We still have a chaotically gridlocked Congress, with the House in the hands of the renegade radical Republicans, the Senate in the hands of their Democratic enablers and a re-elected centrist-compromiser in the White House -- who is ritually disparaged as a Socialist by his rightist political opponents.
In other words, nothing has changed.
That of course doesn't mean that nothing will happen. In fact, all the signs point to some serious squabbling behind the scenes regarding how best and how quickly to extract more from the groaning masses through benefit cuts, tax and fee increases, and required expenditures for governmental and private services (ie: ACA).
There is no debate about the objectives themselves, only how quickly and how unmercifully to enforce them.
Rs want to go balls to the wall, forcing as much pain and suffering on the masses as possible in the shortest possible time while the Ds want to take it somewhat slow and easy, but there is no faction in among the Power Elite which was re-confirmed in office to abandon this program of mass suffering and try something else.
That means we are so screwed.
And that's what the People voted for -- well, some of them. Looking over a sampling of statistics, the turnout for this election was shockingly low in many precincts, under 50%. Was there a boycott? I'd like to think so, but without a public statement regarding such a thing, it's more likely people just weren't interested in the long lines and the hassles on voting day as well as the fact that neither candidate was offering anything substantive to the common people, only more benefits to the rich and well-connected.
I noticed this in the summary of political ads on the news. Rob-me had a definite program in mind which he mentioned in many of his ads, focusing on jobs (but he wouldn't say how he would increase employment), lower taxes for the rich, and reducing or eliminating regulations on employers, resource extractors and financiers.
You may not like the policies, but it is a policy program. Obama on the other hand seemed to concentrate on abstractions, what might be possible one day, and how to set the stage for the New America of the Future. He did not offer a policy program as such but instead focused his attention on ideas for doing something someday.
Obama's approach was rather soft and soothing but it lacked definition. Romney-Ryan on the other hand were cold and harsh -- though defined.
Neither appeared to be the least bit interested in the real issues the public faces, though both put on game faces of pretense. Romney for his part at least made "jobs" the centerpiece of his campaign. Obama barely mentioned the j-word.
They were both focused on the needs and demands of the Plutocrats.
That's where we were before the election, that's where we are now.
Nothing has changed.
Maybe after Barry and Mitch sit down together and have a good long heart to heart...
Two stories in my newswipe struck me this morning perhaps more than most employment related stories do.
In Politics, according to Democratic strategist Gary South California Governor Jerry Brown has to ask himself: "How much of Labor's agenda can [Brown] veto and still have the kind of Labor support he's going to need if he's going to put tax [increase-extension] measures on the ballot in 2012?"
The bills in question:
Senate Bill 202 The bill, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, would require ballot initiatives in 2012 to be put on the November ballot. The measure would favor Democrats and their labor allies in initiative campaigns because Democratic turnout for the November presidential election is expected to be far higher than in the June primary.
Senate Bill 126 The bill, a compromise measure proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown and negotiated by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and the United Farm Workers union, would give farmworkers greater protections in labor disputes with growers. Brown previously vetoed legislation that would have let farmworkers organize by submitting signed petition cards instead of by secret ballot.
Assembly Bill 101 The bill, amended at the legislative deadline to include language by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would let unions organize child-care providers who work out of the home. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed similar legislation three times.
Assembly Bill 740 The bill, by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Woodland Hills, would strengthen existing restrictions on state agencies using private contractors, forcing them to immediately end business with a private vendor if the State Personnel Board rules that the contract violates state law. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed similar legislation.
Assembly Bill 183 The bill, by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, would prohibit grocery stores from selling beer, wine or liquor using electronic self-checkout lanes.
Senate Bill 922 The bill, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would allow public agencies to require project labor agreements on construction projects, typically favoring unionized workers.
The "problem" with these bills is that they are backed by Labor, and in today's climate of crisis/opportunity for the Predatory Class, "Labor backed bills" are a no-no. Even Big Democrats like Jerry Brown are expected to veto -- or fight -- any advances for Labor under any circumstances, and up to this point, despite overwhelming Labor support for his candidacy and election in 2010, Jerry Brown has done his part. No one in office is a friend of Labor these days, and that includes Jerry Brown and most of the other Democratic officials. The point, of course, is to hamstring organized labor and drive down wages and benefits no matter what. And Democrats in office, led by the White House, have been almost as eager to engage in the practice as Republicans. They're just not as rude and cruel about it. Generally.
The other story was from the New York Times and it is headlined:
Auto jobs coveted even at lower pay 2-TIER WAGES BOOST LABOR POOL
It's about some assembly line workers at a Jeep factory in Detroit being paid half ($14 vs $28) what long-time employees make, and with eliminated or significantly reduced benefits to boot, and workers are lining up by the tens of thousands for these lower-paid manufacturing jobs. It's being touted as an amazing success story of the much maligned auto bailout from the early Obama years.
