I found myself writing more today about that article at The American Prospect website that opposes the Democrats using the image of Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the Democratic Party and a major leader in the development of popular democracy in the United States, in the name of its traditional "Jefferson-Jackson" dinners.
Scott Lemieux endorses the point in Contemporary Democrats Shouldn't Be Celebrating Old Hickory LGM 05/02/2014. I wound up making some comments, more-or-less as I'm repeating them here in the following.
I’m not willing to concede the imagery or substance of the Founders (Jackson fought in the Revolutionary War, he counts as one) to the conservatives, much less to pseudohistorians like David Barton. With the Republicans endorsing the John Calhoun nullification philosophy, anyone defending voting rights shouldn’t be eager to flush the symbolism of Calhoun’s greatest enemy. On his deathbed, Jackson said that the greatest regret of his life was that he hadn’t hanged Calhoun for treason. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, either, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating the symbolism.
Jackson's biographer Robert Remini did a book on Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. He doesn't defend the Indian Removal Act but he does explain the historical setting of the conflicts between the US and the Indian tribes, a situation in which it is even now hard to imagine a Happy Ending short of some massive conversion to the principles of, say, John Brown circa 1855. And I don't even know if Brown had some radically different view of Indian policy than other Americans.
One certainly can't say the Indian Removal Act wasn't criticized at the time; there was substantial opposition in Congress. Some of the main arguments opponents used was that it would be easier to Christianize the Indians if they weren't deported to Oklahoma, and that Cherokees had shown themselves to be good supporters of the slavery system with some Cherokees owning black slaves. No one in real history comes out completely clean.
Part of what makes Jackson fascinating as a leader and in the development of American democracy is that he surpassed his own limitations. He was a wealthy man who fought the Bank of the United States because it functioned as a instrument of concentrated wealth and of corruption of the Congress. Another important piece of Jacksonian symbolism that I wouldn't want to surrender to the rank revisionism of Paultard "libertarians" who want to portray that as an earlier version of their current fight against the Federal Reserve because it blocks a gold standard, or whatever.
Jackson was a also slaveowner without the abolitionist ideology of a Washington or Jefferson; but when the South Carolina Nullification forced him to choose between the slavery system and the (white-men-only) democracy that he was trying to expand, he came down hard on the side of democracy and national unity. His Address to the People of South Carolina over nullification is a landmark linking of the idea of American patriotism/nationalism with democracy.
Tags: andrew jackson, old hickory
Saturday, May 03, 2014
Friday, May 02, 2014
Andrew Jackson as symbol of democracy and the Democratic Party
Yikes!
Ari Rabin-Havt argues that it's Time for Democrats to Stop Celebrating Andrew Jackson The American Prospect 05/04/2014
Since I've been using Jackson as the symbol for this blog for over 10 years, maybe it's time to readdress that issue.
Here is what I posted in my very first one here, entitle Why Old Hickory?:
I do disagree with Rabin-Havt's description of the Indian Removal Act during Jackson's Presidency as "genocidal." As he details, the effects of the mass removal were horrible. And, honestly, if I thought that was Jackson's intent in the Act, I wouldn't use him as a symbol of progressive politics.
The bottom line for me on using historical figures as political images is that I'm not willing to surrender the progressive and democratic aspects of the early American political tradition to conservatives and the Glenn Becks and Massa Cliven Bundys of the world. The American Nazi Party in the 1930s and 1940s used George Washington and an idealized American Indian as symbols of their movement. The latter was more-or-less because they had declared current or past Native Americans to be honorary Aryans, the Ur-Americans in their version of the Nazi Blut und Boden ideology. Rightwingers will use historical images in a reactionary way, whether progressives give up the effort to use them in a progressive way or not.
With Calhounite nullification and segregation having become central to the Republican Party's present-day program, I'm not willing to retire the image of the President who was Calhoun's main adversary, both in reality and in symbolism, who successfully fought Calhoun's attempt to use nullification in South Carolina to defend slavery and undermine democracy on a national basis.
As I've said before, the best-known political figures in the pre-Civil War years of the Republic that had attitudes on voting rights, equality between the races and women's rights that match the nominally dominant understanding of those things in the US today is John Brown. John Brown, who fought a brutal guerrilla war in Kansas and was captured and hung as a traitor when he attacked a military facility of the United States.
Can you imagine the howls from FOX News and every other corner of the Republican Party if the Democratic Party suddenly decided to rename its Jefferson-Jackson Dinners to John Brown-Frederick Douglass Dinners? And can you picture how fast the Democrats would scramble to distance themselves from that rebranding? I'm sure you can, it's unfortunately very easy.
Hegel wrote, "World history is not the ground of happiness. The periods of happiness are empty pages in it." ("Die Weltgeschichte ist nicht der Boden des Glücks. Die Perioden des Glücks sind leere Blätter init ihr.") That's from the Introduction to his lectures on the philosophy of history. He follows it with something less often quoted: "because they are the periods of agreement, of the lack of opposites" ("denn sie sind die Perioden der Zusammenstimmung, des fehlenden Gegensatzes").
I'm quoting that here not to dismiss the importance of moral judgments in understanding history. Rather it is to that emphasize progress in democracy and improvement of the human conditions emerges in a complex historical process. It's important to recognize and encourage the more constructive developments to the extent it's possible, and to discourage the destructive ones.
But history is always made by human beings, never by plaster saints. Reactionaries will misuse images and traditions from the past to turn back the clock. Progressives who want to embrace the future and make it better than the present can't simply surrender all progressives traditions to the winds.
Tags: andrew jackson, old hickory
Ari Rabin-Havt argues that it's Time for Democrats to Stop Celebrating Andrew Jackson The American Prospect 05/04/2014
Since I've been using Jackson as the symbol for this blog for over 10 years, maybe it's time to readdress that issue.
Here is what I posted in my very first one here, entitle Why Old Hickory?:
That explanation from 10-plus years ago still holds. I have posted here about various aspects of Jackson's career, including his Indian policies both before and during his Presidency.Why Old Hickory? Old Hickory is, of course, Andy Jackson, President of the United States, 1829-1837.
Because he's an heroic figure who championed the interest of working people against concentrated wealth and defended the Union and democracy against its enemies foreign and domestic.
He was also a deeply flawed hero, a slaveowner who - unlike Thomas Jefferson - defended the institution of slavery and displaced the Indian tribes of the Southeast in a way that any American today would find it difficult to defend.
He is an appropriate hero for Americans today because he was one of history's greatest champions of democracy.
But it's also important for us to remember that even our greatest heroes were people that made choices, some of them better than others. As long as our politicians feel it necessary to constantly say that America is "the greatest country in the world," something is wrong. When they no longer feel the need to say that, and when the voters no longer need to hear it all the time, we will have regained some of the realistic confidence that made leaders like Jackson what they were.
Some people today talk about George W. Bush's foreign policy being "Jacksonian."
Well, I keep a little bust of the General (as many of Jackson's admirers always called him) setting on my desk. And every time an article appears on my computer screen comapring him to today's Enron Republicans, his eyes seem to glow bright red.
I do disagree with Rabin-Havt's description of the Indian Removal Act during Jackson's Presidency as "genocidal." As he details, the effects of the mass removal were horrible. And, honestly, if I thought that was Jackson's intent in the Act, I wouldn't use him as a symbol of progressive politics.
The bottom line for me on using historical figures as political images is that I'm not willing to surrender the progressive and democratic aspects of the early American political tradition to conservatives and the Glenn Becks and Massa Cliven Bundys of the world. The American Nazi Party in the 1930s and 1940s used George Washington and an idealized American Indian as symbols of their movement. The latter was more-or-less because they had declared current or past Native Americans to be honorary Aryans, the Ur-Americans in their version of the Nazi Blut und Boden ideology. Rightwingers will use historical images in a reactionary way, whether progressives give up the effort to use them in a progressive way or not.
With Calhounite nullification and segregation having become central to the Republican Party's present-day program, I'm not willing to retire the image of the President who was Calhoun's main adversary, both in reality and in symbolism, who successfully fought Calhoun's attempt to use nullification in South Carolina to defend slavery and undermine democracy on a national basis.
As I've said before, the best-known political figures in the pre-Civil War years of the Republic that had attitudes on voting rights, equality between the races and women's rights that match the nominally dominant understanding of those things in the US today is John Brown. John Brown, who fought a brutal guerrilla war in Kansas and was captured and hung as a traitor when he attacked a military facility of the United States.
Can you imagine the howls from FOX News and every other corner of the Republican Party if the Democratic Party suddenly decided to rename its Jefferson-Jackson Dinners to John Brown-Frederick Douglass Dinners? And can you picture how fast the Democrats would scramble to distance themselves from that rebranding? I'm sure you can, it's unfortunately very easy.
