One of the glories of America's recent past was the emergence of a large, prosperous, and politically powerful middle class. That legacy, which we have taken for granted for decades, is clearly now at risk. The middle class is shrinking, becoming less secure and less wealthy, and is losing the ability to shape society in a way that caters to the needs of the majority of the population.

At least three important features of our economy are accelerating this transformation yet are largely ignored or misrepresented by the mainstream media.

1) The massive transfer of wealth from the majority of Americans to the wealthiest Americans.

Between 1981 and 2007, the share of income reported by the top 1% of "earners" metastasized from 8.3% to 22.83%. See Table 5: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250... . Meanwhile, median household income, adjusted for inflation, has decreased from its high-water mark of $52,587 in 1999 to $50,303 in 2008. See Table A-1, p. 29 here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-23... .

The media has responded to this story by ignoring it. Worse,the media provides a ready echo chamber for those who would protect this windfall for the uber-rich with calls for across-the-board tax cuts or "no new taxes." The suggestion that taxes on the wealthiest members of our society should actually be increased, by contrast, is scornfully dismissed as "class warfare." The fact that the top marginal income tax rates exceeded 90% during the 1950's and 1960's- an era of expanding prosperity- is conspicuous by its absence from most current discussions of the subject of tax rates.

2) Out-of-control health care costs.

The most important fact about our health care system- the fact that Americans spend twice as much as virtually everybody else for equivalent or inferior health outcomes- has been buried under an avalanche of suggestions that the real dangers to our well-being are posed by change rather than by the status quo. The real nightmare, we are asked to believe, is not the one we are already living through, but the phantasms of "socialized medicine", government bureaucracies, death panels, waiting lists, rationing, and- worst of all- the specter of not being able to keep the extraordinarily expensive health insurance plans that we already have.

While mostly ignored by the media, the latest OECD statistics paint a grim picture of the reality of American health care. In 2007, our health care expenditures came to $7290 per person. At the same time the per capita cost in Canada was $3895; in France, $3601; and in the cost-conscious United Kingdom, $2992. In return for their significantly lower expenditures, the citizens of each of these countries enjoyed longer life expectancies than their American counterparts. The picture doesn't get any prettier when health care costs are compared as a percentage of GDP: Canada spent 10.1% of GDP on health care in 2007; the U. K., 8.4%; France, 11.0%... and the United States, 16.0%. The most recent report from the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) shows that health care spending in the United States ballooned to 17.3% of GDP in 2009.

In light of the astonishing disparity between our health care costs and those of our peers, it was just shocking when the "liberal" Obama administration was content to accept a health care reform plan with the stated goal of merely reducing the rate of medical inflation. Sadly, bad has been followed by worse as the media, presumably at the behest of powerful corporate interests, has enthusiastically stoked the fires of anger, paranoia and ignorance by amplifying the many attacks on the Democratic congress' and administration's already too modest attempt at reform. The premise of the opponents of reform seems to be that we Americans are incapable of offering affordable health care to our citizenry comparable to that made available in every other advanced democratic society.

3) Excessive military spending.

The United States accounts for approximately 4.5% of the world's population, but almost 50% of the world's military spending.

From Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg... : "The U. S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25-29% of budgeted expenditures and 38-44% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000-2009." Note the use of ranges. Defense spending is notoriously difficult to quantify (See Winslow Wheeler on this subject: http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do... ), but the current trend is clear and unsustainable.

From an article by David Sirota (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/... /): The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

Summarizing the above: since at least 1999, incomes for the majority of Americans have stagnated or declined as the richest 1% of the population has expropriated a massively greater share of the output of the nation's economy. Meanwhile, the decline in median incomes has been aggravated by the simultaneous increase in non-discretionary expenses as most people are forced to spend ever greater portions of their incomes to cover medical expenses and the taxes that support our "defense" budget. The combined effect of these factors is to leave the average worker and the average family with significantly less money left over for all other kinds of spending.

