Culture Of Death

Last night, the State of Georgia may have executed an innocent man. If so, it wouldn't be the first time the United States has executed an innocent person. Here's what I find most appalling about the death penalty in the United States, and it speaks to high level of hypocrisy one currently finds among the "law and order" types on America's political right.

These people will tell you they are opposed to government because government is inefficient, can't do a job properly and there are high levels of fraud in government. At the same time, these people have an abiding faith in the "system" when it comes to executions. On this issue, many on the political right believe the state can do no wrong, is always right and the state never makes a mistake.

Today, the United States, in using the death penalty, stands next to such bastions of individual liberty as Saudi Arabia and China. It's a sad day when any human being dies and, yes, there are evil people in the world. I'm liberal, even very liberal, however I totally reject the liberal idea that, well, deep down everyone is a good person. That's completely wrong and, as I stated, there are some very evil people in this world. However, the death penalty has outlived whatever usefulness it had if, in fact, it ever had any.

Pope John Paul II -- who will one day be a Saint -- spoke to this issue in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). He said that, in our modern age, instances when the state is unable to protect the public through nonlethal means "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." In other words, if nonlethal means are available and sufficient then the state should avoid using the death penalty in keeping, as the Catechism states (2267), "the dignity of the human person." More specifically, the argument of death penalty proponents that we must kill a person in order to protect society are increasingly invalid because there are other methods to protect the public such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The Catechism, (2269-2269), speaks to unintentional killing and notes that such killing is not as imputable as homicide but a person who unintentionally kills will not be exonerated from "grave offense" if they act in an irresponsible way that causes the death of another person although the intention to kill didn't exist. Here, Georgia officials and, for that matter, the entire United States Supreme Court can't use this defense. The clear intention was to kill Troy Anthony Davis and, if Davis was innocent and those who recanted their court testimony were truthful in recanting, both the State of Georgia and the United States Supreme Court acted in an irresponsible and, I would add, an immoral manner by not staying the execution until a court could determine if those who recanted their previous court testimony were being truthful.

In the end, if Davis was innocent, I seriously doubt death penalty proponents in the United States will lose any sleep over that fact. They have committed themselves to an extreme culture of death wherein they place an unshakable faith in the same government they despise and criticize when it, for example, strives to protect the most vulnerable of American society. When it comes to life and death, there's rank hypocrisy on both the right and left, but I shall leave that discussion for another day.

The United States will be the bastion of morality and goodness many Americans claim it is when we no longer use the death penalty. Until then, the United States should refrain from preaching morality to any other nation on this planet and, for once, admit we employ barbaric methods in meting out punishment. The death penalty is not, in any way, related to justice.

Is there a petition or statement, where I can add my name, telling Americans, and every other human being on this planet, that when the United States employs the death penalty it doesn't do so in my name because I, for one, understand the sanctity of human life?

Frankly, I'm not proud to be an American today. Then again, considering the sorry state of affairs that have existed in this country for most of my life, ranging from a national refusal to acknowledge the richest nation on the planet does virtually nothing about the thousands of Americans who sleep on our streets yet obscenely spends billions of dollars for weapons of mass destruction, a national refusal to provide health care for all Americans, a tendency to use the most extreme militarism to get our way in the world, the barbaric use of the death penalty, a tendency to ignore international law, and a tendency to commit heinous war crimes by using depleted uranium ammunition that violates, on at least four levels, humanitarian law, I'm not that proud to be an American any day.

The Real Tea Party Story

I've commented on this previously, especially in the article pertaining to Rick Snyder's endorsement of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agenda. This is scary stuff folks, and the goals of the ALEC and the Koch brothers is very apparent. Their primary goals are to privatize the U.S. government, destroy unions and turn workers into serfs. In the process, their goals increase the power and wealth of the richest two percent and undermine the working class.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11603/publicopoly_exposed/

"As Kate Zernike noted in our October 2010 cover story, 'Tea Party Confidential,' Armey and the group's president Matt Kibbe wrote an op-ed article in 2007 proposing the Boston Tea Party as a model for putting grassroots pressure on a central government. She writes, 'Presaging Tea Party tactics in the summer of 2009, they described how Samuel Adams packed town hall meetings with his supporters to drown out Tory voices and used each new British policy or tax as 'an excuse to rally new recruits to the cause of American independence.' They wrote, 'Adams was the first American to recognize that 'it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather, an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.'

"Beginning in 2009, FreedomWorks was instrumental in creating the faux-populist Tea Party. The mainstream media uncritically hyped the scores of Tea Party tax day protests orchestrated by FreedomWorks and the National Taxpayers Union (another Koch-funded ALEC group headed by former ALEC executive director Duane Parde), thus helping enable unprecedented Republican legislative majorities in states across the nation.

