7/19/17–Post #7: Human Rights and The Syrian Civil War

This is a paper about the Syrian Civil War that I wrote while in College and actually presented at a historical conference back in 2014. What I find very interesting in retrospect is that as I was researching the topic I was inadvertently tracking the early growth of ISIS before they became well known internationally. I know it is a bit lazy to copy paste a previous work and offer it is a new blog post, but I promise a new post with new content is coming soon. At the very least I hope you find the essay interesting and helpful.

 

Intentions and Interests:

Human Rights, Sovereignty, and The Syrian Civil War

November 20, 2013-December 5, 2013

HIST-4380

 

 

Syria has of late become one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our times. Beginning as civil unrest and spiraling out of control into a full-scale Civil War, somewhere around 2.5 million Syrians have fled from their homes, nearly 600,000 of them fleeing to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.[1] Tens of thousands have been killed, the conflict peaking in August of 2012 with nearly 6,000 killed in one month.[2] While the war raged on, much of the world failed to pay attention. Only within the last year or so of the war have Western leaders acknowledged the crisis in Syria. But as substantive talks about Syria in the Security Council have unfolded, so too has the question of Sovereignty unfolded. As in other crises of humanitarian significance, the ideal of national Sovereignty has raised its head. In the face of the massacre of civilians and the use of chemical weapons, the question is again raised, which has primacy: Sovereignty or Human Rights? Both arguments have been invoked in debates amongst World Leaders, and both arguments have utilized the precedents of International Law.

On March 15, 2011 protestors took to the streets in Damascus and Aleppo. Inspired by the recent downfall of Hosni Mubarrak in Egypt, a number of Anti-Assad Facebook Groups began calling for widespread street protests. One such Facebook group, “The Syrian Revolution Against Bashar al-Assad 2011” is credited with organizing the March 15 protests.[3] During the protests the security forces arrested six people but otherwise the demonstration was peaceful overall. But what the regime had failed to realize was that this was just the beginning of a long and bloody struggle. Following the unrest in Tunisia, that is widely regarded to have sparked the Arab Spring, President Bashar al-Assad spoke to the Wall Street Journal. In his interview he stated in essence that, “Syria was more stable than Tunisia and Egypt. He said that there was no chance of political upheaval, and pledged to press on with a package of reforms.”[4]

Within two months Assad was ordering tanks and riot police to clash against protestors. By June for the first time the Opposition took up arms against the regime.[5] Within eight months of Assad’s statement the Syrian Arab Republic was in the midst of a full-scale war. In the two and a half years of warfare, somewhere around 89,000 people have been killed. Of that number nearly 64% of the deaths were civilians caught in the middle between the Rebel Forces and the Regime.[6] The war has proceeded with a “‘gradual escalation and desensitization’ of the public in Syria and abroad” as Emile Hokayem with the International Institute for Strategic Studies has put it.[7] As the war has become prolonged the war has likewise become more brutal. The Regime has indiscriminately fired artillery shells into populated suburbs, government snipers have targeted unarmed civilians, as well government soldiers have been reported dropping improvised barrel bombs from helicopters into populated areas.[8] On top of these tactics, it is highly likely that the Regime has deployed chemical weapons against civilian and rebel targets as early as April of 2013.[9] The Rebels likewise have become progressively radicalized and brutal. Reports of Rebels directly targeting Christians and Alawites in Sectarian Inspired attacks are all too common.[10] There is one infamous video of a rebel soldier eating the heart of a government soldier.[11] Such actions have gone further, the Rebels imposing Sharia based law in some areas they control.[12] Both sides of the conflict have grossly violated human rights laws.

The Radicalization of the Opposition in Syria is both interesting and shocking particularly in its speed. The Opposition initially began solely as a reformist movement, wishing to work with the Regime to expand rights within Syria. Very quickly the tone of the Opposition’s rhetoric changed. “Crowds took to the streets after Friday prayers,” Barry Neild writes, observing scenes in Latakia and Qusair in August of 2011, “The chants calling for Assad’s death are seen as a sign of how much the protest movement has changed since its initial demands for minor reform, but not for regime change.”[13]

The Opposition early on attempted to show itself as non-religious or at the very least non-fundamentalist, this was done in an attempt to garner the support of the Western powers, particularly the United States. Reporter Graham Usher observed as late as May of 2012 that, “At a recent anti-government rally in Idlib protesters raised the chant: ‘When are you going to understand? There is no Al-Qaeda here.’”[14] The Opposition knew that any links with radical Islamist groups would serve to dissuade their prospective supporters.

However, the United States did very little to convey support in the early months of the war. In August 2011, “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said sanctions against Syria’s vital oil and gas industry were needed to put pressure on Assad.” Clinton called upon China and Russia in particular to halt this economic support with Syria. But as Khaled Oweis notes, such talk of sanctions ring hollow as “there is little prospect of Western states putting teeth into the sanctions on Assad by targeting Syria’s oil because of vested commercial interests against doing so.” [15] In evidence of this statement, it must be noted that the Government of Venezuela gave no regard to these sanctions. In February of 2012 Petróleos de Venezuela, the state-run oil company of Venezuela, sent 600,000 barrels of oil to Syria. The Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez stated, “Syria is a blockaded country, if it needs diesel and we can provide it, there’s no reason not to do it.”[16] In this instance, as in many others, alliances between anti-Western Regimes as well as the ideals of national sovereignty trump human rights in the logic of State actors.

The EU has likewise been lax in its acknowledgement of the crisis. While it is true that the EU has contributed nearly 53% of the humanitarian aid to Syria, around $486 million, it has done very little else that would be of service to the Opposition.[17] In May of 2011 the EU set up an arms embargo against Syria for two years, as a way of punishing the Assad Regime.[18] But such an embargo was applied to both sides of the conflict, which in essence served only to disarm the Opposition. The Regime continues to get its weapons and logistical support from its allies, Russia and Iran.[19] With the Western nations unable or unwilling to give military support to the Opposition, and with the Regime receiving support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah; many groups within the Opposition began to turn towards alternative options to receive weapons and aid. Specifically, they began to turn towards radical Islamist elements in the region. “The leader of a militant group fighting on the side of Syria’s rebels has for the first time pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda…Al-Golani said that the Iraqi group was providing half of its budget to the conflict in Syria.”[20] While civilians were being gunned down in the streets and mosques were laid siege to by Regime forces, the moderates within the Opposition became marginalized. While “whole neighborhood[s] echo…with the sound of bullets,” the Opposition felt abandoned by the West, they turned to the only groups that seemed willing to help them. [21] In Hama thousands took to the streets chanting, “We will kneel only to God.”[22]

The Regime and al-Assad have also changed significantly in their approach to the situation as the war has dragged on. Bashar al-Assad became president of Syria in 2000 after his father died. While al-Assad maintained the authoritarian rule of the Ba’th Party and the domination of the Alawis, al-Assad hoped to be less repressive than his father, and began implementing liberalizing efforts. Al-Assad declared Amnesty for the Muslim Brothers in 2001, he released 800 Brothers from prison between 2001 and 2004, and in 2006 he lifted the ban on prayer in military barracks; the younger al-Assad seemed to represent a “willingness on the part of the Syrian state to open a new chapter in its relations with the country’s religious groups.”[23] Even at the beginning of the Arab Spring al-Assad seemed to be positioning his Regime towards being more open towards reform.[24] Al-Assad has been adamant in denying the legitimacy of the Opposition, denying their grassroots genesis. He has gone so far as to imply that the Rebels themselves are foreign agents, seeking destabilize the Regime, and that the will of the Syrian people is still in support of him.[25] Labeling the Opposition as “Terrorist Criminal Gangs,” al-Assad has declared that Syria “will not relent in pursuing the terrorist groups in order to protect the stability of the country and the security of the citizens,”[26] By August of 2011, the Regime had positioned its forces in such a way that in many of the major cities “tanks occupy every main square and roundabout,” strategically positioned near key mosques to counter Opposition organization.[27] Al-Assad has also done his best in silencing the Opposition’s attempts to get support from the outside world, expelling most independent journalists within the first five months of the uprising.[28]

The ways in which the international community has reacted to this crisis is very telling, and to be honest speaks more to the priority of geopolitical alliances placed above ideals of human rights. For over a year the government of the United States was largely silent about the massacres in Syria. Senator John McCain of Arizona was one of the first to break ranks in Washington to speak about what role the US ought to play in Syria. He spoke quite openly about his own personal frustrations with the International System and made an argument from morality and human rights for intervention. In April of 2012 he stated bluntly that:

For the United States to sit by and watch this wanton massacre is a betrayal of everything we stand for and believe in…Over there, they [the Syrian rebels] are waiting for American leadership…We have announced that we are now providing them with non-lethal equipment. That does not do very well against tanks and artillery. We need to get a sanctuary for the Free Syrian Army; we need to get them supplies; we need to get them weapons. And there are many ways to get weapons to them. We showed that in Libya, we showed that in Afghanistan [in the 1980s]…Again, Russia and China continue to veto any significant effort that comes from the United Nations. How many times are we going to push that reset button? It’s time for the United States to lead.[29]

 

A few months after McCain’s statements, the Obama Administration itself began to address the crisis in Syria more succinctly, though without the interventionist air that McCain leant such sentiments. Obama’s statements about Syria were much more measured, suggesting that the Administration itself, while acknowledging the crisis, did not wish to intervene directly. Obama stated in a press conference that:

 

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation. But the point that [was] made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.[30]

The argument made by the Western, primarily NATO, powers was that there were limits upon the ideal of national sovereignty. A decade earlier Prime Minister Tony Blair, when discussing the Balkans Crises put the case quite succinctly when he stated that, “The principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal affair.”[31] Many politicians from many nations also leant moral arguments towards the enforcement of human rights over national sovereignty, if not to the same end that McCain was suggesting. French President Francois Hollande declared to the United Nations in September that, “These are not just numbers, they are people, who need food, water, shelter, sanitation, electricity, health care, and more.”[32] President Obama clinched the international argument for interventionism in the face of human rights violations in a statement on September 4, 2013. In the weeks following the chemical attacks in Damascus that left over 1,000 dead, the United States began to discuss openly the option of direct military intervention against the Regime. In defense of this position, Obama declared clearly: “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”[33] Such internationalist arguments of morality and interventionism have been used many times before, particularly in the examples of Kosovo and of the 2011 bombings of Libya. However, while the arguments made by the Obama administration speak of a moral horror at these violations of human rights, what is clear in Obama’s statements in the summer of 2012 is that the potential regional destabilization is of more importance to the calculus of decision makers than necessarily the human rights violations themselves. The fear of chemical weapons being utilized against Israel and US interests in the region obviously trumps the horror of tens of thousands being murdered by “conventional” weapons.

But the argument for international order and international law is not solely held by NATO and the Western powers. The powers that have been actively supporting the al-Assad Regime, particularly Russia, have likewise appealed to international law to justify non-intervention or at most continued support for the Regime. Russia has been a long-time ally of Syria, for the Russians, Syria is a key doorway to influencing the Middle East as a whole. Likewise Iran is a close ally to Syria, particularly for Syria’s hostility towards Iraq as well as a mutual hostility towards Israel. Both Russia and Iran have a direct geopolitical interest in maintaining the power of the al-Assad Regime and as such are willing to glance over the human rights violations of the Regime. Whether as a willing blindness towards these violations, for instance Putin’s stated skepticism of the Regime’s involvement in the chemical attacks of August 2013,[34] or blaming the Rebels themselves for the chemical weapons attacks; the crimes of the Regime are largely ignored. In this regard Russia has been using arguments of international law to great effect. President Vladimir Putin states clearly in a September interview with Russia Today that:

Under international law, the only body that can authorize using weapons against a sovereign state is the UN Security Council. Any other reasons and methods to justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state are unacceptable and can be seen as nothing but aggression.[35]

 

But of course, Russia having a seat upon the Security Council can negate any legal international attempt at intervention against Syria, due solely to the fact that Syria is a client of Russia. Such political posturing and couching geopolitical interests in the rhetoric of international law has been recognized by many people. In the same September 4 interview with Putin, the interviewer attempts to flush this out, asking a moral question of Putin. The interviewer asks directly, “Are you afraid that you may be seen today as standing by a Regime that is committing crimes, are you afraid that you will be seen today as a protector of this government?” Putin, without a moment’s hesitation responds to the question by reiterating the rhetoric of sovereignty and international law. Putin replies:

We are not defending the current government, we are defending other things entirely. We’re defending the principles and norms of international law, we are defending the current world order, we’re defending the rule that even a possibility of using force must be discussed within the framework of existing world order and international law. This is what we’re defending. This is the absolute value. When decisions regarding the use of force are made outside the UN and the Security Council it raises a concern that such illegal actions could be taken against any country under any pretext.[36]

 

This is not the first time that Russia has placed priority upon sovereignty over human rights, nor is this the first time that Russia has directly criticized Western foreign policy in this regard. In the Spring of 2011 (at the same time protests in Syria first began) the Libyan Civil War had escalated in a similar fashion to the Syrian Civil War. The war going in favor of Colonel Ghaddafi and with threats to massacre entire cities that supported the Rebels; NATO, lead by the United States, engaged in a bombing campaign specifically targeting Ghaddafi and his regime. Putin once more showed skepticism towards the allegations made upon the Regime’s forces, and likewise was skeptical of the motivations for the intervention itself. He alleged that humanitarian aid was merely a pretext for the European Union to seize control of Libya’s oil reserves. Putin further did not accept NATO’s legitimacy in intervening in the internal affairs of an independent nation. At a press conference in April of 2011 Putin stated:

Now some officials have claimed that eliminating [Gaddafi] was their goal, who gave them that right…? The bombings are destroying the country’s entire infrastructure. When the so-called ‘civilized’ world uses all of its military might against a small country, destroying what’s been created by generations, I don’t know if that’s good.[37]

 

It is very clear that Russia has consistently utilized the arguments of international law and placed such arguments over and above the arguments for the enforcement of human rights.

Over the last few months, the war has dragged into a stalemate, strategic positions trading hands again and again. It is for this reason that it was speculated that al-Assad deployed chemical weapons against the rebels. With the stalemate persisting for such an extended amount of time, it has motivated both sides to consider negotiations for peace. As of late November 2013, peace talks have been scheduled to convene between the two sides in Geneva in January 2014. It will be the first time that representatives from the Regime and the Free Syrian Army have come to the table.[38] Though they have agreed to potentially negotiate, there is absolutely no guarantee that anything will come from this meeting; particularly given the brutality that this war has exhibited. The International Community is well aware of this, Secretary of State John Kerry stated in a press conference on November 25 that, “We are well aware that the obstacles on the road to a political solution are many, and we will enter the Geneva conference on Syria with our eyes wide open.”[39] Despite this very rational wariness, international leaders are hopeful overall. And it is telling to note that both NATO as well as Russia have expressed support towards the furthering of peace talks.[40] In this case, a compromise between the two factions, the interventionists and the non-interventionists, may very well lead to constructive discussions upon the issues at hand.

The Civil War in Syria, with its myriad of factions, of complexities; with the brutality and disregard for civilian life; with the desensitization of Syrian society towards the horrors of war. This war is the greatest modern example of how the violations of human rights affect societies as well as the machinations of international politics. For while both the United States and Russia utilize high-minded rhetoric of humanitarianism and international order; nevertheless the actions they directly take ultimately are only taken in the furthering of their own self-interests. The United States was largely quiet about Syrian human rights violations, until the war began to spill into Turkey and Lebanon, and threatened to destabilize the region to the detriment of Israel. Russia speaks highly of defending the international order and law; but in reality they are defending their long-term ally, their access to influencing the region as a whole. Russia has refused to cease its support of Syria for this reason. It is apparent that there is a disconnect between intentions and rhetoric. There is a disconnect between such abstract ideals as sovereignty or human rights and with the true interests of the powers that be.

For these reasons the conflict in Syria continues to escalate, because the international community at large cares more for their own interests in power and politics. Syria is truly a tragic example of the failure of human rights within the international community.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

AFP. “UN Ends Observer Mission in Syria As Aleppo Under Renewed Attack.” The Express Tribune. (Aug 17, 2012). http://tribune.com.pk/story/423320/un-ends-syria-mission-as-aleppo-attack-renewed/ Accessed Aug 17, 2012.

 

“Assad Says Foreign Enemy Agents Undermining Stability.” Channel 4 News. (Aug. 1, 2012). http://www.channel4.com/news/assad-says-foreign-enemy-agents-undermining-stability Accessed Dec 2, 2013.

 

The Associated Press. “Militant Rebels in Syria Announce Merger with al-Qaeda.” CBS News. (April 10, 2013). http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/10/syria-rebels-alqaeda.html Accessed April 10, 2013.

 

Barnard, Anne. “Accusations of Chemical Attack Spur Speculation on Motive.” The New York Times. (Aug. 28, 2013). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/reports-of-syria-chemical-attack-spur-question-why.html?_r=0 Accessed Aug. 28, 2013.

 

Bowman, Michael. “McCain: U.S. Must Lead in Syria.” CBS News. (April 15, 2012). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccain-us-must-lead-in-syria/ Accessed April 26, 2012.

 

“Boy Killed For An Off-Hand Remark About Prophet Muhammad—Sharia Spreads in Syria.” BBC News. (July 2, 2013). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784 Accessed Nov 29, 2013.

 

Fakih, Lama. “The Fading of Syrian Humanity.” Human Rights Watch. (Nov. 5, 2013). http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/05/fading-syrian-humanity Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

 

“France Urges Action on Syria, Says 120,000 Dead.” Alliance News. (Sep. 25, 2013). http://www.lse.co.uk/AllNews.asp?code=loegkpgo&headline=France_urges_action_on_Syria_says_120000_dead Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

 

Karouny, Mariam. “Syria To Send in Army after 120 Troops Killed.” Reuters Canada. (Jun 6, 2011). http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7553AI20110606 Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

 

Kessler, Glenn. “President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons.” Washington Post. (Sept. 6, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/ Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

 

Khatib, Line. Islamic Revivalism in Syria: The Rise and Fall of Ba’thist Secularism. London: Routledge. 2011. p. 2.

 

Lauren, Paul Gordon. The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 3^rd ed. 2011. p. 273.

 

Lynch, Colum and Karen DeYoung. “Britain, France Claim Syria Used Chemical Weapons.” Washington Post. (April 18, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/britain-france-claim-syria-used-chemical-weapons/2013/04/18/f17a2e7c-a82f-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html Accessed Nov 29, 2013.

 

“Mid-East Unrest: Syrian Protests in Damascus and Aleppo.” BBC News. (March 15, 2011.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12749674 Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

 

Morris, Loveday. “Long-Delayed Syrian Peace Talks Set for January.” The Washington Post. (Nov. 25, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/long-delayed-syrian-peace-talks-set-for-january/2013/11/25/865bb1d8-55db-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

 

“NATO, Russian Foreign Ministers Support Syrian Peace Talks.” Voice of America. (Dec. 4, 2013). http://www.voanews.com/content/nato-russian-foreign-ministers-support-syria-peace-talks/1803197.html Accessed Dec. 4, 2013.

 

Neild, Barry. “Assad Orders Tanks Into Rebel Towns as Syria’s Brutal Crackdown Intensifies.” The Guardian (8/13/2011). Accessed August 15, 2011. http://gu.com/p/3x7nd/tw

Oweis, Khaled Yacoub. “Assad: Syria Won’t Stop Fight Against Terrorists.” Reuters. (August 10, 2011). http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/idINIndia-58697320110809 Accessed November 24, 2013.

 

—“Syrian Forces Kill 10 Protesters after Friday Prayers.” Reuters. (August 12, 2011). http://reut.rs/nYk92Y Accessed August 15, 2011.

 

“Putin: Russia Doesn’t Defend Assad, We Defend International Law.” Russia Today. (Sept. 4, 2013). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkkJwl8TNY Accessed Nov. 20, 2013.

 

“Putin: Who Gave NATO Right to Kill Gaddafi.” Russia Today. (April 26, 2011). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

 

“Rebel Eats Heart of Syrian Soldier.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFfnxK-YGGQ

 

Reuters. “Syrian Forces Kill 17, U.S. Threatens More Sanctions.” (August 12, 2011). http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/idINIndia-58741920110811 Accessed November 24, 2013.

 

Spencer, Richard. “Syrian Plane ‘carried military equipment from Russia.’” The Telegraph. (Oct. 11, 2012). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9602752/Syrian-plane-carried-military-equipment-from-Russia.html Accessed Oct. 11, 2012.

 

“Syrian Refugees: A Snapshot of the Crisis—in the Middle East and Europe.” Migration Policy Centre. http://syrianrefugees.eu/ Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

 

Traynor, Ian. “EU Slaps Arms Embargo on Syria but Spares President Bashar al-Assad.” The Guardian. (May 9, 2011). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/09/eu-syria-arms-embargo-assad Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

 

Usher, Graham. “The Syrian Cockpit.” Al-Ahram Weekly Online. (17-23 May 2012). http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1098/re8.htm Accessed April 12, 2013.

 

“Venezuela Aids Syria Regime With Fuel Shipments.” Fox News Latino. (Feb. 29, 2012). http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/29/venezuela-aids-syria-regime-with-fuel-shipments/#ixzz1nmxcb0Gt Accessed Feb. 29, 2012.

 

Violations Documentation Center in Syria. “Statistics for the Number of Martyrs.”

https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/home Accessed 5/6/13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] “Syrian Refugees: A Snapshot of the Crisis—in the Middle East and Europe.” Migration Policy Centre. http://syrianrefugees.eu/ Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

[2] Violations Documentation Center in Syria. “Statistics for the Number of Martyrs.” https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/home Accessed 5/6/13.

