Governments Exist To Further The Interests of "Favored Groups"

"We The People" Are Never The Favored Group

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system."—Herbert Hoover’s treasury secretary Andrew Mellon

By Prof. John Kozy
July 14, 2012
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

Paul Krugman recently wrote that

the fact is that the Fed, like the European Central Bank, like the U.S. Congress, like the government of Germany, has decided that avoiding economic disaster is somebody else’s responsibility.

None of this should be happening. As in 1931, Western nations have the resources they need to avoid catastrophe, and indeed to restore prosperity — and we have the added advantage of knowing much more than our great-grandparents did about how depressions happen and how to end them. But knowledge and resources do no good if those who possess them refuse to use them.

And that’s what seems to be happening. The fundamentals of the world economy aren’t, in themselves, all that scary; it’s the almost universal abdication of responsibility that fills me, and many other economists, with a growing sense of dread.

Krugman and most other Americans are fond of blaming social problems on the personal failings of individuals rather than on the systemic failings of institutions. It is people borrowing more than they can afford rather than banks lending too loosely or consumers saving too little rather than businesses paying too little to enable consumers to save that causes all of the problems. But borrowing and lending and saving and income are not independent variables. People are persons with personal failures but banks are institutions with systemic failures, and the systemic failures can entice people to engage in activities that may look like personal failures but are not. Krugman and many others assume that governments and their institutions exist to solve the problems peoples face. When the problems persist, these people again assume that it is because those in government just aren't doing their jobs. But there is very little historical evidence to support this view.

The government of Louis XVI made scanty attempts to solve the problems of the French people which ultimately led to the French Revolution. The various governments in the United States in the early 1800 made few attempts to resolve the problems raised by slavery in American society and the Supreme Court made any resolution of them impossible which led to the Civil War. Emperor Franz Joseph of Austro-Hungary made no effort to resolve the ethnic problems his empire faced in the Balkans which ultimately led to the First World War. Great Britain and France made no attempts to ameliorate the problems Germany faced as a result of the conditions imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles which then resulted in the Second World War. No government has made much of an attempt to resolve the problems created in the Levant by the creation of Israel, and instability, slaughter, and war have prevailed ever since. Now a third world war, an atomic conflagration, may be in the offing.

Domestic and international conflicts are being exacerbated world-wide by similar failures at problem resolution. The Western nations and Israel are not making any serious attempts to resolve their problems with Iran. The only possibility of resolving the problems in Western minds is for Iran to merely conform to what the Western world wants. Western European nations are treating the debt crisis similarly. There is only one resolution: the Southern European states must merely do what the Northern ones say regardless of how it affects the peoples of Southern Europe. And the American Congress is paralyzed by each party's insistence that its way is the only way.

So what is really going on? What are Krugman and others missing? The answer is as plain as sunlight on a cloudless day.

Governments have never existed to solve problems domestic or international. Governments and their institutions exist merely to further and secure the interests of favored groups. For instance, each nation's foreign policy always consists of "protecting our interests" somewhere or other. Whose interests are "our interests"? Why the favored group's, of course. And who are the favored groups? Well, it all depends.

The favored group of European governments is international investors, not the common people of a single European nation. The Greeks can be damned so long as the investors get repaid even though the common people of Greece did not borrow one euro from international investors, the Greek government, which has no income it doesn't take from ordinary Greeks, did, and the investors were not only willing but anxious to lend. The favored group of the Mubarak government in Egypt was the Egyptian military that even after the overthrow of Mubarak is still trying to secure its interests. The favored group in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen is a royal family. In Iraq and Iran, a religious sect is favored. Every one of these governments except, perhaps, Iceland has shown a willingness to kill those common people who are never the favored group.

The United States of America is an extreme case. The Democrats in Congress have their favored groups; so do the Republicans. But the common people is not the favored group of either party, although the politicians pay homage to it. America is comprised of a mass of groups, some favored, some not. Even though the nation's founders warned the Colonists about the danger of factions, every issue in America attracts a faction, and sometime or other, government favors one or more of them. Americans have pro and an anti-immigration factions. Within these, there are pro and anti-Asian factions, pro and anti-Latino factions and within these, Central and South American and Cuban factions. There are pro and anti-gun control factions, abortion factions, contraception factions, labor factions, business factions, healthcare factions, free and regulated market factions, free trade and protectionist factions, global warming and anti-global warming factions, more and less taxation factions, big and small government factions, federal and states' rights factions, imperialist and anti-imperialist factions, religious and anti-religious factions. Factions here; factions there; disagreement everywhere! Where Americans once believed united we stand, divided we fall, today they believe division secures our group's special interests. And the moneyed groups have made this work by using raw power and bribery.

