It must be a tremendous insult to the Haitian people that president Obama appointed George W. Bush along with Bill Clinton to head up relief efforts for Haiti. Although Clinton has a dubious history with Haiti too, Bush is seen as the enemy of Haiti by a great number of people in that country. It was under the Bush administration that the US military was sent to Haiti in the middle of the night to kidnap their elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Aristide was put on a US military plane and dropped in the Central African Republic and left there. Aristide had been a very popular president but one the US government didn’t like because of his anti-globalization stand and his insistence that Haiti’s resources and production to be used to better the Haitian people not the multi-national corporations.
Bush also had less than a good record for his administrations response in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. There, mercenaries from the Blackwater corporation along with National Guard were sent in to keep order as a priority over meeting the needs of the people. The same seems to be happening in Haiti today.
As many are calling for the return of Aristide as a way of unifying the country, the US has sent in the military, supposedly in a humanitarian mission. Other countries did not send their militaries; they sent doctors and disaster recovery experts. The first move the US military did was to take over the airport. As stated in an AP article on January 18, 2010, “Some aid groups and foreign officials have blamed the U.S. military for slowing down aid deliveries, saying the American units that took charge of the small Port-au-Prince airport last week gave priority to U.S. military flights.” In a country where possibly 200,000 have died, where the people are in great need of aid the US is emphasizing security. Is the US afraid that the Haitian government has collapsed and the people might rise up and overthrow the US supported government and perhaps bring back Aristide?
Maybe, with his record in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans, Obama sees Bush as just the right man for the job.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
AVATAR
Yes, the 3D in the movie AVATAR was incredible as was the world created as the backdrop for the story. But mostly, I liked the politics.
Here is the story where the natives win. It is a story where the invasion and occupation of a foreign land for mineral rights and profit is defeated and the destruction of the environment for profit does not succeed as the entire planet rises up to defeat the invaders and destroyers.
We have all heard of the effort of a true genius, James Cameron, who spent year envisioning this movie and waiting for the technology to catch-up with his ideas. But politically, this movie could not have been produced at any other time. It came out just as the Copenhagen talks on climate change were concluding with an agreement by the rich countries to continue to destroy the planet for profit. It came out as the US is escalating the war in Afghanistan with powerful technologies that the native people of Afghanistan can not match. The themes in AVATAR are exactly parallel.
These themes of US aggression and environmental destruction were not coincidental. This was shown by one of the characters referring to the invasion of the planet as “Shock and Awe,” the term used by the Bush administration to describe the US invasion of Iraq.
Part of the genius of Cameron was how he got the viewer on the side of the indigenous people and against the greed and violence of the corporation and the American mercenaries. Though it was not stated, these were clearly Americans, the shots are called by the representative of the corporation that is trying to exploit the minerals on the planet and the soldiers are clearly mercenaries similar to the Blackwater mercenary bands that have been running lawlessly through Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, the movie is a must see for every science fiction fan and everyone trying to save our environment and bring about a peaceful world.
Here is the story where the natives win. It is a story where the invasion and occupation of a foreign land for mineral rights and profit is defeated and the destruction of the environment for profit does not succeed as the entire planet rises up to defeat the invaders and destroyers.
We have all heard of the effort of a true genius, James Cameron, who spent year envisioning this movie and waiting for the technology to catch-up with his ideas. But politically, this movie could not have been produced at any other time. It came out just as the Copenhagen talks on climate change were concluding with an agreement by the rich countries to continue to destroy the planet for profit. It came out as the US is escalating the war in Afghanistan with powerful technologies that the native people of Afghanistan can not match. The themes in AVATAR are exactly parallel.
These themes of US aggression and environmental destruction were not coincidental. This was shown by one of the characters referring to the invasion of the planet as “Shock and Awe,” the term used by the Bush administration to describe the US invasion of Iraq.
Part of the genius of Cameron was how he got the viewer on the side of the indigenous people and against the greed and violence of the corporation and the American mercenaries. Though it was not stated, these were clearly Americans, the shots are called by the representative of the corporation that is trying to exploit the minerals on the planet and the soldiers are clearly mercenaries similar to the Blackwater mercenary bands that have been running lawlessly through Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, the movie is a must see for every science fiction fan and everyone trying to save our environment and bring about a peaceful world.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
What is Democracy?