Hegel wrote, "World history is not the ground of happiness. The periods of happiness are empty pages in it." ("Die Weltgeschichte ist nicht der Boden des Glücks. Die Perioden des Glücks sind leere Blätter in
I'm quoting that here not to dismiss the importance of moral judgments in understanding history. Rather it is to that emphasize progress in democracy and improvement of the human conditions emerges in a complex historical process. It's important to recognize and encourage the more constructive developments to the extent it's possible, and to discourage the destructive ones.
But history is always made by human beings, never by plaster saints. Reactionaries will misuse images and traditions from the past to turn back the clock. Progressives who want to embrace the future and make it better than the present can't simply surrender all progressives traditions to the winds.
Tags: andrew jackson, old hickory
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Merkel, the eurozone and Ukraine
"Angela Merkel - at the zenith of her power, nationally as well as internationally completely unchallenged - acts almost as the Chancellor of all of Europe," writes Albrecht von Lucke. And he completes the sentence: "to the detriment of European institutions." ("Angela Merkel – auf dem Zenit ihrer Macht, national wie international völlig unangefochten – agierte quasi als Kanzlerin ganz Europas, zu Lasten der europäischen Institutionen."; Europa und die rechte Versuchung Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 5/2014.
Von Lucke is writing about the rise in popularity of far-right parties in Europe, fed by the horrible conditions produced in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain by the Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity economics on which Merkel has insisted since 2009. She has even succeeded in getting other members of the eurozone to lock austerity policies into their constitutional structures, a mess which will be difficult to unravel, even without the large EU structure.
Von Lucke points out that one attraction for Merkel of a policy of NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine or whatever new occasions arise is to rally people around her leadership and provide a helpful distraction from the awful economic conditions her policies have done so much to create.
This is not such an easy course for her to take, though. The eurozone is on the verge of deflation and therefore on the verge of a potentially long period of stagnation. Sweden (not a eurozone member) is already in deflation. The restraint that the Ukraine crisis is already putting on investment in Russia by foreign firms and on trade with the West is already putting more downward pressure on the European economy. Further sanctions from the West would only magnify the problem.
Axel Berger in Sanktionen, die nicht weh tun sollen Jungle World/17 24.04.2014 estimates the number of German businesses active in Russia at 6,200. Many of them are medium-sized Mittelstand firms, but among them are DAX-listed large firms like Adidas, Siemens und Thyssen-Krupp. For Germany the dependence on Russian energy supplies is particularly significant.
Gerhard Schröder, who has done considerable business with the Russians since leaving the German Chancellorship, raised some eyebrows this week allowing his friend Vladimir Putin to throw him a 70th birthday party. Schröder feiert mit Putin 70. Geburtstag nach Spiegel Online 29.04.2014)
Schröder has opposed a European policy of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. His business ties to Russia don't necessarily boost his credibility on the sanctions issue. But Schröder as Chancellor also pursued a policy of good relations with Russia. Along with his Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who is now calling for a hard line against Russia. (Christian Rothenberg, "Russen werden höchsten Preis zahlen": Fischer lobt Merkel und schweigt zu Schröder n-tv.de 21.03.2014)
During Schröder's Chancellorship, Puting famously addressed the German Budestag in September 2001. In fluent German:
German transcript here.
Schröder the former Social Democratic Chancellor is also a long-time friend of German business lobbies, as Wolfgang Münchau points out in Der Genosse und sein Boss Spiegel Online 30.04.2014. He notes of Schröder and Putin:
That great American statesman and bold Maverick McCain says he doesn't like Merkel's leadership style. He criticizes her for being too responsive to the industrial lobby, so much so that, "We could just as well have them sitting in the government, it's a shame." (I haven't found a version in English, so that's a re-translation.)
I don't know which is better: McCain describing Merkel's government accurately, or him bitching about a government being controlled by lobbyists. He's upset because Merkel's dragging her feet on sanctions against Ukraine. Last year, Mean Mister Mustard was demanding that Obama apologize to poor Angie for bugging her phone. I guess we can say he was for Angie before he was against her. [groan]
Von Lucke characterizes the current situation in the EU as follows:
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union, ukraine
Von Lucke is writing about the rise in popularity of far-right parties in Europe, fed by the horrible conditions produced in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain by the Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity economics on which Merkel has insisted since 2009. She has even succeeded in getting other members of the eurozone to lock austerity policies into their constitutional structures, a mess which will be difficult to unravel, even without the large EU structure.
Von Lucke points out that one attraction for Merkel of a policy of NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine or whatever new occasions arise is to rally people around her leadership and provide a helpful distraction from the awful economic conditions her policies have done so much to create.
This is not such an easy course for her to take, though. The eurozone is on the verge of deflation and therefore on the verge of a potentially long period of stagnation. Sweden (not a eurozone member) is already in deflation. The restraint that the Ukraine crisis is already putting on investment in Russia by foreign firms and on trade with the West is already putting more downward pressure on the European economy. Further sanctions from the West would only magnify the problem.
Axel Berger in Sanktionen, die nicht weh tun sollen Jungle World/17 24.04.2014 estimates the number of German businesses active in Russia at 6,200. Many of them are medium-sized Mittelstand firms, but among them are DAX-listed large firms like Adidas, Siemens und Thyssen-Krupp. For Germany the dependence on Russian energy supplies is particularly significant.
Etwa 35 Prozent aller Öl- und 30 Prozent aller Gasimporte in Europa stammen aus Russland. Für Deutschland ist die Bedeutung sogar noch größer. So machen russische Lieferungen derzeit 38 Prozent der Erdgas-, knapp 35 Prozent der Rohöl- und 27 Prozent der Steinkohleneinfuhren aus.Berger quotes IFO Institute President, Hans-Werner Sinn, a loyal supporter of Merkel's austerity policies, saying, "We simply could not bear a sanctions policy because in the course of the energy change [conversion away from nuclear power], we are increasingly reliant on Russian gas supplies" (»Wir können uns eine Sanktionspolitik gar nicht leisten, weil wir im Zuge der Energiewende zunehmend auf russische Gaslieferungen angewiesen sind«).
[About 35% of all oil and 30% of all gas imports in Europe come from Russia. For Germany the significance is even greater. So, at the present time, Russian deliveries constitute 38% of the natural gas importation and just under 35% of the crude oil and 27% of the coal imports.]
Gerhard Schröder, who has done considerable business with the Russians since leaving the German Chancellorship, raised some eyebrows this week allowing his friend Vladimir Putin to throw him a 70th birthday party. Schröder feiert mit Putin 70. Geburtstag nach Spiegel Online 29.04.2014)
Schröder has opposed a European policy of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. His business ties to Russia don't necessarily boost his credibility on the sanctions issue. But Schröder as Chancellor also pursued a policy of good relations with Russia. Along with his Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who is now calling for a hard line against Russia. (Christian Rothenberg, "Russen werden höchsten Preis zahlen": Fischer lobt Merkel und schweigt zu Schröder n-tv.de 21.03.2014)
During Schröder's Chancellorship, Puting famously addressed the German Budestag in September 2001. In fluent German:
German transcript here.
Schröder the former Social Democratic Chancellor is also a long-time friend of German business lobbies, as Wolfgang Münchau points out in Der Genosse und sein Boss Spiegel Online 30.04.2014. He notes of Schröder and Putin:
Sie haben aber etwas Wichtiges gemeinsam: ein altbackenes, längst überkommenes Verständnis von Wirtschaft. Für Schröder ist es die Reduzierung der Wirtschaft auf die Interessen von Großkonzernen. Für Putin ist es die Illusion wirtschaftlicher Autarkie als Grundlage russischer Machtpolitik.I confess that I just saw a news item that almost made me sympathize with Angela Merkel for a moment.
[But they have something important in common: a stale, long-criticized understanding of business. For Schröder, it is the reduction of business to the interests of large businesses. For Putin, it is the illusion of economic autarky as the basis of Russian power politics.]
That great American statesman and bold Maverick McCain says he doesn't like Merkel's leadership style. He criticizes her for being too responsive to the industrial lobby, so much so that, "We could just as well have them sitting in the government, it's a shame." (I haven't found a version in English, so that's a re-translation.)
