Next story: The Winners: How Wall Street Runs Our Politics
Getting a Grip
The Republican Playbook
by Michael I. Niman
Reform, change, deregulation, and other post-cognitive political memes
You know the memes. We’re assaulted with them when we open our mail, listen to our radios, turn on our TVs, or have the misfortune to be in the vicinity of a hyperkinetic “dittohead.” We need “less government,” “less taxes,” “reform,” and “change.” The Kenyan is “redistributing” your hard-earned income to ne’er-do-wells. Tax cuts and free trade will save the economy. We need less “government regulation.” Obama is a “big government” socialist.
The 2010 election cycle has come down to a handful of Republican memes, dutifully repeated ad nauseam by a compliant news media kept alive by mainlining political attack ad dollars and easily regurgitated PR scripts.
Political discourse in America today essentially means parroting these sound burps over and over, louder and louder, and finally, when reaching your highest crescendo, unilaterally declaring yourself intellectually and politically pure, and ending the “conversation.”
So let’s launch our own meme here and term this political discourse “post-cognitive.” And to understand post-cognitive politics, let’s examine these memes one by one.
First off we can just take “reform” and “change” off the table. They’ve become vapid terms floating around the political ether with no real meaning. Seldom are these words accompanied by any clarification as to what is being reformed or changed, how it will be done, and what kind of new monster we’re creating in the process. Let’s not forget that the current economic mess was the result of so called “free market reform,” which, like swapping clean underwear for soiled boxers, represents change.
And let’s not forget how the Democrats took this moniker for a joyride in 2008, essentially blowing the engine and leaving a smoldering wreck by the side of the same old road we’ve always been on.
Obama’s redistribution of wealth
Unlike reform and change, “redistribution of wealth” is real—but this class war isn’t the one described by corporate propagandists walking the streets in their tea party skimpies. Commencing with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, we’ve seen a historically unprecedented upward redistribution of wealth. During the George W. Bush presidency, the richest one percent of the country took home two thirds of the bounties of our economic growth, while income for the bottom 80 percent of the population basically stagnated, with many middle-class households slipping into poverty. The time period from 1992 to 2007, essentially covering the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies, saw the median income of the richest 400 families in America jump by 407 percent. This American oligarchy also saw their taxes slashed by a third, yielding a take-home income increase of 476 percent. The rest of us enjoyed a relatively anemic income growth of just 13 percent spread over this 15-year period, despite the fact that it was our increased productivity that underwrote this economic growth.
I can throw more numbers at you, but the skinny is that wealth inequality in the US has surpassed the levels of both the robber baron era and the Roaring ’20s. The middle class is disappearing, and along with it our pretenses of being a democratic society. The Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush tax cuts lined the pockets of the rich and spawned a plethora of offshore tax havens into which they could stash their wealth. The rest of us are fully aware of what we got.
As for the meme of a “socialist” Obama “redistributing the wealth” from the rich to the poor, keep dreaming. The mediated image of a jackbooted Obama stealing Joe the Plumber’s hard-earned cash and handing it over to a bunch of slothful welfare recipients lounging about in luxury homeless shelters eating filet mignon and drinking Chivas Regal in their pimped-out Yugos is a cruel joke played on the post-cognitive psyche. The reality is something quite different, as we all work longer and harder hours, enriching an ever-shrinking elite whose taxes are cut while we’re nickel-and-dimed to death with higher tuitions, higher medical insurance premiums, higher sales and property taxes, and a plethora of increased fees, copays, and penalties.
Government regulations
The myth of a “socialist” Obama is just the warm-up act for the big lie our corporate culture masters would like us to imbibe—that government regulations are hurting us common folk and strangling the economy. This is the main message of both the Republican Party and its Tea Party progeny. So let’s look at exactly what government regulates.
Government regulations primarily cover three areas: environmental protection, labor and consumer protection, and the financial industry. Among the most onerous edicts making American industry less competitive with China and India are our environmental regulations. Industries in the US simply cannot easily foist their toxic wastes upon the public commons. They can’t easily dump their poisons into our water and our air. They are bound by a woefully inadequate but nonetheless annoying set of environmental regulations to which they must adhere—and incidentally, that they’ve fought against at every step of our social-evolutionary struggle.
Rather than do away with the government regulations that protect us, why not instead do away with the “free trade” pacts that deregulated trade and opened our markets to these dirty products?