I, along with a number of activists in the Albany area, have formed a socialist discussion group in which we read material and hold a discussion on the reading and issues of the day. One new member of our group e-mailed me and asked my opinion on democracy. He asked if there are any examples of democratic functioning states. He also suggested that it might be good to have a 4th branch of government comprised of scientist and other experts who might be better able to respond to climate change and similar issues. Below is my response to his e-mail.
Your e-mail brings up many questions. First of all, I don’t think that we need a panel of experts, such as scientists, as a 4th branch of government. I think that if people were given the facts, we can make decisions that are in our own interest and the interest of all. This is why there is secrecy in our country, they don’t want people to know the truth, it would expose too much. They don’t want people to see the pictures of torture or hear the facts about global warming, etc. Too often we are told that we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. This is one way they take democracy away from us; they tell us to leave it in the hands of the experts or the politicians.
I think there have been very few examples of a true democracy in the modern world. In fact, maybe you can’t have a true democracy in a class society because the ruling class, if it is a minority, as in this country, would not want to see its power taken away. On the other hand, if the working class truly took power, the only way we could rule would be democratically because we are the vast majority. There is actually a lot more to talk about here like what happened in the Soviet Union, etc., but that would better be discussed at another time because there is a long history about this.
Although there have been no real models of democracy in the modern world, there have been many attempts that give us a glimpse of what a true democracy might look like. The Paris Commune, where workers took over Paris and parts of France before being crushed by invading armies was one example. Some attempts in Cuba, Nicaragua and other places helped give us a glimpse of what democracy could look like. Basically, Marxist don’t typically equate voting and democracy, like we do in the US. Voting is part of democracy. But in most other industrial countries they have a better system of voting such as proportional representation, requirements for equal access to the media and less involvement of money. In the US, you have to be rich or supported by the rich to run for national office. This is a filter that insures the interests of the rich will be those represented by the government.
In some of the places mentioned above, they tried to organize people on a block by block level. In Cuba, these block committees where called Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. They discuss everything from health care and education in their communities to international politics. They then elect representatives to committees organized on a regional level who elect people to the national level. These are in addition to direct national elections. Additionally, they helped organize women’s organization, labor, farmers, youth and other constituency groups. These groups discuss issues related to their constituencies and also elect people to the regional and national governing bodies.
Additionally, Cuba included the right to have a union as a democratic right. The right to a job is also seen as a democratic right. There are many other areas, besides elections where equality needs to be seen as a democratic right.
I have a friend at work who comes from China. He and many others at our work had a big problem with one of our managers. But nothing could be done about it. Work in the US is a dictatorship. He told me in China, if the workers did not like a manager they would have a meeting and decide that the manager was not good and would be able to get rid of him. In the US, he says, you can criticize the president, which you can’t do in China, but you can not criticize your manager, which you can do in China. Perhaps, if we did not have a capitalist society where work means making a profit for the boss, we would be able to criticize our manager too.
So, I think that in a socialist society, democracy would mean something very different. Since we grew up in a capitalist society we think of it as being the same as voting. In the original US constitution, only white men who owned property could vote. Later, through amendments we allowed all adults citizens to vote. After an uprising the first amendment was added to the constitution which included other rights like the right to free speech and assembly, which we now call democratic rights, but were not there in the beginning. But in a socialist society, we may add the right to housing, healthcare, a job, the right for women to control their own bodies, the right for gays to marry, etc.
Also, in a non-hierarchical society the entire idea of democracy would be different and less adversarial.
So, that’s a longer answer to your e-mail than I intended, but much shorter than needed. Perhaps it would be a good topic to discuss at one of our meetings.
Joe Lombardo
Your e-mail brings up many questions. First of all, I don’t think that we need a panel of experts, such as scientists, as a 4th branch of government. I think that if people were given the facts, we can make decisions that are in our own interest and the interest of all. This is why there is secrecy in our country, they don’t want people to know the truth, it would expose too much. They don’t want people to see the pictures of torture or hear the facts about global warming, etc. Too often we are told that we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. This is one way they take democracy away from us; they tell us to leave it in the hands of the experts or the politicians.
