Just like some rather assertive domestic servants of old, or today�s proud Mac users, �I don�t do Windows.�  Metaphorically speaking, that is!  What I really mean to say is that for all the references I may rely on to support a given thesis, it�s my preference to stay away from that genre.  But if my extended treatment of a book I�ve just read appears front and center in this column, as it�s likely to be the case today, it may turn out that this piece is de facto a book review; or, at the very least, more than my quasi-plagiarization of its title: �Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of Empire: Towards a New Humanism� co-authored by two scholars, Peter McLaren (UCLA) and Nathalia Jaramillo (Purdue), and published in 2006 by Sense Publishers (The Netherlands) � www.sensepublishers.com.   
These last two weeks have proved to be intensively instructive not just for those of us living in the United States but for people around the globe.  We had the 2007 DVD version (Deceit-Venality-Depravity) of �The Thief of Baghdad,� starring Bush-Filio, Greenspan, Petraeus and Crocker in self-portrayed roles, together with a cast of thousands � which included from self-serving buffoonish congressional legislators to a totally inept and unprofessional mainstream press corps � shown in Truecolor and Muffledsound on screens not just in our nation�s capital but throughout the world.
What transpired during this period may not seem revelatory to some, but to many it was.  For once, Bush�s bipolarity became real and stood in front of us.  In the past Bush has always treated the world with unmasked disdain and arrogance to the chagrin of some thoughtful Americans but, unfortunately, also the sonorous applause and consent of too many of his countrymen.  In the last few days, however, Americans were finally � and insolently � told in bold, underlined and in-your-face language that Uncle Sam is the real thief in Iraq, driving a late model Empire � a gas-guzzler solely ran and lubricated with oil.  Even our own economic Nostradamus, Alan Greenspan, just told us that the trek to Iraq was about oil. And as for our military�s stay in that nation� how about until Iraq�s oil reserves run out or Iraqis find common cause and muster the strength to kick us out?   
Our president�s bipolarity has now been unequivocally diagnosed: arrogance towards the world, and insolence towards his own countrymen.  No second-guessing any more.
And just as the curtain was being lifted on those realities no one wanted to see, racism was added for good measure via two other timely events: the trial of �the Jena 6� in Central Louisiana; and the private mercenary armies� deeds, this time what is seen by the Iraqi government as the wanton killing of eight Iraqi civilians by the for-profit elite SS Corps: the great Blackwater warriors, la cr�me de la cr�me of America�s military (Thug- Rambo-tic terms) turned entrepreneurial� an engendering of capitalism�s marketplace.  These are two events exhibiting different types of racism, both answering to one type of relationship: that between master and slave, call it by whatever name.  That master-slave relationship brings us back to the book mentioned at the outset of this column.
Enter McLaren and Jaramillo, and their latest contribution to what must be referred to as a march towards an enlightened humanism within the realm of pedagogy.  An attempt, as they put it, to make the pedagogical more politically informed and the political more pedagogical critical.  Not an easy task under any circumstance, and a most difficult one for authors ideologically pegged to the always denigrated Left� truth be damned!
As relevant as I did find the book to my own understanding of peoples� and nations� struggle to achieve a reasonable level of equity, and thus help open the door to the all important state that gives each and everyone the respect, self-worth and inherent nobility � a.k.a. human dignity � it was the introduction to the book that gave palpability to today�s reality in the United States in social, economic and political terms.  Mostly a graded narrative of events that took place just prior to, during and at the aftermath of Katrina, it was plain telling of American society today; not just defining a corrupt and inept administration but, if only by inference or default, the rest of us as well� as observers to a drama that said everything that needed to be said.
McLaren has been carrying the torch for well over a decade to bring additional light � in his academic arena � to a concerted effort in the fight against a unipolar, and univocal, world that exists today with the United States as its �monotheo.�  Global capitalism and the mirages of democracy brought about by Neoliberalism certainly should at least be questioned, and excerpts from essays in this book reinforce that.  Perhaps this book is more than just a symbolic warning, since what has transpired during the past decade, perhaps longer, is a reversal in true social justice, often accompanied by blatant denial to the children of the lesser gods of everything that makes up human dignity.
It is the warning, the calling to arms that pierces one�s mind, and heart, when reading the book; and one hope that it doesn�t end up being the last lament, the announcement by the bean chaointe (keening woman) that humanity is no longer, that the world has self-destructed.
And, in an accelerated fashion, Bipolar Bush, in his arrogance and insolence, appears to be taking us to that self-immolation.
 2007 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

The single largest anti-Constitutional contribution to the Bush Regime by the Protect America Act (PAA) is its effective cancellation of legislative and judicial oversight on warrantless wiretapping. It authorizes open-ended surveillance of Americans’ overseas phone calls and e-mails without a warrant.[1]

When this bill was signed into law on 08-05-07, legislative and judicial power in the executive branch instantly grew by several orders of magnitude. The Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle had its arms ripped off.[1]

The law is set to expire after 6 months. But, unsurprisingly, Bush just announced that he wants those powers to be permanent.

