The Right's attempt to be more "Intellecutal"

According to the latest work by Tim Stanley in the UK newspaper, the Right in America does not have an anti-intellecutual tradition.  According to him, conservatives read books and have their own intellectual foundation because they are able to read books.  This is true most liberals would concede that the Right is able to read books and have their own following.  The problem is that the Right will only read a selective set of books for fear that their own ideals may be challenged.  As a result, it is not suprising to find the works of Freidman on this socalled list of works that all conservatives should read.  Friedmann's work is currently present in our economic disaster of the last few years.  At the saem time, the real criticism that needs to be addressed is not the conservatives are not capable of reading, it's that many tend to cling to ideals that have long since been disproven by historical, eonomic, and scientific facts. 

One of the best examples is the Theory of Evolution.  Long been able to stand up to the continued testing of the scientific community.  Instead, conservatives continue to use religion to keep people in their place forgetting that it was Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses.  Indeed, they are clever.  Let us not forget the continued claims by former President Ronald Reagan that we could cut taxes and increase defense spending and demand a balanced budget.  Reagan never submitted a balanced budget he so continuously demanded from Congress.  He left office slightly more dotty than when he entered, and the nation with a larger deficit that his predecessor. What is clear from the conservatives is that while they may have an intellectual tradition, it is a tradition that does not foster nor challenge their followers to better themesleves.  Instead, it rehashes settled matters on subjects decades settled and attempts to use historical facts to tweak their slogans.  While other traditions have done the same, this new conservative Tea Bag party has taken the cake.  The fact that they believe the Boston Tea Party was a protest against paying taxes remains absurd.  It was a protest about who would levy the taxes, the colonial legislatures or the Parliament.  This is a bit of a difference. 

In the end, it has never been doubted that the right could read materials.  It is their small selection of materials that remains in question. They have chosen the proper sychopants.  However, what remains clear is that most of them have not read The Wealth of Nations yet they beleive they have enough information.  An they lack the trust of the people to make the laws for themselves.  I say this because they still believe that government is the problem forgetting that we are the government.  Yet they do not shrink form using the tools of government to give tax breaks to the rich in the "belief" that the rich create jobs, nor do they have a problem with the government intervenening in the economy as long as business is not regulated,  They have done so well on this subject that they have created the greatest division between rich and poor in US history.  What much of the so called intellectual right chooses to research, it is clear that they need to do more research.  Perhaps if they did their homework there would be less criticism.

Sarah Palin has stated she will not continue to run for president - and the world heaves a sigh of relief. http://amplify.com/u/a1e979

http://glaucus480.livejournal.com/1994.html



here is a link to my blog, all opinions welcome http://amplify.com/u/a1adu2

The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire as an Example of Why We Cannot Count on the Private Sector

Only 100 years ago, a major event occurred in New York City that has since been an example of why government needs to continue to regulate the private sector.  Without the aid of government, we have  a situation were labor has no power.  Sure, the individual would be "free" to negotiate his/her labor, but due to a labor surplus and the increase in unskilled jobs, that ability is a non-starter.   However, to their credit the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist company chose a good modern building for their enterprise.  The Asch Building had been certified as fireproof by 1911 standards.  However, the fire department had noted the distinct absence of fire exits, yet nothing was done to compel the owners of the building or the company to rectify this, nor had anyone listened to the women's pleas for fire drills.  All this is well documented.  The city ignored conditions inside the factory.  Doors were locked from the outside so that workers could not leave their posts until quitting time, a common practice.  At the same time, the company was worried that the workers might steal some of the materials. There were not real safety standards and forget about sanitation even by early twentieth century standards.  When the fire broke out at the factory on March 28,1911, it burned so quickly because of the scraps of fabric on the floors and the finished clothing that hung on wire wracks dangling over the heads of workers created a fireball.  the workers were locked inside, could not use the one fire escape, and were surrounded by flammable clothing.

