Today, across the United States, working class Americans are under assault in an all-out war being waged by some of the wealthiest conservative billionaires and corporate America. Unlike the old days of corporations hiring street thugs or using state police power to crush workers, the current thugs come in the form of newly-elected Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.
The current targets are teachers and public employee unions. With images supplied by conservative, Chickenhawk sleazebag Karl Rove, conservatives are attempting to portray teachers as thugs. Rove and his minions are working to strip the teachers of America of some very basic American rights, namely the right to assemble and the right of free speech.
The following is instructive of the new type of conservative taking power in the United States.
In 2010, Michiganders witnessed a most unusual governor's race. It began with the Republican primary that included some rather well known politicians and one newcomer, Rick Snyder. Snyder used a variety of political advertisements against his primary opponents, but they are had two messages. One message was the labeling of his opponents as "career politicians;" the second message was that Snyder was a different type of politician. The general election campaign featured more of the same against Snyder's Democratic opponent.
Thus, in November 2010, Michiganders elected a new type of politician. A Republican!
Is Rick Snyder truly a new type of politician or just the same warmed over pro-corporate, anti-workers' rights conservative we've seen in the past? It was very amusing to conduct the research and learn some rather interesting facts about Snyder.
First, on social issues, Snyder is staunchly anti-gay and would deny equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians who simply want to marry the person they love. One wonders if Snyder has ever read the Fourteenth Amendment. Snyder claimed to be anti-abortion but contributed $2,000 to the 2008 campaign to overturn Michigan's ban on embryonic stem cell research. Considering his strong pro-business attitude, the obvious question is whether Snyder accepted campaign funds from companies that will financially benefit from the research. Of course, there may be underlying reasons for Snyder's positions on these issues but more about that later.
As for the business environment and, in particular, film industry in Michigan, Snyder has stated government should not "pick winners and losers." Sounds like a cop-out to me. Snyder does favor lower taxation on businesses, across the board, and would scale back the Michigan film subsidy.
Snyder's mantra related to picking winners and losers is laughable considering that, via the tax code, government picks winners and losers all the time. I imagine Snyder didn't complain about the government picking "winners and losers" when Gateway benefited from corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and incentives. For an excellent example of government picking winners and losers, one need only look at the pharmaceutical industry or the oil industry.
A good question for Snyder and other current right wing conservative governors is, what do the Erie Canal, the Panama Canal, the Interstate Highway System, and the transcontinental railroad have in common? Answer?
They were all ventures paid for with taxpayer dollars, and they all benefited the country despite strong opposition from individuals like Rick Snyder. Perhaps Ronald Reagan's greatest, and worst, legacy is that he taught Americans to hate their government.
Scott Walker, Chris Christie and several other prominent Republican governors have voiced strong opposition to unions. Is Snyder anti-union?
Brian Calley, Snyder's running mate and current Lieutenant Governor, is strongly anti-workers' rights and supports making Michigan a right to work state. More bluntly, Snyder chose an extreme right winger as a running mate and, in effect, tipped his hand. He is staunchly anti-union and, if he seriously believes right-to-work laws will make for better schools, better jobs and a higher standard of living in Michigan, he needs only to look at Mississippi. I don't know about anyone else in Michigan but I don't, for a moment, want Michigan to mirror Mississippi.
It's interesting individuals like Walker, Christie, Snyder and Calley oppose collective bargaining for workers but support collective lobbying by the retailers associations, the Chamber of Commerce, and other pro-business groups.
Should Michigan become a right-to-work state, several things are certain. Government services will be necessarily, and greatly, reduced, businesses will have more power to determine state budgets, education will suffer and Michigan schools will mirror Mississippi and wages will drop dramatically. It's more than interesting Snyder never utters a damning word about the tremendous gap between rich and poor in the United States or, in particular, Michigan.
