Event: Two More Opinions.

My dad sent me this, from 17 years ago.

Car Talk, April 1992.

When I push (hard) for a loan to the Big Three, I'm not favoring a blank check; I've no desire to repeat the Wall Street bailout. Hopefully the White House attaches strict requirements to any aid it gives.

And this is from Hallie.

New York Times: When the Cars Go Away.

The interesting thing is, deindustrialization effectively shielded cities like Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw from the investment excitement of the eighties and the prosperity of the nineties. I had a stable family life, a healthy material life, and a good education, which was why I could bear witness to all this and then write about it today. Because I do feel that people from my part of the country have been treated to a rare sneak peek of what the rest of the country (or even the First World?) may be experiencing soon:

FLINT, MICHIGAN
COMING SOON TO A CITY NEAR YOU

Event: Another Good Article.

Salon.com: Senate GOP to the UAW: Drop Dead.

Event: More Reasons for the Bailout...

LeftHandedMan posted this brilliant comment on DailyKos:

The GOP never dreamed it would get to kill a massive part of organized labor and have an entire region of the country completely collapse on the Democratic parties watch to boot, but that is just the opportunity that has arisen for the Limbaugh/Coulter wing of the GOP.

A 25 billion dollar loan, with strings attached mandating the auto industry stay the fuck out of monkeying with healthcare reform and making them go green or else, could save hundreds of billions of dollars in social spending over the next 10 years alone.

10 to 12 million jobs lost, boom!, 200 to 1 trillion dollars in emergency social spending to deal with the collapse's impact on the region, the UAW dead and Wal-Mart the biggest employer in the region, Michigan in full economic collapse and millions of voters ripe for being in play in the next round of the Culture War.

The GOP, and the media pundits who are all clamoring for Obama and the Congress to let the auto industry die will be damning us and running against the Democratic Party as the party that 'Let Michigan Die' or 'Let Detroit Die' for a generation if the auto industry is allowed to die.

The auto industry is 4% of our GDP.

If it goes, thats several years added on to the economic crisis that we face.

And probably Bobby Jindal in 2012 running as Ronnie Reagan on a white horse to "save" America.

Event: What Is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?

If this issue is going to be brought up in debate and discussion, we owe it to each other to confront the issue up front. College profs have a tendency to make it complicated, but as for the disputes dominating the news today, the discussion needn't be particularly complicated.

I write this as a socialist, who votes center Democrat 90% of the time, and makes occasional "fringe" comments that diminish my popularity. I consider myself a socialist because I believe that the socialist premise is correct and will ultimately lead the most stable, sane, humane, and productive society. I vote Democrat because of the two major parties their goals are closer to compatible with mine. The socialist premise demands popular support, and that this is a long-term game; one that requires generations on generations of social and cultural evolution, and I believe that compromise and consensus are the only valid means of achieving this goal, even if it comes after many tiny steps and innumerable setbacks. (I wonder if that would make me a Toynbee Socialist).

I strongly support Obama.

However, I will say this emphatically: he does not buy the socialist premise. He is not a socialist, nor a marxist, nor a communist, nor a social democrat. It is only reasonable to call someone an "-ist" or associate them with an "-ism" if 1) those terms mean something and 2) the person in question behaves accordingly.

Fortunately, these terms all mean something, and that something can be succinctly distilled.

Karl Marx was a German scholar (historian, economist, and philosopher) whose career spanned the second half of the 19th century. His argument, expounded in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, argued that history is a series of class struggles over control of the means of production. Capitalism, he argues, that is, our system of selling and trading, is based on fundamental inequality of resources that can only compound over time. Eventually the extremity of inequality will become so aggrivated that the disadvantaged masses will rise up and assume control, bringing about a classless state in which material resources are collectively owned. This is, in a nutshell, what Marx and Engels argue, and "marxism" is a term connoting a basic agreement with this premise.

