“These are the times that try men’s souls.” Thomas Paine said that, and I wish I could ask him, “What times aren’t?” Still, whatever else they are these are our times. And, however obviously true that is, it is painful to confess.
These are times when bankers, like so many Snidely Whiplashes on steroids, are trying to take homes from people who don’t even have mortgages.
These are the times when public education, foundational to democracy, is under assault from profiteers who just have to get their hands on all that money, a move that would turn education over to the kinds of lawless people who are, well, foreclosing on homeowners who don’t have mortgages.
The same is true of Social Security, a successful citizen cooperative that goes a long way toward guaranteeing two of Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms: freedom from want and freedom from fear. Oh how the Wall Street bandits and buccaneers want to get their hands on that money – as if giving them the cash will make anyone but them more financially secure.
These are the times in which the courts say money is speech, so those with more money have more speech. Corporations are persons and they can spend all they want to buy elections, functionally disenfranchising individual working Americans. Campaign finance and disclosure laws, intended to help level the field, are failing and collapsing like weak levees before a terrible storm.
These are the times in which increasing wealth inequality makes the losers blame other losers (usually of different colors, religions or origins) for theft perpetrated by the rich. An alarming new study (pdf) shows that in times of rising inequality, the victims left at the bottom embrace the very policies that stripped them of their wealth. There’s no better analysis of 2010 election cycle:
…rising inequality in the United States has profound implications for political inequality, essentially creating a vicious cycle in which inequality begets yet more inequality.
These are the times that hopes for democracy have given way to the cruel, feudal dreams of yore.
These are the times when no one blinks as Glenn Beck claims (video) the soul-aware Thomas Paine, whose hatred for everything the Becks of the West stand for destroyed his career, was just an earlier version of Glenn Beck:
“Thomas Paine was kind of the…oh, I don’t know, ooh, my apologies to Thomas Paine, but kind of the Me of [the revolutionary] generation.”
About this time you’re wishing you were spending your time this particular moment on anything but contemplation of these times. Take heart. This battle’s been going on a long time, and our times are not so different from earlier times in American history.
Read this from historian H.W. Brands’ new book, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900:
“By the [19th] century’s end the imperatives of capitalism mattered more to the daily existence of most Americans than the principles of democracy. The old forms of law and politics survived, not least since the capitalists couldn’t be bothered to change them. ‘What do I care about the law?’ bellowed Cornelius Vanderbilt. ‘Hain’t I got the power?’ He did have the power, and with it he and the other capitalists dominated American life.”
Well, today’s capitalists can and are bothered to change those principles of democracy. Hence, the Supreme Court’s willingness to turn over our lives to corporations – even foreign corporations. Hence, the decades-long effort at voter suppression. Hence, the shuttering of our courts under the ridiculous disguise of “tort reform.” Hence, the prison-industrial complex. Hence, the supremacy of Big Insurance.
If liberals made a mistake in 2008, it was the mistake of magical thinking. Winning a single election – regardless of who we sent to the plate – wasn’t going to change much in a fight that’s been underway for many lifetimes.
I am saddened to see the idiots like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle be taken seriously by a media that has lost all judgment, all concern for the future of democracy, and any sense of responsibility, personal or institutional.
But hell, they’re just hacks. We are right to pin some hopes for democracy on freedom of speech. We are wrong to pin those hopes on the lapels of reporters. Very, very few have ever seen beyond their noses or cared, really, about their limitations.
This is going to be a long, long fight. Longer than we ever imagined. We may lose the last vestiges of democracy before we find another path up the mountain. We will find it.



52 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks for this reflection, and although it’s discouraging, the complete view we get from the internet is priceless. And I recall having online battles during Al Gore’s candidacy about whether or not he was identical to w, effete and boring – and wore earthtones.
Great but sobering post Glenn!!
Oh and good Sunday morning to all the Pups ☺ ☺
With each day that passes, one thing becomes more clear – planet Earth needs an intervention!
Funny how the ecstatic post-election time of 2008 turned sober. Still, while I wanted to sum up the danger, I also hope I pointed out how long we have and will live with it. Sometimes my own expectations get away with me!
Not 12, but a “One-Small-Step Program?”
Good post. The answer is a mostly nationalized economy with room left for carefully controlled capitalism. China is doing it now and will continue to kick our ass until we catch on. Socialism with “benefits.”