I think there have been very few examples of a true democracy in the modern world. In fact, maybe you can’t have a true democracy in a class society because the ruling class, if it is a minority, as in this country, would not want to see its power taken away. On the other hand, if the working class truly took power, the only way we could rule would be democratically because we are the vast majority. There is actually a lot more to talk about here like what happened in the Soviet Union, etc., but that would better be discussed at another time because there is a long history about this.
Although there have been no real models of democracy in the modern world, there have been many attempts that give us a glimpse of what a true democracy might look like. The Paris Commune, where workers took over Paris and parts of France before being crushed by invading armies was one example. Some attempts in Cuba, Nicaragua and other places helped give us a glimpse of what democracy could look like. Basically, Marxist don’t typically equate voting and democracy, like we do in the US. Voting is part of democracy. But in most other industrial countries they have a better system of voting such as proportional representation, requirements for equal access to the media and less involvement of money. In the US, you have to be rich or supported by the rich to run for national office. This is a filter that insures the interests of the rich will be those represented by the government.
In some of the places mentioned above, they tried to organize people on a block by block level. In Cuba, these block committees where called Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. They discuss everything from health care and education in their communities to international politics. They then elect representatives to committees organized on a regional level who elect people to the national level. These are in addition to direct national elections. Additionally, they helped organize women’s organization, labor, farmers, youth and other constituency groups. These groups discuss issues related to their constituencies and also elect people to the regional and national governing bodies.
Additionally, Cuba included the right to have a union as a democratic right. The right to a job is also seen as a democratic right. There are many other areas, besides elections where equality needs to be seen as a democratic right.
I have a friend at work who comes from China. He and many others at our work had a big problem with one of our managers. But nothing could be done about it. Work in the US is a dictatorship. He told me in China, if the workers did not like a manager they would have a meeting and decide that the manager was not good and would be able to get rid of him. In the US, he says, you can criticize the president, which you can’t do in China, but you can not criticize your manager, which you can do in China. Perhaps, if we did not have a capitalist society where work means making a profit for the boss, we would be able to criticize our manager too.
So, I think that in a socialist society, democracy would mean something very different. Since we grew up in a capitalist society we think of it as being the same as voting. In the original US constitution, only white men who owned property could vote. Later, through amendments we allowed all adults citizens to vote. After an uprising the first amendment was added to the constitution which included other rights like the right to free speech and assembly, which we now call democratic rights, but were not there in the beginning. But in a socialist society, we may add the right to housing, healthcare, a job, the right for women to control their own bodies, the right for gays to marry, etc.
Also, in a non-hierarchical society the entire idea of democracy would be different and less adversarial.
So, that’s a longer answer to your e-mail than I intended, but much shorter than needed. Perhaps it would be a good topic to discuss at one of our meetings.
Joe Lombardo
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Meeting of the National Assembly
For the last 4 days, I was in San Francisco for a meeting of the coordinating committee of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations. Of the 45 members of the coordinating committee, about 30 people from across the country were present (we also hold meetings once per month by phone conference). One member of the coordinating committee who was not present was Lynne Stewart. As you know, Lynne, a now-disbarred attorney, is in jail, having been convicted of aiding terrorism for defending her client, who was accused of being involved with the plot to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. (For more information on that case and Lynne’s situation, please go to www.lynnestewart.com.) The group gathered at the meeting sent Lynne a note of support, and each of us who know her also wrote a personal note. Mine was also from the Muslim Solidarity Committee, a group that she always thought was doing exemplary work. Lynne let us know that she would like protests at federal buildings on her behalf. People who want to send her a message can write to: Lynne Stewart, 53504-054, MCC-NY, 150 Park Row, New York, NY 10007.
