is ignoring the solutions from Obama the candidate.
Who will be the Jeremiah to our backsliding Jeremiah?
As I read your article several thoughts rose unbidden.
These thoughts deal with “systems”, economic, educational, and legal.
Our economic system is in long-time disarray, specifically because producing wealth came to be secondary to commandeering it.
Our educational system MAY be as superb as you say, but it is not serving the needs of the young, or of the rest of us for that matter, because it has fallen prey to the economic system, in any number of ways.
And our legal system, justice is not an optional extra, it is the essence of the law – and when people perceive that there is widespread injustice, that the law has become but a tool of the powerful and wealthy, even of the government itself, to lie and to plunder, falling victim, again, to the economic system, then how may society trust anything?
Finally, you list viable and worthwhile solutions, with which most here would agree.
And then you say, “But these things will not be done.” With which most here would agree.
So?
Muddle through we must, as the conscience of the nation, those of us who care enough to act, but let us take no pleasure or satisfaction from knowing that the PAIN of all that muddling is not fairly borne.
DW
I initially had the Civil War in parentheses as an exception in that question, but took it out because although it was violent and terribly destructive, it ended with us still one nation.
Welcome James. Do you think Americans and our government leaders have to publicly acknowledge the death and destruction that has taken place in Iraq based on a “pack of lies?” It’s as if the lives of the Iraqi dead, injured and displaced have been swept under the rug by our leaders, our MSM and the American people.
The pile of dead in Iraq creates quite a huge bump under our nations rug. The Obama administration seems committed to “move forward, turn the page, next chapter” on the disastrous policies.
The MSM seems committed to go along by not showing the American people the reality of that immoral invasion. Many Americans seem perfectly happy not to know.
At what point did holding individuals accountable for very serious crimes start being defined as “retribution, witch hunts, vengeance” instead of what it is…Justice and accountability?
Do we need to apologize outloud to the Iraqi people for this death and destruction?
With all due respect, part of what I was trying to do in this article was to provide some comparison and perspective. There are a LOT of things wrong with America now, as you point out. And there are LOTS of trends headed in just the wrong direction. I wrote a big cover story in the Atlantic in 2005 called ‘Countdown to a Meltdown’ which pointed out how the financial and other chicaneries were heading us over a cliff.
But — agree with what I said or not — my intention was to say: If we look as objectively as possible at (a) past waves in our history, and (b) the situation of the rest of the world, and (c) possible sources of rebound, what do we find? My conclusions are different from yours, but the intention was to give perspective for our current situation — based on having viewed the country from both inside and outside over the past few decades. Sorry you disagree.
This country was founded on rape, theft and genocide on a massive scale. Until it faces these facts (which by my calculation will be never) it has no hope of improving in any way.
About the Rhode Island story, which I hadn’t heard of before now: Again you can 100% understand the anger and impulse behind it. The biggest problem with our public schools, in my view, is the way they are being squeezed out/impoverished as vehicles of open opportunity in America. A strong public school system is important not to “keep up” with China or Japan or anyplace else; it’s important as a way of providing fairER chances for people in a polarizing economic distribution. So when they don’t work, it’s right to be despairing and angry.
On the other hand, it’s hard to know how firing everybody is going to address the basic problems. I say that not knowing the details on-scene.
Sadly, our modern American media machine turns every fact-based Jeremiah into a Cassandra.
Sigh — “who will be the Jeremiah for our failed Jeremiahs?” is really a difficult question, intellectually and emotionally and morally, for people who have wanted so much for Obama to succeed. The people most enthusiastic about criticizing him are, of course, those invested in his utter failure: the Republican opposition. But knowing that can’t just serve to mute those who want him to do more on issues ranging from torture to climate change to economic stimulus. That is the discouraging reality of practical politics (I say, from having worked in it once.) I think the challenges of this first year of Obama will mainly provoke thought/action on just the line you suggest: What are the ways to be a Jeremiah that push objectively in a more- rather than less-progressive direction.
“a) past waves in our history”
Slaughter of native Americans, enslavement of Africans, nuclear bomb obliteration of Japanese, slaugher of Vietnamese, hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions displaced in Iraq just “past waves in our history”
Should we just tell the Iraqi people and the rest of the world “get over it”
Makes me sick to my stomach and ashamed of my country
Like the other points raised here so far, these too are tough questions — which I obviously wrestled with both while putting my article together and as I’ve heard reactions after its publication. As a side note, I’ve been collecting ideas, reactions, complaints, and suggestions to see whether there is a further article or short book to be done on the specific steps that might lead to a system wide improvement or change. So far, I don’t think I have critical mass to take that step.
Just to make a few refining points: On the economic system, the specific strengths of the US model are its rebound capacity and its role as a source of new technologies, companies, products, and so on. Not — at least in recent times — as a source of broadly shared opportunity and wealth. The financial system and the legal system have not a very long time, if ever, been sources of broadly shared wealth. And — to continue this theme — the strong parts of our educational system are at the top tier: the big, famous universities that attract talent from around the world.
The theme that connects this all, of course, is the one where you end up. Even if it works to its ideal capacity, today’s US system will create lots of wealth — but not for all of us, or fairly shared. The pain of muddling through is also unfairly shared. Finding a politician or just a person who can talk about “fairness” is the next big need. Obama is better at talking about “reconciliation” than about “fairness.”
I like your phrase about commandeering rather than creating wealth. If you look at what Goldman and the other financial firms have done, this is a good description. But of course they do more than that. By creating and exploiting bubbles they are also involved in a lot of wealth destruction.
Re universities, it is interesting how corporatized they have become both in terms of their research relationships with corporations but also how the endowment funds at some universities become larger and more important than the universities themselves. It is likewise telling of Fallows elitism that he uses as his principal source on higher education in this country the president of Princeton. How very representative.
As for the legal system, it has become what Glenn Greenwald calls two tiered, a Dickensian system for you and me, and a Cass Sunstein “let’s not politicize policy differences” one for our elites.