I don't know which is better: McCain describing Merkel's government accurately, or him bitching about a government being controlled by lobbyists. He's upset because Merkel's dragging her feet on sanctions against Ukraine. Last year, Mean Mister Mustard was demanding that Obama apologize to poor Angie for bugging her phone. I guess we can say he was for Angie before he was against her. [groan]
Von Lucke characterizes the current situation in the EU as follows:
Heute steht Europa an einem historischen Scheideweg: Auf der einen Seite droht die Renationalisierung, nun auch via Straßburg. Die Alternative dazu ist eine verstärkte demokratische Europäisierung, was jedoch keineswegs bloße Euro-Verteidigung bedeutet. Im Gegenteil: Ein primär monetäres Europa, das allein auf dem Euro gründet, gibt offenbar nicht die taugliche Antwort auf die aktuelle Krise Europas. Gerade angesichts der Krimkrise kann die EU lernen, dass ein gemeinsamer europäischer Markt samt einheitlicher Währung keineswegs ausreicht, um zu einer echten politischen Union zu werden. Ohne eine europaweite Diskussion über die Finalität – nämlich Ziel und Zweck der EU – wird die erforderliche demokratische Vertiefung Europas letztlich nicht zu erreichen sein. Die Krise um die Ukraine bietet durchaus die Chance, den Wert der EU neu zu ermessen und ihren Zusammenhalt zu stärken. Der bisherige Weg einer bloßen Erweiterung (nun auch um die assoziierte Ukraine) wird dafür allerdings nicht ausreichen.Well put.
[Today Europe stands at an historic turning point: One the one side threatens the re-nationaization, now even via Strassburg. The alternative to that is a strenghtened democratic Europization, which in no way means simply defense of the euro. Just the opposite: A primarily monetary Europe that is founded only on the euro, clearly does not provide the suitable answer to the current crisis. Precisely in light of the Crimean crisis, the EU can learn that a common European market with an unified currency in no way suffices in order to become an actual political union. Without a Europe-wide discussion on the finality - namely the goal and purpose of the EU - the necessary democratic deepening of Europe in the end will not be achievable. The crisis over Ukraine conceivably offers the chance to arbitrate the
EU anew and to strengthen its coherence. The previous way of a simple expansion (now even to the associated Ukraine) will in any case not suffice.]
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union, ukraine
The Chait-Coates controversy on white racism
I want to provide links here to installments in the Chait-Coates discussion of the last few weeks, including some of the various comments from other on it. Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine and Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic discussed various aspects of white racism as it currently manifests in the United States.
First, let me mention a piece from today by Coates, This Town Needs a Better Class of Racist The Atlantic 05/01/2014, in which he provides a well-nuanced look at how the justified disapproval of crass racists like Massa Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling can co-exist with widespread de facto racial discrimination against African-Americans. Noting the similarity of Massa Cliven's expressed beliefs with those of prominent and respectable conservatives, he observes:
Tags: white racism, segregation
First, let me mention a piece from today by Coates, This Town Needs a Better Class of Racist The Atlantic 05/01/2014, in which he provides a well-nuanced look at how the justified disapproval of crass racists like Massa Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling can co-exist with widespread de facto racial discrimination against African-Americans. Noting the similarity of Massa Cliven's expressed beliefs with those of prominent and respectable conservatives, he observes:
But style is the hero. Cliven Bundy is old, white, and male. He likes to wave an American flag while spurning the American government and pals around with the militia movement. He does not so much use the word "Negro" — which would be bad enough — but "nigra," in the manner of villain from Mississippi Burning or A Time to Kill. In short, Cliven Bundy looks, and sounds, much like what white people take racism to be.The articles I flagged on the Chait-Coates controversy include the following:
The problem with Cliven Bundy isn't that he is a racist but that he is an oafish racist. He invokes the crudest stereotypes, like cotton picking. This makes white people feel bad. The elegant racist knows how to injure non-white people while never summoning the specter of white guilt. Elegant racism requires plausible deniability, as when Reagan just happened to stumble into the Neshoba County fair and mention state's rights. Oafish racism leaves no escape hatch, as when Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's singularly segregationist candidacy.
- Coates, The Secret Lives of Inner-City Black Males The Atlantic 03/18/2014
- Chait, Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Poverty, and Culture New York 03/19/2014
- Coates, Black Pathology and the Closing of the Progressive Mind 03/21/2014
- Chait, Barack Obama vs. the Culture of Poverty New York 03/28/2014
- Coates, Other People's Pathologies The Atlantic 03/30/2014
- Tressie McMillan Cottom, A Nasty Piece of Cornbread: Chait, Coates, and White Progressivism Tressiemc 03/30/3014
- Andy Seal, Historians and the F-Word US Intellectual History Blog 04/04/2014
- Chait, The Color of His Presidency New York 04/06/2014
- Joan Walsh, Jonathan Chait’s epic race fail: How a story about racism and Obama goes horribly wrong Salon 04/07/2014
- Chauncey DeVega, Politics is Professional Wrestling: New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait Reveals White Racist Conservatives Are Now 'Victims' of Anti-Racism's 'Terrifying Power' in the Age of Obama WARN 04/07/2014
- Jamelle Bouie, Color Blind Slate 04/07/2014
- Chauncey DeVega, An Additional Thought on Jonathan Chait's Essay 'The Color of His Presidency': Why Are White Liberals So Afraid to Call Republicans Racist? WARN 04/08/2014
- Chauncey DeVega, Jonathan Chait's Unintentional Teachable Moment: 10 Lessons About White Supremacy in the Age of Obama WARN 04/10/2014
- Andy Seal, Fatalism and the Age of Fracture US Intellectual History Blog 04/11/2014
- Chauncey DeVega, Did You See Jonathan Chait's Letdown of an Interview About Conservative Racism and White Victimology on MSNBC? 04/11/2014
- Elias Isquith, Objectively bad: Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, Jonathan Chait and return of the "view from nowhere" Salon 04/12/2014
- Chauncey DeVega, Jonathan Chait Versus the Melissa Harris-Perry Show: An Intellectual Rope-A-Dope? Who do You Think Won? 04/13/2014
- Armando, Jonathan Chait's new form of hippie-punching: Playing the 'GOP are not racists' card Daily Kos 04/13/2014
- Chait, Is the Rising Democratic Majority Doomed? New York 04/23/2014
Tags: white racism, segregation
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Confederate "Heritage" Month 2014, April 30: Talking about white racism
It turned out that April provided a rich source of material for Confederate "Heritage" Month posts! The Chait-Coates controversy. Defense of voting rights. Massa Cliven Bundy and his militia buddies. The Roberts Court's Schuette decision. And, one that I haven't even discussed, NBA commissioner Donald Sterling. (Stanely May, NBA bans Donald Sterling for life, asks Board of Governors to force sale of Clippers SI Wire 04/29/2014; L.A. Clippers Owner to GF: Don't Bring Black People to My Games ... Including Magic Johnson TMZ Sports 04/25/2014)
There was some good news at the end of the month on the voting rights front: Alana Semuels, Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law Los Angeles Times 04/29/2014.
Dahlia Lithwick in a column on Schuette discusses something on which I've focused this year, What We Talk About When We Talk About Talking About Race Slate:
Jamelle Bouie talks about the importance of recognizing the institutional nature of white racism in It Doesn't Matter That Donald Sterling Is a Racist Slate 04/28/2014. His argument relating to Sterling could be stronger, but the headline is misleading; he isn't dismissing Sterling's attitudes, he's pointing out how it has been manifested for years in concrete and substantial ways, not just in his obnoxious words that brought his problems to a head the last few days:
And the blog's old friend, Bro. Wade "Sword-of-Vengeance" Burleson weighed in on the Sterling matter to do, well, what Bob "the Daily Howler" Somerby does so much: criticize them mean libruls! (Donald Sterling, Hate, and the Hypocrisy of Liberals Istoria Ministries 04/29/2014)
The Young Turks discuss some of the issues on which Bouie's article focuses, Just HOW Racist is LA Clippers' Owner Donald Sterling? Uh, VERY. (Some profanity used) 04/28/2014:
And the blog's old friend Bro. Wade "Sword-of-Vengeance" Burleson has also weighed in on the Sterling affair to complain about, well, the same thing Bob "the Daily Howler" Somerby gripes about all the time: how mean them thar libruls are! (Donald Sterling, Hate, and the Hypocrisy of Liberals Istoria Ministries 04/29/2014)
"Liberals have become the new racists," writes Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance. And that is pretty much the point of his post. In the Republican Bizarro-world, opposing racism is the real racism. Just like Southern segregationists in 1964 arguing that the Civil Right Act and later the Voting Rights Act were racist against white people. The old traditions are still alive!
It's worth noting that Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance even rewrites Sterling's notorious recent comments to have him criticizing Christianity instead of black people. And he invites his readers to consider that if Sterling had said that, he wouldn't have suffered any consequences because the real problem, you see, is persecution of Christians in America. It's kind of crazy, but Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance writes like a Bircher, so that's par for the course. It is a good example of redefining the problem of white racism into its opposite, particularly if you can expect your audience to understand Christians being persecuted as white people being persecuted.
The soul of Jefferson Davis goes marching on!
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, donald sterling, white racism, segregation
There was some good news at the end of the month on the voting rights front: Alana Semuels, Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law Los Angeles Times 04/29/2014.