[3] “Mid-East Unrest: Syrian Protests in Damascus and Aleppo.” BBC News. (March 15, 2011.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12749674 Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

[4] “Mid-East Unrest: Syrian Protests in Damascus and Aleppo.”

[5] Karouny, Mariam. “Syria To Send in Army after 120 Troops Killed.” Reuters Canada. (Jun 6, 2011). http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7553AI20110606 Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

[6] Violations Documentation Center in Syria. “Statistics for the Number of Martyrs.” https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/home Accessed 5/6/13.

[7] Barnard, Anne. “Accusations of Chemical Attack Spur Speculation on Motive.” The New York Times. (Aug. 28, 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/reports-of-syria-chemical-attack-spur-question-why.html?_r=0 Accessed Aug. 28, 2013.

[8] Barnard, Anne. “Accusations of Chemical Attack Spur Speculation on Motive.”

[9] Lynch, Colum and Karen DeYoung. “Britain, France Claim Syria Used Chemical Weapons.” Washington Post. (April 18, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/britain-france-claim-syria-used-chemical-weapons/2013/04/18/f17a2e7c-a82f-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html Accessed Nov 29, 2013.

[10] Fakih, Lama. “The Fading of Syrian Humanity.” Human Rights Watch. (Nov. 5, 2013). http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/05/fading-syrian-humanity Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFfnxK-YGGQ

[12] “The Boy Killed For An Off-Hand Remark About Prophet Muhammad—Sharia Spreads in Syria.” BBC News. (July 2, 2013). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784 Accessed Nov 29, 2013.

[13] Neild, Barry. “Assad Orders Tanks Into Rebel Towns as Syria’s Brutal Crackdown Intensifies.” The Guardian (8/13/2011). Accessed August 15, 2011. http://gu.com/p/3x7nd/tw

[14] Usher, Graham. “The Syrian Cockpit.” Al-Ahram Weekly Online. (17-23 May 2012). http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1098/re8.htm Accessed April 12, 2013.

[15] Oweis, Khaled Yacoub. “Syrian Forces Kill 10 Protesters after Friday Prayers.” Reuters. (August 12, 2011). http://reut.rs/nYk92Y Accessed August 15, 2011.

[16] “Venezuela Aids Syria Regime With Fuel Shipments.” Fox News Latino. (Feb. 29, 2012). http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/29/venezuela-aids-syria-regime-with-fuel-shipments/#ixzz1nmxcb0Gt Accessed Feb. 29, 2012.

[17] “Syrian Refugees: A Snapshot of the Crisis—in the Middle East and Europe.”

[18] Traynor, Ian. “EU Slaps Arms Embargo on Syria but Spares President Bashar al-Assad.” The Guardian. (May 9, 2011). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/09/eu-syria-arms-embargo-assad Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

[19] Spencer, Richard. “Syrian Plane ‘carried military equipment from Russia.’” The Telegraph. (Oct. 11, 2012). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9602752/Syrian-plane-carried-military-equipment-from-Russia.html Accessed Oct. 11, 2012.

[20] The Associated Press. “Militant Rebels in Syria Announce Merger with al-Qaeda.” CBS News. (April 10, 2013). http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/10/syria-rebels-alqaeda.html Accessed April 10, 2013.

[21] Owels, Khaled Yacoub. “Syrian Forces Kill 10 Protesters after Friday Prayers.”

[22] Owels, Khaled Yacoub. “Syrian Forces Kill 10 Protesters after Friday Prayers.”

 

[23] Khatib, Line. Islamic Revivalism in Syria: The Rise and Fall of Ba’thist Secularism. London: Routledge. 2011. p. 2.

[24] “Mid-East Unrest: Syrian Protests in Damascus and Aleppo.”

[25] “Assad Says Foreign Enemy Agents Undermining Stability.” Channel 4 News. (Aug. 1, 2012). http://www.channel4.com/news/assad-says-foreign-enemy-agents-undermining-stability Accessed Dec 2, 2013.

[26] Oweis, Khaled Yacoub. “Assad: Syria Won’t Stop Fight Against Terrorists.” Reuters. (August 10, 2011). http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/idINIndia-58697320110809 Accessed November 24, 2013.

[27] Owels, Khaled Yacoub. “Syrian Forces Kill 10 Protesters after Friday Prayers.”

[28] Reuters. “Syrian Forces Kill 17, U.S. Threatens More Sanctions.” (August 12, 2011). http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/idINIndia-58741920110811 Accessed November 24, 2013.

[29] Bowman, Michael. “McCain: U.S. Must Lead in Syria.” CBS News. (April 15, 2012). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccain-us-must-lead-in-syria/ Accessed April 26, 2012.

[30] Kessler, Glenn. “President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons.” Washington Post. (Sept. 6, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/ Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

[31] Lauren, Paul Gordon. The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 3^rd ed. 2011. p. 273.

[32] “France Urges Action on Syria, Says 120,000 Dead.” Alliance News. (Sep. 25, 2013). http://www.lse.co.uk/AllNews.asp?code=loegkpgo&headline=France_urges_action_on_Syria_says_120000_dead Accessed Nov. 28, 2013.

[33] Kessler, Glenn. “President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons.”

[34] “Putin: Russia Doesn’t Defend Assad, We Defend International Law.” Russia Today. (Sept. 4, 2013). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkkJwl8TNY Accessed Nov. 20, 2013.

[35] “Putin: Russia Doesn’t Defend Assad, We Defend International Law.”

[36] “Putin: Russia Doesn’t Defend Assad, We Defend International Law.”

[37] “Putin: Who Gave NATO Right to Kill Gaddafi.” Russia Today. (April 26, 2011). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

[38] Morris, Loveday. “Long-Delayed Syrian Peace Talks Set for January.” The Washington Post. (Nov. 25, 2013). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/long-delayed-syrian-peace-talks-set-for-january/2013/11/25/865bb1d8-55db-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html Accessed Nov. 25, 2013.

[39] Morris, Loveday. “Long-Delayed Syrian Peace Talks Set for January.”

[40] “NATO, Russian Foreign Ministers Support Syrian Peace Talks.” Voice of America. (Dec. 4, 2013). http://www.voanews.com/content/nato-russian-foreign-ministers-support-syria-peace-talks/1803197.html Accessed Dec. 4, 2013.

7/13/17–Post #5: The Communist States of America(?)

While I was working on my reflection on the Fourth of July, and as I was attempting to demonstrate the decline in American freedom for the last two centuries, I was struck by the thought that in many ways the United States is progressively heading towards a socialist or communist system of political economy. Certainly I am not original in this thought, many on the Right have made similar arguments over time; but I will be among the first to admit that some such arguments are poorly constructed and poorly delivered. But I do believe that the sense behind the arguments are nevertheless correct, we have been moving towards a more and more socialist country and very often people have argued that we should go even farther.

 

In terms of this post I want to look at the socialist program straight from the horse’s mouth and see where the United States today stacks up to that platform.

 

From the Man From Trier, Karl Marx and his book The Communist Manifesto, that font of insanity, here is the platform of the Communist Party:

 

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.*
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,”[1]

 

 

I wonder to what extent the United States has at this point in time adopted the platform of the Communist Party as put forward by Karl Marx.

 

1. Abolition of Property. Private Property still exists, one can of course buy land and homes and the like and have legally protected claims upon such property. However, throughout the United States Americans have to pay property taxes, the on average American households pay $2,149 every year to the government; this even applies to persons who rent apartments.[2] Of course if these taxes are not paid, the owners of such property will be seized by government force. The median household income in the United States is $55,775 as of 2015.[3] This means that on average Americans pay roughly 4% of their annual earnings in order to ask permission to live in their own homes. “If it please the Crown, may I keep living in the property that I have already purchased.” On top of this, the Federal Government of the United States “owns” roughly 640 million acres of land throughout the United States; this constitutes 28% of all land in the United States. This is egregious in the Western United States in particular with 46.4% of the land in 11 Western states being owned by the Federal Government, in Alaska 61.3% of land is owned by the Federal Government.[4]
2. Progressive Income Tax. As of 2013 the average Federal Income tax that people in the United States paid was 20%, the top 1% of income earners were taxed at 34%; ever since 1979 these rates have remained relatively the same.[5] The top 1% of income earners are forced to “contribute” 39.48% of the Federal Government’s operational budget every year; the top 5% “contribute” 20.49% of the government’s budget.[6] On average Americans pay $11,155 of their $55,775 in Federal Income Taxes. Of the fifty states, forty-three levy income taxes upon their citizens, seven do not (WYOMING!). These tax rates range from as low as 3.07% in Pennsylvania to as high as 13.3% in California, regardless of these varying rates, states on average receive 27% of their budgets from these income taxes.[7] These rates once more being added on to the 4% property tax and the 20% average Federal tax. (Our average of $55,775 is starting to feel a bit tight). Again, if these taxes are not paid, Americans can expect to hear a knock on their door from their local law enforcement.
3. Abolition of Inheritance. In the United States people are still able to leave money for their family members when they pass away…but only after the heirs pay somewhere between 18-40% of that gift from their loved one away to both Federal and state entities.[8] (If it please the Crown, may I leave some of my own property to my children after I die and rot in the ground?).
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. This is a part of the platform that I don’t believe has been implemented in the United States (good), in the context of Marx’s writings this essentially would have stripped property from people deemed to be “counter-revolutionaries” and anyone fleeing the Red Terror. Thankfully we have not seen much along these lines and if I wanted to include this as something the United States has engaged in I would have to do some stretching. For the sake of argument let us look at it anyhow. For instance, soon after the Revolutionary War concluded the property of people who supported the British was seized from them as they fled the newly formed country.[9] Similarly during the Civil War “The confiscation acts of the Union government providing for the judicial seizure of ‘rebel’ property in federal courts formed only an ineffective part of a larger policy of virtual confiscation which contemplated the employment of an elaborate machinery for appropriating the goods of the enemy.”[10] These two examples particularly involve the persecution of “counter-revolutionaries” to use the Marxist phrase, but it does not quite meet what Marx meant. Another example Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 sent 110,000 Japanese-American citizens to “relocation camps” while also seizing their assets and properties to sell to other private citizens.[11] An interesting abuse of power but not quite what Marx meant. For Americans that wish to renounce their U.S. citizenship and live elsewhere in the world, particularly for the wealthy, there is a hefty fee from the Federal Government in order to do so.[12] In pursuance of the War on Drugs the DEA has seized $4,000,000,000 in cash assets from persons being investigated for drug crimes since 2007 in what are called “Civil Asset Forfeiture.” 81% of that money was seized without formal criminal charges being levied against the persons in question. These statistics only include the actual currency seized from such persons and does not include the value of other assets seized like cars and other forms of property.[13] These are all interesting examples of power abuse by the Federal government, however, they do not quite meet what I can presume Karl Marx meant, i.e. the seizures being part of a wider Red Terror to assert the power of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat whilst they seize the Means of Production.
5. Centralization of Credit. There are certainly private banks that are allowed to operate in the United States and work for profit. Banks like Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiGroup, Capital One Financial among many others. That being said, they are among the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.[14] Among the “watchdogs” in the Government that regulate the banking industry in the United States are: The SEC, the CFTC, the FDIC, FinCEN, FINRA, the OCC, the NCUA, the CFPB, the NAIC, The NFA, on top of that each state has its own banking authority.[15] Despite this fact the myth still exists and is propounded by many politicians and ideologues that “deregulation” of the banking industry lead to the Housing Crash in 2008.[16] Outside of straight forward regulations and regulatory agencies the United States itself has a Central Bank, the Federal Reserve. Founded on December 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve’s primary function, in their words, “to provide the nation a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.”[17] Which is ironic since they oversaw 19 separate recessions over the last century[18] including the Great Depression and the Great Recession while also dropping the value of the dollar by 96%.[19] Much evidence has been presented that the Federal Reserve is largely responsible for not only starting the Great Depression but also for continuing it for 17 grinding years. This has been noted by both Milton Friedman but also by former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke among many other historians and economists.[20] Further there is much evidence from various economists that the Federal Reserve itself is responsible for the Great Recession as well.[21] The previous article largely works to identify immediate causes and consequences, but there has been widespread financial intervention into the economy from both the Federal Reserve and the Federal government for decades. For instance, since 1971 there have been at least six major financial interventions or “bailouts” to save particular sectors of the economy because they have been deemed to be “too big to fail,” essentially the government has been picking winners and losers in the economy for decades.[22] (Note: the previous article did not include the Bailouts under both Bush and Obama at the height of the Housing Bubble Crash). Not only does the Federal Reserve directly regulate banks in the United States, but it also has an exclusive monopoly on printing U.S. dollars as well as largely controls interest rates for lending and borrowing.[23] Essentially, it is a government created cabal with little to no oversight that controls the direction and growth of the national economy (bubbles galore!) whose director is appointed by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate. For more reasons why the Federal Reserve is terrible read the article cited here.[24]
6. Centralization of Communication/Transportation. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) was founded on New Year’s Eve 1899 and maintained a national monopoly until 1984 when it was broken up into eight separate companies following anti-trust litigation.[25] While certainly AT&T held a monopoly over national phone communications for decades, it was only possible through government favors in order to keep out competitors. We should remember what Ayn Rand wrote on the issue: “no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy…”[26] Telecom companies throughout the nation face massive regulations from both Federal and State governments. The Federal Communications Commission heavily regulates all transmissions on radio and television and for a time enforced what was known as The Fairness Doctrine on political commentary.[27] Now progressives want the FCC to regulate the Wild West of the Internet.[28] For more on why the FCC is a problematic regulatory agency you can read this article here.[29] The United States Postal Service has a monopoly on the delivery of letters; current laws prevent competitors from delivering letters and in fact people have been prosecuted for attempting to compete with the USPS.[30] As nearly everyone who has driven a car in the United States the state governments throughout the country have dozens upon dozens of laws and regulations upon who can drive, how they drive, and what they drive. Further, with the railroads the initial spread of railroads, particularly the Northern Pacific and the Central Pacific Railroads, were heavily funded by the United States Federal government. While trains today are generally used to transport freight rather than passengers, Amtrak has a monopoly on passenger transportation endorsed by the Federal Government; an organization that has been given $22.5 billion from 1971 to 1997.[31]
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. As I noted above I am not entirely sure what Marx meant by this part of his platform. It may be merely an extension of point 1, if so you may look back to the evidence I brought up in that section, particularly with the Federal ownership of vast swaths of land. But further in this point is the development of such land for centralized economic planning. If I read this point correctly then it seems as if the Federal government is doing the opposite of this point, i.e. seizing vast swaths of land and then doing nothing productive with such land. Particularly when agencies like the BLM actively block development of this land and continue to expand its holdings. This represents a very different but arguably just as concerning Left-Wing doctrine other than the point that Marx wished to impose upon society.
8. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. During the Great Depression there were two million young men in both the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works Administration.[32] The Federal Government spent roughly $10 billion in funding these projects, which was seen by many as not actually helping the economy as a whole but merely to be a vote-buying project.[33] The program was “open to unemployed, unmarried U.S. male citizens between the ages of 18 and 26,” essentially it was open only to young men without families. Furthermore, rather than characterize joining the CCC as entering a contract it was referred to as “enlistment,” the minimum length of enlistment was 6 months.[34] Recruits were usually sent to Army Posts for physical examination, lived in Barracks, were required to wear old WW1 army uniforms, and were drilled with military discipline.[35] Professor of History John A. Garraty likened “the Civilian Conservation Corps to the Nazi youth camps, since both were designed to mobilize unemployed youth to keep them off the streets.”[36] We see here that the Federal Government actively organized young men in order to do fulfill make-work projects under military discipline all in pursuant of a government decreed economic goal.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. Attempting to prove this point as existing in the United States is an incredibly dubious notion. One could argue that the bussing of minority children to schools with a higher white population is part of this plank, but that would be dishonest since that is clearly not what Marx meant. One could argue that the rapid westward expansion and settlement would demonstrate this plank, but while there were government incentives to move west the migration was largely voluntary and not part of a particular economic plan, let alone towards a command-control economy.[37] Same can be said of the various other migrations in the past and future migrations, but nevertheless they are ultimately not part of an organized economic plan on the part of the government.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. This point is so obviously present in the United States that I won’t bother writing about it or utilize citations.

 

Now the purpose of this post is not to necessarily criticize every single law in the United States, this is not to say that for instance that we shouldn’t have schools or driver’s licenses.

 

Some of the things that I spoke about are supported by both Liberals and Conservatives, who in the United States would have the courage to suggest that we should not have public education and maintain their political career?

 

However, it should be instructive to note that while half of the platform is truly in force or had been in force in the United States, but also that arguments can easily be made that EVERY part of Marx’s platform is or has been instituted in the United States of America.

 

Certainly someone can say, “C.T. come on man, what are you complaining about. Certainly there are government regulations on many things but that doesn’t mean we’re a communist country. In fact, C.T., adding more laws and regulations will not plunge us into full Communism mode!”

 

That is true, and a fair statement. But my question and overall point is this: At what point would we be considered to be a socialist or communist nation? On a sliding scale, we aren’t at 100% communism/socialism. But where are we on that scale? And if each successive law and regulation move us along closer to that end of the scale, how many more laws do we need to pass? At what point will Conservatives say “enough is enough.” At what point will Liberals, since they claim not to be Communists, also say “stop!”

 

Every year we get closer, some times we take a step back away from that end destination, but nevertheless we are moving towards that ledge. At what point will we see we’re on that path, at what point will we turn back, and if we don’t turn back, at what point will we leap off?

 

Stay sane.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Allison, John A. “The Financial Crisis and the Bank Deregulation Myth.” Dec. 10, 2012. The Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/financial-crisis-bank-deregulation-myth

 

Amadeo, Kimberly. “How Does the Fed Raise or Lower Interest Rates?” June 14, 2017. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/how-does-the-fed-raise-or-lower-interest-rates-3306127

 

Borowski, Julie. “Top 10 Reasons to End the Federal Reserve.” Feb. 1, 2012. Freedom Works. http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-end-federal-reserve

 

Feulner, Edward. “US Postal Service: A Government Protected Monopoly.” Sept. 2003. Capitalism Magazine. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/09/us-postal-service-a-government-protected-monopoly/

 

Frankel, Matthew. “2016 Estate Tax Rates.” Dec. 18, 2015. The Motley Fool. https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/18/2016-estate-tax-rates.aspx

 

“Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households.” Feb. 13, 2017. Tax Policy Center. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

 

“Histories.” Telecommunications History Group. http://www.telcomhistory.org/vm/histories.shtml

 

Kaeding, Nicole. “State Individual Income Tax and Brackets for 2016.” Feb. 8, 2016. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-rates-and-brackets-2016/

 

Kiernan, John S. “2017’s Property Taxes by State.” Mar. 1, 2017. WalletHub. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/

 

Kupelian, David. “Bernanke: Federal Reserve Caused Great Depression.” March 19, 2008. World Net Daily. http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

 

Hansan, J. “Civilian Conservation Corps.” The Social Welfare History Project. 2013. http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps/

 

Heaton, Andrew & Sarah Rose Siskind. “Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver is Wrong.” May 19, 2017. Reason. http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is

 

Higgs, Robert. “The Welfare State and the Promise of Protection.” Aug. 24, 2009. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/welfare-state-and-promise-protection

 

Ingraham, Christopher. “Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 Billion in Cash From People Not Charged With a Crime.” March 29, 2017. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/since-2007-the-dea-has-taken-3-2-billion-in-cash-from-people-not-charged-with-a-crime/?utm_term=.fb2034661978

 

“List of Financial Regulatory Authorities by Country.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_authorities_by_country#cite_note-3

 

“List of Recessions in the United States.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

 

“Map: Median Household Income in the United States: 2015.” Sept. 15, 2016. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/cb16-158_median_hh_income_map.html

 

Marx, Karl. ed. Frederic L. Bender. The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1988.

 

Matthews, Dylan. “Everything You Need To Know About the Fairness Doctrine in One Post.” Aug. 23, 2011. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?utm_term=.f86e8253a70a

 

McLaughlin, Patrick & Oliver Sherouse. “The McLaughlin-Sherouse List: The 10 Most-Regulated Industries of 2014.” Jan. 21, 2016. Mercatus Center. https://www.mercatus.org/publication/mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-most-regulated-industries-2014

 

Moss, Ephraim. “Exposing the Hidden Tax Costs of Renouncing US Citizenship.” May 17, 2016. CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/exposing-the-hidden-tax-costs-of-renouncing-us-citizenship.html

 

Noah, Timothy. “The Bailout Record.” March 31, 2009. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/07/trump_s_deregulation_efforts_are_great_for_the_rich.html

 

O’Sullivan, Andrea. “Denmark Proves We Don’t Need the FCC.” April 4, 2017. Reason. http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/deregulate-the-fcc

 

Rand, Ayn. ed. Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism From A To Z. New York: Meridian Books. 1988.

 

Randall, James G. “Captured and Abandoned Property During the Civil War.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 19, No. 1. (Oct., 1913). pp. 65-79.

 

Rothbard, Murray N. “The Distinction Between Theory and History.” Jun. 23, 2010. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/distinction-between-theory-and-history

 

Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study. “A Day in the CCC.” Durham: Duke University Press. 1967. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ccc/salmond/chap8.htm

 

Schweikart, Larry & Michael Allen. A Patriot’s History of the United States. New York: Sentinel Books. 2004.

