March of Dimes

Commonly referred to as the “mercury dime,” what you see above is actually a Winged Liberty Head which, according to Wikipedia, was in common use in the US from 1916 until 1945. The coin does NOT depict the Roman messenger god at all but the goddess Liberty herself wearing a Phrygian cap, a classical symbol of liberty and freedom. Interestingly, the reverse side of the coin contains the image of a “fasces,” (yes, a la fascism,) which is a tightly bound bundle of rods wrapped together and wielded as an instrument of force, but on the Winged Liberty is itself semi-wrapped in an olive-branch.

In general the fasces icon has been used by regimes of all kinds throughout history - at least as far back as ancient Rome - to represent order, power, and strength through unity. Yet it is also part of American political iconography, visible not only on the Winged Liberty Head but also at the Oval Office, on the frieze of the façade of the Supreme Court building, atop the Capitol, and elsewhere. Who would have thought? Liberty and order – metaphorically two sides to the same coin. Heads we win, tails we lose?

Slightly related is Steve Fraser’s “Beyond the Bailout State: Roosevelt’s Brain Trust vs. Obama’s Braniacs” where it is pointed out that unlike the suffocating political and intellectual provincialism that seems to have hitherto defined Obama’s “team,” FDR worked with a relatively motley array of corporatists, Keynesians, state planners, and anti-trust busters. “A genuine administration of ‘rivals,’” writes Fraser, “didn't faze FDR.” However an equally important issue, not directly addressed by Fraser, is where and in what capacity can state spending effectively bring about recovery when the “wartime economy” card has already been outplayed. It really is no secret that without the military boom of WWII the New Deal would probably have been remembered as compassionate and helpful to a degree but ultimately ineffective in solving the fundamental problems of the Great Depression. As Fraser argues, we should be welcoming the nationalization of bailouts, whether it be the auto-industry, the banks, or AIG. “As things now stand,” he writes, “"the public supplies the loans and the investment capital, but the key decisions about how they are to be deployed remain in private hands. A democratic version of nationalizing the financial system would transfer these critical decisions to new institutions created by the Congress and designed to pursue public, not private, objectives.” So just for the record, if creating new industries, say those more congenial to Green living, or if stimulating a more productive economy depends in any way on trimming the bloated and ossified military-industrial budget too, then I'm all for it.

Public Service Announcement

Trying to avoid “bias” by turning a blind eye to the realities of political and economic power?

Back on 4/5/08, if you remember, it was reported by the NY Times that since 2002 at least 75 retired generals were receiving briefings secretly by the Pentagon while proceeding to continually offer the public “expert” military analysis on numerous news forums. But did you catch the latest NY Times piece on 11/29/08 by David Barstow? Remarkably, one of those retired-generals, Barry McCaffrey, who happens to be a four-star general, continues to serve as an NBC military analyst even as he rakes in profits from military contractors. Ah yes, you also remember that NBC is owned by General Electric Co. – itself a leading military contractor. Well you should also know that McCaffrey, according to Barstow, who began making appearances on several programs as early as the weeks after 9/11, has not only “with few exceptions…consistently advocated wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests” but has also "immersed himself in businesses that have grown with the fight against terrorism," and, "long been a force in Washington’s power elite.”

By the way the photo above? That's the General on the left with NBC "analyst" Wayne Downing in 2006 after speaking with President Bush. McCaffrey has also reportedly met "Congressional leaders from both parties" for "war consultations." Rest assured that McCaffrey has also had "a contentious relationship" with Donald Rumsfeld.

But then the bomb is dropped:

“Through seven years of war an exclusive club has quietly flourished at the intersection of network news and wartime commerce. Its members, mostly retired generals, have had a foot in both camps as influential network military analysts and defense industry rainmakers. It is a deeply opaque world, a place of privileged access to senior government officials, where war commentary can fit hand in glove with undisclosed commercial interests and network executives are sometimes oblivious to possible conflicts of interest.”

I’m convinced that these crusty military hard-ons are just waiting to declare martial law to suspend civil liberties and take over the state. But before any of that happens, the story illustrates how power elites move within the high circles of politics, economics, and media, and collude by chewing each other's soundbytes. The story also demonstrates how denying the big elephant in the room ends up staging for the public the legitimation of false or misleading "analysis" and “debate.” (Maybe Charlie Rose isn't an idiot after all?) The sheer presence of power not only constrains open honest discussions about going to war but sets policy options and political possibilities as well. Sure professional analysis may surely look scientific, neutral, and antiseptic, as well as practical and cautiously wise; for others, however, it all too often is an accomplice to established orders and “business-as-usual.” Indeed political debate can easily revolve around disagreements as to the nature of how problems are defined and “put on the agenda,” as well as over simple conflicts of priorities and “interests.

Check out Media Nation and FAIR for some more on General McCaffrey.

But was this the way things had to turn out? Circulating elites. Revolting elites. Empire wants passive but patriotic subjects.

Democracy Ist Tott

"I didn't work all my life to be equal," a sentiment that has always run deep in the United States. For if the principle of equality predisposes us to restless activity and work in the tenacious pursuit of our own distinct standing amongst "equals," it also implies that our interests cannot be satisfied without a settled order to pursue them. Mobility thus oddly becomes alloyed to the stability of accepted norms which come to typify our middle class enthusiasms.

And insofar neo-liberalism has intensified these dynamics there has also been a deepening contempt for "the people" and all that is "common." As Jacques Ranciere puts it, "It is about the people and its mores that (we) complain, not about the institutions of power." Indeed getting on with our petty narcissism by withdrawing into celebrity spectacles and our own private lives actually reflect an infantile wish to be politically taken care of. "Just leave us alone! We want to be governed by elites so we can get on with our lives." The subtext to all the bailouts is that a healthy dosage of popular resignation is central to democratic politics because too much arousal, too much participation, on the part of the demos is simply too tumultuous, too dangerous. "The people," in other words, have neither the interest nor patience to develop their own informed opinions about such "complex" matters. Leave it to a governing class to liberate the demos.