I want to go back to the Tea Party folks for one more question. Their movement strikes me as aligned precisely against what you identify as the primary strengths of America. Their anti-intellectualism is directly opposed to funding basic research, which they decry as wasteful and elitist. Their racism is strongly aligned against the openness to other cultures and the immigration of the best and brightest that you identify as continually refreshing and enriching our culture. With a 24 hour cable network dedicated to getting that destructive message out, combating them will be very hard. How do we manage to inject into public debate the fact that they are directly attacking our country’s strengths, even while they are trying to claim the patriotic ground?
If the current situation is unsustainable, how does muddling through even become a possibility? If you think it is sustainable, what is your evidence to that effect?
The Iraq war was one of the great disasters of US foreign policy. I was in Washington through the jingoistic buildup to the war through 2002, and it was incredible how cavalier how many people were about how great an idea this would become.
I don’t know what good an “apology” for the war would make. To me, it seems almost trivializing the consequences of this decision — for Iraqis, for Americans, for people of many other nations. So I agree with you that the US should never have gone down this road. I just don’t know what an apology would do.
We have seen over and over the will of the people subverted by the wallet of the corporations. Lobbyists, often former elected officials and their staff, win the final battles. Now, with the recent Citizens United ruling, their ability to influence elections is unbounded.
Any suggestions on what to do in this area?
I envy you James, your opportunity of travel and the perspective it brings.
I hope many Americans may have the privilege of travel in the hopes that they may all, bring back some reason along with their changed perspectives.
I also imagine that endless war is not the best of futures, and hopefully such enthusiasm as there is for such a thing will find better outlets for itself.
Yet torture might become us, even still.
I see more malaise in the resilience and flexibility of society, James, than you apparently do.
But I truly welcome your optimism, which is a good foil for the cynicism which is (also, apparently) the preferred “philosophy” of the epiphytic elite, including, especially, the political classes.
DW
It was founded on those things — but it was not founded only on those things. Again, I was trying in this piece to provide a perspective on what looks strong and weak, good and bad, about today’s US in comparison with other nations. Obviously my perspective may differ from others’; I was just doing my best to convey the balance that I see.
Welcome Mr. Fallows,
The Elephant in the living room that no one is mentioning is the recently further empowered corporations. I see no way to stem their growing influence in every facet of American life. And “revolution?” Better hurry, our increasingly privatized military may not be as responsive as in days past.
Hard for me to envision ‘continually refreshing our connections with the rest of the world—through languages, family, education’ when what I see every day are cuts in those areas. As for “business,” back to square one, the profit driven corporation. I would most appreciate anyone convincing me that the trajectory for America is any other way than down, particularly for the middle class.
I don’t think anybody’s saying “just get over it.” As mentioned earlier, I view the Iraq decision (and attendant horrors, notably including state-authorized torture) as having been enormously destructive for the U.S. and the world. They have happened — despite the efforts of many people, including me and probably many of you, to avert them. The question now is how to mitigate the effects.
Mr. Fallows: A great privilege to have you here today. I’ve admired your writing for quite some time. You’ve certainly traveled a long way from Redlands.
I agree! And, I even made this point many eons ago in my (now quaint-seeming) book ‘Breaking the News.’…
Are you aware that there has been deep criticism on Obama from the left? That this began well before the Inauguration or even the election? This is about far more than “the discouraging reality of practical politics”. Obama never even tried. He ran on Change we can believe in and delivered instead the status quo, not here and there but across the board. He has continued Bush’s agenda on almost every point from the wars, to the bailouts, to the assaults on the Constitution.
Welcome. First let me say that whatever association you had with Jimmy Carter and his speeches requires a bit of thanks. He continues to be a person that deserves more respect than he received.
Having read your article I’d say you’re a bit more optimistic about our near future than seems right for me, in no small part due to comparison’s with the relative truthfulness of the Carter administration and how the current politics suffer by comparison. If our best plan now maybe to muddle through it will be without the open support of those that should be favoring the rights of the many over the needs of the few. That will be a tricky muddle indeed. The world seems to be in a corporate ascendent path. How this can be easily broken is a bit obscure to me.
Well, another good question. As it happens, a couple of days ago I was at a public session that included some of these people. And I tried to make exactly the case you are making here: that America’s best hope overall is to make itself as open a society as possible, since that is the one strategic advantage we have over any other society; and that centers of knowledge and innovation, which have always involved government support in various forms, are again what have made the U.S. as prosperous as it has been in the past.
The meta-depressing point here is that we’ve entered another era in which facts don’t seem to matter, and often politics is reduced to tribal terms. (With us / against us.) The offsetting point is that only 16 months ago the reverse seemed to be the case, and people who on “tribal” terms would never have voted for a non-white Presidential candidate in fact voted for Obama.
Frankly I can’t think of much else. This is a deeply anti-intellectual culture. While it has produced great artists (Poe, Melville, Gaddis) this seems almost by accident — in spite of a status quo of superstition and racist rage. The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building is scarcely atypical.
I don’t know if you’ve read the article. I tried to present it as a series of logical steps. Do we have problems? YES. Can we change the Constitution to address them. In realistic terms, NO. Are we going to have an actual revolution? I hope not. (And on through a list.) So what is left? DOING THE BEST WE CAN. But as mentioned earlier, that doesn’t mean just sitting still. Often there are situations where “nothing will work — but everything might.” Ie, a lot of specific changes could possibly make a large difference. Doing something about obstructionist Senate rules could be a start, for instance.
I too watched the buildup in shock. Kept thinking that what Scott Ritter, former CIA analyst, Senator Durbin and other Dems voting no on the Iraq war resolution would slow it down. When El Baradei came out in early March and said the Niger Documents were forgeries I thought the drive to invade based on false intelligence would come to a halt.