But the nation? Oh, well, its seams are all coming apart. The nation doesn't matter to factions; only the interests of the favored group does. And that is why American society does not work. It is a nation whose people do not live together; they merely live side by side, where neighbors who have lived side by side for years break into violent conflict over the most trivial of things: a barking dog, a crowing rooster, a loud party, a minor inconvenience as, for instance, a parked car, children playing in someone's yard, a tree-limb extending over a property line, a sign or even an American flag on a pole, the color of a house, the height of a lawn and the kind of plants in it—just some of the recent neighborly conflicts I have observed.

America is a nation comprised of people who revel in conflict. Even the legal system is adversarial. Our cities, or at least parts of them, are war zones. More people are killed daily in America than in Afghanistan. Since Americans can't get along with each other why would anyone expect them to get along with the rest of the world? What makes anyone believe Americans care if Sunni and Shi'as get along?

The human condition will never improve until governments everywhere begin governing for the people, all the people, and none but all the people. So long as governments govern for the benefit of special groups, antagonisms, dislikes, and hatred will prevail; the Earth will seethe with conflict.

Some will say it's just human nature, that human beings have a dark side rooted in greed that cannot be extirpated. If so, we are just like ants where workers and soldiers live merely to provide for queens and their entourages of drones who exist merely to produce more ants, where common people are but beasts of burden that exist for the sake of the greedy. Perhaps this view is accurate, but the best of humanity has never thought so. Only Machiavelli's The Prince among thousands of works is renowned for this view (although Ayn Rand may be catching up). Religious and humanitarian works that contest it abound.

The trouble is we have too many people like Paul Krugman. Generally his heart seems to be in the right place; he seems to genuinely care about what happens to people, but he never goes far enough. He and those like him seem never to be able to mine an argument deep enough to find the source of its lode. They stop digging when they get to something that fits their preconceptions, as, for instance, personal human failures.

During an interview on Internet radio, I was once asked, being a veteran, why soldiers fight. The host, I am certain, expected some profound response such as for God and country, for human dignity, for the rights and freedoms our people enjoy. But I merely answered, because they're there!

When we take perfectly normal young Americans off the street and send them into battle, we do not presume that they are inherently killers. After all, killers are bad people. Yet we send these good young men and women off to kill and they do. When they return, we again do not assume they are killers. We expect them to return to being perfectly normal young men and women. So do bankers do what they do because they're bad people or because they're bankers and banking requires it? Are politicians corrupt because they are bad people or are they corrupt because politics requires it?

People, ask yourselves this question. Do our institutions make us what we are? If our institutions promote greed, will we be greedy, if our institutions promote killing will we be killers, if our institutions promote bribery, will we be bribed, if our institutions promote corruption, will we be corrupt? What will we be when our institutions promote goodness and how can we build such institutions?

The Romans had an expression—cui prodest?—meaning “who stands to gain?" Who advocates a specific view isn't important; what is important is who stands to gain from it. Only then can who the view favors be known. But in today's world, cui prodest? is too general a question. It is too easy to conjure up arguments that purport to show that many or even all gain. That everyone gains from tax cuts for the rich can be argued ad infinitum.

But who stands to gain the most financially can't. It always has a specific answer, and if you want to know who the government's favored group is at any time, that is the question that must be answered. When the answer is some group other than the common people, the view must be rejected; otherwise, the human condition is mired in the mud of hate and will never improve, conflict will persist, and the human race will very likely exterminate itself and perhaps life itself.

Jefferson knew that merchants had no country. And that the business of America is business has often been voiced by the established elite and endorsed by the Republican party. The Congress is in gridlock because the Republicans do not care what happens to America or the American people, just so long as their favored constituents' interests are preserved. That is what Paul Krugman and others like him fail to understand. That is why the models of economists, even if any turn out to work, are of no consequence. The only models that matter are those that advance and secure the interests of the favored group. Can the problem of unemployment be solved? Nobody in power really cares! Can the problem of world-wide poverty be solved? Nobody in power really cares! Can peace ever prevail between human beings? Nobody in power really cares! The dead require no benefits, and a very small government will suffice.

Postscript.

