The United States Is Awash in Public Stupidity, and Critical Thought Is Under Assault

comments_image
georgeWBush
America has become amnesiac – a country in which forms of historical, political, and moral forgetting are not only willfully practiced but celebrated. The United States has degenerated into a social order that is awash in public stupidity and views critical thought as both a liability and a threat. Not only is this obvious in the presence of a celebrity culture that embraces the banal and idiotic, but also in the prevailing discourses and policies of a range of politicians and anti-public intellectuals who believe that the legacy of the Enlightenment needs to be reversed.  Politicians such as Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich along with talking heads such as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter are not the problem, they are symptomatic of a much more disturbing assault on critical thought, if not rational thinking itself.  Under a neoliberal regime, the language of authority, power and command is divorced from ethics, social responsibility, critical analysis and social costs.

 

These anti-public intellectuals are part of a disimagination machine that solidifies the power of the rich and the structures of the military-industrial-surveillance-academic complex by presenting the ideologies, institutions and relations of the powerful as commonsense.[1] [2] For instance, the historical legacies of resistance to racism, militarism, privatization and panoptical surveillance have long been forgotten and made invisible in the current assumption that Americans now live in a democratic, post-racial society. The cheerleaders for neoliberalism work hard to  normalize dominant institutions and relations of power through a vocabulary and public pedagogy that create market-driven subjects, modes of consciousness, and ways of understanding the world that promote accommodation, quietism and passivity.  Social solidarities are torn apart, furthering the retreat into orbits of the private that undermine those spaces that nurture non-commodified knowledge, values, critical exchange and civic literacy. The pedagogy of authoritarianism is alive and well in the United States, and its repression of public memory takes place not only through the screen culture and institutional apparatuses of conformity, but is also reproduced through a culture of fear and a carceral state that imprisons more people than any other country in the world.[2] [3] What many commentators have missed in the ongoing attack on Edward Snowden is not that he uncovered information that made clear how corrupt and intrusive the American government has become – how willing it is to engage in vast crimes against the American public. His real “crime” is that he demonstrated how knowledge can be used to empower people, to get them to think as critically engaged citizens rather than assume that knowledge and education are merely about the learning of skills – a reductive concept that substitutes training for education and reinforces the flight from reason and the goose-stepping reflexes of an authoritarian mindset.[3]  [4]

Since the late1970s, there has been an intensification in the United States, Canada and Europe of neoliberal modes of governance, ideology and policies – a historical period in which the foundations for democratic public spheres have been dismantled. Schools, public radio, the media and other critical cultural apparatuses have been under siege, viewed as dangerous to a market-driven society that considers critical thought, dialogue, and civic engagement a threat to its basic values, ideologies, and structures of power. This was the beginning of an historical era in which the discourse of democracy, public values, and the common good came crashing to the ground. Margaret Thatcher in Britain and soon after Ronald Reagan in the United States – both hard-line advocates of market fundamentalism – announced that there was no such thing as society and that government was the problem not the solution. Democracy and the political process were all but sacrificed to the power of corporations and the emerging financial service industries, just as hope was appropriated as an advertisement for the whitewashed world, a culture whose capacity to critique oppressive social practices was greatly diminished. Large social movements fragmented into isolated pockets of resistance mostly organized around a form of identity politics that largely ignored a much-needed conversation about the attack on the social and the broader issues affecting society such as the growing inequality in wealth, power and income.

What is particularly new is the way in which young people have been increasingly denied a significant place in an already weakened social contract and the degree to which they are absent from how many countries now define the future. Youth are no longer the place where society reveals its dreams. Instead, youth are becoming the site of society’s nightmares. Within neoliberal narratives, youth are mostly defined as a consumer market, a drain on the economy, or stand for trouble.[4] [5] Young people increasingly have become subject to an oppressive disciplinary machine that teaches them to define citizenship through the exchange practices of the market and to follow orders and toe the line in the face of oppressive forms of authority. They are caught in a society in which almost every aspect of their lives is shaped by the dual forces of the market and a growing police state. The message is clear: Buy/ sell/ or be punished. Mostly out of step, young people, especially poor minorities and low-income whites, are increasingly inscribed within a machinery of dead knowledge, social relations and values in which there is an attempt to render them voiceless and invisible.

How young people are represented betrays a great deal about what is increasingly new about the economic, social, cultural and political constitution of American society and its growing disinvestment in young people, the social state and democracy itself.[5] [6]  The structures of neoliberal violence have put the vocabulary of democracy on life support, and one consequence is that subjectivity and education are no longer the lifelines of critical forms of individual and social agency.  The promises of modernity regarding progress, freedom and hope have not been eliminated; they have been reconfigured, stripped of their emancipatory potential and relegated to the logic of a savage market instrumentality. Modernity has reneged on its promise to young people to provide social mobility, stability and collective security. Long-term planning and the institutional structures that support them are now relegated to the imperatives of privatization, deregulation, flexibility and short-term profits. Social bonds have given way under the collapse of social protections and the attack on the welfare state. Moreover, all solutions to socially produced problems are now relegated to the mantra of individual solutions.[6]  [7]

Public problems collapse into the limited and depoliticized register of private issues. Individual interests now trump any consideration of the good of society just as all problems are ultimately laid at the door of the solitary individual, whose fate is shaped by forces far beyond his or her capacity for personal responsibility. Under neoliberalism everyone has to negotiate their fate alone, bearing full responsibility for problems that are often not of their own doing. The implications politically, economically and socially for young people are disastrous and are contributing to the emergence of a generation of young people who will occupy a space of social abandonment and terminal exclusion. Job insecurity, debt servitude, poverty, incarceration and a growing network of real and symbolic violence have entrapped too many young people in a future that portends zero opportunities and zero hopes. This is a generation that has become the new register for disposability, redundancy, and new levels of surveillance and control.

The severity and consequences of this shift in modernity under neoliberalism among youth is evident in the fact that this is the first generation in which the “plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation.”[7] [8] Zygmunt Bauman argues that today’s youth have been “cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent.”[8] [9] That is, the generation of youth in the early 21st century has no way of grasping if they will ever “be free from the gnawing sense of the transience, indefiniteness, and provisional nature of any settlement.”[9] [10]   Neoliberal violence produced in part through a massive shift in wealth to the upper 1%, growing inequality, the reign of the financial service industries, the closing down of educational opportunities, and the stripping of social protections from those marginalized by race and class has produced a generation without jobs, an independent life and even the most minimal social benefits.

Youth no longer inhabit the privileged space, however compromised, that was offered to previous generations.  They now occupy a neoliberal notion of temporality of dead time and zones of abandonment and terminal exclusion marked by a loss of faith in progress and a belief in those apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak and insecure. Progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, punish unions, demonize public servants, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness – all the while giving billions and “huge bonuses, instead of prison sentences . . . to those bankers and investment brokers who were responsible for the 2008 meltdown of the economy and the loss of homes for millions of Americans.”[10] [11] Students, in particular, now find themselves in a world in which heightened expectations have been replaced by dashed hopes. The promises  of higher education and previously enviable credentials have turned into the swindle of fulfillment as, “For the first time in living memory, the whole class of graduates faces a future of crushing debt, and a high probability, almost the certainty, of ad hoc, temporary, insecure and part-time work and unpaid ‘trainee’ pseudo-jobs deceitfully rebranded as ‘practices’ – all considerably below the skills they have acquired and eons below the level of their expectations.” [11] [12]

What has changed about an entire generation of young people includes not only neoliberal society’s disinvestment in youth and the lasting fate of downward mobility, but also the fact that youth live in a commercially carpet-bombed and commodified environment that is unlike anything experienced by those of previous generations.  Nothing has prepared this generation for the inhospitable and savage new world of commodification, privatization, joblessness, frustrated hopes and stillborn projects. [12] [13] Commercials provide the primary content for their dreams, relations to others, identities and sense of agency. There appears to be no space outside the panoptican of commercial barbarism and casino capitalism.  The present generation has been born into a throwaway society of consumers in which both goods and young people are increasingly objectified and disposable.  Young people now reside in a world in which there are few public spheres or social spaces autonomous from the reach of the market, warfare state, debtfare, and sprawling tentacles of what is ominously called the Department of Homeland Security.