There were two important points that came out of the meeting. The first is that we decided to endorse the call from the ANSWER coalition to have demonstrations on March 20 to commemorate the 7th anniversary of the Iraq War. The National Assembly would have preferred that the ANSWER coalition not put out this call unilaterally but rather to work in conjunction with other national anti-war groups, including the National Assembly, before deciding what to do on the 7th anniversary of the Iraq war. But in the interest of promoting unity in the anti-war movement—a principle that the National Assembly was founded on--we agreed to support and build this action and to try to get other forces to join us.
The second point of importance that came out of the meeting was that we agreed to hold our 3rd national conference in Albany, New York on July 23rd-25th, 2010. This means that national leaders along with hundreds of peace activists from around the country will be coming to meet in Albany. Also present will be members of the peace and progressive movements from other countries. The main function of the National Assembly conference is to assess the state of the movement and to decide on a program of actions during the upcoming period. This will occur during plenary sessions where everyone present will have voice and vote. Additionally, there will be workshops and a large public meeting on Saturday night, along with a panel discussion on Friday. Besides having a fairly strong peace movement in the Capital District, we have done some very good defense work with Muslims who have been attacked in our area and have done some important work with Iraqi refugees. It would be important to showcase this work for the rest of the country and international guests.
The San Francisco meeting also heard reports and discussed situations in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Palestine, and Honduras. In addition, we had a discussion on the current state of the anti-war movement. As we all know, the anti-war movement is at a low point. Some of the national groups are not functioning well, if at all. Despite polls that continue to show that the majority are against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations, anti-war demonstrations and rallies have been much smaller recently than in the past. On October 17, demonstrations took place in 54 cities around the country, but all of them were small. However, discontent with U.S. policies is growing, especially given the present economic environment. We can expect to see a surge in Afghanistan soon, and cities all across the country are preparing a response. The National Assembly believes that this is a very important moment when we must continue to build anti-war organizations and activities in preparation for what we believe will be an inevitable explosion of anti-war sentiment and activity as the wars continue and the honeymoon with the Obama administration ends.
You have probably heard about the explosion of protests on the California campuses after the California a 33% tuition increase was announced. While in California, I was able to take two trips to the Berkley campus, where students have been demonstrating and occupying buildings. These activities are going on throughout the state. The students tie their protest in to the issue of the war using slogans like “Money for schools not for war.” They are also chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” and “The people united will never be defeated.” Some can argue that the birth of the student movement of the 60s and 70s began with the Berkley Free Speech movement. The students are also aware of the connection of their movement to the plight of union workers who are being laid off; the biggest cheers at their rally came when some fired janitors spoke. Teachers and other workers throughout California are suffering from the cutbacks and protesting too. California reflects the future of all states across the country, as our nation's corporate elite try to shift more and more wealth from the working people and the poor to the corporations and the already obscenely rich. People working on all issues, from war to healthcare to tuition hikes, need to come together and join in one fight against a common enemy. With this understanding in mind, the National Assembly sent a message of support to the striking students.
There are many union activists on the coordinating committee of the national assembly, included the presidents of two state-wide labor federations. The group took note of the resolution that came from our own Troy Area Labor Council calling for the AFL-CIO leadership to organize a mass action around the issues of jobs, the war, and health care. A similar call was passed by the Wisconsin state AFL-CIO federation, the San Francisco Labor Council and a number of other labor groups. We see such calls as extremely hopeful signs and as a way forward for the movement as a whole. They point toward our developing a real fight-back against the attacks being directed at the American people today. The Albany conference in 2010 will be a very important step in that direction, as well. I hope all activists in our area will join me in building this conference.
Peace,
Joe Lombardo
There were two important points that came out of the meeting. The first is that we decided to endorse the call from the ANSWER coalition to have demonstrations on March 20 to commemorate the 7th anniversary of the Iraq War. The National Assembly would have preferred that the ANSWER coalition not put out this call unilaterally but rather to work in conjunction with other national anti-war groups, including the National Assembly, before deciding what to do on the 7th anniversary of the Iraq war. But in the interest of promoting unity in the anti-war movement—a principle that the National Assembly was founded on--we agreed to support and build this action and to try to get other forces to join us.