Let’s be clear here. When politicians attack government regulations, it’s the laws making our tap water somewhat potable and our air somewhat breathable that are on the top of their list. The image on Fox News might be the spotted owl, but the endangered species is us. Do you really want your food and water even more tainted with pesticides? Do you want a whole new generation of chemicals to be field-tested on your children? Do you really want to defund the EPA, clear-cut our state and national parks, and revoke the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act?
Foreign sweatshops also have a leg up on us because, well, they’re sweatshops. Their owners are not hampered by child labor laws, occupational work and safety regulations, or any pretense of an eight-hour workday or a 40-hour workweek. Protective clothing and masks, ventilation systems, and ergonomic accommodations for workers are all some of the gains we struggled for during the last century. Industry has opposed them too, at every step, and would like to roll these big government regulations right back to the 1800s, as Nike effectively did when they moved their production to places like Indonesia.
The same holds true for consumer protections and financial regulations, weak as they might be. Remember how hard the Big Three automakers fought against laws requiring them to spend a few bucks per car to install seat belts and, later, emissions controls? Remember how hard the oil companies fought against laws requiring them to remove lead and, later, sulfur from auto and truck fuel? Guess what? They’re still fighting—against, for example, ruthless government regulations ordering them to build more fuel-efficient cars. Damn that Big Brother.
We’ve seen how the financial deregulation of the Reagan and Bush administrations ultimately played out in the real world, transforming financial markets into casinos and staid old banking institutions into blackjack dealers, con artists, and loan sharks. Today’s memes target the few relatively impotent financial regulations set in place over the last year in response to the wholesale Clinton-Bush era looting that crashed our economy. In actuality, we need more powerful regulations to protect homeowners, college students, and credit card users from predatory lenders, and to protect financial institutions from themselves.
The average American is more likely saddled with 25 percent yearly interest on their credit card debt than they are to be endowed with a fat portfolio of financial industry stocks. Popular memes tell us debtors deserve their fate because of their overindulgence. But many folks are now accruing their debt at the supermarket, trying to feed their families on meager salaries or during prolonged periods of unemployment. Either way, if they have jobs, debtors now work primarily to fatten the portfolios of finance industry investors, and will likely never pay off their debts. Are financial regulations criminalizing biblically condemned usury really our enemy? Do any of us benefit from executives looting and bankrupting their own companies?
Big government
The master meme centers on big government. Big government is an all-encompassing concept. It’s huge. Think Big Brother looking over your shoulder, looking into your bedroom or into your dope stash. This anarcho-libertarian meme has salience across the political spectrum.
Government, when functioning properly, however, allows all of us ordinary folks to pool together our measly little sparks of power, and to create something bigger and mightier than even the wealthiest tycoon or corporation. Anarchy is a nice utopian ideal, but as long as you have corporations and tycoons, eliminating government will not give you anarchy or libertarianism. It will only give us domination under unchecked, uncontrolled, unregulated corporate masters. Hence, we have government, which in its ideal form, should represent our collective will to stand up and resist such tyranny.
As corporations get bigger and fiercer, government needs to more be more aggressive in representing the common folk. The problem with our government is that it represents corporations and tycoons more than it represents us. This is because our campaign funding model essentially places politicians on the auction block. Put simply, unlike corporations, we might have souls, but we don’t have their money. The question here is this: Do we want to eliminate government and let corporations completely run wild, destroying our environment, our economy, our freedom, and our lives? Or do we want to retake, rather than destroy, government?
Big government also picks up our garbage, paves our highways, runs our busses, controls our air traffic, inspects our food, polices our streets, educates our children (more or less), gives us drinking water, protects our environment, builds our bridges, delivers our mail, puts out our fires (except maybe in Tennessee), runs our emergency rooms, helps us go to college, protects our Social Security funds, patrols our borders, provides us with parks, protects our forests, supports our arts, funds scientific research, oversees transportation safety, and so on. This is big government. It’s also technically socialism. We have a mixed economy. Live with it. I don’t think we can live without it.
What we need, however, is more oversight to keep government honest and in service to “we the people,” rather than the corporations and tycoons who fund our elections. This is the uphill struggle we face. Corporations want to eliminate government, essentially eliminating the middleman and making their total control of our society official. We’ve got to stop them, because to them we are only cheap labor and marks to be conned.