Send a letter opposing this to your members of Congress now! It takes just a couple minutes with our online system.

http://www.populistamerica.com/kill_the_protect_america_act

On Wednesday, September 19th, Bush said:

“So I call on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent. The need for action is clear. Director McConnell has warned that unless the FISA reforms in the Act are made permanent, our national security professionals will lose critical tools they need to protect our country. Without these tools, it’ll be harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to train, recruit and infiltrate operatives in our country. Without these tools our country will be much more vulnerable to attack.”[2]

Once again, using fear, Bush and his cohorts are calling on you to willingly give up your liberty - permanently. By allowing spying without warrant, the PAA - along with FISA itself - directly contradicts the plain English of the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No Warrants Shall Issue. Period.

Tell your senators and representatives to do something unusual - tell them to stand up for your liberty and the US Constitution - by letting this awful legislation expire.

http://www.populistamerica.com/kill_the_protect_america_act

Former federal prosecutor Edward Lazarus says that warrantless wiretapping is a major threat to the Constitution’s separation of powers. It is a sapping of legislative and judicial power into the executive.[1]

Lazarus writes — “… the Constitution’s separation of powers was the nation’s primary defense against tyranny. And tyranny, [Yale law professor Stephen] Carter concluded in an oft quoted line, does not overwhelm a nation in an instant. No, he wrote, ‘tyranny creeps”.

Lazarus continues — “Lately, though, tyranny runs like a cheetah.”[1][3]

Click here to take action on this issue now.

In Liberty,
Michael Boldin
Populist Party of America

*************

P.S. Our Readers are our primary source of funding. Make a donation today to help the Populist Party grow and stay active!

http://www.populistamerica.com/contribute

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

We, as a party, do not support direct democracy because of some romantic notion, which we prioritize to the point that we ignore empirical contingencies and the complexities they create for anyone who attempts to configure changes that are more than minute tweaks to the current complex of sociopolitical institutions, constituting American governance.

Rather, our insistence upon the establishment of direct democratic institutions to American polity arises from considerations that are practical, immediate, and, in fact, necessary if we are to salvage whatever semblance America has had of a Nation of the People and by the People, whose government acts on behalf of the People. As opposed to, a People suffering under the tyranny of a group of self anointed Ubermenchen with multinational interests, who promote their own will toward profit maximization above any interests they might possess in common with the ordinary citizenry of this country.

Whether it is Chuck Schumer refusing to allow tax reforms that will subject the managers of Hedge Funds – who are personified manifestations of the corporate cowboy culture, who apparently operate in terrains outside of the reach of the Federal Income Tax – to the same income taxes as everyone else – as opposed to them paying the lesser 15% that is excised from the capital gains tax; or whether it be virtually every Republican who continues to support the sinking ship in Iraq, all of the while exclaiming their support of the Military, which is rapidly disintegrating from the demands placed upon it in the Middle East – it is clear that the interests of the Nation of the People are not represented in Congress. In fact, it is difficult to know who precisely enjoys representation by Congress, other than Hedge Fund Operators, Defense Contractors, and firms in related industries, such as mercenary outfits – i.e., Blackwater – who are, perhaps, the only beneficiaries of this ghastly misadventure in Iraq.

With direct democratic institutions installed in government – where the people can impact public policy through initiative, referendum, and recall: a process of policy formation that negates in its mechanisms steps involving an intermediary body, which consists of our ‘representatives,’ in Congress, there could be a rather hastened end to the slow motion train-wreck in Iraq. In short, public opinion could be leveraged for purposes of directly enacting legislation that would serve as a device compelling the President to put aside concerns regarding his legacy in order to concentrate upon matters pertaining to the present.

Further, if we had the power to recall the President, the popular support, even, for such a resolution to pass would not be entirely necessary, because Bush would continue to be restrained by the shifts in Public Opinion, due to the threat of the initiation of such a process. He would not be so brash, where he follows along in his messianic delusions, leading this country unimpeded to increasingly injurious disasters, since he would be vulnerable to the type of legacy we might compare with that of the former Governor of California, Gray Davis.

If all of this appears to be too simplistic – too intellectually effortless – I would counter that the reason that this reform agenda to American politics – namely, the installment of direct democratic institutions – fails to find itself incorporated into the advocacies of legislators and corporate media outfits is attributable to the fact that it poses a threat to vested interests. It is simply too viable and too accessible a means for the popular reform of politics and power relations in American society. Those who suppress these ideas are simply acting in accord with their own particular interests.