 

Smith, Michael. “Dollar Devaluation since 1913.” Dec. 4, 2015. Compare Gold and Silver Prices. http://www.comparegoldandsilverprices.com/news/economics-101/dollar-devaluation-since-1913/

 

U.S. Census. “Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010.” 2010 Census Results. 2010. http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/cenpop2010/centerpop_mean2010.pdf

 

Vincent, Carol Hardy. et. al. “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.” March 3, 2017. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

 

Vranich, Joseph. “Replacing Amtrak.” Oct. 1, 1997. The Reason Foundation. http://reason.org/studies/show/replacing-amtrak

 

“What is the Purpose of the Federal Reserve System?” Nov. 3, 2016. The Federal Reserve. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm

 

“Who Pays Income Taxes.” National Taxpayers Union Foundation. http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes

 

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. 2003.

*Note, I am not entirely sure by what is meant by this part of the platform. If any reader can let me know what it means it would be greatly appreciated.

[1] Marx, Karl. ed. Frederic L. Bender. The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1988. pp. 74-75.

[2] Kiernan, John S. “2017’s Property Taxes by State.” Mar. 1, 2017. WalletHub. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/

[3] “Map: Median Household Income in the United States: 2015.” Sept. 15, 2016. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/cb16-158_median_hh_income_map.html

[4] Vincent, Carol Hardy. et. al. “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.” March 3, 2017. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf pp. 1, 20, 21.

[5] “Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households.” Feb. 13, 2017. Tax Policy Center. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

[6] “Who Pays Income Taxes.” National Taxpayers Union Foundation. http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes

[7] Kaeding, Nicole. “State Individual Income Tax and Brackets for 2016.” Feb. 8, 2016. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-rates-and-brackets-2016/

[8] Frankel, Matthew. “2016 Estate Tax Rates.” Dec. 18, 2015. The Motley Fool. https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/18/2016-estate-tax-rates.aspx

[9] Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. 2003. p. 84.

[10] Randall, James G. “Captured and Abandoned Property During the Civil War.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 19, No. 1. (Oct., 1913). p. 65.

[11] Schweikart, Larry & Michael Allen. A Patriot’s History of the United States. New York: Sentinel Books. 2004. pp. 608-609.

[12] Moss, Ephraim. “Exposing the Hidden Tax Costs of Renouncing US Citizenship.” May 17, 2016. CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/exposing-the-hidden-tax-costs-of-renouncing-us-citizenship.html

[13] Ingraham, Christopher. “Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 Billion in Cash From People Not Charged With a Crime.” March 29, 2017. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/since-2007-the-dea-has-taken-3-2-billion-in-cash-from-people-not-charged-with-a-crime/?utm_term=.fb2034661978

[14] McLaughlin, Patrick & Oliver Sherouse. “The McLaughlin-Sherouse List: The 10 Most-Regulated Industries of 2014.” Jan. 21, 2016. Mercatus Center. https://www.mercatus.org/publication/mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-most-regulated-industries-2014

[15] “List of Financial Regulatory Authorities by Country.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_financial_regulatory_authorities_by_country#cite_note-3

[16] Allison, John A. “The Financial Crisis and the Bank Deregulation Myth.” Dec. 10, 2012. The Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/financial-crisis-bank-deregulation-myth

[17] “What is the Purpose of the Federal Reserve System?” Nov. 3, 2016. The Federal Reserve. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm

[18] “List of Recessions in the United States.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

[19] Smith, Michael. “Dollar Devaluation since 1913.” Dec. 4, 2015. Compare Gold and Silver Prices. http://www.comparegoldandsilverprices.com/news/economics-101/dollar-devaluation-since-1913/

[20] Kupelian, David. “Bernanke: Federal Reserve Caused Great Depression.” March 19, 2008. World Net Daily. http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

[21] Salsman, Richard M. “How Bernanke’s Fed Triggered the Great Recession.” July 17, 2011. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/07/17/how-bernankes-fed-triggered-the-great-recession/#522d1b7761d9

[22] Noah, Timothy. “The Bailout Record.” March 31, 2009. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/07/trump_s_deregulation_efforts_are_great_for_the_rich.html

[23] Amadeo, Kimberly. “How Does the Fed Raise or Lower Interest Rates?” June 14, 2017. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/how-does-the-fed-raise-or-lower-interest-rates-3306127

[24] Borowski, Julie. “Top 10 Reasons to End the Federal Reserve.” Feb. 1, 2012. Freedom Works. http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-end-federal-reserve

[25] “Histories.” Telecommunications History Group. http://www.telcomhistory.org/vm/histories.shtml

[26] Rand, Ayn. ed. Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism From A To Z. New York: Meridian Books. 1988. p. 308.

[27] Matthews, Dylan. “Everything You Need To Know About the Fairness Doctrine in One Post.” Aug. 23, 2011. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?utm_term=.f86e8253a70a

[28] Heaton, Andrew & Sarah Rose Siskind. “Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver is Wrong.” May 19, 2017. Reason. http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is

[29] O’Sullivan, Andrea. “Denmark Proves We Don’t Need the FCC.” April 4, 2017. Reason. http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/deregulate-the-fcc

[30] Feulner, Edward. “US Postal Service: A Government Protected Monopoly.” Sept. 2003. Capitalism Magazine. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/09/us-postal-service-a-government-protected-monopoly/

[31] Vranich, Joseph. “Replacing Amtrak.” Oct. 1, 1997. The Reason Foundation. http://reason.org/studies/show/replacing-amtrak

[32] Schweikart. p. 564.

[33] Higgs, Robert. “The Welfare State and the Promise of Protection.” Aug. 24, 2009. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/welfare-state-and-promise-protection

[34] Hansan, J. “Civilian Conservation Corps.” The Social Welfare History Project. 2013. http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps/

[35] Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study. “A Day in the CCC.” Durham: Duke University Press. 1967. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ccc/salmond/chap8.htm

[36] Rothbard, Murray N. “The Distinction Between Theory and History.” Jun. 23, 2010. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/distinction-between-theory-and-history

[37] U.S. Census. “Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010.” 2010 Census Results. 2010. http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/cenpop2010/centerpop_mean2010.pdf

7/11/17–Post #4: The Inheritors

 

“It is We who give life and death; it is We who inherit everything.”

            The Qur’an 15:23

 

On November 7, 2004 American and British forces surrounded the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The very next day they began Operation Phantom Fury and shelled the city. After the initial artillery bombardment, the Coalition forces entered the city and engaged in sweep and clear operations. The coalition forces were sent to secure the city from Iraqi insurgents and other Islamist forces that had controlled the city since April of that year. For the next month there was intense house-to-house fighting as the Coalition forces worked to secure the city. Roughly 100 Coalition soldiers were killed with 600 wounded, the Insurgents lost roughly 1,500 men and an estimated 800 civilians were killed.[1] It was the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War. Though it has been a decade since the battle ended, the people of Fallujah continue to suffer under the specter of war.

Dr. Christopher Busby in a July 2010 report claimed that there had been a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in Fallujah since the 2004 attack.[2] In August of 2002 there were 530 births in Fallujah, 6 died and only one baby was seriously deformed. This statistic is unfavorably compared with birth rates five years after Operation Phantom Fury. In September 2009, 170 children were born; 24% of these babies died within a week, 75% of them showed deformities, the most egregious of which was a child born with two heads.[3] Between May and August of 2010 there were 547 babies born in Fallujah. A study conducted by Dr. Samira Abdul Ghani with the Fallujah General Hospital found that 15% of these babies had serious birth defects. 11% of them were born premature with less than 30 weeks of gestation; at the same time 14% of fetuses spontaneously aborted.[4] Ever since the end of the siege there has been 15% drop in the birth of boys, off-setting the standard gender ratio previously observed in Fallujah.[5] Dr. Samira Alani of Fallujah General Hospital told Al-Jazeera that, “We have all kinds of birth defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine.”[6] Since 2009 Dr. Alani has personally logged over 699 cases of birth defects.[7] According to Dr. Alani, the birth defect rate of Fallujah is 7 times that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[8] These increases of birth defects and child cancer rates are not solely limited to Fallujah. In what some Iraqi doctors have called “The White Death,” there has been a massive increase in birth defects and cancers all over Iraq since the 2003 invasion.[9] Lawrence Smallman reported an “explosive increase in leukemia among all ages” in Baghdad.[10] These increases are both statistically significant and troubling; doctors from around the world are scrambling to find out what would cause such a spike in such a short amount of time. Environmental Toxicologist Mozhgan Savabieasfahani stated that, “we suspect that the population is chronically exposed to an environmental agent, we don’t know what that environmental factor is, but we are doing more tests to find out.”[11]

At this point in time there is no definite cause for these defects, however, activists and toxicologists strongly suspect that the use of certain weapons systems by the United States military may be the causal factor. In particular, both white phosphorous and Depleted Uranium were prevalently used in Fallujah.

Depleted Uranium (DU) is a bi-product of the uranium enrichment process wherein U is separated from U; largely comprising the latter, DU has many civilian and military uses.[12] In particular, DU has been used to enhance the armor piercing capabilities of various munitions. Described as “steel-penetrating arrows,” DU is 2.4 times denser than iron and proved to be more effective than other metals, like Tungsten, at piercing armor.[13] DU ordnance is generally chambered for 20, 25, and 30 mm cannons; typically for gunships, attack helicopters, fighter jets, and for machine guns equipped to armored ground vehicles like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the M113 armored personnel carrier. These types of ground vehicles, equipped with DU ordnance, were used in close conjunction with ground troops in Fallujah for fire support.

Much of the scientific literature on DU does not consider soil, water, or dermatological exposure to DU to be of any particular danger, rather “inhalation of dust is considered the major pathway for DU exposure both in combat and non-combat situations.”[14] DU ordnance creates dust when the ammunition strikes hard targets, “the heavier the armor, the more aerosol will form as the DU penetrator expends its kinetic energy piercing the armor.”[15] The second major pathway for exposure is through wounds inflicted by DU ordnance. If a piece of DU is left embedded in a person it can cause perennial radioactive exposure, and because it is a slow solubizing metal it can mean that “several years after the war, blood and urine levels of uranium are elevated by up to two orders of magnitude.”[16] It is of particular interest to note that many American veterans of the First Gulf War were found to have elevated uranium levels in their urine several years after that war.[17] This has been key evidence by activists to support the existence of “Gulf War Syndrome” caused by DU.

DU ordnance was first used in combat during the First Gulf War, in the build up to that war an internal document of Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority was leaked. That document, in essence, stated that, “if the DU fired by US tanks during the 1991 war was inhaled, it could potentially cause 500,000 deaths. It added that it would be unwise for people to stay close to large quantities of DU.”[18] DU was further used in the NATO intervention in Kosovo in the late 1990s, and just as in Iraq there have been allegations of significant increases in cancer and birth defects in the Balkans.[19] The question of DU’s lethality and effects on civilian populations has not been fully investigated, however the increases of cancers and birth defects in both Iraq and Kosovo have raised significant concerns. Dr. Keith Baverstock, the World Health Organization’s chief expert on radiation and health, is one such scientist who ascribes lethal after effects to DU. In the late 1990s he alleged that his research on the subject was  “deliberately suppressed.”[20] In the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq it is estimated that around 1,700 tons of Depleted Uranium has been used in Iraq since 2003.[21] While the use of DU tank shells has been shelved, the use of DU penetrators for large caliber cannons on medium and light vehicles have continued and was used to devastating effects in Fallujah. Ross Caputi, a former Marine who participated in Operation Phantom Fury, founded “The Justice for Fallujah Project” following the staggering statistics of birth defects in the city. Caputi alleges that American ground forces in Fallujah engaged the enemy with “indiscriminate weapons and indiscriminate tactics.”[22] He cited the use of White Phospherous as well as such tactics as “reconnaissance by fire.” Caputi explains this tactic thusly: “if you don’t know if there are fighters or anybody else in a house you fire into the house. Then if you hear, y’know, screaming…then you can be sure that there are people in there and we would probably assume they were combatants.”[23] Caputi alleges that this was standard operating procedure for the three weeks of the battle.

It is reasonable to speculate that such tactics over the course of three weeks of battle would produce massive amounts of DU dust as well as many wounds caused by DU tipped ammunition. Further, Caputi claims that “there were 50,000 civilians still in the city” at the time of the siege.[24] If this is true then that could mean that thousands of people had been directly exposed to dust created by DU ordnance. Only a few studies have been conducted upon the reproductive effects of DU, however a number of studies have been conducted on male uranium miners. It was found that there were fewer boys born to these miners than would have been predicted; likewise there have been “unexpected rates of chromosomal instabilities and alterations of hormone levels were also found in uranium miners.”[25] Other studies conducted on mice found that embryotoxic effects “would be attributable to a direct consequence of uranium-induced maternal toxicity.”[26] All of these causal links brought together it there is much evidence that the use of DU and other weapons in the course of Operation Phantom Fury has caused a society wide poisoning in Fallujah and other Iraqi cities. A poisoning of not only the current generation, but for generations yet unborn. If these allegations prove to be true, the fallout of these weapons would be one of the worst environmental injustices of our time.

If the allegations are true and this is an injustice, there is a problem of actually acknowledging it as an injustice. Unfortunately some of the more prominent conceptions of justice (i.e. Mill’s Utilitarianism and Rawls’s Distributive Justice) are not well equipped to address questions of justice in the international arena, let alone in times of war. Iris Marion Young in her seminal work, Responsibility for Justice observed this problem acutely:

[the] scope of obligations of justice is defined by membership in a common political community. On this account, people have obligations of justice only to other people with whom they live together under a common constitution, or whom they recognize as belonging to the same nation as themselves.[27]

 

This is a severe limitation upon what can be analyzed and considered within a framework of justice. It seems that if we are to have a consistent conception of justice it ought to be capable of handling even the most perverse of situations, it ought to include acts that occur across borders and acts within the context of war. It is folly to contain our analysis of justice to just within the borders of liberal democratic societies. As Young observes aptly, “Nation-state membership is somewhat arbitrary from a moral point of view; political communities have evolved in contingent ways that derive more from power struggle than from moral right.”[28]

Young wrote extensively about what she terms Structural Injustice, i.e. the injustices that arise out of the various interactions of many people acting towards their own self-interest. These individuals operate within the bounds of the law and often within the bounds of traditional morality, and yet these interactions often allow for injustices to take place. While no one person is to blame for these injustices, nevertheless all those who operate within the system that causes such injustice are responsible for said injustice. As Young writes, “those agents who contribute to the structural processes that produce injustice share responsibility for remedying that injustice.”[29] This is not constrained to one’s own community, or town, or country. Rather these interactions branch out wherever there is social interaction. She writes, “An agent’s responsibility for justice is not restricted to those close by or to those in the same nation-state as oneself, if one participates in social structural processes that connect one to others far away and outside those jurisdictions.”[30]

It is paramount, if we are to use Young’s framework, to demonstrate in what way the birth defects in Fallujah can be linked to a structural cause. DU ordnance has been in use since the late 1980s, it is the ammunition of choice for NATO and the United States. These weapon systems are produced by a handful of well-connected private corporations. Corporations like Honeywell, General Dynamics, and Alliant Tech Systems are among the largest producers of arms in the world. Another corporation, ATK is “the largest provider of ammunition to the U.S. military and its allies” and is able to produce up to 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition every year.[31] These companies are offered contracts by the United States valued at hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and among the weapons systems they produce are DU ordnance and the weapons to fire them. The people who work at these corporations profit greatly from the production of weapons systems; they receive money from congressmen that we have elected and keep in office, further the money that is granted to these corporations comes directly from the taxpayers themselves. Furthermore, the people who work at these arms manufacturing companies likewise live and operate within a wider civil society, they buy groceries, go to movies, got to dinner, they have their buildings air conditioned, they have access to internet and phone services, they utilize health and child-care. They utilize all of these institutions and more within the civil society, all the while coming into contact with many other people who help support their ways of life.

They operate within the bounds of the legal system, they do not do so with any underlying malice, rather they think of themselves as helping defend the country they love; they themselves did not intend for their weapons to adversely affect civilians nor did they themselves deploy these weapons. And yet, through their actions, and consequently the actions of others in society, the evidence seems clear that they have massively contributed to an environmental and health crisis in Fallujah and other cities in Iraq. While we all share some form of responsibility for this, it seems that these weapons manufacturers hold the lion’s share of the responsibility. As Young writes, “An agent’s position…carries with it a specific degree of potential or actual power or influence over processes that produce the outcomes…Their being privileged usually means, moreover, that they are able to change their habits or make extra efforts without suffering serious deprivation.”[32] The executives of these companies have the option to fund further testing of the embryotoxicological effects of DU, and yet they do not. They have the option to use other heavy metals that are less effective but are not linked to such dangerous effects on entire populations and yet they do not. Similarly, we as a society continue to vote for representatives who fund these corporations and do not ask for more comprehensive studies about the effects of these weapons systems. We do not petition for these corporations to conduct said studies, and we continue to operate in a civil society with the members of these corporations.

In a similar vein, the victims themselves have a responsibility for their victimization. Young writes, “victims of injustice should take some responsibility for challenging the structures that produce it. It is they who know the most of the harms they suffer, and thus it is up to them, though not them alone, to broadcast their situation and call it injustice.”[33] Unfortunately, due to socio-political factors, the people of Iraq who have suffered these defects have not done much to broadcast their grievances. Often it is only a minority of educated Iraqis or Western activists who make these issues known. Of course this is to be expected due to the poverty of Iraqi society and the ongoing civil war, however, according to Young, if these defects are truly an injustice then it is their responsibility to do more to raise awareness. Even if that is all they are able to do that is their responsibility. Just as it is my responsibility to write this paper.

However, scientists or activists have still not settled one key question. There is no definitive proof that Depleted Uranium is the source of these troubling increases in birth defects and childhood cancers. If anything, almost all of the scientific literature agrees that Depleted Uranium has very limited pathways into the human body. Most of the literature agrees that, “inhalation of dust is considered the major pathway for DU exposure both in combat and non-combat situations.”[34] Because of this, DU has relatively little radiological effects in ground soil, water, or food exposure. Whatever radiological exposure occurred in Fallujah, it would have had to occur in the midst of combat, the DU rounds creating dust as they struck hard targets (i.e. armor, concrete). In a similar vein, there have been few studies conducted upon the effects DU has upon reproduction and fetuses. What studies have been conducted are not conclusive. Because of these factors, no one can say for certain that DU is the direct cause of these birth defects. As Dr. Savabieasfahani said, “we don’t know what that environmental factor is, but we are doing more tests to find out.”[35]

While this is a severe limitation in calculating if this case is unjust, one could utilize the precautionary principle to find if the use of DU is unjust. The Precautionary Principle as expounded in the 1992 Rio Declaration holds that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”[36] The fact that DU ordnance has been in use for over two decades, in several conflicts, without any reasonable study into the potential birth defects and other profound health affects shows incredible irresponsibility on the part of decision makers and weapons manufacturers. Before DU can justifiably be used in combat operations these studies must be conducted, it must be proved that these weapons do not cause the harms that are alleged. Further, it is neither upon the public nor the affected parties to prove whether or not these weapons have these effects. According to the 1998 Wingspread Declaration, “the proponent of [such] an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.” [37] It is paramount for the safety of civilian populations, particularly the safety of unborn children, that these weapons be fully studied before they are used in future combat operations.

“We who share responsibility ought to take action,” writes Young, we should not be blamed or found at fault for the injustice we contribute to, and we should not be blamed or found at fault for what we do to try to rectify injustice, even if we do not succeed…We also have a right and an obligation to criticize the others with whom we share responsibility.”[38] The damage has been done in Fallujah, it would be nearly impossible to rectify the birth defects and the cancers, similarly it would be impossible to repair whatever genetic damage has been done to prevent future birth defects. However, Young’s conception of justice is to be forward looking, it is to be about finding a resolution and not a restitution. One thing that can be done, utilizing both Young’s framework and the precautionary principle, is to demand that further studies be conducted upon the effects of DU on reproductive health. To demand that these weapons never be used until it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not these birth defects are caused by DU dust. This is the most that we can do, to work so that DU is not used in future combat operations, to work so that generations yet unborn will not be genetically compromised. The very least that we can do is to raise awareness for the plight of the babies of Fallujah.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done to restore the genetic integrity of the people of Fallujah. At this moment in time DU cannot be proven to be the direct cause of these birth defects; regardless these birth defects have occurred and there is an apparent environmental factor. Even if DU is not the culprit of these birth defects, these weapons were still used to destroy key infrastructure within the country and to destabilize the country as a whole. The children of Fallujah have inherited a bleak future. They have inherited a genetic pool that has been deeply compromised; they have inherited a poisoned society.    

Works Cited

 

 

Bleise, A. et. al. “Properties, Use and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium (DU): A General Overview.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. (2003); 64.

 

Chulov, Martin. “Research Links Rise in Falluja Birth Defects and Cancers to US Assault.” The Guardian. (Dec. 30, 2010). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Accessed March 7, 2014.

 

“Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment.” UNEP Scientific Mission to Kosovo. International Atomic Energy Agency. (Nov. 5-19, 2000). http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/finalreport.pdf Accessed May 1, 2014.

 

Di Salvo, C.J. Pereira and Leigh Raymond. “Defining the Precautionary Principle: An Empirical Analysis of Elite Discourse.” Environmental Politics. 19.1 (Feb. 2010).

 

Domingo, Jose L. “Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Natural and Depleted Uranium: A Review.” Reproductive Toxicology. (2001); 15.

 

Gordon, J.D. “Al-Qaeda Retakes Fallujah.” The Washington Times. (Jan. 6, 2014). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/gordon-from-guantanamo-to-the-battlefield/?page=all Accessed Apr. 5, 2014.