There is one area where government truly seems obscenely large, however—that’s the military, which consumes roughly half of what we pay in taxes. Curiously, the anti-big-government crowd seems silent on this most obvious example of unaccountable runaway government spending. It’s curious, however, until you follow this military money right back to the corporate interests that are out there bidding on elected officials and sponsoring the meme machine. The hypocrisy is glaring.
We need better memes than the ones NPR, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and whole damn media industrial complex are feeding us.
Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. His previous Artvoice columns are available at artvoice.com, archived at mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
Peter A Reese 28 Oct 2010, 08:11
Quite a tours de force on what's wrong, what's needed and who's delusional. Can I fix the problem by voting for Gillibrand and Higgins?
scottie addison 28 Oct 2010, 13:31
Yeah Michael, "post-cognitive politics"... good to grab the memes disconnected from fact, but try to grasp the mental regress that makes reality undiscernable. In truth it is a reversion to 'glyphic thinking', the most primitive concept formations, fixating on simplistic icons/ideograms/logos as self-complete abstractions apart from any perception. Machiavelli is now Rove, playing easy dumb proverbs to all those lazy enough to love what they thunk they already knew. Ah, "Reagan"... a whole Meme unto himself, an object of numb reverence among the tea-buggers & faux-libertines. He intoned about getting Government off our backs, while quadrupling the national debt, fomenting state terrorism abroad, and expanding police powers at home - which IS Big Government, by definition. Was it only senility setting in soon after his inauguration, or blithe fascism? Obama, most bizarre... in just 2 years the Candidate of Change has been branded as President of Status Quo, wrestling the blunders of his predecessors. The Dems suffer his hubris as self-proclaimed Unifier - compromise & concession, not comprehending the treachery of his adversaries. The real Q this election: REPUGNICANS... EVIL OR STUPID? _sca__St.Loo
Turin 30 Oct 2010, 12:08 Nice point, Minus-man....I mean, No-man......I mean, Niman. And, the new memes that people need to focus on, should center around a particular theme: End Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a doctrine of government favoritism. It is counter-productive to civil rights and it also weakens the integrity of government regulatory power. How can one "regulate" without impartial black and white rules with which to judge a situation? The biggest offenders, along this line, are women's special interests, African American special interests, and Gay special interests. These special interest movements are, not only, evil hate movements, they are antagonist toward equality and are inherently anti-democratic. There is a reason for the success of the corporate mixed-economy memes. Those memes are antecedent toward (supposedly) defeating Affirmative Action, along with the aforemention special asshole-interests. Not that, the corporate mixed economy interests ever plan to deliver on their implied "defeat Affirmative Action" message. Hell, no. Corporate welfare has its reserved parking spot alongside the big trough, too. It's just that the anti-Affirmative Action meme was how the corporate movement turned such large segments of society into sympathizing toadies, while they continued to pull all of the strings - including those of Affirmative Action. You jerks are going down, and straight white males are singing "hallelujah" about it, more and more. It is true that a faux-capitalistic monster of has been created, in the meantime, which will need to be dealt with by the John Galts among us. But, *you* are the last ones to try to fix this problem, any more than you would be to deal with the perverted implementation of civil rights that you gave us. So, keep waving the faux-environmentalist banner, but, no one really gives a shit because it's really just you phonies losing the jobs and special "partnerships". Your mob constituents only care about their own special interest-cuts. The rest of us simply want to see *all* of you go to hell ...and, things are rolling in just that direction, too...Hahaha
Ayn Rand 31 Oct 2010, 06:57
The "common folk" theme is really all that the looters have left to justify demanding more handouts, isn't it? Lately they've been singing the tune of demanding them in the form of redistribution to the middle class instead of to the banks, but apparently a few old school-ers just want to keep more money being pumped into the rusted old hulk of ancient infrastructures, like Buffalo's. Maybe Mr. Niman just isn't all too creative. The nifty thing about pushing mixed economies along with class warfare is that the lines are too nebulous to allow anyone to proclaim when anything is too much. We're told to let "people's lives" decide policies - however we're supposed to determine those. Niman would seem to recommend that we do so by measuring wealth inequality. In practice that amounts to the old school preaching about people below the poverty line, while passing policies that are predominately aimed at improving the lives of unions and giving miserly cost of living increases in the minimum wage stipends of the poor and of course welfare payments to partying single mothers. Then there is even further cultural mythos woven around these people's lives through art and theater in order to confuse public policy on how much regulation is still necessary to fix the problem. The bottom line is always the same: To keep employing substandard mediocre talent which gives society very little return on it's investment, other than to keep large segments of it trapped in the dark ages. What they mean by mixed economy is half-advanced and half-backward. This model works by perpetuating ignorance with misery and it can't be tolerated any longer.