With the ability for the Population to recall public officials, Congressional Representatives would not be in a position to tow the Party Line when casting their votes. The President would not be able to persist in foreign policies that have already proven to be disastrous. In short, those in power would be constrained to policy formation parameters that reflect the interests of the American Population.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
1 Comment »

It’s been a decade since my interest in the stock market was surgically removed from my investment system. And just as some people consider themselves cancer survivors, I, too, consider myself a Wall Street survivor. That, of course, hasn’t stopped me from tuning in now and then to that cable channel of bullishly ticker-happy telecapitalism, CNBC, a place of worship without bell towers or minarets which renders cult to our sacred economic system with more fervor than that expressed by those televangelists ebulliently getting rich, as they perform “miracles” in the name of Jesus of Nazareth – the very same Jesus who reputedly had thrown the moneychangers out of the Temple.

And it is this charlatanry of both lay and religious that takes me back many, many years.

During my enlistment stint in the Air Force, and while on an overseas tour of duty at an air base in Europe, I developed a friendship with a barracks mate we all called Luigi – one would guess because of his Italian accent, although it didn’t resemble by a long shot J. Carroll Naish’s twang in those “Life with Luigi” episodes of a decade earlier. But since he hailed from Italy, it’s safe to assume some fellow airman personally decided he looked more like a Luigi than a Pasquale, or a Tony, or even his true baptismal names of Mario Angelo which appeared in his USAF personnel records and roll call lists.

During our off-duty socializing, Luigi had spoken to me about his childhood days in the Perugian countryside – in the Umbrian region – always reminiscing about the incredible greenery of its landscape and the even more incredible local bella ragazze; but never mentioned any specific city, town or village. It was only after a TDY (temporary duty) trip together to the air base in Brindisi, to which we tagged on a week’s vacation to visit his family and roam through Central Italy, that I discovered beautiful Spoleto, then a small city of fewer than 20,000 people – several dozen of them introduced to me as Luigi’s relatives – to be my friend’s home, or at least his luogo di nascita.

What I recall most vividly about Spoleto is neither the city’s distinct agri-urban character nor any beautiful cugina that I might have been introduced to, but the day-hike which Luigi and I took to Cerreto di Spoleto, a small village within the municipality, a few miles out and maybe one-third mile higher, nestled in a mountain. And it was those historical accounts of Cerreto, or rather of the Cerretans of four centuries before, that received my undivided attention. Here, in this colorful hamlet, you could almost sense being at the main altar of the basilica of charlatanry, the sanctum sanctorum of the con game! And I was also reminded that a Cerretan or cerretano is also often referred to as a Charlatan or ciarlatano. These people had perambulated the Italian peninsula and adjacent lands peddling ointments, drugs, and magic elixirs as well as practicing medicine and dentistry “without license”; an entire career-tribe of people who had “earned” their living, or so it’s claimed in reliable historical sources, by cheating ignorant or naïve people.

But that was centuries ago, and now their descendants have found their way to the New World together with Cerretans-emulators from elsewhere on the globe. Nowadays these sophisticated – or not – cheaters wander around America, laptops in hand, plugging us to their 2007.0 Thieving version of their PC (Predatory Charlatanry) operating system.

Unlike their predecessors of years back, these charlatans have graduated from their medicine man status, to that of performers of kaleidoscopic variations of the Ponzi scheme, or as the motivational “enrapturers” of the greedy for quick-riches – and the voguish multi-level marketing of the past few years – all born in the USA. In this America of ours, many of those “philosophically” descendents of that tribe from Cerreto di Spoleto have morphed into our lives as preachers, businessmen, economists, journalists, military brass, and most definitely as politicians.

What makes our situation sad is that these charlatans in their new disguises cannot be told apart from the bona fide holders of similar jobs; and so it is that demonic preachers, unscrupulous business people, pseudo-economists, tamed-journalists, psycho generals, and crooked politicians have come to paint our lives with psychedelic colors, blinding us and preventing us from making an honest evaluation of the reality around us.

So in the last two days we are finally told by the Charlatan-In-Chief, George W. Bush, that we’ll be in Iraq indefinitely… although expressed in softer lying tones; and then the “great maestro,” Alan Greenspan, who’s been disharmonizing our economy for an entire generation now admits to a peccadillo of underestimating the effect of sub-prime lending, as if that was his only con; and the “patriot” Petraeus is just turning into another prospective politician, an ideal war presidential candidate for 2012 from the GOP’s well entrenched officer corps that rule America’s military. A never-ending political and economic farce: Ciarlatani one and all! A friend and retired economics’ professor made a comment three years ago as we were watching together a segment of “Kudlow and Cramer” on CNBC: “This ‘infomercial’ channel promoting Wall Street is perfectly represented by this Don Quixote and Sancho Panza duo,” after which he went on to tell me about Kudlow’s ignorance of economics summarized by Kudlow’s constant envious-criticism of a true economist, Paul Krugman, and a love affair for a Laffer curve he didn’t even fully comprehend. Well, in the world of business and economics no place represents charlatanry better than CNBC, one must agree. Of course, in this never-ending-borrowing world, these charlatans can appear to be experts, but they have already climbed all the undeserved rope and reached the top. And the upcoming recession-plus will soon dislodge them from those incredible heights.