The sad thing is that the more money they have, the less secure they seem to feel. Talk about the endless cycle.
Can we change the paradigm from the bottom up? Reid is a terrible disappointment (if that be the word), but Angle? Fer heaven’s sake.
How true. It often seems like our political discussions are passionate debates over what sort of magical thinking we should adopt, a series of overly simplified choices: Obama or Clinton, Democrats or third parties, voting or not voting.
It will be hard work. But I appreciate your tying together so many assaults on democracy and the public sphere. They are all part of the same political project, and we will not be able to respond effectively until we build a similarly broad political project.
Ultimately, corporate power is a central issue. And it cannot be challenged by trying to change the White House (or for that matter, the Senate) but nothing more. There are opportunities, but they tend to be local. More democratic state parties, stronger unions, more participatory organized interests – that sort of infrastructure is essential.
As progressives, can we not come up with a coordinated, effective plan for fighting back and for our principles? We need to restore our principles in the minds of Americans. I think we’ve got the smarts, but we just need a community organizer to help us pull it all together.
Wait, never mind…
- Tom
ps. Just kidding ;-)
Agreed with your post except for this: “If liberals made a mistake in 2008, it was the mistake of magical thinking. Winning a single election – regardless of who we sent to the plate – wasn’t going to change much in a fight that’s been underway for many lifetimes.”
It has become increasingly obvious that liberals did not win that election or more accurately any of those elections.
Exactly right, and I think we’ve had this conversation before. We need a movement. One problem is that movement organizations became adjuncts to a formal party apparatus that’s part of the problem.
We had 8 years of trying times; I thought we would get to relax for a year or so but that’s not what happened. So we deal with what we have and fight on. And Beck comparing himself to Paine is beyond funny.
Morning, Glenn. How are you?
There is a document that describes what is and should be the revolt against the rule of money.
The Communist Manifesto Time for an update? Possibly a synthesis between The Communist Manifesto and the Declaration of Independence?
There, the facade is ripped off and we discover yet again, that we are repeating history. Can we avoid the mistakes of communism this time?
Good. On the road again, reporting from Baltimore on the way to New York.
I, too, thought we’d get a little breather. So much for thinking! Truth is, our side never has had a breather. And, looking at the historical trajectory as a guide to the future, probably never will. Maybe I’ll do something to get myself put in the penalty box, you know, just so I can catch my breath. :)
I’m afraid I find so many flaws in the theory (and ultimately the totalitarian ends to which it was put – no fault of Marx) that I can’t agree here. Just for the record.
That’s because, as with any addiction, what they crave does not fill the emptiness they seek to fill.Wealth alone will not provide universal adoration, or even ordinary committed close relationships. It will not prevent natural disasters, or even those produced by angry desperate men, wealth does not prevent the most serious of painful crippling illnesses. It does not endow immortality nor that much control of how the script plays out. .Like cocaine it can become less attractive with wayscan be learned to genuinely satisfy the hungers .
It is hard to hope when we see as you so well describe the condition we find ourselves in Glenn.
But then I think that what civilization with their great arts and letters can teach are the alternatives to wealth as sources of contentment. Perhaps something will come of it if we can just keep chipping away holding on to those rewards ourselves and preserve some vision of how it can be there will be more who understand when the betrayals of their wealth are recognized……
So very, very true. Thanks.
Beck’s been co opting Thomas Paine for a year or two. Beck’s Book is a rip off of Paine’s – not in substance – but in its title and style.
Ergo, rubes believe that Beck is just like Paine or Samuel Adams or Jefferson or one of those old slave-owning patriots.
What’s especially trying about these times is the prevalence of confusion.
I assume that, when Paine wrote his words, at least certain things were painfully and indelibly clear. By contrast, we swim in an ocean of disinformation, delusion, fantasy, and competing narratives. It seems everone in the realm of politics is manufacturing and selling their own version of reality, then sallying forth to impose that fantasy onto everyone else. They say you have the right to an opinion and not to your own facts. But someone isn’t listening.
If Beck-Paine equivalence wasn’t so laughable, it’d really piss me off! I mean Paine was a learned, committed, civilized man who attempted to think through the troubles to solutions. Beck, on the other hand, is a hapless idiot successful only because sideshow freaks are “successful.”