The Triangle owners were later acquitted of charges of negligence because it could not be proven that they actually knew that the doors were locked.  A fact later proved false by historians.  The owners settled out of court for $75 per victim.  Not enough to even have a funeral by 1911 standards.  What the Triangle fire illustrates is the violation of the ideal of social responsibility on the part of the corporate elite. This is a concept that is today still disputed.  The concept of a shared social responsibility embedded deeply in American values of individualism, unimpeded economic growth, and property rights above all else.  Mac Blanc and his partner Isaac Harris exemplify the typical business.  They worried about competition but failed to provide any concept of responsibility for their workers.  Workers were cattle and they controlled their workforce.  Speed was the key.  They had the new electric sewing machines that make 3000 stitches a minute.  Volume was the key to their success.

Now this is a typical example of a company in the garment industry during that period.  Since then, the federal government had implemented new safety standards.  As a result of the fire at Triangle, after a 5 year investigation, the state of New York implemented new safety standards, that were promptly ignored by companies who could buy off inspectors who got their jobs because of their relationship to local politicians.  While we all balk at some of the weirdest standards, at least we have standards for safety and sanitation.  

This is a day an age where the private sector created the demand for goods and services and an unregulated economy had more weight than government.  For corporations their corporation was private property that they could run however they wanted.  Forget the fact that they would not have been successful if it had not been for the workers who made it possible.  Their wealth and power was a reward for their individual freedom.  Yet, there was not recognition of the individuals who made the goods.

Do we want to go back to this unregulated system where private property and that concept trumps social responsibility.  We have not moved very far from that point.  Industrialists to this day feel that their self made status has been achieved by them alone forget all the people that have made it possible.  If they close the company, so what, workers will have to find other jobs.  We need to renew that sense of social responsibility.  Corporations are NOT private property, they have a social responsibility to the nation, economy, and to the workers they employ.  Hence when a CEO makes $10 million a year and lay's off workers after 20 years, I know from personal experience, this can cause one to question their practices.  Especially since, over the last 20 years, CEO's have no responsibility to the company they run.  They negotiate their contracts for a set salary regardless of how well the company performs.  This does not give them a stake in the company.  

Consequently, when we talk about returning economic 'freedom" to the private sector, we are really talking about restoring more power to stockholders and CEO's who could care less about the city or state and the economic consequences of their decisions.  Their major concern is to make money.  While that is important, we need to have a factor in there for social responsibility.  Case in Point, New London V. Kelo  The underlying reason for the seizure of property to redevelop the Fort Trumbul areas was . . . to please Pfizer and their expansion of their New London site, see New London Day for more facts.  In the end, people lost their homes, but were compensated, which is really no compensation when one wants their home.  Then the company who was developing the area went bankrupt and Pfizer closed the site.  This illustrates no social responsibility for the people who lived in the area.  There was no thought of what the impact would be in the end.  As a result, there remains empty buildings and homes.  Social responsibility demands that workers have an equal partnership with the company as they provide the means of wealth for the company.  Would the company profit without them?  While a group of individuals may own stock, there is a social responsibility that comes with that and we need to stress that.

As are result, we cannot count on the private sector to provide the needed safeguards for all people.  The private sector only allows for individuals of wealth, with that comes power, to have a say.  If one does not have wealth they have no power or economic ability to enforce compliance with demands.  Companies that think workers are unreasonable get a tax break from the federal government and move to . . . China.  Do we really want a return to this system.  It may be an extreme example, but the every day worker will tell you that this is not a far cry from the truth.

They Myth of Government Intervention

Since the latest debacle of the manufactured debt crisis, once again there has been increased “talk” about the role of government in relation to the people.  Increasingly, there have been increased disdain on the part of the extreme right for the involvement of government in the lives of the average person.  Almost a nostalgic desire to return to those days of self sufficiency.  Well, let’s look at those days of self-sufficiency?  And when one looks at this it is important to look at the dates in which one describes.  The right had the incredibly nagging ability to keep changing their criteria.  Hence, I specifically would address that period from the late 1890s to about World War I America.  First let’s talk about governing structure.  Second, the lives of country and then industrial workers.