The warmongers (Feith, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc) pushed forward. The death and destruction there has basically just been ignored in our media. SHOW THE PICTURES It’s as if no Iraqi people died based on lies.
While I agree that a public apology for the death and destruction that has taken place in that country based on the Bush administration lies would be somewhat of a “trivial” response. Sweeping the death and destruction in that country due to our unnecessary invasion is adding insult to serious injury.
So if apologizing is a “trivial” response. Then it would seem the OBama adminiistration and our Dept of Justice would do their best to hold those who lied this nation into an unnecessary war ACCOUNTABLE. That this would be far more of a serious and much needed message and example to the Iraqi people and to the world that we take our laws, constitution and International agreements seriously.
Forget the apology then and hold the Bush administration accountable. If we can not do this for the right reasons (the hundreds of thousands of lives lost due to the lies).
Then do it for the wrong reasons…America would rise in the worlds eyes
This Citizens United ruling was indefensible in every way (as Justice Stevens pointed out). As a matter of jurisprudence, it was overreach/activism of the most naked form. The case first came to the court in a form that would allow a “narrow” ruling; the Roberts-led majority asked for it to be re-argued on the broadest terms. And of course in practical consequences, it represents the only known instance of the thought that the problem in American politics was that we had TOO LITTLE corporate influence.
The Congress needs to do what it can — within the limits of what is now “Constitutional” law — to curb the practical effect of the ruling. Even though in the short term the ruling will help Republicans, many GOP politicians have said that they don’t like the implications either. This should be a campaign issue this fall and in 2012. And a public issue too.
For those who didn’t get a chance to read the article, perhaps you could recount a bit of the story about Carter’s “Malaise” speech (which was written after you left that role). I found your description of the initial reaction to the speech and your thoughts on the reasons for the current conservative views on it were very revealing about changes in our culture since the Carter administration.
I’m totally with you on this Jim. I’ve been researching part of the Tea Party Movement (The Tea Party Express) and I’ve found a very cynical adoption of these people by a GOP consulting firm in Sacromento. They traveled around the country in expensive buses and lined up media at these stops. Fox News, Right Wing radio and rightwing media. Their media profile far exceeded their numbers or impact.
You might also be interested to know that paid the two black men who were part of the public events. Sure they might have attended on their own, but blunting the racism charges only cost them 17k. Oh and they paid Joe the Plumber 2k to attend one of the events.
They then used money they raised to put on more media events and pay themselves big bucks.
The media don’t bother to expose this. For example I couldn’t get the funding data on the other 4 members of the Tea Party Express because their 990′s weren’t out yet. They can hide all their corporate funding from the health insurance industry until August of 2010. Don’t you think that the media in each small town would like to know that this Tea Party is brought to you by the health insurance industry? Or that the city of LA had to pay for the 30 police people to be at the event out of tax payer funds? The anti-tax tea party people using public parks and police services for free, what an ironic surprise!
This is one of the “proofs” that education is failing.
The inability of the people, the so-called “public”, to understand when they are being presented false argument.
As in, “You are either with us or against us”, which is the CLASSIC form of “argumentum ad baculum”, or “argument backed by a stick.” Of course that is for most practical purposes America’s foreign “policy” rendered to its most “simple logic”, so it must have domestic uses as well.
Not only do “we” not “do nuance”, reason and understanding are scarce, as well.
Cynicism reigns, and as I have said, ’tis not we, here, who are the cynics.
DW
You point to our political failings and suggest that maybe the fault lay in choosing our bicameral system as opposed to a parliamentary one. I would suggest that “political failure” is now baked into the cake and is engineered by unaccountable financial elites. For example, now that the big banks have had their balance sheets rescued by means of “quantitative easing” all the buzz in the financial press is how the fed is going to engineer a “liquidity drain” to fend off the possibility that some of the excess liquidity could spill out into the real economy and result in (gasp) inflation. It looks to me like the recession in the real economy is fully expected to continue and unemployment rates to remain high. This I believe is an intentional maneuver by financial elite to destroy democratic congressional majorities in advance of the next election and perhaps the Obama presidency unless he delivers on something really big like “entitlement reform.” When independent central banks are able to engineer recessions or to engineer the withholding of relief from them they tend to benefit politically because people blame the continued recession on the ineptitude of politicians. All through Japan’s “lost decade” unprecedented fiscal stimulus was attempted by the government, and yet the recession continued. As Richard Werner documents in his 2002 book Princes of the Yen, the Bank of Japan worked against the governments stimulus attempts by maintaining a tight money policy. Ironically, the Bank of Japan ended up more powerful, less subject to oversight and more independent than ever.
In your article, you rightly find fault in the 60-vote gridlock, but you seem to stop short of specifically calling for an end to it via rules changes (as opposed to military takeover or Constitutional convention). Agreed that it would take people of vision and will, but curious why you avoid proposing/examining the less revolutionary options available–either to the VP and majority leader to force a change in filibuster rules mid-session, or to a simple majority, which could vote a rules change at the start of the next Congress.
Yes, in the final analysis, the House s too small and the Senate is inherently undemocratic, but surely there is something between blowing up the system and just muddling through.
…which is why Obama’s choices since inauguration have been such a crushing disappointment. An incredible opportunity has been wasted.
And yet with plenty of warning plenty of Ds voted to confirm Roberts. How they run against something they previously supported and may actually prefer since they would be the target of the enhanced revenue stream seems fairly difficult to see.
Thank you. I should point out that I feel enormously fortunate to have had the professional opportunities I have had. Over the now 30 years in which I’ve worked for the Atlantic, I’ve spent half the time in DC and half other places, intentionally: several years each in Japan, Malaysia, now China, shorter times in Europe and Africa, and long spells in Texas, Washington state, and California, where I am from. The great opportunity of reporting is being able to see a variety of realities in the world and try to describe them.
