Many, many people in these united states long for the day upon which George W. Bush will vacate the Presidency. During Bush’s terms in office, he has gotten us into a Quagmire in Iraq (and has engaged in a generally arrogant and foolish foreign policy), deftly removed many of our civil liberties from us, racked up record deficits, exploited the people’s fear of terrorism (which helped him to win elections, achieve his agenda, and rob us of our apparently undeserved liberties), and, most importantly, greatly increased the power and influence of the Executive Branch. The People long for Bush’s exit because they are tired of these repeated abuses and usurpations, and with the hope that, once Dubya leaves, we’ll be able to get a Democrat or at least a moderate in office and get America back onto the right track. This perspective is not in agreement with my own; in point of fact, I disagree with it very strongly. It seems to me that this belief is the product of the very ignorance which allowed Bush to expand his office and worsen the state of the country in the first place. Let me take just a few moments in order to explain my thoughts more clearly on this matter.
During these past several years, Presidential puppet George W. Bush and the various puppeteers in his administration have worked to greatly expand the power of the Executive Branch in the United States government. They have been very successful in their pursuance of this goal, and it now appears as though we have a new kind of “imperial presidency” in place. Their ability to expand the power of the Presidency was due to the negligence and cowardice of the Congress and the ignorance and inattentiveness of the American people. It is as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” The people were inattentive to the Executive office, so the officials associated with the Executive all became wolves, thirsting after, not blood, but power in the excess. But what are the implications of this greatly expanded efficacy of the Executive? What are the implications of all of the new precedents set by the Executive office?
During Bush’s two terms, We the People of the United States have effectively given many new and frightening powers to the Executive Branch, simply because of how much we tolerate. We tolerate phone wiretapping, we tolerate torture, we tolerate the violating of the Constitution, and so that becomes part of the policy, part of the powers of the executive branch, because we allow it. These terrible things will all be set as precedents for the next Executive to follow, and they, whomever they may be, will fall in step with these precedents. I say this because there have not been many in history who have denied themselves nearly unlimited power purposefully (George Washington, the great leader, being a notable exception). The next President shall not deny themselves the excess power because they know that they can get away with exercising such power with no consequences to them. They will not be punished, they will not be impeached, they will reap the rewards of nearly absolute power, and with not a squeak from the American people on the matter because the masses are too busy watching American Idol to watch American Government. However, the next Executive may not be as blatant about exercising these excesses in power as George W. Bush has been. An image to present to the public must be maintained, because image is everything to a People who only look broadly over the surface of the ocean of politics without bothering to look deeper. Bush really has been quite inept at projecting a good public image. However, both political parties are in general very good at fabricating false images with which to hoodwink the People: among other things, the Republicans have been skilled at fabricating an image of being better terrorist-hunters, and the Democrats have been adept at fabricating the illusion that they are a populist Party of the People.
I believe it very likely, and, in fact, inevitable, that these repeated usurpations and injuries will not end with George W. Bush. The precedents have been set for nearly absolute power for the Executive Branch, and power corrupts and is irresistable to falliable human beings. It is fairly apparent to me that the actions of George W. Bush will be perpetuated by every future President of the United States. That is, unless the People and the Congress step up and put the option of impeachment on the table, and preferably impeachment for George W. Bush, because it is best to stop the problem at its source. However, it is very unlikely that we will impeach Bush or Cheney, because the members of Congress are politically calculating cowards who don’t want to do anything controversial with an election coming up. But if we don’t impeach Bush now, we’ll either have to impeach another President farther down the road or perpetually suffer from usurpations from the Executive Branch.
To you people who still believe that electing a Democrat will get rid of the deplorable policies and precedents of George W. Bush, I salute you for navigating, in direct conflict with evident truths, along the channels of blind party loyalty. It is naive to believe that all of the damaging actions that George W. Bush has inflicted upon us will just disappear upon the entry of some other falliable human being, whatever their political affiliation, into the office of the presidency. It is naive to believe that all of this overstepping of constitutional authority will end as soon as George W. Bush is gone. It is naive to believe that a new president, even a Democratic President, will be a magical remedy to the things like loss of civil liberties. Only We the People can ensure that our civil liberties are perpetually protected, and we can protect them by informing ourselves and being attentive to the actions of our government and demanding impeachment for elected officials who overstep their authority. It is lazy to assume that the politicians who we elect to our political offices are the only ones responsible for keeping our civil liberties safe, and that We the People are not responsible in the slightest for preserving our own rights. This responsibilty absolutely does not belong to our assorted elected officials. When I say that the People must protect their own rights, who do you think I mean that the rights have to be protected from? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the terrorists. These United States politicians who we trust, trust on the basis of faith in their abilities, to protect our liberties, become nothing more than wolves when the people are not attentive, as Thomas Jefferson stated centuries ago. The entire system fails to work if the people are not enlightened and watchful.
The preservation of liberty requires eternal vigilance from the informed Peoples of the United States, creators and overseers of their own elected leaders, safeguards of their own democracy, and keepers of their own country’s well-being. That’s what self-government is all about. And, if we fail to understand that, then perhaps we just don’t deserve our liberties. If we fail to understand that and act upon it, then it is likely that our problems with unprecedented Executive power, created by the lack of political attention and activity among the People, will never be remedied. Perhaps our democracy is destined to fall to the power of an unchecked Executive, and then swirl down the toilet into the Sewers of History.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Corporate Control
It is a well-known and unfortunate fact in the United States that businesses, corporations, and special interests play a much greater role in our politics and government than we would certainly like it to. There has been, for decades, if not centuries, the element to our politics that is the corrupting influence of money. It has become particularly pronounced in recent years, especially in this 2008 Presidential Election, where candidates of both political parties are raising millions and millions of dollars each in campaign cash. In fact, this could be the first billion-dollar presidential campaign in our country’s history. That is, assuredly, not a positive sign.
The great influence of money in our politics is a very dangerous thing because, if the main emphasis in politics becomes money, the people who have the most money, also known as the people who can afford to donate large sums to political campaigns, will gain an inordinate influence in our government. This means that the rich and the corporations will gain a much greater influence in our politics than will the povertized and the Middle-Class. It is very important to ensure that this small minority of ultra-rich citizens never gains complete and total control of our government. That would degrade and deplenish our grand democracy, which is based upon the values of being of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the ultra-rich minority has already gained nearly complete control of our government, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, the media, and, not only that, but our entire country as well. Let me explain my thoughts on this matter.
