Re: [NYTr] "WHEN THE LEFT IS RIGHT"
Marty Jezer, the author of this article is dead wrong. The political situation
in the U.S. has not reversed itself. "Left" is not "Right"! The author is
simply using the wrong political terminology to define the two main players.
First, the Republicans are not "radicals", or on the "left" any more than their
NAZI's predecessors in Germany were "radicals" or "leftists" (despite the
NAZI's appropriation and (mis)use of the words, the self named "National
Socialist German Workers Party", NSDP or NAZI for short, was not "socialist" or
made up of, or representative of the interests of German 'workers', in any way
shape or form!)
The correct term for these extreme right forces is not "conservative" but
rather, "reactionary". Reactionaries do not simply aim to maintain the status
quo and to thwart human social progress, as mere "conservatives" do, but to
actually turn back the political clock and to undo and unravel even the most
moderate and moderate social protections and rights that working people have
won for themselves over the past 100 or so years.
The Democrats on the other hand, and as author agrees, are hardly on the left
(except to a slight degree and even only then, in comparison to the *extreme*
right positions of the Republicans) and are in fact, conservatives. Basically,
you have an extreme right, reactionary and even fascist party in power and the
only opposition to these reactionaries is a group of right wing conservatives.
Having two parties on the right, with one even further to the right and more
reactionary than the other, does not change the definition of left and right;
rather it simply mean that you now have a totalitarian system, with no
effective opposition and no one to defend the interests of working people. Woe
betide the people of the United States! Woe betide the people of the entire
world!
mart
===============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "NYTr List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: [NYTr] WHEN THE LEFT IS RIGHT
Via NY Transfer News Collective
All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Michael Givel (activ-l) - Dec 8, 2004
WHEN THE LEFT IS RIGHT
by Marty Jezer
The political nomenclature "left" and "right" originated at
the time of the French Revolution. French legislators
favoring radical reform sat on the left side of the legislative
assembly and those favoring the old aristocratic order sat
on the right.
Through the years, as the political terminology has evolved,
leftists have come to be associated with social and political
change while rightists have come to be identified as
conservatives who revere tradition and the maintenance of
the status quo.
In the United States in 2004 the meaning of these two terms
has been reversed. The self-described "conservatives" of the
Bush administration are pushing for sweeping, far-reaching
change. It's the Democrats, or left-of-center liberals, who are
in the position of fighting to preserve the status quo.
Since the 1930s, the United States has been governed by a
political philosophy of a mixed economy, government
regulation of the marketplace, and economic and social
programs to moderate poverty and encourage economic
opportunity and growth.
This philosophy has been predicated on a social contract
of shared burdens, with all Americans contributing to the
national good on the basis of their incomes and skills. We
all kick in tax money for public investment, to fight poverty,
and to assure that our fellow citizens have a comfortable
retirement. This philosophy transformed us into a
prosperous nation, the richest and (for good or for ill) the
most powerful nation in the world.
The Second World War was the best expression of this
national consensus. Americans from all economic classes
fought and, without complaining, shared in the rationing
of resources and in the paying of higher taxes. John
Kennedy, in his 1960 inaugural address, articulated
this still existent social contract very well. "Ask not what
your country can do for you," he said, "ask what you can
do for your country."
Under the Bush administration this philosophy of shared
burdens is under assault. The most egregious examples are
the war in Iraq and the proposed effort to privatize social
security.
It's understandable that most parents don't want their children
risking their lives by joining the military. It's also understandable
that most college-educated kids with job opportunities are not
avidly pursuing military careers. But it's unprecedented -- and a
gross violation of the social contract that has long drew us
together -- that the most gung ho supporters of war oppose
paying taxes to finance it.
The Bush administration has transformed patriotism into a
cheap and symbolic sentiment. Wear an American flag lapel
pin, but buy SUVs and Hummers, burn gasoline, and oppose
the raising of taxes to support public investment in energy independence. Poor
and working class kids will meet the
needs of military recruiters; the rest of us sacrifice nothing.
Wave the flag and party hearty.
This is even truer of the social security proposal. When I
was growing up, young people expected to pay a payroll
tax to help finance the retirement benefits of their parents
and grandparents. Even during the generational battles of
the 1960s no one complained about the payroll tax;
young people didn't think it an unfair burden.
I don't think today's young people are more selfish than
previous generations. But all of sudden we hear that the
social security tax is unfair; that young people shouldn't
be forced to support the retirement of their elders.
This mantra comes not from young people but from
right-wing ideologues, the political descendents of those
who opposed social security from the very beginning.
Just as 9/11 gave them an excuse to start a pre-planned
Iraqi war, right-wingers have used an apparent crisis in
Social Security as an excuse to sabotage the integrity of
the entire system.
The crisis of course is a hoax. Because of the retirement
demands of the baby boom generation, the government
projects that, without reform, the Social Security Trust
Fund will run out of money in 2042.Protecting the Trust
Fund requires simple adjustments, not basic restructuring.
As it exists, the Social Security payroll tax is highly
regressive. Low and middle-income employees pay a
much greater percentage of their wages than wealthy
individuals. One easy fix is to raise the cap on payroll
taxes, which now stands at $87,900. But with the Bush
administration this is a non-starter. Their first principle
of governance is to lower taxes for their wealthy
benefactors.
Moreover, financial investments are always risky. Investors
have been known to lose their shirts in the stock market.
Indeed, any prospectus for buying stocks warns as much.
The brilliance of Social Security is that it provides risk-free
pensions for senior citizens. Those who want to invest in the
financial markets and partake in the risks of the "ownership
society" are always free to do so, with or without privatization.
The plan to privatize social security is a gift to the financial
industry and an attack on one of the most successful programs
ever to come out of the New Deal. It will also be terribly
expensive, with transition costs, according to proponents of
the plan, estimated at between hundreds of billions to trillions
of dollars over a decade.Because of tax cuts, all of this money
will have to be borrowed.According to Joshua B. Bolten, the
director of the White House's Office of Management and
Budget, such massive borrowing, even with existing deficits,
is "fiscally prudent."
There is nothing prudent or, for that matter, conservative,
about the administration's Social Security plan or its
militaristic foreign policy. Both policies, and many others,
represent a reckless ideology. Republicans are hell-bent
on destroying our country's unifying social contract. History
calls upon Democrats to uphold conservative doctrines
and traditional governing values, and to defend those ethical
principles of social justice that have inspired our nation for
generations.
-30-
[Marty Jezer is a weekend columnist for the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer where
this commentary first appeared.]
===============================================
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your
settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/VL0olB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Peruuta ryhm�n tilaus l�hett�m�ll� s�hk�postia osoitteeseen:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kominform2/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