 

Al-Hadithi, Tariq et al. “Birth Defects in Iraq and the Plausibility of Environmental Exposure: A Review.” Conflict and Health. (2012) 6:3.

 

Ismael, Shereen T. “The Cost of War: The Children of Iraq.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies. (Spring 2007) 38:2.

 

Jamall, Dahr. “Fallujah Babies: Under A New Kind of Siege.” Al-Jazeera. (Jan. 6, 2012). http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126394859797.html Accessed March 6, 2014.

 

Karon, Tony. “The Grim Calculations of Retaking Fallujah.” Time. (Nov. 8, 2004). http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,768590,00.html Accessed March 7, 2014.

 

Katsuma, Yagasaki. “Depleted Uranium Shells, The Radioactive Weapons: Perpetuation of War Damage by Radiation.” World Uranium Weapons Conference, University of The Ryukyus. (August 2003). http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/KYagasakiOnDU.pdf

 

Lee, Eloise and Robert Johnson. “The 25 Biggest Defense Companies in America.”  Business Insider. (Mar. 13, 2012). http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-us-defense-companies-2012-2?op=1 Accessed April 16, 2014.

 

Molyneux, Stefan. “The Truth About How the US Will Save Syria.” (Sept. 6, 2013). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NIOthWsjk Accessed May 2, 2014.

 

The Qur’an. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010.

 

“Ten Years Later: Feeling the Effects.” Huff Post Live. (April 18, 2013). http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/toxic-fallout-in-fallujah/516ee568fe344406360002ac Accessed March 6, 2014.

 

Young, Iris Marion. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011.

 

 

[1] Karon, Tony. “The Grim Calculations of Retaking Fallujah.” Time. (Nov. 8, 2004). http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,768590,00.html Accessed March 7, 2014.

[2] Jamall, Dahr. “Fallujah Babies: Under A New Kind of Siege.” Al-Jazeera. (Jan. 6, 2012). http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126394859797.html Accessed March 6, 2014.

[3] Al-Hadithi, Tariq et al. “Birth Defects in Iraq and the Plausibility of Environmental Exposure: A Review.” Conflict and Health. (2012) 6:3. p. 5.

[4] Chulov, Martin. “Research Links Rise in Falluja Birth Defects and Cancers to US Assault.” The Guardian. (Dec. 30, 2010). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Accessed March 7, 2014.

[5] Chulov. “Research Links Rise in Falluja Birth Defects and Cancers to US Assault.”

[6] Jamall. “Fallujah Babies: Under A New Kind of Siege.”

[7] Jamall. “Fallujah Babies: Under A New Kind of Siege.”

[8] Jamall. “Fallujah Babies: Under A New Kind of Siege.”

[9] Molyneux, Stefan. “The Truth About How the US Will Save Syria.” (Sept. 6, 2013). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NIOthWsjk Accessed May 2, 2014.

[10] Ismael, Shereen T. “The Cost of War: The Children of Iraq.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies. (Spring 2007) 38:2. p. 340.

[11] Chulov. “Research Links Rise in Falluja Birth Defects and Cancers to US Assault.”

[12] Bleise, A. et. al. “Properties, Use and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium (DU): A General Overview.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. (2003); 64. p. 94.

[13] Katsuma, Yagasaki. “Depleted Uranium Shells, The Radioactive Weapons: Perpetuation of War Damage by Radiation.” World Uranium Weapons Conference, University of The Ryukyus. (August 2003). http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/KYagasakiOnDU.pdf p. 2.

[14] Bleise. p. 101.

[15] Bleise. p. 101.

[16] Bleise. p. 102.

[17] Domingo, Jose L. “Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Natural and Depleted Uranium: A Review.” Reproductive Toxicology. (2001); 15. p. 604.

[18] Ismael. p. 340.

[19] “Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment.” UNEP Scientific Mission to Kosovo. International Atomic Energy Agency. (Nov. 5-19, 2000). http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/finalreport.pdf Accessed May 1, 2014.

[20] Ismael. p. 343.

[21] Ismael. p. 341.

[22] “Ten Years Later: Feeling the Effects.” Huff Post Live. (April 18, 2013). http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/toxic-fallout-in-fallujah/516ee568fe344406360002ac Accessed March 6, 2014.

[23] “Ten Years Later: Feeling the Effects.”

[24] “Ten Years Later: Feeling the Effects.”

[25] Domingo. p. 606.

[26] Domingo. p. 606.

[27] Young, Iris Marion. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. p. 133.

[28] Young. p. 136.

[29] Young. p. 140.

[30] Young. p. 141.

[31] Lee, Eloise and Robert Johnson. “The 25 Biggest Defense Companies in America.”  Business Insider. (Mar. 13, 2012). http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-us-defense-companies-2012-2?op=1 Accessed April 16, 2014.

[32] Young. p. 142-143.

[33] Young. p. 143.

[34] Bleise, A. et. al. “Properties, Use and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium (DU): A General Overview.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. (2003); 64.  p. 101.

[35] Chulov. “Research Links Rise in Falluja Birth Defects and Cancers to US Assault.”

[36] Di Salvo, C.J. Pereira and Leigh Raymond. “Defining the Precautionary Principle: An Empirical Analysis of Elite Discourse.” Environmental Politics. 19.1 (Feb. 2010). p. 88.

[37] Di Salvo. p. 88.

[38] Young. p. 141.

7/10/17–Post #3: A Reflection upon the Fourth of July (And I promise it won’t be as long-winded as the Trump post).

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: ‘tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”[1]

-Thomas Paine, “The Crisis Number 1,” 1776.

 

On July 3^rd my wife and I went and saw the fireworks hosted by my home town, due to the way that calendars work (a science that still mystifies me even though I have a history degree) Independence Day was on a Tuesday this year and as such the authorities of our town sanctioned that the fireworks will commence the night before the actual day. Thankfully we live less than a mile away from the event which meant that we did not have to deal with the nightmare of traffic and dealing with parking (how dare other people join us in the celebration of the United States’ independence). Due to this we were able to directly benefit two families from our church and managed to find spots to watch the show within 40 feet or so of where they deployed the fireworks.

 

As we watched the rockets shoot into the sky to explode into brilliant colors of green, white, blue, red, and yellow; as the smells of sulfur and potassium nitrate drifted in the wind with the smoke; as we listened to the booming explosions (intentionally meant to simulate the sounds of war); I felt very somber.

 

Independence Day for years has filled me with mixed emotions.

 

Pride and sadness.

 

Hope and despair.

 

I have felt this way for many years and each year July 4^th and the days around that date are a time for reflection for myself, as well as a time for reflection for all Americans and liberty loving people everywhere. Perhaps I am not alone in this but part of my reflection and meditation is watching videos and documentaries not only about the time period involved but also the larger ideas involved in the holiday. Some of the videos that I believe to be required viewing for many Americans can be found in this citation.[2]

 

But in particular I tend to watch and re-watch this video produced by all groups a video game developer:

 

Perhaps the video itself is not the most intellectual of videos regarding the American Revolution, perhaps it can be seen as a fluff piece solely for the purpose of marketing a video game. That is all true. But at the same time it does bring a tear to my eye, thinking about the risks that were involved in the fight for American independence.

 

The dangers that so many risked to their reputations, their economic standings, their homes, and their very lives. As Benjamin Franklin put in his wry fashion, “We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”[4] We tend to focus upon the people who were in leadership positions in telling the stories of the past, this applies to the American Revolution as well as every other historical narrative. We tend to focus upon the personalities of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. We tend to focus upon the Founding Fathers as we have now taken to calling them in American culture. The personalities and the actions of these men are certainly important and I will certainly reference them and quote them as this blog post goes on, but what I appreciate so much about that video; a commercial for a not very good Ubisoft video game; is that it briefly puts the conflict as a whole into perspective. For a very similar reason I do enjoy the film The Patriot, despite its historical inaccuracy; the final battle scene is particularly powerful.[5]

 

It was not just the Founding Fathers as we call them that fought and bled and died between 1775-1783. 80,000 Americans joined the Continental Army and the various state militias during the war, of that 25,000 of them died during the war; 8,000 of which died from wounds that they suffered during battle; 25,000 more were wounded during the war itself.[6] It seems easy to just say the word “wounded” and leave it at that; words like that tend to mask what is actually meant. Musket balls to the gut, to the arms and legs. Being stabbed with a bayonet. Having arms and legs sawed off with unclean, possibly rusted, bone saws with only a swig of whiskey as anesthetic. And if you are very, very lucky perhaps you will not get an infection from your most recent “medical procedure.” If you do get an infection all that you have are your prayers and the grace of the Good Lord to prevent you from succumbing.

 

Roughly 20,000 Americans were captured as Prisoners of War during the Revolutionary war.[7] Because the question of prisoners was a difficult issue for both sides to solve, the British held many American prisoners on various Prison Ships. On the HMS Jersey in particular roughly 1,000 men were kept on board in the ship’s hold. There they faced not only torture and abuse but also diseases like Small Pox, Typhoid, Yellow Fever, and dysentery as well as continued starvation. Roughly a dozen men died every night on this one ship. Overall, some 11,000 prisoners died on these kinds of ships over the course of the war.[8]

 

Americans from all walks of life faced daily dangers in not only serving in the Continental Army but also in supporting the American Independence Movement.

 

And what did they fight and die and suffer for?

 

That is an aspect that many Americans do not consider to this day. For many Americans the Fourth of July is nothing more than an excuse for a 3-Day Weekend and a barbecue. Historical ignorance is a problem for most of the world, but the historical ignorance about the American Revolution on the part of LIVING BREATHING AMERICANS is particularly disturbing.[9]

 

We all know the slogans (or at least I hope that we all know, the previous citation puts that very much in doubt) around the Revolution. “No taxation without representation,” “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” But very rarely, especially outside of a classroom, do we delve into what those ideas meant. It is truly a shame; Holidays, after all, are not merely meant for times of celebration, but also for reflection.

 

Ultimately if you boil down all of the rhetoric and actions during the American Revolution you will find a number of fundamental principles that made the American Revolution so categorically different from all others and that made the United States, for a time, the freest country on the face of the earth.

 

These are: 1. The rights and dignity of individual human beings is tantamount. 2. Governments are inherently dangerous and if we are to have them at all they must be strictly limited. And 3. Institutions of power are dangerous for any individual to hold yet alone utilize.

 

These are the three ideas that are at the heart of the American experiment, both in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.

 

To be fair the American Revolutionaries did not invent these ideas out of whole cloth. Historians time and time again have correctly noted the influence of philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu upon American colonies; they had such an influence over the Founding Fathers that one historian asserted that “Jefferson copied Locke.”[10] Perhaps the most famous and justified instance of plagiarism ever. Over a century before the American Revolution for instance John Winthrop addressed the Massachusetts General Court thusly:

 

“I entreat you to consider, that when you choose magistrates, you take them from among yourselves, men subject to like passions as you are. Therefore when you see infirmities in us, you should reflect upon your own….”[11]

 

142 years later his great-great-great-grandson James Winthrop had very similar things to say on the subject of government authority and the dangers therein. Under the pen name “Agrippa” he wrote:

 

“no extensive empire can be governed upon republican principles, and that such a government will degenerate to a despotism, unless it be made up of a confederacy of smaller states, each having the full powers of internal regulation. This is precisely the principle which has hitherto preserved our freedom….The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a republic as against the king in a monarchy.”[12] (emphasis added).

 

This trend of not trusting government, particularly a large government, was present in the American colonies for over a century before the Revolution, was present during the Revolution, and very much after the Revolution. What is of interest to note that the Founding Fathers were all very much in favor of a republic as the ideal form of government. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists took time to criticize not only the dangers of monarchism but as well as the dangers of democracy.

 

James Madison in Federalist Number 48:

 

“In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal of liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter.”[13] (emphasis added).

 

During the Constitutional Conventions on June 18 the Anti-Federalists noted: “Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself against the other.”[14] In the Fifth Cato Letter published on November 27, 1787 the author argues against the ratification of the new Constitution by comparing the office of the presidency to that of a monarchy: “if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy—that the president possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain…”[15]

 

The Founding Fathers were deeply, deeply concerned with the powers of governments of any kind; in particular they were concerned with the abuse of such power. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1807, “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.”[16] John Adams held similar sentiments: “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”[17] It is of interest to note that though Jefferson and Adams would become bitter political rivals and actively slander each other on nearly a daily basis, they nevertheless agreed upon the issue of government power and its abuse.

 

The United States was founded upon the ideals of small government and individual liberty. As Russian author and immigrant to the United States Ayn Rand wrote:

 

“America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything ‘noble and just,’ and heroic, and great, and unprecedented inhuman history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle. The first consequence was the principle of political freedom, i.e., an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by the government. The next was the economic implementation of political freedom: the system of capitalism.”[18]

 

These are the things that fill me with pride and hope. These are the reasons why watching the fireworks and hearing the “Star Spangled Banner” and watching The Patriot and a “silly” advertisement for a sub par AAA video game brings a tear to my eye every year. When I reflect upon the men and women who fought and bled and suffered, the thousands who wasted away on the prison ships. When I think of the 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”[19] When I think of all of those who defied the largest empire in the world with the largest and most well trained military, supplemented by highly trained mercenaries; when I think of the untrained colonial farmers fighting against the world, outmanned and outgunned and without hope. They fought and died with little to no chance for survival let alone victory….and won. As the villain in the historically inaccurate film The Patriot put it, “Quite impressive for a farmer with a pitchfork, wouldn’t you say?”[20]

 

When I think of all of these factors, and the nation and the ideals that our forefathers bequeathed unto us it fills me with immense pride.

 

But at the same time that my mind turns over the amazing story of the American Revolution, the radical ideas that they presented, and the seemingly providential nature of it all; my mind invariably turns to sadness and despair. Both emotions seem to revolve around the question: “Would they be proud of us today?”

 

I believe whole-heartedly that the answer would be “No.”

 

It seems that every step that the succeeding generations have taken after the American Revolution have been an ever-progressing frog march into the morass of tyranny. A tyranny that we have brought upon ourselves in the country that we inherited; and worse, a tyranny that we have proclaimed to be a liberation while bastardizing the legacies of the men who fought so hard 241 years ago.

 

To fully document every step of this march to the cliff’s edge would require a book length examination, but I have committed to limiting myself as much as I can and I will do my best to maintain that commitment.

 

Very early on in the nation’s history the ideas that motivated the Revolution itself began to be violated. The Anti-Federalists, for instance, argued very strongly against the ratification of the Constitution on the grounds that it would constitute a betrayal of the government sought in the Revolution. George Washington himself lead an army to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion after many farmers in Pennsylvania refused to pay taxes in the new currency. The passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 under John Adams made “it a crime to say or write anything ‘false, scandalous and malicious’ against the government, Congress, or the President, with intent to defame them, bring them into disrepute, or excite popular hatreds against them.”[21] It is of interest to note, as Zinn does not, that the Act only applied to the President and Congress and did not mention the Vice-President, meaning that anyone could write what they wanted about the Vice-President. At the time the Vice President was the runner up in the presidential election and was Thomas Jefferson who opposed John Adams’ policies.

 

This is not to excuse Thomas Jefferson’s presidency whatsoever, the Third President conducted the largest land transaction in American history, The Louisiana Purchase, without Congressional Approval.

 

You have Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, conducing a war without Congressional approval, suspending the right of Habeas Corpus, and jailing the editors of newspapers that criticized his policies. But perhaps that is a topic deserving of more detail in a different post.

 

Theodore Roosevelt’s attitudes towards the role of the presidency and of war in making the character of a nation as well as his strong man vision of leadership.[22] Teddy Roosevelt is probably the closest thing to a father of what has been called the “Imperial Presidency,” but that is a topic that deserves more attention at another time.

 

Woodrow Wilson authorizing the Federal Reserve, instituting the Selective Service Act, and arguably most egregiously signing the Espionage Act in June of 1917 which held that “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S….” An act that sent thousands of people who were against U.S. involvement in World War One to prison, including presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.[23] Along with that, Wilson’s creation of a command economy under the War Industries Board, a series of policy that Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascists characterized as “War Socialism.”

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is arguably the closest thing that the United States has had to a dictator, taking the legacies of his uncle and Wilson several steps further. He represented a radical shift in the relationship between the powers of the federal government and the freedoms of individual citizens, particularly in the realm of economic freedom. He did so regularly utilizing the logic of a war-time state in the midst of peace time, for instance on his first day of office he declared a banking holiday invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, “Roosevelt declared that “all banking transactions shall be suspended.” Banks were permitted to reopen only after case-by-case inspection and approval by the government, a procedure that dragged on for months. This action heightened the public’s sense of crisis and allowed him to ignore traditional restraints on the power of the central government.”[24] FDR effectively cartelized vast swaths of industries under the National Recovery Administration, establishing strict price controls on nearly everything from the price of shirts to the wages that people were allowed to bring home. The NRA approved and administered 557 basic and 189 supplementary regulatory codes that covered 95% of all industrial employees.[25] Because of these price controls businesses oftentimes offered to cover their employee’s health insurance in lieu of a pay raises, effectively giving us our modern day health care system.[26] FDR effectively nationalized or cartelized certain segments of the economy under the Blue Eagle of the NRA, while also establishing the Civillian Conservation Corps an organization of government structured laborers who were all dressed in old military uniforms and took instructions from former military officers. With Executive Order 6102 in April of 1933 FDR made it illegal for the average American citizen to own gold bullion stating, “I, Franklin D. Roosevelt…do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and…do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations…”[27] If a citizen did not hand over their gold to federal authorities as they swept the country, that citizen could face up to ten years in federal prison as well as a fine worth twice the amount that they did not turn over.[28] This is only skimming the surface of all that FDR did during his presidency, but when the Supreme Court consistently struck down the laws and regulations that Roosevelt wanted to pursue, he invariably strong armed them into compliance; by threatening to water down the role of the Supreme Court by doubling the number of justices on the bench, he essentially turned the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp the same way that Congress acquiesced to everything that Roosevelt wanted to do.[29] All of this was done and more while at the same time FDR broke the century old tradition of only serving two terms, being elected 5 times in a row.

 

These are relatively old examples of the encroachment of government power upon the lives of every day Americans. I will not at this time go into detail on the continuing encroachments through World War II, the Cold War, the Clinton Era, the Bush Era, or the Obama Era (these are subjects that all deserve individual blog posts).

Without going into too much specific detail let us look at the state of freedom in the United States in the modern day.

 

According to the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom Hong Kong was the Freest country in the World. The United States, the land of the free, the shining city on the hill was…17^th.[30]

 

17^th….

There are so many federal laws on the books that on average every American citizen commits three felonies every single day, largely without knowing they are doing so.[1] The Federal Register is published every year and contains every Federal Law that is currently in effect. In 1936 the Federal Register was 2,620 pages long, in 2012 the Federal Register was 78,961 pages long.[2] To put this in perspective one of the longest novels ever written is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, that book is 1,168 pages long. Atlas Shrugged fits into the Federal Register 67.6 times. Atlas Shrugged is roughly 50 hours long in audio format, so if you wanted to sit down and read the Federal Register for the year of 2012 it would take you 3,380 hours to complete. 140 days if you read continuously every hour of every day. And that is for the year of 2012, every year there are more and more laws added to the Federal Register, and that is not including all of the laws that each individual state has on its own books.

 

Government spending has ballooned out of control ever since the New Deal. As of July 6, 2017 at 9:06 AM MST the national debt is $19, 964, 142, 485, 028 and ever rising every second of every day.[3] About 6 years ago they calculated that the Federal government spends $6,850,000 every single minute of every single hour of every single day.[4] That was when the federal budget was $3,600,000,000,000 with a deficit of $1,300,000,000,000.[5] The budget for 2016 was $3,900,000,000,000 with a deficit of $600,000,000,000.[6] That is what the budget worked out to be last year, but President Obama originally proposed $4,150,000,000,000.[7] It is fascinating as well to observe that this ever ratcheting spending is essentially bi-partisan in nature. Whichever party is in power the opposition always brings up the debt as an issue while their supporters downplay it. For instance, PBS launched a documentary on the national debt in early 2009 highlighting especially the spending of George W. Bush.[8] They did not do a follow up documentary when Obama doubled the debt by the end of his term. At the same time, Republicans nary said a word about Bush’s spending, yet lambasted Obama and his spending spree. This trend can also be seen in terms of what is termed “infrastructure spending” or “bailouts.” Republicans howled when Obama went through with his “bailouts” and “infrastructure spending,” yet are oddly silent when Donald Trump proposed a $1,000,000,000,000 program to repair highways and interstates.[9] Vice-versa for the Democrats. Each party only cares about government spending as an issue when they can leverage it for political gain, yet every year the spending goes up and up and up.

 

Yet the cancerous growth of government cannot solely be blamed upon the men and women inside the government itself; so many are merely doing their jobs. Further, we cannot lay blame solely upon the people who make the “big decisions,” the President, the Congress, the Courts. While we are not a democracy (thank God), our officials are still nevertheless beholden to the people who elected them, and as it turns out the people that we see subverting the American Revolution in the halls of power have been given that opportunity by us the voters and the wider culture generally.

 

Consistently we can observe throughout popular culture a trend towards authoritarianism. Always a desire for bigger and larger government to “provide” for us. A strong father, a caring mother all in the form of an over-bearing and over-weaning welfare-warfare state. But we very rarely see the ideas of conservatism, libertarianism, or small government represented positively. I like to believe that the wider culture does not have an influence upon my thought process but that would be an arrogant mistake; culture affects everyone, perhaps not equally.