For now, charlatans in religion, business, economics, news media, the military and our two parties are on safe ground in America. But we are coming to the end of an era, and we must ask… then what? Exile them all to Cerreto di Spoleto? I have the feeling that modern Cerretans won’t accept any of these cheaters (or far worse) in their exile.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

 Introduction to American Radicalized Sociopolitical Movements in Informationalism and the Network Society

a working paper by

Russell Cole

After becoming versed in this typically neglected aspect to the American story [Populism and the People’s Party], I became fixated on the truly unique poignancy it deserved in any narration of American sociopolitical history; one characterized, in most every other instance, as a historical rendering that has obfuscated class; economic inequality; as well as stratifications extant within sociopolitical institutions; all of which can be conceptualized – although they rarely happen to be – along patrician and plebeian dimensions. This stratification has persisted for so long and it has had such a profound influence upon the cultural codes circulating through American social formations that it has gone unmarked in the preponderance of American discourse.

It should not be understated the impact that implicit sociocultural traditions have upon the surface reality, the veneer of American politics. As Tocqueville pointed to, Americans rarely voiced radicalized sentiments toward their sociopolitical institutions and their operations. In fact, as he considered, American democracy – in the form it assumed – might not be possible without such willing obedience among the population of America.

The deferential posture that Americans have been conditioned to assume in relation to civil and political institutions reinforces this lack of discursive treatment of a society divided along elitist and commoner lines. American history, by and large, has been accounted for under the pre-determinacy of Whiggishness, discounting enduring quasi-caste distinctions as if they are temporal aberrations, epiphenomena to an underlying narrative that ultimately tells of America’s advancement toward an increasingly democratic condition. There are, of course, notable exceptions to American Whig renditions of history, such as The People’s History of the United States. However, another treatment of these issues is by no means a contribution to an already saturated field of political sociological inquiry.

Coming to Terms with Populism

As both a result of my new interest in an organization that called itself the Populist Party of America as well as a family history - although fairly distant at this point in time - that included political participation in populism - I began researching the history of this movement, which presented itself in its fullest embodiment in the form of the People’s Party. After becoming versed in populism, I was awe struck at what appeared to be an under treated anomaly when in taken in the purview of the overall course of American sociopolitical history: a narrative that persistently omits accounts of sociopolitical and economic inequality; a lack of criticality that contributes to a facade of civic egalitarianism originally manifested in what has become the persisting mythology of Jeffersonian republicanism. This false ideology configures a conceptualization of American political relations, which neglects to recognize the influences had upon political opportunity by the material conditions belonging to the economy.

The Jefferson’s early articulation of Libertarianism exclaimed the virtues of the citizen agriculturalist; a body collectively composed of citizens who stood side by side one another in lateral sociopolitical uniformity. Thus economic class was left unconceived in the Jeffersonian account of American sociopolitical relations, and, needless to say, such an account failed to address the impact that economic inequalities, or class, had upon the feasibility of each citizen coequally affecting the public policies of the American state[4].

Populism – as it was incepted in economic affairs of the Midwestern and Southern farmer in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century – was an emergent pattern of economically directed intellectualism, which – through processes of its development – came to identify itself as a political movement with a more prodigious agenda than mere economic reform. Furthermore, it was a consequence of organic intellectual social processes. By that, populism culminated largely out of social mechanisms that existed independently from the institutional guard belonging to the Academe and other vested interests. Of course, populism was affected by Marxism, and, on occasion, in some of its expressions, it appeared proto-Marxist. However, the populist critiques of the economy and, in particular, the finance and monetary systems proved to be not only original and penetrating, but, additionally, they ultimately served as the precipitants of economic reforms that had lasting legacies.

For instance, the contemporary conceptualization of the free-market is heavily indebted to the populist movement in America. It was through populism that legislative fixtures intended to promote free-market competition, such as anti-trust and anti-monopolistic statutes, came to regulate the practices of capitalist interests. Indeed, we can go so far as to say that it was through populism that the modern conception of the free-market came about. Even more, it was due to its emphasis upon a competitive market[5] that the Democratic Party was amenable to the infusion of the populist ideology into its platform, which would come to mark its public disposition throughout the first half of the Twentieth Century. I realize that many students of American political history would delineate among the Populist era: the period when Bryan was the leading figure; and the Progressive era – associated with Wilson, as well as, the New Deal, which, of course, was the domestic policy of FDR. No matter, as John Gerring has demonstrated through a careful content analysis of American Party rhetoric, the consistencies among the three proposed eras out-weighed the significance of the differences demonstrable in the three proposed historical periods of Democratic Party ideology.