"Everybody is appreciative of a job and glad to be working," said Derrick Chatman, who makes $14.65 an hour putting tires on Jeeps after being laid off at Home Depot, working odd construction jobs and collecting unemployment.
What was once seen as a desperate move to prop up the struggling auto industry is now considered an integral part of its future. The demand for $14-an-hour manufacturing jobs is providing Detroit's Big Three automakers with a ready pool of eager new employees. Last year, Chrysler was flooded with inquiries about the jobs, and it froze the list after receiving 10,000 applications.
Of course, as I've said many times, the whole point of the Obama administration's economic policies was to drive down wages and benefits typically by as much as 50%, for those who can get and keep jobs at all. And sure enough, here is a news story CELEBRATING the "success" of this policy.
People are desperate for employment; they'll take whatever they can get.
Employers like it. They love it. They want more of it.It's working so well. And the policies out of Washington DC and state capitols all over the country, including California's -- where every state office is held by a Democrat and the legislature is all but 2/3rds Democratic in both houses.
In other words, as perfectly evil as Scott Walker and his ilk and his sponsors are toward Labor, it's not that much better -- indeed only marginally so -- with Democrats in state houses and in the White House.
Labor is screwed no matter what.
I look at this situation as say, "Yes, the Dems are arguably marginally better on Labor and economic issues, sometimes. But most of the time, the best you can get out of elected Dems is lip service toward Labor issues and doing the right thing economically. They will enact -- and eventually extend -- the same policies as most Republicans will, and they will call it 'progressive'. And for their part, most labor unions will go along with it. 'To prevent further layoffs.'"
It's a vicious cycle, a race to the bottom, and no one in office is the least bit interested in reversing the trend.
Changing out whoever is in charge doesn't seem to impede the momentum of inertia that is moving all policy rightwards. Big Democrat, Friend of Labor, it doesn't matter. All policy is moving rightwards, constantly, with extraordinary speed.
At this point, it's obvious that electoral politics has little effect on the process of policy. This factor is part of my theory of the "divorce" of Government from the People -- or even acknowledgement by Government of the People's interest. It simply doesn't exist as a factor to consider any more.
The reasons are partly due to the fact that labor will yield, a fact which has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Union leadership is pathetic. When push comes to shove, they will not stand up for their membership, except (sometimes) on the most marginal of matters. Core matters of wages, benefits, working conditions and so on they yield on almost every time, even if there is a strike. Of course they do it out of a sense of doing "what's practical." If they don't yield, in other words, things will be worse for workers. If they yield quietly, sometimes they can gain a little around the margins on behalf of workers. What do you do?
When Labor yields, (almost) every time -- which is what they do -- why should policy-makers be in the least concerned about "labor issues?"
The same is true of every policy. If the People will do nothing in response to policies that the policy-makers need to concern themselves about, why should they be at all concerned with the People or the Public Interest?
Obviously, the Class War is won. We the People lost.
And these days, We the People aren't even fighting it any more.
One of the more intriguing conceits of the Modern Progressive Movement ("We're Not Libertarians, So Stop Saying That!") is the consistency of effort aimed at preventing what has already occurred, whether it be economic catastrophe, global warming, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid or reductions in Social Security benefits, Imperial wars of aggression, the End of Civil Liberties -- or what have you.
After a while, it begins to feel like Modern Progressives are always fighting losing battles.
It's not just losing battles, though. It's more insidious than that. It's perfectly reactionary because it lets the Barbarians (as it were) set the agenda for everything. The Modern Progressive merely responds, and the response is almost always the same: preserve and/or extend the status quo.
Which is not...actually... "progressive". But that's another issue.
I was looking at some of the pictures of the tumult in Europe, particularly the police action against protestors in Barcelona. Of course, it reminded me of the Old Days when Americans used to do things like this, actually take risks -- physical risks at that -- to Make a Point about this or that issue of importance to the People.
They'd get their heads knocked in, they'd be gassed and bludgeoned and they'd be dragged off to "detention" for greater or shorter lengths of time while the Authorities "struggled" to restore or maintain "order." It was the way things were done. Not necessarily routinely -- because most sane people don't like to confront a more powerful Authority if they can avoid it -- but it happened often enough and was bothersome enough to The Powers That Be to make the point of popular displeasure with actions of the High and the Mighty.
These protests have been going on in Europe for a good long time now; they actually pre-date the Arab Spring, and I think they were in truth the direct inspiration for the protests in North Africa that brought down the corrupt regimes of Tunisia and Egypt. (No, it really wasn't because of WikiLeaks' Leaks. Really. It wasn't.) The Spanish protests have taken a leaf from the Egyptian ones -- ah, synergy! -- in that the protestors have been camping out in the squares of the major cities to make their presence known and their voices heard above the clattering din of their rulers who are scrambling to comply with the dictates of the various Euro-banksters who have determined that the living standards of your average European sod is way too high and must be reduced sharply in order to ensure the comfort and convenience (and continued financial lubrication) of the regimes and their sponsors.