"Communism" is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Marxism. It generally involves an revolutionary interpretation of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin prior to the Russian Revolution. Communism goes beyond predicting a revolution and outlines a specifically military answer to bring about the end of class warfare. Ironically, because communism empowers a military elite, the Soviet-style communist states of the later 20th century all involved a ruling elite with repressive controls over the press, education, the military, and so forth. This can also be said of non-Soviet style communist states such as Cuba or the People's Republic of China. They all have dismal economies and even dismaller human rights records, which is part of the reason why the Right likes to associate Democrats with Communists. Communism is not the same as Socialism, and as I said before, Obama is neither a Communist nor a Socialist.

"Socialism" predates Marxism as a social philosophy, but was heavily influenced by his writing (Marx drew on earlier examples of Socialist states, and his influence promoted the ideal of socialism internationally). In its simplest form, Socialism is a philosophy advocating collective ownership. It need not predicate itself on a fundamental premise of class warfare, and it certainly not resort to violent revolution. A number of modern nations have attempted socialism to varying degrees and with mixed-success. Socialist states in Latin America have a spotty record, although there appears to be a trend toward stability over time. Scandinavian states approach socialism with more unambiguous success, which is reflected in high taxes, low income inequality, and extraordinarily high standards-of-living.

"Social Democracy" is hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism, although in its theory it cleaves somewhat closer to Capitalism. Private enterprise is sanctioned and legally protected, but institutions deemed too important to the national well-being (such as health-care) or too powerful and influential to operate on their own (in many nations, banking systems) are either managed or heavily regulated by the government. When we think of Social Democracies the most emblematic examples are wealthy and progressive Western European states like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. They have assertive economies dominated by some big players, but they also allow a much higher level of government intervention than we do in the U.S. But...

... here's the rub ...

... from a certain, and very fair, perspective all governments are, definitionally socialist to some extent. To socialize something is to compel collective ownership via a vis the government. The United States has a socialized postal service (though this is rarely controversial), socialized public education, and a socialized military. At times, prominent politicians (typically Republicans) argue to socialize military service: that's right, folks, the draft is socialism! This is why so many progressives roll their eyes at McCain's charge that Obama is a socialist: the recent take over of financial institutions by the White House is one of the most strident socialist acts in American history, and it was initiated and executed by Republicans!

* * * * *

In sum, capitalists argue that the latent potential in and initiative encouraged by markets trump the potential benefits of socialization. Socialists argue in response that the inequities of market systems will always poliferate, creating a society that is inherently unbalanced, unstable, and injust.

This is my attempt to overview the differences between the two philosophies in a neutral and unbiased manner.

I hope you can tell, at a glance, and in consideration of these observations, that Obama is not a socialist of any stripe. He does favor a few limited socializations. I say a "few" because only one of his initiatives -- health care -- will involve this on a large scale. I say "limited" because his health care plan does not dissolve insurance agencies or health care coverage (which would be a feature of any authentic socialist system) but instead provides a government alternative, much as the USPS is an alternative to FedEx or the UPS.

In the past, the Republican Party could honestly claim to be "less socialist" than the Democratic Party, given that they generally believed in less regulation by government. It was Reagan who put an end to this, with his massive expansion of the military and his embrace/invocation of a Religious Right that has been attempting to socialize religion in a very real way. Look at attempts to legislate marriage on the national level as the most conspicuous example; contrary to many on the Right there is little precedent for this in American history, with the possible exception of Prohibition. We all remember how that went.
The only remnants of the "small government" policies of the Republican Party are their continual provisions for repealing progressive taxation (ie. taxation that draws more heavily from the rich than the poor) and some areas of (typically economic) deregulation. Their governments are nevertheless at least as cumbersome, expansive, and socialized as those of the Democrats.

For those who assume socialism is an insult, a derogation, I'm posting this in part to show that it isn't. It is, like all systems of economics and government (including capitalism) neutral. It can only be evaluated by what it enables people to do and what it prevents them from doing. As such, it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Cuba makes socialism look pretty bad; Sweden makes it look pretty good.

But Independents and Republicans and Democrats who stiffen at the notion of Socialism in general should take comfort: Barack Obama is no socialist. His support for the Wall Street bailout (like McCain's) is predicated on the assumption that markets are a workable premise, and this assumption fuel his plans to give a tax break to the middle class, to expand education as an incentive to global competition, to promotion of clean energy as an economic motivator.

Socialism isn't bad.

More: There's no reason to consider Obama a socialist.

Event: Tom's Post of the Morning.

Tom is my godfather, and one of the most astute bloggers I read. Today's post is not only inspiring, but rigorous as it ties together many threads that have been dominating political conversation these days: the nature of change, the meaning of patriotism, an ideology of "others" in America. Read it. It is very well written.

Purple Scarf: In the real America ...

Event: "Here's how Gov. Sarah Palin's Clearwater visit unfolded"

"Palin goes on the attack in Clearwater"
"Palin Wows 'Em In Clearwater"
"Palin rally brings 20000 to Clearwater"

I'm starting to feel fearful.

"Palin goes on attack in visit to Clearwater"
"Clearwater crowd welcomes Sarah Palin to Florida"
"Palin folksy, feisty in Clearwater"

While I'm politically on the same page as most of my friends, I often think that they're alarmist. We're up against the banality of evil, which operates most effectively when it can hide under a superficial veneer of esteem and respectability. I've made it a point to disagree with those who've compared the Bush administration to the fascists of the 1930s; we shouldn't have, I argue, to attain the atrocity of those regimes for something to be unacceptably bad. We needn't prove that Republicans are all degenerate monsters; we need to demonstrate policy flaws. A policy flaw can be repudiated without name-calling. That ought to be a liberal strength.

But there is a time to start feeling fear.

"Palin Supporters File Into Clearwater's Coachman Park"
"Palin In The Park"
"Palin in Florida at critical time for McCain"

The above are top-of-the-list headlines for a Google News search on the word "clearwater" today. You may think that I post these to underline a fear that the McCain ticket will turn the tide and win in November. But that is not my fear. In fact, this is looking less and less like a close election, and each day I am more confident in the success of the Obama-Biden ticket.

My fear is what these articles and headlines do not report.

Just in case you don't follow that link:

Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Presumably in reference to Ayers, though possibly to Obama.

One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

And while I can't pull up an uncensored quote on this, I think we can probably guess what was shouted.

Here's the thing. Why does the news cover this as if it were an ordinary political rally, with crowds and cheering? With a little digging, the event sounds like the precursor to a lynch mob. Shouldn't we be seeing at least some prominent headlines like:

"Palin supporters turn on media"
"Palin rally attendees threaten violence"
"Cameraman harrassed at Palin speech"

Why is this acceptable?

Why is this buried?

Why isn't this news?

And this is where I take one, two, no, one-and-a-half steps back, in consideration of some of my more alarmist friends.

They have earned that ground.

I can't think of a more reliable predictor to bigotry and catatrophe than this. Oversight is telling; it tells us what is assumed. What is unusual is worth reporting. What is accepted is left unsaid. What does it say, that the reportage of harrassment, of vigilante threats, of racism is taken off the table?

Event: Kicking You When You're Down - Foreclosure is a Forfeited Vote, According to the Michigan GOP.

Start from the beginning and move down:

Michigan Messenger: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote.

Michigan Messenger: GOP has a history of voter ‘caging,’ according to Democrats’ lawsuit.

Michigan Messenger: Messenger rejects GOP plea for retraction.

Gemma discussed this here, with several insightful comments by herself and tyromaven.

If you're a Michigan resident (I was for many years) this should make you livid. It isn't really aimed at preventing voter fraud, and here's how I described the strategy at Third Rail Themes:

- Macomb County includes many of the Detroit suburbs and with 800,000 people is one of the most populous counties in Michigan.
- It also has a very high African American population which has been disproportionately affected by house foreclosures.
- Here's the real kicker: almost all of those voting would be Michigan residents because 1) arrangements can be made given foreclosure to remain living at a residence and 2) most people who are being booted out of their homes at the dead end of autumn cannot afford to make a major move to another state... most will be relocating to elsewhere around Detroit.

This strategy is based on the flimsiest and nastiest of circumstances.

In fact, it isn't just a below-board attempt to swing the state red. It is only a breath and a couple syllables from Jim Crow.

So write some letters to the editors!