Many discount the ethical accomplishments of the People’s Party, which was the first to embrace multiple racial identities; the first to include women in its organizations, prior even to Women’s suffrage; and the first to demand in a recognizable voice the democratization of various political institutions that had been, till then, the decision-making province of political elites. Recourse to the denial of populism as an event that demonstrated advanced ethical and moral sensibilities on the part of its conceivers, promoters, and adherents is typically sought through citing aspects of the multi-faceted social critique leveled by populism, with the intended result of identifying internal inconsistencies in the populist ideology.

For instance, one of the more prevalent criticisms of populism is that it reflected a racial tolerance while, concurrently, possessing a nativist agenda. However, this criticism speaks more of the lack of analytical faculties by those who make such a claim as it points to the lack of sophistication in the populist social critique formed in reflection of the American gilded age. I am always dumbfounded each and every time I find myself explaining to detractors of populism that there is no a priori analytical relationship between nativism and racism. Although there might be empirical relationships between the two conditions, where nativists tend also to be racists, this has nothing to do with the People’s Party, per se. America was already a multi-racial society prior to populism’s emergence, and the nativist policies taken up in the advocacies of the People’s Party were not latent with racial discrimination. Objecting to undesirable immigration is not necessarily predicated upon race. Instead, as in the case of the People’s Party, it was based upon the impact that particular elements of any society might bring about if permitted to migrate to the United States.

Additionally, and this should be apparent to anyone who has expended any efforts, at all, when attempting to come to terms with American immigration – despite the conventional wisdom, belonging to American economics – which we are persistently instructed to embrace and believe – immigration does not proportionally benefit all sectors of the economy. One such group that certainly does not experience positive outcomes resulting from immigration consists of those who dwell in the middle and lower tiers of the labor market. Immigration both diminishes the value of labor in every sector of the economy to which its skills happen to apply, as well as, posing obstructions to the successful formation of cooperative institutions, either constituting organized labor, or qualifying as the financial cooperatives, such as credit unions, that leverage the monetary resources of those who are excluded from the many implicit trusts that dominate the financial industries controlled by organized-capitalism.

Indeed, the recent revelations concerning the use of Visas for the import of labor to be employed in the technology sectors of the economy reinforces the conclusion that immigration is not advantageous for labor. Despite the conventional wisdom, as it turns out, the overwhelming preponderance of Information Technology workers who are allowed entry into the United States are in the lower strata of the technocratic hierarchy comprised of Information Technology laborers. Therefore, America is not taking in the best and the brightest; rather, corporate America is merely increasing productivity by importing cheap labor that is only qualified to work in the most entry level of positions in an organization’s IT infrastructure. This – topped with the fact that wage stagnation, in recent history, has been an enduring feature of the employment market for the middle and working classes – indicates that immigration is only beneficial for those who dwell in the higher socio-economic tiers of American social relations; the ownership classes belonging to corporate America.

Another ill conceived critique of populism consists of instances where commentators remark upon the internal inconsistency of populism’s anti-statism along with many of its ‘socialist’ sentiments. It is true that populism called for the nationalization of the railroading industry as well as the banking industry. However, unlike what nearly amounts to ideological absolutism on the part of contemporary Libertarians, the populists were not constrained when devising possible solutions for social problems by a conviction that all instances of government should be curtailed, even in scenarios where the absence of government intervention appears to create a more undesirable social condition. Additionally, populism and its instances of economic cooperatives is more an expression of anarchistic sensibilities than anything approaching socialism. Certainly, no one can credibly contend that organic cooperatives intended to extricate the American farmer from his social positioning that amounted to serfdom was motivated out of an affinity of statist institutions. Indeed, it was only until such endeavors proved to be ineffective against the trusts that had been established by organized-capitalism that the populist movement became politicized.

This is not to say that populism – especially when taken up by the Democratic Party – did not come to reflect a pro-statist position on the majority of matters qualifying as issues of public concern. Nevertheless, this ideological posture on the part of Democratic populists was perceived as a necessity in order to guard against the publicly harmful excesses of what came to be called “predator elites” in the economy. To paraphrase The Great Commoner; also known as William Jennings Bryan:

Men are the creation of God. Corporations are the creation of man, and what man creates man can destroy.

In respect to this – which can be identified with less ambiguity as the regulatory measures needed to quell the popularly harmful greed of the corporation – that the adoption of a pro-statist approach toward public policy reveals its real character: Government was a device of necessity, and the pro-statism of the Democratic populists should not be conflated – in its interpretation - with the authoritarianism embodied by the Whig-Republicans and their mercantilist conception of political and economic social relationships.