During last fall's campaign, I wrote that one of the first things Snyder would do is propose cutting funding for education. I was right. Snyder's education policy sounds lofty and, in some respects, one can easily believe Snyder is sincere. However, the real Snyder is revealed when he cites, as a source, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
For those not familiar with the ALEC, it's an extreme right wing group:
For those not familiar with the ALEC, it's an extreme right wing group:
1) that has strong ties to major corporations, trade associations, right wing organizations and right-wing politicians including the National Rifle Association, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Milliken Foundation, DeVos Foundation, Bradley Foundation, and the Olin Foundation. In fact, ALEC has over three hundred corporate sponsors including the American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco, Chevron, Coors Brewing Company, Shell, Texaco, Union Pacific Railroad, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Phillip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco;
2) that has an agenda including rolling back civil rights, challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, and privatizing public services (it's no wonder Snyder is staunchly anti-union);
3) that claims to be bi-partisan but all of ALEC officers who are state legislators are Republicans;
4) that has proposed public services, such as schools, prisons, public transportation, and social and welfare services, be taken over by for-profit private businesses; ALEC argues that market competition will force public schools to improve or be put out of business.
I submit this is Snyder's true education agenda and, as a whole, the agenda of the current conservative Republican governors and legislators across the country. Suggesting that public schools be operated as businesses is an insane as permitting private corporations to operate prisons. Government doesn't exist to make a profit but, among the Rick Snyders and Scott Walkers of this world, that approach appears to be a holy grail.
In its early years, ALEC vocally opposed abortion, women's rights and supported prayer in public schools. Of course, it supported the latter so long as the prayer was a Christian prayer.
There you have it, folks. When I began research on Snyder's positions, I didn't expect to find the ALEC. However, I believe the fact Snyder relies so heavily on it for source data is revealing and, when one delves into the agenda of the ALEC, one finds extreme right wing positions not consistent with the message Snyder sold to a majority of Michigan voters. Of course, as mentioned above, Snyder clearly tipped his hand when he chose Brian Calley as a running mate.
No doubt, one of Snyder's arguments would be that government places too much regulation on business. It's a fallacious argument because our current economic mess is due to TOO LITTLE regulation not too much. During the Bush administration, regulations were loosened and, historically, unfettered capitalism has been a monumental failure.
Additionally, if one examines the history of capitalism in the United States, one finds it's been a monumental failure with countless recessions and depressions especially in the nineteenth century leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930s. The latter was, again, created by too little government regulation not too much. Proof lies in the fact we haven't had a depression since the 1930s. That fact isn't due to the self-restraint of capitalists; it's due to the governmental watchdog agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Another holy grail for conservatives like Snyder is the oft-repeated mantra about lowering tax rates and that lowering tax rates creates economic expansion. However, the facts belie this conservative mantra.
In 2008, Larry Beinhart wrote an article regarding conservative "fog facts" about taxes. Beinhart used two completed sets of data, historic income tax and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates in the United States and concluded that high tax rates correlate with strong economic growth. The four periods of greatest economic growth in United States history, by pretty much any measure, are:
a) World War II (1941 - 1945) - The top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent
b) Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top tax rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent.
c) The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's [George Herbert Walker] top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent.
d) The first two administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1940). When Roosevelt came into office, Herbert Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.
b) Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top tax rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent.
c) The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's [George Herbert Walker] top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent.
d) The first two administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1940). When Roosevelt came into office, Herbert Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.
As an aside, conservatives have spent a lot of time and used a lot of ink trying to prove the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Regardless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time FDR came into office to when the United States entered World War II.[1]
The bottom line, according to Beinhart, is that tax increases create economic growth whereas moderate tax cuts are followed by stagnant growth. One need to look no further than George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent to prove the point. Furthermore, contrary to conservative claims, the wealthy do not create jobs nor does increasing military expenditures create jobs. The best way to create jobs is a combination of investment in home construction and tax cuts targeted to working middle class families and the working power who spend money that, then, fuels economic growth.
