When The People Have Had Enough

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Everyone knows that Dr. King not only talked the talk, but he also walked the walk. His dedication to championing the concepts of justice and equality was surpassed only by his courage, which he punctuated profoundly when he stated that “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.” Dr. King was clearly a man who was willing to die for what he believed in because he could not live with the way things were.

It appears that the wave of protest and revolt that is currently surging across the Middle East was triggered by the supremely sacrificial act of a man who was willing to die because he could not live with the way things are in his beloved country Tunisia. I don’t know exactly what 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi believed in, but I believe that it’s safe to say that he had had enough.

Mohamed Bouazizi had a university degree but was unemployed. To make a living he sold fruit and vegetables, basically trying to survive as an unlicensed street vendor. One day the authorities in the small city of Sidi Bouzid where Mohamed lived seized his produce cart, essentially taking away his livelihood, his means of survival. It’s been reported that Mohamed became so angry that he set himself on fire. He died a couple of weeks later.

But the impact of his act was instantaneous. The incident enraged witnesses and rioting quickly spread throughout the town. Reuters reported that “Riots are extremely rare for Tunisia, a north African country of about 10 million people which is one of the most prosperous and stable in the region.” I guess the obvious question would be “prosperous and stable” for whom? A relative of Mohamed was quoted as saying, “People are angry at the case of Mohamed and the deterioration of unemployment in the region.”

The majority of Americans have absolutely no knowledge of the social, economic and political dynamics at the root of what is currently taking place in the Middle East, but there are millions of Americans who do know a little something about unemployment in a country that is “prosperous and stable” for a select few.

As a recent commentary in The Nation pointed out, “While 22 million were searching for jobs in the US this week, Goldman Sachs tripled Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s base salary and awarded him $12.6 million of stock, a 42 percent increase from ’09.”

Laura Flanders, who wrote the commentary, takes the position that it is the income inequality that exists in Egypt that has compelled people to take to the streets, pointing out that, “As in Tunisia, the protesters are driven by fury at poverty, lack of options and the looting of their state by the super-powerful.”

The income inequality that exists in America has been receiving major attention lately, especially during the recent tax cut spectacle. But what’s incredibly shocking and perverse in the comparison between the US and Egypt is that, as Ms. Flanders writes, “…the US actually has much greater inequality than Egypt—or Tunisia, or Yemen.”

That’s right, the income inequality in the most powerful nation in the world is worse than that of Egypt, Tunisia, or Yemen– countries located in a region of the world that at this very moment is being transformed by an unrelenting demand for the end of tyranny and the establishment of governments that are dedicated to the well-being of all citizens.

After hammering home the facts that the income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country is “anti-democratic” and that American democracy is “suffering,” Ms. Flanders concludes with the question, “What are we going to do about it?” For me the most significant question is: When will the people decide that they have had enough?

Utter Hypocrisy: The tax cut spectacle

And to think there are some people who actually wonder why so many people don’t vote. As far as I’m concerned the tortuous discourse and analysis that took place recently regarding the tax cuts demonstrated just how wide the chasm is between many of the politicians in Washington and the people they are supposed to represent.

I came across an essay a while back that pointed out one of the problems with representative democracy, which is essentially what we have here in America. The author of the essay- Stephen Shalom, who teaches political science at William Paterson University in New Jersey- wrote that one of the problems with representative democracy is that “…representatives, for many reasons, don’t, in fact, represent their constituents. Representatives say one thing to get elected and then change their positions once in office. They have no real connection to the hundreds of thousands of people they represent. Their different life circumstances lead them to develop different interests from those of their constituents.”

One of the life circumstance changes that takes place is that prior to being elected the representatives say and do what they have to do to get elected, and then once elected, they say and do what they have to do to stay in office. In an article titled Obama Caves on Tax Cuts, Endorses ‘Bush-McCain Philosophy,’ Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation magazine, points out:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said over and over that he was running to “put an end to the Bush-McCain philosophy.” Campaigning in Colorado just days before the election…Obama clearly stated his opposition to Bush-era economic policies and ridiculed the idea that “we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that it trickles down on everybody else. It’s a philosophy that gives tax breaks to wealthy CEOs and to corporations that ship jobs overseas while hundreds of thousands of jobs are disappearing here at home.” 

Some argue that President Obama’s compromise on the tax cuts could turn out to be political suicide while some argue that the compromise could turn out to be political salvation. Political realties change, sometimes overnight. What doesn’t appear to change so quickly is the powerlessness of the electorate to affect real change. There’s a difference between having the power to put people in and out of office and the power to truly influence policy. 

In a representative democracy the ideal is to influence policy through the folks that we send to Washington or our state capitols to represent us. One of the most disturbing viewpoints that came out of all of the analysis that was taking place was presented by Mr. Berman when he wrote:

Obama and Congressional Democrats bungled the tax debate from the start, even though it was clearly a winning issue for the president and his party. Even though everyone knew the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year, Democrats failed to develop an overall strategy for this issue last summer or force a vote in the Congress before the election…Democrats refused to put the GOP on the spot or talk about the tax cuts during the campaign, blurring what should have been a core distinction between the parties; Democrats for the middle class, Republicans for the rich. 