Finally, what more that can be said about populism arises from an inference that is generated from mechanisms that are alien to the processes of scholarly research, but deserves mentioning, nonetheless. The populist movement seemed to stimulate the activation of ethical dispositions belonging to the social characters of those who would come to be participate in this movement. Individuals, whose ideologies had been immured in white supremacist backdrops, eventually identified with African-Americans, as social agents with whom they suffered the exploitations engendered by common same social conditions. In fact, there are accounts of former slave owners coming to advance the causes of African-Americans by serving as chairs to African-American farmer alliances.

Therefore, rather than specifically addressing fabricated shortcomings of the People’s Party, it is more worthwhile for a student of political sociology to treat the aspects belonging to this movement that set it apart from nearly all other facets of the American experience. Specifically, what strikes the attention of the epistemic agent – who is not predisposed to dismiss the accomplishments of the various farmer alliances and the People’s Party, which they came to establish – is the fact that these dissolute, degraded, and politically inexperienced agrarians could come to mount the most redoubtable third-party insurgence to the duopoly embedded in partisan politics in the whole of American history.

Families in the Midwest and South – who dwelled in a social condition where observances of women and children afoot in bare feet was commonplace – arose from a state of sociopolitical ignorance to one of penetrating insight and criticism upon American social relations. Even more, the political ideology developed by populists was emergent, composed from intellectual processes that were organic. Additionally, the populists were faced – when developing this intellectual formation – with constructing their own social institutions through which their knowledge could be manufactured as well as disseminated. Journals needed to be published and circulated. Travelling lecturers had to be trained and financially supported. Financial schemes had to be creatively fostered a deployed in an attempt to coerce other economic agencies into bargaining directly with the farmer alliances, so that the trust under which the crop-lean system[6] was actualized and enacted could be overcome. Finally, populism transcended sectionalisms – which were the by-products of superficial material conflicts in American society, such as white supremacy and its opposition to African-American interests – in order for African-Americans as well as Southern Whites to attend the same gatherings and applaud enthusiastically as the political orator explained racism as an instrument used by Southern elites to deflect the attention of the farmers from their real adversaries, whom Blacks and Whites commonly faced.

The Contemporary Significance of Populism

Recently, I had listened to a service given by a Unitarian Church in New York, which commemorated the outing of the Pentagon Papers. At this service, I became audience to descriptions of the subversive inner-workings of activists responsible for the publication of these documents, which were entered into the Congressional Record by Gravel, and, finally, published in book form by a Unitarian publishing syndicate. I was struck by words that were spoken in reference to Gravel that remarked upon an aspect to American culture where Americans are taught – from the time they assume comfort upon a parent’s lap – to, “avoid looking silly,” or foolish; to avoid orating that which strays beyond the comfortable parameters of orthodoxy. According to the wisdom embedded in this shared stock of social knowledge, not adhering to such standards would render the speaker as suspect to aspersions labeling him or her as a crackpot or a voice from the margins of society to be dismissed, because he or she conveys sentiments that are outside of the recognizable: the familiar domestic environment qualifying as the mainstream.[i]

In contrast to the insightful words spoken of Gravel and his current candidacy for the Democratic Nomination, in recent weeks, I have also heard a speech given by Bill Clinton during the memorial for Arthur Schlesinger. Clinton’s - in remarks that can only be interpreted as self-congratulatory - lauded Lincoln, who had also given oratory at the theater where the service was being held, for attempting to reach out to the, “Great American center,” prior to the collapse of the Nation into civil war. According to Clinton, Lincoln’s initial attempt to avoid confrontation, by remaining amenable to slavery as long as it did not extend into new territories and states, demonstrated an understanding of the great American center and how it allows for progress to be made during intervals belonging to a larger cyclical pattern; where the mushy middle of American politics would slightly tip its balance toward the Left or toward the Right. During instances where the Left was favored, small, incremental steps of progress could be made. However, it required a savvy leader who could continue to appeal to the middle, in order to coax the Country in the right direction without inciting a backlash by introducing proposals that were too radical, which would entail too abrupt a departure from the trails that had already been worn into easily transverse paths.

What are we to make out of these two contrasting stylizations of political existentiality? It is in respect to this question - more than anything else - that has led me to firmly believe that populism has a role to play in the development of the sociology of democracy. My understandings of populism are primarily derived from the historian, Goodwyn, who possessed the uncommon tenacity for summarizing the necessary antecedents for an authentically democratic insurgency to unfold: First, a group must obtain the institutional autonomy needed to formulate a conceptualization of sociopolitical mechanisms operative in a political structure, which foments in contradistinction, and in to varying extent, opposition to the preemptive orders of knowledge and the sociopolitical institutions that are arranged under the cloak of legitimacy derived from these hegemonic discourses. However, as Goodwyn wisely points out, such a development - an alternative episteme - is not, in and of itself, sufficient for democratic insurgency. In America in particular, there is a long untreated - yet, all too pervasive - posture of deference habitually assumed by commoners in relations to the established institutional guards of sociopolitical power. Without a shaking off of the deference toward institutions of the old guard encumbering the shoulders of those - who have long been conditioned to internalize the identity of plebiscite - the provision of an alternative interpretation of the Human Condition - currently embodied in the way things stand - would fail to incite the mobilizing of masses.