The adoration of Communism and Socialism in the name of freedom throughout popular culture, the best example of which that I own being a novel by Jack London: “The cry of this army is: ‘No quarter! We want all that you possess. We will be content with nothing less than all that you possess. We want in our hands the reins of power and the destiny of mankind. Here are our hands. They are strong hands. We are going to take your government, your palaces, and all your purpled ease away from you, and in that day you shall work for your bread even as the peasant in the field or the starved and runty clerk in your metropolises.”[10] You see similar adoration in films like Elysium. While it might seem that there is a disconnect between culture and politics, as the late great Andrew Breitbart put it: “Politics is downstream from culture.”[11]

 

Look at the Occupy Wall Street “movement” 6 years ago, there is a wealth of video evidence from the OWS protesters that they very clearly have Statist desires and goals. What Jean-Francois Revel characterized as “The Totalitarian Temptation.”[12] They claim to fight for freedom but in reality wish to smash what currently exists in order to seize power for themselves. You can look to Adam Kokesh’s interactions with OWS,[13] or to Peter Schiff’s wonderful interactions with the protesters.[14] Or when former Soviet Citizen Vladimir Jaffe went and talked to those protesters, among some of the people he spoke to some persons who supported North Korea and attempted to explain away the starvation in that country by blaming “western imperialism.”[15]

 

Many are so very eager to abandon the individual freedom that the American Revolution fought for. Merely read Chapter 23 “The Coming Revolt of the Guards” in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.[16] Zinn, among many thinkers and average people in the United States today, fall into the trap of utopianism all totalitarian movements have sprung from. The paradise that he describes in this chapter would shackle people to each other, it would sap individuals of any and all will to succeed, why should they after all if their extra labor gets them no reward? It will enslave people, regardless of whether or not they wanted it, to the State. It will steal the wealth of individuals at the point of a gun for the good of a supposed majority. Demagogues use utopian ideals to assert their own power. Zinn’s “Utopia” would sever all lines of communication and plunge us into a new dark age with little to no innovation; fundamentally betraying the ideals that the American Revolutionaries fought for.

 

Overall 67% of Americans in the United States do not believe the government should prohibit speech considered to be offensive. 70% of Gen Xers, 71% of Baby Boomers, and 80% of the Silent Generation support the freedom of speech in the United States. However, 40% of Millennials believe that the government should be able to prevent people from saying things considered to be offensive.[17] While 40% is a minority, it is certainly a significant minority, The Far Left is also a significant minority; a very vocal and ultimately influential minority. We can only hope that the adage is true that people become more conservative as they grow older (at the very least that applies to my grandparents). We must hope this is true since Republicans were 17 percentage points more likely to support free speech than their Democrat counterparts.

 

The counter-argument for what I just wrote has popped up from time to time on my radar and essentially it boils down to the idea that “hate speech” cannot be considered to be “free speech.” These liberals claim that they do favor free speech but only insofar as it does not allow for “hate speech.”

 

As Roanna Carleton-Taylor puts it in her blogpost on the Huffington Post: “Both myself and Resisting Hate strongly believe that hate speech is not free speech. Free speech is not the holy grail of civil liberty. No human being exists in a vacumn [sic] where they can speak as they please with no regard for the consequences of what they are saying. Too often we hear of the right to freedom of speech with rarely a mention of the responsibilities. Yet we do have a responsibility in our speech. We have a responsibility not to harm others, incite hate against them or to create a society of prejudice and intolerance.”[18]

 

Perhaps it is a tenable argument, but what I have noticed is that the liberals who put forward such an argument do not answer one essential question: “Who gets to decide what is and what is not hate speech?” Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engage in “hate speech” when they endorsed the traditional view of marriage in 2008? Does the government itself get to decide what is hate speech?

 

Related to the previous question liberals do not answer the question: “who should be given the authority to make that decision and the ability to use force to impose that standard on the public as a whole?”

 

But from Roanna’s blog I want to pull out one particular quote that is incredibly disturbing: “Free speech is not the holy grail of civil liberty.” That comment in particular, endorsed by The Huffington Post, brings to mind the work of F.A. Hayek:

 

“What are the fixed poles now which are regarded as sacrosanct, which no reformer dare touch, since they are treated as the immutable boundaries which must be respected in any plan for the future? They are no longer the liberty of the individual, his freedom of movement, and scarcely that of speech. They are protected standards of this or that group…injustices inflicted on individuals by government action in the interest of a group are disregarded with an indifference hardly distinguishable from callousness; and the grossest violations of the most elementary rights of the individual…”[19]

 

The modern day Liberal, in fact the modern American, is more and more willing to violate the rights of others in the name of “protecting” particular groups of people; for the liberal democrat this conviction ultimately is solely for the purposes of political and electoral gain.

 

This is more evidence of an ongoing cultural shift, a trend that fundamentally redefines concepts and ideas over and over again to the point that they no longer mean what they originally meant. They reach the opposite of their definition. Truly New Speak is Double Plus Good.

 

For instance, a Harvard University survey polled adults aged 18-29 and found that 51% of those that responded did not support Capitalism. Of those that responded 33% supported Socialism.[20] One of the pollsters involved in the study noted how the results of the survey connote a change in perception for the upcoming generation, Zach Lustbader noted that “The word ‘capitalism’ doesn’t mean what it used to.”[21] Again, we see that what is considered to be “freedom” in the zeitgeist of the country has shifted dramatically.

 

 

These are the reasons that the Fourth of July fill me with such mixed emotions; I feel proud of what happened in the past, and I fear about the state of our country; our morals, our freedoms; in the future. Studying history one tends to see patterns and trends, almost everything seems cyclical. As Stefan Molyneux once said, “History is the same story but with different costumes.”[22] How can one possibly hope to stand like King Lear screaming against the storm that does not care for his protests. Perhaps there is nothing to do to prevent the demise of American freedom.

 

John Adams once wrote:

 

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[23]

 

At the same time that I feel this pessimism, I also feel some hope, particularly when I had the opportunity to remind myself of what the Revolutionaries went through to achieve independence. When I reread the words of the Founding Fathers. There is a possibility that we can continue into the future and regain at least some of the freedoms we have lost through the erosion of time and culture.

 

The key to the future is remembering the past.

 

 

As we close this reflection I leave you with an excerpt perhaps the greatest and most succinct piece of Libertarian philosophy ever put to paper, a document that forever changed the history of the world, a key part of our past, and, perhaps, a beacon of hope for the future of freedom. The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in the summer of 1776.

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”[24]

 

 

Stay Sane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

“2017 Index of Economic Freedom.” The Heritage Foundation. 2017. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

 

Allen, John Lawrence. “ We Pledge Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor.” July 4, 2014. The Blaze. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/we-pledge-our-lives-our-fortunes-and-our-sacred-honor/

 

“The American Form of Government.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogzExP3qhI&t=1s

 

“Assassin’s Creed 3—Rise Trailer [UK].” July 4, 2012. Assassin’s Creed UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boy11rMf50Q

 

“Benjamin Franklin.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4822-we-must-all-hang-together-or-assuredly-we-shall-all

 

Carleton-Taylor, Roanna. “Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech.” March 23, 2017. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roanna-carletontaylor/hate-speech-is-not-free-s_b_15561576.html

 

Crews, Wayne & Ryan Young. “The Towering Federal Register.” May 21, 2013. The Daily Caller. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/the-towering-federal-register/

 

Crovitz, Gordon. “You Commit Three Felonies A Day.” Sept. 27, 2009. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

 

Delisle, Elizabeth Cove et. al. “The Federal Budget Deficit for 2010.” Oct. 7, 2010. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25107

 

Dice, Mark. “Americans Don’t Know WHY We Celebrate the 4^th of July or WHAT COUNTRY We Declared Independence From!” July 1, 2013. Mark Dice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRkFDcX_72c

 

Ehrenfreund, Max. “A Majority of Millenials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows.” April 26, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.8d87b8172120

 

“The Federal Budget in 2016: An Infographic.” Feb. 8, 2017. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408

 

Foner, Eric. Voices of Freedom. 3^rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2011.

 

Hayek, F.A. ed. Bruce Caldwell. The Road to Serfdom. London: University of Chicago Press. 2007.

 

Higgs, Robert. “How FDR Made the Depression Worse.” Feb. 1, 1995. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse

 

“Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households.” Feb. 13, 2017. Tax Policy Center. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

 

“The HMS Jersey.” The History Channel. http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/the-hms-jersey

 

Holtz-Eakin, Doug. “Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan—Jobs Boost or Giveaway?” June 13, 2017. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/opinions/trump-infrastructure-economy-opinion-holtz-eakin/index.html

 

Jaffe, Vladimir. “Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists at Occupy Wall Street (Part 1, full version).” Oct. 28, 2011. Vladimir Jaffe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5luu_UTzc

 

Jefferson, Thomas. “The Declaration of Independence.” Harvard Classics. vol. 43 “American Historical Documents.” New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 1910.

 

Kehr, Webster. “Quotes: Founding Fathers and Presidents.” March 26, 2017. The Cancer Tutor. https://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

 

Ketcham, Ralph ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York: Penguin Books. 2003.

 

Kokesh, Adam. “Popular Adam Kokesh & Occupy Wall Street Videos.” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL70QcmI47m5RK2dZMt9Zx5EUAtPsdXiTY

 

Lindquist, Rick. “History of U.S. Employer-Provided Health Insurance—post World War II. June 5, 2014. Zane Benefits. https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/part-1-the-history-of-u.s.-employer-provided-health-insurance-post-world-war-ii

 

London, Jack. The Iron Heel. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books. 1907.

 

Lynd, Staughton. Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism. New York: Vintage Books. 1968.

 

Mariotti, Steve. “When Owning Gold Was Illegal in America: And Why It Could Be Again.” June 27, 2016. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/when-owning-gold-was-ille_b_10708196.html

 

Marsh, Alan. “POWs in American History: A Synopsis.” National Parks Service. 1998. https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/pow_synopsis.htm

 

Meyers, Lawrence. “Politics Really Is Downstream From Culture.” Aug. 2, 2011. Breitbart. http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2011/08/22/politics-really-is-downstream-from-culture/

 

Molyneux, Stefan. “Stefan Molyneux Quotes.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1295690-history-is-the-same-story-with-different-costumes

 

Montopoli, Brian. “Government Spending Per Minute: $6.85 Million.” Jan. 7, 2011. CBSNews. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-spending-per-minute-685-million/

 

Mufson, Steven. “Obama’s Final Budget Proposal Calls for $4.15 Trillion in Spending.” Feb. 9, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-final-budget-proposal-calls-for-an-almost-5-percent-spending-boost/2016/02/09/0286da7e-cf3a-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?utm_term=.5b89db5990dc

 

Paine, Thomas. The American Crisis. New York: Barnes & Noble. 2010.

 

“The Patriot—The Final Charge.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1vWK2yf9Y0

 

“The Patriot. Quotes.” IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/quotes

 

“The Philosophy of Freedom.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtBBFBYFNqs

 

Poushter, Jacob. “Millennials OK with Limiting Speech Offensive to Minorities.” Nov. 20, 2015. Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

Rand, Ayn. ed. Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism From A to Z. New York: Meridian Books. 1988.

 

Reel, A. Frank. “When a Switch in Time Saved Nine.” Nov. 10, 1985. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/10/opinion/l-when-a-switch-in-time-saved-nine-143165.html

 

Revel, Jean-Francois. trans. David Hapgood. “The Totalitarian Temptation.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/245408.The_Totalitarian_Temptation

 

Rogoway, Tyler. “The Revolutionary War: By the Numbers.” July 4, 2014. Foxtrot Alpha. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-revolutionary-war-by-the-numbers-1600199390

 

Rossiter, Clinton ed. The Federalist papers. New York: Penguin Group. 2003.

 

Schiff, Peter. “Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: Full Version, Almost 2 Hours Long!” Nov. 30, 2011. Reason TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

 

“Ten Trillion and Counting.” March 24, 2009. PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/tentrillion/

 

Traynor, Ben. “Roosevelt’s Gold Confiscation: Could it Happen Again?” April 3, 2013. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/9968494/Roosevelts-gold-confiscation-could-it-happen-again.html

 

“US Debt Clock.” http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Woods, Thomas E. Jr. “Teddy Roosevelt and the Origins of the Modern Welfare-Warfare State.” March 1, 2004. Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/teddy-roosevelt-and-origins-modern-welfare-warfare-state

 

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. 2003.

[1] Crovitz, Gordon. “You Commit Three Felonies A Day.” Sept. 27, 2009. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

[2] Crews, Wayne & Ryan Young. “The Towering Federal Register.” May 21, 2013. The Daily Caller. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/the-towering-federal-register/

[3] “US Debt Clock.” http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[4] Montopoli, Brian. “Government Spending Per Minute: $6.85 Million.” Jan. 7, 2011. CBSNews. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-spending-per-minute-685-million/

[5] Delisle, Elizabeth Cove et. al. “The Federal Budget Deficit for 2010.” Oct. 7, 2010. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25107

[6] “The Federal Budget in 2016: An Infographic.” Feb. 8, 2017. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408

[7] Mufson, Steven. “Obama’s Final Budget Proposal Calls for $4.15 Trillion in Spending.” Feb. 9, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-final-budget-proposal-calls-for-an-almost-5-percent-spending-boost/2016/02/09/0286da7e-cf3a-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?utm_term=.5b89db5990dc

[8] “Ten Trillion and Counting.” March 24, 2009. PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/tentrillion/

[9] Holtz-Eakin, Doug. “Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan—Jobs Boost or Giveaway?” June 13, 2017. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/opinions/trump-infrastructure-economy-opinion-holtz-eakin/index.html

[10] London, Jack. The Iron Heel. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books. 1907. p. 55.

[11] Meyers, Lawrence. “Politics Really Is Downstream From Culture.” Aug. 2, 2011. Breitbart. http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2011/08/22/politics-really-is-downstream-from-culture/

[12] Revel, Jean-Francois. trans. David Hapgood. “The Totalitarian Temptation.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/245408.The_Totalitarian_Temptation

[13] Kokesh, Adam. “Popular Adam Kokesh & Occupy Wall Street Videos.” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL70QcmI47m5RK2dZMt9Zx5EUAtPsdXiTY

[14] Schiff, Peter. “Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: Full Version, Almost 2 Hours Long!” Nov. 30, 2011. Reason TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

[15] Jaffe, Vladimir. “Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists at Occupy Wall Street (Part 1, full version).” Oct. 28, 2011. Vladimir Jaffe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5luu_UTzc

[16] Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. 2003. pp. 631-641.

[17] Poushter, Jacob. “Millennials OK with Limiting Speech Offensive to Minorities.” Nov. 20, 2015. Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

[18] Carleton-Taylor, Roanna. “Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech.” March 23, 2017. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roanna-carletontaylor/hate-speech-is-not-free-s_b_15561576.html

[19] Hayek, F.A. ed. Bruce Caldwell. The Road to Serfdom. London: University of Chicago Press. 2007. p. 218.

[20] Ehrenfreund, Max. “A Majority of Millenials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows.” April 26, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.8d87b8172120

[21] Ehrenfreund, Max. “A Majority of Millenials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows.”

[22] Molyneux, Stefan. “Stefan Molyneux Quotes.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1295690-history-is-the-same-story-with-different-costumes

[23] Kehr, Webster. “Quotes: Founding Fathers and Presidents.” March 26, 2017. The Cancer Tutor. https://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

[24] Jefferson, Thomas. “The Declaration of Independence.” Harvard Classics. vol. 43 “American Historical Documents.” New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 1910. pp. 160-61.

[1] Paine, Thomas. The American Crisis. New York: Barnes & Noble. 2010. p. 1.

[2] “The American Form of Government.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogzExP3qhI&t=1s

“The Philosophy of Freedom.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtBBFBYFNqs

[3] “Assassin’s Creed 3—Rise Trailer [UK].” July 4, 2012. Assassin’s Creed UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boy11rMf50Q

[4] “Benjamin Franklin.” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4822-we-must-all-hang-together-or-assuredly-we-shall-all

[5] “The Patriot—The Final Charge.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1vWK2yf9Y0

[6] Rogoway, Tyler. “The Revolutionary War: By the Numbers.” July 4, 2014. Foxtrot Alpha. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-revolutionary-war-by-the-numbers-1600199390

[7] Marsh, Alan. “POWs in American History: A Synopsis.” National Parks Service. 1998. https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/pow_synopsis.htm

[8] “The HMS Jersey.” The History Channel. http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/the-hms-jersey

[9] Dice, Mark. “Americans Don’t Know WHY We Celebrate the 4^th of July or WHAT COUNTRY We Declared Independence From!” July 1, 2013. Mark Dice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRkFDcX_72c

[10] Lynd, Staughton. Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism. New York: Vintage Books. 1968. p. 18.

[11] Foner, Eric. Voices of Freedom. 3^rd ed. John Winthrop. “Speech to the Massachusetts General Court (1645).” New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2011. p. 29.

[12] Foner, Eric. Voices of Freedom. 3^rd ed. James Winthrop. “On the Anti-Federalist Argument (1787).” New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2011. pp. 120 & 123.

[13] Rossiter, Clinton ed. The Federalist papers. New York: Penguin Group. 2003. p. 306.

[14] Ketcham, Ralph ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York: Penguin Books. 2003. p. 75.

[15] Ketcham, Ralph ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York: Penguin Books. 2003. p. 316.

[16] Kehr, Webster. “Quotes: Founding Fathers and Presidents.” March 26, 2017. The Cancer Tutor. https://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

[17] Kehr, Webster. “Quotes: Founding Fathers and Presidents.” March 26, 2017. The Cancer Tutor. https://www.cancertutor.com/quotes_presidents/

[18] Rand, Ayn. ed. Harry Binswanger. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism From A to Z. New York: Meridian Books. 1988. p. 13.

[19] Allen, John Lawrence. “ We Pledge Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor.” July 4, 2014. The Blaze. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/we-pledge-our-lives-our-fortunes-and-our-sacred-honor/

[20] “The Patriot. Quotes.” IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/quotes

[21] Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. 2003. p. 100.

[22] Woods, Thomas E. Jr. “Teddy Roosevelt and the Origins of the Modern Welfare-Warfare State.” March 1, 2004. Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/teddy-roosevelt-and-origins-modern-welfare-warfare-state

[23] Zinn. p. 165.

[24] Higgs, Robert. “How FDR Made the Depression Worse.” Feb. 1, 1995. The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse

[25] Higgs.

[26] Lindquist, Rick. “History of U.S. Employer-Provided Health Insurance—post World War II. June 5, 2014. Zane Benefits. https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/part-1-the-history-of-u.s.-employer-provided-health-insurance-post-world-war-ii

[27] Traynor, Ben. “Roosevelt’s Gold Confiscation: Could it Happen Again?” April 3, 2013. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/9968494/Roosevelts-gold-confiscation-could-it-happen-again.html

[28] Mariotti, Steve. “When Owning Gold Was Illegal in America: And Why It Could Be Again.” June 27, 2016. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/when-owning-gold-was-ille_b_10708196.html

[29] Reel, A. Frank. “When a Switch in Time Saved Nine.” Nov. 10, 1985. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/10/opinion/l-when-a-switch-in-time-saved-nine-143165.html

[30] “2017 Index of Economic Freedom.” The Heritage Foundation. 2017. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

7/3/17: Post#2–Trump and the People Who Hate Him

A while back my wife and I were over at a friend’s house for dinner and drinks. After dinner the primary entertainment for the night was playing the game “Cards Against Humanity.” Personally I love the game and it is nice that there is a game that rewards the kind of dark humor that I am fond of.

While we were playing there was a moment that I thought was incredibly interesting and profoundly significant in terms of the political discourse in the United States; how it changes and how it shockingly remains the same.

It was my friend’s turn to judge and the prompt was a card that read somewhere along the lines of “I dream to forget…”

We all put down our options (I can’t remember what I played) and my wife played “The Legacy of George W. Bush.”

My friend and I are nearly polar opposites in terms of politics; in High School we would argue about various political issues like ObamaCare, the Bailouts, the Iraq War, Immigration policy. He and his family are very liberal. While we disagree on nearly everything he is my best friend and I love him like a family member and he feels the same way (in fact he was my Best Man at my wedding).

I waited with baited breath to see his reaction to the card combination (a combination which I find funny by the way). After reading it aloud he then said, “God I miss Bush compared to what we have now.” (Note, this is a paraphrase, not verbatim).

It was that sentiment that I immediately found astounding and it prompted me to think about the subject for weeks and weeks and frankly it helped to inspire this entire blog project this summer, so that I at the very least have a place to vent.

“God I miss Bush compared to what we have now.”

Again, I love my best friend and what I am about to say does not necessarily apply to him nor his family. The people who hate Donald Trump are hysterical malcontents with no long term memory shrieking at windmills and believing they are accomplishing something.

The reason that this shocked me so very much is that I am old enough to remember quite clearly how George W. Bush was treated in the media and by the rhetoric of liberals throughout his eight years in office. To put it diplomatically he was not treated well.

To put it realistically, Bush was savaged verbally nearly every single day in his term.

“God I miss Bush compared to what we have now.”

Not only did that phrase spur memories of how George W. Bush was treated when he was office but it jogged my memory towards how other presidents were treated while in Office.