In my personal life and outlook, I know both the optimism and the melancholy you describe. For reasons I won’t go into, involving my family background, I usually make a deliberate choice on the “you might as well be optimistic” side — meanwhile against the knowledge that we’re all here temporarily in any case. [For later discussion.]
Welcome, Mr. Fallows…
I felt a bit more optimistic after reading your piece in The Atlantic last night, but less so after wading through these comments.
I grew up in a military family, moving, on average, every 18 months or so. So, I’ve never had that same attachment to place that most people I know have. Still, the US as an idea is a very strong one for me, and the current reality is so far removed from that idea that I can hardly wrap my brain around it. Whenever I’m out of the country, I feel this profound need to apologize for the past decade or so, maybe more.
I’ll have to re-read your piece again and see if there is any way that I can apply, personally, some of what you suggest. However, a follow-up book might be very welcome to many here.
Doing the best we can still has powers. In any system, corruption and favoritism trumps the basics of that system IF WE LET IT. Whether we would have been better off with a parliamentary system or this one is moot, so long as no redress for corrupt and incompetence, which seems to me to be the big problem.
This appears to have roots well into the past, with particular actions on the part of the turn of the century (20th Century) presidents and promises made which were not intended to be kept. So it seems to me if not revolution, then scrupulous attention to elections is a start.
Thanks — and “Redlands” = the small town in California where my parents moved, as part of the great post-WW II migration, and raised their four children.
Sadly, many of us on the left agree with Hugh’s points. We have been pretty disgusted with our POTUS and his apparent bowing to the corporate powers that be, while almost completely renigging on every campaign promise. I’m a realist and never expect a politician to deliver all that they say they will, but my perception of this POTUS is that he’s good on rhetoric and that’s about it. He seems totally bought out by big corporations.
How we can ever get out of the mess that we’re in seems beyond imagining. I really relate to your commentary about our nations severely decaying infrastructure and declining public school system.
I grew up in the 1950s/1960s and can well remember the pride this nation used to take in building our infrastucture and having THE BEST public schools. Sadly the corporations have pushed the idea on seemingly gullible Republican/conservatives that garnering enough taxes to actually pay for (as opposed to credit card/borrowing for) such tangibles as infrastructure, public school systems, public safety is an anethma and against the will of the people.
I find it all rather shocking how virulently some people feel about this, yet expect lots of services without making the connection that these things require being paid for.
However do we re-educate ourselves that paying for infrastructure is a virtue, not a vice?
I guess the real question is, can we “muddle through” long enough (10 years? 20?) to get to the point where we can actually fix these systemic problems, or is it “muddle through forever”? What might change while we are muddling through? Demographics? Technology? Alien visitors? Oh, for some Vulcans to show up on our doorsteps…
I look forward, James, to that later discussion.
;~DW
About this “malaise” speech — a fascinating tale, IMHO. I should disclose here that I worked as Carter’s speechwriter for the first two years of his Administration but had left by this point.
In the summer of 1979, Carter was beset by various political and real-world problems. He holed up at Camp David, he summoned various thinkers etc to come talk with him, and then he gave a dramatic televised address. It was called “The Crisis of Confidence” address, and while it didn’t include the word “malaise” it was quite a striking Jeremiad in classical terms. He said that Americans had lost faith in all of their systems, from financial to political to educational even to religious. And that the basic viability of the American system had been called into question.
Because we know that Carter was a “pathetic one-termer” and because this speech is referred to dismissively as the “malaise address,” we assume it was a disaster in real time. It wasn’t. As Kevin Mattson shows in a recent book, it was VERY popular in real time. Carter’s approval rating shot up by something like 11 points. It was only a few days later, when he shook up his entire Cabinet, that he was in trouble again.
The short-term meaning was that people responded well to a jeremiad. But, as I then argue in my piece, Ronald Reagan largely contaminated the whole idea of these addresses, by associating it with “anti-Americanism.” I quote Rick Perlstein as saying that ever since then, serious criticism of American politics or culture has been in jeopardy of being called “anti-American” by the right.
Rachel Maddow did a good job in exposing the rightwing think tanks, Big Ins think tanks, and rich fat cats like the Koch family, who funded a lot of the Tea Party Town Hall protests over the summer. No the MSM, other than some on RM & KO, will never, ever dare to expose this back-room astro-turfing.
Agree with you, though. There’s a lot of genuine outrage by citizens in the movements, but they’ve been very led by the same corporations that are causing their outrage. It’s sad that they cannot see that.
Very interesting, thanks. (I am working down the queue of unanswered comments, and this was next on the list!)
Agree; sigh.
The conservative movement is very strongly in thrall of the US in the 1950′s when much infrastructure, especially in the West, was built. Maybe we need to tap into that admiration for the leaders of those days from the standpoint of emphasizing their vision, and provision, for the future.
You rang?
-Spocko
“Are we going to have an actual revolution? I hope not.”
Frankly, sir, I’m a bit overwhelmed by the cognitive dissonance demonstratd by acknowledging all the problems you’ve acknowledged, and then voicing the hope that we not have the only process that would seem to offer any real chance of achieving meaningful change in our lifetimes.
I am a lawyer, trained to believe in the “system,” but knowing so much about that system that I have concluded it is irretrievably broken, and beyond the ability to repair itself. On balance, I think a revolution that precipitated a return to first principles would be better for the country than what we are witnessing, which is the slow motion death of democracy an the entrenchment of fascism.
Would you be so kind as to explain why you “hope” the People would remain passive and compliant, rather than taking forceful steps to re-assert their ownership of the country and the government? And, as you do so, could you be mindful of the words and spirit embodied in the Declaration of Independence?
“Fifty years from now, Americans will be as worried as they are today,” Murphy said. “And meanwhile the basic social dynamism of the country will continue to wash us forward in the messy, roiling way it always has.”
So do we accept that we are no different than those who did nothing while millions were slaughtered by the Hitler killing machine. That people in the future (hell people around the world now) wondering why Americans did not do more to stop the war in Iraq or hold those responsible for it accountable
—————————————————–
Fallow “We could correct all these problems—and that is the heart of the problem. America still has the means to address nearly any of its structural weaknesses.”
