It is a truism in any sort of contest that when thing looks their darkest, the losing side will tend towards uncontrolled lashing out and more and more desperate plays in order to attempt to unbalance their opponent. It is indeed a rare thing when anyone, after fighting so hard, can stand to lose with dignity. Such a thing could be viewed as tantamount to surrender.
This is certainly true in the realm of politics. After nearly two years of ongoing campaigning – some of the fiercest and most bitter campaigning I’ve ever seen – polls show that the Obama campaign is increasingly likely to take this election by a margin not seen in the last eight years. As a direct result, the McCain campaign has responded by swinging wildly with any talking point they can manage to get into their sights in hopes of winning with a culture war-style character assassination by terrifying people into complicity with some of the most disastrous policy ideas I’ve ever seen.
The renewed attention on Mr. William Ayers, whose silence during these past weeks has been admirable, is the latest in a slew of renewed attacks which the Obama campaign rightly points out, have nothing to do with the actual challenges facing the country as we prepare to enter the second decade of this century.Additionally Obama has been accused of being a terrorist, a Muslim, a socialist, and a communist all in the past week by both the McCain campaign and their shocking unapologetic allies in certain media outlets that need not be named.
The Ayers link isn’t as troubling for those of us on the progressive side of the political rainbow as it is for the people on the right. Those of us who know anything about community activism understand that sometimes men like Ayers are likely to grow up, level off, and become involved in trying to improve their communities. Where the silence has been deafening is not that Obama was working in shared circles with Mr. Ayers, but what they were actually working on.
So what did the unrepentant terrorist and the communist Muslim senator do in Chicago? Did they discuss the manufacture of pipe bombs and the routes favored by motorcades?Not really.They were both involved in grassroots programs designed to reform and improve local schools.They had a shared interest in combating poverty and other philanthropic organizations.You see, as a young man, Ayers turned to terrorism and protest out of a desire for justice to be given to the underprivileged and disenfranchised. How you feel about these acts is up to you, but the point is that both he and Obama acted from a shared desire for a better, fairer future. The difference is that Obama never turned to violence and understood as a young man what Ayers was unable to realize until much later in life – that there are many ways to make the world a better place and that violence is the least of these.In this fashion, I think that the Ayers controversy can be laid to rest by simply stating that Obama showed more maturity than Mr. Ayers as a young man.
Of course, McCain doesn’t want to lay this to rest any more than he is interested in addressing the problems that have inspired men like Obama to act. His is a dying breed; the last remnants of a reactionary legacy that is falling to the side. For all of his bluster, the calm, self-satisfied stillness of the Obama campaign is a testament to the failures of McCain’s political generation.All Obama needs to do is shrug, and point to the crumbling edifice of American capitalism and prestige and ask Americans if that is the legacy they wish to sharpen and pass on to their children.The old right is as bankrupt as the socialists and communists they still fear are lurking in under their beds.It is time for them all to step aside with some dignity.
While it hardly needs to be pointed out by me, I am not a fan of the American right wing and find most of their ideas – if not counterproductive, dangerous. Whether is be their insistence on the viability of trickle-down economics, their unbalanced obsession with national security even at the risk of personal and political freedom, or their unwavering commitment to a homogenized society based on the teachings of a 2000 year old millenarian death cult.
In light of the recent economic crisis, many Americans are at least starting to lend credence to the idea that showing limitless compassion to the super wealthy while punishing the poor is not a sure promise of prosperity for all. It has also revealed other weaknesses in the conservative worldview that bear some degree of consideration.Today I am speaking specifically of energy policy.
Conservatives have embraced the notion that in order to secure a stable energy future, drive down fuel prices, and increase domestic economic security is to promote domestic drilling. By opening up more of our own untapped reserves, it is believed that we can significantly offset the demand for foreign oil and dramatically drive prices down. After all, economic theory holds that if you increase the supply of a thing, you can reduce the price of that thing. Of course, this also assumes a large number of suppliers and processors who are all in competition with one another – none of which is really true when talking about the oil industry.It is a highly centralized industry that understands that their success depends on close cooperation with one another.
However, as the economy slides further and further down, we have seen a dramatic drop in the price of oil. In fact, today it is down to $88 a barrel – the lowest price in some time, down about $60 from its most recent peak. In response, gasoline prices also declined.By six cents.Not exactly what one might expect. In fact, the last time oil prices were at $88, gasoline was at $3.20 a gallon. Today – after all the political pressure placed on producers to lower prices, the national average remains at $3.68. You’ll note the absence of a matching curve.
This development highlights exactly what is wrong with this sort of economic thinking.It is assumed that if you cut the cost paid by oil producers and refiners, or for that matter, any sort of producer, they will pass these saving on to their customers either in lower prices, more jobs, or better benefits. In fact, they will pass these benefits onto stockholders in order to increase the value of their own investment and little if any of this newfound profitability will actually trickle down to the general populace.
I think this explains why economic trends of the past 20-30 years have shown incredible macro-economic growth despite a stagnation and general decline of microeconomic prosperity (shrinking wages).Gas is a study of the wider economy in miniature. The corporate and investment based sectors of our economy have done very well while the sections of the economy that have traditionally served the middle class have been comparably sluggish. Nevertheless, these commanding heights can easily impact jobs stability and local banks which is what we are starting to see now.
By making the profitability of our largest industries the numbers that matter and continuing to count of their benevolence towards the larger society, the conservative party has managed to play a critical role in the destabilization of most of Americas citizen body. When we consider what makes for a successful and prosperous society, we should consider whether we are getting benefits to as many as possible or only ensuring the guaranteed prosperity of the few?