The structures of neoliberal modernity do more than disinvest in young people and commodify them, they also transform the protected space of childhood into a zone of disciplinary exclusion and cruelty, especially for those young people further marginalized by race and class who now inhabit a social landscape in which they are increasingly disparaged as flawed consumers or pathologized others. With no adequate role to play as consumers, many youth are now considered disposable, forced to inhabit “zones of social abandonment” extending from homeless shelters and bad schools to bulging detention centers and prisons.[13] [14]  In the midst of the rise of the punishing state, the circuits of state repression, surveillance, and disposability increasingly “link the fate of blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, poor whites, and Asian Americans” who are now caught in a governing-through-crime-youth complex, which increasingly serves as a default solution to major social problems.[14] [15] As Michael Hart and Antonio Negri point out, young people live in a society in which every institution becomes an “inspection regime” –  recording, watching, gathering information and storing data.[15] [16] Complementing these regimes is the shadow of the prison, which is no longer separated from society as an institution of total surveillance. Instead, “total surveillance is increasingly the general condition of society as a whole. ‘The prison,’ ” Michel Foucault notes, “begins well before its doors. It begins as soon as you leave your house – and even before.”[16] [17]

Everyone is Now a Potential Terrorist

At the start of the second decade of the 21st century, young people all over the world are demonstrating against a variety of issues ranging from economic injustice and massive inequality to drastic cuts in education and public services. These demonstrations have and currently are being met with state-sanctioned violence and an almost pathological refusal to hear their demands.  More specifically, in the United States the state monopoly on the use of violence has intensified since the 1980s, and in the process, has been increasingly directed against young people, low-income whites, poor minorities, immigrants, and women. As the welfare state is hollowed out, a culture of compassion is replaced by a culture of violence, cruelty and disposability. Collective insurance policies and social protections have given way to the forces of economic deregulation, the transformation of the welfare state into punitive workfare programs, the privatization of public goods and an appeal to individual accountability as a substitute for social responsibility.

Under the notion that unregulated market-driven values and relations should shape every domain of human life, the business model of governance has eviscerated any viable notion of social responsibility while furthering the criminalization of social problems and cutbacks in basic social services, especially for the poor, young people and the elderly.[17] [18] Within the existing neoliberal historical conjuncture, there is a merging of violence and governance and the systemic disinvestment in and breakdown of institutions and public spheres that have provided the minimal conditions for democracy. This becomes obvious in the emergence of a surveillance state in which the social media not only become new platforms for the invasion of privacy, but further legitimate a culture in which monitoring functions are viewed as benign while the state-sponsored society of hyper-fear increasingly defines everyone as either a snitch or a terrorist. Everyone, especially minorities of race and ethnicity, now live under a surveillance panoptican in which “living under constant surveillance means living as criminals.”[18] [19]

As young people make diverse claims on the promise of a radical democracy, articulating what a fair and just world might be, they are increasingly met with forms of physical, ideological and structural violence.  Abandoned by the existing political system, young people in Oakland, California, New York City, Quebec and numerous other cities throughout the globe have placed their bodies on the line, protesting peacefully while trying to produce a new language, politics, imagine long-term institutions, and support notions of “community that manifest the values of equality and mutual respect that they see missing in a world that is structured by neoliberal principles.”[19] [20] In Quebec, in spite of police violence and threats, thousands of students demonstrated for months against a former right-wing government that wanted to raise tuition and cut social protections. These demonstrations are continuing in a variety of countries throughout the globe and embrace an investment in a new understanding of the commons as a shared space of knowledge, debate, exchange and participation.

Such movements, however diverse, are not simply about addressing current injustices and reclaiming space but also about producing new ideas, generating a new conversation and introducing a new political language. Rejecting the notion that democracy and markets are the same, young people are calling for an end to the poverty, grotesque levels of economic inequality, the suppression of dissent and the permanent war state.  They refuse to be defined exclusively as consumers rather than as workers, and they reject the notion that the only interests that matter are monetary. They also oppose those market-driven values and practices aimed at both creating radically individualized subjects and undermining those public spheres that create bonds of solidarity that reinforce a commitment to the common good. And these movements all refuse the notion that financialization defines the only acceptable definition of exchange, one that is based exclusively on the reductionist notion of buying and selling.

Resistance and the Politics of the Historical Conjuncture

Marginalized youth, workers, artists and others are raising serious questions about the violence of inequality and the social order that legitimates it. They are calling for a redistribution of wealth and power – not within the old system, but in a new one in which democracy becomes more than a slogan or a legitimation for authoritarianism and state violence.  As Stanley Aronowitz and Angela Davis, among others, have argued, the fight for education and justice is inseparable from the struggle for economic equality, human dignity and security, and the challenge of developing American institutions along genuinely democratic lines.[20] [21]  Today, there is a new focus on public values, the need for broad-based movements for solidarity, and alternative conceptions of politics, democracy and justice.

All of these issues are important, but what must be addressed in the most immediate sense is the threat that the emerging police state in the United States poses not to just the young protesters occupying a number of American cities, but also the threat it poses to democracy itself. This threat is being exacerbated as a result of the merging of a war-like mentality and neoliberal mode of discipline and education in which it becomes difficult to reclaim the language of obligation, social responsibility and civic engagement.[21] [22] Everywhere we look we see the encroaching shadow of the police state.  The government now requisitions the publics’ telephone records and sifts through its emails. It labels whistle-blowers such as Edward Snowden as traitors, even though they have exposed the corruption, lawlessness and host of antidemocratic practices engaged in by established governments.  Police can take DNA samples of all people arrested of a crime, whether they are proven guilty or not.  The United States is incarcerating people in record numbers, imprisoning over 2.3 million inmates while “6 million people at any one time [are] under carceral supervision – more than were in Stalin’s Gulag.”[22] [23]

While there has been considerable coverage in the progressive media given to the violence that was waged against the Occupy movement and other protesters, I want to build on these analyses by arguing that it is important to situate such violence within a broader set of categories that enables a critical understanding of not only the underlying social, economic and political forces at work in such assaults, but also allows us to reflect critically on the distinctiveness of the current historical period in which they are taking place. For example, it is difficult to address such state-sponsored violence against young people without analyzing the devolution of the social state and the corresponding rise of the warfare and punishing state.

Stuart Hall’s reworking of Gramsci’s notion of conjuncture is important here because it provides both an opening into the forces shaping a particular historical moment while allowing for a merging of theory and strategy.[23] [24]  Conjuncture in this case refers to a period in which different elements of society come together to produce a unique fusion of the economic, social, political, ideological and cultural in a relative settlement that becomes hegemonic in defining reality. That ruptural unity is today marked by a neoliberal conjuncture.  In this particular historical moment, the notion of conjuncture helps us to address theoretically how youth protests are largely related to a historically specific neoliberal project that promotes vast inequalities in income and wealth, creates the student-loan-debt bomb, eliminates much-needed social programs, eviscerates the social wage, and privileges profits and commodities over people.

Within the United States especially, the often violent response to nonviolent forms of youth protests must also be analyzed within the framework of a mammoth military-industrial state and its commitment to war and the militarization of the entire society.[24] [25] The merging of the military-industrial complex, surveillance state and unbridled corporate power points to the need for strategies that address what is specific about the current warfare and surveillance state and the neoliberal project and how different interests, modes of power, social relations, public pedagogies and economic configurations come together to shape its politics. Such a conjuncture is invaluable politically in that it provides a theoretical opening for making the practices of the warfare state and the neoliberal revolution visible in order “to give the resistance to its onward march, content, focus and a cutting edge.”[25] [26] It also points to the conceptual power of making clear that history remains an open horizon that cannot be dismissed through appeals to the end of history or end of ideology.[26] [27] It is precisely through the indeterminate nature of history that resistance becomes possible and politics refuses any guarantees and remains open.

I want to argue that the current historical moment or what Stuart Hall calls the “long march of the Neoliberal Revolution,”[27] [28] has to be understood in terms of the growing forms of violence that it deploys and reinforces. Such antidemocratic pressures and their relationship to the rising protests of young people in the United States and abroad are evident in the crisis that has emerged through the merging of governance and violence, the growth of the punishing state, and the persistent development of what has been described by Alex Honneth as “a failed sociality.”[28] [29]

The United States has become addicted to violence, and this dependency is fueled increasingly by its willingness to wage war at home and abroad.  War in this instance is not merely the outgrowth of polices designed to protect the security and well-being of the United States. It is also, as C. Wright Mills pointed out, part of a “military metaphysics” – a complex of forces that includes corporations, defense industries, politicians, financial institutions and universities.[29] [30] War provides jobs, profits, political payoffs, research funds, and forms of political and economic power that reach into every aspect of society. War is also one of the nation’s most honored virtues, and its militaristic values now bear down on almost every aspect of American life.[30] [31]  As modern society is formed against the backdrop of a permanent war zone, a carceral state and hyper-militarism, the social stature of the military and soldiers has risen. As Michael Hardt and Tony Negri have pointed out, “In the United States, rising esteem for the military in uniform corresponds to the growing militarization of the society as a whole. All of this despite repeated revelations of the illegality and immorality of the military’s own incarceration systems, from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, whose systematic practices border on if not actually constitute torture.”[31] [32]The state of exception in the United States, in particular, has become permanent and promises no end. War has become a mode of sovereignty and rule, eroding the distinction between war and peace. Increasingly fed by a moral and political hysteria, warlike values produce and endorse shared fears as the primary register of social relations.