The stagnation of middle-class incomes was masked in the early years of the Bush administration as high levels of consumer spending were maintained through the devices of modest middle-class tax cuts (financed by government borrowing, unfortunately) and immodest increases in personal debt, courtesy of easy credit and the housing bubble. These dodges have finally run their course, however, and we are now left with the ugly prospect of a declining standard of living for a huge swath of the American people.

The reduced resources of the majority of Americans also makes the current level of taxation seem much more onerous even when tax rates remain unchanged. The media reinforces this impression by featuring a seemingly endless parade of ordinary citizens complaining about their tax bills. The preponderance of these stories all but buries the occasional mention of falling wages, burgeoning medical inflation, and exorbitant military expenditures.

If we want to turn these trends around, we need to start tuning out the useless and frequently counterproductive media cacophony. Our contemporary mass media should be recognized for what they are: captives of the rich and powerful. They may serve the public interest or adhere to higher journalistic standards on occasion, but only if and when the needs of their masters have already been met.

If Democrats think that they need to appear "strong on defense" to get elected; that they must promise that "if you are satisfied with your current health insurance you can keep it"; and if they really believe that tax increases for the rich are an inferior alternative to "no new taxes"- then maybe they can get themselves elected, but they will never be able to solve our most pressing problems or govern effectively.

On Sunday, the headline story in our state's "paper of record", the Newark Star-Ledger, raised the specter of a "massive influx" of Haitian refugees. Story here: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/c...

From the article:

"New Jersey is expecting a "surge" of refugees from the devastating Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, which would create a humanitarian crisis and put new pressure on a state treasury already in peril, according to confidential documents obtained by The Star-Ledger...The report was prepared by members of the Christie administration in advance of a closed-door meeting tomorrow ...

The documents show the state is concerned that the number of Haitians could exceed the capacity of community groups and require state government to meet their medical, educational, housing and other needs.

By mid-February, the documents say, more commercial flights carrying Haitians holding U.S. visas are expected to arrive in the United States, and many of the refugees will be seeking to join relatives in New Jersey.

The documents gave no specific estimate of how many Haitians would come to New Jersey. But the potential seems clear. The state has the fourth-largest Haitian population in the country, with nearly 57,000 New Jersey residents born in Haiti or of Haitian ancestry. Most of them live in Essex and Union counties..."

Of course, the Christie administration refused to comment on the confidential-but-leaked documents.

I find it very strange- and sad, that this was considered lead-story-worthy by the NSL. It's little more than speculation about a worst-case scenario for a future event which may not even happen. The unquoted, apparently fatherless document, supplied no estimate of the number of refugees expected. My own back-of-the-envelope estimate of Haitians who 1) have relatives in New Jersey, 2) have visas, and 3) are able to obtain tickets on commercial flights out of Haiti is something between 12 and 10,000,000.

Maybe the Star-Ledger thinks they have to throw out some red meat for the anti-immigrant, anti-black crowd which also happens to be a reliable source of support for the new administration.

From the OECD article: "Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% of total net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of total income."

Sadly, this understates both the inequality of wealth and incomes.

On wealth- from a 2003 interview with Edward Wolf, Professor of Economics at NYU http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003...

"Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

The middle class’s major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth."

The "net worth" comparison dilutes the greater inequality found in the ownership of financial assets. Meanwhile, for many middle class families, "home equity" is little more than a comforting fiction.

The OECD article is unclear on the source of "the top 10% have 28% of total income" statistic, but it looks understated to me. From Wikipedia, citing 2007 data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc... ):
"Over one quarter, 28.5%, of all income was earned by the top 8%, those households earning more than $150,000 a year."

Comparing adjusted gross income from individual income tax returns (2007- see Table 5, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250... ) shows an even greater disparity with the top 1% receiving 22.06% of all income and the top 10% receiving 47.32%.

