2009 Advice to a President, Advice Ignored

2012 is upon us, and 2009, the year of President Obama's inauguration, seems like only yesterday. Perhaps that time distortion owes a bit of its presence to how little both the Congress and the President have accomplished during the past three years. Mission not accomplished, mission not even attempted. While most Americans didn't expect much from the Republicans (beyond the rescue of their traditional moneyed constituency), we did expect more, much more, with regard to social and economic justice from the Democrats, and, most of all, from a Democratic President who, in a time of economic crisis, had campaigned in a manner that implied that significant populist change would be pursued.

By midsummer 2009, it was clearly apparent that either Mr. Obama's political savvy, or his willingness to engage the reactionary forces of this country, or both, were sadly lacking, a far cry from what trusting voters had been led to believe. Such timidity could not possibly result from presidential ignorance of the alternatives. Advice regarding a desirable progressive course of action was plentiful from all corners, including academics, the press, and the public. I myself chimed in, though with no real expectation that the president would read, let alone heed, what I wrote.

The blog post below is the exact text of my comment (comment #2) posted to Paul Krugman's July 26, 2009 (in-print July 27) column "An Incoherent Truth" at the New York Times. As 2012 begins, it seems appropriate to reprint it as review of what might have been. Faced with a 2012 choice between a Democratic president who has for three years followed a course grossly inadequate to the needs of the nation and most of its people, and Republican challengers dedicated to blending the selfish and the delusional into one poisonous stew, one can now only wish for a genuinely progressive alternative to appear in the form of an unlikely Democratic challenger or third-party candidate. How sad that our hopes of January 2009 should have been reduced to only that.

******************************
July 27, 2009

You've recently delivered several decent speeches on healthcare, President Obama, rational and earnest, though more than a bit short on passion and specifics. You choose your words carefully, undoubtedly aware of their power, but you still seem overly worried about offending (let alone confronting) the healthcare industry, your Republican opponents, or "blue dog" Democrats.

Talk is good, Mr. President, but only up to the point where action is required, and action should occur long prior to the point where important principles get badly compromised. Do you still think that you can bridge the gap between progressives and Republicans? Even if achievable (it isn't), that would truly be a bridge to nowhere, a purgatory of thin mush in which your presidency would sink as if in quicksand.

It takes more than a teleprompter and a BlackBerry to govern. It takes more than an elusive --- or a meaningless --- consensus. Text softly and carry a big stick. Read about Abraham Lincoln if you choose. But also read about Lyndon Johnson, a generally progressive president (with the exception of his pursuit of the Vietnam war) who was a masterful politician, employing, at various times, promises, threats, flattery, and old-fashioned "horse-trading" in order to advance desired legislation. The American public understands that a few political compromises may be needed, and will tolerate them, provided that the overwhelming benefit accrues to the majority of the people, not to the rich or to corporate interests. We won't be satisfied with half a loaf --- not when we've harvested the grain, milled the wheat, baked and transported the bread. We won't take kindly to charade or co-optation. (Senators and Representatives: Are you absorbing this message? It's directed at you too.)

As a matter of pragmatism, Mr. President, I would advise you and your allies to stop worrying about the next election --- excessive worry about the future is the enemy of achievement in the present. Accomplish something substantial during your current term, and the future will take care of itself, you'll be re-elected in a landslide. Or piddle around instead, and history will consider you nothing but placeholders in the decline of the American Dream.

Both a grand vision and political leadership are required, not a finger-in-the-dike strategy. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to significantly move this nation in the direction of freedom, justice, and morality. Freedom includes but is about much more than political freedom; freedom includes freedom from exploitation, freedom from hunger, freedom from homelessness, freedom from ignorance, as well as freedom from inadequate access to medical care. Justice includes not only justice within the legal system, but also economic and environmental justice. Morality isn't about a flash of nudity on television, it's about how the least among us, anywhere in the world, are treated --- and how the world itself is treated.