Firstly, the financial and political elites are often the same people, for the reason that the financial elites have enough money to launch and run a political campaign, and to maintain a political career. These financial elites who gain political office have, first and foremost, their own self-interest, and therefore the self-interest of other financial elites, at heart. Adding to the reasoning of the statement that politicians have the self-interest of financial elites at heart is the knowledge that most politicians take extraordinary amounts of money from the ultra-rich and the corporations (financial elites). Political leaders find it necessary to take money from these elites, for the reason that they would not be able to win elections otherwise. In order to win an election, one political party has to out-raise another political party. Make no mistake, money is the greatest determining factor in the outcome of elections. The Republican Party has been raising money from the businesses and special interests for years now, and the Democrats, in an attempt to regain power from the Republicans and win elections, had to establish an allegiance to the corporations and ultra-rich as well, to raise enough money to be serious competition. Bill and Hillary Clinton accomplished this, by taking the Democratic Party to Wall Street, and removing it from Main Street, where it had resided for decades. Shame on them, and other Democratic political leaders, for degrading the sacred “Party of the People”.
So, both of our political parties, both competing with each other by trying to raise the most amount of money for elections, have sold out and both become the property of the ultra-rich and the corporations, who are the entities which can donate the most money to political campaigns. And, since our two-party system, with the Republican and Democratic parties, completely controls, and in fact has a monopoly on, our politics and government, our government itself has been sold out to the corporations, ultra-rich, and special interests.
It is also a noted fact in the United States that these same corporations, and the same ultra-rich people, who buy and sell our politicians on a regular basis also own all of the media outlets in the United States. All of the major media outlets in this country are owned by five large corporations. That is a fact. This has caused many to rightfully describe and decry the mainstream media in the United States as the “Corporate-Owned Media”.
Now, when I’m talking about the corporate media, some mistakenly believe that I mean FOX News alone, as it is seemingly the worst, most corrupt media outlet. But, in actuality, with regard to the corporate media, I’m talking about every single major news network. MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etcetera. They’re all owned by large, greedy corporations. And having all of our major media outlets owned by large corporations is very bad for our democracy, especially since it now seems that the corporations are allowed to exercise censorship with disregard to the public good, and to promote the interests of the corporations rather than the interests of the entire country. These corporations can exclude and include presidential candidates on their media outlets based on whether or not these candidates agree with the corporations and whether they would help the corporations as President. If you don’t have the best interest of the corporations at heart, don’t expect to be given an opportunity to talk and express your view and spread your message on their news media channel.
There was a recent example of this in the decision to keep Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich out of a recent MSNBC Presidential debate. General Electric, a beneficiary of the military-industrial complex which Kucinich would fight as President, instructed their MSNBC media outlet to keep Kucinich (and, earlier, Former Senator Mike Gravel) out of the debate. The Kucinich campaign appealed to a judge, because Kucinich had been invited to the debate, and then disinvited just a few days later. The judge ruled in favor of Kucinich’s inclusion and ordered that Kucinich be included (or he would stop the debate), so MSNBC (backed by GE) fought tooth and nail to keep Kucinich out, appealing the judge’s decision. The case went to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of MSNBC and GE, and set the precedent that the corporate media can determine who can and who can’t speak out on their media outlets, based on the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. But I thought that Freedom of the Press was supposed to bolster the already-given individual right of Freedom of Speech, not to allow large corporations to decide who’s allowed to speak and who’s not. Corporate control of the media needs to be more regulated, not less regulated.
Corporations owning the media gives the media, in my mind, two very unfortunate goals that they might not have otherwise. One of them is to maintain the status quo (under which both the media outlets, the corporations, and the rich are currently flourishing), and keep average Americans good and distracted and ignorant in order to do so. As long as the ultra-rich and the corporations maintain the ignorance of the poor and the middle-class, they can remain in power. If the People realized what was going on here, there would be a revolution. The other goal of the corporate media is to, of course, like any good corporation, make lots of money. Having a media outlet be owned by a business essentially makes that media outlet a business in itself, as the main goal of the business that owns it will be to make money.
The Corporate Media accomplishes both of its main goals (maintaining the status quo and making money) by using the material that they air on the corporate media television channels to frighten, misinform, and distract the People. The fear, distractions, and misinformation serve to preserve the status quo by promoting ignorance throughout the population. Also, the distractions that they air also appeal to the worst part of human nature (the most small-minded part of human nature, focusing on people, gossip, and celebrity). Because the media material appeals to the most basic, primitive, small-minded part of our nature, we all enjoy it and tune in and watch, and so the news media profits a great deal as a result. Sensationalist and celebrity stories are what the media lives upon today. They breathe it as we breathe air.
In reality, “politics” means “policies”, but the type of “politics” that the news media outlets air does not have anything to do with policies. It is a new brand of politics, “celebritics”, which focuses on the sensationalism and celebrity of certain candidates and their individual actions rather than focusing on policy issues.
The focus on celebrity has worked out so well profit-wise for the Corporate Media that they have even tried to incorporate celebrity into every aspect of the 2008 presidential race. This is reflected in the fact that, from the beginning, the media has tried to make the Democratic Presidential race a competition between the two most sensationalist stories. Of course, I’m talking about the stories of electing the first woman or first African American as President. The Media gave so much more media attention to the sensationalist and celebrity stories (which is profitable for them), and, also, the corporations who own the media have both Clinton and Obama very soundly in their pockets. It’s a double-benefit for the media and the corporations which own it. But, you have a third choice on the Democratic side, a candidate who is not owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the corporations: Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. However, it is unlikely that Gravel will ever be elected President, even though he is honest and has integrity and courage. The corporations of this country use the media outlets to further their goals, and ensure that they, the corporations, are firmly and completely in control of our government and all of the major leaders in it. The corporations, with the power of the propaganda sent from their media outlets behind them, can make it a certainty that only a presidential candidate friendly to the corporations will be elected in 2008.
When the corporations who own the politicians own the media outlets, it is essentially as though the state, the government, owns the media outlets, in an indirect way. It seems to me that, in that way, our press is no freer than the press in Russia, where the three major media outlets are all owned directly by the State. In my mind, the corporations are the government here in the United States, and they, even more frighteningly, own nearly all of our sources of information. Capitalism can be a force for good in the world, but only when it is regulated. And it is my belief that we certainly don’t regulate our corporations enough, especially with respect to the ownership of media outlets. But, really, how can we expect to get anything major done in the realm of regulating corporations when all of the political leaders lack the political will to do so, for the very reason that they are owned by those corporations? Only the most courageous of political leaders will forfeit their political careers and go against the corporations (their campaign donors) on the basis of principle. And it seems to me that, right now, we have quite a shortage of courageous and principled politicians; no one in our government today even has the courage enough to filibuster a war funding bill for this illegal, unconstitutional, damaging Iraq War that we are currently immersed in. Political calculation trumps political courage.
Not only is our government controlled by corporations, our entire country and our culture is controlled by corporations, and we, like good brainwashed sheep, march in step, on their command, to their tune of greed and selfishness. Our entire culture has been permeated by the values of the corporations. This is illustrated by the emphasis that the United States puts on both competition and the individual. These two values are ingrained into our beings. These two things combined, emphasis on competition and emphasis on the individual, breeds a culture of selfishness, one of the most notable characteristics of a corporation, which nearly always puts profit and its own self-interest before the public interest. We are seeing that culture of selfishness being bred in Americans every day; many of us all all so immersed in our own selfish little material pursuits, such as watching reality TV and American Idol and focusing on making a great deal of money and so on, that we care relatively little about informing ourselves about politics and focusing on our shared necessity for things to be done in the name of the public good. We are living in country ruled by the corporations, both in our government and in our media, so it is really no wonder that things are so bad here in the United States today.
The great influence of money in our politics is a very dangerous thing because, if the main emphasis in politics becomes money, the people who have the most money, also known as the people who can afford to donate large sums to political campaigns, will gain an inordinate influence in our government. This means that the rich and the corporations will gain a much greater influence in our politics than will the povertized and the Middle-Class. It is very important to ensure that this small minority of ultra-rich citizens never gains complete and total control of our government. That would degrade and deplenish our grand democracy, which is based upon the values of being of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the ultra-rich minority has already gained nearly complete control of our government, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, the media, and, not only that, but our entire country as well. Let me explain my thoughts on this matter.
Firstly, the financial and political elites are often the same people, for the reason that the financial elites have enough money to launch and run a political campaign, and to maintain a political career. These financial elites who gain political office have, first and foremost, their own self-interest, and therefore the self-interest of other financial elites, at heart. Adding to the reasoning of the statement that politicians have the self-interest of financial elites at heart is the knowledge that most politicians take extraordinary amounts of money from the ultra-rich and the corporations (financial elites). Political leaders find it necessary to take money from these elites, for the reason that they would not be able to win elections otherwise. In order to win an election, one political party has to out-raise another political party. Make no mistake, money is the greatest determining factor in the outcome of elections. The Republican Party has been raising money from the businesses and special interests for years now, and the Democrats, in an attempt to regain power from the Republicans and win elections, had to establish an allegiance to the corporations and ultra-rich as well, to raise enough money to be serious competition. Bill and Hillary Clinton accomplished this, by taking the Democratic Party to Wall Street, and removing it from Main Street, where it had resided for decades. Shame on them, and other Democratic political leaders, for degrading the sacred “Party of the People”.
So, both of our political parties, both competing with each other by trying to raise the most amount of money for elections, have sold out and both become the property of the ultra-rich and the corporations, who are the entities which can donate the most money to political campaigns. And, since our two-party system, with the Republican and Democratic parties, completely controls, and in fact has a monopoly on, our politics and government, our government itself has been sold out to the corporations, ultra-rich, and special interests.
It is also a noted fact in the United States that these same corporations, and the same ultra-rich people, who buy and sell our politicians on a regular basis also own all of the media outlets in the United States. All of the major media outlets in this country are owned by five large corporations. That is a fact. This has caused many to rightfully describe and decry the mainstream media in the United States as the “Corporate-Owned Media”.
Now, when I’m talking about the corporate media, some mistakenly believe that I mean FOX News alone, as it is seemingly the worst, most corrupt media outlet. But, in actuality, with regard to the corporate media, I’m talking about every single major news network. MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etcetera. They’re all owned by large, greedy corporations. And having all of our major media outlets owned by large corporations is very bad for our democracy, especially since it now seems that the corporations are allowed to exercise censorship with disregard to the public good, and to promote the interests of the corporations rather than the interests of the entire country. These corporations can exclude and include presidential candidates on their media outlets based on whether or not these candidates agree with the corporations and whether they would help the corporations as President. If you don’t have the best interest of the corporations at heart, don’t expect to be given an opportunity to talk and express your view and spread your message on their news media channel.
There was a recent example of this in the decision to keep Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich out of a recent MSNBC Presidential debate. General Electric, a beneficiary of the military-industrial complex which Kucinich would fight as President, instructed their MSNBC media outlet to keep Kucinich (and, earlier, Former Senator Mike Gravel) out of the debate. The Kucinich campaign appealed to a judge, because Kucinich had been invited to the debate, and then disinvited just a few days later. The judge ruled in favor of Kucinich’s inclusion and ordered that Kucinich be included (or he would stop the debate), so MSNBC (backed by GE) fought tooth and nail to keep Kucinich out, appealing the judge’s decision. The case went to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of MSNBC and GE, and set the precedent that the corporate media can determine who can and who can’t speak out on their media outlets, based on the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. But I thought that Freedom of the Press was supposed to bolster the already-given individual right of Freedom of Speech, not to allow large corporations to decide who’s allowed to speak and who’s not. Corporate control of the media needs to be more regulated, not less regulated.
Corporations owning the media gives the media, in my mind, two very unfortunate goals that they might not have otherwise. One of them is to maintain the status quo (under which both the media outlets, the corporations, and the rich are currently flourishing), and keep average Americans good and distracted and ignorant in order to do so. As long as the ultra-rich and the corporations maintain the ignorance of the poor and the middle-class, they can remain in power. If the People realized what was going on here, there would be a revolution. The other goal of the corporate media is to, of course, like any good corporation, make lots of money. Having a media outlet be owned by a business essentially makes that media outlet a business in itself, as the main goal of the business that owns it will be to make money.
The Corporate Media accomplishes both of its main goals (maintaining the status quo and making money) by using the material that they air on the corporate media television channels to frighten, misinform, and distract the People. The fear, distractions, and misinformation serve to preserve the status quo by promoting ignorance throughout the population. Also, the distractions that they air also appeal to the worst part of human nature (the most small-minded part of human nature, focusing on people, gossip, and celebrity). Because the media material appeals to the most basic, primitive, small-minded part of our nature, we all enjoy it and tune in and watch, and so the news media profits a great deal as a result. Sensationalist and celebrity stories are what the media lives upon today. They breathe it as we breathe air.
In reality, “politics” means “policies”, but the type of “politics” that the news media outlets air does not have anything to do with policies. It is a new brand of politics, “celebritics”, which focuses on the sensationalism and celebrity of certain candidates and their individual actions rather than focusing on policy issues.
The focus on celebrity has worked out so well profit-wise for the Corporate Media that they have even tried to incorporate celebrity into every aspect of the 2008 presidential race. This is reflected in the fact that, from the beginning, the media has tried to make the Democratic Presidential race a competition between the two most sensationalist stories. Of course, I’m talking about the stories of electing the first woman or first African American as President. The Media gave so much more media attention to the sensationalist and celebrity stories (which is profitable for them), and, also, the corporations who own the media have both Clinton and Obama very soundly in their pockets. It’s a double-benefit for the media and the corporations which own it. But, you have a third choice on the Democratic side, a candidate who is not owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the corporations: Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. However, it is unlikely that Gravel will ever be elected President, even though he is honest and has integrity and courage. The corporations of this country use the media outlets to further their goals, and ensure that they, the corporations, are firmly and completely in control of our government and all of the major leaders in it. The corporations, with the power of the propaganda sent from their media outlets behind them, can make it a certainty that only a presidential candidate friendly to the corporations will be elected in 2008.
When the corporations who own the politicians own the media outlets, it is essentially as though the state, the government, owns the media outlets, in an indirect way. It seems to me that, in that way, our press is no freer than the press in Russia, where the three major media outlets are all owned directly by the State. In my mind, the corporations are the government here in the United States, and they, even more frighteningly, own nearly all of our sources of information. Capitalism can be a force for good in the world, but only when it is regulated. And it is my belief that we certainly don’t regulate our corporations enough, especially with respect to the ownership of media outlets. But, really, how can we expect to get anything major done in the realm of regulating corporations when all of the political leaders lack the political will to do so, for the very reason that they are owned by those corporations? Only the most courageous of political leaders will forfeit their political careers and go against the corporations (their campaign donors) on the basis of principle. And it seems to me that, right now, we have quite a shortage of courageous and principled politicians; no one in our government today even has the courage enough to filibuster a war funding bill for this illegal, unconstitutional, damaging Iraq War that we are currently immersed in. Political calculation trumps political courage.
Not only is our government controlled by corporations, our entire country and our culture is controlled by corporations, and we, like good brainwashed sheep, march in step, on their command, to their tune of greed and selfishness. Our entire culture has been permeated by the values of the corporations. This is illustrated by the emphasis that the United States puts on both competition and the individual. These two values are ingrained into our beings. These two things combined, emphasis on competition and emphasis on the individual, breeds a culture of selfishness, one of the most notable characteristics of a corporation, which nearly always puts profit and its own self-interest before the public interest. We are seeing that culture of selfishness being bred in Americans every day; many of us all all so immersed in our own selfish little material pursuits, such as watching reality TV and American Idol and focusing on making a great deal of money and so on, that we care relatively little about informing ourselves about politics and focusing on our shared necessity for things to be done in the name of the public good. We are living in country ruled by the corporations, both in our government and in our media, so it is really no wonder that things are so bad here in the United States today.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Illogicality of Perpetual Wars
Throughout human history, humankind has been fond of waging perpetual wars, the meaning of which being a war waged upon an enemy that can never be definitively defeated. We likely do this because we are rather illogical creatures, creatures whose passions and prejudices can easily trump logic. In modern times, one place in the world where this illogicality of perpetual war has fully taken root is the United States of America. Given, all countries behave illogically to some extent (as they are all governed by fallible human beings), but America is the one that I know the most about. This illogicality is illustrated perfectly by two “wars”, one military and one not, that America currently is waging: the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
Firstly, the War on Terror. We have carried on a “War on Terror” in this country ever since George W. Bush declared it to be so after the 2001 Terrorist attack. It is, as John Edwards stated, a bumper sticker slogan. The nature of humankind is such that there have been acts of terrorism for the entire length of our existence, and there will be acts of terror for the remainder of the time that humankind resides on the earth. I doubt that this element of our nature will be eradicated simply because a President of the United States has declared “war” on it. It is as Noam Chomsky said, “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” Terrorism will never disappear unless people discontinue participating in it, and they never will. We are fighting a foe that will exist perpetually, so, indeed, if we declare it to be so, then we are trying to defeat what can never truly be defeated: a part of our Selves. But, of course, now I see the logic in George W. Bush wanting to start up a World War III. Blasting the human race off the face of the earth with nukes is the only way that we can win the War on Terror.
That seems to be extraordinarily illogical on our part. Why would we have hundreds of thousands of human beings die and spend trillions of dollars over this, to try to change human nature? More likely millions have died as a direct result of our declaration of a “War on Terror”, and, ironically, I doubt that many of them were actually terrorists. Nearly a million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of America’s invasion of their country (although Iraq really had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or 9/11, we did attack them as a result of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”).
Does the "War on Terror" have to be an actual, physical war? Wouldn’t it be better if we just improved our intelligence services and intervened in planned terrorist attacks which our improved intelligence system would have detected? That would be the ideal (and the most effective) solution, I think, because, with our current policy of fighting wars all over the world, we are actually incurring more hatred and inspiring more terrorism. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing with our flawed policies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that these kinds of ridiculous policies just don’t work. And, in addition to an improved intelligence system, we need to fundamentally alter our approach to foreign policy.
What we need to do is to stop engaging in threats and imperialism. We need to stop policing the world. We need to stop invading other countries preemptively and illegally. We need to stop bombing other countries unnecesarily and secretly; if the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are doing something, then we probably should not be doing it. We need to treat all of the other countries of the world as equals, be less arrogant, stop bullying them, and treat them with respect. That way, we will incur less hatred around the world and be less vulnerable to terrorism as a result. Terrorism towards the United States feeds off of and lives off of hatred towards the United States. We make our own enemies, and we need to stop continuing these policies that inspire hate towards us. The main reason that Osama bin Laden attacked us on September 11th was because we intervened militarily in the Middle East, killed many Middle Easterners, and incurred hatred there in pre-9/11 policy. That’s called blowback. Bin Laden attacked us as a direct result of our foreign policy of destruction. And, now, we’re intervening even more in the Middle East, and killing even more Middle-Easterners, and incurring even more hatred there. Is that supposed to solve the problem? If something doesn’t work, try it again? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein, in his accurate definition of insanity. Evidently, our leaders meet the criteria and are officially insane.
Here, on a related but unrelated note, I would like to say that it is ironic that the government (the Bush Administration and the Congress) claims to be fighting terrorism abroad, while at that same time, they are instilling terror in their own people as a method of maintaining power. James Madison predicted this development, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Why have we not listened to and heeded the message of our Founding Fathers that liberty requires eternal vigilance to maintain? It’s not too late to heed their warning across the centuries.
Now, of course, the second illogical, perpetual war that I am planning to be espousing my views on: the War on Drugs. We have carried on this War on Drugs for decades, particularly ever since Richard Nixon declared an official “War on Drugs” in the 1970s. This policy is utterly ineffective, and we are spending billions of dollars on it each year, taking precious funds away from more deserving outlets, such as Education or Healthcare. It is a policy reminiscent of Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, which we all know from history actually caused more crime and conflict and didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol anyway. FDR had the good sense to end this policy as soon as he got into office in 1933. And the next President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, should sensibly end the War on Drugs.
The Drug War has been ineffective and will be ineffective, and perpetual, because drugs are substances that can never be eradicated; more of them can always be grown and made. Human nature, of course, plays a part in this one too. As long as people want to use drugs and as long as people want to make profits off of selling drugs, drugs-dealers and drug-users will exist, and the Drug War will go on. This Drug War which is ravaging our cities and putting thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of our citizens in jails. We currently have 2.3 million people total in jail in the United States, which is the most out of all of the countries in the world. We are #1 in the number of people that we have in prison, now that’s an accomplishment.
Throwing drug addicts in jail doesn’t solve their addiction problem. The fact of the matter is that drugs (particularly marijuana) should be a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and certainly not a “war”. We need to legalize marijuana, and make it so that the harder drugs will be provided by doctors. I said before that as long as people want to and can sell drugs for a profit, the drug war will go on. Well, making it so that certified doctors can provide the drugs will get rid of the drug market, and people will no longer have to go to drug dealers on the streets to buy drugs. This will greatly lessen crime, which is certainly desirable. And, of course, once drugs are made legal and are provided by a doctor, people may be able to muster up the ability to get off of the drugs. Increased stability in their supplies of drugs can help people to stop worrying about where they are going to get their next fix, and once that uncertainty disappears, they can begin to collect their thoughts and develop a will to get off of the drugs.
These two “wars”, the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”, are just plain foolish. Can’t we deal with our problems any more effectively than by declaring a “war” on them? If we’re going to do this kind of thing, why don’t we declare a war on backseat drivers, or pittbulls, or dust, as well? Why do we fight these illogical Wars of Perpetuity? Of course, you know, I have an answer. But even if you don’t have an answer, you should still ask the questions. Oftentimes, the questions are insurmountably more important than the answers anyway. But, it is my belief that our country fights these so-called “wars” because the people who can wage them, the people in power, benefit. That is why the United States has many of the policies that it does; politicians set policies according to their own self-interest first, ascertaining what option would be the one most likely to maintain their power. We could fight these problems more effectively than with a “war”, but, no, our leaders refuse to do so. These perpetual wars, they’re just politics. They’s just another way to frighten and pacify the masses, and they’re just another way to please the special interests. Politics as Usual.
I’ll specifically address how the people in power benefit from both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Firstly, the War on Terror. Of course, the first benefit of this is that it serves as the political tool of manipulation of the American people. The politicians use the issue of terrorism to scare people into accepting policies and decisions that they absolutely would not accept if they were not under the influence of Fear. Fear has the power to cause all of our powers of logic and reasoning to be drowned out by a consuming panic which overwhelms the senses. Such policies that the people would not accept unless they were under the influence of fear are things like the Iraq War invasion, the Patriot Act, and the destruction of our civil liberties. We will willingly lay down all of our rights when under the influence of Fear, believing the compromise of these rights essential to preserve our safety, with the panicked hope that we may yet remain safe. In this situation, we are undeserving of either liberty or safety, as Benjamin Franklin so accutely observed, “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both.” Exploiting the people’s fears have led to the creation of a veritable monarchy of an Executive branch within the United States government, because it has allowed the Branch to take so many of our rights from us.
These perpetual wars are not only designed to scare the population into accepting policies that they would not accept otherwise: also, the fear created as a result of these wars can manipulate people in order to make them vote for one political party or the other. It is not only a political tool, it is a partisan tool. It can be used to either enact change (usually negative), or to preserve the status quo, it depends on how it is utilized.
Additionally, it seems to me that the “War on Terror” serves an even more sinister purpose than the ones that I have above described, if that is possible. Having a perpetual war against an indestructible entity means that the military-industrial complex and its corporate beneficiaries (who are an enormous influence in our government, country, politics, and culture) will continue to benefit financially, as long as we are always fighting or always preparing to fight the “terrorists”. I believe that the long arm of the military-industrial complex has played a part in starting every single military venture (large and small) that we have been engaged in ever since the 1950s, when Dwight D. Eisenhow first warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the military-industrial complex. It is no coincidence that the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex contribute greatly to the political campaigns of the politicians who get us into military conflicts like this. The “War on Terror” is a creative and perpetual way for politicians to please the special interests related to the military-industrial complex. Our “War on Terror”, if continued, would ensure that the defense industry has steady profits for years to come. You might be in disbelief that politicians would actually sacrifice innocent lives in order to please the special interests and maintain power. But, let me tell you, political calculations and the desire to maintain one’s power often trumps morality. The desire for power can be dehumanizing.
But, now, of course, I’ll dedicate a little time to how the politicians benefit from the perpetual war of the War on Drugs. Throughout our history as a nation and throughout the history of humankind, leaders have inspired fears and prejudices of those who are just different. Leaders use this inspiration of fears (fear of drug addicts, for example) in order to control and manipulate the masses of the People. It is exactly as Noam Chomsky said, “The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.” The War on Drugs helps the people in power to manipulate us all by way of fear (as, of course, is also the case with the “War on Terror”), and that is certainly desirable to them. It is deplorable that We the People are so ignorant as to be so easily manipulated. I don’t understand why we can’t see through the shroud.
It seemed apparent to me that both of these “wars” cause all of our powers of logical thought and critical analysis to be completely obscured by one devouring passion: fear. These perpetual wars, just like the current airport security system, are designed to scare the population into submission. This fear causes us to accept the illogical perpetual wars and other policies. It is a sad cycle that these perpetual wars cause fear in the population, and so we cannot stop them for that very reason, and so they go on.
Perhaps perpetual wars are not really so illogical after all, from the perspective of those in power. In fact, from their point of view, it seems to me that perpetual wars would be extraordinarily logical and desirable. Maybe if I ever get into office, I’ll start up a War on Raisins. I don’t like those very much, and I feel that I could inspire popular terror due to popular error, against raisins.
But in the end, honestly, all I can do is agree with Bertrand Russell: “It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” We are not behaving rationally. We are being herded around like a flock of sheep by our “handlers”, the politicians. We allow them to control and manipulate us using, among other things, the tool of perpetual war. We do not control the politicians, as we believe that we do; rather, the politicians control us. We fail to realize that fact. And you can’t fix a problem without being aware of it first.
Firstly, the War on Terror. We have carried on a “War on Terror” in this country ever since George W. Bush declared it to be so after the 2001 Terrorist attack. It is, as John Edwards stated, a bumper sticker slogan. The nature of humankind is such that there have been acts of terrorism for the entire length of our existence, and there will be acts of terror for the remainder of the time that humankind resides on the earth. I doubt that this element of our nature will be eradicated simply because a President of the United States has declared “war” on it. It is as Noam Chomsky said, “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” Terrorism will never disappear unless people discontinue participating in it, and they never will. We are fighting a foe that will exist perpetually, so, indeed, if we declare it to be so, then we are trying to defeat what can never truly be defeated: a part of our Selves. But, of course, now I see the logic in George W. Bush wanting to start up a World War III. Blasting the human race off the face of the earth with nukes is the only way that we can win the War on Terror.
That seems to be extraordinarily illogical on our part. Why would we have hundreds of thousands of human beings die and spend trillions of dollars over this, to try to change human nature? More likely millions have died as a direct result of our declaration of a “War on Terror”, and, ironically, I doubt that many of them were actually terrorists. Nearly a million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of America’s invasion of their country (although Iraq really had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or 9/11, we did attack them as a result of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”).
Does the "War on Terror" have to be an actual, physical war? Wouldn’t it be better if we just improved our intelligence services and intervened in planned terrorist attacks which our improved intelligence system would have detected? That would be the ideal (and the most effective) solution, I think, because, with our current policy of fighting wars all over the world, we are actually incurring more hatred and inspiring more terrorism. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing with our flawed policies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that these kinds of ridiculous policies just don’t work. And, in addition to an improved intelligence system, we need to fundamentally alter our approach to foreign policy.
What we need to do is to stop engaging in threats and imperialism. We need to stop policing the world. We need to stop invading other countries preemptively and illegally. We need to stop bombing other countries unnecesarily and secretly; if the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are doing something, then we probably should not be doing it. We need to treat all of the other countries of the world as equals, be less arrogant, stop bullying them, and treat them with respect. That way, we will incur less hatred around the world and be less vulnerable to terrorism as a result. Terrorism towards the United States feeds off of and lives off of hatred towards the United States. We make our own enemies, and we need to stop continuing these policies that inspire hate towards us. The main reason that Osama bin Laden attacked us on September 11th was because we intervened militarily in the Middle East, killed many Middle Easterners, and incurred hatred there in pre-9/11 policy. That’s called blowback. Bin Laden attacked us as a direct result of our foreign policy of destruction. And, now, we’re intervening even more in the Middle East, and killing even more Middle-Easterners, and incurring even more hatred there. Is that supposed to solve the problem? If something doesn’t work, try it again? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein, in his accurate definition of insanity. Evidently, our leaders meet the criteria and are officially insane.
Here, on a related but unrelated note, I would like to say that it is ironic that the government (the Bush Administration and the Congress) claims to be fighting terrorism abroad, while at that same time, they are instilling terror in their own people as a method of maintaining power. James Madison predicted this development, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Why have we not listened to and heeded the message of our Founding Fathers that liberty requires eternal vigilance to maintain? It’s not too late to heed their warning across the centuries.
Now, of course, the second illogical, perpetual war that I am planning to be espousing my views on: the War on Drugs. We have carried on this War on Drugs for decades, particularly ever since Richard Nixon declared an official “War on Drugs” in the 1970s. This policy is utterly ineffective, and we are spending billions of dollars on it each year, taking precious funds away from more deserving outlets, such as Education or Healthcare. It is a policy reminiscent of Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, which we all know from history actually caused more crime and conflict and didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol anyway. FDR had the good sense to end this policy as soon as he got into office in 1933. And the next President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, should sensibly end the War on Drugs.
The Drug War has been ineffective and will be ineffective, and perpetual, because drugs are substances that can never be eradicated; more of them can always be grown and made. Human nature, of course, plays a part in this one too. As long as people want to use drugs and as long as people want to make profits off of selling drugs, drugs-dealers and drug-users will exist, and the Drug War will go on. This Drug War which is ravaging our cities and putting thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of our citizens in jails. We currently have 2.3 million people total in jail in the United States, which is the most out of all of the countries in the world. We are #1 in the number of people that we have in prison, now that’s an accomplishment.
Throwing drug addicts in jail doesn’t solve their addiction problem. The fact of the matter is that drugs (particularly marijuana) should be a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and certainly not a “war”. We need to legalize marijuana, and make it so that the harder drugs will be provided by doctors. I said before that as long as people want to and can sell drugs for a profit, the drug war will go on. Well, making it so that certified doctors can provide the drugs will get rid of the drug market, and people will no longer have to go to drug dealers on the streets to buy drugs. This will greatly lessen crime, which is certainly desirable. And, of course, once drugs are made legal and are provided by a doctor, people may be able to muster up the ability to get off of the drugs. Increased stability in their supplies of drugs can help people to stop worrying about where they are going to get their next fix, and once that uncertainty disappears, they can begin to collect their thoughts and develop a will to get off of the drugs.
These two “wars”, the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”, are just plain foolish. Can’t we deal with our problems any more effectively than by declaring a “war” on them? If we’re going to do this kind of thing, why don’t we declare a war on backseat drivers, or pittbulls, or dust, as well? Why do we fight these illogical Wars of Perpetuity? Of course, you know, I have an answer. But even if you don’t have an answer, you should still ask the questions. Oftentimes, the questions are insurmountably more important than the answers anyway. But, it is my belief that our country fights these so-called “wars” because the people who can wage them, the people in power, benefit. That is why the United States has many of the policies that it does; politicians set policies according to their own self-interest first, ascertaining what option would be the one most likely to maintain their power. We could fight these problems more effectively than with a “war”, but, no, our leaders refuse to do so. These perpetual wars, they’re just politics. They’s just another way to frighten and pacify the masses, and they’re just another way to please the special interests. Politics as Usual.
I’ll specifically address how the people in power benefit from both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Firstly, the War on Terror. Of course, the first benefit of this is that it serves as the political tool of manipulation of the American people. The politicians use the issue of terrorism to scare people into accepting policies and decisions that they absolutely would not accept if they were not under the influence of Fear. Fear has the power to cause all of our powers of logic and reasoning to be drowned out by a consuming panic which overwhelms the senses. Such policies that the people would not accept unless they were under the influence of fear are things like the Iraq War invasion, the Patriot Act, and the destruction of our civil liberties. We will willingly lay down all of our rights when under the influence of Fear, believing the compromise of these rights essential to preserve our safety, with the panicked hope that we may yet remain safe. In this situation, we are undeserving of either liberty or safety, as Benjamin Franklin so accutely observed, “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both.” Exploiting the people’s fears have led to the creation of a veritable monarchy of an Executive branch within the United States government, because it has allowed the Branch to take so many of our rights from us.
These perpetual wars are not only designed to scare the population into accepting policies that they would not accept otherwise: also, the fear created as a result of these wars can manipulate people in order to make them vote for one political party or the other. It is not only a political tool, it is a partisan tool. It can be used to either enact change (usually negative), or to preserve the status quo, it depends on how it is utilized.
Additionally, it seems to me that the “War on Terror” serves an even more sinister purpose than the ones that I have above described, if that is possible. Having a perpetual war against an indestructible entity means that the military-industrial complex and its corporate beneficiaries (who are an enormous influence in our government, country, politics, and culture) will continue to benefit financially, as long as we are always fighting or always preparing to fight the “terrorists”. I believe that the long arm of the military-industrial complex has played a part in starting every single military venture (large and small) that we have been engaged in ever since the 1950s, when Dwight D. Eisenhow first warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the military-industrial complex. It is no coincidence that the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex contribute greatly to the political campaigns of the politicians who get us into military conflicts like this. The “War on Terror” is a creative and perpetual way for politicians to please the special interests related to the military-industrial complex. Our “War on Terror”, if continued, would ensure that the defense industry has steady profits for years to come. You might be in disbelief that politicians would actually sacrifice innocent lives in order to please the special interests and maintain power. But, let me tell you, political calculations and the desire to maintain one’s power often trumps morality. The desire for power can be dehumanizing.
But, now, of course, I’ll dedicate a little time to how the politicians benefit from the perpetual war of the War on Drugs. Throughout our history as a nation and throughout the history of humankind, leaders have inspired fears and prejudices of those who are just different. Leaders use this inspiration of fears (fear of drug addicts, for example) in order to control and manipulate the masses of the People. It is exactly as Noam Chomsky said, “The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.” The War on Drugs helps the people in power to manipulate us all by way of fear (as, of course, is also the case with the “War on Terror”), and that is certainly desirable to them. It is deplorable that We the People are so ignorant as to be so easily manipulated. I don’t understand why we can’t see through the shroud.
It seemed apparent to me that both of these “wars” cause all of our powers of logical thought and critical analysis to be completely obscured by one devouring passion: fear. These perpetual wars, just like the current airport security system, are designed to scare the population into submission. This fear causes us to accept the illogical perpetual wars and other policies. It is a sad cycle that these perpetual wars cause fear in the population, and so we cannot stop them for that very reason, and so they go on.
Perhaps perpetual wars are not really so illogical after all, from the perspective of those in power. In fact, from their point of view, it seems to me that perpetual wars would be extraordinarily logical and desirable. Maybe if I ever get into office, I’ll start up a War on Raisins. I don’t like those very much, and I feel that I could inspire popular terror due to popular error, against raisins.
But in the end, honestly, all I can do is agree with Bertrand Russell: “It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” We are not behaving rationally. We are being herded around like a flock of sheep by our “handlers”, the politicians. We allow them to control and manipulate us using, among other things, the tool of perpetual war. We do not control the politicians, as we believe that we do; rather, the politicians control us. We fail to realize that fact. And you can’t fix a problem without being aware of it first.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Trade
Trade is an issue which, relative to more prominent issues, many do not feel strongly about. It is an issue upon which the mainstream candidates from each of the major parties agree, so it can not be used as an issue to inflame voters with partisanship and get them to go to the polls to vote against the opposition party. Trade is quite unlike the issues of abortion, or gay marriage, or the War in Iraq, in that respect. However, I believe that Trade is a very important issue which affects all of our lives here in the United States on a daily basis. Specifically, whether the United States assumes the policies of Free Trade or of Fair Trade.
Free Trade between countries is essentially when there are no restrictions whatsoever at their borders when it comes to trade. There are no tariffs, regulations, fees, etcetera. With Free Trade, trade is free and open between countries, and companies are allowed to ship their products across the border at very little cost. The argument for this is that it will raise the economic level of countries on both sides of the border. On the other side of the coin, there is Fair Trade. Fair Trade is basically the opposite of Free Trade. In Fair Trade, there are tariffs and regulations at the border. Trade is not open and free between countries. The argument for Fair Trade is that it will protect the workers on both sides of the border.
Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the United States had Free Trade policies. During his terms in office, the NAFTA Treaty, between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, was signed, and it has created one of the largest Free Trade zones in the World. The purpose of NAFTA is to raise the economic level of the lesser economies (Mexico), by allowing them to participate in and benefit from the greater economies (United States). In this way, the total bloc of North America would be made more powerful economically. Currently, under George W. Bush, we have Free Trade policies. Bush has followed Clinton’s example concerning Trade. Both parties, Republican and Democratic, are in favor of Free Trade policies. All of the 2008 Presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, are in favor of Free Trade, except for Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. So, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are all in support of Free Trade. Many ordinary Democrats and Republicans simply acquiesce in agreement in favor of Free Trade, for the reason that the leaders of their respective parties are in favor of it.
However, after some thought and discussion about the issue, I find myself very strongly opposed to Free Trade and very much in favor of Fair Trade. I will use NAFTA as an example. Specifically, the effect that NAFTA has upon the United States, Mexico, and workers from both countries.
Mexico imports 75% of its agricultural products from the United States. Because of Free Trade policies and NAFTA, it is cheaper to import the products than it is to just grow them in Mexico. There are no tariffs and trade restrictions, so it is very cheap to just buy the products from the U.S. and ship them across the border, compared to the greater cost of growing the products in Mexico. The result of less agricultural products being grown in Mexico is that Mexican agricultural workers lose their jobs. I should think that that certainly wouldn’t help Mexico’s economy. These Mexicans who have lost their agricultural jobs in Mexico then have to go to the United States to find work. As the jobs move to the United States, the workers have no choice but to move to the United States. This most certainly contributes to the illegal immigration “problem” in the United States, making Free Trade a concern to those who are advocating in favor of securing our borders. I think that if we had Free Trade rather than Fair Trade policies, and if there were tariffs at the border, Mexico would find it more beneficial to just grow the agricultural products in Mexico, and many Mexican agricultural workers would keep their jobs.
Of course, Free Trade between the United States and Mexico certainly doesn’t solely affect Mexico and Mexican workers. On the other side of the equation, the United States loses manufacturing jobs, due to Free Trade. American businesses ship the manufacturing jobs to Mexico for, in my mind, two main reasons: because (1) the workers in Mexico can be paid much less to do the same job and, plus, (2) there are no tariffs and restrictions due to Free Trade, so businesses can ship products across the border (to the United States) at no cost to them and still sell their products to American consumers (at a greater profit to the businesses). It’s a pretty sweet deal for those businesses who outsource jobs to Mexico. Maybe it wouldn’t be such an incentive to outsource jobs if we had some tariffs at the border that the businesses had to pay. The way it is set up now, with Free Trade, outsourcing is doubly beneficial to the businesses who choose to outsource. Do we really want to encourage outsourcing of American jobs in this fashion? Wouldn’t it be better if we had some tariffs and restrictions on business and trade, in order to protect both American and Mexican workers?
From my point of view, from my perspective, it seems like we should put Fair Trade policies in place, rather than Free Trade policies. The economy of Mexico could better develop if the jobs were kept in Mexico, and the economy of the United States could better develop if the jobs were kept in the United States, in my opinion.
And I have been trying to determine why politicians from both parties, Democratic and Republican, are both very supportive of Free Trade policies and why few are supportive of Fair Trade policies and of protecting the worker. My ultimate conclusion was that politicians from both parties support Free Trade for the same reason that they support our corrupt income tax system: it helps the rich citizens and big corporations who fund their political campaigns.
Free Trade between countries is essentially when there are no restrictions whatsoever at their borders when it comes to trade. There are no tariffs, regulations, fees, etcetera. With Free Trade, trade is free and open between countries, and companies are allowed to ship their products across the border at very little cost. The argument for this is that it will raise the economic level of countries on both sides of the border. On the other side of the coin, there is Fair Trade. Fair Trade is basically the opposite of Free Trade. In Fair Trade, there are tariffs and regulations at the border. Trade is not open and free between countries. The argument for Fair Trade is that it will protect the workers on both sides of the border.
Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the United States had Free Trade policies. During his terms in office, the NAFTA Treaty, between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, was signed, and it has created one of the largest Free Trade zones in the World. The purpose of NAFTA is to raise the economic level of the lesser economies (Mexico), by allowing them to participate in and benefit from the greater economies (United States). In this way, the total bloc of North America would be made more powerful economically. Currently, under George W. Bush, we have Free Trade policies. Bush has followed Clinton’s example concerning Trade. Both parties, Republican and Democratic, are in favor of Free Trade policies. All of the 2008 Presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, are in favor of Free Trade, except for Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. So, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are all in support of Free Trade. Many ordinary Democrats and Republicans simply acquiesce in agreement in favor of Free Trade, for the reason that the leaders of their respective parties are in favor of it.
However, after some thought and discussion about the issue, I find myself very strongly opposed to Free Trade and very much in favor of Fair Trade. I will use NAFTA as an example. Specifically, the effect that NAFTA has upon the United States, Mexico, and workers from both countries.
Mexico imports 75% of its agricultural products from the United States. Because of Free Trade policies and NAFTA, it is cheaper to import the products than it is to just grow them in Mexico. There are no tariffs and trade restrictions, so it is very cheap to just buy the products from the U.S. and ship them across the border, compared to the greater cost of growing the products in Mexico. The result of less agricultural products being grown in Mexico is that Mexican agricultural workers lose their jobs. I should think that that certainly wouldn’t help Mexico’s economy. These Mexicans who have lost their agricultural jobs in Mexico then have to go to the United States to find work. As the jobs move to the United States, the workers have no choice but to move to the United States. This most certainly contributes to the illegal immigration “problem” in the United States, making Free Trade a concern to those who are advocating in favor of securing our borders. I think that if we had Free Trade rather than Fair Trade policies, and if there were tariffs at the border, Mexico would find it more beneficial to just grow the agricultural products in Mexico, and many Mexican agricultural workers would keep their jobs.
Of course, Free Trade between the United States and Mexico certainly doesn’t solely affect Mexico and Mexican workers. On the other side of the equation, the United States loses manufacturing jobs, due to Free Trade. American businesses ship the manufacturing jobs to Mexico for, in my mind, two main reasons: because (1) the workers in Mexico can be paid much less to do the same job and, plus, (2) there are no tariffs and restrictions due to Free Trade, so businesses can ship products across the border (to the United States) at no cost to them and still sell their products to American consumers (at a greater profit to the businesses). It’s a pretty sweet deal for those businesses who outsource jobs to Mexico. Maybe it wouldn’t be such an incentive to outsource jobs if we had some tariffs at the border that the businesses had to pay. The way it is set up now, with Free Trade, outsourcing is doubly beneficial to the businesses who choose to outsource. Do we really want to encourage outsourcing of American jobs in this fashion? Wouldn’t it be better if we had some tariffs and restrictions on business and trade, in order to protect both American and Mexican workers?
From my point of view, from my perspective, it seems like we should put Fair Trade policies in place, rather than Free Trade policies. The economy of Mexico could better develop if the jobs were kept in Mexico, and the economy of the United States could better develop if the jobs were kept in the United States, in my opinion.
And I have been trying to determine why politicians from both parties, Democratic and Republican, are both very supportive of Free Trade policies and why few are supportive of Fair Trade policies and of protecting the worker. My ultimate conclusion was that politicians from both parties support Free Trade for the same reason that they support our corrupt income tax system: it helps the rich citizens and big corporations who fund their political campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)