The Next Great Political Revolution in the West

'Revolution' is a funny word. For all intents and purposes, it fulfills one request only: as a measure of significance for a country's historicity. 'Historicity' is another funny word: in the pragmatic sense, it deals solely with the facts of history and whether or not they are nonpartisan, objective, verifiable, etc. Essentially, historicity deals with what can be deemed as 'true.'

But then, what's true? Is a revolution just a government's insurrection, or is it a terrorist's ideal? The term 'revolution' is one that should always be taken with two grains of salt, because we must always ask ourselves, whose revolution was it anyway? Did the terrorist become a saint, or did the beneficent leader become a tyrant?

Some believe that we, in this 21st century full of instant communication from anywhere around the world, will have a revolution soon to come in our insulated western world: whether it's working-class over rich, a revolution in democracy, an Islamic revolution, etc. etc. etc. A revolution is only as good as the (inevitably) minority movement that follows through with it and the leaders who give it direction; without one or the other, there is only a small sect of disgruntled citizens, or anarchy.

How can we test where the seeds of 'revolution' might sprout? The most recent revolutions occurred in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where leader after leader either resigned or was deposed from their position of power, demonstrating the power of the people and the prevalence of democracy!

Or so we'd like to think. Egypt has largely turned into a stratocracy, where the former democratically elected power, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been labeled as a terrorist organization by the Egyptian military. Syria is still in the midst of a bloody civil war that shows only stalemate. Libya is still unstable.

Closer to home, with the revelations of NSA spying and the discussions over cutting welfare for millions of people, some say that we require a 'revolution' in order to truly become democratic and egalitarian and what have you. But then, why would there be a revolution in the western world? In terms of peaceful revolution, one can elect a 'radical' to office to change existing structures of government, but in the end, is there any way to completely ensure that this 'radical' will change anything at all? Is 'revolution' for the western world more than just trust in voting?

The last real revolution in politics, specifically in America, came with Ronald Reagan: he cut taxes on both the rich and companies to their lowest levels since the Great Depression (though he raised them as well), cut benefits for many, deregulated portions of the financial and banking industry (see the Savings and Loan crisis), and he removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed in the White House (not exactly hard-hitting, but symbolic nonetheless). He restarted the Cold War in a way that had everyone once again fearing that their lives could be ended in the next 30 minutes. Some hold him as a mythical Republican hero, some hold him as a right-wing corporatist villain, but either way, he was 'revolutionary.'

(Some would say the Bush administration was revolutionary as well, in the terms of changing how the US comported with the world and how the government acted domestically with regard to the constitution and its citizens. This is true, and should not be taken lightly: everything we see in the international stage today is a result of Bush administration policies, from rendition to wiretapping to Iran to Israel, etc. etc. etc. However, his administration was much more secretive, and the legacy of his administration's impact has yet to fully be assessed.)

Personally, I'd argue that the policies of Reagan and his ilk, such as Thatcher, set western civilization back a few pegs: instead of ensuring wealth for all, it was only wealth for some; instead of maintaining a solid industrial base, it was shipped away to China or Mexico or another country whose standard of work allowed companies to pay workers cents per day.

So then what is the next great revolution in the west? It seems that we've reached our nadir in terms of political activism. After all, it's hard to live in this current society without a 9-to-5, 40 hour a week job that pays just enough for rent and food. It's not as if we can guarantee a higher minimum wage, or a basic salary for all adults between the ages of 18 and 65, or free or subsidized education without the future weight of loans, or an egalitarian tax code, or basic health care for all regardless of income or employment, or paid maternity leave, or paid paternity leave, or an efficient means of public transport throughout the entirety of the US, or the basic necessities of food and water to all, or the reasonable assumption that we can retain the privacy of our opinions within the company of those whom we trust, or that our food, water, and air are clean to eat, drink, and breathe, or that we are reasonably able to provide shelter and accommodation to anyone who may need it. No, we cannot guarantee any of that.

Perhaps when these are enacted, we can say that we lived through the great revolution in the west, or, more specifically, America, because then all will have benefited from the actions of the few, and historicity will deem it so. Fact will no longer be fiction, and the fiction that so many vehemently defend will no longer be fact.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Share |

My usual procrastination

It's been a while since I've posted, but for good reasons:

First, I've been writing heavily for another book. I've reached 60,000 words pretty quickly, if you understand how much that is.

Second, I've had to find accommodation in London in a hurry because of certain extenuating circumstances. Doing so is very time-consuming and, I assure you, very stressful. Thankfully, I've found a good place.

Now, as that cool breeze rolls in and reminds us all that it is yet another presidential election season, I think my only real complaint (for once, I only have one) is: How can anyone who makes less than $250k a year, or is a woman, or is a fiscal conservative, or is a senior, support the Romney-Ryan ticket?

No, seriously. How? I can't wrap my head around the support that Romney has from the Republican Party and various other sects of "traditional" American conservatism. The only people who should support the ticket are people who stand to benefit from his ludicrous budget plan, and that is a vast minority of voters.

I feel as if so many Republicans are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias- that is, they're ignoring all the blatantly terrible and inconsistent positions of Mitt Romney just because they want Republicans to win.