Government up until the late 1880s remained something aloof from the average person.  The State government was far away and the local city government was run by the local machine.  It does not matter what machine the democrats as well as the republicans had them.  The local machines actually provided some services to their supporters.  It was not all corruption, although a good deal was.  They kept their workers employed.  The Spoils System was in rampant use throughout the country since the Age of Jackson.  However, the system had gotten beyond the control of the people.  This is a time period when there was no such thing as the party primary.  The party bosses controlled the nomination systems and elections.  When one could vote, the ballot was printed by the party.  When one went to vote, they were asked what ballot they wanted, democratic or republican, etc.  In 1888, Massachusetts introduced the Australian Ballot, the secret ballot, from that point the state printed the ballot with all the names listed and the various party divisions.  Progressives also introduced the Presidential Primary, whereby party members could vote in a primary to choose their presidential candidate, later it was extended to local offices.  This Progressive reform diminished in some detail the power of the party bosses.  However, it was not entirely diminished. 

Now, the period between 1880-1913, there were a great many politicians who had a great deal of power within their parties, or influence as one might call it today.  The party’s importance may be found in its control of the state legislatures and local politics.  New York City Tammany Hall machine politicians had an inordinate amount of influence in Albany.  This also plays into the choice for federal Senators.  Remember, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, who voted for a person recommended by their party.  During the period in question, there also remained an increased amount of economic activity that was not regulated by the federal government.  In fact, the federal government did little to get involved in the economic activity of the nation.  This is why one can see the vast growth in monopolies from Railroads to Steel, to Meat Packing.  These same monopolies could also count on support from the Senators they purchased in the states and at the federal level.  In fact, the business of government was to keep government out of business.  Even in the depths of the first Great Depression of 1893, the federal government did nothing to alter the private privilege of the economic dynamics of the day.  Finally, in 1913, the 17th amendment came into effect and now, the people choose their Senators.  The question remains do we want to go back to something like this????

Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, an oxymoron today, Roosevelt determined that the federal government needed to get involved within the economy so that the government was not held hostage to the demands of private business.  Consequently, up to the early part of the twentieth century, government did not see its primary responsibility to get involved in the economic activities of the nation.  Today this is a bit of a shock. 

How did this affect the average person?  We complain about government intervention for many reasons.  However, beginning in the late 1880s and into the early twentieth century, the average person began to demand that the power of government refocus from its penchant for the rich and powerful to the average person.  Farmers in the Midwest and South began early movements to organize for the demand of government attention and regulation.  The whole idea of the Silver Sub-Treasury System was to enable farmers to pay their debts and provide for better lives.  In the cities, organized labor for both women and men worked to get better wages and government reform for safer working and sanitary conditions, lest we forget the tragedies of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.

The point here, and there is one, is that government involvement in the lives of the average person began as a demand on the part of the average person to eliminate the privileged practices of business.  Big business held all the cards.  They controlled how much one made for a job, what the conditions were, and when one would be fired.  Business also had the money and influence to allow government to look the other way.  Let the private sector take care of these problems.  The problem is that the private sector NEVER took care of the problem because it is not in its interest to do so.  Conditions and wages only got better when the people decided that the federal government should use its power to end the privileges of the wealthy elite and start to work for the average person.

So where it this going????  The point my friends is that while there may be a good deal of things that, perhaps, the government should not do, the fact remains it DOES protect the average person from the prurient interests of business.  From the amount of lead that is safe to put in your teeth fillings to the requirements that baby cribs should have certain safety standards, it is OUR government.  The question remains do we as a nation want to give this up?  Do we want to give up some of the social safety net standards that have been achieved.  Things like unemployment insurance.  You know that 6% deduction you pay, and your employer better pay, so that in the event you lose your job you do not suffer immediate economic ruin.  And Social Security, a separate post to cover most of this will be necessary, nevertheless, this small sacrifice to allow old people to have some living in their waning years is something that the private sector would never be willing to fund.  In fact, the private sector has no interest nor could it do what the government does regarding many of the social services that the average person obtains from the federal government.  And we have earned them.  The average person pays into all these programs so that their parents are not on the street because they were not fortunate enough to save the requisite money needed for their life threatening disease they caught.

So what should the role of government be????  Should we go back to the days when the privileged and rich controlled the strings?  Or should we become more active and demand that government provide the needs of the people which it serves?  This is the debate. 

Canada will have a federal election the 4th election in 7 years. The Conservatives lead nationally by 14% but the election is on May 2, We will see if Harper will remain the Prime Minister http://amplify.com/u/bxv84