So. The August Authorities assert themselves against the People, and we have scenes like the one above. Or this one:
But as I say, we used to have protests like this in this country fairly often but we don't have this sort of thing -- much -- any more.
It is said that Americans pretty much stopped protesting in this manner (except for the Anarchists and their Black Bloc associates, of course -- the Black Bloc being widely understood to be provocateurs) when it was realized that the High and the Mighty here pay no attention to tumult among the rabble, and besides -- even worse -- the media won't cover it.
I mean, after all, the whole point of having a Protest is to get on the TeeVee. Ask Medea Benjamin (who I happen to have enormous admiration for, so don't take this as a slam. She will put herself at risk to make whatever point she feels is necessary. And she'll often enough get on the TeeVee when she does it. Yay, Medea!)
It's not that no one in the United States will do these sorts of things. It's more a question of who does it, when, what they are protesting, and to what object. Americans can sometimes be persuaded to participate in very polite weekend protests, for example, that are arranged primarily for their convenience. Yet strangely, protest by convenience isn't very effective.
Of course earlier this year, enduring protests erupted in Wisconsin over the Governor's plan to take away collective bargaining rights from public employees and to restrict the ability of their unions to collect dues and function.
This was actually one of the most inspiring protest movements we've seen in this country in a generation, and it led to more and more protests around the Midwest and eventually all around the country. Solidarity!
And then it petered out. The energy behind it hasn't been entirely extinguished, but the message has been thoroughly muddled as the protests led to a) political reaction, ie: the recall elections in Wisconsin which may or may not be successful, but whether they are or not won't be known until later this summer; b) court action, ie: delay in implementation of some aspects of the Governor's plan until the courts have resolved the issue (with the prediction that the state supreme court will carry out the orders of its billionaire sponsors... sigh).
In other words, most of what the Governor of Wisconsin set out to do has been accomplished in spite of the protests, just as most of what the Governors set out to do in other states that have experienced these kinds of protests has been accomplished. The protests have been effective in raising awareness and consciousness among those who have been paying attention, but they have not been successful in preventing the actions that are being protested.
It's kind of hard to prevent what's already taken place, eh?
And in essence, that's how the Barbarians (as it were) consistently get their way. How they are able to make consistent progress on their plots and plans while "progressives" stand still or beat a retreat.
This has been the constant... error... of "progressive" action. It is not -- for the most part -- action at all. It is reaction to the outrages of Our Rulers. This dates back at least to the advent of the Bushevik Regime, when tens of thousands of protestors gathered in Washington to protest his inauguration (ignored by the media of course), when in fact the deed was already a done deal. The protest needed to occur previously, and it needed to put forward Something Better.
What happened instead was that those who were convinced that Bush Rule was the shiznits were assembling, often armed, all over the country, and they were DEMANDING their way or the highway. It was either Bush on the Throne or Teh Revolution. And by golly, they got their way.
"Progressives" retreated to the metaphorical shadows where they have been ever since, trying mightily from the shadows to revive something -- through the political process and the courts -- that really doesn't function anymore.
We have been witness to, and in some cases unwitting participants in, the extinguishing of the American Experiment in Constitutional Self-Government.
For all intents and purposes, the Republic is... over.
There is a piquant irony in that Obama has tried rather strenuously to restore the Constitutional Authority of the Congress (and to restrict some of the overreach of the activist courts), and it's not worked out well. The function of the Congress was so corrupted prior to Obama's advent on the Throne that his efforts to restore it to a more traditional -- and Constitutional -- role have led to some truly appalling results (which I won't get into here) that have had the effect of further alienating the People from their Government, especially the Congress and the Courts.
In other words, Representative Government no longer works.
It's a bad joke.
Under the circumstances, the People have the Power to essentially dismiss the Government and come up with something different (which may or may not require active Revolution). But the American People aren't doing that. Instead, they are largely passive, much as the Roman public was as the Republic was extinguished in all but name and the preservation of institutional formalities for centuries after the establishment of the Imperium.
So if we're actually going to make progress under these circumstances, we have to come to grips with the way things really are, and what is really necessary to change things for the Better.
Incrementalism preserves the status quo while Incrementalists are working (lazily or diligently, it doesn't matter) to "improve" some aspect of the situation. Incrementalists don't want any sudden or significant change in the methods of operations or the institutions through which they work, nor do they want their "improvements" to be too sudden or significant. This is the whole theory of "baby-steps." You build a little bit here and a little bit there, a teensy bit at a time, and very gradually, things get better.