Certainly Obama had many unkind things said about him (just Google “Obama is Hitler”) and people who have opposed him have done reprehensible things, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozoco rightly notes that there were protests against Obama, but gives no statistics and merely relies upon individual anecdotes.[1] Despite these attacks upon Obama, his character, and his supporters, at the very least he had consistently positive support from the media and the glitterati of Hollywood. I hope that we all remember Chris Matthews’ rather interesting way of stating his support for Obama.[2] But even outside of individual incidents of unbounded praise for Obama that came from media personalities, many of which can be found here.[3] Even without those individual examples there most definitely was a wider trend of media support for the former president. According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism:

 

When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.”[4]

 

Overall Obama benefited from nearly 4 out of 10 stories about him being positive whereas Bill Clinton had 27% of stories being positive while Bush only had 22% of stories being positive. [5] All of these numbers were compiled during the first two months of each president’s terms. A separate study found that in the first 100 days of Trump’s administration only 11% of news coverage was positive towards him.[6] According to Thomas E. Patterson the author of a media study from Harvard Kennedy School: “In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”[7]

 

This media coverage of Obama as opposed to the coverage of Bush (a sordid history that will be covered later on in this post) was called out relatively early into his presidency yet was continually ignored by the media as a whole, setting a tone for apologism on the part of the first black president. This became more and more apparent as his presidency went on, particularly as he began to act as his predecessors in violation of his campaign promises (but that subject deserves a blog post all of its own). As Daniel K. Glover noted:

 

“[T]o pick up any of these magazines and newspapers now is to see tortured apologies to explain why a flip-flopping Obama is playing “long-term” or “not going to get suckered by his base” or “first has to clean up the Bush mess” instead of disinterested commentary about: (a) the disconnect between what Obama now does and what he once said; (b) the staggering amount of debt added, and how to pay the sums off.”[8]

 

Obama maintained this positivity from the media throughout his presidency. He of course was treated quite nicely on the “hard-hitting” and “speaking truth to power” program 60 Minutes.[9] Likewise, other “muck-rakers” asked him many many hard questions. Like this.[10] Let’s not also forget Harry Smith holding Obama’s feet to the fire.[11] In Obama’s run-off with Mitt Romney in 2012 Obama had twice as much positive press coverage than Romney and half as much negative press coverage. While this coverage went up and down throughout the race, “Overall from August 27 through October 21, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed. This is a differential of 11 percentage points between unfavorable and favorable stories. For Romney, 15% of the stories studied were favorable, 38% were unfavorable and 47% were mixed-a differential toward negative stories of 23 points.”[12]

In retrospect this warmth towards Obama from the media still puzzles me, especially when Obama had the Justice Department seize the phone records of the Associated Press in arguably one of the largest overreaches in Presidential authority and intrusion into the freedom of the press.[13] Let alone when he verbally attacked a news media outlet long before Trump came to the political scene.[14] But that’s a topic for another time.

Yet, Obama did not only have support from the media but consistently received support from the glitterati of Hollywood. While some of these examples will be explicated later on in this post, but at this time the most memorable and blatant examples of this trend would be when Chris Rock said at a press conference: “I am just here to support the President of the United States. The President of the United States is, you know, our boss. But also, you know, the president and the first lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country. And when your dad says something, you listen. [And] when you don’t, it usually bites you in the [expletive] later on. So I’m here to support the president.”[15]

 

I wonder if Rock still agrees with this sentiment.

 

Certainly Bill Clinton also received unkind words, particularly due to scandals of his own making. From the very beginning he had media support, one editorial wrote clearly that they believed the American people “have chosen new leadership. They have replaced a tired and uninspiring president with a young chief executive who has shown himself to have almost unlimited energy resiliency, resourcefulness and optimism.”[16] He was impeached by Congress after 14 hours of debate in December of 1998 for lying under oath in testimony to congress, while he was impeached he was not removed from office.[17] The media as a whole closed ranks and defended the president, if not openly and verbally then tacitly with their silence. For instance, Sean Hannity last year conducted an interview with several of Bill Clinton’s accusers who claim that the former President sexually assaulted them well before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. When asked, “has the mainstream media been receptive to asking you three about your stories?” Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey all gave a resounding “No” as their answer.[18] New York Times columnist and feminist writer Maureen Dowd recalled that time period and said in an interview with Katie Couric, “Feminism sort of died in that period, because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.”[19] Yet, despite his indiscretions, Bill Clinton is still seen as an elder statesmen by both the mainstream and the far left; a respectable man who should still be listened to on matters of policy. “What an incredible human being Bill Clinton is. Cool, intelligent, probing,” wrote Jim Luce a decade after Clinton’s impeachment.[20] An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in 2014 found that 56% of the American public had a positive view of Bill Clinton.[21] I wonder to what extent a decade of media bias in both the coverage of Bill Clinton as well as his successors had a factor in that poll.

 

My friend’s phrase jogged my memory of both the Bush and the Obama eras, the presidential eras wherein I formed my political identity. But being a student of history, it also jogged my memory of the treatment of previous Presidents, specifically republican presidents for the last 30 years. We briefly examined the treatment of the last two Democrat Presidents (a subject that admittedly deserves more attention than what I have presented), let us now look at the treatment of the three Republican presidents. (On a side note, I will only tangentially touch upon the treatment of George H. W. Bush; rather I will put most of my focus upon Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump).

 

I present to you a brief history of contempt.

 

Ronald Reagan was elected to the office of the President in 1980 and by nearly all accounts (both left and right) he was “one of the most improbable figures ever to assume the Presidency – a one-time baseball announcer, B-movie actor and television pitchman who has had to force the Establishment to take him seriously.”[22] Now this blog post is not to assess the legacy of any of the presidents mentioned and whether or not they actually were good presidents (every president is deeply flawed) but rather to assess how they were treated by both the media and the general public.

 

While Reagan was incredibly popular with the American people, winning landslides with both the 1980 election[23] and 1984 election.[24] Nevertheless Reagan was miserably treated by his democratic opposition, Hollywood, and the news media (but alas I repeat myself).

 

Reagan entered office with immediate protest, one can see such protests from this slide show from MSN.[25] This slide show will be cited again when we get to George W. Bush, but it is of interest to note that the slideshow itself does not include protests against Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton.

 

These protests continued throughout Reagan’s presidency. Replete with signs that said things like “Reagan have you no Shame?” “You can’t hug your child with Nuclear Arms.” “Mommies against Reagan,” among many others. In 1982 thousands took to the street with these kinds of signs:

 

“The protest was part of the ‘Days of Resistance to Roll Back Reaganism,’ as the All People’s Congress, which sponsored the action, has designated the week of April 24 through May 2. Buoyed by the success of last year’s march to the Pentagon, the organization held a conference in Detroit last October…to announce a series of protest activities against the Administration. Conference participants voted to stage a ‘Winter Offensive,’ consisting of dozens of protests in 100 cities.”[26]

 

One would probably note the rhetoric utilized by these protesters. Not only the rhetoric of warfare but also the rhetoric of being a “resistance,” bringing to mind imagery of fascist occupation. At the same time, this word “resistance” seems strikingly familiar 30 years later from people like George Takei, Meryl Streep among many other celebrities and modern day liberal protesters. They probably think that they are original in their phraseology.

 

Reagan also received incredibly negative coverage by the media, as ABC White House reporter Sam Donaldson said in March of 1987, “I think [Ronald Reagan] is going to have to pass two or three tests. The first is, will he get there, stand in front of the podium, and not drool?”[27]

 

This kind of attack was mirrored by Washington Post reporter David Broder in May of 1989, “They [Reagan and Thatcher] quickly formed a bond that overcame their differences of age, gender and — many whisper — IQ scores.”[28] (It is of interest to note that this attacking of the intelligence of republican presidents is an on-going tradition that liberals probably believe is incredibly original. We will see more examples of this trend throughout this blog and very likely moving into the future).

 

Even when Reagan was out of office the attacks upon his character and legacy remained unabated. As Bryant Gumbel said in April of 1994: “Let’s not debate his presidency, but his passing. As opposed to a man like Reagan, Nixon is, was highly regarded as a genuine statesman with a first-class mind.”[29] This kind of attack was continued even a full decade after he was out of the presidency. As Katie Couric opened The Today Show in September 1999: “Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today, Monday, September the 27th, 1999.”[30] Couric of course misrepresented the views of the man she interviewed on that day, clearly projecting her own opinions upon the biographers opinion. Even after his death Reagan’s character was attacked by the media, as CBS’s Morley Safer said, “No, I don’t think history particularly will be kind….I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him.”[31] Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown said in April of 2009, “Reagan’s dead, and he was a lousy President.”[32] Former White House correspondent Helen Thomas said on June 9, 2007, “He definitely had an agenda, and was a social Darwinist.”[33] Former Newsweek reporter Timothy Noah attempted to psychoanalyze the deceased president and connect an apparent perversion with Reagan’s economic policies, “Reagan, like just about every other actor who ever passed through Hollywood, had a very hard time viewing sex as something to repress.”[34]

 

It is interesting to note that this particular attitude (and apparent disrespect for the dead) is not solely an American phenomenon. Many probably remember the disrespect shown to Margaret Thatcher upon her death.[35]

 

Outside of the media Reagan was attacked by academia and the intellectual community, by Noam Chomsky in particular (to be fair Chomsky has a reputation of hating everything). For instance, Chomsky accused Reagan’s foreign policy of being near genocidal (his words): “Under Reagan, support for the near-genocide in Guatemala became positively ecstatic. The most extreme of the Guatemalan Hitlers we’ve backed there, Rios Montt, was lauded by Reagan as a man totally dedicated to democracy.”[36] In a separate interview Chomsky attacked Reagan for the very same kind of rhetoric he himself used while at the same time disregarding the oppression of groups in Nicaragua being persecuted by the Communist government there:

 

“Interviewer: ‘President Reagan, in his inimitable, understated style, said it was a ‘campaign of virtual genocide.’

Chomsky: Reagan and Kirkpatrick were talking about an incident in which, according to Americas Watch, several dozen Miskitos were killed and a lot of people were forcefully moved in a rather ugly way in the course of the contra war. The US terrorist forces were moving into the area and this was the Sandinista’s reaction.”[37]

 

Maintaining this kind of rhetoric Noam Chomsky attacked the characters of both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as being near neo-Nazis and fascistic personalities:

 

“If the United States was conquered by the Russians, Ronald Reagan, George [H.W.] Bush, Elliott Abrams and the rest of them would probably be working for the invaders, sending people off to concentration camps. They’re the right personality types.” (words bolded for emphasis).[38]

 

Noam Chomsky among other academics and intellectuals attacked Reagan with this kind of rhetoric. But, to be perfectly fair, Chomsky also criticized Obama rather severely.[39]

 

(On a side note, for the purposes of this post I reread segments of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. As one can imagine I do not agree with Zinn on nearly anything and my copy of his book is riddled with angry annotations. While I find him to be economically illiterate and politically dangerous I will say that I was interested to find that he was rather respectful of Bush and Reagan in his coverage of their terms, regardless of how much he disagreed with them).

 

Even in the pop culture sphere (perhaps especially) Reagan was consistently attacked by his opponents, Eddie Murphy in his 1983 comedy special Delirious took time out of his set to bash Ronald Reagan and his policies. “Reaganomics sucks? Well tell us something we don’t know motherfucker!”[40]

The punk rock band The Violent Femmes (A band that I love) released in 1986 a song entitled “Old Mother Reagan” from their album The Blind Leading the Naked sang:

“Old Mother Reagan/And her crew/Took away/From me and you/I hope she goes far away/Y’know it ain’t right/When it’s all wrong/This is the Old Mother Reagan/Protest song/Old Mother Reagan/She’s so dumb/She’s so dangerous/How come/Old Mother Reagan went to heaven/But at the pearly gates/She was stopped!”[41]

But not just The Violent Femmes wrote songs against Ronald Reagan. You have The Ramones, Bruce Springsteen, Prince, The Dead Kennedys, Genesis, Public Enemy, Billy Joel among many others all wrote and performed songs as a form of protest against Ronald Reagan.[42]

We can see through these many examples that I have presented that Reagan was rhetorically and personally mistreated throughout his presidency, with people questioning his intelligence, his character, as well as his personal motivations. There are very likely many, many more examples beyond the ones that I have presented and I encourage you, the reader, to go out and find them.

George H. W. Bush was elected President in 1988 following the 8 years of Ronald Reagan. We briefly touched upon how intellectuals treated him and Ronald Reagan, yet unfortunately for the sake of this blog post we will not delve too deeply into his presidency.

However, his son, George W. Bush elected in 2000 is arguably the most poorly treated President in modern history (Donald Trump being a close runner-up; only because it is only the 6^th month of his presidency).

Attacks on George W. Bush were much like the attacks upon Ronald Reagan; focusing upon his intelligence and personal character coming from the media, the glitterati of Hollywood, and the rank and file Left.

The attacks upon George W. Bush’s intelligence are a relatively easy yet un-nuanced line of criticism. Partly this is because George W. Bush, to put it charitably, is not the best public speaker. “Rarely the question is asked: Is our children learning,” is a hilarious quote from the former President.[43] Presidential slips are always good fodder for humor, in the same way that if one were to observe yourself nearly 24 hours a day and closely pay attention to everything you say and do there certainly would be ample samples of comedy. Every President has embarrassing moments and statements and they should certainly be pointed out and chuckled about solely because they are funny.

However, the biggest problem with these attacks (particularly as they applied to George W. Bush) is when such gaffs are elevated to be political arguments. For instance, in the run up to the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the author of the previously cited article wrote an entire article just listing embarrassing Bush quotes.[44] Listing them under the tag “Special Report: The U.S. Elections.” As if the mere listing of embarrassing quotes constitutes an argument.

 

These attacks upon Bush’s intelligence continued throughout his presidency, for instance during the 2004 Presidential Election:

 

“Kerry’s [grades] were widely assumed to be much higher, a notion his campaign did little to quell and much to promote…Nonetheless, Gore backers kept up the “dumb Bush” mantra. Gore himself tried to lend the impression during his first debate with Bush that he was the smart one, often sighing and shaking his head in disdain when Bush answered questions.”[45]

 

Russell Brand took this line of “argument” and presented it at the MTV Awards 2008: “But I know America to be a forward-thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be President for eight years? ‘We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go because, in England, he wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors.”[46] The article goes on to say “Sadly for Brand, most of the crowd seemed unsure how to react to his remarks, which led to a bitter backlash on internet chat sites.” I remember when this happened and I remembered that the audience laughed and applauded, however, I cannot find actual video of the event so I could be misremembering. (If anyone out there can find it and correct me I would love to be corrected).

 

Bush and his entire administration was attacked relentlessly for their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Michael Moore, for instance, took time away from winning an Oscar to attack Bush directly on live television:

“I’ve invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to…they are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious President. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.”[47]

 

I would say that this set a trend for similar actions and virtue signaling speeches in the future,[48] but considering how much the glitterati loves to aggrandize themselves for the world to see I would very likely be wrong (its almost as if you put your value in being praised by the public at large one would make the utmost effort in demonstrating that you are trendy and “woke”).

 

The Iraq War in particular was relatively unpopular among many, many Americans; which of course lead to accusations of Bush and his entourage being war criminals.[49] This line of argument going so far as to allow a Presidential front-runner to state: “[The decision to invade Iraq] may have been the worst decision…They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”[50] Would it surprise many that the person who made these statements is the current President of the United States?

 

This anger towards foreign policy spilled over into protests against the administration, particularly at the “Counter-Inaugural Protests” in 2004: “The second inaugural drew an estimated 25,000 protestors to a wide variety of marches, rallies, die-ins, concerts and other events all over the capitol the week of January 20. Like the first inaugural, the protests were largely peaceful, resulting in only 14 arrests.”[51] To be fair, there have been protests at the inaugurations of both Democrats and Republicans. For instance, ven at Obama’s Inauguration there were protests…against Bush and not Obama.[52]

 

Democrats certainly exploited the relative unpopularity of the Iraq War for their own electoral benefit, it is understandable; but some democrats went farther, actively calling for violence. A Fundraising Ad for the St. Petersberg Democratic Club read:

 

“…and then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger. Do you want to salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch.” (emphasis added)[53]

 

U.S. foreign policy is certainly something that should be debated and argued about and understandably makes people angry. But is it not going too far to call the President a war criminal because you disagree with him? Certainly very few of the people who called Bush a war criminal called Obama a war criminal.

 

(On a side note, it may read that I am only citing people or bashing people that I directly disagree with, but I will say that many commentators and thinkers I agree with, Stefan Molyneux and Tom Woods for instance, said that Bush was a war criminal. The difference though between the people I criticize and these two in particular is that they called Obama a war criminal as well. I may disagree with their assessment but at the very least they were consistent. All I ask for is consistency).

 

While one can certainly argue about the legitimacy or the necessity of the war in Iraq, these vehement attacks upon Bush (calling him a Nazi, a war criminal and attacking his intelligence) lead to a general disrespect towards him as a person. For instance Jeffery Shapiro noted in 2008, “Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush.”[54] This general disrespect easily translated to (or was inspired by) elements in the popular culture.

 

The Bush era, much like the Reagan era, saw its fair share of protest pop culture, particularly when it came to music. Rise Against, Green Day, The Beastie Boys, LL Cool J, Pearl Jam, Eminem, James McMurtry, Bright Eyes, Neil Young among many others wrote songs against the president.[55] Among the most extreme examples of this music trend included the 2005 song “Bin Laden” by Immortal Technique featuring Eminem that directly accused Bush of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks but also featured Eminem rapping: “I don’t rap for dead presidents, I’d rather see the president dead, it’s never been said but I set precedents” (emphasis added).[56]

 

This anti-Bush sentiment was not just confined to music but was also represented in film.[57] Films like Syriana, Children of Men, V for Vendetta, Gasland, Farenheit 9/11, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Lions for Lambs, Recount, Team America: World Police, W., Death of a President, Transformers, Redacted, Good Night and Good Luck, Capitalism: A Love Story, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, Inside Job, Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale, among many, many others. [58] But not just in film, but also in television; who else remembers the short-lived and unfunny show on Comedy Central, “Lil’ Bush?”[59] Or the running critique of the Bush administration in “Arrested Development?” Or the occasional jabs at the President in “Futurama.” Or the skit after skit after skit on “Family Guy” or the entirety of “American Dad!”

 

(On a side note, many of the movies/shows/music I have listed here are forms of media that I myself enjoy but I am intellectually honest enough to point out the bias in things I enjoy).

Perhaps to some extent the media distrusted and maligned George W. Bush because the administration from the top down “reject[ed] an assumption embraced by most reporters: that [reporters] are neutral and represent the public interest. Rather, [the administration] see[s] the press as just another special interest.”[60] Perhaps puncturing the press’s self-perceived neutrality prompted the assault upon his character. In a similar way that Donald Trump has attacked the media and the media malign Trump.

Just like with Ronald Reagan, throughout Bush’s eight years in office he was treated with general disrespect for himself as a person as well as the office as a whole. Hysterical people calling him Hitler, a Nazi, a Fascist, a Warmonger, a liar and a stupid evil man. And yet, now the focus has shift since he is no longer President.[61] Afterall, there’s a new President with an “R” next to his name, as such there is a new target for vitriol and outrage.

A couple weeks after my friend said the sentence that basically inspired this entire blog project I got into a prolonged conversation on the phone with his brother. We bantered back and forth and eventually came into discussing politics (the issues we discussed will likely be topics for future posts), after an hour or so of conversation I made him a long-term bet. “I bet you that in 26-30 years;” I said to him, “Trump won’t be president anymore, there will be a democrat president and then a republican president and so on and so forth, the presidency will swap hands a few times; and in about 26 years there will be another Republican president. I’ll bet you $5 that you will say to me that ‘I would prefer Donald Trump.’” He took that bet. So around 2040 or 2044 I’m due for five extra dollars in my bank account. (On a side note, with inflation, $5 will be worth about half its value by 2040 so even if I lose that bet it will cost me nearly nothing).[62]

Ultimately, considering how Presidents have been treated for the last 30 years; the apologism and forgiveness for Democrats and the vicious assault upon the character and intelligences of Republicans; we should not be surprised about how Donald Trump is being treated and portrayed in our society. Donald Trump is acting like any President has acted in the last 50 years (besides his rhetoric) both in terms of foreign and domestic policy (in which ways he is perfectly average is perhaps a subject for another blog post). He is acting the way many other Presidents have behaved and the Left is treating him the same exact way the Left has treated every single Republican President since 1980.

Perhaps the best way that can sum up how they are behaving comes from the geniuses Matt Stone and Trey Parker: children who know not what they say.

Stay sane out there.

 

Works Cited:

“1980 Election.” 270 to Win. http://www.270towin.com/1980_Election/

 

“1984 Election.” 270 to Win. http://www.270towin.com/1984_Election/index.html

 

Adams, Becket. “NYT columnist: Femnism died a little under Bill Clinton.” Oct. 3, 2016. The Washington Examiner. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nyt-columnist-feminism-died-a-little-under-bill-clinton/article/2603514

 

Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy.” The Media Research Center. 2011. http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reagan2011.pdf

 

Barabak, Mark Z. “How Bill Clinton, improbably, Became America’s Favorite Politician.” Sep. 10, 2014. The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-bill-clinton-americas-favorite-politician-20140910-story.html

 

Benedetto, Richard. “Who is Smarter, Kerry or Bush?” Jun. 10, 2005. USA Today. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm

 

Bilotti, Richard. “A New Beginning.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992).

 

Broder, John M. “Few Protesters at Inauguration.” Jan. 20, 2009. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21web-protests.html

 

Boucher, Phil. “Russel Brand’s ‘retarded cowboy’ jibe at George Bush shocks MTV audience.” Sept. 9, 2008. The Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1053407/Russell-Brands-retarded-cowboy-jibe-George-Bush-shocks-MTV-audience.html

 

Cappello, Daniel. “Bush’s Press Problem.” Jan. 19, 2004. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/01/19/bushs-press-problem

 

Chomsky, Noam. The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkley: Odonian Press. 1996.

