Author Topic: Trying to understand  (Read 1686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« on: November 18, 2004, 02:19:00 PM »
Propping up the patriarchy


Neo-liberalism is a soulless ideology that preaches greed and power über alles.  
 
   
     
>by Judy Rebick
November 12, 2004

Pity the poor world. George W. Bush is once again President of the United States. For those of us who try to analyze such things rationally, it is tough to understand. The economy is in the tank, the war in Iraq is a disaster and master villain Osama bin Laden remains at large. What exactly has Bush done to deserve re-election?

But this election was not about reason; it was about fear and hatred.

About a month ago, an American cousin came north to visit my elderly mother. He's about ten years older than I and grew up in Florida. Today he is a religious Jew, working with an engineering firm in New York City. He supported Bush. His explanation included the most overt racism I've heard in a long time. ?We should round up all the Muslims and put them in internment camps like we did with the Japanese during World War II,? he told us. A Jew supporting internment camps. That's when I had an idea of what was coming in this election.

It's not that Bush has hoodwinked Americans; it is that he has mobilized them using fear and hatred, racism and homophobia. In a strange way, Bush's support comes from the same place as Osama bin Laden's. Neo-liberalism is a soulless ideology that preaches greed and power über alles. The appeal of religious fundamentalism whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish is to speak to those who have not benefited from the drive to greed and profit with a simple message of right and wrong, good and evil. In the case of Bush, the moralism is a cover for the same neo-liberal policies. In both cases, propping up patriarchy through violence and the oppression of women is the central operating dictum. Tariq Ali calls it the Clash of Fundamentalisms in his 2002 book of that name. In a complicated world, we are right and they are evil is a simple and powerful message.

It is no accident that a resolution on same sex marriage was on the ballot of 11 states. The vicious electoral mastermind Karl Rove made sure that this would happen to mobilize the religious right to vote and vote they did, delivering Bush a clear popular majority and themselves a lot more power.

The backlash to feminism and equality rights in general is an important factor in the rise of right-wing Republicanism and almost no-one is talking about it. The backlash to feminism began in the United States in the late 1970s and resulted in the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. In her book, Memoirs of a Feminist Revolution, Susan Brownmiller opines that the women?s movement died in 1980. If there was ever a time for its resurrection as a full-fledged, multi-issue feminist and peace movement, it is now.

There is no question that abortion rights are threatened. Four Supreme Court justices could retire any day. They are Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 74; Justice John Paul Stevens, 84, and, to a lesser degree, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71. There is little doubt that Bush will replace them with anti-choice judges. The battle in the Senate will be monumental. NOW (The National Organization of Women) is already mobilizing its members for the battle, calling for the Democrats to filibuster any anti-abortion Bush nominee.

Public support for a woman's right to choose is much stronger in Canada and the religious right is far weaker. Nevertheless, we have to be vigilant. The new strength of the religious right in the United States can give new life to these reactionary forces in Canada. With a minority government, it is possible that things could change very quickly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2004, 08:21:00 PM »
Austin Chronicle
November 12
Page Two
 
Modest Proposals
BY JOHN SAYLES
 
Forget the postelection excrement on how the Democratic Party needs to  reach out to fundamentalist voters and find a "moral position" people  can identify with. What? Let's become less tolerant? More homophobic, more racist?
 
How's this for a moral position?: Thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill. It's always popular politics to attack liars, thieves, and murderers (and even better if you're not one yourself).
 
But you can't oppose a mess of a war by claiming you would have made less of a mess of it. And you can't tell the truth about the Middle East without mentioning our policy with Israel and years of support for repressive regimes in the Muslim states.
 
Segregation was presented as a moral position until we got it out of the legal codes. Now it's just a by-product of the alleged free-market system.
 
Worried about abortion rights? You should be. But if the anti-abortion crusaders are willing to lie down in the middle of highways, chain themselves to fences, picket abortion clinics, shouldn't people on the  other side of the issue be prepared to do the same? It isn't comfortable. It isn't fun. But if you believe, you believe.

What if the right to have an abortion were on the ballot in those states? Or a bill to charge doctors who perform abortions with murder? Always the chance that you might lose, but it certainly would be a  motivating factor to get off your butt and pull the lever.

Pretty much half of the people who voted don't want to go where George W. Bush and his gang want to take us. This is not a bunch of cranks and  sore losers. It's important to remember that any inch you give up through cynicism, apathy, or mere laziness is an inch that will be twice as hard to win back.
 
Know your enemy. People who take away your liberties, the services you've fought and paid for, your standard of living, your public lands and utilities, have stolen from you just as blatantly as if they came into your house and robbed you with a gun. The bribery and extortion they've used to do this is only "legal" because they've been able to get away with it. Television and radio networks that conspire with them to do this are your enemies as well. Buy nothing that can profit them (preferably in an organized boycott), and let the world know about it.
 
If you're a "content provider," try not to work for them. Corporations that control politicians who sell us out, who rape America and the rest of the world and give nothing back, need to be identified, their  methods revealed, boycotted, publicly hounded.
 
The people who voted for Bush are familiar with direct mail - how about some campaigns sending them the news, with names and numbers of  their civic leaders who are robbing them blind? Class war should have an economic face, not just a "cultural" one.