Since drafting this piece, I have discovered that three political scientists, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, have provided empirical evidence for my thesis in Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Their views are summarized in a piece by Daniel Little:

"What is really interesting about this analysis is that it implies that the sizzling rhetoric coming from the right -- personal attacks on the President, anti-gay rants, renewed heat around abortion and contraception -- is just window dressing. By the evidence of voting records, what the right really cares about is economic issues favoring the affluent -- tax cuts, reduced social spending, reduced regulation of business activity, and estate taxes. This isn't to say that the enraged cultural commentators aren't sincere about their personal belief -- who knows? But the policies of their party are very consistent, in the analysis offered here. Maybe the best way of understanding the extremist pundits is as a class of well-paid entertainers, riffing on themes of hatred and cultural fundamentalism that have nothing to do with the real goals of their party."

There you have it. The people are viewed by the establishment as chickens to be broiled for lunch.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.

Copyright © John Kozy

A Practical Plan To Get Big Money Out Of Politics

There Are A Thousand Hacking At The Branches Of Evil To One Who Is Striking At The Root.”--Henry David Thoreau

By Carmen Yarrusso
November 24, 2010
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

Clearly, our government is deeply corrupted by moneyed special interests. Just look at the immense wake of destruction left by our government and its policies in the last 10 years alone. The resulting human misery worldwide is immeasurable.

The buying and selling of political influence is the driving force of our political system. The Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United has opened the floodgates for legal bribery—our government is now officially for sale to the highest bidder.

What’s even more sinister, a government for sale to the highest bidder forces both moneyed special interests and members of Congress to not only participate in an obvious con game, but to compete among themselves (thus raising the stakes and ruthlessness) in this massive influence-peddling scam that robs the American people of billions each year.

Moneyed special interests would be at a competitive disadvantage if they didn’t buy political influence. 

Likewise, our "representatives" would be at a competitive disadvantage (getting elected and staying in office) if they didn’t sell political influence. Thus each year, lobbyists transfer millions in legal bribes from moneyed special interests to our "representatives" in return for billions of our taxpayer dollars.

We, the American people, are mere fodder for profit, exploited by both moneyed special interests and our "representatives" in Congress.

The plutocrat buyers of our government maintain strict political control over what they've bought and paid for. Members of Congress who oppose moneyed special interests are promptly punished, ostracized, or replaced (if their offense is great enough).

Big money corrupting our political system dwarfs every other political issue by far because it underlies and thus dominates every other political issue. It’s foolish to expect rational legislation or real reform of our corrupt government as long as our "representatives" are bought and paid for by moneyed special interests.

As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, our government will continue to support patently unfair domestic and foreign policies that not only cost us billions, but also cause vast human suffering worldwide. As long as big money is the driving force of our political system, government "of the people" is impossible.

Getting big money out of politics is the necessary first step in a peaceful, people’s revolution to take back our government.

The Beginning Of The End Of Big Money In Politics

Big money has been in politics since day one. Every legislative effort to significantly diminish its power has failed (e.g., the feeble McCain-Feingold bill). How can we succeed now when so many earnest people before us have failed? By cleverly utilizing the power of the Internet.

We can establish a simple, easy to use, Internet-based system of accountability (using off the shelf software) that will greatly diminish the value of the political-influence "products" now being sold by our "representatives."

Rather than futilely trying to limit how much moneyed special interests can give to members of Congress, we should concentrate on strategies that will make what our "representatives" have been selling virtually worthless. We can do this using the power of the Internet.

The Essence Of Influence Peddling Is Deception

Moneyed special interests are willing to spend millions buying political influence because those millions return billions. Corporations would be betraying their shareholders if these millions weren't wise investments. But what are moneyed special interests actually buying?

They’re buying unfair government policies (or protection from unfair government policies bought and paid for by competitors). Philanthropic groups aside, moneyed special interests don’t pay much for fair government policies - those serving the best interests of the American people as a whole.

The only way our "representatives" can pass and/or sustain unfair government policies and thus be able to sell their political influence for millions is through deception. They must try to deceive us with specious justifications that hide the truth of the unfair policies (e.g., "aluminum tubes," "mobile weapons labs," "mushroom clouds," "vials of anthrax" as justifications for invading Iraq).

The Mechanics Of Deception In Congress

The most powerful tool of deception used by our "representatives" is the lackey mainstream media (essentially the propaganda arm of our government). Mainstream media are supposed to keep us informed about our government's activities. But as profit-driven corporations that receive billions from our "representatives," they're much more motivated to promote and perpetuate government deception than to expose it. It's simply smart business.

