Article 43
Friday, September 30, 2005
An Argument For A Coalition Of The Left
Reprinted from NEWSHOG
I have been mulling over three recent posts by RANA AT SHAKESPEARE’S SISTER, by DAVE LINDORFF AT COUNTERPUNCH and by C.N. TODD AT FARENHEIGHT AND WISSEN All took as their theme the (by now old) claim that the Democratic Party has ceased to be representative of a significantly large portion of the American Left and moreover, no longer have a “vision worth voting for”. That the Democrats have become, by their own intent, Republican-Lite.
This is a familiar story, and one that has been replayed several times - most notably in 2000 and again in 2004. Recently, though, the argument has received new impetus from events. Lindorff puts it best:
Iraq War going to hell, with U.S casualties approaching 2000 dead and 25,000 wounded, at a cost of $200 billion and rising. Poverty in America on the rise in a period of supposed economic growth. Republican Party a cesspool of corruption. White House being investigated for outing undercover CIA agent. Abortion rights under serious threat, with the Supreme Court being packed with right-wing judges. New Orleans, just drying out from disastrous flood, being raped by White House-linked corporate pirates and scam artists. Budget deficit topping half trillion dollars. Gas and heating oil crisis looming, while oil companies reap record profits. Bush poll numbers hit historic low as even some Republicans abandon him as an incompetent. Oh yeah-all this and global warming and the end of human life as we know it.
Man, if you were an opposition politician looking to make a run for Congress next years, or for president in 2008, this would be a magical time. But where’s the opposition?
The media tell us that the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 are Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and maybe John Kerry. What all these people have in common is their deafening silence on all the issues of importance facing Americans and America.
So why are these “opposition” politicians silent, and why are they not so much an opposition as a shadow - administration, not able to stand against the tide of administration policies even with such momentous events as a spur? Well, E.J.Dionne had a pretty good take recently in the Washington Post:
the party’s problems are structural and can be explained by three numbers: 21, 34 and 45. According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate.
You get the idea? If the Democrats want to be elected by the current electorate, then they must move towards a centrist-right politics. They also have placed themselves in the enviable position of needing corporate funds to swell campaign coffers, through inadequately tending the hard left of their funds base. Where the Left sees their traditional party moving to the right for reasons of electability, they are becoming more and more intransigent about funding that party. This is one of the major complaints behind the recent split in the labor movement. The new CHANGE TO WIN COALITION, made up of seven of the largest unions, recently split from the AFL-CIO partly because of disagreements over being cannon-fodder for the Democratic Party without any concommitant policy support from that party.
However, and its a big however, the current electorate is not the same as the potential electorate. By American standards the turnout for the 2004 Presidential election was high - yet by the standards of other Western democracies it was woefully low. Chris Bowers at MyDD recently researched who didn’t turn out to vote and came up with some INTERESTING FINDINGS. In 2004, for example, the national median income was $35,100 p.a. yet the median income of the electorate was $55,300 - a difference of 57.5%.
In other words, it is mostly the poorest segment of society who don’t vote. Consider that although Bush gained 52% of the electorate, he only got 34% of all the possible votes. That means there is a huge potential constituency out there, between 25% and 30% of the potential electorate, who simply don’t vote - and they don’t vote simply because NEITHER REPUBLICAN NOR REPUBLICAN-LITES HAVE POLICIES THAT ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS!
Lets start by getting rid of the notion that social policies are what sway the poorest voters. Let me assure you, because I am poor working class and live alongside poor working class people (in Texas yet!), we don’t care about keeping down gays or blacks or about christian fundementalist power because the gays and blacks and christians are all poor together and we see the COMMON THEME first. We don’t care about the right to bear arms because although we can’t afford guns the gangbangers keep shooting us with them when we get accidentally caught in the crossfire. We aren’t anti-abortion because we know stuff happens, especially when you can’t afford prescriptions. That few bucks for condoms might be the entire family food budget for today...or even this week! We don’t care about immigration because the illegal immigrants are just doing what we would do to find a better life for our kids.
What we want is education as a right for our kids for as far as the kid is capable of going (not just till High School), some help to find work that isnt minimum wage (travel, education, childcare) or some help with the bills if our work isminimum wage (or below - which is still legal if you are waitstaff for instance), a livable income if we really truly cannot work, medical care where the first question is “what’s wrong?” NOT “HOW WILL YOU PAY?”, a break on crippling interest and bankruptcy cycles because you worry about how to pay after the kid is cured, that kind of thing.