This assessment was echoed in a New York Times editorial, dated 12/8/10:

By temporarily extending income tax breaks for the richest Americans, and cutting estate taxes for the ultrawealthy, the deal will redistribute billions of dollars from job creation to people who do not need the money. But the Democrats should vote for this deal, because it is the only one they are going to get. The president, and particularly Congressional Democrats, might not be in this bind if they had fought harder against the high-end tax cuts before the midterm elections.

In other words, according to these assessments, the Americans that President Obama said were being held hostage by the Republicans were in that predicament because he and the Congressional Democrats allowed them to be taken as hostages, which begs the question: How thin is the line between compromise and hypocrisy?

A tale of two economies

“I’m sick and tired of people going to congress in Washington D.C. and making a living out of it while we starve to death.”

Those words were spoken by a resident of Newton Iowa during a segment of CBS’s 60 Minutes titled “Anger in the Land,” which aired on October 31, just days before the 2010 mid-term elections. The words were simple yet as savage as a sledgehammer striking at the foundation of the frustration shared by citizens across the land.

Newton is one of the small towns in America that has been decimated during the Great Recession. The 60 Minutes segment was devoted to capturing the mood in the country just before the elections that would be taking place in the midst of unrelenting economic hardship. A CBS/New York Times poll was cited that revealed that 80 percent of the people polled said they want most incumbents out of Congress regardless of whether that incumbent is a Democrat or Republican.

Though understandable, much can be said about the unsophisticated and suicidal aspects of this sentiment, which speaks to just how deep in the dark the majority of Americans are as it regards the jigsaw puzzle that is governance in this country. But in fairness to those of us who are languishing in the darkness, it’s extremely difficult to connect the pieces when we’re disconnected from the process. Note this exchange that took place during the 60 Minutes segment:

“What’s surprised you the most about this recession?” correspondent Scott Pelley asked business owner David McNeer.

“I think the depth of it, and the length of it. I think what surprised me the most about this one is it doesn’t wanna end,” he replied.

“You know, the economists say that the recession’s over,” Pelley pointed out.

“Really? They should come to Newton, Iowa,” McNeer replied.

But of course they won’t be coming to Newton because the people in Newton really don’t matter. They are no more a part of the economic recovery process that truly matters than they are a part of the political empowerment process that truly matters. And that goes for the majority of us living in America.

Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, put it this way in a recent article:

There are two American economies. One is on the mend. The other is still coming apart.

The one that’s mending is America’s Big Money economy. It’s composed of Wall Street traders, big investors, and top professionals and corporate executives.

But there’s another American economy, and it’s not on the mend. Call it the Average Worker economy.

Simply put: There’s the American economy that matters to the folks that matter in Washington D.C. That’s the economy that’s composed of those that have the wealth and power to shape policy to their advantage. They are the ones that, for example, rule Wall Street and were able to contribute 15 million dollars to presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign and have the monetary muscle to lobby against any meaningful legislation to regulate the Wall Street investment banks “whose missteps caused a global financial crisis and economic slowdown two years ago,” as pointed out in an article that appeared in Bloomberg.com the other day. These are the people responsible for the economic catastrophe that has produced the suffering that is taking place in Newton IA and throughout the country and the world. 

Then there’s the Average Worker economy. The majority of us are plugged into the one that doesn’t really matter. Well, at least at the moment that’s the case. I’ll simply close with the ominous warning that Mr. Reich issued at the end of his article:

“…if nothing changes in the Average Worker economy, there will be hell to pay.”

Obama: The complexity of hope



This video features some searing commentary from Cornel West, esteemed University Professor at Princeton University, who teaches in the Center for African-American Studies and also the Department of Religion.

Although the interview took place almost a year ago I doubt that any reasonable person will challenge its relevance to the conditions that exist today, particularly as it concerns the level of unemployment that exists among African-Americans.

Professor West is providing the type of sophisticated, straight-with-no-chaser analysis that is needed and that will challenge Obama supporters to embrace the complexity of hope as fervently as they embraced the audacity of hope.

This is not to discourage participation in the democratic process; it’s just reminder of how extraordinarily difficult it is to bring about meaningful, fundamental change in this country…

From www.thegrio.com on Dec 1, 2009

Educator Cornel West sat down with theGrio to discuss how unemployment is affecting African-Americans.

TheGrio asked West about national unemployment trends for African-Americans. He called on President Barack Obama to implement a comprehensive jobs policy — a program that would mirror former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and focus primarily on creating jobs for people without a college education.

“[It’s] the same way we had an investment banker policy when they were in trouble,” West said of what he views as a double-standard in current economic policy. “All AIG needed was a push. So let’s help push these poor people, these working people into jobs with a living wage.”

West, who has been outspoken in both his support and criticism of Obama, said the current administration has not made poor people a priority.

“Obama has an economic team that’s composed of persons who have no history whatsoever of being concerned about poor people,” West said. “Obama’s been doing a good job of reassuring the establishment. But there’s many of us who believe the establishment is on our necks.”

The Princeton University professor is busy promoting his new book, Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud. The memoir is a departure from West’s previous books, where he focused primarily on issues such as race and social justice.



Welcome to the Circus: Jimmy McMillan

Even a circus has its serious moments, where the entertainment is underlined by the dangers associated with acts that thrill and excite us. I have no idea who this guy is, where his candidacy is going, or what may be revealed about him down the road.

But I do know that the danger underlying this latest viral sensation is that the issues that he is bringing up, the issues that really matter to everyday people whose voices are being drowned out and who are also dying from the condition of being unheard, will merely continue to serve as props for the same old tired acts…