Racism is the Root Cause of the Debt Ceiling
Impasse
The
rules of politics are different for Obama. The United States is still a
racist country. Obama won only 43% of the white vote in 2008. Up until now, it did not really matter to the
racists because the president was always a white male. Now that a black
person is president, the racists are enraged; but, having failed to prevent his
election, the racists are forced to either abandon their biases or use valid
issues with real consequences as a vehicle for their prejudice. The fight over the debt ceiling is a second
Civil War.
After the birther
and immigration tempests, which were basically race driven as symbols for
Obama’s not being a real American, they have now moved into substantive issues,
like raising the debt ceiling. The Republicans voted for the war in Iraq
(which was going to pay for itself, remember?) and cutting taxes at the same
time. Republicans voted to raise the
debt ceiling six times during Bush's tenure, now suddenly it's a matter of
unalterable principle.
This is serious because failure to
raise the debt ceiling could easily precipitate the worst economic collapse in
the history of the world, but seeing as the Republican position is fueled
primarily by racism and hatred of Obama, the
nay-sayers are impervious to facts. This
is proof that racism is bad.
In the end, the Boehner wing of the Republicans in the
House should join with the Democrats to pass the necessary legislation, but
when confronted by irrational prejudice, there is no guarantee this will
happen. The United States is facing the
economic equivalent of World War III. The Tea Party won because they were
the problem, not the solution; and to force the Republicans to accept part of
the responsibility for these tough policy decisions after refusing to cooperate
during Obama’s first two years. In effect, the Tea Party and Cantor wing of the
Republican caucus are willing to risk destroying the world economy because of
their hatred of Obama.
The United States is seriously
racially segregated in housing patterns and the gerrymandering of legislative
districts reflects this reality in Congress.
Eric Cantor represents Virginia’s 7th congressional district,
which is rural, southern, stretching from the western suburbs of Richmond, the
capital of the confederacy, northwest toward the Blue Ridge Mountains and is
almost 80% white. Michelle Bachmann, who
has just proudly announced that she will not vote for any debt ceiling
increase, comes from a district that is over 95% white. House Speaker John Boehner represents a
district that is 90% white and has had a Republican congressional
representative for 73 years, since 1938.
Not only are the fanatics not scared
of causing a world-wide economic collapse, they welcome such an outcome. Punishing America for electing Obama is right
in line with their maniacal world view and their idea of what is needed for
political victory next year.
Additionally, corporations flush with cash are refraining from hiring to
keep the situation dire. Now that the Supreme Court has given corporations
unlimited freedom of speech, they can spend the money that could hire workers
on trying to elect candidates to office who favor their agenda.
During the Bush presidency, corporate
profits rose from 11% to 16% of the GNP. In spite of lower taxes and lower
interest rates, only 3 million jobs were creating during the eight years of the
Bush presidency, compared with 23 million during the eight years of Clinton;
yet, higher taxes are “off the table.”
If this scenario sounds far fetched, I have just finished reading: The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact
Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, a book of essays edited by Gunter Bischof, Stefan Karner and Peter Ruggenthaler. This is a brilliant book of seventeen essays
based on archival documents that examines the positions of all the major
players on both sides of the Prague Spring crisis. It took another twenty years, but the
invasion of Czechoslovakia was the event that sealed the fate of communism and
the Soviet Union, specifically because armed force was used to prevent economic
reality from determining government policy.
“Scientific” Marxist theory, that dictatorship of the proletariat working
class was the engine of economic progress collided with the facts of falling
productivity and failure to match the wealth of the west. Armed force was used to impose slogans.
The
capitalist world, and specifically the United States, is going through a
similar process. The Tea Baggers’ idea that
all government spending is bad except for the military and police is pure
poppycock. The two most vibrant sectors
of the economy, information technology and air travel, are the result of
decades of massive government support.
The internet, satellites (how do you like your weather forecasting?),
and the interstate highway system are all the result of decades of massive
government loss-making expenditures.
Most of the longevity people enjoy today is the result of government
public health expenditures and regulations from the progressive era. The idea that all that needs to be done is to
give the rich more money and they will spend and invest thereby creating jobs
is not supported by the facts. Political
conflict has become total war. The Tea Baggers are trying to blackmail the
country into supporting regressive and destructive economic policies. It is the
equivalent of the attack on Fort Sumter.
The Republicans want to destroy the economy, oust Obama and once
elected, their friends in corporate America will open their wallets and start
hiring. QED.
Although the
Republicans do not have armed forces to impose their will, they have Governors
who are rapidly creating administrative barriers to voting in the form of
requiring picture identification at the polls.
Two signatures is not enough, especially in the
absence of any proof of fraudulent voting.
In fact, voter participation is falling.
Now the Republicans want people to believe that in elections where
usually more than half of the eligible do not bother to vote, there is this
massive turnout among the ineligible.
Hello, reality check. The most
recent New Jersey primaries had a 3% turnout.
Along with making voting more
difficult, the Republican governors are cancelling all the big infrastructure
projects that create jobs and tool for future prosperity. In New Jersey,
Governor Christie cancelled what would have been the biggest civilian
infrastructure project in the nation, the ARC Tunnel project, the first new
rail tunnel under the Hudson River in a century, fifteen years in the planning,
because he said the state could not afford it.
The Republican governors of Florida and Wisconsin cancelled the high
speed rail projects. China can have high
speed rail, but not the United States.
Governor
Christie says New Jersey can not afford the rail tunnel. What can it afford? $300,000 a month in lawyers
fees fighting the federal government that is asking for the return of the
$250,000,000 the federal government gave New Jersey for the tunnel. It can afford increased tax credits for builders, it can afford to help finance the completion of
the Xanadu mall and shopping complex in the
Meadowlands during a recession. But
infrastructure for a future economy is off the table. Can disaster be far behind?
[A note on racism in New Jersey.
Carl Lewis, the Olympic Gold Medal Track star, grew up in Willingboro,
New Jersey. He moved to California for
training. In 2005, he bought a house in
Medford, New Jersey, but continued to work in California although he
periodically came back to coach the track team at his old high school This year, he
is seeking the Democratic nomination for State Senate, but the Lieutenant
Governor, Kim Guadagno, ruled him ineligible because
he hasn’t lived in New Jersey for four years, as she claims is required by the
state constitution. Lewis won the
Democratic primary unopposed, but his candidacy is still in limbo.]
Helped by their crooked friends on
the Supreme Court, who selected Bush in 2000 with the argument “there is no
right to vote under the United States Constitution”…I wish that had been told
to the millions of draftees who took an enlistment oath to protect the
Constitution. I wonder how they would
have felt to know that they were risking their lives and watching friends die
to protect the supreme court’s right to deny them the
vote and select the loser for commander-in-chief. According to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court
has the right to vote for president, but not the voters. That is alright
because the supreme court that decided Bush v. Gore did not have a single
combat veteran, and only one veteran at all. I can’t figure out why the country
is in such a mess. Two
wars and massive deficits? Maybe
putting the loser in the White House in 2000 has something to do with it, but
no one can say that because it would be rude.
Secure in their faith that white
might makes right, the first priority is destroying Obama, and if the domestic
and world economy need to be sacrificed in this Armageddon of righteousness, or
rather whitechesness, so much the better. Anything to prove that electing Obama was a
mistake and that the selection of Bush by our hereditary betters was the right
choice.
The only lining to this cloud is that it shows that the world has progressed to the point where we can have the economic equivalent of World War III, without the corpses.
Return to
Institute of Election Analysis