Our "representatives" use various tools to deceive us. But all tools boil down to one thing: evasion. Those supporting unfair government policies cannot possibly defend these policies with clear, rational arguments. So they offer shallow, specious justifications (dutifully passed on to the American people by mainstream media) and then simply evade responding to the obvious flaws in their justifications.

Our "representatives" are never forced to defend their justifications using clear, rational arguments. All we ever get are deceptive, evasive snippets of "arguments" and appeals to emotion, never anything remotely resembling a clear, cogent, rational fact-based argument. But usually this is good enough to deceive a sufficient number of Americans to pass and/or sustain unfair government policies.

Demand Our "Representatives" Post A Clear, Rational Argument Defending Their Positions On The Internet For All To Scrutinize

Our political system's many entrenched mischief mechanisms (e.g., powerful standing committees, filibusters, earmarks) are regularly exploited by our "representatives" to evade clear, rational argument and open debate on their positions. What would happen if we, the people, no longer tolerated evasion from those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests? The influence peddling market would crash.

If our "representatives" couldn’t evade, it would be much more difficult for them to deceive us about unfair government policies and thus much more difficult to pass and/or sustain such policies. The market value of political influence would plummet.

Aspects Of An Internet-Based (Wiki) System Of Congressional Accountability

We'd be able to visit an Internet site and view clear, rational arguments for all Congressional proposals (pro and con side by side for easy comparison). We wouldn’t need mainstream media pundits to interpret government policies for us; we’d be getting both sides right from the horse’s mouth. Evasions and flawed reasoning by either side would be made very apparent. A search capability would allow us to find the current best arguments - pro and con - for any bill in Congress.

When a bill is introduced, those "representatives" initiating the bill would post a clear, rational argument explaining the merits of the bill. Those opposing the bill would then post their corresponding clear, rational argument explaining why the bill is unfair and shouldn't pass.

What makes this Internet-based (wiki) system of accounting such a powerful weapon against evasion and falsehood is this: the individual arguments are dynamic. As you will see, using dynamic arguments (referred to as wikiarguments) prevents lots of mischief and tends to punish liars and reward truth-tellers. The individual wikiarguments would be managed very much like Wikipedia entries except there would be multiple entries per subject (pro and con arguments) instead of the one entry per subject in Wikipedia.

Thus all members of Congress would be able to edit – improve and update - the arguments they favor. Both sides of any issue would be free to update their respective wikiargument as new facts emerge or to correct mistakes. In this manner, arguments for both sides - pro and con - would evolve as collaborative efforts, which would converge toward a best argument (consensus) for each side of any given issue (bill).

A wikiargument system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue - where people argue back and forth - because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging final product: a current best argument for each side. Like robot competition, the emphasis would be on building a superior rational argument for a given position, which would then openly compete with its corresponding – opposing - argument on the Internet.

The American people would get to watch as arguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. We would watch our "representatives" slugging it out using their best rational arguments instead of using deceptive TV sound bites.

But unfair policies are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a wikiargument system force our "representatives" to post honest arguments against such unfair policies? By providing two additional - pro and con – "shadow" wikiarguments for each issue that could be edited by anyone on earth, like Wikipedia entries.

A visitor to the site would view two pairs of pro and con wikiarguments per issue, one pair maintained by members of Congress and one corresponding pair maintained by the public at large. If our "representatives" weren’t providing strong wikiargumentsagainst unfair policies, the public at large would make those arguments for them. The two (public) shadow wikiarguments would quickly expose weak or disingenuous government arguments when both political parties support unfair policies.

All four wikiarguments would be free to borrow from each other. The four would evolve and converge toward a consensus. The most cogent argument would quickly become apparent, which would then expose which side is supporting big money and which side is supporting the people's best interests.

Demand Accountability From Those Who Claim To Represent Us

We have every right to demand our government "representatives" provide us with clear, rational arguments that explain and justify their positions. If their positions on any given policy, procedure, legislation or action are fair, it should be easy for them to present clear, convincing wikiarguments. Conversely, if their positions are unfair, they won't be able to present wikiarguments that aren't easily faulted by their opponents.

This wikiargument plan has one simple requirement: our government "representatives" must subject their ideas to careful scrutiny by posting their best rational arguments on the Internet. That's it. One simple requirement: respect the intelligence of the American people; give us your best rational arguments so we can carefully examine them for flaws. Careful examination can only hurt unfair ideas and arguments.

Using a wikiargument system, our "representatives" would no longer be able to rely on many of the deceptive practices so prevalent under our current political system. By requiring them to post wikiarguments for their positions, they would no longer get away with making false claims or misrepresenting facts or ignoring evidence against their positions because their Internet opponents would quickly expose this intellectual dishonesty within their own corresponding (opposing) arguments where the American people would always be watching.

