How Can We Get A Handle On Things?

It appears that our new President is out to continue the authoritarian and reprehensible policies of his predecessor through finesse by acknowledging illegality and transforming it into legality. The underlying idea isn't all that weird but it certainly seems so. Since so many people use illegal drugs let's make them legal. No, that's not what's on tap: our leaders are going to legalize denial of habeas corpus and they think they can get away with it by having it only apply to non-citizens. The historical trend of civilization is to define, codify and enforce human rights; this is what international law and the World Court are all about. This is what led to actions and trials over Rwanda and Bosnia. Many have noted that there has been a narrow-minded focus of these investigations and prosecutions. Many, including many Americans, think W. should have been in the dock and on the scaffold with Saddam. The very motivation of international law is to universalize standards so that they apply to all. But those in power never want laws to apply to them, as in the old saw that only the "little people" pay taxes. It is an interesting question whether these "leaders" are cynical liars or naifs. But the answer doesn't really matter. If your house is burglarized the motives of the burglar are not of great import.

The administration believes that as long as they can convince a judge to agree to temporary preventive detention and get periodic renewals of this jailing, then they can keep "terrorism suspects" incarcerated forever, or at least until the "suspect" dies, a life non-sentence. I recall the OJ trial and the outrage many felt at his escape, an outrage still felt. And it seemed to me that this anger was misplaced. OJ was found not guilty by a jury. The prosecutors did not impress with their competence ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." Marcia Clark should have anticipated this and had an answer.) but the jury's decision was how things are supposed to work. Would people feel better if after the acquittal OJ had been re-arrested and then condemned to a life sentence because some thought he was guilty and deserved jail or death? All groups have rules for members; otherwise chaos ensues. And societies need rules, sane and sensible ones, and enforcement needs to apply to all.

All this seems to be an abstract argument but in a crisis the word is made flesh. My local public radio station is soliciting listener input for what they might do if they lose their jobs, calling it "What is your Plan B?" This cuts to the heart of American ideology and the dilemma it poses. It is obvious we are all individuals and act as individuals and die as individuals. This does not mean that the world is only made up of individuals as in the absurdity of Margaret Thatcher that "There is no such thing as society." In truth, not even the most hard-hearted right winger believes that. Right wingers want the Air Force and they want Courts and Police to protect them and their property; they simply don't want those things that help and protect the poor. It is equally obvious to even the most simple-minded that life plays out in dialectical fashion between the one and the many and the fights are about the interplay between them.

Even the most entrepreneurial need a market. Robinson Crusoe was a polemic about political economy though most take it as a Disney fantasy. There can be no Plan B for an unemployed individual in a society that offers no jobs. Journalists don't seem to be a reflective set and my opinion is that few of them do any homework. This Plan B solicitation is framed the wrong way. Responding to mass unemployment demands collectivity and political action. Governors in fiscally-strapped states want to handle budget shortfalls by eliminating services for the poor. This is not the behavior of a civilized society and I doubt that many of us want that kind of world. What we want is to raise up the downtrodden, not condemn them to a penurious, painful death.

We need to increase inclusiveness, not diminish it. Denying legal rights to non-citizens is a step to denying them to citizens once they are re-categorized as terrorists. Many citizens may fear and despise the poor and homeless but if they themselves lose their jobs or homes will their self-opinion change and lead them to hate themselves? Were the 25% unemployed during the Great Depression lazy, shiftless people? What Americans need to do is some thinking and talking. A great national conversation needs to take place about the nature of our societal structure and what changes we want. If we fall prey to the preaching that current winners are God's chosen and deserve to stay on top at our expense, well, maybe slaves needed and wanted slavery as some Southern planters claimed. If we put ourselves outside the realm of accountability, which is what chauvinism is, then we will have more war and more crises and more chaos. If we call Taliban bombings terrorism but don't recognize Predator drone bombings that kill wedding parties as terrorism then we are debasing not only language and thought but our very lives.