The second point of importance that came out of the meeting was that we agreed to hold our 3rd national conference in Albany, New York on July 23rd-25th, 2010. This means that national leaders along with hundreds of peace activists from around the country will be coming to meet in Albany. Also present will be members of the peace and progressive movements from other countries. The main function of the National Assembly conference is to assess the state of the movement and to decide on a program of actions during the upcoming period. This will occur during plenary sessions where everyone present will have voice and vote. Additionally, there will be workshops and a large public meeting on Saturday night, along with a panel discussion on Friday. Besides having a fairly strong peace movement in the Capital District, we have done some very good defense work with Muslims who have been attacked in our area and have done some important work with Iraqi refugees. It would be important to showcase this work for the rest of the country and international guests.
The San Francisco meeting also heard reports and discussed situations in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Palestine, and Honduras. In addition, we had a discussion on the current state of the anti-war movement. As we all know, the anti-war movement is at a low point. Some of the national groups are not functioning well, if at all. Despite polls that continue to show that the majority are against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations, anti-war demonstrations and rallies have been much smaller recently than in the past. On October 17, demonstrations took place in 54 cities around the country, but all of them were small. However, discontent with U.S. policies is growing, especially given the present economic environment. We can expect to see a surge in Afghanistan soon, and cities all across the country are preparing a response. The National Assembly believes that this is a very important moment when we must continue to build anti-war organizations and activities in preparation for what we believe will be an inevitable explosion of anti-war sentiment and activity as the wars continue and the honeymoon with the Obama administration ends.
You have probably heard about the explosion of protests on the California campuses after the California a 33% tuition increase was announced. While in California, I was able to take two trips to the Berkley campus, where students have been demonstrating and occupying buildings. These activities are going on throughout the state. The students tie their protest in to the issue of the war using slogans like “Money for schools not for war.” They are also chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” and “The people united will never be defeated.” Some can argue that the birth of the student movement of the 60s and 70s began with the Berkley Free Speech movement. The students are also aware of the connection of their movement to the plight of union workers who are being laid off; the biggest cheers at their rally came when some fired janitors spoke. Teachers and other workers throughout California are suffering from the cutbacks and protesting too. California reflects the future of all states across the country, as our nation's corporate elite try to shift more and more wealth from the working people and the poor to the corporations and the already obscenely rich. People working on all issues, from war to healthcare to tuition hikes, need to come together and join in one fight against a common enemy. With this understanding in mind, the National Assembly sent a message of support to the striking students.
There are many union activists on the coordinating committee of the national assembly, included the presidents of two state-wide labor federations. The group took note of the resolution that came from our own Troy Area Labor Council calling for the AFL-CIO leadership to organize a mass action around the issues of jobs, the war, and health care. A similar call was passed by the Wisconsin state AFL-CIO federation, the San Francisco Labor Council and a number of other labor groups. We see such calls as extremely hopeful signs and as a way forward for the movement as a whole. They point toward our developing a real fight-back against the attacks being directed at the American people today. The Albany conference in 2010 will be a very important step in that direction, as well. I hope all activists in our area will join me in building this conference.
Peace,
Joe Lombardo
Monday, October 12, 2009
Health Care Costs
The following is a letter of mine that was in the Albany Times Union today. The letter is on healthcare costs and advocates for a single payer solution. The only piece that the editors took out of my letter was a sentence where I supported my statement that the insurance executives get "over-the-top salaries and bonuses" by using the example of Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Healthcare who makes $102,742.00 per hour
Health plan may benefit wealthy
First published: Monday, October 12, 2009
In "Health costs hit home" (Oct. 3), the Times Union reports that
health care costs will rise steeply again this year. This is at the
same moment when health care reform bills are making their way through Congress without serious consideration being given to single-payer health care or even the nebulous public option.
With the way things are headed, it looks like people who can barely
afford the co-pay for a visit to their doctor will be mandated to buy
a defective and exorbitant health insurance policy or else face a
fine. This is a huge giveaway to the health insurance industry and,
like the recent corporate bailouts, is essentially another transfer of
wealth from working people and the poor to the rich.