 

Chomsky, Noam. Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Tuscon: Odonian Press. 1994.

 

Chomsky, Noam. What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Tucson: Odonian Press. 1995.

 

CNN. “Snoop Dogg ‘shoots’ Trump clown in video.” March 15, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ6K1mnWiHs

 

DeLine, Chris. “Election week special: 10 Biggest anti-Bush Songs.” Nov. 3, 2008. Prefix. http://www.prefixmag.com/features/10-anti-bush-songs-election-week/22728/

 

Falcone, Dan & Saul Isaacson. “Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Drone Wars Are the Worst Terror Campaigns on the Planet.” June 4, 2016. Counterpunch. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37250-noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-wars-are-the-worst-terror-campaigns-on-the-planet

 

Freeman, Jo. “The 2005 Counter-Inaugural Protests.”   http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/jan20.html

 

Friedersdorf, Conor. “Steve Kroft’s Softball Obama Interviews Diminish ’60 Minutes.’” Jan. 29, 2013. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/steve-krofts-softball-obama-interviews-diminish-60-minutes/272611/

 

Glover, K. Daniel. “Media Coverage: Obama vs. Bush.” May 20, 2009. Accuracy in Media. http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/media-coverage-obama-vs-bush/

 

Glover, Stephen. “This bilious hatred and lack of respect for the dead is a disturbing new low in British life.” April 11, 2013. The Dailymail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307104/Margaret-Thatcher-death-party-This-lack-respect-dead-disturbing-new-low.html

 

Goldmacher, Shane. “Donald Trump Calls Iraq ‘Worst Decision’ But Won’t Repeat That Bush ‘Lied.’” Feb. 19, 2016. Politico. http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/2016-south-carolina-trump-george-w-bushs-iraq-219475

 

Gordon, Rebecca. “They should all be tried: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and America’s overlooked warcrimes.” April 30, 2016. Salon. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/they_deserved_to_be_tried_george_w_bush_dick_cheney_and_americas_overlooked_war_crime_partner/

 

Hanna, Jason. “When People Protest the President.” Nov. 10, 2016. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/president-protests-history/index.html

 

Hannity, Sean. “Bill Clinton’s accusers: We’re ignored by mainstream media.” Oct. 13, 2016. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/10/13/bill-clinton-accusers-were-ignored-by-mainstream-media.html

 

Harper, Jennifer. “As First 100 days in office approaches, media coverage of Trump is 89% negative: Study.” April 19, 2017. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/19/donald-trump-media-coverage-is-89-percent-negative/

 

Hawkins, John. “20 Liberal Calls for Violence Against Conservatives in Quotes.” June 14, 2017. Townhall. https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/06/15/20-liberal-calls-for-violence-against-conservatives-in-quotes-n2341401

 

Holloway, Kali. “21 Best ‘80s Songs Railing Against the Horrible Reagan Era.” Nov. 29, 2014. Alternet. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/21-best-80s-songs-railing-against-horrible-reagan-era

 

Immortal Technique. “Bin Laden.” Babygrande Records. 2005. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE5Ufx5GSAg

 

“Inauguration through history.” Jan. 16, 2017. MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/photos/inauguration-day-protests-through-history/ss-AAlUkpP#image=1

 

“Inflation Prediction Calculator.” http://www.in2013dollars.com/2017-dollars-in-2040?amount=5&future_pct=0.03

 

Kaufman, Anthony. “The Anti-Bush Movie Wave.” May 16, 2004. IndieWire. http://www.indiewire.com/2004/05/the-anti-bush-movie-wave-135193/

 

“Lil’ Bush: Resident of the United States.” IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0913742/

 

Luce, Jim. “Bill Clinton: Elder Statesman to the World.” Sep. 24, 2009. The Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/24/785901/-

 

“Media ‘Grills’ Obama.” Feb. 13, 2017. Washington Free Beacon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR4zG1daS1E&t=1s

 

Mehlman-Orozoco, Kimberly. “Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters.” Nov. 12, 2016. The Hill. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit

 

Moby & The Void Pacific Choir. Vid. Steve Cutts. “In This Cold Place.” More Fast Songs About the Apocalypse. Jun 19, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmi-MtP969M

 

Moore, Michael. “2003 Oscar Acceptance Address for Best Documentary Film.” American Rhetoric. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/michaelmooreoscaracceptance.htm

 

Murphy, Eddie. Delerious. 1983. Quotes from IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085474/quotes

 

Noyles, Rich. “Farewell to a Decade of Media Drooling Over Barak Obama.” Jan. 9, 2017. Newsbusters. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/01/09/farewell-decade-media-drooling-over-barack-obama

 

Parke, Caleb. “Did Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?” Jan. 12, 2017. Townhall. https://townhall.com/columnists/calebparke/2017/01/12/did-mainstream-media-forget-how-obama-treated-fox-news-n2270406

 

Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. “Obama’s First 100 Days.” April 28, 2009. The Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2009/04/28/obamas-first-100-days/

 

Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. “Winning the Media Campaign 2012.” Nov. 2, 2012. The Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2012/11/02/winning-media-campaign-2012/

 

“President Clinton Impeached.” The History Channel. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

 

Sanchez, Raff. “US Justice Department secretly seizes Associated Press phone records.” May 13, 2013. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10055318/US-Justice-Department-secretly-seizes-Associated-Press-phone-records.html

 

Shapiro, Jeffery Scott. “The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace.” Nov. 5, 2008. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122584386627599251

 

Sheppard, Nathaniel Jr. “Protesters Against Reagan Policy March to Capitol.” May 2, 1982. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/us/protesters-against-reagan-policy-march-to-capitol.html

 

Sherfinski, David. “Chriss Rock: President Obama ‘our boss,’ ‘dad of the country.’” Feb. 6, 2013. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/6/chris-rock-president-obama-our-boss-dad-country/

 

Tait, Amelia. “How George W. Bush went from ‘war criminal’ to the Internet’s Favourite Grandpa.” March 13, 2017. NewStatesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2017/03/how-george-w-bush-went-war-criminal-internet-s-favourite-grandpa

 

Victor, Daniel & Giovanni Russonello. “Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes Speech.” Jan. 8, 2017. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/arts/television/meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html

 

Violent Femmes. “Old Mother Reagan.” Blind Leading the Naked. 1986. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Pd7J6XBPY

 

Weisberg, Jacob. “Bush, in his own words.” Nov. 3, 2000. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/04/uselections2000.usa5

 

Weisberg, Jacob. “W.’s Greatest Hits.” Jan. 12, 2009. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/bushisms/2009/01/ws_greatest_hits.html

 

Weisman, Steven R. “Reagan’s First 100 Days.” April 26, 1981. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/26/magazine/reagan-s-first-100-days.html?pagewanted=all

 

“Worst Liberal Movies” Conservapedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies

 

Yack, Austin. “Report: Eighty percent of Media Coverage on Trump is negative.” May 22, 2017. National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447856/donald-trump-media-coverage-80-percent-negative-harvard-study-finds

[1] Mehlman-Orozoco, Kimberly. “Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters.” Nov. 12, 2016. The Hill. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc

[3] Noyles, Rich. “Farewell to a Decade of Media Drooling Over Barak Obama.” Jan. 9, 2017. Newsbusters. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/01/09/farewell-decade-media-drooling-over-barack-obama

[4] Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. “Obama’s First 100 Days.” April 28, 2009. The Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2009/04/28/obamas-first-100-days/

[5] Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. “Obama’s First 100 Days.”

[6] Harper, Jennifer. “As First 100 days in office approaches, media coverage of Trump is 89% negative: Study.” April 19, 2017. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/19/donald-trump-media-coverage-is-89-percent-negative/

[7] Yack, Austin. “Report: Eighty percent of Media Coverage on Trump is negative.” May 22, 2017. National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447856/donald-trump-media-coverage-80-percent-negative-harvard-study-finds

[8] Glover, K. Daniel. “Media Coverage: Obama vs. Bush.” May 20, 2009. Accuracy in Media. http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/media-coverage-obama-vs-bush/

[9] Friedersdorf, Conor. “Steve Kroft’s Softball Obama Interviews Diminish ’60 Minutes.’” Jan. 29, 2013. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/steve-krofts-softball-obama-interviews-diminish-60-minutes/272611/

[10] “Media ‘Grills’ Obama.” Feb. 13, 2017. Washington Free Beacon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR4zG1daS1E&t=1s

[11] “Harry Smith Can’t Resist Asking Barak Obama Softball Questions About His Dog Bo & Golfing.” Jun. 23, 2009. Timeless Freedom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFJqBTqXOo&t=1s

[12] Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. “Winning the Media Campaign 2012.” Nov. 2, 2012. The Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2012/11/02/winning-media-campaign-2012/

[13] Sanchez, Raff. “US Justice Department secretly seizes Associated Press phone records.” May 13, 2013. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10055318/US-Justice-Department-secretly-seizes-Associated-Press-phone-records.html

[14] Parke, Caleb. “Did Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?” Jan. 12, 2017. Townhall. https://townhall.com/columnists/calebparke/2017/01/12/did-mainstream-media-forget-how-obama-treated-fox-news-n2270406

[15] Sherfinski, David. “Chriss Rock: President Obama ‘our boss,’ ‘dad of the country.’” Feb. 6, 2013. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/6/chris-rock-president-obama-our-boss-dad-country/

[16] Bilotti, Richard. “A New Beginning.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992). p. 16A.

[17] “President Clinton Impeached.” The History Channel. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

[18] Hannity, Sean. “Bill Clinton’s accusers: We’re ignored by mainstream media.” Oct. 13, 2016. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/10/13/bill-clinton-accusers-were-ignored-by-mainstream-media.html

[19] Adams, Becket. “NYT columnist: Femnism died a little under Bill Clinton.” Oct. 3, 2016. The Washington Examiner. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nyt-columnist-feminism-died-a-little-under-bill-clinton/article/2603514

[20] Luce, Jim. “Bill Clinton: Elder Statesman to the World.” Sep. 24, 2009. The Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/24/785901/-

[21] Barabak, Mark Z. “How Bill Clinton, improbably, Became America’s Favorite Politician.” Sep. 10, 2014. The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-bill-clinton-americas-favorite-politician-20140910-story.html

[22] Weisman, Steven R. “Reagan’s First 100 Days.” April 26, 1981. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/26/magazine/reagan-s-first-100-days.html?pagewanted=all

[23] “1980 Election.” 270 to Win. http://www.270towin.com/1980_Election/

[24] “1984 Election.” 270 to Win. http://www.270towin.com/1984_Election/index.html

[25] “Inauguration through history.” Jan. 16, 2017. MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/photos/inauguration-day-protests-through-history/ss-AAlUkpP#image=1

[26] Sheppard, Nathaniel Jr. “Protesters Against Reagan Policy March to Capitol.” May 2, 1982. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/us/protesters-against-reagan-policy-march-to-capitol.html

[27] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy.” The Media Research Center. 2011. p. 3. http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reagan2011.pdf

[28] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 3.

[29] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 4.

[30] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 5.

[31] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 19.

[32] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 20.

[33] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 20.

[34] Baker, Brent, Tim Graham, & Rich Noyes. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan.” p. 5.

[35] Glover, Stephen. “This bilious hatred and lack of respect for the dead is a disturbing new low in British life.” April 11, 2013. The Dailymail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307104/Margaret-Thatcher-death-party-This-lack-respect-dead-disturbing-new-low.html

[36] Chomsky, Noam. What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Tucson: Odonian Press. 1995. p. 49.

[37] Chomsky, Noam. Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Tuscon: Odonian Press. 1994. p. 82.

[38] Chomsky, Noam. The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkley: Odonian Press. 1996. p. 58.

[39] Falcone, Dan & Saul Isaacson. “Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Drone Wars Are the Worst Terror Campaigns on the Planet.” June 4, 2016. Counterpunch. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37250-noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-wars-are-the-worst-terror-campaigns-on-the-planet

[40] Murphy, Eddie. Delerious. 1983. Quotes from IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085474/quotes

[41] Violent Femmes. “Old Mother Reagan.” Blind Leading the Naked. 1986. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Pd7J6XBPY

[42] Holloway, Kali. “21 Best ‘80s Songs Railing Against the Horrible Reagan Era.” Nov. 29, 2014. Alternet. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/21-best-80s-songs-railing-against-horrible-reagan-era

[43] Weisberg, Jacob. “W.’s Greatest Hits.” Jan. 12, 2009. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/bushisms/2009/01/ws_greatest_hits.html

[44] Weisberg, Jacob. “Bush, in his own words.” Nov. 3, 2000. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/04/uselections2000.usa5

[45] Benedetto, Richard. “Who is Smarter, Kerry or Bush?” Jun. 10, 2005. USA Today. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm

[46] Boucher, Phil. “Russel Brand’s ‘retarded cowboy’ jibe at George Bush shocks MTV audience.” Sept. 9, 2008. The Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1053407/Russell-Brands-retarded-cowboy-jibe-George-Bush-shocks-MTV-audience.html

[47] Moore, Michael. “2003 Oscar Acceptance Address for Best Documentary Film.” American Rhetoric. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/michaelmooreoscaracceptance.htm

[48] Victor, Daniel & Giovanni Russonello. “Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes Speech.” Jan. 8, 2017. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/arts/television/meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html

[49] Gordon, Rebecca. “They should all be tried: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and America’s overlooked warcrimes.” April 30, 2016. Salon. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/they_deserved_to_be_tried_george_w_bush_dick_cheney_and_americas_overlooked_war_crime_partner/

[50] Goldmacher, Shane. “Donald Trump Calls Iraq ‘Worst Decision’ But Won’t Repeat That Bush ‘Lied.’” Feb. 19, 2016. Politico. http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/2016-south-carolina-trump-george-w-bushs-iraq-219475

[51] Freeman, Jo. “The 2005 Counter-Inaugural Protests.” http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/jan20.html

[52] Broder, John M. “Few Protesters at Inauguration.” Jan. 20, 2009. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21web-protests.html

[53] Hawkins, John. “20 Liberal Calls for Violence Against Conservatives in Quotes.” June 14, 2017. Townhall. https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/06/15/20-liberal-calls-for-violence-against-conservatives-in-quotes-n2341401

[54] Shapiro, Jeffery Scott. “The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace.” Nov. 5, 2008. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122584386627599251

[55] DeLine, Chris. “Election week special: 10 Biggest anti-Bush Songs.” Nov. 3, 2008. Prefix. http://www.prefixmag.com/features/10-anti-bush-songs-election-week/22728/

[56] Immortal Technique. “Bin Laden.” Babygrande Records. 2005. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE5Ufx5GSAg

[57] Kaufman, Anthony. “The Anti-Bush Movie Wave.” May 16, 2004. IndieWire. http://www.indiewire.com/2004/05/the-anti-bush-movie-wave-135193/

[58] “Worst Liberal Movies” Conservapedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies

[59] “Lil’ Bush: Resident of the United States.” IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0913742/

[60] Cappello, Daniel. “Bush’s Press Problem.” Jan. 19, 2004. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/01/19/bushs-press-problem

[61] Tait, Amelia. “How George W. Bush went from ‘war criminal’ to the Internet’s Favourite Grandpa.” March 13, 2017. NewStatesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2017/03/how-george-w-bush-went-war-criminal-internet-s-favourite-grandpa

[62] “Inflation Prediction Calculator.” http://www.in2013dollars.com/2017-dollars-in-2040?amount=5&future_pct=0.03

[63] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEvf58FcSjQ

7/18/17–Post #6: Neo-Wilsonianism and the End of the Cold War

 

            There are certain moments in history that act as catalysts for new and changing paradigms. One catalytic moment was the end of the First World War. With the death of the old power structures in Europe and the rise of the United States on the world stage, it seemed that the war heralded the end of European empire. With the end of the bloody conflict came a rising hope for a global community so that such a war would never happen again. President Woodrow Wilson, who lead the United States into World War I declared the United States’ intentions at the outset; to establish such a global community, and at the same time give the United States a leadership role in that community. “The right is more precious than peace,” He said,

We shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts—for democracy… for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.[1]

 

Another such catalytic event occurred near the end of the Twentieth Century. With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, so too came an end to four decades of established United States Foreign Policy. No longer would the world stage be viewed in terms of Capitalist and Communist. No longer would foreign policy revolve around a hegemonic power struggle for the fate of the world. For the people at that time, the struggle had been decided; Capitalism had emerged victorious and it was up to the victors to reconstruct the world as they saw fit. With the defeat of the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush addressed the American people. “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order…we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”[2] This speech expressed a desire by Washington to redesign foreign policy. To once again take upon the burden of Wilson to establish an international community, to establish protocols and cooperation so that the world as a whole could move together into the next century with the United States as its leader.

With the end of the Cold War, American leadership and analysts were very much of the same opinion in regards to the world stage. Nearly all in positions of influence saw the end of the Cold War as a grand opportunity to reclaim Woodrow Wilson’s ideal of a global community. As Ambassador Robert Oakley noted reflecting back on the time:

I think all these things came together and produced a feeling of maybe now the Security Council can actually do what Franklin Roosevelt thought he could do. What Woodrow Wilson thought the League of Nations could do…[to] be sort of the guarantor of world order and also do something about these small conflicts. Stop them before they get started. Certainly stop them after they get started.[3]

 

There was an overwhelming agreement on all levels of government with Francis Fukuyama’’s thesis, namely that the end of the Cold War represented “the end of mankind’s ideological evolution” and that “Western liberal democracy [was] the final form of human government.”[4] Just as liberal democracy seemed to be inevitable, likewise it seemed inevitable that the United States would take the lead in entering the new century of freedom. “America, not just the nation but an idea,” said President George H. W. Bush in 1990, “[is] alive in the minds of people everywhere. As this new world takes shape, America stands at the center of a widening circle of freedom.”[5] It must be noted at this juncture, that while domestic politics still divided the American public along party lines; issues of foreign policy and the new emerging world were largely bipartisan. While Bush laid the groundwork for this changing foreign policy, he did not have much of an opportunity in his single term to give it any teeth or act upon it. It was his successor that would at the very least attempt to bring the vision into fruition throughout the 1990s.

William J. Clinton was elected into the office of the presidency on November 3, 1992. After a long race with the relatively unpopular incumbent George H. W. Bush Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote and 69% of the electoral vote.[6] Many felt a sense of hope in electing the first “Baby Boomer” president, a young president who had protested against interventions in Vietnam and Cambodia. A fresh face that symbolically marked the end of the Cold War as the Soviet Union was poised to crumble as the Berlin Wall had done. One editorial summed up the attitude in the country succinctly, writing that the American people “have chosen new leadership. They have replaced a tired and uninspiring president with a young chief executive who has shown himself to have almost unlimited energy resiliency, resourcefulness and optimism.”[7]

Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of history, Clinton is not remembered for his foreign policy; primarily he is remembered for his sexual indiscretions, secondarily he is remembered for his domestic policy, and coming in at a far third place is his foreign policy. Partly this is due to Clinton’s personal focus upon domestic issues, to a large extent he did not portray himself as a foreign policy oriented president.[8] To some extent this is a legitimate claim in that Clinton delegated the formulation of foreign policy to advisors; after all it was W. Anthony Lake, his campaign’s foreign policy coordinator and later the national security advisor who characterized the administration’s policies as being “pragmatic neo-Wilsonianism.”[9] While this can be seen as a case of bureaucratic momentum, the continuation of the goals of the Bush administration, it must be remembered that, at least in the case of Somalia, Bush had deployed American troops solely for the purpose of food distribution. Under Clinton, this mission was extended. Thousands of troops were deployed, equipped and supported by helicopters, tanks, APCs, and heavy weapons for the purpose, as Madeleine Albright said, “for the restoration of an entire country.”[10]

This trend of expanded military roles was continued throughout Clinton’s presidency. From the enforcement of a no fly zone over Iraq,[11] to the deployment of American troops as UN Peacekeepers, to the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan,[12] to the military interventions in Bosnia and Haiti;[13] finally culminating in the air war in Kosovo.[14] All in all President Clinton, throughout his presidency, deployed the United States military overseas forty-four times.[15] In nearly every instance the administration did so in order to promote a United Nations’ agenda, to promote a growing global community through the “enlargement of democracy and free markets,” as Anthony Lake put it.[16] While some would describe the foreign actions of the United States in the 1990s as a “shifting vision of America’s role,”[17] it seems best characterized as a renewal of the old Wilsonian ideal of a United States at the forefront of a global community.

It is interesting to note, how in Clinton’s early years as President, the media often came to his aid in regards to foreign policy. In the lead up to the 1992 election, some editorials attempted to bolster his foreign policy record. “Bill Clinton is actually doing something important in this campaign.” Wrote Leslie Gelb in the Trenton Evening Times. “He is trying to replace the old hawk-dove divide by exploring new standards for U.S. military intervention. He is groping for a new American internationalism for a messy new world where threats are largely economic and foreign and domestic matters have become inseparable.”[18] Gelb continued, noting with contempt how General Collin Powell, Defense Secretary Cheney, and Patrick Buchanan of wanting no part in the Gulf War. Next he makes the claim that the “old hawks,” motivated by party politics were clustering around “the classic isolationist standard.”[19] Isolationism remaining an old slur from the Roosevelt days. Gelb finishes in a crescendo, noting how versatile and pragmatic a Clintonian foreign policy would be, being willing to not necessarily respond to threats with force, as well as wanting to “respond militarily in other cases. They would employ a small U.S. force to control civil violence in Somalia.”[20] While the framework of party politics rears its ugly head, it is clear that many agreed with the neo-Wilsonian goals that were established by Bush. While the squabbles over who would implement those policies continued, nevertheless there was bi-partisan support for overseas adventures to expand the new global community.

