About Ending Perpetual War...

There was a lot of hoopla in my city last week, as President Obama was re-inaugurated amidst large crowds. Given the centrality of Obama to our blog (we started this 4 years ago after his initial inauguration, with some of our first posts devoted to capturing the movement that developed around him that catapulted him into the presidency), I though it'd be useful to write down a few thoughts about inauguration #2. The main takeaway from his speech was that he seemed far more bold on domestic politics: the references to climate change, Stonewall, and immigration were much stronger stances than he was willing to make in his first inauguration. Second-term presidencies can bring about more activism, obviously. But, for me, the most interesting part was his discussion of the need to end perpetual war (d'uh, I do international politics). Like so much about Obama, a lot of liberals applauded this (supposedly) brave statement and felt optimism about further distancing ourselves from the Bush years. But...yeah, as seems to be frequently the case with liberals and Obama, they didn't pay attention to what he has actually done. The press didn't do a particularly good job with this either, analyzing his words more than his actions. Perhaps Barry O is really committed to shifting away from militarism. But, the reality is, he's got to walk away from a lot of his own policies to do so.

Who hasn't tried to co-opt MLK?

As we celebrate MLK Day in America today (and the second inauguration of Barack Obama, one that is definitely being linked to MLK on a few levels...more on that later), I started thinking: why do we know so little about the real King and, as a result, why are so many able to co-opt his messages?

The MLK we're told about (that I've written about before - click here and here to read more) was a man who told us to live together in peace, for whites and blacks to embrace each other, and let our kids play together. This isn't a bad message at all, of course. However, we rarely get the more complicated politics that MLK touched on. He understood the connection between racism, economics, and politics. "I have a dream" is very special and historical...but the dream MLK wanted us to get to involved addressing war, poverty, and the nature of our political system. He was pro-labor (he was assassinated while supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis). He was critical of the economic divide in America. He was staunchly opposed to the Vietnam war, and not supportive of our foreign policy in general. He thought we exploited the poor at home and abroad. He had problems with moderate white American leaders, who would be willing to compromise on social issues to bring about a "peace" without justice. So...yeah, not as warm and fuzzy as we hear about. Of course, reality makes him (and those who fought alongside him - one man does not make a movement) far more courageous, noble, and worthy of rememberance. It wasn't easy to fight against segregation. Fighting against segregation, Vietnam, poverty, aspects of capitalism, political dealmaking...yeah, that's a lot more challenging.

The Plutocrats are Coming!

Plutocrats have played a prominent role in the 2012 American elections. Plutocracy is basically the notion of rule by the wealthy - it has been used pretty negatively throughout history, but also has been a propaganda tool by some of the worst facist states of our time. There is little debate that we have some sort of plutocracy in America today - especially post-Citizens United, the rich have an inordinate amount of influence in our political system. In the 2010 races, outside money played a huge role in the GOP winning back the House of Representatives, and in this year's campaign cycle, the ultra wealthy are putting in even more dollars, mostly to support Mitt Romney and the Republicans. But...plutocracy isn't necessarily about political ideology - Democrats get plenty of money from the wealthy, too. In recent years, plutocrats have felt more under assault in America than ever before - this may be technically true, because they've been paying historically low taxes, so any interest in raising these rates will threaten them, whether fair or not. With the financial meltdown, there is a greater interest in the wealth gap, which has widened substantially. In the 1960s, workers made a few times less than CEOs, but now, they make hundreds of times less than CEOs. Additionally, plutocrats basically failed...their insistence on deregulation and their risky financial behavior played a major role in the economic meltdown. Of course, the backlash only seemed to solidify in their minds that they know what's right for the country, and seemed to create greater paranoia that everyone is out to get them. The right-wing hasn't helped matters much, though they might be getting their cues from the people who are financially backing them...wait for it...the plutocrats! Just look at who bankrolls the Tea Party, for example - Jane Mayer's famous expose on the Koch brothers is here). The 2012 race seems to bring the issue of plutocracy to the forefront...though, again, both Democrats and Republicans are relying on the wealthy to finance them. For a great discussion of this issue, check out this fantastic discussion on Bill Moyers' show, with guests Matt Taibbi (of Rolling Stone) and Chrystia Freeland (of Reuters).