Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I really wasn't planning on spending my senior years under a new form of government- [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)95. DU2. Why to keep fighting the Good Fight.
If you notice, all the talk up thread above on equal rights for ALL is what we -- all who believe in Democracy -- were talking about back then.
The thing you are talking about in the OP: A new type of government.
Very few talked about the change in US Government then or since or now. Someone who saw where it was all heading was Bertram Gross. The professor served FDR and the New Deal Democrats and is remembered today for his work to reduce poverty. Among his accomplishments, he helped author the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. Later he taught at CUNY and Wayne State University in Detroit, where he founded the Center for Urban Studies and where I learned about his work in journalism school.
Friendly Fascism
The New Face of Power in America
by Bertram Gross
South End Press, 1980, paper
EXCERPT...
Friendly fascism portrays two conflicting trends in the United States and other countries of the so-called "free world."
The first is a slow and powerful drift toward greater concentration of power and wealth in a repressive Big Business-Big Government partnership. This drift leads down the road toward a new and subtly manipulative form of corporatist serfdom. The phrase "friendly fascism" helps distinguish this possible future from the patently vicious corporatism of classic fascism in the past of Germany, Italy and Japan. It also contrasts with the friendly present of the dependent fascisms propped up by the U.S. government in El Salvador, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, South Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere.
The other is a slower and less powerful tendency for individuals and groups to seek greater participation in decisions affecting themselves and others. This trend goes beyond mere reaction to authoritarianism. It transcends the activities of progressive groups or movements and their use of formal democratic machinery. It is nourished by establishment promises-too often rendered false-of more human rights, civil rights and civil liberties. It is embodied in larger values of community, sharing, cooperation, service to others and basic morality as contrasted with crass materialism and dog-eat-dog competition. It affects power relations in the household, workplace, community, school, church, synagogue, and even the labyrinths of private and public bureaucracies. It could lead toward a truer democracy-and for this reason is bitterly fought...
These contradictory trends are woven fine into the fabric of highly industrialized capitalism. The unfolding logic of friendly fascist corporatism is rooted in "capitalist society's transnational growth and the groping responses to mounting crises in a dwindling capitalist world". Mind management and sophisticated repression become more attractive to would-be oligarchs when too many people try to convert democratic promises into reality. On the other hand, the alternative logic of true democracy is rooted in "humankind's long history of resistance to unjustified privilege" and in spontaneous or organized "reaction (other than fright or apathy) to concentrated power...and inequality, injustice or coercion".
A few years ago too many people closed their eyes to the indicators of the first tendency.
But events soon began to change perceptions.
The Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis crept out of the woodwork. An immoral minority of demagogues took to the airwaves. "Let me tell you something about the character of God," orated Jim Robison at a televised meeting personally endorsed by candidate Ronald Reagan. "If necessary, God would raise up a tyrant, a man who may not have the best ethics, to protect the freedom interests of the ethical and the godly." To protect Western oil companies, candidate Jimmy Carter proclaimed presidential willingness to send American troops into the Persian Gulf. Rosalyn Carter went further by telling an lowa campaign audience: "Jimmy is not afraid to declare war." Carter then proved himself unafraid to expand unemployment, presumably as an inflation cure, thereby reneging on his party's past full employment declarations.
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/RiseFall_Friend_Fascism_FF.html
The good professor painted an accurate picture of what was to come.
James Madison
EXCERPT...
Despite the sharp differences from classic fascism, there are also some basic similarities. In each, a powerful oligarchy operates outside of, as well as through, the state. Each subverts constitutional government. Each suppresses rising demands for wider participation in decision making, the enforcement and enlargement of human rights, and genuine democracy. Each uses informational control and ideological flimflam to get lower and middle-class support for plans to expand the capital and power of the oligarchy and provide suitable rewards for political, professional, scientific, and cultural supporters.
A major difference is that under friendly fascism Big Government would do less pillaging of, and more pillaging for, Big Business. With much more integration than ever before among transnational corporations, Big Business would run less risk of control by any one state and enjoy more subservience by many states. In turn, stronger government support of transnational corporations, such as the large group of American companies with major holdings in South Africa, requires the active fostering of all latent conflicts among those segments of the American population that may object to this kind of foreign venture. It requires an Establishment with lower levels so extensive that few people or groups can attain significant power outside it, so flexible that many (perhaps most) dissenters and would-be revolutionaries can be incorporated within it. Above all, friendly fascism in any First World country today would use sophisticated control technologies far beyond the ken of the classic fascists.
p177
Although American hegemony can scarcely return in its Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson form, this does not necessarily signify the end of the American Century. Nor does communist and socialist advance on some fronts mark American and capitalist retreat on all fronts. There are unmistakable tendencies toward a rather thoroughgoing reconstruction of the entire "Free World." Robert Osgood sees a transitional period of "limited readjustment" and "retrenchment without disengagement," after which America could establish a "more enduring rationale of global influence." Looking at foreign policy under the Nixon administration, Robert W. Tucker sees no intention to "dismantle the empire" but rather a continued commitment to the view that "America must still remain the principal guarantor of a global order now openly and without equivocation identified with the status quo." He describes America as a "settled imperial power shorn of much of the former exuberance." George Liska looks forward to a future in which Americans, having become more mature in the handling of global affairs, will at last be the leaders of a true empire.
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Specter_FriendlyFascism_FF.html
If you can't afford to play unless your rich, it isn't democracy.
For instance, from his association with a former president, Frank got a great deal in Kazakhstan:
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The New York Times, JAN. 31, 2008
EXCERPT...
Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstans president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leaders bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clintons public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstans poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clintons wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstans state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the worlds largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.
SNIP...
Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canadas second-largest gold company.
CONTINUED...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The New York Times, JAN. 31, 2008
EXCERPT...
Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstans president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leaders bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clintons public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstans poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clintons wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstans state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the worlds largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.
SNIP...
Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canadas second-largest gold company.
CONTINUED...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
From his association with a future president, young failure and drunk George W got a great deal in Bahrain.
Harken Energy And Insider Trading
by Stephen Pizzo
Mother Jones, September / October 1992
EXCERPT...
Harken Energy was formed in l973 by two oilmen who would benefit from a successful covert effort to destabilize Australia's Labor Party government (which had attempted to shut out foreign oil exploration). A decade later, Harken was sold to a new investment group headed by New York attorney Alan G. Quasha, a partner in the firm of Quasha, Wessely & Schneider. Quasha's father, a powerful attorney in the Philippines, had been a staunch supporter of then-president Ferdinand Marcos. William Quasha had also given legal advice to two top officials of the notorious Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, a CIA operation.
After the sale of Harken Energy in 1983, Alan Quasha became a director and chairman of the board. Under Quasha, Harken suddenly absorbed Junior's struggling Spectrum 7 in 1986. The merger immediately opened a financial horn of plenty and reversed Junior's fortunes. But like his brother Jeb, Junior seemed unconcerned about the characters who were becoming his benefactors. Harken's $25 million stock offering in 1987, for example, was underwritten by a Little Rock, Arkansas, brokerage house, Stephens, Inc., which placed the Harken stock offering with the London subsidiary of Union Bank -- a bank that had surfaced in the scandal that resulted in the downfall of the Australian Labor government in 1976 and, later, in the Nugan Hand Bank scandal. (It was also Union Bank, according to congressional hearings on international money laundering, that helped the now-notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International skirt Panamanian money-laundering laws by flying cash out of the country in private jets, and that was used by Ferdinand Marcos to stash 325 tons of Philippine gold around the world.)
SNIP...
Suddenly, in January 1990, Harken Energy became the talk of the Texas oil industry. The company with no offshore-oil-drilling experience beat out a more-established international conglomerate, Amoco, in bagging the exclusive contract to drill in a promising new offshore oil field for the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain. The deal had been arranged for Harken by two former Stephens, Inc., brokers. A company insider claims the president's son did not initiate the deal -- but feels that his presence in the firm helped with the Bahrainis. "Hell, that's why he's on the damn board," the insider says. "...You say, 'By the way, the president's son sits on our board.' You use that. There's nothing wrong with that."
Junior has told acquaintances conflicting stories about his own involvement in the deal. He first claimed that he had "recused" himself from the deal; "George said he left the room when Bahrain was being discussed 'because we can't even have the appearance of having anything to do with the government.' He was into a big rant about how unfair it was to be the president's son. He said, 'I was so scrupulous I was never in the room when it was discussed.'"
Junior alternately claimed, to reporters for the Wall Street Journal and D Magazine, that he had opposed the arrangement. But the company insider says, to the contrary, that Junior was excited about the Bahrain deal. "Like any member of the board, he was thrilled," the associate says. "His attitude was, 'Holy shit, what a great deal!'"
CONTINUED...
http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/harkenenergyandinsidertrading.htm
That's why keeping Wall Street and private business out of Washington and the public's business matters to Democracy. Those without money today also are without Democratic representation. What a coincidence.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
145 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I really wasn't planning on spending my senior years under a new form of government- [View all]
silvershadow
May 2016
OP
Which is fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with the OP. Whatsoever. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#11
This has zero to do with gays or any other issue. It has to due with our form of government.
silvershadow
May 2016
#37
Our "form" of government has not changed in the past 50 years, so try again.
politicaljunkie41910
May 2016
#71
The TPP. I remember a few months ago when it was still ok to discuss that here. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#73
So since when does discussing the TPP get you banned from DU? That's the problem with
politicaljunkie41910
May 2016
#75
It's not because I am a Bernie supporter. It's because I am a proud Union labor man. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#76
Nice deflection. The OP isn't about 50 years ago, as you well know. It is about our form of
silvershadow
May 2016
#44
You didn't even read the OP it is clear. I am not pining for 50 years ago. But you knew that.
silvershadow
May 2016
#49
That's the standard? "Hey, at least you didn't get shot in the head?" Wow. Crazy stuff there. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#56
No, you picked the 60's rather than the topic of the OP. I just responded, unnecessarily. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#58
Thats right and their followers were picked up in the middle of the night
workinclasszero
May 2016
#143
Indeed, up until just recently marriage has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman
Fumesucker
May 2016
#114
Why parse it? Civil rights are ongoing. A piece of a much bigger puzzle. Human rights are better but
snowy owl
May 2016
#121
America is heading back more than 50 years, more like 100+ years to oligarchic plutocratic
Dont call me Shirley
May 2016
#28
If Hillary wins by hook or by crook, you will no doubt find yourself on America's first bullet train
NorthCarolina
May 2016
#10
Pre Roe v Wade, gays forced in the closet, civil rights for nobody but white males.
PeaceNikki
May 2016
#15
And I never said any such thing. Your mind has taken you astray. Stay on topic, please. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#20
My OP. My topic. Your diversion. Democracy vs Cororatacracy. No contest. At all. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#22
I made my point. We've had a ton of progressive victories in the past 50 years.
PeaceNikki
May 2016
#26
The corporacracy is happy to give us social victories, just as long as they gain further
silvershadow
May 2016
#30
You're very dishonest. The perfect Hillary drone...deny the truth and twist the words to define
haikugal
May 2016
#77
In the last several years the PTB have stolen my house, $80k in payments, and
silvershadow
May 2016
#84
Social repression in the Union labor movement? That takes some big balls. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#127
You're not familiar with the role of many unions in keeping black workers off shop floors?
Recursion
May 2016
#128
There you go again, talking about the 1960's...Can we just talk about 1992 and later? nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#129
Lame. Deflective. You no longer have the same form of government, which as you know
silvershadow
May 2016
#131
Remember in 1992 When the Clintons continued the Republican tradition of destroying
silvershadow
May 2016
#54
I don't want to compare anything. You do. Way off topic. But you knew that. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#60
I want to compare this form of government to democracy, yes. The TPP and all else, as you
silvershadow
May 2016
#70
President Eisenhower warned the nation about the influence of the military industrial complex 1961
Fresh_Start
May 2016
#62
Yep. And corporations were declared to have the same rights as people as early as 1886.
ContinentalOp
May 2016
#93
Yes they do. You are welcome. Thank you for weighing in with the vote of confidence. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#80
Great post. I will pour over it as soon as I eat my supper. Thanks for the kind words. nt
silvershadow
May 2016
#98
your OP has been hi-jacked, triangulated, and suffered from way too many deflective responses...
islandmkl
May 2016
#96
bad premise - all wages across all races have stagnated...and you know it's not about
islandmkl
May 2016
#125
Negative. African Americans have seen significant income gains over the past 40 years
Recursion
May 2016
#126
The party is like Mitt Romney bought it and stripped it of its' valuable assets.
silvershadow
May 2016
#101
Absolutely not. I'm solidly middle class because I could get an college education without debt.
snowy owl
May 2016
#122
Lack of institutional memory. Study Eisenhower in fifties. It is different. Few seem to know it.
snowy owl
May 2016
#120