You start with what you consider to be a rhetorical question: does nobody receive decent care or is the real problem that many people don't have health insurance? I suggest a much better question: Why is health insurance in this country SO COSTLY that we can not afford to provide coverage for a sixth of our population?

The chart at the bottom of the story makes it obvious that this is a clear statement of the problem:

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP
US 16%
UK 8.4%

Health spending per head
US $7,290
UK $2,992

Another figure from the article speaks to your musings about the relative virtues of corporate bureaucracies versus government bureaucracies in providing low cost health care:

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)
US 45%
UK 82%

Finally, the rest of the chart deals with broad comparisons of the quality of that health care:

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)
US 2.4
UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)
US 10.6
UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)
US 2.7
UK 2.6

Life expectancy:
US 78
UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
US 6.7
UK 4.8

Today the media turned off the flames on the Gates affair inferno. I checked CNN, MSN, Fox, Yahoo, the New York Times, and local newspapers. Michael Jackson has returned to his rightful place on page one. The remnants of mainstream media commentary on the Gates incident has moved on to the beer bash and the "I'm with Stupidly" t-shirts.

Today also happens to be the day after a lawyer for Lucia Whalen, the woman who called the police and who also witnessed the arrest, contradicted written statements made by Sergeant Crowley in his police report. The media may love stories featuring impassioned claims of racism and the scorn and strident denials that inevitably greet such claims from the other side, but stories of erroneous and dissembling police reports? Not so much.

From my point of view, the trajectory of the Gates incident coverage was entirely predictable. It was predictable because it was tailored to conform to what might be described as the "Right Wing Bigot Theory of the Universe." My Wikipedia entry on RWBTotU:

"Racial discrimination against blacks is entirely offset by reverse discrimination against whites. Blacks have the same opportunities as whites and whites face the same barriers as blacks. Therefore, claims of racial discrimination by blacks are just irritating attempts to get special treatment. EEO, Affirmative Action, and Welfare are like the trials of Job for white people, who are the real victims here."

The mainstream (my friends call me Liberal) media is committed to propping up this world view and it is reflected in the balance of its reporting on race relations. This orientation explains why a few years back the Duke lacrosse story was all page one and headlines while the Tulia, Texas story was slipped in with the obituaries if it got any mention at all.

It's been interesting seeing Mr. Gates in the spotlight; it's just a shame the facts had to get off message...

Sarah Palin's first speech as the ex-governor of Alaska, to be given at the Reagan Presidential Library, is an invitation-only event for which no press or other media passes are being issued. The event is being hosted by the Simi Valley Republican Women's Club. Article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05e...

An excerpt from the Club's statement about Palin's upcoming appearance:


Regarding Sarah Palin, "She embodies the values that we hold dear: Faith, Family, Country-first & Service. We are honored to call her our friend and advocate. Palin is noble, and admired by so many of us. She is an amazing human being whose aspirations are simply to bring out the best in people.''

Question: Any idea why she chose your event?

We are celebrating a golden anniversary (our charter)...and it is the 50th anniversary of Alaska's statehood. Sarah Palin loves Alaska and she has a huge following in California. (Her family roots are in southern California.)

Our event is being held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum...most of us view Palin as a "Reaganesque" figure, in her approach to policy.

Lastly, we offer tremendous support for the troops and Palin's mission is that of service. It resonates with all of us.


I can't think of a better way to support the troops than to send them off to distant lands to fight a pointless war in which they can be maimed, traumatized, and killed. And Palin's mission is that of service? She couldn't have said it better herself.

Turns out Ben Stein doesn't quite get the tea party thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business...

"These tea parties strike me as off-base, in some respects, though they evoke a certain principle that rings true, or at least possibly true.

First, I don’t quite get the taxation uproar. As far as I know, no new taxes of any size have been enacted. The only new tax I can spot immediately in front of us is the “cap and trade” levy on carbon emissions, which would be a tax on energy consumers. And even that, based on a questionable idea, doesn’t seem imminent.

