The Domestic Zot

The first edition of George W. Bush's administration was all about a destructive and disastrous foreign policy for which the American people will be paying for a long time. Now comes the second edition, the focus now is on domestic policy, and the plan is to apply the tried and true methods of fear mongering and deception used to sell the Iraq war in order to stampede the American people into going along with a neoconservative domestic agenda against their own best interests.

The war this time will be waged on American soil, and the regime to be crushed is what little is left of the liberal legacy, especially social security and the progressive tax, in the United States.

In a front-page story last Friday, The Washington Post quotes White House officials as saying that the administration intends to push aggressively for the partial privatization of social security, the expansion of tax cuts for the rich, and limits on the amount of money that injured individuals can recover through lawsuits.

According to the Post story, in order to "build public support and circumvent critics in Congress and the media, the president will travel the country and warn of the disastrous consequences of inaction, as he did to sell his Iraq and terrorism policy during the first term."

The campaign to turn back the clock on social policy to the early twentieth century before the Progressive Era and the New Deal leveled the playing field somewhat will feature the same kind of cadre of true believers that brought us Iraq. In the words of the Post, the administration will create "a small, loyal and trustworthy team to press for broad changes largely dictated by the White House."

Just as right-wing think tanks and media were effective cheerleaders for the war in Iraq, the Post reports that in order to influence public opinion the president "is also enlisting well-funded conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation to help build the case for change or 'reform,' the words of the White House through ads and commentary on television and targeted publications."

The campaign of lies and distortions to create the impression that social security is in imminent danger of collapse started early and at the very top with the president's radio address this Saturday, in which Bush raised the specter of the bankruptcy of social security.

What is bankrupt is the administration's credibility; social security has been a fantastically successful program that has assured a dignified old age for tens of millions of Americans who otherwise might have ended up destitute. And a plethora of experts agrees that the problems that social security will face in the next few decades because of the aging of the population can be solved easily, for instance by collecting more social security taxes from higher income groups. But, significantly, President Bush has already rejected that solution. That's because Bush's objective is not saving social security, a program the very creation of which the Republicans fought and that is abhorred by "free market" ideologues because its success and popularity belies their central anti-government dogma.

Under various guises, such as creating a simpler tax code, promoting an "ownership society," and "reforming" social security, Bush's real objective is a system in which those whose money works for them get all the benefits and those who work for their money or who cannot work at all have no safety net to fall back on. By eliminating or drastically reducing taxes on unearned income, including inheritances, capital gains, and income from savings minor sources of income for most people but very important ones for the very wealthy Bush accomplishes both objectives. These policies shift even more resources to the rich while decimating the funding base required for the state to provide a safety net for the aged and other vulnerable Americans.

As with Iraq, Bush's push to remake domestic policy is a bad idea sold by ideological zealots through dishonest means that will yield disaster. This time, there can be no doubt from the outset that the central argument used by Bush to create fear in order to promote his policies is bogus. Even though the administration's categorical charges about weapons of mass destruction were outrageous given the scarce and contradictory evidence, there might have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no social security crisis, only a political project to destroy it for ideological reasons.

Discussing the 2004 presidential campaign, the writer Joan Didion has called today's American politics "weird." Nothing could be more bizarre than White House officials boasting about replicating the Iraq debacle, this time on the domestic front. As the number of Americans dead in Iraq climbs toward 1,300, soldiers grill the Secretary of Defense over inadequate equipment, and the awful consequences of the decision to invade the country become ever more evident, the White House promises another holy war waged by the same means, this time to slay not Saddam but the ghost of the welfare state.

Yet we cannot afford to underestimate the capacity of the Bush and his right-wing allies to confuse and convince the American public. As Bush and company were exploiting the tragedy of 9-11 to sell the Iraq war to the American people, most Democratic leaders went along with the charade, with the results we see today. This time, if the Democratic Party is to remain viable, it must remain united and mount a stiff opposition to Bush's nefarious new plans for the homeland.