Just finished your article seems to be focused on our economic bankruptcy issues and not the morallly bankrupt issues that our nation faces
Thanks. On the Japan points, basically I agree. I am not as closely in touch with Japanese affairs as when I lived there in the 1980s, but the machinations of the Finance Ministry and BOJ are as impressive as you suggest.
On our domestic legislative issues, I think there are two different but reinforcing problems: the structural issues (eg, a Senate where Wyoming and California have equal weight, plus gerrymandered House districts) and the financial-power issues. Both need to be reckoned with, though the solutions are different.
Certainly the phrase “muddle through” seems to suggest keeping one’s nose clean, hoping that the creek doesn’t rise and the crops don’t fail. Given apparent the size of the storm on the horizon and it’s accompanied wealth transfer that might the the solution but it doesn’t suggest a lot of optimism that current institutions are part of the solution.
Actually I did read your article. What I found so frustrating about it is how it sidestepped so many of the issues that concern us here and that many of us here have done considerable research in, government lawlessness, the ascendancy of corporations, the housing bubble, the meltdown, deteriorating economic fundamentals, the lack of discernible difference between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats, the failure of both to govern even to minimum levels, the great looting they enabled and practised in the Fed and Treasury bailouts, Obama’s sellout on healthcare. Sometimes the times really are different. Not everyone can move back to China if and when there is another collapse here.
Yes, the Senate is an anachronism. Some of us have been saying that for years. But even if the filibuster is modified or eliminated, it will not change the capture of the two parties by our elites nor will it cause them to address the issues that worry ordinary Americans. If the Democrats had wanted to do something about the filibuster, they could have in the organizing resolution back in January 2009. Mitch McConnell has already stated his intention to obstruct following the November election. The Democrats has already seen what the Republicans were doing after the 2006 election. None of this was surprising. Instead we have seen Obama freeze out progressives completely from his Administration and make repeated outreaches to Republicans who invariably vote against his mulitply watered down legislation. I think that if the Repulbicans did not exist, the Democrats would have had to invent them to justify their Blue Dog status quo corporatist approach which in its essence is Republican to the core.
Considering that the Children of Israel ended up weeping by the waters of Babylon, the Jeremiah approach isn’t necessarily very promising. In the spirit of muddling through, the more relevant ancient precedent might be stoicism, not prophesy. How do the members of the leadership class maintain a modicum of decency and effectiveness in a deeply corrupt imperial state? The American constitution is obviously obsolete, but it would be possible to work around its anti-democratic features if public men and women could muster enough incremental integrity. Currently, people seem rather ashamed to even imagine sacrificing private advantage in the interest of the country since such behavior violates the dominant ethic of careerism; but maybe we could undertake a whispering campaign in favor of secret virtue.
Thank you very much; I am also learning from this exchange (and similar, though less-real-time ones, over the past few weeks).
To address one point: I wish it were possible for all Americans to spend a significant amount of time outside the country. I don’t just mean for the tourist/cultural effects. I mean what you understand and allude to in your comments: that you have a different appreciation of both the strengths and the weaknesses/vanities/failings of your own country from afar.
I remember hearing the speech and trying to figure out later whether other people had been watching the same speech. The power of the MSM became apparent to me from the historical rewrite.
And the Golden Calf (bull) just moved to Wall Street
I agree. And this prompts me to bring up Ralph Nader’s name again. We have been close, and less close, at different stages over the years. I was among the former associates of Nader’s who urged him to stop campaigning in the last month of the 2000 election; I did not talk with him for a long time after that. Whatever your views of that episode, however, Nader has been admirable and consistent in one way, ever since the first time I met him in 1969. He has always emphasized that active, daily, average-citizen involvement in the affairs of state was the ONLY safeguard against abuse and corruption of all sorts. That is why he was always uncomfortable with the term “consumer advocate.” He was much more realistically a “citizen advocate,” and that is the message he is preaching even now.
i’m curious about this too – i did read the article and this bit:
leaves out a big piece of what william greider describes in his book, secrets of the temple. in short, that there was a popular response to carter’s speech and that on the following tuesday carter did ask for the resignation of his cabinet. the bit that is left out and that greider describes is what happened on monday, which was wall street’s response. if greider’s narrative is correct, that is another parallel to today – that a presidential call for profound change (assuming for the moment that both carter and obama were sincere), and supported by the public, was blocked by big finance…. which in the subsequent decades has only gotten bigger.
edit to add: i see james did post a response while i was typing my comment.
I have been reading much lately on Alfred the Great, my 35th great grandfather. Jermiah was often cited, especially by Alcuin, in the 7th and 8th centuries during the Viking invasions – - as well as Alfred’s reintroduction of Christian values and, more importantly, stress on education with his translations of Boethius, Pope Gregory’s Pastoral care and the like. It was a nationwide initiative, and recognition of importance in getting back to these key elements.
His actions saved England as we know it. And we do have it within us to do here.
The dominant ethic will change, one way or another, but your whispering campaign is a real buzz, Jim.
;~DW
To address the last question: how do we educate ourselves, about infrastructure (and other civic virtues)? I fear that the answer is the one I was mentioning a moment ago in a note about Ralph Nader. It is destined to be a struggle day by day and year by year. I wish I had an alternative answer, but I don’t see one. And — I’m doing my best, as is my magazine, to push the debate in our modest way. That’s all that I can see as an option at the moment.
I would go for that. A basic reality of American history is that such appeals to “national greatness” — and I mean that in the sense of infrastructure, universities, “building” in a positive, civic way — have often worked best when strapped onto a military rationale or message. Eisenhower’s interstate highways; Kennedy’s race to the moon; a long preceding list wonderfully explained by G. Perrett in ‘A Country Made By War.’ I await the possibility of talking about American “nation-building” that can be separated from military rhetoric.