When the recession ends, though, we will be facing very large budget deficits, even under the best projections. Unless the Federal Reserve is just going to print money — usually a dangerous road to inflation — how will we pay for government, except through taxes? And who has the money to pay, except the rich? So unless I am missing something, don’t we have to tax the rich, defined in some sensible way?"

Hmmm. Bush tax cuts overboard.

Stein on another subject:

"I’d like to bring up one more little bijou about the economic crisis. I read that Lawrence H. Summers — wonderful guy, fine economist, former Harvard president, high-ranking economic adviser to Mr. Obama — was paid about $5 million last year by a large hedge fund, D. E. Shaw. Some other high-ranking Obama advisers were also fantastically well paid by the finance sector.

Of course, this phenomenon didn’t begin with this administration. The last Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., was the head honcho of Goldman Sachs and was paid hundreds of millions by it. (Yes, that’s one of the banks that we as taxpayers supported with many billions, via the A.I.G. conduit.)

I know people and I know money, at least the basics. If anyone thinks that a man who has had a taste of honey from Wall Street on that scale will ever really crack the whip on Wall Street, he’s dreaming. Wall Street knows how to get its hooks into government. This is how the world works. Money talks."

I disagree with Mr. Stein on numerous issues- oil companies, evolution, and military spending come immediately to mind. But credit where credit is due- he is in touch with the economic realities that we currently face. Sad that the same can't be said for the vast majority of his fellow Republicans.

Greenwald points out that that our incarceration rate is 5 times that of the rest of the world. A little further along he throws out another set of statistics: "African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison."

What that means: blacks are 16 times more likely to be incarcerated on drug charges than other members of society.

This is an issue that the media resolutely ignores. They are much, much happier repeating the story of Americans electing a black man as president- as if that was the real measure of our "progress" in defeating racial prejudice and discrimination.

I want to thank my elected representatives for getting our piece of the pie. Article here: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index...

excerpts:

Sen. Robert Menendez, in conjunction with other legislators, requested 171 earmarks worth $159.8 million, according to the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense. In all, Menendez's name is attached to more than 180 earmarks worth $288 million. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and other lawmakers requested 173 earmarks worth $158.8 million. Lautenberg's name is attached to at least 184 provisions worth $272 million.

The group ranks Menendez and Lautenberg 15th and 16th, respectively, in the Senate for the amount of money they brought to their home states...

"But for these earmarks, we wouldn't have flood-control work in Somerset County on the Raritan River basin or something so critical as beach replenishment on the Jersey Shore," Menendez said. "We wouldn't be able to ensure that we'd have more conservation of the Highlands. I'm proud to put my name on these projects." ...

In the dust-up over earmarks, critics have called attention to dozens of eyebrow-raising projects across the nation. They include $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, more than $800,000 for catfish genetic research in Alabama and $2 million for the "promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii.

Most of New Jersey's projects tilt toward infrastructure, health care and education. The biggest single allotment, $48 million, will go toward the construction of a second rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River. About $86 million will be split between New York and New Jersey for harbor dredging...

Both Menendez and Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.) suggested the criticism over earmarks has been taken out of context and contended Democrats have made great strides in reducing wasteful spending since they gained the majority in Congress two years ago.

Under Republican rule, they said, earmarks accounted for 4 percent to 5 percent of the budget. They now account for less than 1 percent.

"It's a big change from what existed before, and that's why much of this is hypocrisy," said Pascrell, whose name is attached to about $60 million in earmarks. "To stand on the floor of the House and insinuate that anyone who is getting earmarks is in some way tainted is ridiculous.

"I stand by every one of the earmarks that I brought in," Pascrell said. "They're important for the district. They're for the common good.