The war on terror, rebranded under Obama as the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” has morphed into war on democracy. Everyone is now considered a potential terrorist, providing a rational for both the government and private corporations to spy on anybody, regardless of whether they have committed a crime.  Surveillance is supplemented by a growing domestic army of baton-wielding police forces who are now being supplied with the latest military equipment. Military technologies such as Drones, SWAT vehicles and machine-gun-equipped armored trucks once used exclusively in high-intensity war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan are now being supplied to police departments across the nation and not surprisingly “the increase in such weapons is matched by training local police in war zone tactics and strategies.”[32] [33]  The domestic war against “terrorists” [code for young protesters] provides new opportunities for major defense contractors and corporations who “are becoming more a part of our domestic lives.”[33] [34]  As Glenn Greenwald points out, “Arming domestic police forces with paramilitary weaponry will ensure their systematic use even in the absence of a terrorist attack on US soil; they will simply find other, increasingly permissive uses for those weapons.”[34]  [35]Of course, the new domestic paramilitary forces will also undermine free speech and dissent with the threat of force while simultaneously threatening core civil liberties, rights and civic responsibilities.  Given that “by age 23, almost a third of Americans are arrested for a crime,” it becomes clear that in the new militarized state young people, especially poor minorities, are viewed as predators, a threat to corporate governance, and are treated as disposable populations.[35]  [36] This siege mentality will be reinforced by the merging of private and corporate intelligence and surveillance agencies, and the violence it produces will increase as will the growth of a punishment state that acts with impunity. Too much of this violence is reminiscent of the violence used against civil rights demonstrators by the forces of Jim Crow in the 1950s and 1960s.[36] [37]

Yet, there is more at work here than the prevalence of armed knowledge and a militarized discourse, there is also the emergence of a militarized society that now organizes itself “for the production of violence.”[37] [38]  A society in which “the range of acceptable opinion inevitably shrinks.”[38] [39] But the prevailing move in American society to a permanent war status does more than promote a set of unifying symbols that embrace a survival of the fittest ethic, promoting conformity over dissent, the strong over the weak, and fear over responsibility, it also gives rise to what David Graeber has called a “language of command” in which violence becomes the most important element of power and mediating force in shaping social relationships.[39] [40]

Permanent War and the Public Pedagogy of Hyper-Violence

As a mode of public pedagogy, a state of permanent war needs willing subjects to abide by its values, ideology, and narratives of fear and violence.  Such legitimation is largely provided through a market-driven culture addicted to the production of consumerism, militarism and organized violence, largely circulated through various registers of popular culture that extend from high fashion and Hollywood movies to the creation of violent video games and music concerts sponsored by the Pentagon. The market-driven spectacle of war demands a culture of conformity, quiet intellectuals and a largely passive republic of consumers.  There is also a need for subjects who find intense pleasure in commodification of violence and a culture of cruelty. Under neoliberalism, culture appears to have largely abandoned its role as a site of critique.  Very little appears to escape the infantilizing and moral vacuity of the market. For instance, the architecture of war and violence is now matched by a barrage of goods parading as fashion. For instance, in light of the recent NSA and PRISM spying revelations in the United States, The New York Times ran a story on a new line of fashion with the byline: “Stealth Wear Aims to Make a Tech Statement.”[40] [41]

As the pleasure principle is unconstrained by a moral compass based on a respect for others, it is increasingly shaped by the need for intense excitement and a never-ending flood of heightened sensations. Marked by a virulent notion of hardness and aggressive masculinity, a culture of violence has become commonplace in a society in which pain, humiliation and abuse are condensed into digestible spectacles endlessly circulated through extreme sports, reality TV, video games, YouTube postings, and proliferating forms of the new and old media. But the ideology of hardness, and the economy of pleasure it justifies are also present in the material relations of power that have intensified since the Reagan presidency, when a shift in government policies first took place and set the stage for the emergence of unchecked torture and state violence under the Bush-Cheney regime. Conservative and liberal politicians alike now spend millions waging wars around the globe, funding the largest military state in the world, providing huge tax benefits to the ultrarich and major corporations, and all the while draining public coffers, increasing the scale of human poverty and misery, and eliminating all viable public spheres – whether they be the social state, public schools, public transportation or any other aspect of a formative culture that addresses the needs of the common good.

State violence, particularly the use of torture, abductions, and targeted assassinations are now justified as part of a state of exception in which a “political culture of hyper-punitiveness”[41] [42] has become normalized. Revealing itself in a blatant display of unbridled arrogance and power, it is unchecked by any sense of either conscience or morality. How else to explain the right-wing billionaire, Charles Koch, insisting that the best way to help the poor is to get rid of the minimum wage. In response, journalist Rod Bastanmehr points out that “Koch didn’t acknowledge the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, but he did make sure to show off his fun new roll of $100-bill toilet paper, which was a real treat for folks everywhere.”[42] [43] It gets worse. Ray Canterbury, a Republican member of the West Virginia House of Delegates insisted that “students could be forced into labor in exchange for food.”[43]  [44]In other words, students could clean toilets, do janitorial work or other menial chores in order to pay for their free school breakfast and lunch programs.  In Maine, Rep. Bruce Bickford (R) has argued that the state should do away with child labor laws. His rationale speaks for itself. He writes: “”Kids have parents. Let the parents be responsible for the kids. It’s not up to the government to regulate everybody’s life and lifestyle. Take the government away. Let the parents take care of their kids.”[44] [45] This is a version of social Darwinism on steroids, a tribute to Ayn Rand that would make even her blush.

Public values are not only under attack in the United States and elsewhere but appear to have become irrelevant just as those spaces that enable an experience of the common good are now the object of disdain by right-wing and liberal politicians, anti-public intellectuals and an army of media pundits. State violence operating under the guise of personal safety and security, while parading as a bulwark of democracy, actually does the opposite and cancels out democracy “as the incommensurable sharing of existence that makes the political possible.”[45] [46]  Symptoms of ethical, political and economic impoverishment are all around us.

One recent example can be found in the farm bill passed by Republicans, which provides $195 billion in subsidies for agribusiness, while slashing roughly $4 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides food stamps for the poor.  Not only are millions of food stamp beneficiaries at risk, but it is estimated that benefits would be eliminated for nearly two millions Americans, many of them children. Katrina vanden Huevel writes in the Washington Post that it is hard to believe that any party would want to publicize such cruel practices. She writes:

“In this time of mass unemployment, 47 million Americans rely on food stamps. Nearly one-half are children under 18; nearly 10 percent are impoverished seniors. The recipients are largely white, female and young. The Republican caucus has decided to drop them from the bill as “extraneous,” without having separate legislation to sustain them. Who would want to advertise these cruel values?

Neoliberal policies have produced proliferating zones of precarity and exclusion embracing more and more individuals and groups who lack jobs, need social assistance, lack health care or are homeless.  According to the apostles of casino capitalism, providing “nutritional aid to millions of pregnant mothers, infants and children . . . feeding poor children and giving them adequate health care” is a bad expenditure because it creates “a culture of dependency – and that culture of dependency, not runaway bankers, somehow caused our economic crisis.” [46]

But there is more to the culture of cruelty than simply ethically challenged policies that benefit the rich and punish the poor, particularly children, there is also the emergence of a punishing state, a governing through crime youth complex, and the emergence of the school-to-prison pipeline as the new face of  Jim Crow.[47] [47]

A symptomatic example of the way in which violence has saturated everyday life can be seen in the increased acceptance of criminalizing the behavior of young people in public schools. Behaviors that were normally handled by teachers, guidance counselors and school administrators are now dealt with by the police and the criminal justice system. The consequences have been disastrous for many young people. Increasingly, poor minority and white youth are being “funneled directly from schools into prison. Instead of schools being a pipeline to opportunity, schools are feeding our prisons.  Justified by the war on drugs, the United States is in the midst of a prison binge made obvious by the fact that “Since 1970, the number of people behind bars . . . has increased 600 percent.”[48]  [48]Moreover, it is estimated that in some cities such as Washington, DC, that 75 percent of young black men can expect to serve time in prison. Michelle Alexander has pointed out that “One in three young African American men is currently under the control of the criminal justice system in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole – yet mass incarceration tends to be categorized as a criminal justice issue as opposed to a racial justice or civil rights issue (or crisis).”[49]  [49]

Young black men in American have an identity ascribed to them that is a direct legacy of slavery. They are considered dangerous, expendable, threatening and part of a culture of criminality. They are guilty of criminal behavior not because of the alleged crimes they might commit but because they are the product of a collective imagination paralyzed by the racism of a white supremacist culture they can only view them as a dangerous nightmare,  But the real nightmare resides in a society that hides behind the mutually informing and poisonous notions of colorblindness and a post-racial society, a convenient rhetorical obfuscation that allows white Americans to ignore the institutional and individual racist ideologies, practices and policies that cripple any viable notion of justice and democracy. As the Trayvon Martin case and verdict made clear, young black men are not only being arrested and channeled into the criminal justice system in record numbers, they are also being targeted by the police, harassed by security forces, and in some instances killed because they are black and assumed to be dangerous.[50] [50]

Under such circumstances, not only do schools resemble the culture of prisons, but young children are being arrested and subjected to court appearances for behaviors that can only be termed as trivial. How else to explain the case of a diabetic student who, because she fell asleep in study hall, was arrested and beaten by the police or the arrest of a 7-year-old boy, who because of a fight he got into with another boy in the schoolyard, was put in handcuffs and held in custody for 10 hours in a Bronx police station.  In Texas, students who miss school are not sent to the principal’s office or assigned to detention. Instead, they are fined, and in too many cases, actually jailed.  It is hard to imagine, but in a Maryland school, a 13- year old girl was arrested for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. There is more at work than stupidity and a flight from responsibility on the part of educators, parents and politicians who maintain these laws, there is also the growing sentiment that young people constitute a threat to adults and that the only way to deal with them is to subject them to mind-crushing punishment.