I agree with you regarding Nader, James, though you should know that there are many (even here) who don’t share our kinder assessment.
Nader articulated truths about activism that go far beyond any of his messages.
Say what you will, Nader’s sense of integrity has not wavered nor changed.
DW
I am against a “revolution” because, to me, that term implies an armed struggle. For all sorts of reasons that is something I am not eager to see.
I know that Rachael did, and that was swell. What I’d like to suggest is how the rest of us can USE this information to mess up the Tea party message in your local media.
Here is what I did in SF before a tea party. I took the information about the radical nature of the sponsors, KSFO host Brian Sussman.
I first wrote his corporate sponsor, Citadel and asked them if their liability insurance was paid up. Did they have experience with mobs. Are they aware of Sussman’s comments inciting violence. I focused on the potential for a FINANCIAL blow rather than a criminal problem (link). They recent 16 million dollar ruling against a radio station in Sacramento where they held a contest and a woman died was mentioned. Calls to action that lead to violence is what they were doing and I wanted them to be tied to the possible negative results financially.
Then I wrote the DA and the City Attorney to let them know about the location of the event (in front of Pelois’s office) and point out the violent comment of the guests and host. I included the photo of Sussman with a gun from the KSFO website. (The event was then moved to Justin Herman plaza)
Then I alerted the local media before the event and said, if you cover this event please ask questions based on these radical comments from the listeners and the host. (Sussman is a birther, deather and believes that Obama is going to grab guns using the Census.)
The local print media made a decision to not cover the event.The Fox station that covered it was forced to have a “balanced view”
This is how you disrupt the media narrative of the tea party BEFORE the events. After the fact is nice, but it still lets their message get out.
I’m doing this on my own, but like my work on advertisers pulling out of right wing talk radio, I’m trying to teach others how to do it.
I understand your point about “muddle through” and don’t intend those “I’m all right, Jack” / “not my problem” connotations. Instead what I really mean is, on the classic axis of “reform” versus “revolution,” I am in the “reform” camp. Tedious as that sounds.
I won’t ask you what your “solution” is — I will, however, point out that even in an extremely long magazine article (11,000 words) there is a lot you have to leave out. And in other articles (by me and others) over the years, we’ve gone into a lot of these other issues too.
““If you go back and pick any decade in American history, you are guaranteed to find the exact same worries we have now,” he said. “About our commercial capacities, about the education system, about whether immigrants are ruining our stock and not learning English, about what is happening to the ‘real’ values that built the country. Poke a stick into it, and you will get a gushing fount of commentary on the same subjects as now, in the same angry and despairing tone. It’s an amazingly consistent trait.”
———————————————————
Seems like the accumulation of laws broken by the Bush administration created quite a sizeable “wave” of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the application of the “rule of law”
In our history have the numbers of Americans who have little to no faith in our supposed leaders, in our laws, in the enforcement of those laws ever been so low?
Nader’s biggest mistake was in thinking that Gore would have been the same kind of President we had with Bush.
Otherwise he has been a fairly standup guy.
Classic dumbshit management approach to a problem. They probably should have fired themselves. I take it as a given that there were teachers who were a problem, but not all were, unless all the good ones had already left thanks to the conditions they found themselves in.
Not sure I replied before. I take your point but, as at similar moments in American history — probably the most similar being the late 1890s — the option I would choose is to continue the effort to change minds and mobilize support to control excessive power. What is the alternative?
I don’t know….
I agree that a mere “apology”, by itself, would trivialize US aggression towards Iraq. So would you support US war reparations being paid to Iraq as compensation for the huge amount of damage that the US has done to Iraqis? And if not, why not, given that you recognize that a mere apology isn’t enough?
Gun sales going up UP
Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up – WSJ.com
Apr 16, 2009 … Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up …. “It’s difficult to find any AR-15 at a retail show or gun store selling for the …
online.wsj.com/article/SB123984046627223159.html – Cached – SimilarWhy are Gun Sales Up?—By Ken Silverstein (Harper’s Magazine)
Why are Gun Sales Up? By Ken Silverstein. From the lows of mid-day March 6th through the close of trading yesterday, the Dow Jones is up 23%, the NASDAQ 100 …
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004670 – Cached – SimilarGun sales shoot up amid America’s fear of rising crime and …
Nov 16, 2009 … Smith & Wesson, the famed American gunmaker once owned by Tomkins, the British conglomerate, expects to nearly double its annual sales in …
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry…/article6917828.ece
my approach takes more people, although it perhaps is complementary to yours: separate the ordinary people from the elite who are misleading and using them. there are legitimate grievances, big ones. and so long as those grievances are allowed to continue and worsen, and are ignored by all political actors — that is a recipe for trouble.
so, i think there has to be a place for treating people with respect, taking their grievances seriously (in an honest way), and providing examples of alternative analysis and solutions. in other words, winning over, with an honest message, ordinary americans. organizing 101.
Do you think the writers of the Declaration of Independence were more “eager” than you, or do you think they were just fools?
This is a perspective I wish I had thought of while I was writing the story! Thank you.
Everyone knows that the Vulcans won’t come until we have a warp drive space vehicle. :)
Very useful info; thanks.
Okay, so now we have seen your warnings of what could happen if we don’t correct our course, and we’ve seen your suggestions on how we should best go about changing our course.
Given all that as the current situation what do you think is going to happen? As you noted, just because we have always survived in the past doesn’t guarantee we will this time. Will the US suffer serous decline? Will it instead actually improve? Will it somehow just limp along?
the option I would choose is to continue the effort to change minds and mobilize support to control excessive power. What is the alternative?
Basically, I concur with this approach. However, the mobilization of support, given the current media climate (especially television “news”), seems problematical, at best. Your comments?
Yes, and it would be helpful if the term “the Homeland” were to fade into well-forgotten obscurity, along the way.