Another frequent economic argument from the right is what one would call the Horatio Alger myth. The "Horatio Alger myth" is a criticism of the rags to riches message in books by nineteenth century author, Horatio Alger, Jr. Alger wrote more than 100 books for young working class males; the first, "Ragged Dick" was published in 1867. His books have been described as rags to riches stories. “By leading exemplary lives, struggling valiantly against poverty and adversity” Alger’s protagonists gain both wealth and honor, ultimately realizing the American Dream.[2]
Michael Moore, Academy Award winning filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator, has expressly voiced opposition to the Horatio Alger myth. In 2003, Moore remarked, “So, here's my question: after fleecing the American public and destroying the American dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it's because we're still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.”[3]
Harlon L. Dalton, Professor of Law at Yale University, not only objects to the Horatio Alger myth, but also maintains that it is socially destructive. Dalton explains that the Horatio Alger myth conveys three basic messages, “(1) each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits; (2) we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and (3) Each of them is, to be charitable, problematic. The first message is a variant on the rugged individualism ethos…In this form, the Horatio Alger myth suggests that success in life has nothing to do with pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, sexual orientation—in short, with anything beyond our individual control. Those variables may exist, but they play no appreciable role in how our actions are appraised."[4]
Dalton further asserts the myth serves to maintain the racial pecking order. It does so by mentally bypassing the role of race in American society, by fostering beliefs that themselves serve to trivialize, if not erase, the social meaning of race. The Alger myth encourages people to blink at the many barriers to racial equality (historical, structural, and institutional) that litter the social landscape” and believe that all it takes to be successful in America is initiative, persistence, hard work, and pluck.[4]
According to Dalton, a fundamental tension exists between the realization of the American Dream based on the Alger myth and the harsh realities of a racial caste system. Obviously, the main point of such a system is to promote and maintain inequality. Another point of the Alger myth “is to proclaim that everyone can rise above his/her station in life. Despite this tension, it is possible for the myth to coexist with social reality. Not surprisingly, then, there are lots of Black folk who subscribe to the Alger myth and at the same time understand it to be deeply false. They live with the dissonance between myth and reality because both are helpful and healthful in dealing with ‘the adverse events of life.’ Many Whites, however, have a strong interest in resolving the dissonance in favor of the myth. Far from needing to be on guard against racial ‘threat[s] or challenge[s],’ they would just as soon put the ugliness of racism out of mind. For them, the Horatio Alger myth provides them the opportunity to do just that."[4]
The myth suggests we are judged solely on our individual merits, in turn implying that the caste has little practical meaning, apart from race-based advantages of disadvantages. Generally Whites are more successful than African Americans, as they are facilitated by their preferred social position, while African Americans believe that they can “simply lift themselves up by their own bootstraps”. It is in America's national interest, Dalton believes, to give the Horatio Alger myth a rest, because it is a mythology that assures us we can have it all, when in reality, “we live today in an era of diminished possibilities.[4]
Max B. Sawicky, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute who worked in the Office of State and Local Finance of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is another who refutes the Horatio Alger myth. In a column on the five leading concerns for populist economics, Sawicky wrote, “trade policy alone is woefully inadequate to significantly lightening the burdens of the working class. Populism's point of departure is the domination of monied elites who jury rig commerce and call it free enterprise, who marginalize dissent and call it democracy. It rejects the Horatio Alger myth, with its false promise that if you study, work hard, and play by the rules, economic security will be yours.”[5]
Another important point here is that the richest Americans didn't 'earn' their fortune; they inherited it. An example are the wealthy heirs of Sam Walton. Other wealthy individuals who inherited wealth include Donald Trump and Bill Gates. The latter inherited, at age 21, $1 million which, of course, was a lot of money in 1973. Yes, Gates did use his inherited wealth wisely, and one has to admire the fact that Gates has given a large portion of his fortune to the Gates Foundation. However, Gates' additional wealth - and the same goes for Steve Jobs - was created by the labor of workers at Microsoft and Apple. Although we never discuss it in the United States, social class is an important indicator of success.