Ask yourself what you might be doing to accommodate or encourage the current system, how you or your business may be helping the IMFs and WTOs ravage American and foreign workers. Then stop doing it.

Complacency and distance do not help. Why are gay people marching in  San Francisco? Instead, they should go en masse and meet people in those states who want to ostracize them (where many of them actually come from) and see if anything human can happen.

If you are lucky enough to have money to invest and choose to use or protect it in that way, ask not only how much your money is earning, but who else is profiting by the use of it. This is not "political correctness" (a term that even in the late Sixties I only heard used by reactionaries), but just trying not to feed the people who are fucking you over.
 
If you don't know how to change a tire or fill the gas tank, you  shouldn't own a car. If you don't know how to inform yourself, you shouldn't expect to live in a democracy. The hard message of our recent movie Silver City is that we all have to be detectives to know what is going on in the world. That means searching rather than just receiving. It means weighing evidence. It means critical thought.
 
Yes, this is exactly what the Republican Party relies on its constituents not to do, and why the bulk of those constituents will be powerless to avoid the economic beating the Bush deficit is going to lay on them. Information is power only if it is used. Pressure - constant and massive pressure - has to be put on the commercial news media, however embedded they may be, to make sure the muggings perpetrated by those in power are public ones.

It can't be relegated to books or movies produced three years after it's too late. The power of the Web will be used as a weapon by friend and foe. Some of its success as a tool for change will be the ability  to invade other people's space, to leave the chat rooms filled with like-minded people and go visiting.
 
Civil disobedience is effective when it is well-aimed and has staying power. If you don't trust the military or what the regime in power is sending it to do, don't join it, and do what you can to help other people not to have to join it. If you think you're getting screwed, make a stink about it. If you thinksomebody else is getting screwed and can think of a way to help, do it.

Let's say John Kerry had gone to the working people in those so-called red states and promised them that if they voted for him, he'd guarantee them $4,000 a year in extra income and services. Would you have any respect for a person who would
give up a deeply held principle (on abortion or any other issue) for $4,000?
 
Politicians are only as good as we force them to be. The religious right took over the Republicans. Why don't the progressives take over the Democratic Party and make a real fight of this thing? If that leads to more regionalism and divisiveness, so be it. You either think these things are worth fighting for, or you don't.
 
Bring it on.

John Sayles is a filmmaker, director, and novelist. His latest film is  Silver City.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2004, 01:39:00 PM »
You mean neo-conservatism.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antny

  • Posts: 102
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2004, 05:19:00 PM »
Amen, anon.

I for one am attempting to do my part to organize resistance.  My idea:  unify the fragmented third parties to agree on a platform of priority!   Make compromises in the name of a common cause.  Take this nation back from the corrupt duopoly that has been corrupted by a houndred years of funneling coorporate funds into elected officials pockets and campaigns.  The people are no longer represented.

Antny
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
etter a lifetime of dreams fulfilled than dreams of fulfilment.

Offline Hamiltonf

  • Posts: 188
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2004, 08:34:00 PM »
Frankly, I do not see too much difference between neoliberalism and neoconservatism. -- They are in a sense two sides of the same coin.
However, you should realise that the person whose article started this thread is an ardent left-winger.    In Canada she's involved with the third party there, the "New Democratic Party".  The "Liberal" party, currently in power, has as Prime Minister Paul Martin who is bringing Canada on side against the wishes of the majority of Canadians, with the US "Star-Wars" Missile Defence Shield. The former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien refused to join "the coalition of the  willing" on Iraq.  Although Martin was Finance Minister at the time and said he agreed, I think if he had been PM he would have sent Canadian Troops to Iraq.  He is scheduled to do some ritual ass-kissing with Dubya at the end of this month when Dubya goes to Ottawa.  
The Conservatives in Canada would like Martin's head to be completely up Dubya's ass, but Martin won't go quite that far.  
Liberalism is about free trade and the "neoliberalism" Rebick talks about is free trade and colonialism.  The US's David Horowitz wrote about "Aid as Imperialism" in the 1960's and that was the liberalism he was talking about.  Dubya wants free trade, (as long as it's to the advantage of his corporate friends).  In this sense he is following a neo-liberal agenda.  Kerry, on the other hand is more protectionist.  He wants to conserve what the US now has.  That makes him a Conservative.  (I won't go so far as to call him a Neo-con) In Canada the Conservatives and the Liberals are both for free trade  -- ( does that make them neo-liberals?) the New Democratic Party are Socialists and they want to conserve what Canada now has.  They opposed free trade as neo-liberal exploitation.  Does this make them true Conservatives?    
I place all this before you to suggest that labels become self defeating.  
I am a member of the Liberal party myself, but used to be NDP.  But I am dismayed at how Dubya maintained his power and am dismayed at how our PM is kissing ass.  
   [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-11-22 03:35 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
uote of the Year
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes ge

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2004, 03:20:00 AM »
Then you can just leave the country.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Hamiltonf

  • Posts: 188
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Trying to understand
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2004, 06:40:00 AM »
Well, if you do want to marry a Canadian and come to Canada, you would be quite welcome here.  Maybe you can convince our PM of the folly of kissing Dubya's ass.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
uote of the Year
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes ge