Dahlia Lithwick in a column on Schuette discusses something on which I've focused this year, What We Talk About When We Talk About Talking About Race Slate:
The starting point for the most recent chapter of this knotty and crucial conversation is Chief Justice John Roberts’ famous getting-past-race language in a 2007 case about racial remedies and school busing, in which he wrote that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Roberts used that turn of phrase to both highlight his own philosophy that the Constitution must be color blind, and also to flick at the proposition that the time for overtly racial remedies to historical problems must be put behind us.This language of white-racism-denial coming from the Supreme Court and embodied in Court decisions has a particularly strong influence on the way race and racism are discussed in public discourse. And therefore talking about the realities of institutional racism will require continually countering the redefinitions and denials that advocates of segregation use to avoid that recognition.
Told, in effect, that race has no place in modern constitutional discourse despite the central role it has played in her own life, Justice Sotomayor pushes back on that formulation. Her dissent in Schuette starts from the implicit proposition that Roberts was wrong to close the door in 2007, and is wrong to do so today: "In my colleagues’ view,” she writes, "examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable." Then she goes on to poke at Roberts with a sharp stick: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."
Jamelle Bouie talks about the importance of recognizing the institutional nature of white racism in It Doesn't Matter That Donald Sterling Is a Racist Slate 04/28/2014. His argument relating to Sterling could be stronger, but the headline is misleading; he isn't dismissing Sterling's attitudes, he's pointing out how it has been manifested for years in concrete and substantial ways, not just in his obnoxious words that brought his problems to a head the last few days:
Donald Sterling settled for an undisclosed sum in 2005 - paying $5 million in plaintiff legal fees — but faced renewed scrutiny in 2006, following federal civil rights charges. According to the Justice Department, Sterling, his wife, and his three companies engaged in housing discrimination by refusing to rent to blacks and "creating, maintaining, and perpetuating an environment that is hostile to non-Korean tenants" at their properties. Again, Sterling settled. He paid $2.65 million to a fund for people harmed by his discriminatory practices — a record sum in a federal housing suit—as well as $100,000 to the government.Bouie's piece uses the plural pronouns rather vaguely in that piece. What he calls "our public hypocrisy on racism" is a necessary element of the kind of substantive hypocrisy that is integral to institutional white racism in America. The Rand Pauls of the country want racism defined down to only expressions of overt biological racial supremacy and to bad manners. Massive, systematic discrimination in housing and mortgage lending, they don't want to count. And that is the direction that the Roberts Court has gone a long way toward making authoritative Constitutional law.
These were huge offenses — entrenchments of disadvantage in a city segmented by past bias. After all, Los Angeles was heavily redlined throughout the 20th century, with blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, and other minorities blocked from mortgage loans and relegated to the least desirable parts of the city.
But, despite the magnitude of the offenses and the size of the settlements, there was no outrage. Sterling caused actual harm to dozens of families, and the response was near silence. And it's in that contrast that we can clearly see our public hypocrisy on racism.
And the blog's old friend, Bro. Wade "Sword-of-Vengeance" Burleson weighed in on the Sterling matter to do, well, what Bob "the Daily Howler" Somerby does so much: criticize them mean libruls! (Donald Sterling, Hate, and the Hypocrisy of Liberals Istoria Ministries 04/29/2014)
The Young Turks discuss some of the issues on which Bouie's article focuses, Just HOW Racist is LA Clippers' Owner Donald Sterling? Uh, VERY. (Some profanity used) 04/28/2014:
And the blog's old friend Bro. Wade "Sword-of-Vengeance" Burleson has also weighed in on the Sterling affair to complain about, well, the same thing Bob "the Daily Howler" Somerby gripes about all the time: how mean them thar libruls are! (Donald Sterling, Hate, and the Hypocrisy of Liberals Istoria Ministries 04/29/2014)
"Liberals have become the new racists," writes Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance. And that is pretty much the point of his post. In the Republican Bizarro-world, opposing racism is the real racism. Just like Southern segregationists in 1964 arguing that the Civil Right Act and later the Voting Rights Act were racist against white people. The old traditions are still alive!
It's worth noting that Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance even rewrites Sterling's notorious recent comments to have him criticizing Christianity instead of black people. And he invites his readers to consider that if Sterling had said that, he wouldn't have suffered any consequences because the real problem, you see, is persecution of Christians in America. It's kind of crazy, but Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance writes like a Bircher, so that's par for the course. It is a good example of redefining the problem of white racism into its opposite, particularly if you can expect your audience to understand Christians being persecuted as white people being persecuted.
The soul of Jefferson Davis goes marching on!
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, donald sterling, white racism, segregation
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Confederate "Heritage" Month 2014, April 29: the Roberts Court vs. voting rights
This is a PBS Newshour report on the Roberts Court ruling last year in favor of segregationist state voter-suppression laws. Oddly, it doesn't mention the name of the decision, Shelby County (June 2013).
Was the Supreme Court ruling a setback for voting rights? 04/21/2014:
The video is a reminder of what a throwback to pre-1965 days the Shelby County decision is. It features a smug, smarmy Southern white legislator reassuring us that voter-suppression laws are just reassuring little adjustments, certainly not meant to prevent The Negro from voting.
This is an issue for which the standard, this-side-says-the-other-side says reporting is ill-suited. For instance, this is the closing exchange, with Gwen Ifill posing a question to good-ole-boy North Carolina legislator David Lewis, whose homepage as of now opens up with a banner that says, "Help Stop NC Voter Fraud" - "voter fraud" being the segregationists current favorite slogan to justify voter-suppression laws:
Dana Liebelson describes some of the actual results of the Shelby County decision in The Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act. What Happened Next in These 8 States Will Not Shock You. Mother Jones 04/08/2014:
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, white racism, segregation
Was the Supreme Court ruling a setback for voting rights? 04/21/2014:
The video is a reminder of what a throwback to pre-1965 days the Shelby County decision is. It features a smug, smarmy Southern white legislator reassuring us that voter-suppression laws are just reassuring little adjustments, certainly not meant to prevent The Negro from voting.
This is an issue for which the standard, this-side-says-the-other-side says reporting is ill-suited. For instance, this is the closing exchange, with Gwen Ifill posing a question to good-ole-boy North Carolina legislator David Lewis, whose homepage as of now opens up with a banner that says, "Help Stop NC Voter Fraud" - "voter fraud" being the segregationists current favorite slogan to justify voter-suppression laws:
GWEN IFILL: But let me ask you this.In fact, in-person voter fraud is a virtually non-existent problem. But Ifill instead let Lewis get away with answering her question with hypotheticals. One would think that the leading Quality TV news program could do a little research on alleged voter fraud in North Carolina to challenge a clearly evasive answer like that.
Is it fixing a problem — that you have evidence that fixed a problem that existed?
DAVID LEWIS: Well, we definitely have evidence, as I said, that folks that — some folks that registered to vote on the same day were never able to be verified.
We don’t know if they were actually eligible to vote or not. We think it does make sense to present a photo I.D., that the photo matches the name to say who you say you are. The professor referenced student I.D.s Doesn't it not make sense that if are you going attest, as the constitution of North Carolina calls for, that you are a resident of the state, that you would have taken time to have gone to the DMV and to get your driver's license or to get your non-operator's license, if this is truly your home, if this is the home in which are you going to exercise that precious right to vote, certainly being able to obtain an I.D. at no direct cost to you can’t be considered an impediment to voting.
GWEN IFILL: Well, this sounds like this is an issue that the administration is certainly not going to give up on.
And we’re going to — the Supreme Court may have just started this argument.
Kareem Crayton from the University of North Carolina and David Lewis with the North Carolina House of Representatives, thank you very much.
Dana Liebelson describes some of the actual results of the Shelby County decision in The Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act. What Happened Next in These 8 States Will Not Shock You. Mother Jones 04/08/2014:
Before the Shelby County v. Holder decision came down on June 25, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required federal review of new voting rules in 15 states, most of them in the South. (In a few of these states, only specific counties or townships were covered.) Chief Justice John Roberts voted to gut the Voting Rights Act on the basis that "our country has changed," and that blanket federal protection wasn't needed to stop discrimination. But the country hasn't changed as much as he may think.She also manages to tell us more about what North Carolina has done since Shelby County that Gwen Ifill and her guests did: "About one month after the Shelby decision, Republicans in North Carolina pushed through a package of extreme voting restrictions, including ending same-day registration, shortening early voting by a week, requiring photo ID, and ending a program that encourages high schoolers to sign up to vote when they turn 18."
We looked at how many of these 15 states passed or implemented voting restrictions after Section 5 was invalidated, compared to the states that were not covered by the law. (We defined "voting restriction" as passing or implementing a voter ID law, cutting voting hours, purging voter rolls, or ending same-day registration. Advocates criticize these kinds of laws for discriminating against low-income voters, young people, and minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats.) We found that 8 of the 15 states, or 53 percent, passed or implemented voting restrictions since June 25, compared to 3 of 35 states that were not covered under Section 5—or less than 9 percent. Additionally, a number of states not covered by the Voting Rights Act actually expanded voting rights in the same time period.