A recent study comparing the U.S. health care system to that of five
other industrial countries, reported by the New York Daily News,
concludes that ours is twice as costly per capita as any of the others
and has worse outcomes, to boot. The other five countries all have
some form of single-payer system.
The high cost of health care in the U.S. is the direct result of
greedy insurance companies, with their high overhead and over-the-top salaries and bonuses for their executives.
Health care costs more in this country than any place else on the
planet because we put the profits of the corporations above the needs of the people. The only way to remove the insurance companies -- the Number One enemy of meaningful health care reform in this country -- from the equation is to adopt a single payer system.
Joe Lombardo
Health plan may benefit wealthy
First published: Monday, October 12, 2009
In "Health costs hit home" (Oct. 3), the Times Union reports that
health care costs will rise steeply again this year. This is at the
same moment when health care reform bills are making their way through Congress without serious consideration being given to single-payer health care or even the nebulous public option.
With the way things are headed, it looks like people who can barely
afford the co-pay for a visit to their doctor will be mandated to buy
a defective and exorbitant health insurance policy or else face a
fine. This is a huge giveaway to the health insurance industry and,
like the recent corporate bailouts, is essentially another transfer of
wealth from working people and the poor to the rich.
A recent study comparing the U.S. health care system to that of five
other industrial countries, reported by the New York Daily News,
concludes that ours is twice as costly per capita as any of the others
and has worse outcomes, to boot. The other five countries all have
some form of single-payer system.
The high cost of health care in the U.S. is the direct result of
greedy insurance companies, with their high overhead and over-the-top salaries and bonuses for their executives.
Health care costs more in this country than any place else on the
planet because we put the profits of the corporations above the needs of the people. The only way to remove the insurance companies -- the Number One enemy of meaningful health care reform in this country -- from the equation is to adopt a single payer system.
Joe Lombardo
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Right-wing Mobilizes in Washington
Today, tens of thousands of right-wing tea bag supporters marched on Washington. From the images I saw on the internet, there were well over 100,000 (it turned out that the images I saw on the internet were forged. They were of a previous demonstration and the tea-bag demo had far few people). While we on the left debate whether demonstrations do or don't work, the right-wing is mobilizing and is out on the streets like I have never seen them do before in my lifetime. These mobilizations have had a big effect. They have moved the healthcare debate to the right and taken the momentum that the left felt with the ending of the Bush administration and the election of a Black president and turned it into a right-wing momentum against any progressive change.
One of the key differences between a right-wing government and a fascist movement is that a fascist movement gets people mobilized in the streets. When they get strong enough, they break up union meetings and physically attack their political opponents. I characterize the right-wing mobilizations that we have seen as an incipient fascist movement. It is clear to me that there are people, such as the talk show hosts, who are trying to build such a movement. This is both a huge threat and a big challenge to the left. During this period of history, I believe we are the ones who will literally make the decision of whether or not humankind is going to make it. The only way we'll survive is if we can stop the ravages of war, build a peaceful world without nuclear weapons, put the brakes on global warming and the end the depletion of our natural resources.
These right-wingers are motivated in part by the realities of our times. The lives of working people are getting worse and worse as healthcare becomes less affordable, people are losing their jobs due to corporate greed, and the living standard of the vast majority of the working class continues its downward slide. In this rampantly racist country, we've elected a black president, signaling to the right wing that they are losing what blacks are gaining. Besides the blacks, they scapegoat immigrants and Muslims, whom they blame for their misery. It is this anger that is moving them into the streets.
The left should always be able to out-mobilize the right even though we don’t have corporate wealth and the media behind us like they do. This is because our issues of peace and justice speak to the real needs of people and to viable solutions to our collective problems. It's also because our movement is inclusive of everyone--young or old, black or white, gay or straight, Christian, Muslim, or atheist.
I urge people to get out in the streets. Join your local peace vigil; come to the events sponsored by our progressive organizations; join the picket line of the hotel workers at the Holiday Inn Express in Latham as they fight to form a union. I urge you to join in our local anti-war protest on October 17, which will coincide with similar rallies throughout the country (see www.nepajac.org). The right is taking our tactic of mass mobilization and using it their advantage. Let's not let that happen.
