A lesson for Afghans from the healthcare debate

(credit: AP)

The Great Victory over the health insurance lobby now achieved with Congress' passage of a bill that mandates you buy the industry's products, inexplicably popular progressive blogger Matt Yglesias tells us "Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents" -- barring, that is, some sort of "unrelated fiasco that mars his reputation" (presumably this means "blow job," not "unprovoked and illegal act of military aggression"). Democrats now in power, the victims of the U.S. government's imperial agenda of course no longer serve as useful fodder for the professional liberal class in Washington -- you can't blame their deaths on a bumbling and unpopular Texan, after all -- with Yglesias acting as if Obama's reputation has not already been stained with the blood of his drone strikes and the obsequious partisans at Daily Kos, who once upon time penned tedious 3,000-word jeremiads denouncing George Bush and the GOP for their killing of innocents abroad, now spending most of their days mocking Glenn Beck and praising their historic leader's historic-ness, happily relegating his illegal wars and troop surges to the dark recesses of their fawning, feverish minds.

To regain liberal sympathy, I offer a suggestion: the victims of Obama's wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Iraq should seek to qualify their respective nationalities as preexisting conditions. Or move to Darfur.

The face of modern liberalism

Markos Moulitsas is the founder of Daily Kos and self-satisfied leader of the left-leaning "Netroots" community of bloggers, best characterized by their fervent devotion to the perpetual process of electing "more and better Democrats." When not helping raise money for the same party that endorses locking up hundreds of thousands of Americans for non-violent drug offenses -- and whose rule has brought us progressive achievements like the surge in Afghanistan and the official policy of killing citizens without so much as a judicial rubber-stamp if they travel to sufficiently swarthy countries and associate with the natives -- Moulitsas is busy enforcing Democratic orthodoxy and party dogma, his latest threat of an ineffective primary challenge coming against poor old Dennis Kucinich* for the sin of failing to endorse the White House and congressional leadership's corporatist, pharmaceutical-insurance-complex-boosting joke of a health care reform bill.

"[I’m going to hold] people like Dennis Kucinich responsible for the 40,000 Americans that die each year from a lack of health care," Moulitsas declared on MSNBC this week. Tough words. Now, here's who he promised to support primary challenges against after 189 House Democrats voted to extend the war in Afghanistan, against a measure offered by the dastardly Kucinich, thus ensuring NATO forces will continue killing Afghan civilians at a healthy pace: ____________. That silence is a reflection of an awful strange and morally dubious set of priorities.

Liberals being so proud of their cosmopolitan, humanitarian credentials, in their minds standing in stark contrast to those neanderthal, SUV-driving Republicans, one would imagine they'd place a little more priority on their politicians, you know, not killing poor foreigners in multiple countries with which the U.S. is not even officially at war, and a little less on mandating that all Americans purchase the appropriately demonized health insurance industry's products (idea for solving starvation in the developing world: mandate everyone buy food!). Question the wisdom and morality of that, though, and prepare to face the nastiest epithet a good party-line Democrat can conceive of: Naderite. Hell, it's even worse than being called a Tea Bagger to folks like Moulitsas, defensive tirades and smug derision the immediate reaction toward anyone who dare whisper the long-time consumer advocate's name. Ralph Nader is to Democrats what Judas is to Christians -- partisan politics being very much a religion, sharing all the idolatry and corruption but, unfortunately, neither a hint of grace nor beauty.

As Moulitsas explains it, Kucinich's opposition to the health care bill is "very Ralph Nader-esque" -- you can almost see Josh Marshall mouthing "buuuurn!" As often the case with religion, politics promotes a narrow-minded view of the world and its possibilities, one fraught with internal contradictions like the Democratic tendency of blaming Nader for eight years of George Bush when most Democrats supported and are currently institutionalizing the worst excesses embraced by the former president. To committed partisans, however, the failure of the Democrats to enact the supposed Democratic agenda has only one obvious solution: elect more and better Democrats. Take Moulitsas' smug and revealing "tweet" to those who question singling out Kucinich for condemnation and not the awful health care bill -- to say nothing of the Democrats voting for more war in Afghanistan: "What I'd really like to know is how many Kucinich-bots have contributed to Bill Halter in Arkansas. But that would be DOING something..."

It is kind of a cute, in a way, that a glorified online fundraiser who attacks non-partisans with venom and obscenity usually reserved for Holocaust-deniers and Republicans thinks he has an impact on policymaking, and believes this to be the case because he works to elect former Clintonite non-entities like Halter, whose campaign site informs of you of little more than his square jawline. That he sees this as the ideal means of "doing something" and affecting change proves Rahm Emanuel's assessment of liberals right, if for different reasons, as diverting activist resources to the electoral process ignores the fact that all meaninful change comes not from politicians, but from social movements -- and that the state, once established, exists to quell calls for radical change, not undertake it; to maintain the existing power structure, not upend it. Those paying attention not to rhetoric and politicking, but to policy and its implementation in the real world -- including the Middle East, which seems not be an issue to liberals when its fellow liberals doing the bombing -- are well aware of the essential continuinty in governance despite the nominal changes in power. This is evident to most "Kucinich-bots," I'd assume, but apparently not to Mr. Daily Kos and his devotees, calling into question who are the real mindless drones.

-----

*I interviewed Kucinich back in 2007 about his run for president, the Democratic establishment, bipartisan militarism and his endorsement of the pro-war John Kerry.

Who will think of the corporation?

The continuing descent of Reason magazine from irrelevant inanity to outright self-parody continues, this time with Katherine “It's quite exciting to inaugurate a war” Mangu-Ward -- last seen defending the use of private jets by the CEOs of failed corporations (which actual libertarian Jim Henley termed an “understated masterpiece” in making the case that “libertarians are just shills for corporate privilege”) -- lashing out against, of all people, critics of the AIG bonuses.

In her latest ill-considered defense of corporate excess, Mangu-Ward implies critics of failed companies using the U.S. Treasury to enrich their undeserving employees object to all instances of firms providing bonuses, including to those who deserve them. Taking the absurdity to the next level, she then suggests President Obama's statement that, “We believe in people getting rich based on performance and what they have add in terms of value and the products that services that they create,” somehow contradicts his (belated) attacks on the AIG bonuses. “Don't know why anyone would think otherwise,” she snarks, linking to this BBC article about the the U.S. government pressing AIG to payback the bonuses (which were only made possible by the federal government's generous gift of more than $170 billion in taxpayer dollars).

But like her fellow Weekly Standard castoff and resident Reason hack Michael Moynihan -- who earlier this week defended poor Jim Cramer from mean old Jon Stewart’s attacks -- Mangu-Ward's chief fault is not so much her views on war or the corporate state, per se, but the fact that her writing is so incredibly dull, dull, dull and devoid of any semblance of actual thought. Her schtick, like her boss Matt Welch, is apparently to poke fun at silly leftists – like those quacks who opposed the Iraq war and earlier sanctions and think bankrupt companies shouldn't lavish their employees with taxpayer-funded bonuses – rather than, say, the actual people in positions of power to, I don't know, start illegal wars and commence the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in U.S. history.

An actual libertarian might point out that AIG, as an elite financial institution, for years benefited from a state policy of easy credit from the central bank and an implicit guarantee -- now made explicit -- of a government bailout in the face of hard times. Even without a bailout the AIG bonuses would be of questionable morality, seeing as how firms on Wall Street actually authored the state-granted priviledges they benefitted from in the heady days leading up to the current economic malaise.

If opposition to force is the core of libertarianism, and if AIG is using stolen money from you and me to finance tennis lessons for the children of the corporate elite, then that would make them little more than thieves, no? Mangu-Ward, however, sees an attack on rich corporate executives and can't help but reflexively leap to their defense. The takeaway from all this? Some (vulgar) libertarians really are just defenders of corporate privilege -- shocking, I know -- and organizations that advocate "privatizing" prisons are probably not the best allies in the fight against corporatism.

A guy named Chas

Chas Freeman will not be the next chair of the National Intelligence Council -- the body responsible for putting together things like the ’07 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- as he has withdrawn his nomination, blaming the so-called “Israel Lobby” for waging a campaign against his appointment. Juan Cole has his personal letter to friends and supporters on the news, in which he writes:

“There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.”

Though Freeman may have unfortunate views on the role of the state, and the Tiananmen Square massacre in particular (as I wrote about here), plenty of officials in the State Department and the Pentagon have deplorable views -- they are conducting foreign policy for the largest empire in world history, after all -- so the vocal opposition to his appointment was clearly about more than just his views on China.