Meanwhile, all that is rotten and wrong is preserved from precipitous harm or decline (and is still able to make advances, incrementally, as well) and general stability of systems is maintained.
Preserving the status quo is essential for Incrementalism to function. Radical change is anathema to Incrementalists...
Except...
The Busheviks were truly radical, and what they wanted to do from the outset was change the status quo; in other words to permanently redirect the interest and energy of the systems they were in charge of. They were setting a new direction for those systems, not building on previous minor changes or adjustments. In some respects they were Revolutionary (or Counter-Revolutionary) in that they were intent on changing the systems themselves, overthrowing the remnants of what went before and putting in place something else again (widely characterized as the Unitary Executive, but known in previous eras as a Tyrant/Dictator/Autocrat).
They were largely successful.
They accomplished their task very quickly (of course, given the boost of the 9/11 attacks, the speed of their transformation was accelerated); there was little or no effective resistance inside the government, and there was none at all -- that they felt any need to pay attention to -- outside it, in the streets, in the media, or railing on the Internets.
They simply bulled their way through.
Even when voters seemed to reject their radicalism (ie: in the 2006 congressional elections) the radicals still bulled their way. The opposition was no opposition at all when enough of them could always be found to collaborate with the radicals to form a working majority in the increasingly corrupt and discredited congress. It was literally breathtaking.
And now from the sidelines, Radical-In-Chief Cheney and his daughter continually snipe at any backsliding from the radicalism of the Busheviks, essentially asserting the permanence of the radical changes they made to the status quo in their brief time at the helm. And they get away with it.
Their sniping -- while sometimes countered with White House snark -- usually seems to work. Backsliding is reversed, and the radical Bushevik status quo is preserved or extended.
Progressives are disillusioned again. But they can't seem to do anything about it.
Partly, I argue, it's because they don't want to. Not really. With Incrementalism at their core, they do not seek or want radical change, and they would never attempt radical change on their own. If someone else does it, that's another thing altogether, and if radical change comes through no effort of their own, and it significantly alters the status quo, then these Incrementalist-Progressives will support the New Status Quo while continuing on their chosen path of Incremental, bit-by-bit, baby-step "improvements" to whatever the New Status Quo might be.
That's where we are right now.
And it's discombobulating a lot of folks who are still on a pre-Radical path of Incremental change. They're still trying to work through institutions that have atrophied or been destroyed, using systems that have been fundamentally corrupted.
It's disturbing to see the dysfunction of the Congress, for example, in such detail as we've seen throughout the Health Care Reform psycho-drama. The House is barely able to come up with something that at best gives only a hat tip to the Public Interest; the Senate is incapable of even that. And there is a very strong suspicion that the White House has been orchestrating all of it in a cynical move to further consolidate the Neo-Liberal side of the Corporatist endeavor that is Our Government.
Of course the Courts were long ago corrupted and folded into the Autocracy; after all, it was a seriously flawed Supreme Court decision that installed the Busheviks in power in the first place and which then sustained most of their most radical initiatives, as it has most recently done, tellingly, by refusing to review a lower court ruling that sustains the power of the President (as Autocrat) to declare anyone at all at any time an "enemy combatant", to strip them of any and all human rights, to order or allow their torture (which the subject should "expect") and to deny them any redress of grievance whatsoever. This is Law? Well, yes, yes it is.
That's now the Status Quo.
Incrementalists by their nature will support it -- while attempting gradual mitigations. That's what the Obama administration is doing, forthrightly, without apology. It is "change" of a sort, in that the Obama administration isn't the Radical Institution Overthrowing Counter Revolutionary endeavor the Bushevik Regime was, but it certainly isn't the kind of "change" that some people (even many Incrementalists) were anticipating.
No, they'd become used to the radicalism of Bushevism, and they instinctively accepted that Radical Change had become the New Status Quo, and they were expecting it to continue, on a different path, with the ascension of the Good Emperor, Barack Hussein Obama.
But no. That's not what happened at all. So there is plenty of keening and rending of garments over Barack's betrayal. But he's not "betraying" anything but the illusions of those who assumed he would continue radical operations.
No, Barack the Good is an Incrementalist, and the "change" he was marketing so well was the change from Radicalism to Incrementalism.
The systems the radicals put in place are now the Status Quo -- which was the Busheviks' intention, after all. Those systems are now being subject to gradual, incremental mitigations and adjustments.
THAT'S the "Change You Can Believe In."
Is that really so hard to understand?
[Note: I've been using the portrait of Ahkenaten as an avatar of Obama. I think there's a physical resemblance. But more importantly, it is the notion of Radical Change that seemed to accompany Obama throughout the campaign that Ahkenaten symbolizes that I wanted to convey. Given the upshot of this post, however, Ahkenaten may no longer be the historical figure I should use. I may have to go back to Hoover.]