---

The media have invested a lot of time, money, and energy into demonizing earmarks while ignoring the fact that that they represent less than 2% of expenditures in the omnibus spending bill and less than 1% of overall spending. The object of this exercise is to reinforce the idea that government spending is waste and should therefore always be reduced. Once people have accepted the idea that government spending is waste and government is the problem, it becomes easy to sell the single project that defines the contemporary Republican Party- keeping taxes on the wealthiest Americans low...

The Newark Star Ledger - a reliably liberal New Jersey newspaper- is also home to self-described "true conservative" columnist Paul Mulshine. It turns out that Mr. Mulshine is offended that Mr. Limbaugh is giving conservatism a bad name. The article here: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/...

Mulshine describes how the "hefty huckster" was paid by GM to plug their products:

<snip>

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele recently termed him "an entertainer." For that, Steele is said to be in danger of losing his job. But that term seems a bit too polite when you consider what Limbaugh's really up to.

Consider his relationship with General Motors. In a 2007 article in Automotive News headlined "General Motors Payola," writer Mary Connelly told how "General Motors is recruiting many of America's best known radio personalities -- including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Schlessinger and Whoopi Goldberg -- to talk up its vehicles on the air."

The article noted that the company didn't pay the stars directly but advertised on their shows and gave them cars to drive and other favors. In return, the talkers would plug GM products. But not during advertisements. They would do so during the normal course of their on-air patter. In other words, Limbaugh would go from offering some insight about national politics to saying this:

"GM has a ton of momentum. They are working hard and they are thinking smart. Believe in General Motors, folks. They're a classic American company doing it all."

A ton of momentum? True. But it was all going in the wrong direction.

<snip>

This is not Mulshine's first derogatory take on Limbaugh and hopefully, not the last. Popcorn anyone?

Bob Herbert wrote a great op-ed for today's New York Times. He summarizes the fate of the middle class since 1980:

<snip>

The seeds of today’s disaster were sown some 30 years ago. Looking at income patterns during that period, my former colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, noted that from 1980 (the year Ronald Reagan was elected) to 2005, the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.)

But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during those years. The standard of living for the average family improved not because incomes grew but because women entered the workplace in droves.

As hard as it may be to believe, the peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973, when the average income per taxpayer, adjusted for inflation, was $33,000. That was nearly $4,000 higher, Mr. Johnston pointed out, than in 2005.

<snip>

Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/...

Curiously, the income share of the wealthiest 1% of Americans over the same time period increased from 8.5% to 21.2% (link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250... ). Coincidence? I think not.

In January, 2009, Barack Obama was handed the keys to the family sedan. It had four worn out and totally flat tires...

He consulted the most capable mechanics in the land. Their consensus was that he should buy four new tires. A few suggested that it would also be prudent to keep a fifth tire on hand as a spare, but the President rejected their counsel because he knew he would have a hard enough time drumming up bipartisan support for the four tire plan. Signalling his willingness to compromise, Obama suggested a "three or four tire" plan...

The Republicans howled at the mere thought of such extravagance. "Tax and spend, tax and spend, commie pinko plot," they chanted. They came back with a one tire plan, grimly reminding everyone that tires were not free and one tire was surely better than none. In the ensuing public debate, talking heads on CNN and MSNBC noted that the additional weight of tires might actually slow the car down. Commentators on CNBC and the Speed Network suggested that, perversely, a car with four good tires would lead to more driving around and increased dependence on imported oil. On another network, John McCain made the fair and balanced point that the Earth is flat but tires are round...

Storm clouds gathered on the horizon and the new administration's prospects were looking mighty bleak until three visionary Republicans broke ranks with their party and brokered a compromise: the two tire plan...

Postscript: fast forward to 2010. The family car is still going nowhere. The Republicans run on the "I told you so" platform and a disillusioned electorate votes the spendthrift Democratic bastards out of office. The two new tires, having been proved useless, are sold for scrap and the family sedan debate begins anew. Obama's advisers suggest a four cinder block plan...