I keep succumbing to the feeling that Obama has betrayed my perception of his moral and idealogical core. I should have known better. He is as much a product of the libertarian revolution of Reagan as is Rand Paul, perhaps more so.. It has been with despair that I have watched new generations.of Democrats come along accept as conventional wisdom principles that the liberals of the FDR and LBJ generations have opposed. Not as extreme but real, the Democrats have been transformed by the processes and religion of money making.
.
Liberals have not won any national elections for at least 5 decades.
Relying on polls I have tried to suggest, much to the displeasure of the great majority here, that this a direct consequence of there being too few liberals in the electorate.
Like it or not, for liberals to inform, in a meaningful manner, the governance of this country, requires forming an alliance with a good percentage of the moderates. For many here, the rightward drift
necessary for atttracting this moderate support on most, but not all issues, is soul trying.
Apples and oranges.
Capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a political system.
You may be right that the problem is labels, but I wonder. If there is a consensus for health care reform, the question isn’t liberal vs. conservative. The question becomes what is the best policy for all of us. Putting it terms of liberal and conservative distorts discourse, making it impossible to find the best way forward.
The problem is that everything in the public sphere is team-oriented, so that if one team is for some policy, the other is against it, regardless of whether the policy is good or bad.
Strictly speaking, yes. But capitalism depends upon inequality, democracy upon the striving for equality. There’s nothing democratic about capitalism, of course, and the fact is it really doesn’t like democracy much. Which is why we need the power left in the civic and political spheres. Otherwise, the apples take over the orange grove.
Last night I was flipping through the channels and one of Alex Jones’s videos was playing on a local cable channel. In the video, he interviewed Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, and others from the left.
I don’t agree with Jones on his right-wing positions, however I agree 100% with him on what’s happened to the 4th amendment and some of his other observations about what’s happening to our country. He even confronted Bush lovers in Texas about their beliefs.
I think the answer may be to see if we can join with people from the right in those areas where we have common ground. That would turn the inside-the-beltway narratives upside down. This kind of partnership could open the door to ongoing civil discourse between the two sides down the road.
Divided we fall.
- Tom
Very good point.
The other evening over drinks and dinner I conversed with a couple of conservatives I thought would share some of my anti-authoritarian views. Turned out it’s not authority that worries them, it’s the “other’s” authority. In fact, these folks I took to be reachable libertarian types really wanted something very different from democracy.
I agree with you. Libertarians ought to agree with me on matters of civil liberties. I, too, remain skeptical of authority, especially government (which, of course, is necessary to police the thieves and provide for the common good). But it’s only the true libertarians we’ll reach. The others are posers, using libertarian arguments to advance their own draconian rule.
From my reading of Thomas Paine’s activities (post-American Revolution) to his activities during the French Revolution)(Gildea), I would say that Paine was a professional revolutionary as opposed to Beck, who supports the reactionaries with his projection of the Paine label.
Americans are heavily focused on “winning.” We are very competitive and choose sides on everything. It may be our undoing because it sets up “teams” and never thinks of the “all.”
I think applying the competitive model to education is largely what has destroyed our public schools. We learn together.
Yes, on a number issues the moderates can be convinced to fall in league with us. Health care is one such issue. When this occurs, historically the price has been half-assed progress. Then, slowly, the half-assed progress is improved upon. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have followed this path. Hopefully, HCR will do so.
Also, I concede labels are often problematical. And, the two team model we have often gets in the way of finding the best solutions. But, unless the last 22 decades has been a political anomaly, it seems our Constitutional framework only allows for this.
Not only is that a highly unpopular notion, it is wrong. Many democratic Americans enjoy the benefits of free enterprise — I have myself.
Do you propose that the government own all forms of economic enterprise, or what?
I think we have lost the way by deifying the process of the free market. It is no longer, if it ever was, the instrument of a democratic people designed to achieve a human(e) outcome. Instead what we have is a god who determines winners and losers that absolves those who manage and profit from any personal accountability.
We do still live in a world of magical thinking.
I do not think it inappropriate for a democracy to enunciate some principles of fairness of outcome.
The laws and enforcement are the government and should be democratically framed with predicted outcome based on democratic principles. It is at our peril that we forget how we run things ultimately is up to us and someones are responsible for justice of outcome. I fear Obama has deified the law and forgotten the justice of outcome, just have the free marketers forgotten principled outcomes aimed for.