Dan R 02 Nov 2010, 10:35
*yawn* Is there an original thought in Dr. Niman's head? This anti-corporatist, quasi-socialist rant has zero facts and even less persuasive power. The only meme in this "post-cognitive" screed is the cartoonish and Hollywood-esque framing of all politics in terms of Good vs Evil. It is completely beyond the grasp of this learned academic that questions regarding: the appropriate size and scope of government, the potential gap between the intended and actual effects of regulations, and the nature of wealth creation and distribution, can be more sophisticated than the narrative of a cabal of old-money plutocrats scheming on ways to make the lives of the proletariat further immiserated. I guess readers looking for an article that does more than work out the nodding neck muscles of sycophantic, brainless acolytes of Dr. Niman's regurgitated soft-Marxism will have to wait until he deigns to address the power of opposing arguments at their strongest, and not fluffy straw-men counterparts.
Turin 03 Nov 2010, 17:37
Lmao ...Paul, Paul. I've told you, before: Applying psychology for every last non-response that you make, to every real life problem that you encounter, throughout your pointless day, simply goes to show everyone why hillbilly fairies with useless degrees are crazier than brujas, named Gloryhole Goldie. The more you sit there, twiddling your lips to restatements of the obvious, the more we all know that good must destroy evil. ...I guess you're good for something.
Turin 03 Nov 2010, 21:08
Amen, Ayn. Buffalo is an old shithole of corruption and mafia interests, run by and comprised of pathetic old unions and ethnic groups ...which, during the last couple of decades have expanded to include the African-American community - whose main organizing offices are located in the Rath building and the Common Council. The only thing that de common folk, around here, have to worry about is what's left for them after the other "commoners" - like teachers and nurses and homeboy, Byron Brown - have railroaded any businesses that won't give them and their traditional constituents their cuts the hell out of the area. I.e. The battles for the casinos. When these holier-than-thou "little people" aren't holding Bic lighters out of their lined-up car windows, in solemn solidarity with Native American rights to sell their cheaper reservation products to us, they're sometimes waxing damn near racist about allowing them to buy land for use in "our" city. They want contracts and quotas that will gouge their profits from them. Ok, with your mixed economy. But, just don't go pretending that this is about protecting the environment or the product of other Republican dirty work. If local business offerings in areas like this one are poor, then it's because of: 1) Local unions, 2) Affirmative Action, 3) Sluts on welfare. And, all three feed into each other. Another great example is our library system. That downtown library - especially - is little more than a hiring program for females and blacks and is an abomination of patronage. They ought to fire all of those worthless pieces of nepotistic crap and shut the place down, until they can find some serious librarians who will run it as a real, modern library - and not as some day care center, or a hangout for punks who do little more than slow down all of the bandwidth (especially, for laptop users) by watching (boyfriend assaulter) Rihanna and Beyonce's fat asses on Youtube. I refuse to believe that they can't do more to privatize that place, in order to help it break even, than to run that pricey-cafe, in it, for the downtown liberal office crowd or impose charges for ordering materials, online. I mean, Whatever happened to the strict rule of "quiet" in a libary? I remember being thrown out of my local branch on a Saturday, as a kid, for too much laughing and goofing off with a friend. Now, you've got loud cell phone conversations, babies and little kids, all over the place. Plus, there are highschool and ECC punks hanging out, too. Why? For no more genuine reason than to stay in keeping with the hiring program philosophy of perverting a respectable old insituation into another scummy "community" center, for anyone. Their whitewash for all of this noise and distraction is to focus on "media". For example, everytime they get a new batch of good equipment for the library, like some nice, new up-to-date computers, it always seems to fall within this venue; which then causes it to, effectively, get thrown to the dogs by being exploited for it's mere entertainment value. Seriously, you rarely see anyone actually doing genuine research or homework on the computers. The smart patrons bring their own laptops. But, then they find that all of the mindless hip-hop videos are slowing the whole network - including the Wifi - down to about 1/10th the rate of dial-up. This is no exaggeration. All of that expensive equipment, and, if you want to use your laptop, there, then all you've got is a window of about 1/2 hour after