"Case study: Arizona

"Documents released following a public records request to the office of then-Arizona Senate President Bob Burns (R-Peoria) indicate that in 2009 and 2010, Arizona ALEC lawmakers requested more than $60,000 in reimbursement for travel, lodging and registration fees from ALEC’s scholarship fund for their time at ALEC functions—including the December 2009 event at which State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) submitted his draft of SB 1070 for approval as a piece of ALEC model legislation, the law known as 'breathing while Brown' to its critics. (See 'Corporate Con Game: How the private prison industry helped shape Arizona’s anti-immigrant law,' In These Times, July 2010.)"

Thus, the tea party movement isn't, as it claims, a grassroots movement but, rather, a political movement financed by some of the wealthiest conservative Americans and corporate America. The fact that the corporate media, and in that definition I include ALL cable news programming, has promoted the false grassroots claim is disturbing but not surprising.

Never forget the Koch brothers, the ALEC, FreedomWorks, the tea party movement and the extreme conservatives they support promote the irrational idea that government -- local, state and federal -- should and can be operated like a business. There's no way any government can be operated as a business unless, of course, governmental organizations are privatized. As Michael Parenti so eloquently states it, "Conservatives insist that government should be 'run more like a business. 'One might wonder how that could be possible, since government does not market goods and services for the purpose of capital accumulation.'"

In reality, the goal of corporate thugs like the Koch Brothers, parliamentary whores like John Boehner and extremist governors like Rick Snyder and Scott Walker is to make a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and only for the wealthy.

Conservative Economic Solution Doesn't Work

Previously, in this blog, I've mentioned the idea, held by conservatives, that low tax rates lead to economic growth.  This idea has become a kind of religious belief among conservatives, and it's how often they use this argument.

For example, Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said "We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes.”

Senator Jim DeMint has been quoted as saying, "But we also need to just cut the top marginal rate for individuals and corporations so that we're more competitive and companies can look way out in the future and know they'll have a competitive tax rate.”

And, finally, the Club for Growth states, “To stimulate GDP growth, a tax cut has to cut the marginal tax rates upon which the decision makers in the economy base their decisions to work and, above all, to invest.”

There's only one big problem with this conservative argument.  It's false and, as I've mentioned several times, has no historical validity.

Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress, addresses the fallacy of this long-held conservative belief in an article posted on the American Progress.

See: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_charticle.html

"The top marginal income tax rate has ranged all the way from 92 percent down to 28 percent over the last 60 years. With such a large range, it should be easy to see the enormous impact of lower rates on overall economic growth, as conservatives routinely claim. Years with lower marginal rates should boast higher growth, right?

"That’s definitely not what happened. In fact, growth was actually fastest in years with relatively high top marginal tax rates. Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that."

You'd think that prominent conservatives who, more often than not, are criticizing the rest of us for our alleged lack of knowledge regarding the history of this country would be embarrassed to use this historically false economic argument but, when it comes to being parliamentary whores for the wealthiest Americans including corporate elites, it appears Boehner, et al have no shame.

Based on their extreme ignorance of American economic history, and American history in general, I have to question whether Boehner and his crowd were frequently socially promoted while attending the public schools they now want to destroy.

Conservative Claims U.S. Muslims Have No Free Speech Rights

"The right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the United States Constitution doesn't apply to Muslims, according to a blogger writing for a conservative Christian organization.

"Bryan Fischer, a blogger for the ultra-conservative American Family Association (AFA), declared Thursday that Muslims have no First Amendment rights in the United States.

'The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity,' he wrote in his column at Renew America. 'They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary.'

"Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy, Fischer continued.

"Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.

"Fischer added that Muslims have no constitutional right to build mosques.

'They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States,'" he said.

Yes, folks you read that correctly.  Bryan Fischer, a batshit crazy conservative, is claiming Muslims have no constitutional protections in this country.  My question is where the hell does the conservative movement find people like Bryan Fischer?   Let's be clear about Fischer's tactics.

In 2004 another hateful, mentally deranged religious bigot, Michelle Malkin, authored a book advocating concentration camps for Muslims.  Combined with Fischer's false claim regarding First Amendment rights of Muslims, the intent of far-right conservatives is quite clear.

Fischer, Malkin and others of their loathsome ilk, are working to dehumanize, disenfranchise and segregate Muslims.   The words and proposals of Fischer and Malkin sound eerily familiar to the societal and legal restrictions placed on Jews by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany. 

Folks, this is an anti-American as it gets!

Here, readers might be thinking the [Friedrich Gustav Emil] Martin Niemöller quote " First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist" is soon to appear.  However, you'll never find me quoting a despicable character like Niemöller.  Why?

It's goes to the fact that German Christians, Protestants and Catholics, strongly supported the Nazis.  In the case of German Protestants, their support for Hitler and the Nazis was based, in part, on the party's opposition to modernism.  As for Niemöller, he welcomed Hitler's ascension to power in 1933 believing it would bring a national revival. 