According to this parsimonious and elegant rendering of the necessary conditions for a democratic insurgency to take root, Goodwyn goes on in his minor masterpiece, A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt, to catalog the events that culminated in the establishment of the People’s Party. The process that resulted in the type of psychic characteristics necessary for democratic insurgency was a slow incremental process, involving quite a few setbacks and failures on the part of the various farming alliances as they initially endeavored to extricate their members from the crop lien system, which basically amounted to a trust comprised of financial interests along with manufacturing - both of which maintained credit as well as distributional relationships with local town agents, who dealt directly with the farmers. These relationships that were established and protected by the these interests precluded the farmers from entering into the necessary financing arrangements for them to bypass the insufferable arrangements imposed upon them by the local town agents, who extorted as much as possible from the farmers each time the farmer was forced to obtain credit for the oncoming year.

It is in these considerations that Web 2.0 assumes significance. The democratization of representational spaces in civil society fosters both the intellectual autonomy necessary to form alternative sociopolitical interpretations as well as the political self-respect necessary to abandon to the deferential posture assumed in relation to the institutions of the old guard.

[1] The Green Party has associations with other Green Parties that exist in other states around the globe. However, these relationships are loosely defined and often more symbolic than anything else.

[2] The Populist Party of America is a micro-party that was incepted 2002, and is based in Las Angeles. At this point in time – with some exceptions – it is a virtual community that is radicalized. The exceptions consist of activism – involving activities such as the distribution of literature – that has taken place in the Las Angeles area.

[3] Grounded Theory is the approach that is typically assumed by sociologists who perform ethnography

[4] As Charles Goodwyn has pointed out, the Jeffersonian ideology was a major obstacle to the political radicalization of the populist movement.

[5] Free-trade was a staple of the Democratic ideology during the period when it opposed the mercantilist protectionism of the Whig-Republicans.

[6] The crop-lean system was enacted by the trust of economic relationships assumed by financial firms, manufacturers, and local town agents, who extorted farmers for as great as a share of the yearly productions of agricultural commodities by withholding credit that was necessary for the farmer to procure the manufactured supplies that were a requisite for planting and harvesting in the oncoming season.

[i] The Pentagon Papers Then and Now: Unitarian Universalists Confronting Government Secrecy

http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2007/presentations/30971.shtml; UUA

Tags: constitution, corporations, democracy, direct democracy, economics, education, Farmers, government, history, labor, legislation, politics, populist party, self governance, Social Change, society, sociology, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Society, Populist Party, Democracy, constitution, government, Education, self-governance, Politics, Third Parties, Legislation, Labor, Farmers, Corporations, Direct Democracy, Social Change, Sociology, History
No Comments »

George W. Bush is about to take us deeper into the jungles of the Middle East by way of establishing his New Jonestown, a group of military bases in Iraq from where America can impart order and democracy for the region, from the Tora Bora mountains of Afghan lands to the menacing Arab neighbors that surround Israel. This is the current military version of the string of forts established during the 19^th century in the Indian territories of North America by the US in its westward march – from where Washington’s economic and geo-political interests, as well as the private interests of the white colonists, could be protected at cannon point or by a charging cavalry.  

Calling any American enclaves in the Middle East New Jonestown, however, likely will evoke unpleasant memories – too many of us remember the fate of Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple followers in northwestern Guyana.  But whatever name we care to use, the end result is bound to be the same under the mandate of our own drug-laced Kool-Aid Provider-in-Chief.  Or… will it turn out to be poison-laced?

Here we are in the Valley of the Dolts, dumb and happy, submerged in the recurring duopolistic political discussion speaking in the tongues of idiocy and supine ignorance, waiting for academically-polished General Petraeus to perform bishopric confirmation on us next week (Bush’s sacramental orders).  Yet we talk about this papal messenger and his deacon, Ambassador Crocker, as if they were really going to have anything to say which may lack the White House’s imprimatur.  Is this dumb or what?

You needn’t be a student of military history, nor hold a diploma from any military war college, to reach the conclusion that a substantial increase in military field operations against insurgents in specific areas of an occupied nation will have some positive results.  But to keep Iraq in a modicum of peace, sufficient to keep civil order and allow the implementation of a reconstruction program, the US would have to make available much of its active duty military (exclusive of national guard or reservists). The tokenish 30,000 troops added for the surge represented nothing more than a political maneuver for Bush, and a conversation topic for military and non-military media gurus to display their consummate ignorance as to why the United States remains entangled there.

Benchmarks, invalid progress reports, passing on the blame to Nuri al-Maliki and his corrupt government, lying assertions of how things are improving in Iraq, the non-stop shell game White House and Congress are playing with us… o what fools we’re made out to be!   

