This Series was originally posted January 26, 2005 after the inauguration of George W. Bush. It seems as applicable now, so I am reposting here and republishing it in my DC Catholic Progressive Examiner column, as well as on Facebook, DailyKos and in Open Salon.
As time marches on and the inauguration of George W. Bush becomes but a memory, it is important to delve into the question: Are the Republicans really corrupt, in thrall to the major corporations who are themselves consummate evil doers, or is there perhaps another explanation? Another way to ask this is, do the Republicans believe their own propaganda, or do they know that they are lying for the benefit of profit?
These questions are important for both parties. They are important for Democrats and Greens because they affect their messages and actions. For instance, if the Republicans truly are crooked than persuasion will have no effect. Rather, investigation is the best tactic. Winning than becomes all-important, because if you are out of power your investigative power is limited. If the top ranks of the party are truly evil than the strategy is to expose this evil to the rank and file Republican so that they will cast off their leadership or flee to the righteous side. This is essentially a neo-populist position. If the Republicans aren’t crooked, then rational argument is possible, as is compromise. It also becomes easier to attract voters from the other side, as then you only need convince them that their leaders are wrong, rather than that they have been duped in a conspiracy. This issue is also important for Democrats because of the adoption of the Democratic Leadership Council types of much of the free trade rhetoric from the other side. Most importantly, a conclusion that the Republicans aren’t crooked can lead to a more genteel polity, as the current tone of debate is frankly caustic.
This question is very important for Republicans. If the higher ups in the party are crooks than to be a Republican voter is to be the hoodwinked member of a criminal conspiracy. Most importantly, this discussion holds up a mirror for the Republicans to see. Whether the question is true or not, it provides a valuable view on how the party and its leadership are perceived by the other side.
No accusation against the Republicans is starker than the contention that the war in Iraq, originally titled Operation Iraqi Liberation, was about the oil. The BBC has reported that the original war plan had documents already drawn up for the new government privatizing the Iraqi oil fields, as well as its completed application for the World Trade Organization. On the face of it, it would seem that the attack on Iraq was all about securing oil rights for American corporations. Was the rationale for this merely to enrich other members of the millionaires club, or is there something else to it? Before we come to an answer, let us consider another case.
The rise of Wal-Mart has led to the demise of both Main Street and much of what remains of several American industries, as Wal-Mart guides its vendors into relationships with Chinese factories. As a result, American plants in some industries are closing at a rapid rate. This has put pressure on unionized plants to exact wage concessions or simply close. Meanwhile, the profits of the firms that relocate operations, and indeed ownership, overseas go up – as do those of Wal-Mart and other big box stores. Is this another case of millionaire enrichment, or is something else going on?
Wal-Mart is only one case in a general trend toward free trade, which has been embraced by both Republicans and “New Democrats.” What began with NAFTA and the first President Bush is to be extended to an all American free trade zone including the entire western hemisphere. Article 12 of NAFTA, as well as the proposed trade pact, contain protections for corporations against local governmental interference. Why would a party so keen on American prerogatives surrender sovereignty to foreign corporations and an international tribunal to mediate disputes? Is this another example of corporatism run amok, or is something else going on here?
Lets look at electoral politics. Three items come to mind: big money PAC and corporate contributions, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the targeting of black voters for ballot challenges.
The first item is endemic to the system and is practiced by the other party as well. Bill Clinton took it to a high art, although Mr. Bush has clearly exceeded even Clinton. The dangerous thing is the similarity between the donor list and the benefiting interests in the first three examples above. However, the same people gave to Clinton.
The history of the Swift Boat Veterans can be traced back to John Kerry’s protest days. (Maybe the Veterans and Kerry could have done a Dr. Phil episode instead to work out their grievances – although Jerry Springer might have been more apt). The same people were attacking him as part of the Nixon Dirty Tricks scheme. They would have been but an announce had it not been for the free media they received, especially on the Republican Fox News network. While they were effective, the sad fact of the matter is if John Kerry had responded appropriately they would not have been. (The modern equivalent is the Birther movement, both in and out of the TEA Party).
The targeting of black voters for challenge was widespread and it was illegal. It is the mark of a campaign that was willing to do anything to win. Of course, because they did win both the White House and the Congress the chance that the accusations will get a fair investigation are virtually nil and since people aren’t willing to take to the streets in protest it looks like they will get away with it. Do the actions of a few bad apples, including the President’s brother, mean the entire party is corrupt? It is tempting to say yes, although we are looking for a specific type of economic corruption in this analysis. While the type of self-righteous win-at-all costs mentality is telling of something being wrong, it does not per se mean that one has been bought off.
We’ve laid out the circumstances. However, they are not conclusive since to prove corruption one must prove motivation. Some Republican politicians are undoubtedly corrupt. One examination of the looting of the Reform Party by the Buchananites is enough to prove that. There hasn’t been a looting like that since the sacking of northern England by the Vikings (and this from a candidate who was speaking out against Republican trade policies). The question is: are the politicians and the armies of wonks supporting them out merely for riches. By riches I mean the kind of inordinate wealth pulled down by Enron or Global Crossing.
Let’s look at the proposed Social Security reform of GWB. It was an outgrowth of efforts by the Cato Institute which were largely bankrolled by brokerage houses. Brokerage houses are likely to make money on any privatization, even the most progressive kind where workers are allowed to designate their union to manage their account. This is because unions, like any investor, need professional assistance. In the proposed scenario, where monies are invested in index funds at first, the likely share for the brokerage houses of any investment scheme is relatively modest. Most of the money will be made by the volume of transactions, although if these are pooled the likely effect is that the biggest task is the recordkeeping involved, which will likely be automated. The partners may make a nice dividend from the detail, but it will hardly be extreme and may involve more headaches from jumping through contracting hoops than the proponents expect. The usual reporting and ethics requirements may just sour the milk a bit for our hungry fat cats.
Lets go back to our first three examples, Iraq, Wal-Mart and NAFTA. Do the Republicans and “New Democrats” support these in order to get personally wealthy, or possibly wealthier? If they were, it could be traced. While some might argue that employment after leaving office representing an industry once regulated might be such a payoff, it is hardly confined to retired Republicans, or even New Democrats. While the practice smells of corruption, it is more an outgrowth of floor rules that allow former members privileges, even during voting and debate. This phenomenon also does not explain the gutting of the American workplace. If it could then the unions and losing corporations (such as domestic oil producers, American textile manufacturers and the AFL-CIO) would have simply tendered a better offer. Clearly something else is going on in the recesses of the Republican mind.
What’s going on is bad economic theory. Under the theory of comparative advantage, trade is mutually beneficial if one party produces a good more efficiently and then trades it for a good made better in the trading partner. In this occasion, both sides win and jobs are available for the displaced workers in the industry that now exports more. This is all well and good in theory, but when you have the world’s largest per capita consumption economy attempting to import all it can as cheaply as possible while exporting debt, health care, graduate education, high fructose corn syrup, culture and weapons then all you are building is a house of cards. The theory is that the way to satisfy the voters is to give them cheap products, particularly gasoline, building the highest average standard of living on the planet. The Republican economic machine seeks to allow the American consumer to buy more per dollar than any other consumer on the planet. This means cheap food, cheap consumer goods, cheap appliances and above all cheap gasoline. There are problems with how this shakes out, however.
Cheap food has made us the fattest nation in history, since the cheap stuff is also the stuff that makes you fat. Cheap gas has made the air unbreathable and has led to a backlash in the Arab world as American military might has been used to assure the supply of oil and the survival of the House of Saud. Finally, cheap manufactured goods have resulted in American job losses as manufacturing workers are displaced. They are displaced by immigrants who are often here illegally and must work under slave like conditions due to our immigration laws, which stop complaints. They are displaced by Mexican workers under NAFTA and finally by Chinese workers who are making pennies per hour (displacing even the Mexicans). You can’t shop, even at Wal-Mart, if you don’t have a job. Not everyone wants to or can build weapons, teach college or clean bed pans. The number of decent, middle class jobs is going down. This is one reason Bush is trying to build an “ownership society.” The theory is that if we all own stock than in our retirement we will be supported by foreign workers employed by multinational companies, not through taxation but through profits. This only works if Marx was wrong about the eventual proletariat revolt or if the workers overseas don’t organize and demand a middle class wage in their own economies.
The other problem is that eventually, the world will tire of American debt (the Chinese can’t devalue their currency forever), American culture (which the right wing doesn’t like for domestic consumption), American tobacco (people tend to die) and American weapons (since George is alienating our allies who are the biggest consumers). When this happens, the bottom may well fall out of American civilization and the Republican Party will get most of the blame.
So are the Republicans corrupt? No, just incredibility short sighted to the point of being stupid. If they do not rethink their industrial policy we don't need to worry about how to beat them. What the Democrats need to do, however, is distance themselves from the Democratic Leadership Council and its attempt to mimic the Republicans on trade. If they do not, they will also take the blame.