Perhaps we could begin the conversation by suggesting that true national security is the well-being of the people.
Starting with jobs of worthwhile endeavor and universal access to health care, not, it will be noted, “health insurance”.
It is hypocrisies like that, which rankle.
DW
Hello, Mr. Fallows. What were your impressions of China relative to the U.S.? In particular, do you think that their government is better able to focus on what needs to be fixed in their society? Are people optimistic (in other words, would they say things are getting generally better, as the polls ask?)
I’ve been impressed by some of their moves recently, like the high speed rail and universal health care initiatives. Still, that’s not enough to gain an overall impression.
Is there perhaps another possibility, that the circumstances were somewhat different? To start with: overseas colony breaking away, versus domestic civil war?
Although Nader will not admit this, he really did think there wasn’t that much difference between Bush and Gore, plus he really didn’t like Gore personally. A thousand things had to happen for that election to turn out the way it did, but Nader could have broken the chain himself. At some level he knows that, though he just won’t admit it. And the rest of us know it.
How about a non-violent revolution, James, where we all serve as “conscience” in “nagging’ the larger awareness into confronting absurdity and failure for what they, in fact, are?
AS well as supplying visions of something better and more humane.
THAT is the WAY forward, as I see it.
What think you?
DW
You put me in mind of those British WWII posters: Keep Calm and Carry On!
And I agree… we could do better with a bit of that type of stoicism.
I think that economically the United States as a whole will probably be in better shape in a few years than most people think. For all the reasons I lay out in that piece. I am not so confident about American civil society. Every trend now underway is pushing us toward a less-equal, less fair society, with fewer chances for those who don’t start out ahead. The “default” path for America, I fear, is “success” overall, but in what we used to regard as banana-republic fashion: rich and poor and not much in the middle. That is “sustainable,” but it is bad. And I think politics and journalism and other forces should be marshaled against those trends. Which is in a way what most of the discussion here entails.
Agree. I have waged a long campaign to get rid of the loathsome term “homeland,” especially in the construction “homeland security.”
As we come to the end of this interesting salon,
James, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your article.
Jim, Thank you for Hosting this great salon.
Thanks all.
Thank you for being one of those in a position to know who does admit it. Honestly, I’ve never thought about Nader in quite the same way I did before that election… when he effectually left us all twisting in the wind. And, we still are…
We’re almost out of time, so I’ll say: check out any recent article in the Atlantic! (Basically, China is less fearsome/impressive up close than from a distance. But still a society to be taken very seriously. My book Postcards from Tomorrow Square is in essence an answer to your question.)
Thanks very much, for the points where we agree and where we don’t. This has been very useful in giving me new things to think about. jf
James, thank you so much for your time here today. Thanks especially for your thoroughness and integrity in replying to every question put to you. The citizens here at the Lake do notice when a guest ducks the difficult questions, and you were unflinching today.
Thank you also for your dedication to the ideals for which our country stands and for using your voice to champion for those ideals.
[I'm not running you off; feel free to converse as long as you wish, but a new post will be coming down the tubes momentarily.]
So, then if the tyrants share your territory, one must be reasonable enough to accept the tyranny forever? I think your attitutde might be a bit different if your personal circumstances were less comfortable.
If the tyrants have weapons they are willing to use to quell dissent, along with all the manipulative tools and techniques invented in the last century, then doesn’t the automatic ruling out of any armed or aggressively militant resistance automatically guarantee a continuation of the status quo trend?
I know this is the ultimate uncomfortable question, but will you at least acknowledge the paucity of your response?
Thank you so much, a very interesting discussion. So glad you came by.
And thanks Jim W, for hosting!
Seconding your comment, Jim.
I noticed early on that everyone was receiving at least one response, sometimes more. I haven’t seen that before.
Thank you, James, for being with us.
Don’t be a stranger.
A pleasure.
DW
Thank you. BTW, Lee Rodgers, the second of the three talk radio hosts that I exposed to their advertisers was fired last week. Melanie Morgan was fired in 2008. My focus on having a financial impact on the right wing media has paid off. Corporate stock holders demand their companies make money. Unless a corporation has a sugar daddy with a singular political agenda (Moon, Murdock)right wing nuts are vulnerable if they don’t generate income.
I’m working right now with Color of Change. The campaign to alert the advertisers of the race bating of Glenn Beck was very successful. 81 advertisers pulled their ads. I tried to get one of the NewsCorp investors or the mainstream media to ask. “When will the Glenn Beck show make money? How long will you subsidize a money losing host? Does the high ratings of Beck actually translate to more money from other shows? Which Fox News budget is paying for salary of Beck, since his adverting revenue is basically zero? Is this coming out of Roger Allies pocket our yours?”
Surprisingly nobody asked those questions. This is the power of consolidated media. They don’t have to disclose the money losing nature of their rank partisian political shows. The Glenn Beck show is one big campaign contribution to the right wing Republicans.
And to Jim White …
My thanks and greatest appreciation.
DW
China has not been doing particularly well in its management of the worldwide recession. A lot of its statistics are untrustworthy but it appears to have stimulated several wealth destroying bubbles in the last year or so, stocks, commodities, and real estate. There were also a spate of bad loans. They are continuing their undervalued peg to the dollar. What investment there has been looks like it continues to increase the production overhang they already have. It all looks very export related which is strange in a worldwide downturn. I don’t see much new thinking there. They seem to be pursuing a classic course I suppose of Fallows’ idea of “muddling through”. We will see where that gets them.
We are going to have a revolution. That is exactly we are heading.
We are going to have it because the constitution, the rights it protects have been shreded. That along with the economic collapse will embolden enough people to rise up and “throw the bums out”.
And this is exactly where we are headed and cannot be avoided. We have reached the point of no return.
Hang on tight.
Thank you James Fallows and Jim White for an interesting, informative and lively thread.
Greetings, SanderO;
Interesting days … ahead.