On a wider canvas, when we get a breath from worrying about bills, we are concerned about the ALAMRINGLY RISING RATE OF POVERTY which is consigning more and more Americans to the life we live - and we don’t wish it on them any more than we would wish it on us. We care that workers in other countries can take our jobs primarily because both Democrats and Republicans have pushed globalized free-trade WITHOUT PUSHING IT’S BALANCE - GLOBALIZED WORKER’S RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. We care intensely that our hard earned pay is FUNDING GRAFT FOR CORPORATIONS who BUY AND SELL WHOLE ADMINISTRATIONS AND THEIR OPPOSITIONS via the lobbyist system.
Sounds pretty progressive, eh? Those are the goals of the real workers, the manual workers and of the poverty stricken. And as long as neither Dems nor Repubs have that agenda then that 30% will not vote.
But I have an answer.
Its a safe bet that neither Greens, nor any kind of American Labor Party nor any socialist group nor Naderites will mount enough of a challenge in the near future to break the dual-party system, even with the massive potential electorate they have. Partly this is because of demonization as “tree-huggers” or “commies” that both major parties gleefully indulge in.
Democrats, the ones with the most vested interest, are the most aggressive about this. Arguments include “Americans would never vote for a socialist” and “splitting the left’s vote would hand perpetual power to the Republicans”. Both are utter nonsense. In the first place, Bernie Sanders never seems to have any problem getting elected and is a shoo-in for Senator in 2006. Many Green and Labor candidates would have excellent chances of election in areas where the Democrats have no chance and Republicans rule - mostly because of the successful demonization of the Democrats as “latte-sipping elitists”. As Chris Bowers figures above show - far from splitting the left vote a strong party advocating for the working class would actually increase the size of the electorate by engaging all those voters who currently have no-one to vote for. They could pick up that unsung 25% and leave room for the Democrats to move to the moderate-right to their hearts content!
Moreover, why would the Dems have to run against any further Left party? They don’t put up a candidate against Sanders because they know he is very popular and he will be part of their caucus in the House. Its called coalition government. If the Dems stood back and let real Lefties run in certain areas where they could really capture the vote then together the Dems and the Left could beat the Republicans...and for sure the Dems ain’t going to do it on their own. So, to turn the argument around - do the Dems want to be a The Only Alternative so much that they are willing to sacrifice power to the Repubs for it? It seems some are.
A strong third party would also mean that both established parties would have to be on their merits not on their laurels - constantly looking over their shoulders to see what the new kid is saying. That could hardly be bad for the nation.
But if no leftwing party at present is strong enough, then what? Remember the old Polish “Solidarity” movement? A coalition of the progressive left that effected real change against an entrenched system. that should be the model. Sure, there would be fueds and differences over concepts - but the small groupings on the real Left are far more used to using a system of consensus and laisse-faire historically in any case. They are used to a system where prominent leaders are delegates as well as representatives. Any union body, any Green party local branch, is used to the give-and-take an American Solidarity would require. It could be done.
Moreover, it makes good political sense - the Republicans know this because they modelled their current heirachy on those very leftwing organistations that would make up such a coalition. As BILL BRADLEY WROTE BACK IN MARCH FOR THE NY TIMES:
To further the party’s ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970’s and 1980’s built a comprehensive structure based on Powell’s blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid.
You’ve probably heard some of this before, but let me run through it again. Big individual donors and large foundations - the Scaife family and Olin foundations, for instance - form the base of the pyramid. They finance conservative research centers like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, entities that make up the second level of the pyramid. The ideas these organizations develop are then pushed up to the third level of the pyramid - the political level. There, strategists like Karl Rove or Ralph Reed or Ken Mehlman take these new ideas and, through polling, focus groups and careful attention to Democratic attacks, convert them into language that will appeal to the broadest electorate. That language is sometimes in the form of an assault on Democrats and at other times in the form of advocacy for a new policy position. The development process can take years. And then there’s the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.
At the very top of the pyramid you’ll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.
Whereas
To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate.
Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on. Unlike Republicans, they don’t simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too. Many Democratic fundraisers join a campaign only after assessing how well it has done in assembling its pyramid of political, media and idea people.There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. Campaigns don’t start thinking about a Democratic brand until halfway through the election year, by which time winning the daily news cycle takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Democrats get to a brand is a catchy slogan.
Democrats choose this approach, I believe, because we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe.
In such a system tactics trump strategy. Candidates don’t risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested. Instead they usually wind up arguing about minor issues and express few deep convictions. In the worst case, they embrace “Republican lite” platforms - never realizing that in doing so they’re allowing the Republicans to define the terms of the debate.
A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn’t translate into structure.
So where to start? Well, what the Greens and the Unions and the Laborites should do is get together for talks about establishing exactly that kind of grassroots up structure for a coalition movement on the Left - a true American Solidarity. I will even suggest a slogan; “we won’t be Left unheard”. There are even some bigger names who are currently in the Democratic camp who could be enticed, perhaps, into becoming the faces of the American Solidarity movement. I am thinking of people like bernie Sanders, John Conyers and even Chuck Pennaccio of PA. They should be approached with offers of support and funding. The Democratic Party should be approached as a possible ally, with a level of co-operation in caucus negotiated and a deal to not run against each other where demographics say it would be counter-productive.
And Lefty bloggers should be doing their bit too - we could even be pathfinders in the grassroots movement. Bloggers on the non-latte-sipping Left are pretty good at getting along even where we differ on details. We can form one or more of the think-tanks that are so needed by this new movement. We can also act as fundraisers and talent-spotters, targeting independent (i.e. non Dem or Republican) candidates for everything from local dog-catcher on up. Remember, that massive constituency is out there and I know from experience they would love to have someone to vote for.
What do you think? Is it an idea worth talking about? Is it an idea worth actually doing something about instead of just endlessly talking? Let me know.
Section American Solidarity •
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one •
Printable view • Link to this article •
Home •
Sleepy Local Phone Market To Wake Up To Deals
MergerTalk Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:35 AM ET
By Jessica Hall yahoo.reuters.com
PHILADELPHIA, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Wall Street dealmakers will venture into small cities and rural byways like Little Rock, Arkansas, and Monroe, Louisiana, to find the next hot asset in the telecommunications industry.
In the past year, the U.S. telephone industry has focused on the headline-grabbing takeovers of megacarriers AT&T Corp. and MCI Inc. , and pushed for revenue growth through higher-speed Internet connections and wireless gizmos.
But now attention has shifted to basic local telephone service as large carriers weigh the sale or spinoffs of access lines and as small carriers seek acquisitions to gain bulk.
Telephone companies like Sprint Nextel Corp. and Alltel Corp. plan to restructure their local telephone businesses and focus on their faster-growing wireless operations.
If wirelines get spun off as stand-alone companies, they could function as cash-generating utilities that pay dividends rather than investing in new technologies and scrambling for growth. They would therefore be attractive to private equity firms, which look for assets with strong, predictable cash flow.
Verizon Communications Inc. , the No. 1 U.S. local telephone service company, and SBC Communications Inc. , which ranks second, also may put some local lines back on the market, telecom investment bankers said.
Verizon last year said it may sell or spin off about 10 million to 15 million telephone lines, but shelved that plan as it focused on its takeover of MCI. Any restructuring of the local lines down the road would probably be on a smaller scale, the company said.
“The next six to 12 months will see a lot of access lines coming to market that will get strong looks from both the smaller guys and the private equity players,” said one telecommunications investment banker who requested anonymity. “Valuations are more attractive now that there is so much interest.”
Last year, rural telephone company Citizens Communications Co. abandoned efforts to sell itself after failing to find a high-spending suitor. Instead, it recapitalized and paid a large dividend to shareholders.
Analysts now see Citizens and CenturyTel Inc. as potential merger partners for Alltel’s local business, which serves about 3 million customers in 15 states. The carriers also could be suitors for any lines shed by SBC or Verizon unless heated auctions push the prices too high.
CenturyTel, which had bought some small batches of local lines from Verizon in the past, told analysts earlier this month it wanted to preserve some financial flexibility for “once in a lifetime” acquisition opportunities that could emerge over the next two years.
However, Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong said: “We remain skeptical that these opportunities will surface at the right price” as buyout prices rise and competition clouds future growth opportunities.