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, white racism, segregation
Monday, April 28, 2014
Merkel the neo-Brezhnev takes on Vladimir Putin
Angela Merkel really is a remarkable politician. I really mean that. As much as I criticize her, she's not only managed a long run as German Chancellor that theoretically could continue for a long time. She's successfully turned the European Union, founded to remove the problem of German nationalism from the European scene, into a weapon of German nationalism against most of Europe.
She began her Chancellorship in a Grand Coalition (GroKo) with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) as a junior partner. In her second term, she had a center-right coalition with the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), which is now no longer represented in the Bundestag and is in serious danger of going out of business. In her current third term, she's in a new GroKo with the SPD, which faithfully supported the worst of her eurozone policies even when they were theoretically the main opposition party for four years.
And she's managed all of this with what is truly a high-risk European policy and a hardline rightwing economic philosophy, even though her Christian Democratic Party has long been committed to a less enthusiastic version of Germany's long-time social-democratic structures and policies. She's given enough ground on eurozone issues to prevent an immediate collapse of the euro currency, but has steadfastly refused to reverse austerity policies that doom the euro if they continue.
Now, she's upping the risk level again by sending signals that she's ready to promote economic sanctions against Russia, as Carol Matlack et al report in Germany's Merkel Gets Tough on Russia Bloomberg Businessweek 04/17/2014:
In itself, this is a good thing. It's the "in itself" part that gets tricky because politics and economics are never completely separate and distinct areas of policy. it's worth remembering that pre-First World War pacifists, at least the non-socialist variety and some of the socialist kind, too - put great hope in the expanding of trade ties between nations as creating greater and greater barriers against major wars. It has more recently been part of the hype for neoliberal "globalization" and "free trade" treaties that empower corporations and weaken democracy.
It is not only the West that has used oil-and-gas trade for political purposes in the Russia-Europe relationship, though. Nat Parry reports in Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas Consortium News 04/24/2014
Is Russia making a ‘costly’ mistake in its Ukraine campaign? 04/25/2014
European business community concerned over new Russian sanctions 04/26/2014
Wolfgang Münchau warned about the likely negative effects of sanctions on the eurozone economy in a couple of recent Spiegel Online columns, Warum EU-Sanktionen Putin in die Hände spielen 19.03.2014 and Der Schaden ist da - auch ohne Sanktionen 26.03.2014.
There's no doubt there is some nasty stuff going down in Ukraine. In a previous post, I referred to a statement by Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, a pro-Russian local leader who ousted the mayor of Slaviansk in eastern Ukraine and has take over the role hiself.
Antonie Rietzschel, Separatisten-Anführer Ponomarjow: Seifenfabrikant fordert den Westen heraus Süddeutsche Zeitung 28.04.2014.
Matt Spetalnick and Thomas Grove report for Reuters on an incident involving Ponomaryov in Ukraine rebels free Swedish hostage; Obama seeks unity against Russia 04/27/2014:
According to Antonie Rietzschel, Separatisten-Anführer Ponomarjow: Seifenfabrikant fordert den Westen heraus Süddeutsche Zeitung 28.04.2014, the three Ukrainian members of the captured OSCE group were displayed in their underwear with bloody faces:
A less grisly English-language Reuters video report on the press of the main members of the OSCE team, Detained observers make public appearance in Slaviansk 04/27/2014:
See also: Benjamin Bidder, Geiselnehmer Ponomarjow: Der Bürgerkriegsmeister Spiegel Online 28.04.2014
Viktor Fund reports (In den Rücken geschossen Frankfurter Rundschau 28.04.2014) that around 12 cities have been taken over by pro-Russian forces, which is apparently what happened with Ponomaryov in Slaviansk.
Still, ugly as the scene in Ukraine may be, the eurozone could pay a high price for a policy of confrontation.
Ray McGovern notes in Killing the Putin-Obama 'Trust' Consortium News 04/28/2014 that it "was obvious from the start ... that Russia holds very high cards in this area and that the Europeans will not damage their own flagging economies by approving stronger economic sanctions that would inflict real 'punishment' on Russia."
But that doesn't necessarily mean Merkel won't proceed. She seems to enjoy playing the role of the Brezhnev of the European Union. And she may well hope that a Cold War-ish confrontation with Russia will solidify her position as leader of theWarsaw Pact EU.
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union, ukraine
She began her Chancellorship in a Grand Coalition (GroKo) with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) as a junior partner. In her second term, she had a center-right coalition with the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), which is now no longer represented in the Bundestag and is in serious danger of going out of business. In her current third term, she's in a new GroKo with the SPD, which faithfully supported the worst of her eurozone policies even when they were theoretically the main opposition party for four years.
And she's managed all of this with what is truly a high-risk European policy and a hardline rightwing economic philosophy, even though her Christian Democratic Party has long been committed to a less enthusiastic version of Germany's long-time social-democratic structures and policies. She's given enough ground on eurozone issues to prevent an immediate collapse of the euro currency, but has steadfastly refused to reverse austerity policies that doom the euro if they continue.
Now, she's upping the risk level again by sending signals that she's ready to promote economic sanctions against Russia, as Carol Matlack et al report in Germany's Merkel Gets Tough on Russia Bloomberg Businessweek 04/17/2014:
Behind the scenes, Berlin is making plans for the next phase of sanctions, says a high-ranking German official who declined to be identified in keeping with government policy. The measures under consideration would be wider-ranging and more harmful to Russian business than the limited asset freezes and visa bans already in place, this official says. A possible next step: targeted measures such as curbs on critical high-technology and military exports to Russia. In one of the most extreme scenarios being discussed in Europe and the U.S., Russia could be locked out of Swift, the Belgium-based international money-transfer system, as happened to Iran in 2012. That would cripple Russia’s banking system. ...I've rarely seen it mentioned that the oil-and-gas trade between Europe and Russia is a factor that creates an incentive for stability, of a wide field of mutual dependency that creates pressure on government to not allow political tensions over issues like the Ukraine, which is not part of the NATO alliance, to escalate into mutually damaging retaliatory measures.
The Europeans could tie the Russian economy into knots very quickly—and more effectively than the U.S., whose trade with Russia is only about one-tenth that of the EU. Hammering out a sanctions package will be tricky, though. The most obvious risk is that Moscow could curb the flow of Russian oil and gas, which accounts for about one-third of Europe's supply. Germany is particularly vulnerable, because its gas imports have risen since Merkel ordered a shutdown of the country’s nuclear plants. German industrial giants such as chemical group BASF (BAS:GR) also depend heavily on Russian fuel. [my emphasis]
In itself, this is a good thing. It's the "in itself" part that gets tricky because politics and economics are never completely separate and distinct areas of policy. it's worth remembering that pre-First World War pacifists, at least the non-socialist variety and some of the socialist kind, too - put great hope in the expanding of trade ties between nations as creating greater and greater barriers against major wars. It has more recently been part of the hype for neoliberal "globalization" and "free trade" treaties that empower corporations and weaken democracy.
It is not only the West that has used oil-and-gas trade for political purposes in the Russia-Europe relationship, though. Nat Parry reports in Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas Consortium News 04/24/2014
Russia's state-owned Gazprom, controlling nearly one-fifth of the world’s gas reserves, supplies more than half of Ukraine’s gas annually, and about 30 percent of Europe's. It has often used this as political and economic leverage over Kiev and Brussels, cutting gas supplies repeatedly over the past decade (in the winters of 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and again in 2008-2009), leading to energy shortages not only in Ukraine, but Western European countries as well. This leverage, however, came under challenge in 2013 as Ukraine took steps towards breaking its dependence on Russian gas. [my emphasis]But the problem for Germany with playing economic hardball with Russia is that it's likely to hammer the European economy at a point where Europe is on the verge of general deflation, with Sweden already there. Here are two PBS Newshour reports on that aspect:
Is Russia making a ‘costly’ mistake in its Ukraine campaign? 04/25/2014
European business community concerned over new Russian sanctions 04/26/2014
Wolfgang Münchau warned about the likely negative effects of sanctions on the eurozone economy in a couple of recent Spiegel Online columns, Warum EU-Sanktionen Putin in die Hände spielen 19.03.2014 and Der Schaden ist da - auch ohne Sanktionen 26.03.2014.
There's no doubt there is some nasty stuff going down in Ukraine. In a previous post, I referred to a statement by Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, a pro-Russian local leader who ousted the mayor of Slaviansk in eastern Ukraine and has take over the role hiself.
Antonie Rietzschel, Separatisten-Anführer Ponomarjow: Seifenfabrikant fordert den Westen heraus Süddeutsche Zeitung 28.04.2014.
Matt Spetalnick and Thomas Grove report for Reuters on an incident involving Ponomaryov in Ukraine rebels free Swedish hostage; Obama seeks unity against Russia 04/27/2014:
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has sent unarmed monitors to try to encourage compliance with the peace deal. The pro-Russian rebels seized eight European monitors three days ago and have been holding them at their most heavily fortified redoubt in the town of Slaviansk.
One, a Swede, was permitted to leave on Sunday after OSCE negotiators arrived to discuss their release. A separatist spokeswoman said the prisoner had been let go on medical grounds, but there were no plans to free the others.
The captives, from Germany, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Sweden, were paraded before reporters on Sunday and said they were in good health. ...
"The public parading of the OSCE observers and Ukrainian security forces as prisoners is revolting and blatantly hurts the dignity of the victims," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in a statement.
"It is an infringement of every rule of behaviour and standards that are made for tense situations like this. Russia has a duty to influence the separatists so that the detained members of the OSCE mission are freed as soon as possible." ...
Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the rebel leader who has declared himself mayor of Slaviansk, has described them as prisoners of war and said the separatists were prepared to exchange them for fellow rebels in Ukrainian custody.
According to Antonie Rietzschel, Separatisten-Anführer Ponomarjow: Seifenfabrikant fordert den Westen heraus Süddeutsche Zeitung 28.04.2014, the three Ukrainian members of the captured OSCE group were displayed in their underwear with bloody faces:
Am Sonntag führte er dann die gefangenen Beobachter wie Trophäen der Presse vor - die drei ukrainischen Soldaten, die die Gruppe begleiteten, sogar in Unterhosen und mit Klebeband gefesselt. Mit blutverschmierten Gesichtern mussten sie die Fragen der Journalisten beantworten.A Reuters video accompanies the article, Separatisten in Slawjansk führen gefangene Offiziere des ukrainischen Geheimdienstes vor:
[On Sunday, he [Ponormaryov displayed the imprisoned observers as trophies to the press - the three Ukrainian soldiers who accompanied the group even in their underwear and bound with tape. With blood-smeared faces, they had to respond to the questions of the journalists.]
A less grisly English-language Reuters video report on the press of the main members of the OSCE team, Detained observers make public appearance in Slaviansk 04/27/2014:
See also: Benjamin Bidder, Geiselnehmer Ponomarjow: Der Bürgerkriegsmeister Spiegel Online 28.04.2014
Viktor Fund reports (In den Rücken geschossen Frankfurter Rundschau 28.04.2014) that around 12 cities have been taken over by pro-Russian forces, which is apparently what happened with Ponomaryov in Slaviansk.
Still, ugly as the scene in Ukraine may be, the eurozone could pay a high price for a policy of confrontation.
Ray McGovern notes in Killing the Putin-Obama 'Trust' Consortium News 04/28/2014 that it "was obvious from the start ... that Russia holds very high cards in this area and that the Europeans will not damage their own flagging economies by approving stronger economic sanctions that would inflict real 'punishment' on Russia."
But that doesn't necessarily mean Merkel won't proceed. She seems to enjoy playing the role of the Brezhnev of the European Union. And she may well hope that a Cold War-ish confrontation with Russia will solidify her position as leader of the
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union, ukraine
And the euro crisis rolls on ...
Bloomberg Businessweek has a short article raising the alarm about the flaws of the European banking union, Europe's Deeply Flawed Banking Union 04/24/2014:
Gary Shilling has been writing for Bloomberg View about the dangers of deflation in Europe in a series of three articles: Deflation Is About to Wallop Europe 04/22/2014; The Economic Monster Called Deflation 04/23/2014; Might Be Time to Short the Euro 04/24/2014. (Sweden is already there even though they're not in the eurzone; see Paul Krugman, How Do You Say “Nobody Could Have Predicted” In Swedish? 04/18/2014.) He recounts some of the prominent warnings:
Shilling's conventional description of deflation, though, is misleading in an important way:
And, as Krugman notes, "low inflation reduces the rate of nominal income growth one for one" and thus feeds a downward spiral of depressed aggregate demand. (Blaming the Messengers, Euro Edition 04/15/2014) Even an economy caught in a deflationary spiral will see aggregate demand hit bottom and begin growing again. But in the trap the euro currency zone represents for so many countries right now, that could take years, decades even. And human costs are already enormous and unconscionable.
Krugman breaks down the depression/deflation problem this way in
The Real News has an interview with Costas Papavitsas on France, the euro crisis and the rise of the far right in France, The Rise of the Far Right as the Euro-Crisis Hits France 04/26/2014:
His comments on politics are interesting. But Papvitsas' analysis of the euro crisis is not very good. His description here basically agrees with the neoliberal analysis of the problem being "competitiveness." Nor does he convey any good sense of what the realistic alternatives to the current policies are for the eurozone. He also doesn't convey any sense of the central role that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity policies have played in bringing matters to such a bad pass.
This Real News interview featuring Rob Johnson is more helpful in understanding the danger of Angie's Hoover/Brüning policies for the EU and European democracy, starting just after 3:10, The Breakdown of Democracy 04/26/2014:
You're doing a heckuva job, Angie, heckuva job!
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union
In approving a raft of banking union legislation, the European Parliament has ratified an important understanding: If the member states of the euro area want to share a currency, they’ll have to share some risks and responsibilities. Among other things, they must create a central authority to supervise banks throughout the euro area and pool resources should there be the need to rescue a bank whose collapse could overwhelm a government’s finances.The piece observes that the Single Resolution Fund that should serve to recapitalize failing banks doesn't have nearly enough funding to play that role effectively; insufficient authority for the ECB in dealing with failing banks; and, the lack of a eurozone deposit insurance. The latter means that "it could happen again that a euro in a Greek bank would be worth less than a euro in a German bank. That isn't what 'common currency' was supposed to mean."
The new laws fall short.
Gary Shilling has been writing for Bloomberg View about the dangers of deflation in Europe in a series of three articles: Deflation Is About to Wallop Europe 04/22/2014; The Economic Monster Called Deflation 04/23/2014; Might Be Time to Short the Euro 04/24/2014. (Sweden is already there even though they're not in the eurzone; see Paul Krugman, How Do You Say “Nobody Could Have Predicted” In Swedish? 04/18/2014.) He recounts some of the prominent warnings:
Bankers and policy makers worldwide are deeply worried about trivial inflation in the euro area turning into chronic deflation. Christine Lagarde, the chairman of the International Monetary Fund, said in a January speech: "We see rising risks of deflation, which could prove disastrous for the recovery. If inflation is the genie, then deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively."It's important for the ECB to recognize the seriousness of the problem and do whatever it can, as Krugman has been urging for quite a while now. But, as Krugman cautions, there are real limits to how much central banks can do in the current situation, with interest rates up against the zero lower bound. (How much central banks actually do to stimulate the economy under more favorable conditions is another question.) Shilling rather discretely explains that problem this way:
This month, Olivier Blanchard, the IMF chief economist, said deflation "would make the adjustment both at the euro level, and even more so for the countries in the periphery, very difficult. We think that everything should be done to try to avoid it."
Kenji Yumoto, vice chairman of the Japan Research Institute Ltd. and a former adviser to the Japanese government, said recently that the Bank of Japan "didn't think Japan was going to be entangled with deflation" until it was too late. "The ECB still can't be complacent. Europe is lucky to have Japan's case study," he said.
... real interest rates are always positive [under deflation], even with zero nominal rates. That’s been the case in Japan for two decades. This means that central banks can’t create the negative real rates they desire to encourage borrowing. To be effective, they need to pay borrowers, in real terms, to take money.Respectable opinion assumes the Federal Reserve and other central banks exercise a mystical, esoteric power over economic growth. That's an especially off-base assumption in current conditions of interest rates at the zero lower bound and deflation threatening even on a worldwide basis, as Shilling warns. (See Krugman's Euphemistic At The IMF 04/04/2014 on what central banks can try.)
Shilling's conventional description of deflation, though, is misleading in an important way:
... deflation breeds deflationary expectations, which results in a sluggish economy. That’s been the case in Japan since the early 1990s. Buyers wait for lower prices before purchasing, so excess capacity and inventories mount, pushing prices down. That confirms prospective buyers’ expectations, so they hold off further, creating a self-feeding cycle of buyer hesitation, which spawns excess inventories and capacity that depresses prices and encourages further restraint by purchasers, and so on.This is the standard assumption of neoclassical economics, often ignoring as it does in the real world. In a depressed economy, prices start falling because people out of work or with lower wages don't have as much money to buy things.
And, as Krugman notes, "low inflation reduces the rate of nominal income growth one for one" and thus feeds a downward spiral of depressed aggregate demand. (Blaming the Messengers, Euro Edition 04/15/2014) Even an economy caught in a deflationary spiral will see aggregate demand hit bottom and begin growing again. But in the trap the euro currency zone represents for so many countries right now, that could take years, decades even. And human costs are already enormous and unconscionable.
Krugman breaks down the depression/deflation problem this way in
I know that many people just hate it when economists talk about liquidity traps — it all sounds like mumbo-jumbo to them — but the zero lower bound isn’t hypothetical, it’s staring us in the face.The goldbugs pooh-pooh the dangers of deflation because, well, who knows what crack-powered crystal balls they're consulting?
And if you want to insist that some other kind of flexibility would save us if only markets were perfect and pure enough, tell me how. A fall in the overall price level would do nothing to raise real incomes, but it would increase real debt, increasing the pressure to deleverage. If for some reason wages were to fall while prices didn’t, it would reduce real wages — but firms would have less, not more, incentive to hire workers, because their real sales would fall too. And so on down the line. [my emphasis]
The Real News has an interview with Costas Papavitsas on France, the euro crisis and the rise of the far right in France, The Rise of the Far Right as the Euro-Crisis Hits France 04/26/2014:
His comments on politics are interesting. But Papvitsas' analysis of the euro crisis is not very good. His description here basically agrees with the neoliberal analysis of the problem being "competitiveness." Nor does he convey any good sense of what the realistic alternatives to the current policies are for the eurozone. He also doesn't convey any sense of the central role that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity policies have played in bringing matters to such a bad pass.
This Real News interview featuring Rob Johnson is more helpful in understanding the danger of Angie's Hoover/Brüning policies for the EU and European democracy, starting just after 3:10, The Breakdown of Democracy 04/26/2014:
You're doing a heckuva job, Angie, heckuva job!
Tags: angela merkel, austerity economics, eu, euro, european union
Confederate "Heritage" Month 2014, April 28: Bobo and Sleepy Mark Shields agree segregation in higher education is the American Way
The supposedly respectable PBS Newshour weekly presents a Political Wrap, featuring David "Bobo" Brooks presented the supposedly respectable conservative view, with Mark Shields, normally in a semi-conscious state, presenting the supposedly respectable liberal view.
On Friday, both joined in their approval of the Roberts Court's segregationist decisions in the Schuette decision. They both happily agree that racial discrimination in public college admissions is just dandy. Bipartisanship!
Shields and Brooks on Georgia gun rights, Southern Senate races PBS Newshour 04/25/2014:
Yeah, black people have to take one for the greater good, but not to worry. Soon enough there'll be another whack against women's rights that Both Sides can applaud, too.
One thing Bobo is useful for is to follow poisonous trends in Respectability. The fact that he's praising affirmative action in public college admissions by class - to which Sleepy Mark agrees, of course - is almost certainly a sign that the segregationists will start going after that soon, too.
This may require a bit of explanation. Affirmative action as a primary means of enforcing anti-discrimination laws in hiring was started by the Nixon Administration as a conservative approach. Instead of getting fined, losing government contracts or executives going to jail (if you can imagine that!) for violating anti-discrimination laws, a company could instead implement an Affirmative Action Plan to eliminate discrimination in hiring.
And if it's diligently enforced, it's an effective way to enforce the law.
Of course, if you looked at footage of the 1972 Republican Convention, you'd see lots of bitching and moaning about "quotas." Because the Republicans were already trying to paint Nixon's conservative approach to anti-discrimination enforcement the same way segregationists portrayed all civil rights legislation, as discrimination against us pore persecuted white folks.
Class-based recruitment in college admissions is a way of achieving diversity goals de facto without explicitly practicing affirmative action against racial discrimination. In states like California and now Michigan, explicit race-based affirmative action in admissions is illegal under state law.
Bobo prominently announces his support of class-based recruitment in the segment above as an alternative to affirmative action. But when that starts coming under attack from Rush and FOX and and Massa Cliven Bundy as yet another evil plot of The Negro, Bobo will then take on his "tell" tone of careful reason he uses when he's about to tell a whopper, and then say with concern that some of these class-based programs have gone too far, and the abuses need to be addressed and blah,blah, we've all heard the rest.
Yes, recruitment by class can effectively serve as a proxy for affirmative action recruitment on race because, gee, groups that are racially discriminated against are also less affluent!
But Bobo even gives the game away the second time he mentions it, saying that only the larger colleges can do it effectively. And to make class-based affirmative action effective against adverse selection against racial minorities requires the college administration to be committed to real diversity as a goal, even if as an understated one. A class-based system of preferential recruitment could also be used to actively discriminate against minorities.
And Roberts Court decisions like Schuette this past week go farther and farther toward the Scalia-Thomas goal of blocking any anti-racial-discrimination legislation at all unless it expressly states its purpose is to discriminate based on race.
The Roberts Court really is well on the way to turning the 14th Amendment upside down.
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, white racism, segregation
On Friday, both joined in their approval of the Roberts Court's segregationist decisions in the Schuette decision. They both happily agree that racial discrimination in public college admissions is just dandy. Bipartisanship!
Shields and Brooks on Georgia gun rights, Southern Senate races PBS Newshour 04/25/2014:
Yeah, black people have to take one for the greater good, but not to worry. Soon enough there'll be another whack against women's rights that Both Sides can applaud, too.
One thing Bobo is useful for is to follow poisonous trends in Respectability. The fact that he's praising affirmative action in public college admissions by class - to which Sleepy Mark agrees, of course - is almost certainly a sign that the segregationists will start going after that soon, too.
This may require a bit of explanation. Affirmative action as a primary means of enforcing anti-discrimination laws in hiring was started by the Nixon Administration as a conservative approach. Instead of getting fined, losing government contracts or executives going to jail (if you can imagine that!) for violating anti-discrimination laws, a company could instead implement an Affirmative Action Plan to eliminate discrimination in hiring.
And if it's diligently enforced, it's an effective way to enforce the law.
Of course, if you looked at footage of the 1972 Republican Convention, you'd see lots of bitching and moaning about "quotas." Because the Republicans were already trying to paint Nixon's conservative approach to anti-discrimination enforcement the same way segregationists portrayed all civil rights legislation, as discrimination against us pore persecuted white folks.
Class-based recruitment in college admissions is a way of achieving diversity goals de facto without explicitly practicing affirmative action against racial discrimination. In states like California and now Michigan, explicit race-based affirmative action in admissions is illegal under state law.
Bobo prominently announces his support of class-based recruitment in the segment above as an alternative to affirmative action. But when that starts coming under attack from Rush and FOX and and Massa Cliven Bundy as yet another evil plot of The Negro, Bobo will then take on his "tell" tone of careful reason he uses when he's about to tell a whopper, and then say with concern that some of these class-based programs have gone too far, and the abuses need to be addressed and blah,blah, we've all heard the rest.
Yes, recruitment by class can effectively serve as a proxy for affirmative action recruitment on race because, gee, groups that are racially discriminated against are also less affluent!
But Bobo even gives the game away the second time he mentions it, saying that only the larger colleges can do it effectively. And to make class-based affirmative action effective against adverse selection against racial minorities requires the college administration to be committed to real diversity as a goal, even if as an understated one. A class-based system of preferential recruitment could also be used to actively discriminate against minorities.
And Roberts Court decisions like Schuette this past week go farther and farther toward the Scalia-Thomas goal of blocking any anti-racial-discrimination legislation at all unless it expressly states its purpose is to discriminate based on race.
The Roberts Court really is well on the way to turning the 14th Amendment upside down.
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, white racism, segregation
Sunday, April 27, 2014
News reports on Ukraine
V7inter: La situación en Ucrania TV Pública argentina 04/26/2014:
In this report, the moderators introduced a series of clips,commenting that the situation is seriously bad around Ukraine right now.
The commentators mainly commented that the situation was complicated, that accusations of aggression and abuses were coming from both sides of the conflict inside Ukraine, and that escalation is under way.
The PBS Newshour report on the situation in What can history tell us about today's unrest in Ukraine? 04/27/2014:
This is a background piece on the history of Ukraine.
Tags: ukraine
In this report, the moderators introduced a series of clips,commenting that the situation is seriously bad around Ukraine right now.
- John Kerry gives a real impression that he's looking for more escalation with Russia over Ukraine.
- Putin gives a statement threatening unspecified action if Ukraine uses its army to suppress its people.
- Arseny Yatseniuk, Ukrainian Prime Minister says that Russia is looking to start the Third World War.
- French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says that France and Germany are seeking to lower the tension there.
- German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeyer takes a similarly balanced approach calling on all those party to the recent Geneva Agreement to give it a chance to work, emphasizing the commitment not to use violence and the disarming of illegal paramilitaries, surrender of occupied buildings and amnesty for protesters.
- Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the "self-proclaimed Mayor of Slaviansk," saying that Yaseniuk's pro-Western government is preparing to cut off his city to undertake ethnic cleansing (presumably directed against Russian-speakers).
- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu complains that planned NATO manuevers in the eastern part of the alliance weren't "contributing to the normalization of the situation."
- Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Danylo Lubkivsky demands the Russians reveal how many troops they have stationed near Ukraine.
The commentators mainly commented that the situation was complicated, that accusations of aggression and abuses were coming from both sides of the conflict inside Ukraine, and that escalation is under way.
The PBS Newshour report on the situation in What can history tell us about today's unrest in Ukraine? 04/27/2014:
This is a background piece on the history of Ukraine.
Tags: ukraine
Confederate Heritage Month 2014, April 27: Definitions, definitions - and banning affirmative action
After yesterday's post that examined a case of neo-Confederate white racism but was very reserved about what could be called racism, I came across this post from Samantha Field, who describes herself as "overcoming a fundamentalist indoctrination," Christian women: feminism IS your friend, actually Defeating the Dragon 04/24/2014. She's debunking a fundamentalist's man's attack on feminism, the man in question being Matt Walsh.
And one of the things she focuses on is how narrowly Walsh defines feminism, and (of course!) does so in a propagandist way: "'feminist" is re-defined to mean – an[d] only mean– a woman who thinks there’s nothing wrong with murdering babies and 'equal' means sameness, both of which are preposterous definitions."
This particular re-definition of feminism is hardly new. Back in 1992, Pat Robertson sent out a fundraising letter opposing a push in Iowa to have women declared equal to men in the state's constitution, with a somewhat more expansive but hardly friendly definition of feminism (Robertson Letter Attacks Feminism New York Times 08/26/2014):
But the reactionary project of denying equal rights to anyone not a rich white male Christian runs counter to the democratic foundations of American government and values. So taking anti-democratic positions puts particular importance on redefining concepts like democratic equality before the law. And with law in particular, definitions matter. A lot.
Last week the Roberts Court took yet another step in removing equal protection of the law from African-Americans and other racial minorities with its decision in since Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary (BAMN). The significance of the ruling is that it takes yet another step in blocking laws that are meant to enforced the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by preventing de facto racial discrimination. Or, put it more immediate terms, it gives the Republican Party and state legislatures it controls more latitude to promote racial discrimination.
An important part of this reasoning, which conservative Republicans have promoted for many years now, is to redefine "racial discrimination" to mean its opposite: actions taken to prevent and remedy racial discrimination. The idea is that for a federal, state or local government to take action against racial discrimination, the government would have to look at the race of the people affected by racial discrimination and looking at their race would itself be racial discrimination by the government so that is not allowed.
For anyone not worshiping at the Church of Rush Limbaugh, the goal of such a crazy definition is to prevent the government from doing anything to eliminate, mitigate or remedy overt and demonstrable racial discrimination. It makes racial discrimination in all aspects of official and social life legal, in other words.
The Roberts Court has gone a long way toward establishing that standard as their interpretation of the law of the land. The Schuette decision was yet another step in that direction.
Shanikka discusses this mind-bending redefinition of racial discrimination into its opposite in the Daily Kos post In case it wasn't clear: the Schuette decision and coming full circle on antidiscrimination law 04/27/2014. He explains how:
Shanikka also points to the FOX News version of this redefinition of racial discrimination for ordinary political discussion: "It is very similar to the currently in-vogue contention that there is no such thing as anti-black racism and American white supremacy unless it is wearing a sheet and calling black folks 'niggers' every day."
This is what struck me as odd about the analysis I discussed yesterday. The writer did a very good job of analyzing how white racism and neo-Confederacy worked in a particular Christian fundamentalist group - but seemed very reluctant to call it white racism, apparently because they weren't explicit about advocating an explicit biological or Scriptural basis for white supremacy. If you define white racism so narrowly as to exclude most actual manifestations of it, you've effectively defined it out of existence. In words, anyway.
Schuette is one of a series of Roberts Court segregationist decisions that the struggle for civil rights will have to contend with for years to come.
The Balkinization blog has just started a series of posts commenting on Bruce Ackerman's latest book on the civil rights movement. Gerard Magliocca's post Herbert Wechsler's Shadow 04/27/2014, while not specifically about the Schuette decision, addresses the previous approach the Court used and of which Schuette and other Roberts Court segregationist decisions represent a reversal of direction:
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, christian right, radical right, white racism, segregation
And one of the things she focuses on is how narrowly Walsh defines feminism, and (of course!) does so in a propagandist way: "'feminist" is re-defined to mean – an[d] only mean– a woman who thinks there’s nothing wrong with murdering babies and 'equal' means sameness, both of which are preposterous definitions."
This particular re-definition of feminism is hardly new. Back in 1992, Pat Robertson sent out a fundraising letter opposing a push in Iowa to have women declared equal to men in the state's constitution, with a somewhat more expansive but hardly friendly definition of feminism (Robertson Letter Attacks Feminism New York Times 08/26/2014):
But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal rights for women." Claims of 'Anti-Family'Defining the other side's position in unflattering terms is obviously central to almost any kind of argument. So if we look at it in those 30,000-feet-in-the-air terms, then Everybody Does It.
Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
But the reactionary project of denying equal rights to anyone not a rich white male Christian runs counter to the democratic foundations of American government and values. So taking anti-democratic positions puts particular importance on redefining concepts like democratic equality before the law. And with law in particular, definitions matter. A lot.
Last week the Roberts Court took yet another step in removing equal protection of the law from African-Americans and other racial minorities with its decision in since Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary (BAMN). The significance of the ruling is that it takes yet another step in blocking laws that are meant to enforced the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by preventing de facto racial discrimination. Or, put it more immediate terms, it gives the Republican Party and state legislatures it controls more latitude to promote racial discrimination.
An important part of this reasoning, which conservative Republicans have promoted for many years now, is to redefine "racial discrimination" to mean its opposite: actions taken to prevent and remedy racial discrimination. The idea is that for a federal, state or local government to take action against racial discrimination, the government would have to look at the race of the people affected by racial discrimination and looking at their race would itself be racial discrimination by the government so that is not allowed.
For anyone not worshiping at the Church of Rush Limbaugh, the goal of such a crazy definition is to prevent the government from doing anything to eliminate, mitigate or remedy overt and demonstrable racial discrimination. It makes racial discrimination in all aspects of official and social life legal, in other words.
The Roberts Court has gone a long way toward establishing that standard as their interpretation of the law of the land. The Schuette decision was yet another step in that direction.
Shanikka discusses this mind-bending redefinition of racial discrimination into its opposite in the Daily Kos post In case it wasn't clear: the Schuette decision and coming full circle on antidiscrimination law 04/27/2014. He explains how:
... decisions such as Schuette are merely the end-game of a restructuring of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment from a law protecting the rights of black people in America (and later, others) against efforts to keep them subjugated to a law protecting the rights of white people against black people (and other people of color) seeking to obtain the actual benefits of equality.Definitions do matter.
Shanikka also points to the FOX News version of this redefinition of racial discrimination for ordinary political discussion: "It is very similar to the currently in-vogue contention that there is no such thing as anti-black racism and American white supremacy unless it is wearing a sheet and calling black folks 'niggers' every day."
This is what struck me as odd about the analysis I discussed yesterday. The writer did a very good job of analyzing how white racism and neo-Confederacy worked in a particular Christian fundamentalist group - but seemed very reluctant to call it white racism, apparently because they weren't explicit about advocating an explicit biological or Scriptural basis for white supremacy. If you define white racism so narrowly as to exclude most actual manifestations of it, you've effectively defined it out of existence. In words, anyway.
Schuette is one of a series of Roberts Court segregationist decisions that the struggle for civil rights will have to contend with for years to come.
The Balkinization blog has just started a series of posts commenting on Bruce Ackerman's latest book on the civil rights movement. Gerard Magliocca's post Herbert Wechsler's Shadow 04/27/2014, while not specifically about the Schuette decision, addresses the previous approach the Court used and of which Schuette and other Roberts Court segregationist decisions represent a reversal of direction:
Ackerman's response [to a famous argument by Herbert Wechsler] is that the way in which Congress and the Supreme Court dismantled Jim Crow really did turn upon the facts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act are at the core of this claim. They "self-consciously divide the world into different spheres of life: public accommodations, education, employment, housing, [and] voting. They impose different [regulatory] regimes on different on different spheres . . . [and] insist on a far more contextual understanding of the constitutional meaning of equality in different spheres of social and political life." Granted, Wechsler was not talking about legislative action in his defense of neutral principles, but Ackerman contends that these landmark statutes were an extension of the pragmatic approach taken in Brown [v. Board of Education]. "[I]n limiting its decision to education, the Court wasn't engaged in a timid evasion of some grand legal theory attacking society-wide subordination or racial classification. It was proceeding sphere by sphere in a sociological spirit, challenging constitutionalists to make the principle of equality meaningful to ordinary Americans as they engaged in critical spheres of social life." [my emphasis in bold]
Tags: confederate heritage month 2014, christian right, radical right, white racism, segregation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)