DW
I was so delighted when I read that Lee had been fired and thought about all your good work. Thanks
This government is a sham. It is a democracy in name only.
It has been sold legally to those with the cash – cash stolen because we allowed them to steal it because we worship wealth.
This nation is not capable of walking back fascism.
We’ll have to have a do over. And we will.
Collaborators will flee… and they’d be advised to do just that.
DW, I miss you!
send me an email to JSanderO at geeeeeeeeeeeemail dot calm
I could not disagree more with that. It is not “sustainable.” And it most certainly will not be “better” in the aggregate in any moral sense of the term.
Not surprisingly nobody asked those questions.
Keep chipping away at them, but why stop with Beck? There are plenty of others just like him. Hannity, O’Reilly, etal.
Hit the top-line revenue. That’s the only thing that gets their attention.
Thanks! It’s pretty funny that Rodgers is both claiming that I did have an impact and didn’t. He is also turning to his Union to protect him. Pretty ironic coming from a long time union basher.
Brian Sussman, who denies that climate change is caused by humans, is the new host. The fans of Rodgers don’t like him. With his new prominence he should be getting some more scrutiny from my friends at Media Matters.
I might just have to start contacting advertisers again to point out some of his more radical, brand tainting comments.
I agree, if you want to get a corporations notice cost them money. Then they send the lawyers. And out come the attack dogs. Did you know that the first person Beck successfully attacked was Van Jones, Color of Change co-founder?
When I taught my techniques to HateHurtsAmerica.org to use against Michael Savage they cost him 18 advertisers and a million in revenue. He then sued them for the same thing that Disney came after me for, copyright infringement. Fortunately, they followed my guidelines and the Electronic Frontier Foundation defended them as they did me. Savage lost his case.
The ability to use their own words against them is an important technique that we have in our tool chest and we should use it.
I was aware of their monetary policy, and it is becoming increasingly problematic. The “bubble” issues I wasn’t so aware of, but I suppose at least some of them (the real estate one in particular) are probably related to the strong Chinese currency.
I was interested mainly in getting a sense of their competence at running their own country, although obviously foreign policy is important. They are doing some things right, but then one could say that about our government, too.
So, are Republicans calling for legislation to limit those frivolous lawsuits? ;)
Brian Sussman, who denies that climate change is caused by humans
What climate change? Isn’t it cold in DeeCee? I rest my case.
That’s what the idiots on Fox (and others) were trying to sell a few weeks back. The worst part is that there are people watching / listening who actually believe what they’re saying. And there’s the rub.
Again, ya gotta hit top-line revenue to have a large impact.
The ability to use their own words against them is an important technique that we have in our tool chest and we should use it.
Plenty of ammo there, for sure.
When the heat wave hits what will they do? I’m guessing they will show clips of D.C. in the winter. :-)
I agree with you.
To paraphrase Eddie Murphy in Trading Places” If you want to hurt rich people you take away their money.
I decided to use the greed of the shareholders against their right wing media hosts. Never come between shareholders and their demand for higher quarterly profits.
I also was developing a program that would get the FEC to demand that partisian radio stations not get a free ride for their constant promotion of one candidate. I wanted to get it classified as a donation from the media corporation. I spoke to several groups and a lawyer who had worked with the Supreme Court on FEC cases. He liked the idea but said to wait until the Citizens United case was decided. He said that if the SC went with the broad ruling (which they did) my idea would be moot.
My idea is moot. But I still like to figure out ways how to impact their top line revenue.
“Greece leads Europe’s winter of discontent
Strikes threaten to cause paralysis as workers reject government attempts to cut spending and wages”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-leads-europes-winter-of-discontent-1908527.html
not exactly a revolution, but …
Media, Citizenry, Polity
I have great respect for James Fallows, from his seminal National Defense to his most recent work on the Pacific Rim. He and T.R. Reid are a critical but shrinking remnant of what was formerly known as the Fourth Estate.
Unfortunately, I don’t see how the America that existed before Cheney/Bush will survive when only 20% (if that) of the country is seeking effective, responsible, Constitutional governance. The other 80%+ is divided almost equally between predatory parasties feeding on the empire’s faltering body, and manipulated fools marching to the demented sobs of Glenn Beck.
As for our so called elected officials … only 2% are focused on honoring their oath of office & working for the interests of the voter constituents who “elected” them. The remaining 98% are bought & paid for by corporate interests. So they’re either perpetually fundraising for the next re-election/career advancement campaign or racking up lobbyist favors to cash in on their K Street mega-bonus position after retiring from “public service.”
It’s Three Strikes Rule Time:
1) Real health care access & insurance reform that puts citizens’ well being ahead of Pharma & Big Insurance profits
2) Real regulation of financial speculation mega-corporations who operate the Fed & Treasury like wholly owned subsidiaries
3) Real investment in human capital and physcial infrastructure to increase our people’s productive capacity in the globalized economy.
We’ll see if public policy discourse as a progressive force in American society has been relegated to the effectiveness of watching The West Wing re-runs … or not.
My sense is Ian Welsh is right.
Thanks for the link to Ian, PPDCUS.
I would not be inclined to bet that Ian is wrong.
Perhaps a tad bit optimistic, which he readily admits.
DW
Of course he’s optimistic, DW. You know it, and I know it. But optimism is supposed to be what we agree to survive on. Being good citizens and all. What I wonder about is, why is it always implicitly assumed that the perpetrators at the top always get to survive on so much more, or at all, for that matter.
“How America Can Rise Again” and roll over the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people dead, injured and millions who have been displaced as a direct consequence of an invasion based on a “pack of lies”
The MSM, our congress and most of the american people are happy to roll right over all of those dead bodies. We are spiritually and morally bankrupt along with being in big ass economic trouble.
Well, I was being a trifle facetious, razorbrain, as Ian’s view of what is likely to happen is very far from sanguine.
If you’ve not read the linked article, then I believe you would find much with which you would agree, therein.
DW