One of the key differences between a right-wing government and a fascist movement is that a fascist movement gets people mobilized in the streets. When they get strong enough, they break up union meetings and physically attack their political opponents. I characterize the right-wing mobilizations that we have seen as an incipient fascist movement. It is clear to me that there are people, such as the talk show hosts, who are trying to build such a movement. This is both a huge threat and a big challenge to the left. During this period of history, I believe we are the ones who will literally make the decision of whether or not humankind is going to make it. The only way we'll survive is if we can stop the ravages of war, build a peaceful world without nuclear weapons, put the brakes on global warming and the end the depletion of our natural resources.
These right-wingers are motivated in part by the realities of our times. The lives of working people are getting worse and worse as healthcare becomes less affordable, people are losing their jobs due to corporate greed, and the living standard of the vast majority of the working class continues its downward slide. In this rampantly racist country, we've elected a black president, signaling to the right wing that they are losing what blacks are gaining. Besides the blacks, they scapegoat immigrants and Muslims, whom they blame for their misery. It is this anger that is moving them into the streets.
The left should always be able to out-mobilize the right even though we don’t have corporate wealth and the media behind us like they do. This is because our issues of peace and justice speak to the real needs of people and to viable solutions to our collective problems. It's also because our movement is inclusive of everyone--young or old, black or white, gay or straight, Christian, Muslim, or atheist.
I urge people to get out in the streets. Join your local peace vigil; come to the events sponsored by our progressive organizations; join the picket line of the hotel workers at the Holiday Inn Express in Latham as they fight to form a union. I urge you to join in our local anti-war protest on October 17, which will coincide with similar rallies throughout the country (see www.nepajac.org). The right is taking our tactic of mass mobilization and using it their advantage. Let's not let that happen.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Health Care Town Hall Meetings
In the Capital District we have had a series of congressional town meetings like those in other areas; however, in our case, the right-wing has not been allowed the upper hand and hasn't been successful in disrupting the meetings. At the two town hall meetings that I attended, progressives have outnumbered the right-wing and prevented them from shouting down single-payer or government option opinions.
The left needs to take stock of what is going on at these meetings and insure that they are not disrupted by these modern day Brown Shirts. There are fewer and fewer places for public debate in this country, as the media becomes more and more tightly controlled and as public spaces give way to privately owned malls. So, when congress members come back to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear what their constituents think, we should use them to make our progressive voices heard and not allow them to be taken over by the right-wing.
These right-wingers must be confused and demoralized when they find themselves outnumbered at these meetings. If their primary news sources are FOX News and the fascist minded talk show hosts, they must not understand a forum where opposing voices are allowed to be heard and where the propaganda that they hear gets challenged. The right-wing talk show hosts use the technique of talking over opinions that they don’t want you to hear, and so their listeners try to do the same thing at these health care reform meetings. But when we outnumber them, they can't get away with this.
Additionally, some who come from the Ron Paul or Libertarian perspective agree with us on many issues like the ending the wars and occupations or opposing the bank bailouts. They typically support gay rights and the right to abortion. Others are against any government healthcare option or single-payer because they believe that they will pay for abortions. We should exploit these differences, divide them from each other and even make common cause with some where we can.
Can Government Do Anything Right?
Although there are many issues that bring right-wingers to these town hall meetings with obvious anger and passion, when you cut away the lies and misinformation, the main issue is mistrust of government. Some of this is justified; there is reasonable anger from both the right and the left over the bank bailouts and the welfare for the rich, for example. However, when this criticism comes from the right, it takes the form of scapegoating. Many of the right-wingers that I see at these meetings look like they are not well off. One man told me that it was a government lie that 50,000,000 people don’t have health care in the US. During the discussion, he admitted that he himself did not have healthcare. But he sure as hell did not want any “illegal aliens” to get it, and his unrestrained racist anger at Obama was clearly coming from the same racist position, where he believed people whom he considered beneath him were getting ahead of him. It is this same racism, along with anti-Semitism and sexism and homophobia that has always fueled right-wing movements.