“the free market. . . is no longer, if it ever was, the instrument of a democratic people designed to achieve a human(e) outcome”
According to the US Census Bureau in the US there were (2004):
* 19,523,741 nonemployer firms
* 5,868,737 firms with less than 500 employees, including 2,777,680 firms with 1 to 4 employees
Hi Don,
How many corporations are run like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFYdVfp9Nj0
You’re confusing our form of democratic representative government (each person gets one vote) with hierarchically-structured corporations run by a few or one person in the name of capitalism.
Corporations are not run democratically, the example above notwithstanding. Do you disagree?
- Tom
“Well, today’s capitalists can and are bothered to change those principles of democracy. Hence, the Supreme Court’s willingness to turn over our lives to corporations – even foreign corporations. Hence, the decades-long effort at voter suppression. Hence, the shuttering of our courts under the ridiculous disguise of “tort reform.” Hence, the prison-industrial complex. Hence, the supremacy of Big Insurance.”
Hence, the negative implications of the so called Federalists Society on our judicial system. Just another Trojan Horse of an organization, perhaps a better name for them would be the Corporatists Society
And, reporters…is that even a profession anymore. Newspapers are dying and apparently we’ve become so illiterate that most citizens get their news from the Fox News Channel, which will say any kind of bullshit and get away with it.
Brilliantly succinct overview. Now we need an electrifying u-tube video clip to dramatize it.
Then what Glen? Capitalism is beyond “reform”. A “reform” can be undone, and that just exactly what has happened. Capitalism is a cancer, it needs to be cut out. If it can only be “reformed”, treated, then the patient, Democracy, is still dying of it and ultimately will not survive.And I dont know what you mean by ‘we may lose the last vetiges of Democracy”, and yet find “a path up the mountain”. Once its gone we arent going to vote it back. Maybe you a speaking of a centuries long process, like the ascent through the middle ages to the modern world.
I think Glenn is talking about free enterprise, not GE or the Koch empire.
Hi Tom,
Capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a political system.
One normally doesn’t encounter democratic capitalism, though it exists I’m sure. Capitalistic democracy — yeah, that rings a bell. So let’s agree that the Supremes finding that money is free speech is ruining the country.
I’ll go further. As I have indicated before, the American people have inherent rights that don’t come from the Constitution. There are some rights listed in the Constitution, but Amendment IX states that the listing is not exclusive. People have argued with me over this, but here we have a good example on why the Constitution should not be taken as a basic source of rights, in preference to inherent rights.
In this case the people have the basic right, beyond anything listed in the Constitution, to free democratic elections. It’s in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists. Now if it can be proven that corporate and foreign election financial contributions — “capitalism” in the sense we’re thinking about — make elections less free and less democratic, then they ought to be legislated against and banned.
The problem with this is that all court findings nowadays revolve around the “constitutionality” of a law and not around protecting basic human rights, democracy being one of them in the USA. So there’s no hope.
Don
Motto of mens’ shoe store near the Old Grey Lady:
“These are the soles that Times men try”
The Crisis, December 23, 1776, first paragraph:
Here’s more Constitutionally-protected “free speech”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101701916.html
If Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,
and, if speech is money,
then, is taxation abridging speech?
It must be, because it isn’t a part of speech. But I didn’t mean to cut you short.
Good post, Glenn. (And sorry for the LONG comment.)
Here’s a long except from a guy that’s acted as CFO for many companies. He is an accountant:
I’ll have to conclude by saying that I too have seen this happening over my twenty eight year career as an engineer – not really at all dropping standards for engineering (and thank god for that since we’d start killing people), but procurement contracting skulduggery that would have gotten one fired twenty years ago is now just ignored and sweep under the rug.
A better way to articulate the difference. Thanks.
Of course I don’t. Simply making the observation that there is structural friction between unfettered capitalism and democracy, which depends upon equality — at least equality of voice in the political sphere. I regard myself as a democratic capitalist, meaning I afford no more political power to the thieving banker than I do his victim. Greed is real, and democracy should, in part, reign in its terrible consequences for civil society.
The idea that we can, reign in the terrible consequences of Capitalism, has been proven to be a losing strategy. Democracy and Capitalism are not compatable, one will win and one will lose.
Today Democracy is losing and will continue to lose as long as people support the delusion that Capitalism can be controlled.
I am coming to believe that in order to deal with the coming climate change and depletion of resources the notion of private property has to go. We can, indeed should, preserve the notion of individual rights to privacy and freedom to entrepreneurship etc; but it all must be in the context of equal responsibility for stewardship of the resources of the planet.