This medieval type of punishment inflicts pain on the psyche and the body of young people as part of a public spectacle. Even more disturbing is how the legacy of slavery informs this practice given that “Arrests and police interactions . . .  disproportionately affect low-income schools with large African-American and Latino populations”[41] [51] Poor minorities live in a new age of Jim Crow, one in which the ravages of segregation, racism, poverty and dashed hopes are amplified by the forces of “privatization, financialization, militarization and criminalization,” fashioning a new architecture of punishment, massive human suffering and authoritarianism.[42]  [52]Students being miseducated, criminalized and arrested through a form of penal pedagogy in prison-type schools provide a grim reminder of the degree to which the ethos of containment and punishment now creeps into spheres of everyday life that were largely immune in the past from this type of state violence. This is not merely barbarism parading as reform – it is also a blatant indicator of the degree to which sadism and the infatuation with violence have become normalized in a society that seems to take delight in dehumanizing itself.

Widespread violence now functions as part of an anti-immune system that turns the economy of genuine pleasure into a mode of sadism that creates the foundation for sapping democracy of any political substance and moral vitality. The predominance of the disimagination machine in American society, along with its machinery of social death and historical amnesia, seeps into in all aspects of life, suggesting that young people and others marginalized by class, race and ethnicity have been abandoned. But historical and public memory is not merely on the side of domination.

As the anthropologist, David Price, points out, historical memory is a potent weapon in fighting against the “desert of organized forgetting” and implies a rethinking of the role that artists, intellectuals, educators, youth and other concerned citizens can play in fostering a “reawakening of America’s battered public memories.”[53] [53] Against the tyranny of forgetting, educators, young people, social activists, public intellectuals, workers and others can work to make visible and oppose the long legacy and current reality of state violence and the rise of the punishing state. Such a struggle suggests not only reclaiming, for instance, education as a public good but also reforming the criminal justice system and removing the police from schools. In addition, there is a need to employ public memory, critical theory, and other intellectual archives and resources to expose the crimes of those market-driven criminogenc regimes of power that now run the commanding institutions of society, with particular emphasis on how they have transformed the welfare state into a warfare state.

The rise of casino capitalism and the punishing state with their vast apparatuses of real and symbolic violence must be also addressed as part of a broader historical and political attack on public values, civic literacy and economic justice. Crucial here is the need to engage how such an attack is aided and abetted by the emergence of a poisonous neoliberal public pedagogy that depoliticizes as much as it entertains and corrupts.  State violence cannot be defined simply as a political issue but also as a pedagogical issue that wages violence against the minds, desires, bodies and identities of young people as part of the reconfiguration of the social state into the punishing state. At the heart of this transformation is the emergence of a new form of corporate sovereignty, a more intense form of state violence, a ruthless survival-of-the-fittest ethic used to legitimate the concentrated power of the rich, and a concerted effort to punish young people who are out of step with neoliberal ideology, values and modes of governance.

The value of making young people stupid, subject to an educational deficit has enormous currency in a society in which existing relations of power are normalized. Under such conditions, those who hold power accountable are reviewed as treasonous while critically engaged young people are denounced as un-American.[54] [54]  In any totalitarian society, dissent is viewed as a threat, civic literacy is denounced, and those public spheres that produce engage citizens are dismantled or impoverished through the substitution of training for education.  It is important to note that Edward Snowden was labeled as a spy not a whistle-blower – even though he exposed the reach of the spy services into the lives of most Americans. More importantly, he was denounced as being part of a generation that unfortunately combined being educated with a distrust of authority.

Of course, these antidemocratic tendencies represent more than a threat to young people, they also put in peril all of those individuals, groups, public spheres and institutions now considered disposable because that are at odds with a world run by bankers, the financial elite and the rich.  Only a well-organized movement of young people, educators, workers, parents, religious groups and other concerned citizens will be capable of changing the power relations and vast economic inequalities that have generated what has become a country in which it is almost impossible to recognize the ideals of a real democracy.

Conclusion:

The rise of the punishing state and the governing-through-crime youth complex throughout American society suggests the need for a politics that not only negates the established order but imagines a new one, one informed by a radical vision in which the future does not imitate the present.[55] [55] In this discourse, critique merges with a sense of realistic hope or what I call educated hope, and individual struggles merge into larger social movements.  The challenges that young people are mobilizing against oppressive societies all over the globe are being met with a state-sponsored violence that is about more than police brutality.  This is especially clear in the United States, given its transformation from a social state to a warfare state, from a state that once embraced a semblance of the social contract to one that no longer has a language for justice, community and solidarity – a state in which the bonds of fear and commodification have replaced the bonds of civic responsibility and democratic vision. Until educators, individuals, artists, intellectuals and various social movements address how the metaphysics of casino capitalism, war and violence have taken hold on American society (and in other parts of the world) along with the savage social costs they have enacted, the forms of social, political, and economic violence that young people are protesting against, as well as the violence waged in response to their protests, will become impossible to recognize and act on.

If the ongoing struggles waged by young people are to matter, demonstrations and protests must give way to more sustainable organizations that develop alternative communities, autonomous forms of worker control, collective forms of health care, models of direct democracy and emancipatory modes of education.  Education must become central to any viable notion of politics willing to imagine a life and future outside of casino capitalism.  There is a need for educators, young people, artists and other cultural workers to develop an educative politics in which people can address the historical, structural and ideological conditions at the core of the violence being waged by the corporate and repressive state and to make clear that government under the dictatorship of market sovereignty and power is no longer responsive to the most basic needs of young people – or most people for that matter.

The issue of who gets to define the future, own the nation’s wealth, shape the parameters of the social state, control the globe’s resources, and create a formative culture for producing engaged and socially responsible citizens is no longer a rhetorical issue, but offers up new categories for defining how matters of representations, education, economic justice, and politics are to be defined and fought over.  At stake here is the need for both a language of critique and possibility. A discourse for broad-based political change is crucial for developing a politics that speaks to a future that can provide sustainable jobs, decent health care, quality education and communities of solidarity and support for young people. Such a vision is crucial and relies on ongoing educational and political struggles to awaken the inhabitants of neoliberal societies to their current reality and what it means to be educated not only to think outside of neoliberal commonsense but also to struggle for those values, hopes, modes of solidarity, power relations and institutions that infuse democracy with a spirit of egalitarianism and economic and social justice and make the promise of democracy a goal worth fighting for. For this reason, any collective struggle that matters has to embrace education as the center of politics and the source of an embryonic vision of the good life outside of the imperatives of predatory capitalism. Too many progressives and people on the left are stuck in the discourse of foreclosure and cynicism and need to develop what Stuart Hall calls a “sense of politics being educative, of politics changing the way people see things.”[56] [56] This is a difficult task, but what we are seeing in cities such as Chicago, Athens and other dead zones of capitalism throughout the world is the beginning of a long struggle for the institutions, values and infrastructures that make critical education and community the center of a robust, radical democracy. This is a challenge for young people and all those invested in the promise of a democracy that extends not only the meaning of politics, but also a commitment to economic justice and democratic social change.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Henry Giroux (born September 18, 1943), is an American cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogycultural studiesyouth studieshigher educationmedia studies, and critical theory. In 2002 Routledge named Giroux as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period.[1]


[1] [57]

I take up this issue in Henry A. Giroux, Universities in Chains: Challenging the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex (Boulder: Paradigm, 2007).

[2] [57]

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010).

[3] [57]

This issue is taken up brilliantly in Kenneth J. Saltman, The Failure of Corporate School Reform (Boulder: Paradigm, 2013).

[4] [57]

These themes are taken up in Lawrence Grossberg, Caught In the Crossfire: Kids, Politics, and America’s Future,  (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2005); Henry A. Giroux, Youth in a Suspect Society (New York: Routledge, 2009).

[5] [57]

See, for example, Jean and John Comaroff, “Reflections of Youth, from the Past to the Postcolony,” Frontiers of Capital: Ethnographic Reflections on The New Economy, ed. Melissa S. Fisher and Greg Downey, (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press, 2006) pp. 267-281.

[6] [57]

Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), p. 14.

[7] [57]

Zygmunt Bauman, “Downward mobility is now a reality,” The Guardian [58] (May 31, 2012). Bauman develops this theme in detail in both Zygmunt Bauman, On Education, (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012) and Zygmunt Bauman, This Is Not A Diary, (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012).

[8] [57]

Zygmunt Bauman, Wasted Lives (London: Polity, 2004), p. 76.

[9] [57]

Ibid., p. 76.

[10] [57]

Rabbi Michael Lerner, [59] “Trayvon Martin: A Jewish Response,” Tikkun (July 14, 2013).

[11] [57]

Zygmunt Bauman, On Education (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012), p. 47.

[12] [57]

Ibid., Bauman, On Education,  p. 47.

[13] [57]

I have borrowed the term “zones of social abandonment” from Joäo Biehl, Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); see also Henry A. Giroux, Disposable Youth (New York: Routledge, 2012) and Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The Free Press, 2012).