He only began to oppose the Nazis when Hitler threatened to attack the churches via the Aryan paragraph.  The Aryan paragraph is a clause in the statutes of an organization, corporation, or real estate deed that reserves membership and/or right of residence solely for members of the Aryan race and excludes from such rights any non-Aryans, particularly Jews or those of Jewish descent, as well as to those who were then referred to as Negroes. Aryan paragraphs were an essential aspect of public life in Germany and Austria from 1885 to 1945, and they were also used in many suburban real estate deeds in the United States up until the late 1950s (as an aside, during his confirmation hearings, William Rehnquist defended Aryan paragraphs). 

However, the dark side of Niemöller can be seen in the fact that, even as he gradually abandoned his sympathies for the Nazis, he continued to make pejorative remarks against Jews.  For example, in a 1935 sermon, Niemöller employed the oldest pillar of Christian anti-Jewish bigotry, the deicide canard.  He remarked: "What is the reason for their obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!"

In the same hateful vein as Niemöller, today we're witnessing the worst elements of conservatism and Christianity demonize Muslims.  The similarities between the words and actions of Martin Niemöller, Bryan Fischer, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and hundreds of other conservatives and Christians cannot be ignored if we are to remain a society that protects the rights of all Americans.  We cannot remain silent in the face of attempts to deny American freedoms to a group based on religion. 

Let's recognize Bryan Fischer for what he is, namely a hateful anti-American religious bigot.

Source: 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/fringe-conservative-group-claims-u-s-muslims-have-no-free-speech-rights/

New Milestone: 1 in 6 in U.S. A Hispanic

Today, the Census Bureau is releasing its first data related to the 2010 census.   For those of us who've observed the changing demographics of the United States, this is what we expected.

Examination of the data reveals Hispanics accounted for half of the increase in U.S. population over the last ten years, overall rapid minority growth, growth of suburbs and an aging white population.  

"Racial and ethnic minorities are expected to make up an unprecedented 90 percent of the total U.S. growth since 2000, due to immigration and higher birth rates for Latinos. Currently the fastest growing group, Hispanics are on track to exceed 50 million, or roughly 1 in 6 Americans; among U.S. children, Hispanics are now roughly 1 in 4."

The growth in the Hispanic population wasn't confined to states most of us traditionally think of as having significant Hispanic populations, i.e. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.  The Census Bureau data indicates there were significant jumps in Hispanic population in Alabama, Louisiana, and North Carolina.

In addition to the tremendous growth in the Hispanic population, Asians had a larger gain than African Americans, and Americans who identify themselves as "multiracial" increased by more than 25 percent to total 8.7 million.

White Americans, according to the latest Census Bureau data, saw their numbers drop from 69 percent of the population in 2000 to 64 percent in 2010.  The primary reason is declining birth rates; the median age for white Americans is now forty-one.  

What does this mean for the United States?  One important topic is Social Security and the changing face of the workforce. 

This issue was the topic of research for "Burden of Support: Young Latinos in an Aging Society." The book,  written by David Hayes-Bautista, Werner Schink, and Jorge Chapa and published by Stanford University Press,  discusses the fact that, as baby boomers age and retire, the labor force will be increasingly comprised of minority workers and, therefore, the costs of maintaining Social Security and Medicare will increasingly fall to non-white workers while a large number of recipients will be white.

What societal issues may arise from this change in demographics?

We'd be better served if we stepped off the anti-immigration train and began understanding that one of our highest priorities should be educating every member of our changing society.  This means investing in education not balancing budgets on the backs of children and, yes, it means paying higher taxes to fund infrastructure such as new schools, new textbooks and better pay for teachers.   It's time we, as a society, stopped using teachers and teachers' unions as scapegoats for the economic mess created by giving unneeded tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent, tax subsidies rewarding corporations that take jobs offshore and two unnecessary wars created, in large part, by outrageous lies.  

Otherwise, we'll see a quicker decline of the American empire than we're already witnessing.   

Rich People Don't Create Jobs

The following is excerpted from the Baltimore City Paper and includes an excellent primer on how business works. For liberals, this is a delightful read.

http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2009/11/the-maryland-millionaire-count-tax-scams-and-train-wrecks/

"Critics of the millionaire tax say they’ve never heard of a poor man hiring a worker. Only the rich do that; therefore, to render the wealthy less so by taxation is to destroy jobs.

"The theory presumes that the wealthy hire people out of charity. In this model, jobs are bestowed upon lucky workers by the industrious entrepreneur, who derives his own wealth from some magical practices (having nothing to do with the workers he may hire) which are anyway unfathomable to outsiders.

"To hear self-proclaimed capitalists make this argument is irritating, because it suggests they don’t understand how our economic system is supposed to work. They have the process exactly backwards.

"In a capitalist system, investors make money not despite hiring workers, but because they hire workers who, if they are adequately managed, create value in excess of the wages and benefits they are paid. This value is called 'profit,' and the business’ owner gets to keep that, after paying taxes.

"In a properly functioning capitalist economy, rich people don’t 'create jobs' for workers; workers, upon having jobs, create rich people."

Waging War Against American Workers

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:

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.

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:

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.