Is it so difficult to see?  The US is in Iraq for the duration, and that means indefinitely: same presence as in Korea, or Europe or anywhere else it needs to be for strategic or symbolic points of dominance. America’s stay in Iraq is by no means a latter-day decision, even if it’s readily interpreted as just a face-saving device for Bush.  Why would any of us think the US has spent billions of dollars on military bases, or built such an embassy-fortress?  The long-term plans for oil and military control of Iraq are likely to be the same as they were pre-invasion, regardless our being Keystone Kops inept.

Bush’s legacy has already been written in India ink in much of the world, even if for our own domestic consumption much of the US population continues in denial, not quite yet ready to accept any share in the criminal complicity for invading Iraq.  An international formal verdict of Bush’s war criminality remains to be rendered by an international court of law, one both competent and willing to take on an unsubdued tyrant, something for which there’s no precedent at this tyrant-scale; for informally, the guilty verdict is already in on genocidal grounds, just ask the mourning relatives of the million plus dead Iraqis.

Bush’s final act of this badly scripted Iraq farce requires the return of the prodigal sons to the imperial fold: those Democrats in Congress who insist on bringing the troops home, now!  And he is already achieving sufficient success by shifting gears and taking a diversionary path via Iran.  Even moderately reasonable legislators, such as Bryan Baird – who happens to be my representative in Congress – have bought into the idea that Iran must be stopped. Many of us are unsure just what Iran’s illegitimate deeds are. 

The war juggernaut is building momentum with enough bipartisanship to make it real.  It’s becoming quite clear America is getting ready for a new bipartisan crime against peace, and this time the sacrificial lamb will be Iran.  Perhaps the US can use as an excuse non-payment of the just rendered $2.65 billion judgment against that nation by Reagan-appointed Judge Lamberth on behalf of the families of 241 US service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut.  But then again, a school bully needs no excuses to beat up someone or take his lunch money.

If the American public doesn’t buy into a continuance, maybe even an upgrade, of the escalation in Iraq, bombing Iran to smithereens will yield the desired results.  Since the US doesn’t have the required military grunts to invade the Persian lands, not without bringing back the draft, Americans will quickly have to accept the notion that this nation “needs” permanent bases in Iraq.

A few months ago I didn’t think the bombing of Iran would take place until the start of our own economic bloodbath.  Now I am not so sure.  Of course, the economic blood letting which has already started will accelerate by year’s end, so Washington will have yet another reason to triple-up on the war; and, one gets the feeling, it will be done with bipartisan support.

Is America becoming the Peoples Temple and Bush a reincarnated Jim Jones?  Why are Americans so eager to drink his lies-laced Kool-Aid?

Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

by Lonnie
D. Story

.September
11, 2006

I have fought long and hard over this decision. At a time when I have faced the greatest challenge of my present life and future, I have battled what I should and should not share of this work. The excerpt below is somewhere within the first quarter of the manuscript that I’m currently working on - about Dustin Brim - a 22 yr. Old U.S. Army soldier that died shortly after being deployed to Iraq - and
some stuff called Depleted Uranium. It is not my nature to share my writings premature of the final draft. 
However, due to personal reasons, I have made the decision to open a crack into the book so that no one forgets what has happened and what is important. It is my genuine hope that your heart
is touched, your spirit inspired and your will ignited. I covet your prayers, Lonnie..ONE
NATION…

Silent neighbors are supposedly the best kind to have, but, in a cemetery, it is as lonesome as an eagle’s feather in the desert.

By 2:00 p.m., October 2, 2004, the crowd of people once gathered had all but faded away from the place where Dustin Michael Brim had been laid to “rest.” For the preceding hours they had all gathered, as mentioned, from all walks of life, race, religion, politics, young, old, male, female, etc. The reason being: They were people that cared. They were people that hurt for Larry and Lori Brim in the loss of their son. They were people that felt it to be their patriotic duty. They were people that felt as though they were a part of a community. A community that cared and shared. They were a part of sharing one another’s pain and sorrow in equality to the joys and elation of other times. By the right side of Dustin Brim’s permanent reminder, a nation was gathered. One nation.  One people. One country, one heart, one desire, plainly, one spirit.

Yet, there in that casket, deep into the soil of an earth with billions of different opinions, was a fury of an argument. There was no rest in this place and there might never be. Though Dusty’s spirit had moved on to bigger and better things, his physical remains and his life lived on planet earth not only cried out, but screamed out, just as so many millions of veterans before him. But this time, as in the past, it was a new argument. Though sequestered in that small area lay a symbol of something gone very wrong, the silence could not, would not and will not remain. The argument can be heard if one dares to stand by the site and listen to the memories of gunshots fired in wars around the world
from years past and present.

Even tomorrow, when a shot is fired, a question will be asked: “What was the price of this life?”

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »