Why no revolution, or change, in the US?

Former Labour Secretary Robert Reich says:

People ask me all the time why we don't have a revolution in America, or at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era or the New Deal or the Great Society -- given that middle incomes are sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, and almost all the economic gains are going to the top. The answer is complex, but three reasons stand out: (1) The working class is paralyzed with fear it will lose the jobs and wages it already has, and its major vehicle for organizing itself -- labor unions -- have been decimated; (2) students (who have been in years past a force for social change) are laden with debt and face a lousy jobs market, and don't want to rock the boat; and (3) the American public has become so cynical about government (in large part due to Republican tactics) that many no longer believe reform is possible. Have I left anything out? Has the right been so clever as to target unions, ensure high employment, pile on student debt, and seed cynicism precisely to prevent such a movement for fundamental reform? How will this end?

Discuss.

Gray State - What Gun-Rights Fanatics Fear

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

Repost from my blog

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

From: http://www.hnn.us/articles/134859.html
Barbara Smith is the author of “The Freedoms We Lost: Consent and Resistance in Revolutionary America,” just issued by The New Press.

In light of the recent anniversary of the original Tea Party, shouldn’t we consult history to clarify what the Boston brouhaha of 1773 was really about? Here are some things we would do well to remember today:

* There was little that was “conservative” about the event. A mob seized and destroyed private property. Conservative interests at the time deplored it, and the respectable descendants of the Revolutionary generation did their best to forget it when they wrote up their official accounts of the Revolution.
* It was not all about taxes. The colonists who dumped tea in Boston harbor did not oppose taxation by representative governments. They routinely voted in town meetings to support the poor and pay for common goods such as roads or public schools. From time to time they dug into their pockets to pay off public debts created by expensive wars. They did not worry much about the likelihood of taxes going to “freeloading” poor people or immigrants, because they knew that government is rarely controlled by the poor or the newcomer. Far more likely—far more dangerous—was an alliance between government and the already wealthy and well-connected.
* It was about the power of private interests. As colonists saw it, Parliament had been corrupted by the influence of money. First, opulent West Indies planters had promoted the Sugar Act to boost their profits. Wealthy Britons had supported the Stamp Act in order to cut their own taxes. Now shareholders of the East India Company hoped to reap a windfall off a monopoly on the tea trade. All these measures served special interests at the expense of ordinary colonists in North America. Rather than defending the tax breaks of the wealthy or the monopoly privileges of private companies, the original Patriots championed the wellbeing of middling households.
* It was about the obligation of government to regulate economic transactions. Eighteenth-century Patriots assumed a principle of public activism. Samuel Adams explained in a Boston newspaper: Governments might oppress the people by grabbing too much power, but oppression also occurred when governments were too weak. Government existed precisely “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” In normal times, people expected government to limit monopolies and excessive profit-taking. In the imperial crisis, Patriots insisted that countless transactions—not only tea sales—should come under public scrutiny and serve the common good. What justified destroying the East India Company’s tea was the principle that public good trumped corporate profit.
* It was about the distribution of wealth. Americans’ ancestors had been uprooted from the British countryside as great landowners amassed more and more of the land. In North America, many English settlers had achieved a sort of middling security. Now that security was threatened. Parliament was taking the side of the rich, and some rich Americans were taking the side of Parliament. The danger was the impoverishment of everyone else. The Patriots believed that a rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty.

Viewed accurately, the original Patriots would sadly disappoint today’s Tea Party activists, who promote a far different political philosophy. Of course no one today needs to agree with eighteenth-century ideas, and we know that the Patriots had their profound flaws. But we must object when present-day interests sidestep good-faith discussion of the merits of their position by misappropriating the founding generation. The principles of today’s Tea Partiers may (or may not) be correct, but they cannot establish it through sleight of hand, blithely invoking the founders while ignoring those founders’ ideas. The rest of America should not be intimidated by unfounded claims that Tea Partiers are the “real America” or that their values are the ones that originally won American freedom. Those claims fly in the face of history, and they contribute little to our ability to address the massive problems that we face as a nation.

See also: By Jill Lepore’s Boundless promise and grave peril

Lafayette for President in 2012

via Dan Lewis of Now I Know.

Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roche Gilbert du Motier, better known as the Marquis de Lafayette, was a French nobleman who famously served as a major general for the Continental Army in the American Revolution. Lafayette was integral to France's support of American troops in the war as well.

These contributions did not go unacknowledged; roughly two dozen states have towns named after him amongst a host of other honors. But the most impressive acknowledgement came on December 28, 1784 -- roughly a year after the American Revolution officially ended under the Treaty of Paris. On that date, the state of Maryland passed a resolution, making Lafayette a "natural born citizen" of the state. The resolution also did the same for all of Lafayette's male heirs, extending to and beyond the present day.

In 1919, the New York Times (pdf of article here) concluded that this designation is likely unconstitutional under our present framework -- as the power to define "natural born citizen" resides with Congress, per Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. But, as the Times notes, Maryland's grant of citizenship to Lafayette and his heirs predates the Constitution, and comes from a time when states were empowered to define who was a citizen.

Why is Lafayette's designation as a "natural born citizen" notable? Because Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part "[n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President[.]"

Lafayette's male heirs -- whomever and wherever they may be -- have met the first prong required to be eligible to be President of the United States, in a manner unique to them.

Tea Party Extremists

The New York Times published an article on the Tea Party Movement. Thanks for the link, George.

These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

The lengthy article goes on to describe in great detail the divide which is ever deepening in America. What's your opinion? Are these Tea Party enthusiasts simply fringe lunatics who were desperate for a cause or are they to be taken seriously? If the latter, does that mean, as one person was quoted in the article, the possibility exists of “another civil war?” Is it fair to describe the country like this: "Basic freedoms are threatened. Economic collapse, food shortages and civil unrest all seem imminent?"

Please leave a comment.

Is Fascism Coming to the United States?

According to Naomi Wolf it's already here, almost. In a thought-provoking article the Star News Online describes the dire situation as Wolf sees it. (h/t to Patrick in California)

Comparing coups from the Nazis' rise to power in Germany to the Pinochet regime in Chile, Wolf identified key 10 steps in the fall of democracy. Among these: the invoking of a terrifying external threat, the creation of secret prisons, a rise in domestic surveillance, the harassment of citizens' groups, a crackdown on the press and the treating of dissent as treason.

It would certainly be hard to deny the signals she cites, but does that mean we're headed down the path to the kind of government control described so forcefully in George Orwell's 1984? Even folks who break no laws and have never suffered harassment of any kind have noticed the frightening and ever-increasing video surveillance.

The first video talks about The List which is ostensibly maintained for airport security. The second video describes how Blackwater has been mandated for domestic security work.

Watching these from the vantage point of Europe makes me wonder if I should come home to the US, change my stance on personal weapons and prepare for the upcoming fight or if perhaps I should move even farther away. What would you do if you were me? Do you think this is paranoia? Isn't there too much money invested in America's capitalism to allow something like the government taking over? Is it a valid comparison to say the US today is like the Germany of 1931?