As a result, it could become increasingly difficult for a rural operator like CenturyTel to earn an adequate return on access line acquisitions, Armstrong said in a research report.
CenturyTel currently trades at about six times cash flow, compared with multiples of 8 to 8.5 for rivals like Citizens, which pay higher dividends.
Rural carriers had previously escaped the intense competition of larger cities since the sparse population of their markets made them less attractive to interlopers.
Rural carriers are losing about 2.7 percent of their lines per year, compared with the 4.8 percent drop seen at the Baby Bells, analysts said.
The rural phone companies also benefit from federal subsidies and older customer bases, which tend to be more loyal and less likely to abandon their home phone in favor of a wireless phone.
Yet as wireless services grow and satellite and cable television companies become more aggressive in hawking their high-speed Internet access services, analysts say the rural carriers face the prospect of increasing competition.
ON THE MARKET
Alltel said last week it was considering a spinoff or partial sale of its local telephone service business and is talking to several potential buyers. It had first publicly expressed an interest in a spinoff in January.
Chief Executive Scott Ford said the company is now looking at three possible options, including a complete spinoff of the wireline unit to the company’s shareholders, or a partial sale to a private equity firm or another telecommunications operator.
For a tax-free transaction, Alltel shareholders would need to keep an 80 percent stake of the wireline business in a deal with a private equity firm. They would need to keep more than 50 percent if another telephone company is the buyer, investment bankers said.
Alltel’s 3 million rural access lines could fetch about $8.4 billion, or about six times its estimated wireline cash flow of $1.4 billion for 2006, analysts said, with some seeing a price of as much as $9 billion in a heated auction.
Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel Chief Executive Gary Forsee has said that for tax purposes, he favors a straight spinoff of the company’s local business to shareholders.
A spinoff, which Forsee expects to happen next year, would create the fifth-largest U.S. local telephone company, with 7.6 million access lines in rural and suburban markets, some of which face heavy competition.
The business could be valued at about $16.8 billion, or six times its estimated 2006 wireline cash flow of $2.8 billion, analysts said.
They said that price, combined with the prospect of more intense competition in its markets, would make the business too expensive for CenturyTel or Citizens to pursue without hurting their earnings.
Section News •
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one •
Printable view • Link to this article •
Home •
Job Leads October 2005
In Orlando the grapevine says Sprint Local (spunoff from the MERGER) will be accellerating hiring this month, and Bellsouth backfilling with new fulltime employess to make up for techs rebuilding Louisiana from Hurricane Katrina.
If you’re still looking for a telecom job, frequent their JOB BOARDS often.
Section Job Hunt •
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one •
Printable view • Link to this article •
Home •
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Book - Unequal Protection
The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights.
by Thom Hartmann
In Unequal Protection, author Thom Hartmann tells a compelling, can’t-put-it-down story that tracks the history of the loss of democracy in America. It starts with the birth of the modern corporation with the founding of the East India Company in 1600, through the Boston Tea Party revolt against transnational corporate domination of the early American economy, the rise of corporations during the Civil War, the ultimate theft of human rights before the Supreme Court in 1886, and into the modern-day theft of human rights in the US and worldwide by corporate interests and the politicians they own.
Because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered “persons,” equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights - a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founders of the United States. The results of this “corporate personhood” have been:
Unequal taxes
Unequal privacy
Unequal wealth
Unequal trade
Unequal media
Unequal regulation
Unequal responsibility for crime
Unequal protection from risk
Unequal citizenship and access to the commons
To remedy the legal blunder of corporate personhood, Hartmann offers specific action steps that can be taken by citizens, courts, legislatures, and local communities.
Section General Reading •
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one •
Printable view • Link to this article •
Home •
Ten Steps To Restore Democracy To America
A Declaration Of Rights for the 21st Century
By Thom Hartman
Reprinted with permission.
1. Human rights are for humans. Corporations are not persons. We must update the 14th Amendment to insert “natural” before the word “persons” so corporations can no longer claim the “right to lie,” the “right to hide their crimes,” the “right to buy politicians and influence elections,” and “the right to force themselves on communities that don’t want them.” Corporate charter laws should be amended on a state-by-state basis to reinstate the spirit of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by again outlawing the ownership of one corporation by another, to limit the term of a corporation, to insert Corporate Code-like language requiring a corporation to place the needs of its community above its desire for profits, and, as Teddy Roosevelt so strongly urged us, to ban corporations from political activity of any sort. Similarly, corporations are not nations and shouldn’t stand on an equal footing with nations. The United States should withdraw from support of treaties and agreements such as NAFTA, GAT&T, WTO, and its support of The World Bank.
2. We own our government and our commons. “Drowning government in a bathtub” as the neo-cons recommend may have been a good idea in the Soviet Union, but the United States is a constitutional representative democratic republic where our government is, literally, us. It was designed to work for us, be owned by us, exist solely by virtue of our ongoing approval, and must answer to us. Government functions must be transparent, and that transparency must also apply to corporations hired by government, particularly any who handle our votes. The shared commons of our nation - including our air, water, transportation routes, airwaves and cable networks, communication systems, military, police, prisons, fire services, health care infrastructure, and courts must be held either by locally-controlled non-profit corporations or by government responsive to its citizens. Because our federal legislators represent us, any benefits, rights, and privileges they have voted for themselves must apply to all of us. Similarly, just as we must balance our budgets every year except when in a crisis, so must our governments. Finally, government must not be a stepping-stone to private profiteering. We must re-institute laws against “revolving doors,” particularly with regulatory agencies and the military and those they regulate or who provide military supplies.
3. In a democratic republic, government must represent the will of the majority of the citizens while protecting the rights of the minorities. To make American government more democratic, we must join the rest of the world’s modern democracies and institute either proportional representation or Instant Runoff Voting systems at local, state, and federal levels. Similarly, human rights movements defending minorities and women against exploitation by corporate power structures or harm from paranoids, homophobes, and racists must be recognized, and the Equal Rights Amendment passed.
4. A strong middle class is vital to democracy. In 1792, James Madison defined government’s role in promoting an American middle class, “By the silent operation of the laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.” To say that somebody who earns millions a year by arbitrage “works that much harder” than a middle-class wage earner is simple nonsense. We recommend restoring inflation-indexed income tax and inheritance tax rates to those that were extant from the 1930s to the 1960s - during the golden era of the American middle class. We also recommend that government become the “employer of last resort” by taking on public works projects and supporting the arts, as it did during that era, and establishing a truly livable minimum wage.
5. Building a civilization on liquefied fossils and then thinking it will last forever makes no sense. According to British Petroleum, world oil reserves are enough to sustain us only into our children’s lifetimes, and then will run out. We must institute a Manhattan Project type of effort to create viable energy sources that are not dependent on fossil fuels, and, in the meantime, take immediate steps to reduce use of and preserve our precious stores before they’re exhausted.
6. We are part of nature. The natural world - including our water and air - is our most vital and essential commons, and therefore must be protected from those who would despoil it for short-term profit. As we poison the world, we cause human cancer epidemics and degrade our own quality of life. We - through our representative government - must take immediate steps to protect the commons we share with all other life on planet Earth.
7. Education is a human right, regardless of station of birth. When Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, his vision was to provide a free education to every person interested in and capable of participating. The Founders knew that classroom education is a right - and not a requirement - for life in a democracy. Therefore, university education should be free to all who academically qualify, and primary school education should not be compulsory but neither should it be provided by for-profit corporations..
8. Health care is a human right and necessary to sustain freedom in a democracy. America should join every other industrialized democracy in the world by instituting a single-payer health care system.
9. America is not a kingdom, and we don’t elect kings. To turn back from the “imperial presidency” and return the executive branch to its position co-equal with the other two branches of government, we recommend disbanding the primary instrument of presidential power - the Office Of Homeland Security - and requiring the President to meet weekly in open and public discussion with all members of Congress, as is done in the United Kingdom (Prime MinisterӒs Questions) and most other modern democracies.
10. The US Government is an instrument of secular democracy, not a religious theocracy, and has no right in our churches, homes, or bedrooms. What we do in private, among consenting adults, is our business and our business only. Prostitution, drug abuse, alcoholism, and gambling addiction are medical problems, and thus should be handled by medical authorities, and all attempts to place these in the realm of the criminal justice system should be rescinded. Similarly, the government has no right or business using the language or beliefs of any one of our many religions, or to tell any of our religions what or how they should behave or believe.
SAVING THE MIDDLE CLASS - another article by Thom Hartmann.
Section General Reading •
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one •
Printable view • Link to this article •
Home •