Somlia gained its independence in 1960, joining together British Somaliland in the north and the Italian Trusteeship Territory in the south.[21] Within nine years of its independence, Somalia’s quasi-democracy was overthrown by a military coup lead by Siad Barre.[22] Due to two decades of Barre’s “ferocious dictatorship,” Somalia would be faced with “crushing poverty, periodic drought and fear of banditry.”[23] While early nationalists at the time of independence attempted to fashion a modern democratic state, nevertheless the “center of gravity in Somali politics remain[ed] the interaction of clan and sub-clan groups.”[24] This sense of clan membership is very strong that leads to a cultural contempt towards those who do not know of their genealogy. The term “ignorant stranger” is a damning insult and is defined as someone “who could not recite his family genealogy to the 17^th generation.”[25]  While most Somalis share the same culture, language, and religion they remain divided by the often-blurry lines of clans and sub-clans. This emphasis upon clan loyalty and their nomadic past has leant to their cultural hostility to outsiders and to their neighbors. The Ambassador to Somalia Robert Oakley noted in an interview with PBS that, “The environment in Somalia was always tense, because the Somalis are very xenophobic, aggressive people.”[26] There are few moments wherein the Somali people will come together, one is a religious revival, the other is a “resistance to foreign invasion of Somali ethnic territory and/or the reconquest of territories in which Somali culture predominates.”[27]

All of these factors when observed together could yield few results. With the fall of the Barre regime Somalia quickly collapsed into civil war as each of the individual clans and alliances vied for power; either to claim the central government as their own (thereby benefiting their clan) or to cordon off sections of the country to be ruled as fiefdoms by warlords (who would then act to benefit their clan). This ceaseless war would contribute heavily to the famine in the summer of 1992 that caused the deaths of 220,000 people.[28] On August 4, 1992 French Minister of Health and Humanitarian Action, Bernard Kouchner, estimated that 1.5 million Somalis would likely starve to death if nothing were done by the international community.[29]

By December 5, 1992 President Bush ordered the deployment of 25,000 troops into Somalia; four days later US marines landed in the country to begin Operation Restore Hope.[30] Despite Clinton’s reassurances of a drawback in forces and the administration’s recognition that “the American people do not want to keep 30,000 troops there ‘for a prolonged period of time,’”[31] Clinton nevertheless began to expand the mission in Somalia. By June of 1992 the mission was no longer to distribute food and protect aid workers. With the beginning of Operation Gothic Serpent the mission began to target warlords like General Mohamed Aidid. In one example of how far “mission creep” had gone, Cobra attack helicopters assaulted a house where hostile clan leaders were supposed to be meeting. At the end of the attack 25 Somalis were dead.[32] Somalis, of all clans, felt threatened by the presence of foreign troops and the ever escalating “mission creep.” This leant towards their cultural xenophobia. On July 12, 1992 (the same day as the house attack) a crowd surrounded and beat to death four western journalists.[33]

This “mission creep,” the xenophobia of Somali culture, as well as the economic and political benefits held by warlords appealing to their various clans all culminated in the tragedy of October 3, 1993. The simple raid to capture Aidid’s advisers resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers, the wounding of 84, and the deaths of hundreds of Somalis in an hours long gun battle in Mogadishu. It was an operation that “still haunts the US military.”[34]

While Somalia would not lead to a radical change in US Foreign Policy, it held within it the shadows of conflicts yet to come. For one, Clinton throughout his presidency would continue to deploy American troops to areas wherein US interests were non-existent or incredibly muddled. For another, Somalia would be the harbinger of future problems that would face Western interventions in a post-colonial world. Namely, attempts to intervene in mongrel nations whose borders were arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers. In the case of Somalia we see 6 clans and a vast number of sub-clans who have a strong nomadic heritage and do “not recognize political boundaries or physical barriers.”[35] Along with this we see that they have a strong religious belief and a notable xenophobia, particularly considering that their country had been dominated by two colonial powers. This chaotic mix, being thrown all together into one nation-state, with a central government, and with borders drawn by colonial powers almost necessitates a strong, authoritarian dictator to keep the nation from collapsing into civil war. We see similar situations throughout the post-colonial world. In Rwanda Tutsis and Hutus are forced into the same nation state; in Iraq we see Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias all jumbled together; in Afghanistan we see numerous tribes and clans defiant of central authority; and ultimately in Yugoslavia we see Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs fighting over land. Somalia, in essence, is a case study in how a native population in a mongrel and arbitrary nation react when foreign troops land on their soil. Clinton, in most of his interventions, attempted to bring order to these kinds of nations with often-disastrous results. A discussion on these issues is particularly relevant to the post-9/11 world and foreign policy where, again, the United States attempts to land troops on the soil of mongrel nations.

Throughout Clinton’s presidency, many pundits and columnists attempted to forgive Clinton for the failures of his foreign policies by making the claim of bureaucratic momentum. While it is true that Clinton in his campaign always tried to focus upon domestic issues, he “had hoped to be relatively free of foreign distractions so he could focus ‘like a laser’ on the domestic problems he was elected to solve.”[36] And when, invariably, Clinton either initiated a foreign policy or expanded upon the foreign policies of his predecessor, the media likewise came to his aid. As one editorial put it: “In his first months in office, President Clinton has approached foreign affairs cautiously, driven by external developments rather than a distinctive sense of purpose.”[37] This editorial very clearly is trying to take away Clinton’s agency in regards to foreign policy, not as an attack but as a support for the presidency. As another editorial put it succinctly, “events have tied his hands.”[38] In doing so, the media acted as a bodyguard of Clinton’s reputation as being a fundamentally different choice as opposed to Bush, in essence blaming Bush’s policies for Clinton’s actions by fact of bureaucratic momentum.

However, is this an accurate model to use to analyze this trend of military interventions? In some respects it is a fair methodology. Clinton was largely inexperienced with foreign policy issues when he was first inaugurated, and when he was campaigning he largely allowed his adviser W. Anthony Lake to establish the rhetoric and central planks of Clinton’s foreign policy. Further, Bush in his branding of the “new world order” and his other rhetorical planks gave credence to Clinton’s later interventions. However, even with all of these things taken into consideration, it does not seem intellectually honest to say that bureaucratic momentum was the sole factor behind Clinton’s foreign policy. While Bush had begun operations in Somalia and elsewhere, it was Clinton who expanded upon the goals set by the previous administration. As one scholar on the subject wrote:

Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti were not, as the administration claimed, problems it had inherited. The Bush administration had sent troops to Somalia for the limited purpose of distributing food and not, as the Clinton administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, put it, ‘for the restoration of an entire country.’[39]

 

To reiterate, while Bush established the rhetoric that Clinton would use throughout his term, it is a dubious notion to assert that Somalia was a problem Clinton simply inherited. Certainly the food aid was inherited, but the active hunting down of warlords was not. It seems apparent that attempts at a bureaucratic momentum analysis of this subject are largely part of partisan politics.

Operation Restore Hope has been characterized as a distinctly humanitarian mission. Somalia was a peripheral nation that, even during the Cold War, had not been on Washington’s radar as a strategic interest; rather than fighting a crusade, the intervention in Somalia was “aimed to relieve…suffering” and to promote American values.[40] One article in 1992 characterized the intervention as “history’s first armed invasion of a foreign country propelled by conscience or guilt.”[41] This assessment is not strictly held to Somalia either; the intervention in Haiti and the air wars in the Balkans were likewise seen as humanitarian missions, outside of the purviews of national security concerns. Selfless acts of American benevolence. While the humanitarian aspects of each mission were paramount, it seems to be a lack of imagination to not see the national security aspects of Clinton’s foreign policy.

This aspect cannot be seen in each mission individually, but only all together and within the context of a post-cold war world. With the fall of the Soviet threat, there arose what pundits would call the “Peace Dividend,” an economic gain from the reduction of military spending and a refocus upon other issues.[42]  However, while there was a desire among many Americans to reassign this spending elsewhere, key members of both the Bush and Clinton administrations fought hard to avoid this “Peace Dividend.” On February 3, 1992 General Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney testified at senate hearings regarding the military budget. They made the argument that the $300 billion military budget must remain untouched in order to set up “Base Strategic Forces” around the world “to deal with all contingencies which might threaten the United States.”[43] Cheney made the argument that the United States needed an armed force three times the number deployed for the Gulf War. To defend his assertion, Cheney said, “To put one aircraft carrier in the Gulf required us to keep two more at home. Thus, we need about 12 carriers for our forces around the world,” this same consideration necessarily had to include aircraft, tanks, helicopters, and soldiers.[44] Collin Powell continued where Cheney left off noting that the purpose of these new armed forces would be to “deter war, comfort friends and chill opponents.”[45]

The Clinton Administration, when they took over a year later, maintained the same line of reasoning. As Howard Zinn, historian and activist, noted: “Even though the Soviet Union was no longer a military threat, [Clinton] insisted that the United States must keep its armed forces dispersed around the globe, prepare for ‘two regional wars,’ and maintain the military budget at cold war levels.”[46] There was a clear intention, for the sake of national security, to maintain the military budget if not expand it. But how to do that without a monolithic enemy to confront? The humanitarian interventions of the 1990s were the answer to that question.

As Noam Chomsky noted while discussing the intervention in Somalia, “I don’t think it really should be classified as an intervention. It’s more of a public relations operation for the Pentagon.”[47] So rather than conducting these missions for their own sake, an argument can be made that these missions were conducted for the sake of the military budget. Clearly the American people would not accept a massive military that sat idly waiting for a hegemonic enemy that had died out. But the American people could accept the military overseas intervening to help people on the brink of destruction (or at least the administration thought so). The budget was not needed for the intervention; the intervention was needed to maintain the budget. With this in mind, it is clear that the United States did, despite what the narrative claims, have a national security interest in places like Somalia. Rather, “Maintaining the Pentagon system is a major interest for the US,” economically, politically, and strategically.[48] With the imperative of maintaining the military budget, and with the sanction of the United Nations and the support of NATO, it seemed apparent that the end of the Cold War opened the door to “another form of global crusading…providing no respite from foreign imperatives, despite the palpable desire to turn inward.”[49] All towards the end of national security in a world without a monolithic threat.

In some respects, Wilsonian idealism seems to be like the gyroscope of American foreign policy. However far it is pushed in either direction, administration after administration has attempted to realign along Wilsonian lines. As was mentioned earlier Ambassador Robert Oakley noted this trend, observing how Roosevelt hoped, as Wilson had, that the United Nations Security Council would finally bring peace to this world. Likewise, both Bush and Clinton hoped that the fall of the Soviet Union leaving the United States as sole super power would likewise enable a strengthened United Nations to protect a globalized world. However, like Wilsonianism, Clinton “did not have, nor was he likely to get, the political support in the United States necessary to rearrange the political and economic lives of the three countries so as to end their misery and uphold American values.”[50] It seems apparent that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to cajole the American public into supporting overseas adventures without a monolithic threat like the Soviet Union. As such, as Clinton’s interventions continued throughout the 1990s more and more criticism and les and less credence given to bureaucratic momentum. Whether this Neo-Wilsonianism was right or wrong, it is apparent that the American public did not care much for fighting unless it was against a definite enemy.

 

It is difficult to assert that Woodrow Wilson would have followed the specific foreign policies that Clinton or even Bush followed, nor is it a firm notion that Wilson would have deployed troops in force to the areas that these two presidents did. As one author aptly noted, “While Wilson sought to promote democracy in Europe to prevent a repetition of World War I, the absence of democracy in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti was not going to lead to World War III.”[51] However, with that stipulation in mind, it is difficult to overlook the intent and the spirit that was embodied in these foreign policy objectives was distinctly Wilsonian. Bush made popular the phrase “New World Order,” and Clinton spoke frequently of a “global village” and how the United States had “an extraordinary opportunity to advance our values at home and around the world.”[52] Each spoke strongly of the goal to create a global community, and in the case of Clinton, he consistently shaped his foreign policy towards the achievement of that goal. Just as Theodore Roosevelt expanded upon and gave teeth to the Monroe Doctrine; so too did the administrations at the end of the Cold War expand upon and give teeth to Wilsonianism.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

“Ambush in Mogadishu.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/ Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

 

“Ambush in Mogadishu: Chronology: The US/UN in Somalia.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

 

“Ambush in Mogadishu: Interview: Ambassador Robert Oakley.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/oakley.html Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

 

“Ambush In Mogadishu: Interview General Thomas Montgomery.” PBS: Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/montgomery.html#abdi Accessed Sept. 28, 2014

 

Astill, James. “Strike One.” The Guardian. (Oct. 2, 2001). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/afghanistan.terrorism3 Accessed Dec. 2, 2014.

 

Bilotti, Richard. “A New Beginning.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992). p. 16A.

 

Boyd, Robert S. “Foreign Crises Might Sidetrack Domestic Agenda.” The Augusta Chronicle. (Jan. 19, 1993). p. 6A.

 

Bush, George H. “President George Bush: Announcing War Against Iraq.” The History Place: Great Speeches Collection. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm Accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

 

Chomsky, Noam. The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkley: Odonian Press. 1994.

 

Clarke, Walter S. “Somalia: Background Information For Operation Restore Hope: 1992-93. Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College. (Feb. 2. 1993).

 

Daalder, Ivo H. and Michael E. O’Hanlon. “Unlearning the Lessons of Kosovo.” Foreign Policy. 116. (Autumn, 1999). pp. 128-140.

 

Evans, Rowland and Robert Novak. “Clinton’s Somalia Problem.” The Mobile Register. (Dec. 8, 1992). p. 10A.

 

Gelb, Leslie H. “Clinton Seeks New Path as Bush Slides.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Oct. 11, 1992). p. BB.

 

Hunt, Michael H. “Cold War Triumphalism and U.S.-led Globalization.” Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010.

 

Kortepeter, Carl Max. “U.S. Military Might Needs Clearer Political Direction.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Oct. 11, 1992). p. BB.

 

Mandelbaum, Michael. “Foreign Policy as Social Work.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 75, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1996). pp. 16-32.

 

Marshall, Andrew. “What Happened to the Peace Dividend?” The Independent. (Jan. 3, 1993). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/what-happened-to-the-peace-dividend-the-end-of-the-cold-war-cost-thousands-of-jobs-andrew-marshall-looks-at-how-the-world-squandered-an-opportunity-1476221.html Accessed Nov. 28, 2014.

 

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President George H. W. Bush Proclaims Cold War Victory, 1990.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010.

 

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President William J. Clinton Applauds America’s Globalism and Warns Against a New Isolationism, 1995.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010.

 

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President Woodrow Wilson Asks Congress to Declare War Against Germany, 1917.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 33. Print.

 

Miller, Linda B. “The Clinton Years: Reinventing US Foreign Policy?” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-). Vol. 70, No. 4. (Oct. 1994). pp. 621-634.

 

Schweld, Barry. “World Events Force Clinton’s Hand.” The Augusta Chronicle. (Sept. 26, 1993). p. 19A

 

“Somalia Famine ‘killed 260,000 people.’” BBC News. (May 3, 2013). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352 Accessed November 27, 2014.

 

Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007.

 

Will, George. “Voters: ‘Might as Well Try Something Else.’” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992). p. 16A.

 

Woods, Thomas E. Jr. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Washington D.C., Regnery Publishing. 2004.

 

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins. 2003.

 

 

 

 

[1] Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President Woodrow Wilson Asks Congress to Declare War Against Germany, 1917.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 33.

[2] Bush, George H. “President George Bush: Announcing War Against Iraq.” The History Place: Great Speeches Collection. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm Accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[3] “Ambush in Mogadishu: Interview: Ambassador Robert Oakley.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/oakley.html Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

[4] Hunt, Michael H. “Cold War Triumphalism and U.S.-led Globalization.” Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 543.

[5] Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President George H. W. Bush Proclaims Cold War Victory, 1990.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 515.

[6] Will, George. “Voters: ‘Might as Well Try Something Else.’” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992). p. 16A.

[7] Bilotti, Richard. “A New Beginning.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Nov. 5, 1992). p. 16A.

[8] Boyd, Robert S. “Foreign Crises Might Sidetrack Domestic Agenda.” The Augusta Chronicle. (Jan. 19, 1993). p. 6A.

[9] Mandelbaum, Michael. “Foreign Policy as Social Work.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 75, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1996). p. 17.

[10] Mandelbaum. p. 17.

[11] Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. p. 269.

[12] Astill, James. “Strike One.” The Guardian. (Oct. 2, 2001). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/afghanistan.terrorism3 Accessed Dec. 2, 2014.

[13] Miller, Linda B. “The Clinton Years: Reinventing US Foreign Policy?” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-). Vol. 70, No. 4. (Oct. 1994). p. 627

[14] Daalder, Ivo H. and Michael E. O’Hanlon. “Unlearning the Lessons of Kosovo.” Foreign Policy. 116. (Autumn, 1999). p. 131.

[15] Woods, Thomas E. Jr. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Washington D.C., Regnery Publishing. 2004. p. 242.

[16] Miller. p. 626.

[17] Miller. p. 622.

[18] Gelb, Leslie H. “Clinton Seeks New Path as Bush Slides.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Oct. 11, 1992). p. BB.

[19] Gelb.

[20] Gelb.

[21] Clarke, Walter S. “Somalia: Background Information For Operation Restore Hope: 1992-93. Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College. (Feb. 2. 1993). p. 1.

[22] Clarke. p. 24.

[23] Clarke. p. 1.

[24] Clarke. p. 12.

[25] Clarke. p. 3.

[26] “Ambush in Mogadishu: Interview: Ambassador Robert Oakley.”

[27] Clarke. p. 16.

[28] “Somalia Famine ‘killed 260,000 people.’” BBC News. (May 3, 2013). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352 Accessed Nov. 27, 2014.

[29] Clarke. p. 37.

[30] “Ambush in Mogadishu: Chronology: The US/UN in Somalia.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

[31] Evans, Rowland and Robert Novak. “Clinton’s Somalia Problem.” The Mobile Register. (Dec. 8, 1992). p. 10A.

[32] “Ambush In Mogadishu: Interview General Thomas Montgomery.” PBS: Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/montgomery.html#abdi Accessed Sept. 28, 2014

[33] “Ambush in Mogadishu: Chronology: The US/UN in Somalia.”

[34] “Ambush in Mogadishu.” PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/ Accessed Sept. 28, 2014.

[35] Clarke. p. 4.

[36] Boyd.

[37] Schweld, Barry. “World Events Force Clinton’s Hand.” The Augusta Chronicle. (Sept. 26, 1993). p. 19A

[38] Boyd.

[39] Mandelbaum. pp. 16-17.

[40] Mandelbaum. p. 17.

[41] Evans, Rowland and Robert Novak. p. 10A.

[42] Marshall, Andrew. “What Happened to the Peace Dividend?” The Independent. (Jan. 3, 1993). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/what-happened-to-the-peace-dividend-the-end-of-the-cold-war-cost-thousands-of-jobs-andrew-marshall-looks-at-how-the-world-squandered-an-opportunity-1476221.html Accessed Nov. 28, 2014.

[43] Kortepeter, Carl Max. “U.S. Military Might Needs Clearer Political Direction.” The Trenton Evening Times. (Oct. 11, 1992). p. BB.

[44] Kortepeter. p. BB.

[45] Kortepeter. p. BB.

[46] Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins. 2003. p. 644.

[47] Chomsky, Noam. The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkley: Odonian Press. 1994. p. 29.

[48] Chomsky. p. 31.

[49] Miller. p. 623.

[50] Mandelbaum. pp. 18-19.

[51] Mandelbaum. p. 18.

[52] Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Vol. II: Since 1914. “President William J. Clinton Applauds America’s Globalism and Warns Against a New Isolationism, 1995.” Boson: Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 521.

6/7/17–Post #1: A “clever” title relating to the start of a new blog project

Throughout the last semester people around me; friends, family, colleagues; kept on asking me what I was planning on doing during the summer. The first summer after my first year of teaching High School. As a result I must have said the phrase “sit around for about a week doing nothing” twenty times or so.

 

It wasn’t until I went for a hike with my wife a few weeks ago that I realized that I would want to write a blog. I’ve thought about doing a blog every now and then and even dabbled in video blogging a few years ago but it never quite stuck.

But then the thought of crushing boredom that would inevitably come from the summer break and not having to deal with hormonal psychopaths everyday (Side note: I do truly enjoy my students…most of them…a few of them). Knowing myself, if I don’t give myself a project to work on or if I lack any kind of structure, I will fall into a mind-numbing routine of just playing video games and watching YouTube videos which the higher functions of my brain would loathe, yet the lower functions would drag me into.

So here we are.

The end of the week will mark when I’m officially done with my duties at the school until August, and after that I need to keep myself busy lest I lapse into numbing boredom.

The Hope is that this blog will give me structure and mental exercise during the morass of June and July. And hopefully as I keep myself sane others may find what I write interesting or useful or at the very least approach discussions in ways that people haven’t considered before.

I hope to write everyday about certain topics; I personally am interested in politics, movies, shows, video games, history, economics, and philosophy. Certainly with that kind of wide net our cup runneth over with all sorts of topics of discussion for the next two months at the very least (and the cup runneth over with mixed metaphors as well).

At any rate, this is C.T. Scott, and let’s stay sane together.

Only 65 more days until school starts again.

“A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.”

-Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965.