[14] [57]

Angela Y. Davis, “State of Emergency,” in Manning Marable, Keesha Middlemass, and Ian Steinberg, Eds.  Racializing Justice, Disenfranchising Lives (New York: Palgrave, 2007), p. 324.

[15] [57]

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Declaration (Argo Navis Author Services, 2012), p. 20.

[16] [57]

Ibid., Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Declaration, p. 20.

[17] [57]

See Loic Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Durham,NC: Duke University Press, 2009).

[18] [57]

John Steppling [60], “Control & Punish,” JohnSteppling.com, (June 22, 2013).

[19] [57]

Kyle Bella [61], “Bodies in Alliance: Gender Theorist Judith Butler on the Occupy and SlutWalk Movements,” TruthOut (December 15, 2011).

[20] [57]

Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations IV, no.2 (Spring 2012), pp. 37-76.

[21] [57]

I take this up in Henry A. Giroux, Education and the Crisis of Public Values (New York: Peter Lang, 2011).

[22] [57]

Adam Gopnik [62], “The Caging of America,” The New Yorker, (January 30, 2012).

[23] [57]

Stuart Hall interviewed by James Hay, “Interview with Stuart Hall,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 10:1 (2013): 10-33.

[24] [57]

There are many sources that address this issue, see, in particular, Melvin A. Goodman, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism (San Francisco: City Lights, 2013).

[25] [57]

Stuart Hall, “The Neo-Liberal Revolution,” Cultural Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6, (November 2011),  p. 706.

[26] [57]

Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties(New York: Free Press, 1966) and the more recent Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 2006) .

[27] [57]

Stuart Hall [63], “The March of the Neoliberals,” The Guardian, (September 12, 2011)

[28] [57]

Alex Honneth, Pathologies of Reason (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 188.

[29] [57]

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 222.

[30] [57]

See Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia(New York: Nation Books, 2004); Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace(New York: Nation Books, 2002); Chris Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning (New York: Anchor Books, 2003); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004); Andrew Bacevich, The New American Militarism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the Republic(New York: Metropolitan Books, Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America’s Path To Permanent War, (New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books, Henry Hold and Company, 2010); Nick Turse, The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008).

[31] [57]

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Declaration (Argo Navis Author Services, 2012), p. 22

[32] [57]

Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz, “Cops Ready for War,” RSN [64], (December 21, 2011).

[33] [57]

Ibid., Becker and Schulz, “Cops Ready for War.”

[34] [57]

Glenn Greenwald [65], “The Roots of The UC-Davis Pepper-Spraying,” Salon (Nov. 20, 2011).

 [35] [57]

Erica Goode, “Many in U.S. Are Arrested by Age 23, Study Finds,” The New York Times, (December 19, 2011) p. A15.

[36] [57]

Phil Rockstroh [66], “The Police State Makes Its Move: Retaining One’s Humanity in the Face of Tyranny,” CommonDreams, (November 15, 2011).

[37] [57]

Michael Geyer, “The Militarization of Europe, 1914–1945,” in The Militarization of the Western World, ed. John R. Gillis (New York: Rutgers University Press, 1989), p. 79.

[38] [57]

Tony Judt, “The New World Order,” The New York Review of Books 11:2 (July 14, 2005), p.17.

[39] [57]

David Graeber, “Dead Zones of the Imagination,” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2 (2012), p. 115.

[40] [57]

Jenna Wortham [67], “Stealth Wear Aims to Make a  Tech Statement,”  The New York Times (June 29, 2013).   [67]

[41] [57]

Steve Herbert and Elizabeth Brown, “Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City,” Antipode (2006), p. 757.

[42] [57]

Rod Bastanmehr [68], “Absurd: Billionaire Koch Brother Claims Eliminating Minimum Wage Would help the Poor,” AlterNet (July 11, 2013).   [68]

[43] [57]

Hannah Groch-Begley [69], “Fox Asks if Children Should Work for School Meals,” Media Matters (April 25, 2013. Online:   [69]

[44] [57]

Amanda Terkel [70], “Maine GOP Legislators Looking To Loosen Child Labor Laws,” Huffington Post, (March 30, 2011).

[45] [57]

Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas, “Translators Note,” in Jean-Luc Nancy, The Truth of Democracy,  (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2010), pp. ix.

[46] [57]

Paul Krugman [71],  “From the Mouths of Babes,” The New York Times (May 30, 2013), Online:   [71]

[47] [57]

Ibid., Michelle Alexander.

[48] [57]

Jody Sokolower [72], “Schools and the New Jim Crow: An Interview With Michelle Alexander,” Truthout, (June 4, 2013).

[49] [57]

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010), p. 9.

[50] [57]

For a particularly egregious and offensive defense of this racist stereotype, see Richard Cohen [73], “Racism versus Reality,” Washington Post (July 16, 2013). Online:

  [73][51] [57]  [73]

Smartypants, “A Failure of Imagination,” Smartypants Blog Spot  [74](March 3, 2010). Online:  [74]

[52] [57]

Don Hazen [75], “The 4 Plagues: Getting a Handle on the Coming Apocalypse,” Alternet, (June 4, 2013).

[53] [57]

David Price, “Memory’s Half-life: A Social History of Wiretaps,” Counterpunch 20:6 (June 2013), p. 14.

[54] [57]

I take up this issue in detail in Henry A. Giroux, The Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2013).

[55] [57]

John Van Houdt [76], “The Crisis of Negation: An Interview with Alain Badiou,” Continent, 1.4 (2011): 234-238.   [76]

[56] [57]

Zoe Williams [77], “The Saturday Interview: Stuart Hall,” The Guardian (February 11, 2012). 


Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/investigations/united-states-awash-public-stupidity-and-views-critical-thought-both-liability-and

Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/henry-giroux
[2] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#I
[3] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#II
[4] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#III
[5] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#IV
[6] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#V
[7] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#VI
[8] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#VII
[9] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#VIII
[10] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#IX
[11] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#X
[12] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XI
[13] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XII
[14] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XIII
[15] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XIV
[16] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XV
[17] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XVI
[18] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XVII
[19] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XVIII
[20] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XIX
[21] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XX
[22] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXI
[23] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXII
[24] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXIII
[25] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXIV
[26] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXV
[27] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXVI
[28] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXVII
[29] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXVIII
[30] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXIX
[31] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXX
[32] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXI
[33] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXII
[34] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXIII
[35] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXIV
[36] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXV
[37] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXVI
[38] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXVII
[39] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXVIII
[40] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XXXIX
[41] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XL
[42] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLI
[43] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLII
[44] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLIII
[45] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLIV
[46] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLV
[47] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLVII
[48] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLVIII
[49] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#XLIX
[50] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#L
[51] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LI
[52] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LII
[53] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LIII
[54] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LIV
[55] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LV
[56] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#LVI
[57] http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting#_ednref
[58] http://truth-out.org/%20http:/www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/31/downward-mobility-europe-young-people
[59] http://truth-out.org/%20http:/friendfeed.com/911bloggerin
[60] http://john-steppling.com/control-punish/
[61] http://www.truth-out.org/bodies-alliance-gender-theorist-judith-butler-occupy-and-slutwalk-movements/1323880210
[62] http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik
[63] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals
[64] http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/9023-focus-cops-ready-for-war
[65] http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/
[66] http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/15
[67] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/technology/stealth-wear-aims-to-make-a-tech-statement.html?_r=0
[68] http://www.alternet.org/print/news-amp-politics/absurd-billionaire-koch-brother-claims-eliminating-minimum-wage-would-help-poor
[69] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/25/fox-asks-if-children-should-work-for-school-mea/193768
[70] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/maine-gop-legislators-loo_n_842563.html
[71] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/from-the-mouths-of-babes.html
[72] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16756-schools-and-the-new-jim-crow-an-interview-with-michelle-alexander
[73] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-racism-vs-reality/2013/07/15/4f419eb6-ed7a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
[74] http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2010/03/failure-of-imagination.html
[75] http://www.alternet.org/economy/4-plagues-getting-handle-coming-apocalypse
[76] http://continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/viewArticle/65
[77] http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/feb/11/saturday-interview-stuart-hall
[78] http://zhttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17647-the-violence-of-organized-forgetting
[79] http://www.alternet.org/tags/thinking
[80] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B




Obama’s Praetorian Guard of Capitalism

A Sea-Change in Washington?
by NORMAN POLLACK, Counterpunch (Thank you Counterpunch)
Obama-contempt

Obama’s “Hidden Hand” political strategy in his second term (Peter Baker, in NYT, July 16) merits notice for its utter phoniness (andNYT/Baker gullibility), as though a low profile, designed to convey the velvet glove of measured yet steady reform, has changed anything in his presidency, which from the start has raised sophisticated corporatism, with its full antiradical implications, policies, consequences, to a high art.  Obama’s legacy—it’s too late for him to worry about this now—will be defined by his treachery as a leader and putative tribune of the people. 