Old Max hates Jews, Christians, Republicans and anyone with a core value. He is pro Castro, pro Communist and seem right at home pushing the gay agenda.

Below is some of his rhetoric from a few years ago:

Rense.com

Criticism Is Not Self-Hatred
By Max Castro Guest Columnist
YellowTimes.org
5-29-2

"They call us 'self-hating Jews' when we raise criticisms of Israeli policies.'' Why did the words of Michael Lerner, rabbi, editor of the journal Tikkun and co-chair of the Tikkun community (www.tikkun.org), described as ''a progressive, pro-Israel alternative to AIPAC'' [American-Israel Political Action Committee], seem so familiar, so fraternal?

Perhaps it's because, on more than one occasion, as a Cuban American who in the past often has dissented sharply from the official story and the party line as defined by some of the community's radio pundits and politicians, I know exactly what Lerner means and how it feels. Only a few weeks before I read Lerner's commentary in the May 20 edition of The Nation, I had attended a Coconut Grove gathering sponsored by People for the American Way to kick off a campaign for free speech in Miami. The mix of people was most unusual. There were people in that room who normally would not be caught dead together: virulent anti-gay rights activists and stalwarts for the cause of human rights regardless of sexual orientation; leaders of hard-line Cuban-American groups and staunch embargo opponents.

As I was leaving, I almost ran into one the leaders of a powerful exile organization, a man whom I had never met but knew by sight from his numerous media appearances. Not wishing to ignore him, in the spirit of civility that prevailed, and thinking that this was the perfect venue for respectful dialogue, I introduced myself politely. He was sitting with another Cuban American who asked to which organization I belonged.

''He doesn't belong to any organization, he is just a self-hating Cuban,'' retorted the Cuban-American leader. Stunned that someone could be so out of touch with the moment and the setting, I told him that being a critic of the right wing didn't make me a self-hating Cuban, and hastened my exit. The very next day, by one of those incredible coincidences, I ran into him again. This time he changed his vocabulary but not his message: I was the ''self-loathing'' Cuban.

Later, I concluded that his behavior was explained by the desire to avoid guilt by association, the concern that if he was going to be seen talking to me in public, he at least wanted to be able to claim that he insulted me.

Comparisons are at best imperfect and at worst odious. Every time I see the slogan "Stop Cuban Holocaust!" I want to scream, "Stop Cuban hyperbole!" Suffering should not be scaled and compared. Yet any sense of proportion says nothing that has happened to Cubans can be spoken of in the same breath as the Holocaust. There were six million Cubans in 1959; today there are 11 million in Cuba and two million in the diaspora. The numbers speak for themselves.

Yet the experience of people who dissent have much in common across cultures and histories. To dissent when your group or nation is in crisis or besieged is particularly difficult. Nevertheless, people find the courage to do it. In Miami a few weeks ago, Cuban Americans who believe the embargo harms the Cuban people and ourselves organized an event attended by more than 300 people. On May 11 in Israel, 60,000 to 100,000 people rallied for peace and an end to the occupation.

Is this self-hatred? Every Cuban American I know who opposes the hard-line policy has an abiding love for Cuba and for democracy. As for Jews who dissent from Ariel Sharon's iron fist, Michael Lerner writes: "Most of those Jews who risk this calumny feel a special resonance with the history and culture of the Jews - because this is a people who have proclaimed a message of love, justice and peace; they feel a special pride in being part of a people who have insisted on the possibility of tikkun, a Hebrew word expressing a belief that the world can be fundamentally healed and transformed."

___

[Max J. Castro, Ph.D., a sociologist, is a senior research associate at the University of Miami's North-South Center who focuses on immigration, Latinos in the United States, and politics and society in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. His writing has appeared in Salon, Newsday, New York Times on the Web, San Jose Mercury News and other publications in the United States and Latin America. This article was submitted to YellowTimes.org, but also appeared in the Miami Herald.]

Max Castro encourages your comments: maxcastro@hotmail.com

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=297

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.