One has to wonder why, if he was truly the outsider he claimed to be, Snyder opted to run as a Republican. Since he spent his own money to run, why burden himself with the Republican label? As I noted previously, this isn't the Republican Party of Edward Brooke or, for that matter, Gerald Ford. Examine recent comments by mainstream Republicans, like Haley Barbour, regarding President Obama. A significant number of Republicans incorrectly believe President Obama was born in Kenya. They've pushed the socialism lie for so long they no doubt believe it. Obama's policies aren't socialistic; if that argument was true then one could argue George W. Bush was the quintessential socialist since he approved loans to U.S. auto manufacturers and advocated the bailout of failed banks. It's an absurd argument with no factual validity. However, I would argue Snyder, by virtue of the fact he was a corporate CEO and corporations benefit tremendously from U.S. tax policy as well as other economic incentives given to American businesses, cannot possibly be an 'outsider.' He's the quintessential insider!
As I noted previously, Snyder relies heavily on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as a source. In addition to the problems with the ALEC I previously noted, another important one is it's preaching of "federalism...federalism...federalism..." One can appreciate the fact that the founding fathers created a federalist system of government but, when one considers the ALEC's extreme right agenda, one has to question what the ALEC means by federalism. I suspect it's the same message currently heard from Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and the Attorneys General, of several states, who have filed lawsuits against health care reform. Their argument is that the states can refuse to abide by any federal legislation or federal court decision they oppose based on the notion that some state law may conflict. This is the doctrine of interposition, and it's an absurd argument with no legal standing in current U.S. law. It's more than interesting, and quite revealing, that some of the leaders of the right are making the interposition argument since the last people to use it were southern conservatives who were proponents of Jim Crow laws and fighting integration of public schools. Rand Paul has even gone so far as to suggest, despite current U.S. law, that a restaurant should have the right to refuse service to a person based on skin color. Since he relies so heavily upon the ALEC, I believe it's valid to ask Snyder if he accepts the right's current federalism argument.
One might argue Snyder is the quintessential capitalist and no doubt believes the "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" mentality one finds in the United States. It's hypocritical, at best, for someone like Snyder to argue the average American should pull himself/herself up by the bootstraps and, at the same time, advocate significant tax breaks/subsidies for businesses. If laissez-faire is good enough for working class Americans, why isn't it good enough for businesses? I doubt anyone in the corporate-owned media would dare ask him, but it would be interesting to hear Snyder explain the tremendous disparity between rich and poor in the United States as well as in the State of Michigan. As I noted previously, the richest nation on the planet, the United States, has the greatest disparity between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. Despite all the grandiose claims about the success of capitalism and global markets, I doubt Snyder has a credible explanation for the fact that approximately three billion people live on less than $2.50 per day, that according to UNICEF 24,000 children die each day due to poverty, or that the wealthiest nation on Earth (the United States) has the widest gap between rich and poor of any western industrialized nation.
If we are, indeed, our brothers' keeper, we're failing miserably at the job. When fifty-one percent of the world's richest bodies are corporations, there's something terribly wrong.
Yet, you'd never hear Rick Snyder, Scott Walter, Chris Christie, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or virtually any other conservative political leader questioning the capitalist mantra or the Horatio Alger myth.
Almost half a century ago, a young president had the Rick Snyders and Scott Walkers of his day in mind when he so eloquently said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Those words ring as true today as they did almost five decades ago.
Sources:
Sources:
1) Holland, Joshua. The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2010), pp. 95 - 97, 230 - 231, 27 - 29
2) Alger, Horatio The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2007. Columbia University Press. 13 Apr 2008
3) Moore, Michael. Face It, You'll Never Be Rich. The Guardian. 09 Oct 2003. 15 Apr 2008.
4) Dalton, Harlon L. Horatio Alger. Racial Healing: Confronting the Fear Between Blacks and Whites. 1995. 16 Apr 2008.
5) Sawicky, Max. The Five Boxes of Populist Economics. Talking Points Memo - The Coffee House. 11 Dec 2006.