In retrospect, Nixon and Bush 2 appear as mere choirboys in comparison, not because of Obama’s “smarts” (he has the brashness of a hustler, which passes in our day for intelligence), but because he can use liberalism as a backdrop for the pursuit of consistently reactionary policies, domestic as well as foreign.  Liberals and progressives, especially, have been taken in, the latest enormous crime being massive surveillance which, once revealed, is allowed to become yesterday’s news, attention shifting instead to Snowden’s apprehension—an example where the real criminal seeks to pin the label of “criminal” on the one who exposes the crime.  Liberals/ progressives sit on their hands (perhaps that’s where Obama’s team got the idea of the “hidden hand” as the latest selling point to cover up a record which hardly needs covering up, so far has radicals’ rigor mortis set in) while data mining, Espionage Act prosecutions, the whole range of civil liberties made mincemeat of, all constitute only one area of manifold and fundamental abuses: the liberalization of cynicism, to render it palatable to the groupies, while the haute crowd of bankers, militarists, defense contractors, national-security advisors, DOJ apologists for international war crimes, and, as they say in the Shakespeare plays, diverse and assorted other characters, laugh in their teeth.

The “hidden hand” fits perfectly with Obama’s (and all of Washington’s, now that he has set the tone, and shown how easy it is to get away with it) compulsive-obsessive regard for secrecy, itself entwined with not only the over-classification of government documents (leading to a state-secrets defense for what amounts to as judicial immunity), but also surveillance per se, the need for control, the perhaps still greater need for acting with impunity, as with targeted assassination, without fear of discovery.  What a bunch of miscreants on which we, as a nation, have bestowed the public trust!  It gets worse, the further one probes: taxation, or the lack thereof, of corporate, banking, and individual wealth; deregulation, nonregulation, outright favoritism—take your pick, as economic concentration moves along, and the Boeings, GEs, Monsantos, Morgan, Chases, are doing very well, thank you; stonewalling and utter stupefaction when it comes to climate change; above all, a gargantuan military apparatus, and missions enough planned or secretly executed to please the most discerning connoisseur (aka, maniacal devotee of  murder, mayhem, and lethal instruments of terror), with little at all remaining to maintain a social safety net worthy of the name.  Under Obama, militarism = planned impoverishment.  Or if not planned, nevertheless operationally the result; for the country is suffering big time, as corporate profits swell, infrastructure crumbles, education is neglected, cities decay, private equity funds blossom, all amid the inhumaneness and colossal waste of military outposts spread worldwide, naval forces steam to the Pacific, Special Ops forces gain purchase on practically every continent, a veritable merry-go-round as the music spins in tarantella fervor the tune of counterrevolution.  The Obama Administration is the New Praetorian guarding the welfare of global capitalism, with a special nod to what is quaintly termed the US national interest.

My New York Times Comment to the Baker article (July 16) follows:

The “hidden hand” approach to presidential leadership is just one more public relations gimmick to distract attention from the substantive content of Obama’s record and policies. This was a failed presidency from Day One, when it became apparent that ’08 campaign rhetoric (replete with teleprompter, the Axelrod writing stable, and Americans’ desperate wish to turn a corner) was plain hooey. The appointment of the Geithner-Summers team of Clinton-Rubin deregulators was the tip-off to acceptance of market fundamentalism and Wall Street rampages with impunity. And the coziness of Obama’s relations with the CIA, JSOC, and the intelligence and military communities made clear an aggressive foreign policy (pace, Nobel Peace Laureate) composed of the Pacific-first geopolitical strategy, an escalation in paramilitary operations, and, with John Brennan and “Terror Tuesdays,” the extreme ugliness and ruthlessness of embarking on a personal course (far exceeding his predecessor) of armed drones for targeted assassination.

Obama carries on, with some new faces (e.g., Rice, Powers), and new slogans, such as humanitarian interventionism, but on his watch, and with his essentially nihilistic, opportunist mental framework, we as a nation are closer to fascism than at any time in American history.  Whomever constitute his “admirers,” presumably liberals and progressives, merely confirms that radicalism is dead in America, the victim of its own shallowness and false consciousness.

Norman Pollack is the author of “The Populist Response to Industrial America” (Harvard) and “The Just Polity” (Illinois), Guggenheim Fellow, and professor of history emeritus, Michigan State University. His new book, Eichmann on the Potomac, will be published by CounterPunch/AK Press in the fall of 2013.




Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport

With Breaking News analysis by Dave Lindorff (see addendum)

By Edward Snowden

snowden-cia3.jpg.1000x297x1

Edward Joseph Snowden delivered a statement to human rights organizations and individuals at Sheremetyevo airport at 5pm Moscow time today, Friday 12th July. The meeting lasted 45 minutes. The human rights organizations included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and were given the opportunity afterwards to ask Mr Snowden questions.

::::::::

The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law. This further proves the United States Government’s persecution of Mr Snowden and therefore that his right to seek and accept asylum should be upheld. Seated to the left of Mr. Snowden was Sarah Harrison, a legal advisor in this matter from WikiLeaks and to Mr. Snowden’s right, a translator.

Transcript of Edward Joseph Snowden statement, given at 5pm Moscow time on Friday 12th July 2013. (Transcript corrected to delivery)

snowdenpresser


Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice — that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement — the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.

Thank you.

For further information, see:

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from…

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-J…

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Edward Snowden, an example for the rest of humanity, is the famed NSA leaker who fled the USA to Hong Kong, then Moscow. 

ADDENDUM


RT-TV Reports that Snowden has Accepted Russian Asylum Offer

Fri, 07/12/2013 – 10:57
Breaking News:
by Dave Lindorff

Russian TV is reporting that Edward Snowden, the bete noir of the US national security state, who has leaked information that the National Security Agency is spying on all electronic communications of Americans, and on hundreds of millions of others around the globe, as well as on the leaders and the embassies of even many US allies, is accepting an offer of political asylum that has been extended by Russia, where he has been spending weeks in limbo in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, unable to fly to asylum elsewhere.

According to the RT-TV report [1], Snowden, in accepting the Russian offer, will have to abide by a condition set by Russian President Vladimir Putin that he not continue releasing documents harmful to the US.

This deal leaves a lot of questions unanswered:

First of all, Snowden has already turned over a huge amount of information to reporters at the Washington Post and the Guardian newspaper in the UK, as well as lesser amounts of documents to Der Spiegel magazine in Germany and to other publications in other countries. It is not clear whether he can control, at this point, whether or not those news organizations continue to publish articles based on the documents in their possession, It is also unclear what the Russian government response would be concerning Snowden’s protected status should any of those organizations continue to publish embarrassing or damaging disclosures about the NSA. Asked by reporters at an airport press conference whether he would continue to release details about the NSA himself while in Russia, Snowden’s answer was an ambiguous, “My job is done.” That job, though, was providing the leaked information to reporters. Snowden himself has not publicly disclosed the information.

Snowden also correctly pointed out the distinction between “damaging America,” and exposing the NSA. “No actions I take or plan are meant to harm the US… I want the US to succeed,” he said in answer to a question. Would Putin consider further leaks about the US government’s spying on its own citizens “damaging” to America? Open question.

In any event, Putin has made clear that Russia would never extradite Snowden. As he put it, “Russia has never extradited anyone and is not going to do so. Same as no one has ever been extradited to Russia.” Besides, the cat’s already out of the bag, in terms of the big revelations Snowden made public.

The RT-TV report also suggests that Snowden and Russia may be looking at the asylum grant as less than a lifetime arrangement. It appears to be a way for Russia to get him out of the airport, into Russia, to further tweak the US, and to put Snowden in an official status where he could be provided with travel documents as a matter of course, as would an asylum grantee in the US

This could enable him to quietly leave Russia later for another location after some time has passed. The RT story significantly quotes Tatyana Lokshina of Human Rights Watch, as saying Snowden is seeking to stay in Russia because he “can’t fly to Latin America yet.”

Three Latin American countries so far–Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua– have offered Snowden asylum without conditions, but he has been unable to safely travel to any of them, given the already demonstrated US threat to force his plane to land. (American authorities exerted pressure on French, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish governments to refuse their airspace, in violation of international law, to a presidential plane carrying Bolivia’s leader, Evo Morales, to fly home from a state visit to Russia, forcing it to land in Austria, where the government was pressed to illegally inspect the plane, which the US incorrectly suspected was transporting Snowden to asylum in Bolivia.) At the airport conference, Snowden said he had accepted all three offers of asylum, as well as Russia’s. “I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future,” Snowden said after meeting with human rights lawyers earlier.

The likelihood that Russia’s offer of asylum with conditions limiting his further leaking of documents is part of some behind-the-scenes maneuver by the US with Russian support seems mighty slim to me. It already hands Russia a huge propaganda coup as it preemptively blocks further US criticism of Russia’s human rights shortcomings and violations.

If anything, the Obama administration and the commissars of the US security establishment surely have to view the prospect of Snowden’s staying in Russia with his stack of laptops loaded with NSA secrets — which he claims he has never opened up or provided to Russian or Chinese intelligence experts — as deeply worrying. More likely, the initial offer from Putin was a way to end the awkward circus at the airport, while on Snowden’s part, it was a way to end his surely frustrating weeks-long airport purgatory.

It is hard to imagine that Snowden would be accepting becoming trapped inside Russia for life, so I expect he will end up being provided with full rights of travel (Russia is, after all, a free-travel country now, not the old Soviet Union with its closed borders), so I assume he will be issued a travel document as a matter of course as part of the asylum process. That would simply push back the time that he might decide to move on to get out from under any onerous conditions on his stay in Russia. (Once he’s had time to put on weight, grow his hair long and maybe change the color, get fitted for a pair of contacts, maybe of a different eye color, grow a good Russian physicist’s beard, and once he has a Russian travel document, which the US would not have the ID number for, it would be fairly easy for him to hop a Russian commercial flight with official Russian permission and assistance, and to fly via Cuba to Venezuela, Bolivia or Nicaragua. The US ability to constantly monitor all flights visually and to spot a disguised Snowden are actually quite limited.)

As Snowden said at a meeting with 13 representatives of human rights organizations from Russia and around the world [2] who assembled at the airport, as reported in RT’s article, “I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted.”

The Snowden story, and the ongoing exposure of the NSA’s spying outrage, is clearly not over. Stay tuned.


Source URL: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1863

Links:
[1] http://rt.com/news/snowden-asylum-formal-status-019/
[2] http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html




A letter from Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, liberal advocate of a police state

By Tom Carter, wsws.org

G.S. Stone, typical of corporatist liberals.

G.R. Stone, corporatist liberal through and through.

We invited Professor Geoffrey R. Stone to respond to the article, “Liberal advocates of a police state turn savagely against Edward Snowden,” by David North and Eric London, posted on the World Socialist Web Site on June 14. In the article, the authors condemned those erstwhile liberal commentators who had jumped on the reactionary campaign to label NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a “traitor” and a “criminal.” Specifically, North and London observed that Professor Stone’s recent anti-Snowden article in the Huffington Post “advances arguments in support of authoritarian rule that totally contradict positions” he previously advanced.

Professor Stone responded by email to Eric London on June 19. His letter, in its entirety, reads as follows:

“Thanks for sharing. What you seem not to understand is that situations are different and not everything is or should be on one side of the line or the other. Everything I’ve said about Snowden is perfectly consistent with everything I’ve ever said on this subject. Although I think we need a healthy distrust of our public officials, I also oppose the arrogance of a single, unelected individual who takes it upon himself, with no lawful authority or justification, to disclose properly classified information to persons unauthorized to receive it just because HE thinks the information shouldn’t be classified. The plain and simple fact is that Snowden betrayed the rule of law and the trust of the American people when he decided, without any legal authority, to disregard the judgments of the executive branch, the Congress and the judiciary in a way that put the security of the nation at risk. Even if what he did has beneficial consequences, he had no legal or moral right to do it. He is a criminal.”

The WSWS takes the opportunity presented by Professor Stone’s response to reply to his letter and explain its significance. From the first line to the last, Professor Stone’s letter confirms the WSWS’s frequent warning that the entire political establishment—including its “liberal” sections—is openly hostile to the democratic principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and in the later Civil War amendments. Professor Stone speaks for a significant section of academic intellectuals who are repudiating their previous commitment to democratic rights and advancing positions that would legitimize the establishment of a military-police dictatorship in the United States.

Let us proceed to an examination of Stone’s condemnation of Edward Snowden.

1. The Rule of Law

Despite being written by an American law professor, Professor Stone’s letter consists of conceptions that are utterly alien to the democratic legal tradition of the United States.

Reiterating his previous statements, Professor Stone announces that it is contrary to the “rule of law” for a “single, unelected individual” to take it upon himself “to disclose properly classified information to persons unauthorized to receive it.” In the context of Snowden’s revelations, this formulation inverts the “rule of law,” turning it upside down and transforming it into its opposite. For Professor Stone, the “rule of law” becomes the duty of unquestioning obedience to superiors.

This is not what the “rule of law” means. As Thomas Paine wrote in his revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense (1776), “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

The “rule of law” means that the acts of every person, up to and including the highest public official, are beneath the law. The Constitution provides that even the “President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” may be impeached for violating the law. This is the essence of the phrase, “a government of laws not of men.” In other words, the “rule of law” means that public officials who engage in illegal conduct run the risk of having their behavior exposed, their orders disregarded, and their official powers terminated.

If a citizen is ordered by a public official to participate in illegal conduct, then the “rule of law” does not mean that citizen should obey the order without question. On the contrary, the “rule of law” means that going along with the illegal conduct of one’s superiors, even when ordered to do so, may itself be illegal.

In American history, this principle found perhaps its fullest expression in the arguments of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, which took place from November 1945 to October 1946. The Nazi defendants famously asserted that they were merely “following orders,” and that they did not have any legal or moral right to question the orders they were given or to refuse to carry them out. Rejecting these arguments with contempt, Justice Jackson declared that modern civilization “cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal irresponsibility.”

Nuremberg Principle IV reads, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility. .. provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Professor Stone’s phrases such as “no lawful authority” and “ properlyclassified information” simply beg the question. Can a criminal conspiracy to violate the fundamental rights of hundreds of millions of innocent people be “properly” classified, or “lawfully” kept secret?

Professor Stone’s letter does not actually address the substance of Snowden’s revelations. Nor could it. Edward Snowden brought to light what is perhaps the most spectacular breakdown of the “rule of law” in American history. The pervasive illegal spying on Americans revealed by Snowden makes the criminal conduct of figures such as Richard Nixon seem petty and trivial by comparison.

If all the criminals in the Obama administration who deserved to be actually were impeached, the White House, the West Wing, and the rest of the Washington executive office buildings would resemble a ghost town.

Figures such as Professor Stone who are invoking the “rule of law” in their condemnations of Snowden have nothing to say about the “rule of law” in relation to the gigantic, unprecedented criminal spying operation Snowden revealed. The words Justice Jackson used to describe the hypocritical posturing of the Nuremberg defendants applies in full force to Snowden’s persecutors. These men, Jackson declared, “are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied all law.. .. International Law, natural law, German law, any law at all, was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do.”

2. The Pentagon Papers and “national security”

Professor Stone announces, as though it was an established fact, that Snowden’s revelations “put the security of the nation at risk.” This argument, which is also made in relation to Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, is false and misleading.

Similar arguments were made in the case of the Pentagon Papers, famously leaked by Daniel Ellsberg and published on the front page of the New York Times in 1971. The Pentagon Papers consist of 47 volumes cataloguing the dirty and bloody history of US involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers revealed systematic deceit and lying by successive American administrations, from which the trust of the American population for the government has never fully recovered.

Seeking to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers, the government sued the New York Times. Government lawyers argued that “national security” required the papers to remain secret. The argument was even made that, as a direct and foreseeable result of publication, thousands of American soldiers overseas would be killed.

In its defense of the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the New York Timesinsisted that it was not sufficient for the government to invoke a general and abstract connection between publication and a subsequent event injurious to security. It had to demonstrate a clear, unambiguous, and virtually immediate threat to the lives of citizens or soldiers. In other words, the causal connection between the exposure of government secrets and a specific bad event had to be irrefutably direct.

The Nixon administration’s argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). It is worth quoting at some length from the concurring opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black:

“The word ’security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes… when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

“The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

Justice Black and Professor Stone are both titled as experts in US law, but that is where the similarities end. Justice’s Black’s writing is recognizable as the language of bourgeois democracy. Professor Stone writes in the language of a police state: “authority,” “security,” “betrayal,” the “judgments of the executive.”

In the final analysis, the only “security” put at risk by Snowden’s disclosures is that which shields government officials from the public exposure of their criminal and unconstitutional practices.

3. What Professor Stone does not say

The WSWS article by North and London took issue with Professor Stone’s emphatic declaration that there was “no reason on earth” that anyone in Snowden’s position could ever disclose classified information to the public.

North and London wrote: “This is an astonishing declaration! ‘No reason on earth… ’? In other words, an employee of the state must keep his mouth shut and refrain from exposing criminal activity no matter how injurious it may be to the rights of the American people. ‘No reason on earth ’! What if a civil servant uncovers a secret memorandum authorizing the assassination of a citizen? Or plans for the mass incarceration of political dissidents?”

Professor Stone does not reply to these questions. The conclusion can be reasonably drawn that that Stone meant what he wrote: There is “no reason on earth” that justifies the exposure of classified information, even when the information exposes blatantly criminal activity.

4. “Elected” officials and the Führer principle

Professor Stone, in his initial comment on the Huffington Post as well as in his reply to the WSWS, goes out of his way to declare that Snowden is “unelected” and that he is disregarding the orders of “elected” officials, presumably such as Obama. This is a tendentious and deceitful argument. In effect, it endows an election with the character of a plebiscite—that is, an empty ritual which serves only to provide a pseudo-democratic veneer for dictatorial rule. Those who carried out the American Revolution never conceived of an election as a blank check for those who win office. Once elected, officials have no right to expect the obedience of the citizenry, let alone unquestioned submission to their will. They confront constitutional restraints on the exercise of their limited powers, and violations of the law expose them to impeachment and prosecution.

President Obama, for the record, won a tightly controlled, heavily manipulated, and closely scripted election in 2012. His campaign, as with his Republican opponent, was funded to the hilt with unprecedented contributions from corporate and financial backers, while third parties were systematically excluded from the ballot. As Snowden has pointed out, moreover, Obama’s election victories were the result of lies.

According to the latest polls, a majority of Americans disapprove of this “elected” president’s handling of issues affecting democratic rights. The NSA spying program, in particular, is profoundly unpopular. Despite being “unelected,” Snowden enjoys a base of support far broader than Obama.

More importantly, there is a strong whiff of fascism in this emphasis on the powers of “elected” versus “unelected” individuals. According to fascist logic, the dictator is elected, therefore he represents the “will of the nation.” Further, because the dictator represents the national will, he is above the law, and it is “undemocratic” to oppose him or to disobey his directives. In Germany this was known as the Führerprinzip (“the Führer principle”). Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, in one infamous speech, declared: “The Führer is always right!”

According to the democratic legal tradition, the law applies in full force to both elected and unelected individuals without making any distinction among them. If a person is charged with a crime, it is no defense to say, “But I was elected!” If an elected person ignores the law, is it is the duty of everyone who finds out about such illegal conduct to disclose it to the public. This, it is hoped, will facilitate the impeachment of the crook who was elected.

5. A few words about morality

It is one thing to argue, however flimsy the argument may be, that Snowden had no legal right to disclose the NSA’s spying programs to the public. It is quite another to argue, as Professor Stone does in his letter, that Snowden had no moral right to do so. Since Professor Stone raises the issue of morality, we include a few words of our own on the subject.

Professor Stone does not comment on whether the Obama administration has a “legal or moral right” to all of the information it is gathering about hundreds of millions of innocent people around the world, including innocent Americans. He does not comment on the morality of government agents snooping into intimate phone calls between lovers and spouses, private medical records, internet browsing activity, emails, text messages, and so forth.

We submit that from a moral standpoint, the NSA spying program revealed by Snowden is disturbing, depraved, and repulsive.

With respect to the actions of Snowden, on the other hand, there is a long tradition in American history of deliberately disobeying the law on the grounds that the law is wrong and disobedience is the morally right thing to do. A hundred examples come to mind: Henry David Thoreau and Civil Disobedience; the Fugitive Slave Act and the Underground Railroad; conscription and its dissenters; segregated train cars, buses, and schools.

From a Birmingham jail, where he was imprisoned for violating a lawful injunction, Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Would Professor Stone call this the “arrogance of a single, unelected individual” who was acting “without any legal authority?”

If what Snowden did is not moral, then nothing is moral. If Snowden had no moral right to disclose the most far-reaching criminal conspiracy against the American public in history, then nobody ever has a moral right to disclose anything.

Professor Stone includes, in a concessive clause, the phrase, “I think we need a healthy distrust of our public officials.” However, the rest of Professor Stone’s letter, including his admonition that Snowden had “no legal or moral right” to disobey orders, reveals this “healthy distrust” to be an impotent, wispy, passive sort of distrust: a professed mental state that is never connected in any way with real, living activity. This certainly is not the vigilant distrust championed by the revolutionaries from whom the American legal system originated.

Conclusion

The revelation by Snowden that the US government is engaged in flagrant and unprecedented violations of fundamental democratic rights does not carry any weight in Professor Stone’s analysis. This underscores the extent to which Professor Stone and the social layer he represents has become detached from and even hostile to basic democratic principles and traditions.

The Declaration of Independence—the document from which Lincoln said all of his political thinking flowed—announces the principle that when a government becomes destructive of fundamental, “unalienable” rights, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government …”

This principle is firmly rooted in the oldest traditions of the Enlightenment. John Locke wrote in 1690, “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”

Among the basic rights set forth in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” To anyone with an ounce of democratic consciousness, when Snowden discovered a massive government conspiracy to violate the Fourth Amendment, he was “absolved from any further obedience.” It was his legal and moral duty to disclose it to the world.

American democracy is breaking down under the weight of staggering levels of social inequality and a decade of bloody imperialist warfare. The capitalists and financial aristocrats who have profited from the crisis and plundered the economy look to a police state as a means of further entrenching their wealth and power.

No significant constituency remains anywhere in the political establishment for democracy. Not a single figure within the establishment has stepped forward to defend Snowden. The debate is instead over whether Snowden should be imprisoned or whether he should be executed.

While he has no support in the political establishment, Snowden enjoys extremely broad support within the working class, including in the US and internationally. In contrast to the opportunism and pragmatism of the more privileged sections of the middle class, the working class is not so quick to trade away its hard-won rights. Workers instinctively recognize in Snowden a courageous man who has risked everything to tell the truth.

It is in the working class that democratic consciousness is deeply rooted. The struggle to defend and expand basic democratic protections thus requires an orientation to the proletariat. While figures such as Professor Stone line up to call for Snowden’s incarceration or liquidation, the Socialist Equality Party is mounting a campaign in his defense.

The World Socialist Web Site recently marked the anniversary of both the Declaration of Independence and the Battle of Gettysburg. “To halt and reverse the drive toward dictatorship,” we wrote, “a movement must be built in the working class, a movement that begins with the understanding that democracy is incompatible with capitalism, and that true freedom must be rooted in social equality. All that was progressive in the history of the United States can be carried forward only through a revolutionary struggle for socialism.”

We therefore conclude our response to Professor Stone with the words of Samuel Adams (1722-1803), revolutionary, philosopher, statesman, and possible organizer of the Boston Tea Party:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

* * *

The World Socialist Web Site and Socialist Equality Party are waging a campaign to defend Edward Snowden. For more information and to get involved, click here .




Obamaheads, Be Decent Enough to Call Yourself Centrist Democrats

MSNBC's Schultz, Maddow and O'Donnel: all certifiable Obamaheads, as is Al Sharpton and others.

MSNBC’s Schultz, Maddow and O’Donnel: all certifiable Obamaheads, as is Al Sharpton and others.

By Patrick Walker, OpedNews

My shortest but perhaps most incisive OEN article, this one points out the real harm resulting from Obamaheads’ Orwellian usurpation of the word “progressive.” Not only are many voters deceived but, what’s worse, genuine progressives–the pro-democracy left–have others steal their own most effective rallying banner and are thereby crowded out and marginalized. I offer “centrist Democrats” as an honest alternative for Obamans.

 

There’s a reason I’m fighting over the name “progressive.” I think, for historic and linguistic reasons, it’s the best available name for the pro-democracy left–the left that believes the American people deserve and need a say in what happens to their environment, their climate, their national security, and their economic lives. Democrats like Obama clearly DON’T desire even to consult with the U.S. people on these issues–let alone seek their informed consent. Everything is left in the hands of corporations like the Wall Street bankers, military-surveillance contractors, global food conglomerates, or the fossil fuel industry. Or in those of entrenched, self-serving bureaucrats at the Pentagon and NSA. If you believe in and support that, fine. But it’s the worst kind of Orwellian language abuse to call it “progressive.

Your usurping the name “progressive” does far more harm than you realize. For one, it misleads people who like the idea of progressive change to vote for veiled enemies of progressive change like Obama. But what’s worse–and THIS is what makes me so angry–it GUARANTEES that real progressives (who, again, believe in democracy) get marginalized. Though truth is on real progressives’ side, all the power of government, mainstream media, and Big Money is on the side of anti-progressives–be they Democrat or Republican. So if you dishonestly–backed by the vast, entrenched powers I just named–seize the name “progressive,” people who really believe in democratic change will be left scrambling to look for an effective rallying banner. When the stellar name “progressive” already exists and is rightfully ours.

So I offer you a decent, honest alternative. Call yourself “centrist Democrats.” This even has a propaganda advantage, since a lot of people think the truth is in the middle (as on climate change, it often isn’t) and will consider themselves good, reasonable people for being centrists.

Or, if you like Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, this new labeling should appeal to you, because it’s NOT really honest. For “centrist” hardly applies to Obama and his political allies, who in their authoritarianism and scorn for liberty and democracy, are really to the right of Genghis Khan. So, as Clapper fans, kindly embrace the “centrist Democrats” label as the “least untruthful” you may safely use.

So my takeaway message to Obama (and Hillary Clinton) supporters is this: if you wish to be dishonest Orwellians and continue to marginalize pro-democracy voices, go on calling yourselves “progressives.” But may your language-perverting lie and the harm it does democracy be forever on your conscience.

For those who believe in the urgent need to restore democracy to our deeply imperiled republic, please join the strategy discussion at the Time to Restore Democracy Facebook page: WhoseVoiceOurVoice?

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I am a veteran anti-fracking and Occupy Scranton PA activist, most recently founder of the True Blue Democrats progressive revolt movement. However, currently revamping my political strategy in light of experience, I’m gradually folding up True Blue Democrats, switching my energies instead to discussing strategies for restoring lost democracy on the Time to Restore Democracy Facebook page.

In my nonactivist life, I’m a happily if belatedly married man, a generally freelance editor and proofreader, a lover of Shelties (whom my wife brought into my life), and a bit of a bohemian individualist who loves reading, especially political philosophy and history and philosophy of religion, science for laymen, and fiction. I also love travel, studying French and Spanish (when activism gives me time), playing chess and Scrabble, and writing poetry and song lyrics. To give my poor body a break from all that sit-down mind-work and a probably excessive fondness for cholesterol and alcohol, I (in decreasing order of frequency) walk, bicycle, and play tennis badly.