Here is a list of all the topics Mitt Romney has changed his mind on (taken from www.procon.org, an overview of presidential positions):

• Abortion (Pro, then Con)
• TARP
  
• Automotive bailout
• Outsourcing
• Health care (multiple times)
• Social Security Privatization

(Not to mention that his foreign policy positions are confusing.)

His fiscal plan is simply puzzling. Romney somehow wants to cut all spending to 20% of GDP which, as the article so accurately states, is impossible.

So why, why, why is anyone in their right mind supporting this? Mitt Romney can trumpet the words "America" and "freedom" all he wants, but that doesn't make his policies any less confusing.

This is simply my opinion: the Cold War still exists. I don't mean that the United States is still holding its finger over the big red button, staring menacingly at Russia from across the table, but that the two parties in the United States are in a virtual war. Why?

Why not? There is no major enemy in the world to threaten the United States with immediate destruction and force government hawkishness. There is no external threat that "directly attacks" American values, regardless of what various pundits call "Socialism" or "Communism" or "Jihad." If there is no viable external threat to America, then there must be an internal one. If it is not physical, then it is ideological.

So are people willing to vote for a man who believes that not everyone should have equal rights, or that women should not have the right to choose (even if they're raped)? It makes no sense. It makes none at all.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

"God is Love"

Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.

I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.

I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).

Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.

One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.

Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.

Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Mmm...Capitalism

President Obama recently spoke in front of the Chamber of Commerce, a notably conservative institution, to many large business leaders, urging them to begin spending their saved money in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many business moguls have a view of the Obama administration as anti-business due to the new health care law and many regulations that businesses say "quell capitalism." President Obama, in his speech, promised to reform the tax code and remove many superfluous regulations.

While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.

Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.

So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.

The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*

*Note: May or may not be financial tips.

I'll See You In Health!

I would like to thank Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A., for that quote.

As you (yes, you again, my only reader) probably know (since you're so vigilant with the news and all), one of Barack Obama's campaign promises has finally fallen through: the passage of health care reform. *Cue applause*

This isn't the bill that I was hoping for, but it is a necessary first step. Even Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal Representatives in the House changed his vote from a "no" to a "yes" because he realized that some kind of reform, however minor, was necessary. Kucinich and I both were hoping for the public option to be available- the ability of a citizen to have his health care provided by the government and not have to pay any cost for treatment- but, perhaps this is a first step. Either way, it is quite momentous.

I find it astounding that so many people charge this with being a "government takeover of health care" and a "foray into Socialism," but neither is even remotely close to the truth. Firstly, the general notion of health care provided to each and every citizen regardless of socio-economic status has become accepted as a universal right. (Though it seems that people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin would disagree.) Almost every industrialized and modernized nation, to my knowledge, has some sort of universal health care system in place. I certainly don't see France, England, Germany, Japan, and even the Czech Republic as "Socialist." In fact, this bill simply extends Medicare benefits for those who cannot afford their own insurance plans or are not covered by their employers (typically small businesses with less than 50 people). It seems almost unconscionable that the United States doesn't have such a system in place already, though, there is always Medicare and Medicaid...
Secondly, some people seem to forget the exact definition of "Socialism." Socialism, in the technical sense, literally means that the government controls production of all products exported and sold by and in the country. That's it. The term should not be conflated with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, or Liberal Neo-Monarchists (in the words of Mitt Romney). The health care plan is simply the government acting in the best interests of the people, especially the poor and disenfranchised. To be led on by the raging right's fear mongering would by irrational and completely absurd.

FDR once said that every American has the right to health care. In this new day, we are one step closer to that.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

A list of people who, I believe, should shüt üp.

As I have become severely annoyed with American society lately, here is a list of people that, I believe, if they were to shut up, America would be a better place.

This is no particular order; I hate them all equally (would that mean that my hate is a form of socialism?)

-Joe Wilson
-Kanye West
-People who yell "socialism"
-Tucker Carlson
-Rush Limbaugh
-Bill O'Reilly
-People who bring guns to peaceful rallies
-People who are unwilling to compromise
-People who dismiss ideas out of hand
-Nancy Pelosi
-Perez Hilton
-People who are arrogant
-People who are pretentious and/or pedantic
-Benjamin Netanyahu
-Hamas
-Miley Cyrus
-The Jonas Brothers
-Any and all rap and/or hip hop music with the inference of having sex, being in a club, or (in reference to the Black Eyed Peas) doing "it."
-People who are greedy
-People who are self-serving
-People who believe that the Earth is flat
-People who try to proselytize everyone
-Tobacco companies
-Oil companies
-American car companies
-American bankers
-American health insurance companies
-Companies in general
-Absurd Republicans who make absurd claims
-In fact, anyone who makes an absurd claim. Not just Republicans.
-Racists
-People who think that other cultures and/or beliefs are evil
-Sarah Palin
-Scientologists
-Dr. Phil
-Oprah
-Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
-Robert Mugabe
-Anyone who says that business is the most important factor in the world.
And, finally...
-Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he deserves to be listed twice.

That's all for now.
Das Flüg