the doors first open. The computers get stampeded every morning by all these fat idiots, and, no matter what time you come, it's the same, all day, after that. I wouldn't mind, nearly as much, if the lag was being caused by archived media of famous lectures on physics, a download of the latest version of "Derive", or anything else genuinely mind stimulating. But, whenever you glance, 95% of the time it's just some ignoramus - who ten years ago, would never have set foot in a library - watching a music video, and 4% of the time reading - yes, but reading - some celebrity gossip. Then, there are the stupid child filters that also filter politically in-correct views. Legend has it that you used to be able to register to use your own laptop to bypass these in the same way that you can still do on the public computers. But, because of typical feminist sensitivity to the "threat" of male consumption of porn (typically, disguised as protecting the minors), *all* laptop users now have to see *everything* through the colored glasses of NetNanny ...That includes a *lot* of political expression. No one's kidding anyone, on this topic. *That's* really a result of the controlling political policies of the Affirmative Action liberals who run this institution. Oh, and one more institution that makes the point as to Buffalo hurting itself is NFTA. Finally, after so many years of the same old bus system with an occasion change in the buses themselves, they are making some genuine changes that just seem to be making too much sense. Why? Because of Obama initiatives to promote mass-transit? Could be. But, I say it has just a teensy bit more to with our mayor's administration changing so many of the faces at NFTA, like has been done in other areas. This is a repeat of the old, overturned Walden Galleria policy of not allowing (again) buses to pull up to their entrance; but, on a much larger scale. The inane zone system always made commuting to/through the 'burbs into a major pain in the ass. Whoever claims the credit for this, it's effectively a local accomplishment. (And, even if it's federal, then that's still a Democrat administration, too.) In theory, this *could* turn out to be a good thing, except that there's no thriving economy to serve. But, the point is that it's probably just another integration policy that couldn't care less about anything but Affirmative Action. It's about getting *those* people to the few jobs that are left. If Minusman wants to blame that on Republicans, then he's first got to share the rest of the blame for his mixed economy with his own party. I mean, that's also how the "mix" mixes. Buffalo's been on the steady decline, at least, since the 1970s - if not, since Lyndon B. Johnson. We *don't* elect Republican's here, either. The government is the largest employer, here, in Western New York. Mixed economies went out with the Industrial Age. They're bullshit. We don't need stupid people, anymore. What we need is to stop simply shipping manufacturing jobs, overseas, and to somehow start shipping the idiots over there, with them......
Tim 04 Nov 2010, 05:54
LOL OMG! Thank you for that reality check, Turin!
Barbara 05 Nov 2010, 07:40
Loved it too. I hate that library.
Trevor 05 Nov 2010, 13:12
I think Niman has a great point talking about the rise of corporate power. As a preface, I'm not the extreme left-winger anti-corporate activist type. Just as feudalism was a "stage" in history, the idea of a nation-state/government may well be in danger of falling into that same category. International corporate actions transcend the laws and regulations of any single country; they are not tied to "place", to put ti simply. Without larger oversight to ensure legal, relatively safe and responsible practices (which clearly wasn't the case these past few decades) our next stage in history will be rule of the corporate. I don't mean to sound like I'm evoking apocalyptic visions of a dystopia where we all wear Gap blue jeans and carry around Big Macs; I really think people need to start looking at what the consequences will be if/when government does in fact become less powerful. We will be more "free" or just replacing government with corporate rule? Yes, politics is an emotional topic and a lot of people may not like government, but when it comes down to it, the days of government rule may seem like a paradise if/when corporate rule is in place.
Whitley 05 Nov 2010, 13:44
Trevor is an extremist reactionary. I hope that his weirdo type doesn't come into power. I'm not worried about his odd comments coming to pass. I just think that we have too many tax dollars being paid to mental health providers and don't want to see a sympathizing bipolar president appointing a UFO czar in the next health reform bill.
Trevor 05 Nov 2010, 19:25
@ Whitley. Thank you for the thought-provoking reply.
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v9n43 (week of Thursday, October 28) > The Republican Playbook This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |







