The Right's view of government and free speech depends on how safely right-wing that government and that speech are

by Ken

I've had Paddy Chayefsky and Sidney Lumet's Network in mind for a while now, and went so far as to snag a copy of the DVD, but haven't summoned the intellectual energy to look at the picture again, which you would think would be the minimum prerequisite for writing about it. Partly I guess the problem is that I recall it as a pretty depressing film, not at all the inspirational battle cry for change that it apparently is for some people.

I think Chayefsky (writer) and Lumet (director) understood full well what they were doing. Rousing as it is at first to hear all those common folk rising up in righteous anger joining in with the rallying cry "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore," what's also painfully clear is that those people haven't a clue about anything except that they're mad as hell -- without an inkling as to what might be the cause of their anger or what direction one might look in for solutions. And so they become perfect tools for the very bad actors they think they're bringing down, ready to pounce on any opportunity to tighten their grip on the economy and the social order.

Does this remind you of anyone?

This is so fatiguing. I know the teabaggers resent what they assume is liberals looking down on them for being stupid, but really, when they behave like the most irremediably cretinous creatures on their pal God's green earth, while providing cover for many of the greediest and most selfish . . . well, really!

I wanted to write a post about alarming developments emanating from the Federal Commission to Destroy Social Security. I would have made sure everyone is aware of the stunning exchange between commission vice chair Alan Simpson and an excellent reporter, Alex Lawson, over the commission's clear intentions to use an imagined Social Security "crisis" as cover for beginning to cripple the system, as the right-wingers who are still fighting the New Deal have wanted to do from its inception. There's video posted, where you can see Simpson being near psychotically abusive while being wrong on every single point about which he claims such expertise while berating Alex. Clearly the guy is either a Social Security ignoramus or a big fat liar; what the hell is such a hard-core ideologue doing anywhere near such a commission (except possibly testifying as an interested witness)?

But nobody in the Infotainment News business even raises the question about the fix being in. It's accepted as Capitol Hill wisdom that: (a) all those IOUs the Social Security trust fund has been piling up from having its funds sucked out for use for everything but SS -- those IOUs are legitimate obligations of the U.S. government, but (b) anyone who suggests that for starters any discussion of the financial plight ought to begin with repayment of those IOUs -- anyone who even suggests such a thing is too stupid to be entitled to discuss the subject.

Of course when it has to meet its various other obligations, the government finds the money. When was the last time an administration waging a disastrous and pointless war was unable to find money for it?

As progressive economist Dean Baker wrote in a blogpost raising the alarm about yet another Washington Post "article" that's really propaganda from moneybags ideologue Pete Peterson's bogus economic "news" operation the Fiscal Times, trumpeting support for attacking Social Security by presumed progressive Andy Stern, former president of the SEIU (see the original post for links):

[The article] told readers that: "On the fiscal commission, Stern [Andy Stern, former head of the Service Employees Internation Union, one of members highlighted in the peice] is already looking for ways to break through the ideological camps on deficit-reduction." In fact, individuals who are not motivated by ideology would note that the country's projected long-term deficit problem is driven almost entirely by the broken U.S. health care system.

If per person health care costs were the same in the United States as in any other wealthy country, then the projections would show huge budget surpluses rather than deficits. It also should be possible for the people in the United States to take advantage of lower cost health care systems elsewhere even if the power of special interests like the insurance and pharmaceutical industry prevent reform here. This basic fact should feature prominently in any discussion of the long-term deficit that is not motivated by ideology. It is never mentioned in this piece.

The article also treats an assertion from Mr. Stern as a basic fact: "Now Stern argues that deficit reduction isn't simply a conservative issue. 'What I keep saying to the progressive community is that when the crisis hits, it's students, workers and poor people who pay the price.'"

Of course, the crisis has hit -- the country is facing its worst downturn since the Great Depression. While students, workers, and poor people have paid the price, this is entirely the result of politics. The government quickly moved to rescue the major banks, using vast amounts of public money to save Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America from bankruptcy. At the same time, it has refused to spend enough money to boost the economy back to full employment levels of output or take serious steps to prevent people from being thrown out of their homes.

However, the decision to protect the wealthy rather than students, workers, and poor people was entirely a political decision. The banks were able to use their political power to ensure that they got the resources needed to prevent their collapse. On the other hand, those not interested in helping students, workers, and poor people began to highlight concerns about deficits in order to head off additional spending. It may always be the case that the wealthy will dominate the political process to the extent that they do today, but it is worth pointing out that it is politics, not economics, that determines who suffers in a crisis.

Gosh, this is fatiguing, surrounded as we are by right-wing propagandists masquerading as "nonpartisan."

I don't remember whether it was on the WaPo or NYT website that I saw an article promoted with the breathless revelation that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's family is "left-leaning." Ohmygosh, I guess we're all supposed to tremble at the takeover of the Court by Bolsheviks and pray that creepythug "Miss Mitch" McConnell makes good on the hint he dropped that he might supportia filibuster on her nomination, to save us from the scourge of left-leaningness. Can you imagine any newspaper in the country, or any TV news operation, trumpeting the family of a judicial nominee as "right-leaning"? Didn't unmitigated extreme right-wing ideologues John John Roberts and "Sammy the Hatchet" Alito sail through confirmation proceedings despite evidence that they themselves, not their families, are rigid, hard-core ideologues?

Just recently I mentioned a column in which that lying turd George Will self-righteously denounced the Obama administration for advocating unlimited government power, a charge that's so stupid, he should have been fired just for saying something so ridiculous, but more importantly, how often was he heard from when sociopathic right-wing extremists like "Big Dick" Cheney and "Tiny George" Bush were ripping up the Constitution in pursuit of an unprecedentedly unchecked executive branch? How does the man venture out in public without everyone spitting on him and saying, "Jeez, Will, you're full of doody"?

And then there's the cover being provided to Rep. Mark Kirk, the Illinois GOP Senate candidate who seems to have a penchant for lying about his record. One point of controversy is his blatant political activity during brief reserve stints in Afghanistan (which he likes to mischaracterize as "deployments"), a charge that comes not from frothing left-wing activists, as right-wing defenders have taken to claiming, but from the Dept. of Defense, which has no doubted that he was in substantial violation of regulations and has been "counseling" him on how to comply (basically by stopping doing all that crap while he's on active duty).

My colleague Terry Welch, a vet who's kind of touchy about misrepresentation of military service and breaking military regulations, has written a post responding to a right-wing ex-marine who says all Kirk is doing is exercising his democratic rights. Of course he's wrong down the line with his claimed justifications for Kirk's actions, which are clearly not allowable. He's so hilariously wrong that it's almost comical. Except it isn't funny. The question I found myself wondering is whether our ex-marine would have the slightest sympathy at all for servicemembers' rights to political expression if that political expression were even slightly left of center. Or would we be talking about discharges and courts martial and treason charges?

I wish I had the energy to write a post about that too. Maybe next week.

#