Thank you for the thoughtful response to my post. We agree on much- particularly as regards the failure of our media.

You state your point of disagreement with me in your first sentence: "But you, like Hersh, are ignoring what the polls at the time said: the great majority of the American people (nearly 60%) OPPOSED the invasion of Iraq (Feb '03, all polls)." I confess I do not remember the polling data from the time- only the oppressive feeling of living in a state in which the media, at the bidding of some obscene cabal, was whipping the citizenry into a lynch-mob frenzy of paranoia and vengeance. However, I did find a Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popu...

Excerpts from the article:

<snip>
February 2003

Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, said the bumps in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings jumped 7 points, and support for the invasion jumped 4 points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April of 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month. <8> A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.

<snip>
<snip>

March 2003

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. <9>

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. <1>

April 2003

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.<10>
<snip>

What strikes me about this account is the malleability of public opinion. I left out the January 2003 part of the article in the interest of keeping this concise- anyone can read the whole article- but the trajectory of public opinion is clear: 69% of Americans had some sort of reservations about an invasion in January and by May, "79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified." The war had been sold. And that's pretty much the disheartening way I remember it.

You go on to state:"If the American people had become so stupid and ignorant that they were following Bush off this cliff, then what was needed was public education. But if something else was going on--the disempowerment and, very important, disenfranchisement, of the majority--then the strategy should be quite different--with the main focus on RE-enfranchisement, and RE-empowerment." From my point of view, both are needed. I agree we need a robust and reliable electoral system, but it is useless if the electorate can be easily manipulated by entrenched interests. As regards the electorate, I think a lot of our citizens need an intervention- they need to be deprogrammed.

I like your closing words: "We ARE a "changed country" in the sense that we are a looted and bloodied country. But we have NOT changed in wanting peace and justice, and good government. The great majority of us have never wanted anything else." I am not so cynical as to disagree. Rather, I would argue that the media has painted a picture of the rest of the world as a threatening and hostile place in which paranoia is prudence and peace and justice are luxury items to be put off to an indefinite future. We need to tear down that perception and replace it with something better.

The election of GWB in 2000 was an act of moral surrender enabled by the American media and assented to by the American people. Bush's early popularity was based on little more than his willingness to execute far more people than any previous American governor. Americans were encouraged to think of themselves as victims and of Bush as their avenger.

Bush's aura of competence was a media-construct based on his old-boy network business "success" and his close connection with high-flying Enron. He would be the first CEO/President. The fact that he couldn't put together a coherent sentence should have been viewed as obvious proof to the contrary but instead was sold as evidence of his close connection to the common folk. The lie that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet was coddled by a complicit media. Bush v. Gore was only the cherry on a shit sundae.

9-11 added fuel to the fire of Americans-as-victims. The need for vengeance overwhelmed the tradition of respect for justice. In short order, Americans bought the ideas that chemical and biological weapons were "weapons of mass destruction", that Saddam Hussein had WMD until he could prove otherwise (an obvious impossibility), and that we had the right to preemptively invade anyone who MIGHT have WMD and who MIGHT use them against us.

By the time that Abu Ghraib came to light, we were no longer sliding down a slippery moral slope. We were sprawled out at the bottom.

Many of the choices we face in life are dilemmas- which of two (or more) bad options do we choose? Voting is no different. In contemporary America I find that my choice may be unpleasant but it is also very easy. Republicans: sworn enemies. Democrats: unreliable friends and allies. And the not voting option only strengthens my enemies.

I work and vote for progressives in the primaries and Democrats in elections. Sometimes I have to hold my nose. That's life.

Obama was my third choice in the Democratic primary season. I ended up donating money, phonebanking, and going door to door for his campaign. The alternative was Sarah Palin and the man who chose her as his Vice Presidential nominee. I'm happy as hell that my third choice won- if only because America was offered a chance to jump off a cliff- and didn't.