Using a wikiargument system our government representatives would be reluctant to make false or deceptive statements on TV or in other public venues. Why? Because they would know anyone could go to the Internet and check out the given issue's opposingwikiargument where their deceptions would be quickly exposed. A political system using wikiarguments would punish dishonesty and reward honesty - exactly the opposite of our current political system.

Our current political system makes it easy for our "representatives" to deceive the American people. It's not about finding truth; it's about playing a political game of hiding truth. Our current political system often allows our "representatives" to make demonstrably irrational decisions without any accountability whatsoever.

A wikiargument system of accountability would not stop all political mischief. But it would significantly hamper the effectiveness of the many built-in mischief mechanisms our government representatives now exploit to evade careful scrutiny and open debate.

Conclusion

We need a political system that seeks truth, instead of one that often hides, manipulates, and even manufactures "truth." We need a political system that creates policy using rational argument and open debate, instead of one that creates policy using wheeling and dealing, coercion, and deception.

We need a political system that operates in plain view of the American people, one that provides a level playing field where all ideas can compete openly and fairly using clear, rational argument.

In short, we need a political system that enforces intellectual honesty instead of one that punishes intellectual honesty while rewarding deceit.

Wikiarguments is a first step toward that political system.

Carmen Yarrusso, a software engineer for 35 years, designed and modified computer operating systems (including Internet software). He has a BS in physics and studied game theory and formal logic during his years with the math department at Brookhaven National Lab. He lives in New Hampshire and often writes about uncomfortable truths.

How Corporations Own The US Congress

By Shamus Cooke
September 15, 2010
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: "Who cares?” This apathy isn't due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people's disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress.

This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations "lobby" (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations — from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers — are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections:

"Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions." (September 9, 2010)

Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.

Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.

The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists [!] currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 billion. It was also explained how some lobbying firms keep an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans on hand, so they can be prepared for any eventuality in the elections.

This phenomenon is more than a little un-democratic: when millions of people vote for a candidate, the outcomes are quickly manipulated and controlled before the election even happens.

Interestingly, the corporate-directed Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article in 2008, as the Democrats had begun to dominate politics in Washington:

"Washington's $3 billion lobbying industry has begun shedding Republican staffers [politicians], snapping up Democratic operatives [politicians] and entire firms, a shift that started even before Tuesday's ballots were counted and Democrat Barack Obama captured the presidency." (November 5, 2008)

This article was appropriately titled “Lobbyists Put Democrats Out Front as Winds Shift.”

The corporate money flows from party to party, so that the same goals are achieved: higher profits for corporations. The sums thrown at these politicians are mind boggling: the Associated Press reported that the corporate-orientated Chamber of Commerce spent "... nearly $190 million since Barack Obama became president in January 2009." (August 21, 2010)

These numbers explain the "deeper" differences between Democrats and Republicans — money. Each party is a machine that vies for power because this power carries with it vast sums of corporate money. The longer a party is in office and the more connections it makes, the more its net worth to corporations, the more that these rewards can be spread to the different layers of the party. There is indeed a real-life, nasty fight between the Republican and Democratic Parties to dominate this corporate money.

One "interest group" that ex-Congressmen don't work for is labor unions. Unions spend millions of dollars to help get Democrats elected, and millions more is spent trying to get their ear while they're in office.

But unions cannot out-spend the banks; and they can't offer millionaire retirement packages to retired Senators. The corporate retirement plans of Congressmen prove where their minds are while in office, and whose interests are being looked after.
Unions cannot continue to pretend that the Democrats are their "friends.” Labor has very little to show for this dysfunctional, decades-long friendship: union membership continues to shrivel as do jobs, wages and benefits for workers – a losing strategy if ever there was one.

A “lesser of two evils” approach to politics equals evil politicians for labor, no matter who wins. In fact, the lesser-evil Democrats have become increasingly evil over the years, to the point where the party as a whole is more Conservative than the Nixon-era Republicans.
The point has been reached where — in various states — Democratic governors are being endorsed by unions after promising to attack the wages and benefits of public workers!

To get out of this vicious, dead-end cycle, unions could unite their strength to form coalitions that promote independent labor candidates: 100 percent funded by labor to govern 100 percent in the interest of working people. All other roads lead back to the corporate lobbyists.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Shamus Cooke is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Shamus Cooke