The difference between the right-wing and left-wing positions on the failures of our government is this: the right insists that the government do nothing, while the left demands that the government does what it is supposed to do: provide for human needs that the people cannot do for themselves, like building the roads and bridges, organizing fire departments, running schools, and making sure that we all have healthcare.
The Downside
While the local meetings are forcing progressives to mobilize in response to the right-wing mobilizations, and while we support the kind of participatory democracy that these meetings may represent, there are downsides to these meetings too. They have shifted the health care debate to the right. There are many who support a single-payer option but feel a need to defend the public option because that is the brunt of the attack from the insurance companies and the Republicans. So the debate has become the status quo verses the public option, and single-payer has become marginalized. However, at the meetings I attended, if there had been a vote on what the people wanted, I'm pretty sure that single-payer would have won. Because of this, those of us who support single-payer must be bold in expressing this at these meetings and elsewhere.
Another downside of these meetings is that the centrality of the health care debate during this period has pushed other issues to the side. This is most apparent with anti-war issue; while the wars continue to escalate, our attention has been focused on healthcare. As a result, terrible decisions have been coming out of the Obama administration, with little opposition. These include escalating the wars, continuing of extraordinary renditions, continued cover-ups of war crimes, etc. The fall anti-war actions will be an important step towards moving these issues back to center stage (see www.nepajac.org.
Mobilization
It is important that we continue to mobilize when these types of situations arise. By doing so, at least in this area, we have been able to change the news coverage from the national perspective of mobs of people opposing any government involvement in health care to one of a public debate on healthcare. A debate on the issue will always work in our favor, since it allows us to show the superior single-payer type systems that exist in other countries.
During these mobilizations, single-payer advocates have made common cause with government option advocates in opposition to the misinformation and behavior of the right-wing. In my opinion, this is good and necessary. It would be a mistake for us to allow ourselves to be split from good folks with whom we can work on a number of issues. The divide and conquer tactic of the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan has been used very effectively. It has also been used in the US anti-war movement, where some coalitions will not even admit the existence of other peace coalitions let alone join in actions with them. We cannot let this happen to the healthcare movement. I say this even though I believe that the only viable option is the single-payer option, since a government option would still keep the insurance companies in the picture, keep health care costs high, and continue to allow abuses, which will eventually lead to a rejection of any public option and prove the right-wing's point that government can’t do anything right.
It is very important for people to understand that voting or having one's own position on an issue is not enough. It is important for people to understand that they need to act and that their actions have an effect. This is not taught by the media, the government, or the schools. We learn that democracy equals voting; then you go shopping or watch commercials on TV and let the elected officials do the work for you. As we mobilize for these town meetings, we feel our strength. We see that our mobilization is able to change the character of these meeting. Although we don’t have the money or control that the insurance companies and other private corporations have, and we don’t have the lobbying power or money to make the large campaign contributions, the power of a united people is the greatest power of all. Just by putting our hands in our pockets and refusing to cooperate, we can bring the country to a standstill. So as people start demanding to take the profit out of healthcare and see resistance from the government and the corporations, we become a little more conscious of the fact that we are not on the same side and that they are not working for our benefit. It brings us a little closer to understanding that if we are to make the basic changes that we need, the only thing we can rely on is our own collective, organized strength.
Single-payer verses Socialized Medicine
A single-payer system is what we need to fight for now. It is the demand that addresses the concerns of the American people, including rising medical costs, rising unemployment, and increasingly unscrupulous practices of the insurance companies during this period of neo-liberalism. However, what single-payer does is replace the insurance industry with the government. Despite the rhetoric of the right-wing, it is not socialized medicine. The hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies and other health care services will still remain private, for-profit organizations. These institutions will continue to put profit over the needs of people. This will remain an obstacle to providing quality healthcare, even with a single-payer system. During this debate, we should point out that the right-wing claims that a public option or single-payer system is socialized medicine are wrong and use the debate to talk about what a real socialize system would look like and tie it into the devastating effects that private industry has had in all areas from Enron to the bank bailouts.
The debate around healthcare will push the debate around what kind of society we need in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