What I found particularly interesting about the Freeman controversy was the sudden interest in foreign policy over at Reason -- to libertarianism what Commentary is to pacifism -- where writer Michael Moynihan criticized Freeman for stating (over a decade ago) that Iraq was “not a flimsy construction.” This calls into question Freeman’s “understanding of the history of the Middle East,” writes Moynihan, who apparently had no qualms with the appointment of numerous other Obama officials like Hillary Clinton who -- like him -- backed the invasion of the Iraq war and cast the occupation in the rosiest of terms.

How Moynihan can muster up the temerity to criticize someone else over predictions on Iraq proved wrong by events is a stunning example of a compete lack of awareness on the part of Reason’s b-list neo-con. Here’s just a bit of Moynihan’s “humiliatingly error-plagued 2003 column“, in the words of Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, for “Capitalism Magazine”, a loony, objectivist (or do I repeat myself?), total war-advocating webzine:

As the fiercest fighting draws to close, I am sifting through the debris of Europe's anti-war movement. The ideological revolution was contingent upon a great humanitarian disaster. Neither have happened. So what can they say in their defense? The ones who marched through democratic Sweden waving Iraqi flags? How do those opposed to war on a set of vague, lop-sided moral principals react when seeing cheering Iraqis swarm American Humvees, shouting that they, the wretched of the Earth, love Booooosh?

I believe the Iraqi “love” for George Bush was best expressed by this guy, last seen throwing his shoes at the leader of the free world to the applause of, well, everyone.

Meanwhile, Reason editor Matt Welch -- who courageously declined to take a stance on the Iraq war (while spending the lead up to the invasion attacking “the goofy anti-war Left”, which presumably presented the greatest threat to the peace and freedom cherished by libertarians at the time) -- attacked Freeman for being too close to the Saudis. Exhibit A? Freeman, a lifelong diplomat, once said he was a “friend” of Saudi Arabia. Shocking.

Yet while he appears to have developed a sudden interest in Obama's foreign policy appointees, Welch has been conspicuously silent on the appointment of Dennis Ross, who served on the board of the Israeli government-funded Jewish Policy Planning Committee (and more notably, seemingly has no in-depth knowledge of Iran justifying his status as a “special advisor” on and rumored envoy to the country). Odd, that.

Meanwhile, in a dazzlingly ignorant update to a post heralding Freeman's withdrawal, Welch implies Freeman is a tinfoil hat-wearing loon for blaming the “Israel Lobby" for his downfall. “You stay classy, Chas,” writes Welch, seemingly unaware of Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) remark that Freeman’s “statements against Israel” -- not, say, his views on China or Mao Zedong (sorry Matt!) -- disqualified him from chairing the National Intelligence Council. Man, is that Freeman guy a crackpot or what?

But one shouldn’t be surprised by the inanity from Reason, as Welch is the same guy who co-wrote a piece for The Washington Post last year arguing -- apparently in all seriousness -- that the 80s TV show Dallas and its portrayal of materialistic, capitalist excess brought down the Soviet Union. I remain undecided as to which is worse: that the Post published the piece, or that Welch needed a co-author to write it.

In the future, I suggest Welch sticks to what he’s good out -- publishing clueless defenses of the use of corporate jets and further marginalizing libertarianism -- and leave the foreign policy analysis to those more capable (like interesting and actually thoughtful Reason writers Brian Doherty and Jesse Walker).

In related news: In a post last week defending the appointment of Freeman, Juan Cole appeared to recognize the inherent ludicrousness of the claims of governments everywhere that they exist "to protect you” in offering this critique of Zionism:

Zionism is a form of nationalism centered on the necessity of turning Judaism into a base for a nation-state. Probably a majority of Jews, and virtually all American Jews, were offended by this notion before WW II. And although Zionists think they were vindicated by the events of the 1930s and 1940s, it is not at all clear in the 21st century that having a state makes you safe (my state has nuclear missiles aimed at it), or, just as important, adds to your wellbeing.

Though I doubt Professor Cole meant to undermine the case for government in general, the idea that centralized, militaristic states are incompatible with peace and tranquility is something that Independent Institute economist and historian Robert Higgs has written about extensively. If Cole grows a beard, he might just yet be the next Spooner.