A large number of Americans understand the full scope of what is needed. Do you, Mr. President? Do you, Senators and Representatives? Equally important, do you have the political acumen and the courage to unabashedly work to achieve it?

Fred Drumlevitch

Training the Next Generation of Enforcers,Training the 99% to "Know Their Place"

It has been common for fictional television programs to paint a picture of everyday law enforcement as being encumbered by, and/or wantonly disregarding, many normal civil liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, its amendments, and case law. Intentional or not, this has the inevitable result of undermining accurate public knowledge of civil liberties and expectations for police behavior. Get a significant portion of the public trained via television dramas to the memes that nearly anything goes (and is justified) in policing, that civil liberties are an impediment to public safety, and, above all, that cops are always the good guys, then in the real world, abuses of power by law enforcement will be much more easily accepted.

September 11 also convinced many Americans that governmental spying on the American public — without cause or traditional court-issued warrants — was justified, even desirable. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced much of the American populace that drones are a desirable method of surveillance and warfare. The "logical" next step — for those who believe in a logic that ignores the lessons from the history of totalitarianism — is to expand governmental surveillance of the greater American public by means that include drones. That is beginning to happen, as documented in Glenn Greenwald's recent pieces in Salon. (Indeed, it appears that the deployment of drones with offensive weaponry designed to be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is also in the works).

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/12/the_growing_menace_of_domestic_drones/singleton/

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/nprs_domestic_drone_commercial/

Finally, it has also been established by surveys that a substantial number of Americans — far more than is justified by actual economic mobility — believe that one day, they too will be rich, and it has been suggested that this belief has contributed to the strength of American right-wing politics and opposition to adequately-progressive taxation.

Ah, but for those wishing to advance an authoritarian, intrusive, and economically-unjust system of social relations, a problem remains. If these various current public memes are to become maximally effective, how can they be instilled at the earliest possible age? As the Jesuits have said with regard to religion, give them control of a child before age seven, and they'll have a Catholic for life. Similarly, in matters related to projection of, and obedience to, governmental authority, early exposure and internalization are highly important. And one of the central methods to achieve that is play.

I present below a sampling of slick recent advertisements for toys that promote the aforementioned memes. (I ignore traditional militarism and mayhem, as toys devoted to those memes are even more widespread and undoubtedly already familiar to most people; I also omit video games, as most are aimed at children older than the demographic for most of the toys below).

Happy shopping!

*Pepper spray, handcuffs not included

Of course, the "Protect & Serve" motto is present. As someone once said: If only it meant protecting and serving the 99 percent, rather than the 1 percent.

Handcuffs ARE included

From the Toys R Us description: "... Blow the whistle and flash the badge to tell the baddies to stop, and if they don't, administer some justice with the nightstick before holding them prisoner with the handcuffs. A knife rounds out the kit. ... True Heroes police, fire and soldier toys and spy gear let your kids emulate the latest blockbuster action movie as well as the people who make the world safe and just!"

Above comment is by "Mom from NYC"

 

From the Hasbro description: "... Put his pistol or gas grenade in one hand, leaving the other hand free for his K-9 companion’s leash! Order will be restored with your G.I. JOE figure on patrol!"

Note the belt-fed portable machine gun above, presumably useful when firing forty-one shots at an innocent man via standard departmental-issue semiautomatic sidearms would be too tiring to police trigger fingers. And what is the nature of the complex-looking "attached revolving weapon" on top of the truck? It appears too large to be a riot-control water cannon, and includes what seems to be a telescopic sight, certainly unnecessary for a water cannon.

 

Et tu, LEGO?

 

Above: Note the weaponry carried

For the young one-percenter-wannabe

Should aspirations to become a one-percenter not pan out, there is always the prospect of more plebian employment behind the drive-thru window.

 

It's never too early to start drone operator training, or to help acclimate your neighbors to being spied upon.

(Photos and descriptions are from manufacturer and retailer websites, and are deemed to constitute fair use, as they are being used to illustrate the slickness of the products and their marketing, the psychological effects that the products may produce in consumers, and the political effects that the products may produce in the nation).